***************************************************************** 07/27/04 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 12.178 ***************************************************************** 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: The real reasons Bush went to war 2 BBC: Iran: The next crisis? 3 Khaleej Times: Iran just “months away” from making nuclear bomb 4 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: N. Korea Slams NK Human Rights Act, Hints 5 AFP: NKorea, angry over US Congress vote, threatens to quit nuclear 6 PRAVDA.Ru: Nuclear whistleblower unveils the secrets of Israeli nucl 7 Scotsman.com: Call to Ministers over Nuclear Agreement 8 ITAR-TASS: President Vladimir Putin signed a law introducing life 9 Guardian Unlimited: 2010 energy targets 'wishful thinking' 10 Guardian Unlimited Zoe Williams: Bunker Bunkum NUCLEAR REACTORS 11 US: NRC: Exelon Generation Company, Inc. and MidAmerican Energy Comp 12 US: NRC: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Notice of Consideration o 13 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting 14 US: JS Online: Papermakers back nuclear plant sale 15 US: Brattleboro Reformer: DPS may seek to intervene in VY uprate cas 16 FT: Three groups bid for Slovak power assets 17 US: North Adams Transcript: City to hear nuclear plant report tonigh 18 US: PoughkeepsieJournal.com: Suit challenges new rule for power plan 19 AFP: Spanish nuclear plant to close in 2006 NUCLEAR SAFETY 20 US: Decision for Construction/Operation of DU Facility 21 [DU-WATCH] Gulf War veteran threatens MoD 22 US: USATODAY.com: EPA exercise focuses on response to radiation emer 23 BBC: Radioactive gas leak is 24 MENAFN: No abnormal radiation levels in Jordan, Khader reiterates 25 asahi.com: Japan to hold sea drill to stop WMD smuggling NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 26 US: L.A. Daily: Testing eyed near rocket lab 27 Las Vegas SUN: Nye commission resolves to support Yucca project 28 RGJ: Party’s Yucca stance might tip the balance among Nevada voters 29 RGJ: Notebook: Nevada’s delegates fight for Yucca plank 30 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Fed rule on plant cooling targeted 31 Japan Times: Nuclear fuel report just another coverup? 32 US: Waste News: Pentagon reports perchlorate discovery; senator call 33 US: Capital News 9: Solving Mount Greylock's water problem 34 US: Morgan Hill Times: Once again, Olin Corp.’s actions don’t match NUCLEAR WEAPONS 35 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear weapons treaty may be illegal US DEPT. OF ENERGY 36 DOE: Record of Decision for Construction and Operation of a Depleted 37 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridg 38 DOE: Record of Decision for Construction and Operation of a Depleted 39 USATODAY.com: Harder to talk to lab people during shutdown 40 Tri-City Herald: Lessons from shuttle disaster could prevent Hanford 41 Tri-City Herald: Vit plant accident possible, report says 42 U.S. Newswire: DOE to Hold Groundbreaking Ceremony for Major 43 KTVB.COM: Four teams compete for nuclear contract at INEEL 44 C Enquirer: Fernald cleanup halted - how long is unclear 45 Oak Ridger: Cheaper fares on DOE radar 46 Oak Ridger: DOE-related report issued 47 amarillo.com: No disks missing at Pantex 48 Pocatello Idaho State Journal: INEEL staff respond to leaking canist 49 Oak Ridger: Our View: Reports should include measures of prevention OTHER NUCLEAR 50 Google News Alert - nuclear 51 Boston Globe: Heating up a cold theory 52 Honolulu Star-Bulletin: Indigo screening - A-bomb documentary ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Guardian Unlimited: The real reasons Bush went to war WMD was the rationale for invading Iraq. But what was really driving the US were fears over oil and the future of the dollar John Chapman Wednesday July 28, 2004 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] There were only two credible reasons for invading Iraq: control over oil and preservation of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Yet the government has kept silent on these factors, instead treating us to the intriguing distractions of the Hutton and Butler reports. Butler's overall finding of a "group think" failure was pure charity. Absurdities like the 45-minute claim were adopted by high-level officials and ministers because those concerned recognised the substantial reason for war - oil. WMD provided only the bureaucratic argument: the real reason was that Iraq was swimming in oil. Some may still believe the eve-of-war contention by Donald Rumsfeld that "We won't take forces and go around the world and try to take other people's oil ... That's not how democracies operate." Maybe others will go along with Blair's post-war contention: "There is no way whatsoever, if oil were the issue, that it would not have been infinitely easier to cut a deal with Saddam." But senior civil servants are not so naive. On the eve of the Butler report, I attended the 40th anniversary of the Mandarins cricket club. I was taken aside by a knighted civil servant to discuss my contention in a Guardian article earlier this year that Sir Humphrey was no longer independent. I had then attacked the deceits in the WMD report, and this impressive official and I discussed the geopolitical issues of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and US unwillingness to build nuclear power stations and curb petrol consumption, rather than go to war. Saddam controlled a country at the centre of the Gulf, a region with a quarter of world oil production in 2003, and containing more than 60% of the world's known reserves. With 115bn barrels of oil reserves, and perhaps as much again in the 90% of the country not yet explored, Iraq has capacity second only to Saudi Arabia. The US, in contrast, is the world's largest net importer of oil. Last year the US Department of Energy forecast that imports will cover 70% of domestic demand by 2025. By invading Iraq, Bush has taken over the Iraqi oil fields, and persuaded the UN to lift production limits imposed after the Kuwait war. Production may rise to 3m barrels a day by year end, about double 2002 levels. More oil should bring down Opec-led prices, and if Iraqi oil production rose to 6m barrels a day, Bush could even attack the Opec oil-pricing cartel. Control over Iraqi oil should improve security of supplies to the US, and possibly the UK, with the development and exploration contracts between Saddam and China, France, India, Indonesia and Russia being set aside in favour of US and possibly British companies. And a US military presence in Iraq is an insurance policy against any extremists in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Overseeing Iraqi oil supplies, and maybe soon supplies from other Gulf countries, would enable the US to use oil as power. In 1990, the then oil man, Dick Cheney, wrote that: "Whoever controls the flow of Persian Gulf oil has a stranglehold not only on our economy but also on the other countries of the world as well." In the 70s, the US agreed with Saudi Arabia that Opec oil should be traded in dollars. American governments have since been able to print dollars to cover huge trading deficits, with the further benefit of those dollars being placed in the US money markets. In return, the US allowed the Opec countries to operate a production and pricing cartel. Over the past 15 years, the overall US deficit with the rest of the world has risen to $2,700bn - an abuse of its privileged currency position. Although about 80% of foreign exchange and half of world trade is in dollars, the euro provides a realistic alternative. Euro countries also have a bigger share of world trade, and of trade with Opec countries, than the US. In 1999, Iran mooted pricing its oil in euros, and in late 2000 Saddam made the switch for Iraqi oil. In early 2002 Bush placed Iran and Iraq in the axis of evil. If the other Opec countries had followed Saddam's move to euros, the consequences for Bush could have been huge. Worldwide switches out of the dollar, on top of the already huge deficit, would have led to a plummeting dollar, a runaway from US markets and dramatic upheavals in the US. Bush had many reasons to invade Iraq, but why did Blair join him? He might have squared his conscience by looking at UK oil prospects. In 1968, when North Sea oil was in its infancy, as private secretary to the minister of power I wrote a report on oil policy, advocating changes like the setting up of a British national oil company (as was done). My proposals found little favour with the BP/Shell-supporting officials, but Richard Marsh, the then minister, pressed them and the petroleum division was expanded into an operations division and a planning division. Sadly, when I was promoted out of private office the free-trading petroleum officials conspired to block my posting to the planning division, where I would surely have advocated a prudent exploitation of North Sea resources to reduce our dependence on the likes of Iraq. UK North Sea oil output peaked in 1999, and has since fallen by one-sixth. Exports now barely cover imports, and we shall shortly be a net oil importer. Supporting Bush might have been justified on geo-strategic grounds. Oil and the dollar were the real reasons for the attack on Iraq, with WMD as the public reason now exposed as woefully inadequate. Should we now look at Bush and Blair as brilliant strategists whose actions will improve the security of our oil supplies, or as international conmen? Should we support them if they sweep into Iran and perhaps Saudi Arabia, or should there be a regime change in the UK and US instead? If the latter, we should follow that up by adopting the pious aims of UN oversight of world oil exploitation within a world energy plan, and the replacement of the dollar with a new reserve currency based on a basket of national currencies. · John Chapman is a former assistant secretary in the civil service, in which he served from 1963-96 johnharoldchapman@hotmail.com [johnharoldchapman@hotmail.com] Chronology Iraq timeline: Feb 1 2004 - present [http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,1151021,00.html] Iraq timeline: July 16 1979 - Jan 31 2004 [http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,793802,00.html] Interactive guides Click-through graphics on Iraq Useful links Provisional authority: rebuilding Iraq [http://www.rebuilding-iraq.net/] Iraqi-American chamber of commerce [http://www.i-acci.org/main.shtml] cnn.com: David Kay's evidence to US Senate committee [http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/] [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 ***************************************************************** 2 BBC: Iran: The next crisis? Last Updated: Tuesday, 27 July, 2004 By Paul Reynolds BBC News Online world affairs correspondent After Iraq, Iran is shaping up to be the next major crisis in the Middle East. [Aerial view of Natanz facility (Image: DigitalGlobe)] The Natanz facility in Iran where centrifuges might be assembled (Image: DigitalGlobe) The question is whether Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb. "Iran has decided to resume research and development in the enrichment of uranium," sources who track Iranian activities claimed to News Online. "It now has time on its side to acquire the capability. It is racing forward." "There has been a pattern of cheating the world and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and of trying to disguise its true intentions under the pretence of needing energy for civilian purposes. Iran wants to produce nuclear weapons," asserted the sources, who spoke on condition that they were not identified. Iran's case is that it needs nuclear power and has to make the fuel itself as it cannot rely on outside sources, as many countries do. It denies that it intends to make the bomb. It is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and therefore is committed not to do so. Diplomatic offensive According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Israel has started a diplomatic offensive to win support for its view that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. If Israel becomes convinced that Iran is going down that road unstopped by the United Nations, it could one day take unilateral action, as it did when it bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. The Israeli cabinet is reported to have been told that Iran could make a bomb by between 2007 and 2009. There is a new atmosphere of urgency in advance of a meeting of the UN's nuclear watchdog the IAEA in mid-September. The meeting will examine whether Iran is in compliance with IAEA inspection rules. Europeans try to save agreement For other players in this high stakes game, the jury on Iranian intentions is still out. Sources who spoke to Ne Online said they believed that Iran had taken the strategic decision to control the "full nuclear fuel cycle" This week, senior officials from Britain, France and Germany (the E3) are to meet Iranian officials. They want to find out why Iran has terminated an agreement under which it would freeze its uranium enrichment activities in return for future supplies of fuel for its projected nuclear power programme. The European effort to negotiate with Iran, always regarded with scepticism by the United States, is at crisis point. At the very least, the E3 want to salvage that part of the agreement under which Iran agreed to stricter IAEA inspections, known as additional protocols. The enrichment issue At the heart of the problem is the enrichment of uranium. It is carried out in a cascade of centrifuges which spin a gas made from uranium ore. The heavier parts needed for nuclear purposes are thereby separated. The technology is legal when it is used to enrich uranium to a standard needed to produce power. But the process could then be taken further illegally, and secretly, to enrich uranium to weapons grade. The sources who spoke to News Online said they believed that Iran had taken the strategic decision to control the "full nuclear fuel cycle". That means developing the ability to enrich uranium to weapons grade level. Suspicious activities The sources listed a number of discoveries by the IAEA which they said indicated that Iran was "not behaving like a country with a civilian only programme". + The use of a laser uranium separation process, an alternative to centrifuges + The discovery of plutonium in one facility. Iran said this was for experimental purposes. + The secret purchase by Iran of advanced centrifuges, possibly from the network run by the Pakistani scientist A Q Khan + The possession of polonium which is used to trigger a nuclear explosion + The development of a heavy water research reactor + The clearing of a site at Lavizan before an IAEA inspection. Last year the Iranians fe insecure after the invasion of Iraq and were ready to agree restrictions. Now they feel more confident Gary Samore One Iran watcher, Gary Samore of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said the Iranians were resuming the assembly of centrifuges for its Natanz facility. One other report says they have removed seals which were fixed by IAEA inspectors. Mr Samore said that Iran was also restarting the production of the gas made of uranium ore and was expected to start inserting this into centrifuges experimentally soon. "Last year the Iranians felt insecure after the invasion of Iraq and were ready to agree restrictions. Now they feel more confident. The US is bogged down in Iraq, the conservatives control the Iranian parliament and Iran does not feel that sanctions are likely. So it has reneged on a key part of the E3 agreement," Mr Samore said. As for reporting Iran to the Security Council, he felt that this was unlikely to happen in September: "There may be another warning to Iran. The United States policy is drifting because of the election but by December, the date of the next IAEA meeting, there will be a new administration able to take a position." ***************************************************************** 3 Khaleej Times: Iran just “months away” from making nuclear bomb MOHAMMED A. R. GALADARI [http://www.khaleejtimes.com 27 July 2004 LONDON - Iran is just “months away” from being able to enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb, Britain’s The Times newspaper reported on Tuesday, quoting Western diplomatic sources. “Iran appears to be further advanced in acquiring the relevant nuclear technology than we had initially thought,” a British official told the newspaper. Teheran had bought time through appearing to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency and with a diplomatic initiative led by Britain, France and Germany, the report said. But officials now believed the situation was “grave”, it added. “Actually they have just continued with the research work and now they are only a few months away from completing the programme,” a source told The Times. Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but is allowed to develop nuclear technology for civilian purposes. US President George Bush has named Iran as part of the “axis of evil” and accused Tehran of wanting to develop nuclear weapons. Officials told the Times the IAEA was monitoring Iran closely, and that the country could be referred to the United Nations Security Council in coming months. Teheran had chosen to use centrifuge technology to enrich uranium for making a bomb, rather than extracting plutonium from used fuel from a reactor under construction at Bushehr with assistance from Russia. “Even if they complete the centrifuge technology, it would still take time to spin the material through the system and to make a bomb, and we’re monitoring activities rigorously,” a source told the Times. The Times reported recently that Israel would mount a military attack to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities if it thought Teheran was close to having a bomb. Israel took action against Iraq in June 1981, destroying the French-built Osirak nuclear reactor in an air raid. © 2004 Khaleej Times All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 4 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: N. Korea Slams NK Human Rights Act, Hints it Might Stop Updated July.27,2004 19:44 KST In connection with the passage of the North Korea human rights bill at the U.S House of Representatives, a spokesperson for the North Korean Foreign Ministry said during an interview with the official Korea Central News Agency that, "With the U.S. continuing its political provocations using human rights as an excuse, is there a need for us to continue with the six-party talks?" The spokesperson said, ˇ°Some people fantasize that every problem would be resolved if the nuclear issue is settled. This is nothing more than a dream unless the U.S. changes its strategies to control the world. We firmly believe in strengthening our self-defensive physical deterrent to cope with antagonistic U.S. policies.ˇ± The spokesperson denounced the North Korea human rights bill, saying the bill financially supports the overthrow of the North Korean regime and forces neighboring countries to participate in subverting it. (englishnews@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 5 AFP: NKorea, angry over US Congress vote, threatens to quit nuclear talks WAR.WIRE [http://www.spacewar.com/] SEOUL (AFP) Jul 27, 2004 North Korea said Tuesday it may consider pulling out of talks aimed at resolving the nuclear standoff in an angry response to the passage of a US human rights bill critical of the Stalinist state. The US House of Representatives last week unanimously passed the bill, called "North Korea Human Rights Act of 2004," which moves to the Senate for a later vote before becoming law. The bill calls for concrete steps on North Korean human rights abuses including aid to human rights groups and defectors. North Korea's foreign ministry, in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency, branded the bill a tissue of lies that slandered the Stalinist state by raising "non-existent" human rights issues. Faced with such "ceaseless political provocations," the statement attributed to an unnamed ministry spokesman said North Korea could pull out of talks with the United States and boost its military firepower. North Korea "is compelled to ponder over whether there is any need to continue dialogue with the US for the settlement of the nuclear issue at the moment," the spokesman was quoted as saying. "The reality reinforces our conviction that it is the only way of protecting the sovereignty of the country and defending socialism which guarantees our life (is) to increase its physical deterrent force for self-defence to cope with the US evermore undisguised hostile policy toward it." Among provisions in the bill are financial aid to rights groups and defectors and measures allowing North Koreans to apply for asylum in the United States. North Korea and the United States are engaged in six-nation talks on the nuclear standoff that also include China, Russia, Japan and South Korea. Three rounds of talks have been held so far with another scheduled for September. North Korea has offered to freeze its plutonium-producing nuclear weapons programme in return for aid and other concessions but Washington, which accuses Pyongyang of running a separate uranium-based scheme, is demanding an end to all the communist state's atomic ambitions. WAR.WIRE ***************************************************************** 6 PRAVDA.Ru: Nuclear whistleblower unveils the secrets of Israeli nuclear arsenal - 07/27/2004 13:15 Israel might be implicated in John F. Kennedy's assassination Israel may be implicated in the biggest crime of the past century, which took place in Dallas in 1963. Israeli physician Mordechai Vanunu believes John Kennedy was pressing Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion. The American president wanted the Israeli prime minister to unveil the details of the Israeli nuclear program. Vanunu thinks it could be a reason for Kennedy's assassination. The physician expressed his opinion in an interview to the London-based Arab newspaper Al Hayat. [ The physician had to spend 18 years in jail for exposing Israel's nuclear secrets. Mordechai Vanunu also stated in an interview that the nuclear reactor in Dimona endangers millions of people in the Middle East. The scientist said the reactor would turn Dimona to another Chernobyl in case of a powerful earthquake. Morderchai Vanunu called upon the government of Jordan to check the radioactive background in the areas close to Israeli borders and take anti-radiation measures to protect the people. The interview of the Israeli physician may cost him a lot, because he has been released on special conditions. The scientist is not allowed to talk to foreign reporters, reveal any information about the Dimona nuclear center or leave the territory of Israel. In addition, the physician promised the police to report all journalists' attempts to interview him. It transpired in the beginning of the 1980s, Israel was conducting the research to create the nuclear weapon. There was no direct evidence to prove the allegation, although it was backed up with such facts as the mysterious nuclear blast in the Atlantic Ocean, the disappearance of uranium freight in England and France, the disappearance of 342 kilograms of uranium from an American factory in Apollo. This quantity of uranium is enough to make 38 bombs, the power of which can be compared to the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Israel's participation was implied, but not proved. An American U-2 spy plane photographed a strange object in the Israeli Negev Desert in 1960. The photo of a concrete building in Dimona was later shown to American congressmen in Israel. Congressmen were told that it was a textile factory. The British newspaper Sunday Times wrote in 1986, the 'textile factory' in Dimona was actually a top secret nuclear plant. It was reported there were six underground storeys in the plant. Several photographs illustrated the newspaper article. It was written by Israeli engineer Mordechai Vanunu, who had worked at the plant for ten years. Vanunu wrote, Israel had up to 200 nukes in its possession, which made it rank sixth among the world's nuclear powers. Vanunu was very concerned with the development of the Israeli nuclear program. Being a religious fanatic, the engineer handed over the materials to the British newspaper without any reward in return. He said he would be happy, if it could save his country from the nuclear threat. The Sunday Times was intended to pay a usual fee to the Israeli scientist, but he suddenly disappeared. The reaction from Israeli intelligence and security services was immediate. Sunday Times reporters managed to find Mordechai Vanunu after several months of meticulous quest. Cynthia Hanin met Mordechai in the hotel where he was living and writing his sensational stories. The woman's real name was Cheryl Hanin, she was a Mossad agent. She made the engineer fall deeply in love with her. Cynthia offered Vanunu to go on a sea voyage for several days - the man instantly agreed. He called a Sunday Times reporter and said he would leave London for a short time. Mordechai Vanunu did not appear at a Sunday Times office with another article, as it was previously agreed. Journalist found out, three Israeli ships were sailing not far from the British coast on the day of Vanunu's disappearance. Another version says Cynthia lured the scientist to her sister's vacant apartment in Rome, where he was drugged and then taken to Israel. Mordechai Vanunu had to go on trial in Tel Aviv. He was found guilty of espionage and high treason. The court sentenced the engineer to 18 years in jail. Vanunu sent two pardon appeals to the Israeli president, but received no reply. Human rights activists in Israel, Great Britain and the USA launched a large campaign to free Mordechai Vanunu, but they failed to succeed. Vanunu was released in April of the current year. In his first interview broadcast worldwide, Vanunu declared he did not have any regrets about what he had done. The scientist opened a state secret because he stood against the nuclear proliferation. Mordechai Vanunu stated he was proud of the decision he had made. On the photo: Mordechai Vanunu Read the original in Russian: http://world.pravda.ru/world/2004/5/16/43/17640_BANUNU.html (Translated by: Dmitry Sudakov) Pravda.Ru L1999-2002 "PRAVDA.Ru". When reproducing our materials in ***************************************************************** 7 Scotsman.com: Call to Ministers over Nuclear Agreement Tue 27 Jul 2004 By James Lyons, Political Correspondent, PA News Ministers today faced demands to come clean over the extent of US-UK nuclear co-operation amid claims it could break international law. The Mutual Defence Agreement breaches the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, according to the British-American Security Informational Council. The anti-nuclear campaign group was advised by Matrix Chambers, co-founded by Cherie Booth QC, wife of Prime Minister Tony Blair. The exchange of information to improve atomic weapons and the transfer of equipment, as outlined in the Agreement, is contrary to Article 1 of the Treaty prohibiting the transfer of nuclear weapons, campaigners say. They also highlight Article 6, which calls on signatories to pursue nuclear disarmament. That is rejected by the Ministry of Defence but Labour MP Alan Simpson (Nottingham South) said there should be greater openness about what the Agreement involves. “It is like trying to pull teeth to get detailed information out of the Ministry of Defence about the exchanges that have taken place,” Mr Simpson told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. There were “a whole series of collaborative projects” under the Agreement, which was recently renewed in Parliament without a vote and now requires just an exchange of letters to continue for another decade. “You have to assume those visits are not just because they have struck up close friendships and like to swap holiday photographs. “We either have to dismantle the arrangement or open it up to international scrutiny.” Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South), Liberal Democrat member of the Commons Defence Select Committee, signed a motion calling for a full Parliamentary debate on the issue. “When people are negotiating and talking about something as catastrophic as use of nuclear weapons or replacement of our existing nuclear weapons that is something the public ought to know about,” he told Today. “But I don’t think there is the slightest chance of the Government putting any of this on hold. They will sign it when the Americans tell them to.” [ border=] http://members.scotsman.com/contact.cfm] ***************************************************************** 8 ITAR-TASS: President Vladimir Putin signed a law introducing life sentence as punishment for terrorism 27.07.2004, 01.09 MOSCOW, July 27 (Itar-Tass) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin signed Monday a law amending the Criminal Code and introducing a life sentence as punishment for terrorism. The legislation introduces life imprisonment for acts of terror staged by an organized group or that led to wrongful deaths or other grave consequences, or those connected with attacks on nuclear facilities or involving nuclear or radioactive materials. Previously the maximum sentence for terrorism was 20 years and life sentence was only a replacement for a death penalty. The new legislation introduces a life sentence not as an alternative to the death penalty, but as punishment for extremely grave crimes against the life of the people and against public safety. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, ***************************************************************** 9 Guardian Unlimited: 2010 energy targets 'wishful thinking' Alok Jha and Mildred Amadiegwu Wednesday July 28, 2004 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] Britain will not meet the government's target of producing 10% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2010, energy experts say. David White, an energy consultant at David White and Associates, argued at a press briefing yesterday that fossil fuels would be important for several decades yet and the government should focus its efforts on developing ways to trap the carbon dioxide produced when they are burned - the process known as carbon sequestration. Professor Ian Fells, chairman of the New and Renewable Energy Centre, added that Britain would also need more nuclear power stations to meet the increasing energy demands, contrary to current government thinking. "We will get to 6% renewables by 2010 if we're lucky," he said. It was "wishful thinking" to suppose that we would reach the 10% target set out by the government in last year's white paper on energy. The government insists that not only is this target attainable, the aspirational target of shifting 20% of energy production to renewable sources by 2020 is also feasible. In consequence it has poured money into the development of several offshore wind farms. By 2005 Britain will have more than 500 offshore windmills, between them generating more than 1,000MW of power - enough for almost 1m homes. Dr White said wind would not provide all the answers. "The government has been too ambitious with wind farms," he said. Wind power was too unreliable, and could provide a maximum of 4% of Britain's energy needs by 2010. Jim Footner, an energy campaigner at Greenpeace, denied that there were such fundamental problems with renewable technology. "Our wind power alone could power the country many times over. We are still on track to meet those targets," he said. Prof Fells said the looming energy crisis could only be solved by building more nuclear power stations. The government has vetoed this idea. He said the latest designs produced only 10% of the waste of older stations and used fuel 60 times more efficiently. Mr Footner said the nuclear industry was in no shape to start building new stations. "The [nuclear] market needs massive amounts of government subsidy. If you look at the two UK nuclear companies - BNFL and British Energy - both are in debt massively. That is not a great case for nuclear energy." Another reason, he said, was that there was still no solution for the nuclear waste problem. Special report Renewable energy The issue explained 14.12.2001: Renewable energy Interactive guide Offshore wind farms [http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,998530,00.html] Useful links Friends of the Earth [http://www.foe.org.uk] Greenpeace [http://www.Greenpeace.org] British Wind Energy Association [http://www.britishwindenergy.co.uk/] [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 ***************************************************************** 10 Guardian Unlimited Zoe Williams: Bunker Bunkum Comment Tuesday July 27, 2004 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] David Blunkett gives a characteristically illuminating statement on the government's new 22-page anti-terrorism booklet: "It is all about helping you to do what you need to do and know what you need to know." Not much changes in the world of the scary leaflet - the key piece of advice is "go indoors and stay there". You will be told to turn the television or radio on, and keep it on. This should give us all a frisson of the very great severity of this threat, since in the general scheme of modern expectation, authority should be telling you to turn the television off, and go and do something less boring instead. Otherwise, the nature of the threat (well, there are these people, right, and they might want to do something really horrid to us) is such that it would be foolish to get specific. A gas mask might be good, but only if the terrorists had developed evil time travel, and teleported us all into a first world war trench. Some protection against nuclear fall-out is always handy, except that it doesn't exist. All people really agree on is that you'll need some bottled water and a torch. This gives these communiques a nice, homely feel. As paranoid as you might be, it's hard to get the heebie-jeebies off a torch. And bottled water was a recommended stockpile for an emergency as anodyne and unthreatening as the Y2K "chaos" (my mother still has her Y2K emergency water, in fact - it's now out of date. In the event of terrorist attack, she's going to use her new stockpile for drinking, her year 2000 stockpile for pets and strangers, and her Bay of Pigs water for washing). So it's all a lot less frightening than the Protect and Survive videos of 1980, which you can still see at the Kelvedon Hatch, one-time nuclear bunker now an idiosyncratic kind of family fun day. Their core message was the same - go back to your house. Stay there. Don't, whatever you do, attempt to escape the cities into the countryside. We don't care that that's what they always do in John Wyndham novels. The difference two decades ago was that the threat was exclusively nuclear, so there was a more detailed game-plan-fashion yourself a fall-out zone with the use of a table and two doors. Then make a lavatory out of a chair. Protect the windows by covering them with carpet. Deal with the carcasses of your less fortunate family members in a sensible manner. It is now an accepted truth that none of these measures would make any difference to one's long-term chances of survival. And that the central purpose of the advice was to make sure that, in the event of imminent nuclear attack, people wouldn't be able to riot and cause havoc, since they'd be too busy turning their houses upside down. The motivation behind all government instructions is the maintenance of order and prevention of panic. Never mind that order would be meaningless in a post-nuclear landscape. Never mind that panic is a pretty reasonable response to the end of life as you know it. An over-excited and lawless population is far worse for the rebuilding of civilisation, than a lot of dead people. And wishing no ill-will in the world to the incumbent government, that remains the case - the idea that there are certain things we "need to know" and "need to do", that will be of equal benefit to the preservation of all our lives, is a nonsense. People living in the shadow of an exploded nuclear plant would probably not be best served by staying indoors. A carefully orchestrated evacuation would be inconvenienced, for sure, by a bunch of individuals heading for the hills, but the real thrust of any measures taken in a national emergency is not making sure the roads are clear for properly organised vehicles. It is maintaining the existing relationship between authority and public. And perhaps that's exactly as it should be - perhaps the spectre of an individualist, atavistic scramble for safety is far worse, and in the end far more dangerous, than an organised response to disaster that might let the odd family down, but will preserve a recognisable structure. Still, I think in this postmodern age we could take a bit of straight-talking. I'd like to see a booklet called How to Preserve the Fabric of Society in the Event of Terrorist Attack. "Don't blame us, or wonder whether we're all in a special bunker, making merry; this will sap valuable energy which you could be using to wind up your torch"; "Don't go looting, or in any other way dispense with the principles of private property - we'll need them again when the fall-out dissipates, and we had a devil of a job setting them up in the first place." If it meant preserving the world order, I think I could see the value of staying at home. It's only if we're talking about safety that the very last place I'll be is under my table, in a built-up area, awaiting instructions from the telly. zoe_williams@ntlworld.com [zoe_williams@ntlworld.com] Useful links Metropolitan police [http://www.met.police.uk/] Home Office: emergency planning review [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/epd/emplanreview.htm] Ministry of Defence [http://news.mod.uk/] UK resilience [http://www.ukresilience.info/] Red Cross [http://www.redcross.org.uk/] Terrorism Act 2000 [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/terrorism/] Crime and security bill (pdf) [http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2001/11 /20/Full_text.pdf] [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 ***************************************************************** 11 NRC: Exelon Generation Company, Inc. and MidAmerican Energy Company, FR Doc 04-17034 [Federal Register: July 27, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 143)] [Notices] [Page 44698] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27jy04-980] Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Withdrawal of Environmental Assessment The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of MidAmerican Energy Company (the licensee) to withdraw its November 21, 2003, application for exemption for the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, located in Rock Island County, Illinois. The proposed exemption would have allowed the licensee to delay meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(h)(2) past the effective date of December 24, 2003. The Commission had previously issued an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2003 (68 FR 70843), and December 22, 2003 (68 FR 71173), for the proposed exemption as required by 10 CFR 51.21. However, by letter dated December 18, 2003, the licensee withdrew the proposed change. Therefore, the Commission is withdrawing its previously issued Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. For further details with respect to this action, see the request for exemption dated November 21, 2003, and the licensee's letter dated December 18, 2003, which withdrew the request for exemption. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/html] . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800- 397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov [pdr@nrc.gov] . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of July 2004. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Lawrence Rossbach, Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 04-17034 Filed 7-26-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 12 NRC: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Notice of Consideration of FR Doc 04-17035 [Federal Register: July 27, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 143)] [Notices] [Page 44696-44698] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27jy04-979] Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-59 issued to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the licensee) for operation of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant located in Oswego County, New York. The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification Section 5.5.6, ``Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' to allow a one-time extension of the interval between the Type A, integrated leakage rate tests (ILRTs), from 10 years to no more than 15 years. Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed? The change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed. The proposed revision to Technical Specifications adds a one time extension to the current interval for Type A testing. The current test interval of ten years, based on past performance, would be extended on a one time basis to fifteen years from the last Type A test. The proposed extension to Type A testing cannot increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated since the containment Type A testing extension is not a modification and the test extension is not of a type that could lead to equipment failure or accident initiation. The proposed extension to Type A testing does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident since research documented in NUREG-1493 has found that, generically, very few potential containment leakage paths are not identified by Type B and C tests. The NUREG concluded that reducing the Type A (ILRT) testing frequency to one per twenty years was found to lead to an imperceptible increase in risk. These generic conclusions were confirmed by a plant specific risk analysis performed using the current FitzPatrick Individual Plant Examination (IPE) internal events model. Testing and inspection programs in place at FitzPatrick also provide a high degree of assurance that the containment will not degrade in a manner detectable only by Type A testing. The last four Type A tests show leakage to be below acceptance criteria, indicating a very leak tight containment. Type B and C testing required by Technical Specifications will identify any containment opening such as valves that would otherwise be detected by the Type A tests. Inspections, including those required by the ASME [C]ode [American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code] and the maintenance rule are performed in order to identify indications of containment degradation that could affect that leak tightness. These factors in part and in aggregate show that a Type A test extension of up to five years will not represent a significant increase in the consequences of an accident. 2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed? The change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed. The proposed revision to Technical Specifications adds a one time extension to the current interval for Type A testing. The current test interval of ten years, based on past performance, would be extended on a one time basis to fifteen years from the last Type A test. The proposed extension to Type A testing cannot create the possibility of a new or different [kind] of accident since there are no physical changes being made to the plant and there are no changes to the operation of the plant that could introduce a new failure mode creating an accident or affecting the mitigation of an accident. 3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in [a] margin of safety? The change does not involve a significant reduction in [a] margin of safety. The proposed revision to Technical Specifications adds a one time extension to the current interval for Type A testing. The current test interval of ten years, based on past performance, would be extended on a one time basis to fifteen years from the last Type A test. The proposed extension to Type A testing will not significantly reduce the margin of safety. The NUREG 1493 generic study of the effects of extending containment leakage testing found that a 20 year extension in Type A leakage testing resulted in an imperceptible increase in risk to the public. NUREG- 1493 found that, generically, the design containment leakage rate contributes about 0.1 percent to the individual risk and that the decrease in Type A testing frequency would have a minimal affect on this risk since 95% of the potential leakage paths are detected by Type C testing. This was further confirmed by a plant specific risk assessment using the current FitzPatrick Individual Plant Examination (IPE) internal events model that concluded the risk associated with this change is negligibly small and/or non-risk significant. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30- day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. [[Page 44697]] Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/] reading-rm/ doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestors/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV [HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV] ; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov [ OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov] . A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to Mr. David E. Blabey, 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019, attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated July 28, 2003, as supplemented on May 20, 2004, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available [[Page 44698]] records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html] . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e- mail to pdr@nrc.gov [pdr@nrc.gov] . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of July 2004. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Patrick D. Milano, Senior Project Manager, Section I, Project Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 04-17035 Filed 7-26-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 13 NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting FR Doc 04-17139 [Federal Register: July 27, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 143)] [Notices] [Page 44698-44699] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27jy04-981] Agency Holding the Meeting: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dates: Weeks of July 26, August 2, 9, 16, 23, 30, 2004 Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Status: Public and Closed. Matters to be Considered: Week of July 26, 2004 There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of July 26, 2004. Week of August 2, 2004--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of August 2, 2004. Week of August 9, 2004--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of August 9, 2004. Week of August 16, 2004--Tentative Tuesday, August 17, 2004 9:30 a.m. Meeting with Organization of Agreement States (OAS) and Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD) (Public Meeting) (Contact: John Zabko, 301-415-2308) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http.// http://www.nrc.gov [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov] 1 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1) Wednesday, August 18, 2004. 9:30 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1) Week of August 23, 2004--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of August 23, 2004. Week of August 30, 2004--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of August 30, 2004. \*\ The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)--(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Dave Gamberoni, (301) 415-1651. * * * * * SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By a vote of 3-0 on July 15, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and Sec. 9.107(a) of the Commission's rules that ``Discussion of Security Issues (Closed-- Ex.1)'' be held July 15, and on less than one week's notice to the public. * * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html* [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-makin g/schedule.html*] * * * * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, August Spector at 301-415-7080, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at aks@nrc.gov [aks@nrc.gov] . Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. * * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov [dkw@nrc.gov] . [[Page 44699]] Dated: July 22, 2004. Dave Gamberoni, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 04-17139 Filed 7-23-04; 9:38 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M ***************************************************************** 14 JS Online: Papermakers back nuclear plant sale [http://www.onwisconsin.com] Group says benefits from Kewaunee deal outweigh potential risk By THOMAS CONTENT tcontent@journalsentinel.com Posted: July 26, 2004 With a nod to concerns raised by opponents of the deal, the Wisconsin Paper Council on Monday endorsed the sale of the Kewaunee nuclear plant to an out-of-state utility. The endorsement by a group representing papermakers - the largest energy users in northeastern Wisconsin - comes as the state Public Service Commission prepares to consider the sale. Wisconsin Public Service Corp. of Green Bay and Wisconsin Power &Light Co. of Madison announced in November that they would seek to sell the plant for $250 million to Dominion Resources Inc. of Richmond, Va. The council had been leaning toward supporting the sale, but until Monday, it had been the only group that would be affected by the sale that had not taken a formal position. Sale opponents had expressed some hope that they would persuade the council to join them. "Reaching a decision in this case has been one of the more difficult challenges for the paper council in recent years," Earl Gustafson, energy and projects manager of the organization, said in testimony filed Monday afternoon. "It is the paper council's opinion that the known benefits of the sale outweigh the potential risk of harm." The sale is supported by plant employees, the state Federation of Cooperatives, Wisconsin Manufacturers &Commerce, and most of the 70 area residents who attended a hearing last month in Manitowoc. They support the desire of WPS to join an industry trend in which small utilities eliminate financial risk by selling nuclear plants to large companies that are operating sizable numbers of such plants. Customers would save $26 million to $136 million the next nine years, under an agreement that would sell the electricity generated at the plant back to the two Wisconsin utilities. Opposed to the sale are the Customers First! coalition and some of its members, including Citizens' Utility Board, the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, the electrical workers union, municipal utilities, AARP and business groups, including the Wisconsin Merchants Federation. A principal concern is what could happen after 2013, if the plant is relicensed to operate another 20 years. At that point, Dominion wouldn't be bound to sell Kewaunee's power to the two state utilities. After 2013, "Kewaunee will operate on the open market, with new market conditions that will likely significantly increase profits for the facility," said David Benforado, executive director of Municipal Electric Utilities of Wisconsin. "With state regulation, these additional profits will be used to reduce customers' bills in Wisconsin. Without state regulation, these profits will end up in Virginia." From the July 27, 2004, editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Get the Journal Sentinel delivered to your home. [http://www.jsonline.com/services] Journal Sentinel Inc. is a subsidiary of [http://www.jc.com] ***************************************************************** 15 Brattleboro Reformer: DPS may seek to intervene in VY uprate case [http://www.reformer.com/] July 27, 2004 Brattleboro, VT By CAROLYN LORIÉ Reformer Staff BRATTLEBORO -- The Vermont Department of Public Service may be among the parties petitioning to intervene before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the Vermont Yankee uprate case. The plant wants to increase power generation by 20 percent, which is the maximum allowed by the NRC. According to DPS commissioner David O'Brien, concerns raised by state nuclear engineer Bill Sherman have not been adequately addressed by the NRC. On Dec. 8, 2003, Sherman wrote a letter to the federal regulator asking several questions about Vermont Yankee's uprate application, including questions specific to the plant's plan to take credit for containment overpressure. Under uprated conditions, the water in the reactor will be hotter thereby interfering with the emergency core cooling pumps to operate properly during an accident. The increase in temperature causes bubbles in the water to form, rendering the pumps useless. According to Vermont Yankee engineers, however, there is sufficient pressure in the containment tank to prevent the formation of water bubbles -- this is known as taking credit for containment overpressure. NRC regulatory guides, however, state that plants should not take credit for overpressure unless absolutely necessary and when doing so it should be minimized to the extent possible. The NRC responded to the department on June 29. According to the letter, sent by project manager Richard Ennis, the NRC has allowed other plants to take credit for overpressure and that it is up to the licensee to show why doing so is both necessary and safe. The letter also stated that NRC plans to revisit the regulatory guides around the issue: "We will both formally withdraw RG [regulatory guide] 1.1 since it has been superseded, and review RG 1.82 to more clearly explain how credit for containment accident pressure can be found acceptable." According to O'Brien, the response wasn't enough. "We're not satisfied with how they assessed the safety implications for credit for containment over pressure," said O'Brien. "We need more than what's in that letter." All parties interested in intervening have until the end of August to file a petition. In order to be granted a hearing a party must show how it will be affected by the uprate and must have specific concerns -- a hearing will not be granted to parties voicing general concern about the safety of nuclear power. O'Brien said that he did not know when a final decision regarding whether the state will intervene would be made. At the moment, only the nuclear power watchdog group the New England Coalition is planning to file a petition to intervene. The coalition, along with the Department of Public Service, was a party in the case before the Public Service Board. Raymond Shadis, technical advisor to the coalition, was skeptical about the state's possible intervention before the NRC. "Here we go again with what smells like a token effort," said Shadis. "The issue of the emergency core cooling pumps is but one of the many issues that affect safety in the uprate. If the state is only going to put in a token effort like they did before the Public Service Board, then we would just as soon not have them in the way." Shadis accused the department of acting as an advocate for Entergy Nuclear, which owns Vermont Yankee, and attacking the coalition during the board hearings. The Windham Regional Commission and the Connecticut Watershed Council also intervened before the board, but representatives from both organizations said they do not have the resources to continue the opposition at the federal level. O'Brien said that the department was not definitively opposing the plant taking credit for overpressure but was not yet convinced that a case for it had been made. "We think the issue needs more explaining, more evidence, more discussion. Until we see that we're not comfortable with allowing [credit for] containment overpressure," said O'Brien. Copyright ©1999-2004 New England Newspapers, Inc., a ***************************************************************** 16 FT: Three groups bid for Slovak power assets [http://www.ft.com] By Robert Anderson in Prague Published: July 27 2004 18:02 | Last Updated: July 27 2004 Enel of Italy, CEZ of the Czech Republic and UES of Russia were due to submit binding bids on Wednesday for a 66 per cent stake in Slovenske Elektrarne, the Slovak power generator. A victory for Enel or UES would represent their first move into central Europe. If CEZ wins the tender, it would mark a big step in the state-owned group's growth into a regional powerhouse. CEZ is regarded as the favourite because of the strong potential cost savings it could achieve by taking over the neighbouring Slovak generator, with which it was united before the split of Czechoslovakia in 1993. CEZ, the second-biggest electricity exporter in Europe, could also increase revenues by exporting its cheaper power to Slovakia, and make savings by closing down Slovenske Elektrarne's inefficient coal-burning power stations. Enel has long sought a foothold in central Europe, whose cheap generating capacity could be used to supply Italy's energy needs. By law Enel is not allowed to build nuclear power stations in Italy, but it could complete the unfinished block of the Mochovce nuclear power station in Slovakia instead. UES of Russia, in consortium with Rusenergoatom, the Russian nuclear power station operator, is regarded as the dark horse candidate. Slovakia would mark its first step into generation in central Europe and could eventually help it market its own power there. The Slovak government has insisted that in the first round bids must be made for the whole of Slovenske Elektrarne's 6,882MW of operating capacity, including its two nuclear plants which made up 69 per cent of its 26TWh production last year. Pavol Rusko, energy minister, has also stated that preference will be given to bidders who are prepared to complete Mochovce. These requirements appear to rule out the two other contenders, Eon of Germany and Verbund of Austria, which do not want to buy nuclear power stations. They will only be able to compete in a second round, if one is held, in which bidders can choose to acquire only the non-nuclear assets. © Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2004. "FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times. Privacy ***************************************************************** 17 North Adams Transcript: City to hear nuclear plant report tonight July 27, 2004 By Susan Bush North Adams Transcript NORTH ADAMS -- Officials affiliated with the on-going Yankee Rowe nuclear energy facility decommissioning are expected to offer a report involving a "baseline environmental report" about the site during tonight's city council meeting. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 7:30 at city hall. Councilor Gailanne Cariddi is the city's representative to the Yankee-Rowe Community Advisory Board. Officials of the state Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency and the Yankee Atomic Electric Co. also have representatives on the advisory board. Cariddi arranged for Yankee Site Closure Project Manager Joseph Lynch to speak about the report, as well as offer a general presentation about the decommissioning process. Earlier this year, Cariddi attended a similar presentation given in Greenfield and has said she believed that city residents should have access to the information. A presentation outline states that a site description, a history of the facility operations and environmental management actions, radiological assessment and remediation, an oil and hazardous material assessment and remediation, information about solid waste impacts and site closure activities are part of the scheduled session. The nuclear energy plant ceased producing nuclear power in 1992 and the decommissioning began in 1993. Information posted on the Yankee Rowe Internet Web site states that the site is expected to be ready for re-use in 2006. The nuclear facility currently is housing about 16 dry-storage casks containing radioactive spent fuel rods on about 10 acres of the 2,200-acre site. During a June hearing in Buckland that focused on the facility's license termination, John Hickman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Yankee Rowe project manager, said that the facility will not be allowed to abdicate responsibility for the site until the rods are removed. However, Hickman also said the property housing the rods could be separated from the remaining acreage, and in that event, Yankee officials would maintain responsibility only for the area containing the rods. The spent fuel is expected to someday be taken to an planned nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nev. But the storage facility has not been approved or built yet, and officials with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in June that a NRC review of the facility application, being submitted by the federal Department of Energy, could take years to review and an anticipated project completion date of 2010 is a "best case scenario" and not likely to occur. The proposed nuclear waste repository has generated strong opposition from numerous environmental groups and Nevada residents. Over the weekend, Democratic presidential hopeful U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry said on national television news programs that he opposes the Yucca Mountain proposal. The DOE did contract with Yankee Rowe officials to remove the rods and store the spent fuel at Yucca Mountain, with the transport of the fuel rods expected to begin in 1998. A lawsuit focusing on the failure to remove the rods was initiated by Yankee Rowe officials and arguments in the case began in a federal court earlier this month. Also on the meeting agenda is a request to connect to the city water and sewer system that links to the Hoosac Water Quality District. Erin and Dawn Booth are asking that a home they plan to build on Belmar Drive in Clarksburg be approved for the system. Mayor John Barrett III has offered a written recommendation that approval be granted, and noted that the final approval must come from water district commissioners. All conditions for connecting to the city system have been met, Barrett's recommendation states. Copyright ©1999-2004 New England Newspapers, Inc., ***************************************************************** 18 PoughkeepsieJournal.com: Suit challenges new rule for power plants Tuesday, July 27, 2004 Cooling systems harm fish, groups claim Gannett News Service Six states and a coalition of environmental groups Monday filed court challenges against a new federal rule that would allow hundreds of major power plants -- including Indian Point in Westchester and Roseton in Orange County -- to continue a practice that kills billions of fish annually. The rule adopted July 9 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would allow 550 plants to continue using river and lake water to cool their generators. The ''once-through'' cooling systems could be used as long as they used screens to block most fish from being sucked into the plants and agree to restock the affected waterways. The agency said in its regulation the most environmentally effective system is ''closed cycle'' cooling, which uses cooling towers to recycle the water used in the power generating process. But, it held the cost of retrofitting closed cycle cooling systems on existing power plants would be unjustifiably high. The agency offered the alternative restoration program even though the U.S. Clean Water Act requires plants to use the ''best technology available.'' State among plaintiffs The attorneys general of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware and Massachusetts joined a motion filed by Rhode Island in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston challenging the EPA rule's legality. Larry Gottlieb, spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns Indian Point, said retrofitting closed cycle systems ''would be prohibitively expensive.'' Entergy has said if it were forced to install a closed-cycle system it would have to build two towers 168 feet high and 540 feet wide. ''You can't put two stadium sized towers on the Hudson River and not impact the river,'' Gottlieb said. Alex Matthiessen, director of the environmental group Riverkeeper, said if the EPA rule is allowed to stand, ''the losers are the fish in our nation's waterways and the people who rely on an abundant fishery and enjoy our waterways for recreational and other purposes.'' HOME [http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/] ***************************************************************** 19 AFP: Spanish nuclear plant to close in 2006 WAR.WIRE
[http://www.spacewar.com/] MADRID (AFP) Jul 27, 2004 Spain's nuclear plant at Zorita, about 60 kilometres (40 miles) north east of Madrid will close at the end of April 2006, a spokesman for operator Union Fenosa said Tuesday. The facility, the third-biggest Spanish electricity producer had initially appealed against in 2002 a decision by the finance ministry to close the plant on April 30, 2006, but revealed it had withdrawn the appeal without stating why. In appealing, the firm had insisted that the plant could function safely through to 2008. Zorita is Spain's oldest plant having opened in 1968. It generates about two percent of the country's nuclear-based electricity. A further six "first generation" Spanish plants will remain in operation, though Spanish nuclear energy production, at just under one third of overall energy production, remains relatively small scale compared with neighbouring states such as France. Environment groups, including Greenpeace, had repeatedly called for the the plant to be closed on safety grounds after a several reported breakdowns. WAR.WIRE ***************************************************************** 20 Decision for Construction/Operation of DU Facility Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:07:58 -0500 (CDT) http://cryptome.org/doe072704.txt 27 July 2004 Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/fr-cont.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- [Federal Register: July 27, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 143)] [Notices] [Page 44654-44658] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Record of Decision for Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Paducah, KY, Site AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Record of decision. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement for Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Paducah, Kentucky, Site (FEIS) (DOE/EIS-0359). The FEIS Notice of Availability was published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Federal Register (69 FR 34161) on June 18, 2004. In the FEIS, DOE considered the potential environmental impacts from the construction, operation, maintenance, and decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of the proposed depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) conversion facility at three alternative locations within the Paducah site, including transportation of depleted uranium conversion products and waste materials to a disposal facility; transportation and sale of the aqueous hydrogen fluoride (HF) produced as a conversion co-product; and neutralization of aqueous HF to calcium fluoride (CAF2) and its sale or disposal in the event that the aqueous HF product is not sold. An option of shipping the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) cylinders to the Paducah site has also been considered, as has an option of expanding operations by increasing efficiency or extending the period of operation. A similar EIS was issued concurrently for construction and operation of a DUF6 conversion facility at DOE's Portsmouth, Ohio, site (DOE/EIS-0360). DOE has decided to construct and operate the conversion facility in the south-central portion of the Paducah site, the preferred alternative identified in the FEIS as Location A. Groundbreaking for construction of the facility will commence on or before July 31, 2004, as anticipated by Public Law (Pub. L.) 107-206. The aqueous HF produced during conversion will be sold for use, pending approval of authorized release limits, as appropriate. ADDRESSES: The FEIS and this Record of Decision (ROD) are available on the DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Web site at http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa and on the Depleted UF6 Management Information Network Web site at http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium. Copies of the FEIS and this ROD may be requested by e-mail at Pad_DUF6@anl.gov, by toll-free telephone at 1-866-530-0944, by toll-free fax at 1-866-530-0943, or by contacting Gary S. Hartman, Oak Ridge Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, SE-30-1, P.O. Box 2001, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the conversion facility construction and operation, contact Gary Hartman at the address listed above. For general information on the DOE NEPA process, contact Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, 202-586-4600, or leave a message at 1-800-472- 2756. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The United States has produced DUF6 since the early 1950s as part of the process of enriching natural uranium for both civilian and military applications. Production took place at three gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs), first at the K-25 site (now called ETTP) at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and subsequently at Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio. The K-25 plant ceased enrichment operations in 1985, and the Portsmouth plant ceased enrichment operations in 2001. The Paducah GDP continues to operate. Approximately 440,000 t (484,000 tons) of DUF6 is presently stored at Paducah in about 36,200 cylinders. The majority of the cylinders weigh approximately 12 t (14 tons) each, are 48 inches (1.2 m) in diameter, and are stored on outside pads. DOE has been looking at alternatives for managing this inventory. Also in storage at Paducah are approximately 1,940 cylinders of various sizes that contain enriched UF6 or normal UF6 (collectively called "non-DUF6" cylinders) or are empty. [The non- DUF6 cylinders would not be processed in the conversion facility.] As a first step, DOE evaluated potential broad management options for its DUF6 inventory in a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management and Use of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF6 PEIS) (DOE/EIS-0269) issued in April 1999. In the PEIS Record of Decision (64 FR 43358, August 10, 1999), DOE decided to promptly convert the DUF6 inventory to a more stable uranium oxide form and stated that it would use the depleted uranium oxide as much as possible and store the remaining depleted uranium oxide for potential future uses or disposal, as necessary. In addition, DOE would convert DUF6 to depleted uranium metal, but only if uses for metal were available. DOE did not select specific sites for the conversion facilities but reserved that decision for subsequent NEPA review. Today's Record of Decision announces the outcome of that site-specific NEPA review. DOE is also issuing today a separate but related ROD announcing the siting of a DUF6 conversion facility at Portsmouth, Ohio. [[Page 44655]] Congress enacted two laws that directly addressed DOE's management of its DUF6 inventory. The first law, Public Law 105-204, signed by the President in July 1998, required the Secretary of Energy to prepare a plan to commence construction of, no later than January 31, 2004, and to operate an on-site facility at each of the GDPs at Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, to treat and recycle DUF6, consistent with NEPA. The second law, Public Law 107- 206, signed by the President on August 2, 2002, required that no later than 30 days after enactment, DOE must award a contract for the scope of work described in its Request for Proposals (RFP) issued in October 2000 for the design, construction, and operation of a DUF6 conversion facility at each of the Department's Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, gaseous diffusion sites. It also stipulated that the contract require groundbreaking for construction to occur no later than July 31, 2004, at both sites. In response to these laws, DOE issued the Final Plan for the Conversion of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride as Required by Public Law 105-204 in July 1999, and awarded a contract to Uranium Disposition Services (UDS) for construction and operation of two conversion facilities on August 29, 2002, consistent with NEPA. On September 18, 2001, DOE published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register (66 FR 48123) announcing its intention to prepare an EIS for the proposed action to construct, operate, maintain, and decontaminate and decommission two DUF6 conversion facilities: One at Portsmouth and one at Paducah. Following the enactment of Public Law 107-206, DOE reevaluated the appropriate scope of its site-specific NEPA review and decided to prepare two separate EISs, one for the plant proposed for the Paducah site and a second for the Portsmouth site. This change in approach was announced in the Federal Register on April 28, 2003 (68 FR 22368). The two draft conversion facility EISs were mailed to stakeholders in late November 2003, and a Notice of Availability was published by the EPA in the Federal Register on November 28, 2003 (68 FR 66824). Comments on the draft EISs were accepted during a 67-day review period that ended on February 2, 2004. DOE considered these comments and prepared two FEISs. The Notice of Availability for the two FEISs was published by the EPA in the Federal Register (69 FR 34161) on June 18, 2004. II. Purpose and Need for Agency Action DOE needs to convert its inventory of DUF6 to more stable chemical form(s) for use or disposal. This need follows directly from (1) the decision presented in the August 1999 ROD for the PEIS, namely, to begin conversion of the DUF6 inventory as soon as possible, and (2) Public Law 107-206, which directs DOE to award a contract for construction and operation of conversion facilities at both the Paducah site and the Portsmouth site. III. Alternatives No Action Alternative. Under the no action alternative, conversion would not occur. Current cylinder management activities (handling, inspection, monitoring, and maintenance) would continue; thus the status quo would be maintained at Paducah indefinitely. Action Alternatives. The proposed action evaluated in the FEIS is to construct and operate a conversion facility at the Paducah site for conversion of the Paducah DUF6 inventory into depleted uranium oxide (primarily triuranium octaoxide [U3O8]) and other conversion products. The FEIS review is based on the conceptual conversion facility design proposed by the selected contractor, UDS. The UDS dry conversion process is a continuous process in which DUF6 is vaporized and converted to a mixture of uranium oxides (primarily U3O8) by reaction with steam and hydrogen in a fluidized-bed conversion unit. The hydrogen is generated from anhydrous ammonia (NH3). The depleted U3O8 powder is collected and packaged for disposition in bulk bags (large-capacity, strong, flexible bags) or the emptied cylinders to the extent practicable. Equipment would also be installed to collect the aqueous HF (also called HF acid) co-product and process it into HF at concentrations suitable for commercial resale. A backup HF acid neutralization system would convert up to 100% of the HF acid to CaF2 for sale or disposal in the future, if necessary. The conversion products would be transported to a disposal facility or to users by truck or rail. The conversion facility will be designed with four parallel processing lines to convert 18,000 t (20,000 tons) of DUF6 per year, requiring 25 years to convert the Paducah inventory. Three alternative locations within the site were evaluated, Locations A (preferred), B, and C. In addition, an option of transporting the ETTP cylinders to Paducah rather than to Portsmouth was considered, as was an option of expanding conversion facility operations. Alternative Location A (Preferred Alternative). Location A is the preferred location for the conversion facility. It is located south of the administration building and its parking lot, immediately west of and next to the primary location of the DOE cylinder yards and east of the main plant access road. This location is an L-shaped tract consisting mostly of grassy field. However, the southeastern section is a wooded area. A drainage ditch crosses the northern part of the site, giving the cylinder yard storm water access to Kentucky Pollution Discharge Elimination System (KPDES) Outfall 017. This location is about 35 acres (14 ha) in size and was identified in the RFP for conversion services as the site for which bidders were to design their proposed facilities. Alternative Location B. Location B is directly south of the Paducah maintenance building and west of the main plant access road. The northern part of this location is mowed grass and has a slightly rolling topography. The southern part has a dense covering of trees and brush, and some high-voltage power lines cross it, limiting its use. This location has an area of about 59 acres (23 ha). Alternative Location C. Location C is east of the Paducah pump house and cooling towers. It has an area of about 53 acres (21 ha). Dykes Road runs through the center of this location from north to south. Use of the eastern half of this location could be somewhat limited because several high-voltage power lines run through this area. Under the action alternatives, DOE evaluated the impacts from packaging, handling, and transporting depleted uranium oxide conversion product (primarily U3O8) from the conversion facility to a low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility that would be (1) selected in a manner consistent with DOE policies and orders and (2) authorized to receive the conversion products by DOE (in conformance with DOE orders), or licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (in conformance with NRC regulations), or an NRC Agreement State agency (in conformance with state laws and regulations determined to be equivalent to NRC regulations). Assessment of the impacts and risks from on-site handling and disposal at an LLW disposal facility has been deferred to the disposal site's site-specific NEPA or licensing documents. While the FEIS presents the impacts from transporting the DUF6 conversion products to both the Envirocare of Utah, Inc., facility and the Nevada Test Site (NTS), DOE plans to decide the specific disposal location(s) for the depleted U3O8 conversion product after additional NEPA review, as necessary. Accordingly, DOE will continue to evaluate its disposal options and will consider any further information or comments relevant to that decision. DOE will give a minimum 45-day notice before making its specific disposal decision and will provide any additional NEPA analysis for public review and comment. [[Page 44656]] The following alternatives were considered but not analyzed in detail in the FEIS: Use of Commercial Conversion Capacity, Sites Other Than Paducah, Alternative Conversion Processes, Long-Term Storage and Disposal Alternatives, Transportation Modes Other Than Truck and Rail, and One Conversion Plant Alternative. IV. Summary of Environmental Impacts The FEIS evaluated potential impacts from the range of alternatives described above. The impact areas included human health and safety, air quality, noise, water and soil, socioeconomics, ecological resources, waste management, resource requirements, land use, cultural resources, environmental justice, and cumulative impacts. In general, the impacts are low for both the no action and the proposed action alternatives. Among the three alternative locations considered at the Paducah site for the conversion facility, there are no major differences in impacts that would make one location clearly environmentally preferable. The discussion below summarizes the results of the FEIS impact analyses, highlighting the differences among the alternatives. Human Health and Safety--Normal Operations and Transportation. Under all alternatives, it is estimated that potential exposures of workers and members of the general public to radiation and chemicals would be well within applicable public health standards and regulations. UDS would confirm, prior to conversion or at the initiation of the conversion operations, that polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) releases to the workplace from the paint coating of some cylinders manufactured prior to 1978 would be within applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) limits. Transportation by rail would tend to cause fewer impacts than by truck primarily because of exhaust emissions from the trucks and the higher number of shipments for trucks than for rail. The option of converting the aqueous HF to CaF2 and transporting the CaF2 to a disposal facility would result in increased shipments. The impacts associated with transportation of uranium oxide product to a disposal facility in the western United States by truck would be about the same if bulk bags are used or two filled cylinders are loaded onto a truck. If only one cylinder is loaded onto a truck, the impacts would be higher because of the increased number of shipments. Human Health and Safety--Accidents. DOE has extensive experience in safely storing, handling, and transporting cylinders containing UF6 (depleted, normal, or enriched). In addition, the chemicals used or generated at the conversion facility are commonly used for industrial applications in the United States, and there are well-established accident prevention and mitigative measures for their storage and transportation. Under all alternatives, it is possible that accidents could release radiation or chemicals to the environment, potentially affecting both the workers and members of the general public. It is also possible that, similar to other industrial facilities, workers could be injured or killed as a result of on-the-job accidents unrelated to radiation or chemical exposure. Similarly, during transportation of materials, both crew members and members of the public may be injured or killed as a result of traffic accidents. Three kinds of accidents have the largest possible consequences: (1) Those involving the DUF6 cylinders during storage and handling under all alternatives, (2) those involving chemicals used or generated by the conversion process at the conversion site (in particular NH3 and aqueous HF) under the action alternatives, and (3) those occurring during transportation of chemicals and cylinders under the action alternatives. The severity of the consequences from such accidents would depend on weather conditions at the time of the accident, and, in the case of the transportation accidents, the location of the accident, and could be significant. However, those accidents would have a low estimated probability of occurring, making the risk low. (Risk is determined by multiplying the consequences by the probability of occurrence). In comparing truck versus rail transportation, even though the consequences of rail accidents are generally higher (because of the larger cargo load per railcar than per truck), the accident probabilities tend to be lower for railcars than for trucks. As a result, the risks of accidents would be about the same under either option. Under the no action alternative, the risks associated with cylinder storage and handling would continue to exist as long as the cylinders are there. However, under the action alternatives, the risks associated with both the cylinder accidents and the chemical accidents would decline over time and disappear at the completion of the project. Air Quality and Noise. Under the action alternatives, the total (modeled plus background value) concentrations due to emissions of most criteria pollutants--such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide--would be well within applicable air quality standards. For construction, the primary concern would be particulate matter (PM) released from near-ground-level sources. Total concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 (PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 [mu]m or less and 2.5 [mu]m or less, respectively) at the construction site boundaries would be close to or above the standards because of the high background concentrations. Accordingly, construction activities would be conducted so as to minimize further impacts on ambient air quality. Water and Soil. During construction of the conversion facility, concentrations of any potential contaminants in soil, surface water, or groundwater would be kept well within applicable standards or guidelines by implementing storm water management, sediment and erosion controls, and good construction practices. During operations, no impacts would be expected because no contaminated liquid effluents are anticipated. Socioeconomics. Under the action alternatives, construction and operation of the conversion facility would create more jobs and personal income in the vicinity of the Paducah site than would be possible under the no action alternative. The number of jobs would be approximately 190 direct and 290 total during construction, and 160 direct and 330 total during operations. Ecology. For the action alternatives, the total area disturbed during conversion facility construction would be up to 45 acres (18 ha). Although vegetation communities in the disturbed area would be impacted by a loss of habitat, impacts could be minimized (e.g., by appropriate placement of the facility within each location), and negligible long-term impacts to vegetation and wildlife are expected at all locations. Impacts to wetlands could be minimized, depending on where exactly the facility was placed within each location and by maintaining a buffer near adjacent wetlands during construction. Construction of the conversion facility in the eastern portion of Location C could impact potential habitat for cream wild indigo (state- listed as a species of special concern) and compass plant (state-listed as threatened). For construction at all three locations, potential impark (such as shagbark hickory or dead trees with loose bark) that can be used by the Indiana bat (federal- and state-listed as endangered) as roosting trees during the summer would be saved if possible. Waste Management. Under the action alternatives, waste generated during construction and operations would have negligible impacts on the Paducah site waste management operations, with the r facility (there are no curr ent plans to build such a facility at ETTP). The operational impacts (e.g., storage, handling, and maintenance of cylinders) from any of the options would be small and limited primarily to external radiation exposure of involved workers. The annual impacts from conversion operations at Paducah would remain the same, however the conversion period would be approximaded to other pa st, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Option of Expanding Conversion Facility Operations. The throughput of the Paducah facility could be increased by making process efficiency improvements. Such an increase would not be expected to significantly change the overall environmental impacts when compared with those of the current plant design. The conver be significant. The no action alternative has the potential for groundwater contamination with uranium over the long-term; this adverse impact is not anticipated under the proposed action alternatives. Beneficial socioeconomic impacts would be higher for the action alternatives than for the no action alternative. The impacts associated with transportation of materials among sites wouldgulatory requirements; Congressional direction as included in Public Law 105-204 and 107-206; agreements among DOE and the States of Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky concerning the management of DUF6 currently stored at the Portsmouth, ETTP, and Paducah sites, respectively; and public comments in arriving at its decision. In deciding among the three alternative locations at ropriate. Cylinders will be shipped in a manner that is consistent with DOT regulations for the transportation of UF6 cylinders. [[Page 44658]] Current cylinder management activities (handling, inspection, monitoring, and maintenance) will continue, consistent with the Cylinder Project Management Plan for Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride, effective October 2003, which cover actions needed to meet safety analysis for public review and comment. III. Mitigation On the basis of the analyses conducted for the FEIS, the DOE will adopt all practicable measures, which are described below, to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts that may result from constructing and operating a conversion facility at Location A. These measures are either explicitly part of the alternative or are ble to avoid destr oying potential habitat for the Indiana bat. Issued in Washington, DC this 20th day of July 2004. Paul M. Golan, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. [FR Doc. 04-17050 Filed 7-26-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-U ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [Federal Register: July 27, 2004 (Volume 69, Nd by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Federal Register (69 FR 34161) on June 18, 2004. In the FEIS, DOE considered the potential environmental impacts from the construction, operation, maintenance, and decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of the proposed depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) conversion facility at three alternative locations within the Portsmouth sitp://www.eh.doe. gov/nepa and on the Depleted UF6 Management Information Network Web site at http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium. Copies of the FEIS and this ROD may be requested by e-mail at Ports_DUF6@anl.gov, by toll-free telephone at 1-866-530-0944, by toll-free fax at 1-866-530-0943, or by contacting Gary S. Hartman, Oak Ridge Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, SE-30-1, P.Ot Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio. The K-25 plant ceased enrichment operations in 1985, and the Portsmouth plant ceased enrichment operations in 2001. The Paducah GDP continues to operate. Approximately 250,000 t (275,000 tons) of DUF6 is presently stored in about 16,000 cylinders at Portsmouth and about 4,800 cylinders at ETTP. The majority of the cylinders weigh approximately ide for potential future uses or disposal, as necessary. In addition, DOE would convert DUF6 to depleted uranium metal, but only if uses for metal were available. DOE did not select specific sites for the conversion facilities but reserved that decision for subsequent NEPA review. Today's Record of Decision announces the outcome of that site-specific NEPA review. DOE is also issuing today a onse to these laws, DOE issued the Fina l Plan for the Conversion of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride as Required by Public Law 105-204 in July 1999, and awarded a contract to Uranium Disposition Services (UDS) for construction and operation of two conversion facilities on August 29, 2002, consistent with NEPA. On September 18, 2001, DOE published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Regiin the Federal Register (69 FR 34161) on June 18, 2004. II. Purpose and Need for Agency Action [[Page 44653]] The conversion facility operations could be extended to process any additional DUF6 for which DOE might assume responsibility by operating the facility longer than the currently anticipated 18 years. With routine facility and equipment maintenance and periodic equipment replacements or upgrades, it is believed that the conversion facility could be operated safely beyond this time period. If operations were extended beyond 18 years and if the operational characteristics (e.g., estimated releases of contaminants to air and water) of the facility remained unchanged, it is expected that the annual impacts would be essentially unchanged. V. Environmentally Preferred Alternative In general, the FEIS shows greater impacts for the no action alternative than for the proposed action of constructing and operating the conversion facility mainly because of the relatively higher radiation exposures of the workers from the cylinder management operations and cylinder yards and because the cylinders and associated risk would remain if no action occurred. However, considering the uncertainties in the impact estimates and the magnitude of the impacts, the differences are not considered to be significant. The no action alternative has the potential for groundwater contamination with uranium over the long-term; this adverse impact is not anticipated under the proposed action alternatives. Beneficial socioeconomic impacts would be higher for the action alternatives than for the no action alternative. The impacts associated with transportation of materials among sites would be comparable whether the transportation is by truck or rail. With all alternatives, there is the potential for some high- consequence accidents to occur. The risks associated with such accidents can only be completely eliminated when the conversion of the DUF6 inventory has been completed. Although there are some differences in impacts among the three alternative locations for the conversion facility, these differences are small and well within the uncertainties associated with the methods used to estimate impacts. In general, because of the relatively small risks that would result under all alternatives and the absence of any clear basis for discerning an environmental preference, DOE concludes that no single alternative analyzed in depth in the FEIS is clearly environmentally preferable compared to the other alternatives. VI. Comments on Final EIS The Final EIS was mailed to stakeholders in early June 2004, and the EPA issued a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on June 18, 2004. The entire document was also made available on the World Wide Web. Two comment letters were received on the DUF6 Conversion Facility Final EISs. The State of Nevada indicated that it had no comments on the Final EISs and that the proposal was not in conflict with state plans, goals, or objectives. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 in Chicago, stated that the Portsmouth Final EIS adequately address its concerns, and that it concurs with the Preferred Alternative and has no further concerns. Decision I. Bases for the Decision DOE considered potential environmental impacts as identified in the FEIS (including the information contained in the classified appendix); cost; applicable regulatory requirements; Congressional direction as included in Pub. L. 105-204 and Pub. L. 107-206; agreements among DOE and the States of Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky concerning the management of DUF6 currently stored at the Portsmouth, ETTP, and Paducah sites, respectively; and public comments in arriving at its decision. In deciding among the three alternative locations at the Portsmouth site for the conversion facility, DOE considered environmental factors, site preparation requirements affecting construction, availability of utilities, proximity to cylinder storage areas, and potential impacts to current or planned site operations. DOE has determined that Location A is the best alternative. DOE believes that the decision identified below best meets its programmatic goals and is consistent with all the regulatory requirements and public laws. II. Decision DOE has decided to implement the actions described in the preferred alternative from the FEIS at Location A. This decision includes the following actions: DOE will construct and operate the conversion facility at Location A within the Portsmouth site. Construction will commence on or before July 31, 2004, as intended by Congress in Pub. L. 107-206. DUF6 cylinders currently stored at ETTP will be shipped to Portsmouth for conversion; a new cylinder yard will be constructed, if necessary, based on the availability of storage yard space when the cylinders are received. All shipments to and from the sites, including the shipment of UF6 cylinders (DUF6 and non- DUF6) currently stored at ETTP to Portsmouth, will be conducted by either truck or rail, as appropriate. Cylinders will be shipped in a manner that is consistent with DOT regulations for the transportation of UF6 cylinders. Although efficiency improvements can be accomplished, which would increase the conversion facility's throughput and decrease the operational period, DOE has decided not to add the fourth processing line to the conversion facility at this time. Current cylinder management activities (handling, inspection, monitoring, and maintenance) will continue, consistent with the Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Management Plan included in the Ohio EPA Director's final findings and orders effective February 1998 and March 2004, which cover actions needed to meet safety and environmental requirements, until conversion could be accomplished. The aqueous HF produced during conversion will be sold for use, pending approval of authorized release limits as appropriate. If necessary, CaF2 will be produced and reused, pending approval of authorized release limits, or disposed of as appropriate. The depleted U3O8 conversion product will be reused to the extent possible or packaged for disposal in emptied cylinders at an appropriate disposal facility. DOE plans to decide the specific disposal location(s) for the depleted U3O8 conversion product after additional appropriate NEPA review. Accordingly, DOE will continue to evaluate its disposal options and will consider any further information or comments relevant to that decision. DOE will give a minimum 45-day notice before making the specific disposal decision and will provide any supplemental NEPA analysis for public review and comment. III. Mitigation On the basis of the analyses conducted for the FEIS, the DOE will adopt all practicable measures, which are described below, to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts that may result from constructing and operating a conversion facility at Location A. These measures are either explicitly part of the alternative or are already performed as part of routine operations. [[Page 44654]] The conversion facility 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. Cylinder management activities will be conducted in accordance with applicable DOE safety and environmental requirements, including the Cylinder Management Plan. Temporary impacts on air quality from fugitive dust emissions during reconstruction of cylinder yards or construction of any new facility will be controlled by the best available practices, as necessary, to comply with the established standards for PM10 and PM2.5. During construction, impacts to water quality and soil will be minimized through implementing storm water management, sediment and erosion controls, and good construction practices consistent with the Soil, Erosion, and Sediment Control Plan and Construction Management Plan. If live trees with exfoliating bark are encountered on construction areas, they will be saved if possible to avoid destroying potential habitat for the Indiana bat. Issued in Washington, DC, this 20th day of July, 2004. Paul M. Golan, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. [FR Doc. 04-17048 Filed 7-26-04; 8:45 am] ***************************************************************** 21 [DU-WATCH] Gulf War veteran threatens MoD Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 00:54:10 -0500 (CDT) http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=850482004 Sun 25 Jul 2004 Gulf War veteran threatens MoD PETER MARTELL A SCOTTISH veteran has vowed to take the Ministry of Defence to the European courts if the independent inquiry into so-called Gulf War Syndrome fails to rule that the government was responsible. Alexander Izett, 34, said he developed brittle bone disease after being vaccinated in the run-up to the war in 1990. Izett, originally from Cumbernauld but who now lives in Germany, is among the 5,000 British veterans who have reported illnesses which they believe may have been caused by multiple vaccines or exposure to chemicals during the war. But with the government failing to acknowledge the existence of Gulf War Syndrome, the former lance-corporal in the Royal Engineers says he will fight on until he gets justice for himself and other veterans. Izett claims the MoD was negligent in failing to test the consequences of giving soldiers the powerful inoculations. He said: "I am quite prepared to take my case to the European Court of Human Rights. It would not be just for myself, but for all veterans." Izett gave evidence last week to the inquiry headed by Lord Lloyd of Berwick, which is due to report later this year. However, he remains unconvinced that the ongoing inquiry will have the dramatic results he would like to see. Izett took the drastic action last May of going on a 40-day hunger strike to highlight his plight. "My life was all I had left and I was prepared to lose that if it helped get this inquiry." A spokesman for the MoD said it could make no comment on the challenge to take the ministry to the European Court of Human Rights unless papers were served. He added that the government remained committed to finding medical and scientific solutions to the ill health of the veterans. ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://www.allnewmessenger.com ------------------------ 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/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/ ***************************************************************** 22 USATODAY.com: EPA exercise focuses on response to radiation emergency Posted 7/27/2004 6:45 PM FORT LEAVENWORTH, Kan. (AP) — A nuclear accident is more likely than a terrorist attack to expose U.S. residents to radiation, officials with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Tuesday as they prepared for a massive three-day exercise dubbed "Ruby Slippers." More than 130 EPA experts are staging a mock radiological emergency this week in and around Fort Leavenworth. For many, this is the first such exercise they've experienced at a time when terrorism  especially the possible use of radioactive materials in a so-called "dirty bomb"  weighs heavy on the national psyche. But Jeff Holmstead, EPA assistant administrator for air and radiation, said a nuclear accident  such as a nuclear-powered satellite falling from the sky  has much greater potential for widespread harm than a dirty bomb. The exercise scenario is similar to an incident in 1978 in which a Soviet nuclear-powered satellite, Cosmos 954, fell out of orbit and disintegrated over Canada, spreading radioactive materials over 48,000 square miles in the Northwest Territories. While such a scenario seems far-fetched, Holmstead said, "these sorts of things have the potential to be more of a threat than dirty bombs." In addition to EPA employees from across the country, high-tech radioactivity equipment such as a mobile environmental radiation laboratory, or MERL, has been deployed to Fort Leavenworth. Greg Dempsey, an EPA radiological response team commander from Las Vegas, said the lab next will be taken to Edison, N.J., where it will be used during the Republican National Convention 30 miles up the road in New York City. A smaller lab with similar radioactivity-sensing and analyzing equipment is being used in Boston for the Democratic convention, he said. Holmstead said the lessons from the exercises this week can be used anywhere a radiological emergency occurs. EPA officials in the Kansas City area and Washington also are taking part in the drills, which took more than a year to plan out. Dempsey said the satellite scenario envisions far more radioactive materials than a terrorist could ever accumulate. "This is way above what they could get hold of, short of a nuclear weapon," he said. Dempsey said the EPA equipment and personnel gathered at Fort Leavenworth could be called out at a moment's notice if there were a true emergency somewhere else in the country. "If something happens and we have to break down and go, we're going," he said. "We could deploy from here." Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. © Copyright 2004 USA TODAY, a division of ***************************************************************** 23 BBC: Radioactive gas leak is Last Updated: Tuesday, 27 July, 2004 [Hinkley] The leak did not affect the running of Hinkley's two reactors A radioactive leak was detected at a nuclear power station in Somerset last week, it has emerged. The incident happened at Hinckley Point B power station near Bridgwater on 21 July, British Energy has confirmed. Monitoring equipment detected radioactivity in carbon dioxide (CO2) gas in the reactor basement area, a company spokesman said. He added that the CO2 leak was quickly stopped and none of the gas was discharged into the environment. "We estimate that a very small amount of CO2 gas, less than half a tonne, was released into the reactor basement area," he said. "The incident had no impact on operation of the stations' two reactors and they continue to run normally. "Our highly-trained staff dealt with the incident safely and professionally." Although no radioactivity leaked out of the power station, the Environment Agency has been informed and will carry out independent monitoring of the incident. In July 2003 part of Hinkley Point B was closed for several hours after radioactive dust leaked into the atmosphere. ***************************************************************** 24 MENAFN: No abnormal radiation levels in Jordan, Khader reiterates Middle East North Africa . Financial Network Spokesperson Asma Khader reiterated Monday that no abnormal radiation levels were observed or detected in Jordanian areas close to Israel. During a joint press conference with two experts on nuclear power and cancer diseases, Khader said local authorities are conducting round-the-clock measuring and the results have so far shown that the Kingdom is free from any type of nuclear radiation or contamination caused by the Israeli Dimona nuclear plant. According to Director of the Jordan Nuclear Energy Commission Ziad Qudah, the country has three scientific research centres that continuously monitor and record any abnormal nuclear radiation levels. "These centres, which conduct regular tests on air, water and soil samples, have not detected any abnormal radiation," he said. In addition, he said, there are ten early-warning centres to alert authorities of any unusual radiation levels or nuclear pollution and leakage. The minister said Jordan is not the only country that should be concerned in case of an abnormal nuclear radiation as Israel itself and the whole region will be affected. "This is why we continue to call for a region free of weapons of mass destruction," said Khader. Also, National Cancer Registry Director Samir Kayed confirmed yesterday that the level of cancer cases in the Kingdom is less than those recorded in Israel and the US. "For every 100,000 people in Jordan, around 126 males and 117 females have cancer," he said. These figures, he explained, are less than those recorded in Israel where around 275 males and 265 females out of every 100,000 citizens have cancer. In the US, the figures are 356 and 287 respectively. "The Kingdom has less cancer cases because the deadly-disease usually hits elderly people while the majority of Jordanian people are young," he said. According to Kayed, in Tafileh, which is the nearest governorate to Dimona reactor, 26 out of every 100,000 residents have cancer. Kayed explained that the rate of cancer is higher in distant governorates such as Irbid in the north, where 51 out of every 100,000 people have cancer. However, Kayed did not specify the types of cancer cases in the Kingdom and whether or not the majority of them are related to nuclear radiation or pollution. The officials' comments yesterday were in response to statements made by Mordechai Vanunu that Jordan should test residents in the border regions with Israel to be sure that they have not been exposed to any radiation. Vanunu was speaking to the London-based Al Wassat weekly, published by Al Hayat newspaper. Despite Israel's longstanding policy of "strategic ambiguity" on its nuclear programme and a lack of international monitoring, most foreign experts believe that the Jewish state has an arsenal of up to 200 nuclear warheads, news reports said. [http://www.menafn.com] All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 25 asahi.com: Japan to hold sea drill to stop WMD smuggling The Asahi Shimbun After seeing progress with Pyongyang, Tokyo decides to host the U.S.-led exercise. Japan, under pressure to take action but wary of an angry North Korean response, will host a multinational drill aimed at preventing the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), government sources said. The exercise in waters near Japan, possibly in late October, will be based on the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Vessels and aircraft from the United States, Australia and other core PSI members will take part. Japan also plans to invite China and South Korea as well as members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations who took part in a PSI meeting in May in Japan. Washington wants to strengthen PSI activities. But Tokyo plans to tread carefully in planning the contents of the drill to avoid triggering an adverse reaction from North Korea that could hamper the planned resumption of bilateral normalization talks with Pyongyang. In March this year, Tokyo postponed hosting a PSI exercise initially set for May because of concerns about how North Korea would react. At that time, Japan was negotiating with Pyongyang for the handover of families of repatriated abductees. In addition, Tokyo was unable to get its Asian neighbors to endorse the exercise. In fact, many questioned the intentions of the United States, sources said. This time around, however, Japanese officials decided the time was ripe because of progress with Pyongyang on the abduction issue since the May 22 summit between Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and the six-party talks in June. Some PSI members have said a drill should be held in Asia, with Tokyo as host, sources said. A similar drill was held last September off the coast of Australia. The PSI was proposed by U.S. President George W. Bush in May 2003 to prevent the proliferation of WMD. In addition to Japan, the United States and Australia, the core members of the initiative are Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Canada, Norway, Russia and Singapore. During the six-nation talks on the North's nuclear ambitions in June, Washington made a number of proposals to Pyongyang, including a plan for North Korea to disclose all information on its nuclear development programs over a three-month period as a step toward the full dismantling of the programs. Pyongyang is now under pressure to reply by the next round of six-nation talks to be held by the end of September. Washington intends to step up PSI activities if Pyongyang refuses its proposals, sources said. Japan plans to propose holding the drill between late October and early November during an Aug. 5-6 meeting in Oslo of PSI operational specialists. As the host, Japan will have to draw up scenarios for the drill, sources said. Plans include Japan Coast Guard patrol vessels cooperating with ships of other nations in pursuit of boats thought to be carrying WMD-related materials. The suspicious boats will be stopped in the open sea and searched, the sources said. Another plan being floated is to have the Maritime Self-Defense Force's P3C patrol aircraft take part to provide information to its allies, as well as dispatching MSDF destroyers for the drill. The Japanese government bodies involved in the drill will include the Foreign Ministry, the Japan Coast Guard, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Defense Agency.(IHT/Asahi: July 27,2004) (07/27) [Copyright Asahi Shimbun. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 26 L.A. Daily: Testing eyed near rocket lab Article Published: Monday, July 26, 2004 - 7:28:59 Requirement proposed in Ventura County By Kerry Cavanaugh Staff Writer The Ventura County Board of Supervisors plans to vote today on a proposed requirement to test soil and groundwater before approving subdivisions on unincorporated land within two miles of the Santa Susana Field Lab. The testing order around the contaminated Simi Hills rocket lab would be a first for the surrounding community, where three housing projects are planned and demand is increasing for development. The Boeing Co., which owns the field laboratory, is against the proposed requirement, charging it unfairly would stigmatize the surrounding property as presumably contaminated. Supporters of required testing say it is the only way for future home buyers to know if they are moving onto tainted property. The sampling proposal by Supervisor Linda Parks was prompted by discoveries of perchlorate, a byproduct of rocket fuel, first in an Ahmanson Ranch well and later in a planned Simi Valley development. "It's kind of willy-nilly when they test now," Parks said. "To me, it makes a lot of sense when you have potential to expose people to these highly toxic contaminants that you check into it." Her proposal would require developers planning projects on unincorporated land within two miles of the lab to test for perchlorate and trichloroethylene or TCE, two contaminants found in abundance at the lab and also detected on neighboring property. The developer would need to collect five soil samples. If groundwater would be used in the subdivision, then two groundwater samples would be required. Groundwater would not be used in most of the subdivisions planned for the area. Boeing officials argue that the testing requirement is unnecessary because state regulators order off-site soil and water sampling when warranted. "The agencies do not, however, draw an arbitrary line around a site and require the site owner to sample everywhere within that area," Boeing environmental affairs director Steve Lafflam wrote in a letter to county officials. However, Parks said, there has not been a consistent testing policy. "The best thing that can happen is that they find no contamination," Parks said of the proposed testing. "This gives them that seal of approval." Three projects are currently planned within a two-mile radius of the lab: The 150-home Dayton Canyon Estates in West Hills, which is in Los Angeles County and thus would not be affected by a Ventura County ordinance. A 189-apartment complex proposed for the Santa Susana Knolls area of unincorporated Ventura County. The 461-home subdivision approved by Simi Valley city officials in Runkle Canyon, where perchlorate was found in a groundwater well during an environmental investigation. A county ordinance would not apply to the site. Simi Valley planners, however, said they would like to require soil and groundwater testing for city projects within the two-mile radius. In Los Angeles County, Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich asked for a review of the Ventura County testing proposal to see if Los Angeles County needs such a program. Los Angeles City Councilman Greig Smith, who represents Chatsworth and the communities just east of the lab, was in favor of testing when warranted. "If there's a reason to believe that there's a problem at that specific location, then it makes sense. Otherwise I'm not in favor of blanket testing," Smith said. Councilman Dennis Zine, who represents West Hills, which is also downhill from the lab, called the Parks proposal worth considering. "I would always err on the side of caution when it comes to public safety and contamination," Zine said. "God forbid they develop that and they sign off on it and someone gets sick." Kerry Cavanaugh, (818) 713-3746 kerry.cavanaugh@dailynews.com [kerry.cavanaugh@dailynews.com] Copyright © 2004 Los Angeles Daily News Los Angeles ***************************************************************** 27 Las Vegas SUN: Nye commission resolves to support Yucca project LAS VEGAS SUN The Nye County Commission, which has repeatedly touted the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain as a boon to rural Nevada economies, last week unanimously passed a resolution in support of what commissioners deem "a safe respository" at the site. If approved, the Yucca Mountain project would send up to 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste through a 319-mile path in Nye and Lincoln counties before being placed inside the mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. According to the resolution, the county is determined to work "cooperatively with appropriate federal entities, rural Nevada communities along the transportation route and other parties willing to constructively engage in the development of a repository that is safe and offers significant economic benefit to Nye County ..." Local and state leaders have pledged to fight the nuclear waste dump, saying the federal government has yet to prove the material is not dangerous. The federal Energy Department in June missed a key deadline to send millions of pages of documents detailing the project to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ***************************************************************** 28 RGJ: Party’s Yucca stance might tip the balance among Nevada voters [http://www.rgj.com/] Reno Gazette-Journal] [online@rgj.com] ASSOCIATED PRESS 7/26/2004 11:45 pm BOSTON — Some state Democrats believe Nevada’s five electoral votes could decide the presidency on the strength of one issue: whether to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Nevada’s Democrats have seized on the leverage of their closely contested state in a tight election season to showcase their resistance to the project within the proposed party platform. The presumed Democratic nominee, U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, is opposed to the Yucca project. The platform is set to be adopted, with the anti-Yucca plank, at the party’s national convention this evening in Boston, party leaders say. “We have a battleground state, and we believe that Yucca Mountain will make the difference,” said Dina Titus, a Nevada convention delegate and minority leader of the state Senate. President Bush has backed Yucca as the nation’s first permanent storage site for nuclear waste. With Americans almost equally split between Bush and Kerry, some Nevada delegates contend that Kerry’s opposition can push him over the top in Nevada and, if the electoral race is very tight elsewhere, in the nation. “This is a fabulous plank,” said U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley of Las Vegas, the delegation leader. “I think it clearly demonstrates the difference in the positions between the two parties.” Republicans reacted by accusing Democrats of politicizing the project, which has attracted considerable bipartisan backing in the past. Democratic supporters have included Kerry’s vice presidential running mate John Edwards, the North Carolina senator. Edwards has since assured Nevada party leaders he will rally to Kerry’s stand against the project. “It has never been a partisan issue until this year, when Sen. Kerry is attempting to leverage it,” said Robert List, a former Republican governor of Nevada and now a political consultant to the Nuclear Energy Institute trade group. “Ultimately, Nevadans will vote on a broader theme,” added Yier Shi, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. Republicans contended that lower taxes, the fight against terrorism, and even issues like crowded highways will eclipse Yucca Mountain for most Nevada voters. However, the project has met fierce resistance in the state, including from some Republicans. The Energy Department wants to open the repository 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas in 2010. It would collect 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste from nuclear reactors, military operations, and other industrial plants in 39 states. The waste would be entombed in tunnels 1,000 feet below ground. President Bush won Nevada by 3.5 percent of the vote in the 2000 election against Al Gore. During Bush’s campaign, he promised a Yucca decision based on “sound science.” He went on to authorize selection of the Yucca site in early 2002. Later, Congress overrode Republican Gov. Kenny Guinn’s veto of the project. “In Nevada, we see George Bush as lying to us about Yucca Mountain,” said Adriana Martinez, a Las Vegas delegate and chairwoman of the state Democratic Party. Opponents fear a release of deadly radioactivity through an accident or terrorist attack on the repository or shipments to it. The Energy Department says both the site and its shipments will be safe. The Democratic plank reads: “We will protect Nevada and its communities from the high level nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain which has not been proven to be safe by sound science.” © Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a [http://www.gannett.com] ***************************************************************** 29 RGJ: Notebook: Nevada’s delegates fight for Yucca plank [http://www.rgj.com/] [online@rgj.com] (more stories by author) RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL 7/26/2004 11:49 pm BOSTON — Nevada representatives were able to keep a resolution against building the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in the Democratic Party’s platform despite efforts to remove it. Democrats wanted to address broad issues rather than make a long list of specific items that could alienate some voters, said Bill Stanley, Nevada’s representative on the national party’s platform committee. Some in the party wanted to remove the plank that opposed Yucca Mountain and replace it with a stance against transporting and burying nuclear waste unless proven scientifically sound, he said. “If you opened up Pandora’s box, every state would want to rush in” with their own pet projects, said Stanley of Las Vegas. But Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Las Vegas, fought hard and was able to keep it in Kerry’s presidential platform, he said. The platform now reads: “We will protect Nevada and its communities from the high-level nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, which has not been proven to be safe by sound science.” Democrats hope to use the Yucca Mountain issue to swing the battleground state to Kerry. * * * © Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a [http://www.gannett.com] ***************************************************************** 30 JOURNAL NEWS: Fed rule on plant cooling targeted By ROGER WITHERSPOON THE JOURNAL NEWS (Original publication: July 27, 2004) Six states and a coalition of environmental groups filed court challenges yesterday against a new federal rule that would allow hundreds of major power plants — including Indian Point in Westchester and two in Rockland County — to continue using river and lake water to cool their generators, a practice that kills billions of fish annually. The rule adopted July 9 by the Environmental Protection Agency would allow 550 plants to continue using their "once-through" cooling systems as long as they used screens to block most fish from being sucked into the plants and agree to restock the affected waterways. The EPA acknowledged in its regulation that the most environmentally effective system is "closed cycle" cooling, which uses cooling towers to recycle the water used in the power-generating process rather than continuously drawing in fresh water. The towers function as huge industrial radiators and are 90 percent to 95 percent effective in keeping fish out of the system. But the EPA held that the cost of retrofitting closed-cycle cooling systems onto existing power plants would be unjustifiably high. Therefore, the agency offered the alternative-restoration program, even though the U.S. Clean Water Act requires plants to use the "best technology available." "Once again, the EPA has put the demands of power-plant operators ahead of what is best for our environment," New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said yesterday. "These rules violate the Clean Water Act and, if left unchallenged, will do serious harm to the aquatic environment." The attorneys general of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware and Massachusetts joined a motion filed by Rhode Island in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit in Boston challenging the EPA rule's legality. In addition to claiming the rule violates the Clean Water Act, they contend the EPA does not have the authority to allow power plants to continue using the once-through cooling system. The states also filed a motion with the EPA in Washington, asking the agency to delay implementation of the regulation until the court case is decided. EPA officials did not return calls for comment. The new rule takes effect Sept. 7, unless it is blocked by the court. Larry Gottlieb, a spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns Indian Point, said retrofitting closed cycle systems "would be prohibitively expensive." "We feel we made a very strong case that the cooling towers are unnecessary and would have a significant impact on the environment," Gottlieb said. Entergy has said that if it were forced to install a closed-cycle system, it would have to build two towers 168 feet high and 540 feet wide. "You can't put two stadium-sized towers on the Hudson River and not impact the river," Gottlieb said. Alex Matthiessen, director of the environmental group Riverkeeper, said if the EPA rule is allowed to stand, "the losers are the fish in our nation's waterways and the people who rely on an abundant fishery and enjoy our waterways for recreational and other purposes." Riverkeeper, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Scenic Hudson and 12 other environmental groups from across the nation filed their petition in New York City with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Five months ago, the 2nd Circuit threw out an EPA rule that would have allowed new power plants to avoid closed cycle cooling if they adopted remediation measures and used screens to minimize the amount of fish sucked into their systems. The court held that the Clean Water Act did not allow for remediation. Riverkeeper attorney Reed Super said the appeals court "was very clear that the Clean Water Act requires the use of best technology, not after-the-fact attempts at mitigation." The new regulations apply to existing plants that use more than 50 million gallons of water a day. Those plants include five in the Lower Hudson River Valley: Indian Point in Buchanan, the Bowline Point Steam Generating Station in West Haverstraw, the Lovett Generating Station in Tomkins Cove, and the Danskammer and Roseton Generating Stations in Newburgh. Those five use a total of about 5 billion gallons of water daily. A study last year by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation on how Indian Point, Roseton and Bowline affected five of the more than 100 species of fish in the Hudson found that the plants sucked more than 2 billion of the studied fish into the plants and that more than 1.45 billion died. Send e-mail to Roger Witherspoon [rwithers@thejournalnews.com] Copyright 2004 The Journal News, a Gannett Co ***************************************************************** 31 Japan Times: Nuclear fuel report just another coverup? Wednesday, July 28, 2004 Revelations that the government apparently buried for a decade a report that says reprocessing spent atomic fuel is much more expensive than burying it is causing a political furor that industry analysts say may pull the plug on the nation's nuclear recycling policy. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and its predecessor, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry, sat for a decade on the internal estimates, which indicate the cost to bury nuclear waste is lower than recycling it. The government instead pursued a policy under which all spent nuclear fuel would be reprocessed for plutonium to be reused as fuel. In March, Kazumasa Kusaka, then director general of the Natural Resources and Energy Agency, told the House of Councilors Budget Committee, "Japan has not made any cost estimates for (the option of) not reprocessing" spent fuel. The comments came in response to a question from Mizuho Fukushima, head of the Social Democratic Party. However, Kusaka's claim was not true. MITI prepared a report, which a ministry working group discussed in 1994, showing the cost of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is "two to four times higher" than burying it. But it appears that neither the government nor the power industry wanted the information made public. An industry source quoted an executive of an electric power company, who was a member of the 1994 working group, as saying the estimate should not be released because "if the estimate is released and found to be very expensive, it would pull the rug out from under the (nuclear fuel) recycling business." The source also said an executive of the now-defunct Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corp. also expressed caution about releasing the estimate, quoting him as saying, "Consideration should be given to the way in which the estimate is made public." At the time, Masaya Yasui was a member of the working group's secretariat and prepared meeting agendas. The former head of the agency's Nuclear Power Policy Division also drafted Kusaka's replies at the Upper House committee meeting. He maintains that he cannot remember whether the working group looked at the estimate. Yet similar estimates were made by the then Science and Technology Agency and the Federation of Electric Power Companies. Although the calculation methods and time periods differ, both estimates show it is less expensive to bury spent nuclear fuel. Anger flared at a July 8 meeting of the Atomic Energy Commission, an advisory body to the prime minister, when excuses were given for nondisclosure of the government report. "Do you expect us to believe that (relevant) documents were found in a locker when officials started searching for them?" asked Michiyo Watanabe, a Japanese Consumers Co-operative Union executive. "Beyond being angry, we are simply flabbergasted." "For the past 10 years, we've wasted an opportunity to discuss whether spent nuclear fuel should be recycled or directly disposed of," Kyushu University professor Hisashi Yoshioka said, adding authorities "might have wanted to avoid full-scale debate regarding direct disposal." Another irate commission member charged that 20 years had been wasted. "Since the 1980s, officials involved have been aware of the fact that reprocessing is not economical, but the Science and Technology Agency stuck to (the idea of) reprocessing," the member said. "The electric power industry also simply believed that the cost (of reprocessing) could be tacked onto electricity bills." Officials of the Natural Resources and Energy Agency and the Federation of Electric Power Companies were also on the defensive at a July 12 meeting of the prefectural assembly in Aomori, which is home to nuclear fuel recycling facilities. The meeting was held to study the draft of a safety agreement for trial operations using depleted uranium at the reprocessing plant in the village of Rokkasho. But the participants, including members of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, used the discussion to attack the central government on the cost-estimate issue. "People in the prefecture are increasingly distrustful of the government's nuclear policy," one legislator said. Another said, "We cannot promise cooperation." In Ehime Prefecture, where Shikoku Electric Power Co. plans to launch a so-called pluthermal, or plutonium-thermal, project to burn plutonium at its Ikata nuclear plant, there is also resistance to the recycling program, which has been dogged by scandal. Kyoko Ono, an official of a citizens' group opposed to the plant, said, "The prefecture (is) angry over the hiding of the estimate (and) should take a tough stance toward the central government and protect its people." Katsumi Kuruba of Fukui Prefecture's general affairs division was also critical of the central government. Fukui is home to 15 reactors, including the ill-fated Monju fast-breeder reactor, a cornerstone in the fuel recycling program that has been shut down for almost a decade after a sodium leak accident and subsequent coverup. The decision of how spent fuel should be disposed of "should not be decided by cost alone," he said. "It is a fact that the central government has been trying to avoid debate in the pursuit of its nuclear policy to protect (the reprocessing plant in) Aomori Prefecture." The Japan Times: July 28, 2004 (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 32 Waste News: Pentagon reports perchlorate discovery; senator calls report inadequate [Wastenews.com WASHINGTON (July 27) -- The Pentagon recently told senators that it has found perchlorate contamination at 14 closed or soon-to-close bases nationwide, but a Democrat calls the military´s report "inadequate and unresponsive." The Department of Defense submitted its report to the Senate Appropriations Committee´s Subcommittee on Defense. The report contained contamination levels of soil, groundwater and surface water. The highest contamination levels were reported at the Army´s Fort Wingate Depot in New Mexico, where soil contamination of as much as 3,180 parts per billion and groundwater contamination of as much as 2,890 parts per billion were found. Perchlorate, a chemical used in solid rocket fuel and weapons, can disrupt thyroid functions in adults and can cause physical, behavioral and mental development in children. Feinstein, in a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, criticized the Pentagon´s report for being more than 6 months overdue, addressing only a small fraction of the 74 potentially contaminated sites identified by Congress´ General Accounting Office, and failing to contain specifics on how to remedy the contamination. The report addressed contamination at sites closing under the Base Realignment and Closure program, better known as BRAC. "The department remains committed to the protection of human health and the environment," wrote Michael W. Wynne, acting under secretary of defense, in a letter accompanying the report. Because of an absence of regulatory limits on perchlorate, the Defense Department will determine responses on a case-by-case basis, he wrote. Defense officials were not immediately available for additional comment, according to a Pentagon spokesman. Entire contents copyright 2004 by Crain Communications Inc. ***************************************************************** 33 Capital News 9: Solving Mount Greylock's water problem Time Warner Cable"> [http://www.twalbany.com] 7/27/2004 4:54 PM By: Capital News 9 web staff Discussions on how to solve the drinking water problem at Mount Greylock Regional High School in Williamstown are ongoing. In May, a high level of perchlorate -- a component of rocket fuel -- was found in the school's wells. Extending Williamstown's water main to the school is the most talked about solution, but also the most expensive at an estimated $3 million. Copyright ©2004 TWEAN News Channel of Albany, L.L.C d.b.a. Capital News 9 ***************************************************************** 34 Morgan Hill Times: Once again, Olin Corp.’s actions don’t match its words. Tuesday, July 27, 2004 www.morganhilltimes.com Tuesday, July 27, 2004 “We take our commitment as an environmentally responsible company and a good neighbor very seriously,” Olin spokesman Rick McClure said shortly after the perchlorate groundwater contamination caused by the company’s now-closed Morgan Hill road flare factory was discovered. If that’s true, then we fail to understand how Olin officials can possibly justify appealing a state water board order that requires they supply water to South Valley well owners whose wells have tested between 4 and 6 parts of perchlorate per billion. Yes, we know that the California Department of Health Services in March established a public health goal of 6 ppb for perchlorate. Four ppb is the lowest level at which perchlorate can be detected and the level at which the City of Morgan Hill shuts down its wells. Given that there’s seasonal fluctuation in test results of perchlorate-contaminated wells, that there’s a 20 percent margin of error in perchlorate tests and that there’s widespread disagreement over what level of perchlorate is safe, of course Olin should be required to deliver bottled water to wells testing between 4 and 6 ppb for perchlorate. And it ought to be delivered to any well owner with the smallest trace of perchlorate contamination. In fact, Olin ought to be required to install perchlorate-removing filters on every contaminated well in South Valley. Of course, this point would be moot if the federal government (that is, the Environmental Protection Agency) would establish a maximum safety level for perchlorate in water. But the Bush Administration’s EPA, bowing to defense industry pressure, refuses to establish such a level, creating an unacceptable and irresponsible perchlorate (which also is a key ingredient in rock fuel) information vacuum. Doctors have known since the 1950s that perchlorate damages thyroid function and water regulators have been worried about the chemical polluting the groundwater. Yet, despite decades to conduct studies, the EPA announced last year that it needs another seven years to find out how much perchlorate in our water is too much. But, until we have a White House that is willing to let the EPA look at decades of research and make an informed decision about an acceptable perchlorate level, we’ll have to fight these silly battles over 2 ppb of perchlorate with a company that is clearly not going to keep its promise to be a good corporate neighbor. We’ve said it before and it bears repeating, in light of Olin’s continued attempts to shirk its responsibility. We’ll keep an eagle eye on Olin’s every move and to hold them accountable for cleaning up the mess they’ve made of our aquifers. ***************************************************************** 35 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear weapons treaty may be illegal Richard Norton-Taylor Tuesday July 27, 2004 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] A nuclear weapons treaty secretly agreed between Britain and the US could be in breach of international law, the government was warned yesterday. The two countries recently negotiated an amendment to a mutual defence agreement first made in 1958 and regarded in Whitehall as a cornerstone of the special relationship. The government made no reference to the negotiations until after they were completed and it has now ratified the amended treaty without a debate in parliament. Last month George Bush said the treaty helped Britain maintain a "credible nuclear force". But two senior lawyers have said there is a strong case that the US-UK mutual defence agreement breaches the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Rabinder Singh QC and Christine Chinkin argue that the non-proliferation treaty forbids the transfer of nuclear weapons or devices. Renewal of the defence agreement is intended to "continue and enhance Britain's nuclear programme". The lawyers claim the non-proliferation treaty takes precedence over the agreement under international law. The Commons defence committee has declined to inquire into the amended defence agreement with the US. Useful links British army [http://www.army.mod.uk/] Royal Navy [http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/] RAF [http://www.raf.mod.uk/] Ministry of Defence [http://www.mod.uk/] Nato [http://www.nato.int/home.htm] United Nations [http://www.un.org/] [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 ***************************************************************** 36 DOE: Record of Decision for Construction and Operation of a Depleted FR Doc 04-17048 [Federal Register: July 27, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 143)] [Notices] [Page 44649-44654] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27jy04-49] Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Portsmouth, OH, Site AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Record of decision. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement for Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Portsmouth, Ohio, Site (FEIS) (DOE/EIS-0360). The FEIS Notice of Availability was published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Federal Register (69 FR 34161) on June 18, 2004. In the FEIS, DOE considered the potential environmental impacts from the construction, operation, maintenance, and decontamination and decommissioning (D) of the proposed depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) conversion facility at three alternative locations within the Portsmouth site, including transportation of cylinders (DUF6, normal and enriched UF6, and empty) currently stored at the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) near Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to Portsmouth; construction of a new cylinder storage yard at Portsmouth (if required) for the ETTP cylinders; transportation of depleted uranium conversion products and waste materials to a disposal facility; transportation and sale of the aqueous hydrogen fluoride (HF) produced as a conversion co- product; and neutralization of aqueous HF to calcium fluoride (CaF2) and its sale or disposal in the event that the aqueous HF product is not sold. An option of shipping the ETTP cylinders to the Paducah, Kentucky, site has also been considered, as has an option of expanding operations by increasing throughput (through efficiency improvements or by adding a fourth conversion line) or by extending the period of operation. A similar EIS was issued concurrently for construction and operation of a DUF6 conversion facility at DOE's Paducah site (DOE/EIS-0359). DOE has decided to construct and operate the conversion facility in the west-central portion of the Portsmouth site, the preferred alternative identified in the FEIS as Location A. Groundbreaking for construction of the facility will commence on or before July 31, 2004, as anticipated by Public Law (Pub. L.) 107-206. Cylinders currently stored at the ETTP site will be shipped to Portsmouth; a new cylinder yard will be constructed, if necessary, based on the availability of storage yard space when the cylinders are received. The aqueous HF produced during conversion will be sold for use, pending approval of authorized release limits, as appropriate. ADDRESSES: The FEIS and this Record of Decision (ROD) are available on the DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Web site 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] and on the Depleted UF6 Management Information Network Web site at http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium] . Copies of the FEIS and this ROD may be requested by e-mail at Ports_DUF6@anl.gov [ Ports_DUF6@anl.gov] , by toll-free telephone at 1-866-530-0944, by toll-free fax at 1-866-530-0943, or by contacting Gary S. Hartman, Oak Ridge Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, SE-30-1, P.O. Box 2001, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the conversion facility construction and operation, contact Gary Hartman at the address listed above. For general information on the DOE NEPA process, contact Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., [[Page 44650]] Washington, DC 20585, 202-586-4600, or leave a message at 1-800-472- 2756. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The United States has produced DUF6 since the early 1950s as part of the process of enriching natural uranium for both civilian and military applications. Production took place at three gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs), first at the K-25 site (now called ETTP) at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and subsequently at Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio. The K-25 plant ceased enrichment operations in 1985, and the Portsmouth plant ceased enrichment operations in 2001. The Paducah GDP continues to operate. Approximately 250,000 t (275,000 tons) of DUF6 is presently stored in about 16,000 cylinders at Portsmouth and about 4,800 cylinders at ETTP. The majority of the cylinders weigh approximately 12 t (14 tons) each, are 48 inches (1.2 m) in diameter, and are stored on outside pads. DOE has been looking at alternatives for managing this inventory. Also in storage are 3,200 cylinders at Portsmouth and 1,100 cylinders at ETTP that contain enriched UF6 or normal UF6 (collectively called ``non- DUF6'' cylinders) or are empty. [The non-DUF6 cylinders would not be processed in the conversion facility.] The Portsmouth FEIS considers the shipment of all ETTP cylinders to Portsmouth, as well as the management of both the Portsmouth and ETTP non-DUF6 cylinders at Portsmouth. As a first step, DOE evaluated potential broad management options for its DUF6 inventory in a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management and Use of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF6 PEIS) (DOE/EIS-0269) issued in April 1999. In the PEIS Record of Decision (64 FR 43358, August 10, 1999), DOE decided to promptly convert the DUF6 inventory to a more stable uranium oxide form and stated that it would use the depleted uranium oxide as much as possible and store the remaining depleted uranium oxide for potential future uses or disposal, as necessary. In addition, DOE would convert DUF6 to depleted uranium metal, but only if uses for metal were available. DOE did not select specific sites for the conversion facilities but reserved that decision for subsequent NEPA review. Today's Record of Decision announces the outcome of that site-specific NEPA review. DOE is also issuing today a separate but related ROD announcing the siting of a DUF6 conversion facility at Paducah, Kentucky. Congress enacted two laws that directly addressed DOE's management of its DUF6 inventory. The first law, Pub. L. 105-204, signed by the President in July 1998, required the Secretary of Energy to prepare a plan to commence construction of, no later than January 31, 2004, and to operate an on-site facility at each of the GDPs at Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, to treat and recycle DUF6, consistent with NEPA. The second law, Pub. L. 107-206, signed by the President on August 2, 2002, required that no later than 30 days after enactment, DOE must award a contract for the scope of work described in its Request for Proposals (RFP) issued in October 2000 for the design, construction, and operation of a DUF6 conversion facility at each of the Department's Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, gaseous diffusion sites. It also stipulated that the contract require groundbreaking for construction to occur no later than July 31, 2004, at both sites. In response to these laws, DOE issued the Final Plan for the Conversion of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride as Required by Public Law 105-204 in July 1999, and awarded a contract to Uranium Disposition Services (UDS) for construction and operation of two conversion facilities on August 29, 2002, consistent with NEPA. On September 18, 2001, DOE published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register (66 FR 48123) announcing its intention to prepare an EIS for the proposed action to construct, operate, maintain, and decontaminate and decommission two DUF6 conversion facilities: One at Portsmouth and one at Paducah. Following the enactment of Pub. L. 107-206, DOE reevaluated the appropriate scope of its site-specific NEPA review and decided to prepare two separate EISs, one for the plant proposed for the Paducah site and a second for the Portsmouth site. This change in approach was announced in the Federal Register on April 28, 2003 (68 FR 22368). The two draft conversion facility EISs were mailed to stakeholders in late November 2003, and a Notice of Availability was published by the EPA in the Federal Register on November 28, 2003 (68 FR 66824). Comments on the draft EISs were accepted during a 67-day review period that ended on February 2, 2004. DOE considered these comments and prepared two FEISs. The Notice of Availability for the two FEISs was published by the EPA in the Federal Register (69 FR 34161) on June 18, 2004. II. Purpose and Need for Agency Action DOE needs to convert its inventory of DUF6 to more stable chemical form(s) for use or disposal. This need follows directly from (1) the decision presented in the August 1999 ROD for the PEIS, namely, to begin conversion of the DUF6 inventory as soon as possible, and (2) Pub. L. 107-206, which directs DOE to award a contract for construction and operation of conversion facilities at both the Paducah site and the Portsmouth site. III. Alternatives No Action Alternative. Under the no action alternative, conversion would not occur. Current cylinder management activities (handling, inspection, monitoring, and maintenance) would continue: Thus the status quo would be maintained at Portsmouth and ETTP indefinitely. Action Alternatives. The proposed action evaluated in the FEIS is to construct and operate a conversion facility at the Portsmouth site for conversion of the Portsmouth and ETTP DUF6 inventories into depleted uranium oxide (primarily triuranium octaoxide [U3O8]) and other conversion products. The FEIS review is based on the conceptual conversion facility design proposed by the selected contractor, UDS. The UDS dry conversion process is a continuous process in which DUF6 is vaporized and converted to a mixture of uranium oxides (primarily U3O8) by reaction with steam and hydrogen in a fluidized-bed conversion unit. The hydrogen is generated from anhydrous ammonia (NH3). The depleted U3O8 powder is collected and packaged for disposition in bulk bags (large-capacity, strong, flexible bags) or the emptied cylinders to the extent practicable. Equipment would also be installed to collect the aqueous HF (also called HF acid) co-product and process it into HF at concentrations suitable for commercial resale. A backup HF acid neutralization system would convert up to 100% of the HF acid to CaF2 for sale or disposal in the future, if necessary. The conversion products would be transported to a disposal facility or to users by truck or rail. The conversion facility will be designed with three parallel processing lines to convert 13,500 t (15,000 tons) of DUF6 per year, requiring 18 years to convert the Portsmouth and ETTP inventories. Three alternative locations within the site were evaluated, Locations A (preferred), B, and C. The proposed action includes the transportation of the cylinders currently stored at the ETTP site to Portsmouth. In addition, an [[Page 44651]] option of transporting the ETTP cylinders to Paducah was considered, as was an option of expanding conversion facility operations. Alternative Location A (Preferred Alternative). Location A is the preferred location identified in the FEIS for the conversion facility and is located in the west-central portion of the site, encompassing 26 acres (10 ha). This location has three existing structures that were formerly used to store containerized lithium hydroxide monohydrate. The site was rough graded, and storm water ditch systems were installed. This location was identified in the RFP for conversion services as the site for which bidders were to design their proposed facilities. Alternative Location B. Location B is in the southwestern portion of the site and encompasses approximately 50 acres (20 ha). The site has two existing structures built as part of the gas centrifuge enrichment project that was begun in the early 1980s and was terminated in 1985. USEC is currently in the process of developing and demonstrating an advanced enrichment technology based on gas centrifuges. A license for a lead test facility to be operated at the Portsmouth site was issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in February 2004. The lead facility would be located in the existing gas centrifuge buildings within Location B. In addition, USEC announced in January 2004 that it planned to site its American Centrifuge Facility at Portsmouth, although it did not identify an exact location. Therefore, Location B might not be available for construction of the conversion facility. Alternative Location C. Location C is in the southeastern portion of the site and has an area of about 78 acres (31 ha). This location consists of a level to very gently rolling grass field. It was graded during the construction of the Portsmouth site and has been maintained as grass fields since then. Under the action alternatives, DOE evaluated the impacts from packaging, handling, and transporting depleted uranium oxide conversion product (primarily U3O8) from the conversion facility to a low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility that would be (1) selected in a manner consistent with DOE policies and orders and (2) authorized to receive the conversion products by DOE (in conformance with DOE orders), or licensed by the NRC (in conformance with NRC regulations), or an NRC Agreement State agency (in conformance with state laws and regulations determined to be equivalent to NRC regulations). Assessment of the impacts and risks from on-site handling and disposal at an LLW disposal facility has been deferred to the disposal site's site-specific NEPA or licensing documents. While the FEIS presents the impacts from transporting the DUF6 conversion products to both the Envirocare of Utah, Inc., facility and the Nevada Test Site (NTS), DOE plans to decide the specific disposal location(s) for the depleted U3O8 conversion product after additional NEPA review, as necessary. Accordingly, DOE will continue to evaluate its disposal options and will consider any further information or comments relevant to that decision. DOE will give a minimum 45-day notice before making its specific disposal decision and will provide any additional NEPA analysis for public review and comment. The following alternatives were considered but not analyzed in detail in the FEIS: Use of Commercial Conversion Capacity, Sites Other Than Portsmouth, Alternative Conversion Processes, Long-Term Storage and Disposal Alternatives, Transportation Modes Other Than Truck and Rail, and One Conversion Plant Alternative. IV. Summary of Environmental Impacts The FEIS evaluated potential impacts from the range of alternatives described above. The impact areas included human health and safety, air quality, noise, water and soil, socioeconomics, ecological resources, waste management, resource requirements, land use, cultural resources, environmental justice, and cumulative impacts. In general, the impacts are low for both the no action and the proposed action alternatives. Among the three alternative locations considered at the Portsmouth site for the conversion facility, there are no major differences in impacts that would make one location clearly environmentally preferable. The discussion below summarizes the results of the FEIS impact analyses, highlighting the differences among the alternatives. Human Health and Safety--Normal Operations and Transportation. Under all alternatives, it is estimated that potential exposures of workers and members of the general public to radiation and chemicals would be well within applicable public health standards and regulations. UDS would confirm, prior to conversion or at the initiation of the conversion operations, that polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) releases to the workplace from the paint coating of some cylinders manufactured prior to 1978 would be within applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) limits. Transportation by rail would tend to cause fewer impacts than by truck primarily because of exhaust emissions from the trucks and the higher number of shipments for trucks than for rail. The option of converting the aqueous HF to CaF2 and transporting the CaF2 to a disposal facility would result in increased shipments. The impacts associated with transportation of uranium oxide product to a disposal facility in the western United States by truck would be about the same if bulk bags are used or two filled cylinders are loaded onto a truck. If only one cylinder is loaded onto a truck, the impacts would be higher because of the increased number of shipments. Human Health and Safety--Accidents. DOE has extensive experience in safely storing, handling, and transporting cylinders containing UF6 (depleted, normal, or enriched). In addition, the chemicals used or generated at the conversion facility are commonly used for industrial applications in the United States, and there are well-established accident prevention and mitigative measures for their storage and transportation. Under all alternatives, it is possible that accidents could release radiation or chemicals to the environment, potentially affecting both the workers and members of the general public. It is also possible that, similar to other industrial facilities, workers could be injured or killed as a result of on-the-job accidents unrelated to radiation or chemical exposure. Similarly, during transportation of materials, both crew members and members of the public may be injured or killed as a result of traffic accidents. Three kinds of accidents have the largest possible consequences: (1) Those involving the DUF6 cylinders during storage and handling under all alternatives, (2) those involving chemicals used or generated by the conversion process at the conversion site (in particular NH3 and aqueous HF) under the action alternatives, and (3) those occurring during transportation of chemicals and cylinders under the action alternatives, The severity of the consequences from such accidents would depend on weather conditions at the time of the accident, and, in the case of the transportation accidents, the location of the accident, and could be significant. However, those accidents would have a low estimated probability of occurring, making the risk low. (Risk is determined by multiplying the consequences by the probability of occurrence). Under the no action alternative, the risks associated with cylinder storage [[Page 44652]] and handling would continue to exist as long as the cylinders are there. However, under the action alternatives, the risks associated with both the cylinder accidents and the chemical accidents would decline over time and disappear at the completion of the conversion project. In comparing truck versus rail transportation, even though the consequences of rail accidents are generally higher (because of the larger cargo load per railcar than per truck), the accident probabilities tend to be lower for railcars than for trucks. As a result, the risks of accidents would be about the same under either option. Air Quality and Noise. Under the action alternatives, the total (modeled plus background value) concentrations due to emissions of most criteria pollutants--such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide--would be well within applicable air quality standards. For construction, the primary concern would be particulate matter (PM) released from near-ground-level sources. Total concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 (PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 [mu]m or less and 2.5 [mu]m or less, respectively) at the construction site boundaries would be close to or above the standards because of the high background concentrations. On the basis of maximum background values from 5 years of monitoring at the nearest monitoring station, exceedance of the annual PM2.5 standard would be unavoidable because the background concentration already exceeds the standard. Construction activities would be conducted so as to minimize further impacts on ambient air quality. Water and Soil. During construction of the conversion facility, concentrations of any potential contaminants in soil, surface water, or groundwater would be kept well within applicable standards or guidelines by implementing storm water management, sediment and erosion controls, and good construction practices. During operations, no impacts would be expected because no contaminated liquid effluents are anticipated. Socioeconomics. Under the action alternatives, construction and operation of the conversion facility would create more jobs and personal income in the vicinity of the Portsmouth site than would be possible under the no action alternative. The number of jobs would be approximately 190 direct and 280 total during construction, and 160 direct and 320 total during operations. Ecology. For the action alternatives, the total area disturbed during conversion facility construction would be up to 65 acres (26 ha). Although vegetation communities in the disturbed area would be impacted by a loss of habitat, impacts could be minimized (e.g., by appropriate placement of the facility within each location), and negligible long-term impacts to vegetation and wildlife are expected at all locations. Impacts to wetlands could be minimized, depending on where exactly the facility was placed within each location and by maintaining a buffer near adjacent wetlands during construction. During construction, trees with exfoliating bark (such as shagbark hickory or dead trees with loose bark) that can be used by the Indiana bat (federal- and state-listed as endangered) as roosting trees during the summer would be saved if possible. Waste Management. Under the action alternatives, waste generated during construction and operations would have negligible impacts on the Portsmouth site waste management operations, with the exception of possible impacts from disposal of CaF2. If the aqueous HF were not sold but instead neutralized to CaF2, it is currently unknown whether (1) the CaF2 could be sold, (2) the low uranium content would allow the CaF2 to be disposed of as nonhazardous solid waste, or (3) disposal as LLW would be required. The low level of uranium contamination expected (i.e., less than 1 ppm) suggests that sale or disposal as nonhazardous solid waste would be most likely. Waste management for disposal as nonhazardous waste could be handled through appropriate planning and design of the facilities. If the CaF2 had to be disposed of as LLW, it could represent a potentially large impact on waste management operations. The U3O8 produced during conversion would amount to about 5% of Portsmouth's annual projected LLW volume. Cylinder Preparation at ETTP. The cylinders at ETTP will require preparation for shipment by either truck or rail. Three cylinder preparation options were considered for the shipment of noncompliant cylinders: cylinder overpacks, shipping ``as-is'' under a U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) exemption, and use of a cylinder transfer facility (there are no current plans to build such a facility at ETTP). The operational impacts (e.g., storage, handling, and maintenance of cylinders) from any of the options would be small and limited primarily to external radiation exposure of involved workers. If a decision was made to construct and operate a transfer facility at ETTP in the future, additional NEPA review would be conducted. Conversion Product Sale and Use. The conversion of the DUF6 inventory produces products having some potential for reuse. These products include aqueous HF and CaF2, which are commonly used as commercial materials. DOE is currently pursuing the establishment of authorization limits (allowable concentration limits of uranium) in these products to be able to free-release them to commercial users. In addition, there is a small potential for reuse of the depleted uranium oxide product. D Activities. D impacts would be primarily from external radiation to involved workers and would be a small fraction of allowable doses. Wastes generated during D operations would be disposed of in an appropriate disposal facility and would result in low impacts in comparison with projected site annual generation volumes. Cumulative Impacts. The FEIS analyses indicated that no significant cumulative impacts at either the Portsmouth or the ETTP site and its vicinity would be anticipated due to the incremental impacts of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Option of Expanding Conversion Facility Operations. The throughput of the Portsmouth facility could be increased either by making process efficiency improvements or by adding an additional (fourth) process line. The addition of a fourth process line at the Portsmouth facility would require the installation of additional plant equipment and would result in a nominal 33% increase in throughput compared with the current base design. This throughput increase would reduce the time necessary to convert the Portsmouth and ETTP DUF6 inventories by about 5 years. The construction impacts presented in the FEIS would be the same if a fourth line was added, because the analyses in the FEIS used a footprint sized to accommodate four process lines. In general, a 33% increase in throughput would not result in significantly greater environmental impacts during operations than with three parallel lines. Although annual impacts in certain areas might increase up to 33% (proportional to the throughput increase), the estimated annual impacts during operations would remain well within applicable guidelines and regulations, with collective and cumulative impacts being quite low. The conversion facility operations could be extended to process any additional DUF6 for which DOE might assume responsibility by operating the [[Page 44653]] facility longer than the currently anticipated 18 years. With routine facility and equipment maintenance and periodic equipment replacements or upgrades, it is believed that the conversion facility could be operated safely beyond this time period. If operations were extended beyond 18 years and if the operational characteristics (e.g., estimated releases of contaminants to air and water) of the facility remained unchanged, it is expected that the annual impacts would be essentially unchanged. V. Environmentally Preferred Alternative In general, the FEIS shows greater impacts for the no action alternative than for the proposed action of constructing and operating the conversion facility mainly because of the relatively higher radiation exposures of the workers from the cylinder management operations and cylinder yards and because the cylinders and associated risk would remain if no action occurred. However, considering the uncertainties in the impact estimates and the magnitude of the impacts, the differences are not considered to be significant. The no action alternative has the potential for groundwater contamination with uranium over the long-term; this adverse impact is not anticipated under the proposed action alternatives. Beneficial socioeconomic impacts would be higher for the action alternatives than for the no action alternative. The impacts associated with transportation of materials among sites would be comparable whether the transportation is by truck or rail. With all alternatives, there is the potential for some high- consequence accidents to occur. The risks associated with such accidents can only be completely eliminated when the conversion of the DUF6 inventory has been completed. Although there are some differences in impacts among the three alternative locations for the conversion facility, these differences are small and well within the uncertainties associated with the methods used to estimate impacts. In general, because of the relatively small risks that would result under all alternatives and the absence of any clear basis for discerning an environmental preference, DOE concludes that no single alternative analyzed in depth in the FEIS is clearly environmentally preferable compared to the other alternatives. VI. Comments on Final EIS The Final EIS was mailed to stakeholders in early June 2004, and the EPA issued a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on June 18, 2004. The entire document was also made available on the World Wide Web. Two comment letters were received on the DUF6 Conversion Facility Final EISs. The State of Nevada indicated that it had no comments on the Final EISs and that the proposal was not in conflict with state plans, goals, or objectives. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 in Chicago, stated that the Portsmouth Final EIS adequately address its concerns, and that it concurs with the Preferred Alternative and has no further concerns. Decision I. Bases for the Decision DOE considered potential environmental impacts as identified in the FEIS (including the information contained in the classified appendix); cost; applicable regulatory requirements; Congressional direction as included in Pub. L. 105-204 and Pub. L. 107-206; agreements among DOE and the States of Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky concerning the management of DUF6 currently stored at the Portsmouth, ETTP, and Paducah sites, respectively; and public comments in arriving at its decision. In deciding among the three alternative locations at the Portsmouth site for the conversion facility, DOE considered environmental factors, site preparation requirements affecting construction, availability of utilities, proximity to cylinder storage areas, and potential impacts to current or planned site operations. DOE has determined that Location A is the best alternative. DOE believes that the decision identified below best meets its programmatic goals and is consistent with all the regulatory requirements and public laws. II. Decision DOE has decided to implement the actions described in the preferred alternative from the FEIS at Location A. This decision includes the following actions: DOE will construct and operate the conversion facility at Location A within the Portsmouth site. Construction will commence on or before July 31, 2004, as intended by Congress in Pub. L. 107-206. DUF6 cylinders currently stored at ETTP will be shipped to Portsmouth for conversion; a new cylinder yard will be constructed, if necessary, based on the availability of storage yard space when the cylinders are received. All shipments to and from the sites, including the shipment of UF6 cylinders (DUF6 and non- DUF6) currently stored at ETTP to Portsmouth, will be conducted by either truck or rail, as appropriate. Cylinders will be shipped in a manner that is consistent with DOT regulations for the transportation of UF6 cylinders. Although efficiency improvements can be accomplished, which would increase the conversion facility's throughput and decrease the operational period, DOE has decided not to add the fourth processing line to the conversion facility at this time. Current cylinder management activities (handling, inspection, monitoring, and maintenance) will continue, consistent with the Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Management Plan included in the Ohio EPA Director's final findings and orders effective February 1998 and March 2004, which cover actions needed to meet safety and environmental requirements, until conversion could be accomplished. The aqueous HF produced during conversion will be sold for use, pending approval of authorized release limits as appropriate. If necessary, CaF2 will be produced and reused, pending approval of authorized release limits, or disposed of as appropriate. The depleted U3O8 conversion product will be reused to the extent possible or packaged for disposal in emptied cylinders at an appropriate disposal facility. DOE plans to decide the specific disposal location(s) for the depleted U3O8 conversion product after additional appropriate NEPA review. Accordingly, DOE will continue to evaluate its disposal options and will consider any further information or comments relevant to that decision. DOE will give a minimum 45-day notice before making the specific disposal decision and will provide any supplemental NEPA analysis for public review and comment. III. Mitigation On the basis of the analyses conducted for the FEIS, the DOE will adopt all practicable measures, which are described below, to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts that may result from constructing and operating a conversion facility at Location A. These measures are either explicitly part of the alternative or are already performed as part of routine operations. The conversion facility will be designed, constructed, and operated in [[Page 44654]] 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. Cylinder management activities will be conducted in accordance with applicable DOE safety and environmental requirements, including the Cylinder Management Plan. Temporary impacts on air quality from fugitive dust emissions during reconstruction of cylinder yards or construction of any new facility will be controlled by the best available practices, as necessary, to comply with the established standards for PM10 and PM2.5. During construction, impacts to water quality and soil will be minimized through implementing storm water management, sediment and erosion controls, and good construction practices consistent with the Soil, Erosion, and Sediment Control Plan and Construction Management Plan. If live trees with exfoliating bark are encountered on construction areas, they will be saved if possible to avoid destroying potential habitat for the Indiana bat. Issued in Washington, DC, this 20th day of July, 2004. Paul M. Golan, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. [FR Doc. 04-17048 Filed 7-26-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 37 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge FR Doc 04-17049 [Federal Register: July 27, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 143)] [Notices] [Page 44648-44649] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27jy04-48] Reservation AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the Federal Register. DATES: Saturday, August 7, 2004, 8 a.m.-5 p.m. ADDRESSES: DOE Information Center, 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, TN. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat Halsey, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 576-4025; Fax (865) 576-5333 or e- mail: [[Page 44649]] halseypj@oro.doe.gov [ halseypj@oro.doe.gov] or check the Web site at http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/] ssab. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities. Tentative Agenda 8 a.m.--Introductions, overview of meeting agenda and logistics (Dave Mosby) 8:15 a.m.--Past year evaluation--Board and stakeholder survey results, what worked, what can be improved (Facilitator) 9:50 a.m.--Break 10:05 a.m.--Past year evaluation continued 10:45 a.m.--Summaries and Q on the most important issues to DOE, TN Department of Environment & Conservation, and EPA (Facilitator) 11:30 a.m.--Lunch 12:30 p.m.--Environmental Management Committee (Luther Gibson) Accomplishments and impacts Review FY 2004 Work Plan Identify issues for FY 2005 Assignment of new issues/issues managers 1:30 p.m.--Stewardship Committee (Ben Adams) Accomplishments and impacts Review FY 2004 Work Plan Identify issues for FY 2005 Assignment of new issues/issues managers 2:30 p.m.--Break 2:45 p.m.--Public Outreach Committee (Committee Chair) Accomplishments and impacts Review FY 2004 Work Plan Identify issues for FY 2005 3:15 p.m.--Board Finance Committee (Kerry Trammell) Accomplishments and impacts Review FY 2004 Work Plan Identify issues for FY 2005 3:45 p.m.--Convene Board meeting to elect officers and conduct other business as needed Public Comment Period 4:45 p.m.--Set date for next retreat and adjourn Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Committee either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Pat Halsey at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. This Federal Register notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to programmatic issues that had to be resolved prior to the meeting date. Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Department of Energy's Information Center at 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, TN between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, or by writing to Pat Halsey, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, or by calling her at (865) 576-4025. Issued at Washington, DC, on July 20, 2004. Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 04-17049 Filed 7-26-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 38 DOE: Record of Decision for Construction and Operation of a Depleted FR Doc 04-17050 [Federal Register: July 27, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 143)] [Notices] [Page 44654-44658] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27jy04-50] Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Paducah, KY, Site AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Record of decision. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement for Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Paducah, Kentucky, Site (FEIS) (DOE/EIS-0359). The FEIS Notice of Availability was published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Federal Register (69 FR 34161) on June 18, 2004. In the FEIS, DOE considered the potential environmental impacts from the construction, operation, maintenance, and decontamination and decommissioning (D) of the proposed depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) conversion facility at three alternative locations within the Paducah site, including transportation of depleted uranium conversion products and waste materials to a disposal facility; transportation and sale of the aqueous hydrogen fluoride (HF) produced as a conversion co-product; and neutralization of aqueous HF to calcium fluoride (CAF2) and its sale or disposal in the event that the aqueous HF product is not sold. An option of shipping the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) cylinders to the Paducah site has also been considered, as has an option of expanding operations by increasing efficiency or extending the period of operation. A similar EIS was issued concurrently for construction and operation of a DUF6 conversion facility at DOE's Portsmouth, Ohio, site (DOE/EIS-0360). DOE has decided to construct and operate the conversion facility in the south-central portion of the Paducah site, the preferred alternative identified in the FEIS as Location A. Groundbreaking for construction of the facility will commence on or before July 31, 2004, as anticipated by Public Law (Pub. L.) 107-206. The aqueous HF produced during conversion will be sold for use, pending approval of authorized release limits, as appropriate. ADDRESSES: The FEIS and this Record of Decision (ROD) are available on the DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Web site at [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa] and on the Depleted UF6 Management Information Network Web site at [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium] . Copies of the FEIS and this ROD may be requested by e-mail at [ Pad_DUF6@anl.gov] , by toll-free telephone at 1-866-530-0944, by toll-free fax at 1-866-530-0943, or by contacting Gary S. Hartman, Oak Ridge Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, SE-30-1, P.O. Box 2001, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the conversion facility construction and operation, contact Gary Hartman at the address listed above. For general information on the DOE NEPA process, contact Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, 202-586-4600, or leave a message at 1-800-472- 2756. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The United States has produced DUF6 since the early 1950s as part of the process of enriching natural uranium for both civilian and military applications. Production took place at three gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs), first at the K-25 site (now called ETTP) at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and subsequently at Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio. The K-25 plant ceased enrichment operations in 1985, and the Portsmouth plant ceased enrichment operations in 2001. The Paducah GDP continues to operate. Approximately 440,000 t (484,000 tons) of DUF6 is presently stored at Paducah in about 36,200 cylinders. The majority of the cylinders weigh approximately 12 t (14 tons) each, are 48 inches (1.2 m) in diameter, and are stored on outside pads. DOE has been looking at alternatives for managing this inventory. Also in storage at Paducah are approximately 1,940 cylinders of various sizes that contain enriched UF6 or normal UF6 (collectively called ``non-DUF6'' cylinders) or are empty. [The non- DUF6 cylinders would not be processed in the conversion facility.] As a first step, DOE evaluated potential broad management options for its DUF6 inventory in a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management and Use of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF6 PEIS) (DOE/EIS-0269) issued in April 1999. In the PEIS Record of Decision (64 FR 43358, August 10, 1999), DOE decided to promptly convert the DUF6 inventory to a more stable uranium oxide form and stated that it would use the depleted uranium oxide as much as possible and store the remaining depleted uranium oxide for potential future uses or disposal, as necessary. In addition, DOE would convert DUF6 to depleted uranium metal, but only if uses for metal were available. DOE did not select specific sites for the conversion facilities but reserved that decision for subsequent NEPA review. Today's Record of Decision announces the outcome of that site-specific NEPA review. DOE is also issuing today a separate but related ROD announcing the siting of a DUF6 conversion facility at Portsmouth, Ohio. Congress enacted two laws that directly addressed DOE's management of its DUF6 inventory. The first law, Public Law 105-204, signed by the President in July 1998, required the Secretary of Energy to prepare a plan to commence construction of, no later than January 31, 2004, and to operate an on-site facility at each of the GDPs at [[Page 44655]] Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, to treat and recycle DUF6, consistent with NEPA. The second law, Public Law 107- 206, signed by the President on August 2, 2002, required that no later than 30 days after enactment, DOE must award a contract for the scope of work described in its Request for Proposals (RFP) issued in October 2000 for the design, construction, and operation of a DUF6 conversion facility at each of the Department's Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, gaseous diffusion sites. It also stipulated that the contract require groundbreaking for construction to occur no later than July 31, 2004, at both sites. In response to these laws, DOE issued the Final Plan for the Conversion of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride as Required by Public Law 105-204 in July 1999, and awarded a contract to Uranium Disposition Services (UDS) for construction and operation of two conversion facilities on August 29, 2002, consistent with NEPA. On September 18, 2001, DOE published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register (66 FR 48123) announcing its intention to prepare an EIS for the proposed action to construct, operate, maintain, and decontaminate and decommission two DUF6 conversion facilities: One at Portsmouth and one at Paducah. Following the enactment of Public Law 107-206, DOE reevaluated the appropriate scope of its site-specific NEPA review and decided to prepare two separate EISs, one for the plant proposed for the Paducah site and a second for the Portsmouth site. This change in approach was announced in the Federal Register on April 28, 2003 (68 FR 22368). The two draft conversion facility EISs were mailed to stakeholders in late November 2003, and a Notice of Availability was published by the EPA in the Federal Register on November 28, 2003 (68 FR 66824). Comments on the draft EISs were accepted during a 67-day review period that ended on February 2, 2004. DOE considered these comments and prepared two FEISs. The Notice of Availability for the two FEISs was published by the EPA in the Federal Register (69 FR 34161) on June 18, 2004. II. Purpose and Need for Agency Action DOE needs to convert its inventory of DUF6 to more stable chemical form(s) for use or disposal. This need follows directly from (1) the decision presented in the August 1999 ROD for the PEIS, namely, to begin conversion of the DUF6 inventory as soon as possible, and (2) Public Law 107-206, which directs DOE to award a contract for construction and operation of conversion facilities at both the Paducah site and the Portsmouth site. III. Alternatives No Action Alternative. Under the no action alternative, conversion would not occur. Current cylinder management activities (handling, inspection, monitoring, and maintenance) would continue; thus the status quo would be maintained at Paducah indefinitely. Action Alternatives. The proposed action evaluated in the FEIS is to construct and operate a conversion facility at the Paducah site for conversion of the Paducah DUF6 inventory into depleted uranium oxide (primarily triuranium octaoxide [U3O8]) and other conversion products. The FEIS review is based on the conceptual conversion facility design proposed by the selected contractor, UDS. The UDS dry conversion process is a continuous process in which DUF6 is vaporized and converted to a mixture of uranium oxides (primarily U3O8) by reaction with steam and hydrogen in a fluidized-bed conversion unit. The hydrogen is generated from anhydrous ammonia (NH3). The depleted U3O8 powder is collected and packaged for disposition in bulk bags (large-capacity, strong, flexible bags) or the emptied cylinders to the extent practicable. Equipment would also be installed to collect the aqueous HF (also called HF acid) co-product and process it into HF at concentrations suitable for commercial resale. A backup HF acid neutralization system would convert up to 100% of the HF acid to CaF2 for sale or disposal in the future, if necessary. The conversion products would be transported to a disposal facility or to users by truck or rail. The conversion facility will be designed with four parallel processing lines to convert 18,000 t (20,000 tons) of DUF6 per year, requiring 25 years to convert the Paducah inventory. Three alternative locations within the site were evaluated, Locations A (preferred), B, and C. In addition, an option of transporting the ETTP cylinders to Paducah rather than to Portsmouth was considered, as was an option of expanding conversion facility operations. Alternative Location A (Preferred Alternative). Location A is the preferred location for the conversion facility. It is located south of the administration building and its parking lot, immediately west of and next to the primary location of the DOE cylinder yards and east of the main plant access road. This location is an L-shaped tract consisting mostly of grassy field. However, the southeastern section is a wooded area. A drainage ditch crosses the northern part of the site, giving the cylinder yard storm water access to Kentucky Pollution Discharge Elimination System (KPDES) Outfall 017. This location is about 35 acres (14 ha) in size and was identified in the RFP for conversion services as the site for which bidders were to design their proposed facilities. Alternative Location B. Location B is directly south of the Paducah maintenance building and west of the main plant access road. The northern part of this location is mowed grass and has a slightly rolling topography. The southern part has a dense covering of trees and brush, and some high-voltage power lines cross it, limiting its use. This location has an area of about 59 acres (23 ha). Alternative Location C. Location C is east of the Paducah pump house and cooling towers. It has an area of about 53 acres (21 ha). Dykes Road runs through the center of this location from north to south. Use of the eastern half of this location could be somewhat limited because several high-voltage power lines run through this area. Under the action alternatives, DOE evaluated the impacts from packaging, handling, and transporting depleted uranium oxide conversion product (primarily U3O8) from the conversion facility to a low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility that would be (1) selected in a manner consistent with DOE policies and orders and (2) authorized to receive the conversion products by DOE (in conformance with DOE orders), or licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (in conformance with NRC regulations), or an NRC Agreement State agency (in conformance with state laws and regulations determined to be equivalent to NRC regulations). Assessment of the impacts and risks from on-site handling and disposal at an LLW disposal facility has been deferred to the disposal site's site-specific NEPA or licensing documents. While the FEIS presents the impacts from transporting the DUF6 conversion products to both the Envirocare of Utah, Inc., facility and the Nevada Test Site (NTS), DOE plans to decide the specific disposal location(s) for the depleted U3O8 conversion product after additional NEPA review, as necessary. Accordingly, DOE will continue to evaluate its disposal options and will consider any further information or comments relevant to that decision. DOE will give a minimum 45-day notice before making its specific disposal decision and will provide any [[Page 44656]] additional NEPA analysis for public review and comment. The following alternatives were considered but not analyzed in detail in the FEIS: Use of Commercial Conversion Capacity, Sites Other Than Paducah, Alternative Conversion Processes, Long-Term Storage and Disposal Alternatives, Transportation Modes Other Than Truck and Rail, and One Conversion Plant Alternative. IV. Summary of Environmental Impacts The FEIS evaluated potential impacts from the range of alternatives described above. The impact areas included human health and safety, air quality, noise, water and soil, socioeconomics, ecological resources, waste management, resource requirements, land use, cultural resources, environmental justice, and cumulative impacts. In general, the impacts are low for both the no action and the proposed action alternatives. Among the three alternative locations considered at the Paducah site for the conversion facility, there are no major differences in impacts that would make one location clearly environmentally preferable. The discussion below summarizes the results of the FEIS impact analyses, highlighting the differences among the alternatives. Human Health and Safety--Normal Operations and Transportation. Under all alternatives, it is estimated that potential exposures of workers and members of the general public to radiation and chemicals would be well within applicable public health standards and regulations. UDS would confirm, prior to conversion or at the initiation of the conversion operations, that polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) releases to the workplace from the paint coating of some cylinders manufactured prior to 1978 would be within applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) limits. Transportation by rail would tend to cause fewer impacts than by truck primarily because of exhaust emissions from the trucks and the higher number of shipments for trucks than for rail. The option of converting the aqueous HF to CaF2 and transporting the CaF2 to a disposal facility would result in increased shipments. The impacts associated with transportation of uranium oxide product to a disposal facility in the western United States by truck would be about the same if bulk bags are used or two filled cylinders are loaded onto a truck. If only one cylinder is loaded onto a truck, the impacts would be higher because of the increased number of shipments. Human Health and Safety--Accidents. DOE has extensive experience in safely storing, handling, and transporting cylinders containing UF6 (depleted, normal, or enriched). In addition, the chemicals used or generated at the conversion facility are commonly used for industrial applications in the United States, and there are well-established accident prevention and mitigative measures for their storage and transportation. Under all alternatives, it is possible that accidents could release radiation or chemicals to the environment, potentially affecting both the workers and members of the general public. It is also possible that, similar to other industrial facilities, workers could be injured or killed as a result of on-the-job accidents unrelated to radiation or chemical exposure. Similarly, during transportation of materials, both crew members and members of the public may be injured or killed as a result of traffic accidents. Three kinds of accidents have the largest possible consequences: (1) Those involving the DUF6 cylinders during storage and handling under all alternatives, (2) those involving chemicals used or generated by the conversion process at the conversion site (in particular NH3 and aqueous HF) under the action alternatives, and (3) those occurring during transportation of chemicals and cylinders under the action alternatives. The severity of the consequences from such accidents would depend on weather conditions at the time of the accident, and, in the case of the transportation accidents, the location of the accident, and could be significant. However, those accidents would have a low estimated probability of occurring, making the risk low. (Risk is determined by multiplying the consequences by the probability of occurrence). In comparing truck versus rail transportation, even though the consequences of rail accidents are generally higher (because of the larger cargo load per railcar than per truck), the accident probabilities tend to be lower for railcars than for trucks. As a result, the risks of accidents would be about the same under either option. Under the no action alternative, the risks associated with cylinder storage and handling would continue to exist as long as the cylinders are there. However, under the action alternatives, the risks associated with both the cylinder accidents and the chemical accidents would decline over time and disappear at the completion of the project. Air Quality and Noise. Under the action alternatives, the total (modeled plus background value) concentrations due to emissions of most criteria pollutants--such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide--would be well within applicable air quality standards. For construction, the primary concern would be particulate matter (PM) released from near-ground-level sources. Total concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 (PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 [mu]m or less and 2.5 [mu]m or less, respectively) at the construction site boundaries would be close to or above the standards because of the high background concentrations. Accordingly, construction activities would be conducted so as to minimize further impacts on ambient air quality. Water and Soil. During construction of the conversion facility, concentrations of any potential contaminants in soil, surface water, or groundwater would be kept well within applicable standards or guidelines by implementing storm water management, sediment and erosion controls, and good construction practices. During operations, no impacts would be expected because no contaminated liquid effluents are anticipated. Socioeconomics. Under the action alternatives, construction and operation of the conversion facility would create more jobs and personal income in the vicinity of the Paducah site than would be possible under the no action alternative. The number of jobs would be approximately 190 direct and 290 total during construction, and 160 direct and 330 total during operations. Ecology. For the action alternatives, the total area disturbed during conversion facility construction would be up to 45 acres (18 ha). Although vegetation communities in the disturbed area would be impacted by a loss of habitat, impacts could be minimized (e.g., by appropriate placement of the facility within each location), and negligible long-term impacts to vegetation and wildlife are expected at all locations. Impacts to wetlands could be minimized, depending on where exactly the facility was placed within each location and by maintaining a buffer near adjacent wetlands during construction. Construction of the conversion facility in the eastern portion of Location C could impact potential habitat for cream wild indigo (state- listed as a species of special concern) and compass plant (state-listed as threatened). For construction at all three locations, potential impacts to forested areas could be avoided if temporary construction areas were placed in previously disturbed [[Page 44657]] locations. During construction, trees with exfoliating bark (such as shagbark hickory or dead trees with loose bark) that can be used by the Indiana bat (federal- and state-listed as endangered) as roosting trees during the summer would be saved if possible. Waste Management. Under the action alternatives, waste generated during construction and operations would have negligible impacts on the Paducah site waste management operations, with the exception of possible impacts from disposal of CaF2. If the aqueous HF were not sold but instead neutralized to CaF2, it is currently unknown whether (1) the CaF2 could be sold, (2) the low uranium content would allow the CaF2 to be disposed of as nonhazardous solid waste, or (3) disposal as LLW would be required. The low level of uranium contamination expected (i.e., less than 1 ppm) suggests that sale or disposal as nonhazardous solid waste would be most likely. Waste management for disposal as nonhazardous waste could be handled through appropriate planning and design of the facilities. If the CaF2 had to be disposed of as LLW, it could represent a potentially large impact on waste management operations. The U3O8 produced during conversion would amount to about 80% of Paducah's annual projected LLW volume. Option of Shipping ETTP Cylinders to Paducah. The cylinders at ETTP would require preparation for shipment by either truck or rail. Three cylinder preparation options were considered for the shipment of noncompliant cylinders: cylinder overpacks, shipping ``as-is'' under a U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) exemption, and use of a cylinder transfer facility (there are no current plans to build such a facility at ETTP). The operational impacts (e.g., storage, handling, and maintenance of cylinders) from any of the options would be small and limited primarily to external radiation exposure of involved workers. The annual impacts from conversion operations at Paducah would remain the same, however the conversion period would be approximately 3 years longer. If a decision was made to construct and operate a transfer facility at ETTP in the future, additional NEPA review would be conducted. Conversion Product Sale and Use. The conversion of the DUF6 inventory produces products having some potential for reuse. These products include aqueous HF and CaF2, which are commonly used as commercial materials. DOE is currently pursuing the establishment of authorization limits (allowable concentration limits of uranium) in these products to be able to free-release them to commercial users. In addition, there is a small potential for reuse of the depleted uranium oxide product. D Activities. D impacts would be primarily from external radiation to involved workers and would be a small fraction of allowable doses. Wastes generated during D operations would be disposed of in an appropriate disposal facility and would result in low impacts in comparison with projected site annual generation volumes. Cumulative Impacts. The FEIS analyses indicated that no significant cumulative impacts at the Paducah site and its vicinity would be anticipated due to the incremental impacts of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Option of Expanding Conversion Facility Operations. The throughput of the Paducah facility could be increased by making process efficiency improvements. Such an increase would not be expected to significantly change the overall environmental impacts when compared with those of the current plant design. The conversion facility operations could be extended to process any additional DUF6 for which DOE might assume responsibility by operating the facility longer than the currently anticipated 25 years. With routine facility and equipment maintenance and periodic equipment replacements or upgrades, it is believed that the conversion facility could be operated safely beyond this time period. If operations were extended beyond 25 years and if the operational characteristics (e.g., estimated releases of contaminants to air and water) of the facility remained unchanged, it is expected that the annual impacts would be essentially unchanged. V. Environmentally Preferred Alternative In general, the FEIS shows greater impacts for the no action alternative than for the proposed action of constructing and operating the conversion facility mainly because of the relatively higher radiation exposures of the workers from the cylinder management operations and cylinder yards and because the cylinders and associated risk would remain if no action occurred. However, considering the uncertainties in the impact estimates and the magnitude of the impacts, the differences are not considered to be significant. The no action alternative has the potential for groundwater contamination with uranium over the long-term; this adverse impact is not anticipated under the proposed action alternatives. Beneficial socioeconomic impacts would be higher for the action alternatives than for the no action alternative. The impacts associated with transportation of materials among sites would be comparable whether the transportation is by truck or rail. With all alternatives, there is the potential for some high- consequence accidents to occur. The risks associated with such accidents can only be completely eliminated when the conversion of the DUF6 inventory has been completed. Although there are some differences in impacts among the three alternative locations for the conversion facility, these differences are small and well within the uncertainties associated with the methods used to estimate impacts. In general, because of the relatively small risks that would result under all alternatives and the absence of any clear basis for discerning an environmental preference, DOE concludes that no single alternative analyzed in depth in the FEIS is clearly environmentally preferable compared to the other alternatives. VI. Comments on Final EIS The Final EIS was mailed to stakeholders in early June 2004, and the EPA issued a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on June 18, 2004. The entire document was also made available on the World Wide Web. Two comment letters were received on the DUF6 Conversion Facility Final EISs. The State of Nevada indicated that it had no comments on the Final EISs and that the proposal was not in conflict with state plans, goals, or objectives. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 in Chicago, stated that the Portsmouth Final EIS adequately address its concerns, and that it concurs with the Preferred Alternative and has no further concerns. Decision I. Bases for the Decision DOE considered potential environmental impacts as identified in the FEIS (including the information contained in the classified appendix); cost; applicable regulatory requirements; Congressional direction as included in Public Law 105-204 and 107-206; agreements among DOE and the States of Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky concerning the management of DUF6 currently stored at the Portsmouth, ETTP, and Paducah sites, [[Page 44658]] respectively; and public comments in arriving at its decision. In deciding among the three alternative locations at the Paducah site for the conversion facility, DOE considered environmental factors, site preparation requirements affecting construction, availability of utilities, proximity to cylinder storage areas, and potential impacts to current or planned site operations. DOE has determined that Location A is the best alternative. DOE believes that the decision identified below best meets its programmatic goals and is consistent with all the regulatory requirements and public laws. II. Decision DOE has decided to implement the actions described in the preferred alternative from the FEIS at Location A. This decision includes the following actions: DOE will construct and operate the conversion facility at Location A within the Paducah site. Construction will commence on or before July 31, 2004, as intended by Congress in Public Law 107-206. All shipments to and from the conversion site, including any potential shipments of non-DUF6 cylinders currently stored at ETTP to Paducah, will be conducted by either truck or rail, as appropriate. Cylinders will be shipped in a manner that is consistent with DOT regulations for the transportation of UF6 cylinders. Current cylinder management activities (handling, inspection, monitoring, and maintenance) will continue, consistent with the Cylinder Project Management Plan for Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride, effective October 2003, which cover actions needed to meet safety and environmental requirements, until conversion could be accomplished. The aqueous HF produced during conversion will be sold for use, pending approval of authorized release limits as appropriate. If necessary, CaF2 will be produced and reused, pending approval of authorized release limits, or disposed of as appropriate. The depleted U3O8 conversion product will be reused to the extent possible or packaged for disposal in emptied cylinders at an appropriate disposal facility. DOE plans to decide the specific disposal location(s) for the depleted U3O8 conversion product after additional appropriate NEPA review. Accordingly, DOE will continue to evaluate its disposal options and will consider any further information or comments relevant to that decision. DOE will give a minimum 45-day notice before making the specific disposal decision and will provide any supplemental NEPA analysis for public review and comment. III. Mitigation On the basis of the analyses conducted for the FEIS, the DOE will adopt all practicable measures, which are described below, to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts that may result from constructing and operating a conversion facility at Location A. These measures are either explicitly part of the alternative or are already performed as part of routine operations. The conversion facility 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. Temporary impacts on air quality from fugitive dust emissions during reconstruction of cylinder yards or construction of any new facility will be controlled by the best available practices, as necessary, to comply with the established standards for PM10 and PM2.5. During construction, impacts to water quality and soil will be minimized through implementing storm water management, sediment and erosion controls, and good construction practices consistent with the Soil, Erosion, and Sediment Control Plan and Construction Management Plan. If live trees with exfoliating bark are encountered on construction areas, they will be saved if possible to avoid destroying potential habitat for the Indiana bat. Issued in Washington, DC this 20th day of July 2004. Paul M. Golan, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. [FR Doc. 04-17050 Filed 7-26-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-U ***************************************************************** 39 USATODAY.com: Harder to talk to lab people during shutdown Posted 7/27/2004 3:27 AM Updated 7/27/2004 12:32 PM By Richard Benke, Associated Press ALBUQUERQUE — Suddenly it was hard to get a phone call through to workers at Los Alamos National Laboratory. As a full-scale operational shutdown froze normal lab activities, a top official at the University of New Mexico, one of the institutions that do joint projects or business with the lab, suggested a noticeable casualty was two-way communication. "What this has done is make it harder to talk to anybody," said university spokeswoman Susan McKinsey, relaying a comment from Jack McIver, UNM deputy vice president for research. McIver suggested a month of delay probably wouldn't be a problem for UNM, McKinsey said. Lab spokesman Jim Fallin estimated that about 10% to 20% of the lab's lowest-risk, essential activities  such as procurement and supply  are ready for restart or recertification, "but we haven't done any of that yet." He used the word recertification on Monday to describe how the lab is going about reassuring itself about its 12,000 employees' commitment to lab security and safety rules. None of the departments that shut down July 15 and 16 had restarted operations yet, and Fallin declined to say when that might happen. "It's going to take however long it takes," he said, quoting lab director Pete Nanos. Or as lab spokeswoman Kathy DeLucas said: "This is not the Olympics." The LANL stand-down was called after a pair of July incidents: Two disks with classified data disappeared and a laser accident hurt a 20-year-old student intern, the latest in a history of security and safety lapses. Lab managers were interviewing every employee face-to-face to determine workers' attitude and level of commitment. Nineteen employees have been suspended. The lab is owned by the U.S. Department of Energy and run by the University of California on a 61-year-old management contract. Asked about the impact on research partners and corporate customers, DeLucas said: "Certainly we will miss some deliverables ... because of the shutdown." Fallin said they'd just have to wait. "What we all need to be concentrating on right now are safety, security and compliance issues. The focus should be to correct the failures of the past," he said. A lack of two-way communication with the outside world? "That's really what you want to be hearing right now," he said. "That means the suspension of activities is real." Distractions or exceptions right now could be an erosion of security, he said. "Everything else is secondary to us getting this right. This is going to be a painstakingly detailed process," Fallin said. DeLucas added that communication should be better this week. "We're communicating the situation with our sponsors," she said. "They understand the seriousness of the situation and say they will cooperate with us." New Mexico Tech associate vice president Richard Cervantes said the Socorro school had received no notification from Los Alamos about altering any of Tech's programs in light of the stand-down. The school is doing about $1.6 million worth of business with the lab through 17 different grant programs and contracts, Cervantes said. In addition, the lab hires a handful of Tech graduates every year. "We're always concerned that a major employer in the state of New Mexico is having problems that may impact our students," he said. Another New Mexico program working with Los Alamos lab, the DOE-sponsored Regional Development Corp., is involved in bringing new technology to rural areas, director Hugo Hinojosa said. "The work we're doing with the lab has just started," Hinojosa said Monday in Santa Fe. "Certainly we're concerned with what's going on up there." Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. © Copyright 2004 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. ***************************************************************** 40 Tri-City Herald: Lessons from shuttle disaster could prevent Hanford issues This story was published Tuesday, July 27th, 2004 By Annette Cary Herald staff writer Hanford officials are hoping to learn how to prevent problems at the nuclear reservation from the lessons learned in the investigation of the Columbia space shuttle disaster last year. "Complex systems fail in complex ways," said retired Major Gen. John L. Barry, who served as executive director of the Columbia Accident Investigation. He spoke Monday to Hanford managers and supervisors in Richland. The investigation concluded that a piece of foam broke off the shuttle's external fuel tank, hitting and damaging the leading edge of the left wing. The damage in the initial seconds of flight caused the shuttle to break up on re-entry, and the seven crew members aboard died. But the investigation looked beyond the technical problem and those directly responsible for it to find what Barry called a more insidious reason for the accident -- how NASA management and culture contributed to the failure to prevent the disaster. "Communication, communication, communication," he preached. The February 2003 shuttle flight was the seventh time that foam insulating a shuttle's external fuel tank came off during flight. Only once before, in October 2002, had the foam hit a shuttle, but it glanced off without causing damage. In Columbia's last flight, 2.6 pounds of foam broke off in three pieces. The largest of those hit the 1Ăš4-inch-wide leading edge of the wing at 500 mph. On re-entry, superheated air rushed into the wing's breach. NASA officials knew Columbia had been hit but assumed no damage was done. Barry called NASA's reaction to the history of foam problems "normalizing deviance." The foam problem occurred again and again, but because it caused no damage in the initial incidents, NASA officials assumed it would not in future incidents. It was a bit like playing Russian roulette, Barry said. NASA employees at all levels failed to address the problem, he said. Engineers and other nonmanagement employees discussed concerns in e-mails and informal conversations that the foam could have damaged the Columbia shuttle after launch. But they did not present their concerns formally to those in charge, Barry said. The balance of power in NASA led them to believe it was not their place to raise the issue. In addition, adherence to bureaucracy, timidity and NASA officials' predetermination that the foam was not a problem kept them from reporting their concerns, Barry said. Those in charge of safety had little rank or authority, Barry said. "It had become a silent safety program," he said. NASA also lacked checks and balances at its top levels. The program manager who held the power to make decisions was not required to consult independent parties when making important rulings on unusual matters, he said. NASA also had fewer employees with the experience, knowledge and time to watch for problems and address them as it turned increasingly to contractors. "There wasn't the ear to hear the small things that go wrong," Barry said. Although NASA had developed a list of 1,600 items that could fail and lead to a loss of the shuttle or crew, more than half were waived and never re-examined even as Columbia aged. Some of the cultural and management problems might have been addressed if NASA had its employees study the lessons learned from the earlier Challenger disaster. Although the Navy had 5,000 managers study the 1986 disaster to learn from it, NASA instead chose to put the Challenger disaster behind it. "NASA had not become a learning organization," Barry said. An active safety organization, trend analysis, redundancy, checks and balances and communication are essential to any organization with a high-risk mission, he told Hanford managers Monday. Managers at other DOE sites also are looking to learn from the Columbia investigation. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, which provides independent oversight of DOE nuclear sites, has focused on what the report can teach DOE about developing a culture to prevent accidents. © 2004 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 41 Tri-City Herald: Vit plant accident possible, report says This story was published Tuesday, July 27th, 2004 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Hanford's vitrification plant has a 50 percent chance of a chemical or radiological accident during its operating life, according to an Institute for Policy Studies paper to be published this fall. The paper contains a 3-year-old study by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But what may have been true three years ago when design was only 10 percent to 15 percent complete on the vitrification plant is not true now, said Department of Energy officials Monday. They defended work at the $5.7 billion plant under construction at Hanford against the critical paper by Bob Alvarez -- an adviser to the Clinton administration -- and a Government Accountability Office report released earlier this month. Alvarez said the paper he authored has been accepted for publication in Science and Global Security, a peer-reviewed journal of Princeton University. The vitrification plant would turn waste now in underground tanks into glasslike logs for permanent disposal. About 53 million gallons of radioactive and chemical waste was left from the past production at Hanford of plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program. Alvarez depended on NRC reports done three and more years ago when private operation of the plant was planned. DOE now plans to operate the plant and is responsible for safety issues with the oversight of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. "There have been three years of designing and analyzing (to remedy) modes of failure," said John Eschenberg, project manager for the vitrification plant for DOE's Office of River Protection. "We have been able to design preventive systems to prevent an accident from occurring." When design work is completed, the plant will have no more than a one in a million chance of a major accident, he said. Much of the risk that Alvarez found was with melting systems that will be used to turn waste into glasslike logs at the vitrification plant or large glass blocks in an alternate technology. DOE already has had eight melter-related incidents, he said. They ranged from a plugged discharge line at a Savannah River, S.C., plant to a 1991 large-scale test of vitrification that ended in a steam explosion in a buried 6,000-gallon tank. The design at the vitrification plant "eliminates all probability of a steam explosion," Eschenberg said. But if DOE is wrong in its accident estimates, the danger could be significant, Alvarez believes. "The accident consequences at Hanford's Waste Treatment Plant are comparable to those at a large nuclear reactor," he wrote. Eschenberg countered that the potential accident mechanisms at the waste treatment, or vitrification, plant are not as complex as at a nuclear reactor nor is there as much radioactive material present at once. In response to the GAO report critical of the management of Hanford's vitrification plant construction, DOE is questioning if the criticisms and suggested fixes have real world applications. The GAO's "academic approach" could impair DOE's ability to start processing radioactive waste into glass logs by diverting resources into studies and analyses, according to a letter sent to DOE headquarters by Roy Schepens, manager of the Office of River Protection at Hanford. That could delay construction of the plant. "In 2011 we can start pouring concrete or start pouring glass," Eschenberg said. "We could keep studying it and increase the confidence in every aspect of it, but we would be no closer getting it built." The GAO has criticized DOE's fast track approach to building the vitrification plant. To meet legal deadlines for building the plant and treating the waste, DOE is constructing the plant as design and permit work continue. Nearly two years after the first concrete was poured for the plant, the design is about 65 percent complete. The GAO report found that for such a complex project, such an approach is "not compatible with controlling costs and schedules." It is an uncommon approach with DOE, Schepens agreed in his letter. "However, the design/build approach is considerably more common within private industry and has been proven successful for even large complex projects," he wrote. "This model is especially effective when the designer and builder is the same contractor, as is the case for (the vitrification plant)." Although the GAO faulted DOE for its fast-track approach, it failed to offer any other way for DOE to meet its legal requirement to treat the tank waste by 2028, Schepens wrote. The GAO report also criticized DOE's proposal to treat some of the tank waste with bulk vitrification, an alternate technology. It said the technology had not been tested fully on Hanford waste. "We believe that the risks association with considering bulk vitrification as a supplemental technology are substantially less than suggested by GAO," Schepens wrote. Laboratory tests have been conducted on Hanford tank waste and full-scale tests on a mock, nonradioactive waste, he wrote. Full-scale tests on radioactive waste should start soon. DOE also disagreed with GAO's assessment that taxpayers could be saved $50 million in operating costs if DOE had not focused the technical design on a specific resin to be used in separating waste into high-level and low activity streams in the pretreatment building. The resin, available from only one supplier, costs $10,000 per gallon and 1,800 gallons may be needed four times a year. DOE is testing another resin that costs a tenth as much and is optimistic that it will finish qualification tests in time for the initial treatment runs at the vitrification plant, Schepens wrote. In another section of the GAO report, the agency criticized DOE for not making plans for the delay of waste treatment that could result from a federal lawsuit that's on appeal. The suit challenges whether DOE can reclassify tank waste and dispose of some of it at Hanford rather than sending it to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. DOE said a pending environmental report will estimate treatment costs, including those associated with both winning and losing the lawsuit. DOE blamed an $8 billion discrepancy between GAO and DOE estimates on how much money the fast-track approach would save on building and operating the plant to accounting differences. GAO had accused DOE of overestimating savings. "Regardless, however, of which savings projection one chooses to accept -- $12 billion or $20 billion -- each one constitutes a significant savings to the American taxpayer," Schepens wrote. © 2004 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 42 U.S. Newswire: DOE to Hold Groundbreaking Ceremony for Major Paducah, Ky. Facility 7/26/2004 3:27:00 PM To: Assignment Desk, Daybook Editor, Energy Reporter Contact: Laura Schachter, 859-219-4010, Chris Kielich, 202-586-5806, both of the U.S. Department of Energy Media Advisory -- Deputy Energy Secretary Kyle McSlarrow to be Joined by Senators Mitch McConnell and Jim Bunning, Rep. Ed Whitfield The Department of Energy (DOE) will break ground for construction of a depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) conversion facility at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant at 11 a.m., Tuesday, July 27, 2004. The new facility will convert DUF6, the material remaining from previous enrichment operations, into a more stable chemical form for reuse or disposal. Members of Kentucky's congressional delegation will be welcomed by Kyle McSlarrow, Deputy Secretary of Energy, and William Murphie, Manager of the Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office. WHAT: Groundbreaking for DUF6 Conversion Project WHEN: 11 a.m., Tuesday, July 27 WHO: -- Deputy Secretary of Energy Kyle McSlarrow -- U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell -- U.S. Senator Jim Bunning -- U.S. Representative Ed Whitfield WHERE: Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah, Ky. From I-24, turn west at Exit 4 (Hinkleville Road) to US Hwy 60 Turn right at Hobbs Rd. NOTE: Media wishing to attend the groundbreaking event must contact Laura Schachter in the Department of Energy's Lexington, Ky. Office, Public Affairs, to register, at 859-219-4010. http://www.usnewswire.com/ [http://www.usnewswire.com/] /© 2004 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/ ***************************************************************** 43 KTVB.COM: Four teams compete for nuclear contract at INEEL 06:12 PM MDT on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 Associated Press IDAHO FALLS -- Four teams have filed proposals to run the Idaho National Laboratory's nuclear energy research for ten years beginning in 2005. file photo Four teams are competing to run the INEEL. The contract could earn them nearly $19 million per year. The Department of Energy contract could earn them nearly 19 million dollars a year. Monday was the deadline for the applications. The bidders will give oral presentations to the Energy Department next month. The winner will be declared in November and take over the job in February. A separate request for bids from companies who want to run the site's cleanup for the next seven years was issued last week, and that contract is expected to start in May. The four teams include: Bechtel, the Texas A-and-M University System, Honeywell International and Entergy Nuclear; Shaw Environment and Infrastructure, University of Missouri and undisclosed others; University of Chicago, Kellogg, Brown and Root, Teledyne Brown and Nuclear Fuel Services; Battelle, Washington Group International and B-W-X-T. ©2004 Belo Interactive Inc. ***************************************************************** 44 C Enquirer: Fernald cleanup halted - how long is unclear [http://www.cincinnati.com] Tuesday, July 27, 2004 By Dan Klepal Enquirer staff writer CROSBY TOWNSHIP - The work of removing decades-old radioactive powder from a concrete storage silo at the long-closed Fernald nuclear weapons plant has been halted before it could begin. The U.S. Department of Energy, under threat of a federal lawsuit by the state of Nevada because of the government's plan to bury the Fernald waste in the desert near Las Vegas, told its contractor Monday to remain in "a state of readiness," but not to begin the removal process of vacuuming out the potentially deadly powder, dumping it in storage bags and placing those bags in steel shipping containers. The government also has asked its contractor to estimate the daily cost of staying ready but not performing the work. Con Murphy, senior closure project director for contractor Fluor Fernald, said the company can stay ready as long as the government is willing to pay for it. That involves continually testing the machinery and computer systems that will be used to remove the powder and keeping computer operators sharp by having them use those systems on a surrogate material about once a week. "Obviously, it's not a very productive mode," Murphy said. He added that the cost estimate for doing so will be ready by the end of the week. A report from an independent review panel of engineers brought in to monitor the cleanup and to advise a citizens group said a delay of three to five months could result in the waste remaining in the silos "for years," because: • New budget, shipping, planning and contracts will be necessary. • Key project personnel and trained staff will be dispersed in other areas of the site or find other employment. • New staff and possibly a new contractor will not be invested in the existing design, leading to modifications or redesigns. • New leadership on the national stage might question the wisdom of the project. Government officials did not return repeated phone calls Monday. z The Department of Energy said in a letter that "efforts to resolve the (legal) issues ... have not yet been completed." Bob Loux, director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects, said those efforts haven't really started. Since Nevada officials sent a letter April 15 saying the government's plan to dispose of waste in the desert is illegal and unsafe, there has only been one conference between Nevada and energy officials, he said. Government lawyers have promised to give Nevada a 45-day notice before sending any Fernald waste their way. "We're not any closer today than we were in April," Loux said. "My guess is they'll eventually give us the 45-day notice and force us to go to court." Lisa Crawford, president of a citizens group that closely monitors the $4.4 billion Fernald cleanup, said the lack of communication is most disheartening to her. "Nobody seems to be talking to anybody else, and that's a problem," Crawford said. "All we've been told is, 'We're working on it,' but there's been no open dialogue or discussions in months. We're quite angry because we're between a rock and a hard spot, and it looks like we're going to stay there." Removal of even more dangerous waste from two other silos at Fernald - also scheduled to be buried in the Nevada desert - is supposed to begin in September. It is unclear if that work will begin on time if legal issues with Nevada remain unresolved. --- E-mail dklepal@enquirer.com [dklepal@enquirer.com] [http://cincinnati.com/copyright] updated 12/19/2002. ***************************************************************** 45 Oak Ridger: Cheaper fares on DOE radar Story last updated at 11:26 a.m. on July 27, 2004 SPOKESMAN: 'We can save a significant amount of money on travel.' By: Paul Parson | Oak Ridger Staff paul.parson@oakridger.com [paul.parson@oakridger.com] Department of Energy-related employees who travel to the Washington, D.C., area on business are being encouraged to use a new low-cost service that could save around $460 per round-trip flight. Independence Air now offers six daily, nonstop flights from McGhee Tyson Airport to Washington's Dulles International Airport, with a round-trip cost of about $138, excluding taxes and other fees, according to a DOE e-mail advisory recently sent out to employees. "By using this carrier, we can save a significant amount of money on travel," explained a local DOE spokesman, Steven Wyatt, when asked about the advisory. "We have also encouraged our contractors to do the same. This is strictly an Oak Ridge initiative; however, DOE headquarters is supportive of actions that help save taxpayer dollars." Prior to the arrival of Independence Air's low-cost flight, DOE-related employees were paying an average round-trip cost on United Airlines of about $598, excluding taxes and fees, according to Wyatt. This was part of a contracted program that made discounted airfare available to federal travelers on official business. Employees of DOE's Oak Ridge Operations office frequently travel to the Washington, D.C., area on business, especially since the federal agency's headquarters is located in the nation's capital. In addition, the city is home to several federal contractors as well as a local office of the National Nuclear Security Administration - the quasi-independent agency within the DOE that oversees the nuclear weapons complex. Independence Air's service to Washington, D.C., first took flight on Friday. ***************************************************************** 46 Oak Ridger: DOE-related report issued Story last updated at 12:21 p.m. on July 27, 2004 from staff reports The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation released its 2003 environmental monitoring report for the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Reservation on Monday afternoon. According to a TDEC news release, the document includes results from independent monitoring done on air quality; biological, fish and wildlife monitoring; drinking water testing; groundwater monitoring; and radiological and surface water monitoring. In addition, the document addresses the quality and effectiveness of DOE's monitoring systems. The 2003 environmental monitoring report as other TDEC documents on the same issue are available on the Web at [http://www.state.tn.us/environment/doeo] . Copies of the just-released report are also available at DOE's Information Center, 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, and TDEC's Oak Ridge office, 761 Emory Valley Road, as well as public libraries in Clinton, Dayton, Knoxville, Oak Ridge, Wartburg, and Meigs and Loudon counties. ***************************************************************** 47 amarillo.com: No disks missing at Pantex 07/27/04 [Amarillo Globe News] Home > News > Local News N.M. - While teams at Los Alamos National Laboratory searched for two missing disks, the Energy Department halted classified research at facilities around the country that use disks like those missing from the New Mexico lab.--> From Staff and Wire Reports National Security: Los Alamos National Laboratory Director Peter Nanos answers a question Thursday in Los Alamos, N.M. At left is a statement that lab officials say reinforces the obligations of Los Alamos employees regarding security and safety. Meanwhile, no computer disks were found missing after an audit at Pantex. AP Photo ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - While teams at Los Alamos National Laboratory searched for two missing disks, the Energy Department halted classified research at facilities around the country that use disks like those missing from the New Mexico lab. The mandate came down Friday from Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, who said it was necessary to get better control over the disks. The Pantex Plant, meanwhile, completed a weekend inventory and announced Monday it has verified the locations of all its classified removable electronic media, or computer disks. Maintenance and nuclear weapons dismantlement operations have been halted, and all weapons have been placed in a safe and stable condition, BWXT Pantex said Monday in a news release. But other operations at Pantex not involved with classified media will continue. All employees will continue to work as scheduled and employees working on programs affected by the DOE operational stand-down will be temporarily assigned to other duties. "Considering the increased threat of terrorism, securing our classified information is a task that we take very seriously," BWXT President and General Manager Mike Mallory said in a statement. "Secretary Abraham has given all of us in the weapons complex the chance to demonstrate just how seriously we take this challenge." Pantex has an ongoing Cyber and Information Security program to protect site materials and trains employees in proper handling of classified information. The stand-down, Mallory said, is being taken as a precaution to ensure classified materials are properly protected. Pantex also plans to conduct more worker training and will thoroughly review its security procedures to ensure classified materials are handled appropriately, BWXT officials said. A review team from DOE also will verify that Pantex is ready to resume operations under new guidelines for classified media, but no timetable has been established to implement new DOE security initiatives. In the wake of previous security lapses at Los Alamos and other sites, Abraham announced plans about two months ago to eliminate all types of removable computer disks containing classified information from DOE weapons sites. Meanwhile, suspension of Los Alamos operations, which officially took effect Monday, will be lifted once the inventory of the disks is completed and new controls are established. Employees using the disks will also undergo security training. Classified work was stopped July 15 at Los Alamos after the disks, known as controlled removable electronic media, or CREM, went missing about a week earlier. Globe-News Staff Writer Jim McBride contributed to this report. [http://www.amarillo.com/] ***************************************************************** 48 Pocatello Idaho State Journal: INEEL staff respond to leaking canister By Journal Staff ARCO - Emergency personnel at Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory responded to a leaking hydrofluoric gas canister Monday. The incident occurred at INEEL's Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center facility when the 40-year-old canister was being retrieved and stored. Employees at INTEC were told not to leave the building, but no employee exposures were reported and INEEL sources said no off-site exposures are anticipated. INEEL's fire department responded to the scene to help monitor the situation. After it was discovered a faulty gauge was to blame for the leak, workers sealed the canister with a plug. This is the second such incident to occur in recent months. A leaking cylinder was also discovered - at the same operations area - June 24. published online on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 Copyright © 2004 Pocatello Idaho State Journal P O Box 431 Pocatello, ID 83204-0431 ***************************************************************** 49 Oak Ridger: Our View: Reports should include measures of prevention Story last updated at 12:21 p.m. on July 27, 2004 May was a busy month for local emergency personnel, as two Department of Energy-related accidents kept everyone hopping for two consecutive weekends. Now, we hear the DOE is reviewing reports pertaining to those accidents and is nearly finished with its investigations. Like others, we are anxious to receive information pertaining to DOE's findings. The first report deals with the May 8 chemical fire on federal property just outside the K-25 site's security fence. And, the second deals with "small" amounts of strontium 90 that reportedly leaked onto a portion of Highway 95 on May 14; the leak is linked to a truck carrying radioactive waste material to a Bear Creek Road disposal site near the Y-12 National Security Complex. Gerald Boyd, manager of DOE's Oak Ridge Operations office, is expected to soon release to the public the findings of these investigations. Besides playing on the all-too-common fears stoked by naysayers of local DOE operations, these accidents also resulted in a lot of traffic being rerouted and many homes being evacuated. We trust that the information provided will also include measures being taken to make sure accidents like these do not reoccur. We want to ensure not only a positive image of our community, but an undoubtable safe environment for both current residents and future Oak Ridgers. ***************************************************************** 50 Google News Alert - nuclear Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 16:24:50 -0700 (PDT) US official heads for talks on NKorea nuclear row Reuters - USA ... to Beijing on Tuesday for consultations amid signs that North Korea may reject an American proposal aimed at persuading it to dismantle its nuclear program. ... See all stories on this topic: IRAN carries out threat to resume building nuclear equipment Independent - London,England,UK ... are to hold urgent talks with Iran in a European capital after Tehran resumed building and installing equipment that can be used to build a nuclear weapon. ... See all stories on this topic: US, Israel Have No Claim On Iran Nuclear Program: Russian Official Tehran Times - Tehran,Iran ... international law.". He specifically highlighted accusations by US and Israel asserting non-transparency of Iran's nuclear program. The ... See all stories on this topic: JORDAN says Israel's Dimona nuclear reactor poses no radiation ... Environmental News Network - Berkeley,CA,USA AMMAN, Jordan — Jordan says that Israel's Dimona nuclear plant has not exposed its neighbor to radiation, refuting allegations by an Israeli nuclear ... See all stories on this topic: CALL to Ministers over Nuclear Agreement Scotland on Sunday - Edinburgh,Scotland,UK Ministers today faced demands to come clean over the extent of US-UK nuclear co-operation amid claims it could break international law. ... See all stories on this topic: US snubs NZ shipyard in nuclear spat Radio Australia - Australia Babcock New Zealand missed out on a million-dollar tender to refit the US Army landing craft because of New Zealand's anti-nuclear policy. ... See all stories on this topic: NUCLEAR waste dump plan opposed BBC News - London,England,UK A proposal to store nuclear waste from decommissioned submarines at Coulport naval base in Argyll and Bute has attracted strong local opposition. ... SA to test US plan to store nuclear waste in boreholes Cape Times (subscription) - Cape Town,South Africa ... The likely spot for the test borehole will be on site at the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) at Pelindaba near Pretoria. ... See all stories on this topic: LAWYERS blast nuclear pact as a breach of disarmament treaty Nature.com - London,England,UK The impending renewal of a pact on nuclear research between the United Kingdom and the United States could breach the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT ... HOW the nuclear evacuation plan was scuppered in Crawley Telegraph.co.uk - London,England,UK A secret plan to move almost 10 million people from cities at the first sign of nuclear attack was ruined by a single Left-wing council in Sussex. ... 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/ ***************************************************************** 51 Boston Globe: Heating up a cold theory Boston.com / News / [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/] COLD FUSION MIT professor risks career to reenergize discredited By Beth Daley, Globe Staff | July 27, 2004 Although he's a tenured Massachusetts Institute of Technology associate professor, Peter Hagelstein leads a life of exile. He has never made full professor. He no longer has a lab. Barely anyone came to a lecture he gave about his research a year and a half ago. Virtually all of Hagelstein's problems stem from his study of cold fusion, a type of nuclear reaction that -- if it exists at all -- might have the power to create unlimited, clean energy, essentially on a tabletop. Fifteen years ago, two University of Utah chemists claimed they created such a reaction, an announcement quickly denounced as quackery. Today, cold fusion is as scientifically scorned as UFOs. Now the soft-spoken Hagelstein, who won accolades in the 1980s for conceptualizing a laser critical to Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" defense plan, and cold fusion have a shot at mainstream science again. Three months ago, the US Department of Energy quietly agreed to examine what cold fusion supporters say is increasing evidence -- culminating at a conference at MIT last summer -- that the reaction exists and is reproducible. If the agency agrees, it will likely mean an injection of both funding and legitimization for the forgotten research. The Department of Energy review is focusing attention on a small band of scientists, including Hagelstein, who continue to work on cold fusion long after its public demise. There are an estimated 100 to 200 of these researchers in the world, many suffering from stagnated careers or damaged reputations because of their refusal to give up on a concept the vast majority of scientists say doesn't exist. "It's not that we have kept quiet as much as no one has looked at what we were doing," said Hagelstein, a reserved but passionate man given to nervous laughter. "We are getting good and powerful results -- we want our name cleared." Cold fusion defies known physics. Even its supporters remain at a loss to fully explain it. Still, if it exists and is reproducible, it could revolutionize the world, decentralizing energy production so that each home could have its own inexpensive power source without damaging the environment. "This whole story is one our grandkids will learn about," said Edmund Storms, a former Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist who has built his own cold fusion lab next to his New Mexico home. "It has the drama, the conflict and it has hopefully the potential to save mankind." Fusion confusion It looked like an experiment a high school chemistry student could do. Using power from a car battery, chemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann announced they had recreated the energy source of the sun, stars, and hydrogen bomb by packing atoms together so tightly they appeared to fuse in the contraption. The room temperature experiment gave off more energy than it consumed, the researchers said, amounts that couldn't be explained away by current theories. Within hours, scientists the world over rushed to replicate the work. Finding an energy source through fusion had consumed researchers for 40 years before the announcement, with little to show for it. Unlike fission, which splits atoms to produce energy and is used in nuclear reactors, cold fusion seemed to produce no dangerous byproducts. But confusing results trickled in. Researchers at Moscow University said they reproduced the results. Princeton researchers said they couldn't. At MIT, Hagelstein, a theoretical physicist, felt obligated to see if it could be true. Growing up in smog-choked Los Angeles, he became impassioned at a young age about saving the environment. He remembers bicycling to the beach with a thick layer of smog above him, and the frustration he felt when, as a member of his high school ecology club, he could do precious little to fix it. Though painfully shy, the 49-year-old boyish-faced scientist has a fierce and unshakable trust in himself: He will not stop work on anything unless he is satisfied it is or isn't true. And Hagelstein needed to decide for himself whether cold fusion actually made sense. Within weeks of the Pons/Fleischmann announcement, he submitted four papers to the journal Physical Review Letters theorizing on what might have happened. Eight months later, a US Department of Energy panel recommended against any special funding for cold fusion. Scientists around the world, deeply angry at their lost time and what they saw as grandstanding by Pons and Fleischmann, went back to their methodical grind. Few bothered to look at cold fusion again and many still see it as one of the biggest scientific fiascoes in history. But Hagelstein wasn't done with his calculations. He thought the government's review was too brief. And in many ways, cold fusion reminded him of his work on the X-ray laser in the late 1970s. Then an MIT graduate student, he was told the X-ray laser was a pipe dream, an impossibility. But after spending five years working through nights and weekends, he finally came up with a scheme that held up under mathematical scrutiny. His work earned him a prestigious scientific prize. About four years after the initial Pons/Fleischmann experiment, Hagelstein became convinced that cold fusion experiments showed that a new kind of physics was at play -- results were fleeting and not always reproducible, but he believed they were valid. His life changed. Although Hagelstein developed and teaches graduate-level quantum mechanics and numerical modeling classes, and recently wrote a textbook, he keeps a focus on cold fusion. He spends his time methodically poring over mathematical equations that might explain cold fusion, and visiting laboratories that are working on it. Once a particular pathway proves a dead-end -- a process that can take weeks or months -- he moves to another. Many critics think he is wasting time on a foolish subject. Yet many people have the same word to describe Hagelstein: Brilliant, blessed with clarity and an incredibly creative mind. "These are smart people" studying cold fusion, said Mildred Dresselhaus, an MIT institute professor who served on the Department of Energy review board that recommended against funding cold fusion work. "What are the reasons they are still doing it?" Ridicule and results Cold fusion became a joke. Books were written on the debacle, with titles referring to voodoo science and grand hoaxes. Scientific journals routinely rejected work by cold fusion researchers. Tenure came for Hagelstein, but only barely: There were complaints about his cold fusion work. "In the beginning we were pioneers, but to take the sustained abuse over time, it can be devastating," Hagelstein said -- about his cold fusion colleagues, not himself. Speaking in a slow, measured voice, he refuses to indulge in regrets or blame. "We knew it was going to be tough." What science rejected, pop culture embraced. A software company, a snowboard maker, and even an Iowa rock band adopted cold fusion's name. It became the subject of the 1997 movie "The Saint." Cold fusion research was funded for several years overseas after the US panel condemned it, and today, cold fusion researchers say they continue to get private money -- although how much is hard to quantify. To other scientists, this is the natural course of bad science: It doesn't get much public funding, and eventually goes away. Some of these critics are eager for the new Department of Energy review in hopes it might silence cold fusion advocates for good. "If this was really happening, there would not be a way from stopping them from going forward," said Frank Close, an Oxford theoretical physicist who wrote a book about the cold fusion episode. "I have no doubt there are wonderful things in nature we have yet to discover, but that does not mean every random fluctuation in the data is the holy grail you are looking for." So over time, cold fusion scientists have become members of a small, close-knit culture unto themselves. They visit each other's labs. They have their own newsletters. They have their own conferences. And every year, their results get stronger, the group says, results that cannot be explained away by error or any other reason other than a new nuclear process. Last August, at the group's 10th annual conference, organized by Hagelstein at MIT, results were the strongest yet. (At the 11th annual conference in France this fall, researchers expect even more reproducible results.) "By the end of the conference, we had officially crossed the threshold," Hagelstein said. With the cold fusion community's help, he drafted a letter to the US Department of Energy asking for a new review hearing, a chance for someone to look at the community's work. The department agreed to a meeting, and later, to an official review. The review won't be finished until at least the fall, and in the cold fusion community, concerns are surfacing. What if the review board is stacked with cold fusion detractors? Maybe the review will not be in-depth enough to take into account what cold fusion supporters say is evidence of a strange, new physics. Hagelstein and his colleagues intend to keep pursuing their work even if the Department of Energy sides against them again. He is resolute. But sometimes, he sounds weary. "The day I know it's wrong, I'm dropping it," Hagelstein said, almost sounding like he yearned for that time. "If someone can explain to me (it's not real), I would stop." Beth Daley can be reached at bdaley@globe.com. c Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company. ***************************************************************** 52 Honolulu Star-Bulletin: Indigo screening - A-bomb documentary [http://starbulletin.com] Tuesday, July 27, 2004 The documentary "Original Child Bomb" makes a plea against nuclear proliferations. "Original Child Bomb" will be screened at 8 p.m. tomorrow as this month's "Cinema Under the Influence" feature at the Opium Den at Indigo restaurant. The film is a preview for the annual Cinema Paradise independent film festival. The hour-long documentary is based on the prose poem by Thomas Merton, about the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. A spare narration quotes dispassionately from Merton's text throughout, while graphic images present the human face of war. Director Carey Schonegevel makes extensive use of home movies, period newsreels, still photos, drawings, computer graphics, current interviews and cell animation in the film, which begins as a dramatic retelling of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan and concludes with a strong plea against nuclear proliferation. Original music is provided by such progressive-minded musicians as Ryuichi Sakamoto, Dan the Automator, DJ Shadow and Mos Def. The Downtown restaurant is at 1121 Nuuanu Ave. Admission to the screening is $5 general and $3 for festival members. For more information, call 550-0496 or go online at cinemaparadise.org [http://cinemaparadise.org] [http://starbulletin.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: *****************************************************************