*****************************************************************
05/21/04 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 12.122
*****************************************************************
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 Russia Journal Daily: U.S. presses Russia on arms initiative, Iran
2 BBC: Japanese PM arrives in N Korea
3 US: Oakland Tribune: Nuclear bill just barely squeaks by
4 US: Spectrum: Senators must take stand on new nukes - Opinion
5 US: BostonHerald: Nuke info is out in view of public
6 Las Vegas SUN: Newsview: Sonia Gandhi Holds on to Power
7 eTaiwanNews.com: Ending nuclear proliferation
8 TheStar.com - Do we want a nuclear future?
9 Talking Scotland: Rocket range survey begins on South Uist
NUCLEAR REACTORS
10 US: NRC: Global Nuclear Fuel--Americas, LLC, Environmental Assessmen
11 US: projo.com: Jeffords grills federal nuclear agency chief about mi
12 US: Las Vegas RJ: Reid objects to delay in adding Jaczko to Nuclear
13 US: toledoblade: Voinovich: Nuclear plants must adopt 'safety cultur
14 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Jeffords queries NRC on fuel rods
15 US: DentonRC: TXU chief says sale of nuclear reactor unlikely
16 Bellona: KEDO holds board meeting on suspension of N Korea nuclear p
17 US: NucNet: Groups Hoping To Build The Next US N-Plant
18 AFP: Activists could target Finnish nuclear plants - security police
19 US: Middletown Press: CY nuke waste won’t be gone until 2023
20 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to Meet June 2
21 US: NRC: Regulatory Analysis Guidelines: Final Criteria for the Trea
22 US: NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Notice of Consideration of
23 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collecti
NUCLEAR SAFETY
24 [du-list] disinformation and depleted uranium
25 [du-list] Activist Urges Depleted Uranium Clean-Up in Iraq -
26 US: [FOODIRRADIATIONCA] AB 1988 going to Assembly Floor!
27 Times of India: Foul play suspected in radioactive exposure
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
28 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada asks federal auditors to look at Yucca
29 US: AZ Republic: Fight over radioactive waste
30 US: Salt Lake Tribune: N-storage provision in bill worries Utahns
31 Las Vegas RJ: Auditors asked to review Yucca managers' contract
32 Bellona: £480m nuclear plant does not deliver
33 US: Bradenton Herald: Tallevast warnings were lost in shuffle
34 Pahrump Valley Times: Citizen Alert hosts repository meeting
35 Pahrump Valley Times: Safety testing for casks designed to boost mor
36 FT: Europe to block freeze on nuclear processing
37 Pahrump Valley Times: Budget cuts could delay Yucca project
38 US: NPR : Nuclear Waste Debate Stalls Defense Bill in Senate
39 US: NPR: Nuclear Waste Clean-Up Plans Fuel Debate
40 US: CCDR: Final word on Cotter? 5-21-04
41 US: The Mercury: Pottstown to handle radioactive sludge
42 Pahrump Valley Times: Nevada asks Ohio for nuke help
43 Pahrump Valley Times: Yucca will dwarf past nuke shipping
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
44 Guardian Unlimited: Ex-Soviet Officer Honored for Prudence
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
45 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridg
46 DOE: Agency Information Collection Extension
47 DOE: Application To Export Electric Energy; Dynegy Power Marketing,
48 Tri-City Herald: House votes to restore $50 million to cleanup
49 SF Chronicle: Los Alamos lab loses another data device
50 Charleston.Net: Graham, Hollings clash on SRS cleanup
51 Oak Ridger: Sick workers impacted by overhaul
52 Oak Ridger: ORNL assists in Ohio nuclear plant study
53 lamonitor.com: Lab reports missing data
54 WATE: Estimated cost after radiation leak is at least $1 million
OTHER NUCLEAR
55 Google News Alert - nuclear
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 Russia Journal Daily: U.S. presses Russia on arms initiative, Iran
May 21, 2004 Posted: 11:38 Moscow time (07:38 GMT)
A top U.S. diplomat said on Thursday he hoped Russia would by
June 1 join a group of nations prepared to board ships and raid
suspect factories in a bid to stem the trade in weapons of mass
destruction. But U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton's
Russian partner poured cold water on his optimism, saying Moscow
still sought answers to a number of questions about President
George W. Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).
Russia is the only member of the Group of Eight major industrial
nations outside the PSI's core group. If Russia joined the PSI
group, U.S. officials believe this would influence China, another
key power, to back the scheme. Bolton said after talks with
President Vladimir Putin's top energy officials that he hoped to
see Russia in the PSI by June 1, when Poland hosts a conference
of 80-odd members of the group – well before the topic is
discussed at the G8 summit at Sea Island, Georgia, June 8-11.
"We are hoping either by that time (June 1) or very shortly
thereafter that the government of Russia will join the core group
of PSI countries," he told a news conference. "Russia's
government asked a number of perfectly legitimate and sensible
questions which we are trying to answer," he added. "But we think
the government is now making its final decision on the subject
and we are hopeful that they may confirm their decision to join
the PSI core group."
The United States says the PSI aims to halt the flow of nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons-related materials and missiles
bound for states like North Korea and Iran by boarding suspect
ships on the seas and seizing illegal cargoes. Bush earlier this
year said he wanted the PSI to be widened to persuade
participating states also to enter suspect factories and raid
laboratories where such materials might be stored.
But Russia, which basically supports the need to halt illegal
traffic of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), had reservations
about the U.S. plan. It is particularly worried about the
legality of boarding vessels at sea. "We have similar or close
strategic goals with the United States as far as
non-proliferation is concerned," Interfax news agency quoted
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak as saying after talks with
Bolton.
"We are satisfied with the consultations, although not all
details have been coordinated," Kislyak added. "The work
continues, moreover all this should be worked on in a
multilateral format of the G8."
Bolton said he also discussed with Moscow U.S. suspicions that
Iran is planning to obtain nuclear and missile technology.
Washington has concerns about the Bushehr atomic power plant that
Russia is building for Tehran despite Washington's demands to
ditch the $800 million project.
Iran has denied it has any plans to develop nuclear weapons. But
U.S. officials believe Iranian scientists can extract
weapons-grade plutonium from the Bushehr reactor and use Russian
nuclear know-how to make an atom bomb. Moscow says it will not
supply fresh nuclear fuel to Iran until it receives guarantees
from Tehran that all spent fuel would be returned to Russian
storage facilities after a decade of use at Bushehr.
Moscow also fears that if it backs out of the project other West
European companies will step in and take Russia's place. A U.S.
official said that even if Bushehr ran normally for three or four
years Washington believed that Tehran could – if it pulled out of
the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) – develop a nuclear weapon.
GAZETA.RU [http://www.gazeta.ru/english/] U.S. presses Russia on
arms initiative, Iran
russiajournal.com
Copyright © 1999-2004
The Russia Journal Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
2 BBC: Japanese PM arrives in N Korea
Last Updated: Saturday, 22 May, 2004
[Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi]
The families issue will be uppermost in Koizumi's mind
The prime minister of Japan has arrived in North Korea for a
summit at which the fate of relatives of abducted Japanese
citizens will top the agenda.
Junichiro Koizumi is under strong domestic pressure to secure the
release of eight relatives of people freed by the Communist state
two years ago.
He is also set to discuss the North's nuclear weapons ambitions
which have alarmed the US and its allies.
Economically stricken North Korea is under strong pressure to
give ground.
I... thought how tough it h been for the families for such a long
time Junichiro Koizumi Japanese prime minister
The BBC's Charles Scanlon reports from Tokyo that, in the long
run, North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il wants normal diplomatic
relations with Tokyo and, with it, the promise of massive
economic aid.
It is Mr Koizumi's second visit to the North.
He returned from his first in September 2002 along with five
abductees, released a quarter of a century after being seized by
North Korean agents.
Now he hopes to free their seven children and an American
husband.
Hopes and prayers
The issue of the abductees and their stranded relatives has
dominated Japanese politics and diplomacy since their release,
overshadowing even North Korea's development of nuclear weapons,
our correspondent adds.
[Two of the former Japanese abductees, Yasush Chimura and Kaoru
Hasuike ] High stakes for Koizumi
Mr Koizumi will face an angry backlash if he returns without
major concessions from the North, including a credible
explanation for the death of at least eight other Japanese
abductees.
"I... thought how tough it has been for the families for such a
long time - I will carry that feeling with me when I leave for
North Korea," Mr Koizumi told reporters ahead of his visit.
The former abductees have been gathering in Tokyo in the hope of
being reunited with their families.
"I have been praying that such a day would come as soon as
possible so I am happy," said Fukie Chimura, abducted in 1978.
A Japanese government spokesman added that the summit was also
aimed at normalising diplomatic ties between the two states.
Tokyo has previously offered major economic aid once ties are
established.
*****************************************************************
3 Oakland Tribune: Nuclear bill just barely squeaks by
Article Last Updated: Friday, May 21, 2004
Nuclear bill nearly goes bust
By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER
House Democrats came within a handful of votes Thursday of
shifting funds for a nuclear "bunker buster" and exploration of
new H-bomb designs, the highest profile symbols of the Bush
administration's pursuit of a new nuclear arsenal.
In a 214-204 vote, Republicans narrowly preserved $27 million for
studies of the high-yieldRobust Nuclear Earth Penetrator,
concentrated largely at Lawrence Livermore and Sandia weapons
labs in California, and $9 million for research into other
modified and new thermonuclear weap-ons.
Democrats called the bunker buster "useless" as a deterrent, but
harmful to U.S. efforts, including the invasion of Iraq, to
discourage other nations from acquiring nuclear arms.
"This weapon is not only unnecessary, it is counterproductive,"
said Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C. "It raises a crucial question: How
long can we move the world in one direction while we move in
another direction?"
House GOP members argued that the projects were merely research
into weapons designed never to be used but to make adversary
leaders doubt they would survive an attack on the United States
or its allies.
"To stick our head in the sand and say we don't want to know what
our options are, to know what we could do, seems to me not only
foolish but dangerous," said Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, whose
district includes a federal weapons plant that would make the
bomb.
"The very best deterrent target is the people who pull the
trigger, and that is the leadership of a foreign nation," said
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-El Cajon, chairman of the House Armed
Services Committee. "You have to have this type of weapon to hold
that leadership at risk."
Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a moderate, pro-defense Democrat from Alamo,
and Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., fought inclusion of the two
H-bomb projects in the nation's defense bill for three years,
gaining votes each time.
Tauscher said the giant bunker buster -- in essence, a rebuilt
1.2-megaton H-bomb to be harder, more rigid and tough enough to
plunge through dozens of feet of rock -- would rain deadly
fallout on U.S. forces and civilians, rendering the bomb useless
as a weapon or threat to adversaries.
At the same time, pursuing the bomb harms U.S. efforts to
discourage other nations from seeking nuclear arms, she and other
opponents argued to House colleagues.
Instead, Tauscher and supporters proposed shifting the money to
conventional bunker busters and better target intelligence. They
pointed to four conventional bunker busters dropped in the early
phase of the Iraq war in a failed effort to kill Saddam Hussein.
"Imagine the fallout, literally and figuratively, if we used a
nuclear weapon to take out a hardened bunker and we got the
location wrong," said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Missouri, ranking
Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.
"You cannot drop a nuclear bomb in the middle of a city. It's an
unusable weapon," Markey said. "This is the worst public-policy
decision that the Bush administration is making."
This year marked the broadest opposition to the new weapons yet
from moderate Democrats and Republicans, 11 of whom crossed party
lines to vote against the weapons research.
"The margin of support as we march down toward the development
phase is getting smaller," said Daryl Kimball, executive director
of the Arms Control Association, which opposes the penetrator.
David Culp, legislative liaison for the Friends Committee on
National Legislation, a Quaker organization favoring arms
control, said the vote is the beginning of the end for the Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator.
The political costs of supporting it will only get higher as the
weapon moves from feasibility study to prototype development and
costs mount to a total of $485 million over the next five years,
Culp said.
"It may take a few more votes and few more years, but in the end
my prediction is it will never get deployed," he said.
Thursday's debate ends the first of four major floor battles over
funding for new and modified nuclear weapons. Sens. Dianne
Feinstein, D-Calif., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., will lead
opposition to new and modified weapons research funding in the
Senate version of the $422 billion defense bill, when Congress
returns from break in a week.
That measure too is widely expected to fail. But House
appropriators, under tighter budget restrictions than last year,
are expected to reprise the sweeping cuts to the Bush
administration's nuclear-weapons initiatives in an energy and
water funding bill. The fate of the research is likely to be
decided in closed-door negotiations between Senate and House
appropriators sometime this fall.
Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com
*****************************************************************
4 Spectrum: Senators must take stand on new nukes - Opinion
- thespectrum.com
[http://www.thespectrum.com
Friday, May 21, 2004
IN OUR VIEW
It's time for Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett to step up and,
perhaps, buck the party line.
On Thursday, an amendment to the FY 2005 Defense Authorization
Bill, which would have transferred $36.5 million earmarked for
research and development of the bunker-buster bomb to the
development of new non-nuclear weapons, was defeated.
This means the door is still open for renewed nuclear testing at
the Nevada Test Site.
Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, made a stand on the House floor for
the amendment, which was defeated in the House by a slim 10
votes.
He argued that "there are serious doubts within the scientific
community about whether nuclear bunker-busters will actually be
able to destroy deeply buried targets," adding that because
command bunkers are located hundreds of feet deep, it would take
a bomb larger than that dropped on Hiroshima to reach them.
There is logic in his further claim that if the nation spends
$500 million to develop a new nuclear weapons program, it would
be an indication that testing is not far behind.
Matheson had previously pushed for legislation that would require
a vote of Congress before any nuclear testing resumes at the
Nevada Test Site. That measure also was defeated.
That is why Bennett and Hatch must now take up the fight for
their fellow Utahns as this issue moves before the Senate.
Southern Utah was blasted with the effects of more than 900
nuclear weapons tests conducted at the Nevada Test Site.
Thousands have lost their lives.
And, as we are learning, the fallout extended far beyond original
estimates. Current studies show that contaminated fallout dropped
on all 48 contiguous states and may have, according to a draft
report by the Centers for Disease Control, resulted in 15,000 or
more radiation-related deaths.
We also have learned that underground testing does not always
prevent harmful radiation from emitting into the atmosphere.
As Southern Utahns, who have already paid far too high a price,
we say the only safe nuclear testing is no nuclear testing, which
is why we implore our senators to pick up the mantle, in a
non-partisan manner, and do what is best for their constituents
by refusing to accept the FY 2005 Defense Authorization Bill as
it is written.
Originally published Friday, May 21, 2004
Copyright ©2004 The Spectrum. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
5 BostonHerald: Nuke info is out in view of public
By Cosmo Macero Jr.
Friday, May 21, 2004
Highly sensitive data files that could help terrorists assemble a
radioactive dirty bomb are being stored in the hallway of a state
welfare office in Dorchester.
That means random office workers, night janitors and even
the general public may have easy access to information in the
files about the locations and quantities of more than 1,000
radioactive compounds around Massachusetts.
``The files are accessible by just reaching in and
looking,'' said one employee, speaking only on condition of
anonymity. ``There is nothing covering them.''
Concerns about the security of the files revived exactly a
year after top safety officials warned Gov. Mitt Romney's
administration that the Dorchester site was inappropriate for the
state's Radiation Control Program files.
The radiation program - which tracks all companies and
agencies licensed to use radioactive compounds such as plutonium,
cobalt and iridium - was moved last year from secure facilities
on Portland Street to space it now shares with the Department of
Transitional Assistance. State officials insisted security was
adequate, despite employee protests and complaints from radiation
and safety specialists.
``These security lapses endanger everyone in the
commonwealth,'' said Mary Richards, president of the
Massachusetts Organization of State Engineers and Scientists, a
union that represents employees of the radiation agency. ``We
warned them before the move. We warned them after the move.
What's it going to take?''
The files have been stored in an unsecure hallway and
elsewhere around the building since last fall.
The building's construction, according to the state
Department of Public Health
[http://news.bostonherald.com/search/?searchSite=recent&keyword=D
epartment of Public Health] , was not able to support the full
weight of the files.
``We find the current situation unacceptable,'' said
Roseanne Pawelec, spokeswoman for DPH, which oversees the
radiation program. ``The files are in library carts - big plywood
structures. The floors meant to hold the files buckled. And we've
been unsuccessful to date in getting the landlord to fix the
floors.''
Pawelec said plans call for the radiation program office to
be moved again this summer to a location in Revere, where space
will be shared with two other agencies.
Still, that move is likely to draw fire once again from the
state scientists' union, as well as top safety officials.
Last year, Dr. Sidney Kadish - head of the Advisory Council
on Radiation Protection - warned Romney that the council was
``extremely concerned that these files may fall into the wrong
hands.''
Kadish has termed the files flap a ``national security
issue.''
The move to Dorchester was also criticized by the director
of the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, as well as
MEMA's chief nuclear engineer.
Security at the Grove Hall building, employees say, is
notoriously lax - though Pawelec noted a ``state trooper'' is
posted there and ``at night the building has an electronic
security system.''
FAQ's [http://www.bostonherald.com/faq.html] ] :: [ Herald
BostonHerald.com
*****************************************************************
6 Las Vegas SUN: Newsview: Sonia Gandhi Holds on to Power
By LAURINDA KEYS ASSOCIATED PRESS
NEW DELHI (AP) -
At the end of a dramatic week in Indian politics, Sonia Gandhi
has grabbed power without the burden of responsibility,
remaining leader of the ruling Congress Party while giving all
accountability to a prime minister she hand-picked.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a soft-spoken economist who is to
be sworn in Saturday, acknowledges that India will have a
political arrangement it's never had before - one in which the
prime minister will lead the government, but not the party that
controls the government.
"Sonia Gandhi is my leader," Singh said moments after being
appointed. He declared that the nation had really voted for
Gandhi as prime minister, but she "wants me to have this
burden."
Among the waiting tasks is the peace effort that the outgoing
government began with Pakistan, and Singh pledged Thursday that
he will strive to resolve the animosities between the two
nuclear-armed neighbors. He also said he would keep India a
business friendly place, continuing a process of economic reform
that the Gandhi family argues it began.
Singh and his Cabinet will be answerable to Parliament and
India's people for the government's policies, actions and
failures.
Yet Gandhi, as the Congress Party's parliamentary leader with
the power to choose that Cabinet, will hold the final say on
those policies, although there will be discussion with allied
parties.
"She will be like a friend, philosopher and guide," said Kapil
Sibal, a senior Congress leader. "There should be no misgiving
in this regard. He will be discharging the responsibility of
governing this country on a day to day basis."
Singh's direction, though, is sure to be hers. He has never
displayed any significant policy differences with Gandhi, an
Italian-born widow who heads the country's most powerful
political dynasty - one that has produced three prime ministers
and could have had a fourth.
Since leading the Congress alliance to an unexpected election
victory over the Hindu-nationalist bloc of outgoing Prime
Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Gandhi has not explained why she
is not adhering to Indian tradition and becoming prime minister.
She said only that she was following her "inner voice." Her son,
Rahul, said it was "in the nation's interest," but also didn't
explain.
Some colleagues characterized Gandhi as sacrificing herself,
giving up power and position so that the outgoing Hindu
nationalist-led government would stop focusing on her foreign
birth. But Rahul denied that, quoting his mother as saying she
had defeated those forces and proven them wrong.
Although she passed on taking the prime minister's post, Gandhi
has strengthened her power.
The Congress Party, which has governed for more than 40 of
modern India's 57 years of independence, reversed its own
traditions to place all authority in her hands Wednesday. She
was re-elected parliamentary leader, and then given the right to
choose the prime minister on her own without a party vote.
"It's never happened before. We've never had this situation
before," Congress spokesman Jairam Ramesh told The Associated
Press.
The question is whether Gandhi can really shield herself from
blame if Singh's government stumbles. While she has sidestepped
the opposition's attempt to create a controversy over having a
foreign-born citizen as prime minister, she is already drawing
criticism for her maneuver.
"She chose the prime minister. She is going to call the shots,"
said Brahma Chellaney, a prominent political analyst at the
Center for Policy Research. "To enjoy power without
accountability is itself unconstitutional."
The new political arrangement also may cause a further slowdown
in the time it takes the government to make decisions.
Singh will now have to add consultations with Gandhi, his
parliamentary party leader, as he negotiates with his coalition
partners over government policy and pursues negotiations with
other nations.
"Decisions will take longer," Ramesh concedes, although he says
that is often the result of a coalition government.
---
Laurinda Keys has reported on South Asia for The Associated
Press since 1999.
--
*****************************************************************
7 eTaiwanNews.com: Ending nuclear proliferation
[http://www.etaiwannews.com/]
Opinion
2004-05-21 / Taiwan News, Contributing Writer / Jonathan Power
If the Iraq imbroglio has one blessing it is that it demonstrates
that there are no actual or realistically imaginable military
scenarios where nuclear weapons would be of any practical use for
a major power attempting to subdue a smaller one.
Yet the macho culture of nuclear weapons remains unassailed
except by a brave few. General George Lee Butler, the commander
of American nuclear forces in president George Bush senior's
time, has argued that nuclear weapons are "inherently dangerous,
hugely expensive, militarily inefficient and morally
indefensible."
Even back in the days of the U.S. nuclear monopoly, the moral
sanction against use was such as to render them diplomatically
useless, often counterproductive.
This is why Stalin knew he could act with impunity when seizing
control of Eastern Europe. Likewise Beijing and Hanoi went to war
with American armies in Korea and Vietnam without fear of being
halted by nuclear weapons.
Nevertheless, the massive over-kill arsenals from the Cold War
era remain only moderately reduced. Even when the latest treaty
signed in Moscow by Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin
is fully implemented in 2012, large U.S. and Russian nuclear
forces will still exist, ready to promptly totally destroy each
other's societies. They remain on hair trigger alert.
For a nation besieged with worry that nuclear weapons might fall
into the wrong hands it seems more than irresponsible that
neither of the two post Cold War younger presidents has wanted to
change the culture of nuclear weapons. Reagan did profoundly and
George Bush senior too to some degree but there as been nothing
less than insouciance from both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
Thirteen years after the Soviet Union threw in the towel and
requested its former enemy help dismantle many of its nuclear
weapons and more effectively guard its stockpiles of weapons
grade uranium and plutonium the job remains half done. Indeed
Bush's initial response was to cut the already inadequate budget
he had inherited from Clinton. According to Sam Nunn, the former
chairman of the U.S. Senate's Armed Services Committee, who two
weeks ago helped organize a NATO exercise in which an al-Qaida
nuclear attack was simulated, 60 percent of dangerous sites have
still to be secured.
It was Ronald Reagan, to the consternation of most of his senior
officials, who wanted to overturn conventional thinking about
nuclear weapons. At his summit in Reykjavik in 1986 with the
president of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, he proposed
what the jargon calls, Zero Ballistic Missiles, ZBM. Gorbachev
too was overruled by his entourage. But later in 1991 a group of
hard line Republicans including the former assistant secretary of
defense Richard Perle and Paul Nitze, the grand old man of arms
control who has just had a battleship named after him, fleshed
out the idea.
They argued for the abolishing of massive nuclear missiles and a
return to the deployment of long distance bombers as the backbone
of nuclear defense. It was a fascinating about-face. It was the
introduction of missiles and the subordination of bombers in the
1960s that spurred the nuclear arms race. To turn back the
nuclear clock would remove the chance of surprise assault, thus
finally assuring crisis stability.
This is one plus. The double plus is what ZBM would do for the
rest of the world. It would have none of the weaknesses of the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty with its abstainers and cheaters.
An anti-rocket treaty would have universal application, and it is
more easily enforceable. As the Libyan, North Korean and earlier
Iraqi experience have shown much of the work of creating nuclear
weapons can be concealed from detection. But missile systems
cannot be effective unless their engines are tested and their
boosters flown in the open.
Such a treaty wouldn't get rid of planes carrying nuclear bombs,
or cruise missiles, much less terrorists bombs hand delivered in
a suitcase. But it would diminish the tempo of crises and
conflicts and put real pressure on would-be nuclear powers to
think again.
At the moment the frozen status quo undermines the solemn
promises on disarmament the nuclear-haves have made in the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and greatly diminishes their
negotiating leverage when dealing with the likes of North Korea
and Iran. ZBM in contrast, by re-charging the dead batteries of
arms control, offers the best chance of mobilizing world opinion
against the theft and clandestine development of nuclear weapons
by other states and underground groups. The whole corrupting
psychology of nuclear arms possession that somehow justifies
nuclear possession as being OK for us but not for them has to be
turned on its head.
Not before time there is a debate re-surfacing on ZBM. This is
the right place to begin the battle against nuclear
proliferation.
Jonathan Power is a London-based columnist and a contributor to
the Taiwan News.
© 2001-2004 Taiwan News. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
8 TheStar.com - Do we want a nuclear future?
[http://www.thestar.com/]
Fri. May 21, 2004. | Updated at 07:45 AM
CAROL GOAR
Finance Minister Greg Sorbara may feel like the most embattled
politician in the province right now, but his colleague Dwight
Duncan has an even less enviable job.
The energy minister has to clean up the costly mess that
Ontario's last four governments have made of the electricity
market. He has to stave off looming power shortages, stabilize
prices and fulfil his own party's pledge to close the province's
five coal-fired generators by 2007.
Long after Sorbara has balanced the budget, Duncan (or his
successor) will be struggling to keep the lights on, upgrade
Ontario's aging electricity system, find affordable power sources
and manage the swings of the market.
Most Ontarians assume with qualms that the energy minister
will accept the advice of his blue-ribbon panel and opt for a
nuclear future.
As citizens and taxpayers, they'd prefer not to pour billions of
dollars into a technology that has never performed reliably. But
they see no realistic alternative. Natural gas is too expensive.
Coal is too dirty. And depending on imports is too risky.
Suppose, however, there were a fifth choice: To cut electricity
use substantially and get serious about investing in renewable
energy.
Mark Winfield of the Pembina Institute knows this proposal is
likely to be regarded as a green fantasy by much of the
population. That is why he and his colleagues at the Canadian
Environmental Law Association have argued their case in a
detailed policy paper, backed up by computer analysis.
Even skeptics will learn a lot from the 80-page study (available
at http://www.pembina.org [http://www.pembina.org] ). Most
homeowners have no idea, for example, that the biggest single
contribution they could make to saving electricity would be to
convert their water heater to natural gas. Most commercial and
industrial operators have never considered the possibility of
using their boiler to produce electricity as well as heat. Most
Ontarians don't think of their garbage as a potential source of
power.
The members of the project team have impressive credentials.
Winfield, who wrote the report, teaches at the University of
Toronto's Institute for Environmental Studies. Matt Horne, who
did most of the computer analysis, has a bachelor of engineering
and a master's degree in resource management. Theresa
McClenaghan, who looked at the regulatory aspects, has practised
environmental law for 17 years, appearing before the National
Energy Board, the Supreme Court and all of Ontario's courts. And
Roger Peters, who provided the on-the-ground expertise, is a
chemical and environmental engineer who has worked on energy
efficiency projects in North America and the developing world for
20 years.
The four started their research a year ago when the electricity
market was in turmoil following the Tory government's botched
attempt to deregulate the sector. After the Liberals were elected
in October, they began developing their alternative in earnest.
The authors adopted two preliminary assumptions. They would not
call for radical lifestyle changes. And they would confine
themselves to technologies that had been tested and proven in
other jurisdictions.
The first step in the project was to draw up a set of regulatory
changes and financial incentives designed to induce electricity
users to switch to energy-efficient products and processes.
(These included a new provincial building code, grants for
residential and commercial retrofitting and sales tax rebates for
energy-efficient appliances and fuel switching.)
Step two was to devise an aggressive plan to develop renewable
energy sources, such as wind, methane, solar and small-scale
hydro projects.
Step three was to put it all into the computer.
They found that projected power consumption could be cut by 40
per cent by 2020, without any major disruption of Ontarians' way
of life. And they found that renewable energy could be ramped up
to meet 30 per cent of the province's electricity needs over the
same period.
Their plan was not cheap. The capital costs amounted to $23
billion. But the price of achieving the same result with nuclear
power was $39 billion.
Winfield does not pretend that it would be easy to implement his
group's proposals. Consumers would have to be convinced that the
upfront cost of replacing low-efficiency appliances would be
offset by the savings. Governments would have to be convinced
that using public money to cut energy demand is as responsible as
using it to boost power generation. And investors would have to
be convinced that backing non-renewable energy projects makes
financial sense.
On the other hand, the nuclear option has obvious drawbacks. The
technology has never lived up to its promise. It is largely
responsible for the financial crisis in the electricity system.
And it carries significant safety and environmental risks.
By fall, Duncan will have to decide which path to take. The
choice he makes will set Ontario's course for the next 20 to 30
years.
Sorbara may have had a rough week. But Duncan faces a long, hot
summer.
Carol Goar's column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All
*****************************************************************
9 Talking Scotland: Rocket range survey begins on South Uist
[http://www.talkingscotland.com]
21/05/2004 15:35
Attempts are being made to re-assure residents as a major survey
begins at a Western Isles rocket range. It comes amid fears over
radioactive contamination. Material was buried close to the West
Geirinish base in South Uist, and local residents claim it's
linked to high incidence of cancer.
Ministry of Defence staff were on the scenic beaches of South
Uist commencing their survey into radiation levels there. They're
looking for traces of Cobalt 60, which was used in the missiles
tested at the West Geirinish rocket range in the 1970s.
Many islanders claim the chemicals are behind a cancer cluster in
the area. MoD officials admit that radioactive waste has been
buried at the site and that there have been leakages.
The MoD say they're confident that there's no danger to the
public. However there are additional concerns about pollution
from another source.
The study is scheduled to last ten days with the results due in
mid summer. But some local residents say they can't trust the
government to carry out the work, and would rather see an
independent survey. The Western Isles Council says it will carry
out its own research.
UIST-21-05-04_56k.rm
*****************************************************************
10 NRC: Global Nuclear Fuel--Americas, LLC, Environmental Assessment and
FR Doc 04-11510
[Federal Register: May 21, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 99)] [Notices]
[Page 29337-29339] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21my04-117]
Finding of No Significant Impact Related to Proposed Exemption
From Fissile Classification and Fissile Material Package
Requirements AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Finding of no significant impact and environmental
assessment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin M. Ramsey, 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 T-8A33, Washington, DC
20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-7887 and e-mail kmr@nrc.gov
[kmr@nrc.gov] .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of an
amendment to NRC Materials License SNM-1097 to allow a one-time
exemption from fissile material classification and the fissile
material package requirements in 10 CFR 71.55 and the standards
for arrays of fissile material packages in 10 CFR 71.59 for the
shipment of certain radioactive waste materials by Global Nuclear
Fuel--Americas, LLC (GNF or licensee) to a disposal facility and
to impose license conditions on the shipment. The NRC 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 GNF is authorized under
NRC Materials License SNM-1097 to manufacture nuclear reactor
fuel utilizing special nuclear material (SNM), specifically
low-enriched uranium. During operation, GNF has accumulated a
large amount of noncombustible materials contaminated with small
amounts of fissile material (legacy materials). The legacy
materials include piping, equipment parts, ceiling tiles, and
concrete blocks. GNF believes that it will difficult and
burdensome to demonstrate that this material meets the present
regulatory requirements in 10 CFR 71.53 for exemption from
fissile material classification and from the fissile material
package standards of 10 CFR 71.55 and 71.59. On January 26, 2004,
NRC published a final rule amending its regulations in 10 CFR
Part 71 on packaging and transporting radioactive material,
``Compatibility with IAEA Transportation Safety Standards
(TS-R-1) and Other Transportation Safety Amendments,'' (69 FR
3698; January 26, 2004). The final rule, in part, makes changes
in fissile material exemption requirements to address the
unintended economic impacts of NRC's emergency final rule,
``Fissile Material Shipments and Exemptions,'' (62 FR 5907;
February 10, 1997). In particular, the revised requirements for
exemption from classification as fissile material (placed in
revised 10 CFR 71.15) provide greater flexibility to licensees
shipping radioactive material than is provided in 10 CFR 71.53.
The effective date of the final rule is October 1, 2004. On April
19, 2004, GNF requested permission to use the revised fissile
material exemption in 10 CFR 71.15(c) prior to October 1, 2004.
Use of this revised requirement would allow GNF to ship
approximately 800 containers of legacy materials without these
legacy materials being classified as fissile materials and
without needing to comply with the fissile material packaging
requirements of 10 CFR 71.55 and 71.59. Because GNF wants to make
this shipment before the effective date of the amended part 71
final rule, the provisions of amended 10 CFR 71.15 are
unavailable to GNF. However, under the provisions of 10 CFR 71.8,
NRC may grant an exemption from the requirements of the
regulations in part 71 that it determines is authorized by law
and will not endanger life or property nor the common defense and
security.
Accordingly, NRC is considering issuing an exemption to GNF from
fissile material classification and from the fissile material
packaging requirements of 10 CFR 71.55 and 71.59, together with
conditions that would be placed in the license to govern this
one-time shipment of approximately 800 containers of legacy
materials. The purpose of this document is to assess the
environmental consequences of the
[[Page 29338]] proposed exemption and proposed license
conditions.
Review Scope The purpose of this EA is to assess the
environmental impacts of issuing a license amendment to GNF which
grants an exemption from fissile classification and from 10 CFR
71.55 and 71.59 and imposes conditions on the shipment of
approximately 800 containers of legacy materials. It does not
approve issuance of the license amendment. This assessment will
determine whether to issue a FONSI or to prepare an EIS. Should
NRC issue a FONSI, no EIS will be prepared. Proposed Action The
proposed action is to amend NRC Materials License SNM-1097 to
exempt the licensee from fissile material classification and from
fissile material package standards in 10 CFR 71.55 and 71.59 for
a one- time shipment of approximately 800 containers of legacy
materials and to impose the following conditions on this
shipment: Fissile material meeting the following requirements is
exempt from classification as fissile material and from the
fissile material package standards of 10 CFR 71.55 and 71.59, but
is subject to all other requirements of 10 CFR Part 71: (1) Low
concentrations of solid fissile material commingled with solid
nonfissile material, provided that: (i) There is at least 2000
grams of solid nonfissile material for every gram of fissile
material, and (ii) There is no more than 180 grams of fissile
material distributed within 360 kilograms of contiguous
nonfissile material.
(2) Lead, beryllium, graphite, and hydrogenous material enriched
in deuterium may be present in the package, but must not be
included in determining the required mass of solid nonfissile
material.
These conditions are required to provide reasonable assurance
that the material will not pose an unsafe criticality hazard
during transport.
Purpose and Need for Proposed Action GNF is currently
manufacturing nuclear reactor fuel at its Wilmington, NC
facility. It is requesting the license amendment to facilitate
the transport and subsequent disposal of approximately 800
containers of legacy materials stored at the site. The licensee
has a contract with a disposal site that will expire before
October 1, 2004. In order to ship these materials under its
existing contract, it must obtain an exemption from fissile
material classification and from the fissile material package
requirements for this shipment.
Alternatives The alternatives available to NRC are: 1. Approve
the license amendment as above-described; 2. No action (i.e.,
deny issuance of the license amendment) Affected Environment The
affected environment for the proposed action would be the
immediate vicinity of the vehicle used to transport the material.
The affected environment for no action is the GNF site. A full
description of the site and its characteristics is given in the
1997 EA for the renewal of Special Nuclear Material License No.
SNM-1097 (NRC, May 1997). The GNF facility is located on a site
of about 1664 acres in New Hanover County, North Carolina,
approximately 6 miles north of the city of Wilmington.
Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action The risk to human health
from the transportation of all radioactive material in the U.S.
was evaluated in the ``Final Environmental Impact Statement on
the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other
Modes,'' NUREG-0170 (NRC, 1977). The principal radiological
environmental impact during normal transportation is direct
radiation exposure to nearby persons from radioactive material in
the package. The average annual individual dose from all
radioactive material transportation in the U.S. was calculated to
be approximately 0.5 mrem, well below the 10 CFR part 20
requirement of 100 mrem for a member of the public. The proposed
action would result in additional shipments. Additional shipments
would expose more members of the public to radiation, increase
nonradiological truck emissions, and increase the risk of
injuries from traffic accidents. However, the increases would be
so small that the differences would be negligible.
Occupational health was also considered in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement on the Transportation of
Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes (NRC, 1977). The
average annual occupational dose to the driver(s) is estimated to
be 8.7 mSv (870 mrem), which is below the 10 CFR part 20
requirement of 50 mSv (5000 mrem). The Department of
Transportation (DOT) regulations in 49 CFR 177.842(g) require
that the radiation dose rate may not exceed 0.02 mSv (2 mrem) per
hour in any position normally occupied in a motor vehicle. The
proposed action would not cause dose rates to the driver
exceeding the DOT limit.
The possibility of a criticality accident due to transportation
of this material was evaluated during the development of the new
rule containing the fissile material classification exemption,
the substance of which is to be incorporated into the license as
a condition for the one-time shipment planned by GNF. The results
of the evaluation are documented in NUREG/CR-5342, ``Assessment
and Recommendations for Fissile Material Packaging Exemptions and
General Licenses Within 10 CFR part 71'' (NRC, 1998). The
evaluation concluded that the mass limits in the exemptions could
be safely increased to provide greater flexibility to licensees
shipping radioactive material. In addition, an EA was prepared
and a FONSI was published in Section VIII of the final rule
amending 10 CFR part 71 (NRC, January 2004). The EA explicitly
considered the potential environmental impacts of the revised
fissile material exemptions.
Under the proposed action, the doses to the public and to the
workers are not increased beyond those considered in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement on the Transportation of
Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes (NRC, 1977).
Therefore, shipment of these materials as proposed would be
consistent with the assessment of environmental impacts and the
conclusions in the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the
Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes
(NRC, 1977).
The NRC has determined that the approval of the proposed
amendment will not have a significant impact on effluent
releases, environmental monitoring, water resources, geology,
soils, air quality, demography, biota, or cultural or historic
resources under normal transport conditions.
Environmental Impacts of No Action Alternative Denying this
amendment request would result in the continued storage of a
large amount of contaminated material on the licensee's site.
Although the risk of a release is low, the risk would remain. In
addition, the material poses an ever-increasing financial
liability because disposal must still be accomplished before the
facility can be decommissioned and released for unrestricted use.
The occupational health impacts would not change significantly as
a result of denial of this amendment request. Occupational doses
at the
[[Page 29339]] facility may be slightly higher as a result of the
need to continue surveillance and maintenance activities;
however, the facility will continue to implement NRC-approved,
radiation safety procedures for handling radioactive materials.
Thus, the dose to workers under the no action alternative will
remain within acceptable regulatory limits.
The NRC has determined that denial of the proposed amendment will
not have a significant impact on effluent releases, environmental
monitoring, water resources, geology, soils, air quality,
demography, biota, or cultural or historic resources at or near
the GNF site.
Based on its review, the NRC has concluded that the environmental
impacts associated with the proposed action are insignificant
and, therefore, do not warrant denial of the proposed license
amendment. The NRC has determined that the proposed action,
approval of the license amendment as described, is the
appropriate alternative for selection. Based on an evaluation of
the environmental impacts of the proposed license amendment, the
NRC has determined that the proper action is to issue a FONSI in
the Federal Register.
Agencies and Persons Contacted On May 6, 2004, the NRC staff
provided the draft EA and FONSI to staff from the North Carolina
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (DENR). On May
7, 2004, the DENR Radiation Protection Section responded that it
had no comments.
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is not a
type of activity that has potential to cause effects on
historical properties because it is administrative in nature.
Therefore, no consultation is required under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is not a
type of activity that has potential to effect threatened or
endangered species, or critical habitat because it is
administrative in nature. Therefore, no consultation is required
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
References U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), December
1977, NUREG-0170, ``Final Environmental Impact Statement on the
Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes,''
Accession No. ML022590265.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), February 10, 1997,
``Fissile Material Shipments and Exemptions,'' Emergency Final
Rule, 10 CFR Part 71, 62 FR 5907.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), May 1997,
``Environmental Assessment for Renewal of Special Nuclear
Material License SNM- 1097,'' Legacy Accession No. 9705080142.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), July 1998,
NUREG/CR-5342, ``Assessment and Recommendations for Fissile
Material Packaging Exemptions and General Licenses Within 10 CFR
Part 71.'' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), January 26,
2004, ``Compatibility With IAEA Transportation Safety Standards
(TS-R-1) and Other Transportation Safety Amendments,'' Final
Rule, 10 CFR Part 71, 69 FR 3698.
Global Nuclear Fuel--Americas LLC (GNFA), April 19, 2004,
``Exemption Request,'' ADAMS No. ML041190402. III. Final Finding
of No Significant Impact Pursuant to 10 CFR part 51, the NRC has
considered the environmental consequences of amending NRC
Materials License SNM-1097 to exempt GNF from fissile material
classification and from the fissile material package requirements
in 10 CFR 71.55 and 71.59 for a one-time shipment of
approximately 800 containers of legacy materials and to impose
license conditions on the shipment. 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. In
addition, documents related to this proposed action will be
available electronically for public inspection from the NRC
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS
is accessible from the NRC Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html]
(the Public Electronic Reading Room). Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems accessing documents in
ADAMS, should contact the PDR reference staff at (800) 397-4209
or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov [pdr@nrc.gov] .
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this l4th 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. 04-11510 Filed 5-20-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
11 projo.com: Jeffords grills federal nuclear agency chief about missing fuel
| Providence, R.I. | AP's The Wire
05.21.2004 08:01 A.M.
The Associated Press
MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) - Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt., says he
disappointed in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's oversight of
Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.
At a U.S. Senate hearing in Washington D.C. on Thursday,
Jeffords told the chairman of the federal agency that there was
"no greater issue than safety." He said the commission should
make sure Vermont Yankee's missing fuel rods are found.
"This is an outrageous and frightening situation for Vermont
families," Jeffords told Chairman Nils Diaz. "The commission
must commit its resources to ensure that this material is
accounted for immediately. I do not want missing fuel to become
the norm."
Diaz, a former nuclear engineering professor from the University
of Florida, said it was possible that the Vermont Yankee fuel
rod "fragments," as he described them, may never be found. But
he said that the search remained active.
"It doesn't mean it is closed," he told Jeffords.
"But we're not sure we can really find those pieces," he said,
noting that the Millstone plant in Connecticut spent 11/2 years
looking for its missing fuel rods.
The Millstone 1 nuclear reactor is the only other plant that has
lost highly radioactive fuel. The reactor is permanently shut
down.
"It is not enough to tell the public that we 'think' it is
likely that highly radioactive material went to storage,"
Jeffords said, referring to waste sites in South Carolina,
Washington state and Nevada, which Entergy Nuclear has said were
the likely locations of the fuel rod pieces.
A month ago, an NRC inspector discovered that two pieces of a
damaged nuclear fuel rod were missing, and had been for about 24
years. After a month of searching the plant and its records,
plant owner Entergy Nuclear has been unable to find the fuel.
Jeffords, a member of the subcommittee of the Senate Public
Works and Environment Committee, also pressed Diaz on the
recently announced new engineering review of Vermont Yankee,
authorized as part of Entergy Nuclear's request to increase
power production by 20 percent.
"This is information Vermonters want," Jeffords said.
He asked Diaz how he was going to guarantee the independence of
the review, since NRC had promised at least two independent
contractors on the Vermont Yankee review.
Diaz promised Jeffords that people with "absolutely no
connection" to Entergy or Vermont Yankee would be on the review
team.
Providence Journal newsroom at (401) 277-7303.
*****************************************************************
12 Las Vegas RJ: Reid objects to delay in adding Jaczko to Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
Friday, May 21, 2004
By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., briefly skirmished with a
Republican senator on Thursday over the Senate's delay in
filling a vacancy on the agency that regulates nuclear power.
Reid renewed a threat to block bills from the Environment and
Public Works Committee until its chairman sets a hearing for
Gregory Jaczko to become a Nuclear Regulatory Commission member.
Jaczko, who is Reid's science adviser, was nominated by
President Bush in February but is opposed by the nuclear power
industry because of his ties to the Nevadan, a leading opponent
of the Yucca Mountain Project.
When the environment panel met Thursday, Reid read a statement
saying the Senate's failure to act "does a terrible disservice
to the country."
Rep. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said Democrats should share
blame because they blocked a Republican nominee to fill a second
NRC vacancy last year. John Grossenbacher, a Navy admiral from
Illinois, ended up forfeiting his nomination and took a job in
the private sector.
"That's not true," Reid retorted. "You were told bad
information."
Reid maintained the committee had a deal move two NRC nominees
in tandem but the White House took too long to decide on Jaczko.
Committee chairman Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., wants to pass
several water bills and an economic development bill in mid-June
but those may end up delayed by Reid, Inhofe spokesman Will Hart
said.
Inhofe wants to wait on Jaczko until the White House nominates
a replacement for Grossenbacher, Hart said. He did not know when
that might happen.
After the meeting, Reid said he did not know how long he might
block the committee's work, but "I know I can be a pain in the
rear end."
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
13 toledoblade: Voinovich: Nuclear plants must adopt 'safety culture'
Friday, May 21, 2004
Regulators told to act or face legislative mandate
By [amcfeatters@nationalpress.com]
BLADE WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF
WASHINGTON - Sen. George Voinovich is threatening legislation to
force the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to set standards that
would ensure a "safety culture" at the nation's 103 nuclear
plants if the agency does not act on its own.
The Ohio Republican complains angrily that the lessons of the
near-disaster at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant still haven't been
learned.
But the three NRC commissioners are balking. They say they have
no intention of "micromanaging" privately run energy companies by
telling them how to manage their employees to ensure that safety
is a constant concern. They are, however, requiring an annual
safety review at Davis-Besse for five years.
The issue of new standards erupted yesterday at a hearing of the
Senate nuclear safety subcommittee, chaired by Mr. Voinovich.
He was armed with a newly released study by the General
Accounting Office, a congressional watchdog agency. It concludes
there is potential for another incident such as the one at
Davis-Besse because of weaknesses in the NRC itself.
The "NRC has not followed up on prior task-force recommendations
to assess whether the lessons learned were institutionalized,"
the GAO report said.
Davis-Besse, operated by FirstEnergy and located 30 miles from
Toledo, was found to have a six-inch hole in the reactor head
because of acid corrosion. Only a thin piece of steel prevented a
spill of radioactive liquid. The plant was shut for two years and
did not achieve full power until April.
The incident was the closest the nation has come to a serious
accident since Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania overheated and
began emitting radiation in 1979.
Yesterday, NRC Commissioner Edward McGaffigan said Davis-Besse
was "our worst hour." Witnesses at the hearing - from watchdog
groups, academia, and the nuclear industry - said there was a
"total breakdown" in safety precautions at Davis-Besse, for which
FirstEnergy was responsible for and which the NRC should have
caught.
NRC Chairman Nils Diaz conceded that the NRC inspector at
Davis-Besse failed because of a "lack of technical know-how." Mr.
Voinovich said the NRC inspector at each plant should rotate more
often than every seven years. Each should be highly trained and
the most important person at that plant, he said.
But Mr. McGaffigan, Mr. Diaz, and Commissioner Jeffrey Merrifield
- two of the five commission slots are vacant because of a
partisan standoff in the Senate - strongly disputed the idea that
safety regulations to ensure a culture of safety are needed in an
industry that supplies about 22 percent of the nation's
electricity needs.
Mr. Diaz said ensuring a safety culture in a company is an
"ambiguous" process and would be difficult to do from the vantage
point of the federal government. The NRC leaders suggested
setting such standards could put them in the middle of
labor-management conflicts.
Mr. McGaffigan said that this is an area "we deal with as
problems arise'' and that the NRC itself doesn't want to survey
employees about safety practices. "If we see a problem, we tell
them [the plant operators] to survey.''
Mr. Voinovich was infuriated. He said that Europeans set such
standards. He said he will visit nuclear power plants "and check
up for myself. I think the attitude of people in terms of safety
is paramount. I'm saying we have to spend more time on this issue
of [setting a] safety culture. We're not asking you to
micromanage these plants.''
Raising his voice, Mr. Voinovich said, "I want to know if you're
dedicated to not having Davis-Besse happen again.''
"Of course we are. We're totally dedicated to safety,'' Mr. Diaz
shot back. Mr. Merrifield added, "We fully recognize the concerns
you have. It's not easy to discuss.''
Mr. Voinovich responded, "We're going to talk about this. This is
a big issue. If you don't do it [issue regulations], I'll pass
legislation. We'll get it done."
Later he said, "The reason I'm so interested in this is, I
support nuclear power. We need it.'' He said without public
support, investors won't invest and there won't be new plants.
Marvin Fertel, senior vice president of nuclear generation for
the Nuclear Energy Institute, said "You're absolutely right. NRC
should set regulatory standards for safety.''
David Lochbaum, nuclear safety engineer with the Union of
Concerned Scientists, said the deeper problem is that "NRC has a
safety-culture issue of its own.'' He referred to a study that
found that one-third of NRC employees who raise safety issues
feel they face retaliation.
Mr. Voinovich said of NRC leaders, "It's not that they don't
care. Maybe they need help.'' He said that perhaps he would set
up a meeting in his office between NRC officials and business
leaders with experience in ensuring safety. "We have a challenge
ahead of us,'' he said.
Mr. Voinovich expressed concern that many NRC employees are
nearing retirement and that too few nuclear engineers are coming
out of the nation's colleges, which have half the programs they
did 10 years ago. NRC is operating without the human or financial
resources its needs, he said.
Mr. Diaz said, "Our budget is adequate."
Contact Ann McFeatters at: amcfeatters@nationalpress.com or
202-662-7071.
© 2004 The Blade. The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St.,
Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000
*****************************************************************
14 Brattleboro Reformer: Jeffords queries NRC on fuel rods
[http://www.reformer.com/]
May 21, 2004 Brattleboro, VT
By CAROLYN LORIÉ Reformer Staff
BRATTLEBORO -- Sen. Jim Jeffords told Nils Diaz, chairman of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that the two segments of highly
radioactive fuel missing from Vermont Yankee must be accounted
for.
"This is an outrageous and frightening situation for Vermont
families," said Jeffords, during Thursday's hearing before the
Senate Subcommittee on Clear Air, Climate Change and Nuclear
Safety.
In addition to Diaz, NRC commissioners Edward McGaffigan Jr. and
Jeffrey S. Merrifield also took part in the hearing.
Pointing out that this was the second incident of missing fuel
at a nuclear plant in the United States since 2000, Jeffords said
this must not become "the norm" for the nuclear industry.
"It is not enough to tell the public that we 'think' it is likely
that highly radioactive material went to storage. We must improve
our nuclear materials accounting system, and we must do it now,"
said Jeffords at the hearing. "I want to know what the NRC is
going to do to prevent this from ever happening again at Vermont
Yankee or, for that matter, at any other nuclear facility in
America."
Peter Alexander, executive director of the anti-nuclear watchdog
group the New England Coalition, expressed satisfaction with
Jeffords' comments and line of questioning.
"We were pleased that Sen. Jeffords brought up the problems of
Vermont Yankee in a national venue and pledged to follow up on
the issues of concern about accountability and citizen
participation in the safety assessment that the NRC has ordered,"
he said.
Among the questions Jeffords asked Diaz concerned whether the
uprate review process could include not only independent
contractors on the inspection team but an independent observer as
well.
Many questions were submitted in writing to the NRC to be
answered at a later time.
Coalition expert Paul Blanch also applauded Jeffords'
"aggressive questioning," especially questions regarding the
inspection team.
"He specifically asked Chairman Diaz how they were going to
select those two independent outside contractors," said Blanch.
In 1993, Blanch testified before the same Senate subcommittee on
whistleblower issues. An electrical engineer with more than 35
years experience in the nuclear industry, Blanch became a
whistleblower in the late 1980s, while working at the Millstone
nuclear power station in Connecticut.
Vermont Yankee has been in the national spotlight since April 21
when officials at the Vernon plant announced that two segments of
fuel believed to be in a container in the fuel pool were not. The
use of robotic cameras has since proven that the pieces are not
anywhere in the fuel pool.
The fuel lost at Millstone Unit 1 was never found. The NRC
closed that case, stating that the fuel rods had most likely been
shipped to a low-level waste site in South Carolina or
Washington.
Jeffords said that he was prepared to assist the NRC in anyway
possible in locating the missing fuel. He also reminded Diaz,
McGaffigan and Merrifield of their primary responsibility.
"There is no greater issue than safety, said Jeffords, in a
written statement. "I want the people of Vermont and across the
country to be safe and it is the NRC's job to guarantee it."
Copyright ©1999-2004 New England Newspapers, Inc., a
*****************************************************************
15 DentonRC: TXU chief says sale of nuclear reactor unlikely
News for Denton, Texas | AP: Texas
05/21/2004
Associated Press
TXU Corp. probably won't sell its nuclear reactor near Fort Worth
although the utility hired advisers to consider options for the
plant, chief executive John Wilder said Friday.
"There is a possibility of an outright sale, but I don't really
hold out for that," Wilder said.
More likely, he said, the company would look for a deal with
another power generator to guarantee a steady source of power
and revenue when the Comanche Peak reactor is not operating.
Wilder made the comments to reporters after the utility's annual
shareholders meeting in Fort Worth.
Shareholders were still digesting a slew of deals that Wilder has
engineered since being hired in February to repair a company
slammed by a failed European operations expansion.
Earlier this week, the company announced a partnership with
French consulting firm Capgemini to help TXU cut its back-office
and technology costs and eventually market the service to other
energy companies.
At the same time, TXU announced an energy-trading joint venture
with investment bank Credit Suisse First Boston, and it hired
bankers J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. to help it decide what to do
with Comanche Peak.
The reactor, about 40 miles southwest of Fort Worth, has two
generating units that can produce 2,300 megawatts, or more than
10 percent of TXU's total of 22,000 megawatts. Comanche Peak is
such a big part of TXU's capacity that the utility can be forced
to buy power on more expensive spot markets when the plant isn't
running.
While selling Comanche Peak is possible, "the most likely outcome
is some kind of joint venture," Wilder said.
TXU will explore entering into a deal with other energy companies
to operate Comanche Peak along with other plants and share the
revenue from all of them, he said.
On another subject, Wilder hinted that TXU won't raise its annual
dividend from 50 cents per share for at least two years. The
company slashed the dividend by 80 percent in 2002, when problems
surfaced in its European business.
"We will worry about changing the dividend when we get the
financial strength that we want, and we think that's about 2006,"
he said.
TXU shares rose 5 cents, to $37.26, in trading on the New York
Stock Exchange.
___
On the Net: www.txucorp.com
© 2004 Belo Interactive Inc.
*****************************************************************
16 Bellona: KEDO holds board meeting on suspension of N Korea nuclear project
[http://www.spacewar.com/]
NEW YORK (AFP) May 20, 2004
The international consortium in charge of a frozen plan to build
two nuclear power plants for North Korea held an executive board
meeting Thursday, one day after Washington said the project had
no future.
The Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organisation (KEDO)
board, which groups the United States, European Union, South
Korea and Japan, discussed the management of the project's
suspension, as well as financial issues, spokesman Roland Tricot
told reporters.
"The organisation continues to implement suspension measures, and
is conducting preservation and maintenance activities" at the
construction site in North Korea, Tricot said.
He also said the board did not enjoy the unanimity required to
resume construction of the reactors when the one-year suspension
expires on December
The multi-billion dollar plan to build two 1,000 megawatt light
water nuclear reactors, deemed less suitable for weapons grade
plutonium production, arose from a 1994 anti-nuclear deal between
Washington and Pyongyang.
But the United States considers the deal, known as the Agreed
Framework, ruptured after accusing Pyongyang in 2002 of launching
a prohibited program to enrich uranium for weapons production.
Since then Pyongyang has thrown out international inspectors,
unfrozen its Yongbyon nuclear plant and pulled out of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation treaty.
The KEDO board announced the suspension of its project --
effective December 1, 2003 -- in November last year.
On Wednesday, the US State Department confirmed reports that
North Korea had offered, during talks in Beijing last week, to
freeze its own nuclear activities in exchange for a resumption of
the reactor project.
"It's not something that we entertained," said the department's
deputy spokesman, Adam Ereli.
"I would also add as a matter of policy that we do not see a
future for the light water reactor project," he said.
Construction work on the reactors began in 1998 and is only
one-third finished, although completion of the project was
scheduled for 2003, according to the North Koreans. Experts say
it would take at least five more years to finish the complex.
WAR.WIRE
*****************************************************************
17 NucNet: Groups Hoping To Build The Next US N-Plant
Three US consortia have taken up the Department of Energy’s (DOE)
challenge to present proposals for feasibility studies and
licensing initiatives with the goal of starting to build a new
nuclear reactor unit in the country.
None of the consortia, or any of their members, has actually
committed to building a reactor. DOE will pay up to half of the
costs of any of the proposals it selects and funding for the
effort is included in the department’s fiscal year 2005
appropriation – which has not yet been approved by Congress.
Additional companies or consortia could enter the field, since
the solicitation does not close until December 2004. However, DOE
does not have to wait until the solicitation closes to make
awards, so the early entries could garner all available funds.
Some companies, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and
Bechtel Power Corp., are members of more than one consortium.
The US Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is identifying the three
consortia as the NuStart-led consortium, the Dominion-Led
consortium and the TVA-Led consortium.
In this special feature, NucNet US correspondent Thecla Fabian
analyses the proposals – and looks at the key players...
NuStart-Led consortium The expanded NuStart consortium is the
latest entrant into the field and has presented the largest
request. Marilyn Kray, who is the executive lead on the project
and Exelon’s vice-president for project development, told NucNet
that Exelon has the lead in the 10-member group. The group
proposes a seven-year, 800 million US dollar effort intended to
result in a completed combined construction and operating licence
(COL) for one of two reactor designs.
The two reactors being considered are the General Electric (GE)
Economic and Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) and the
Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 (AP 1000). Ms Kray said they
were picked because each is an evolution of a currently operating
plant design. Both reactor vendors are members of the consortium.
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the
certification application for the AP 1000, which was submitted by
Westinghouse, a subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), in
March 2002. The schedule calls for a certification decision in
December 2005. GE is engaged in pre-application discussions with
NRC on certification of the ESBWR. While GE does not yet have an
agreed schedule with NRC, it expects that the certification
decision will come in mid- to late 2007.
Ms Kray said completion of certification for both reactor designs
is part of the NuStart proposal, and she noted that certification
does not include all of the design work necessary to build a
reactor. The design work is being done in three segments. The
first is the preliminary design work needed for NRC design
certification. The second is the additional design work needed
for submission of the COL. The final stage is the detailed
engineering design needed to actually build the plant. Once both
certifications are complete, NuStart will select a single design
to proceed with the COL, said Ms Kray, adding that, although only
one COL will be submitted, “at the end of the day, we want both
reactor designs to be positioned for deployment”.
The consortium has not decided whether to submit an early site
permit (ESP), which is not required for COL submission. The
consortium also has the option of rolling site information into
the COL, Ms Kray said. NuStart has not selected a site yet. One
of the consortia’s initial tasks is to identify a list of
possible sites and develop site-selection criteria. The schedule
calls for selection of a site by September 2005.
Once a site and a reactor design have been selected, NuStart will
work with the NRC on developing a licensing strategy. NuStart
expects to submit its COL application by January 2008. The NRC
review will take about two years. Ms Kray said that a firm
decision on the part of one or more of the partners to actually
build a reactor could come at any time during the process. The
decision would depend on a number of factors, including how the
project was progressing, the ultimate cost of building a plant,
and external factors such as electricity costs and environmental
issues.
The 10-member consortium includes eight power companies: Exelon,
Entergy, Constellation Energy, Southern Co., EDF International
North America, TVA, Duke Power and Florida Power &Light (FPL) –
which announced on 19th May that it had joined. The two nuclear
reactor vendor members are Westinghouse Electric and GE Energy’s
nuclear operations. Six of the power companies have formed a
limited liability corporation to manage the project – NuStart
Energy Development LLC. TVA, as a quasi-public corporation, has
not joined the limited liability corporation. The six NuStart LLC
members will provide USD 7 million over the course of the
project, for a total of USD 42 million. TVA will not provide any
cash, but it will provide around USD 500 000 worth of support
in-kind.
Duke joined the consortium after NuStart submitted its original
proposal to the DOE on 31st March. The company had been waiting
to finish its own licensing renewal on the Catawba and McGuire
nuclear plants, said Duke spokesperson Rose Cummings. Also, the
company’s new chief nuclear officer, Brew Barron, who took over
in January, is a strong proponent of the nuclear option. Cummings
pointed out that Duke now is not looking to build another
reactor. None of its three nuclear sites would support a new
reactor. She said that if Duke builds anything, it would have to
be at a greenfield (undeveloped) site, which has not been ruled
out.
The DOE is being asked to provide half of the USD 800 million
cost. The remainder will come from the consortium’s partners.
Dominion-Led consortium A four-member consortium led by Dominion
has proposed a USD 500 million project to examine the feasibility
of building a Canadian-designed ACR (Advanced Candu Reactor) 700
in the US, using the North Anna nuclear power plant as a
reference site. The proposal does not commit to submission of a
COL, but proposes a six-year programme to develop a “success
path” to the COL, said Dominion spokesman Rick Zuercher. Dominion
submitted an ESP for the North Anna site to NRC on September 25,
2003.
John Polcyn, president of AECL Technologies (Atomic Energy of
Canada Ltd.’s US subsidiary) told NucNet that the ACR 700 is a
light-water reactor (LWR) that combines features of the Canadian
CANDU reactors and LWRs currently used in the US. It uses
slightly enriched fuel (2.1%), unlike the CANDU, which uses
natural uranium fuel. He said AECL will start with a basic ACR
700 design, and modify it to meet licensing conditions in Canada,
the US and other markets.
AECL estimates that it could build the first 753 MW unit of the
ACR 700 in 44 months. After building the fifth unit, construction
time would drop to 36 months.
Under this consortium, Dominion will lead the team, provide a
site, and provide up to USD 61 million in funding. AECL will
provide the remainder of the costs through its efforts to obtain
NRC certification of the ACR 700. The DOE is being asked to pick
up matching funds up to USD 250 million. The other two members of
the consortium will provide engineering support. Hitachi America
will provide work on the secondary side of the plant, the steam
side. Bechtel Power Corp. will provide engineering support and
support for the COL preparatory work.
At the end of the six-year project, the consortium will be ready
to submit the COL application. As with NuStart, Dominion has not
committed to build the plant, even if it receives the COL. Mr
Zuercher said that Dominion is interested in keeping the option
available and will make a construction decision based on the need
for baseload power and the comparative advantages of the ACR 700
versus other power supply options.
The Dominion-Led consortium was the first to submit a proposal to
the DOE, on 13th March.
TVA-Led consortium TVA, a member of the NuStart consortium, also
is a member of a smaller consortium that seeks to build an
advanced boiling water reactor (ABWR) on the Bellefonte site in
northern Alabama. The site has two partially completed TVA
reactors. This six-member consortium proposes to use an ABWR from
GE (a design certified by the NRC in June 1997), said Elizabeth
Stuckle, a spokesperson with the US Enrichment Corporation, USEC
– one of the members of the consortium. Although never built in
the US, a joint venture between GE and Toshiba has built three of
the reactors in Japan, which are currently operating. They are
building five more in Japan and Taiwan, and have another eight in
various planning and design stages.
The consortium is proposing a modest USD 4 million, 10-month
study to determine the feasibility of the project. The DOE has
been asked to pick up USD 2 million as its share of the cost. TVA
offers the use of the Bellefonte site, and possibly re-use of
some of the idle infrastructure on the site. USEC will provide a
fuel supply plan and project management support. GE and Toshiba
will provide reactor design work. Bechtel will provide
engineering support and Global Nuclear Fuel Americas LLC (a joint
venture between GE, Toshiba and Hitachi) will provide fuel
fabrication support. Ms Stuckle said that TVA does not have an
early site permit for Bellefonte, so it would either have to
apply for an ESP, or incorporate the site information into the
COL. As with the other two consortia, TVA has not made a firm
decision to actually build the plant.
NucNet understands that federal funding plans for fiscal year
2005 are expected to be finalised by October. The DOE could
therefore decide on one or more of the proposals soon afterwards.
The NRC has issued overall guidance for developing construction
inspection manuals and procedures to be used by its inspectors if
new nuclear power plants are built in the US. The document,
NUREG-1789, addresses the use of the combined construction
permit/operating licence process, including the use of early site
permits. NUREG-1789 is available from the agency’s web site, by
entering accession number ML041340633 at this address: (
[http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html] ).
Source: Exelon / Dominion / AECL Technologies / Duke / USEC / FPL
Editor: Thecla Fabian, Washington / John Shepherd
*****************************************************************
18 AFP: Activists could target Finnish nuclear plants - security police
+ TERRA.WIRE
[http://www.terradaily.com/]
HELSINKI (AFP) May 21, 2004
As Finland prepares to start building a new nuclear reactor, the
threat of environmental activists and extremists targeting the
country's nuclear power stations is growing, security police said
on Friday.
"There are so few power plants being built in the world for the
time being that activists could conceivably target the power
plant that will soon be built in Finland," Iikka Salmi, chief
superintendent of the Finnish security police, told AFP.
Finnish power company TVO is scheduled to start building a new
nuclear reactor in Olkiluoto in western Finland this year, and
expects to have it up and running by 2009.
The plans to build the reactor, which will be Finland's fifth,
has agitated environmental activists around the world.
"We have seen an increase in activist activity," Salmi said, but
added that security police had no reason to believe that there
would be any violent attacks against the country's nuclear
reactors in the near future.
"It's possible, of course, but it's not likely," he said.
A special security police division in western Finland has been
assigned to ensuring the security of the new reactor, he said,
but declined to comment on whether the division was cooperating
with international security forces.
TERRA.WIRE
*****************************************************************
19 Middletown Press: CY nuke waste won’t be gone until 2023
Friday 21 May, 2004
By JOSH MROZINSKI Middletown Press Staff 05/21/2004
HADDAM -- Residents living near Connecticut Yankee might be
spending the next two decades next to nuclear waste and
spent-fuel because the Department of Energy won’t begin removing
material until 2010, according to Kelley Smith, the Connecticut
Yankee spokeswoman.
This means it wouldn’t completely be removed until 2023. The date
is tentative and could change, Smith said.
But Smith assured that the fuel and waste would be safely stored,
as it has been in the past. Security enhancements, along with the
extended time of storage, has cost Connecticut Yankee millions of
dollars.
"After Sept. 11, nuclear plants had to implement security
enhancements. Those additional costs are incremental," Smith
said. "They have to remain in place until the fuel is removed."
In April 2003, Connecticut Yankee amended its 1998 lawsuit
against the Department of Energy to reclaim damages that the
company experienced and has passed along to its electricity
customers.
The filing asked for $197 million if Connecticut Yankee stores
the fuel through 2010, and an additional $65 million if the fuel
is stored through 2020. If Connecticut Yankee wins the lawsuit,
the damages awarded would be credited to the decommissioning fund
and to electric ratepayers when decommissioning is completed.
"This court case is to determine damages for breach of the
contract," Smith said.
The physical decommission of the plant, which is essentially
demolishing buildings, is scheduled to be completed by the end of
2006. Plainville-based development contractor Manafort Brothers
is conducting the physical decommission of the plant.
Connecticut Yankee is in the process of moving 43 dry casks,
three containing waste and the rest spent-fuel, to the site from
where the Department of Energy will take it. Attorney Nancy
Burton and Frank Warmsley Sr., have claimed the site to be the
property of the 18th century slave Venture Smith. Warmsley is a
descendant of Smith.
To contact Josh Mrozinski, call (860) 347-3331, ext. 222 or email
jmrozinski@middletownpress.com.
©The Middletown Press 2004
*****************************************************************
20 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to Meet June 2 - 4 in Rockville, Maryland
News Release - 2004-06 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office
of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC
20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 04-062 May 20, 2004
The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Advisory Committee on
Reactor Safeguards will hold a public meeting from June 2 - 4 in
Rockville, Maryland. The committees discussions will include,
among other items, the NRCs revised process for reactor license
renewal and the agency staffs response to the Committees March
17 report on the AP1000 advanced reactor design.
Most of the meeting will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agencys
Two White Flint North building, at 11545 Rockville Pike. A
session with the Commission, from 1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. on June
2, will be held in the Commissioners Conference Room in One
White Flint North. The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. each day.
A complete agenda will be available on the NRCs Web site at
this address:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/agenda/2004/.
Videoconferencing is available for observing open sessions of
ACRS meetings, at the cost of the requesting individual or
organization, by contacting the Committees audio/visual
technician at 301-415-8066, between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m., at
least 10 days before the meeting.
For additional information, please contact Sam Duraiswamy, at
301-415-7364, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.
Last revised Thursday, May 20, 2004
*****************************************************************
21 NRC: Regulatory Analysis Guidelines: Final Criteria for the Treatment
FR Doc 04-11506
[Federal Register: May 21, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 99)] [Rules
and Regulations] [Page 29187-29192] From the Federal Register
Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21my04-4]
of Individual Requirements in a Regulatory Analysis AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Regulatory analysis guidelines.
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing its
final criteria for the treatment of individual requirements in a
regulatory analysis, because aggregating or ``bundling''
different requirements in a single regulatory analysis could
potentially mask the inclusion of an individual requirement that
is not cost-justified. As a result of these new criteria, the NRC
will issue Revision 4 of its Regulatory Analysis Guidelines,
NUREG/BR-0058 in the near future.
[[Page 29188]] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian J. Richter,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone (301) 415-1978;
e-mail bjr@nrc.gov [bjr@nrc.gov] .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The NRC usually performs
a regulatory analysis for an entire rule in evaluating a proposed
regulatory initiative to determine if the rule is cost-justified.
External stakeholders from the nuclear power industry raised
concerns that bundling different requirements in a single
regulatory analysis can potentially mask the inclusion of an
individual requirement when the net benefit from one of the
requirements supports a second requirement that is not
cost-justified.
In order to address this concern, the NRC published proposed
criteria for the treatment of individual requirements in a
regulatory analysis for comment on April 18, 2003 (68 FR 19162).
II. Comments on the Proposed Criteria After publishing its
proposed criteria for the treatment of individual requirements in
a regulatory analysis, the NRC received two sets of comments: one
set from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), an organization
responsible for establishing unified nuclear industry policy on
matters affecting the nuclear energy industry and the second from
the Nuclear Regulatory Services Group (NRSG), a consortium of
power reactor licensees.
In general, NEI states that the NRC's proposed criteria do not
adequately incorporate the relevant Commission guidance on this
issue and that the public comments made at a public meeting on
March 21, 2002, were not taken into account by the NRC staff. The
two areas of concern to NEI were the NRC's criteria necessary to
evaluate the bundling of individual requirements and the NRC's
guidance on using subjective judgment in making bundling
decisions.
The law firm of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP, also
submitted a set of comments on behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory
Services Group (NRSG). NRSG calls the proposed criteria ``a
positive step in providing detailed guidance in this area for the
first time'' and suggested some refinements of the criteria so
that ``all proposed new regulatory requirements receive a proper
analysis of their costs and benefits.'' Comment: NEI's initial
comment was that on ``* * * rules that provide risk-informed
voluntary alternatives to current regulations, an individual
requirement should have to be cost-justified and integral to the
purpose of the rule rather than [NRC's position that it be] cost-
justified or integral to the purpose of the rule.'' NEI claims
that the NRC's criteria ``* * * would be a significant
disincentive to implementation of voluntary alternative
requirements developed by industry groups because of the lack of
scrutable guidance regarding the addition of individual
requirements by the NRC staff.'' Response: The NRC believes that
its position is correct with respect to the need for each
criterion to be considered as a basis for bundling. NRC's
position may be clearer if one considers requirements that are
not necessary to a rule as enhancements. Then, if one uses NEI's
criteria of requiring both conditions, i.e., being both cost-
beneficial and necessary, no enhancements to a rule would be
tolerated or should even be considered because an enhancement is
not necessary to the purpose of the rule. But a fundamental
principle of cost-benefit methodology is to select the
alternative that achieves the largest net benefit, which could
conceivably be an alternative with enhancements. Thus, NEI's
position is tantamount to ignoring the cost-benefit implications
of any requirement that is not necessary to meet the objective of
the rule. Under NEI's approach, cost-beneficial relaxations could
not be included in a rulemaking if they were not necessary to the
purpose of the rule.
Alternatively, the NRC's position allows for the selection of the
alternative with the largest net benefit. Also, the NRC does not
believe that NEI has demonstrated how the proposed criteria would
be a ``significant disincentive'' to the implementation of
voluntary alternative requirements developed by industry groups.
As long as the voluntary alternatives are shown to be
cost-beneficial and result in no decrease in safety from the
NRC's proposed requirement, there should not be a problem.
Comment: NEI notes that the phrase ``integral to the purpose of
the rule,'' used both in a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM),
dated January 19, 2001, and in the February 2002 preliminary
criteria, was subsequently dropped from the proposed criteria.
The phrase relates to whether a proposed requirement can be
``integral to the purpose of the rule'' if the individual
requirement is not cost-beneficial, not required for compliance,
and not required for adequate protection. NEI's position is that
the phrase should be included in the NRC's final criteria.
Response: The NRC replaced the phrase ``integral to the purpose
of the rule'' as stated in the 2002 criteria, with ``necessary to
the purpose of the rule'' because NRC believes that ``necessary''
conveys a clearer meaning. As discussed in both the proposed and
final criteria papers, a requirement is necessary to the purpose
of the rule if it is needed for the regulatory initiative to
resolve the problems and concerns, and meet the stated objectives
that are the focus of the regulatory initiative.
Comment: NEI believes that NRC analysts need more guidance on
making bundling judgments. They claim that because NRC's guidance
is confusing and provides no meaningful standard, it is easier
for the NRC staff to aggregate requirements without explanation.
Response: The NRC's guidance is consistent with that provided in
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Circular A-4,
``Regulatory Analysis'' issued September 17, 2003, in which OMB
recognizes the need to examine individual provisions separately
and goes on to state: Analyzing all possible combinations of
provisions is impractical if the number is large and interaction
effects are widespread.
You need to use judgment to select the most significant or
relevant provisions for such analysis. You are expected to
document all the alternatives that were considered in a list or
table and which were selected for emphasis in the main analysis.
The OMB circular recognizes that judgment must be used for such
analyses. The level of analysis needs to be tempered by many
factors such as controversiality, complexity, magnitude of
consequences, and the like. Also, each regulatory analysis could
possibly have unique features that would likely affect the type
of analysis that should be done. Further, NRC final guidance will
include reference to the OMB circular and the NRC does not
believe additional guidance is needed.
Comment: NEI claims that the use of an analyst's judgment as
proposed by the NRC relies too much on NRC management review and
public comment. They state: ``The burden should be on the NRC to
provide sufficient information to evaluate regulatory analysis
decisions.'' Response: Regulatory analyses are well founded and
rely on sound judgments. This is done through peer review,
management oversight, review of public comments, etc., and
reliance on the analyst's judgment which is central to the
regulatory analysis process. The NRC believes that its guidance
ensures that its regulatory
[[Page 29189]] analyses will provide sufficient information for
the public to evaluate regulatory decisions and makes the process
both ``meaningful and scrutable.'' Comment: NEI quotes the SRM
calling for regulatory analyses to be ``meaningful and
scrutable'' and claims that the analysis cannot meet this
requirement unless there is some documented basis for
disaggregation.
Response: The NRC believes that regulatory analyses prepared
under the revised guidelines are ``meaningful and scrutable,''
especially given that the guidance is consistent with that
provided by OMB on this issue. The reason for disaggregation
would be discussed in each regulatory analysis on a case-by-case
basis.
Comment: NEI states that the proposed criteria are inconsistent
with the other detailed guidance on the treatment of values and
impacts contained in NUREG/BR/0058, as currently written.
Response: The NRC disagrees with this comment and believes this
final guidance clarifies and supports existing guidance in
NUREG/BR- 0058. Further, the NRC believes this new guidance is
directly relevant to the current discussion on the identification
of alternatives.
This guidance considers the scope of requirements and the
variability in physical and technical requirements as bases for
defining alternatives. This bundling issue should be viewed as an
extension or clarification of that discussion.
Comment: NEI states with respect to bundling that the ``proposed
criteria do not establish a common understanding of new
requirements, do not establish a scrutable process for making
regulatory decisions about voluntary initiatives, and do not
provide sufficient documentation to inform future decisions.''
Response: The NRC reiterates its position that ``bundling''
guidance sets forth in detail how an analyst should handle the
``bundling'' issue and is also consistent with the cited OMB
guidance. The NRC also believes that regulatory analyses and
supporting documentation prepared under the revised guidance will
be sufficient to provide documentation which may be reviewed to
inform future decisions. The NRC notes that regulatory analyses
are prepared as tools to support reasoned decision making and
public understanding of the NRC's decisions; in this regard, the
NRC believes that the revised guidelines achieve these
objectives.
Comment: NEI requests that the NRC defer its final decision on
these criteria until previous comments are ``properly
addressed.'' Response: Sufficient information was not provided to
defer a final decision. The NRC maintains that it has properly
addressed all public comments. Also, the Advisory Committee on
Reactor Safeguards has stated in a July 17, 2003, letter from its
Chairman, Mario V. Bonaca, to the Chairman of the Commission,
that the NRC staff's criteria ``are appropriate and responsive to
the Commission's direction.'' Comment: NRSG stated that the NRC
should require separate analysis of individual requirements to
the extent practicable. They went on to state ``that
disaggregation of requirements should be the preferred approach,
with the burden on the NRC to justify why separate analysis of
individual requirements is not appropriate in a given case.''
Response: The NRC acknowledges that, for the purposes of
developing an overall cost estimate of a regulatory initiative,
the analyst should obtain separate cost estimates for each
individual requirement to the extent practical. This is because
it is the most logical model for developing an overall cost
estimate, namely a bottom up approach. Further, the NRC agrees
that cost-benefit analyses of individual requirements that are
related (but not necessary) to the overall regulatory initiative
need to be considered in reaching a sound regulatory decision.
However, it is important to remember that the underlying purpose
of a regulatory analysis is to provide decision makers with a
tool for choosing between options or alternatives.
When a regulatory initiative has a number of discreet, yet
necessary requirements, the decision maker's choice is not
whether to include or exclude necessary individual requirements
but, rather, whether or not to enact the initiative as a whole.
Therefore, the separate analyses of necessary individual
requirements cannot contribute to this decision.
Further, as stated in the proposed criteria, published for public
comment in the Federal Register on April 18, 2003 (68 FR 19162):
``Specifically, this guidance states that a decision on the level
of disaggregation needs to be tempered by considerations of
reasonableness and practicality, and that a more detailed
disaggregation would only be appropriate if it produces
substantially different alternatives with potentially meaningful
results.'' This implies that the analyst must be able to
demonstrate that any aggregation in the analysis would not result
in different conclusions of the analysis. Therefore, the NRC
still does not believe that disaggregation in all cases should be
the preferred approach and stands by the position stated in the
proposed criteria. As stated in the guidance, ``the NRC does not
believe that there should be a general requirement for a separate
analysis of each individual requirement of a rule. This could
lead to unnecessary complexities.'' Also, NRC believes that its
guidance is consistent with OMB Circular A-4, cited above.
Comment: NRSG states that if, according to the criteria, an
individual requirement must be both ``related'' to the stated
objective of the regulatory initiative and be
``cost-beneficial,'' then the NRC should clarify what it means by
``cost-beneficial.'' The commenter also states that the criteria
for the treatment of any individual requirement must be
consistent with the standards of the backfitting rule. Under the
backfit rule, any new requirement that is a backfit must be shown
to be cost-justified and produce a ``substantial increase'' in
overall safety. Lastly, their final two points in this section
are in agreement with the NRC criteria. First, the commenter
agrees with the NRC that in ``cases where a new backfit
requirement is being considered for inclusion in a voluntary
alternative, to current regulations * * * NRC should consider
imposing such a new requirement, if justified under the standards
of Section 50.109, through the normal disciplined backfitting
process, * * * rather than merely including it in a
voluntary-alternative rule.'' Second, NRSG ``agree(s) with the
NRC position that if an individual backfit requirement is not
related to the objective of the regulatory initiative * * * , the
``requirement must be addressed and justified as a backfit
separately.''' Response: For the most part, the NRC agrees with
these comments. With respect to the NRC's meaning of
``cost-beneficial'' in the situation discussed by the commenter,
the NRC means that the regulatory initiative results in a larger
net benefit than would accrue to an action without that
requirement. Further, with respect to the backfit rule, the NRC
position is that when an individual requirement is related to the
stated regulatory objective, the individual requirement should be
cost-justified, and the overall regulatory initiative should
constitute a substantial increase in the public health and
safety.
Comment: NRSG stated that there should be further guidance on
backfitting issues related to the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) Code. Specifically, they state:
[[Page 29190]] NRC's guidance should allow the NRC discretion to
perform a cost-benefit analysis of individual new requirements
contained in later editions of Section XI before they are
incorporated wholesale into Section 50.55a. If the NRC finds that
individual new requirements of later Code editions are not
cost-beneficial for some or all plants, the NRC should screen out
those new individual requirements in accordance with the
standards of the backfitting rule.
Response: The Commission's policy regarding Inservice Inspection
(ISI) requirements is to assure the integrity of the reactor
coolant system (RCS) boundary and containment as they relate to
defense-in- depth considerations, that do not lend themselves to
cost-benefit analyses. Further, in this specific instance,
cost-benefit analyses are not well suited to determine if new
requirements that address aging of components are appropriate
because of the many uncertainties associated with the effects of
aging.
When the Commission formulated its policy, the then Chairman
stated that: ``Both the ASME and the ACRS have strongly urged
that the Commission maintain the current updating requirement''
and that-- ASME asserts that the failure of the NRC to
incorporate later editions of the Code in the requirements,
absent justification under a backfit analysis, would serve to
undermine ASME because of the disincentive of volunteers to
engage themselves in an ASME process that will not necessarily
affect operating plants. Moreover, because some states routinely
establish requirements based on current ASME codes, the
acceptance of the staff's approach would create the anomaly that
non-nuclear facilities might be required to conform to more
modern codes than nuclear facilities.
The Chairman also indicated he was aware ``that industry
participates in the development of the ASME codes and that costs
are considered in the amendment process. Thus, although the
revisions may not be analyzed with the rigor required by our
backfit analysis, the costs and benefits are implicitly
weighed.'' Another Commissioner commented: 10 CFR 50.109 has
served the NRC, our licensees, and our stakeholders well, and
thus, my decision to not subject ASME Code updates to its backfit
provisions was made only after I carefully considered how the
staff's recommended option should exacerbate the complexity,
inconsistency, and program divergence associated with our current
update process. My decision also came after considering the
diverse makeup of the ASME members that produce Code changes and
the consensus process they use. * * * I believe that
considerations of increased safety versus cost are implicit in
the ASME consensus process.
In sum, NRSG's suggested approach is inconsistent with the
Commission's previous guidance to the staff.
III. Final Criteria In evaluating a proposed regulatory
initiative, the NRC usually performs a regulatory analysis for
the entire rule to determine whether or not it is cost-justified.
However, aggregating or ``bundling'' different requirements in a
single analysis could potentially mask the inclusion of an
unnecessary individual requirement. In the case of a rule that
provides a voluntary alternative to current requirements, the net
benefit from the relaxation of one requirement could potentially
support a second unnecessary requirement that is not
cost-justified. Similarly, in the case of other types of rules,
including those subject to backfit analysis,\1\ the net benefit
from one requirement could potentially support another
requirement that is not cost-justified.\2\
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \1\ 'The Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,'' (NUREG/BR-0058) have been
developed so that a regulatory analysis that conforms to these
Guidelines will meet the requirements of the backfit rule and the
provisions of the CRGR Charter.
\2\ This discussion does not apply to backfits that the
Commission determines qualify under one of the exceptions in 10
CFR 50.109(a)(4). Those types of backfits require a documented
evaluation rather than a backfit analysis, and cost is not a
consideration in deciding whether or not the exceptions are
justified (though costs may be considered in determining how to
achieve a certain level of protection).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Therefore, when analyzing and making decisions about
regulatory initiatives that are composed of individual
requirements, the NRC must determine if it is appropriate to
include each individual requirement. Clearly, in certain
instances, the inclusion of an individual requirement is
necessary. This would be the case, for example, when the
individual requirement is needed for the regulatory initiative to
resolve the problems and concerns and meet the stated objectives
\3\ that are the focus of the regulatory initiative. Even though
inclusion of individual requirements is necessary in this case,
the analyst should obtain separate cost estimates for each
requirement, to the extent practical, in deriving the total cost
estimate presented for the aggregated requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \3\ The stated objectives of the rule are those stated
in the preamble (also known as the Statement of Considerations)
of the rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- However, there will also be instances in which the
individual requirement is not a necessary component of the
regulatory initiative, and thus the NRC will have some discretion
regarding its inclusion. In these circumstances, the NRC should
adhere to the following guideline: If the individual requirement
is related (i.e., supportive but not necessary) to the stated
objective of the regulatory initiative, it should be included
only if its overall effect is to make the bundled regulatory
requirement more cost-beneficial. This would involve a
quantitative and/or qualitative evaluation of the costs and
benefits of the regulatory initiative with and without the
individual requirement included, and a direct comparison of those
results.\4\
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \4\ There may be circumstances in which the analyst
considers including an individual requirement that is unrelated
to the overall regulatory initiative. For example, an analyst may
consider combining certain unrelated requirements as a way to
eliminate duplicative rulemaking costs to the NRC and increase
regulatory efficiency. Under these circumstances, it would be
appropriate to combine these discrete individual requirements if
the overall effect is to make the regulatory initiative more
cost-beneficial. In those instances in which the individual
requirement is a backfit, the requirement must be addressed and
justified as a backfit separately. These backfits are not to be
included in the overall regulatory analysis of the remainder of
the regulatory initiative.
In applying this guideline, the NRC will need to separate out the
discrete requirements in order to evaluate their effect on the
cost- benefit results. In theory, each regulatory initiative
could include several discretionary individual requirements and
each of those discretionary requirements could be comprised of
many discrete steps, in which each discrete step could be viewed
as a distinct individual requirement. This raises the potential
for a large number of iterative cost-benefit comparisons, with
attendant analytical complexities. Thus, considerable care needs
to be given to the level of disaggregation that one attaches to a
discretionary requirement.
In general, a decision on the level of disaggregation needs to be
tempered by considerations of reasonableness and practicality.
For example, more detailed disaggregation is only appropriate if
it produces substantively different alternatives with potentially
meaningful implications on the cost-benefit results.
Alternatively, individual elements that contribute little to the
overall costs and benefits and are noncontroversial may not
warrant much, if any, consideration. In general, it will not be
necessary to provide additional documentation or analysis to
explain how this determination is made, although such a finding
can certainly be challenged at the public comment stage.\5\ For
further guidance, the analyst is referred to principles regarding
the appropriate level of detail to be included in a
[[Page 29191]] regulatory analysis, as discussed in Chapter 4 of
the ``Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \5\ See NUREG/BR-0053, Revision 5, March 2001, ``U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations Handbook,'' Section
7.9, for discussion of how to treat comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- In some cases, an individual requirement that is being
considered for inclusion in a voluntary alternative to current
regulations may be justifiable under the backfit criteria. In
these cases the individual requirement is both cost-justified and
provides a substantial increase in the overall protection of the
public health and safety or the common defense and security. If
so, the NRC should consider imposing the individual requirement
as a backfit affecting all plants to which it applies, rather
than merely including it in a voluntary-alternative rule
affecting only those plants where the voluntary alternative is
adopted.
A special case involves the NRC's periodic review and endorsement
of consensus standards, such as new versions of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) codes. These NRC
endorsements can typically involve hundreds, if not thousands, of
individual provisions.
Thus, evaluating the benefits and costs of each individual
provision in a regulatory analysis can be a monumental task.
Further, the value gained by performing such an exercise appears
limited. These consensus standards tend to be noncontroversial
and have already undergone extensive external review and been
endorsed by industry.
Although regulatory actions endorsing these consensus standards
must be addressed in a regulatory analysis, it is usually not
necessary for the regulatory analysis to address the individual
provisions of the consensus standards.
The NRC believes this is appropriate for several reasons: (1) It
has been longstanding NRC policy to incorporate later versions of
the ASME Code into its regulations; and thus, licensees know when
receiving their operating licenses that updating the ASME Code is
part of the regulatory process; (2) Endorsement of the ASME Code
is consistent with the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act, inasmuch as the NRC has determined that there
are sound regulatory reasons for establishing regulatory
requirements for design, maintenance, inservice inspection and
inservice testing by rulemaking; and (3) These consensus
standards undergo significant external review and discussion
before being endorsed by the NRC.
Some aspects of these regulatory actions endorsing consensus
standards are backfits which must be addressed and justified
individually. For example, NRC endorsement (incorporation by
reference) of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPV)
provisions on inservice inspection and inservice testing, and the
ASME Operations and Maintenance (OM) Code, are not ordinarily
considered backfits, because it has been the NRC's longstanding
policy to incorporate later versions of the ASME codes into its
regulations. However, under some circumstances the NRC's
endorsement of a later ASME BPV or OM Code is treated as a
backfit. The application of the backfit rule to ASME code
endorsements is discussed in the Appendix below. Aside from these
backfits, these regulatory analyses should include consideration
of the major features (e.g., process changes, recordkeeping
requirements) of the regulatory action which should then be
aggregated to produce qualitative or quantitative estimates of
the overall burdens and benefits in order to determine if the
remainder of the action is justified.
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of May, 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Appendix Guidance on Backfitting Related to ASME Codes 10 CFR
50.55a requires nuclear power plant licensees to construct ASME
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPV Code) Class 1, 2, and 3
components under the rules provided in Section III, Division 1,
of the ASME BPV Code; inspect Class 1, 2, 3, Class MC, and Class
CC components under the rules provided in Section XI, Division 1,
of the ASME BPV Code; and test Class 1, 2, and 3 pumps and valves
under the rules provided in the ASME Code for Operation and
Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (OM Code). From time to time,
the NRC amends 10 CFR 50.55a to incorporate by reference later
editions and addenda of: Section III, Division 1, of the ASME BPV
Code; Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code; and the ASME
OM Code.
Section A. Incorporation by Reference of Later Editions and
Addenda of Section III, Division 1 of ASME BPV Code Incorporation
by reference of later editions and addenda of Section III,
Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code is prospective in nature. The
later editions and addenda do not affect a plant that has
received a construction permit or an operating license, or a
design that has been approved because the edition and addenda to
be used in constructing a plant are, by rule, determined on the
basis of the date of the construction permit and are not changed,
except voluntarily by the licensee. Thus, incorporation by
reference of a later edition and addenda of Section III, Division
1, does not constitute a ``backfitting'' as defined in Sec.
50.109(a)(1). Section B. Incorporation by reference of later
editions and addenda of Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV
and OM Codes Incorporation by reference of later editions and
addenda of Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code and the
ASME OM Code affect the ISI and IST programs of operating
reactors. However, the backfit rule generally does not apply to
incorporation by reference of later editions and addenda of the
ASME BPV (Section XI) and OM codes for the following reasons--
(1) The NRC's longstanding policy has been to incorporate later
versions of the ASME codes into its regulations; thus, licensees
know when receiving their operating licenses that such updating
is part of the regulatory process. This is reflected in Sec.
50.55a which requires licensees to revise their in-service
inspection (ISI) and in-service-testing (IST) programs every 120
months to the latest edition and addenda of Section XI of the
ASME BPV Code and the ASME OM Code incorporated by reference into
Sec. 50.55a that is in effect 12 months before the start of a
new 120-month ISI and IST interval. Thus, when the NRC endorses a
later version of a code, it is implementing this longstanding
policy.
(2) ASME BPV and OM codes are national consensus standards
developed by participants with broad and varied interests, in
which all interested parties (including the NRC and utilities)
participate. This consideration is consistent with both the
intent and spirit of the backfit rule (i.e., the NRC provides for
the protection of the public health and safety, and does not
unilaterally imposed undue burden on applicants or licensees).
(3) Endorsement of these ASME codes is consistent with the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, inasmuch as the
NRC has determined that there are sound regulatory reasons for
establishing regulatory requirements for design, maintenance,
inservice inspection and inservice testing by rulemaking.
Section C. Other Circumstances Where the NRC Does Not Apply the
Backfit Rule to the Endorsement of a Later Code Other
circumstances where the NRC does not apply the backfit rule to
the endorsement of a later code are as follows-- (1) When the NRC
takes exception to a later ASME BPV or OM code provision, and
merely retains the current existing requirement, prohibits the
use of the later code provision, or limits the use of the later
code provision, the backfit rule does not apply because the NRC
is not imposing new requirements. However, the NRC provides the
technical and/or policy bases for taking exceptions to the code
in the Statement of Considerations for the rule.
(2) When an NRC exception relaxes an existing ASME BPV or OM code
provision but does not prohibit a licensee from using the
existing code provision.
[[Page 29192]] Section D. Endorsement of Later ASME BPV or OM
Codes That Are Considered Backfits There are some circumstances
when the NRC considers it appropriate to treat as a backfit the
endorsement of a later ASME BPV or OM code-- (1) When the NRC
endorses a later provision of the ASME BPV or OM code that takes
a substantially different direction from the currently existing
requirements, the action is treated as a backfit. An example was
the NRC's initial endorsement of Subsections IWE and IWL of
Section XI, which imposed containment inspection requirements on
operating reactors for the first time. The final rule dated
August 8, 1996 (61 FR 41303), incorporated by reference in Sec.
50.55a the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda of IWE and IWL of
Section XI to require that containments be routinely inspected to
detect defects that could compromise a containment's structural
integrity. This action expanded the scope of Sec. 50.55a to
include components that were not considered by the existing
regulations to be within the scope of ISI. Because those
requirements involved a substantially different direction, they
were treated as backfits, and justified under the standards of 10
CFR 50.109. (2) When the NRC requires implementation of later
ASME BPV or OM code provision on an expedited basis, the action
is treated as a backfit. This applies when implementation is
required sooner than it would be required if the NRC simply
endorsed the Code without any expedited language. An example was
the final rule dated September 22, 1999 (64 FR 51370), which
incorporated by reference the 1989 Addenda through the 1996
Addenda of Section III and Section XI of the ASME BPV Code, and
the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda of the ASME OM Code. The
final rule expedited the implementation of the 1995 Edition with
the 1996 Addenda of Appendix VIII of Section XI of the ASME BPV
Code for qualification of personnel and procedures for performing
ultrasonic (UT) examinations. The expedited implementation of
Appendix VIII was considered a backfit because licensees were
required to implement the new requirements in Appendix VIII
before the next 120-month ISI program inspection interval update.
Another example was the final rule dated August 6, 1992 (57 FR
34666), which incorporated by reference in Sec. 50.55a the 1986
Addenda through the 1989 Edition of Section III and Section XI of
the ASME BPV Code. The final rule added a requirement to expedite
the implementation of the revised reactor vessel shell weld
examinations in the 1989 Edition of Section XI. Imposing these
examinations was considered a backfit because licensees were
required to implement the examinations before the next 120-month
ISI program inspection interval update.
(3) When the NRC takes an exception to an ASME BPV or OM code
provision and imposes a requirement that is substantially
different from the current existing requirement as well as
substantially different than the later code. An example of this
is presented in the portion of the final rule dated September 19,
2002, in which the NRC adopted dissimilar metal piping weld UT
examination coverage requirements from those in the ASME code.
[FR Doc. 04-11506 Filed 5-20-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
22 NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Notice of Consideration of
FR Doc 04-11508
[Federal Register: May 21, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 99)] [Notices]
[Page 29335-29337] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21my04-116]
Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity
for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility
Operating License No. DPR-20 issued to Nuclear Management
Company, LLC, (the licensee) for operation of the Palisades Plant
located in Van Buren County, Michigan.
The proposed amendment would replace existing License condition
2.C.(5) and its corresponding table, with a new license condition
stating that performance of Technical Specification surveillance
requirement 3.1.4.3 is not required for control rod drive 19
only, until the next refueling outage, but no later than
September 30, 2004.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that
operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated;
or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10
CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue
of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented
below: Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC) has evaluated
whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved
with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards
set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, ``Issuance of Amendment,'' as
discussed below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated? Response: No.
The proposed license amendment deletes outdated information from
the operating license and adds a license condition to delay
testing of one control rod from the Palisades Technical
Specification surveillance requirement for partial movement every
92 days. The proposed License Condition does not affect or create
any accident initiators or precursors. As such, the proposed
license condition does not increase the probability of an
accident.
The proposed license amendment does not significantly increase
the consequences of an accident. The safety analyses assume full-
length control rod insertion, except the most reactive rod, upon
reactor trip. The proposed surveillance requirement (SR)
extension request does not increase the allowed outage time of
any required operable structures, systems, or components (SSCs),
and does not reduce the requirement to know that the deferred SR
could be met at all times. Deferral of testing does not, by
itself, increase the potential that the testing would not be met.
The ability to move a full-length control rod by its drive
mechanism is not an initial assumption used in the safety
analyses. Control rod drop times are verified during performance
of a surveillance that is normally performed during refueling
outages. NMC has determined that control rod drive (CRD) seal
leakage does not increase the likelihood of an untrippable
control rod. Therefore, the assumptions of the safety analyses
will be maintained, and the consequences of an accident will not
be increased significantly.
Deleting the existing license condition 2.C.(5) and Table 2.C.(5)
is administrative, since the provision has expired, and has no
impact on plant operation or equipment.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed License Condition would not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated? Response: No.
The proposed license condition does not involve a physical
alteration of any SSC or change the way any SSC is operated. The
proposed license condition does not involve operation of any
required SSCs in a manner or configuration different from those
previously recognized or evaluated. No new failure mechanisms
will be introduced by the SR deferral being requested.
Deleting the existing license condition 2.C.(5) and Table 2.C.(5)
is administrative, since the provision has expired, and has no
impact on plant operation or equipment.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety? Response: No.
The safety analyses assume full-length control rod insertion,
except the most reactive rod, upon reactor trip. The proposed
License Condition does not, by itself, introduce a failure
mechanism. Past performance of the SR in question has
demonstrated reliability in passing the deferred SR. The proposed
license condition
[[Page 29336]] does not involve any physical changes to the plant
or manner in which the plant is operated. The ability to move a
full-length control rod by its drive mechanism is not an initial
assumption used in the safety analyses. Control rod drop times
are verified during performance of a surveillance that is
normally performed during refueling outages. NMC has determined
that CRD seal leakage does not increase the likelihood of an
untrippable control rod.
Therefore, the assumptions of the safety analyses will be
maintained, and the margin of safety is not reduced
significantly.
Deleting the existing license condition 2.C.(5) and Table 2.C.(5)
is administrative, since the provision has expired, and has no
impact on plant operation or equipment.
Therefore, the proposed amendment would not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the amendment request involves no significant
hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the
date of publication of this notice will be considered in making
any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this
notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before
expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the
amendment prior to the expiration of the 30- day comment period
should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such
that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in
derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take
action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will
take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need
to take this action will occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also
be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal
workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at
the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North,
Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating
license and any person whose interest may be affected by this
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the
proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a
petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with
the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing
Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult
a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS)
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, http://www.nrc.gov/
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/] reading-rm/doc-
collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for
leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or
a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the
Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an
appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner
in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with
particular reference to the following general requirements: (1)
The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or
petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right
under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the
nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property,
financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in
the proceeding on the requestors/petitioner's interest. The
petition must also identify the specific contentions which the
petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the
bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged
facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which
the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the
hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to
those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish
those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include
sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with
the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions
shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment
under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven,
would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least
one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the
conduct of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards
consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when
the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing
held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the
final determination is that the amendment request involves a
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take
place before the issuance of any amendment.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the
[[Page 29337]] Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the
contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors
specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a
hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by:
(1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of
the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2)
courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of
the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking
and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
hearingdocket@nrc.gov [hearingdocket@nrc.gov] ; or (4) facsimile
transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101,
verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for
hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent
to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that
copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission
to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov [ OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov] . A copy of the
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should
also be sent to Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire, Vice President, Counsel
& Secretary Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 700 First Street,
Hudson, WI 54016, attorney for the licensee.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated May 10, 2004, which is available
for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One
White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the
Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=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,
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov [pdr@nrc.gov] . Dated
at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of May 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John Stang, Project Manager, Section I, Project Directorate III,
Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 04-11508 Filed 5-20-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
23 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
FR Doc 04-11509
[Federal Register: May 21, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 99)] [Notices]
[Page 29334-29335] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21my04-115]
Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information
collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment.
SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of
continued approval of information collections under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement to be
submitted: 1. The title of the information collection: 10 CFR
part 21, Report of Defects and Noncompliance.
2. Current OMB approval number: 3150-0035. 3. How often the
collection is required: On occasion. 4. Who is required or asked
to report: All directors and responsible officers of firms and
organizations building, operating, or owning NRC licensed
facilities as well as directors and responsible officers of firms
and organizations supplying basic components and safety related
design, analysis, testing, inspection, and consulting services of
NRC licensed facilities or activities.
5. The number of annual respondents: 36 respondents. 6. The
number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or
request: 7,790 hours (5,112 for reporting and 2,678 for
recordkeeping) and total of 142 hours per each response and 74
hours per each recordkeeper.
7. Abstract: 10 CFR part 21 implements section 206 of the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. It requires directors and
responsible officers of firms and organizations building,
operating, owning, or supplying basic components to NRC licensed
facilities or activities to report defects and noncompliance that
could create a substantial safety hazard at NRC licensed
facilities or activities.
[[Page 29335]] Organizations subject to 10 CFR part 21 are also
required to maintain such records as may be required to assure
compliance with this regulation.
The NRC staff reviews 10 CFR part 21 reports to determine whether
the reported defects in basic components and related services and
failure to comply at NRC licensed facilities or activities are
potentially generic safety problems.
Submit, by July 20, 2004, comments that address the following
questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary
for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the
information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate
accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden
of the information collection be minimized, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be
viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD
20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide
Web site:
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comm
ent/omb/index.html] . The document will be available on the NRC
home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this
notice.
Comments and questions about the information collection
requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda
Jo. Shelton (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by
Internet electronic mail to INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV
[INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV] . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th
day of May 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-11509 Filed 5-20-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
24 [du-list] disinformation and depleted uranium
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 14:39:29 -0700
DISINFORMATION & Depleted Uranium [DU] - COOP RADIO -
Leuren Moret -
May 24 - Noon-1 PM PT
LISTEN ONLINE TO COOP RADIO: http://www.coopradio.org/
COOP RADIO CFRO 102.7 FM Vancouver, B.C.
Date: Monday, May 24, 2004/ Time: 12 1pm PT
http://www.coopradio.org/
DISINFORMATION & Depleted Uranium [DU]: "The
manipulation of
information, the invention of pretexts, the
falsification of
reality, and turning people against their own
interests is itself
facilitated by the monopoly control over the media,
and the process
of neo-liberal globalization." Halifax International
Symposium on
Media and Disinformation July 1-4, 2004 - Dalhousie
University -
Halifax, Nova Scotia .
GUEST: Leuren Moret was an Expert Witness at the
International
Criminal Tribunal For Afghanistan At Tokyo. She is an
independent
scientist and international expert on radiation and
public health
issues. She is on the organizing committee of the
World Committee on
Radiation Risk, an organization of independent
radiation
specialists, including members of the Radiation
Committee in the EU
parliament, the European Committee on Radiation Risk.
She is an
environmental commissioner for the City of Berkeley.
Ms. Moret
earned her BS in geology at U.C. Davis in 1968 and her
MA in Near
Eastern studies from U.C. Berkeley in 1978. She has
completed all
but her dissertation for a PhD in the geosciences at
U.C. Davis.
She has traveled and conducted scientific research in
42 countries.
She wrote a scientific report on depleted uranium for
the United
Nations sub commission investigating the illegality of
depleted
uranium munitions. Marian Falk, a former Manhattan
Project
scientist and retired insider at the Livermore Lab,
who is an expert
on radioactive fallout and rainout, has trained her on
radiation
issues.
DU Tribunal Testimony:
http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Leuren-
Moret-ICT13dec03.htm
International Criminal Tribunal For Afghanistan At
Tokyo: The People
Versus George Walker Bush - President Of The United
States Of America
Tribunal Verdict:
http://www.traprockpeace.org/tokyo_trial_13march04.doc
HOST: Alfred Webre, JD, MEd
Halifax International Symposium on Media and
Disinformation July 1-
4, 2004 - Dalhousie University - Halifax, Nova Scotia
.
This International Symposium aims to deal with one of
the most
pressing matters facing journalists, media and culture
workers, and
all sections of the people -- disinformation. The main
aim of the
Symposium is to empower journalists and collectives of
the people by
definitively exposing the modus operandi and extent of
disinformation, presenting the experience of
journalists and
activists across Canada and abroad in tackling it, and
to
consolidate the long-term struggle for its
elimination.
That disinformation exists is well established. The
international
situation has become increasingly dangerous, filled
with tension
between the peoples and the big powers and amongst the
big powers
themselves. Disinformation has emerged as one of their
most powerful
weapons against peace and humanity. The whole world is
discussing
how the invasion and occupation of Iraq was justified
by lies and
deceptions. But disinformation extends far beyond
isolated examples;
whether it is the manipulation of "democracy" or of
"human rights"
or of "nuclear-non-proliferation" to justify
interference in the
internal affairs of sovereign nations and even launch
pre-emptive
aggression, it has become so pervasive that it is the
central rule,
rather than the exception.
Disinformation -- as distinct from misinformation --
relies on
mystifying the basis of change, development and motion
in society,
and reduces objective reality to a matter of
interpretation, debate
and discussion. Whether it is the "clash of
civilizations" or the
thesis of "rogue" or "failed" states, disinformation
relies on the
ideological content of imperialism.
For example, people simply are not able to understand
the
Palestinian crisis as anything other that an ethnic
clash, because
they are not provided with information about the whole
reality. They
are not provided with the context needed to come to
any other
conclusion than the pre-determined one: a hopeless
cycle of violence.
The manipulation of information, the invention of
pretexts, the
falsification of reality, and turning people against
their own
interests is itself facilitated by the monopoly
control over the
media, and the process of neo-liberal globalization.
The
unprecedented concentration of media and power enables
a tiny
handful of moguls with a preconceived agenda to deploy
colossal
resources to dictate what is published and what is
not, who is hired
and who is fired, all with the aim of disorienting
people and
usurping any healthy discussion. Under the veneer of
being "fair and
balanced" and even "objective," this media normalizes
bias,
disregards and changes essential facts, and ignores
and suppresses
all those voices presenting information and
independent views.
Disinformation is not just a matter of a foreign
policy adventure of
Bush or Blair, but has become a general method for
imperial dictate
and monopoly right in the overall neo-liberal assault
on conscience
and enlightenment, and the sovereign and democratic
rights of
nations and peoples.
The Symposium will feature discussions of
disinformation and how it
operates at the local, regional, national, and global
levels. We
invite media workers, scholars, First Nations, labour,
fishermen and
farmer's organizers, anti-war and environmental
activists,
publishers and other concerned groups or individuals
to present
their experience and expertise of disinformation. We
are inviting
journalists from Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, Palestine and
other
countries to share their rich experience in fighting
disinformation
and interference in their affairs.
Hostility towards the monopoly media is pronounced.
Some are
concerned about the Americanization, some dislike the
sensationalism, some say that coverage is distorted,
and others say
that reality is ignored altogether. But all express
dissatisfaction
and outrage. The media, increasing numbers of people
are realizing,
does not serve them, and even acts as a barrier to
dealing with the
pressing issues they face.
These concerns have given rise to an explosion of new
and
independent media on a global scale, as a voice to
address peoples'
rights and concerns.
Those who are initiating this conference have
professional
backgrounds in independent journalism and publishing,
in radio,
print, film, books, and on the Internet. This
Symposium is open to
everyone who is deeply concerned about disinformation,
the mass
media and the kind of information and culture they
represent. This
Symposium has been borne out of this concern. We share
the
conviction that now is the time to develop our
collective capability
to influence the course of events. It is the
responsibility of those
who stand for the truth to thoroughly deal with the
question of
disinformation. We are building a space where we can
deal with the
question, and advance the long work of combating
disinformation and
building an independent media.
Let all those concerned about fighting disinformation
converge on
Halifax!
Contact:
Telephone: 902.444.4922 (outside North America:
001.902.444.4922)
Fax: 001.902.444.7595 E-mail: info@halifaxsymposium.ca
Post: Halifax
Symposium, PO Box 31377, Halifax, NS, Canada B3K 5Z1
Website:
www.halifaxsymposium.ca
"WAKE-UP WITH CO-OP" MON.-WED.- FRI. 7-9 AM PT
LISTEN ONLINE: http://www.coopradio.org/
LISTENER-SPONSORED CO-OP RADIO is broadcast across
Canada on the
Star Choice satellite system on channel 845. Co-op
radio, CFRO fm
is located in Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Its frequency
in the
Vancouver area is 102.7 MHz and we are also found on
various cable
frequencies in most major cities throughout British
Columbia.
RealAudio and Program information for radio station
CFRO can be
found on the internet at http://www.coopradio.org
Listener phone-in: Call Coop Radio on-air with your
questions and
comments at
(604) 684-7561.
____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
25 [du-list] Activist Urges Depleted Uranium Clean-Up in Iraq -
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 14:39:28 -0700
Forward to your local media...
Activist
Urges Depleted Uranium Clean-Up in Iraq
Reuters, UK - 2 hours ago
By Lisa Richwine. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The US military should clean up
depleted uranium ammunition scattered across Iraq to prevent ...
Activist
Urges Depleted Uranium Clean-Up in Iraq
Yahoo News - 2 hours ago
By Lisa Richwine. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The US military should clean up
depleted uranium ammunition scattered across Iraq (news ...
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
af70a.jpg
af74d.jpg
----------
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
*
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
*
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
*
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Attachment Converted: af70a.jpg: 00000001,07e0a2c3,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: af74d.jpg: 00000001,07e0a2c4,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
26 [FOODIRRADIATIONCA] AB 1988 going to Assembly Floor!
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 14:39:18 -0700
(please forward widely)
Protect parents Right to Know and Decide what their child eats at
school! Support AB 1988!
AB 1988 is headed to the Assembly Floor and may be heard as early as
Monday, May 24 -- Contact your Assembly Member and urge him/her to vote
YES for AB 1988.
This bill requires school board approval before irradiated food can be
served, requires schools to notify parents, label irradiated food, and
provide a non-irradiated alternative.
CALL or WRITE your Assembly Member TODAY!
To find your Assembly Member, visit www.assembly.ca.gov and click on
"Find My District" on the left side of the page.
Scroll down for a sample phone rap and letter.
Below is a list of target Assembly Members that need your phonecalls!
Assemblyman Bermudez: 916-319-2056
Assemblyman Canciamilla: 916-319-2011
Assemblyman Correa: 916-319-2069
Assemblyman Dutra: 916-319-2020
Assemblyman Horton: 916-319-2051
Assemblywoman Liu: 916-319-2044
Assemblywoman Reyes: 916-319-2031
Assemblyman Salinas: 916-319-2028
Assemblyman Vargas: 916-319-2079
Assemblyman Wesson: 916-319-2047
Assemblywoman Wiggins: 916-319-2007
Assemblywoman Wolk: 916-319-2008
Sample Phone Rap: Hello, I am a constituent in Assembly Member
__________'s district and I am calling to urge him/her to vote YES on
Assembly Bill 1988. I firmly believe that parents deserve the right to
know if their child is being served irradiated food in schools, and that
alternatives should be provided. I also believe that the decision to
serve these foods should be made by elected school board officials that
are accountable to the public.
Sample Letter:
Dear Assembly Member ______________:
I am writing to ask you to support AB 1988, the California Safe School
Lunch Act.
As you know, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
recently lifted the prohibition on the use of irradiated ground beef in
the National School Lunch and National School Breakfast programs.
Irradiation controversial technology being marketed by the meat industry
and nuclear industry. I do not believe that enough research has been
conducted to evaluate the long-term health effects of consuming
irradiated food. Our children should not serve as laboratory
experiments for a technology that has not been successful in the
marketplace.
While USDA has encouraged school districts to provide information to
parents and students on irradiation, there is no actual requirement for
them to do so. In addition, there are no labeling requirements
currently in effect that would distinguish irradiated from non
irradiated meals in schools The California Safe School Lunch Act would
correct those problems. We require public input before a school
district decides to serve irradiated food, protect parents'
right-to-know, and give them the opportunity to make an informed choice
on what their children eat in school.
By passing this bill, California can lead the nation in providing
nutritious, wholesome food to schoolchildren. I urge you to support AB
1988 and work for its enactment.
Sincerely,
Background
In May of 2003, the USDA approved irradiated foods for the National
School Lunch Program, which provides free or reduced price meals to
needy schoolchildren. This USDA decision was made despite overwhelming
opposition from parents, teachers, students, and concerned citizens who
oppose serving irradiated food to children.
Irradiation exposes food to extremely high doses of ionizing radiation
in order to kill bacteria. In the process, nutrients are destroyed and
new toxic chemicals are formed. Consumption of irradiated foods has
been linked to numerous health problems in humans and animals, including
reproductive dysfunction, fatal internal bleeding, and a rare form of
cancer. Irradiation perpetuates the filthy and inhumane conditions in
factory farms and slaughterhouses, which cause massive amounts of water
contamination and degrade air quality. Irradiated foods have been
rejected by consumers in the marketplace, and no population has ever
consumed irradiated food as a substantive part of their diet.
In February 2004 Assemblywoman Loni Hancock introduced AB 1988. This
bill requires school board approval before a school can serve
irradiated
meat, requires schools to notify parents, label irradiated foods as
such, and provide a non-irradiated meal option.
To read the bill visit www.leginfo.ca.gov
To learn more about irradiated foods and their inclusion in the
National School Lunch Program, visit www.safelunch.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tracy Lerman
Senior Organizer
Public Citizen, California Office
1615 Broadway, 9th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
ph: 510-663-0888 x 103 f: 510-663-8569
tlerman@citizen.org
www.citizen.org/california
Keep irradiated food out of your child's lunch!
Visit www.safelunch.org to find out more.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********
To unsubscribe, please send a email to tlerman@citizen.org with
"unsubscribe foodirradiationca" in the subject line.
*****************************************************************
27 Times of India: Foul play suspected in radioactive exposure
FRIDAY, MAY 21, 2004 THE TIMES OF INDIA
[http://indiatimes.com/epaper.html]
SIDDHARTHA KASHYAP
PUNE: In a shocking admission, chairman of the atomic energy
commission (AEC) Anil Kakodkar on Friday said the cause of
exposure of three employees at one of the units at the Bhabha
atomic research centre (Barc) near Tarapore was a "disciplinary
one, and not accidental."
Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a programme at the
college of military engineering (CME), Kakodkar, who is also the
secretary of the department of atomic energy (DAE) suspected foul
play in the incident, and said a full inquiry has been initiated
to find out as to how the "radioactive bottle’ was found at a
place where it was not supposed to be.
"Senior safety officials as well as an independent group are
already investigating the incident," he said, admitting that is
the first-of-its-kind incident at any of the nuclear
establishments in the country. "It can’t be accidental, instead
it an unusual incident," he said, however, adding that the
employees have not been over-exposed to the radioactive liquid
found in a bottle.
Barc, in a statement, said the three employees received doses
ranging from 0.04 to 0.03 Rem, which is very low exposure
compared to the permissible annual dose of 2 Rem.
Kakodkar said although a strict security regime is followed at
all the Barc units, the committee is particularly looking into
the administrative as well as security aspects of the issue. "A
clear picture is likely to emerge after the committee submits its
report," he added.
The incident, which occurred on April 17 this year, was noticed
by the personnel working in the laboratory. Some employees have
even cited personal enmity between two employees as the reason
behind the incident.
Meanwhile Kakodkar said the indigenous design of the advanced
heavy water reactor (AHWR) is currently undergoing safety
evaluation.
"We hope to get the approval from the government by this
year-end," he said, adding that once that is done, the
construction of the AHWR, which will use thorium as fuel, will
begin immediately. "It will generate 300 MWe of nuclear power,
and mark the beginning of the third phase of the country’s
nuclear electricity programme in which thorium, will power a
string of reactors.
Kakodkar further added that this AHWR proposed at Kalpakkam will
be treated as a "technology demonstrator for thorium utilisation.
Copyright © 2004 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. |
*****************************************************************
28 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada asks federal auditors to look at Yucca
Mountain contracts
Today: May 21, 2004 at 10:01:47 PDT
ASSOCIATED PRESS
LAS VEGAS (AP) - The state of Nevada is asking federal auditors
whether the Energy Department's contract with Yucca Mountain
project managers violates federal law or ethics rules.
State officials want the Energy Department inspector general to
look at the agency's contract with Bechtel SAIC Co. LLC, the
management and operations contractor on the planned national
nuclear waste repository, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
The company's $1.88 billion contract includes incentives to earn
$133.2 million for meeting deadlines and performing work to
certain standards.
The company has collected $48 million in fees since the five-year
contract was initiated in February 2001, said Allen Benson, an
Energy Department and Yucca Mountain spokesman in Las Vegas.
Bechtel SAIC can qualify for an $11 million payment if it meets a
July 26 deadline to finish a draft repository license
application, according to the contract.
Having a final licensing documents ready by Nov. 30 qualifies the
contractor for another $15.3 million, while the company could
earn $22.1 million if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission accepts
the license application for formal review early next year.
Bob Loux, director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects,
described the payments as "exceptionally large bonuses," and
questioned whether they might affect the contractor's work.
Loux sent a letter Tuesday asking Gregory Friedman, the Energy
Department's inspector general, to examine the contract.
Officials from Bechtel SAIC and the Energy Department meet
regularly with Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials to discuss
license preparations. With millions of dollars in award fees at
stake, Loux said there is risk project managers may lobby NRC to
look favorably on their repository work.
The Energy Department plans by the end of the year to submit to
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission an application for a license to
open and operate the Yucca Mountain repository.
Plans call for entombing 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste now being stored at nuclear power
plants and federal reactors in 39 states.
On the Net:
Yucca Mountain project: http://www.ymp.gov [http://www.ymp.gov]
Nevada Office of Nuclear Projects:
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste [http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste]
Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
29 AZ Republic: Fight over radioactive waste
[http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/]
May 21, 2004
Napolitano assails federal plan to truck material through state
Billy House
Republic Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - Gov. Janet Napolitano wants U.S. Department of
Energy officials to scrap plans to transport more than 153
million pounds of high-level radioactive waste through Arizona
from an Ohio nuclear cleanup site for disposal in Nevada.
"DOE's effort to bring this dangerous waste through Arizona
appears to be a violation of applicable federal and state laws,"
Napolitano wrote in a May 11 letter to Jessie Roberson, assistant
secretary for environmental management.
Nevada state officials, who say they were briefed by the DOE of
its plans in February, also oppose transportation of the material
from the former Fernald uranium processing plant to the Nevada
Test Site, about 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. They are
threatening a lawsuit to stop it.
Lori Faeth, Napolitano's policy adviser for natural resources
and the environment, said Thursday that the DOE has yet to
respond to the governor's letter, provide a timetable for when
the shipments will travel through the state or other basic
details. Arizona officials said they learned of the plan earlier
this month.
"We know the volume of the shipments: 7,000 containers," Faeth
said. "What we don't know is the type of packaging and whether
the Nevada site is truly a legal place for it to go. We certainly
don't want high-level radioactive waste coming through the state,
if that's what we're getting."
DOE spokesman Thomas Welch on Thursday would not discuss the
material to be transported from Fernald to the Nevada Test Site,
where the U.S. conducted underground testing of nuclear weapons
for nearly four decades. But Welch said the Energy Department had
reported as early as 1994, in a formal "record of decision," that
it had identified the Nevada Test Site as the preferred disposal
site for the Fernald waste.
Welch said any of the states through which the material will
travel will get plenty of advance notice.
"There will be a rolling schedule sent out to all the states
affected, with specific arrival and departure times for their
states, sent out eight weeks in advance," Welch said. "In other
words, states will be notified beforehand.
"Rail shipments have been determined not to be a viable option,"
he said.
The material prompting concern is waste now stored in three
concrete silos at Fernald, a facility used from 1951 to 1989 to
process uranium metal for use in government reactors elsewhere to
produce nuclear weapons.
The material is uranium-ore sludge residue and powdery wastes,
some of which is more hazardous than it is being classified by
DOE, asserted Marta Adams, a senior deputy attorney general for
Nevada who said officials of that state were briefed by the DOE
in February.
The shipments are to begin this year and continue until 2006 from
Fernald, where cleanups have been under way for more than a
decade.
The Nevada Test Site is a desert area the government has been
using for disposal of low-level radioactive waste since 1961,
including other wastes from Fernald. This program has been
overshadowed by the debate over the federal government's plans to
ship high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, which borders
the test site.
But Adams said that under federal environmental law, the waste
cannot be disposed of at the Nevada Test Site because it is more
radioactive than low-level waste, and is mixed with the other
hazardous wastes, such as lead and arsenic. The mixture requires
a disposal site with lined trenches to keep the materials from
leaching and a monitoring program for nearby water sources. The
Nevada site does not have those features, she said.
Adams added: "Once (the waste is) removed from the silos in
Fernald, there'll be a host of problems. One of the biggest is
air emissions; this has a very high radon content." She said
these air-emission concerns become exacerbated while the waste is
being transported.
"What we know is that the public officials, certainly the
governor of Arizona is one of them, should be cognizant of what
travels around their state - especially if it (the waste) does
not have a legitimate home to go to," Adams said.
Nevada Attorney General Brian Sandoval sent the DOE a letter
saying he intends to sue in federal court if it does not halt the
plan to move the waste to that state. Nevada also is in the
process of notifying as many as 15 other states that could find
themselves along the transport route.
In her letter to the DOE, Napolitano wrote, "It is my
understanding that the waste destined for transport and disposal
at NTS may amount to as much as 153.6 million pounds of material
at Fernald with a volume of at least 378,000 cubic feet."
She added, "I understand that there are other hazardous
constituents in this waste and they may well exceed the standards
established by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act."
Napolitano noted that the DOE previously shelved a plan to ship
the waste to the privately operated commercial disposal facility
in Utah, which is licensed by Utah and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for the safe management of radioactive and mixed
wastes. The governor wrote that "the radioactive concentration is
evidently too high" for disposal there.
"Therefore, it is difficult to understand why DOE is proceeding
to prepare to ship the materials to a site that apparently does
not meet these requirements," Napolitano wrote.
Reach the reporter at billy.house@arizonarepublic.com
[billy.house@arizonarepublic.com] .
Copyright 2004, azcentral.com. All rights reserved. USA Today
*****************************************************************
30 Salt Lake Tribune: N-storage provision in bill worries Utahns
May 21, 2004
By Christopher Smith
WASHINGTON -- Although environmental groups warned of
possible danger to Utah from language buried in a Senate defense
budget bill Thursday that changes the status of radioactive waste
in South Carolina, the sponsor of the measure and the state's
federal lawmakers discounted such claims.
"What we are doing in South Carolina only affects South
Carolina," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said. His provision,
inserted into the spending bill, allows the Department of Energy
to treat as less-dangerous waste millions of gallons of
radioactive leftovers from Cold War plutonium processing. This
would change the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act requirement that
such wastes be shipped to a planned permanent repository in
Nevada.
Environmentalists urged Utah Republican Sens. Bob Bennett and
Orrin Hatch to join a bipartisan move to strip the nuclear waste
reclassification from the Senate version of the defense spending
bill, claiming that it could open the door to the South Carolina
waste coming instead to Envirocare of Utah, which is licensed to
accept low-level radioactive waste for disposal at its Tooele
County landfill.
"This amendment is arguably limited to South Carolina alone,
but it is strangely drafted," said Geoffrey Fettus, a lawyer for
the Natural Resources Defense Council. "If DOE is allowed to
reclassify stuff in South Carolina that would be high-level
anywhere else, it could set a template to allow it to be shipped
elsewhere, such as Envirocare."
No thanks, said officials with the Utah landfill.
"We don't want it, we are not interested in it, it's not a
part of our plans and never has been, and it would never qualify
to come here," said Tim Barney, Envirocare senior vice president
in Salt Lake City.
Legislative analysts for Hatch and Bennett consulted with
state Division of Environmental Quality officials and found no
threat to Utah from the Graham provision.
"There's not really a Utah dog in this fight," said Mary Jane
Collipriest, press secretary to Bennett. "Once this waste crosses
the South Carolina border, it is classified as high-level waste,
which is illegal in Utah."
Bennett last year inserted wording into an omnibus spending
bill that effectively blocked any Utah disposal of "hotter"
radioactive waste from atomic weapon cleanup sites in Ohio and
New York until state officials assumed oversight of the
Envirocare facility.
Fettus said the latest nuclear waste reclassification
provision was an "end run" around an Idaho federal judge's recent
ruling that blocked DOE's plan to reclassify waste inside rotting
storage tanks. Because of cost savings, the agency wants to pump
out most of the liquid and fill the tanks with concrete grout.
DOE contends the grouting process would justify reclassifying the
waste as low-level.
Graham said the provision allows the leaking tanks at
Savannah River to be cleaned up 23 years ahead of schedule,
saving taxpayers $16 billion.
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., condemned the deal because of
the precedent it might set for waste in her state, home to the
Hanford Nuclear Reservation and 53 million gallons of highly
radioactive sludge from reprocessing plutonium.
"One change in the [Department of Defense] bill and billions
of gallons of waste in my state is now no longer highly
radioactive waste," said Cantwell, who staged a mini-filibuster
over the provision Thursday afternoon, refusing to yield the
right to speak to any other senator on the floor until leadership
agreed to postpone a vote on the Graham amendment and the entire
military spending bill until after the Memorial Day recess.
Copyright Salt Lake City Tribune
*****************************************************************
31 Las Vegas RJ: Auditors asked to review Yucca managers' contract
Friday, May 21, 2004
State official questions `large bonuses' By STEVE TETREAULT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- The state of Nevada has asked federal auditors to
examine whether the Energy Department's contract with managers
for the Yucca Mountain Project may violate federal laws or
ethics rules.
State officials are targeting the department's contract with
Bechtel SAIC Co. LLC, the management and operations contractor
on the nuclear waste repository program.
The company's $1.88 billion contract includes incentives to
earn $133.2 million for meeting deadlines and performing work to
certain standards.
The company has collected $48 million in fees since the
five-year contract was initiated in February 2001, said Allen
Benson, an Energy Department spokesman in Las Vegas.
In the coming months, Bechtel SAIC can qualify for an $11
million payment if it meets a July 26 deadline to finish a draft
repository license application, according to the contract.
Having a final licensing documents ready by Nov. 30 qualifies
the contractor for another $15.3 million, while the company
could earn $22.1 million if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
accepts the license application for formal review early next
year.
But Bob Loux, executive director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear
Projects, described the payments as "exceptionally large
bonuses," and questioned whether they might be coloring the
contractor's work.
Loux sent a letter on Tuesday asking Gregory Friedman, the
Energy Department's inspector general, to examine the contract.
Officials from Bechtel SAIC and the Energy Department meet
regularly with Nuclear Regulatory Commission staffers to discuss
license preparations. With millions of dollars in award fees at
stake, Loux said there is risk project managers may lobby NRC to
look favorably on their repository work.
Loux compared the awards to paying bonuses to legal experts in
a court case if a judge accepts their testimony, a practice that
"is normally illegal, and always unethical."
"These bonuses to DOE's experts are not at all like the usual
ones to encourage contractor performance," Loux wrote to
Friedman. Loux said in an interview the state has not identified
specific laws or regulations that might be in violation.
An Energy Department spokesman in Washington did not comment. A
representative for Friedman was not available on Thursday.
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
32 Bellona: £480m nuclear plant does not deliver
More than two years after it was commissioned, the Sellafield MOX
Plant—a hoped-for jewel in the crown of Britain’s financially
battered British Nuclear Fuels Plc—has yet to produce a single
assembly of mixed plutonium and uranium oxide, or MOX, fuel.
Sellefield's MOX Plant, or SMP, which has yet to produce a
single MOX fuel assembly.
BNFL
Erik Martiniussen, 2004-05-21 08:11
British Nuclear Fuel Plc, or BNFL blamed the delays on the
complexity of commencing operations at such a facility, but the
perpetual delays are losing BNFL’s customers and may jeopardizing
the prestigious new plant’s reputation on the international
market. Responsible parties at BNFL could not be reached to
comment on when the SMP may begin production.
The Sellafield MOX Plant, or SMP, was given the green light to
start producing MOX-fuel in December 2001 by none other than
British Prime Minister Tony Blair who personally pushed the
project through despite vociferous opposition from Michael
Meacher, Blair’s former Environmental Minister.
Since then, BNFL, the plant’s operator, has had serious trouble
with the production, and the facility has yet to produce a single
MOX fuel assembly.
Important plant MOX-fuel is a nuclear fuel made from the oxides
of uranium and reprocessed plutonium. On paper, the £482 million
plant is engineered to produce 300 tonnes of MOX fuel per year.
At the moment, some 80 tonnes of reprocessed plutonium is stored
at Sellafield. Because the SMP intends to utilise both
reprocessed plutonium and uranium for MOX production, the plant
has serious environmental and security implications for the
future operation of the entire Sellafield complex.
The delays in MOX production at Sellafield are having a
measurable impact on the company’s reputation and are putting
future contracts under a cloud. At the moment, BNFL has secured
only about half the number of contracts it needs to run the SMP
for its first 10 years. Its biggest contract is with the German
Power Company E.ON AG.
According to Greenpeace, the E.ON AG contract entails converting
5.8 tonnes of German plutonium into MOX. BNFL believes that the
contract with E.ON AG will engage some 15 percent of the SMP’s
capacity for the job. There are 13.6 tonnes of plutonium stored
by various German companies at Sellafield. But the true cash-cow
that BNFL has yet to attain are lucrative contracts with Japan,
which are essential if the SMP is to ever generate a profit.
In a statement, BNFL admitted that progress at the SMP had been
"disappointing" but said that delays were to be expected when
commissioning a complex plant. The statement read that customers
were being kept "informed.”
BNFL Announces £1 Billion Loss
Atomic energy giant British Nuclear Fuels, or BNFL, announced
lasst October a loss of more than £1 billion for the last fiscal
year, blaming the high cost of decommissioning nuclear power
plants and persistent technical problems at the company’s
controversial Sellafield reprocessing plant for its financial
beating. Read on »
[http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/nuclear/sellafield/30322.html]
First contract a let-down
The MOX-plant has already let down its first customer,
Nordostschweizerische Kraftwerke (NOK) of Switzerland by failing
to deliver a MOX fuel order for that country’s Beznau nuclear
power plant in time for Beznau’s annual refuelling. Delays in the
plutonium commissioning at the SMP have dashed all hopes that the
Swiss order will even be manufactured, let alone delivered.
An independent report commissioned by the British government
showed that the SMP will, at best, earn only £216 of the £460
million it cost to build the plant. These figures, however, may
fluctuate for the better if possible contracts with the Japanese
materialise. According to British daily Independent, British
Energy Minister Stephen Timms is visiting Japan this week in an
attempt to rescue the plant.
But Timms will have a tough sell—Japanese utilities are still
smarting from a 1999 scandal in which BNFL-manufactured MOX fuel
arrived in Japan with falsified quality assurance data. As such,
Tokyo still appears to lack confidence in BNFL’s ability to
produce MOX fuel. Piling more injury on BNFL’s attempts to secure
Japanese MOX contracts are reports that Japan’s Kansai Electric
has announced its intentions to sign MOX fuel contracts with
France’s nuclear giant—and BNFL’s stiffest competition—Cogema.
Yet another setback between BNFL and its Japanese customers
occurred during Spring of 2001 when citizens living near Japan’s
largest nuclear power plant voted against the use of MOX fuel in
a referendum.
Martin Forwood, of the environmental group Cumbrians Opposed to a
Radioactive Environment (CORE), issued a statement saying: “With
its reputation already in tatters, the kindest thing would be to
put the[SMP] plant out of its misery and close it down right
away.”
Dirty bombs
A number of experts have expressed concerned that new MOX fuel
can easily be utilised by terrorists to construct so-called
“dirty bombs,” and have consequently recommended against granting
the MOX-plant its licence to operate.
The Irish government has also vigorously protested against the
SMP and has brought two suits against Great Britain in connection
with the opening of the new plant. The first case concerned Great
Britain’s responsibility under the terms of the OSPAR convention
to inform neighbouring countries about its intentions to
construct and operate such a potentially hazardous plant.
Britain Must Consult Ireland Over Sellafield
Although Irish requests to halt MOX production at Sellafield
were denied, The Hague arbitration court mandated that the
United Kingdom must improve its discussions about the
reprocessing facility’s activities with Dublin.
In the suit, Ireland claimed that the British government had
withheld information that was crucial for an analysis about the
necessity of opening such a plant. Ireland furthermore charged
that the plant was in violation of certain provisions in the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), pointing out that the
increased number of MOX fuel transports by ship that would
accompany the opening and operation of the plant constitute an
unacceptable risk to the environment.
Both cases have been heard in the Permanent Court of Arbitration
at The Hague. While the court dismissed the first case in early
July 2003, the second case is still under consideration. So far,
the arbitration tribunal has criticised Great Britain for its
lack of co-operation with Ireland concerning nuclear safety, and
has ordered the two countries to work together more closely on
nuclear safety.
Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no] ,
President: Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no]
Information: info@bellona.no [info@bellona.no] , Technical
contact: webmaster@bellona.no [webmaster@bellona.no]
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
33 Bradenton Herald: Tallevast warnings were lost in shuffle
| 05/21/2004 |
DANA SANCHEZ and KEVIN O'HORAN
Herald Staff Writers
TALLEVAST - Groundwater pollution from the former American
Beryllium Co. plant was reported to Manatee County's
Environmental Management Department in early 2000, three years
before nearby residents were informed, Lockheed Martin Corp.
asserts.
Dan Batrack, project manager for Tetra Tech, the engineering firm
that found contamination at the plant, said reports of
contamination were sent to the county before and after the
discovery of a sump pump leak at the plant in 2001.
The claim brought a blunt denial by the county's top
environmental administrator, as well as a sharp rebuke on how
many reports or communications actually have made it to the
county from Lockheed or the company's consultant, Tetra Tech Inc.
"If they sent them, I don't know what happened to them," said
Karen Collins-Fleming, director of Manatee's environmental unit.
"What I have in my files is what I listed in my agenda package to
the board (Tuesday)," she added, referencing a list that covers
four documents - two letters and two reports.
The flap over reports and reporting is the latest in a line of
miscommunications between the company, the county and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, the agency that oversees
pollution cleanup projects in the state.
Crews working for Lockheed initially reported finding pollutants
at the site in January 2000, slightly more than three years after
the aerospace giant bought the plant and others like it around
the country in a $9 billion purchase of Loral Corp.'s defense and
satellite holdings.
More interested in other Loral sites, Lockheed immediately closed
the Manatee plant at 1600 Tallevast Road and put it on the
market. When WPI Interconnect Products Inc. agreed to buy the
facility, Lockheed agreed to test for contamination - and clean
any found.
And they found it. Petroleum in soil at the site, and beryllium,
chromium, trichloroethylene and others in groundwater there.
They reported their findings to Manatee County in letters, the
first noting the petroleum and dated Jan. 20, 2000, and the
second, dated Jan. 28, 2000, noting the metals and solvents.
The letters
Both letters, copies of which have been maintained in the DEP's
Southwest District office in Tampa, carry a stamp announcing:
"RECEIVED Jan 31 2000 E.M.D."
EMD is the county Environmental Management Department.
Collins-Fleming said she doesn't remember ever seeing either
letter, both of which were addressed to Paul Panik, then and now
a member of the department.
Upon seeing copies of the letters from DEP files Thursday,
Collins-Fleming acknowledged that the stamps were indeed EMD
stamps.
The letters leave a trail of dates and acknowledgements of
receipt that provide an explanation for why her office did not
have copies, she said.
It appears the letters were sent to Manatee County in error, she
said. As the agency in charge of cleaning up large industrial
facilities, DEP, not EMD, should have received the letters.
Which explains why Panik sent the letter straight on to DEP, she
said.
"I think Lockheed confused us with DEP," Collins-Fleming said.
"Lockheed did not contact DEP directly. My staff member got the
thing and immediately referred it out to DEP, and he didn't let
me know that it had come in so that's why I don't have a copy."
When the Herald asked to speak to Panik, Collins-Fleming said she
would speak publicly for the department and its employees.
She said there is a separation of duties and responsibilities
between local county programs and DEP programs. The county's
environmental management department has compliance programs for
small-scale pollutants, like gas tanks and fuel storage.
Receipt of the letters wouldn't have triggered any action on the
part of the EMD, she said.
"I think that's going to change," she said. "I think the
communication process should change. DEP should be talking to us
sooner in their process."
The earliest correspondence the county has on file, she said, is
an Aug. 8, 2002, letter noting that Tetra Tech had submitted a
contamination assessment report to DEP.
But, she added, the earliest document the county has on file
noting contamination off-site was a December 2003 report from
Tetra Tech, not the 2001 report Tetra Tech said went out.
"We received that Christmas Eve 2003," she said. "That was the
first hint we had that something was wrong."
Tetra Tech and Lockheed officials stood by their claim.
Documented findings
In 2001, Batrack said, crews discovered leaked cleaning solvents
as they finished off a DEP-monitored excavation of
petroleum-fouled soil from sumps at the plant.
Noting the presence of stagnant water, he said, the company opted
to install monitoring wells on- and off-site to gauge the extent
of contamination.
And they promptly recorded it.
"We notified the (Florida) Department of Environmental Protection
immediately to say we found the leak," Batrack said.
Including, he added, copies shipped off to Manatee County.
Meredith Rouse Davis, senior manager of corporate affairs for
Lockheed, echoed the timing.
The news did little to placate Jonathan Bruce, a county
commissioner spearheading an effort to revamp and speed up the
process to notify the public about contaminated sites.
Tallevast residents, he noted, didn't learn about the American
Beryllium contamination until nearly four years after Lockheed
first discovered it. And they didn't find out about the solvents
reaching groundwater off-site until they approached Lockheed in
October 2003.
While conceding the county needs to get its house in order, he
wasn't about to ease the pressure on the company - or the state
environmental agency - to open up its lines of communication.
"I never saw the reports, so I'd like to know where they sent
them," he said Wednesday. "This is exactly why we need to get
everybody working on the same page, why we need to get out in
front of this."
Bruce already has opened talks with Rep. Bill Galvano,
R-Bradenton, about writing a county notification policy and/or
crafting a state law that would require DEP leaders to come
forward with findings rather than sit on them until a cleanup
plan is in place, as is current practice.
A county version should hit the commission for a public debate no
later than the fall, Bruce said.
"Depending on what is presented, it could be a fast process after
that," he said
Whatever policy comes forward, whether at the county or state
level, also should include a change in who sees the reports, said
Manatee Commissioner Gwen Brown.
"Your public health (department) needs to be notified
immediately," Brown told Collins-Fleming, "and you guys."
That doesn't appear to be the case with American Beryllium,
regardless of what report went where and when.
Health official responds
Gladys Branic, director of the Manatee County Health Department,
a branch of the state health agency, said she first learned about
pollution at the site when she read about it in the Herald two
weeks ago.
No agency or company had approached the department before that,
she noted, a move that might have triggered a health study only
kick-started within the past two weeks by DEP after contamination
stories hit newsstands.
Now, Branic said, the health department's team of toxicologists
and epidemiologists - researchers who track illnesses - will
assess the area for contamination and associated health risks,
both immediate and long term.
But the study could take a year or more to complete.
"We are an evidence-based organization," Branic said. "As soon as
we find out about health concerns, we approach it in a scientific
manner. We first listen to the concerns. Then we consider what
the test results show."
As that moves forward, and as Bruce and Galvano cobble a
communications plan, DEP officials say they'll be back in
Tallevast today to test drinking water wells for contamination.
The agency had teamed with Manatee County, Lockheed and FOCUS, a
Tallevast-based community activist group, to scour the area last
Friday and come up with a list of 17 drinking water wells that
tap into the groundwater.
DEP will notify Tallevast residents directly of the well testing
results, as well as post the findings in the newspaper, said
Merritt Mitchell, a spokeswoman for the agency.
Lockheed already had announced plans for such testing, agreeing
to split samples with FOCUS and pay for the group's laboratory
tests. The company also plans to sample soil and monitoring wells
on- and off-site, Batrack said, with full-scale cleanup slated
for late this year.
"We don't expect the contamination to spread too far," he said.
*****************************************************************
34 Pahrump Valley Times: Citizen Alert hosts repository meeting
May 21, 2004
The community is invited to discuss the proposed Caliente nuclear
waste rail corridor and other environmental issues impacting Nye
County with Citizen Alert Thursday at the Bob Ruud Community
Center, from 6 to 8 p.m.
The meeting will include a report by Citizen Alert that
describes the economic and social impact that the waste isolation
pilot plant near Carlsbad, NM, Pahrump's sister city, has had on
their community.
Citizen Alert is a grassroots organization that was implemented
in 1975 to assure public participation and government
accountability on issues affecting the land and people of the
state.
The meeting will provide an opportunity for county residents to
voice their opinions and concerns about the safety of nuclear
waste transportation, Citizen Alert executive director Peggy Maze
Johnson said. The forum will also be an opportunity to discuss
health care and water issues.
Citizen Alert will hold similar meetings all around the state
throughout the coming months. The information that they gather
will go to local, state and federal decision-makers.
"These town hall meetings are vital because individual citizens
often feel left out of public policy decisions and don't think
their opinions count," Johnson said.
At a recent meeting held May 3 with the Department of Energy,
discussing the proposed rail corridor, residents gave their
comments to a stenographer, rather than addressing department
officials.
For comment or questions, please e-mail
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
[webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com] Copyright © Pahrump Valley
Times, 1997 - 2003
*****************************************************************
35 Pahrump Valley Times: Safety testing for casks designed to boost morale
May 21, 2004
By STEVE TETREAULT PVT WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - Seeking to boost public confidence in radioactive
waste handling, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has authorized
new safety testing of a full-sized cask designed to carry spent
nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain.
Agency officials said that putting a 150-ton shipping container
through a 75 mph crash and then a "fully engulfing" fire would
confirm their safety requirements for nuclear waste casks that
are largely based on scale model testing and computer
calculations.
A disaster demonstration involving an 18-foot-long cask might
also build public acceptance of a government campaign to
transport 77,000 tons of nuclear waste and spent fuel to the
proposed Nye County repository, they said.
But the NRC's action, signed by the agency's three commissioners
and disclosed in a May 5 staff memo, got thumbs down from Nevada
representatives on Monday. They said the planned testing falls
short of what is necessary to measure cask safety.
"The staff requirements memo is completely unacceptable," said
Robert Halstead, a Wisconsin-based transportation authority and
Nevada nuclear waste consultant.
The tests will highlight an important element of the Yucca
Mountain Project. Government and industry officials say the
safety of a 24-year Yucca shipping campaign will depend in large
part on the durability of the steel casks that will shield highly
radioactive fuel assemblies.
Nevada officials had lobbied heavily to get the nuclear safety
agency to order more comprehensive tests.
The state advocated full-scale testing of several truck cask
designs, as well as casks that will be carried by railroad to a
Yucca repository.
The state also pushed for rigorous stress testing to determine a
cask's breaking point.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff rejected the idea of "testing
to failure," saying there are no realistic accident scenarios
that could cause a cask to rupture or leak.
Halstead said state officials might ask Congress to intervene,
saying testing that will not yield the most useful information
will shortchange taxpayers. He estimated the cask testing would
cost between $35 million and $40 million.
A full-size rail cask alone could cost the government between $1
million and $3 million, industry officials have said.
"We would like to have a discussion with the commissioners before
a line is drawn in the sand," Halstead said. "We're not looking
for an unnecessary fight but we're not going to back down and let
them ruin the only opportunity for full-scale testing."
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., is drafting a bill that would require
the NRC to conduct physical tests on full-scale versions of all
designs for casks that would carry nuclear waste to the state by
truck and by railroad, aides said Monday.
Each design would be tested to determine its failure point, the
aides said. The cask provisions will be part of a bill that also
will address route selection and other transportation aspects of
the Yucca Mountain Project, they said. The legislation may be
introduced in a month or so, they added.
Most of the NRC's cask testing activity would take place in 2006
and 2007, according to a staff memo. An agency spokesman said the
cost for the option identified by commissioners was $11.3
million, but that estimate will likely be revised upward.
The testing would be conducted either at a facility in Colorado,
or at the Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico, where cask
experiments were conducted during the late 1970s, the spokesman
said.
NRC commissioners said in the memo that testing may be expanded
in the future to include truck casks "if DOE selects a truck cask
design and provides sufficient funding to support the testing."
David Blee, spokesman for the U.S. Transport Council, a nuclear
waste shipping consortium, said the NRC staff made the correct
decision to reject testing casks to failure. He said such tests
would represent a major departure from NRC practice.
"We think the public demonstrations will show the robustness of
the transport casks and it would be a valuable exercise," Blee
said.
For comment or questions, please e-mail
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
[webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com] Copyright © Pahrump Valley
Times, 1997 - 2003
*****************************************************************
36 FT: Europe to block freeze on nuclear processing
By Stephen Fidler in London
Published: May 21 2004 21:48 | Last Updated: May 21 2004 21:48
Opposition from Washington's European allies to a White House
proposal to freeze the number of states with nuclear enrichment
and processing technology has sunk any chances of an agreement on
the issue at next month's summit of the Group of Eight nations.
The US had hoped for an agreement on the proposal at the G8
summit at Georgia's Sea Island, which will bring together leaders
of the Group of Seven industrialised nations and Russia.
US President George W. Bush made the proposal in a February
speech. He said the freeze would close a loophole in the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation (NPT) Treaty that allowed countries to produce
nuclear material for weapons under cover of a nuclear energy
programme, as he said North Korea and Iran had done.
The president said existing producers could supply nuclear
material to countries that needed it for nuclear reactors.
But he said that the 40 countries in the Nuclear Suppliers Group
should refuse to sell enrichment and processing technologies to
countries that did not already possess functioning plants
producing nuclear materials.
But US and European officials say Italy has expressed its
outright opposition to the freeze, while other countries, such as
Britain and France, have suggested alternatives to it.
Italy says the US approach would create two categories of "haves"
and "have-nots", which was not envisaged by the NPT.
It would also run counter to the Euratom agreement among European
governments, which in effect guarantees a free market in nuclear
technology.
A knowledgeable Italian official said Italy had no plans to
acquire nuclear enrichment or processing technology. "We are not
at the moment planning it but we don't want to create a system
where we are definitively prevented from having it," he said.
France and Britain have proposed other schemes to curb the spread
of this technology.
"Theirs are much more subjective and under certain circumstances
you could argue Iran could be entitled to it," said a senior US
official.
"Unquestionably under the British and French proposals Taiwan and
South Korea would be entitled to it. I'm not saying Taiwan or
South Korea are about to go for nuclear weapons but just imagine
how China would feel if Taiwan just ramped a uranium enrichment
capability, or how Japan would feel if South Korea decided it
wanted it.
"The president's proposal is a very strict one and that's
obviously what's causing the pain, but you have to ask yourself,
if you're not willing to be strict, how you're going to find a
meaningful way to reduce access to the technology."
G8 leaders agree on other anti-proliferation proposals from Mr
Bush, including his suggestion that all members of the NPT should
sign the additional protocol - which makes it much harder for
countries to avoid detection of clandestine nuclear programmes.
The eight are also in agreement on making signing and
ratification of the protocol a condition of supply by the Nuclear
Suppliers Group for advanced nuclear technology.
© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2004. "FT" and
"Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times.
*****************************************************************
37 Pahrump Valley Times: Budget cuts could delay Yucca project
May 21, 2004
By STEVE TETREAULT PVT WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - Energy Department officials are preparing a report
on the impact of potentially deep budget cuts in the Yucca
Mountain Project, including calculations of layoffs and delays in
the program to establish a nuclear waste repository in Nye
County.
The report is being put together in the form of a letter to Rep.
David Hobson, R-Ohio, chairman of a House subcommittee that is
preparing to write an energy and water project spending bill for
next year.
Hobson told Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in an April 29
letter that DOE might get only a fraction of the $880 million it
requested for the repository in fiscal year 2005, which begins
Oct. 1.
Hobson repeated his warning on Wednesday in a speech to the U.S.
Transport Council, an association of nuclear waste shippers.
"I don't believe in coming here and telling you everything is
rosy, because it is not," Hobson said. "I don't have the money."
The Energy Department plans to file a repository license
application in December and has stepped up its strategizing to
transport highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel from reactors in
34 states to the Nye County site. The department has projected a
2010 repository opening.
But the Yucca Mountain budget has become complicated by a Bush
administration request that Congress reclassify a portion of the
fund that pays for the repository program.
The reclassification, essentially a change in how the money is
counted for budgeting purposes, has run into roadblocks, creating
a shortfall in how much money may be available for Congress to
spend on the Yucca project, Hobson said.
As a result, Hobson said, the bill his subcommittee passes may
be limited to $131 million for the repository. The Senate or a
conference committee could add money later in the year.
"I don't have the flexibility to steal money from other accounts
in the energy and water bill to make up for shortfalls in Yucca
Mountain," Hobson said.
This is not the first time the Yucca Mountain Project has faced
a severe budget crunch.
In 1995, the Clinton administration requested $630 million along
with a budgeting change that proved unpopular in Congress.
The Energy Department ended up with only half its requested
amount, forcing a major restructuring and hundreds of layoffs
amounting to a third of its contractor workforce, officials said.
Hobson said he is trying to persuade the White House to send
Congress an amended DOE budget that restores Yucca Mountain
funding, or to shift money from nuclear weapons programs or
environmental cleanups to the repository effort.
Another possible option might be for the White House to carry out
the budgeting change administratively, Hobson said.
But Rick Mertens, energy branch chief of the White House budget
office, said, "In our view that is not something the executive
branch can unilaterally do.
"We're looking at he options and there aren't any easy ones,"
Mertens said.
Hobson said the Bush administration took "a poor gamble" by
pushing to reclassify the nuclear waste fund in the face of
obvious opposition from Nevada's senators who oppose any
initiative that would make it easier for the government to send
nuclear waste to the state.
Sens. John Ensign, R-Nev., and Harry Reid, D-Nev., blocked the
proposal in the Senate Budget Committee earlier this year. Aides
said they are watchful for other attempts to get it passed.
Hobson characterized the administration's Yucca Mountain budget
plan as "a three-way bank shot."
"I don't think you could pull this off in the Senate when the
Nevada senators have their hands in all the pockets," he said.
For comment or questions, please e-mail
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
[webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com] Copyright © Pahrump Valley
Times, 1997 - 2003
*****************************************************************
38 NPR : Nuclear Waste Debate Stalls Defense Bill in Senate
[http://www.npr.org/]
[audio icon] Morning Edition audio
May 21, 2004
Senate action on a defense spending bill is stalled by a debate
over a provision buried in the bill that would reclassify South
Carolina's nuclear waste as low level. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a
South Carolina Republican sponsoring the bill, says it would
save billions of dollars and decades in cleanup efforts. Critics
-- including South Carolina Democrat Sen. Fritz Hollings --
denounce the move as an attempt to bypass debate on an important
scientific issue. Hear
[http://www.npr.org/about/people/bios/dwelna.html] .
(Information collected by NPR will be used solely for internal
NPR or NPR member station purposes and only if you selected
'yes' above. See NPR's
[http://www.npr.org/about/privacypolicy.html] for more
information.)
*****************************************************************
39 NPR: Nuclear Waste Clean-Up Plans Fuel Debate
[http://www.npr.org/]
Programs and Schedules All Programs
Groups Question Government Plans for Radioactive Materials
[audio icon] Morning Edition audio
[A nuclear waste storage tank, filled to the top with nuclear
waste, sludge and salts.]
A DOE storage tank, filled to the top with nuclear waste,
sludge and salts.
Credit: Department of Energy
Enlarge Image
Storage Tank After Clean-Up
See a DOE tank after its nuclear waste has been removed.
[http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2004/may/nuclearwas
te/after.html]
May 21, 2004 -- The Senate is immersed in a floor fight over
nuclear waste clean-up. A bill now under debate would allow the
Department of Energy to leave what could be millions of gallons
of high level waste in old underground tanks. The DOE says the
material, left over from nuclear weapons production, won't pose
a hazard. But opponents contend it could leak out, contaminating
rivers and groundwater.
At question are nuclear waste storage tanks in Washington state,
Idaho and South Carolina. The DOE says it can remove more than
99 percent of the radioactive sludge from the tanks, and seal
the remaining traces in concrete or grout. But environmental
groups say studies haven't convinced them that the grout
prevents small leaks over time. NPR's David Kestenbaum
[http://www.npr.org/about/people/bios/dkestenbaum.html] reports.
Related NPR Stories
[http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1888675] U.S. Eyes
Security Reforms for Nuclear Sites
[http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1888675]
[http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/july/yucca/] The
Science of Yucca Mountain
[http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/july/yucca/]
Web Resources
•DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
[http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/]
•Natural Resources Defense Council's Position on Nuclear Waste
Clean-Up
[http://www.nrdcaction.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=52103]
(Information collected by NPR will be used solely for internal
NPR or NPR member station purposes and only if you selected
'yes' above. See NPR's privacy policy
[http://www.npr.org/about/privacypolicy.html] for more
information.)
*****************************************************************
40 CCDR: Final word on Cotter? 5-21-04
[Canon City Daily Record - Canon City and the Royal Gorge
Region, Colorado]
[http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com]
State health official says license dispute could end up in
court battles for years
Dennis Bloomquist Daily Record Staff Writer
When the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
issues Cotter Corp.'s preliminary hazardous materials license in
December, it may appear to be the final word on the future of the
uranium mill.
But don't count on it, said Steve Tarlton, unit leader of the
Radiation Management Division of the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment at Thursday's public relicensing
hearing at the Quality Inn.
Tarlton said the license decision may be the start of protracted
court battles.
A decision analysis and preliminary license will be issued by
Dec. 14, no more than 270 days after the Fremont County
Commissioners responded to an environmental assessment of the
activities proposed in Cotter's license application, Tarlton
said.
But that may be only one bend in a long road to Cotter's next
five-year operating license, Tarlton said.
"We will issue the preliminary license, then there can be
challenges by the licensees or other people," he said. "Then,
we'll have a formal adjudicatory hearing in early 2005. This
could end up in a court setting."
Tarlton said the licensing decision is likely to dissatisfy
either Cotter or the mill's opponents.
"There may be a third alternative that makes everyone happy," he
said. "But we're not optimistic about that third alternative."
Tarlton showed a slide illustrating that Cotter's license could
permit: + Current operations, which Tarlton called the "uranium
mill" option. + Additional operations, including direct disposal
of materials from other sites. + Restricted operations. + No
operations, initiating decommissioning and cleanup that Tarlton
estimated would take 10-15 years.
The health department has maintained Tarlton and radiation
division director Gary Baughman were likely to decide on Cotter's
license. However, Tarlton said Thursday the health department's
executive director Douglas Benevento will make the final
determination.
Several speakers hammered home three points: + Cotter should be
ordered to immediately decommission and begin cleanup. + Maywood
soils and direct other disposal materials should not be accepted.
+ The health department needs to schedule another meeting in
three months to give Cotter time to fill in gaps in its
five-volume application, and citizens time to review a more
complete document.
Emily Tracy, Democratic candidate for Colorado House District 60,
likened Cotter to "an elephant in the living room," saying it is
too close to a populated area. She said "there are more
appropriate sites for hazardous waste disposal than Cañon City,"
and requested a cost-benefit analysis that fully represents all
of the impacts of Cotter Corp.
CCAT co-chairwoman Jeri Fry said a uranium mill near town was a
good idea 50 years ago, when there was little knowledge of the
dangers of radiation. However, she said, people are aware of the
hazards as Lincoln Park nears its 20-year anniversary as an EPA
Superfund site in September, based on a groundwater plume of
uranium and molybdenum.
Cotter years ago committed to decommissioning by 2002, but the
company changed its mind around 1996, said Sharyn Cunningham,
co-chairwoman of CCAT. While the mill was dormant for about 15
years, homes were built closer to Cotter, which is allowed to
emit 600 pounds of radioactive dust per year, she said.
Cunningham resubmitted a 13-page document compiled by CCAT
listing alleged deficiencies in Cotter's license application.
Jim Skinner questioned the common assumption that Cotter was
entrenched before the population nestled near its borders.
"I would like to take that bit of propaganda away," Skinner said,
adding his searches of county records revealed Cotter had a small
parcel of land from the 1950s, then bought 400 acres in 1977, 640
acres in 1983, 316 acres in 1988, and about 1,100 acres in 1991.
Among other comments in the four-hour hearing: + Contrary to
statements at last week's Lincoln Park Superfund meeting, there
are numerous studies indicating property values near clean-up
sites are diminished, said D McKinna. The 25-year Cañon City
resident, self-described as a social scientist and mental health
counselor, said studies have indicated both temporary and
permanent stigmas result from hazardous waste sites. She said the
closer a property is to the site, the longer its market value is
likely to suffer. + Cañon City Judy Skinner said the community
expects the health department to meet the requirements of House
Bill 1408, and the "additive" provisions of HB1358. The bills
defined the responsibilities of nuclear facilities, as well as
regulatory bodies.
Skinner said Colorado's environmental policy is being viewed as a
model, and the health department is "failing the rest of the
country — it's unacceptable." + Dr. Shirley Squier, a CCAT
member, said Cotter has denied it intends to become a toxic waste
dump, but accepting wastes from other sites is a primary focus of
the license application. She said the Maywood soils — which
Cotter proposed to use as a buffer layer over the tailings
impoundments, which would be capped with clay — would probably be
heaped on the property for several years, during which they would
blow throughout the county. + Dr. Gary Mohr, a physician
instrumental in a petition signed by 36 doctors in Fremont County
in opposition of Maywood soils, was one of numerous health-care
professionals to speak out against ongoing activity at the mill.
Mohr said he has treated workers who had been "poisoned, burned
and irradiated" at Cotter. He said the community doesn't need a
toxic waste dump or the effects it could have on the health of
citizens, particularly children. + Carol Dunn, a CCAT board
member, urged the health department to emphasize health studies,
saying, "We think you been looking at this from the wrong end.
You need to look at the people, not at Cotter's projections or
computer models."
CCAT is surveying people who believe their health may have been
compromised by Cotter's activities, and the Association for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry has announced it will have
officials in town in July to determine whether a full
epidemiological study is in order. + Rene Lucas-Dye said Cotter
has brought nothing but pain to her and her husband, Thomas Dye,
who both worked at the mill.
"You can see the pain radiating from the faces of people, but
Cotter doesn't care," she said. "What Cotter tells us and what
Cotter does are two different things. They've been caught (for
health-code violations) time and time again. What's it going to
take to make this madness stop?" + Resolve group was hired with
an EPA grant to help with conflict management and dispute
resolution surround Cotter issues.
Mike Hughes of the group's Washington, D.C.-based Denver office
introduced himself and asked citizens to contact him at
www.resolv.org [http://www.resolv.org] .
Speakers at Thursday's meeting urged citizens to speak up to
their elected officials and the health department regarding
Cotter's operating license.
"We have seven months to make a difference, and it will make a
difference for thousands of generations," Sharyn Cunningham said.
The health department will continue to receive public comments
until it makes its decision, Tarlton said, but citizens are
encouraged to respond before July.
Fry said CCAT has compiled more than 3,000 documents onto a
CD-ROM, which will be available at the Cañon City Public Library.
News and information is updated Monday - Friday at 5:00pm. Entire
contents Copyright Ó 2004 Royal Gorge Publishing Corporation. All
Rights Reserved. CUSTOMER SERVICE
*****************************************************************
41 The Mercury: Pottstown to handle radioactive sludge
www.zwire.com
Evan Brandt Mercury Staff Writer 05/21/2004
POTTSTOWN -- About 400,000 gallons of radioactive sewage sludge
from Royersford will be processed by Pottstown’s wastewater
treatment plant one month after the sludge created a flurry by
setting off alarms at a Bucks County landfill.
The contamination was created by a radioactive substance known as
cobalt-60 that apparently came from a cleaning facility run by
UniTech Services Group on Third Avenue in Royersford. UniTech
cleans, among other things, clothing worn by workers at Exelon
Nuclear’s Limerick Generation Station.
The wastewater from that facility was processed at Royersford’s
wastewater treatment plant, which does not have the facilities to
"de-water" its sludge, which is what is left over after the
contaminants havebeen removed from wastewater and the cleaned
water is returned to the Schuylkill River.
The Pottstown plant does have a de-watering facility, called a
belt press, and it has already processed one load and sent it on
to be buried at the GROWS Landfill in Tullytown, Bucks County.
The radiation monitors set up at that facility, owned by Waste
Management, set the wheels in motion, albeit slowly.
Although the sludge was frozen in place -- one container at the
landfill and three at Pottstown’s wastewater treatment plant --
for more than a month, it wasn’t until Wednesday morning that a
decision was made about how the sludge would be handled.
And that happened, borough authority Chairman Elmer Panoc said,
only "because we asked for a meeting."
The meeting involved Royersford Borough Manager Robert Umstead
and 16 other people from agencies including the state Department
of Environmental Protection, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency and
the borough authority, Panoc said.
David J. Allard, the DEP’s director of radiation protection, ran
the meeting by phone, Panoc said, and crafted the solution to the
problem of what to do with sludge contaminated with cobalt-60.
The solution is to do just what would have been done if the
cobalt-60 had never been detected.
The GROWS Landfill, which was first prevented from burying the
sludge, has now been ordered to do so, Panoc explained to his
board Wednesday night.
Later that night, the borough authority board voted reluctantly
to process next week the three containers of radioactive sludge
that have been sitting at the plant, as well as an additional
400,000 gallons sitting in a tank at the Royersford plant.
Once it is de-watered, the sludge will be taken to the GROWS
Landfill.
"It was pretty clear that DEP would like us to take that sludge
and resolve this for them," said Davie Allebach, the authority’s
solicitor, who also was present at the earlier meeting.
Had the authority refused, Royersford would have been forced to
rent the de-watering equipment to process the sludge, an
expensive and time-consuming process, Panoc said.
Royersford will also have to pay to have the section of sewer
line that runs from UniTech to its plant cleaned and
decontaminated, just as the Pottstown tank now holding the
radioactive sludge must be cleaned and decontaminated.
Further, the authority intends to charge Royersford not only for
the costs of disposing of its radioactive sludge, but also for
the money it cost the authority in terms of additional hours and
work, as well as lost income from outside sludge clients who
could not be served.
It was left to Brent Wagner, the chief operator of the wastewater
treatment plant, to calculate those costs. Initially estimated at
about $22,000, Wagner’s final calculations were faxed to
Royersford Thursday morning.
Umstead would not discuss or disclose those figures.
"We’ll take a look at Pottstown’s figures and go from there," he
said.
With one exception, Umstead also said he had no comment on the
situation.
The exception was to dispute the assertion made by Allebach and
Robert Maul, Pottstown’s utilities director, that the problem was
caused because Royersford stored the sludge for too long,
allowing the cobalt-60 to build up.
"I guess they were trying to save some money, so they stored it
up," Maul said.
"That statement is incorrect," Umstead said.
"The company did what it was supposed to do, and Royersford did
what they were supposed to do" in terms of government
regulations, Panoc said. "Royersford just held on to it for too
long."
Causes aside, the problem is not likely to occur again, at least
in the same manner, because UniTech has been given permission by
the DEP to treat its own wastewater and discharge it directly
into the Schuylkill.
"Luckily, we’re upstream," Maul quipped Wednesday night.
An attempt to reach the manager at the UniTech plant Thursday was
unsuccessful.
According to that company’s Web site, UniTech was founded in 1957
and, among other services and products, operates "licensed
radiological laundry facilities" in 10 states and in the
Netherlands.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, cobalt-60
releases gamma radiation and can affect people’s health.
"Exposure to low levels of gamma radiation over an extended
period of time can cause cancer," according to an EPA fact sheet.
"The magnitude of the risk of adverse health effects depends on
the quantity of cobalt-60 involved and on the exposure
conditions."
Wagner said people are exposed to more radiation from radon in
their basements than from the amount of cobalt-60 at issue with
the sludge.
He said to reach a harmful health effect, workers at the plant
would need to have two years of constant contact, 24 hours a day,
to meet the one-year minimum safety standard set by the NRC.
Nevertheless, Wagner insisted that none of the regular wastewater
treatment plant employees should clean the tank now holding the
contaminated sludge.
"We must be satisfied fundamentally that we have reduced the
exposure enough to make the employees safe," authority board
member David Sutton said.
©The Mercury 2004
Copyright © 1995 - 2004 PowerOne Media, Inc.
*****************************************************************
42 Pahrump Valley Times: Nevada asks Ohio for nuke help
May 21, 2004
By STEVE TETREAULT PVT WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - Attorney General Brian Sandoval is attempting to
recruit other states to help Nevada head off shipments of
nuclear waste from a closed uranium-processing factory in Ohio.
Sandoval said in a letter Wednesday that residents along
shipping routes might be subjected "to significant health risks"
from a special class of radioactive material the Department of
Energy has proposed to send from its Fernald plant to the Nevada
Test Site.
The letter was sent to attorneys general in 16 states along two
major interstate highway routes between Ohio and Nevada,
according to Sandoval spokesman Tom Sargent.
Nevada has objected to the Energy Department shipping 153
million pounds of radioactive waste that has accumulated in
silos at Fernald, located 18 miles northwest of Cincinnati.
Plans call for 3,750 flatbed truck shipments over 18 months.
Two of the 20-foot-tall concrete silos contain 240,030 cubic
feet of potent waste materials tainted with byproducts of
high-grade uranium that was processed at the factory. The third
silo, from where initial shipments were to be made, contains
137,700 cubic feet of low-level thorium waste.
Sandoval has threatened to sue DOE, contending the waste was
unsafe for disposal at the Test Site, where the government has
buried 21 million cubic feet of lower level nuclear waste since
the 1970s.
The material is different from the high level nuclear waste the
Energy Department has proposed to bury at Yucca Mountain.
DOE officials have promised Nevada 45 days notice before
starting to ship the Fernald waste. Nevada officials said this
week they were hearing from sources in Ohio that such a notice
would be issued "in the very near term."
A DOE spokesman at the Fernald plant said he did not know when
the department would issue its notification.
"We're in consultation with stakeholders and regulators to
determine what the path is going to be on the silos," said Gary
Stegner.
Sandoval warned the Energy Department in a letter Tuesday not to
begin moving waste from any of the silos until the burial
dispute is resolved.
Nevada has asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to step in
and assume control of the material. The state also is preparing
to file a lawsuit to challenge the shipments soon after it
receives a 45-day notice of DOE's intentions.
For comment or questions, please e-mail
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
[webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com]
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2003
*****************************************************************
43 Pahrump Valley Times: Yucca will dwarf past nuke shipping
May 21, 2004
By STEVE TETREAULT PVT WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - Over three decades, 2,500 tons of spent nuclear fuel
was shipped in the United States, an amount that would be
eclipsed in only a single year of operations for the Yucca
Mountain Project, an expert science panel was told earlier this
month.
Kevin Crowley, director of a study being conducted by the
National Academy of Sciences, said research is showing between
1,923 and 2,746 reported cask shipments of nuclear waste were
moved by truck among U.S. sites between 1964 and 1997.
Railroads transported between 279 and 511 cask shipments, he
said.
In terms of tonnage, Crowley said, "the total U.S. experience is
slightly less than what we would expect to see shipped during one
year of a Yucca Mountain transportation program."
Crowley made his presentation to a 16-member expert committee
assembled by the academy. The board is developing recommendations
on how the government might manage an ambitious campaign to move
highly radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel from 39 states to
Nevada.
When it is fully operational, the Energy Department estimates
shipping 3,000 tons of nuclear waste annually for about 24 years
to a repository in Nye County being planned to hold 77,000 tons
of highly radioactive waste.
The department is forming a blueprint calling for 3,000 to 3,300
railroad shipments from government weapons plant and commercial
nuclear utilities to the Yucca site.
Another 1,000 shipments would travel by truck.
Crowley said from 1949 to 1998 there were eight incidents where
coolant or other liquid leaked from casks. On 49 occasions,
contamination was found on shipping cask surfaces.
"There have been no reported accidents involving breach of the
casks and a leak of the (waste) contents," he said.
Board members sought comment on whether the record of past
shipments might be a safety indicator for the much larger Yucca
Mountain campaign.
Michele Boyd, a legislative representative for the Public Citizen
advocacy group, said the past is not a good predictor.
"Simply extrapolating from past experience - the statistics of
which are disputable - will not be sufficient to ensure that
these shipments will be safe, and certainly will not convince the
public that they are," she said.
Boyd said statistics do not tell the entire story. For example,
she said, from 1986 to 1990 the Energy Department transported two
dozen train shipments of nuclear fuel debris from the Three Mile
Island plant in Pennsylvania to Idaho.
Along the way, she said, DOE violated speed limits and rush hour
rules through St. Louis. One shipment collided with a car stalled
on the tracks, while another carried inaccurate placards.
"These type of errors need to be evaluated in the context of a
massive transportation program involving multiple truck casks per
day or multiple train casks per week over a period of at least 24
years," she said.
Steve Kraft, waste management director for the Nuclear Energy
Institute, gave a different view. "We believe experience to date
is a valid indicator of the future," he said.
Kraft said nuclear waste cask designs and transportation safety
plans have remained consistent.
"The quality assurance of the cask, the certification of the
cask, the transportation plan, the first responder plan, the
security plan, are shipment-independent," Kraft said. "Each
shipment is the same."
For comment or questions, please e-mail
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
[webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com] Copyright © Pahrump Valley
Times, 1997 - 2003
*****************************************************************
44 Guardian Unlimited: Ex-Soviet Officer Honored for Prudence
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Friday May 21, 2004 6:01 PM
MOSCOW (AP) - A retired Soviet military officer was honored
Friday for averting a potential nuclear war in 1983 by ignoring
an alarm that said the United States had launched a ballistic
missile, a U.S.-based peace association said on its Web site.
Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov was in charge of the Soviet Union's
early warning system when the system wrongly signaled the launch
of a U.S. Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile in
September 1983.
Petrov had to decide within 20 minutes whether the report was
accurate and whether he should launch missiles in retaliation,
the Vlast magazine reported in 1998.
At the time of the incident, tensions between the United States
and the Soviet Union were high. The Soviet military had recently
shot down a Korean Air Lines jet that strayed over Soviet
airspace, killing all 269 people on board.
Petrov decided the alarm was false and did not launch a
retaliatory strike.
The article said Petrov suffered severe stress after the incident
and spent several months in hospitals before being discharged
from the military.
On Friday, the San-Francisco-based Association of World Citizens,
a worldwide organization promoting peace, presented Petrov with
the World Citizen Award and launched a campaign to raise $1,000
for the Russian, who receives only a meager pension.
``All the 20 years that passed since that moment, I didn't
believe I had done something extraordinary. I was simply doing my
job and I did it well,'' Petrov said on Russia's NTV television.
On the Net:
Association of World Citizens: http://www.worldcitizens.org
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
45 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge
FR Doc 04-11521
[Federal Register: May 21, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 99)] [Notices]
[Page 29286-29287] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21my04-65]
Reservation AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat.
770) requires that public notice of these meeting be announced in
the Federal Register.
DATES: Wednesday, June 9, 2004, 6 p.m.
ADDRESSES: DOE Information Center, 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak
Ridge, TN.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat Halsey, Federal Coordinator,
Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001,
EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 576-4025; Fax (865)
576-5333 or e- mail: [halseypj@oro.doe.gov] or check the Web
site at
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab] .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of
environmental restoration, waste management, and related
activities.
Tentative Agenda: The meeting presentation will focus on the
Stewardship Education Resource Kit. The kit is being developed by
the Oak Ridge SSAB's Stewardship Committee to help area educators
develop curricula on stewardship and environmental issues. The
kit will feature a notebook
[[Page 29287]] containing lesson plans, fact sheets,
presentations, maps, and other educational materials. Also
included will be a computer disk containing several
environmental-related documents and a copy of the 40-page
``Educational Resource Guide,'' which was developed by the SSAB
last year.
Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
Written statements may be filed with the Committee either before
or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral
statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Pat Halsey
at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be
received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision
will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The
Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the
meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of
business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be
provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public
review and copying at the Department of Energy's Information
Center at 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, TN between 8 a.m.
and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, or by writing to Pat Halsey,
Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001,
EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, or by calling her at (865) 576-4025.
Issued at Washington, DC, on May 17, 2004.
Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer
[FR Doc. 04-11521 Filed 5-20-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
46 DOE: Agency Information Collection Extension
FR Doc 04-11522
[Federal Register: May 21, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 99)] [Notices]
[Page 29285-29286] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21my04-63]
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Submission for Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
review; comment request.
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted an
information collection package to the OMB for extension under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The package
requests a three-year extension of its Contractor Legal
Management Requirements, OMB Control Number 1910-5115. This
information collection package covers information necessary to
aid contractors and DOE personnel in making determinations
regarding the reasonableness of all outside legal costs,
including the costs of litigation.
DATES: Comments regarding this collection must be received on or
before June 21, 2004. If you anticipate that you will be
submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the
period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the OMB Desk
Officer of your intention to make a submission as soon as
possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-7345.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: DOE Desk Officer,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102,
735 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. Comments should also
be addressed to: Lorretta D. Bryant, Acting Director, Records
Management Division, IM- 11/Germantown Bldg., Office of the Chief
Information Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence
Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290; or by fax at (301)
903-9061, or by e-mail at
lorretta.bryant@hq.doe.gov [ lorretta.bryant@hq.doe.gov] ; and to
Anne Broker, GC-12, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Dispute
Resolution, 1000 Independence
[[Page 29286]] Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585; or by fax at
(202) 586-0325, or by e-mail at anne.broker@hq.doe.gov
[anne.broker@hq.doe.gov] . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lorretta D. Bryant, Acting Director, Records Management Division,
Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of
Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290,
(301)-903-2164, or e-mail lorretta.bryant@hq.doe.gov
[lorretta.bryant@hq.doe.gov] . Also notify Anne Broker, GC-12,
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Dispute Resolution, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 or by e-mail at
anne.broker@hq.doe.gov [anne.broker@hq.doe.gov] .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This package contains: (1) OMB No.:
1910- 5115; (2) Package Title: Contractor Legal Management
Requirements; (3) Purpose: The collection of this information
continues to be necessary to provide a basis for DOE decisions on
requests, from applicable contractors, for reimbursement of
litigation and other legal expenses; (4) Estimated Number of
Respondents: 33; (5) Estimated Total Burden Hours: The burden
hours for this collection are estimated to be approximately 465
to 570 hours on an annual basis. This estimate is based on the
estimate that the preparation of the initial plan is 15-30 hours
and that no more than 20% of the 33 contractors will need to
submit a legal management plan in any given year. The estimate
for the total also includes an estimate of the approximately 10
hours for an annual budgetary update, which would be submitted by
all contractors; (6) Number of Collections: The package contains
1 information and/or recordkeeping requirement.
Statutory Authority: These requirements are promulgated under
authority in section 161 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42
U.S.C. 2201; the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C.
7101, et seq.; and the National Nuclear Security Administration
Act, 50 U.S.C. 2401, et seq. Issued in Washington, DC on May 14,
2004.
Lorretta D. Bryant, Acting Director, Records Management Division,
Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-11522 Filed 5-20-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
47 DOE: Application To Export Electric Energy; Dynegy Power Marketing,
FR Doc 04-11523
[Federal Register: May 21, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 99)] [Notices]
[Page 29286] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21my04-64]
Inc.
AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of application.
SUMMARY: Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc. (DYPM), formerly Electric
Clearinghouse, Inc. (ECI), has applied for renewal of its
authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to
Mexico pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act.
DATES: Comments, protests or requests to intervene must be
submitted on or before June 7, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Comments, protests or requests to intervene should be
addressed as follows: Office of Coal & Power Import/Export
(FE-27), Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350 (FAX
202-287-5736). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Xavier Puslowski
(Program Office) 202- 586-4708 or Michael Skinker (Program
Attorney) 202-586-6667.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 24, 1997, the Office of
Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) authorized
ECI to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico
as a power marketer using the international electric transmission
facilities of San Diego Gas & Electric Company, El Paso Electric
Company, Central Power and Light Company, and Comision Federal de
Electricidad, the national electric utility of Mexico. That
two-year authorization expired on February 24, 1999. On June 24,
1999, in Order EA-121-A, FE renewed ECI's authority to export
electric energy to Mexico for a 5- year term. That order will
expire on June 24, 2004. On August 24, 1999, FE was notified that
Electric Clearinghouse Inc. had changed its name to Dynegy Power
Marketing Inc.
On May 13, 2004, DYPM applied to FE for a 5-year renewal of its
authority to export electric energy to Mexico as a power marketer
and requested expedited processing of its application to insure
there is no lapse of export authority.
Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to become a party to this
proceeding or to be heard by filing comments or protests to this
application should file a petition to intervene, comment or
protest at the address provided above in accordance with Sec.
Sec. 385.211 or 385.214 of the FERC's Rules of Practice and
Procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each
petition and protest should be filed with the DOE on or before
the date listed above.
Comments on DYPM request to export to Mexico should be clearly
marked with Docket EA-121-B. Additional copies are to be filed
directly with Betsy R. Carr, Sr. Director & Regulatory Counsel,
and Steven F. Dalhoff, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Dynegy Power
Marketing, Inc., 1000 Louisiana, Suite 5800, Houston, TX
77002-5050.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request,
for public inspection and copying at the address provided above
or by accessing the Fossil Energy Home Page at
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.fe.doe.gov] . Upon reaching the
Fossil Energy home page select ``Electricity Regulation,'' and
then ``Pending Proceedings'' from the options menus.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 17, 2004.
Anthony J. Como, Deputy Director, Electric Power Regulation,
Office of Coal & Power Import/Export, Office of Coal & Power
Systems, Office of Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 04-11523 Filed 5-20-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
48 Tri-City Herald: House votes to restore $50 million to cleanup
This story was published Friday, May 21st, 2004
By Annette Cary Herald staff writer
The U.S. House of Representatives Thursday unanimously passed an
amendment to restore $50 million for nuclear cleanup in the
coming year to the annual House Defense Authorization Bill.
The Bush administration budget proposed in February did not
include $350 million set aside until the issue of reclassifying
high-level radioactive waste is resolved to the administration's
satisfaction.
That included $64 million to be spent on cleanup of huge
underground tanks of waste from the past production of plutonium
at the Hanford nuclear reservation.
The House Armed Services Committee cut $50 million from the money
proposed for Hanford and nuclear weapon cleanup sites in Idaho
and South Carolina that also could be affected by the dispute
over waste reclassification.
Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., persuaded the House of
Representatives to restore the $50 million in the amendment that
passed Thursday.
"My amendment helps make certain that the federal government is
able to meet its legal and moral cleanup obligations," Hastings
said in a prepared statement.
He also said that "adding the $50 million was not an easy sell to
those who are reluctant to authorize funding given the
uncertainties surrounding this cleanup work."
Last year a federal court ruled that the Department of Energy's
decision to unilaterally reclassify some waste in Hanford's
underground tanks and in the other two states as "incidental"
violated the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
DOE has since pushed for legislation that would allow it to
determine how much of the waste could remain in the bottom of
underground tanks and how much must be removed and processed for
disposal.
Washington state officials have pushed to continue to have
regulatory authority over any waste reclassification, but talks
between the state and DOE are at an impasse.
Hastings has been frustrated that the state and DOE have not been
able to reach an agreement on the matter, according to his
office.
Restoring the $50 million to the proposed appropriation will help
ensure that the money needed for cleanup is available so work
will not need to be postponed because of a lack of money,
according to Hastings' office.
The Defense Authorization Bill provides guidance to the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees regarding funding for
defense-related functions of the federal government, including
cleanup of nuclear sites.
The House language rejects DOE's proposal to put restrictions on
the use of high-level waste funding in the three states.
© 2004 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
49 SF Chronicle: Los Alamos lab loses another data device
Information on chemical explosives missing
[http://sfgate.com]
[kdavidson@sfchronicle.com] Friday, May 21, 2004
A device containing computer data on nonnuclear high explosives
is missing at the University of California-run Los Alamos
National Laboratory in New Mexico, the lab reported Thursday.
The loss is the latest instance in which lab computer equipment
has been reported missing, although lab officials downplayed the
significance of the incident.
"It's our very firm belief this does not constitute any sort of
threat to national security," said lab spokesman Kevin Roark. He
blamed it on "basically an administrative error -- it's a
paperwork thing."
The loss was detected during the lab's effort to slash its
supply of computer storage devices such as CDs and Zip drives
used to store classified data, which pose a security risk
because a spy or scofflaw could spirit them out of the lab.
Eventually, for security reasons, Los Alamos officials hope to
switch to a so-called "media-less" environment. Ideally, lab
scientists would do research by using "dumb terminal"-type
computer displays to access a centralized, highly secure data
source.
Roark said the device containing information about chemical
explosives --
not nuclear weapons -- is the only missing item among 50,000
similar devices. Citing secrecy rules, he refused to give a
detailed description of the missing item.
"The folks conducting this investigation (to find the missing
device) have vowed to leave no stone unturned," Roark said. "But
in the final analysis, it is possible that we may never find
it," he said. "The person who finds it is going to get a big,
wet kiss."
The missing device was originally slated for destruction. So far
it hasn't turned up despite a search of the lab premises, Roark
said. One possibility is that the old data on the device were
erased, then replaced with new data so that its present identity
is camouflaged, Roark said.
Although the missing device doesn't represent a security threat,
"when it comes to this kind of stuff, you can't afford to lose
even one percent (of the equipment)," Roark said. "The director
of the lab has (made it) clear: We have to keep control of every
single item; losing just one is not acceptable."
The news was viewed darkly by veteran lab critics at the
nonprofit Project on Government Oversight in Washington, D.C.
"The lab can try to spin it however they want. Classified data
is missing once again from Los Alamos," Executive Director
Danielle Brian said.
The lab has an unhappy history of reports of missing or misused
equipment, including computer hard disk drives. In recent years,
such losses have helped to tarnish UC's reputation as lab
manager for six decades under contract to the U.S. Energy
Department.
For these and many other reasons, the Energy Department and
Congress recently took steps to open future management contracts
for the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore laboratories, which UC
also runs, to outside competitors.
The current Los Alamos contract expires in late 2005. UC
officials have not yet decided whether to compete for the next
Los Alamos and Livermore contracts, citing the high cost of
campaigning for such contracts while California faces a state
financial crisis.
UC spokesperson Chris Harrington said Thursday that protection
of such classified computer equipment "is one of our highest
priorities, and we recognize that the (data storage device)
issue is something we need to continue to address."
E-mail Keay Davidson at [kdavidson@sfchronicle.com] .
Page A - 4
©2004 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ
*****************************************************************
50 Charleston.Net: Graham, Hollings clash on SRS cleanup
05/21/04
Radioactive sludge's future at heart of issue
BY BO PETERSEN Of The Post and Courier Staff
South Carolina's two U.S. senators squared off on the Senate
floor Thursday over the future of the sludge from more than 30
million gallons of radioactive liquid being removed from the
Savannah River Site.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham wants a provision to the national
nuclear waste cleanup law that allows the U.S. Department of
Energy to re-classify the sludge. That would allow the waste to
be buried on site rather than having it moved to deep mountain
storage, which the law originally required.
"We spent a lot of money; we've done very little cleanup. And
from a taxpayer point of view, the longer you put this off the
more it costs and the more damage can be done," Graham said on
the Senate floor. "Regulators in South Carolina have come up with
a plan ... that will clean these tanks up and close them that is
environmentally sound, in my opinion."
Democratic Sen. Fritz Hollings calls the provision
"surreptitious" and "an environmental disaster in the offing."
"This is a highly dangerous procedure. It is wrong for the state
of South Carolina. It is wrong for the nation. It is wrong for
the Department of Energy," Hollings said.
Both Graham and Hollings cited state Department of Health and
Environmental Control officials whom the senators said agreed
with them.
In a 2003 letter to Hollings, DHEC deputy commissioner Lewis
Shaw said the agency does not think it's "technically or
economically feasible to send all of the high-level waste to a
national repository," but said the state should have a role in
deciding how much could remain on site.
A DHEC spokeswoman forwarded the letter to The Post and Courier
when asked for the department's position.
The senators disagree on whether the provision's legal language
provides that role.
Hollings said Gov. Mark Sanford didn't approve of the provision
unless it protected the state.
"We believe it's a good bill," said Sanford spokesman Will
Folks. Folks said the provision is a compromise but that the
governor asked for DHEC oversight and got it.
Graham tacked the provision onto a U.S. Department of Defense
spending bill now before the Senate. The House of Representatives
already has passed a version of the amendment without Graham's
provision. A Senate-House conference committee must produce a
third version to go back to both chambers for approval.
The waste is being removed from 51 aging tanks at the federal
Cold War-era bomb-making plant near Aiken. It's earmarked for
burial at Yucca Mountain, Nev.
The language change would clean up the site 23 years ahead of
schedule and save taxpayers nearly $16 billion, Graham said in an
earlier statement.
Hollings said earlier that the provision overturns 30 years of
law, interferes with an ongoing lawsuit over nuclear waste
handling and could have long-term consequences for handling
nuclear waste.
"Senator Graham wants to give the Department of Energy the
ability to keep going" with the removal "to get the most
dangerous material out of the state quicker," said Graham
spokesman Kevin Bishop. "There's going to be some residual
material. The cost and risk of taking the tanks out are very,
very high."
Bishop said the removal has been stalled by the lawsuit.
Karen Wayland, legislative director for the environmental
advocate Natural Resources Defense Council that filed the
lawsuit, disagreed. The 8 percent of sludge to be buried with the
tanks in concrete and grout could hold as much as 55 percent of
the radioactivity, she said.
"We're talking about all these isotopes that are the heaviest.
At some point those underground tanks are going to corrode, and
the groundwater is moving right into the Savannah River."
Graham's legislation gives DOE the authority to leave on site
any type and any amount of waste deemed too difficult or
expensive to remove, she said.
Removal of the liquid at SRS can continue while the lawsuit is
decided, she said.
Bo Petersen can be reached at 745-5852 or
bopete@postandcourier.com.
Copyright © 2004, The Post and Courier, All Rights
*****************************************************************
51 Oak Ridger: Sick workers impacted by overhaul
Story last updated at 12:43 p.m. on May 21, 2004
MICHEL: 'Bredesen's proposal would lower the amount of the
benefit.'
By: Paul Parson | Oak Ridger Staff [paul.parson@oakridger.com]
Janet Michel is worried about the overhaul of the state workers'
compensation system because it could have a negative impact on
job-sickened nuclear workers.
Her concern is related to the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program Act. Specifically, she said the
overhaul affects the part of the program run by the Department of
Energy that provides no direct benefits, but assists workers in
pursuing claims with state workers' compensation programs.
Michel, who suffers from health problems tied to her work at the
Oak Ridge K-25 site, said she has been on disability for several
years. She is also a longtime sick worker advocate.
Based on her best guess, Michel said about 90 percent of the sick
workers fall under this program.
Gov. Phil Bredesen's proposed overhaul of Tennessee's workers'
compensation system was approved Thursday. According to The
Associated Press, the bill passed the Senate 28-4 after
supporters defeated several efforts to make major changes.
It went back to the House for concurrence on minor amendments and
was sent to Bredesen for his signature into law.
"Worker comp benefits vary widely from state to state," Michel
said. "Benefits are usually paid through a state worker comp
agency, and the sources of the funds also vary, but generally are
provided by employers' insurance companies and/or state funds.
"Bredesen's proposal would lower the amount of the benefit," she
added. "Tennessee is one of the lowest states in the nation."
From what Michel understands, the benefits only last for 400
weeks, which she said is not good if you are at your peak earning
years in your 40s or 50s.
"A person who is permanently disabled and whose last wage was
$500 per week, receives two-thirds of that for social security
disability," she said. 'If you are approved for workers'
compensation, you are offset 20 percent for attorney fees.
However, if you are on social security pension, your offset is 50
percent plus attorney fees.
"The bottom line is you're left with almost nothing to live on,"
Michel added.
She added that Bredesen's proposal will likely reduce that even
more.
A second part of the compensation program for job-sickened
nuclear workers is run by the Labor Department. This part pays
lump sum benefits plus continuing medical coverage for former
workers with diseases potentially related to radiation exposure,
silicosis and chronic beryllium disease.
*****************************************************************
52 Oak Ridger: ORNL assists in Ohio nuclear plant study
Story last updated at 11:29 a.m. on May 21, 2004
By: Paul Parson | Oak Ridger Staff
paul.parson@oakridger.com [paul.parson@oakridger.com]
In a report released this week, Congress' investigative arm
described a 2002 incident at an Ohio power plant as "the most
serious safety issue confronting the nation's commercial nuclear
power industry since the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979."
In fact, the Government Accounting Office report criticized the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for failing to identify and prevent
corrosion on a reactor at the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant
because the agency's oversight did not generate accurate
information on the facility's conditions.
The NRC's own analysis of the 2002 incident included assistance
from Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The regulatory commission's
findings were released earlier this month.
According to the GAO report, after the NRC allowed the
Davis-Besse plant to delay shutting down to inspect its reactor
vessel for cracked tubing, officials found in March 2002 that
leakage from these tubes had caused extensive corrosion on the
vessel head - a vital barrier for preventing a radioactive
release.
"Some NRC inspectors were aware of the indications of corrosion
and leakage that could have alerted NRC to corrosion problems at
the plant, but they did not have the knowledge to recognize the
significance of this information," the 137-page GAO report
stated.
In pressurized water reactors like the one at Davis-Besse, the
reactor vessel contains the nuclear fuel as well as water with
diluted boric acid that cools the fuel and helps control the
nuclear reaction, the GAO report stated. Cracked tubes allowed
for leaked boric acid to corrode the reactor vessel head.
The corrosion extended through the vessel head to a thin
stainless steel lining, or cladding, and had likely occurred over
a period of several years, according to the GAO report. The
lining, which is less than one-third of an inch thick and not
designed as a pressure barrier, was found to have a slight bulge
with evidence of cracking.
"Had this lining given way, the water within the reactor vessel
would have escaped, triggering a loss-of-coolant accident, which
- if back-up safety systems had failed to operate - likely would
have resulted in the melting of the radioactive core and a
subsequent release of radioactive materials into the
environment," the GAO report stated.
In comparison, the March 1979 incident at Pennsylvania's Three
Mile Island nuclear power plant involved the partial meltdown of
a reactor core, but only very small off-site releases of
radioactivity. Considered the country's worst nuclear accident,
there were no deaths or injuries to workers or members of the
nearby community, but the incident caused regulators to heighten
their oversight and brought about sweeping changes in the area of
nuclear power plant operations.
With the March 2002 discovery at Davis-Besse, according to the
NRC's review, the reactor would have likely continued to operate
safely for several months - at least until the end of its
originally planned operating cycle, if the plant had not shut
down for inspections in February 2002. The results also show the
reactor vessel's stainless steel cladding would have likely
withstood pressures at least 125 percent of what is encountered
in normal operation.
As part of the NRC review, ORNL conducted large-scale testing and
analysis pertaining to the cladding. The Oak Ridge lab's
Heavy-Section Steel Technology Program is the NRC's contractor
for structural and fracture issues related to reactor pressure
vessels.
"We do the research and development and analysis that provide the
NRC with the technical basis for regulating reactor pressure
vessels," said Richard Bass, manager for the Heavy-Section Steel
Technology Program. "When they have a problem with a vessel that
relates to structure or fracture mechanics, they call us."
ORNL's tests were associated with the influence of cracks on the
pressure necessary to fail the cladding and how long Davis-Besse
could have operated before the cladding failed. ORNL's work
involved specimens machined from the pressure vessel of a
canceled plant - not cladding from the Davis-Besse reactor vessel
head.
Bass said the stainless steel cladding provides a protective
covering for the inner surface of the reactor's vessel against
corrosive elements. Vessels that house reactors are bombarded
with nuclear materials and must be constructed of materials that
can withstand exposure to neutron irradiation and heat that
occurs during fission, according to the NRC.
In March, after two years of increased NRC oversight and
considerable repairs by FirstEnergy, NRC approved the restart of
Davis-Besse's operations. FirstEnergy's plant is located in Oak
Harbor, just east of Toledo on the shore of lake Erie.
*****************************************************************
53 lamonitor.com: Lab reports missing data
The Online News Source for Los Alamos
[http://www.lanl.gov/worldview] [http://www.lac-nm.us]
ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor
Officials at Los Alamos National Laboratory acknowledged Thursday
afternoon that a piece of computer memory material was missing.
The lab's release called it "an accounting discrepancy" and
reported that the fact of a missing computer recording had been
detected as part of "an extensive Laboratory-wide effort to
reduce Classified Removable Electronic Media."
The device was supposed to have been destroyed in March.
Laboratory spokesperson Kevin Roark said this morning that the
data was missing from DX, the Dynamic Experiment Division, which
conducts research and development using high explosives. High
explosives are chemically based, not nuclear.
Asked about what was on the item, Roark said, "I can't be
specific about that." Roark told the Associated Press Thursday,
"It's our strong belief that (the device) was either destroyed or
re-tasked (reused), but the proper paperwork wasn't done to track
its destruction or reuse."
The lab's announcement and posting on its Newsbulletin website
came several hours after the information was leaked by the
Project on Government Oversight, a Washington, D.C., public
interest organization that has specialized in investigating and
exposing government abuses. "Reliable sources tell the Project on
Government Oversight that there has recently been another major
security breach at Los Alamos National Laboratory," POGO reported
Thursday morning.
Roark said, "We were ready to respond as early as Tuesday, but
since the investigation is ongoing, you want to have the most
complete information you can."
POGO has been a regular contact for employees within the weapons
complex to reach the media with sensitive information. In
November 2002, POGO broke the news that led to a scandal over the
firing of former LANL security officials and whistleblowers,
Glenn Walp and Steve Doran, as well as to the subsequent scrutiny
of the lab's business practices.
Shortly after the Cerro Grande Fire, in June 2000, two hard
drives containing highly classified information about weapons
design went missing for eleven days before they were discovered
behind a copying machine.
Last December, the lab called a security stand-down in its
Nuclear Nonproliferation Division after reporting that nine
floppy disks and a larger memory storage device were missing.
After both events high-ranking officials were placed on
administrative leave.
Roark did not rule out the possibility that there would be
sanctions in this case.
"It really does depend on the outcome of the investigation," he
said. "In the final analysis it depends on what was done and by
whom .The director will take that into account and act on it."
He added, "The director is big on accountability."
A spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration that
oversees the weapons labs for the Department of Energy said a
federal review team would investigate the incident.
Rep. Tom Udall, D-NM was informed of the security breach before
the media and issued a statement concerning LANL's "admission
that a piece of Classified Removable Electronic Media was
discovered missing on Tuesday."
"While troubling, I am hopeful that the media has either been
destroyed and incorrectly inventoried, or will be located soon,"
Udall said in the statement. "The laboratory has assured me that
the information does not contain nuclear weapons data."
Two weeks ago, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced a
sweeping plan to reform and upgrade security in the weapons
complex.
"We have had problems in the past with classified hard drives and
classified disks," he said on May 7. "To permanently eliminate
the threat of such problems, we propose an initiative to move to
diskless workstations for classified computing over the next five
years."
The laboratory's effort to reduce the number of pieces of
computer media has been underway for some time. Since last
December, the lab said it has reduced the number of pieces by
50,000, or 60 percent of the inventory. The inventory continues
until next week.
"(T)his discrepancy in no way constitutes a compromise of
national security," the laboratory's announcement stated.
The lab's release declared that the Department of Energy had been
properly notified, "according to established reporting
guidelines."
Brian Wilkes, NNSA spokesperson said, the lab "followed all
proper procedures and notified us...in a timely manner after it
was discovered."
The Associate Press contributed to this story.
© 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
54 WATE: Estimated cost after radiation leak is at least $1 million
[http://knoxville.wate.com
Maggie Poteaux
May 20, 2004
By MAGGIE POTEAUX 6 News Anchor/Reporter
OAK RIDGE (WATE) -- The receipts are still coming in for the May
14th radioactive leak in Oak Ridge on Highway 95. Although no one
was hurt, the incident closed roads and called for plenty of
testing. And it came with a hefty price tag. [ truck leaks ]
The Department of Energy (DOE) won't release final numbers until
the investigation is finished. But one official told 6 News it
will be no less than $1 million and no more than $2.5 million.
The incident closed Highway 95, along with three access roads.
Health physicists had to measure radiation exposure and the
potential health effects.
Another big cost was renovating, replacing and rehabilitating
structures, equipment and property.
Plus, there was the cost of tearing up and re-paving the
contaminated road. Then the health physicists made a return trip
to test the new road.
The whole process is expected to take about a month.
The next step is for the DOE to assemble a team to continue the
investigation. Members will interview people and review documents
to identify what went wrong, fix it and make sure it doesn't
happen again.
[http://www.worldnow.com] All content © Copyright 2000 -
2004 WorldNow and WATE. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
55 Google News Alert - nuclear
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 12:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
ORNL assists in Ohio nuclear plant study
Oak Ridger - Oak Ridge,TN,USA
... investigative arm described a 2002 incident at an Ohio power plant
as "the most serious safety issue confronting the nation's commercial
nuclear power industry ...
See all stories on this topic:
HOUSE retains funds for new 'bunker busters'
Tri-Valley Herald - Pleasanton,CA,USA
House Democrats came within a handful of votes Thursday of shifting funds
for a nuclear "bunker buster" and exploration of new H-bomb designs, the
highest ...
See all stories on this topic:
RETIRED Soviet officer honored for averting nuclear war in 1983
KVIA - El Paso,TX,USA
Moscow-AP -- A retired Soviet military officer is being honored for ignoring
a false alarm in 1983 and averting a potential nuclear war. ...
INDIA News > India, Pakistan to discuss nuclear CBMs
New Kerala - Ernakulam,Kerala,India
Six years after they stunned the world and barged into the exclusive nuclear
club, India and Pakistan will hold their first discussion on nuclear confidence
...
See all stories on this topic:
IRAN to submit a comprehensive report on its nuclear activities ...
Payvand - Iran
... to IAEA and an advisor to the foreign minister, Ali-Akbar Salehi, here
Friday announced that a comprehensive report on Iran's nuclear programs
will be ...
See all stories on this topic:
JEFFORDS grills federal nuclear agency chief about missing fuel
Providence Journal (subscription) - Providence,RI,USA
MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) - Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt., says he disappointed
in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's oversight of Vermont Yankee nuclear
power plant. ...
ENDING nuclear proliferation
eTaiwan News - Taipei,Taiwan
... Iraq imbroglio has one blessing it is that it demonstrates that there
are no actual or realistically imaginable military scenarios where nuclear
weapons would ...
KEDO holds board meeting on suspension of N Korea nuclear project
SpaceDaily - USA
The international consortium in charge of a frozen plan to build two nuclear
power plants for North Korea held an executive board meeting Thursday,
one day ...
See all stories on this topic:
SC senators clash on nuclear sludge disposal
Charlotte Observer (subscription) - Charlotte,NC,USA
South Carolina's two US senators sparred Thursday over a measure that could
allow thousands of gallons of toxic nuclear waste to be entombed at the
federal ...
See all stories on this topic:
PAKISTAN’S nuclear programme non-negotiable: Jamali
Pakistan Link - Inglewood,CA,USA
ISLAMABAD : Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali has categorically
declared that Pakistan's nuclear programme is non-negotiable. ...
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/
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************