*****************************************************************
06/30/04 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 12.155
*****************************************************************
   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 Guardian Unlimited: Iraq WMD Hunt Gets New Operations Chief
2 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Koizumi to Normalize Ties with N.K. in Tw
3 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: North Korea Indicates Willingness to Cont
4 US: Deseret news: Pressure mounts for nuclear tests
5 US: BUSH: WMD intelligence meeting
6 US: Pahrump Valley Times: Shoshone settlement not 'settled' 
7 Pravda.RU: Terrorism poses a greater threat to world than nuclear we
8 WorldNetDaily: Yossef Bodansky on Farah show today
9 Xinhuanet: Brazil asks for measures to protect nuclear industrial se
10 Hi Pakistan: No N-status for Pakistan and India, says China     --> 
11 NEWS.com.au: Howard back at ASEAN summit 
12 AFP: Brazil discusses wider-ranging nuclear inspections with IAEA
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
13 US: NRC: Notice of License Renewal Application for Safety Light 
14 US: Hanford News: Ex-lawmaker marks restoration of defunct power pla
15 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: NRC postpones meeting with Diablo manag
16 FT: Oldest commercial nuclear plant closed down early  
17 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Students quiz nuclear energy officials, op
18 US: Citizens Voice: 5 detained near Salem nuclear plant             
19 US: SouthofBoston.com: Entergy in a nuclear tap dance
20 AU ABC: Russia builds nuclear power plant for Iran
21 Guardian Unlimited: MoD closes nuclear power plant
22 US: WTNH.com: Call to close Millstone
23 Sofia Morning News: Russia Stores Bulgarian Spent Fuel by 2007
24 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety to Meet July 7 - 9
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
25 [DU-WATCH] The UN, Ukraine in Iraq
26 [du-list] UAE bans scrap metal imports over nuclear fear
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
27 Nuclear Waste Piling Up at Russia's Overloaded Facilities 
28 [NukeNet] DOE initiates first step in Yucca Mountain license
29 [du-list] United Arab Emirates ban
30 US: NRC: Governors' Designees Receiving Advance Notification of HWL 
31 Las Vegas RJ: JOHN SMITH: Even Gibbons can see trouble for Bush on Y
32 U.S. Newswire: Yucca Mountain Documents Made Available for 
33 Pahrump Valley Times: County has 90 days to submit Yucca data 
34 Pahrump Valley Times: Licensing process entirely online 
35 ITAR-TASS: Russia not to store foreign radioactive waste
36 AFP: WWF criticizes Russia's plans for spent nuclear fuel site
37 AFP: Russia's plans for spent nuclear fuel site spark howls of prote
 
                         NUCLEAR WEAPONS
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
38 DOE: Record of Decision for the Solid Waste Program, Hanford Site, 
39 DOE: Revision to the Record of Decision for the Department of
40 DOE: Revision to the Record of Decision for the Department of
41 U.S. Newswire: DOE/NNSA Cites Los Alamos National Laboratory for 
42 U.S. Newswire: DOE Announces New Solicitation to Provide Nuclear 
43 Oak Ridger: Officials: DOE has positive economic impact 							 				
44 Oak Ridger: Housing issue with DOE-related work force 							 						
45 lamonitor.com: NNSA kicks off contract process 
46 Oak Ridger: Our View: Study shines very positive light on local DOE
 
                          OTHER NUCLEAR
 
47 [du-list] 6/30 DU radio show (also online)  11-12 am
48 Google News Alert - nuclear
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Guardian Unlimited: Iraq WMD Hunt Gets New Operations Chief
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday June 30, 2004 11:16 PM

AP Photo MAC109 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The military officer running the hunt for 
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has been replaced in what 
officials described as a routine rotation. 

Brig. Gen. Joseph J. McMenamin, a Marine, took over as director 
of the Iraq Survey Group on June 12. He replaced Maj. Gen. Keith 
Dayton, who moved to a Pentagon job in the Army's hierarchy, 
according to the Pentagon. 

McMenamin runs day-to-day operations and reports to Charles 
Duelfer, who has the title of special adviser and sets strategy 
for the weapons hunt. Duelfer reports to Director of Central 
Intelligence George J. Tenet. 

The dozens of teams on the Iraq Survey Group have been conducting 
a largely fruitless hunt for evidence of Saddam Hussein's 
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. Those alleged 
programs served as the Bush administration's chief stated reasons 
for going to war. 

The survey group combines personnel from the CIA, Defense 
Intelligence Agency, military special operations forces and 
others. 

A report from the Iraq Survey Group is expected in August. 

Dayton becomes Director of Strategy, Plans and Policy, under the 
deputy chief of staff for operations at Army headquarters. 

McMenamin, who was commissioned in 1974, previously headed up the 
Marine basic training center at Parris Island, S.C. 
  
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
 2 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Koizumi to Normalize Ties with N.K. in Two Years   
 
      Updated Jun.30,2004 14:00 KST   
 
In Tokyo, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi told the
local media that he aims to normalize Japan's diplomatic
relations with North Korea within two years. 

Japanese media reports indicate that this marks the first time
Mr. Koizumi has given a specific time frame in normalizing
relations with North Korea. 

On Tuesday he told reporters at the Liberal Democratic Party
headquarters that Japan will move forward with the comprehensive
promises reached with the North regarding the abduction, nuclear
and missile issues to implement the 2002 Pyongyang Declaration
he signed with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. 

The declaration was signed during Mr. Koizumi's first visit to
Pyongyang in September 2002. 




*****************************************************************
 3 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: North Korea Indicates Willingness to Continue Talks on
 
      Updated Jun.30,2004 11:25 KST   
 


  An Indonesian official, after talks with North Korea's foreign
minister, says North Korea intends to continue talks over
dismantling its nuclear program. Indonesian Foreign Minister
Hassan Wirajuda said North Korea wants to resolve the Korean
peninsula crisis diplomatically. "North Korea would proceed with
this dialogue process with patience, flexibility and the
solutions of the substantive problems as a package," he said. 

Mr. Wirajuda made the comments Tuesday after meeting with North
Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam Sun. He quoted Mr. Paek as
saying the negotiations over Pyongyang's nuclear weapons
programs lack trust. 

Last week, North Korea attended a third round of talks with the
United States, South Korea, Japan, Russia and China. The U.S.
government said it would offer security guarantees to the North
and the other nations would pledge aid if Pyongyang abandoned
all efforts to build nuclear weapons. 

Little progress was made at the talks but the parties agreed to
meet again in a few months. 

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell is expected in Jakarta
later in the week for a meeting of the Asia Regional Forum. His
presence has led to speculation of a meeting with the North
Korea delegation. 

However, Indonesian Foreign Ministry spokesman Marty Natalegawa
said he knows of no such plans. "The [North Korean] foreign
minister disclosed that they are not actively seeking bilaterals
[meetings] with any country, but they are open to have meetings
with whomever wishes to meet with them," he said. 

Mr. Natalegawa said, however, that Mr. Paek will meet with the
South Korean foreign minister this week. 

Mr. Paek for his part thanked the Indonesians for their concern
over the matter. Mr. Paek said he appreciates the Indonesian
government's support and understanding for what he called North
Korea's reasonable proposal and principled stand on the issue. 

Indonesian officials also say they could host a reunion between
a Japanese woman who recently returned home after being abducted
years ago by North Korea and her American husband, who is still
in the North. The man is suspected of deserting the U.S.
military almost 40 years ago, and has been unwilling to join his
wife in Japan, fearing arrest by U.S. authorities. Japanese
officials say they want to meet with North Korea on the matter. 

Foreign ministers from Asian and Western nations are in
Indonesia for a meeting Wednesday of the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations. Regional security, economic integration
and the situation in Burma are high on the agenda. 

VOA News 

*****************************************************************
 4 Deseret news: Pressure mounts for nuclear tests
 	 
[deseretnews.com] 
 	
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
 	   	 
Does Britain want to join underground testing in Nevada?

By Lee Davidson Deseret Morning News

WASHINGTON — In another sign that
pressure is mounting to resume underground nuclear testing in
Nevada upwind from Utah, a British think tank now worries aloud
that Britain may want to join such testing to modernize its
aging nuclear stockpile.

       The British American Security Information Council (BASIC)
is calling on Parliament and Congress to look more closely at a
proposed 10-year extension of an agreement to share nuclear data
for "mutual defense purposes."

       Nigel Chamberlain, BASIC's nuclear analyst, said renewing
it without close questioning and outlining of goals may suggest
to the world that Britain and America are working on new and
better nuclear weapons while they are trying to prevent other
countries from developing any at all.

       "It is probably not the most effective for them to tell
others they ought not to acquire nuclear weapons, but we are
going on for another 10 years (of study on new weapons) no
matter what you are doing," he told the Deseret Morning News.

      In short, he worries it could lead to more nuclear arms
competition and would work against the Nuclear Proliferation
Treaty designed to stop that. His group and allies even plan
legal challenges to the Mutual Defense Agreement on those
grounds.

       Steve Erickson, spokesman for the Utah-based Citizens
Education Project anti-testing group, notes that the Nevada Test
Site was home to 24 joint British-U.S. underground nuclear tests
between 1962 and 1991. Before that, Britain conducted 21
open-air nuclear tests, primarily in Australia and the Pacific.

       Erickson notes that Britain and America jointly developed
and deployed warheads for Trident missiles launched from their
submarines. BASIC issued a report this month outlining numerous
signs from British leaders that they are considering updating
their Trident warheads, and may push for permission after the
next national elections.

       "I haven't seen anything about America wanting to update
its Tridents. We have talked more about developing mini-nukes
and bunker-busters," Erickson said. "But if the British want to
update the Trident, I would assume it would be a joint effort
since it was developed jointly."

       He added that the British agenda "would be another
pressure to resume testing. The United States and Britain have
never deployed a new system without testing it first. And that
does not mean just one test. Historically, it means a series of
several tests."

       Chamberlain's group is concerned that with the Trident
nearing the end of its intended life span, British scientists —
if the Mutual Defense Agreement is extended — may tap into the
development of smaller more usable weapons such as the mininukes
and bunker-busters receiving early study now by the Bush
administration.

       Although Britain has not yet decided to replace its
Trident missiles, officials have said it is keeping open a wide
range of options "for maintaining a nuclear deterrent
capability."

       The Mutual Defense Agreement, which President Bush sent
to Congress on June 15, is expected to pass Congress fairly
easily. "Realistically, politically, it is going to be renewed,"
Erickson said. "But in the context of what it does to nuclear
proliferation, it should be examined closely — and not just
rubber-stamped."

       All that is among many signs worrying Utah politicians
and activists that more nuclear testing upwind could be around
the corner. Others include that President Bush's budget called
for upgrades at the Nevada Test Site to a readiness level so
that testing, if ever needed, could resume within an 18-month
period.

       Budgets also beefed up work on the Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrator, a nuclear bunker-buster, and employment at Energy
Department labs. Some legislation in the House stripped funding
for the bunker buster, but competing legislation in the Senate
retains it.

       Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, during debate on the Defense
Appropriations Bill last week, presented letters from the
Defense and Energy departments saying the Bush administration
has no plans to resume underground nuclear testing.

       The letters, and dialogues on the Senate floor with
leaders of the Armed Services Committee, also said current law
would require a vote by Congress before any testing resumes.

       Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, is pushing a bill to make that
requirement more clear and to require detailed environmental
studies before any testing could resume — and close, independent
tracking of resulting radiation if it does.

E-mail: lee@desnews.com [lee@desnews.com] 
	 
 © 2004 Deseret News Publishing Company 
*****************************************************************
 5 BUSH: WMD intelligence meeting

                        FR Doc 04-14770 
[Federal Register: June 30, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 125)] 
[Notices] [Page 39481] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30jn04-73] [[Page 39481]]

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Office of Administration
 
Notice of Meeting of the Commission on the Intelligence 
Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass 
Destruction ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the 
United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction 
(``Commission'') will meet in closed session on Wednesday, July 
14, 2004, and Thursday, July 15, 2004, in its offices in 
Arlington, Virginia.

    Executive Order 13328 established the Commission for the 
purpose of assessing whether the Intelligence Community is 
sufficiently authorized, organized, equipped, trained, and 
resourced to identify and warn in a timely manner of, and to 
support the United States Government's efforts to respond to, the 
development of Weapons of Mass Destruction, related means of 
delivery, and other related threats of the 21st Century. This 
meeting will consist of briefings and discussions involving 
classified matters of national security, including classified 
briefings from representatives of agencies within the 
Intelligence Community; Commission discussions based upon the 
content of classified intelligence documents the Commission has 
received from agencies within the Intelligence Community; and 
presentations concerning the United States' intelligence 
capabilities that are based upon classified information. While 
the Commission does not concede that it is subject to the 
requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 
United States Code Appendix 2, it has been determined that the 
July 14-15 meeting would fall within the scope of exceptions 
(c)(1) and (c)(9)(B) of the Sunshine Act, 5 United States Code, 
Sections 552b(c)(1) & (c)(9)(B), and thus could be closed to the 
public if FACA did apply to the Commission.

DATES: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 (9 a.m. to 5 p.m.), and Thursday, 
July 15, 2004 (9 a.m. to 1 p.m.).

ADDRESSES: Members of the public who wish to submit a written 
statement to the Commission are invited to do so by facsimile at 
(703) 414-1203, or by mail at the following address: Commission 
on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding 
Weapons of Mass Destruction, Washington, DC 20503. Comments also 
may be sent to the Commission by e-mail at comments@wmd.gov 
[comments@wmd.gov] .

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brett C. Gerry, Associate 
General Counsel, Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of 
the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, by 
facsimile, or by telephone at (703) 414-1200. Victor E. Bernson, 
Jr., Executive Office of the President, Office of Administration, 
General Counsel. [FR Doc. 04-14770 Filed 6-29-04; 8:45 am]

*****************************************************************
 6 Pahrump Valley Times: Shoshone settlement not 'settled' 

June 30, 2004

By SAMANTHA YOUNG PVT WASHINGTON BUREAU 

WASHINGTON - The House voted June 21 to unlock more than $145 
million in Western Shoshone settlement funds; marking the closest 
the Indians have come to receiving payment for a million acres of 
land lost to western settlers.

 Legislation that has caused years of deep division among tribal 
members was passed by voice vote. It was sent to the Senate for 
what was expected to be quick and final approval. 

The uncontested House vote came as a surprise to some Western 
Shoshone who oppose the financial settlement. They had expected 
House Democrats to speak out against it. 

Instead, Democrats dropped their opposition after being lobbied 
by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who had spearheaded a settlement bill 
along with Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev. 

"It's been 30 years and it's time to pay our people the 
retribution they deserve," said Nancy Stewart, co-chair of the 
Western Shoshone Claims Steering Committee.

 "Our people are some of the most poverty stricken people in our 
great nation," said Stewart who is a member of the Fallon Western 
Shoshone Tribe.

 Reid wrote to House lawmakers last Friday, urging "swift 
consideration and passage" of the Western Shoshone bill and 
promising to work on outstanding land issues related to the 
settlement. 

Western Shoshone groups who have lobbied against compensation 
contend the settlement payments will extinguish tribal legal 
claims to their ancestral lands.

 "They are going to go ahead and start selling it to the gold 
mines and start shoveling the water to Las Vegas and shipping 
nuclear waste through Western Shoshone territory to Yucca 
Mountain," said Te-Moak tribal chairman Hugh Stevens

 Hours before the House vote, the National Congress of American 
Indians approved a resolution that Congress not "impose" a claims 
distribution bill upon any "tribe that has not consented to the 
settlement of its land claims." 

The resolution further stated Congress should direct the Interior 
Department to negotiate land disputes with the Western Shoshone 
before any compensation legislation is approved.

 "It's a very sad day for Indian rights, particularly for Western 
Shoshone who are struggling to hold onto their land rights," said 
Steve Tullberg, director of the Indian Law Resource Center. "It 
further complicates the ability of the Western Shoshone to get 
protection of the law and protection of their property rights."

 Gibbons said the bill would not preclude tribes from making land 
claims. In a speech, Gibbons pointed to tribal straw poll votes 
in 1998 and 2002 that indicated more than 90 percent of voters 
supported the payment.

 "It's overwhelmingly obvious the tribe wants these funds 
distributed," Gibbons said. 

Critics, however, have challenged the votes, maintaining the 
voter lists and the Bureau of Indian Affairs did not certify 
ballots as legitimate. 

Congress in 1979 allocated $26.1 million to the Western Shoshone 
at the direction of the Indian Claims Commission, which had 
determined the tribes should be compensated for land and 
resources lost because of gradual encroachment. The tribes were 
given an 1872 price for their land and minerals, about 15 cents 
an acre.

 The fund has since accumulated more than $145 million, which 
will be divided equally among eligible Western Shoshone. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs estimates about 6,000 would receive 
settlement money, however, Stewart said as few as 3,500 Western 
Shoshone could qualify for the settlement.

 Eligible recipients would be those living at the date of the 
bill's enactment, a U.S. citizen and at least a quarter Western 
Shoshone.

 Another $1.5 million would be set aside in an education trust 
fund for the tribes.

For comment or questions, please e-mail 
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com 
[webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com] Copyright © Pahrump Valley 
Times, 1997 - 2003 
*****************************************************************
 7 Pravda.RU: Terrorism poses a greater threat to world than nuclear weapons
 
[PRAVDA.RU]         Last update:07/01/2004 04:10 MSK     
        
 15:58 2004-06-30

 The secretary of Russia's Security Council believes that at the 
present time terrorism represents for the world a greater threat 
than nuclear weapons. Ivanov expressed this view in an interview 
with journalists as he replied to the question what should be 
considered the greatest menace to the human race. 

"Undoubtedly, it is international terrorism and everything linked 
with it," Ivanov said. 

He said that at their meeting on Tuesday Russian President 
Vladimir Putin and IAEA Secretary-General Mohamed Albaradei 
"discussed the strengthening of the regimes of non-proliferation 
of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)". 

"Appropriate decisions were also taken at the last summit of the 
Group of Eight, since mankind cannot give up the development of 
nuclear energy," Ivanov noted. 

After acknowledging that the danger of WMD proliferation remains, 
the Security Council secretary described as a common task "joint 
efforts to promote the non-proliferation regime". 

"Here we actively cooperate with all countries, with the IAEA, 
and take part in these processes of regulating the nuclear issue 
on the Korean peninsula and the nuclear problem around Iran. We 
will continue participating in this process," Ivanov said. 

He said that "Russia is categorically opposed to the emergence of 
states possessing nuclear weapons". 

"Loss of control over this process may lead to the most 
catastrophic consequences, but, of course, terrorism is more 
dangerous, because today the nuclear potential is under control. 
We know countries where such weapons may appear. But terrorists 
are invisible. We do not know where and when they can strike a 
blow, we do not yet have dependable preventive mechanisms of 
countering the terrorist threat," Ivanov explained. 

At the same time he thinks that "restrictive or forcible measures 
will not solve the problem". 

Ivanov called for a comprehensive approach in solving the 
problem: "First of all, it is necessary to look for the prime 
cause. Perhaps it is connected with the continuing 
intensification of social and economic inequality in the world 
(there are large zones with an economically unfavourable 
situation where people for a small payment become cannon fodder 
for terrorists)". 

"The second aspect concerns unsolved inter-ethnic and 
inter-confessional relations. We need a dialogue between 
civilisations. The third reason is the large number of unresolved 
regional conflicts. Iraq, for example, has turned into a centre 
of global terrorism, something it was not before the start of the 
war," Ivanov said. 

"Terrorism is a transboundary phenomenon. To combat it the 
international community should above all coordinate its efforts 
in information exchanges. Here too mutual trust is required. It 
is necessary to understand that we have a common opponent," 
Ivanov remarked. 

In his view, the war in Iraq has complicated the counteraction to 
terrorism. "Here everything is interconnected - drugs, crime, 
terrorism. They are to be cut down all together. An iron curtain 
is unlikely to solve the problem. Here the approach should be 
more serious, and, most important of all, on a collective basis," 
Ivanov emphasised. 

© RIAN

  Copyright ©1999 by "Pravda.RU [http://www.pravda.ru/] ". When
*****************************************************************
 8 WorldNetDaily: Yossef Bodansky on Farah show today
 
 JUNE 30 2004           
                                
 Leading terror expert to unveil stunning 'secret history'
behind Iraq war
 
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com 

Top terrorism expert Yossef Bodansky, featured guest today on 
Joseph Farah's  [http://www.radioamerica.org] will explain the 
astonishing secret history behind the current Iraq war. 

Bodansky is the former director of the Congressional Task Force 
on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare and author of several 
authoritative books, including 
[http://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDE 
PARTMENT_ID=106&ITEM_ID=263] in which he documents how Saddam 
Hussein supported al-Qaida for more than a decade. 

In his brand-new blockbuster book, 
[http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1620] Bodansky offers 
an astonishing new account of the current war and its aftermath – 
a war that was doomed from the start, he argues, by the massive 
and systemic failures of the American intelligence community. 
Drawing back the curtain of politicized debate, Bodansky reveals 
that nearly every aspect of America's conflict with Iraq has been 
misunderstood, in both the court of public opinion and the White 
House itself. 

Among the stunning revelations in Bodansky's new book: 


  + The most authoritative account of Saddam Hussein's support 
for Islamic terrorist organizations – including extensive new 
reporting on his active cooperation with al-Qaida in Iraq long 
after the fall of Baghdad
 


  + Extensive new information on Iraq's major chemical and
biological weapons programs – including North Korea's role in
building still-undetected secret storage facilities and Iraq's
transfer of banned materials to Syria, Iran and Libya
 


  + The first account of Saddam's plan for Iraq, Syria and Iran
to join Yasser Arafat's Palestinian forces to attack Israel,
throw the region into turmoil, and upend the American campaign
 


  + The untold story of Russia's attempt to launch a coup
against Saddam before the war – and how the CIA thwarted it by
ensuring that Iraq was forewarned
 


  + Dramatic details about Saddam's final days on the run,
including the untold story of a near-miss with U.S. troops and
the stunning revelation that Saddam was already in custody at
the time of his capture – and was probably betrayed by members
of his own Tikriti clan
 


  + The definitive account of the anti-U.S. resistance and
uprising in Iraq, as the American invasion ignited an Islamic
jihad and Iran-inspired intifada, threatening to plunge the
region into irreversible chaos fueled by hatred and revenge
 


  + Revelations about the direct involvement of Osama bin Laden
in the terrorism campaigns in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the rest of
the Middle East – including the major role played by Iran and
Hezbollah in al-Qaida's operations 

Drawing upon an extraordinary wealth of previously untapped
intelligence and regional sources, 
[http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1620] presents the
most detailed, fascinating and convincing account of the most
controversial war of our times – and offers a sobering
indictment of an intelligence system that failed the White
House, the American military, and the people of the Middle East. 

You can listen to "Joseph Farah's WorldNetDaily RadioActive"
live on more than 80 stations from coast to coast or listen on a
live-stream signal on the Internet. The program is broadcast
daily from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern. 

If you would like to know the affiliates closest to your area,
here's the e-mail address for inquiries: 
[listeners@radioamerica.org] 

If you'd like to call in to the show, dial 1-800-510-TALK. Every
day, callers who get through and contribute to the program are
given free copies of WND Books – including new books and some
best sellers. 

If you are a radio station general manager or program director
interested in the show, here's the e-mail address: 
[gmsandpds@radioamerica.org] .
 

 [http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1620] 

[WorldNetDaily.com] 

webmaster@worldnetdaily.com
--> news@worldnetdaily.com--> Contact WND
*****************************************************************
 9 Xinhuanet: Brazil asks for measures to protect nuclear industrial secrets

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2004-06-30 09:35:53   

    RIO DE JANEIRO, June 29 (Xinhuanet) -- The Brazilian 
government said Tuesday that it is "normal" for the United 
Nations to inspect its nuclear installations, but made it clear 
that the procedure has to be negotiated to protect the industrial 
secrets. 

    Brazilian Defense Minister Jose Viegas told the press that 
these types of inspections are envisaged in accords signed 
between Brazil and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 

    "It is necessary, however, to negotiate with the 
international agency the specific characteristics of future 
protection accords that will rule the inspections at the 
Resende's production units,"the minister was quoted as saying. 

    Viegas made the remarks during a meeting in Brasilia to 
discussan infrastructure and defense plan in an area bordering 
Colombia in Amazonas state. 

    Resende, located in the state of Rio de Janeiro, hosts a 
crude uranium enriching plant used to generate electricity in 
Brazil. 

    IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei had warned in an 
interview with Brazilian daily O Globo in Moscow that this 
country had to allow the inspection of its facilities at Resende. 

    "We have inspected uranium enriching centers in many 
countries without revealing any industrial secret. Brazil will 
not be the exception," ElBaradei said in the interview. 

    Since last year, Brazil has been negotiating an accord with 
the IAEA to allow inspections at Resende. 

    The Brazilian government stressed that the country's 
constitution bans the development of nuclear weapons and the 
country has proved many times that its nuclear project has 
peaceful goals. 

    ElBaradei said the IAEA is not concerned about the purpose of 
the Brazilian nuclear project, but only wishes to do its job. 

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 10 Hi Pakistan: No N-status for Pakistan and India, says China     --> 
 
June 30 2004     
 
NEW DELHI, June 29: China implicitly rejected on Tuesday the 
joint quest by India and Pakistan for legitimacy as nuclear 
powers, a move that could unsettle New Delhi's thinking on a 
collective nuclear doctrine involving the three Asian countries. 

"The international community should stick to the spirit and 
principles enshrined in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as 
well as the consensus reached in the UN Security Council 
resolution 1172," Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Shen Guofang 
told a group of Indian journalists in Beijing on Tuesday. 

The UNSC resolution 1172, passed soon after the tit-for-tat 
nuclear tests of 1998, had, among other things, condemned the 
tests as well as urged India and Pakistan to immediately stop 
their nuclear weapon development programmes, to refrain from 
weaponisation or from deployment of nuclear weapons. 

"In our region, we have seen many wars and conflicts, which have 
been either due to historical reasons or mutual non-confidence. 
So, we believe that peace and development should be the main 
principles and policies for the countries in this region," he was 
quoted by the Press Trust of India (PTI) as saying. 

Mr Shen said this when asked to comment on New Delhi and 
Islamabad's quest to be recognized as nuclear powers along with 
Britain, China, France, the United States and Russia. 

PTI said Mr Shen gave a similar response when asked for China's 
reaction to Indian Foreign Minister Kunwar Natwar Singh's 
statement that India, Pakistan and China should have a 'common 
nuclear doctrine'. 

"On principle, we oppose the proliferation of nuclear weapons. 
Our consistent position is for a comprehensive ban and thorough 
destruction of nuclear weapons. The NPT as well as the UNSC 
resolution 1172 should be our guiding principle," he said. 

Mr Shen welcomed the India-Pakistan peace initiatives and hoped 
that the dialogue would lead to the normalization of bilateral 
ties. "We welcome the improvement in India-Pakistan relationship 
as well as the confidence-building measures. 

We particularly welcome the confidence-building measures to 
enhance the security relationship between your two countries," he 
said. Replying to questions on China's response to the recent 
Proliferation Security Initiative, a move pushed by the United 
States, Mr Shen said that "China does not oppose the move, but it 
has a few concerns and would like to have more dialogues on this 
issue." 

He further said: "In principle, we are opposed to the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and we support any 
plan aimed at checking proliferation." 
					     							 				 				   				 				
      
Copyright 1996-2002 . Hi Pakistan. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 11 NEWS.com.au: Howard back at ASEAN summit 

(June 30, 2004)

By Rob Taylor

AFTER years in the cold, Australia's prime minister will be 
invited to a summit of South-East Asian leaders in Laos later 
this year to discuss Canberra's relationship with the region and 
a possible free trade pact.

But foreign ministers meeting in Jakarta rebuffed Australian 
hopes of a permanent role at the 10 member Association of 
South-East Asian Nations table and said the invitation to the 
ASEAN summit in Vientiane in November would be a one off.

 A statement issued by the meeting said the invitation would be 
"commemorative" to mark the 30th anniversary of diplomatic links 
between Australia and the region's premier political and economic 
grouping.

 "The commemorative summit is a one-off event, covering all 
issues of common concern," the statement said.

 Australian diplomats had been hoping to win a permanent place as 
an ASEAN dialogue partner following the retirement last year of 
long-time Malaysian leader Mahathir Mohamad, who bitterly opposed 
Canberra's efforts to integrate more closely with its neighbours. 

But Indonesia's ASEAN spokesman Marty Natalegawa said earlier 
this week that the fact an invitation was offered at all was 
proof Australia's relations with South-East Asia were not as bad 
as they were often painted.

 "I think in the past maybe there has been a bit of an 
over-gloomy picture of what the actual state of affairs has 
been," he said.

 Those relations reached a nadir in 2002 when several countries, 
including Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia, bristled at 
Prime Minister John Howard's threat to carry out preemptive 
strikes against potential threats in the region.

 Dr Mahathir warned Australia would be dealt with as a terrorist 
state if it did.

 The meeting in Laos will discuss a possible free trade deal 
between ASEAN, Australia and New Zealand as a counterweight to 
rising Chinese economic influence.

 Australia already has a trade pact with Singapore and will sign 
one with Thailand next week.

 Foreign Minister Alexander Downer was due to arrive in Jakarta 
tonight to push forward the idea of a region-wide deal, which was 
first raised during a meeting of ASEAN economic ministers in 
April.

 Before leaving to meet his Asian counterparts, Mr Downer said he 
would also use a regional security meeting on Friday to voice 
concerns about North Korea and the nuclear standoff on the Korean 
peninsula.

 "It is important that North Korea is encouraged to renounce 
nuclear weapons and re-engage with the international community," 
he said.

 The meeting of 25 foreign minister at the ASEAN Regional Forum 
will also be attended by US Secretary of State Colin Powell and 
North Korea's top envoy Paek Nam-sun.

 US officials said Powell was open to meeting Paek for the first 
time since they shared a coffee in 2002, while Pyongyang said it 
would be up to the Americans to make a request.

 Paek said he preferred to stick to six-nation talks on the 
crisis by September.

 Ending their one day meeting, ASEAN ministers agreed on a 
security pact to deal with terrorism and cross-border conflicts 
as part of efforts to forge a regional community by 2020.

 But Indonesia's suggestion of an ASEAN peacekeeping force was 
rejected amid suspicions such a force would interfere with the 
sovereignty of the often fractious member nations.

 Ministers also rejected international pressure to get tough with 
Burma over the military junta's refusal to release opposition 
leader Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest.

 Instead, the ministers said they "encouraged all concerned 
parties in Burma to continue their efforts to effect a smooth 
transition to democracy".                                                                       

AAP
 				 							 				 					 						 						
Copyright 2004 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT+10).                            
*****************************************************************
 12 AFP: Brazil discusses wider-ranging nuclear inspections with IAEA

 [http://www.spacewar.com/]

RIO DE JANEIRO (AFP) Jun 30, 2004

 Brazilian Defense Minister Jose Viegas said Wednesday that the 
government was negotiating a new agreement with the International 
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on inspecting a uranium-enrichment 
facility in Rio de Janeiro state.

Viegas did not specify what was being discussed or when an 
agreement could be reached.

But he stressed that Brazil has "never refused visits and 
inspections of its uranium-production facilities, and it never 
will."

The remarks followed a news report Tuesday stating that Brazil 
denied the UN nuclear watchdog access to a uranium-enrichment 
facility, claiming it needed to protect industry trade secrets.

The IAEA sought access to the facility in Resende, IAEA director 
Mohamed ElBaradei said in an interview in Moscow with the daily O 
Globo, published Tuesday.

ElBaradei told the daily that Brazil should not be an exception 
to IAEA norms. He said the IAEA needed to see the equipment 
itself because it was the only way to ensure that no uranium was 
being enriched beyond that which had been declared.

Brazilian authorities reportedly offered to allow the IAEA to 
weigh uranium leaving the facility.

  WAR.WIRE
*****************************************************************
 13 NRC: Notice of License Renewal Application for Safety Light 
 
                        FR Doc 04-14772 
[Federal Register: June 30, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 125)] 
[Notices] [Page 39515-39517] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30jn04-122]                         
 
Corporation, Bloomsburg, PA and Opportunity to Request a Hearing 
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Notice of license renewal applications request and 
opportunity to request a hearing.
 
DATES: A request for a hearing must be filed by August 30, 2004.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Prince, Division of 
Nuclear Materials Safety, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 
19406; telephone (610) 337-5376 or e-mail rjp4@nrc.gov 
[rjp4@nrc.gov] .
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) has received, by letter dated April 22, 2004, a 
request to renew NRC License Nos.
 
37-00030-02 and 37-00030-08 for the Safety Light Corporation 
(Safety Light or the licensee), Bloomsburg, PA. License Nos. 
37-00030-02 and 37-00030-08 authorize Safety Light to manufacture 
devices containing tritium at a facility
 
[[Page 39516]] located at 4150-A Old Berwick Road, Bloomsburg, 
PA, and to decommission portions of that same facility. These 
license renewals would authorize the continued manufacture of 
electron tubes, self-luminous devices, foils, targets, rods, and 
pins and the characterization and decommissioning of contaminated 
facilities, equipment and land.
 
An NRC administrative review, documented in a letter to Safety 
Light dated April 30, 2004, found the application acceptable to 
begin a review. If the NRC approves the amendment and renews 
these licenses, the approval will be documented in an amendment 
to NRC license Nos. 37- 00030-02 and 37-00030-08. If the NRC 
renews the license, the NRC will need to make the findings 
required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC's 
regulations. These findings will be documented in a Safety 
Evaluation Report. These license renewals appear to qualify for a 
categorical exclusion pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(14). II. 
Opportunity to Request a Hearing The NRC hereby provides notice 
that this is a proceeding on an application to renew NRC License 
Nos. 37-00030-02 and 37-00030-08, authorizing Safety Light to 
continue to manufacture electron tubes, self-luminous devices, 
foils, targets, rods, and pins and to characterize and 
decommission portions of its Bloomsburg facility. In accordance 
with the general requirements in Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 2, as 
amended on January 14, 2004 (69 FR 2182), any person whose 
interest may be affected by this proceeding and who desires to 
participate as a party must file a written request for a hearing 
and a specification of the contentions which the person seeks to 
have litigated in the hearing.
 
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(a), a request for a hearing must 
be filed with the Commission either by: 1. First class mail 
addressed to: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications; 2. Courier, express mail, and expedited delivery 
services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White 
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, 
Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, between 7:45 a.m. 
and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays; 3. E-mail addressed to the 
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
hearingdocket@nrc.gov [hearingdocket@nrc.gov] ; or 4. By 
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.
 
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b), all documents offered for 
filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all parties to 
the proceeding or their attorneys of record as required by law or 
by rule or order of the Commission, including: 1. The applicant, 
Safety Light Corporation, 4150-A Old Berwick Road, Bloomsburg, 
Pennsylvania 17815, Attention: Bill Lynch; and, 2. The NRC staff, 
by delivery to the Office of the General Counsel, One White Flint 
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, or by mail 
addressed to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hearing 
requests should also be transmitted to the Office of the General 
Counsel, either by means of facsimile transmission to (301) 
415-3725, or by e-mail to ogcmailcenter@nrc.gov [ 
ogcmailcenter@nrc.gov] . The formal requirements for documents 
contained in 10 CFR 2.304(b), (c), (d), and (e), must be met. 
However, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.304(f), a document filed by 
electronic mail or facsimile transmission need not comply with 
the formal requirements of 10 CFR 2.304(b), (c), and (d), as long 
as an original and two (2) copies otherwise complying with all of 
the requirements of 10 CFR 2.304(b), (c), and (d) are mailed 
within two (2) days thereafter to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
 
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b), a request for a hearing must 
be filed by August 30, 2004.
 
In addition to meeting other applicable requirements of 10 CFR 
Part 2 of the NRC's regulations, the general requirements 
involving a request for a hearing filed by a person other than an 
applicant must state: 1. The name, address and telephone number 
of the requester; 2. The nature of the requester's right under 
the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; 3. The nature and 
extent of the requester's property, financial or other interest 
in the proceeding; 4. The possible effect of any decision or 
order that may be issued in the proceeding on the requester's 
interest; and 5. The circumstances establishing that the request 
for a hearing is timely in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b). In 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1), a request for hearing or 
petitions for leave to intervene must set forth with 
particularity the contentions sought to be raised. For each 
contention, the request or petition must: 1. Provide a specific 
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or 
controverted; 2. Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the 
contention; 3. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the 
contention is within the scope of the proceeding; 4. Demonstrate 
that the issue raised in the contention is material to the 
findings that the NRC must make to support the action that is 
involved in the proceeding; 5. Provide a concise statement of the 
alleged facts or expert opinions which support the 
requester's/petitioner's position on the issue and on which the 
requester/petitioner intends to rely to support its position on 
the issue; and 6. Provide sufficient information to show that a 
genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of 
law or fact.
 
This information must include references to specific portions of 
the application that the requester/petitioner disputes and the 
supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the 
requester/petitioner believes the application fails to contain 
information on a relevant matter as required by law, the 
identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the 
requester's/petitioner's belief.
 
In addition, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(2), contentions 
must be based on documents or other information available at the 
time the petition is to be filed, such as the application or 
other supporting documents filed by the applicant, or otherwise 
available to the petitioner. Contentions may be amended or new 
contentions filed after the initial filing only with leave of the 
presiding officer.
 
Requesters/petitioners should, when possible, consult with
each 
other in preparing contentions and combine similar subject
matter 
concerns into a joint contention, for which one of the
co-sponsoring 
requesters/petitioners is designated the lead representative.
 
Further, 
in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(3), any requester/petitioner
that 
wishes to adopt a contention proposed by another
requester/petitioner 
must do so in writing within ten days of the date the contention
is 
filed, and designate a representative who shall have the
authority to 
act for the requester/petitioner.
 
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(g), a request for hearing
and/or 
petition for leave to intervene may also address the
 
[[Page 39517]]
selection of the hearing procedures, taking into account the
provisions 
of 10 CFR 2.310.
III. Further Information
Documents related to this action, including the applications
for 
renewals and supporting documentation, are available
electronically at 
the NRC's Electronic Reading Room 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]
.
 
From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide 
Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides
text and 
image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession
numbers for 
the documents related to this Notice are: Safety Lights renewal 
requests for NRC License No. 37-00030-02, ADAMS accession no. 
ML041310318: and NRC License No. 37-00030-08, ADAMS accession
no. 
ML041310328. 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 (800) 397-4209 or
(301) 
415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov [pdr@nrc.gov] .
These documents may also be viewed electronically on the
public 
computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O-1
F21, One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
 
The PDR 
reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. They are
also 
available for inspection and copying for a fee at the Region I
Office, 
475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA 19406.
 
Dated in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, this 23rd day of
June, 
2004.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Marie Miller,
Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials
Safety 
Region I.
 
[FR Doc. 04-14772 Filed 6-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 14 Hanford News: Ex-lawmaker marks restoration of defunct power plant

Home [http://www.hanfordnews.com]             
 	     	 	
Wednesday June 30th 2004

By Chris Mulick, Herald staff writer 

It's been years since the Hanford Generating Project has made 
headlines, and for that Energy Northwest celebrated Tuesday. 

After all, defunct power plants don't tend to generate much good 
news. 

Now nothing more than a pile of dirt in the middle of the desert, 
the steam plant has always been out of sight, long been out of 
commission and since then, out of mind. 

It's been almost 41 years since President Kennedy - in one of the 
most historic events in Tri-City history - waved an "atomic wand" 
to break ground on the facility. It's been 18 years since it 
churned out its last megawatt hour. The former Washington Public 
Power Supply System turned Energy Northwest, the U.S. Department 
of Energy and others have spent the past dozen years trying to 
bring it to the ground. 

The final load of dirt was dropped on remaining concrete and 
other buried junk May 19, culminating a complex site restoration 
project that largely went off without a snare. 

"You read in your paper all the difficulties with other Hanford 
items," Loren Oakes, an Energy Northwest project manager assigned 
to the facility since 1995, said before a ceremony to commemorate 
the effort Tuesday. "I want to say this one worked. It's good 
closure for everybody." 

The HGP commenced operation in 1966 but would soon become 
overshadowed by the consortium's failed nuclear construction 
campaign in the 1970s and 1980s. But at the time, its development 
was historic. 

Taking its steam from Hanford's N Reactor, the plant represented 
an unusual marriage between Cold War plutonium production and 
electric power for public consumption. 

"In the scheme of atomic power, that was pretty dramatic," said 
Sid Morrison, a former Central Washington congressman who now 
sits on Energy Northwest's executive board. 

At 860 megawatts, the project also was unusually large for a 
thermal power plant. It was just the fourth nuclear generator in 
the country. 

Though it produced electricity only when N Reactor was generating 
steam, the HGP also proved to be reliable, running 99 percent of 
that time. 

And for a still-fledgling consortium of public utilities 
organized to build and operate power plants, it was a thrust into 
legitimacy. The old Supply System's first-ever project that put 
it in business - a small hydroelectric facility near Packwood - 
still was six months away from commercial operation when Kennedy 
broke ground in the desert before 37,000 people. 

"It created credibility because it was a revenue producer," said 
Bob Ferguson, the WPPSS's managing director from 1980-83. 

It didn't take long for the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 to spell 
doom for N Reactor, which was deemed to be too similar. Unable to 
find another source of steam, the WPPSS allowed the HGP to go 
dormant with it. 

The utility began restoration negotiations with the federal 
government in 1992 but it wasn't until 1999 that crews would 
begin removing asbestos from exterior steam lines. Developing 
that restoration plan was complicated by the facility's tie to 
the federal government's N Reactor, making it subject to the 
Tri-Party Agreement, the legal pact that governs Hanford cleanup. 

That brought state agencies and Native American tribes to the 
table. 

"It was a mixed bag of trying to figure out who was going to do 
what," Oakes said. 

Energy Northwest and DOE managed to reach a demolition agreement 
in 2001 and proceeded to take the HGP down well within their 
budget and time expectations. 

Officials hailed the multi-agency collaboration Tuesday, holding 
it up as a model for other cleanup ventures. 

"This is something to really be proud of," said Vic Parrish, 
Energy Northwest's chief executive officer. "It's a good, strong 
statement."

© 2004 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 15 San Luis Obispo Tribune: NRC postpones meeting with Diablo managers

| 06/29/2004 | 

David Sneed

 The Tribune

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has postponed a meeting with 
Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant managers scheduled for Friday 
in Texas in order to hold it at a later date in San Luis Obispo 
County. 

No new date for the meeting has been announced. The NRC typically 
holds its normal business meetings at PG&E's community center on 
Ontario Road. 

The meeting will be an opportunity to discuss employee 
performance problems at the plant. Problems with troubleshooting 
and other safety issues were identified at a June 10 meeting in 
San Luis Obispo between the agency and PG&E. 

Friday's meeting was to be a follow-up to that meeting and was to 
be held at the agency's regional offices in Arlington, Texas. 
However, Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara, objected to the 
location, saying few county residents would be able to make the 
trip to Texas to attend. 

"It was illogical to me that these officials would hold a meeting 
on concerns with Diablo Canyon 1,600 miles away from the people 
affected by these problems," Capps said. 

Normal NRC meeting procedures allow the public to observe the 
meeting with time allotted for comments and questions from the 
public before the meeting adjourns.   

*****************************************************************
 16 FT: Oldest commercial nuclear plant closed down early  

  By Andrew Taylor, Utilities Correspondent  

  Published: June 30 2004 5:00 | Last Updated: June 30 2004 5:00
 
The world's oldest operating commercial nuclear power station has 
closed nine months earlier than planned because it can no longer 
"be justified commercially". 

The closure of the Chapelcross plant in Dumfries leaves four of 
the original 11 Magnox power stations, developed in the 1950s, 
still running. State-owned British Nuclear Fuels, which took over 
the stations, plans to close the remaining Sizewell A, Dungeness 
A, Oldbury and Wylfa plants by 2010.

Greenpeace, however, called on the group to bring forward the 
closure of the other plants. It said: "Some time ago BNFL 
acknowledged all its Magnox stations are loss makers but 
continued to squander taxpayer money in keeping them open. BNFL 
has at least now openly conceded that the balance sheet doesn't 
add up for Chapelcross any more."

The Magnox stations, so called because the fuel canisters were 
made of a magnesium alloy, have long exceeded their original 
design life of 25 years. The first-generation British nuclear 
power stations were much smaller than later advanced gas-cooled 
reactors and pressurised water reactors built by British Energy, 
the privately owned generator in the process of being rescued by 
the government.

Dr Bob Clayton, site manager at Chapelcross, said: "We have now 
reached the position at Chapelcross where we are clear that 
continuing to deploy the resources needed to maintain generation 
from the three remaining - by modern standards - relatively small 
reactors at this site cannot be justified commercially."

Chapelcross had a capacity of about 194MW compared with 1,200MW 
at British Energy's Sizewell B nuclear plant in Suffolk. All but 
one of British Energy's plants are also due to close by 2023, 
leaving just Sizewell B operating until 2035. The government has 
no plans to replace any of the nuclear capacity that last year 
generated more than 20 per cent of the country's electricity.

Chapelcross employs 400 workers who will be retained initially to 
help decommission the plant. It could take almost a century to 
decommission the reactor buildings and reclaim the site, said 
BNFL

The power station built on a former world war two airfield began 
commercial production in 1959. Over its lifetime it has produced 
enough electricity to power 15m homes for a year, or all the 
homes in Dumfries and Galloway for almost 200 years, said BNFL. 
The workforce has been paid, at today's prices, almost £1bn since 
the power plant opened.  
     
      © Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2004. "FT" and
"Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times. Privacy
*****************************************************************
 17 Brattleboro Reformer: Students quiz nuclear energy officials, opponents

[http://www.reformer.com/]   

June 30, 2004 Brattleboro, VT                                                                                 
 			 								 					
By CAROLYN LORIÉ Reformer Staff

BRATTLEBORO -- Addressing 52 high school students from around the 
state, Rob Williams, spokesperson for Entergy Nuclear Vermont 
Yankee, described the nuclear industry as intellectually 
challenging and central to providing the world with clean energy.

 Peter Alexander, executive director of the New England 
Coalition, called the nuclear industry "one big platter of 
deception that has been served to the American people."

 And so it went for over an hour at the Vermont Governor's 
Institute on Current Issues and Youth Activism, being held at the 
School for International Training.

 As part of the nine-day program, students listened to nuclear 
power advocates Williams and Howard Shaffer, a retired engineer 
who worked in the industry, debate Peter Alexander and Raymond 
Shadis, technical advisor to the coalition. 

General topics about nuclear power were discussed as were issues 
specific to Vermont Yankee. Although the debate had a formal 
structure, with time for arguments and rebuttal, students did 
have the opportunity to ask questions.

 And they had plenty.

 Everything from evacuation plans to the lost fuel rods to the 
proposed power uprate to spent fuel storage was brought up.

 "I was really impressed with the quality of the students' 
questions, their grasp of the issues and their enthusiasm for 
participation in the civic process " said Alexander.

 According to Simon Norton, program director of the institute, 
the debate was not to convince students to adopt a particular 
position.

 "Our goal was not simply to have a Yankee bashing," he said, but 
rather to entertain the question about how nuclear power fits 
into the scheme of things on a state, national and international 
level.

 "I thought it was very interesting," said Alexa McCallum junior 
from Mount Holly.

 McCallum said she came to the debate sympathetic to the 
anti-nuclear side and while she didn't change her position, she 
did say that Williams and Shaffer broadened her thinking.

 "Now I have a clearer understanding of why people might be 
pro-nuclear," she said, adding that "you can't make an educated 
decision with only one side."

 After the talk, Williams, Shaffer, Shadis and Alexander had 
lunch with the students and the discussions continued through the 
meal.

 "Those students are very inquisitive," said Williams. "This was 
a good opportunity to hear both sides of the issue."

 According to Shaffer, the lunchtime conversation expanded from 
nuclear power to wind power to oil consumption to the war in 
Iraq.

 Which was the point of the debate, said Norton.

 "We're aiming to start conversations," he said. "The long term 
goal of the whole institute is that students become socially and 
politically active in their own communities."

       Copyright ©1999-2004 New England Newspapers, Inc., a 
*****************************************************************
 18 Citizens Voice: 5 detained near Salem nuclear plant                     
 	 			 							 							
Wednesday 30 June, 2004
  
  
By Heidi E. Ruckno  Citizens' Voice Staff Writer
                    
Federal and state authorities reported Tuesday that several men 
of Middle Eastern descent were driving around the Berwick and 
Shickshinny areas Tuesday looking for the nuclear power plant in 
Salem Township.                                                  

The five men, four from Bangladesh and another of Pakistani 
descent, were reportedly seen at the Delaware Water Gap rest area 
along Interstate 80 around 8:20 a.m. They were also spotted in 
Bloomsburg, Columbia County.
 
State police said they were asking directions to the river near 
the plant because they wanted to go fishing. Their minivan was 
pulled over by state police in Shickshinny around 11 a.m. on U.S. 
Route 11 in Salem Township, four miles south of the Susquehanna 
Steam and Electric Power Plant.
 
According to federal and state authorities, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation was notified. Because of visa issues, two of the 
five men were detained by immigration authorities.
 
"We did stop and detain five individuals, who were believed to be 
of Middle Eastern descent, because of suspicious activity," FBI 
special agent Jerri Williams said. Their van was searched Tuesday 
and authorities did not find anything illegal.
 
All five men were released Tuesday evening. Williams said Tuesday 
that there was no cause for alarm, as authorities did not find 
any links to terrorist activity.
 
Both the Luzerne County Emergency Management Agency and power 
plant security were notified about the incident. When asked if 
the power plant had taken any special precautions, EMA operations 
and training officer Steve Bekanich said he couldn't speak for 
the plant.
 
Power plant spokesperson Joseph Scopelliti said he knew of no 
procedural changes resulting from the incident. "I know of 
nothing different," Scopelliti said. "I've seen state police 
vehicles up and down the highway, but that's every day. We were 
made aware by state police that there was a concern."
 
According to Scopelliti, security at the plant is normally very 
tight. He said that every employee must have proper 
identification or they will not be allowed on the grounds, and 
that all unknown people and vehicles and are searched and 
X-rayed.
 
"We're ready 24-7," Scopelliti said. "We're not sitting back 
waiting for something. Everyone that comes up here must have a 
business reason to come up."
 
©The Citizens Voice 2004                                          

*****************************************************************
 19 SouthofBoston.com: Entergy in a nuclear tap dance

By Gregg Gethard
 
THE PATRIOT LEDGER [http://ledger.southofboston.com] 

MPG Newspapers 9 Long Pond Rd. Plymouth, MA 02360 (508) 746-5555 
            
MPG Newspapers

PLYMOUTH - Port Gibson is a small Mississippi town of less than 
2,000 residents, lying on the Mississippi Delta. It has a 
population nearly 85 percent black, nearly a third of whom fall 
below the poverty level.

America's Hometown lies on Cape Cod Bay. More than 95 percent of 
its population is white with 4.4 percent of it falling below the 
poverty level.

In terms of socio-economics, both communities are polar 
opposites. The one thing these communities share is nuclear 
power. Entergy owns plants in both communities. The company would 
like to build a new nuclear reactor, known as Grand Gulf, at the 
Mississippi site. In its application to the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) the company lists Plymouth's Pilgrim Station as 
an alternative site.

The NRC, the federal government agency charged with overseeing 
the country's nuclear industry, is weighing Entergy's 
application. Also involved in the process of determining the 
future of Grand Gulf are a myriad of groups - from large 
corporate entities such as Entergy to national public interest 
groups and local watchdogs.

It has also thrust both communities, despite their divergence, 
smack dab in the middle of the debate over America's future 
energy policy - a conversation which shapes topics ranging from 
the environment to global affairs to national security.

The short term

The Grand Gulf reactor came online in 1985. At first, cooperation 
between plant operators and the local community went well. Rural 
Claiborne County received $20 million a year in tax revenues from 
the plant.

But that soured in 1990, when the Mississippi state legislature 
changed a law and required all of the tax revenues garnered from 
the nuclear power plant to be split among 44 other counties 
serviced by Entergy Mississippi, the area's major energy 
provider. This reduced Claiborne County's revenues to $8 million 
a year.

Currently, Entergy pays Plymouth more than $2 million a year in 
tax revenues, part of a deal negotiated with the town when it 
purchased the plant. The former owner, Boston Edison, paid $15 
million a year in taxes under old rules before deregulation. 
Boston Edison still pays real estate taxes on a decreasing scale 
which disappears in July of 2007.

The Mississippi tax split has caused anger among some residents 
of Claiborne County.

"We do not have funds for emergency preparedness, for planning," 
A.C. Garner, a spokesman for the Claiborne County chapter of the 
NAACP said. "It's a problem here. We do not have the necessary 
personnel in case there was an incident at Grand Gulf."

Garner sites examples of fire stations being closed and police 
departments lacking the requisite equipment needed in case of an 
emergency at Grand Gulf.

What has caused the redistribution of money, Garner says, is 
"environmental racism."

"We feel as though the state of Mississippi has discriminated 
against us," Garner said. "They don't feel like we should have 
$16 to $20 million a year coming to us from taxes. We have not 
had a good experience with their first unit."

Claiborne County administrator James Miller, however, has come 
out in favor of Entergy's proposal for a second plant, claiming 
it would give this part of southwestern Mississippi much needed 
economic development.

"What we are hoping now, is once the second unit is built, we 
will be able to position ourselves to take advantage of the 
revenues generated at the second unit," Miller said. "It would 
improve the quality of life in the area. We could hopefully build 
a new school and try and recruit some of the best teachers around 
to come work in our school system. We have taken the position 
that these are important revenues which we could use to create a 
quality education system that will produce good citizens."

Entergy spokesman Carl Crawford said the company investigated all 
eight of its nuclear sites - including Pilgrim Station, 
eliminated from consideration, he says, because of state 
environmental restrictions - to determine a primary site for a 
new reactor.

Entergy currently seeks from the NRC the approval of an "Early 
Site Permit," which would allow the company the right to build on 
the Grand Gulf site. As part of the application process, the 
company must develop potential alternate sites, one of which is 
Pilgrim Station.

The NRC is taking testimony from people with an interest in 
Entergy's application. A decision on the Early Site Permit will 
not be made until 2006.

The company settled on seeking to build a new reactor at Grand 
Gulf, originally planned to hold two reactors, because of cost 
concerns.

"We have plenty of vacant land and we've spent hundreds of 
millions of dollars for high voltage lines that are sufficient to 
carry two units but have only been used for one," Crawford said. 
"Because we've had so much investment in Grand Gulf, it has 
turned out to be the cheapest site in the long run."

Pilgrim went online in 1972. Like Grand Gulf, its design includes 
the capacity for a second reactor.

The Long Term

Entergy is not alone in proposing a new nuclear reactor. Two 
other companies have proposed to build reactors on sites where 
they currently operate nuclear power plants. Exelon proposes one 
in Illinois, Dominion proposes one in Virginia.

These are the first applications for new nuclear sites since 
1978.

In addition, a group of nuclear energy companies, including 
Entergy, and vendors have formed a consortium called NuStart. 
This consortium has filed a proposal with the NRC seeking to gain 
approval for a construction and operating license, a step which 
will allow the group to design a new nuclear reactor.

In press releases, NuStar consortium members have said they have 
not committed to actually building a new reactor. But if the NRC 
does approve NuStar's license, any of the participating companies 
could then build a plant at an approved site.

The department of energy has offered to split the cost of 
preparing a construction and operating license, according to 
published reports.

All of this work is being done anticipating construction on a new 
nuclear reactor could start by the year 2010.

The reason for the push, industry members say, is to reduce 
America's dependence on foreign energy sources.

"In general, there is a need for economical, environmentally 
safe, stable electricity," Melanie Lyons, a spokesman for the 
Nuclear Energy Institute, a pro-nuclear industry policy group 
based in Washington D.C., said.

According to the NEI, about 20 percent of the nation's 
electricity comes from nuclear energy, making it the second 
leading provider of energy in the country. The biggest source for 
energy is oil which, according to Crawford, is responsible for 
providing between 60 and 70 percent of our nation's energy. 
Quickly growing, however, is natural gas. Crawford said about 17 
percent of the nation's energy supply comes from generators 
powered by natural gas.

Of course, natural gas and oil largely come from international 
sources.

"What's the best for our country?" Crawford said. "We can 
continue to burn oil that comes from the Middle East and fight 
wars over it or we can build nuclear plants that are run with 
nuclear fuel and compete with the rest of the world. All we're 
building is power plants that make electricity by burning natural 
gas. We seem to be committing ourselves to a very shaky energy 
future. I do not want my quality of life committed to a foreign 
country selling us natural gas."

The current administration has also pushed nuclear energy 
development as a way for the country to wean its dependence on 
foreign oil. In a speech to high school students in Michigan in 
late May, President Bush touted the development of nuclear 
energy.

But nuclear energy has its opponents.

Those opposed to nuclear energy cite safety issues as a primary 
reason to not build more reactors.

"We're unabashedly opposed to nuclear energy," Paul Gunter of the 
Nuclear Information Resource Service said. "We're particularly 
concerned since this industry has been commercially operational 
for 50 years, and they still don't know what to do with the first 
cup full of nuclear waste."

Currently, nuclear waste at power plants is stored on the nuclear 
power plant sites. While the fuel going into the reactor is 
stable, the spent fuel rods are the basic ingredient for nuclear 
bombs.

The government has proposed a national site for spent fuel 
disposal at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The project is currently 
under review by the NRC.

Gunter also cited terrorism threats as a reason to oppose the 
development of more nuclear energy.

"In a post-9/11 atmosphere, we couldn't think of a more insecure 
way to generate electricity than to continue to rely on nuclear 
power," Gunter said. "They are pre-deployed weapons of mass 
destruction that can be turned on us as radiological weapons."

Nuclear energy is also not as clean as industry officials 
maintain, according to critics.

"Uranium mining is very polluting," said Michele Boyd of Public 
Citizen, a non-profit public interest group founded by Ralph 
Nader in 1970. The group has opposed the recent movement in the 
nuclear industry. "Cradle to the grave, it's not very clean." 

MPG Newspapers, 9 Long Pond Rd., Plymouth, MA 02360 Telephone: 
(508) 746-5555
*****************************************************************
 20 AU ABC: Russia builds nuclear power plant for Iran
 
"Australian Broadcasting Corporation 
[http://www.abc.net.au/]     

Transcript
 
This is a transcript from The World Today. The program is
broadcast around Australia at 12:10pm on ABC Local Radio. 

The World Today - Wednesday, 30 June , 2004  12:22:00
 
Reporter: Emma Griffiths

 ELEANOR HALL: While the United States battles to win hearts and 
minds in Iraq, in neighbouring Iran, Russia is making important 
diplomatic and economic inroads. Russia is building the Islamic 
state's first nuclear power plant in a deal worth $800 million 
and thousands of jobs. 

While the work is a big money spinner for Moscow, Russia has been 
under pressure from the UN's nuclear energy agency, which is 
unhappy with elements of Iran's nuclear program.

But as Moscow Correspondent Emma Griffiths reports, Russia has 
vowed to finish the job and provide nuclear power to Iran early 
next year. 

EMMA GRIFFITHS: At his country residence, west of Moscow, Russian 
President Vladimir Putin met with the UN's atomic energy chief, 
Mohamed El Baradei, and vowed to support the agency's work. It's 
a prestigious, mighty organisation with a very important 
function, he said. 

Its functions at the moment include looking into the nuclear 
ambitions of one of Russia's commercial partners in the field – 
Iran. The international atomic energy agency has been 
investigating Iran's nuclear program for more than a year. 

The United States claims Iran is secretly building a nuclear 
bomb. Iran insists its program is purely for civilian purposes.

Mr El Baradei admits the agency has hit a few "stumbling blocks" 
in its investigation. It hit another one recently, with Iran's 
decision to produce parts that can be used to enrich uranium – a 
key step in making a nuclear bomb. 

With that decision, more questions were raised about Iran's plans 
and Russia's commercial involvement with the Muslim state. It's 
building Iran's first nuclear power plant near the southern port 
city of Bushehr. 

The United States has previously accused Iran of using the plant 
as a cover for its nuclear weapons program.

The international atomic energy agency regularly inspects the 
Bushehr plant and after his meeting with President Putin, Mohamed 
El Baradei gave the project the all-clear. 

MOHAMED EL BARADEI: Bushehr is a bilateral project between the 
Russian Federation and Iran. Bushehr is not currently at the 
centre of international concern because Bushehr is a project to 
produce nuclear energy and agreement that the spent fuel which 
could be of concern, will be returned back to Russia. 

EMMA GRIFFITHS: But there are other links between Russia and Iran 
fuelling international concerns. In February, nuclear energy 
agency inspectors found evidence that highly enriched uranium 
taken from nuclear machinery in Iran had come from Russia – not 
through official channels but through the black market. 

Russia insists its nuclear materials are secure and it's intent 
on expanding its export business in nuclear power technology. 

Industry chief, Alexander Rumyantsev, says Russia will keep an 
eye on Iran's cooperation with inspectors, but he sees no reason 
to drop the Bushehr deal.

ALEXANDER RUMYANTSEV (translated): Iran cooperates effectively 
with the IAEA (international Atomic Energy Agency) by showing 
transparency and signing an additional protocol on its nuclear 
program. It has the right to international assistance to develop 
peaceful nuclear energy.

EMMA GRIFFITHS: Mr Rumyantsev is planning a visit to Tehran in 
the next couple of months. He's hoping to win another contract 
for Russia to build Iran's second power station and boost his 
government's coffers by another several hundred million dollars. 

This is Emma Griffiths in Moscow For The World Today. [ border=]     

[http://www.abc.net.au/privacy.htm] 
*****************************************************************
 21 Guardian Unlimited: MoD closes nuclear power plant
 
Paul Brown
Wednesday June 30, 2004
The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk]  		
 		
Chapelcross, Britain's only remaining military nuclear power 
station, is being closed because it is uneconomical to repair, 
British Nuclear Fuels announced yesterday. 

The station at Dumfries, which employs 535 people, opened in 1959 
and was used to make plutonium for Britain's nuclear weapons 
programme. It has produced electricity for 45 years. 

More recently, with the UK having excess plutonium, the station 
has been used to produce tritium, which helps Trident missiles 
work to maximum efficiency. Tritium is a relatively unstable 
radioactive substance and has to be replaced in weapons every 
seven years. Since there are no other manufacturing facilities in 
the UK the government may have to find an alternative source. 

Yesterday the Ministry of Defence said there were sufficient 
stocks for the forseeable future. 

The station has four reactors, one of which has been out of 
action since 2001, when 24 fuel elements were accidentally 
dropped down a shaft during refuelling. 

During recovery operations it was found that graphite blocks 
central to the construction were shrinking. This was distorting 
the fuel channels and caused concern that fuel might get stuck in 
the reactor or, in the event of an emergency, that the control 
rods that shut it down could not be inserted quickly. 

It was eventually decided that it was too expensive to solve the 
problem and so the station would have to close. 

It had been hoped to keep it open until 2010. Paul Brown 
	
 	
        Special report The nuclear industry

Graphics The Mox ships' journey around the world (pdf) 
[http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2002/09 
/17/nuclear_ship.pdf] Nuclear map of Britain US nuclear map

Useful links British Energy [http://www.british-energy.com/] 
Department of Trade and Industry [http://www.dti.gov.uk/] British 
Nuclear Fuels Ltd [http://www.bnfl.co.uk/website.nsf/default.htm] 
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament [http://www.cnduk.org/] 
Greenpeace [http://www.greenpeace.org/homepage/] HSE nuclear 
glossary [http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/ilrwglos.htm] UK atomic 
energy authority [http://www.ukaea.org.uk/] National Radiological 
Protection Board [http://www.nrpb.org.uk/] Friends of the Earth 
[http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/press_for_change/dump_nuc 
lear/index.html] World Nuclear Association 
[http://www.uilondon.org/] World Nuclear Transport Institute 
[http://www.wnti.co.uk] 

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
 22 WTNH.com: Call to close Millstone
    
   June 30, 2004       

by Tina Detelj   

(Waterford-WTNH, June 30, 2004 Updated 6:10 PM ) _ Some bold 
allegations tonight from folks who say the Millstone Nuclear 
Power Plant causes cancer.

The group which is opposed to the plant's license renewal, making 
those claims in New London today. + by News Channel 8's Tina 
Detelj

The group is called the Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone 
and it claims there are cancer clusters near the Waterford plant. 

Whether or not that means there is a connection depends on who 
you ask.

Across the bay from this crowded beach sits the Millstone Nuclear 
Power Plant. It is seeking a license renewal to operate for at 
least three more decades and these folks want to stop it.
Milton Burton, lost wife to cancer, says,"I live in the area 
called Cancer Alley in Waterford."

Milton Burton lost his wife June to cancer. He and Cynthia Besade 
say the Waterford plant made their loved ones sick.

Besade, lost father to cancer, says,"It's very ironic that as a 
activist he was taken down by the very thing that he fought so 
very hard to protect the public from."

Cynthia Besade's dad Joe was a pipe fitter turned whistle blower 
at Millstone. He claimed his cancer was caused by exposure to low 
levels of radiation at the plant. He lost his battle with cancer 
- so today she spoke about it in front of the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission.

"Another kind of cooling system could be used at Millstone."

The NRC held this hearing for the Connecticut Coalition against 
Millstone which claims the cancer rate in new London county is 
the highest in the state for women and the second highest for men 
and blames the nuclear plant.

Peter Hyde, Millstone Nuclear Power Plant, says,"There is no 
science here behind these allegations."

Peter Hyde says Millstone operates within all the NRC's 
regulations.

Hyde says,"The Connecticut Department of Health has studied this 
issue and they have found that there is no correlation between 
Millstone and cancer clusters in New London County."

Apparently some people are not too alarmed by these cancer 
concerns.

Jane Contillo has no problem bringing her daughters to this beach 
just across Niantic Bay from Millstone. 

Contillo says,"I'm not very concerned about it at all. Not 
really. I haven't heard anything that's really concerned me yet."

The licenses for the two units at Millstone expire in 2015 and 
2025.

The plant is seeking to renew those licenses for another twenty 
years each.

[http://www.worldnow.com]     Content © Copyright 2000 - 2004
WorldNow, WTNH, and Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 23 Sofia Morning News: Russia Stores Bulgarian Spent Fuel by 2007
 	 	 	 	 	 	
[Sofia News Agency]

novinite.com
                                                
Politics: 30 June 2004, Wednesday.

Russia's TVEL contract with Bulgaria for storing spent fuel from 
its only nuclear power plant will expire in 2007. 

The company holds 17% of the market for nuclear fuel for nuclear 
power plants in the world and has a turnover of USD 1 B. 

At the beginning of June reports said that Russia has received 
tons of used nuclear waste from Bulgaria's Kozloduy.[ width=] 

Click here to receive realtime news about this topic in the
future.

 All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2004 - Copyright

Novinite.com (thebulgariannews.com also) is unique with being a
real time news provider in English that informs its readers
about the latest Bulgarian news. The editorial staff also
*****************************************************************
 24 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety to Meet July 7 - 9 in Rockville, Maryland
 
News Release - 2004-08 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 04-080     June 30, 2004   

The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Advisory Committee on
Reactor Safety will hold a public meeting on July 7 - 9, 2004,
in Rockville, Md. The Committee will discuss, among other items,
the NRC staffs final safety evaluation report on a new
Westinghouse reactor design and a draft final generic letter to
licensees regarding possible clogging of the reactor building
sump at pressurized water reactors during design-basis
accidents. 

The meeting will be held in Room T-3B2 of the agencys Two White
Flint North building, at 11545 Rockville Pike. It will begin at
8:30 a.m. each day, and all discussions will be open to the
public. 

A complete agenda will be available on the NRCs Web site at
this address:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/agenda/2004/.
For additional information, please contact Sam Duraiswamy at
301-415-7364 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.   



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, June 30, 2004 	   
*****************************************************************
 25 [DU-WATCH] The UN, Ukraine in Iraq
 
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 01:28:52 -0500 (CDT)

 
Source:
http://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews.shtml?/20040626200632.shtml

26 June 2004
Kofi Annan requests the Ukraine to protect the UN personnel in Iraq.
RBK 26.06.2004, Kiev 20:06:32

Following up a meeting with the UN Secretary-General K.Annan in New 
York, the Ukraine's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Kostyantyn 
Grischenko informed of Mr. K.Annan's request to consider the Ukraine 
participating in the UN personnel's protection unit in Iraq.        

Minister suggested,that the Ukrainian military activities in Iraq 
brought about an acceptance of the Ukraine as "a top-rank expert" in 
both NATO (the USA inclusively), and the UN.     

Mr. K.Grischenko noticed, that the Ukraine must also "tackle tasks of 
implementing the national economics interests" in Iraq, but 
it "should be a parallel process, no special conditions and pressure 
involved".    

The ANHAM, where the Ukraine is a business partner, was already 
granted a $ 120mln. contract to upgrade new Iraqi forces and police 
ammunition. The Ukraine is in charge of 65% of a project, which are 
$78 millions.

(Non-official translation from Russian)

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/Sj.0lB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

[Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
 26 [du-list] UAE bans scrap metal imports over nuclear fear
 
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:46:07 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
UAE bans scrap metal imports over nuclear fears

<http://www.planetark.org/mail_dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=21295>Mail this 
story to a friend | 
<http://www.planetark.org/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=21295>Printer 
friendly version

UAE: June 26, 2003


DUBAI - The United Arab Emirates banned the import of scrap metal for two 
years to keep out any radioactive materials looted from Iraq's nuclear 
complex, the official WAM news agency reported yesterday.


It said the cabinet approved a proposal to stop radioactive materials from 
reaching the UAE in the form of scrap.

"As a precautionary measure against potential radioactive contamination, 
the ministry of electricity and water recommended the two-year ban," WAM said.

The UAE was a main trading partner with Iraq before U.S.-led forces toppled 
Saddam Hussein's government in April.

Looters plundered the Tuwaitha nuclear complex, about 25 km (16 miles) 
south of Baghdad, in the chaotic aftermath of Saddam's fall. Radioactive 
and toxic material is now scattered around the area, experts say.

The United States and its allies invaded Iraq in March citing the imminent 
danger posed by Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, including a 
nuclear weapons programme. They have so far failed to find any weapons of 
mass destruction.


REUTERS NEWS SERVICE


----------
<http://g.msn.com/8HMBDE/2752??PS=47575>Sehen, wer online ist - mit dem MSN 
Messenger!

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
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129qltlgk/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=1705083269:HM/EXP=1088693880/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http://companion.yahoo.com>68dc6.jpg
68e04.jpg


----------
Yahoo! Groups Links
    * To visit your group on the web, go to:
    * 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
    *
    * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    * 
<mailto:du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 

    *
    * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the 
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

</x-flowed>


Attachment Converted: 68dc6.jpg: 00000001,6ffd61f3,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 68e04.jpg: 00000001,6ffd61f4,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
 27 Nuclear Waste Piling Up at Russia's Overloaded Facilities 
 
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:43:39 -0400

 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vladimir Slivyak" <ecodefense@online.ru>
To: "NUKE WASTE List" <nuke-waste@igc.topica.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 7:09 AM
Subject: Nuclear Waste Piling Up at Russia's
Overloaded Facilities

  Report (in English) that mentioned in article
can be downloaded from
http://www.antiatom.ru/download/040615.htm
-----------------------------

Nuclear Waste Piling Up at Russia's Overloaded
Facilities

MOSCOW, Russia, June 23, 2004 (ENS) - The Russian
government's three year
old program to enter the nuclear waste
reprocessing business is failing to
attract customers, but even so, the country's
inadequate storage and
reprocessing facilities cannot handle the
radioactive waste that is being
sent there, according to new research by the
anti-nuclear organization
Ecodefense.

At a time when the G8 and the United States want
to stop the spread of
uranium and plutonium, Russia plans to produce
more of these materials, say
the report's authors Vladimir Slivyak and Alisa
Nikoulina. Making clear
their opposition to the Russian import of other
countries' nuclear fuel, the
authors say Russian policy is, in fact, the
reprocessing of imported nuclear
waste, and the extraction of plutonium from it.
President Vladimir Putin signed three laws to
allow spent fuel imports into
Russia in the spring of 2001, over the opposition
of the vast majority of
Russian citizens, according to ROMIR Research
Group, an independent Russian
public opinion and market research agency
affiliated with the U.S. based
Gallup Group.

According to 2001 public opinion polls, 93 percent
of Russian citizens
opposed the import of spent nuclear fuel.

A poll in 2002 found that about 90 percent of
Russians fear nuclear energy.
In 2002, on the 16th anniversary of the explosion
and fire at the Chernobyl
nuclear reactor, protest actions against importing
spent nuclear fuel were
held in 82 Russian cities.

In 2001, the Russian Ministry for Atomic Power,
Minatom, claimed the waste
import plan would be a good business move for
Russia and estimated it would
bring in US$20 billion in business over the next
10 years.
"According to these calculations," the Ecodefense
report states, "the first
two years of import should have made profit of
about $4 billion. However, in
2001-2003 Minatom earned on operations with
foreign spent nuclear fuel only
$100 million, which is 40 times less than
estimated."

Minatom has only those clients whom it had had
before the legislation was
changed, while negotiations aimed at attracting
new clients have been
unsuccessful. Russia's biggest nuclear waste
client, Ukraine, is now
organizing spent nuclear fuel storage on its own
territory and may stop
sending its spent fuel to Russia as soon as in
2005.

The report stresses that Russian nuclear waste
facilities are in poor
condition and that the transportation of spent
nuclear fuel involves high
risks for the countries on the route. The two
major facilities working with
spent nuclear fuel - Mayak and Krasnoyarsk-26 -
are economically ineffective
and, far from standing on their own economically,
are 50 percent subsidized
by the government.

Mayak, near Ozersk City in Russia's Chelyabinsk
region, is the country's
only spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facility,
while Krasnoyarsk-26, in
Zheleznogorsk, stores spent fuel but does not
reprocess it.

Russian nuclear warheads are reprocessed at Mayak
as well as spent nuclear
fuel. Here, highly enriched uranium (HEU) warhead
components are machined
into metal shavings. The shavings are heated and
converted to an HEU oxide
on their way to becoming reactor fuel. (Photo
courtesy NNSA)

The Russian nuclear industry has space enough to
store 2,000 to 2,500 metric
tonnes of spent nuclear fuel, Slivyak and
Nikoulina say, which is not enough
to provide for even a single large international
contract, given that
Russian spent nuclear fuel must also be stored at
Mayak and Krasnoyarsk-26.

Still, Ada Amon, director of the Hungarian NGO
Energy Club, points out that
on April 30, the day before Hungary became a full
member of the European
Union, the Hungarian government announced that an
agreement had been signed
with Russia that allows Hungary to transport to
and store spent nuclear fuel
in Russian facilities.

"This is a clear manifestation of the hypocrisy
around any nuclear issue and
also demonstrates the so-called openness of the
nuclear industry as well as
the respective governments to any real public
discussion on the problems
connected to nuclear waste does not exist," said
Amon, who is in Budapest
for the Fourth Ministerial Conference on
Environment and Health opening
today.

The Hungarian nuclear waste would be transported
by train to the Mayak
complex. In 1997, Minatom signed a contract to
import 3,500 spent nuclear
fuel assemblies from Hungary, though later the
Russian Supreme Court
nullified the deal. Nevertheless, Hungarian
nuclear waste is still stored at
Mayak awaiting final disposal, Slivyak and
Nikoulina explain.

Security around Russian nuclear waste facilities
is very low, they warn. Any
country sending nuclear waste to Russia must
understand that there is a high
risk that the waste might end up in the hands of
terrorists and could be
used for weapons of mass destruction. Also, the
transport of spent nuclear
fuel is vulnerable to terrorist attack, say
Slivyak and Nikoulina.

"The transport of spent nuclear fuel - which also
contains plutonium -
should be halted," Slivyak says, and "the export
of EU nuclear waste to
Russia should not even be considered."

But European nuclear waste is being imported.
Slivyak and Nikoulina cite the
comments of a Bulgarian governmental official to
the weekly "Rusenergy" in
2002 that they say provide grounds to believe that
Bulgaria's nuclear
cooperation with Russia is based on the intention
to get rid of as much of
spent nuclear fuel as possible at the least cost
before Bulgaria joins the
EU, which could take place as early as 2007.

Since the laws permitting import of spent nuclear
fuel came into effect in
June 2001, about 10 trains carrying spent nuclear
fuel have arrived in
Russia from Ukraine and Bulgaria.

Soon after the Russian legislation was passed,
Bulgaria sent its first spent
fuel shipment. It roused protests in Ukraine and
Russia with demonstrations
in seven cities along the Trans-Siberian Railway.
In the end of November
2001, 41 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from
the Bulgarian Kozloduy
nuclear power plant was transported to
Krasnoyarsk-26.

Bulgarian and Ukranian spent nuclear fuel was
delivered to Krasnoyarsk-26
several times in 2002, says the Ecodefense report.

In June-July 2003, the transport of about 20 tons
of Bulgarian spent nuclear
fuel to the Mayak nuclear complex took place. In
mid-June the ship caryying
this nuclear cargo got stuck at the Danube River
due to navigation problems,
but by the end of July, the waste did arrive at
Mayak.

In addition, small consignments of nuclear
materials from the research
reactors of Romania and Yugoslavia have been
imported to Russia on a
non-commercial basis under a joint program with
the United States to keep
research reactor fuel out of terrorist hands by
repatriating it to Russia.

Under a new U.S.-Russia agreement, more than a
dozen countries will be
eligible to receive financial and technical
assistance from the United
States to ship their fresh and spent research
reactor fuel - originally
obtained from Russia or the Soviet Union - back to
Russia for safekeeping
and reprocessing into safer materials.

An agreement for the fuel repatriation program was
signed by U.S. Energy
Secretary Spencer Abraham and Director Alexander
Rumyantsev of the Russian
Federal Agency for Atomic Energy May 27 in Moscow.
It is part of the Global
Threat Reduction Initiative announced by Abraham
the day before at the
International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna which
aims to keep weapons
grade nuclear materials out of terrorist hands.

"With today's agreement, we are moving forward to
complete the important
work of repatriating fresh and spent HEU [highly
enriched uranium] fuel,
which will reduce the threat of terrorism and
prevent the proliferation of
weapons-grade uranium," Abraham said.

More than 20 research reactors in 17 countries
have been identified as
having Russian/Soviet-supplied fuel, according to
the U.S. Energy
Department. This new initiative builds on existing
U.S. nonproliferation
efforts to minimize and eventually eliminate
reliance on HEU in the civilian
fuel cycle, including converting research and test
reactors from the use of
HEU to the use of safer low-enriched uranium (LEU)
fuels, Abraham said.

But Slivyak and Nikoulina point out that this
nuclear deal covers fresh as
well as spent nuclear fuel, which is the only
material permitted for import
under the new Russian law.

Yet within Russia, Minatom presents its plans as
targeted exclusively
towards reprocessing and a future plutonium based
economy. "Launching of a
new spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plant is
impossible at least until 2020,
while the old one lacks capacity and urgently
needs large investments,"
Slivyak and Nikoulina write.

They cite the publicly stated opinion of Mayak's
own management officials
that conditions at the Mayak facility are
inadequate. "The facility needs
nearly US$600 million for reconstruction and has
no plan for obtaining that
sum," write Slivyak and Nikoulina. "A radioactive
waste vitrificating
facility at Mayak works with long interruptions
which increases the already
serious problem of radioactive waste accumulated
at the facility."

In the beginning of 2003, for the first time in
Russian history, spent
nuclear fuel reprocessing was suspended at Mayak
because the government
revoked its license for violations of nuclear
regulations.

But in spite of the fact that Mayak failed to
eliminate the violations that
caused revocation of its license, in March 2003
Gosatomnadzor, the Russian
Federal Inspectorate for Nuclear and Radiation
Safety, reinstated Mayak's
license under the governmental pressure, Slivyak
and Nikoulina report.

In spite of the worldwide tendency to improve
physical protection of nuclear
sites since the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001 there is no
confirmed information on improvement of security
at Minatom's sites, the
Ecodefense report states. "On the contrary, a
number of facts provide
evidence of a low level of physical protection of
those sites."

"In the first half of 2002, the secured zone of a
nuclear site at
Krasnoyarsk-26 was illegally visited by a group of
people who recorded their
visit and then made it public at one of the
Russian TV channels (NTV),"
write Slivyak and Nikoulina. "Later on, local
environmentalists repeated
their inspections of the facility that were later
repeated by Federal
Security Service (ex-KGB). Both discovered
unavailability of the facility's
security forces to prevent possible terrorist
acts."

"Anyone who is able to pay some hundreds of Rubles
(US$20-30) to the
security guards, can get into the secured areas"
at Mayak, they write. They
explain that the social situation in many closed
nuclear units and
settlements near nuclear power plants is "socially
unfavorable," for
personnel. "Alcohol and drug addictions are
widespread."

In addition to these problems, smuggling of
radioactive materials is taking
place under the noses of customs officials, the
authors say. They relate an
April 2003 incident in which the illegal import of
nuclear waste was
detected by Kaliningrad Customs Service.

A container with radioactive materials hidden
among the carpentry equipment
was sent from Belgium to the address of a business
in Kaliningrad, a
northwestern region of Russia on the coast of
Baltic Sea. Investigators
discovered that the radioactive package was not
declared and was hidden from
customs supervision. The radiation level of the
container was a million
times higher that allowed, the Russian news agency
Vesti-RTR reported.

"According to a source in Kaliningrad Customs,
each year there are several
cases like that happening, and it's suspected that
the most radioactive
packages get through the border many different
ways," write Slivyak and
Nikoulina.
Finally, they warn, Minatom contracts contain no
requirement that
reprocessed spent fuel be sent out of Russia, back
to the country of origin.
"Russia, already having enormous problems with
accumulated radioactive
waste, has chained itself to an aggravation of
this problem in the course of
the next decades."

"Unless import of spent nuclear fuel is stopped,"
conclude Slivyak and
Nikoulina, "Russia will become the world's leading
nation by amount of
radioactive waste, and then by the number of
nuclear waste dumps."

The name Minatom is retained throughout their
report although in early
spring 2004, President Putin disbanded Minatom and
established the Federal
Agency for Atomic Power (FAAP) instead. Some
Minatom functions were
incorporated into the Ministry for Industry and
Energy and issues related to
the nuclear weapons industry were handed over to
the Ministry of Defense.


*****************************************************************
 28 [NukeNet] DOE initiates first step in Yucca Mountain license
 
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:32:09 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
         boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C45EF9.187A4370"
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message

Let the games begin...

See DOE press release below. Now parties wishing to intervene against the 
Yucca Mountain dump must turn in the documents upon which they will base 
their contentions within 90 days, by Sept. 30th. Nevermind that DOE has not 
yet made its application, nor even finalized its repository design, nor 
even submitted all the documents it will use to argue in favor of an 
operating license. Intervenors must prepare and submit their documents 
against a moving target. Talk about a rigged, illogical procedure!

Kevin Kamps, NIRS

P.S. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act held that DOE was supposed to have 
applied for an operating license within 90 days after Bush approved Yucca. 
Bush's approval happened on July 23, 2002. Oct. 23, 2002 came and went 
without an application. DOE's application will not be submitted till Dec. 
30th, 2004 at the earliest. So DOE's application comes over two years late. 
Do you think NRC will let us be two minutes late in filing our documents to 
support our contentions against the dump by Sept. 30th?96ccaa.jpg

Yucca Mountain Documents Made Available for Licensing Proceeding; 1.2 
Million Documents, 5.6 Million Pages, Available Via the Internet

6/30/2004 5:57:00 PM

----------
To: National Desk and Energy Reporter

Contact: Allen Benson of the U.S. Department of Energy, 702-794-1322

WASHINGTON, June 30 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 
today certified to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) the public 
availability through the Internet of approximately 1.2 million documents 
totaling some 5.6 million pages regarding Yucca Mountain. The documents are 
available on the Department's website, and will be included in the NRC's 
Licensing Support Network (LSN). This certification is in anticipation of 
DOE's submitting a license application for Yucca Mountain to the NRC by 
December of this year. Following submittal of the license application, the 
Commission will conduct a full and public adjudicatory process on the 
license application, for which Federal law contemplates a three- to 
four-year time period.

DOE has previously released a substantial number of scientific documents 
related to Yucca Mountain, including the Yucca Mountain Science and 
Engineering Report, Site Suitability Evaluation, and Final Environmental 
Impact Statement. Many of the 1.2 million documents served as background 
material for those reports. The documents represent the scientific studies, 
evaluations, and opinions of more than 20 years of scientific study of 
Yucca Mountain. Each individual document represents only a piece of the 
information in the development of the license application. All information 
must be considered in context and as part of the entire set of documents 
for any user to draw substantive conclusions about the scientific 
information in the license application. Selective use of individual 
documents or portions of documents by any user, including DOE, outside the 
context provided by other relevant documents is likely to result in 
inappropriate, faulty, or misleading conclusions.

If the 5.6 million pages searchable on the Internet were stacked one on top 
of the other, the stack would reach a height of approximately 1,800 feet -- 
some 3 times the height of the Washington Monument. Laid end-to-end, these 
5.6 million pages would extend approximately 1,000 miles or almost one-half 
the distance from Washington, D.C. to Las Vegas, Nev.

The DOE will be providing additional documents to the LSN as an ongoing 
activity. Other participants in the licensing proceeding are also required 
to submit documents to the LSN.

DOE's documents may be accessed today at 
<http://releases.usnewswire.com/redir.asp?ReleaseID=32728&Link=http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov,>http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov, 
and will be available through the NRC's LSN web site at 
<http://releases.usnewswire.com/redir.asp?ReleaseID=32728&Link=http://www.lsnnet.gov>http://www.lsnnet.gov. 
Persons without access to Internet connections may use the public access 
computers at the Las Vegas Yucca Mountain Information Center -- 4101B 
Meadows Lane, Las Vegas, NV; at the public reading room (1E-190), U.S. 
Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, 
Washington, D.C.; or at most libraries worldwide.

<http://www.usnewswire.com/>http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

/© 2004 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>


Attachment Converted: 96ccaa.jpg: 00000001,5b1c8432,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
 29 [du-list] United Arab Emirates ban
 
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:46:04 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
<http://www.recyclingtoday.com/news/news.asp?ID=4259&SubCatID=75&CatID=23>http://www.recyclingtoday.com/news/news.asp?ID=4259&SubCatID=75&CatID=23





67f18.jpg
67f2a.jpg
<http://www.recyclingtoday.com/TrackRedirect.asp?AdID=49&PageName=&URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ekripke%2Ecom>67f3b.jpg
<http://www.recyclingtoday.com/>Recycling Today » News »
67f5c.jpg
UAE Bans Scrap Metal Imports for Two Years

6/26/2003
67f6b.jpg
  The United Arab Emirates has banned the import of scrap materials for two 
years. According to official UAE News Agency all scrap metal, iron or other 
materials will not be imported to the UAE by any mode of transportation. 
The decision was made by the UAE Cabinet June 16th after a meeting when the 
cabinet viewed a memo submitted by the Ministry of Water and Electricity in 
its capacity as the government institution over-seeing the implementation 
of the Federal Law No. 1 of 2002, regulating the use of radioactive 
materials in the country.

As the body responsible for advising protective measures against 
radioactive sources, the Ministry's memo cited the concerns and warnings 
expressed by officials in international agencies , to the effect that 
hazardous nuclear and radioactive materials had been stolen from 
laboratories in Iraq. These concerns were also echoed by quasi-official 
reports that suggested that these material were being smuggled outside Iraq 
and might reach the UAE territories in the form of scrap materials.

Accordingly, and as a precautionary measure to protect the country from 
possible radioactive hazards, the Ministry of Water and Electricity 
requested the cabinet to ban the import of any form of scraps for two years.

Further to the ban, the cabinet agreed to allocate more than $500,000 to 
the ministry to purchase equipment capable of detecting radioactive and 
nuclear sources.

The equipment will be installed in the country's air, land and sea ports 
during the two-year ban.

  <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Thursday, June 26, 2003

<http://www.recyclingtoday.com/news/news.asp?Mode=Login&To=Comments&Id=4259&ThreadID=>Comments...


----------
Sehen, wer online ist! Mit dem MSN Messenger >> 
<http://g.msn.com/8HMBDE/2740??PS=47575>Hier kostenlos downloaden!

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
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129hgrnan/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=1705083269:HM/EXP=1088693751/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http://companion.yahoo.com>67f7a.jpg
68022.jpg


----------
Yahoo! Groups Links
    * To visit your group on the web, go to:
    * 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
    *
    * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    * 
<mailto:du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 

    *
    * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the 
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

</x-flowed>


Attachment Converted: 67f18.jpg: 00000001,49033ca2,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 67f2a.jpg: 00000001,49033ca3,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 67f3b.jpg: 00000001,49033ca4,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 67f5c.jpg: 00000001,49033ca5,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 67f6b.jpg: 00000001,49033ca6,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 67f7a.jpg: 00000001,49033ca7,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 68022.jpg: 00000001,49033ca8,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
 30 NRC: Governors' Designees Receiving Advance Notification of HWL Shipments
 
                        FR Doc 04-14162 
[Federal Register: June 30, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 125)] 
[Notices] [Page 39517-39520] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30jn04-123]                         
 
Transportation of Nuclear Waste On January 6, 1982 (47 FR 596 and 
47 FR 600), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
published in the Federal Register final amendments to 10 CFR 
parts 71 and 73 (effective July 6, 1982), that require advance 
notification to Governors or their designees by NRC licensees 
prior to transportation of certain shipments of nuclear waste and 
spent fuel. The advance notification covered in part 73 is for 
spent nuclear reactor fuel shipments and the notification for 
part 71 is for large quantity shipments of radioactive waste (and 
of spent nuclear reactor fuel not covered under the final 
amendment to 10 CFR part 73).
 
The following list updates the names, addresses, and telephone 
numbers of those individuals in each State who are responsible 
for receiving information on nuclear waste shipments. The list 
will be published annually in the Federal Register on or about 
June 30 to reflect any changes in information.
 
Questions regarding this matter should be directed to Rosetta O. 
Virgilio, Office of State and Tribal Programs, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, (Internet Address: 
rov@nrc.gov [rov@nrc.gov] ) or at (301) 415-2367.
 
Dated in Rockville, Maryland this 14th day of June 2004.
 
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Paul H. Lohaus, 
Director, Office of State and Tribal Programs.
 
Individuals Receiving Advance Notification of Nuclear Waste 
Shipments 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------------------- State                                           
Part 71                                                        
Part 73 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------------------- Alabama...................  Colonel W.M. 
Coppage, Director, Alabama Department of Public Safety,   Same.
 
500 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36102-1511, (334) 242-4394, 24 
hours: (334) 242-4128.
 
Alaska....................  Douglas Dasher, Alaska Department of 
Environmental Conservation,       Same.
 
Northern Regional Office, 610 University Avenue, Fairbanks, AK 
99709- 3643, (907) 451-2172, 24 hours: (907) 457-1421.
 
Arizona...................  Aubrey V. Godwin, Director, Arizona 
Radiation Regulatory Agency, 4814  Same.
 
South 40th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85040, (602) 255-4845, ext. 222, 
24 hours: (602) 223-2212.
 
Arkansas..................  Bernard Bevill, Division of Radiation 
Control and Emergency            Same.
 
Management, Arkansas Department of Health, 4815 West Markham 
Street, Mail Slot 30, Little Rock, AR 72205-3867, (501) 661-2301, 
24 hours: (501) 661-2136.
 
California................  Captain Andrew R. Jones, California 
Highway Patrol, Enforcement        Same.
 
Services Division, 444 North 3rd St., Suite 310, P.O. Box 942898, 
Sacramento, CA 94298-0001, (916) 445-1865, 24 hours: 1-(916) 845- 
8931.
 
Colorado..................  Captain Tommy Wilcoxen, Hazardous 
Materials Section, Colorado State    Same.
 
Patrol, 700 Kipling Street, Suite 1000, Denver, CO 80215-5865, 
(303) 239-4546, 24 hours: (303) 239-4501.
 
Connecticut...............  Edward L. Wilds, Jr., Ph.D., 
Director, Division of Radiation,          Same.
 
Department of Environmental Protection, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, 
CT 06106-5127, (860) 424-3029, 24 hours: (860) 424-3333.
 
Delaware..................  James L. Ford, Jr., Department of 
Safety & Homeland Security, P.O.     Same. Box 818, Dover, DE 
19903, (302) 744-2665, 24 hours: pager (302) 222- 6586.
 
Florida...................  Harlan W. Keaton, Administrator, 
Bureau of Radiation Control,          Same.
 
Environmental Radiation Program, Department of Health, P.O. Box 
680069, Orlando, FL 32868-0069, (407) 297-2095.
 
Georgia...................  Captain Bruce Bugg, Special Projects 
Coordinator, Law Enforcement      Same.
 
Division, Georgia Department of Motor Vehicle Safety, P.O. Box 
80447, 2206 East View Parkway, Conyers, GA 30013, (678) 413-8825, 
24 hours: (404) 655-7484.
 
Hawaii....................  Laurence Lau, Deputy Director for 
Environmental Health, State of       Same.
 
Hawaii Department of Health, P.O. Box 3378, 1250 Punchbowl 
Street, Honolulu, HI 96813, (808) 586-4424, 24 hours: (808) 
247-2191.
 
 
[[Page 39518]] Idaho.....................  Lieutenant William L. 
Reese, Deputy Commander, Commercial Vehicle      Same.
 
Safety, Idaho State Police, P.O. Box 700, Meridian, ID 
83680-0700, (208) 884-7222, 24 hours: (208) 846-7500.
 
Illinois..................  Gary N. Wright, Assistant Director, 
Illinois Emergency Management      Same.
 
Agency, 1035 Outer Park Drive, 5th Floor, Springfield, IL 62704, 
(217) 785-9868, 24 hours: (217) 782-7860.
 
Indiana...................  Superintendent Melvin J. Carraway, 
Indiana State Police, Indiana       Same.
 
Government Center North, 100 North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis, 
IN 46204, (317) 232-8248.
 
Iowa......................  Ellen M. Gordon, Administrator, 
Homeland Security Advisor, Iowa        Same.
 
Emergency Management Division, Hoover Street Office Building, 
Level A 1305 East Walnut Street, Des Moines, IA 50319, (515) 
281-3231.
 
Kansas....................  Frank H. Moussa, M.S.A., 
Technological Hazards Administrator,          Same.
 
Department of the Adjutant General, Division of Emergency 
Management, 2800 SW Topeka Boulevard, Topeka, KS 66611-1287, 
(785) 274-1408, 24 hours: (785) 296-8013.
 
Kentucky..................  Robert Johnson, Manager, Radiation 
Health and Toxic Agents Branch,     Same.
 
Cabinet for Health Services, 275 East Main Street, Mail Stop 
HS-2E- D, Frankfort, KY 40621-0001, (502) 564-7818, ext. 3697, 24 
hours: (502) 330-7660.
 
Louisiana.................  Captain Robert Pinero, Louisiana 
State Police, 7919 Independence       Same.
 
Boulevard, P.O. Box 66614 (A2621), Baton Rouge, LA 70896- 6614, 
(225) 925-6113, ext. 270, 24 hours: (877) 925-6595.
 
Maine.....................  Colonel Craig Poulin, Chief of the 
State Police, Maine Department of   Same.
 
Public Safety, 42 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333, (207) 
624- 7000.
 
Maryland..................  Michael Bennett, Director, Maryland 
State Police, Electronic Systems   Same.
 
Division, 1201 Reisterstown Road, Pikesville, MD 21208, (410) 
653- 4229, 24 hours: (410) 653-4200.
 
Massachusetts.............  Robert J. Walker, Director, Radiation 
Control Program, Massachusetts   Same.
 
Department of Public Health, 90 Washington Street, Dorchester, MA 
02121, (617) 427-2944 ext. 2001, 24 hours: (617) 427-2913.
 
Michigan..................  Captain Dan Smith, Commander, Special 
Operations Division, Michigan    Same.
 
State Police, 714 South Harrison Road, East Lansing, MI 48823, 
(517) 336-6187, 24 hours: (517) 336-6100.
 
Minnesota.................  John R. Kerr, Assistant Director, 
Administration and Recovery,         Same.
 
Minnesota Division of Homeland Security, & Emergency Management, 
444 Cedar Street, Suite 223, St. Paul, MN 55101, (651) 296-0481, 
24 hours: (651) 649-5451.
 
Mississippi...............  Robert R. Latham, Jr., Emergency 
Management Agency, P.O. Box 4501,     Same. Fondren Station, 
Jackson, MS 39296-4501, (601) 960-9020, 24 hours: (601) 352-9100.
 
Missouri..................  Jerry B. Uhlmann, Director, Emergency 
Management Agency, P.O. Box      Same. 116, Jefferson City, MO 
65102, (573) 526-9101, 24 hours: (573) 751- 2748.
 
Montana...................  Dan McGowan, Administrator, Montana 
Disaster & Emergency               Same.
 
ServicesDivision, 1900 Williams Street, 4789, P.O. Box 4789, 
Helena, MT 59604-4789, (406) 841-3911.
 
Nebraska..................  Major Bryan J. Tuma, Nebraska State 
Patrol, P.O. Box 94907, Lincoln,   Same. NE 68509-4907, (402) 
479-4950, 24 hours: (402) 471-4545.
 
Nevada....................  Stanley R. Marshall, Supervisor, 
Radiological Health Section, Bureau   Same.
 
of Health Protection Services, Nevada State Health Division, 1179 
Fairview Drive, Suite 102, Carson City, NV 89701-5405, (775) 687- 
5394, ext. 276, 24 hours: (775) 688-2830.
 
New Hampshire.............  Lieutenant Stephen Kace, New 
Hampshire Department of Safety, James H.  Same. Hayes Building, 
33 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03305, (603) 271-6369, 24 hours: 
(603) 271-3636.
 
New Jersey................  Kent Tosch, Chief, Bureau of Nuclear 
Engineering, Department of        Same.
 
Environmental Protection, P.O. Box 415, Trenton, NJ 08625-0415, 
(609) 984-7700, 24 hours: (609) 658-3072.
 
New Mexico................  Derrith Watchman-Moore, Deputy 
Secretary, New Mexico Department of     Same.
 
Environment, Office of the Secretary, P.O. Box 26110, 1190 St. 
Francis Drive, Santa Fe, NM 87502-6110, (505) 827-2855, 24 hours: 
(505) 249-0157.
 
New York..................  Edward F. Jacoby, Jr., Executive 
Deputy Director, New York State       Same.
 
Emergency Management Office, 1220 Washington Avenue, Building 
22-- Suite 101, Albany, NY 12226-2251, (518) 457-2222, 24 hours: 
(518) 457-2200.
 
North Carolina............  First Sergeant Mark Dalton, Hazardous 
Materials Coordinator, North     Same.
 
Carolina Highway Patrol Headquarters, 4702 Mail Service Center, 
Raleigh, NC 27699-4702, (919) 733-5282, 24 hours: (919) 733-3861.
 
North Dakota..............  Terry O'Clair, Director, Division of 
Air Quality, North Dakota         Same.
 
Department of Health, 1200 Missouri Avenue, P.O. Box 5520, 
Bismarck, ND 58506-5520, (701) 328-5188, 24 hours: (701) 
328-9921.
 
Ohio......................  Carol A. O'Claire, Chief, 
Radiological Branch, Ohio Emergency          Same.
 
Management Agency, 2855 West Dublin Granville Road, Columbus, OH 
43235-2206, (614) 799-3915, 24 hours: (614) 889-7150.
 
 
[[Page 39519]] Oklahoma..................  Commissioner Kevin L. 
Ward, Oklahoma Department of Public Safety,      Same.
 
P.O. Box 11415, Oklahoma City, OK 73136-0145, (405) 425-2001, 24 
hours: (405) 425-2323.
 
Oregon....................  David Stewart-Smith, Administrator, 
Energy Resources Division, Oregon  Same.
 
Office of Energy, 625 Marion Street, NE, Suite 1, Salem, OR 
97301- 3742, (503) 378-6469, 24 hours: (503) 378-6377.
 
Pennsylvania..............  John Bahnweg, Director of Operations 
and Training, Pennsylvania        Same.
 
Emergency Management Agency, 2605 Interstate Drive, Harrisburg, 
PA 17110-9364, (717) 651-2001.
 
Rhode Island..............  Terrence Mercer, Associate 
Administrator, Motor Carriers Section,      Same.
 
Division of Public Utilities and Carriers, 89 Jefferson 
Boulevard, Warwick, RI 02888, (401) 941-4500, Ext. 150, 24 hours: 
(401) 444- 1183.
 
South Carolina............  Henry J. Porter, Assistant Director, 
Division of Waste Management,     Same.
 
Bureau of Land and Waste Management, Department of Health & 
Environmental Control, 2600 Bull Street, Columbia, SC 29201, 
(803) 896-4245, 24 hours: (803) 253-6488.
 
South Dakota..............  Kristi Turman, Director, Emergency 
Management Agency, 118 W. Capitol   Same. Avenue, Pierre, SD 
57501-5070, (605) 773-3231.
 
Tennessee.................  Elgan H. Usrey, Manager, Preparedness 
and Mitigation Division,         Same.
 
Tennessee Emergency Management Agency, 3041 Sidco Drive, 
Nashville, TN 37204-1502, (615) 741-2879, After hours: (Inside 
TN) 1-800-262- 3400, (Outside TN) 1-800-258-3300.
 
Texas.....................  Richard A. Ratliff, Chief, Bureau of 
Radiation Control, Texas          Colonel Thomas A. Davis, 
Director, Texas Department Department of Health, 1100 West 49th 
Street, Austin, TX 78756-3189,    of Public Safety, Attn: EMS 
Preparedness Section, (512) 834-6679, (512) 458-7460. P.O. Box 
4087, Austin, TX 78773-0223, (512) 424-

 
7771, 24 hours: (512) 424-2208.
 
Utah......................  Dane Finerfrock, Director, Division 
of Radiation Control, Department   Same.
 
of Environmental Quality, 168 North 1950 West, P.O. Box 144850, 
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850, (801) 536-4250, After hours: (801) 
536- 4123.
 
Vermont...................  Colonel Thomas A. Powlovich, 
Director, Division of State Police,       Same.
 
Department of Public Safety, 103 South Main Street, Waterbury, VT 
05671-2101, (802) 244-7345.
 
Virginia..................  Brett A. Burdick, Director, 
Technological Hazards Division,            Same.
 
Department of Emergency Management, Commonwealth of Virginia, 
10501 Trade Court, Richmond, VA 23236, (804) 897-6500, ext. 6569, 
24 hours: (804) 674-2400.
 
Washington................  Steven L. Kalmbach, Assistant State 
Fire Marshal, Washington State     Same.
 
Patrol Fire Protection Bureau, P.O. Box 42600, Olympia, WA 98504- 
2600, (360) 750-3119, 24 hours: 1-800-409-4755.
 
West Virginia.............  Colonel H.E. Hill, Jr., 
Superintendent, West Virginia State Police,    Same.
 
725 Jefferson Road, South Charleston, WV 25309, (304) 746-2111.
 
Wisconsin.................  Edward J. Gleason, Administrator, 
Division of Emergency Management,    Same.
 
2400 Wright Street, P.O. Box 7865, Madison, WI 53707-7865, (608) 
242- 3232.
 
Wyoming...................  Captain Vernon Poage, Support 
Services Officer, Commercial Carriers,   Same.
 
Wyoming Highway Patrol, 5300 Bishop Boulevard, Cheyenne, WY 
82009- 3340, (307) 777-4317, 24 hours: (307) 777-4321.
 
District of Columbia......  Gregory B. Talley, Program Manager, 
Radiation Protection Division,     Same.
 
Bureau of Food, Drug & Radiation Protection, Department of 
Health, 51 N Street, NE, Room 6025, Washington, DC 20002, (202) 
535-2320, 24 hours: (202) 535-2180.
 
Puerto Rico...............  Esteban Mujica, Chairman, 
Environmental Quality Board, P.O. Box        Same. 11488, San 
Juan, PR 00910, (787) 767-8056 or (787) 767-8181.
 
Guam......................  Fred M. Castro, Administrator, Guam 
Environmental Protection Agency,   Same.
 
P.O. Box 22439 GMF, Barrigada, Guam 96921, (671) 457-1658 or 
1659, 24 hours: (671) 635-9500.
 
Virgin Islands............  Dean C. Plaskett, Esq., Commissioner, 
Department of Planning and       Same.
 
Natural Resources, Cyril E. King Airport, Terminal 
Building--Second Floor, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802, (340) 
774-3320, 24 hours: (340) 774-5138.
 
American Samoa............  Peter Peshut, Manager, Technical 
Services, American Samoa              Same.
 
Environmental Protection Agency, P.O. Box PPA, Pago Pago, 
American Samoa 96799, (684) 633-2304, 24 hours: (684) 622-7106.
 
Commonwealth of the         John Castro, Director, Department of 
Environmental Quality,            Same.
 
Northern Mariana Islands.   Commonwealth of Northern Mariana 
Islands Government, P.O. Box 501304, Saipan, MP 96950, (670) 
664-8500 or 8501, 24 hours: (670) 287-1526.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
----------------------
 
[[Page 39520]] [FR Doc. 04-14162 Filed 6-29-04; 8:45 am] BILLING 
CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 31 Las Vegas RJ: JOHN SMITH: Even Gibbons can see trouble for Bush on Yucca
 
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
 
Mountain issue 

You won't find a more loyal supporter of President Bush than
Nevada Rep. Jim Gibbons.
 
 Outside members of Bush's own family and Cabinet, Gibbons is at
the top among the ranks of the president's faithful soldiers.
 
 Hear Gibbons speak, and you'll learn how right Bush is on Iraq,
al-Qaida, Saddam Hussein, the economy, and the constitutional
controversies that have cropped up during the war.
 
 But even Gibbons, loyal and true and lobbying diligently behind
the scenes for a possible opening in the chairmanship of the
House Intelligence Committee, knows real political trouble when
he sees it glowing in the distance.
 
 And Gibbons sees it coming in the form of Bush's signing of
legislation supporting the development of the Yucca Mountain
nuclear waste repository.
 
 "Yucca Mountain really makes a very complex political spectrum
for the people of Nevada," Gibbons said. "There are so many
people who are adamantly opposed to that issue here in the
state. The president signed the bill that came to his desk after
a vote of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. And
as a result, he carries that on his shoulder now from the people
of Nevada, that he signed the bill that said that they could go
forward with the permitting process."
 
 Some will say he was only stating the obvious and that Nevadans
long ago tuned out the Yucca lament, but for a true-blue
Republican stalwart like Gibbons it amounts to a remarkable
admission.
 
 Such rhetoric is expected from Democrats. Senior U.S. Sen.
Harry Reid doesn't pass a day without blasting Yucca and
ridiculing the Bush administration for its encouragement and
complicity. (He's careful to leave out the many times his fellow
Democrats in Washington, Sen. John Kerry excepted, have betrayed
the state's desires on the issue.)
 
 Democrats hope that Bush's signature on the Yucca legislation
will reverberate with undecided Nevada voters and tip the
balance in their favor. And they've tried to make hay out of the
boneheaded plan, since aborted, by the state GOP to place
language in the Republican platform calling for negotiating for
Yucca benefits. Barnum &Bailey wishes it could get its elephants
to roll over and beg for peanuts as quickly. 
"That's one I completely disagreed with," Gibbons says quickly,
"and we had them taken out. ... It shows you the difference of
opinion of people throughout the state of Nevada. Those people
who are not adjacent to Yucca Mountain obviously have a
different view of it."
 
 As he well knows, most of the state's voters are adjacent. He
rose to political power in the rurals, but that's not where his
future is. Given an opportunity to get 100 percent of the rural
vote or 60 percent of the vote in Clark and Washoe counties,
Gibbons would take the urban corridors over the hard-right
hinterlands, where you'll find more talking donkeys than
Democrats.
 
 Even his plug-in rhetoric doesn't sound convincing.
 
 "In my view, the question of Yucca Mountain is going to be
answered in the courts," he says. "It can't be answered in the
White House anymore. It can't be answered in Congress. It has to
be answered in the courts because that's where it is today."
 
 Politically speaking, it's in the Republicans' court.
 
 Gibbons recently participated in the successful Nevada
congressional effort to trim the 2005 budget for Yucca down to
$131 million, 85 percent less than the Department of Energy's
request, at least temporarily crippling the project's progress.
But it can't change the fact Bush signed off on Yucca Mountain.
 
 "I think Yucca Mountain is a terrible, terribly heavy political
weight to bear in this state," Gibbons says. "I think there's a
lot of people who would like to see it a bigger issue. And
there's a lot of us who think that it's part of the politics we
deal with every day and that the Nevada voters will be able to
judge who they want to lead this nation accordingly."
 
 But if swing voters remain undecided, come Election Day the
Republicans will have problems.
 
 They've lost the Yucca Mountain issue, and even the president's
loyal soldier admits it.

John L. Smith's column appears Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday and
Sunday. E-mail him at Smith@reviewjournal.com or call 383-0295.
 
 
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
 32 U.S. Newswire: Yucca Mountain Documents Made Available for 
Licensing Proceeding; 1.2 Million Documents, 5.6 Million Pages, 
Available Via the Internet
 
 6/30/2004 5:57:00 PM 

To: National Desk and Energy Reporter 

Contact: Allen Benson of the U.S. Department of Energy, 
702-794-1322 

WASHINGTON, June 30 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The U.S. Department of 
Energy (DOE) today certified to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) the public availability through the Internet of 
approximately 1.2 million documents totaling some 5.6 million 
pages regarding Yucca Mountain. The documents are available on 
the Department's website, and will be included in the NRC's 
Licensing Support Network (LSN). This certification is in 
anticipation of DOE's submitting a license application for Yucca 
Mountain to the NRC by December of this year. Following submittal 
of the license application, the Commission will conduct a full 
and public adjudicatory process on the license application, for 
which Federal law contemplates a three- to four-year time period. 

DOE has previously released a substantial number of scientific 
documents related to Yucca Mountain, including the Yucca Mountain 
Science and Engineering Report, Site Suitability Evaluation, and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement. Many of the 1.2 million 
documents served as background material for those reports. The 
documents represent the scientific studies, evaluations, and 
opinions of more than 20 years of scientific study of Yucca 
Mountain. Each individual document represents only a piece of the 
information in the development of the license application. All 
information must be considered in context and as part of the 
entire set of documents for any user to draw substantive 
conclusions about the scientific information in the license 
application. Selective use of individual documents or portions of 
documents by any user, including DOE, outside the context 
provided by other relevant documents is likely to result in 
inappropriate, faulty, or misleading conclusions. 

If the 5.6 million pages searchable on the Internet were stacked 
one on top of the other, the stack would reach a height of 
approximately 1,800 feet -- some 3 times the height of the 
Washington Monument. Laid end-to-end, these 5.6 million pages 
would extend approximately 1,000 miles or almost one-half the 
distance from Washington, D.C. to Las Vegas, Nev. 

The DOE will be providing additional documents to the LSN as an 
ongoing activity. Other participants in the licensing proceeding 
are also required to submit documents to the LSN. 

DOE's documents may be accessed today at 
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov, 
[http://releases.usnewswire.com/redir.asp?ReleaseID=32728&Link=ht 
tp://www.ocrwm.doe.gov,] and will be available through the NRC's 
LSN web site at http://www.lsnnet.gov 
[http://releases.usnewswire.com/redir.asp?ReleaseID=32728&Link=ht 
tp://www.lsnnet.gov] . Persons without access to Internet 
connections may use the public access computers at the Las Vegas 
Yucca Mountain Information Center -- 4101B Meadows Lane, Las 
Vegas, NV; at the public reading room (1E-190), U.S. Department 
of Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, 
Washington, D.C.; or at most libraries worldwide. 



http://www.usnewswire.com/ [http://www.usnewswire.com/] 
/© 2004 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/ 			 		   		   			 		   		   
*****************************************************************
 33 Pahrump Valley Times: County has 90 days to submit Yucca data 

June 30, 2004

YEARS OF OVERSIGHT WORK COULD TRANSLATE TO CONDITIONS SET ON 
YUCCA MOUNTAIN LICENSE 

By DOUG McMURDO PVT 

The Department of Energy was expected to submit its Yucca 
Mountain documentation today, which might not happen, but that 
leaves the Nye County Department of Natural Resources and Federal 
Facilities 90 days to submit its own documents if the county 
wants to participate in the licensing process.

 Les Bradshaw, director of the county department, in a statement 
released last week said the documentation must be submitted to 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which will begin reviewing 
material in 2005 with licensing hearings scheduled to begin the 
following year. The commission has the authority to license the 
repository, which would be used to store the nation's high-level 
radioactive waste generated by defense programs and civilian 
nuclear reactors. 

According to Bradshaw a license to construct the facility, 
located north of Amargosa Valley, could be granted in 2008 with 
initial shipments arriving two years later.

 Yucca Mountain has been the focus for a repository since 1987. 
For the past several years Nye County has received millions of 
dollars from the Department of Energy in the form of Payments in 
Lieu of Taxes to compensate for taxes on Yucca Mountain. Congress 
has appropriated additional millions to the county to pay for 
local oversight of the Yucca Mountain Project.

 The work consists of several elements, the most noteworthy a 
water flow monitoring system. The Early Warning Drilling Program 
is the most important project since it traces groundwater flow 
from Yucca Mountain to Amargosa Valley, located roughly 30 miles 
west of Pahrump and roughly 20 miles south of Yucca Mountain. 

Other work ranges from geotechnical studies regarding earthquake 
faults and fissures, to the durability of the casks that will be 
used to haul and store the waste.

 The ultimate goal of Nye County, said Bradshaw, is to attach 
conditions to the license if it is approved. A number of impacts 
have been defined by Bradshaw's team of scientists and other 
consultants, including socioeconomic, health, safety, 
transportation and emergency services issues. 

"Nye County has a number of conditions it will ask the NRC to 
attach to the license," Bradshaw stated. "The county has a deep 
concern for how the repository is designed, constructed and 
operated."

For comment or questions, please e-mail 
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com 
[webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com] Copyright © Pahrump Valley 
Times, 1997 - 2003 
*****************************************************************
 34 Pahrump Valley Times: Licensing process entirely online 

June 30, 2004

When the licensing phase of the proposed Yucca Mountain Project 
gets underway in December, when the Department of Energy must 
submit its application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
millions of pages of documentation could seriously impact the 
process. 

With that in mind, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has created 
a "Licensing Support Network," an Internet-based program operated 
by the Energy Department. 

According to Nye County Department of Natural Resources and 
Federal Facilities Director Les Bradshaw, the network is the only 
feasible way for documents to be exchanged that would save each 
participant the expense of making millions of hard copies and 
shipping them to the other participants.

 Each participant in the licensing process, including Nye County, 
must have a special web site on which to post documents for other 
participants. Bradshaw said the county's site would be online by 
the Sept. 30 deadline. 

For comment or questions, please e-mail 
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com 
[webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com] Copyright © Pahrump Valley 
Times, 1997 - 2003 
*****************************************************************
 35 ITAR-TASS: Russia not to store foreign radioactive waste
 	 	 	 
[ITAR-TASS News Agency of Russia]     

30.06.2004, 16.02

 MOSCOW, June 30 (Itar-Tass) - Russia does not intend to store in 
its territory foreign radioactive waste, but it may store and 
recycle spent foreign nuclear fuel, spokesman for the Federal 
Atomic Energy Agency Nikolai Shingarev told Itar-Tass on 
Wednesday. 

Shingarev was commenting on media reports alleging Moscow's 
support for the initiative by the International Atomic Energy 
Agency to build an international storage facility for foreign 
radioactive waste near Krasnoyarsk. 

"In fact, the IAEA's proposal implies not a mortuary, but a 
modern, high-tech international complex for storing spent nuclear 
fuel and making it reusable," he stated. 

Earlier, Agency director Alexander Rumyantsev said such a center 
could be accommodated in Russia or other countries, which can 
handle spent nuclear materials and have the necessary legislative 
basis. 

Great Britain, France and the United States have been importing 
spent nuclear fuel from other countries for years, earning much 
money, Rumyantsev said. 

The United States controls up to 80 percent of the international 
market of spent nuclear fuel, and has no particular wish to let 
Russia onto this market," he noted. 

The IAEA's initiative therefore will give Russia an opportunity 
to make a breakthrough to the world market of spent nuclear fuel. 
However, this will take time, as IAEA experts will be working on 
the proposal in question for several years. 

According to the IAEA, the world has piled up 200,000 tonnes of 
spent nuclear fuel. Four hundred and twenty nuclear plants the 
world over annually unload 12,000 tonnes of spent fuel. The cost 
of services to store and recycle 1,000 tonnes of spent nuclear 
fuel -- on the condition of returning production waste to the 
country of origin -- amounts to 600 to 800 million dollars. 

If no return of fuel is stipulated, the price for recycling of 
this amount of fuel increases up to two billion dollars. 

Russia has accumulated 15,000 of spent nuclear fuel, including 
the fuel brought to the country from the plants built under 
Russian projects. 

"But despite the legislation permitting imports to Russia of 
spent nuclear fuel of foreign origin, not a single kilogram of it 
has been brought to the country so far," according to the Federal 
Atomic Energy Agency spokesman. 

© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, 
*****************************************************************
 36 AFP: WWF criticizes Russia's plans for spent nuclear fuel site

[http://www.spacewar.com

MOSCOW (AFP) Jun 30, 2004

 The global environmental group WWF Wednesday criticized Russia's 
agreement in principle to build a depository for spent nuclear 
fuel and become the first country to accept such fuel from 
abroad.

"Russia should not be reprocessing nuclear waste and most 
certainly should not be importing it," Igor Chestin, director of 
WWF's Russia branch, told AFP.

"Russia cannot ensure security" of such an installation, he said.

A day earlier, the head of Russia's nuclear energy agency 
Alexander Rumyantsev said that he did not see any obstacles to 
constructing the facility.

"Russia has experience in reprocessing combustible waste" as well 
as appropriate legislation, Rumyantsev told reporters after 
attending a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and 
Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of UN's International Atomic Energy 
Agency (IAEA).

On Monday, ElBaradei said Russia was willing to build a "state of 
the art" geological depository for spent nuclear fuel and be the 
first in the world "to accept foreign spent fuel."

But Rumyantsev said the final decision on the facility has not 
been made and would likely take years.

"Experts at IAEA will be discussing the proposal for several 
years," Rumyantsev was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies. 
"And there isn't even agreement that the storage site will be 
created."

In June 2001, Russia's parliament adopted amendments to 
environmental legislation that authorized the import of spent 
nuclear fuel, provoking protests from environmental campaigners.

  WAR.WIRE
*****************************************************************
 37 AFP: Russia's plans for spent nuclear fuel site spark howls of protest

[http://www.spacewar.com/]
 
MOSCOW (AFP) Jun 30, 2004

 Russia's willingness to build the world's first international 
depository for spent nuclear fuel Wednesday sparked howls of 
protests from opponents of the plan.

"Russia should not be reprocessing nuclear waste and most 
certainly should not be importing it," Igor Chestin, director of 
the Russian branch of the WWF global environmental group, told 
AFP Wednesday.

"Russia cannot ensure security" of such an installation, he said, 
becoming the latest in a line of environmental leaders and 
politicians to blast the plan, which the government has estimated 
will earn Russia billions of dollars.

The protests flared after Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of UN's 
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said Russia was 
willing to construct the facility.

Russia is willing to build a "state of the art" geological 
depository for spent nuclear fuel and be the first in the world 
"to accept foreign spent fuel," said ElBaradei in Moscow, where 
he attended a conference on atomic energy.

A day later, the head of Russia's nuclear energy agency Alexander 
Rumyantsev said that he did not see any obstacles to 
construction.

"Russia has experience in reprocessing combustible waste" as well 
as the appropriate legislation, Rumyantsev told reporters after 
attending a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and 
ElBaradei.

But Rumyantsev said the final decision on the facility has not 
been made and would likely take years.

"Experts at IAEA will be discussing the proposal for several 
years," Rumyantsev was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies. 
"And there isn't even agreement that the storage site will be 
created."

In June 2001, Russia's parliament adopted amendments to 
environmental legislation that authorized the import of spent 
nuclear fuel, provoking protests from environmental campaigners.

At the time, the energy ministry estimated that the Russian 
budget could earn up to 20 billion dollars over 10 years from the 
project, according to the respected Vedomosti business daily.

Regional authorities in Siberia's Krasnoyarsk Region, which 
currently houses the nation's largest nuclear waste facility and 
is likely to house the international center, emphasized the 
financial gains from the project this week.

"This is billions of dollars to the Russian budget, half of which 
will be allocated to the region," an unnamed regional official 
was quoted as saying by Vedomosti.

But environmental groups have vowed to fight the plan.

"Russian Greenpeace, like 90 percent of Russia's population, is 
against such projects that are effectively turning the country 
into a nuclear dump," Vladimir Chuprov, of the international 
group's Russia chapter, said.

"Russia is turning into the only country in the world that is 
opening its borders for such projects."

Said Sergei Mitrokhin, of the Yabloko opposition party that lost 
its parliamentary seats during a December election: "Russia's 
future generations will have to pay for waste handling during the 
next hundred years, if not longer."

  WAR.WIRE
*****************************************************************
 38 DOE: Record of Decision for the Solid Waste Program, Hanford Site, 
 
                        FR Doc 04-14806 
[Federal Register: June 30, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 125)] 
[Notices] [Page 39449-39455] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30jn04-58]                         
 
Richland, WA: Storage and Treatment of Low-Level Waste and Mixed 
Low- Level Waste; Disposal of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level 
Waste, and Storage, Processing, and Certification of Transuranic 
Waste for Shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant AGENCY: 
Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Record of Decision.
 
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is making decisions 
regarding low-level radioactive waste (LLW), mixed low-level 
waste (MLLW), which contains both radioactive and chemically 
hazardous components, and transuranic (TRU) waste (including 
mixed TRU waste) at the Hanford Site in southeastern Washington 
State. These decisions are made pursuant to the Final Hanford 
Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program 
Environmental Impact Statement (HSW EIS, DOE/ EIS-0286, January 
2004). DOE prepared the HSW EIS according to requirements of the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on 
Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 
parts 1500-1508), and DOE NEPA implementing procedures (10 CFR 
part 1021) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of 
alternatives for storage, treatment, transportation, and disposal 
of certain radioactive and mixed wastes at Hanford. The HSW EIS 
scope includes wastes that are currently stored or projected to 
be generated at Hanford and offsite locations through the end of 
Hanford's routine waste management operations. Key operations 
evaluated were storage, treatment, and disposal of LLW and MLLW 
generated at Hanford and other sites; storage, processing, and 
certification of TRU waste generated at Hanford and other DOE 
sites for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in 
New Mexico; and disposal of Hanford's vitrified immobilized 
low-activity waste (ILAW) and melters from the vitrification 
process.
 
DOE has decided to implement the preferred alternative described 
in the Final HSW EIS, modified as described below. This decision 
is based on the environmental impact analyses in the HSW EIS, 
including analysis of impacts to worker and public health and 
safety; costs; applicable regulatory requirements; and public 
comments. DOE will limit the volumes of LLW and MLLW received at 
Hanford from other sites for disposal to 62,000 m3 of LLW and 
20,000 m3 of MLLW. Also, effective immediately, DOE will dispose 
of LLW in lined disposal facilities, a practice already used for 
MLLW. In addition, DOE will construct and operate a lined, 
combined-use disposal facility in Hanford's 200 East Area for 
disposal of LLW and MLLW, and will further limit offsite waste 
receipts until the facility is constructed.
 
LLW and MLLW requiring treatment will be treated at either 
offsite facilities or existing or modified onsite facilities, as 
appropriate.
 
Storage, processing and certification of TRU waste for subsequent 
shipment to WIPP will occur at existing and modified onsite 
facilities. DOE expects the preferred alternative, as described 
in this Record of Decision (ROD), will have small environmental 
impacts, provide a balance among short- and long-term 
environmental impacts and cost effectiveness, be consistent with 
applicable regulatory requirements, and provide DOE with the 
capability to accommodate projected waste receipts from the 
Hanford Site and offsite DOE facilities.
 
 
ADDRESSES: For copies of the Final HSW EIS and further 
information about the HSW EIS, contact: Mr. Michael Collins, 
Document Manager, U.S. Department of Energy Richland Operations 
Office, P.O. Box 550, A6-38, Richland, WA 99352, telephone: 
509-376-6536.
 
The Final HSW EIS and related information can also be viewed in 
the DOE Public Reading Room, Washington State University, 
Tri-Cities Campus, 100 Sprout Road, Room 130W, Richland, WA 
99352, telephone: 509- 376-8583, Monday-Friday, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. 
The Final HSW EIS is also available for review on the Internet at 
http://www.hanford.gov/eis/eis-0286D2 
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving 
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.hanford.gov/eis/eis-0286D2] and 
on the DOE NEPA Web page (http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/eis/eis0286F 
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving 
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/eis/eis0286F] 
).
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the 
HSW EIS or onsite management operations at Hanford contact Mr. 
Michael Collins at the address or telephone number provided 
above.
 
Information on the DOE NEPA process may be requested from Carol 
M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance 
(EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20585.
 
Ms. Borgstrom may be contacted by telephone at (202) 586-4600 or 
by leaving a message at (800) 472-2756.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose and Need for Action DOE needs 
to provide capabilities to continue or modify the way it manages
 
[[Page 39450]] existing and anticipated quantities of solid LLW, 
MLLW, and TRU waste at the Hanford Site located in southeastern 
Washington in order to: Protect human health and the environment; 
facilitate cleanup at Hanford and other DOE facilities; take 
actions consistent with DOE's decisions under the Waste 
Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (WM PEIS, 
DOE/EIS-0200, May 1997); comply with applicable local, State, and 
Federal laws and regulations; and meet other obligations such as 
the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (also 
referred to as the Tri-Party Agreement, or TPA).
 
Specifically, DOE needs to: Continue to operate and modernize 
existing treatment, storage, and disposal facilities for LLW and 
MLLW, and storage and processing facilities for TRU waste; 
Construct additional disposal capacity for LLW and MLLW; Develop 
capabilities to treat MLLW for disposal at Hanford; Close onsite 
disposal facilities and provide for post- closure facility 
stewardship at disposal sites; and Develop additional 
capabilities to process and certify TRU waste for disposal at 
WIPP.
 
Background On October 27, 1997, DOE announced its intent to 
prepare the HSW EIS (62 FR 55615) to support programmatic needs 
and plans, and provide additional capabilities and flexibility to 
continue to manage LLW, MLLW, and TRU waste at the Hanford Site. 
The HSW EIS also evaluated the potential environmental impacts of 
transporting, storing, processing, and certifying TRU waste from 
Hanford and offsite DOE generators. The Draft HSW EIS was 
approved in April 2002, and the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) published a Notice of Availability of the Draft HSW 
EIS on May 24, 2002 (67 FR 36592). Responding to requests from 
the public, DOE extended the initial 45-day public comment period 
for the Draft HSW EIS to 90 days. DOE received about 3,800 
comments on the Draft HSW EIS from individuals, organizations, 
agencies, and tribes.
 
In response to public comments, DOE expanded the scope of the HSW 
EIS and issued a Notice of Revised Scope for the HSW EIS on 
February 12, 2003 (68 FR 7110). The revised scope included the 
disposal of ILAW and melters at the Hanford Site. DOE also 
expanded its impact analyses for waste disposal and 
transportation. A Revised Draft HSW EIS was approved in March 
2003, and EPA published a Notice of Availability on April 11, 
2003 (68 FR 17801). In response to requests from the public, DOE 
extended the initial 45-day public comment period to 62 days. 
DOE's responses to all comments received during the public 
comment period on the Draft HSW EIS (including the complete text 
of written comment documents and transcripts of public meetings) 
were published in the Revised Draft HSW EIS, Volume III.
 
DOE received about 1,600 comments on the Revised Draft HSW EIS 
from individuals, organizations, agencies, and tribes. In 
response to public comments, DOE provided clarifying information 
and expanded analyses in the Final HSW EIS. The complete text of 
written comment documents and transcripts of public meetings, and 
DOE's response to public comments on the Revised Draft HSW EIS, 
were published in Volumes III and IV of the Final EIS. The Final 
HSW EIS was approved in January 2004, and EPA published a Notice 
of Availability for the Final HSW EIS on February 13, 2004 (69 FR 
7215).
 
The Final HSW EIS addresses actions by DOE to manage LLW, MLLW, 
ILAW, melters, and TRU waste under Hanford's solid waste program. 
The HSW EIS analyzed wastes through the end of site operations 
which, for the purpose of the analyses, was assumed to be 2046. 
The wastes analyzed included: 283,000 m3 of waste previously 
disposed of at Hanford in the Low Level Burial Grounds (LLBGs); 
Up to 348,000 m3 of LLW that is in storage or is forecast to be 
received from onsite and offsite sources; Up to 198,000 m3 of 
MLLW that is in storage or is forecast to be received from onsite 
and offsite sources; Up to 350,000 m3 of ILAW forecast to be 
received from the treatment of Hanford tank waste; Up to 6,825 m3 
of melters used in the vitrification process; and Up to 47,550 m3 
of TRU waste that is in storage or is forecast to be received 
from onsite and offsite sources.
 
Section 9(a)(1)(H) of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act exempts mixed 
TRU waste designated for disposal at WIPP from certain provisions 
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.: With 
respect to transuranic mixed waste designated by the Secretary 
for disposal at WIPP, such waste is exempt from treatment 
standards promulgated pursuant to section 3004(m) of the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6924(m)) and shall not be subject 
to the land disposal prohibitions in section 3004(d), (e), (f) 
and (g) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
 
(WIPP Land Withdrawal Act Amendments, Pub. L. 104-201, 110 Stat. 
2422 (September 23, 1996), 3188(a) at Stat. 2853.) For a more 
complete discussion of the Department's implementation of this 
provision see the Department's Revision of the Record of Decision 
for the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 
Disposal Phase, issued concurrently with this ROD. This HSW EIS 
ROD confirms the Department's prior designation of the mixed TRU 
waste analyzed in the HSW EIS for disposal at WIPP.
 
DOE initially designated up to 175,600 m3 of TRU waste for 
disposal at WIPP in the ROD for the Department of Energy's Waste 
Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase. 63 FR 3624, January 23, 
1998 (WIPP ROD). That decision included both contact-handled (CH) 
and remote-handled (RH) TRU waste in storage at the various DOE 
facilities across the country, as well as TRU waste projected to 
be generated over the life of the repository. Of that amount 
approximately 57,000 m3 of CH-TRU waste and 2,800 m3 of RH-TRU 
were attributed to the Hanford site. WIPP Disposal Phase 
Supplemental EIS-II (WIPP SEIS II). page 3-3.\1\ 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \1\ The volume of RH TRU waste projected in the 
WIPP-SEIS-II for Hanford was conservatively estimated to be 
higher than the 2,800 m3 volume in the Basic Inventory which was 
used for analytical purposes in the EIS. However, only 2,800 m3 
of RH-TRU waste at Hanford were included in the 175,600 m3 of TRU 
waste designated for disposal at WIPP in the SEIS-II ROD.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- This ROD provides for the storage, processing, and 
certification for shipment to WIPP of approximately 40,000 m3 of 
CH TRU waste and 2,600 m3 of RH TRU waste at Hanford and confirms 
the WIPP ROD's prior designation of this waste for disposal at 
WIPP.\2\ This inventory of TRU-waste at Hanford is less than 
previously analyzed for Hanford in the WIPP SEIS-II and 
designated for disposal by the WIPP ROD. The reduction in 
inventory is in part the result of further characterization and 
reassessment of waste assumed to be TRU waste and TRU waste 
projected to be generated at the Hanford site at the time the 
WIPP SEIS-II and the accompanying ROD to dispose of up to 175,600 
m3 of TRU waste at WIPP were issued.\3\ 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \2\ The CH TRU waste volume may increase or decrease 
depending on volume reduction or volume expansion due to the 
treatment or packaging for shipment to WIPP. The RH-TRU waste 
volume reflects the packaged amount expected to be shipped to 
WIPP.
 
\3\ The volume of RH-TRU waste in the HSW EIS is also less than 
the estimates for Hanford used in the Department's application 
for recertification of compliance (CRA) submitted to EPA in March 
2004, in accordance with sections 8(d)-(f) of the WIPP Land 
Withdrawal Act. For analytical purposes the volumes provided in 
the CRA are relatively more conservative.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
----------
 
[[Page 39451]] The Hanford TRU waste volume analyzed in the HSW 
EIS and addressed in this ROD does not include potential TRU 
waste from the Hanford tanks. These wastes have not been 
determined to be TRU waste and accordingly have not been 
designated for disposal at WIPP.
 
Action Alternatives Considered in the HSW EIS The HSW EIS 
considered the range of reasonable alternatives for management of 
solid LLW, MLLW, TRU waste, ILAW, and melters at the Hanford 
Site. Currently, Hanford's solid waste program activities include 
transportation, storage, treatment, and disposal of LLW and MLLW, 
as well as transportation, storage, processing, and certification 
of TRU waste for shipment to WIPP. The HSW EIS considered use of 
both existing and proposed waste management facilities in 
carrying out these activities. In response to comments on the 
Revised Draft HSW EIS, the transportation analysis was updated to 
account for Year 2000 Census data, to use a more recent version 
of the RADTRAN computer modeling code, and expanded to consider 
specific transportation routes between Hanford and sites that 
might transfer LLW and MLLW for disposal at Hanford, and sites 
that might transfer their TRU waste to Hanford for storage, 
processing, and certification pending shipment to WIPP.
 
The following sections describe the action alternatives 
considered in the Final HSW EIS.
 
Storage Alternatives The specific storage methods for waste 
awaiting treatment and/or disposal depend on the chemical and 
physical characteristics of the waste as well as the type and 
concentration of radionuclides in the waste. As described in the 
HSW EIS, in most cases, alternatives for storage of LLW, MLLW, 
and TRU waste consisted of using existing capacity at the Central 
Waste Complex (CWC), the T Plant Complex, the LLBGs, or other 
onsite facilities. Additional storage capacity was not expected 
to be needed to accommodate future waste receipts, because as 
waste in storage is treated, processed, or certified for 
disposal, space would become available for newly received waste. 
Although construction and operation of new storage facilities is 
not proposed in any of the action alternatives, the HSW EIS 
analyzed the impacts of using existing storage capacity for 
completeness.
 
Treatment and Processing Alternatives Action alternatives for 
waste treatment examined in the Final HSW EIS applied two general 
approaches in developing alternatives for treating and processing 
wastes. The first approach would maximize the use of offsite 
treatment and develop additional onsite capacity to treat waste 
that could not be accepted at offsite facilities.
 
DOE would establish additional contracts or agreements with a 
permitted offsite facility (or facilities) to treat most of 
Hanford's CH-MLLW and non- conforming LLW that does not meet 
Hanford's waste acceptance criteria for disposal. DOE would 
develop new onsite treatment capability by modifying the T Plant 
Complex as necessary for treatment of RH-MLLW and MLLW in 
non-standard containers, e.g., oversize boxes or large items. (CH 
waste containers can be safely handled by direct contact using 
appropriate health and safety measures. RH waste containers 
require special handling or shielding during waste management 
operations.) DOE would develop new onsite processing capability 
by modifying the T Plant Complex as necessary for processing and 
certification of RH TRU waste and TRU waste in non-standard 
containers for shipment to WIPP.
 
The second approach for developing alternatives for treating and 
processing wastes maximizes the use of onsite treatment 
capabilities. If treatment capacity does not currently exist at 
Hanford, a new waste processing facility (or facilities) would be 
constructed to treat MLLW and non-conforming LLW and to process 
and certify RH TRU waste and TRU waste in non-standard containers 
for shipment to WIPP.
 
In both approaches, the Waste Receiving and Processing Facility 
(WRAP) and mobile processing units (referred to as Accelerated 
Process Lines, or APLs) would continue to process and certify CH 
TRU waste in standard containers for shipment to WIPP.
 
Disposal Alternatives The final step in the waste management 
process is disposal. Disposal facilities at Hanford accept waste 
suitable for near-surface disposal in accordance with the Hanford 
Site solid waste acceptance criteria. The HSW EIS evaluated 
alternatives or updated previous plans for disposal of LLW, MLLW, 
ILAW, and melters at Hanford, including expansion, 
reconfiguration, and closure of onsite disposal facilities.
 
Disposal alternatives in the HSW EIS assumed continued use of 
existing disposal facilities at Hanford until new disposal 
capacity can be developed and permitted. All disposal facilities 
would meet applicable state and federal requirements. Facilities 
for disposal of MLLW would be constructed to regulatory standards 
for new MLLW facilities with double liners and leachate 
collection systems.
 
LLW disposal in either lined or unlined trenches was evaluated in 
various alternatives. At the end of operations, all disposal 
facilities would be closed by applying an engineered barrier 
(cap) (i.e., a cover of soil and other material placed over waste 
sites) to reduce water infiltration and the potential for 
intrusion.
 
Several different configurations and locations were evaluated for 
new disposal facilities needed to manage each waste type.
 
Disposal configurations included various options for the number 
and size of trenches, including facilities dedicated to a single 
type of waste and options for combined disposal of two or more 
waste types in the same facility. Alternatives for segregated 
disposal of LLW or MLLW consisted of multiple trenches similar to 
those currently employed for each waste type, multiple trenches 
of a deeper and wider configuration, or a single expandable 
trench for each waste type.
 
Alternatives for combined disposal of two or more waste types 
were also evaluated. The HSW EIS considered alternatives that 
included two combined-use disposal facilities; one for combined 
disposal of LLW and MLLW, and one for combined disposal of ILAW 
and melters. In addition, disposal of all waste types in a single 
modular combined-use facility was evaluated. To ensure that 
wastes placed in the same module are suitable for disposal 
together and are compatible with the engineered disposal system, 
disposal in combined-use facilities would involve construction of 
separate modules for wastes with different characteristics.
 
The HSW EIS alternatives considered several different disposal 
locations for new or expanded disposal facilities, including use 
of LLBGs in the 200 West and 200 East Areas. New disposal sites 
in the 200 West Area near the CWC and near the PUREX facility 
located in the southeastern corner of the 200 East Area were also 
evaluated.
 
Some alternatives evaluated combined-use disposal facilities near 
the existing Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF).
 
 
[[Page 39452]] Waste Volumes The potential environmental 
consequences of action alternatives in the HSW EIS have been 
evaluated for three waste volumes: a Hanford Only, a Lower Bound, 
and an Upper Bound waste volume. These alternative waste volume 
scenarios encompass the range of quantities that might be 
generated at Hanford, and which could be received from other 
sites. The Hanford Only and Lower Bound waste volumes were 
evaluated in the No Action Alternative. The Hanford Only waste 
volume was included in the HSW EIS in response to requests from 
the public as a base volume for considering the impacts of 
managing offsite waste. The three waste volumes are as follows: 
The Hanford Only waste volume consists of (1) currently stored 
and forecast volumes of LLW, MLLW, and TRU waste from Hanford 
Site generators, (2) forecast volumes of Hanford's ILAW and 
melters, and (3) waste that has previously been disposed of in 
the LLBGs.
 
The Lower Bound waste volume consists of (1) the Hanford Only 
waste volume, (2) forecast volumes of LLW and small quantities of 
MLLW from other sites for disposal at Hanford under existing 
approvals, and (3) small quantities of TRU waste from other DOE 
sites that would be received at Hanford for interim storage, 
processing, certification, and shipment to WIPP.
 
The Upper Bound waste volume consists of the Lower Bound waste 
volume plus the estimated total quantities of LLW, MLLW, and TRU 
waste that could be received from other sites through the end of 
Hanford site waste management operations. All of the action 
alternatives summarized below included an analysis of the Upper 
Bound volume consistent with DOE's decisions under the WM PEIS 
(63 FR 3629, January 23, 1998; 65 FR 10061, February 25, 2000; 
and 67 FR 56989, September 6, 2002).
 
Grouping of Action Alternatives There is a large potential number 
of combinations of the various waste streams, potential waste 
volumes, and individual options for their storage, treatment, and 
disposal. To facilitate the analysis and presentation of impacts, 
these potential combinations were grouped into five primary 
alternatives which comprise the range of reasonable alternatives 
for managing the waste types considered in the HSW EIS.
 
Summary of Action Alternatives Each action alternative included 
the Hanford Only, Lower Bound, and Upper Bound waste volumes. All 
of the action alternatives assumed continued use of existing 
waste management capabilities and facilities, such as operation 
of WRAP and the APLs to process and certify CH TRU waste, and use 
of existing disposal facilities until new ones can be designed, 
permitted, and constructed. All of these alternatives assumed all 
disposal facilities would be closed with an engineered barrier 
(cap) designed and installed to meet regulatory requirements 
applicable to MLLW disposal facilities.
 
Alternative Group A--Disposal by Waste Type in Deeper, Wider 
Trenches--Onsite and Offsite Treatment: New LLW and MLLW disposal 
trenches would be deeper and wider than those currently in use, 
and facilities for disposal of MLLW, ILAW, and melters would 
include liners and leachate collection systems. Different waste 
types would be disposed of in separate facilities. New LLW 
disposal facilities would be located in the 200 West Area and new 
MLLW, ILAW, and melter disposal facilities would be located in 
the 200 East Area. Existing facilities would be modified to 
provide processing capabilities for RH TRU waste and TRU waste in 
non-standard containers, as well as treatment capabilities for 
RH-MLLW and MLLW in non-standard containers.
 
Most CH- MLLW would be treated in commercial treatment 
facilities.
 
Alternative Group B--Disposal by Waste Type in Existing Design 
Disposal Trenches--Onsite Treatment: Disposal trenches for LLW 
and MLLW would be of the same design as those currently in use. 
Different waste types would be disposed of separately. New LLW 
and ILAW disposal facilities would be located in the 200 West 
Area, and new MLLW and melter disposal facilities would be 
located in the 200 East Area. A new facility would be built to 
provide processing capabilities for RH TRU waste and TRU waste in 
non-standard containers, as well as treatment capabilities for 
RH-MLLW, most CH-MLLW, and MLLW in non-standard containers.
 
Alternative Group C--Disposal by Waste Type in Expandable Design 
Facilities--Onsite and Offsite Treatment: A single, expandable 
disposal facility (similar to the ERDF) would be used for each 
waste type. Different waste types would be disposed of in 
separate facilities. A new LLW disposal facility would be located 
in the 200 West Area and new MLLW, ILAW, and melter disposal 
facilities would be located in the 200 East Area. Treatment 
alternatives would be the same as those described for Alternative 
Group A.
 
Alternative Group D--Single Combined-use Disposal 
Facility--Onsite and Offsite Treatment: LLW, MLLW, ILAW, and 
melters would be disposed of in a single combined-use facility. 
Disposal would occur at one of three locations.
 
Alternative Group D1: in the 200 East Area near the PUREX 
facility.
 
Alternative Group D2: in the 200 East Area LLBGs.
 
Alternative Group D3: at the ERDF.
 
Treatment alternatives would be the same as those described for 
Alternative Group A. Alternative Group D1 was identified as the 
preferred alternative in the Final HSW EIS.
 
Alternative Group E--Dual Combined-use Disposal 
Facilities--Onsite and Offsite Treatment: Two combined-use 
disposal facilities would be constructed. One facility would be 
used for disposal of LLW and MLLW, and a second would be used for 
disposal of ILAW and melters.
 
Disposal would occur in one of three combinations of locations.
 
Alternative Group E1: ILAW and melters at ERDF, LLW and MLLW 
within the existing 200 East Area LLBGs.
 
Alternative Group E2: ILAW and melters at ERDF, LLW and MLLW in 
the 200 East Area near the PUREX facility.
 
Alternative Group E3: ILAW and melters in the 200 Area near the 
PUREX facility, LLW and MLLW at ERDF.
 
Treatment alternatives would be the same as those described for 
Alternative Group A.
 
No Action Alternative Analyzing a No Action Alternative is 
required under NEPA regulations and provides an environmental 
baseline against which the impacts of other alternatives can be 
compared. The HSW EIS No Action Alternative would continue 
ongoing waste management activities. However, the HSW EIS No 
Action Alternative did not include development of new 
capabilities to manage wastes that cannot currently be treated, 
or which are otherwise not suitable either for shipment to WIPP 
or for onsite disposal under the Hanford Site solid waste 
acceptance criteria. Under the No Action Alternative, these 
wastes would be stored indefinitely with no path forward for 
ultimate disposition and DOE would not be able to meet all 
applicable regulatory requirements or TPA milestones for 
management of those wastes.
 
Hanford's treatment and processing capacity under the No Action 
Alternative would be limited to existing onsite capabilities and 
previously established contracts with offsite
 
[[Page 39453]] facilities to treat small quantities of MLLW. 
Disposal of LLW in the LLBGs would continue using trenches of the 
current design. The trenches would be backfilled with soil but 
would not be capped. Two existing MLLW trenches would be filled 
to capacity and capped in accordance with applicable regulations. 
Processing and certification of some CH TRU waste at WRAP and the 
APLs would continue, and certified wastes would be shipped to 
WIPP. Any wastes that could not be treated, processed, certified, 
or disposed of would require indefinite storage. The CWC would be 
expanded to store most unprocessed or uncertified TRU waste and 
most untreated LLW and MLLW, as well as melters and other treated 
MLLW exceeding existing disposal capacity. Small quantities of 
waste could also be stored at other locations, such as T Plant or 
the LLBGs. ILAW would be stored in concrete vaults to be 
constructed near the PUREX facility located in the southeastern 
corner of the Hanford Site 200 East Area.
 
Environmentally Preferable Alternative All of the action 
alternative groups were estimated to result in low environmental 
impacts, with small differences in impacts among the alternative 
groups. No occupational fatalities or increased incidences of 
cancer or fatal chemical exposures associated with normal 
operations would be expected from any of the action alternatives. 
Although potential adverse impacts on soils, air quality, noise 
levels, visual resources, socioeconomic conditions, resource 
availability, and land use could occur with any of the 
alternatives, these impacts would be low. Potential 
transportation impacts, including incidence of cancer and 
fatalities from accidents, would be very small. Because 
transportation impacts are related to the number of shipments, 
such impacts would increase with increasing waste volumes being 
shipped to, from, and within the Hanford Site. The maximum 
potential transportation impacts calculated for all the action 
alternatives were associated with the upper bound volume and 
would possibly result in up to 75 accidents, up to a total of 
three potential fatalities resulting from those accidents, and up 
to 10 potential latent cancer fatalities during routine 
transport. A substantial portion of these potential 
transportation impacts would be from shipments of TRU waste 
generated at Hanford that DOE had previously decided to ship to 
WIPP for disposal.
 
No single alternative group could be identified as the 
environmentally preferable alternative for all types of impacts 
considered in the HSW EIS. Although Alternative Group D1 may 
result in greater potential impacts to the shrub-steppe habitat 
at Hanford than the other alternative groups, it shows slightly 
lower impacts to other resource areas. On balance Alternative 
Group D1 would be environmentally preferable for most types of 
potential impacts.
 
Compared to the other action alternative groups, the preferred 
alternative identified in the Final HSW EIS (Alternative Group 
D1) would have slightly lower long-term impacts on water quality 
and slightly lower long-term dose impacts if groundwater is used 
for drinking water and other uses, but somewhat greater potential 
for disturbance of shrub-steppe habitat over the operational 
period. Incremental doses from radionuclides in groundwater at 
100 meters from disposal facilities would not exceed the 
4-millirem-per-year DOE benchmark (based on radiation dose 
conversion factors as published in Federal Guidance Reports 11 
and 12 [EPA-520/1-88-020 and EPA-402-R-93- 081, respectively]). 
Due to differences in the new disposal facility design, 
construction, operation, location, and waste packaging and/or 
encapsulation (which affect the concentration, location, and time 
of any release), constituents migrating from the new lined, 
combined-use disposal facilities, when added to impacts remaining 
from past waste disposal activities, would not be expected to 
result in exceedences of maximum contaminant levels \4\ in 
groundwater at points beyond the disposal facility boundary.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \4\ Contaminant concentration limits for drinking 
water supplied by public water systems as set by EPA or the 
Washington State Department of Health were used as a benchmark in 
the HSW EIS to compare the potential impacts of alternatives.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- Transportation of Waste Shipments of LLW, MLLW and TRU 
waste to Hanford and subsequent shipment of TRU waste from 
Hanford to WIPP are the subject of previous decisions made under 
the WM PEIS (63 FR 3629, 65 FR 10061, and 67 FR 56989) and WIPP 
Disposal Phase Final Supplemental EIS SEIS-II (DOE/EIS- 
0026-S-2). In response to public interest in potential 
transportation impacts and risks of shipping offsite waste to 
Hanford and shipments of TRU waste from Hanford to WIPP, the HSW 
EIS includes an updated route- specific transportation analysis 
of potential LLW, MLLW, and TRU waste shipments using Year 2000 
census data and an updated version of the RADTRAN computer 
modeling code. The transportation analyses conducted in the HSW 
EIS confirmed conclusions previously reached by the WM PEIS.
 
Comments on the Final HSW EIS Comments on the Final HSW EIS were 
received from the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 
Reservation, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama 
Indian Nation, members of Congress, EPA, the State of Washington 
Department of Ecology, and the Oregon Department of Energy. The 
major concerns raised in the comments, along with DOE's 
responses, are as follows: Opposition to the importation to 
Hanford of waste from other sites, primarily LLW and MLLW for 
disposal, in the face of the need to clean up the Hanford Site: 
DOE has decided to restrict receipt of LLW and MLLW from other 
sites for disposal at Hanford. DOE is also pursuing a strategy 
whereby Hanford's TRU waste, high-level waste, and spent nuclear 
fuel will be shipped offsite to federal repositories built to 
provide the high degree of isolation from the human environment 
required for these wastes. DOE expects that the benefits of these 
actions, coupled with other remediation programs at Hanford, will 
contribute significantly to attaining sound cleanup goals for 
Hanford.
 
Opposition to disposal of LLW in unlined trenches and the threat 
this poses to Hanford's groundwater: DOE has decided to dispose 
of LLW in lined trenches, effective immediately. DOE will use 
existing lined trenches until the new lined, combined-used 
disposal facility is available, which is expected in 
approximately the 2007 time frame.
 
Mitigation necessary to protect groundwater and the Columbia 
River: DOE has decided to institute new mitigation measures, 
including installation of secondary leak detection capability in 
the new lined, combined-use disposal facility, in addition to 
existing mitigation measures summarized in ``Mitigation 
Measures'' below.
 
Declaration of irretrievable and irreversible commitment of 
groundwater as a means of abrogating cleanup responsibilities: As 
stated in the HSW EIS, DOE believes that already present 
contamination from past practices precludes the beneficial use of 
groundwater beneath portions of the Hanford Site for the 
foreseeable future, as a matter of protecting public health. DOE 
will continue to use ongoing cleanup programs to address 
contaminants resulting from past practices.
 
DOE intends to meet its responsibilities for cleanup and site 
remediation and is not changing
 
[[Page 39454]] existing groundwater remediation activities or 
commitments.
 
Groundwater protection, monitoring and remediation will continue 
to be performed consistent with the TPA, the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 
and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) past-practice 
requirements.
 
Adequacy of groundwater analyses in the Final HSW EIS: As stated 
in the HSW EIS, there are uncertainties in the data about the 
geology and groundwater at Hanford and in the analytical 
approaches available to estimate potential environmental impacts. 
DOE accounted for uncertainties by using conservative assumptions 
in the groundwater analyses. Accordingly, DOE believes that 
sufficient information currently exists to enable DOE to make 
informed decisions regarding waste management. DOE will continue 
to support ongoing investigative efforts to improve its technical 
and analytical capabilities.
 
Adequacy of the existing groundwater monitoring system near 
unlined disposal trenches: Groundwater monitoring wells including 
those near unlined disposal trenches will be installed, operated, 
and removed from service consistent with the TPA and applicable 
regulations. DOE will install 17 additional wells around the 
LLBGs to meet its commitment under the M-24 series of TPA 
milestones.
 
(The M-24 series of TPA milestones also has mechanisms for 
determining future Hanford Site groundwater monitoring needs.) 
Other monitoring needs for the LLBGs will be established through 
ongoing permitting processes with the State of Washington 
Department of Ecology. The Hanford Site Groundwater Strategy 
(DOE/RL-2002-59, February 2004) addresses monitoring as part of a 
larger program to protect the groundwater, monitor the 
groundwater, and continue remediating existing contamination. 
Other TPA milestones establish dates for completing 
investigations of existing sites where waste was disposed of and 
deciding how these sites will be closed.
 
``Long-term stewardship'' is not being adequately addressed at 
Hanford: Accelerating cleanup at the Hanford Site and disposing 
of additional LLW and MLLW from Hanford and other DOE sites 
requires attention to long-term stewardship both now and in the 
future. Hanford Site closure and long-term stewardship are being 
addressed consistent with the TPA and applicable CERCLA and DOE 
requirements, including monitoring, periodic reassessments of 
past decisions, and institutional controls. These requirements 
address the potential application of new technologies during 
periodic reassessments.
 
DOE will continue to refine and implement the Hanford Long-Term 
Stewardship Program: Preparation for Environmental Management 
Cleanup Completion (DOE/RL-2003-39, August 2003), which has been 
developed with the input of regulators and stakeholders over the 
last several years.
 
Because of the need to prepare for its post-cleanup mission, DOE 
has established the Office of Legacy Management to monitor, 
maintain, and reassess sites after they are closed. Decisions 
made in this ROD are consistent with existing and planning 
efforts.
 
Lack of information on retrieval and treatment of tank waste: As 
stated in the HSW EIS, DOE is preparing the ``Environmental 
Impact Statement for Retrieval, Treatment, and Disposal of Tank 
Waste and Closure of Single-Shell Tanks at the Hanford Site,'' 
referred to as the Tank Closure Environmental Impact Statement 
(TC EIS). The State of Washington Department of Ecology is a 
cooperating agency involved in the preparation of the TC EIS. The 
public will have an opportunity to comment on the Draft TC EIS.
 
Limited availability of thermal treatment capability for some 
types of mixed waste, and DOE's plans for managing such wastes 
are unclear: DOE is determining how best to manage waste for 
which no final disposition plans currently exist. Though the 
availability of thermal treatment for radioactive waste is 
limited, DOE is actively seeking the services necessary to treat 
thermally some Hanford-generated MLLW in the commercial sector.
 
Worker safety: DOE will increase efforts to protect and enhance 
worker safety and has recently given new direction to Hanford 
contractors establishing DOE's expectations of measurable safety 
improvements. DOE's Integrated Safety Management System 
principles will continue to be applied to ensure extensive worker 
involvement in planning work. DOE will conduct special emphasis 
reviews of particular issues as appropriate.
 
Decisions Storage and Treatment of Low-Level Waste and Mixed 
Low-Level Waste DOE has decided to implement the actions 
described in the preferred alternative, Alternative Group D1, for 
storing and treating LLW and MLLW. LLW and MLLW will continue to 
be stored in existing facilities such as the CWC. Most LLW and 
MLLW will be treated under agreements with offsite treatment 
facilities. Existing onsite treatment capabilities and facilities 
will also continue to be used as appropriate. For wastes that 
cannot be treated at existing onsite or offsite facilities, such 
as RH waste or waste in non-standard containers, treatment 
capacity will be established at Hanford by modifying the T Plant 
Complex as needed. Although DOE expects most offsite waste to be 
treated elsewhere before receipt at Hanford, small quantities of 
offsite waste (up to 100 m\3\ of MLLW) will be received as 
necessary for onsite treatment.
 
Disposal of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste DOE has 
decided to implement the actions described in the preferred 
alternative, Alternative Group D1, for disposing of LLW and MLLW 
at Hanford, including the waste resulting from the vitrification 
process (ILAW and melters), should they be determined to be LLW 
or MLLW, up to the volumes evaluated in the HSW EIS, subject to 
the limitations on receipt of offsite waste described below. DOE 
will construct a new lined, combined-use facility for disposal of 
this waste near the PUREX facility located in the southeastern 
corner of the Hanford Site 200 East Area. The combined-use 
facility will contain separate modules for wastes with differing 
characteristics as necessary to ensure that wastes placed in the 
same module are suitable for disposal together and do not 
adversely affect disposal system components. The new facility is 
projected to be available for waste disposal in 2007.
 
DOE will continue to dispose of MLLW in lined facilities having 
leachate collection systems. In addition, effective immediately, 
DOE will dispose of LLW in the existing lined facilities and will 
subsequently dispose of LLW in the new lined, combined-use 
disposal facility when it becomes operational. After the end of 
disposal operations, the LLBGs and the new lined, combined-use 
facility will be closed by applying an engineered barrier (cap) 
to reduce water infiltration and the potential for intrusion.
 
Also effective immediately, DOE will limit the total receipt of 
additional waste from offsite generators for disposal at Hanford 
to 62,000 m\3\ of LLW and 20,000 m\3\ of MLLW. This is less than 
25 percent of the Upper Bound volume of waste evaluated for 
offsite generators in the HSW EIS. Until the new disposal 
facility is operational, DOE will limit receipt of LLW and MLLW 
from offsite generators for
 
[[Page 39455]] disposal at Hanford to no more than 13,000 m\3\, 
of which no more than 5,000 m\3\ will be MLLW.
 
Storage, Processing, Certification, and Shipment of TRU Waste DOE 
has decided to implement the actions described in the preferred 
alternative, Alternative Group D1, to process and certify TRU 
waste for shipment to WIPP. WRAP and APLs will continue to 
process and certify most CH TRU waste. For TRU waste that cannot 
be processed and certified at existing facilities, such as RH or 
non-standard containers, DOE will develop onsite capability by 
modifying the T Plant Complex as necessary to store, process, 
certify, and ship TRU waste to WIPP in quantities up to the Upper 
Bound waste volume evaluated in the Final HSW EIS (up to 46,000 
m\3\ of Hanford TRU waste and up to 1,550 m\3\ of offsite TRU 
waste). If, through the certification process, any of this waste 
is determined to be LLW, it will be disposed of at Hanford in 
lined trenches according to existing procedures, Hanford Site 
solid waste acceptance criteria, and consistent with applicable 
regulatory requirements.
 
No decision is being made in this ROD to transfer TRU waste from 
other sites to Hanford for storage prior to disposal at WIPP.
 
Such a decision would be made in a separate ROD or RODs revising, 
as appropriate, decisions previously made under the WM PEIS.\5\ 
As stated in DOE's decision under the WM PEIS regarding the 
treatment and storage of TRU waste, DOE may, in the future, 
decide to ship TRU waste from sites that do not have the 
capability to manage this waste to sites that do have this 
capability, until the waste can be disposed of at WIPP. The sites 
that could receive such TRU waste are the Hanford Site, the Oak 
Ridge Reservation, the Savannah River Site, and the Idaho 
National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory. If DOE decides 
to ship additional offsite TRU waste to Hanford for storage, 
processing, or certification prior to shipment to WIPP, DOE would 
consider information from the WM PEIS and the HSW EIS in issuing 
a revised ROD.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \5\ Concurrently with the issuance of this ROD, DOE is 
issuing a revision to the WM PEIS ROD confirming its September 6, 
2002, decision under the WM PEIS to transfer a small quantity of 
TRU waste from the Battelle West Jefferson North Site in 
Columbus, Ohio, to Hanford. This waste will be stored, certified, 
and processed pending shipment to WIPP for disposal. However, 
these shipments will not commence unless and until the 
preliminary injunction issued by the District Court for the 
Eastern District of Washington is lifted.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- Bases for Decisions DOE considered potential 
environmental impacts as identified in the HSW EIS, cost, 
applicable regulatory requirements, and public comments in 
arriving at its decisions. Of all of the action alternatives, DOE 
believes the slightly lower long-term impacts on water quality in 
Alternative Group D1, and the slightly lower long-term dose 
impacts if groundwater is used, offset a somewhat greater 
potential for disturbance of shrub-steppe habitat over the 
operational period.
 
Future waste disposal operations would be combined in a single 
location in the 200 East Area that could provide a unified 
regulatory pathway to construction, operation, and post-closure 
maintenance of the disposal site. The use of lined facilities for 
disposal and significant limits on the receipt of LLW and MLLW 
from other sites for disposal at Hanford is responsive to public 
concerns and comments. In addition, the construction of a single 
disposal facility and modification of the T Plant Complex is 
expected to offer a cost advantage over other alternatives.
 
Mitigation Measures In addition to limiting receipt of offsite 
LLW and MLLW and disposing of LLW in lined trenches, DOE will 
adopt all practicable measures, which are described below, to 
avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts that may result 
from implementing the actions described in the Final HSW EIS 
under Alternative Group D1. All of these measures are either 
explicitly part of the alternatives or are already performed as 
part of routine operations.
 
Storage, treatment, and disposal facilities will be designed, 
constructed, and operated in accordance with the comprehensive 
set of DOE requirements and applicable regulatory requirements 
that have been established to protect public health and the 
environment. These requirements encompass a wide variety of 
areas, including radiation protection, facility design criteria, 
fire protection, emergency preparedness and response, and 
operational safety requirements.
 
Waste and other materials will be transported in accordance with 
applicable U.S. Department of Transportation and DOE 
requirements.
 
RH MLLW and RH TRU waste will be transported, stored, treated, 
processed, and/or certified with appropriate shielding to protect 
workers and the public.
 
LLW will be disposed of in facilities that incorporate double 
liners and leachate collection systems although not required by 
regulation. MLLW will continue to be disposed of in such 
facilities according to applicable regulations.
 
Measures will be taken to protect construction and operations 
personnel from occupational hazards and the ``As-Low-as- 
Reasonably-Achievable'' principle will be implemented to minimize 
worker exposures to radioactive and chemical hazards.
 
Emergency response plans will be in place to allow rapid response 
to potentially dangerous unplanned events.
 
Water and other surface sprays will be used to control dust 
emissions, especially at borrow sites, gravel or dirt haul roads, 
and during construction earthwork.
 
Pollution control or treatment will be used to reduce or 
eliminate releases of contaminants to the environment and meet 
applicable regulatory standards.
 
Environmental monitoring systems will be installed and operated 
to detect potential releases to the environment.
 
Secondary leak detection capability will be designed into the new 
lined, combined-use disposal facility.
 
Disturbed areas will be mitigated consistent with the Hanford 
Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement Record 
of Decision (64 FR 61615, November 12, 1999).
 
LLW and MLLW disposal facilities will be closed with an 
engineered barrier (cap) designed and installed to meet 
regulatory requirements applicable to MLLW.
 
LLW and MLLW containing more mobile contaminants will continue to 
be disposed of in high-integrity containers or by encapsulating 
the waste in grout.
 
Consideration will be given to further protect the environment 
from contaminants of concern (e.g., iodine-129, technetium- 99) 
in solid waste from the 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility and 
as part of the development of the performance assessments and the 
waste acceptance criteria for the new lined, combined-use 
disposal facility.
 
TRU waste stored in the LLBGs will continue to be retrieved 
consistent with existing TPA milestones. This waste will continue 
to be shipped from Hanford to WIPP for disposal.
 
Issued in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of June 2004.
 
Jessie Hill Roberson, Assistant Secretary for Environmental 
Management.
 
[FR Doc. 04-14806 Filed 6-29-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 39 DOE: Revision to the Record of Decision for the Department of
 
                        FR Doc 04-14808 
[Federal Register: June 30, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 125)] 
[Notices] [Page 39456-39459] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30jn04-59] [[Page 
39456]]
 
Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase AGENCY: 
Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Revision to record of decision.
 
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to its 
implementing regulations under the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA), 10 CFR 1021.315, is revising its Record of Decision 
for the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 
Disposal Phase (WIPP ROD), 63 FR 3624 (Jan. 23, 1998). DOE has 
decided to dispose of up to 2,500 cubic meters of transuranic 
(TRU) waste containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in 
concentrations of 50 parts per million (ppm) or greater at the 
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico. 
DOE's current inventory of TRU waste mixed with PCBs is located 
at six DOE sites: the Hanford Site in Washington, the Idaho 
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, the Savannah 
River Site in South Carolina, the Oak Ridge Reservation in 
Tennessee, the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site in 
Colorado, and the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory in New York.\1\ 
Other sites in the DOE complex may also identify some TRU waste 
that contains PCBs during the process of characterizing their TRU 
waste for disposal at WIPP. Subject to further NEPA review, as 
appropriate, DOE would dispose of this waste from other sites at 
WIPP once it meets all of the acceptance criteria for placement 
in the repository.
 
This decision to dispose of TRU waste containing PCBs does not 
include the small amount of TRU waste with PCB liquids and PCB 
articles (e.g., capacitors, transformers, electric motors, pumps 
and pipes) of approximately 5 cubic meters. DOE will continue to 
work with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on a 
disposition path for these wastes.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \1\ In addition to more significant quantities of PCB- 
contaminated waste already at the Hanford site, DOE transferred a 
small amount of TRU waste with PCBs (4 cubic meters) from the 
Energy Technology Engineering Site in California to Hanford in 
December 2002 for characterization, repackaging, and storage 
pending shipment to WIPP. 67 FR 56989 (Sept. 6, 2002). At that 
time, DOE designated that particular waste for disposal at WIPP 
in accordance with the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- In the WIPP ROD, issued under the Waste Isolation 
Pilot Plant Disposal Phase Supplemental Environmental Impact 
Statement (WIPP SEIS- II), DOE/EIS-0026-S2, September 1997, DOE 
decided to dispose of up to 175,600 cubic meters of TRU waste 
from atomic energy defense activities at WIPP provided that the 
waste meets the repository's waste acceptance criteria.
 
DOE's WIPP ROD specifically excluded TRU waste with PCBs.
 
After the WIPP ROD was issued in January 1998, EPA issued new 
regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 
Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Final Rule, 63 FR 35384 
(June 29, 1998), that allow the disposal of specific types of PCB 
wastes (such as PCB remediation waste) without treatment at a 
chemical waste landfill authorized in accordance with EPA 
regulations regarding TSCA at 40 CFR Part 761. DOE then asked EPA 
to authorize WIPP as a chemical waste landfill so that DOE could 
use the repository for disposal of its TRU waste containing PCBs. 
On May 15, 2003, EPA authorized WIPP as a chemical waste 
landfill. DOE also applied to the State of New Mexico for a 
modification to WIPP's hazardous waste facility permit proposing 
to remove language reciting the prohibition on disposal of TRU 
waste with PCBs. This recital was based on the January 1998 WIPP 
ROD's exclusion of such TRU wastes, which in turn had been based 
on the fact that at that time there was no regulatory process 
available for WIPP to obtain an authorization from EPA to dispose 
of PCBs. On September 11, 2003, the State of New Mexico removed 
the recital by approval of a permit modification that allows 
disposal of TRU waste with PCBs at WIPP. With these regulatory 
changes, it is reasonable to believe that DOE will be able to 
obtain all the regulatory approvals necessary to allow it to 
dispose of most of the Department's anticipated inventory of TRU 
waste with PCBs.
 
Because the Department's estimates of its inventory of TRU waste 
with PCBs exceeds the inventory analyzed in the WIPP SEIS II and 
would not be thermally treated before disposal, DOE prepared a 
Supplement Analysis, Supplement Analysis for Disposal of 
Polychlorinated Biphenyl- Commingled Transuranic Waste at the 
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (DOE- EIS-0026-SA02), in accordance 
with DOE regulations for compliance with NEPA. Based on the 
Supplement Analysis, DOE determined that a supplement to the WIPP 
SEIS II is not required for the action decided in this revised 
ROD.
 
This revision to the WIPP ROD also constitutes the Department of 
Energy's designation of this waste for disposal at WIPP in 
accordance with Section 9(a)(1)(H) of the WIPP Land Withdrawal 
Act.
 
Accordingly, this waste is exempt from treatment standards and 
land disposal requirements promulgated pursuant to section 3004 
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6924). FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the WIPP 
SEIS-II, its ROD, the Supplement Analysis or for copies of these 
and other documents referenced herein, contact: Harold Johnson, 
WIPP SEIS-II Document Manager, Mail Stop 535, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Carlsbad Field Office, Post Office Box 3090, Carlsbad, NM 
88221, Telephone (505) 234-7349, E-Mail: Harold.Johnson@wipp.ws 
[Harold.Johnson@wipp.ws] . For further information on DOE's 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, contact: Carol 
M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance 
(EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20585, Telephone 202-586-4600, or leave a 
message at 1-800-472-2756.
 
This Revised Record of Decision and the associated Supplement 
Analysis (SA) will also be available on DOE's NEPA Web page at: 
http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa 
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving 
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa] under DOE NEPA 
Documents. The SA is available from the contact person identified 
above and in the DOE public reading room at the Forrestal 
Building in Washington, DC.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background TRU waste is radioactive 
waste that contains radionuclides with atomic numbers greater 
than that of uranium (92) and half-lives longer than 20 years in 
concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries per gram of waste. 
Contact-handled (CH) TRU waste has a radiation dose rate at a 
package surface of 200 millirems or less per hour and can be 
safely handled by workers without additional shielding. 
Remote-handled (RH) TRU waste has a radiation dose rate at a 
package surface greater than 200 millirems per hour and requires 
special shielding to protect workers. In the WIPP ROD, issued 
under the WIPP SEIS-II, DOE decided to dispose of up to 175,600 
cubic meters of TRU waste derived from atomic energy defense 
activities at WIPP, provided that the waste meets the 
repository's waste acceptance criteria. 63 FR 3628 (Jan. 23, 
1998). That decision specifically excluded TRU waste with PCBs. 
DOE also decided in that ROD that it would generally treat TRU 
waste destined for WIPP to meet the repository's TRU waste 
acceptance criteria. However, based on site-specific 
circumstances, DOE might treat TRU at some sites more
 
[[Page 39457]] extensively than these criteria would require.
 
In a companion ROD, based on the analyses in and made pursuant to 
the Waste Management Programmatic EIS (WM PEIS), DOE/EIS-0200, 
May 1997, DOE also announced that it would generally treat and 
store its TRU waste at the sites where that waste was currently 
located, except in the case of Sandia National Laboratory's 
waste, which would be transferred to the Los Alamos National 
Laboratory. Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's 
Waste Management Program: Treatment and Storage of Transuranic 
Waste, 63 FR 3629 (Jan. 23, 1998). That decision also stated that 
DOE might decide in the future to ship TRU wastes at sites where 
it might be impractical to prepare them for disposal to other 
sites that had or were slated to have the necessary capability.
 
II. Basis for the Decision Regulatory authorizations for TRU 
waste containing PCBs: Much of DOE's TRU waste contains hazardous 
constituents that are regulated under the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA). At the time that DOE issued the WIPP ROD 
in January 1998, DOE had applied for, but had not yet received, 
initial certification of the WIPP repository by EPA under the 
WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, 63 FR 3624 (Jan. 23, 1998),\2\ and a 
hazardous waste facility permit issued by the State of New Mexico 
pursuant to RCRA and New Mexico's Hazardous Waste Act. Since that 
time, both EPA \3\ and New Mexico \4\ have issued these 
approvals.
 
Consistent with the WIPP ROD and with these approvals, DOE has 
disposed of 55,768 cubic meters of contact handled (CH) TRU waste 
as of early June 2004. EPA has also approved DOE's procedures for 
characterizing remote handled (RH) TRU waste.\5\ 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \2\ EPA had issued a proposed certification of 
compliance, Criteria for the Certification and Recertification of 
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance With the Disposal 
Regulations: Certification Decision, 62 FR 58792 (Oct. 30, 1997), 
as the WIPP ROD noted, 63 FR at 3624.
 
\3\ Criteria for the Certification and Recertification of the 
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance With the Disposal 
Regulations: Certification Decision, 63 FR 27354 (May 18, 1998). 
EPA's certification specified that DOE would have to obtain EPA 
approval of its quality assurance programs at all sites other 
than Los Alamos, as well as of its waste characterization system 
of controls for all waste streams other than retrievably stored 
legacy debris.
 
\4\ Hazardous waste permit issued to DOE October 27, 1999, by New 
Mexico Environment Department (NMED).
 
\5\ Letter dated March 25, 2004, from Frank Marcinowski, 
Director, EPA Region VI Radiation Protection Division, to R.
 
Paul Detwiler, Acting Manager, Carlsbad Field Office.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- Some of DOE's TRU waste contains PCBs in 
concentrations of 50 ppm or greater. Disposal of such waste is 
regulated under TSCA. At the time DOE issued the WIPP ROD, 
neither DOE nor any commercial facility had the capability to 
treat TRU waste with PCBs in a manner that would meet the 
treatment requirements for PCBs imposed by TSCA in order to allow 
it to be disposed of at WIPP, and applicable EPA regulations 
regarding PCB-contaminated waste contained no provision that 
would allow for disposal of such waste there without meeting 
these requirements. Accordingly, the WIPP ROD specifically 
excluded waste with PCBs with concentrations of 50 ppm or greater 
from the decision to proceed with disposal operations at WIPP.
 
Subsequently, EPA issued new regulations for PCB disposal under 
TSCA, 63 FR 35384 (June 29, 1998), establishing categories of PCB 
waste (such as PCB remediation waste) that could be disposed of 
without treatment in a chemical waste landfill authorized 
pursuant to 40 CFR Part 761. In light of EPA's new PCB 
regulations, DOE reconsidered its strategy for managing TRU waste 
containing PCBs. DOE updated its inventory of this waste, which 
identified a larger volume of CH- and RH-TRU waste with PCBs than 
was identified in the WIPP SEIS-II.
 
DOE also classified its TRU wastes containing PCBs according to 
the categories established in the new PCB regulations. Most of 
DOE's TRU waste containing PCBs in concentrations of 50 ppm or 
greater is remediation waste, which does not require treatment 
prior to disposal in an authorized chemical waste landfill.
 
DOE applied to EPA for authorization of WIPP as a chemical waste 
landfill in order to dispose of its TRU waste containing PCBs.
 
On December 10, 2002, EPA proposed to grant this authorization, 
and on May 15, 2003, EPA authorized WIPP as a chemical waste 
landfill. DOE also applied to the State of New Mexico for a 
modification to WIPP's hazardous waste facility permit to remove 
language reciting the prohibition on disposal of TRU waste with 
PCBs, which was based on the fact that at the time there was no 
regulatory process available for WIPP to obtain an authorization 
to dispose of PCBs. On September 11, 2003, the State of New 
Mexico granted the permit modification.
 
With these regulatory changes, it is reasonable to believe that 
DOE will be able to obtain all the regulatory approvals necessary 
to allow it to dispose of most of the Department's anticipated 
inventory of TRU waste containing PCBs in concentrations of 50 
ppm or greater. DOE must still obtain certain additional 
approvals from EPA with respect to its waste characterization 
programs at certain sites where the TRU waste containing PCBs is 
located.
 
Prior NEPA Analyses: In the WIPP SEIS II, DOE analyzed the 
potential environmental impacts of the treatment, storage, 
transportation, and disposal of TRU waste, including TRU waste 
containing PCBs in concentrations of 50 ppm or greater. The WIPP 
SEIS II assumed that TRU waste containing PCBs would be thermally 
treated to destroy the PCBs before disposal at WIPP. To determine 
whether a supplemental EIS would be needed for the proposed 
action to dispose of approximately 2,500 cubic meters of TRU 
waste containing PCBs at WIPP, DOE prepared the Supplement 
Analysis for Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyl-Commingled 
Transuranic Waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, June 2004, 
(DOE EIS-0026-SA02) in which DOE reviewed the impacts that would 
be expected from preparing and transporting up to 2,500 cubic 
meters of TRU waste containing PCBs and disposing of this waste 
at WIPP. Adding this volume of TRU waste to the Basic Inventory 
in the WIPP SEIS II will not exceed the total volume of 175,600 
cubic meters analyzed in the WIPP SEIS II Proposed Action 
Alternative. DOE estimated the maximum impacts that could be 
associated with the addition of TRU waste containing PCBs (i.e., 
waste that would not be thermally treated to destroy the PCBs 
before disposal) to the hazardous organic compounds analyzed in 
Action Alternative 2 of the WIPP SEIS II. These impacts would be 
extremely small because no release of PCBs will occur under 
undisturbed conditions for at least 10,000 years. In no instance 
would the presence of PCBs increase the impacts beyond the small 
impacts presented in the WIPP SEIS II. Based on DOE's review of 
the potential impacts on land use, geology, hydrology, biological 
resources, air quality, socioeconomic conditions, noise, cultural 
resources, environmental justice, waste handling and 
characterization, transportation and long-term performance of the 
WIPP repository, DOE concluded that disposing of up to 2,500 
cubic meters of TRU waste containing PCBs at WIPP is not a 
substantial change to the Proposed Action analyzed in the WIPP 
SEIS II. Further, there are no substantial changes to the 
proposed action or significant new circumstances or information 
relevant to environmental concerns and
 
[[Page 39458]] bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. For 
these reasons, DOE has determined that a supplement to the WIPP 
SEIS II is not required under 40 CFR 1502.9 or 10 CFR 1021.314 in 
order for DOE to implement the proposed action.
 
Designation of Waste for WIPP: Section 9(a)(1)(H) of the WIPP 
Land Withdrawal Act exempts mixed TRU waste designated for 
disposal at WIPP from certain provisions of the Solid Waste 
Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.: With respect to transuranic 
mixed waste designated by the Secretary for disposal at WIPP, 
such waste is exempt from treatment standards promulgated 
pursuant to section 3004(m) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 
U.S.C. 6924(m)) and shall not be subject to the land disposal 
prohibitions in section 3004(d), (e), (f) and (g) of the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act.
 
WIPP Land Withdrawal Amendment Act, Pub. L. 104-201, 110 Stat. 
2422 (1996), section 3188(a) at Stat. 2853. DOE's prior RODs 
determining that various waste streams will be disposed of at 
WIPP, issued by officials with authority for management of 
nuclear waste, constitute designations of waste for WIPP under 
section 9(a)(1)(H) of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act.
 
In addition, the Secretary has also confirmed and ratified all 
prior designations. DOE's practice has been to issue these RODs 
with the reasonable expectation that it will be able to obtain 
all additional regulatory approvals it needs to carry out these 
decisions. DOE believes this practice is appropriate and that the 
fact that DOE needed certain additional regulatory approvals that 
it reasonably expected to obtain at the time it issued those RODs 
did not preclude the RODs from operating as a designation. 
Similarly, with respect to the PCB-contaminated transuranic 
waste, DOE does not believe that the fact that it still lacks 
certain regulatory approvals operates as an obstacle to its 
proceeding with today's ROD or to this ROD constituting a 
designation of TRU wastes for disposal at WIPP.
 
While DOE has now obtained the primary regulatory authorizations 
needed to dispose of TRU wastes containing PCBs in concentrations 
of 50 ppm or greater at WIPP, DOE recognizes that additional 
authorizations will be needed prior to shipping some wastes from 
particular sites to WIPP. For example, the Oak Ridge Reservation 
has not yet obtained approval from EPA and the New Mexico 
Environment Department (NMED) of its waste characterization 
program for certifying shipments of any types of TRU wastes to 
WIPP. Other sites, such as the Hanford Site in Richland, 
Washington, are approved to ship certain types of TRU wastes to 
WIPP (Hanford has shipped more than 450 cubic meters of TRU waste 
to WIPP), but have not yet obtained approval from EPA or NMED of 
all aspects of their waste characterization procedures for 
certifying TRU waste containing PCBs in concentrations of 50 ppm 
or greater.
 
Nevertheless, DOE believes it is appropriate in this ROD to 
designate its entire inventory of remediation and bulk product 
transuranic wastes containing PCBs in concentrations of 50 ppm or 
greater for disposal at WIPP pursuant to Section 9(a)(1)(H) of 
the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act. The word ``designation'' connotes a 
fairly simple and unilateral executive action by the Department 
with no particular formalities associated with it. It certainly 
contains no suggestion that DOE must await the obtaining of all 
regulatory approvals before taking this unilateral act. Nothing 
in the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act suggests that the Secretary's 
authority to designate waste for disposal at WIPP is limited to 
wastes with respect to which DOE has obtained all necessary 
regulatory authorizations for disposing of them in this fashion. 
Moreover, the purpose of section 9(a)(1)(H) is to exempt wastes 
destined for WIPP from costly treatment and related requirements 
that otherwise would be applicable under the Solid Waste Disposal 
Act. Given that there is every reason to believe that DOE will be 
able to obtain the additional approvals it needs, there is no 
reason to require DOE to meet the Solid Waste Disposal Act's Land 
Disposal Restriction treatment requirements and associated 
storage limitations. To the contrary, allowing DOE to proceed 
with designating TRU mixed wastes containing PCBs in 
concentrations of 50 ppm or greater for disposal at WIPP prior to 
obtaining these authorizations is fully consistent with the 
purposes of section 9(a)(1)(H).
 
Conversely, requiring DOE to wait to designate wastes for 
disposal at WIPP until all regulatory approvals needed to send 
the wastes to WIPP have been obtained would subject those wastes 
to treatment requirements that ultimately will not apply once the 
wastes are ready for disposal at WIPP. This would result in 
regulatory confusion and in wasted time and money spent to comply 
with requirements from which mixed TRU wastes ultimately sent to 
WIPP are exempt by virtue of section 9(a)(1)(H) of the WIPP Land 
Withdrawal Act. DOE believes the best and most rational 
interpretation of section 9(a)(1)(H) is that DOE may designate 
waste for disposal at WIPP at the time that DOE determines the 
waste can eventually be sent to WIPP, so long as there is a 
reasonable prospect that it will receive the necessary regulatory 
approvals for WIPP disposal.
 
With respect to the wastes at issue here, DOE believes that it 
will be able to obtain from EPA and New Mexico any additional 
approvals it may need to dispose of this material at WIPP, 
including state approval of the RH-TRU waste analysis plan. 
Waiting to designate these wastes for disposal at WIPP until all 
approvals needed to send the wastes to WIPP have been obtained 
would subject these wastes to treatment requirements that 
ultimately will not apply once the wastes are ready for disposal 
at WIPP.
 
Accordingly, DOE believes it is appropriate to designate the 
approximately 2,500 cubic meters of TRU waste containing PCBs in 
concentrations of 50 ppm or greater for disposal at WIPP, within 
the meaning of section 9(a)(1)(H) of the WIPP Land Withdrawal 
Act.
 
This designation comprises up to 2,500 cubic meters of TRU wastes 
with PCBs in concentrations of 50 ppm or greater that have been 
identified at the Hanford Site, the Idaho National Engineering 
and Environmental Laboratory, the Savannah River Site, the Oak 
Ridge Reservation, the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, 
the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, and similar wastes that may 
be identified in the future at these or other sites, subject to 
further NEPA review, as appropriate.
 
III. Decision In accordance with DOE's implementing regulations 
under NEPA, DOE has decided to dispose of its TRU waste 
containing PCBs in concentrations of 50 ppm or greater at WIPP 
near Carlsbad, New Mexico. DOE has identified approximately 2,500 
cubic meters of TRU wastes with PCBs, located at six sites: the 
Hanford Site in Washington, the Idaho National Engineering and 
Environmental Laboratory, the Savannah River Site in South 
Carolina, the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee, the Rocky Flats 
Environmental Technology Site in Colorado, and the Knolls Atomic 
Power Laboratory in New York. DOE will continue to work with EPA 
on options for the disposal of the relatively small portion of 
the Department's inventory of TRU wastes with PCBs (approximately 
5 cubic meters of PCB liquids and PCB articles) that at present 
cannot be placed in a chemical waste landfill.
 
In the future, these or other sites in the DOE complex may 
identify
 
[[Page 39459]] additional TRU waste that contains PCBs during the 
process of characterizing their TRU waste for disposal at WIPP. 
Subject to further NEPA review, as appropriate, DOE would dispose 
of this waste at WIPP if it meets all of the acceptance criteria 
for placement in the repository. DOE's decision in this ROD to 
dispose of this waste at WIPP constitutes the designation of that 
waste for purposes of section 9(a)(1)(H) of the WIPP Land 
Withdrawal Act.
 
DOE needs to safely and securely dispose of the TRU waste 
containing PCBs that has accumulated at its facilities and to 
provide for the disposal of such waste that it may generate in 
the future. DOE has requested and received the primary regulatory 
authorizations necessary to proceed with this decision. EPA has 
granted DOE's request for authorization to operate WIPP as a 
chemical waste landfill in accordance with TSCA, having confirmed 
that most of DOE's TRU waste with PCBs is remediation waste that 
can be disposed of at WIPP. Further, the State of New Mexico has 
approved a modification to WIPP's hazardous waste facility permit 
that removed language reciting the prohibition on disposal of TRU 
waste with PCBs. For the reasons discussed above, and in light of 
the finding that no further NEPA review is required, DOE can now 
safely isolate these wastes from the environment by disposing of 
them at WIPP.
 
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 23, 2004.
 
Jessie Hill Roberson, Assistant Secretary for Environmental 
Management.
 
[FR Doc. 04-14808 Filed 6-29-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 40 DOE: Revision to the Record of Decision for the Department of
 
                        FR Doc 04-14809 
[Federal Register: June 30, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 125)] 
[Notices] [Page 39446-39449] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30jn04-57]                         
 
Energy's Waste Management Program: Treatment and Storage of 
Transuranic Waste AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Revision to Record of Decision.
 
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is revising the Record of 
Decision (ROD) for its Waste Management Program: Treatment and 
Storage of Transuranic Waste prepared pursuant to the Waste 
Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (WM PEIS, 
DOE/EIS-0200-F, May 1997). The original ROD was issued on January 
20, 1998 (63 FR 3629), and revised on December 19, 2000 (65 FR 
82985), July 13, 2001 (66 FR 38646), and September 6, 2002 (67 FR 
56989). This present revision, based on consideration of new 
information, confirms DOE's September 6, 2002, decision to ship 
its transuranic (TRU) waste from the Battelle West Jefferson 
North Site (West Jefferson Site) in Columbus, Ohio, to the 
Hanford Site near Richland, Washington, for storage, processing, 
and certification, pending disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot 
Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico.
 
In its September 6, 2002, decision, DOE stated that it would 
transfer small quantities of TRU waste from the West Jefferson 
Site (approximately 27 cubic meters), and the Energy Technology 
Engineering Center (ETEC) (approximately 9 cubic meters) in 
Canoga Park, California, to the Hanford Site for storage. The TRU 
waste would be shipped to Hanford from both sites in Type B 
truck-mounted shipping casks licensed by the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) and ultimately shipped to WIPP.
 
After issuing its September 6, 2002, decision, DOE completed the 
ETEC shipments and three shipments of the West Jefferson TRU 
waste (about five cubic meters) to Hanford. In March 2003, DOE 
suspended further shipments of West Jefferson TRU waste to 
Hanford, and subsequently a preliminary injunction stopping 
further shipments of TRU waste to Hanford from West Jefferson was 
issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 
Washington in response to actions filed by the State of 
Washington and Columbia Riverkeeper.
 
Shipments of TRU waste to Hanford for storage and certification 
for disposal at WIPP have remained suspended pending completion 
of the Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste 
Program Environmental Impact Statement (HSW EIS, DOE/EIS-0286) 
and lifting of the preliminary injunction. DOE completed the 
Final HSW EIS in January 2004, and the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice of Availability of the 
HSW EIS on February 13, 2004. In the HSW EIS, DOE analyzed 
site-specific impacts at Hanford associated with storage, 
processing, and certification of the West Jefferson and other TRU 
waste and, using the most recent census data (Year 2000) and an 
updated version of the RADTRAN computer model, DOE analyzed 
transportation impacts of shipping this waste. The analyses 
conducted in the HSW EIS confirmed conclusions previously reached 
in the
 
[[Page 39447]] WM PEIS. That is, the impacts of transporting the 
West Jefferson TRU waste to Hanford and the onsite impacts of 
storing, certifying, and processing this waste for shipment to 
WIPP are small.
 
Based on the new information in the HSW EIS, as well as the 
information on which DOE's September 6, 2002, decision was based, 
DOE intends to complete the transfer of the West Jefferson TRU 
waste to Hanford for storage and certification prior to disposal 
at WIPP.
 
The remaining shipments will not commence unless and until the 
preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the 
Eastern District of Washington is lifted.
 
 
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents referenced herein are 
available from the: Center for Environmental Management 
Information, P.O. Box 23769, Washington, DC 20026-3769, 
telephone: 1-800-736-3282 (in Washington, DC: 202-863-5084).
 
The Final HSW EIS and other relevant information can also be 
viewed in the DOE Public Reading Room, Washington State 
University, Tri-Cities Campus, 100 Sprout Road, Room 130W, 
Richland, WA 99352, telephone: 509- 376-8583, Monday-Friday, 10 
a.m. to 4 p.m. The Final HSW EIS is available for review on the 
Internet at http://www.hanford.gov/eis/eis-0286D2 
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving 
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.hanford.gov/eis/eis-0286D2] and 
on the DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Web page 
(http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/eis/eis0286F 
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving 
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/eis/eis0286F] 
).
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For copies of the Final HSW EIS 
and further information about the HSW EIS, contact: Mr. Michael 
Collins, Document Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 
Operations Office, P.O. Box 550, A6-38, Richland, WA 99352, 
telephone: 509-376- 6536.
 
For further information on the disposal of TRU waste at WIPP, 
contact: Mr. Harold Johnson, U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad 
Field Office, P.O. Box 3093, Carlsbad, NM 88221, telephone: 
505-234-7349.
 
For further information on Hanford Site TRU waste operations, 
contact: Mr. Mark French, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 
Operations Office, P.O. Box 550, MSIN A6-38, Richland, WA 99352, 
telephone: 509-373-9863.
 
For information on DOE's NEPA process, contact: Ms. Carol 
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance 
(EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20585, telephone 202-586-4600, or leave a 
message at 1-800-472-2756.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background TRU waste is waste that 
contains alpha particle-emitting radionuclides with atomic 
numbers greater than that of uranium (92) and half-lives greater 
than 20 years in concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries per 
gram. TRU waste is classified according to the radiation dose at 
a package surface. Contact-handled (CH) TRU waste has a radiation 
dose rate at a package surface of 200 millirem per hour or less; 
direct contact with this waste can be made safely by workers. 
Remote-handled (RH) TRU waste has a radiation dose rate at a 
package surface greater than 200 millirem per hour, and must be 
handled remotely (e.g., with machinery designed to shield workers 
from radiation).
 
West Jefferson performed atomic energy research and development 
for DOE as part of the government's fuel and target fabrication 
programs from 1943-1986. DOE is contractually responsible for the 
disposal of CH- and RH-TRU waste generated as part of the cleanup 
of the West Jefferson Site. This waste consists of sample 
residues, analytical equipment, and hot cell fixtures that became 
contaminated during several decades of metallurgical and nuclear 
fuel research. As part of the closeout of its nuclear materials 
research contract, DOE is assisting in the remediation of the 
site. Although the West Jefferson facilities are privately owned, 
contract terms specify that all radioactive waste generated 
during the site cleanup is ``DOE-owned'' for the purposes of 
disposal. In the WM PEIS, prepared under the NEPA implementing 
regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508 and 10 CFR 1021), DOE evaluated the 
potential environmental impacts of treating and storing TRU waste 
at DOE generator sites and at DOE sites such as Hanford, where 
this waste could be consolidated on a regional or centralized 
basis. In the WM PEIS TRU Waste ROD (63 FR 3629, January 20, 
1998), DOE selected the Decentralized Alternative, stating that 
``each of the Department's sites that currently has or will 
generate TRU waste will prepare and store its waste on site'' 
prior to shipment to WIPP.\1\ The WM PEIS TRU Waste ROD also 
noted that ``in the future, the Department may decide to ship 
transuranic wastes from sites where it may be impractical to 
prepare them for disposal to sites where DOE has or will have the 
necessary capability.'' The WM PEIS TRU Waste ROD stated that the 
sites that could receive TRU waste shipments from other sites 
were the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, 
the Oak Ridge Reservation, the Savannah River Site, and the 
Hanford Site, and that such decisions would be subject to 
appropriate review under NEPA.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \1\ The only exception to this decision was the Sandia 
National Laboratory in New Mexico, which will ship its TRU waste 
to the Los Alamos National Laboratory for storage and processing 
before disposal at WIPP.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- In its September 6, 2002, decision, DOE identified 
approximately 115 55-gallon drums of RH-TRU waste (about 25 cubic 
meters) and approximately 10 drums of CH-TRU waste (about two 
cubic meters) for transfer from West Jefferson to Hanford. In 
that decision, based on the analysis contained in the WM PEIS and 
earlier analysis in of such shipments in the Environmental 
Assessment for Battelle Columbus Laboratories Decommissioning 
Project (DOE/EA-0433, June 1990), DOE concluded that the 
potential health and environmental impacts of shipping a total of 
approximately 27 cubic meters of TRU waste from West Jefferson to 
Hanford for storage and future certification for disposal at WIPP 
would be very small. Since that time, 20 drums of the 
previously-identified RH-TRU waste (about five cubic meters) have 
been transferred to Hanford, and through the decommissioning 
process, DOE has generated an additional 20 drums of RH-TRU waste 
at West Jefferson (also about five cubic meters). Thus about 25 
cubic meters of RH-TRU waste remain at West Jefferson. An 
additional 10 cubic meters of CH-TRU waste was also generated 
through the decommissioning process, bringing the total remaining 
CH-TRU waste at West Jefferson to approximately 12 cubic meters. 
This waste has been packaged into six standard waste boxes. All 
of the TRU waste (totaling approximately 37 cubic meters) was 
moved from the site's hot cell building to an onsite shielded 
area for temporary storage in order for decontamination and 
demolition of the hot cell building to proceed.\2\ DOE does not 
believe that additional TRU waste will be generated at the West 
Jefferson site.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \2\ In that same ROD, DOE also decided to transfer 
approximately 9 cubic meters of waste from ETEC to Hanford. Due 
to DOE repackaging, the actual volume of TRU waste shipped was 
approximately 4 cubic meters. DOE completed those shipments in 
December 2002.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- In March 2003, DOE suspended further shipments of West 
Jefferson TRU waste to Hanford, and subsequently a preliminary 
injunction stopping further shipments of TRU waste to Hanford was 
issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 
Washington in response to actions filed by the State of 
Washington and Columbia Riverkeeper (Nos. CT-03-5018AAM and 
CT-03-
 
[[Page 39448]] 5044AAM). Shipments of TRU waste from West 
Jefferson to Hanford for storage and future certification for 
disposal at WIPP have remained suspended pending completion of 
the HSW EIS and lifting of the preliminary injunction.
 
DOE completed the Final HSW EIS in January 2004, and EPA 
published a Notice of Availability of the HSW EIS on February 13, 
2004 (69 FR 7215). In the HSW EIS, DOE analyzed site specific 
impacts at Hanford associated with storage, processing, and 
certification of the West Jefferson and other TRU waste, and, 
using the most recent census data (Year 2000) and an updated 
version of the RADTRAN computer model, analyzed transportation 
impacts of shipping this waste. The analyses conducted in the HSW 
EIS confirmed conclusions previously reached by the WM PEIS and 
the WIPP Disposal Phase Supplemental EIS-II (WIPP-SEIS- II, 
DOE/EIS-0026-S-2, September 1997), which supported DOE's 
September 6, 2002, decision. These multiple NEPA reviews show 
that the impacts of transporting the West Jefferson TRU waste to 
Hanford, and the onsite impacts of storing, certifying, and 
processing this waste for shipment to WIPP are small.
 
In the WIPP SEIS II ROD, based on the analysis In the WIPP SEIS 
II, DOE decided to dispose of up to 175,600 cubic meters of TRU 
waste generated from defense activities, including waste from the 
Battelle West Jefferson site, at WIPP. The Department reaffirmed 
that decision in the September 6, 2002, revision to the WMPEIS 
ROD with respect to the Battelle waste when it decided to 
transfer this waste to Hanford pursuant to that revision.
 
Section 9(a)(1)(H) of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act exempts mixed 
TRU waste designated for disposal at WIPP from certain provisions 
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.: With 
respect to transuranic mixed waste designated by the Secretary 
for disposal at WIPP, such waste is exempt from treatment 
standards promulgated pursuant to section 3004(m) of the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6924(m)) and shall not be subject 
to the land disposal prohibitions in section 3004(d), (e), (f) 
and (g) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
 
WIPP Land Withdrawal Act Amendments, Public Law No. 104-201, 110 
Stat. 2422 (September 23, 1996), 3188(a) at Stat. 2853. In this 
ROD, the Department confirms its prior designation of the mixed 
TRU waste at West Jefferson for disposal at WIPP in the WIPP SEIS 
II ROD and the September 2002 revision to the WM PEIS ROD.
 
EPA has approved DOE's implementation plans to characterize 
defense-related RH-TRU waste for disposal at WIPP. DOE is still 
awaiting approval of its RH waste analysis plan. DOE anticipates 
that WIPP will begin disposal of RH-TRU waste in the 2006 time 
frame.
 
For the reasons explained in the Department's Revised Record of 
Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot 
Plant Disposal Phase, issued concurrently with this ROD, the need 
for additional regulatory approval that DOE is actively seeking 
and reasonably expects to be able to obtain is not an obstacle to 
designation of this waste under section 9(a)(1)(H) of the WIPP 
Land Withdrawal Act.
 
II. Decision DOE intends to complete the action stated in its 
September 6, 2002, ROD and ship the TRU waste currently stored at 
the West Jefferson Site in Columbus, Ohio, to the Hanford Site in 
Richland, Washington.
 
This waste consists of approximately 115 drums (about 25 cubic 
meters) of RH-TRU waste and 6 standard waste boxes (about 12 
cubic meters) of CH- TRU waste. DOE intends to transfer the 
RH-TRU waste in approximately 14 shipments using truck-mounted, 
Type B shipping containers licensed by the NRC, and the CH waste 
in one shipment, also in NRC-licensed, truck- mounted Type B 
containers.
 
At Hanford, DOE will store the West Jefferson RH-TRU in shielded 
containers at solid (radioactive and mixed) waste management 
facilities located in the 200 West Area of the site until this 
waste can be accepted at WIPP. West Jefferson CH-TRU waste will 
be assayed at Hanford, and any fraction determined to be 
low-level waste (LLW) will be disposed of at Hanford in lined 
trenches.\3\ West Jefferson is currently an approved generator 
site for disposal of LLW at Hanford.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \3\ Concurrently with the issuance of this ROD, DOE is 
issuing a ROD under the HSW EIS (Record of Decision for the Solid 
Waste Program, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington: Storage and 
Treatment of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste; Disposal 
of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste; and Storage, 
Processing, and Certification of Transuranic Waste for Shipment 
to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant). DOE's decisions for onsite 
LLW disposal at Hanford include a requirement to dispose of such 
waste in lined trenches.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- The remaining fraction would be CH-TRU waste, which 
would be packaged and certified to meet the WIPP Waste Acceptance 
Criteria, and ultimately shipped to WIPP for disposal.
 
III. Basis for the Decision DOE needs to ship its TRU waste from 
the West Jefferson site in order to complete the cleanup of 
contaminated facilities at this site in a timely manner. The TRU 
waste is predominantly RH-TRU waste, which cannot presently be 
accepted at WIPP for disposal. Continued storage of the TRU waste 
on the West Jefferson Site until WIPP is ready to receive the 
RH-TRU waste (estimated to be in the 2006 time frame) may require 
construction of a new, shielded facility licensed by the State of 
Ohio and the NRC. Construction of a new facility could not be 
completed by the West Jefferson scheduled closure date of 
December 2005.
 
Also, building a new facility would divert funding away from 
necessary clean- up activities, be inconsistent with DOE's goal 
of early removal of radioactive waste from privately owned sites, 
and result in additional costs for decontaminating and 
decommissioning the storage building. DOE thus needs to ship the 
TRU waste to another DOE site that has the requisite 
remote-handling and storage capabilities. In addition, DOE needs 
to ship the West Jefferson CH-TRU waste to a DOE site having the 
capabilities to process and certify CH-TRU waste for WIPP in 
order to avoid the cost required to establish such capability at 
West Jefferson, particularly for such a small waste volume.
 
The Hanford Site, located in Washington State near Richland, has 
an established radioactive waste management capability in the 
central plateau (200 Area) of the 586-square mile (1,520-square 
kilometer) reservation. DOE's Hanford Site offers a practical, 
safe, and secure location for storing the TRU waste from West 
Jefferson. Hanford is certifying and shipping CH-TRU waste 
according to WIPP's Waste Acceptance Criteria and applicable 
state and federal regulations. RH- and CH-TRU waste have been, 
are being, and will be managed at Hanford, which has trained 
waste management personnel and storage capacity for TRU waste at 
waste management facilities located in the 200 Area of the site. 
The Hanford Site's planning for facilities and operations to 
characterize, certify and package RH-TRU waste is also well 
underway.\4\ 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \4\ The Hanford Solid Waste EIS analyzed construction 
of new and modification of existing facilities to characterize 
and prepare RH- TRU waste at the Hanford Site.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- The potential health and environmental impacts of this 
decision would be small. The HSW EIS included an updated 
route-specific transportation analysis of potential low-level 
waste,
 
[[Page 39449]] mixed low-level waste, and TRU waste shipments 
using Year 2000 census data and an updated version of the RADTRAN 
computer code to calculate potential risks associated with 
shipping. This analysis included the route-specific impacts of 
transporting the West Jefferson TRU waste to Hanford and 
subsequent shipment of this waste to WIPP. Due to the additional 
TRU waste generated and identified at West Jefferson subsequent 
to DOE's September 6, 2002, decision, DOE's currently estimated 
total number of 18 shipments (3 completed RH-TRU waste shipments, 
14 remaining RH-TRU waste shipments, and 1 remaining CH-TRU waste 
shipment) exceeds DOE's prior estimate of total shipments by 3. 
However, the currently estimated number of shipments is within 
the number of shipments analyzed for the West Jefferson TRU waste 
in the HSW EIS (29 shipments of RH-TRU waste and 1 shipment of 
CH-TRU waste).
 
The HSW EIS also analyzed potential onsite impacts at Hanford of 
storage, certification, and processing of TRU waste for shipment 
to WIPP, including TRU waste from Hanford and offsite generators 
such as West Jefferson. The potential health and environmental 
impacts of shipping the West Jefferson TRU waste to Hanford and 
managing the waste there until it can be shipped to WIPP for 
disposal are consistent with the results presented in the WM PEIS 
and WIPP SEIS-II, which supported DOE's prior decision regarding 
the West Jefferson TRU waste.
 
For the reasons stated above and for the reasons stated in the 
September 6, 2002, revision to the WM PEIS, DOE is confirming its 
September 6, 2002, decision and will transfer the remaining TRU 
waste from West Jefferson to Hanford for storage and 
certification, pending shipment to WIPP for disposal once the 
preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the 
Eastern District of Washington is lifted.
 
Issued in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of June, 2004.
 
Jessie Hill Roberson, Assistant Secretary for Environmental 
Management.
 
[FR Doc. 04-14809 Filed 6-29-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 41 U.S. Newswire: DOE/NNSA Cites Los Alamos National Laboratory for 
Price-Anderson Violations
 
 6/30/2004 4:33:00 PM 

To: National Desk and Energy Reporter 

Contact: Bryan Wilkes of the U.S. Department of Energy, 
202-586-7371 

WASHINGTON, June 30 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Department of Energy's 
(DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has issued 
a Preliminary Notice of Violation (PNOV) to the University of 
California, the contractor for the Los Alamos National Laboratory 
(LANL), for violations associated with occupational radiation 
over-exposures to two workers which occurred on August 5, 2003, 
resulting from the inadequate storage and handling of plutonium 
residue containers. 

The workers' exposures exceeded the federal annual exposure limit 
of 5 rem total effective dose equivalent. The PNOV documents the 
LANL's failure to develop and implement established work 
controls, to ensure that previously identified residue container 
potential degradation concerns were effectively addressed, and to 
store the plutonium according to the DOE/NNSA authorized process. 

No consequences to the general public or the environment resulted 
from the cited operational event. However, the radiation 
exposures to the workers could have been significantly higher and 
were not limited by planned work controls. 

This enforcement action is one of the more significant nuclear 
safety enforcement actions taken by DOE. DOE/NNSA has chosen to 
take this action based on the potential significance of the event 
as well as LANL's failure to correct long-standing nuclear safety 
deficiencies. LANL is exempt from civil penalty by statute and no 
civil penalty can be issued in association with the current PNOV. 
If not exempt, a civil penalty of $770,000 would have been 
assessed, based on the significance of the violations. 

The Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988 authorizes the Energy 
Department to undertake regulatory actions against contractors 
for violations of its nuclear safety requirements. The 
enforcement program encourages DOE contractors to identify and 
correct nuclear safety deficiencies at an early stage, before 
they contribute to or result in more serious events. 

Additional details on this and other enforcement actions are 
available on the Internet at 
[http://releases.usnewswire.com/redir.asp?ReleaseID=32719&Link=ht 
tp://www.eh.doe.gov/enforce] . 



 [http://www.usnewswire.com/] 

/© 2004 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/ 			 		   		   			 		   		   
*****************************************************************
 42 U.S. Newswire: DOE Announces New Solicitation to Provide Nuclear 
Energy Research Initiative Grants; Will Benefit U.S. 
Universities, Colleges
 
 6/30/2004 4:20:00 PM 

To: National Desk, Energy Reporter 

Contact: Hope Williams of the U.S. Department of Energy, 
202-586-5806 

WASHINGTON, June 30 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Department of Energy 
(DOE) announced the issuance of solicitation DE-PS07- 04ID14551 
to conduct advanced nuclear energy research at the Nation's 
universities. The solicitation was issued June 1, 2004. 
Applications are due by July 16, 2004. 

The department has restructured its Nuclear Energy Research 
Initiative (NERI) to support research projects at U.S. 
universities while supporting the department's mainline nuclear 
energy research and development programs (e.g. the Advanced Fuel 
Cycle Initiative, the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems 
Initiative, and the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative). These programs 
are developing new nuclear generation technologies and advanced 
energy products -- including high efficiency electricity and 
hydrogen -- that provide significant improvements in 
sustainability, economics, safety, reliability, and proliferation 
and terrorism resistance. 

Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham said, "This new approach to 
integrating universities into the department's nuclear research 
programs implements the department's intention to further the 
relationship with universities and increase the amount of nuclear 
energy research and development funding that goes to 
universities." 

The solicitation provides an opportunity for U.S. universities to 
become directly involved in an integrated teaming relationship 
with the department and its national laboratories. The research 
that will be conducted by universities will make a valuable 
contribution to the department's nuclear energy research and 
development programs. 

The period of performance is from one year to three years. 
Announcement of the NERI awards is anticipated in September 2004. 
All awards will be made to U.S. universities. Parties interested 
in this solicitation should monitor the following website: 
http://e-center.doe.gov 
[http://releases.usnewswire.com/redir.asp?ReleaseID=32716&Link=ht 
tp://e-center.doe.gov] . Applications must be submitted through 
the DOE Industry Procurement System (IPPS) at the same web site. 

Additional information on this and other DOE nuclear science and 
engineering educational initiatives that are sponsored by the 
department's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology is 
available at www.nuclear.gov. 



http://www.usnewswire.com/ [http://www.usnewswire.com/] 

-0- 

/© 2004 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/ 			 		   		   			 		   		   
*****************************************************************
 43 Oak Ridger: Officials: DOE has positive economic impact 							 							
 
Story last updated at 12:07 p.m. on June 30, 2004
							

DEGREES: Chamber, UT officials note significance of the work 
force's educational level. 

By: Paul Parson | Oak Ridger Staff paul.parson@oakridger.com 
[paul.parson@oakridger.com] 

It's the nature of Parker Hardy's job to stay informed about what 
the Department of Energy is doing.

So, it was no surprise to the Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce 
president a University of Tennessee-related study released 
Tuesday reported the federal agency has a substantial economic 
impact on the state.

"It justified what I would have thought," said Hardy.

Hardy                                                                                           

Locally, Hardy explained that in a variety of ways, DOE plays a 
role in the recruitment of new industries to Oak Ridge in 
addition to benefiting the community financially.

For example, the sales tax and use tax collections in Oak Ridge 
continue to grow because of DOE and its major contractors. The 
fiscal year 2003 study by UT's Center for Business and Economic 
Research supports that, reporting DOE-related spending generated 
$66.7 million in state and local sales tax revenue in 2003 as 
compared to 2001's total of $57.8 million

In addition, Hardy said the potential transfer of the Horizon 
Center industrial park from the Community Reuse Organization of 
East Tennessee to the city's Industrial Development Board should 
open up additional avenues for new industries. CROET - an 
economic development organization - earlier obtained the unused 
land from DOE.

"We, for example, within the last couple of weeks, have had a 
good hard look at Oak Ridge from an automotive company interested 
in a location that would not have been possible 10 years ago," 
Hardy said. "But, now we have the industrial park that will 
accommodate their needs. Whether we get them or not, I don't 
know."

Hardy declined to name the automotive company.

In talking about recruiting, though, Hardy said questions about 
the educational attainment and skill levels of the work force are 
often asked as new businesses eye a potential market. In 2003, 
956 DOE-related employees held doctorate degrees, 1,668 held 
master's degrees and 3,461 held bachelor's degrees.

UT Chancellor Loren Crabtree also said the number of doctorate 
degrees in the DOE-related work force was impressive.

In the grand scheme of things, U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-3rd 
District, said people sometimes take DOE for granted. However, he 
added the study by UT's Center for Business and Economic Research 
clearly shows how important the federal agency is to Tennessee's 
economy.

One notable figure in the study, according to Wamp, is that total 
personal income generated in Tennessee by DOE-related activities 
was nearly $1.7 billion in 2003 - up from $1.3 billion in 2001.

Both Wamp and Gerald Boyd, manager of DOE's Oak Ridge Operations 
office, said they expect a bright future for the federal agency's 
local missions. In fact, Boyd said there aren't many other DOE 
sites with as much construction and growth as Oak Ridge.

The fiscal year 2003 study on DOE's economic benefits in 
Tennessee is the fifth of its kind conducted by Matthew N. Murray 
and his associates at UT's Center for Business and Economic 
Research since 1998. The study is available on the Web at 
http://cber.bus.utk.edu 







*****************************************************************
 44 Oak Ridger: Housing issue with DOE-related work force 							 							 							
 
Story last updated at 12:09 p.m. on June 30, 2004

By: Paul Parson | Oak Ridger Staff
paul.parson@oakridger.com [paul.parson@oakridger.com] 

While the Department of Energy and its major contractors 
currently rank fifth when compared to non-governmental employers 
in the state, there's one issue that needs to be addressed with 
the future of the work force.

According to Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce President Parker 
Hardy, a good number of employees in the current work force will 
be eligible for retirement in the next five years.

"Presumably, when they retire, they will stay in the area," Hardy 
said. "That means as that next generation of work force is hired, 
if Oak Ridge is going to capitalize on it, then we've got to have 
the housing stock that will attract them. And, we've got to have 
the retail and commercial attractors that will enable them to 
spend their money."

Lynn Freeny/DOE During a press conference Tuesday, Gerald Boyd, 
right, manager of the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Operations 
office, talks about the federal agency's economic impact on the 
state of Tennessee. Also pictured are, from left, Matthew N. 
Murray with the University of Tennessee's Center for Business and 
Economic Research and UT Chancellor Loren Crabtree.
					   				 			
Over the next five years, Oak Ridge will have to seriously 
address the issue of housing, the Chamber president noted.

"Right now, for example, there are close to 4,000 homes - ranging 
from apartments to single family dwellings - that are somewhere 
in the pipeline in Oak Ridge, either just being preliminarily 
planned or actually under construction," Hardy said. "We've got 
to accelerate the process of getting those houses out of the 
ground."

DOE and its major contractors rank fifth when compared to 
non-governmental employers in the state, behind Wal-Mart 
Associates, FedEx, Vanderbilt University and Kroger Limited 
Partnership Inc., according to the study by the University of 
Tennessee's Center for Business and Economic Research.

DOE and its major contractors employed 11,287 Tennessee residents 
and paid an average annual salary of $49,780 in fiscal year 2003. 

*****************************************************************
 45 lamonitor.com: NNSA kicks off contract process 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 
[http://www.lac-nm.us]   

ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor

It's a long ways from a starting gun, but it was the first 
announcement, calling participants to get ready to enter the 
competition for one of the crown jewels of the US government. The 
National Nuclear Security Administration on Monday asked 
interested parties to submit a formal "Expression of Interest," 
and unveiled a new website where future information will be 
posted as it becomes available.

"The laboratory is one of the largest multidisciplinary 
institutions in the world; is the largest institution and the 
largest employer in Northern New Mexico." states the description 
of procurement, by way of introducing the task, noting that the 
lab's annual budget is approximately $2.2 billion. 

The University of California has been the uncontested manager of 
a contract for Los Alamos National Laboratory for 61 years, but a 
series of security and financial problems, followed by 
congressional investigations and reviews by senior officials and 
a blue ribbon commission, have prompted Energy Secretary Spencer 
Abraham to instruct the agency in charge of the nuclear weapons 
program to open the contract to full competition.

A Request for Proposal is under preparation and NNSA said it is 
tentatively scheduled for release in late fall 2004. An official 
source evaluation board has been named, chaired by Tyler 
Przybylek, DOE General Counsel. Seven voting members and six 
non-voting members have been named to the board that will be in 
charge of conducting the competition.

Michael G. Loera, contracting officer in the NNSA Service Center, 
explained that the call for interested parties is an effort to 
define the potential audience for the procurement information. 
"Basically this is just to kick off the procurement process," he 
said. "We want to collect market research to see who's 
interested."

A deadline for the expressions of interest will be posted at a 
later date on the web site, which includes relevant documents 
such as the introduction to the National Posture Review that lays 
out the direction for the nation's nuclear forces for the next 
five to ten years.

The call for interested parties sets the stage for further 
developments.

Robert C. Dynes, president of UC, has said that the university 
would proceed as if it intended to compete for the contract. 
Officials of the university have also said they will not formally 
declare themselves until they have viewed the Request for 
Proposal.

Officials of Lockheed-Martin, which manages the contract for 
Sandia National Laboratories, appear to be among the interested 
parties. They have held talks with officials of UC, according to 
reports, and also signed a cooperative memorandum of 
understanding with The University of Texas, the only officially 
announced competitor. The board of regents of UT, the only 
officially announced competitor in the ring, earmarked a $500,000 
fund to prepare for the bidding.

Bechtel Corporation, Batelle Memorial Institute, Halliburton 
Corporation, Washington Group International, Honeywell and 
Computer Sciences Corporation have also been mentioned as 
entrants, or partners of potential bidders.

The DOE/NNSA web site address for the LANL contract information 
is Rhttp://www.doeal.gov/LANLContractRecompete/Default.htm. A 
feature on the site allows interested individuals and entities to 
subscribe to receive future alerts and notices.   

  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 46 Oak Ridger: Our View: Study shines very positive light on local DOE
 
Story last updated at 11:45 a.m. on June 30, 2004
facilities 							 							 							

It probably comes as little surprise that the presence of 
Department of Energy facilities in Oak Ridge has a far-reaching 
economic impact - stretching statewide, according to a University 
of Tennessee-related study.

Some of the more interesting facts pointed out from the study 
include DOE's impact on additional job creation, the impact 
spending by DOE and its contractors have on the state's gross 
product, and the amount of charitable donations made by DOE, its 
contractors and their employees.

In response to the study, Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce President 
Parker Hardy noted the important role DOE plays in the 
recruitment of new industries, as well as the department's 
additional benefits to the community.

And, of course, Congressman Zach Wamp noted how easy it is to 
take DOE's presence in East Tennessee for granted.

As we have noted during recent weeks, we appreciate the men and 
women who work in various roles at our local DOE facilities. And, 
we are encouraged by comments attributed to both Wamp and Gerald 
Boyd, manager of DOE's Oak Ridge Operations office, stating that 
they expect a bright future for the federal agency's local 
missions.

Boyd said there aren't many other DOE sites with as much 
construction and growth as Oak Ridge, and we compliment all of 
those who are giving their best to see that the Oak Ridge 
facilities stay a cut above the rest. 







*****************************************************************
 47 [du-list] 6/30 DU radio show (also online)  11-12 am
 
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:44:33 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
  WRPI 91.5 FM Wed. 6/30 11-12 radio show on DU and its broader
context.Listeners can call the station (518) 276-6248 to interact with the
program detailed below. To listen on the web see bottom of this email.

11:05-11:15  PAT  (Peace Action/DUWNHMR) will talk about
Nuclear Weapons Days of Action July 12 - Aug. 9. [Clean Up, Don't Build
Up ]www.besafenet.com. BE SAFE: Take Action to Prevent Harm From Dangerous
Nuclear Weapons:
1) Support Cleanups Protective of Air, Water, Community & Worker Health.
2) Halt the Build Up of New Weapons.
3) Abandon Hazardous Nuclear Waste Siting & Deregulation Proposals
4) Improve Security at U.S. Nuclear Weapons Plants
local plans:
Friday evening, 7/16 :  (Trinity Day - explosion of first A bomb @ test site
prior to Hiroshima, Nagasaki bombings) Jane Bernhardt of Boston  will
  bring her colorful collage portraits of 15 hibakusha -people who survived
  the Hirishima bombing- to the Unitarian Church, 405 Washington Ave., Albany
www.janebernhardt.com
Jun-san's Hiroshima Day observance at the Grafton Peace Pagoda on Aug. 6 at
8:00 PM following a march from the town square at 6 PM.
8/9 Nagasaki Day  plans in the works
War is not the answer: what is? SMART Security, the FCNL bill in
Congress-real security is not from weapons, but from removing root causes
of conflict)

  CAROLE, DUWNHMR-   why she is involved with this issue,  modern war falls
heavy on civilians, effects persist due to the continued use of illegal
weapons, (per geneva convention definition) such as agent orange, land mines
and du- but du is by far worse, as are nuclear weapons being considered by
Congress now.
  11:20 ish TOM and SHARON  NL Industries, Colonie, NY
   nuclear waste given away to industry such as NL to try to find a use for
  du, so they wouldn't have to go to the expense to dispose of it, and du
  weapons came of that, and workers, surrounding community suffered from
that,
  as do civilians and troops where it is used in combat: same pattern of
  ignore, delay, deny - similar health consequences (pattern of NL neighbor
  health issues) formation of NL group recently -   health study  bones teeth
  urine - Len Dietz' body burden studies with Dr. Durakovic
  11:30 ish  DOUG ROKKE testing of the military, Congressional
  bills and what use they may or may not be, what is a meaningful testing
  program; health care can manage the effects of exposure, yet there is no
cure.
11:40 ish SUSAN RIORDON tiny snapshot of what's going on in Canada and
  the UK.
11:45 ish SUNNY MILLER (Traprock)  what in the world is going on with
  banning DU internationally (update on International meeting a few weeks
  back).

 > Regards,  Sheree
  DU Weapons Network of the Hudson Mohawk Region (DUWNHMR)
 >
 >  How to listen to WRPI on the internet: First, you need Real Player  to
 >  receive our internet broadcast. After you download and install it, you
 > should type in the address into the Player (or click
 > http://www.wrpi.org/wrpi.ram (this is case sensitive).
 >



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/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/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 48 Google News Alert - nuclear
 
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:02:35 -0700 (PDT)

 
DPRK demands US energy aid in exchange for nuclear freeze
Xinhua - China
MOSCOW, June 30 (Xinhuanet) -- Pyongyang will freeze its nuclear program
only after the United States provides energy aid equivalent of 2 million
kwt, the ...
<http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-07/01/content_1558580.htm>
See all stories on this topic:
<http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&num=30&hl=en&client=google&newsclusterurl=http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-07/01/content_1558580.htm>

EUROPE Should Change Its Position Toward Iran ’ s Nuclear ... 
Merh News Agency - Tehran,Iran
... met with German Ambassador to Iran Baron Pavel von Maltzahn and urged
the European Union big three to change their position toward Iran’s
nuclear program. ...
<http://www.mehrnews.com/wfNewsDetails_en.aspx?NewsID=91382&t=Political>
See all stories on this topic:
<http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&num=30&hl=en&client=google&newsclusterurl=http://www.mehrnews.com/wfNewsDetails_en.aspx%3FNewsID%3D91382%26t%3DPolitical>

ALGERIA COULD BE NUCLEAR CHALLENGE FOR US
Middle East Newsline - Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Western diplomatic sources said the United States has been quietly advising
Algeria to open its nuclear facilities to inspection in an attempt to
stop the ...
<http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2004/july/07_01_3.html>

RUSSIA builds nuclear power plant for Iran
ABC Online - Australia
Russia is building the Islamic state's first nuclear power plant in a deal
worth $800 million and thousands of jobs. While the work ...
<http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1143703.htm>
See all stories on this topic:
<http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&num=30&hl=en&client=google&newsclusterurl=http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1143703.htm>

AUSTRALIA to push ASEAN on N.Korea nuclear concern
Arab Times - Middle East
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australia will push a meeting of Southeast Asian nations
this week to voice public concern about North Korea's nuclear ambitions
and its ...
<http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/breakingnews/view.asp?msgID=6382>
See all stories on this topic:
<http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&num=30&hl=en&client=google&newsclusterurl=http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/breakingnews/view.asp%3FmsgID%3D6382>

MOD closes nuclear power plant
Guardian - UK
Chapelcross, Britain's only remaining military nuclear power station, is
being closed because it is uneconomical to repair, British Nuclear Fuels
announced ...
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1250414,00.html>
See all stories on this topic:
<http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&num=30&hl=en&client=google&newsclusterurl=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1250414,00.html>

CHINA not in favour of granting nuclear status to India, Pak
Webindia123.com - India
China has stated that it does not want India and Pakistan to be recognised
as nuclear powers. The Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister ...
<http://www.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=41886&cat=India>
See all stories on this topic:
<http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&num=30&hl=en&client=google&newsclusterurl=http://www.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp%3Fid%3D41886%26cat%3DIndia>

FMR. President in China to Discuss N. Korea's Nuclear Issue
Chosun Ilbo - South Korea
... Kim Dae-jung met with Jiang Zemin, chairman of China’s Central Military
Commission, in Beijing to exchange their views on the North’s nuclear
issue, the ...
<http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200406/200406300032.html>
See all stories on this topic:
<http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&num=30&hl=en&client=google&newsclusterurl=http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200406/200406300032.html>

BRAZIL denies it blocks UN access to nuclear facilities
Sioux City Journal - Sioux City,IA,USA
BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) -- Brazil's defense minister denied Tuesday that
his country was blocking UN inspections of its nuclear enrichment facilities.
...
<http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2004/06/30/news/breaking_news/5a6b384beade401886256ec30015a3b8.txt>
See all stories on this topic:
<http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&num=30&hl=en&client=google&newsclusterurl=http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2004/06/30/news/breaking_news/5a6b384beade401886256ec30015a3b8.txt>

N Korea to be patient and flexible in nuclear talks: FM
Daily Times - Pakistan
... North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam-Sun promised on Tuesday to be
patient and flexible in six-party talks on resolving the Korean nuclear
crisis but ...
<http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-6-2004_pg4_4>
See all stories on this topic:
<http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&num=30&hl=en&client=google&newsclusterurl=http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp%3Fpage%3Dstory_30-6-2004_pg4_4>

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: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************