*****************************************************************
11/16/04 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 12.274
*****************************************************************
   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 Asia Times: Iran's Faustian nuclear bargain 
2 BBC: Nuclear accord upsets Iran press
3 Korea Herald: U.N. envoy urges economic aid to N.K.   
4 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL]Iran and North Korea   
5 US: deseret news: 'Greens' take aim at Leavitt 
6 US: Augusta Chronicle: Wholesale prices soar by 1.7 percent in Octob
7 BBC: Viewpoints: Powering the planet
8 Asia Times: Asia's ticking nuclear time-bomb
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
9 US: [NukeNet] PSEG won't repair vibrating pump - AC Press
10 US: [NukeNet] NY Times - NRC Continues Scrutiny of Hope Creek
11 US: [NukeNet] N.R.C. Continues Scrutiny of Problems at Salem Plant
12 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
13 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting
14 US: APP.COM: Nuclear power play fizzles 
15 US: NRC: RIN 3150-AH57 draft proposal: protection
16 US: Platts: NRC's online document system to return in 10 days, Diaz 
17 US: NRC: In the Matter of Omaha Public Power District Fort Calhoun
18 UK HSE: Statement of nuclear incidents at nuclear installations
19 US: NRC: In the Matter of Omaha Public Power District Fort Calhoun
20 US: Middletown Press: Nuke plant decommissioning ‘progressing’      
21 US: TheDay.com: Nuclear-power Industry Sees Signs Of A Revival
22 US: NRC: In the Matter of Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Quad Citie
23 National Post: decision in 2 months on dormant reactors
24 Sofia Morning News: Eco Unit to Appeal Court Decision on Belene Nuke
25 US: VG: Emergency alert problem silences radios in nuclear planning 
26 US: NRC: In the Matter of Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Quad Citie
27 US: NRC: Notice of License Amendment Request of Westinghouse Electri
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
28 [du-list] 11/15 Iraq Watch Alert! TV Shows U.S. Marine Kills
29 [du-list] Report Launch - SOLDIERS IN THE LABORATORY
30 Curbing Potential Spread Of Weapons-grade Uranium Could Take 10 Year
31 [du-list] depleted uranium weapons testing in Scotland
32 US: [du-list] Two DU Stories - Last gift of Terry Riordon and US
33 The Australian: Nuclear safety to lead talks at APEC 
34 US: Independent: Grants woman fighting for uranium compensation - Ex
35 US: Cibola County Beacon: 10 commonly asked questions about the Radi
36 Ptssburgh TR: 'They've been covering up for years and years' -
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
37 US: Bradenton Herald: Tallevast residents lose trust
38 US: the spectrum: Not testing casks is a fatal gamble - Opinion - 
39 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca budget work part of 'lame duck' session
40 Las Vegas SUN: Reid named Senate Democratic leader
41 US: Tri-City Herald: Waste can stay in N.M., EPA rules 
42 US: RGJ: Resignation could open door for better nuclear waste plan
43 US: C Enquirer: New sites sought for Fernald disposal
44 US: press-citizen: Sewer pipe leaks near Oakdale Radioactive materia
45 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Environment officials use cask woes to aid
46 Scotsman: Nuclear Waste Disposal: Public Forum Begins
47 US: UPI: Nuclear Waste Dumps Will Become The Pyramids Of Our Age
48 US: SB: County supports underground nuclear waste storage at site 
 
                         NUCLEAR WEAPONS
 
49 PRESS TRUST OF INDIA: Warheads exist even 30 years after NPT- IAEA c
50 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Opinion - Stop nuclear tests 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
51 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Rocky 
52 AjP: Anti-nuclear work key for departing energy secretary
53 DT: Energy secretary will leave amid Los Alamos controversy 
54 PhysOrg: New instruments at ORNL reactor will lead to dramatic incre
55 DOE: Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
56 DOE: National Petroleum Council
 
                          OTHER NUCLEAR
 
57 [du-list] the "interim US government"  and  DU genocide
58 BBC: EU tempts Japan on fusion deal
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Asia Times: Iran's Faustian nuclear bargain 

By Kaveh L Afrasiabi 

Nov 17, 2004                                                                                                                    

TEHRAN - One year after Iran's declared adherence to the 
Additional Protocol of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the 
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), culminating in several 
intrusive inspections, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei has submitted 
his latest report confirming both steady progress in Iran-IAEA 
cooperation and the absence of any evidence supporting 
Washington-initiated allegations that Iran is using its "dual 
purpose" nuclear technology for weaponization. 

Simultaneously, Iranian negotiators on Sunday struck an agreement 
with their European Union so-called "Big Three" (EU-3) 
counterparts - France, Britain and Germany - whereby in exchange 
for firm guarantees of nuclear, economic and security cooperation 
by Europe, Iran has agreed to cease all enrichment activities, 
including the "testing and operation of gas centrifuges" and "all 
tests or production at any uranium conversation installation" 
pending "negotiations on a long-term agreement". 

Per the terms of this agreement, the suspension will commence 
this month prior to the IAEA board meeting and, once it has been 
"verified", the European Union will support the "director general 
reporting to the IAEA board as he considers appropriate in the 
framework of the implementation of Iran's Safeguards Agreement 
and Additional Protocol", and will also "resume negotiations with 
the EU on a trade and cooperation agreement" as well as "actively 
support the opening of Iranian accession negotiations at the WTO 
[World Trade Organization]". 

From Iran's vantage point, perhaps the most important aspect of 
the agreement is that the "E3/EU recognize Iran's rights under 
the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] exercised in conformity with 
its obligations under the treaty, without discrimination". 
According to Dr Hassan Rouhani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator and 
secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, this means 
that the EU has not only acknowledged Iran's NPT rights, but has 
also acknowledged the "implementation" of this right by the 
Islamic republic, which can also be inferred from the agreement's 
other statement that "the E3/EU recognize that this suspension is 
a voluntary confidence-building measure and not a legal 
obligation". 

But Iranian negotiators should have omitted the conditional 
clause "in conformity with its obligation under the treaty", in 
which case the EU would have been obligated to a categorical 
imperative, ie, Iran's NPT rights, which is not the case now that 
a large room for maneuvering has been afforded the other side 
with the aforementioned conditional clause. 

Also, since the agreement explicitly invokes "Article II of the 
NPT" dealing with member states' pledges not to acquire nuclear 
weapons - a sort of nuclear tit-for-tat - it should have also 
invoked Article IV, which deals with the right to peaceful 
nuclear technology and the obligation of NPT member states to 
provide assistance to those members seeking such assistance. 
While the absence of a reference to Article IV is not grievously 
injurious, nonetheless its inclusion would have strengthened the 
hands of Iran in subsequent negotiations referenced in the 
agreement. 

These negotiations are to proceed through "working groups on 
political and security issues, technology and cooperation, and 
nuclear issues". Commencing their work next month, these working 
groups will give their reports to a "steering committee", which 
will then "move ahead with projects and/or measures that can be 
implemented in advance of an overall agreement". This last 
sentence is particularly opaque and indeterminate, suddenly 
referring to "projects" and/or "measures" as a prelude to the 
final "long-term agreement". In other words, well after the three 
months, ie in March or April, we must anticipate an intermediate 
phase or period prior to the "overall agreement", without 
providing the slightest clue as to either the duration of this 
middle period or their nature and content. 

Yet we may logically deduce the latter from what has been stated 
in the agreement about the "mutually acceptable agreement on a 
long-term arrangements". First, here the word "arrangements" (in 
plural) has been used interchangeably with "[long-term] 
agreement" (in singular) used in the previous sentence. Yet the 
entire text leaves no doubt that what is agreed on here is one 
agreement on several subjects, such as security, economic and 
nuclear issues. This in turn gives rise to the question of issue 
linkages permeating the text. Implicit in the text, however, is 
the presumption that (a) concurrent progress can be made on all 
these fronts, and (b) they must form the subsets of an overall 
agreement. But why? Why should, for instance, economic and 
technical cooperation be so explicitly linked to nuclear issues? 

This, in fact, is the nub of the problem with the Paris agreement 
receiving Iran's consent to Europe's so-called "linkage 
diplomacy" whereby the resumption of trade talks and support for 
Iran's WTO membership quest are linked to the verification of 
"suspension". What is manifest here is not so much the carrot of 
economic soft power, but the implicit hard power of economic 
sanctions and isolation threatened in veiled language. 

Indeed, why is it that the agreement provides for "determination 
to combat terrorism" by both sides "irrespective of progress on 
the nuclear issue" when in the other sections similar cooperation 
on "security" is hinged on precisely such progress? After all, 
isn't terrorism a security issue? 

On the whole, the Paris agreement contains one major 
contradiction: while it reaffirms Iran's NPT rights, on the other 
hand and in the same breath, it compels Iran temporarily to deny 
itself portions of this right pertaining to enrichment activities 
for its nuclear reactor. This self-denial, portrayed as a 
"voluntary confidence-building measure and not a legal 
obligation", has been linked with the overall agreement's twin 
stated objective, namely to "provide objective guarantees that 
Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes", and 
to "provide firm guarantees on nuclear, technological and 
economic cooperation and firm commitments on security issues". 

Here one must wonder what the difference is between "guarantees" 
and "commitments" and whether or not the former is perceived to 
be more firm than the latter. Such linguistic niceties should 
have been bracketed by Iran's negotiators and the above sentence 
should have used the same word, either "commitment" or 
"guarantee", for all issues. Yet the very use of different words 
here is itself indicative of the latent awareness of its authors 
regarding the difficulty of lumping all issues together. 

Iran's official interpretation is that the agreement, lacking the 
EU-3's previous call for "indefinite suspension" in their Vienna 
Declaration, is actually a step forward insofar as it tacitly 
recognizes Iran's right to enrich nuclear fuel, albeit with "firm 
guarantees". In other words, the EU-3/EU has consented that Iran 
can renew its enrichment cycle after the final agreement. 

But what if that final agreement, like the play Waiting for 
Godot, never arrives, or, for that matter, arrives in incremental 
parts and pieces instead? In other words, what if the economic or 
technical and even security working groups make steady progress, 
but not the one focusing on the nuclear issue? Should Iran 
continue its "voluntary suspension" ad infinitum? Wouldn't the 
"red line" be crossed then, in case protracted negotiations 
lasting more than a year, or two or three or more, turn into an 
end unto themselves, instead of reflecting a transitional period? 
This is an important question because a lengthy transition is 
poison for Iran's nuclear facilities made idle by the Paris 
agreement, particularly as it pertains to "all tests" at those 
facilities. 

As a "temporary agreement" that binds Iran to a suspension of 
unspecified duration, the Paris agreement can only sustain itself 
through steady progress on a multiplicity of issues wrapped 
around the nuclear question, this while it effectively serves as 
a "stopgap measure" in light of the IAEA's ultimatum. Iran is 
asked to provide "objective guarantees" that it will not misuse 
its nuclear technology for military purposes. But again, what if 
those guarantees are not objective enough or sufficiently 
guaranteeing, notwithstanding the fact that the United States has 
focused on the "subjective intent" of Iran in favor of nuclear 
weapons? 

The fact is that outside suspicions of Iran's "nuclear 
intentions" may linger on even in the face of strong objective 
guarantees; so long as Iran's declared statements against nuclear 
weapons are treated with skepticism, particularly by those 
clinging to a caricature of Iranians as "ideological zealots" 
and/or "evil", then little progress may actually come about in 
terms of an eventual agreement. 

It is abundantly clear that a final resolution of the Iranian 
nuclear issue is not possible without direct input by the US, and 
this in turn necessitates a better Iran policy by the Bush 
administration than hitherto observed, since that policy is 
overly attached to a package approach unwilling to move forward 
incrementally, ie, tackling one issue at a time and using that as 
a springboard for related breakthroughs.

On a related note, the Paris agreement finally closes the 
previous gap between the EU-3 and the EU by conjoining them as 
E3/EU, this while the EU has not been officially a part of the 
negotiations, nor is the support of the EU's "High 
Representative" sufficient for the agreement's official merger of 
the position of the EU-3 with the EU. Iranian officials should 
have worked against such a merger of the EU-3's position with the 
EU, given the possibility that subsequent negotiations may stall 
or literally fall apart in the near future. In that case, Iran's 
relations with the entire EU would suffer, whereas in the absence 
of EU's institutional involvement, such a failure would mostly 
impact just the EU-3, while providing the EU with a relevant 
buffer. 

But, of course, one major pro of the Paris agreement is precisely 
that it commits the EU to several far-reaching initiatives toward 
Iran, and it remains to be seen if this will end up trumping any 
major con, such as the threat of sanctions and cancellation of 
trade relations in case of a breakdown in negotiations. 

The final verdict on the advisability of making Iran's IAEA file 
so closely entwined with negotiations with the E3/EU must be 
delegated to future history. It may well be that this is a timely 
initiative that serves several interrelated purposes: it creates 
new ties of interdependence between Iran and the EU; it provides 
security protection for Iran at a critical time when there could 
be conflict spillover from adjacent regions at almost any time. 
Third, the linkage diplomacy may actually culminate in expanded 
cooperation with Europe which, in turn, will make it more 
difficult for the EU to reverse course with Iran and to threaten 
its own vested interests. 

Moreover, Europe's direct talks with Iran, in contrast to the 
"axis of evil" rhetoric of the US administration of President 
George W Bush, is advantageous to Iran seeking detente with the 
Western world. This can thus have salutary effects on Iran's 
relations with a host of other countries, including Russia and 
China, both of which can now proceed with their nuclear and 
energy cooperation with Iran without much fear of US-led 
backlashes. 

On the other hand, since Iran has already adhered to the 
Additional Protocol, the Paris agreement's call for "objective 
guarantees" may in fact translate into more additions to the 
Additional Protocol, in terms of surveillance and constant 
verification of Iran's nuclear program, which may impinge on 
Iran's national sovereignty, whereas a more strident focus on the 
Additional Protocol, sadly lacking today, may have been a more 
suitable substitute. 

In conclusion, the Paris agreement's net of pros and cons 
reflects a complex web of factors that need to be carefully 
analyzed and put into proper perspective as part and parcel of 
Tehran's nuclear diplomacy vis-a-vis Europe and others at a 
critical juncture when Iran's national security is seriously 
challenged by the international crises beyond its borders. 

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New 
Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and "Iran's 
Foreign Policy Since 9/11", Brown's Journal of World Affairs, 
co-authored with former deputy foreign minister Abbas Maleki, No 
2, 2003. He teaches political science at Tehran University. 

(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. 
Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales 
and syndication policies.)                                                                                                                                                                                                      
												
2003, Asia Times Online, 4305 Far East Finance Centre, 16 
Harcourt Rd, Central, Hong Kong                                                                                                                                              
*****************************************************************
 2 BBC: Nuclear accord upsets Iran press
 
  Last Updated: Tuesday, 16 November, 2004
 
[Iranian press graphic]                                                                                                 

The Iranian press is unhappy at the deal Tehran has agreed with
the European Union to suspend most of its uranium enrichment in
a bid to resolve the dispute over its nuclear programme. 

Most commentators think the agreement shows Iran in a weak
light, although some take solace that the country has been given
the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. 

This is undoubtedly an unlimited suspension of uranium
enrichment. It is exactly the same illegitimate and illegal
demand from European countries which Iran had previously clearly
rejected. 

Kayhan 

What Iran has agreed is the cessation of uranium enrichment
under the name of a long term and a full scale suspension. No
one can offer this right to foreigners before it is ratified in
the Majlis [parliament]. If Iranian negotiators think that
Iran's dossier won't be sent to the UN Security Council, they
should know that first, there is nothing to guarantee this. But
secondly, we shouldn't be afraid of it. 

Jomhuri-ye Eslami 

No major changes have been made in Iran's nuclear dossier.
However Iranians had expected to obtain more than what we have
got. 

Khorasan 

At least the agreement, though not desirable, has prevented the
emergence of a consensus between the US and the European
countries against Iran's nuclear technology. 

Shargh 

Iranians have every right to know the details of the current and
the earlier agreements between Iran and the European countries.
Perhaps the most recent agreement was the best possible but the
negotiators should explain to the people what had weakened
Iran's position in the nuclear negotiations. 

Aftab-e-Yazd 

The EU big three ultimately accepted our right to use nuclear
technology for civil use. The key point in the latest agreement
is that Iran's right to peaceful nuclear activities has been
established. 

Iran Daily 

BBC Monitoring, based in Caversham in southern England, selects
and translates information from radio, television, press, news
agencies and the Internet from 150 countries in more than 70
languages. 	 
*****************************************************************
 3 Korea Herald: U.N. envoy urges economic aid to N.K.   

: The Nation's No.1 English Newspaper
 
[HERALD INTERVIEW]
        
The most effective way to end the North Korean nuclear standoff 
would be for the international community to provide economic aid 
to coax the communist regime to open up to the world, a former 
key U.N. policymaker said.

 "We have long believed that the best way of dealing with regimes 
where we do not share their values, we do not share their 
interests, but nevertheless, is to deal by establishing relations 
with and having dialogue with them, having trade with them, 
getting to know them, and that's what we have done for many years 
for example with Cuba," Maurice Strong, a senior advisor to U.N. 
Secretary General Kofi Annan said yesterday.

 "But the major economic package I talked about is something that 
must be part of a peaceful settlement. The DPRK understands that 
it cannot expect a major economic act except as part of a 
settlement," Strong said in an interview with The Korea Herald.

 Strong came to Seoul for an international conference on North 
Korean human rights issues and Canada's role in the international 
community. A Canadian, Strong was appointed to the U.N. in early 
1997 and has been a serious advocate of centralizing power in the 
global body.

 "That's why we (Canada) have recently established relations with 
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea even though it does not 
mean we say we like everything in the regime."

 "It's just that we believe, by working with them, by cooperating 
with them and getting to know them, there's far more possibility 
that we can influence them in the direction of becoming more 
responsible members of the international community."

 Stressing that it is not just to give more, but to allow and 
encourage North Korea to become a full member of the 
international community, Strong said by doing so, the Stalinist 
regime will be able to accept new responsibilities as well as 
benefits.

 "It's not just assistance but that needs to be part of the 
peaceful settlement and we have to provide humanitarian 
assistance in the meantime," Strong said.

 "But the rest of the world has to understand that you're not 
going to get a settlement on the nuclear weapons issue except if 
it is accompanied by an economic package. Because they want 
security against attack, first of all, but they also want 
economic security for their people."

 Strong also said mistrust between the United States and North 
Korea is the key ingredient in the nuclear standoff, adding that 
both sides need to provide a guarantee to back their promises.

 "The U.S. says, 'we will not accept just a promise of nuclear 
disarmament. We must have guarantees that it's actually 
occurring.' And the North says the same. 'We won't accept just a 
promise of security. Our nuclear weapons, we don't need them to 
attack to anyone, we need them to ensure our security. But we're 
not going to give them up until we have a viable guarantee of our 
own security.

 "So on both sides, it is this lack of trust - because actually, 
the North Koreans say they will give up their nuclear weapons and 
the U.S. says they will open up - it is this that is keeping the 
dialogue from moving forward."

 In terms of human rights in the North, Strong stressed the 
importance for the international community to remind themselves 
that they too haven't always had the same kind of human rights 
expected.

 "My belief is that allowing them to become more responsible and 
active members of the international community will also provide 
them with the incentives and the needs that they need to move 
towards the inherent kind of human rights standard that are 
incorporated in the United Nations declaration of human rights,"

 "So we should not simply say we won't deal with them until they 
accept our standards for human rights. We have to work with them, 
recognizing that we, ourselves, didn't always live up to the same 
standards we now expect from others," Strong said.

 (bluelle@heraldm.com)

By Choi Soung-ah 

2004.11.17
*****************************************************************
 4 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL]Iran and North Korea   

2003-11-18 

Now that Iran, following Libya's example, has announced 
suspension of its nuclear program, the world hopes North Korea 
will follow suit. As the two countries are in wildly different 
situations, a little more patience will be needed to hear a 
similar announcement from Pyongyang. Still, the North's Kim 
Jong-il must now feel his choices are being further narrowed on 
what to do with his fledgling nuclear arsenal. 

Teheran notified the International Atomic Energy Agency in 
writing on Sunday it would fully suspend uranium enrichment and 
related activities such as reprocessing uranium and building 
centrifuges. Iran's decision results from over a year of 
negotiations with Britain, France and Germany of the European 
Union, and they have yet to reach a permanent agreement to ensure 
Iran fulfills its obligation as a signatory to the 
Non-Proliferation Treaty.

 Yet, the stage has been set to build confidence between the two 
sides, and the United States, though still skeptical about 
Teheran's sincerity, is likely to come under strong pressure to 
agree to the deal between the EU Three and Iran, which is part of 
the "axis of evil" along with Iraq and North Korea in President 
Bush's view. 

After the United States removed Saddam Hussein from Iraq last 
year, Iran entered negotiations with the EU. Last April, Teheran 
first agreed to suspend uranium enrichment activities. But the 
United States detected the production of centrifuge parts 
continuing in some private facilities in Iran. With deep 
distrust, U.S. officials suspect Iran's announcement on Sunday 
could be an act of expediency, or another attempt at cheating, to 
avoid being referred to the U.N. Security Council for certain 
sanctions.

 Teheran, however, stresses that its suspension acceptance is a 
voluntary action and a genuine move to build confidence with the 
West. It says it now hopes that, at the end of the suspension, 
Europe will support its bid to join the international group of 
states possessing the ability to manufacture nuclear fuel. 
Teheran has insisted that its nuclear development program was 
entirely related to its energy needs, although it was not quite a 
convincing explanation from the world's fourth largest oil 
producer. 

To reward Teheran's nuclear suspension, the EU is known to have 
promised a package of economic and diplomatic incentives and a 
guarantee of no UNSC sanction, quite similar to the 1994 deal 
between the Clinton administration and North Korea. Now, quite 
ironically, the EU will have to take a lesson from the failure of 
the Agreed Framework between Washington and Pyongyang over the 
past decade while the United States may take a cue from the EU's 
deal with Iran in another round of nonproliferation efforts on 
the Korean Peninsula. 

What is desired at this time is for North Korea to review 
carefully the courses taken first by Libya and now Iran and see 
how, and for what, they gave up nuclear development programs in 
which they had invested so much of their assets for nearly two 
decades. Last week, Pyongyang gave a vague hint that it would 
return to the six-way talks in Beijing. The fourth and next round 
may thus take place before the year is over, but Pyongyang should 
henceforth show more sincerity in accelerating the multilateral 
process.

 North Korea is believed to have a more advanced nuclear weapons 
program than Iran and Libya, so it may seek bigger compensation 
in any form for its abandonment. But Pyongyang should realize 
that a delay in resolving the nuclear problem would henceforth 
mean a greater risk to its security, and that one or two nuclear 
bombs could never have guaranteed its security in the first 
place.

2004.11.17
*****************************************************************
 5 deseret news: 'Greens' take aim at Leavitt 

[deseretnews.com] 

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 

Despite progress at EPA, groups are preaching gloom and doom 

By Jerry Spangler Deseret Morning News 

Protection Agency Administrator Mike Leavitt hasn't even rolled 
out his environmental agenda for the next four years. 

Mike Leavitt 

But already, prominent conservation organizations are 
taking a "sky-is-falling" approach to their predictions for the 
next Bush administration, and they have the former Utah governor 
firmly in their sights — that is, if they can see him through 
all the dirty air caused by what they fear will be a dismantling 
of the Clean Air Act and an across-the-board rollback of 
environmental protections. 

"The presidential race clearly was not a referendum on 
the environment, it was not a mandate to roll back environmental 
protections," said Deb Callahan, president of the League of 
Conservation Voters, who raked Leavitt for claiming it was a 
mandate. 

The doom-and-gloom forecasts were made last week at a 
joint press conference by leaders of the National Environmental 
Trust, Union of Concerned Scientists and the League, all of whom 
were trying to put a brave face on an election that saw the 
House and Senate become even more conservative and potentially 
more inclined to steer away from government-mandated 
environmental regulations. 

There is already optimism — or pessimism, depending on 
your point of view — on Capitol Hill that lawmakers will take 
action on the stalled Energy Bill. And some are predicting 
lawmakers will finally take up Bush's "Clear Skies" initiative. 

Leavitt spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman said Leavitt will 
announce in January his priorities for the next four years. She 
said they are "pretty aggressive." 

But Bergman is clearly frustrated at the nature of the 
environmentalists' diatribes against the Bush administration — 
and the EPA in particular — for what they say is a decline in 
environmental protections. 

"I don't know what they are referring to," Bergman said, 
"and yes, I am frustrated. These are broad-based allegations 
that aren't substantiated by the facts. They are scare tactics." 

Bergman rattled off a list of EPA accomplishments, all of 
which involve tougher environmental protections, during 
Leavitt's short tenure. Among them are the first-ever emissions 
restrictions on mercury, new standards on pollutants called 
PM2.5 and tough enforcement of new ozone standards. 

"Air quality continues to improve and improve 
dramatically," she said. 

Leavitt has visited 43 states in the past year on 
different environmental initiatives. He has visited the Great 
Lakes states about a dozen times to forge bipartisan 
partnerships on a comprehensive plan to clean up the lakes. 

Bergman also pointed out Leavitt worked with a bipartisan 
coalition of Great Lakes lawmakers and local officials to secure 
federal funding to build a barrier to keep out the Asian carp — 
a serious threat to the Great Lakes ecosystem. 

One of many partners in that effort was Chicago's 
Democratic Mayor Richard Daley. 

"He has spent a lot of time up there building 
relationships, and it has been an across-the-board bipartisan 
effort," Bergman said. "The results speak for themselves up 
there." 

But conservationists dismissed the Great Lakes trips — 
and others like them to hotly contested "battleground" states — 
as nothing more than not-so-subtle campaigning for the president 
to "green up" a dismal environmental record that is 
characterized more by aiding the administration's "corporate 
allies." 

"It is quite clear they were vulnerable on the 
environment," said Philip Clapp, president of the National 
Environmental Trust. 

If Bush was vulnerable, then Democratic challenger John 
Kerry, a sponsor of Utah's Redrock Wilderness Act, did not make 
much hay out of it. In fact, environment was a non-issue 
throughout much of the campaign as voters worried more about the 
war in Iraq, terrorism and the economy. 

Conservationists insist the environment was on voters' 
minds, pointing to Washington state where voters approved a ban 
on accepting anymore radioactive wastes, and to the 111 of 147 
land conservation ballot initiatives that passed (mostly in the 
West). 

Utah's bond initiative for open space, which failed, was 
not mentioned. 

Mark Clemens, coordinator for the Utah chapter of the 
Sierra Club, said Utah is much slower than surrounding states to 
embrace open space and renewable energy initiatives. 

And he also is concerned about the prospects of four more 
years of a Bush administration philosophy where anything goes. 
He points to rampant ORV damage in the Ogden Range District of 
the Forest Service in areas that are supposed to be off-limits. 
And the Forest Service has done nothing to halt it. 

"I think that is symptomatic of the problems we see (with 
the Bush administration)," he said. "And there is little 
prospect this administration will do better." 

Clemens cited a Leavitt interview with the Los Angeles 
Times in which he called the election "a validation of the 
philosophy and the agenda." 

"It doesn't sound like he will be aggressive" in 
enforcing environmental laws, Clemens said, pointing out 
enforcement actions by the EPA have fallen dramatically during 
the Bush administration. 

Bolstered by armies of newly registered young voters who 
are more concerned about the environment, groups across the 
country are hoping the environment will become a major issue — 
perhaps a deciding one — in the next election. 

Clapp warned the Republican majority that it "runs a 
significant political risk" if it dismantles environmental 
protections. He pointed to the 1996 mid-term elections when the 
environmental rollbacks implemented by the 1994 Congress became 
a campaign issue and Republicans lost seats. 

Until then, "the environment is likely to be one of the 
top targets on Capitol Hill," Clapp said. 

© 2004 Deseret News Publishing Company 
*****************************************************************
 6 Augusta Chronicle: Wholesale prices soar by 1.7 percent in October 
on higher energy and food costs 
 		   			 			 			 <img
augustachronicle.com

November 16, 2004 --> 

 Associated Press Writer JEANNINE AVERSA Associated Press Writer

--> WASHINGTON  Propelled by sharply higher energy and food
costs, wholesale prices soared by 1.7 percent in October, the
largest increase since early 1990. --> --> 	

WASHINGTON  Propelled by sharply higher energy and food costs,
wholesale prices soared by 1.7 percent in October, the largest
increase since early 1990. 	

The Producer Price Index measures costs of goods before they
reach store shelves. The big over-the-month jump came after
wholesale prices edged up just 0.1 percent in September, the
Labor Department reported Tuesday. Concerns about inflation have
driven the Federal Reserve's credit-tightening policies of
recent months. 	

The report suggested that inflation at the wholesale level is
picking up after months of being quite well-behaved. 	

"Inflation is not a problem, but a corner has been turned," said
Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics. "We face a period
of still low, but building inflation pressures, which the Fed
has plenty of time to nip in the bud." 	

The economy's soft patch in the spring and early summer helped
to keep wholesale prices relatively subdued, Mayland explained.

Now that the economy is gaining traction, inflation probably
will be on the rise as well, he said. 	

Excluding energy and food costs, which can swing widely from
month to month, "core" wholesale prices climbed in October by
0.3 percent for the second month in a row. 	

The PPI figures showed larger gains than economists were
expecting. They were forecasting overall wholesale prices to go
up by 0.6 percent in October and core prices to edge up by 0.1
point.  

The 1.7 percent increase in the overall PPI was the largest
advance since January 1990. 	

From an economic point of view, inflation  while clearly on the
rise  isn't currently a threat to the economy, analysts said. 	

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and his Fed colleagues,
in a statement after their meeting last week, said that the
economy appears to be growing "at a moderate pace despite the
rise in energy prices." 	

Fed policy-makers said that "inflation and longer-term inflation
expectations remain well contained." 	

Against that backdrop, Fed policy-makers said last week that
they can stick with their gradual approach to raising short-term
interest rates. 	

The Fed decided last week to boost a key short-term rate by
one-quarter percentage point to 2 percent, its fourth rate
increase this year. The Fed is pushing up rates now to prevent
inflation from being a problem in the future. 	

A growing number of economists believe the Fed will increase
rates again at its meeting in December. Tuesday's wholesale
prices figures would justify such a move, some economists said. 	

In October, energy prices soared by 6.8 percent, the biggest
increase since February 2003, and a big turnaround from the 0.9
percent dip registered in September. 	

Gasoline prices in October surged by 17.3 percent, the largest
increase since June 2000. Home heating oil costs skyrocketed by
17.9 percent, , the largest advance since February 2003.

Liquified petroleum gas, such as propane, jumped 14.7 percent,
the biggest gain since January. 	

Oil prices, which hit a record high of just over $55 a barrel
late last month, have retreated recently. Oil prices are
hovering at more than $46 a barrel. 	

Food prices, meanwhile, jumped by 1.6 percent in October,
compared with a tiny 0.1 percent rise in September. October's
increase, the most in a year, was led by soaring costs for
vegetables. Prices for fruits, beef and veal, and pork also went
up. 	

Economists believe that the rise in food prices reflected supply
disruptions related to hurricanes that had ripped through
Florida and the southeast. 

Elsewhere in the report: prices for passenger cars dropped by
1.3 percent and costs for heavy motor trucks declined by 0.7
percent. But costs for construction machinery and equipment
jumped by 2.7 percent in October, the largest increase since
January 1980. --> 

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All

© 2004 The Augusta Chronicle. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 7 BBC: Viewpoints: Powering the planet
 
Last Updated: Monday, 15 November, 2004
 
[Windfarm, PA]                                  
Is it possible to meet demand without harming the environment?                                                                

According to the International Energy Agency the world will need 
almost 60% more energy in 2030 than in 2002. 

But is it possible to meet this growing demand without causing 
catastrophic damage to the environment? 

BBC News asked a range of experts how our ballooning thirst for 
energy can be catered for. 

"Meeting demand will depend on timely and targeted investment"                             
Dr Fatih Birol, International Energy Agency     

"Coal could be an important source of fuel post 2050" Professor 
Ian Fells, New and Renewable Energy Centre    

"Much innovation will have to be done in developing countries"                              
Ashok Khosla, Development Alternatives, India    

I don't think it's as hopeless as man suggest                                         
Steve Sawyer, climate policy adviser, Greenpeace
	 

"For transport, hydrogen has to become the principal fuel source"                                 
Dave McGrath, Managing Director, siGEN Ltd       

"Energy efficiency is instrumental to every household" Philip 
Sellwood, Energy Saving Trust       

Reserves won't run out - but they need investment Dr Fatih Birol, 
International Energy Agency 

Although the world's energy resources are more than adequate to 
meet demand until 2030 and beyond, meeting it will depend on 
timely and targeted investment. 

Cumulative investment of some $16 trillion from 2003-2030 will be 
needed to meet the soaring demand. 

Developing countries, where production and demand are set to 
increase most, will require about half of global investment. 

But they will face the biggest challenge in raising finance, 
because their economies are smaller in relation to their needs 
and the investment risks are bigger. 

More vigorous government action could steer the world onto a 
markedly different energy path. 

Coupled with environmental and energy-security policies, faster 
deployment of energy-efficient technologies could considerably 
reduce energy demand. 

However, a truly sustainable energy system will require 
technological breakthroughs to drastically alter how we produce 
and use energy. 

Efficiency and renewable technologies can deliver Steve Sawyer, 
climate policy adviser, Greenpeace 

I don't want to paint too rosy a picture, but I don't think it's 
as hopeless as many suggest. 

There is the possibility of energy efficiency improvements well 
in excess of 50% in most industrial countries and all rapidly 
industrialising economies. 

In terms of renewable energy, technically, there is potential for 
renewables to meet global consumption many, many times over - the 
trick is to do it economically. 

The European Renewable Energy Council, which we work with, says 
that there is potential for nearly 48% of global energy demand by 
2040 to be met by economically feasible renewables. 

We are generally on track for this in the wind, solar panels, 
geothermal and small-scale hydropower sectors - although we're a 
bit behind in biomass and solar thermal electricity, and progress 
varies between different countries and regions. 

I'm not just optimistic that we can reach it, I think we will 
have to reach it. Current oil price rises are only the beginning. 
Governments are going to move to renewables more and more out of 
their own economic self-interest, although the Kyoto Protocol has 
been and will continue to be a key driver. 

Will our lifestyles have to change? If quality of life is 
measured by the size of the engine of the quasi-military assault 
vehicle the housewife drives to the shopping mall, then yes, but 
if we're talking about basic comforts, transport and general 
services, then no. 

New nuclear and coal technologies will save the day Professor Ian 
Fells, New and Renewable Energy Centre 

Coal could be an important source of hydrocarbon fuel post 2050 
provided we can sequester the carbon dioxide produced by burning 
it in geological strata and stop it from entering the atmosphere. 
Otherwise, the effect on global warming will be disastrous. 

Nuclear power will be an increasingly important element in our 
energy mix. However, we will have to move to fast-reactor - also 
known as fast-breeder reactor - technology. This is a design of 
nuclear reactor which produces more fissile material than it 
consumes, so is able to generate much more energy from the same 
amount of uranium. 

This will give us a secure electricity supply, world wide, for 
500 years. Fast reactors have been operating in Russia for 20 
years. 

It is unlikely that renewable energy can meet more than 20% of 
our needs. 

Hydrogen - significant, but not the whole answer Dave McGrath, 
Managing Director, siGEN Ltd 

Hydrogen will make a significant contribution to cleaner energy 
and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it's not the whole 
answer. 

For transport, hydrogen has to become the principal fuel source, 
simply because the amount of CO2 we're putting out direct from 
burning fossil hydrocarbons in vehicles is way out of proportion. 
Hydrogen is the only non-fossil fuel available so far that can be 
carried on a vehicle. 

Hydrogen isn't a principal energy source - it's only a storage or 
conversion mechanism, so it is only as renewable as the source 
used to produce the hydrogen. 

It can be produced from natural gas, which is a fossil 
hydrocarbon. The Americans are doing this because it makes the 
fossil hydrocarbons go a lot further. 

It can also be made using electricity - ideally generated using 
renewable energy - to split water into oxygen and hydrogen. And 
it can be made from biogas, coming from biomass such as sewage or 
abattoir waste. 

How useful hydrogen can be very much comes down to local 
conditions. In countries or communities with plenty of renewable 
energy to make hydrogen from, like the UK, the technology will 
have greater impact. 

Developing countries should lead on renewables Ashok Khosla, 
founder of Indian NGO Development Alternatives 

The world is not harnessing enough alternative energy sources. 

At the moment, no more than 2% or 3% of most countries' energy 
comes from renewable sources. But it has to be done. 

China, for example, has a lot of sun, it has a lot of 
hydro-energy, a great deal of biomass potential - these are all 
sources of renewable energy. 

Unfortunately, these sources of energy haven't been developed in 
the West, so there are no good innovations available that will 
solve the problems. 

Therefore, much of that innovation will have to be done in China 
and in India and in other developing countries. 

I believe the future lies in choosing those kinds of 
technologies. But they will not happen on their own. They will 
have to be actively pursued. 

There is a disconnect here between those who bear the historical 
responsibility for where the environment is today and those who 
are actually going to end up paying the cost. 

The omelette has been eaten and the people whose eggs got broken 
are somewhere else.                                                                      

Small changes add up to big savings Philip Sellwood, Energy 
Saving Trust 

We are facing a global energy crisis. With world oil prices 
breaking the US$50 (£38) a barrel mark in September, we are being 
forced to re-think the way we have traditionally used our natural 
resources to fuel our homes and businesses. 

Every time we leave a light on or forget to switch our TV or 
video off standby, carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere 
from power stations around the world, causing untold damage to 
the environment. 

While renewable energy sources such as solar photovoltaics, hydro 
and wind power are the long-term solution to our energy crisis, 
energy efficiency is instrumental to every household in its bid 
to reduce energy consumption, save money and help the 
environment. 

On average, UK households waste £96m ($165m) on energy every 
week. This is enough to give every man, woman and child £84 a 
year. This money could be saved if only they took simple measures 
such as installing an energy efficient light bulb or turning down 
their thermostats by one degree Celsius. 

*****************************************************************
 8 Asia Times: Asia's ticking nuclear time-bomb

Nov 17, 2004                                                                                                                    
By Alan Boyd 

SYDNEY - Asia's relentless pursuit of nuclear energy is causing a 
few sleepless nights for the anti-terrorism community as the 
security focus shifts from rogue states with regional ambitions 
to the equally sinister back door of individual opportunism. 

A summit of 18 Asia-Pacific security ministers in Sydney late 
last week was told that few states had safeguards in place to 
prevent the illicit export of nuclear materials that could be 
used to make explosive devices or hold countries to ransom. 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) even went so far as 
to label the threat posed by this trade as "a race against time", 
noting that there had been about 630 confirmed incidents of 
trafficking in nuclear or other radioactive materials since 1993. 

"We need to do all we can to work on the new phenomenon called 
nuclear terrorism, which was sprung on us after [September 11, 
2001] when we realized terrorists had become more sophisticated 
and had shown an interest in nuclear and radioactive material," 
IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei said at the talks. 

For now, the response is stronger on rhetoric than reason, with 
politicians in Sydney committing their governments to "expand and 
enhance the nuclear safeguards and security framework", but 
offering few leads on how these nebulous aims might be achieved. 

The United Kingdom, the United States, France and the Soviet 
Union, the four original nuclear powers, pledged after China's 
entry into the select club three decades ago to freeze the spread 
of the technology in Asia as a Cold War buffer. 

There was some logic in this approach, given that six of the 14 
known nuclear alerts have occurred in the Asia-Pacific region, 
dating back to the decision by US president Harry S Truman to 
send atomic weapons to Guam in 1950 for possible use against 
China. 

More recently, forces from Japan, the US and the Soviet Union 
went on a war footing in 1984 after a rogue officer in the Soviet 
navy sent an unauthorized message to nuclear-armed vessels 
approving a strike. 

Two confrontations have occurred since 1999 between India and 
Pakistan that almost resulted in a nuclear exchange; the first 
was over Kashmir and the second followed an attack by Islamic 
militants on the Indian parliament. 

But although there are still only three declared nuclear powers 
in Asia - China, Pakistan and India - the region has 100 reactors 
for research and power generation that some security experts 
believe pose a potentially bigger challenge due to the physical 
impossibility of accounting for every atom of radioactive 
material. According to the World Nuclear Association (WNA), which 
represents commercial interests in the nuclear field, Asia is the 
only region in the world where nuclear power is "growing 
significantly". 

Japan, China, India, Pakistan, Taiwan, Indonesia, Thailand, South 
Korea, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Vietnam all have operational 
reactors; North Korea has two partially completed reactors, but 
work has halted because of concerns over their illicit weapons 
capabilities. There is also a nuclear power plant in the 
Philippines, but it has been mothballed over litigation 
concerning bribery and safety deficiencies and is expected 
eventually to be converted to coal or oil. 

Another 20 reactors are under construction and there are plans 
for a further 40, mostly in China, Japan, South Korea and India. 
If all proceed, Asia will have 160 reactors within a decade, with 
only Singapore yet to declare an interest in the technology. 

Not surprisingly, it is big oil importers such as Japan and South 
Korea that have shown the strongest commitment to nuclear energy. 
The Japanese have 53 operational power plants and 17 research 
reactors, with three more under construction and 12 planned. 
Already nuclear energy provides 39% of total electricity 
generation and the dependency could rise to 50% by 2010 if 
greenhouse emission targets are met. 

South Korea meets 39% of its electricity needs from nuclear power 
generated at 18 plants and has two more under construction and 
eight in the planning stages; there are also two research 
reactors. 

China's nuclear industry is still modest, with only eight power 
units in operation, but is expected by the WNA to expand rapidly 
as domestic coal and gas reserves dwindle. An additional three 
plants are under construction, 10 more are planned or proposed, 
and there are 13 research facilities. 

India and Taiwan have 14 and six power plants respectively, with 
the Indians expected to gain another 13 by the end of the decade. 
Taiwan, which gets 21% of its power from nuclear units, is 
building two more plants. 

Keeping track of all of these plants has not proved easy, 
especially as the two countries with the most checkered record on 
nuclear brinkmanship - India and Pakistan - are not signatories 
to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the IAEA's main 
monitoring mechanism. 

Of the other countries with reactors, only Japan, South Korea, 
Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines are full NPT members, 
though China, Vietnam, Bangladesh and Thailand have acceded to 
the treaty. North Korea signed an IAEA safeguards treaty in 1992, 
but withdrew the following year. 

The IAEA itself failed to detect the worldwide black market in 
nuclear technology overseen by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer 
Khan, even while the highest levels of that country's armed 
forces were aware of his activities. 

Critics, including many scientists in the environmental and 
human-rights movements, have suggested that the IAEA and other 
watchdog organizations were too complacent on the proliferation 
risks posed by Asia's blossoming peaceful nuclear-energy 
programs. 

NPT allows the IAEA to keep count of the isotopes at individual 
plants, but only if it is granted free access to facilities. As 
shown by the IAEA's flawed success in verifying nuclear 
stockpiles in Iraq, Iran, Libya and North Korea, this doesn't 
always happen. 

The Khan case also showed how impotent the agency becomes once 
materials go missing and reach smuggling routes, where they 
become entangled with mainstream criminal activities. 

Researchers with the US-based Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) 
and a group of security organizations, including the US Central 
Intelligence Agency, have concluded that plutonium filched from 
research facilities is passed along the same channels used by 
gangs that traffic narcotics and human beings. 

Furthermore, "the networks that support the terrorist groups in 
Asia are probably intersecting with the networks that facilitate 
trade between suppliers and consumers in nuclear-proliferation 
trade", the agencies reported after a workshop on the 
effectiveness of the NPT. 

"The nuclear-proliferation networks are in place. Shutting down A 
Q Khan's network in Pakistan did not necessarily eliminate the 
networks," the report added. 

A review of the NPT is scheduled next year, with Asian 
policymakers variously advocating an extension of its mandate or 
total abolition. Japan, China and South Korea are among a group 
of countries that are lukewarm on multilateral solutions for 
security issues, though they will probably bow to pressure from 
Washington for a treaty extension. 

Most analysts believe the NPT will only work at the 
anti-terrorism level if it is backed by a political response and 
a more responsible attitude by the suppliers of nuclear 
technology, which often ignore pleas for restraint. But as the 
SSI workshop noted, there has been a "fundamental failure of any 
state or group of states to emerge as a force to advocate 
regional solutions to nuclear security risks facing the 
Asia-Pacific". 

"Important components of the international community's 
non-proliferation strategies - the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), 
the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), and other 
dual-use-technology export-control regimes - have failed to stem 
the trade in nuclear materials and technologies in Asia. There, 
nuclear suppliers appear willing to satisfy the demands of 
persistent buyers," the workshop reported. 

The UK, the US and Russia, the original three sponsors of the 
NPT, have all exported nuclear technology to Asia, as has France. 
However, most of the recent growth has come from within Asia 
itself, with Pakistan, China, South and North Korea and India all 
entering the market. 

Khan's network was based in a country that has refused to sign 
the NPT and its main customers - North Korea and Iran - are also 
outside the treaty. Yet there has been no peer pressure from 
elsewhere in the region. 

One reason for the political lethargy is that there is no 
consensus on the extent of the threat posed by illicit exports of 
nuclear material, with much of Asia viewing localized terrorist 
activities as a more immediate problem. 

IAEA chief ElBaradei also acknowledged in his address to the 
Sydney summit that attempts to regulate the flow of nuclear 
technology conflict with Asia's free-trade mentality, and 
governments are reluctant to provide export data. 

"The only reasonable conclusion is that the control of technology 
is not, in itself, a sufficient barrier against further 
proliferation," he said. "For an increasing number of countries 
with a highly developed industrial infrastructure - and in some 
cases access to high-enriched uranium or plutonium - the 
international community must rely primarily on a continuing sense 
of security as the basis for the adherence of these countries to 
their non-proliferation commitments. And security perceptions can 
rapidly change." 

(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. 
Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales 

													   												 											
2003, Asia Times Online, 4305 Far East Finance Centre, 16 
Harcourt Rd, Central, Hong Kong                                                                                                                                              
*****************************************************************
 9 [NukeNet] PSEG won't repair vibrating pump - AC Press
 
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:24:57 -0800

 
<x-flowed>
PSEG just doesn't get it. With all of their safety culture problems, they
should be doing everything they can to make sure that Hope Creek is safe,
even if that costs the company
a few extra dollars of profit.

norm

Salem Nuclear accused of ignoring repairs
By JEROME MONTES Staff Writer, (856) 794-5115

LOWER ALLOWAYS CREEK TOWNSHIP - A former employee of the Salem Nuclear
Generating Station says a decision to restart the facility's idle Hope
Creek reactor without making repairs to a water re-circulation pump could
have disastrous consequences.

Dr. Kymn Harvin was a former manager at the plant who says she was fired
in 2003 for raising safety concerns. She has since filed a "whistleblower"
lawsuit against Public Service Enterprise Group's nuclear division, which
owns the facility.

Harvin said sources within the facility informed her PSEG officers plan no
repairs for a section of the pump subject to severe vibrations.

The pump provides coolant for Hope Creek's reactor core. Nuclear watchdog
groups say the vibrations could lead to a break in the pump's piping and a
worst-case scenario known as a "loss-of-cooling-water" incident.

"If everything works as designed, the reactor core will not overheat and
fail despite such a pipe break," said Dave Lochbaum, a nuclear safety
engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists. "If one or more safety
systems fails, the result could be meltdown."

"Once again PSEG officers have put profits and production ahead of
ensuring the safety of employees and the public," Harvin said. "It is
pretty tough for employees to hold the line on safety when their bosses
make bad decisions like this one."

PSEG spokesman Skip Sindoni disputed Harvin's statement. He said no final
decision has been reached regarding repairs or replacing parts.

Sindoni said an independent team examining the pump concluded there was no
need for repairs to the vibrating section.

"But the leadership here is still discussing the issue," he added. "We
haven't made a final decision yet. We won't restart the plant until we're
confident it's safe to do so."

The plant has drawn heavy criticism from federal regulators and
independent consultants on numerous safety issues and maintenance problems.

The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission is currently investigating an
Oct. 10 steam leak that prompted the shutdown of Hope Creek reactor, one
of three at the plant. The reactor has remained idle since then for
repairs and refueling.

Hope Creek has suffered other mishaps since the leak. A Freon leak on Oct.
28 temporarily restricted access to the building's second floor. On Nov.
3, a worker was hospitalized after fracturing his fingers and suffering
slight radiation contamination.

NRC officials said Monday their investigators are still evaluating the
re-circulation pump.

Harvin maintains PSEG's decision has been made. She says issues at the
pump only surfaced because of the actions of another unidentified employee
who was terminated for raising safety concerns.

Harvin added the pump has been in disrepair for years because PSEG has
been unwilling to spend the millions of dollars needed to fix it.

"PSEG keeps saying safety is its top priority," she said. "If that was
true, it would be a no-brainer to replace this pump instead of taking
chances with everyone's safety."

To e-mail Jerome Montes at The Press:

JMontes@pressofac.com

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 10 [NukeNet] NY Times - NRC Continues Scrutiny of Hope Creek
 
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:03:13 -0800

 
<x-flowed>
November 16, 2004
N.R.C. Continues Scrutiny of Problems at Salem Plant
By JOHN SULLIVAN


wo years ago, federal regulators uncovered problems with a critical system
in one of three reactors at the Salem nuclear power station in South
Jersey. But when regulators returned last July, the company that owns the
reactor, P.S.E.G. Nuclear L.L.C., still had not fixed the endangered
system, and the regulators said that if it was not fixed, the reactor
would have to be shut down. The repairs were finally made, and the
regulators declared themselves satisfied.

But last month, during an emergency shutdown at the reactor, that same
system, the high-pressure coolant-injection system, malfunctioned, and
operators at the plant had to turn to other equipment to make sure the
reactor did not overheat dangerously. Federal investigators, who launched
an immediate investigation, said recently that they do not believe that
the earlier problems with the cooling system were the cause of the
malfunction during the October emergency. But they said their inquiry was
continuing at the troubled plant, where for months regulators and private
consultants have found serious problems with equipment, maintenance and
the ability of employees to raise safety concerns.

"To the best of my knowledge, there is no way the two issues could have a
common cause," Eugene W. Cobey, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission official
in charge of the investigations at Salem, said in a recent interview,
referring to the repairs that were made to the system and the problems it
had last month. "They are totally separate issues."

Other experts are not so sure. David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer
at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, said it was too early
to rule out a connection between the July repairs and the October
malfunction. After reviewing federal reports describing the repairs, Mr.
Lochbaum said it was possible that the changes had contributed to the
malfunction, although he said further tests would have to be made to
discover the actual cause. "That remains to be answered," he said.

The most recent investigation comes at a difficult time for the Salem
station, which is the country's second-largest nuclear plant in terms of
power generation. In a nine-month investigation that concluded this
summer, federal regulators and technical consultants found maintenance
problems such as a leaky generator and malfunctioning pumps. Some
employees said they were reluctant to report maintenance problems for fear
of angering their supervisors. P.S.E.G. Nuclear has pledged to spend
millions to fix the aging equipment and has promised to ensure that
employees feel free to report any new problems. The N.R.C. has placed the
company under increased scrutiny until all the repairs are made.

The high-pressure coolant-injection system was not one of the areas that
attracted the concern of regulators during the nine-month investigation.
The system is an important piece of equipment, but it is rarely used. It
is designed to shoot tremendous amounts of water - about 5,000 gallons per
minute - into the reactor to ensure that overheating does not occur.

The system, which helps maintain water levels that adequately cover the
nuclear fuel, is considered critical because if the water ever dropped
below the fuel, it could result in a meltdown. Unsatisfied with the
company's efforts to fix the two-year-old problems with the system,
regulators determined in July that it was not capable of delivering enough
water in extreme conditions, like very high pressure inside the reactor.
The company solved the problem by increasing the size of openings in pipes
that deliver water to the reactor, enabling the system to pump more water
in a shorter time. The regulators signed off on the improvements.

But then came the emergency last month. A steam pipe burst in a building
outside the reactor, and the control room operators turned to the high-
pressure coolant-injection system to stabilize water levels as the plant
was shut down. But, according to the N.R.C., the operators were forced to
use other equipment when a circuit breaker repeatedly shut off a vacuum
pump on the system.

Experts like Mr. Cobey and Mr. Lochbaum disagree on whether changing the
pipe openings might have increased stress on the vacuum pump. P.S.E.G.
officials have said they do not believe there is a connection between the
malfunction and the July repairs. The question is expected to be addressed
by the company and regulators before the system is reactivated.

Some critics have asked why P.S.E.G. did not perform more intensive tests
before restarting the system in July. The company said it was not required
to perform the more intensive tests because it had not made any
fundamental changes to the system.

The nuclear reactor involved in the shutdown, the Hope Creek reactor, has
remained offline since the shutdown in October. The company said managers
had decided to keep it closed to perform long-scheduled repairs. The
closing was originally scheduled to last 52 days, and P.S.E.G. says the
repairs are on schedule so far.

The three reactors that make up the Salem station are on the Delaware
River about 15 miles south of Wilmington. The station provides about 60
percent of the electric power supplied to P.S.E.G.'s two million
electricity customers in New Jersey.

Company officials say the closing is not expected to have any impact on
consumers. Before the reactor returns to service, P.S.E.G. will report to
the N.R.C. on the causes of the equipment problems and on its repair
efforts.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search
| Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 11 [NukeNet] N.R.C. Continues Scrutiny of Problems at Salem Plant
 
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:25:10 -0800

 
<x-flowed>
   Mothersalert Home: http://www.mothersalert.org
   CRAC-2 Report:
http://www.mothersalert.org/crac.html




http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/16/nyregion/16salem.html?oref=login
N.R.C. Continues Scrutiny of Problems at Salem
Plant
By JOHN SULLIVAN

Published: November 16, 2004


wo years ago, federal regulators uncovered
problems with a critical system in one of three
reactors at the Salem nuclear power station in
South Jersey. But when regulators returned last
July, the company that owns the reactor, P.S.E.G.
Nuclear L.L.C., still had not fixed the endangered
system, and the regulators said that if it was not
fixed, the reactor would have to be shut down. The
repairs were finally made, and the regulators
declared themselves satisfied.

      Advertisement


But last month, during an emergency shutdown at
the reactor, that same system, the high-pressure
coolant-injection system, malfunctioned, and
operators at the plant had to turn to other
equipment to make sure the reactor did not
overheat dangerously. Federal investigators, who
launched an immediate investigation, said recently
that they do not believe that the earlier problems
with the cooling system were the cause of the
malfunction during the October emergency. But they
said their inquiry was continuing at the troubled
plant, where for months regulators and private
consultants have found serious problems with
equipment, maintenance and the ability of
employees to raise safety concerns.

"To the best of my knowledge, there is no way the
two issues could have a common cause," Eugene W.
Cobey, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission official
in charge of the investigations at Salem, said in
a recent interview, referring to the repairs that
were made to the system and the problems it had
last month. "They are totally separate issues."

Other experts are not so sure. David Lochbaum, a
nuclear safety engineer at the Union of Concerned
Scientists in Washington, said it was too early to
rule out a connection between the July repairs and
the October malfunction. After reviewing federal
reports describing the repairs, Mr. Lochbaum said
it was possible that the changes had contributed
to the malfunction, although he said further tests
would have to be made to discover the actual
cause. "That remains to be answered," he said.

The most recent investigation comes at a difficult
time for the Salem station, which is the country's
second-largest nuclear plant in terms of power
generation. In a nine-month investigation that
concluded this summer, federal regulators and
technical consultants found maintenance problems
such as a leaky generator and malfunctioning
pumps. Some employees said they were reluctant to
report maintenance problems for fear of angering
their supervisors. P.S.E.G. Nuclear has pledged to
spend millions to fix the aging equipment and has
promised to ensure that employees feel free to
report any new problems. The N.R.C. has placed the
company under increased scrutiny until all the
repairs are made.

The high-pressure coolant-injection system was not
one of the areas that attracted the concern of
regulators during the nine-month investigation.
The system is an important piece of equipment, but
it is rarely used. It is designed to shoot
tremendous amounts of water - about 5,000 gallons
per minute - into the reactor to ensure that
overheating does not occur.

The system, which helps maintain water levels that
adequately cover the nuclear fuel, is considered
critical because if the water ever dropped below
the fuel, it could result in a meltdown.
Unsatisfied with the company's efforts to fix the
two-year-old problems with the system, regulators
determined in July that it was not capable of
delivering enough water in extreme conditions,
like very high pressure inside the reactor. The
company solved the problem by increasing the size
of openings in pipes that deliver water to the
reactor, enabling the system to pump more water in
a shorter time. The regulators signed off on the
improvements.

But then came the emergency last month. A steam
pipe burst in a building outside the reactor, and
the control room operators turned to the high-
pressure coolant-injection system to stabilize
water levels as the plant was shut down. But,
according to the N.R.C., the operators were forced
to use other equipment when a circuit breaker
repeatedly shut off a vacuum pump on the system.

Experts like Mr. Cobey and Mr. Lochbaum disagree
on whether changing the pipe openings might have
increased stress on the vacuum pump. P.S.E.G.
officials have said they do not believe there is a
connection between the malfunction and the July
repairs. The question is expected to be addressed
by the company and regulators before the system is
reactivated.

Some critics have asked why P.S.E.G. did not
perform more intensive tests before restarting the
system in July. The company said it was not
required to perform the more intensive tests
because it had not made any fundamental changes to
the system.

The nuclear reactor involved in the shutdown, the
Hope Creek reactor, has remained offline since the
shutdown in October. The company said managers had
decided to keep it closed to perform
long-scheduled repairs. The closing was originally
scheduled to last 52 days, and P.S.E.G. says the
repairs are on schedule so far.

The three reactors that make up the Salem station
are on the Delaware River about 15 miles south of
Wilmington. The station provides about 60 percent
of the electric power supplied to P.S.E.G.'s two
million electricity customers in New Jersey.

Company officials say the closing is not expected
to have any impact on consumers. Before the
reactor returns to service, P.S.E.G. will report
to the N.R.C. on the causes of the equipment
problems and on its repair efforts.






_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 12 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
 
                        FR Doc 04-25358 
[Federal Register: November 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 220)] 
[Notices] [Page 67189] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16no04-102]                         
 
of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for Inficon, 
Inc.'s Facility in Fairfield, NJ AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission.
 
ACTION: Notice of Availability.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Dolce Modes, Materials 
Security & Industrial Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials 
Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, 
Pennsylvania, 19406, telephone (610) 337-5251, fax (610) 
337-5269; or by e-mail: KAD@NRC.GOV.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) is issuing a license amendment to INFICON, Inc. 
(INFICON) for Materials License No. 29- 20512-01 to authorize 
release of its facility in Fairfield, New Jersey for unrestricted 
use. NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support 
of this action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 
51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No 
Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be 
issued following the publication of this Notice.
 
II. EA Summary The purpose of the action is to authorize the 
release of the licensee's Fairfield, New Jersey facility for 
unrestricted use.
 
INFICON was authorized by NRC from February 1999 to use 
radioactive materials for manufacturing and distribution purposes 
at the Fairfield, New Jersey site. On July 29, 2004, INFICON 
requested that NRC release the facility for unrestricted use. 
INFICON has conducted surveys of the facility and provided 
information to the NRC to demonstrate that the site meets the 
license termination criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for 
unrestricted use. INFICON will continue licensed activities at 
another location, as authorized by the license.
 
The NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of the license 
amendment. The facility was remediated and surveyed prior to the 
licensee requesting the license amendment. The NRC staff has 
reviewed the information and final status survey submitted by 
INFICON.
 
Based on its review, the staff has determined that there are no 
additional remediation activities necessary to complete the 
proposed action. Therefore, the staff considered the impact of 
the residual radioactivity at the facility and concluded that 
since the residual radioactivity meets the requirements in 
Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20, a Finding of No Significant Impact 
is appropriate.
 
III. Finding of No Significant Impact The staff has prepared the 
EA (summarized above) in support of the license amendment to 
release the facility for unrestricted use.
 
The NRC staff has evaluated INFICON's request and the results of 
the surveys and has concluded that the completed action complies 
with the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has 
found that the environmental impacts from the action are bounded 
by the impacts evaluated by NUREG-1496, Volumes 1-3, ``Generic 
Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on 
Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed 
Facilities'' (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). On the 
basis of the EA, the NRC has concluded that the environmental 
impacts from the action are expected to be insignificant and has 
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for 
the action.
 
IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, 
including the application for the license amendment and 
supporting documentation, are available electronically at the 
NRC's Electronic Reading Room at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can 
access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System 
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public 
documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related 
to this Notice are: Environmental Assessment [ADAMS Accession No. 
ML042990044], letter transmitting Final Status Survey Results 
dated July 29, 2004 [ADAMS Accession No. ML042120036], and 
supplemental information contained in letters dated August 11, 
2004 [ADAMS Accession No. ML042390402] and September 22, 2004 
[ADAMS Accession No. ML042710102]. Please note that on October 
25, 2004, the NRC terminated public access to ADAMS and initiated 
an additional security review of publicly available documents to 
ensure that potentially sensitive information is removed from the 
ADAMS database accessible through the NRC's web site. Interested 
members of the public may obtain copies of the referenced 
documents for review and/or copying by contacting the Public 
Document Room pending resumption of public access to ADAMS. The 
NRC Public Documents Room is located at NRC Headquarters in 
Rockville, MD, and can be contacted at (800) 397-4209, (301) 
415-4737 or by e-mail to ``pdr@nrc.gov.'' These documents may 
also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at 
the NRC's PDR, O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will 
copy documents for a fee. The PDR is open from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays.
 
Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 8th day of November, 
2004.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
John D. Kinneman, Chief, Materials Security & Industrial Branch, 
Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I.
 
[FR Doc. 04-25358 Filed 11-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 13 NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting
 
                        FR Doc 04-25503 
[Federal Register: November 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 220)] 
[Notices] [Page 67196-67197] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16no04-107]                         
 
Agency Holding the Meeting: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Dates: Weeks of November 15, 22, 29, December 6, 13, 20, 2004.
 
Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
 
Status: Public and Closed.
 
Matters to Be Considered: Week of November 15, 2004 Tuesday, 
November 16, 2004 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Threat Environment 
Assessment (Closed--Ex. 1).
 
Thursday, November 18, 2004 1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security 
Issues (Closed--Ex. 1). Week of November 22, 2004--Tentative 
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 22, 
2004.
 
Week of November 29, 2004--Tentative There are no meetings 
scheduled for the week of November 29, 2004.
 
Week of December 6, 2004--Tentative Tuesday, December 7, 2004 
9:30 a.m. Briefing on Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Program 
(Public Meeting) (Contact: Corenthis Kelley, (301) 415-7380).
 
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address-- .
 
 
[[Page 67197]] Wednesday, December 8, 2004 1 p.m. Briefing on 
Status of Davis Besse Lessons Learned Task Force Recommendations 
(Public Meeting) (Contact: John Jolicoeur, (301) 415- 1724).
 
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address-- .
 
Thursday, December 9, 2004 2 p.m. Briefing on Reactor Safety and 
Licensing Activities (Public Meeting) (Contact: Steve Koenick, 
301-415-1239).
 
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address-- .
 
Week of December 13, 2004--Tentative Tuesday, December 14, 2004 1 
p.m. Briefing on Emergency Preparedness Program Initiatives 
(Public Meeting) (Contact: Nader Mamish, (301) 415-1086).
 
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address-- .
 
2 p.m. Briefing on Emergency Preparedness Program Initiatives 
(Closed-- Ex. 1). Week of December 20, 2004--Tentative There are 
no meetings scheduled for the Week of December 20, 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.
 
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet 
at: .
 
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 . 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 .
 
Dated: November 10, 2004.
 
Dave Gamberoni, Office of the Secretary.
 
[FR Doc. 04-25503 Filed 11-12-04; 1:32 pm] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M

 
*****************************************************************
 14 APP.COM: Nuclear power play fizzles 
         
  ASBURY PARK PRESS

Published in the Asbury Park Press 11/17/04An 
Asbury Park Press editorial

We're pleased the state League of Municipalities, which is 
holding its annual convention this week in Atlantic City, had the 
good sense to keep a resolution supporting license renewal for 
the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant off its agenda.

 While the matter is very much a statewide concern, putting up 
for a vote a resolution that was drafted by plant owner AmerGen 
would have been beyond offensive. AmerGen, acting in concert with 
the only town in a 10-mile radius of Oyster Creek that would feel 
the least bit glum if the plant were mothballed -- host Lacey -- 
drafted a resolution that urged the league to formally support 
the continued operation of the plant after its license expires in 
2009.

 "We saw the resolution as a way to educate folks and as a way to 
have a debate based on the facts," said James L. Laird, AmerGen's 
chief flack. Yeah, right. Decisions about whether the risks of 
keeping the aging nuclear plant open outweigh the benefits should 
be based on a thorough airing of all sides of the issue by key 
decision-makers -- not a show of hands by municipal officials 
whose only familiarity with the subject is a handout from AmerGen 
spinmeisters.

 

*****************************************************************
 15 NRC: RIN 3150-AH57 draft proposal: protection
 
                        FR Doc 04-25359 
[Federal Register: November 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 220)] 
[Proposed Rules] [Page 67070] From the Federal Register Online 
via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16no04-18]                         
 

 
Protection of Safeguards Information AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission.
 
ACTION: Availability of draft proposed rule.
 
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is making
available draft proposed rule language for amendments to 10 CFR 
part 73, ``Physical Protection of Plants and Materials,'' to 
provide for further protection of Safeguards Information (SGI). 
The draft proposed rule also contains draft conforming changes to 
10 CFR parts 2, 30, 40, 50, 52, 63, 70, 72, 76, and 150. The NRC 
is proposing to amend its regulations in part 73 for the 
protection of SGI to be consistent with recent Commission 
practices reflected in Orders and Threat Advisories issued since 
September 11, 2001, and to provide the flexibility afforded the 
Commission for the protection of such information by the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA). The proposed amendments 
would affect licensees, information, and materials not currently 
specified in the regulations, but are within the scope of the 
AEA. The proposed amendments are intended to protect SGI from 
inadvertent release and unauthorized disclosure which might 
compromise the security of nuclear facilities and materials. The 
availability of the draft rule language is intended to inform 
stakeholders of the current status of the NRC's activities, but 
the NRC is not soliciting formal public comments on the 
information at this time.
 
 
DATES: There will be an opportunity for public comment when the 
notice of proposed rulemaking is published in the Federal 
Register.
 
 
ADDRESSES: The draft rule language can be viewed and downloaded 
electronically via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at 
http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Along with any publicly available 
documents related to this rulemaking, the draft information may 
be viewed electronically on public computers in the NRC Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, Room O-1 F21, and open to 
the public on Federal workdays from 7:45 a.m. until 4:15 p.m. The 
PDR reproduction contractor will make copies of documents for a 
fee.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marjorie Rothschild, Division of 
Rulemaking & Fuel Cycle, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD 20555-001, telephone: (301) 
415- 1633, e-mail mur@nrc.gov. or Bernard Stapleton, Office of 
Nuclear Security and Incident Response, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-001, telephone (301) 415-2432, 
e-mail

 
BWS2@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a staff requirements memorandum of 
June 18, 2004, the Commission directed the Office of the General 
Counsel (OGC) to expedite rulemaking to develop, in consultation 
with the NRC staff, amendments to modify 10 CFR part 73 regarding 
protection of Safeguards Information. The SRM further directed 
that the amendments are to utilize the flexibility of section 147 
of the Atomic Energy Act and are to be consistent with the 
practices of the Commission in various Orders and Advisories 
issued since September 11, 2001.
 
The proposed amendments would affect licensees, information, and 
materials not currently specified in the regulations, but are 
within the scope of the AEA. The proposed amendments are intended 
to protect SGI from inadvertent release and unauthorized 
disclosure which might compromise the security of nuclear 
facilities and materials.
 
The NRC is making a preliminary version of the draft proposed 
rule language available to inform stakeholders of the current 
status of this 10 CFR part 73 proposed rulemaking. This draft 
rule language may be subject to significant revisions during the 
rulemaking process.
 
To meet the Commission's schedule, the NRC is not soliciting 
early public comments on this draft rule language. No stakeholder 
requests for a comment period will be granted at this stage in 
the rulemaking process. Stakeholders will have an opportunity to 
comment on the rule language when it is published as a proposed 
rule.
 
The NRC's draft proposed rule, including early draft rule 
language, will be posted on the NRC's rulemaking Web site at 
http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. The NRC may post updates to the draft 
proposed rule language on the rulemaking Web site.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of November, 2004.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
E. Neil Jensen, Acting Assistant General Counsel, Division of 
Rulemaking & Fuel Cycle, Office of the General Counsel.
 
[FR Doc. 04-25359 Filed 11-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 16 Platts: NRC's online document system to return in 10 days, Diaz says
 
  [The McGraw-Hill Companies]   
 
NRC's electronic document system will be back up in 10 days, 
Chairman Nils Diaz said today at the American Nuclear Society 
winter meeting in Washington, D.C. Security concerns prompted NRC 
to shut access to the on-line public document library Adams on 
Oct. 25. 

The system's entire document collection probably won't be 
immediately available when NRC restores public access. Documents 
that will be made available first will be related to DOE's 
planned repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., nuclear power plants, 
and NRC hearings, Diaz said. 

Washington (Platts)--15Nov2004
 
Copyright © 2004 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       




*****************************************************************
 17 NRC: In the Matter of Omaha Public Power District Fort Calhoun
 
                        FR Doc 04-25360 
[Federal Register: November 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 220)] 
[Notices] [Page 67193-67195] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16no04-105]                         
 
Station Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Order 
Modifying License (Effective Immediately) AGENCY: Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Issuance of order for implementation of additional 
security measures associated with access authorization.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Barr, Project Manager, 
Licensing and Inspection Directorate, Spent Fuel Project Office, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: (301) 
415-4015; fax number: (301) 415-8555; e-mail CSB2@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR 
2.106, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing 
notice in the matter of Fort Calhoun Station Independent Spent 
Fuel Storage Installation Order Modifying License (Effective 
Immediately).
 
II. Further Information I Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) 
holds a license issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC or the Commission) authorizing the operation of an 
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) in accordance 
with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50 and 10 CFR part 72. 
Commission regulations at 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) and 10 CFR 
73.55(h)(1) require OPPD to have a safeguards contingency plan to 
respond to threats of radiological sabotage and to protect the 
spent fuel against the threat of radiological sabotage.
 
Inasmuch as an insider has an opportunity equal to or greater 
than any other person to commit radiological sabotage, the 
Commission has determined these measures to be prudent. This 
Order has been issued to all licensees who currently store spent 
fuel or have identified near- term plans to store spent fuel in 
an ISFSI.
 
II On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked 
targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, utilizing large 
commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and 
intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission 
issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its 
licensees in order to strengthen licensees' capabilities and 
readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. 
On October 16, 2002, the Commission issued Orders to the 
licensees of operating ISFSIs to put the actions taken in 
response to the Advisories in the established regulatory 
framework and to implement additional security enhancements which 
emerged from the NRC's ongoing comprehensive review. The 
Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State, and 
local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss 
and evaluate the current threat environment in order to assess 
the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. In 
addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive 
review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements.
 
As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and 
security requirements, as well as a review of information 
provided by the intelligence community, the Commission has 
determined that certain additional security measures are required 
to address the current threat environment in a consistent manner 
throughout the nuclear ISFSI community. Therefore, the Commission 
is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachment 1 \1\ of 
this Order, on all licensees of these facilities. These 
requirements, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, 
will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the 
public health and safety and common defense and security continue 
to be adequately protected in the current threat environment. 
These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission 
determines otherwise.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \1\ Attachment 1 contains safeguards information and 
will not be released to the public.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- The Commission recognizes that licensees may have 
already initiated many of the measures set forth in Attachment 1 
to this Order in response to previously issued advisories, the
 
[[Page 67194]] October 2002 Order, or on their own. It also 
recognizes that some measures may not be possible or necessary at 
some sites, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the 
specific circumstances existing at the licensee's facility to 
achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect 
on the safe storage of spent fuel.
 
Although the additional security measures implemented by 
licensees in response to the Safeguards and Threat Advisories 
have been adequate to provide reasonable assurance of adequate 
protection of public health and safety, the Commission concludes 
that these actions must be supplemented further because the 
current threat environment continues to persist. Therefore, it is 
appropriate to require certain additional security measures and 
these measures must be embodied in an Order, consistent with the 
established regulatory framework.
 
In order to provide assurance that OPPD is implementing prudent 
measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address 
the current threat environment, OPPD's general license issued 
pursuant to 10 CFR 72.210 shall be modified to include the 
requirements identified in Attachment 1 to this Order. In 
addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, the Commission finds that in 
the circumstances described above, the public health, safety, and 
interest require that this Order be immediately effective.
 
III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 53, 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 
161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 
and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR parts 
50, 72, and 73, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that 
your general license is modified as follows: A. OPPD shall, 
notwithstanding the provisions of any Commission regulation or 
license to the contrary, comply with the requirements described 
in Attachment 1 to this Order except to the extent that a more 
stringent requirement is set forth in the OPPD's security plan. 
OPPD shall immediately start implementation of the requirements 
in Attachment 1 to the Order and shall complete implementation no 
later than 180 days from the date of this Order with the 
exception of the additional security measures B.4, which shall be 
implemented no later than 365 days from the date of this Order, 
or the first day that spent fuel is initially placed in the 
ISFSI, whichever is later.
 
B.1. OPPD shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this 
Order, notify the Commission: (1) If it is unable to comply with 
any of the requirements described in Attachment 1, (2) if 
compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in their 
specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation of any of the 
requirements would cause OPPD to be in violation of the 
provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license. 
The notification shall provide OPPD's justification for seeking 
relief from or variation of any specific requirement.
 
2. If OPPD considers that implementation of any of the 
requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order would 
adversely impact the safe storage of spent fuel, OPPD must notify 
the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of the 
adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the 
requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal 
for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 1 
requirements in question, or a schedule for modifying the 
facility to address the adverse safety condition. If neither 
approach is appropriate, OPPD must supplement its response to 
Condition B.1 of this Order to identify the condition as a 
requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant 
justifications as required under Condition B.1. C.1. OPPD shall, 
within twenty (20) days of this Order, submit to the Commission a 
schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described 
in Attachment 1.
 
2. OPPD shall report to the Commission when they have achieved 
full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 1.
 
D. Notwithstanding the provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5), all 
measures implemented or actions taken in response to this Order 
shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise.
 
OPPD's response to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, above shall 
be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.4. In addition, 
submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly 
marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. The Director, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, may, in 
writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon 
demonstration by OPPD of good cause.
 
IV In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, OPPD must, and any other 
person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to 
this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 
twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is 
shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to 
request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to 
submit an answer must be made in writing to the Director, Office 
of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and the Director, 
Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for 
the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the 
answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and 
under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of 
fact and law on which the licensee or other person adversely 
affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not 
have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be 
submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the 
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings 
and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555.
 
Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555; to the Director, Office of 
Enforcement, at the same address; to the Assistant General 
Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same 
address, to the Regional Administrator for NRC Region IV, at 611 
Ryan Plaza, Suite 400, Arlington, TX 76011-8064; and to the 
licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other 
than the licensee. Because of possible disruptions in delivery of 
mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that 
requests for a hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the 
Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 
301-415-1101 or by e-mail to

 
hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of General Counsel 
either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by 
e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a person other than the OPPD 
requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with 
particularity the manner in which his/her interest is adversely 
affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth 
in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by OPPD or a person 
whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue 
an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a 
hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall 
be whether this Order should be sustained.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), OPPD may, in addition to 
demanding a hearing at the time the answer is filed
 
[[Page 67195]] or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside 
the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the 
Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not 
based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded 
allegations or error.
 
In the absence of any request for hearing or written approval of 
an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the 
provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty 
(20) days from the date of this Order without further order or 
proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has 
been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be 
final when the extension expires, if a hearing request has not 
been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay 
the immediate effectiveness of this order.
 
Dated this 9th day of November 2004.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Margaret V. Federline, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. 04-25360 Filed 11-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 18 UK HSE: Statement of nuclear incidents at nuclear installations
 
Updated 16.11.04 

HSE Press Release: E159:04 - 12 November 2004 
Statement of nuclear incidents at nuclear installations
 

A statement of nuclear incidents at nuclear installations in
Britain during the second quarter of 2004 is published today by
the Health and Safety Executive. It covers the period 1 April to
30 June 2004. There are two installations mentioned in the
statement: 
  + Hartlepool (British Energy) 
  + Bradwell (Magnox Electric) 

The statement is published under arrangements that came into
effect from the first quarter of 1993, derived from the Health
and Safety Commission's powers under section 11 of the Health
and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. 
Notes to Editors
 

1. The arrangements for reporting incidents were announced to
Parliament by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for
Energy on 30 April 1987 (Hansard col. 203-204). A minor
modification to arrangements for reporting on nuclear incidents
was announced in HSE press notice E108:93 of 30 June 1993. 

2. Normally each incident mentioned in HSE's Quarterly Incident
Statements will already have been made public by the licensee or
site operator either through a press statement or by inclusion
in the newsletter for the site concerned. 

Statement of Nuclear Incidents at Nuclear Installations: Second
Quarter 2004 - single copies of each free from the Information
Centre, Nuclear Safety Directorate, HSE, Room 004, St Peters
House, Stanley Precinct, Bootle L20 3LZ. 


PUBLIC ENQUIRIES: Nuclear Safety Directorate Information Centre
(address as above) Tel: 0151-951 4103/Fax: 0151 951 4004/e-mail:
nsd.library@hse.gsi.gov.uk) 


PRESS ENQUIRIES: Journalists only: Mark Wheeler 020 7717 6905 
Out of hours 020 7928 8382 
STATEMENT OF NUCLEAR INCIDENTS AT NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS- SECOND
QUARTER 2004
 

The Health and Safety Executive presents the attached statement
of nuclear incidents at nuclear installations published under
the Health and Safety Commission's powers derived from section
11 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. 
INCIDENT 04/2/1
 

On 9 June 2004 a flange leaked within the equipment used to
handle tritiated water (i.e. water in which some of the hydrogen
atoms are in the form of the radioactive isotope tritium) in the
radioactive effluent treatment plant (RAETP) at Hartlepool power
station. Approximately 900 litres of liquor were released. The
station declared a site incident, which was stood down on 13
June after the affected areas had been restored to normal access
conditions. During this time access was controlled by the
station to prevent unauthorised access to the contaminated areas
and thus ensure that doses to workers were properly controlled. 

The leak was retained within the bunded RAETP and discharged
through authorised discharge routes, except for a small
quantity, which escaped through evaporation. Assessments by both
the station and the Environment Agency demonstrated that: a)
doses to workers were only a small percentage of the annual
limits; and b) the off-site dose was insignificant. 

British Energy immediately set up a Divisional Panel of Inquiry
and the details of the event and the lessons learned were
promulgated to all sites. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
(NII) and Environment Agency (EA) have conducted a joint
investigation. The EA has advised station that it does not
intend to prosecute. The NII is due to report shortly but is
also expected to advise the station that it will not prosecute. 
INCIDENT 04/2/2
 

On 14 April 2004 there was a release of radioactivity in the
reactor building at Bradwell power station, operated by Magnox
Electric plc. 

The incident occurred while preparations were being made to
lower a camera into the reactor which was to be used to observe
some modified equipment for defuelling. The operation involved
opening a set of valves and the wrong valve was opened which
lead to the release because unexpectedly the reactor was under
pressure. The contamination alarm sounded but there was some
delay before the area was evacuated. 

Six members of staff received small doses of radiation below
legal limits. The incident is still under investigation by NII. 
*****************************************************************
 19 NRC: In the Matter of Omaha Public Power District Fort Calhoun
 
                        FR Doc 04-25361 
[Federal Register: November 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 220)] 
[Notices] [Page 67195-67196] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16no04-106]                         
 
Station Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationOrder 
Modifying License (Effective Immediately) AGENCY: Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Issuance of order for implementation of interim 
safeguards and security compensatory measures.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Barr, Project Manager, 
Licensing and Inspection Directorate, Spent Fuel Project Office, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: (301) 
415-4015; fax number: (301) 415-8555; e-mail .
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.106, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
is providing notice in the matter of Fort Calhoun Station 
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Order Modifying 
License (Effective Immediately).
 
II. Further Information I Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) has 
been issued a general license by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC or the Commission) authorizing storage of spent 
fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) in 
accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 10 CFR part 50, 
and 10 CFR part 72. This Order is being issued to OPPD who has 
identified near-term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI under 
the general license provisions of 10 CFR part 72. The Commission 
regulations at 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) and 10 CFR 73.55(h)(1) require 
OPPD to maintain safeguards contingency plan procedures in 
accordance with 10 CFR part 73, appendix C. Specific safeguards 
requirements are contained in 10 CFR 73.55. II On September 11, 
2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY, 
and Washington, DC, utilizing large commercial aircraft as 
weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information 
subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of 
Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees in order to 
strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a 
potential attack on a nuclear facility. The Commission has also 
communicated with other Federal, State, and local government 
agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the 
current threat environment in order to assess the adequacy of 
security measures at licensed facilities. In addition, the 
Commission has been conducting a comprehensive review of its 
safeguards and security programs and requirements.
 
As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and 
security plan requirements, as well as a review of information 
provided by the intelligence community and other governmental 
agencies, the Commission has determined that certain compensatory 
measures are required to be implemented by licensees as prudent, 
interim measures, to address the current threat environment in a 
consistent manner throughout the nuclear ISFSI community. 
Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth 
in Attachment 1\1\ of this Order, on OPPD who has indicated 
near-term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI under the general 
license provisions of 10 CFR part 72. These interim requirements, 
which supplement existing regulatory requirements, will provide 
the Commission with reasonable assurance that the public health 
and safety and common defense and security continue to be 
adequately protected in the current threat environment. These 
requirements will remain in effect until the Commission 
determines otherwise.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \1\ Attachment 1 contains SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION and 
will not be released to the public.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- The Commission recognizes that some measures may not 
be possible or necessary, or may need to be tailored to 
accommodate the specific circumstances existing at OPPD's 
facility to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any 
unforeseen effect on the safe storage of spent fuel.
 
In order to provide assurance that licensees are implementing 
prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to 
address the current threat environment, the Commission concludes 
that security measures must be embodied in an Order consistent 
with the established regulatory framework. OPPD's general license 
issued pursuant to 10 CFR 72.210 shall be modified to include the 
requirements identified in Attachment 1 to this Order. In 
addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, the Commission finds that in 
the circumstances described above, the public health, safety, and 
interest require that this Order be effective immediately.
 
III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 
182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR parts 50, 
72, and 73, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that 
your general license is modified as follows: A. OPPD shall, 
notwithstanding the provisions of any Commission regulation or 
license to the contrary, comply with the requirements described 
in Attachment 1 to this Order except to the extent that a more 
stringent requirement is set forth in their security plan.
 
OPPD shall immediately start implementation of the requirements 
in Attachment 1 to the Order and shall complete implementation 
before spent fuel is initially placed in the ISFSI.
 
B.1. OPPD shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this 
Order, notify the Commission: (1) If they are unable to comply 
with any of the requirements described in Attachment 1, (2) if 
compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in their 
specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation of any of the
 
[[Page 67196]] requirements would cause the licensee to be in 
violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or the 
facility license.
 
The notification shall provide the licensee's justification for 
seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement.
 
2. If OPPD considers that implementation of any of the 
requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order would 
adversely impact the safe storage of spent fuel, OPPD must notify 
the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of the 
adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the 
requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal 
for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 1 
requirement(s) in question, or a schedule for modifying the 
facility to address the adverse safety condition.
 
If neither approach is appropriate, OPPD must supplement its 
response to Condition B.1 of this Order to identify the condition 
as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant 
justifications as required in Condition B.1. C.1. OPPD shall, 
within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, submit to the 
Commission, a schedule for achieving compliance with each 
requirement described in Attachment 1.
 
2. OPPD shall report to the Commission when they have achieved 
full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 1.
 
D. Notwithstanding the provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5), all 
measures implemented or actions taken in response to this Order 
shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise.
 
OPPD's responses to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, shall be 
submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.4. In addition, submittals 
that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and 
handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. The Director, Office of 
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards may, in writing, relax or 
rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by OPPD of 
good cause.
 
IV In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, OPPD must, and any other 
person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to 
this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 
twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is 
shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to 
request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to 
submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to 
the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 
and the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good 
cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. 
Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in 
writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the 
matters of fact and law on which the licensee or other person 
adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order 
should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing 
shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of 
the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies 
also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material 
Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555; to the Director, Office of Enforcement at 
the same address; to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials 
Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional 
Administrator for NRC Region IV, at 611 Ryan Plaza, Suite 400, 
Arlington, TX 76011-8064; and to the licensee if the answer or 
hearing request is by a person other than the licensee. Because 
of potential disruptions in delivery of mail to United States 
Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for 
hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission, either 
by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101, or by e-mail 
to  and also to the Office of the General Counsel, either by 
means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725, or by e-mail to 
. If a person other than OPPD requests a hearing, that person 
shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his 
interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address 
the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is 
requested by OPPD or a person whose interest is adversely 
affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time 
and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be 
considered at such a hearing shall be whether this Order should 
be sustained.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), OPPD may, in addition to 
demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, 
move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate 
effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the Order, 
including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on 
adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, 
or error.
 
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of 
an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the 
provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty 
(20) days from the date of this Order without further order or 
proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has 
been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be 
final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not 
been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay 
the immediate effectiveness of this order.
 
Dated this 9th day of November 2004.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Margaret V. Federline, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. 04-25361 Filed 11-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 20 Middletown Press: Nuke plant decommissioning ‘progressing’                   
 	 			 							 							
By JOSH MROZINSKI, Middletown
Press Staff11/16/2004

MIDDLETOWN -- The decommissioning of the Connecticut Yankee 
Atomic Power plant continues to progress, according to a company 
spokeswoman.                                                    

An update of the progress will be given at tonight’s Community 
Decommissioning Advisory Committee meeting at the Connecticut 
Light &Power building on Randolph Road.

"Since we started self-performance work last fall, 
decommissioning is about 50 percent complete," Kelley Smith, 
spokeswoman for the plant, said. "As of this week we’ll have 26 
casks on the fuel storage pad."

The decommissioning process, which began in 1998, involves 
demolishing buildings and moving 43 spent-fuel and greater than 
Class-C Waste into dry casks at a storage area which is 
three-quarters of a mile from the plant. Greater than Class-C 
Waste is cut-up metal from the reactor vessel.

The spent-fuel and waste will eventually be transported to Yucca 
Mountain in Nevada when it opens. Smith said the fuel transfer 
will be completed by the first quarter of 2005.

Smith said they’ve started to take down the turbine building and 
have three buildings and structures now undergoing demolition. 
Five buildings and structures, she said, have been demolished.

She said the two-story building involved in the late September 
fire has been torn down. The fire broke out in the building 
during demolition. Workers were outside of the building pulling 
down steel beams when the fire broke out. 

The workers were cutting the steel beams with torch cutting 
equipment. The beams became hot from the cutting, and the 
insulation that was behind the beams caught fire when it was 
exposed to the air from the workers pulling down the beams.

There were no injuries in the fire.

"Overall, things are moving very smoothly and we are making good 
progress," Smith said.

Hugh Curley, chairman of the Community Decommissioning Advisory 
Committee, said condition reports will be reviewed at the 
meeting. Demolition, he said, seems to be speeding up while the 
radiological activity has entered a regular pace.

He said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which couldn’t attend 
the late September meeting, will report on the last six months of 
the plant’s decommissioning.

And talk about how to demolish the containment dome, he said, 
will continue. The question is more about how to get rid of the 
bulky waste and its schedule than how the dome should be 
demolished, he said. The waste could be taken away on barge or on 
the river.

He thinks the plant will take the route of its sister plant, 
Maine Yankee, in Wiscasset. Curley, who witnessed the destruction 
of the dome in June, said at the meeting that the blast left a 
75-foot high pile of ruble. 

The columns were wrapped to keep the blast from spreading debris.

Curley said there also might be a discussion on what the future 
community oversight of the storage site will look like.

"There should be a vehicle to call management to the table," 
Curley said.

To contact Josh Mrozinski, call (860) 347-3331, ext. 222 or 
jmrozinski@middletownpress.com. 

      ©The Middletown Press 2004                                      

*****************************************************************
 21 TheDay.com: Nuclear-power Industry Sees Signs Of A Revival
 		 		 		
By KATHRYN KRANHOLD

Published on 11/16/2004

New York The nuclear-power industry is laying the groundwork to 
build new plants in the U.S. for the first time in more than two 
decades.

 Buoyed by the re-election of President Bush, whose 
administration has pushed to expand nuclear power as part of its 
national energy plan, the industry sees a window of two to three 
years in which the political environment could make it easier to 
win approval for new projects.

 Late last week, two separate consortiums consisting of power 
companies and reactor makers received word that the Department of 
Energy would share in the cost of obtaining regulatory approval 
for new nuclear reactors. The two groups expect the cost of 
winning that approval to be about $500 million apiece, due to the 
detailed engineering and testing required by regulators for new 
reactors.

 There's lots of enthusiasm for what we're trying to accomplish 
here, said William D. Magwood IV, director of the Energy 
Department's office of nuclear energy, science and technology. 
If both of these goes to fruition, we could see new nuclear 
plants by 2014.

 In part, the revived prospects for nuclear power stem from the 
volatile energy market and concerns about global warming, which 
are forcing utilities and their power-generation vendors to 
consider alternatives. Faced with skyrocketing natural-gas prices 
and uncertainty about the costs of containing carbon emissions 
from coal-fired plants, electric companies believe nuclear plants 
are becoming more economically competitive and safer.

 They are also being driven by manufacturers  General Electric 
Co. and its longtime rival Westinghouse Electric Co., along with 
a new entrant, Canada's Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., or AECL  
who are looking to sell newly designed reactors into the 
long-dormant U.S. market, which dried up in the early 1980s amid 
public outcry over safety and investors' dismay over high costs. 
Since then, the companies have continued to build reactors 
overseas in Asia and Europe; GE currently is nearing completion 
of new reactors in Taiwan. But the U.S. remains the most coveted 
market because of its economic might and hunger for new sources 
of energy.

 While opposition to new plants is likely to be fierce, the 
companies and Energy Department hope to win approval for 
construction from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as early as 
2009.

 The Energy Department also is pushing to overcome legal and 
regulatory hurdles to establish a depository for used nuclear 
fuel in Nevada. Power companies say they won't build new plants 
without a storage site. They currently store spent fuel at their 
plants.

 To be sure, the power companies and their reactor makers are 
being cautious not to commit formally to new plants. Longtime 
proponents of nuclear energy, fearful of being burned by policy 
changes, are seeking solid government guarantees before 
proceeding. The collapse of support for nuclear power in the 
1980s cost the industry billions of dollars.

 So far, the proposed new plants would be built at existing 
facilities. One group, led by Virginia's Dominion Resources Inc., 
is proposing to build a new reactor, designed by AECL, on a site 
in Mineral, Va., where a nuclear plant has operated since 1980.

 A second, much larger consortium led by Exelon Corp. and Entergy 
Corp., plans to select in 2007 a newly designed reactor from 
either GE or Westinghouse for a potential new plant. The 
consortium, NuStart Energy Development LLC, hasn't selected a 
site but is considering existing locations in Clinton, Ill., and 
Port Gibson, Miss.

 GE and Westinghouse, longtime competitors since they built their 
first reactors in the 1950s, are marketing new reactors that they 
say are more economical to build and operate. GE says its design 
takes a new approach to safety, relying on an automated system 
triggered by gravity instead of human operators to release 
360,000 gallons of water to flood a core containing radioactive 
fuel if it becomes necessary to prevent a meltdown. The design 
attempts to eliminate human error, which contributed to the 1979 
accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Harrisburg, 
Pa.

 Pittsburgh-based Westinghouse, which was acquired by the British 
government in 1999, recently received approval from the NRC for 
its own new reactor design, which has safety features similar to 
those of the GE reactor. The approval enables it to begin 
offering customers clearer cost estimates and construction 
schedules, and the company, which has invested close to half a 
billion dollars on its latest reactor, is hoping to land 
contracts to build new reactors for China in the next year. This 
opens up possibilities for us, said Westinghouse Chief Executive 
Steve Tritch.

 By contrast, GE has so far invested about $100 million in its 
new design. But under Chairman and Chief Executive Jeffrey 
Immelt, it is aggressively pursuing regulatory approval for its 
new design. The opportunity exists for the industry to come 
together around the right technology for a new nuclear plant, 
said John Rice, chief executive of GE Energy, one of the 
conglomerate's two biggest businesses.

 Electric companies also won't have to carry the entire financial 
burden this time around. GE, Westinghouse and government-owned 
AECL say they will share the financial risks of building new 
nuclear plants. That could include providing loans or equity to 
utilities that build new plants or construction budget 
guarantees. Such support was missing in the 1970s and 1980s when 
utilities got clobbered by billions of dollars in cost overruns, 
among other things.

 Nuclear power currently accounts for nearly 20 percent of all 
the electricity produced in the U.S., compared with 51 percent 
coal and 17 percent natural gas. To maintain that mix, the 
industry says new plants must be built in the U.S. as older ones 
are retired.

 One big challenge, however, is convincing the public that 
nuclear energy is safe. Opponents charge that utilities aren't 
adequately maintaining existing plants to prevent possible 
accidents.

 The nuclear industry points to a strong overall safety record 
since the Three Mile Island accident, in which no one was killed, 
though a small amount of radioactive material leaked into the 
atmosphere. But the 1986 explosion and deadly aftermath at the 
former Soviet Union's Chernobyl nuclear plant  which was caused 
by major design flaws and by engineers who were conducting 
unauthorized tests  continues to haunt the public's view of 
nuclear power. More recently, a deadly explosion in Japan this 
year, in which a steam pipe broke because of poor maintenance, 
caused five deaths.

 Reactors aren't inherently safe, said David Lochbaum, a 
nuclear engineer with the Union for Concerned Scientists, a group 
that monitors the industry.

 Lochbaum, who has sat in on hearings on the new reactor designs, 
said he thinks they are safer because they have fewer pieces of 
equipment to operate and maintain. 

But a lot of those new features haven't been tested yet except 
in cyberspace, he said. Nuclear opponents also worry that new 
plants could become targets of terrorist attacks.

 Said GE's Mr. Rice, You've got all this hysteria. You still 
have in the rearview mirror Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, 
which people haven't forgotten about. Reactors made by 
Westinghouse and GE already dot the U.S. landscape. Of the 103 
reactors currently operating, 49 use Westinghouse-owned designs 
and another 34 have GE-made models.

 For now, utility executives are hedging their bets on the new 
reactors, saying each has its pros and cons and they prefer to 
make a final judgment when they see pricing and final designs. 
Though Westinghouse is ahead with design approval, some 
executives expect that GE's new model could be cheaper because it 
will produce more electricity and spread capital costs across 
bigger plants.

 GE's new design has no large water pipes entering the lower 
portion of a reactor below the fuel core. The risk in older 
models is that if those pipes, which carry water in and out of 
the vessel, burst, water could flow rapidly out of the 
container's bottom and leave the core uncovered. GE's new design 
places the pipes above the core so water can't drain out as 
quickly in case of an accident.

 In case of accidents, both GE's and Westinghouse's designs use 
gravity rather than operator-run pumps to force water in and out 
of reactor vessels and flood the area surrounding the core 
containing fuel. GE's reactor also holds more water.

 The NuStart consortium says that cost as much as design will 
determine its choice of a reactor. A new GE reactor that can 
provide power to about 1.5 million households could cost roughly 
$1.8 billion, or 20 percent less than its current model. 
Westinghouse's reactor, which is smaller, could cost about $1.14 
billion once the costs associated with doing detailed engineering 
plans are recovered.

 Building two of AECL's newest reactors, which would produce the 
same amount of power as one of GE's, would cost about $1.89 
billion. But Canada stresses that unlike other reactors, its 
design doesn't require the plant to be shut down during regular, 
lengthy refuelings. They argue to utilities that that will 
increase their revenue during the several weeks such refueling 
typically takes.

 The Department of Energy cautions that these construction 
estimates are overly optimistic and new plants are likely to cost 
more. Still, proponents argue that nuclear power is efficient. 
Nuclear power, they note, costs about $1.71 a kilowatt-hour to 
operate over the life of a plant, compared to $1.85 for coal and 
$4.06 for gas, according to industry estimates. In addition, 
nuclear doesn't emit pollutants, while coal's carbon emissions 
contribute to global warming.

 I cannot see any energy future ... without an expanded nuclear 
base, John Rowe, Exelon's chairman and chief executive, told a 
group of managers at a climate policy meeting this summer.   

														 															 															   														
Â© 1998-2004 The Day Publishing Co. You are 1 of  
*****************************************************************
 22 NRC: In the Matter of Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Quad Cities 
 
                        FR Doc 04-25362 
[Federal Register: November 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 220)] 
[Notices] [Page 67189-67191] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16no04-103]                         
 
Nuclear Power Station Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation 
Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately) AGENCY: Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission.
 
 
[[Page 67190]] ACTION: Issuance of order for implementation of 
additional security measures associated with access 
authorization.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Barr, Project Manager, 
Licensing and Inspection Directorate, Spent Fuel Project Office, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: (301) 
415-4015; fax number: (301) 415-8555; e-mail CSB2@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR 
2.106, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing 
notice in the matter of Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station 
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Order Modifying 
License (Effective Immediately).
 
II. Further Information I Exelon Generation Company (Exelon) 
holds a license issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC or the Commission) authorizing the operation of an 
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) in accordance 
with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50 and 10 CFR part 72. 
Commission regulations at 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) and 10 CFR 
73.55(h)(1) require Exelon to have a safeguards contingency plan 
to respond to threats of radiological sabotage and to protect the 
spent fuel against the threat of radiological sabotage.
 
Inasmuch as an insider has an opportunity equal to or greater 
than any other person to commit radiological sabotage, the 
Commission has determined these measures to be prudent. This 
Order has been issued to all licensees who currently store spent 
fuel or have identified near- term plans to store spent fuel in 
an ISFSI.
 
II On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked 
targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, utilizing large 
commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and 
intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission 
issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its 
licensees in order to strengthen licensees' capabilities and 
readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. 
On October 16, 2002, the Commission issued Orders to the 
licensees of operating ISFSIs to put the actions taken in 
response to the Advisories in the established regulatory 
framework and to implement additional security enhancements which 
emerged from the NRC's ongoing comprehensive review. The 
Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State, and 
local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss 
and evaluate the current threat environment in order to assess 
the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. In 
addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive 
review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements.
 
As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and 
security requirements, as well as a review of information 
provided by the intelligence community, the Commission has 
determined that certain additional security measures are required 
to address the current threat environment in a consistent manner 
throughout the nuclear ISFSI community. Therefore, the Commission 
is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachment 1\1\ of this 
Order, on all licensees of these facilities. These requirements, 
which supplement existing regulatory requirements, will provide 
the Commission with reasonable assurance that the public health 
and safety and common defense and security continue to be 
adequately protected in the current threat environment. These 
requirements will remain in effect until the Commission 
determines otherwise.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \1\ Attachment 1 contains Safeguards Information and 
will not be released to the public.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- The Commission recognizes that licensees may have 
already initiated many of the measures set forth in Attachment 1 
to this Order in response to previously issued advisories, the 
October 2002 Order, or on their own. It also recognizes that some 
measures may not be possible or necessary at some sites, or may 
need to be tailored to accommodate the specific circumstances 
existing at the licensee's facility to achieve the intended 
objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe storage of 
spent fuel.
 
Although the additional security measures implemented by 
licensees in response to the Safeguards and Threat Advisories 
have been adequate to provide reasonable assurance of adequate 
protection of public health and safety, the Commission concludes 
that these actions must be supplemented further because the 
current threat environment continues to persist. Therefore, it is 
appropriate to require certain additional security measures and 
these measures must be embodied in an Order, consistent with the 
established regulatory framework.
 
In order to provide assurance that Exelon is implementing prudent 
measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address 
the current threat environment, Exelon's general license issued 
pursuant to 10 CFR 72.210 shall be modified to include the 
requirements identified in Attachment 1 to this Order. In 
addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, the Commission finds that in 
the circumstances described above, the public health, safety, and 
interest require that this Order be immediately effective.
 
III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 53, 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 
161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 
and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR parts 
50, 72, and 73, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that 
your general license is modified as follows: A. Exelon shall, 
notwithstanding the provisions of any Commission regulation or 
license to the contrary, comply with the requirements described 
in Attachment 1 to this Order except to the extent that a more 
stringent requirement is set forth in the Exelon's security plan. 
Exelon shall immediately start implementation of the requirements 
in Attachment 1 to the Order and shall complete implementation no 
later than 180 days from the date of this Order with the 
exception of the additional security measures B.4, which shall be 
implemented no later than 365 days from the date of this Order, 
or the first day that spent fuel is initially placed in the 
ISFSI, whichever is later.
 
B.1. Exelon shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this 
Order, notify the Commission: (1) If it is unable to comply with 
any of the requirements described in Attachment 1, (2) if 
compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in their 
specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation of any of the 
requirements would cause Exelon to be in violation of the 
provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license. 
The notification shall provide Exelon's justification for seeking 
relief from or variation of any specific requirement.
 
2. If Exelon considers that implementation of any of the 
requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order would 
adversely impact the safe storage of spent fuel, Exelon must 
notify the Commission, within
 
[[Page 67191]] twenty (20) days of this Order, of the adverse 
safety impact, the basis for its determination that the 
requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal 
for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 1 
requirements in question, or a schedule for modifying the 
facility to address the adverse safety condition. If neither 
approach is appropriate, Exelon must supplement its response to 
Condition B.1 of this Order to identify the condition as a 
requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant 
justifications as required under Condition B.1. C.1. Exelon 
shall, within twenty (20) days of this Order, submit to the 
Commission a schedule for achieving compliance with each 
requirement described in Attachment 1.
 
2. Exelon shall report to the Commission when they have achieved 
full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 1.
 
D. Notwithstanding the provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5), all 
measures implemented or actions taken in response to this Order 
shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise.
 
Exelon's response to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, above 
shall be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.4. In addition, 
submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly 
marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. The Director, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, may, in 
writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon 
demonstration by Exelon of good cause.
 
IV In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Exelon must, and any other 
person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to 
this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 
twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is 
shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to 
request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to 
submit an answer must be made in writing to the Director, Office 
of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and the Director, 
Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for 
the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the 
answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and 
under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of 
fact and law on which the licensee or other person adversely 
affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not 
have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be 
submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the 
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings 
and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555.
 
Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555; to the Director, Office of 
Enforcement at the same address; to the Assistant General Counsel 
for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, to 
the Regional Administrator for NRC Region III at 2443 Warrenville 
Road, Suite 210, Lisle, IL 60532; and to the licensee if the 
answer or hearing request is by a person other than the licensee. 
Because of possible disruptions in delivery of mail to United 
States Government offices, it is requested that requests for a 
hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either 
by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail 
to

 
hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of General Counsel 
either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by 
e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a person other than the 
Exelon requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with 
particularity the manner in which his/her interest is adversely 
affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth 
in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by Exelon or a 
person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will 
issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If 
a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing 
shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), Exelon may, in addition to 
demanding a hearing at the time the answer is filed or sooner, 
move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate 
effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the Order, 
including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on 
adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations or 
error.
 
In the absence of any request for hearing or written approval of 
an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the 
provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty 
(20) days from the date of this Order without further order or 
proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has 
been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be 
final when the extension expires, if a hearing request has not 
been received.
 
An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate 
effectiveness of this order.
 
Dated this 9th day of November 2004.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Margaret V. Federline, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. 04-25362 Filed 11-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 23 National Post: decision in 2 months on dormant reactors
 	 	
nationalpost.com 

November 16, 2004
 
TORONTO -- Ontario will decide within the next several months 
whether it will go ahead with fixing two other dormant reactors 
at the troubled Pickering nuclear plant, Energy Minister Dwight 
Duncan said Tuesday. 

Duncan said the decision to resurrect Units 2 and 3 will depend 
on the success of the ongoing refurbishment of Unit 1, which is 
already delayed and expected to exceed its $900-million budget by 
as much as $100 million. 

"We said very clearly when we began this project that the 
relative performance of (the refurbishment of) Pickering A Unit 1 
will determine whether we can go forward with those or not," he 
said. 

Ontario Power Generation said Monday that the project, which is 
only half done, could cost $75 million to $100 million more than 
original estimates and won't be done until October, a month late. 

That dredges up lingering memories of the Unit 4 boondoggle, 
which was finished two years behind schedule at a total cost of 
$1.2 billion - three times the original estimate. 

While Duncan called the Unit 1 refit "a risky project," he said 
he's confident that "adequate oversight" is in place to ensure it 
doesn't get out of control. 

"We've decided at this point, and with the milestones ahead, that 
we're going ahead," he said. 

Critics have said the province is throwing good money after bad 
by fixing the reactors instead of phasing them out and pursuing 
other forms of energy. 

OPG Chairman Jake Epp said Monday that difficulties getting 
tradespeople on the work site over the busy summer construction 
months led to delays and rising costs of the project. 

The retrofitted reactor is expected to produce 515 megawatts of 
power once it's back on line, power the province desperately 
needs, said Duncan, who wasn't anxious to consider what it would 
take for the government to cancel the project. 

"I guess my answer is never say never, but we are 54 per cent 
through the project," he said. "The next three months are the key 
months in terms of where we're going." 

Before the government gave the green light to start repairs on 
Unit 1, estimates suggested Ontario Power Generation was already 
spending about $20 million a month on routine maintenance work on 
Units 1, 2, and 3. 

Since Unit 4 was restarted a year ago, "it's been working well," 
said spokesman John Earl. 

Duncan said fixing the province's current reactors makes sense, 
since new reactors would cost "multi-billions of dollars." Refits 
cost less and extend the life of the current reactors by 12 to 15 
years, he added. 

  © Canadian Press 2004 
*****************************************************************
 24 Sofia Morning News: Eco Unit to Appeal Court Decision on Belene Nuke
 	 	 	 	 	 	
Sofia News Agency]                                                           

novinite.com

Politics: 16 November 2004, Tuesday.

Environmental organisation "Ecoglasnost" announced its 
determination to appeal the Monday decision of the Supreme 
Administrative Court.
 
The court ruled out the environmentalists' claim against the 
construction of Belene nuclear site as inadmissible. The 
magistrates concluded that the government had actually adopted no 
decision on April 2004 to launch the construction of the nuclear 
unit that was argued by the environmental organisation 
"Ecoglasnost".
 
There is a decision of the Bulgarian Council of Ministers for the 
construction of the Belene nuclear power plant and we have a copy 
of it, Petar Panchev, Deputy Chairman of Ecoglasnost pointed out. 

The construction works of Bulgaria's second nuclear plant was 
re-launched following a political decision, the government 
spokesperson Dimitar Tsonev commented on Monday. He pointed out 
that numerous procedures and tenders on the selection of a 
nuclear unit were still ahead to be decided.
 
At a press conference on Monday environmentalists claimed that 
the future-to-be plant will rise on a seismically active land and 
called on the government to back up its decision of Belene with 
argumentation on the economic and environmental advantages of the 
project as located at Belene.[ width=] 

  NOVINITE.COM
   
 All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2004 - Copyright

Bulgaria news Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency -
www.sofianewsagency.com) is unique with being a real time news
provider in English that informs its readers about the latest
Bulgarian news. The editorial staff also publishes a daily
*****************************************************************
 25 VG: Emergency alert problem silences radios in nuclear planning zone

Vermont Guardian
 
By Kathryn Casa | © Vermont Guardian 

BRATTLEBORO  A weeks-old glitch in southern Vermonts emergency 
alert system has disabled an unknown number of the thousands of 
weather-alert radios used to notify people of a nuclear crisis, 
emergency management officials have told the Vermont Guardian. 

The problem, if it persists, could force regulators to increase 
inspections at the plant or take other action. 

Officials from the National Weather Service in Albany, NY, were 
in Brattleboro last week to conduct a special test of the alert 
system. They determined that some radios did not emit a tone when 
tested. 

We havent been able to determine exactly where the problem lies, 
Warning Coordination Meteorologist Raymond OKeefe said Monday. 

A second test will be conducted from Albany between noon-1 p.m. 
Tuesday, OKeefe said. The problem came to the attention of 
emergency-management officials several weeks ago, he said, adding 
that he did not yet know enough to determine whether the problem 
is with the radios themselves, the transmission lines or the 
local transmitter. There are 21 sirens and some 5,000 
weather-alert radios in the three-state, 10-mile emergency 
planning zone around Vermont Yankee, according to the Nuclear 
Regulator Commission. Of those radios, Vermont emergency planners 
said there are five or six different makes and models in use. 

Contacted Monday afternoon, officials at the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, and a spokesman for Vermont Yankee, said they were 
not aware of the problem. 

NRC Region I spokesman Neil Sheehan wrote in an e-mail that the 
agency will be checking into this and if there is a problem with 
this or any other aspect of the system, we would expect Vermont 
Yankee to remedy it as expediently as possible. 

If the system fails to meet specific measures of performance, we 
could heighten our level of inspection until satisfactory 
improvement is shown, Sheehan wrote. We also have other 
regulatory tools at our disposal, including orders, if problems 
persisted. In the event of an accident, prompt notification of 
those who live and work around the plant would be essential. The 
system must be capable of notifying members of the public in a 
timely manner. 

The NRC last week issued a finding of low to moderate safety 
significance after inspectors determined that Vermont Yankee does 
not keep adequate records on the number or condition of 
weather-alert radios within the 10-mile emergency planning zone 
surrounding the nuclear power plant in Vernon. 

In a Nov 12 letter to Vermont Yankee site Vice President Jay 
Thayer, NRC inspectors said the plant did not have the means to 
provide early notification to the entire populace within the 
plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone. 

Specifically, it was determined that Entergy did not properly 
assure the distribution and maintenance of tone-alert radios, 
which are relied upon to alert the populace outside of siren 
coverage within the emergency planning zone. In your efforts to 
advertise the availability of the tone alert radios, you 
ultimately placed the onus on the individuals who needed the 
radios and not on your organization, the letter stated. 

Vermont Yankee has subsequently begun making more radios 
available to the public. Its essential that these radios function 
and theyre capable of receiving the signal if an event did occur 
at the plant, Sheehan said Tuesday. 

NRC inspectors reviewed the plants emergency preparedness system 
between July 26-Oct. 12. 

OKeefe said during his tests in Brattleboro last week some of the 
radios worked and some didnt. On Tuesday, a signal will be sent 
to the same set of radios from the Albany transmitter, rather 
than the one near Brattleboro, he said. 

During the NWS weekly test of the emergency tone-alert system, a 
signal leaves the Albany office and travels via land lines and 
microwaves to a transmitter near Brattleboro. From there, the 
alert is sent to weather radios, which alert listeners to any 
weather or radiological emergency within the region. 

People have indicated that they havent gotten the weekly test on 
some radios and they have gotten them on other radios, OKeefe 
said. 

The problem could be with the radios, the lines or the 
transmitter, or some combination, he said. Emergency planners 
will narrow it down through a process of elimination, he said. 

The problem exists within the Brattleboro Municipal Center, where 
Town Manager Jerry Remillard said the radio in his office works 
consistently, but some radios upstairs in the state emergency 
management office do not work. 

Steve Goldsmith, the states emergency-response planner in 
Brattleboro, did not return phone calls on Monday. 

Posted November 15, 2004 Send us your news tips, a letter to the 
editor or general comments.
 
Vermont: PO Box 335, Winooski, VT 05404 Southern Vermont: 139 
Main Street, Suite 702, Brattleboro, VT 05301 Contact: 
802.861.4880 (ph) | 802.861.6388 (fax) | 877.231.5382 (toll-free)

 ©2004 Vermont Guardian | 
*****************************************************************
 26 NRC: In the Matter of Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Quad Cities 
 
                        FR Doc 04-25363 
[Federal Register: November 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 220)] 
[Notices] [Page 67191-67193] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16no04-104]                         
 
Nuclear Power Station Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation 
Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately) AGENCY: Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Issuance of Order for Implementation of Interim 
Safeguards and Security Compensatory Measures.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Barr, Project Manager, 
Licensing and Inspection Directorate, Spent Fuel Project Office, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: (301) 
415-4015; fax number: (301) 415-8555; e-mail CSB2@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR 
2.106, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing 
notice in the matter of Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station 
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Order Modifying 
License (Effective Immediately).
 
II. Further Information I Exelon Generation Company (Exelon) has 
been issued a general license by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC or the Commission) authorizing storage of spent 
fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) in 
accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 10 CFR part 50, 
and 10 CFR part 72. This Order is being issued to Exelon who has 
identified near-term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI under 
the general license provisions of 10 CFR part 72. The Commission 
regulations at 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) and 10 CFR 73.55(h)(1) require 
Exelon to maintain safeguards contingency plan procedures in 
accordance with 10 CFR part 73, Appendix C. Specific
 
[[Page 67192]] safeguards requirements are contained in 10 CFR 
73.55. II On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously 
attacked targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, utilizing 
large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks 
and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the 
Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to 
its licensees in order to strengthen licensees' capabilities and 
readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. 
The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State, 
and local government agencies and industry representatives to 
discuss and evaluate the current threat environment in order to 
assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. 
In addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive 
review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements.
 
As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and 
security plan requirements, as well as a review of information 
provided by the intelligence community and other governmental 
agencies, the Commission has determined that certain compensatory 
measures are required to be implemented by licensees as prudent, 
interim measures, to address the current threat environment in a 
consistent manner throughout the nuclear ISFSI community. 
Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth 
in Attachment 1\1\ of this Order, on Exelon who has indicated 
near-term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI under the general 
license provisions of 10 CFR part 72. These interim requirements, 
which supplement existing regulatory requirements, will provide 
the Commission with reasonable assurance that the public health 
and safety and common defense and security continue to be 
adequately protected in the current threat environment. These 
requirements will remain in effect until the Commission 
determines otherwise.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \1\ Attachment 1 contains Safeguards Information and 
will not be released to the public.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- The Commission recognizes that some measures may not 
be possible or necessary, or may need to be tailored to 
accommodate the specific circumstances existing at Exelon's 
facility to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any 
unforeseen effect on the safe storage of spent fuel.
 
In order to provide assurance that licensees are implementing 
prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to 
address the current threat environment, the Commission concludes 
that security measures must be embodied in an Order consistent 
with the established regulatory framework. Exelon's general 
license issued pursuant to 10 CFR 72.210 shall be modified to 
include the requirements identified in Attachment 1 to this 
Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, the Commission 
finds that in the circumstances described above, the public 
health, safety, and interest require that this Order be effective 
immediately.
 
III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 
182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Parts 50, 
72, and 73, It is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that 
your general license is modified as follows: A. Exelon shall, 
notwithstanding the provisions of any Commission regulation or 
license to the contrary, comply with the requirements described 
in Attachment 1 to this Order except to the extent that a more 
stringent requirement is set forth in their security plan.
 
Exelon shall immediately start implementation of the requirements 
in Attachment 1 to the Order and shall complete implementation 
before spent fuel is initially placed in the ISFSI.
 
B.1. Exelon shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this 
Order, notify the Commission: (1) If they are unable to comply 
with any of the requirements described in Attachment 1, (2) if 
compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in their 
specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation of any of the 
requirements would cause the licensee to be in violation of the 
provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license. 
The notification shall provide the licensee's justification for 
seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement.
 
2. If Exelon considers that implementation of any of the 
requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order would 
adversely impact the safe storage of spent fuel, Exelon must 
notify the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of 
the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that 
the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a 
proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the 
Attachment 1 requirement(s) in question, or a schedule for 
modifying the facility to address the adverse safety condition. 
If neither approach is appropriate, Exelon must supplement its 
response to Condition B.1 of this Order to identify the condition 
as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant 
justifications as required in Condition B.1. C.1. Exelon shall, 
within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, submit to the 
Commission, a schedule for achieving compliance with each 
requirement described in Attachment 1.
 
2. Exelon shall report to the Commission when they have achieved 
full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 1.
 
D. Notwithstanding the provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5), all 
measures implemented or actions taken in response to this Order 
shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise.
 
Exelon's responses to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, shall be 
submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.4. In addition, submittals 
that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and 
handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. The Director, Office of 
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards may, in writing, relax or 
rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Exelon 
of good cause.
 
IV In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Exelon must, and any other 
person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to 
this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 
twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is 
shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to 
request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to 
submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to 
the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 
and the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good 
cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. 
Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in 
writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the 
matters of fact and law on which the licensee or other person 
adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order 
should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing 
shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of 
the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies 
also shall be sent to the
 
[[Page 67193]] Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555; to the Director, Office of Enforcement at the same 
address; to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials 
Litigation and Enforcement at the same address; to the Regional 
Administrator for NRC Region III at 2443 Warrenville Road, Suite 
210, Lisle, IL 60532; and to the licensee if the answer or 
hearing request is by a person other than the licensee. Because 
of potential disruptions in delivery of mail to United States 
Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for 
hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission, either 
by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101, or by e-mail 
to

 
hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of the General 
Counsel, either by means of facsimile transmission to 
301-415-3725, or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a person 
other than Exelon requests a hearing, that person shall set forth 
with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely 
affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth 
in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by Exelon or a 
person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will 
issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If 
a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such a hearing 
shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), Exelon may, in addition to 
demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, 
move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate 
effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the Order, 
including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on 
adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, 
or error.
 
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of 
an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the 
provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty 
(20) days from the date of this Order without further order or 
proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has 
been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be 
final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not 
been received. An answer or a request for a hearing shall not 
stay the immediate effectiveness of this order.
 
Dated this 9th day of November 2004.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Margaret V. Federline, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. 04-25363 Filed 11-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 27 NRC: Notice of License Amendment Request of Westinghouse Electric 
 
                        FR Doc 04-25364 
[Federal Register: November 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 220)] 
[Notices] [Page 67187-67189] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16no04-101]                         
 
Company, LLC, Festus, MO, and Opportunity To Request a Hearing 
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Notice of license amendment, and opportunity to request a 
hearing.
 
DATES: A request for a hearing must be filed by January 18, 2005.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amir Kouhestani, Project 
Manager, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste 
Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001; telephone: (301) 
415-0023; fax number: (301) 415-5398; e-mail: aak@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) has received, by letter dated October 5, 2004, a 
request from Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC, (WEC as the 
licensee) to amend Chapter 1 of Special Nuclear Materials License 
(No. SNM-33) to allow dismantlement and demolition of the 
building complexes at its Hematite facility located in Festus, 
Missouri. License No. SNM-33 authorizes the licensee to conduct 
certain decontamination activities necessary to reduce the 
current inventory of Atomic Energy Act materials, e.g., packaging 
and shipping materials and to engage in activities necessary to 
plan for decommissioning of the site, e.g., site characterization 
and maintaining the site in a safe condition pending license 
termination. However, the licensee is prohibited from performing 
building demolition, soil and groundwater remediation, and 
conducting final status surveys until these activities are 
approved by a specific license amendment or an NRC-approved 
Decommissioning Plan. Specifically, the licensee requests 
authorization to dismantle and demolish Hematite facility 
buildings 101, 110, 115, 120, 230, 231, 235, 240, 245, 252, 253, 
254, 255, 256, 260, and 261, all located on approximately ten 
acres of land at the Westinghouse Hematite facility.
 
An NRC administrative review, documented in a letter to 
Westinghouse dated October 14, 2004, found the amendment request 
acceptable to begin a technical review. If approved, the 
authorization to dismantle and demolish building, will be 
documented in an amendment to NRC License No. SNM-33. However, 
before approving the proposed amendment, the NRC will need to 
make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, and NRC's regulations.
 
These findings will be documented in a Safety Evaluation Report 
and an Environmental Assessment.
 
II. Opportunity To Request a Hearing The NRC hereby provides 
notice that this is a proceeding on an application for a license 
amendment to Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-33 to 
allow dismantlement and demolition of the building complexes at 
the WEC Hematite facility located in Festus, Missouri. In 
accordance with the general requirements in subpart C of 10 CFR 
part 2, as amended on January 14, 2004 (69 FR 2182), any person 
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who desires 
to participate as a party must file a written request for a 
hearing and a specification of the contentions which the person 
seeks to have litigated in the hearing.
 
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.302 (a), a request for a hearing must 
be filed with the Commission either by: 1. First class mail 
addressed to: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications; 2. Courier, express mail, and expedited delivery 
services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White 
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, 
Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, between 7:45 a.m. 
and 4:15 p.m., Federal work days; 3. E-mail addressed to the 
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or 4. By facsimile transmission addressed 
to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, at (301) 415-1101; verification number is 
(301) 415-1966.
 
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.302 (b), all documents offered for 
filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all parties to 
the proceeding or their attorneys of record as required by law or 
by rule or order of the Commission, including: 1. The applicant, 
Westinghouse Electric Company, 3300 State Road P, Festus, 
Missouri 63028, Attention: Mr. Henry A. Sepp, Project Director; 
and
 
[[Page 67188]] 2. The NRC staff, by delivery to the Office of the 
General Counsel, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD 20852, or by mail addressed to the Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001. Hearing requests should also be transmitted to the 
Office of the General Counsel, either by means of facsimile 
transmission to (301) 415-3725, or by e-mail to 
ogcmailcenter@nrc.gov. The formal requirements for documents 
contained in 10 CFR 2.304 (b), (c), (d), and (e), must be met. In 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.304 (f), a document filed by electronic 
mail or facsimile transmission need not comply with the formal 
requirements of 10 CFR 2.304 (b), (c), and (d), as long as an 
original and two (2) copies otherwise complying with all of the 
requirements of 10 CFR 2.304 (b), (c), and (d) are mailed within 
two (2) days thereafter to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff.
 
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309 (b), a request for a hearing must 
be filed by January 18, 2005.
 
In addition to meeting other applicable requirements of 10 CFR 
2.309, the general requirements involving a request for a hearing 
filed by a person other than an applicant must state: 1. The 
name, address, and telephone number of the requester; 2. The 
nature of the requester's right under the Act to be made a party 
to the proceeding; 3. The nature and extent of the requester's 
property, financial or other interest in the proceeding; 4. The 
possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in 
the proceeding on the requester's interest; and 5. The 
circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is 
timely in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309 (b). In accordance with 10 
CFR 2.309 (f)(1), a request for hearing or petitions for leave to 
intervene must set forth with particularity the contentions 
sought to be raised. For each contention, the request or petition 
must: 1. Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact 
to be raised or controverted; 2. Provide a brief explanation of 
the basis for the contention; 3. Demonstrate that the issue 
raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding; 
4. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is 
material to the findings that the NRC must make to support the 
action that is involved in the proceeding; 5. Provide a concise 
statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support 
the requester's/petitioner's position on the issue and on which 
the requester/petitioner intends to rely to support its position 
on the issue; and 6. Provide sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue 
of law or fact.
 
This information must include references to specific portions of 
the application (including the applicant's environmental report 
and safety report) that the requester/petitioner disputes and the 
supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the 
requester/petitioner believes the application fails to contain 
information on a relevant matter as required by law, the 
identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the 
requester's/petitioner's belief.
 
In addition, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309 (f)(2), contentions 
must be based on documents or other information available at the 
time the petition is to be filed, such as the application, 
supporting safety analysis report, environmental report or other 
supporting document filed by an applicant or licensee, or 
otherwise available to the petitioner. On issues arising under 
the National Environmental Policy Act, the requester/petitioner 
shall file contentions based on the applicant's environmental 
report. The requester/petitioner may amend those contentions or 
file new contentions if there are data or conclusions in the NRC 
draft, or final environmental impact statement, environmental 
assessment, or any supplements relating thereto, that differ 
significantly from the data or conclusions in the applicant's 
documents. Otherwise, contentions may be amended or new 
contentions filed after the initial filing only with leave of the 
presiding officer.
 
Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha 
designation within one of the following groups: 1. 
Technical--primarily concerns issues relating to matters 
discussed or referenced in the Safety Evaluation Report for the 
proposed action.
 
2. Environmental--primarily concerns issues relating to matters 
discussed or referenced in the Environmental Report for the 
proposed action.
 
3. Emergency Planning--primarily concerns issues relating to 
matters discussed or referenced in the Emergency Plan as it 
relates to the proposed action.
 
4. Physical Security--primarily concerns issues relating to 
matters discussed or referenced in the Physical Security Plan as 
it relates to the proposed action.
 
5. Miscellaneous--does not fall into one of the categories 
outlined above.
 
If the requester/petitioner believes a contention raises issues 
that cannot be classified as primarily falling into one of these 
categories, the requester/petitioner must set forth the 
contention and supporting bases, in full, separately for each 
category into which the requester/petitioner asserts the 
contention belongs with a separate designation for that category.
 
Requesters/petitioners should, when possible, consult with each 
other in preparing contentions and combine similar subject matter 
concerns into a joint contention, for which one of the 
co-sponsoring requesters/petitioners is designated the lead 
representative.
 
Further, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309 (f)(3), any 
requester/petitioner that wishes to adopt a contention proposed 
by another requester/petitioner must do so in writing within ten 
days of the date the contention is filed, and designate a 
representative who shall have the authority to act for the 
requester/petitioner.
 
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309 (g), a request for hearing and/or 
petition for leave to intervene may also address the selection of 
the hearing procedures, taking into account the provisions of 10 
CFR 2.310. III. Further Information Documents related to this 
action, including the application for amendment and supporting 
documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's 
Electronic Reading Room at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can 
access the NRC's Agency wide Document Access and Management 
System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's 
public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents 
related to this notice is ML042860234. If you do not have access 
to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents 
located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room PDR 
Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to 
pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on 
the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, located in O-1 
F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a 
fee.
 
``Please note that on October 25, 2004, the NRC suspended public 
access to ADAMS, and initiated an additional security review of 
publicly available
 
[[Page 67189]] documents to ensure that potentially sensitive 
information is removed from the ADAMS database accessible through 
the NRC's web site. Interested members of the public may obtain 
copies of the referenced documents for review and/or copying by 
contacting the Public Document Room pending resumption of public 
access to ADAMS. The NRC Public Document Room is located at NRC 
Headquarters in Rockville, MD, and can be contacted at 
800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or pdr@nrc.gov.'' Dated in 
Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of November, 2004.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Claudia Craig, Acting Deputy Director, Decommissioning 
Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental 
Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. 04-25364 Filed 11-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 28 [du-list] 11/15 Iraq Watch Alert! TV Shows U.S. Marine Kills
 
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:28:09 -0800

 
<x-flowed>
Fallujah: Ugly the War
Iraq Watch Specials: From Peace No War  Network

URL: _http://www.PeaceNoWar.net_ (http://www.peacenowar.net/)
U.S. Marine Kills Wounded  Iraqi
November 15,  2004
By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press  Writer
NEW  YORK - A U.S. Marine shot and killed a wounded and apparently unarmed
Iraqi  prisoner in a mosque in the former insurgent stronghold of Fallujah,
according  to dramatic pool television pictures broadcast Monday. A Marine
spokesman in  Washington said the shooting was under investigation.
The  shooting Saturday was videotaped by pool correspondent Kevin Sites of
NBC  television, who said three other previously wounded prisoners in the 
mosque
  apparently also had been shot again by the Marines inside the mosque.
The  incident played out as the Marines 3rd Battalion, 1st Regiment, returned
to the  unidentified Fallujah mosque Saturday. Sites was embedded with the
unit.
Sites reported that a different Marine unit had come  under fire from the
mosque on Friday. Those Marines stormed the building,  killing ten men and
wounding five others, Sites said. The Marines said the  fighters in the 
mosque had
been armed with rocket-propelled grenades and AK-47  rifles.
The  Marines had treated the wounded, he reported, left them behind and
continued on  Friday with their drive to retake the city from insurgents 
who have
been  battling U.S.-led occupation forces in Iraq with increasing ferocity 
and
violence in recent months.
On  the video as the camera moved into the mosque during the Saturday
incident, a  Marine can be heard shouting obscenities in the background, 
yelling that
one of  the men was only pretending to be dead.
The  video then showed a Marine raising his rifle toward a prisoner laying on
the  floor of the mosque but neither NBC nor CNN showed the bullet hitting
the man.  At that moment the video was blacked out but the report of the rifle
could be  heard.
The  blacked out portion of the video tape, provided later to Associated
Press  Television News and other members of the network pool, showed the 
bullet
striking the man in the upper body, possibly the head. His blood splatters on
the wall behind him and his body goes limp.
Sites reported a Marine in the same unit had been killed  just a day earlier
when he tended to the booby-trapped dead body of an  insurgent.
The  events on the videotape began as some of the Marines from the unit
accompanied  by Sites approached the mosque on Saturday, a day after it was 
stormed
by other  Marines.
Gunfire can be heard from inside the mosque, and at its  entrance, Marines
who were already in the building emerge. They are asked by an  approaching
Marine lieutenant if there were insurgents inside and if the Marines  had 
shot any
of them. A Marine can be heard responding affirmatively. The  lieutenant then
asks if they were armed and fellow Marine shrugs.
Sites' account said the wounded men, who he said were  prisoners and who were
hurt in the previous day's attack, had been shot again by  the Marines on the
Saturday visit.
The  videotape showed two of the wounded men propped against the wall and
Sites said  they were bleeding to death. According his report, a third wounded
man appeared  already dead, while a fourth was severely wounded but breathing.
The fifth was  covered by a blanket but did not appear to have been shot again
after the  Marines returned. It was the fourth man who was shown being shot.
A  spokesman at Marine Corps headquarters in the Pentagon, Maj. Doug Powell,
said  the incident was "being investigated." He had no further details, other
than to  confirm the incident happened on Saturday and that the Marines
involved were  part of the 1st Marine Division.
The  CNN broadcast of the pictures used pixilation to cover parts of the
video that  could lead to public identification of the Marines involved.
NBC's Robert Padavick told members of the U.S. television  pool that the
Pentagon had ordered NBC and other pool members to make sure the  Marines 
identity
was hidden because "they (the military authorities) are  anticipating a
criminal investigation as a result of this incident and do not  want to 
implicate
anybody ahead of that."
In  New York, NBC spokeswoman Allison Gollust said the network did not
broadcast the  prisoner being shot because of the "graphic nature" of the 
video.


In this image taken from pool video provided to the Associated  Press by NBC
News, a U.S. marine is seen, left, raising his rifle in the  direction of
Iraqi prisoners lying on the floor of a mosque in Fallujah, Iraq Saturday 
Nov. 13,
2004. The pool video was  recorded Saturday as the Marines returned to an
unidentified Fallujah mosque.  The video, in a version aired by CNN showed the
Marine raising his rifle toward  the prisoners but neither NBC nor CNN showed
the shooting itself. The video was  blacked out but the report of the rifle
could be heard. The bodies in the  foreground are other Iraqi prisoners. (AP
Photo/NBC News, Pool)


(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=events/iraq/082701iraqplane&a=&tmpl=sl&ns=&l=0&e=2&a=&printer=) 

A video grab shows U.S.  Marines inspecting a body inside a mosque after a
battle with insurgents in  Falluja, November 13, 2004. A television pool 
report
by U.S. network NBC said on  Monday that a U.S. Marine had shot dead an
unarmed and wounded Iraqi prisoner in  the mosque. The Iraqi was one of 
five wounded
prisoners left in the mosque after  Marines had fought their way in on Friday
and Saturday. (Pool TV via Reuters)


=============================================================
Peace, No War
War is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate
Not in  our Name! And another world is possible!

Information for antiwar  movements, news across the World, please  visit:
http://www.PeaceNoWar.net




Please Join PeaceNoWar Listserv, send e-mail to:
peacenowar-subscribe@lists.riseup.net


Please Donate to Peace No War  Network!
Send check pay to:
ActionLA/SEE
1013  Mission St. #6
South Pasadena CA 91030
(All donations are tax  deductible)



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 29 [du-list] Report Launch - SOLDIERS IN THE LABORATORY
 
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:25:02 -0800

 
<x-flowed>
SOLDIERS IN THE LABORATORY
Military involvement in science and technology
- and some alternatives

A new report by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR)

         will be launched
         at the

Houses of Parliament

         on

Wednesday 19 January 2005

The report documents the power and influence of the military in science,
engineering and technology (SET) in the UK over the past 15 years, and
investigates whether some reallocation of the resources that the military
currently devotes to weapons-related SET would contribute better to the
goals of peace, social justice and environmental sustainability.

Speakers include:

DR IAN GIBSON
Chair of the House of Commons Select Committee
on Science and Technology

DR CHRIS LANGLEY
Author of the Report, Scientists for Global Responsibility

PROFESSOR JOHN ZIMAN
Emeritus Professor of Physics, Bristol University

Chair:

DR STUART PARKINSON
Director, Scientists for Global Responsibility

Venue: Grimond Room, Portcullis House

Time: 16.00

Entrance is free, but you _must_ register in advance.

Send your name, contact details and affiliation (if any) to:

Scientists for Global Responsibility
P O Box 473
Folkestone
CT20 1GS
E-mail: info@sgr.org.uk

Numbers are limited, so early registration is strongly recommended!









------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 30 Curbing Potential Spread Of Weapons-grade Uranium Could Take 10 Years - Iaea
 
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:00:04 -0500

 
X-Sender-Hostname: mx1.un.org
 
X-Temp-Whitephrase: YES nuclear 

CURBING POTENTIAL SPREAD OF WEAPONS-GRADE URANIUM COULD TAKE 10 YEARS 
– IAEA
New York, Nov 16 2004 11:00AM
It will take the better part of a decade for all the world’s civil 
nuclear research reactors to be converted to run on fuel that poses 
a lower risk of proliferation of weapons-grade high-enriched 
uranium (HEU), the United Nations atomic watchdog agency reports 
in its latest update on the issue. 

Although much progress has been made, among the biggest challenges 
is developing the types of uranium fuel that converted reactors 
require. More than 60 civilian research reactors worldwide still 
run on HEU fuels and are targeted for conversion over the next 10 
years, the International Atomic Energy Agency <"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2004/retr2004.html">(IAEA) 
says. 

Some 200 experts from across the globe gathered at IAEA headquarters 
in Vienna last week to take stock of developments at an International 
Meeting on Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors, 
focusing on converting research and test reactors running on 
HEU to low-enriched uranium (LEU), which is unsuitable for use 
in a nuclear weapon. 

For more than 20 years the IAEA has supported international efforts 
to reduce the amount of HEU in international commerce. It plays 
an active role in helping countries convert their reactors to LEU 
fuels. Through its technical cooperation programme, the Agency 
currently has more than 20 projects on research reactors that tackle 
issues concerning fuel, decommissioning, waste management, reactor 
use and safety. 
 2004-11-16 00:00:00.000 

________________

For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news

To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml
*****************************************************************
 31 [du-list] depleted uranium weapons testing in Scotland
 
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:28:45 -0800

 
<x-flowed>
Since 1980 the British Ministry of Defence have fired by their own
admission approximately 30 tonnes of depleted uranium munitions over
the Firing Range at Dunderennan in South-West Scotland.

The range is situated near cliffs overlooking the Solway Firth. The
area near the Dundrennan base has some of the highest incidents of
Leukemia in Scotland.
http://www.isdscotland.org/isd/files/can_reg_stats_Scotland_1986_1995.
pdf

The MOD claim they don't hit hard targets but only fire into the
Solway Firth. Around 20-29 tons of Depleted Uranium waste is lying at
the Solway Seabed with the MOD making no attempt to retrieve the
shells and munitions. This is stealth dumping. As Depleted Uranium is
radioactive waste, it is an breach of the Convention on the
Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter,
1972. They also claim that introducing this toxic element into the
marine environment will make no difference because of natural
occuring uranium in the Solway, however the natural uranium is
heavily diluted by the seabed, whilst the depleted uranium will
corrode into a toxic sludge. Comparing depleted uranium with natural
uranium is like comparing apples with oranges.

http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=258&doc_id=681


The MOD are therefore breaching international law through the dumping
of Radioactive Waste in the Solway. They are also creating
environmental and human hazards matters by hitting hard targets with
Depleted Uranium weapons. The MOD claim they are not in breach
because they are not dumping, but firing the waste into the Solway.
That is what they have stated in writing.

This matter is very frustrating. The Scottish Executive will not get
involved because matters relating to defence is reserved to the
Westminster Parliament, despite petitions and lobbying. The Scottish
Environmental Protection Agency does not want to get involved for the
same reasons. The Westminster Parliament is not interested because
there is not enough interest in this issue, and when the matter is
brought up the MOD simply bring up issues of security and defence.
The European Commission, a unelected body of ministers, are not
interested in any breaches of the Marine Act as the European
Commission has not signed up to the Act. They also are strong
supporters of Eurotom, and treaty which promotes the nuclear
industry. A petition is now being looked at by the European
Parliament, which is a seperate body from the Commission, and a
number of European politicians have been lobbied.

Also frustrating is the lack of support from many of the established
environmental groups. Although they are aware of the issue, many
don't seem to be prepared to pursue this issue as hard as I would
expect.

Below are photos taken within the Ministry of Defence firing range at
Dundrennan near Kirkcudbright in SouthWest Scotland.

The photos have raised concerns that the MOD have been testfiring
DEPLETED URANIUM WEAPONS by hitting tanks and other hard targets. The
MOD claim they have been hit by conventional munitions such as
tungsten, although there are reports of high radioactivity near some
of the tanks. The MOD however claim this is from a radium dial which
was not removed from the tank. They now have stated that they will be
removing and desposing of the tank. They have also admitted that
there have been up to 90 misfires in the range.

I think it is up to the MOD to prove that they are not hitting hard
targets with depleted uranium weapons.

http://www.geocities.com/bomb22bomb/tanka.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/bomb22bomb/tankb.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/bomb22bomb/tankc.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/bomb22bomb/tankd.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/bomb22bomb/tanke.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/bomb22bomb/tankf.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/bomb22bomb/tankg.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/bomb22bomb/platea.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/bomb22bomb/dugardena.jpg


The MOD are also conducting tests through 'DU Gardens', where DU
fragments are buried and studied to see how long they corrode in the
soil.







------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 32 [du-list] Two DU Stories - Last gift of Terry Riordon and US
 
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:24:17 -0800

 
<x-flowed>

The Last Gift Of Terry Riordon

axisoflogic.com
By Raymond D. Cohen
Nov 11, 2004

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_13520.shtml

Thousands of military veterans of the Gulf War have reported
a whole range of ailments and disabling conditions -- come
to be referred to collectively as Gulf War syndrome. The
numbers are not immediately clear for Canada, but in the
U.S. some 70,000 veterans are dealing with severe health
problems.

Symptoms of Gulf War syndrome include depression, chronic
fatigue, anxiety, respiratory problems, memory and attention
disorders, joint pain, skin rashes, musculoskeletal
disorders, shortness of breath, insomnia, hair loss,
dizziness, nausea and nerve damage.

Adding to the pain and frustration of those trying to cope
with this condition has been the negation by "experts" or
that it is more than a result of emotional trauma. Perhaps
it's just a giant coincidence that thousands participating
in the Persian Gulf conflict all happened to experience
similar symptoms at about the same time.

It is odd that when our experts don't understand a
condition, they seem more inclined to dismiss it with an
"it's-all-in-your-head" attitude over a more constructive
position of, "We don't know, we don't understand -- perhaps
we can try to find out."

Interestingly, the symptoms those contending with Gulf War
syndrome are almost identical to many Canadians with
environmental sensitivities. Their problems too were often
compounded by experts who dismissed their conditions as
being psychosomatic. And although the disability is now more
acknowledged by government, there are still other
professionals who doubt those with it.

The situation becomes even more confusing when, perhaps
inevitably, psychological effects sometimes do set in as a
consequence of the lack of intervention of the professionals
mandated to treat them, or the inaction of policy makers
mandated to look at the circumstances which caused symptoms
in the first place.

In the case of our Gulf War veterans, there seems to be some
movement at the federal level spurred on by the death last
year of Terry Riordon of Nova Scotia. Mr. Riordon's final
wish, expressed to his wife, Sue, was that his organ and
bone tissue be examined after his death to attest to what he
knew to be true all along -- Gulf War syndrome is real. The
test results indicated that traces of a radioactive metal,
depleted uranium, remained in his body -- nine years after
he left the field of conflict.

Depleted uranium was present in the tank armour and missile
shells used by the military in the Gulf War. Troops were
exposed to it either directly, or through radioactive dust
emanating from the weapons and equipment.

Defense Minister Art Eggleton now says the military will
look closely at those tests results and the possible
widespread exposure to radioactive material in the Gulf War.
The federal government is now willing to test any members of
the Canadian forces who feel they may have been exposed to
depleted uranium while on duty.

While this decision may come too late for the Terry Riordons
of the world, it is at least a willingness to assume a
stance of, "I don't know, but I'm sure as hell going to find
out,"as opposed to, "I don't know, so it must be all in your
head."

How often, and how much longer, must Canadians endure
official denials of life-stealing problems? Why is it that a
sweeping compromise of our health and well-being must occur
before some kind of intervention -- usually occurring too
late for those whose final sacrifices eventually forced the
issue -- is implemented?

Canada's blood scandal is not that far behind us, in which
untold thousands of Canadians were infected with HIV and
hepatitis C. In this issue of ABILITIES, we point to
unacceptable (but perfectly legal) exposure to lead
threatening our children ("Thumbs Down," p. 7). And
genetically altered food, currently common fare in our
supermarkets, is anybody's nightmare; our health department
assures us that it's safe, but the track record is not so
reassuring.

It is time we adopt a philosophy of prevention within our
policies -- and within our institutions -- and certainly
within our homes and choices of health care practitioners.

And it is time, too, that we accept that disability and pain
being expressed by people in search of relief is real --
regardless of whether or not the source is obvious.

Let's each do what we can to turn this situation around. Be
a vocal consumer. Find out who is in charge, politically,
socially, medically -- and don't be afraid to ask the hard
questions. We owe it to ourselves, our families and our
communities. And perhaps we owe it to Terry Riordon, whose
last gift was a message that it's up to citizens to speak up
when we're told, "It's all in your head."

http://www.abilities.ca/health/hlth_articles.html?showhealth=1&page=17&id=1523

-----

U.S. use of depleted uranium under fire

KING 5 News
By LORI MATSUKAWA
November 11, 2004

http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_111104WABdepleteduraniumSW.49604608.html

Alvin Clark, of Tacoma, developed aplastic anemia he
believes is related to his exposure to depleted uranium dust
after he was hit by friendly fire in Saudi Arabia.

Shells and armor used by U.S. tanks, gunships and
helicopters are often made of depleted uranium because
depleted uranium, or D.U., is a heavy metal, able to pierce
armored vehicles or resist being pierced. But it's also
radioactive, a waste product of nuclear enrichment plants
like Hanford.

A pentagon training film shows how the D.U. ordnance bursts
into a fiery powder on contact.

So, what happens when U.S. Troops are forced to march
through the D.U. dust that's left on the ground? Or get hit
by friendly fire? Some vets say it made them sick. The
Pentagon disputes that.

Shinichi Matsuura of Renton fought in the first Gulf War.
His Bradley tank was hit not once, but twice, by U.S.
forces. He breathed a lot of D.U. smoke.

"Matter of fact I didn't know we were using D.U. until six
years ago," said Matsuura.

Alvin Clark of Tacoma says his unit was nearly hit by a
friendly fire missile in Jubail, Saudi Arabia. He developed
aplastic anemia and needed a bone marrow transplant.

Clark said no one ever warned him there might be some
depleted uranium out there, and if he were exposed to it,
what he was supposed to do about it.
Video Clip

KING 5's Lori Matsukawa reports
More ... Custom Video ...

Dennis Kyne of San Jose says his unit marched along the
bombed-out "highway of death" to Baghdad. He receives a
disability check from the government each month for an
"undiagnosed illness."

"My chain of command says I'm big enough and strong enough
and soldier enough to walk through this stuff and .. it's
just like lead. Just a little bit heavy and might affect the
kidneys," he said.

This October, the Pentagon released findings of a five-year
study of D.U. dust. Residue was collected from shot-up
tanks, and analyzed by computer models. The military's
conclusion? Half of the inhaled D.U. - a radioactive heavy
metal - would be excreted by the body in 10 to 100 days.

"Even individuals with the highest potential for exposure
still have doses that are well below peacetime safety
standards. Which would be allowable here in the states so if
you put that in the context of other combat risks, I'd have
to say the military exposures to depleted uranium are safe,"
said Lt. Col. Mark Melanson.

It's a slightly different story for veterans with D.U.
shrapnel embedded in their bodies.

The V.A. in Baltimore is studying about 70 Gulf War one
vets, including Shinishi Matsuura, and has found elevated
levels of uranium in the urine of several men more than a
decade after the conflict.

But Pentagon officials say this, too, is no cause for alarm.

"It's important to note that this group has been followed
for over 10 years and no adverse health effects associated
with depleted uranium have been found," officials said.

In the first Gulf War, the Pentagon estimates it used 315 to
350 tones of D.U. In today's conflict, it estimates
coalition forces have used three to six times that.

So what about the D.U. remaining in Iraq?

In a video provided by the Uranium Medical Research Centre
of Canada, researchers found soil and spent munitions with
radiation levels thousands of times higher than Department
of Defense guidelines. U.S. soldiers tried to warn-off the
researchers.

Congressman Jim McDermott, a medical doctor and Iraq war
critic, questions using D.U. at all. During a hospital visit
in Baghdad before the war, McDermott was told Iraq now has
the highest rate of childhood leukemia in the world.

"I saw what it did to the Iraqis, but now I see that we're
marching our own people through that, creating birth defects
in children, leukemia in children, illnesses among adults.
Then it becomes a question of really a war crime. The Geneva
Convention says you cannot do something that has a long term
effect on the country," said McDermott.

The Pentagon maintains D.U. is safe and necessary in war.

"You take with you the best weapons systems you can so you
can defeat the enemy with overwhelming lethality," said Dr.
Michael Kilpatrick.

The Pentagon says for penetrating armor, depleted uranium is
the heavy metal that is the best.

"It's not the best, it's the worst," said Kyne. "It
inherently becomes the worst possible weapon because it's no
longer just attacking the enemy, it's omnicidal, it kills
all of us."

The U.S. and U.K. are the only militaries that use D.U. Most
exposure to U.S. soldiers has been from fire from its own
forces.

In 1996, the United Nations Sub Commission on Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights found use of D.U. weapons
"incompatible" with existing humanitarian law.



		
---------------------------------
Win a castle  for NYE with your mates and Yahoo! Messenger

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 33 The Australian: Nuclear safety to lead talks at APEC 

[November 17, 2004]
 	 	
from our news.com.au network              Source: The Australian          

By Patrick Walters

A US-Australia push for stronger nuclear safeguards is likely to 
dominate the security debate at this year's APEC leaders' meeting 
in Santiago, Chile.

George W. Bush is keen to advance the Asia-Pacific Economic 
Co-operation's security agenda with a sharp focus on how the 21 
member economies can contribute to the drive for tighter export 
controls on fissionable material. 

The US President is also keen to advance APEC's counter-terrorism 
agenda, particularly measures to curb the spread of 
shoulder-fired missiles, known as MANPADS, which terrorist groups 
could use to shoot down civilian aircraft. 

Washington and Canberra want APEC members to adhere to the 
International Atomic Energy Agency's additional protocol on the 
export and import of nuclear equipment, as well as measures to 
strengthen the capacity of individual nations to protect their 
own nuclear materials. 

"I think the issue of non-proliferation is going to be a much 
more important issue in APEC for the foreign ministers," 
Alexander Downer said yesterday. 

The Foreign Minister, who will attend the joint ministerial 
meeting tomorrow with Trade Minister Mark Vaile, will host a 
gathering of APEC counterparts to push for further APEC 
co-operation on the non-proliferation agenda. 

"At this dinner we'll be focussing on stopping the proliferation 
of weapons of mass destruction, what more we can do and where we 
are up to," Mr Downer said. He wants to build on the momentum 
established at the Asia-Pacific nuclear safeguards conference he 
chaired in Sydney last week. Conference delegates expressed 
concern about the threat of nuclear terrorism and urged the 
implementation of the IAEA's strengthened safeguards system. 

The two-day leaders' meeting at the weekend, to be attended by Mr 
Bush and John Howard, will also see a renewed focus on APEC's 
core trade liberalisation agenda and emerging issues such as 
energy security. 

Trade and economic issues will dominate the leaders' retreat on 
Sunday. Canberra is determined to breathe new life into the 1994 
Bogor declaration that called for free trade in the Asia-Pacific 
region by 2010 for industrialised economies and 2020 for 
developing economies. 

The US is also seeking a new APEC initiative aimed at helping 
member economies stamp out corruption and improve transparency in 
government. 

The plan, which is expected to be unveiled in Santiago, envisages 
targeted training programs to help APEC members strengthen their 
governing institutions and promote greater accountability. 

The next fortnight will see the Prime Minister embark on the most 
intensive period of Asian diplomacy during his reign so far. The 
APEC summit will be followed by the Association of Southeast 
Asian Nations summit in Vientiane, Laos, on November 30. 

Mr Howard is scheduled to hold bilateral talks with eight Asian 
leaders, including China's Hu Jintao, Indonesia's Susilo Bambang 
Yudhoyono and Malaysia's Abdullah Badawi, during the Santiago and 
Vientiane talks. 
		 			 			
*****************************************************************
 34 Independent: Grants woman fighting for uranium compensation - Ex-miner 
suffering from many ailments

November 13, 2004: 

By Kathy Helms Diné Bureau 
  
Medina   

GRANTS  She might weigh 90 pounds soaking wet, but don't let her 
size fool you. Betty Medina is a fighter. Next month, she will be 
59 years old, quite an accomplishment for a woman who has had 
five DNCs and five surgeries for various types of cancer. Her 
symptoms began a year after she went to work as an underground 
uranium miner. 

Medina, or Metzler as she was then known, was a young mother 
responsible for four children. In October 1974 she began training 
to go to work for Kerr-McGee. 

"I went to school for three months. The first month was in class. 
The othertwo months was on-the-job training. In 1975 I was 
working with uranium at AmbrosiaLake," Medina said Wednesday 
following an informational meeting for Post71 miners at Cibola 
County Complex in Grants. 

Post 71 miners, largely Hispanic, worked in the uranium mines 
after 1971, a timewhen the federal government was no longer the 
sole purchaser of uranium, thus,it does not feel obligated to 
compensate Post 71 miners as it would other uraniumworkers who 
fall under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA. 
Passedin 1990 and amended in 2000, RECA is the only law to 
contain a formal apologyto the Navajo people. It was enacted to 
help individuals who became sick as aresult of uranium mining and 
above-ground atomic testing at Nevada Test Site. 

Asked what kind of tasks she performed down in the mine, Medina 
laughed. "Everything.I was a miner, a stope developer, a two-drum 
slusher, a three-drum slusher. Idid everything they asked me." 

She said she also put safety first. "I always wore the mask, I 
always worethe glasses, I always wore the earplugs. I did 
everything they said. I even cutmy hair all over to this size," 
she said, measuring about a quarter-inchof space between her 
thumb and first finger. "I didn't want my scalp tocome off like 
that one girl's did. She had long hair and it got caught in a 
machineand it pulled her scalp all the way off. So I cut my hair 
this much because Iwanted to take care of my kids." 

Asked whether she had ever been told she was too "hot," 
indicatingthat she had been exposed to too much radiation, she 
said, "Oh, yeah. Theywould put me in other areas to work. I would 
take my clothes off at night andyou could see the sparks fly, 
like different colors." 

"We were in stopes that didn't even have ventilation stations. We 
couldn'tstay there very long. The stope is where you start the 
blast. The stope is agreat big hole under the earth where the 
rock will fall on your head if you don'twatch it." 

Medina says she is one of those miners who never drank or smoked. 
"I hadfive DNCs before being diagnosed with cancer of the uterus. 
They tried to sayit was hereditary, but it wasn't. It's from 
working in the mines, the uraniumdumps, and atomic waste dumps. I 
know what it is," she said, because shewas healthy before she 
began working at Ambrosia Lake. A year later, she hadher first 
DNC. 

Medina's daughter, Loretta Gallegos, accompanied her mother to 
the meeting. "Thereare a lot of people who don't know who to go 
talk to and what to do. They'rebeing misrepresented and sent to 
the wrong people. They're getting a lot of mixedand bad 
information. That's what we came here tonight for, so we could 
get theright information," she said. Her mother is one of those 
persons who reachedout for help and ended up relieved of her 
retirement. 

When Kerr-McGee shut down in 1984, Medina said, she drew 
unemployment for a year. "Theygave us some money to move over to 
Albuquerque to work with the Ironworkers.We went all around. We 
went up to Los Alamos, and then Pan-Am bought the contractfrom 
Zia and they let us lower ones go. I worked on the atomic waste 
dumps andthings like that over there," she said. 

The next four years were spent working at a Levis' factory, 
before moving toWest Virginia, where in 1992 she had three 
surgeries for cancer of the uterus. "Ittook three operations to 
cure it," she said. 

Then in 1996, while still in West Virginia where illnesses 
potentially relatedto uranium are not well-known, Medina said she 
was told that the cancer had spreadinto her breasts, "which it 
didn't, but the lady wasn't qualified to lookfor it. She went 
ahead and did the surgery anyhow. Then in 2001, everything 
fellapart," she said. 

Gallegos said her mother's insides basically fell out."They had 
to literallyreconstruct her. The bladder that came out, they used 
it as a hammock to pullher (internal organs) up." 

When that condition was first diagnosed, Medina said, it was 
three or four monthsbefore anyone would do surgery. I was working 
three jobs in West Virginia atthat time to try to make it." 

The hospitals were turning Medina away because she had no 
insurance and no money,Gallegos said. "She was bleeding. I had to 
go to West Virginia." 

Medina also had a persistent cough. "My sister said, 'What's 
wrong withyou? You keep coughing and spitting up stuff.' It used 
to be black, now it'syellow," Medina said. "I kept coughing and 
kept working, and I woulddo it all again just to raise my 
children." 

Though she might not be eligible for compensation as a Post 71 
miner, Medinasaid she would like free lifetime medical benefits. 
She said she was told in1999 that she could possibly get some 
compensation if she quit working, but shestill had to raise her 
last son. 

Gallegos said her mother had two choices: "Either quit working 
and waitforever for medical, or go to work and get whatever you 
can to raise your kids." 

She took her sister's advice and went to an attorney in West 
Virginia, who workedon her case for two years before telling her 
she needed to go back to New Mexicoto get help. "He said, 'What 
do you want to do?' I said, 'I'm just tiredof fighting. I'm 
tired. I'm so tired.' 

"He said, 'Well, you might lose if you fight it.' So he made me 
sign away$12,000, charged me 25 percent of my retirement, and 
then they told me to getrid of all my assets. I did that. They 
kept most of my stocks and bonds. I livedon some of the money 
until my check started coming in."She now draws disabilityfrom 
Social Security, she said. 

Before Medina's last surgery, she signed paperwork for indigency 
funds, for whichshe was told she qualified."Then after she went 
through the surgery, theywere sending her bills saying that she 
still owed on it," Gallegos said. "Theindigency funds should have 
taken care of it. So why were they still sendingher bills? 

"I told her, 'Mom, you can't afford it. You need to take the 
money thatyou're getting and put it toward your food. You can't 
pay those bills.' Gallegosthen used up her savings to move her 
mother from West Virginia back to New Mexico "sowe could get her 
some help." 

Following her last surgery, Medina spent $800 to $900 on 
medication alone withinsix months. "Now, she's got another red 
door slammed in her face becausethey're telling her she needed to 
work before 1971" to qualify for compensation,Gallegos said. But 
she's got all of the symptoms, she's got all the cancers,and 
she's had all the surgeries." 

Gallegos said she believes Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah should push 
legislation in2005 to expand RECA "because of the reason that 
people like this are suffering."     

Weekend November 13, 2004 Selected Stories: Mobile dental clinic 
visits Church Rock students
 
Father Maikowski resigns - Priest steps down in midst of scandal
 
Man given six years for hitting cop with bottle
 
Grants woman fighting for uranium compensation - Ex-miner 
suffering from many ailments
 
Ballot results remain unofficial
 
Spiritual Perspectives - An Amazing Journey
 
Death | Home | Daily News | Archive | Subscribe | Please send the 
Gallup Independent feedback on this website and the paper in 
general. All contents property of the Gallup Independent. Any 
duplication or republication requires consent of the Gallup 
Independent. Send questions or comments to gallpind@cia-g.com  


*****************************************************************
 35 Cibola County Beacon: 10 commonly asked questions about the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act (RECA)
                                
Tuesday, November 16, 2004

Uranium workers' questions answered

GRANTS - The hosts of last week's uranium workers' seminar in 
Grants gave out a lot of information about benefits available to 
former industry employees, including assistance with filling out 
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) forms, cash 
settlements, in-home nursing and medical screening for 
radiation-related illnesses. However, meeting hosts said there 
are some questions they hear over and over. Here are some of the 
most common, with answers:

1. Do I have to die before my relatives can file for RECA 
benefits? No.

2. Can widows of deceased uranium workers file for RECA? Yes, but 
ex-wives cannot apply.

3. Children can apply only if their father was unmarried at the 
time of his death, and the benefits will be equally split between 
all his children, step-children, adopted children and so on.

4. How many times can I apply for RECA benefits? Three times. If 
you are rejected the third time, you are ineligible to try again.

5. Can I apply for RECA if I used to be (or still am) a smoker? 
As of 2000 you can - officials can't tell the difference between 
smoking damage and radiation damage, so they can't discriminate.

6. Can I apply for RECA if I didn't start working with uranium 
until after 1971? No, but Senator Orrin Hatch is planning to 
start pushing to have that changed during the 2006 congressional 
year. Write to him and your local congressional representatives.

7. If I'm not sick yet, should I start preparing to apply for 
RECA anyway? Yes. Radiation-related diseases can sometimes take 
decades to show up. Keep getting tested, research your radiation 
exposure and keep the files just in case.

8. Can families of uranium workers who are suffering possible 
radiation-related diseases apply for RECA? No, but Colorado's 
Jerry Spence is working on this, so interested parties should 
contact him and/or their local congressional representatives.

9. Am I considered a downwinder if I lived near tailings piles or 
if dust from the mills/mines/processing areas blew over where I 
lived or worked? No, only a few counties in Utah, Arizona and 
Nevada qualify, and only because open-air nuclear blasts were set 
off nearby. Senator Hatch is also working on this, so contact him 
or your local congressional representatives.

10. Do I have to have a lawyer to file a RECA claim? No, you can 
do it yourself also. If you do use a lawyer, make sure he or she 
knows RECA law, is familiar with the uranium industry and doesn't 
charge more than two percent for an original filing or 10 percent 
for refiling a RECA claim.

For more information about Professional Case Management's in-home 
nursing services, call 1-888-886-2281, ext. 320. Radiation 
Exposure Screening and Education Program (RESEP) testing can be 
scheduled by calling 240-2733 (for Cibola General Hospital) or 
(505) 552-5300 (for ACL Hospital). The law firm of Killian, 
Guthro &Jensen can be reached at (970) 241-0707.

By Marian Hamilton 

Copyright © 2004Cibola County Beacon. 
*****************************************************************
 36 Ptssburgh TR: 'They've been covering up for years and years' -
                       
 By Richard Gazarik
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
 Tuesday, November 16, 2004 

Ed Barras, of Jeannette, never doubted that the cancer that 
killed his son, David, in 1996, was caused by exposure to 
depleted uranium during the Persian Gulf War. 

Now the government is beginning to think the same thing. 

The Veterans Administration last week announced it will no longer 
provide funding for studies linking the stress of combat to Gulf 
War Syndrome. Instead, $15 million earmarked for research will 
fund studies into other theories. 

The Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Illness recommended 
the VA shift its focus to toxins, depleted uranium and 
pesticides. The committee said more research also needs to be 
done into exposure to vaccines, and depleted uranium used in 
munitions. 

"There weren't too many of us who believed that chemicals started 
all this," Barras said. "Me, his brother, his sister, believed 
it. Everybody else was doubtful about it." 

The Rev. Barry Walker, of East Palestine, Ohio, a former Army 
chaplain, said he feels vindicated now that a newly released 
government report says exposure to chemicals and a combination of 
medications and vaccines may cause a variety of ailments and 
diseases known collectively as GWS. 

"They've been covering up for years and years and years," Walker 
said. "Some of us have been calling them liars for years and 
years and years." 

David Barras was a tank mechanic with the 3rd Armored Division in 
1991. His job was to remove demolished Iraqi tanks from the 
battlefield after they had been strafed by A-10 aircraft carrying 
ammunition with depleted uranium. His father believed the cancer 
came from his proximity to the destroyed tanks that he worked on. 

"It's only taken the government about 10 years to come around," 
Ed Barras said. 

The military takes depleted uranium that has been removed from 
nuclear weapons and fuel and places it into the shells of Gatling 
guns used by aircraft. These tank-killing airplanes were very 
effective in the Gulf War in destroying Iraqi armored units. 

Before he was deployed, Walker received two inoculations to 
protect him against anthrax, another for botulism and other 
medications to protect him against various diseases. One of the 
anti-nerve agent medications he received was pyridostigmine 
bromide, which enhances the protective characteristics of 
atropine and pralidoxime. 

The committee said that although the medications taken 
individually would not be toxic enough to make a soldier ill, a 
combination of the chemicals could. 

As a chaplain, Walker traveled around from unit to unit helping 
other chaplains. He was with the Hempfield Township-based 14th 
Quartermaster Detachment in 1991 when the unit was hit by a Scud 
missile in the closing stages of the war. 

Scud missiles, according to some government reports, were thought 
to have contained biological warheads. 

"As senior chaplain, I was all over the place trying to fill the 
void," he continued. "I was four miles down the road when they 
blew up Kafji. There was mustard gas there. I was in the area. I 
was exposed." 

Kafji is located in Saudi Arabia, where the military blew up 
munition dumps. According to Department of Defense reports, there 
also were other areas where servicemen and women could have been 
exposed to chemical agents. 

The Talil Air Force base in southeast Iraq was a chemical 
munitions storage site that was blown up by American forces. At 
al-Jubayl, a Marine reconnaissance unit may have been exposed to 
mustard gas during fighting there, according to reports. 

Another mustard gas storage site was destroyed at Khaydir. 
Reports said the site contained 155 mm artillery shells filled 
with mustard gas. Airstrikes could have caused the release of the 
gas into the atmosphere. 

At Khamisiyah in March 1991, 77 large ammunition bunkers were 
destroyed along with 45 warehouses, according to reports that 
indicated one bunker had 2,160 rockets filled with chemical 
agents. A final report on the Khamisiyah effort said troops "were 
likely exposed to low levels of nerve agent." 

Since their return, Gulf War veterans have been suffering from a 
variety of unexplained ailments, including chronic headaches, 
fatigue, stomach and respiratory problems and skin diseases. 
Studies also have found a higher incidence of amyotrophic lateral 
sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig's disease, among them that is twice that 
of veterans who were not deployed to the Middle East. 

At one point, Walker thought he may have contracted amyotrophic 
lateral sclerosis when he got sicker after his doctors took him 
off an experimental drug, he said. Although he doesn't think he 
has it, he said his condition worsened after he was taken off the 
medication. 

Walker said he keeps in contact with other suffering veterans. 
Some, he said, will not admit they are ill. 

"I have two people who will not admit they are afflicted," he 
said. "They are afraid they will lose their jobs." 

Both men work for the U.S. Army as civilians and could lose their 
positions if they are declared unable to work. 

"They're fighting hard to stay where they are," he said. 

Meanwhile, Barras said his son's physicians at the VA wouldn't 
say whether they believed David's cancer could have been the 
result of uranium exposure. 

"They came close to saying it but wouldn't say it," he said. 

Barras said the day before he died, his son received a government 
check for $28,000 after he was awarded 100 percent disability. 

"He looked at the check and five hours later he fell into a 
coma." 

Richard Gazarik can be reached at or (724) 830-6292. 

Images and text copyright © 2004 by The Tribune-Review
Publishing Co.
 Reproduction or reuse prohibited without written consent from
PittsburghLIVE.
*****************************************************************
 37 Bradenton Herald: Tallevast residents lose trust

| 11/16/2004 | 

  [Tallevast resident George Williams listens closely to what is
said by representatives of Lockheed Martin and Tetra Tech, as
they provide information to the Tallevast community Monday night
at the Mt. Tabor Missionary Baptist Church.]   

  GRANT JEFFERIES-The Herald   

  Tallevast resident George Williams listens closely to what is
said by representatives of Lockheed Martin and Tetra Tech, as
they provide information to the Tallevast community Monday night
at the Mt. Tabor Missionary Baptist Church.  

SCOTT RADWAY

 Herald Staff Writer

TALLEVAST - A late meeting Monday between distraught residents
and the company bound to clean up cancer-causing contaminants
from this community prompted probing questions ranging from
health fears to declining property values. 

But one thing was clear as they crowded into a local church:
Trust no longer has a home in Tallevast. 

"I don't trust them to find the contamination because it is in
their best interest to find next to nothing," said Patricia
Simmons. "It is like letting the fox guard the hen house. Who is
going to look over their shoulder?" 

The hour-long discussion followed a short presentation from
Lockheed Martin Co. officials on the water and soil sampling
they are using to pinpoint the extent of contamination that has
secretly plagued this small, minority community perhaps for
decades. 

A focal point was how Lockheed was going to guarantee that this
round of sampling was done independently. 

Because, Laura Ward said, an earlier area estimate of
contamination in the community by Lockheed was found to be far
short of what was later found by state officials. 

"Can you understand the distrust?" asked Ward, who heads Family
Oriented Community United Strong, a community group known as
FOCUS. "Can you understand?" 

As part of an effort to reassure residents, Lockheed had
previously agreed to give Tallevast residents $25,000 to hire an
independent consultant to evaluate the company's work. 

Through FOCUS, the community has hired Tim Varney, of Chastain
Skillman, to scrutinize the work performed by Lockheed and also
advise the community on health issues related to possible
effects of the contamination. 

Varney said the critical juncture in cleaning up the
contamination will come as the results from the current round of
tests are completed. Then Lockheed must design a plan to clean
the water and soil. 

"That is where the rubber meets the road," Varney said. "This is
going to take a long time to clean up, anywhere from years to
decades." 

The residents' first notice of trouble came in late 2003 when
Lockheed crews entered Tallevast to sink monitoring wells as
they probed for off-site contamination from the former American
Beryllium Co. plant. Lockheed had investigated the plant site
since 2000, but no one had notified residents. 

Residents only learned about the risks when they inquired about
the crews last year. Then in July, the community was shocked to
learn the contamination from the plant had made it much farther
than experts had thought, three times as far. 

The plant operated from 1961 to 1996, so no one could say when
the contamination first occurred. 

In recent months, with the former plant under increasing
scrutiny, scores of questions were also raised about the
exposure of plant workers to beryllium - another carcinogen.
Some experts suspect workers over the years also carried that
substance into the community as dust on their clothes. 

Tallevast residents say they have long suffered an inordinate
number of health problems, from bloody noses to miscarriages to
cancer. 

Addressing concerns about the sampling, Lockheed engineer Bill
Persky told residents that the next stage of monitoring is a
result of a state Department of Environmental Protection consent
order and was bound by rigid criteria to ensure that the testing
was above board. Persky added the laboratory that will process
water samples was an independent contractor. 

But Persky agreed to provide for an independent evaluation a set
of water samples to each resident from whose home Lockheed takes
a sample. Persky said they could not give samples to anyone who
did not own property. 

Much of the presentation was filled with technical details on
the number of water and soil samples, the grid of areas that
will be tested and the installation of long-term monitoring
wells. Paul Calligan, a Lockheed-contracted scientist, said the
testing and evaluation will take about 90 days. It began early
last week. 

Calligan said once that assessment is approved by the state DEP
then Lockheed will have 90 days to design the clean-up plan. 

DEP officials have said there is no longer a risk of people
drinking contaminated water. The affected residences have been
given temporary hookups into the county water supply. 

The DEP teams also tested residential wells extending in a
half-mile radius from the factory site to ensure that no other
wells were affected by the contamination. 

Charles Henry, the county environmental health director, said in
a telephone interview prior to the meeting that the department
also tested the existing county water mains to ensure no
contamination had infiltrated that system. 

Henry said all the known "pathways of exposure" have been
eliminated. 

Health officials are now conducting an assessment of the
community's health for long term exposure issues. 

Residents Monday remained doubtful the contamination has been
contained and no one is presently at risk. 

Zasue Alston also wanted to know what was going to happen to her
property values. 

"Are we going to have to pay taxes on no-good land?" Alston
said. 

Many residents expressed a feeling of fatigue with what they see
as increasing concerns and no concrete answers. 

"We heard nothing new tonight," Ward said. "We drank the water,
and we breathed the (beryllium) dust. Now we want to know what
they are going to do for us."   


*****************************************************************
 38 the spectrum: Not testing casks is a fatal gamble - Opinion - 
 
    Tuesday, November 16, 2004   

  IN OUR VIEW 

It's long been believed here that the idea of shipping nuclear 
waste to the underground storage facility at Yucca Mountain, just 
90 miles north of Las Vegas, is questionable. 

There have been questions about the security of shipping 3,000 
pounds of nuclear waste past more than 11 million people in 45 
states, including Utah, annually. There have been concerns that 
the facility itself may not be safe in the event of seismic 
activity and water leaks. 

Now we have learned that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does 
not have enough money to sufficiently test the casks in which the 
waste will be hauled, using instead computer simulations and 
analysis. 

The federal government is already responsible for thousands of 
radiation-related deaths that occurred following activity at the 
Nevada Test Site. Now it is on the cusp of further endangering 
American lives as it rushes to transport these volatile materials 
past an innocent segment of our population, then store them next 
door to what has become the fastest-growing geographical region 
in the United States. 

If ever a line was drawn in the sand, this is it. 

It's time for elected county, state and federal officials from 
the West to put aside partisan prejudices and unite in an effort 
to stop this process. By doing so, perhaps they can drive some 
common sense into the heads of their counterparts representing 
the other states where this waste will visit. 

As we know, if a catastrophe can occur, it will occur. 

If it is possible for one of those trucks or rail cars to 
overturn, jackknife or run into something that could cause 
leakage from these untested casks, it will. It's not a matter of 
if, but when. 

Will it happen while one of those trucks is speeding down 
Interstate 15 in Southern Utah? Will it happen while one of those 
trucks is heading west through America's heartland? Will it 
happen while one of those trucks is pulling into one of the 
several major metropolitan areas along the route? 

The federal government is gambling with lives here -- your life 
and ours. 

We hear, constantly, about how the value we place on human life 
separates us from other cultures. That statement, unfortunately, 
no longer rings true, not when the NRC is willing to ship these 
casks of rolling death that have not been adequately tested. 

If ever there was a reason to write your representatives, now is 
the time. 

Originally published Tuesday, November 16, 2004
 
Contact Us | Subscribe | Place an ad Copyright ©2004 The 
Spectrum. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 39 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca budget work part of 'lame duck' session

Today: November 16, 2004 at 9:45:25 PST 

By Suzanne Struglinski <> SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU

 WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers are expected to work on a budget for
the Yucca Mountain project now that they have returned to pick
up business left unfinished the election.

 There are also several other Southern Nevada-specific matters
hanging in the balance as Congress heads into the "lame duck"
session, which serves as the final attempt to get bills through
Congress because everything starts over when the new session
convenes in January.

 The Energy Departments wants $880 million for Yucca Mountain,
but so far Congress has left it about $749 million short of that
request, pleasing Nevadans and other critics of the project, but
frustrating the nuclear industry and project supporters.

 Congress will try to figure out how to make up the difference
between the $131 million the House passed for the Yucca project
and the $880 million request. The department has said it could
not keep the project on schedule at that amount.

 One option would be to extend a continuing resolution for the
project, which would keep it at the $577 million it received in
fiscal year 2004, but the Energy Department has not said whether
that would work or what amount of money it would be comfortable
with under the $880 million.

 It is unclear when a final decision on the budget will be made
and lawmakers have not set a specific date on when the lame-duck
session will end.

 Beyond the budget for the proposed nuclear waste storage
project at Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, lawmakers
have to finish up eight other spending bills, laws to implement
recommendations from the 9/11 Commission and need to handle
numerous other items, including nominations.

 Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., has been holding up all non-military
and non-judicial nominees until his staff member Greg Jaczko,
gets approved for his seat on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

 The White House officially nominated Jaczko for the position in
February as part of a deal Reid made to allow Environmental
Protection Agency head Mike Leavitt to be approved. But the
Senate Environment and Public Works committee has not conducted
a hearing yet for Jaczko and Reid said he will block other
nominees until it does.

 The nuclear industry opposes Jaczko's nomination because of his
work with Reid against the Yucca project. The Nuclear Energy
Institute has said it would support any nominee who could
impartially evaluate what comes to the commission. The
Commission will ultimately decide whether to license the site.

 This week also marks the last chance for several Nevada public
lands bills.

 The House and Senate have passed the Lincoln County Lands bill,
but the Senate passed a different version than the House, so it
still has to go through the House one more time before it can go
to the President.

 The bill is scheduled to be taken up Wednesday, according to
the legislative schedule.

 The biggest difference between the two versions is how money
from federal land sales would be distributed when land in
Lincoln County is sold.

 Under the House version, 50 percent of the money would go to
the Bureau of Land Management for Nevada projects, 45 percent
would go to Lincoln County and the remaining 5 percent would be
deposited in a state education fund.

 The Senate version would give the BLM 85 percent and Lincoln
County only 10 percent, but it would also allow Lincoln County
to tap into money from federal land sales in Clark County.

 The Senate bill also would allow the Southern Nevada Water
Authority to obtain land for a 299-mile water pipeline corridor
between Lincoln and Clark counties. The House version created a
256-mile and 192-mile pipeline corridor for the Southern Nevada
Water Authority and the Lincoln County Water District
respectively.

 Meanwhile, efforts to help make Southern Nevada's new heliport
site selection easier and get the ball rolling on the new
veterans hospital for the Las Vegas Valley will be a little
harder to get through, mainly due to time.

 Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi and Interior
Secretary Gale Norton announced in late September that the new
government owned health facilities for veterans in southern
Nevada would be at Pecos Road and the Las Vegas Beltway in North
Las Vegas, but Congress needs to approve the transfer of the
155-acre site from the Bureau of Land Management to the Veterans
Affairs Department.

 The delegation introduced bills in the House and Senate to make
the transfer as the selection of the site became final, but
Congress went on recess shortly afterward so there has been no
action on those transfer bills. A bill usually needs to be
addressed and approved by an appropriate committee before going
to a full House vote, but in these wrap-up session, a lot of
smaller items can get included in big bills.

 "It's the kitchen sink approach," said Rep. Shelley Berkley,
D-Nev., spokesman David Cherry.

 Larger bills can contain a lot of good but also bad items, so
Berkley and the other lawmakers have to decide where the tipping
point is and what to fight to include in large bills, Cherry
said.

 The heliport bill would give Clark County 229 acres of federal
land south of Interstate 15 at Sloan to replace the 45-acre
go-kart racing site the county purchased and had deemed its best
option so far. If the county could not use it, the land would go
back to the Bureau of Land Management

 Reid suggested in September that the Sunrise landfill site be
added to the bill as another option to study for the new
heliport, but it has not been added.

 The House Resources Committee passed the bill in early October,
but it has not been approved by the full chamber yet. The Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on the
bill in September, but has not voted on it yet.

 If the heliport bill and veterans land bill do not pass this
Congress, it is safe to say they would be introduced after the
new Congress opens in January, Cherry said. 


 
*****************************************************************
 40 Las Vegas SUN: Reid named Senate Democratic leader

Today: November 16, 2004 at 11:16:10 PST 

By Benjamin Grove <grove@lasvegassun.com> SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU

 WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats today elected Sen. Harry Reid,
D-Nev., to replace Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., as their leader.

 Reid, 64, who was the No. 2 Senate Democrat as minority whip,
is the first Senate party leader from Nevada. His new job will
give the state an even more powerful advocate in the bitterly
partisan Congress.

 Reid was elected by the Senate's 44 Democrats during a
closed-door meeting in the Capitol today. The vote count was not
available.

 Reid emerged from the meeting and told his often-repeated story
of being the son of a hard-rock mine from Searchlight.

 It was an important story to revisit because it is a story of
American dreams, Reid said.

 "If I can make it in America, anyone can," Reid said. "We want
people to have the same opportunities that Harry Reid had."

 His new role, which will thrust him into the national
spotlight, won't be easy.

 Republicans are savoring President Bush's re-election and plan
to advance the president's agenda with what will be a bigger
majority of 55, up from 51.

 Democrats are debating what opposition to mount.

 Reid today said Democrats will diligently work to "improve"
legislation brought forward by Republican leaders who largely
control the Senate agenda.

 He would "rather dance than fight" with Republicans, he said,
but vowed to fight to represent Democrats in looming battles
over Social Security, education and judicial nominees.

 "I'm not an untested vessel," Reid sai about his political
muscle. "I think my record in the Senate stands for itself."

 Reid said the Senate had a good record of approving all but 10
of Bush's federal judicial nominees.

 He warned Republicans not to attempt to remove the Democrats'
ability to filibuster on judges.

 But heralding an early fight between the parties, Sen. Trent
Lott, R-Miss., suggested today the Republicans may do just that.
"Filibustering on federal judges has got to stop."

 Reid called his job as senator "the best job in the world." He
said Democrats had a vision for representing the nation on
health care, education and pledged to fight to raise the minimum
wage.

 Reid said Daschle will be sorely missed and that Kerry, lauded
several times with standing ovations at today's meeting, will
have a high-profile role on issues of his choosing.

 "Sen. Kerry is going to find his own role," Reid said. "Sen.
Kerry is not a shrinking violet."

 The mood in the meeting was "sort of upbeat," said Sen. James
Jeffords, an Independent from Vermont who caucuses with the
Democrats.

 "If you aren't upbeat now, when will you be?" Jeffords said,
smiling. "It's going to be a tough road" for Reid, "but he is a
skilled parliamentarian. We all have great respect for him."

 Reid addressed his pending battle over the budget of Yucca
Mountain for the current fiscal year, left unfinished amid a
pile of other spending bills.

 He and Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., are at a standstill over
funding for the proposed nuclear waste repository.

 Reid said he had a telephone call to return to Domenici today.
He hopes to hammer out a compromise this week, but the issue
could be settled by simply freezing funding at last fiscal
year's level, considerably less than what the Energy Department
wanted.

 Lawmakers returned to Congress this week for a lame duck
session with the spending bills as a top priority. Republicans
and Democrats today huddled separately in their first caucus
meetings since the election.

 Before the new session starts Reid faces a number of
housekeeping decisions, including possible staff changes,
spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said.

 Reid and Democratic leaders will have to fill committee
vacancies left by retired or defeated colleagues.

 The Democratic leaders also face broader questions about
committees, where much of the work of the Senate is done.
Republicans are likely to argue for a more representation on
committees and bigger staff and budgets that reflect their
larger majority.

 Reid's leadership team will include Sen. Richard Durbin,
D-Ill., who today was elected to take over Reid's job as
Democratic whip, the day-to-day floor manager.

 Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., is next chairman of the
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which plots election
strategies and raises money. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., will
be Democratic caucus secretary.

 The key to the successes Reid and Daschle achieved is largely
attributable to their trust in each other and their
complementing styles, observers have said.

 Reid and Durbin also have long-standing alliances dating to
1982 when they were elected to the House, where Reid served two
terms before moving to the Senate. The two already often work
closely in floor debates. Reid today said he and Durbin were
good complements. Reid is expected to share some of the media
spotlight with the telegenic Durbin and other Democrats.

 Durbin today said that he did not view Democratic senators as
the lead check on Bush.

 "The check on this president will be the people of the United
States," Durbin said.

 In a House caucus today, Republicans tapped Rep. Dennis Hastert
of Illinois for another term as speaker, and Rep. Tom DeLay of
Texas was re-elected majority leader. 


 
*****************************************************************
 41 Tri-City Herald: Waste can stay in N.M., EPA rules 

This story was published Tuesday, November 16th, 2004 

By Annette Cary Herald staff writer 

The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that 602 drums 
of plutonium-contaminated waste from Hanford may remain for now 
in a Department of Energy underground repository in New Mexico. 

However, no more similar waste may be sent to the national 
repository until EPA approves procedures for evaluating the 
contents of the Hanford waste. DOE already has stopped shipments. 

The stop applies only to solid waste from Hanford's Plutonium 
Finishing Plant. In a letter sent Friday to DOE headquarters from 
EPA headquarters, EPA said an additional 926 drums of mixed 
oxides from the Plutonium Finishing Plant were correctly 
characterized and sent to the repository, the Waste Isolation 
Pilot Plant, or WIPP. 

Plutonium left in the plant when it shut down operations in 1989 
has been converted to a stable form for storage, and waste from 
the plant that is contaminated with certain levels of plutonium 
is being sent to WIPP for disposal. The plutonium was produced at 
Hanford for the nation's national nuclear weapons program during 
the Cold War. 

"In our initial assessment of the underlying causes for this 
violation, we have determined that the Hanford site operated 
according to its established procedures," said the letter from 
Elizabeth Cotsworth, director of EPA's Office of Radiation and 
Indoor Air. "That is, it sent only waste certified for disposal 
at WIPP by the DOE's Carlsbad Office." 

The 602 drums in question were certified by Carlsbad even though 
an August 2003 letter from EPA to DOE put restrictions on sending 
certain types of waste from the Hanford plutonium plant to WIPP. 

In an EPA inspection earlier that summer, the Hanford plant had 
been unprepared for an evaluation of its system that used 
historical knowledge and documents to characterize waste, rather 
than a direct analysis of waste to certify it as acceptable for 
WIPP. 

DOE discovered it had allowed waste shipments in violation of EPA 
regulations and notified EPA in an October letter. DOE's Carlsbad 
office has refused to make that letter public. 

EPA does not believe the 602 drums sent improperly to WIPP pose a 
threat to human health, the environment or the long-term 
performance of WIPP. However, it will continue to assess whether 
documentation was technically sufficient. 

The drums still could be removed from WIPP, but EPA does not 
believe that will be necessary. 

Taken in conjunction with other waste characterization issues 
from other DOE sites, EPA considers the violation significant, 
according to the letter. It indicates the need "for significant 
attention from DOE management to improve internal coordination 
and oversight," Cotsworth wrote. 

© 2004 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 42 RGJ: Resignation could open door for better nuclear waste plan
 
EditorialRENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL

11/15/2004 10:03 pm 

Few in Nevada will be sad to see Secretary of Energy Spencer 
Abraham replaced in the president’s Cabinet.

The secretary, who announced his resignation Monday, has been a 
prime supporter of the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain 
since his days as senator from Michigan, and not even warnings 
from some scientists about the weaknesses of the plan have 
changed his mind.

The resignation isn’t likely to ease Nevada’s difficult quest to 
hold the opening of the repository, one of the administration’s 
top energy-policy goals. It is an opportunity, however, for the 
president to point someone to the energy post who understands 
that Yucca Mountain is a poor solution to the problem of nuclear 
waste at the nation’s power plant — it is expensive, possibly 
dangerous and, at best, only a partial measure that won’t help 
restart the moribund nuclear energy industry because of its lack 
of capacity.

Although Sen. John Kerry’s promise to veto the Yucca Mountain 
plan failed to win him enough votes in the state to hold off 
President George W. Bush’s electoral victory, Nevadans remain 
overwhelmingly opposed to the prospect of tons of nuclear waste 
being moved to their state, polls show. That should cause the new 
energy secretary to slow down and listen.

Allowing an industry, any industry, to force such a plan on an 
unwilling population is a clear violation of the state’s rights 
principles that Republicans hold dear. The new secretary, whoever 
he or she may be, should take the state’s arguments very 
seriously, and begin the search for another, more effective and 
more acceptable solution to the nuclear waste problem. 

Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Co. Inc.Newspaper. Use 
of this site signifies agreement to our terms of service (updated 
12/17/2002).                                                                                                                
 		 				 		 		   		   			 		   	 	
*****************************************************************
 43 C Enquirer: New sites sought for Fernald disposal
 

  CINCINNATI.COM  
  
Tuesday, November 16, 2004 

Nevada resisting radioactive waste 
By John Nolan
The Associated Press	 

CROSBY TWP. - Threatened with a lawsuit if radioactive waste is
sent to Nevada, the U.S. Department of Energy is looking for
alternative storage and disposal sites for the waste from the
Fernald plant here.

At the Energy Department's direction, Fluor Fernald - the
company it hired for the cleanup of the former uranium
processing plant - sent out requests last week seeking companies
that could store and dispose of the waste, said Jeff Wagner, a
spokesman for the company. Interested companies have 30 days to
respond, Wagner said Monday.

Wagner said it is the first time the Energy Department has taken
such a step since Nevada's attorney general threatened a lawsuit
if the government gives a 45-day notice of its intent to ship
the wastes there. The Energy Department hasn't given that
notice, officials said.

The wastes are stored in 50-year-old concrete silos in northwest
Hamilton County on the 1,050-acre Fernald site, which processed
uranium for the government's production of nuclear weapons. The
processing work ceased in 1989 to focus on the cleanup.

Fluor Fernald is already pumping wastes from two of the three
silos into new metal holding tanks nearby and could finish that
process by early next year, before demolishing the silos at the
site about 18 miles northwest of Cincinnati.

The Energy Department hasn't necessarily given up on its plan to
dispose of the wastes at its former weapons test site in the
Nevada desert, but is looking at other options in light of
Nevada's threat to sue, said Bill Taylor, director of the Energy
Department's Fernald office.

A final decision would be made by Energy Department officials at
headquarters in Washington, Taylor said.

Fluor Fernald has received initial interest from some companies,
Taylor said. He declined to identify them because it could
ultimately involve competition for a federal contract. 

Copyright1995-2004. The Cincinnati Enquirer, a Gannett Co.
Inc.newspaper.
*****************************************************************
 44 press-citizen: Sewer pipe leaks near Oakdale Radioactive material released            

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 	 	 

By Gigi Wood Iowa City Press-Citizen                                 

OAKDALE -- A milky white fluid containing low-level radioactive 
material was released when a sewer pipe broke Monday afternoon at 
the University of Iowa Oakdale Research Park.

"The chemical is a surfactant, that's what you use to wash your 
dishes, it's a soap," said Jim Walker, director of UI Health 
Protection Office.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources crews were on the scene 
Monday pumping the liquid out of the area and into a separate 
sewer pipe, Walker said.

No one was injured in the sewer break, he said. No Iowa 
environmental laws were violated in the spill, Walker said.

An underground sewer pipe broke on the southwest corner of the 
Oakdale Research Park, causing the chemical to bubble to the 
surface. UI Facilities Management employees spotted the white 
liquid while on rounds in the area, Walker said.

The liquid is typically pumped to Coralville's Wastewater 
Treatment Center.

Officials with the city of Coralville, Iowa DNR and Iowa Public 
Health Department Radiological Division were notified of the 
spill, he said.

Walker said solutions containing water and non-hazardous 
surfactants, buffers and salts were being discharged to the 
sanitary sewer line, a routine and permitted activity, when the 
break occurred.

Low-level radioisotopes present in the fluid consist principally 
of tritium, carbon-14 and 32-phosphorous, and the levels of 
radioactivity in the discharge were at 0.05 percent of the 
allowable concentration.                                        

Reach Gigi Wood at 339-7360 or gwood@press-citizen.com. 

*****************************************************************
 45 Salt Lake Tribune: Environment officials use cask woes to aid
N-waste fight 

Article Last Updated: 11/16/2004 01:11:37 AM 

They argue the storage can't be considered temporary 

By Patty Henetz The Salt Lake Tribune 

Utah environmental officials have launched a new line of 
attack on the proposed high-level nuclear waste storage site on 
the Skull Valley Goshute Reservation, 45 miles southwest of Salt 
Lake City. 

The state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) says 
assurances the storage facility would be "temporary" were 
debunked by the disclosure last month that the U.S. Department 
of Energy (DOE) won't accept the type of waste cannister 
proposed for the Private Fuel Storage (PFS) facility at its 
permanent repository. 

The "late contention" filed Friday aims to sway the Atomic 
Safety Licensing Board's impending decision on whether to grant 
PFS a license to ship 4,000 steel canisters of spent fuel rods 
from electric utilities, mostly in the East, to Skull Valley. 
Once in Utah, the deadly waste would sit on a concrete pad for 
up to 40 years before being shipped on to Yucca Mountain, 90 
miles north of Las Vegas. 

But environmental analyses of the PFS proposal to store 
40,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel never considered the 
possibility that the waste canisters wouldn't later be accepted 
at Yucca Mountain. 

That omission raises national concerns about a "dysfunctional 
national waste management system, and added risks and costs from 
multiple and unnecessary fuel shipments back and forth across 
the country," the complaint states. 

Dianne Nielson, DEQ executive director, said Monday that 
getting the licensing board to consider the late filing was a 
long shot, since the board in mid-September concluded three 
weeks of closed-door hearings on the license. 

Those hearings centered on the correctness of its earlier 
finding that a possible fighter jet crash onto the open-air 
waste facility posed an unacceptable risk. The board could issue 
the license as early as January, and PFS could begin its 
shipments by 2007. 

Nielson said that since she learned of the DOE cannister 
rules, she has found it increasingly difficult to get 
information either from the Department of Energy or the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) - or even whether the two federal 
agencies had talked with one another about the problem. 

"We don't know what is happening with them," Nielson said. 
"If the industry is going to continue to use this canister, and 
DOE isn't going to accept them at Yucca Mountain, we have a 
significant everybody's interest to get this addressed." 

An NRC spokeswoman didn't respond to a request for comment 
Monday. 

At an October meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical 
Review Board in Salt Lake City, Gary Lanthrum, director of DOE's 
transportation program, told The Salt Lake Tribune that DOE can 
only take nuclear waste at reactor sites. The waste would have 
to be packed according to contract before the agency could take 
title to it and ship it to the repository. 

PFS, however, plans to place the waste in its own steel 
shipping canisters, which would be welded shut. There would be 
no way to repack the waste to DOE specifications in Skull 
Valley, and it would remain the property of the utilities that 
created it. Lanthrum said that makes the PFS plan unacceptable 
under the agency's current contract. 

Lanthrum repeated his statements to surprised Utah officials, 
including Nielson and Gov. Olene Walker, who later issued a 
statement reemphasizing her opposition to PFS. Gov.-elect Jon 
Huntsman Jr. also is opposed to the proposed nuclear waste 
storage site. 

The state's complaint to the licensing board included 
concerns about the lack of assurance that PFS, a limited 
liability consortium of eight utilities, would have sufficient 
operating revenue or commitments from its customers to pay to 
repack or reship the fuel. 

PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin declined comment on the complaint, 
except to say that PFS attorneys have asked the licensing board 
to be allowed to delay its formal response to the state's 
complaint until Dec. 1. 

Late last month, the state petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court 
to review an appeals court ruling against state laws passed in 
1998 and 2001 aimed at blocking the project. 

© Copyright 2004, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 46 Scotsman: Nuclear Waste Disposal: Public Forum Begins
 
Scotsman.com News

Tue 16 Nov 2004                                                 

By Amanda Brown, PA Environment Correspondent 

The search for a safe way of disposing of nuclear waste gets 
under way tomorrow as part of the biggest nationwide public 
consultation on the subject.
 
Various options ranging from surface or underground repositories 
to launching it into space have been suggested.
 
An independent committee on radioactive waste management (CoRWM) 
visits Birmingham (November 17-18) to hold a detailed discussion 
of how the current list of 15 options for dealing with waste can 
be narrowed down.
 
It will then recommend to Ministers the best option or 
combination of options for doing so that provide a long term 
solution to protect people and the environment. The 
recommendations will not however, cover where the waste will be 
managed.
 
CoRWM Chair Gordon MacKerron said: â€œNuclear waste is a local 
issue, on average people in Britain live about 26 miles away from 
a radioactive waste site.
 
â€œFinding ways of managing our nuclear waste safely and securely 
for generations to come is something that affects us all.
 
â€œWhether you live in Birmingham, Worcester or Wolverhampton, we 
want you to get involved in the CoRWM consultation and help us 
work out the best plan for the future.â€
 
Members of the public are welcome to attend the sessions at the 
National Indoor Arena, Olympian Suite. In addition to observing 
the Committee at work, there will also be an opportunity to ask 
questions and make comments from 1-1.30pm on Wednesday and 
1.30-2pm on Thursday. s                [ border=]             

		   		   

*****************************************************************
 47 UPI: Nuclear Waste Dumps Will Become The Pyramids Of Our Age
 
File photo of tunnel into Yucca mountain.  

 Boulder CO (UPI) Nov 12, 2004

 One thing many of the so-called red states - those that went 
Republican - had in common in this past election is lots of land 
owned by the federal government. An issue that almost turned one 
of those red states, Nevada, blue and in the Democrat column was 
the Bush administration's effort to move nearly all the nation's 
nuclear waste products under a mountain on some of that land.

 A pretty good college drinking game could comprise all of the 
things that could go wrong with long-term nuclear waste storage 
at Yucca Mountain, the place north of Las Vegas on the Nevada 
test site that has been chosen to receive the nation's 
radioactive detritus: nuclear war, asteroid collision, terrorist 
attack, excess rainfall induced by climate change, drilling for 
oil and gas or water, earthquake, volcano.

 Predicting the future for even the next few minutes can be an 
uncertain affair. As the saying goes, man plans and God laughs.

 No question, the waste designated to be moved to and stored at 
Yucca Mountain is extremely dangerous.

 The waste will be hazardous in one form or another for 1 million 
years, said John Stuckless, a geologist with the U.S. Geological 
Survey in Denver, although most will decay away in 10,000 years.

 No coincidence, Environmental Protection Agency standards for 
Yucca Mountain require the waste be safely isolated from the 
environment for exactly that long.

 For a sense of scale, consider that the Great Pyramid of Egypt 
was built a little more than 4,500 years ago, or 5,500 years 
short of the mark. Ur, built about 6,000 years ago and considered 
the world's first city, today is little more than a noticeable 
rise in the terrain in southern Iraq.

 Prognosticators of all stripes have had trouble predicting 
events a single year in the future, let alone what might happen 
in the next 10,000.

 Which is not to say scientists are not trying. Some would hold a 
distinct advantage in the drinking game, having studied 
everything from the likelihood of an earthquake hitting Nevada to 
the chemical composition of the dust being kicked up as the vast 
repository is mined.

 It probably is safe to say no patch of the Earth has been 
studied any more intensely than Yucca Mountain. There already 
have been 900 man-years of research at the site, and the pace 
shows no sign of slowing.

 Take the earthquake possibility.

 We know more about the seismic stability of this area than any 
other block of ground in the world, Stuckless told UPI's Blue 
Planet. Most earthquakes will have very little effect on these 
underground facilities.

 How little? According to work done by Dave Buesch, another USGS 
geologist based in Las Vegas, the lyrically named Topopah Springs 
Tuff - the geologic layer in which the waste repository is 
located - has not been hit by a serious earthquake in all the 
years since it was formed.

 In-progress results indicate that during the 12.8-million-year 
history of the Topopah Springs Tuff the rocks did not experience 
strains greater than 0.1-0.2 percent, which are not large enough 
to induce significant damage to the rock mass, he said.

 Ditto for volcanoes. There are a few in the area, including the 
dramatic Black Cone, a 100-meter-high frustum of basalt on Crater 
Flat adjacent to Yucca Mountain, but it is 11.3 million years 
old.

 There has been extensive drilling and a very detailed aerial 
survey of volcanic remnants searching for possible volcano 
hazards. Four boreholes have encountered basalt, but the most 
recent volcanic event occurred about 3.6 million years ago.

 Against such evidence, scientists estimate the odds of a 
volcanic event during Yucca's intended lifetime at about one in 
10,000, according to Frank Perry of the earth and environmental 
science division at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

 Lots of alternative ideas have been proposed for storing this 
waste - shooting it into space, sinking it to the bottom of 
ocean, among others - but the administration and its scientists 
have recommended burial.

 Geologic disposal is the best alternative, Stuckless said. 
Scientific data gathered to date support the decision to 
recommend Yucca Mountain.

 One other consideration: By nearly any measure, Yucca Mountain 
is preferable to leaving the waste where it is. It comprises 
about 50,000 metric tons lying around in 39 states.

 The waste is stored mostly in water-filled swimming pools that 
were designed as temporary storage facilities until the 
government took over the responsibility for final disposition 
under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act. It directed the 
Department of Energy to begin disposing of the waste in a 
geologic repository by 1998.

 As in so many federal endeavors, the deadline has slipped.

 The current waste storage is concentrated where most nuclear 
power plants are located - on the East and West costs. Right now, 
about 161 million people live within 75 miles of these facilities 
or storage sites.

 Despite the scientific consensus that all is well at Yucca 
Mountain - and despite the widely accepted wisdom that America's 
dependency on Middle East oil is a bad habit - local and national 
opposition to anything nuclear has increased.

 Construction of new nukes was dealt a death blow with the 1979 
Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania and the April 1986 
Chernobyl nuclear power station accident in the former Soviet 
Union. The nuke industry's credibility - not high even its heyday 
- has never recovered.

 Yet the waste sits, waiting.

 Some of the concerns are human and organizational. Who will 
administer this site for 10,000 years? How can future, possibly 
non-English-speaking generations be warned?

 No civilization has lasted 10,000 years. The United States, at 
228, is the world's oldest existing democracy. England is 1,500 
or so. Persia maybe 2,500. China more than 4,500.

 Writing appeared 6,000 years ago. It seems likely over the next 
10,000 years civilization will experience similar ups and downs.

 In 1984, linguist Thomas A. Sebeok was commissioned by the 
Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation and a group of other 
institutions to study possible ways of communicating to 
unforeseen future societies the potential danger of Yucca 
Mountain. He found, basically, the problem had no solution, no 
permanent universal language to convey Danger! Keep Out! forever.

 The problem: Words and pictures depend on context, and over 
10,000 years, context vanishes. Only a few generations after the 
last pharaoh, the knowledge of how to translate Egyptian 
hieroglyphics had disappeared. Without the Rosetta Stone, 
scientists still might be arguing what the symbols mean.

 Sebeok did suggest one possible strategy, but in the process he 
managed to damage the public image of the nuclear industry even 
further.

 Sebeok said maybe the United States could establish sort of an 
atomic priesthood - an organization whose solemn duty would be to 
hand down the critical information from one generation to the 
next, evolving with time into an eternal taboo reaching back into 
time immemorial.

 That assumes a lot, not the least of which, according to Todd 
LaPorte, a political science professor at the University of 
California, Berkeley, is Murphy's Law.

 It is a pretty good characterization of the way things operate, 
LaPorte said. Trial and error learning doesn't seem like such a 
good model in this case.

 All rights reserved. Copyright 2004 by United Press 
International. Sections of the information displayed on this page 
(dispatches, photographs, logos) are protected by intellectual 
property rights owned by United Press International. As a 
consequence, you may not copy, reproduce, modify, transmit, 
publish, display or in any way commercially exploit any of the 
content of this section without the prior written consent of by 
United Press International.

 Related Links SpaceDaily Search SpaceDaily Subscribe To 
SpaceDaily Express [ ] NUKE WARS<br>Britain's Straw Confirms 
Tentative Nuclear Deal With Iran London (AFP) Nov 09, 2004 
Britain and other European nations have reached an informal deal 
with Iran over helping it with civilian nuclear technology if it 
halts potential military applications, British Foreign Secretary 
Jack Straw said Tuesday.
 
are Copyright 1995-2004 - SpaceDaily. AFP and UPI Wire Stories 
are copyright Agence France-Presseand United Press International. 
ESA Portal Reports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA 
sourced material is public domain.Additional copyrights may apply 
in whole or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not 
imply endorsement, agreement or approval of any opinions, 
statements or information provided by SpaceDaily on any web page 
published or hosted by SpaceDaily. Privacy Statement  

*****************************************************************
 48 SB: County supports underground nuclear waste storage at site 

Shoreline Beacon, Port Elgin, ON 

November 17, 2004 

Port Elgin, ON N0H 2C0 Phone: (519) 832-9001 Fax: (519) 389-4793 

Bruce County council has changed its tone and endorsed a 
proposal for underground storage of low and intermediate level 
nuclear waste at the Bruce Power site. 

By Pat Halpin 

Wednesday November 17, 2004Shoreline Beacon — Bruce County 
council has changed its tone and endorsed a proposal for 
underground storage of low and intermediate level nuclear waste 
at the Bruce Power site. 

Earlier this month three of the eight county councillors were 
upset about lack of consultation on the proposal, and about 
being left out of a $35 million compensation deal for host 
municipalities. 

That changed when Ontario Power Generation promised Bruce 
county a voice in negotiations over property tax levels for the 
waste storage facility. 

“What we’ve said is we will guarantee up to the $250,000 level, 
that they will see taxes when this facility goes into service,’ 
said OPG’s Terry Squire after a closed-door meeting with the 
county’s corporate services committee Friday. 

“To allay fears of how the facility might be taxed we’ve 
invited the county to join us in those discussions,” Squire 
said. “The other thing is I believe the county as a whole will 
see economic spinoffs from a project of this size. 

“I think that will be good for all the municipalities in Bruce 
county.” 

Warden Ralph Kreutzwiser said the vote of support for the waste 
storage facility came after the county met earlier in the week 
with OPG for a lengthy discussion about the project. 

“We were afraid our interests were going to be left out. Now 
we’re going to be at the table and that means a lot to the 
county,” Kreutzwiser said. 

But Squire is frustrated with suggestions that OPG kept 
negotiations for the longterm underground storage facility under 
wraps. The project has been in the public since Kincardine and 
OPG signed a memorandum to deal with waste that until now had no 
option beyond interim storage. 

‘We’ve worked pretty hard for two-and-a-half years with open 
houses, newsletters, websites, briefing to key officials. We 
think we’ve been taking extraordinary efforts to make sure 
people know what we’re doing,” Squire said. 

Bruce County’s endorsement is a large step for the proposed 
project. Municipal support is also important, Squire said, and 
that’s the reason the $35 million in compensation payments over 
30 years are tied to cooperation in getting the $800 million 
project up and running. 

“If a community was to decided they no longer supported the 
facility, that could be critical to the project. So the aspect 
of that is--would you really expect to benefit from something 
you didn’t support?” he said. 

Some councillors are still unhappy that Kincardine will get the 
lion’s share of the compensation fund, Kreutzwiser said. They 
want Kincardine to review the plan and consider sharing the 
revenue with all eight municipalities. 

“But that has nothing to do with OPG,” the Warden said. 

Earlier county council was told the compensation agreement is 
consistent with industry practice in North America and Europe. 

The county’s vote Friday was for the nuclear waste storage 
project to move to the environmental assessment stage. The 
recorded vote was seven to one, with Northern Bruce Peninsula 
mayor Milt McIver abstaining. 

“It looks like good support and I’m pleased with that because I 
think we’re building a good safe project that’s good for the 
county,” Squire said referring to Friday’s vote. 

The proposal still has to go through an environmental 
assessment and licensing hearings before construction can begin. 
The storage facility is expected to be ready for use in 2017. 

© 2004 Shoreline Beacon 
*****************************************************************
 49 PRESS TRUST OF INDIA: Warheads exist even 30 years after NPT- IAEA chief 

Network Tuesday, November 16, 2004 SEARCH IE                             

National Network                                                 

Nuclear arms control and global security go
hand in hand, the two topics must be addressed in parallel, he
says 

[Send Feedback]

	MUMBAI, NOVEMBER 15: Even after 30 years of the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), there are still 36,000 war heads
in the world which need to be dismantled, Director- General of
International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed Elbaradei said here
today. Speaking at the 15th annual conference on ‘‘nuclear
technology and societal needs’’, organised by the Indian Nuclear
Society at Bhaba Atomic Research Centre here, Elbaradei said:

‘‘As I have repeatedly stated that nuclear arms control and
global security go hand in hand, the two topics must be
addressed in parallel.’’ 

It should
not come as a surprise that regions facing security deficit are
those where proliferation concerns exist the most, he said,
adding that concrete dialogue on the issue should begin without
delay. ‘‘India is one of the very few nations that have not
acceded to NPT and has made the choice to pursue nuclear
weapons,’’ he said. Neverthless, India would be willing to
contribute its insights and ideas on how we should move forward
to strengthen regional and global security in which nuclear
weapons have no place, the IAEA Director-General said. He said
events like terror attacks on the US have propelled a rapid and
dramatic re-evaluation of the risks of terrorism in all its
forms, including the threat of nuclear and radiological
terrorism. 

In the past three years, the agency’s efforts to help
member states increase their nuclear security has increased at
an exceptional pace, Elbaradei said. He said the IAEA has
strengthened its cooperation with international organisations
such as Interpol, Europol, the Universal Postal Union and
specialised United Nations agencies for the purpose. IAEA member
states have been more supportive in providing financial and
in-kind resources to fund a broad range of actions to reduce the
threat of bombs as a terrorist weapon, he said, adding that
India too, had contributed in the upgrading of the code of
conduct on the safety and security of radioactive sources.

Elbaradei also said the agency has recently been able to
demonstrate in Iraq, Libya and Iran how effective agency
verification can be, even under difficult conditions, provided
that we are granted the required authority and access to
relevant information. However, no strengthened safeguard
measures can be fully effective without addressing in parallel
the causes of insecurity that provide incentives to acquire
nuclear weapons, the IAEA chief added. Principal scientific
advisor to the Union Government, R. Chidambaram, Atomic Energy
Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar and Atomic Energy Regulatory
Board Chairman S.P. Sukhatme were also present on the occasion.

NATIONAL NETWORK STORIESInvite ULFA for talks, Mamoni tells
CentreNDFB will talk to Centre, not Assam govtAP govt grants
permission for Naxal rallyDoctors continue to strike, so do
extortionistsDeshmukh govt may switch off free power 	 	 	 	 	

Coverage • Yasser Arafat (1929-2004) • Petrol Pump Scam •
India-Aus Series • Maharashtra Polls • Athens Olympics 2004 •
Budget 2004-05 • Walk the Talk • Travelogues • Verdict 04 •
Indo-Pak Cricket Series • Dubey Murder • Stamp of Shame • Cash
on Camera • Express Special Reports • India-Pak Faceoff • Firing
Line • Gujarat Riots Top About Us| Advertise With Us| Privacy
Policy |         © 2004: Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 50 Salt Lake Tribune: Opinion - Stop nuclear tests 

Article Last Updated: 11/16/2004 02:22:14 AM 

The U.S. Senate may vote soon on the Omnibus Appropriations 
Bill. President Bush has asked for $27.6 million for the 
bunker-buster nuclear bomb development and $9 million for 
development of other new nuclear weapons. 

During previous nuclear testing, even underground tests, the 
levels of radioactive iodine (I-131) in mother's milk and other 
foods were elevated, depending on the test, well above normal in 
Salt Lake and all the other counties along the Wasatch front. 
The I-131 is concentrated in the baby's thyroid and can result 
in thyroid cancer. I-131 has also been associated with breast 
cancer. 

Whereas U.S. Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett say there 
won't be nuclear testing, they both voted in March 2003 to 
remove the ban on nuclear testing. I submit that poisoning 
babies through their mother's milk is a peculiar form of good 
family values. 

Fortunately, Sen. Hatch, and especially Sen. Bennett, have a 
chance to reverse the threat to Utahns from fallout-related 	 	 
nuclear testing from the Omnibus Appropriations Bill. They 
should vote to delete funds for nuclear testing from that bill 
for the sake of all of us who may otherwise die prematurely of 
fallout-related cancer, or, in the case of unborn children, 
abort or suffer severe birth defects from fallout-related 
in-utero child abuse. 

Zell A. McGee, M.D. 

Member, Physicians for 

Social Responsibility 

Salt Lake City 

© Copyright 2004, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 51 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Rocky 
 
                        FR Doc 04-25437 
[Federal Register: November 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 220)] 
[Notices] [Page 67142] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16no04-38]                         
 
Flats AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Rocky Flats.
 
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 
770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in 
the Federal Register.
 
 
DATES: Thursday, December 2, 2004, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.
 
ADDRESSES: Broomfield Recreation Center, Lakeshore Room, 280 
Lamar Street, Broomfield, CO.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Korkia, Board/Staff 
Coordinator, Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Board, 10808 Highway 
93, Unit B, Building 60, Room 107B, Golden, CO 80403; telephone 
(303) 966-7855; fax (303) 966-7856.
 
 
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: 1. Presentation on the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement for the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 2. 
Presentation on the Draft Rocky Flats Public Participation Plan 
3. Discussion on the Future Local Stakeholder Organization Public 
Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
 
Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or 
after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to agenda items should contact Ken Korkia at the 
address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be 
received at least five days prior to the meeting and reasonable 
provisions 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. Individuals wishing to make public comments 
will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their 
comments.
 
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the office of the Rocky Flats Citizens 
Advisory Board, 10808 Highway 93, Unit B, Building 60, Room 107B, 
Golden, CO 80403; telephone (303) 966-7855. Hours of operations 
are 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Minutes will also 
be made available by writing or calling Ken Korkia at the address 
or telephone number listed above. Board meeting minutes are 
posted on RFCAB's Web site within one month following each 
meeting at: http://www.rfcab.org/Minutes.HTML. Issued at 
Washington, DC, on November 10, 2004.
 
Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. 04-25437 Filed 11-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 52 AjP: Anti-nuclear work key for departing energy secretary
 
  Spencer Abraham   

Associated Press November 16, 2004  
 
WASHINGTON -- Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham informed
President Bush Monday he would leave the Cabinet when his
successor is confirmed next year. That would make him the
longest-serving energy secretary -- just over four years --
since the department was created in 1977. 

As a Republican senator from Michigan, Abraham once suggested
dismantling the Energy Department. He later changed his mind and
began to view it as essential. 

Abraham said acceleration of nuclear nonproliferation programs
aimed at keeping nuclear materials away from terrorists "heads
the list of important accomplishments" of the past four years. 
Abraham faced several other major issues, including the nation's
worst power blackout; soaring crude oil and gasoline prices; and
finding a nuclear waste repository. 

Abraham recommended, and the president approved, Yucca Mountain
in Nevada as the government's permanent tomb for tons of used
reactor fuel accumulating at commercial power plants. A federal
court challenge has put that project in question.  
 
2004 IndyStar.com. All rights reserved 		   	 	
*****************************************************************
 53 DT: Energy secretary will leave amid Los Alamos controversy 
                    
Daily Texan - 

| 11/16/2004 

 By Jeff Squire and David Kassabian 

The man guiding Los Alamos policy announced his resignation 
Monday, but the step down will not affect operations at the lab 
nor its ongoing security investigation, lab officials said.
 
In a letter to President Bush, Secretary of Energy Spencer 
Abraham said he will leave the Cabinet as soon as his replacement 
is named. He announced his resignation Monday with three other 
Cabinet members, including Secretary of State Colin Powell. He 
cited personal reasons in his letter to the president, as have 
all of the retirees.
 
As the 10th energy secretary, he determined the nation's policies 
on energy supply and security. His department oversees every 
national laboratory, including Los Alamos, which it manages in 
conjunction with the National Nuclear Security Agency 
Administration and the University of California.
 
As a nuclear facility, Los Alamos is governed primarily by the 
NNSA, not the DOE, therefore the lab's policy would remain 
consistent under any secretary, said Roy Schwitters, chair of the 
University's physics department and member of the task force 
investigating the UT System's likely bid.
 
Abraham's resignation comes in the middle of a security 
investigation at Los Alamos stemming from a series of July 
security lapses alledgedly involving classified computer disks 
and a laser accident involving an intern.
 
Linton Brooks, director of the NNSA, ordered an indefinite 
suspension of almost all operations at the nuclear weapons 
facility July 16, a week before Abraham suspended activity at all 
DOE-owned labs in areas that involve removable hardware, such as 
computer disks.
 
Some areas of Los Alamos are still closed, in part due to 
Abraham's orders. As of Monday, 63 percent of the lab's most 
classified work is still shut down, in addition to 22 percent of 
less-classified operations, said lab spokeswoman Kathy DeLucas. 
The current estimate for all work at the lab to resume is 
mid-December, DeLucas said.
 
"This is not a horse race," DeLucas said. "We wanted to do it 
right, so we take a very careful, measured approach."
 
A preliminary request for bids on Los Alamos was scheduled to be 
released by the NNSA in mid-October but they may be delayed for 
another three weeks, NNSA spokesman Al Stotts said from the 
regional office in Albuquerque.
 
"I'm not sure there's been a delay," Stotts said. "It takes as 
long as it takes to make sure everything is correct, and we've 
crossed all our T's and dotted our I's. We don't want a product 
going out that has any flaws in it."
 
Abraham's crack-down on Los Alamos was part of his effort to 
safeguard nuclear materials in the United States and Russia. In 
May, he proposed closing a reactor at Sandia National 
Laboratories, also in New Mexico. After a three-year period, the 
department will close the reactor to reduce the number of sites 
with enough nuclear material to potentially be attractive to 
terrorists.
 
He recommended Yucca Mountain as the nation's nuclear dump site, 
which the Senate approved in 2002 despite outraged Nevadans and 
environmentalists. As a response to Bush's calls to reduce 
American reliance on foreign oil, Abraham instituted $1.54 
billion in federal funding of fuel cell technology for 
automobiles over five years, which has been both praised as 
revolutionary and criticized as unrealistic.             

*****************************************************************
 54 PhysOrg: New instruments at ORNL reactor will lead to dramatic increase in users
 
November 15, 2004 	

Four new instruments
installed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory's High Flux Isotope
Reactor this year make the facility an even more attractive
destination for researchers around the world. 

With the additions, the research reactor boasts a total of seven
instruments that enable scientists to study magnetic materials,
alloys, superconductors and biological materials. The new
instruments combined with the recent upgrade of existing
instruments and the planned addition of eight more will likely
lead to the number of users soaring from 90 to 750 per year by
2008, said David Price, executive director of HFIR.   				  
					   			 	
"HFIR is in a transition that will elevate it to new heights as
a Department of Energy user facility," Price said. "Already,
HFIR boasts impressive capabilities in the areas of neutron
scattering, isotope production, materials irradiation and
neutron activation analysis. When the planned work is complete,
HFIR will further extend its capabilities and will be the best
facility of its type in the nation and one of the two best
worldwide." 

The new instruments consist of two diffractometers, one
reflectometer and a Spallation Neutron Source test station.
Researchers use diffractometers to measure atomic and magnetic
structure in materials and to examine how materials deform under
stress. Scientists use the reflectometer to look at what happens
at the surface of materials and are especially interested in
magnetization properties as they relate to magnetic data
storage. The SNS test station is a temporary instrument to
screen components that will be used at the $1.4 billion SNS,
which is being built on Chestnut Ridge at ORNL and is scheduled
for completion in 2006. 

Price noted that the effort at HFIR involves strong
collaborations nationally and abroad, as one of the new
instruments and a cold triple-axis spectrometer being
transferred from Brookhaven National Laboratory form part of a
United States-Japan partnership. The triple-axis spectrometer is
especially suited to looking at exotic magnetism and
superconducting properties of materials. 

The addition of these instruments is part of a massive HFIR
upgrade that, when completed, will include a new reflector,
cooling tower, liquid hydrogen cold source, new and improved
instrumentation, a guide hall with four neutron guides and
expanded user support space. Instruments connected to the
neutron guides provide scientists access to the neutrons
produced by the cold source. 

While HFIR produces thermal neutrons, which are at room
temperature, by 2006 the reactor will also be producing cold
neutrons by passing them through a source of liquid hydrogen
chilled by liquid helium to a temperature of minus 420 degrees
Fahrenheit. 

Thermal neutrons have wavelengths of a few tenths of a
nanometer, which makes them ideal for studying atomic and
magnetic structure and dynamics. Cold neutrons have wavelengths
that are up to 10 times longer, which makes them especially
suited for probing more complex materials such as polymers,
proteins and membranes. 

With the upgrades, HFIR boasts neutron beams that are brighter
and more intense, making them even better at probing materials.
HFIR's steady-state (continuous) neutron scattering capabilities
will complement the pulsed neutron scattering capabilities at
the SNS, making ORNL the world's premier institution for neutron
science. 

HFIR and the SNS will jointly issue calls for proposals two
times per year. The proposal forms and instructions for proposal
submissions will be found on the HFIR and SNS Web sites. 

In addition to its neutron scattering role, HFIR produces
transplutonium elements used in research, medical and national
defense applications in 70 institutions worldwide. HFIR also
remains the primary source for californium-252, which is used in
the treatment of hundreds of late-stage cancers, and supplies
isotopes that are in medical trials at 60 institutions around
the world. Also, rhenium-188 from a generator produced at ORNL
is used for research and in more than 50 clinical trials
throughout the world for various forms of cancer therapy and for
coronary restenosis therapy. 

Price also noted that Theragenics Corp. has located a $27
million plant in Oak Ridge for the production of enriched stable
isotopes, including isotopes that can be used to produce
palladium-103 at HFIR for prostate cancer treatment. 

ORNL, which is managed by UT-Battelle, employs 1,500 scientists
and engineers and is DOE's largest multipurpose science and
energy laboratory. 

Source: ORNL 

PhysOrg.com 2003-2004                         
*****************************************************************
 55 DOE: Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
 
                        FR Doc 04-25406 
[Federal Register: November 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 220)] 
[Notices] [Page 67139-67142] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16no04-37]                         
 
for the Proposed Consolidation of Nuclear Operations Related to 
Production of Radioisotope Power Systems AGENCY: Department of 
Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of Intent.
 
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intent to 
prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS), pursuant to the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, for the 
proposed consolidation of nuclear activities related to 
production of radioisotope power systems (RPS) required for 
Government national security and space exploration missions at a 
single, highly secure DOE site.
 
Currently, DOE's ongoing RPS-related production operations are 
located at three DOE sites in Idaho, New Mexico and Tennessee, 
requiring the transport of radioactive material that could be 
avoided by consolidation of these activities at a single site. 
The proposed consolidation of these operations, which includes 
production, purification, and encapsulation of plutonium-238 
(Pu-238), would be consistent with DOE's approach on 
consolidating nuclear materials, increasing the security of 
nuclear materials, and reducing risks associated with 
transportation of nuclear materials. The EIS will analyze all 
reasonable alternatives for the consolidation of the RPS 
operations as well as the No Action alternative.
 
 
DATES: DOE invites public comments on the proposed scope of this 
EIS. The public scoping period begins with the publication of 
this notice and concludes on January 31, 2005. DOE invites the 
general public, Native American Tribes, State and local 
governments, other Federal agencies, DOE stakeholders, and
 
[[Page 67140]] other interested parties to comment on the scope 
of this EIS. To ensure that comments are considered in the 
preparation of the EIS, the comments should be transmitted or 
postmarked by January 31, 2005. Late comments will be considered 
to the extent practicable.
 
DOE will conduct seven public scoping meetings in Idaho Falls, 
Twin Falls, and Fort Hall, Idaho; Jackson Hole, Wyoming; Los 
Alamos, New Mexico; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and Washington, DC. 
During the scoping meetings, DOE will provide information on the 
proposed consolidation project and receive oral and written 
comments on the scope of the EIS, including those regarding 
reasonable alternatives and environmental issues that DOE should 
consider. The location, date, and time for these public meetings 
are as follows: Idaho Falls, ID: Monday, December 6, 2004, from 
6-8:30 p.m. at the Shilo Inn, Riverview Room, 780 Lindsay Blvd., 
Idaho Falls, ID 83402 Jackson, WY: Tuesday, December 7, 2004, 
from 7-9:30 p.m. at the Jackson Hole Middle School, Commons Room, 
1230 South Park Loop Road, Jackson, WY 83001 Fort Hall, ID: 
Wednesday, December 8, 2004, from7-9:30 p.m. at the Fort Hall 
Tribal Business Center, Tribal Council Chambers, Pima Drive 
(I-15, Exit 80), Fort Hall Town Site, Fort Hall, ID 83203 Twin 
Falls, ID: Thursday, December 9, 2004, from 7-9:30 p.m. at the 
Shilo Inn, Twin Falls B Meeting Room, 1586 Blue Lake Blvd., Twin 
Falls, ID 83301 Los Alamos, NM: Monday, December 13, 2004, from 
6-8:30 p.m. at the Los Alamos Golf Course, Golf Course Main Room, 
4250 Diamond Drive, Los Alamos, NM 87544 Oak Ridge, TN: 
Wednesday, December 15, 2004, from 6-8:30 p.m. at the Oak Ridge 
Comfort Inn, Magnolia Conference Room, 433 S. Rutgers Ave., Oak 
Ridge, TN 37830 Washington, DC: Friday, December 17, 2004, from 
1-3:30 p.m. at the Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill, 400 New Jersey 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20001
 
ADDRESSES: Comments or suggestions on the scope for the EIS, 
questions concerning the proposed action, requests to participate 
at the public scoping meetings, requests for special arrangements 
that would enable participation at the scoping meetings (e.g., an 
interpreter for the hearing impaired), and requests to be placed 
on the EIS distribution list may be directed to: Timothy A. 
Frazier, Document Manager, NE-50/ Germantown Building, Office of 
Space and Defense Power Systems, Office of Nuclear Energy, 
Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290, telephone 
301-903-9420, or submitted via e-mail to . You may also leave a 
message at (800) 919-3716, or send a fax to (800) 919-3765. 
Comments may also be submitted to DOE via the RPS EIS Web site at 
ConsolidationEIS.doe.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 
general information on the DOE NEPA process, please contact: 
Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, 
Office of Environment, Safety and Health, 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: Background The RPS is a unique 
technology for missions that require a long- term, unattended 
source of heat and/or electrical power for use in harsh and 
remote environments--such as deep-space. The Pu-238 in these 
units serves as the source for generating heat and electricity.
 
The heat source can be used directly to warm critical spacecraft 
components.
 
Currently, DOE plans to produce RPS in support of Government 
national security and space exploration missions at three 
geographically separate and distant DOE sites: the Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory (ORNL), Tennessee; Los Alamos National 
Laboratory (LANL), New Mexico; and the Idaho Site, Idaho. DOE 
proposes to consolidate all nuclear activities of the existing 
and future RPS production operations at a single, highly secure 
DOE site. This consolidation would be consistent with DOE's 
approach on consolidating nuclear materials, increasing the 
security of nuclear materials, and reducing risks associated with 
the transportation of nuclear materials.
 
The nuclear infrastructure required to produce RPS is comprised 
of three major components: (1) The production of Pu-238; (2) the 
purification and encapsulation of Pu-238 into a fuel form; and 
(3) the assembly, testing, and delivery of the RPS to the Federal 
users.
 
The three major components of the existing infrastructure, 
including their current status, are briefly described below: 
Production of Pu-238: The Pu-238 production process consists of 
the fabrication of neptunium-237 (Np-237) targets, irradiation of 
the targets in a suitable irradiation facility, and the recovery 
of Pu-238 from the irradiated targets through chemical 
processing. In the past, Pu-238 was produced at DOE's Savannah 
River Site (SRS), using reactors that are no longer operating. 
After SRS stopped producing Pu-238, DOE satisfied its Pu-238 
requirement by using DOE's available inventory in storage at 
LANL. This inventory was augmented by Pu-238 purchased from 
Russia for use in space missions. DOE analyzed the need for 
reestablishment of Pu-238 production capability in the 
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Accomplishing 
Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy Research and Development and 
Isotope Production Missions in the United States, Including the 
Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility (NI PEIS) (DOE/EIS-0310), 
issued in December 2000. On the basis of the analysis in the NI 
PEIS, DOE issued a Record of Decision (ROD) (66 FR 7877, January 
26, 2001) to reestablish Pu-238 production capability at ORNL 
using the Radiochemical Engineering Development Center (REDC) for 
the fabrication of targets and extraction of Pu-238 from the 
irradiated targets. The Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) located at 
the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (also 
referred to as the Idaho Site), supplemented by the High Flux 
Isotope Reactor (HFIR) located at ORNL, would be used in the 
irradiation of targets, and the irradiated targets would be 
returned to REDC/ORNL for extraction of Pu-238.
 
This decision, however, has not yet been implemented and the DOE 
has expended no resources to establish the Pu-238 production at 
the Oak Ridge Site.
 
Np-237, the feed material for fabrication of targets for Pu-238 
production, had been stored at the SRS where Pu-238 was 
historically produced. In the NI PEIS ROD, DOE decided to 
transfer this material to ORNL since the Pu-238 capability was 
planned to be reestablished there. However, Np-237 is a special 
nuclear material and, after the events of September 11, 2001, it 
required a higher level of security than could be reasonably 
provided at REDC/ORNL. Therefore, DOE amended the ROD for the NI 
PEIS to change the storage location for Np-237 from ORNL to the 
Idaho Site (69 FR 50180, August 13, 2004). Np-237, in the form of 
an oxide, will be shipped from SRS to the Idaho Site beginning in 
FY 2005 (and ending
 
[[Page 67141]] in FY 2006) for storage until needed for Pu-238 
production.
 
Purification and Encapsulation of Pu-238: Pu-238 is purified and 
encapsulated in a metal capsule and welded closed. These fuel 
capsules are used as a heat source in the RPS. The purification 
and encapsulation work is currently conducted within the 
Technical Area-55 (TA-55) complex at LANL. The finished Pu-238 
fuel capsules are shipped from LANL for assembly of the RPS at 
the Idaho Site.
 
Assembly and Test Operations: From the early 1980s until 
late-2002, DOE conducted its assembly and test operations for the 
RPS at the Mound Site in Miamisburg, Ohio. Increased security 
requirements and concerns resulting from the attacks on September 
11, 2001, led DOE to transfer these operations to the Idaho Site 
to provide enhanced security in a cost effective manner at a 
highly secure DOE site. The environmental impacts of the transfer 
from the Mound Site to the Idaho Site were assessed in an 
Environmental Assessment (DOE/EA-1343). A Finding of No 
Significant Impact was signed by DOE on August 30, 2002, and the 
transfer of the assembly and testing capability was initiated.
 
The first RPS will be assembled and tested at the Idaho Site by 
September 2005 in support of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration's (NASA) planned mission to survey the planet 
Pluto.
 
In summary, the current RPS production capability and 
infrastructure resides at or was planned to reside within the DOE 
complex at the following different locations: Np-237, used in 
preparation of targets as the feed material for Pu-238 
production, was to be transferred and stored at the Idaho Site 
(amendment to the NI PEIS ROD).
 
The production capability was planned to be located at ORNL (NI 
PEIS ROD) where the targets would be fabricated in REDC, 
irradiated at ATR in Idaho (supplemented by HFIR in Oak Ridge) 
and then processed in REDC to recover Pu-238. Pu-238 was then to 
have been transported to LANL.
 
Pu-238 was to be purified and encapsulated in TA-55 at LANL and 
transported to the Idaho Site.
 
RPS assembly and test operations was to be conducted at the Idaho 
Site.
 
Purpose and Need for Agency Action As described above, RPS 
production infrastructure exists at or is planned for DOE sites 
in three locations: ORNL, LANL, and the Idaho Site. Consolidation 
of these operations at a single site would significantly increase 
security of the nuclear material while reducing risks associated 
with the transport of radioactive material.
 
Proposed Action DOE proposes to consolidate all Pu-238 operations 
at a single, highly secure site within its complex. These 
operations include the production of Pu-238, purification and 
encapsulation of Pu-238, and the assembly and testing of the RPS.
 
Preliminary Alternatives Consistent with NEPA implementation 
requirements, the EIS will assess the range of reasonable 
alternatives regarding DOE's need to consolidate nuclear 
operations related to RPS. DOE has identified the following two 
alternatives for the proposed RPS Production Consolidation 
Project.
 
A. No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, DOE 
would continue the RPS production operations as explained above.
 
The operations would consist of: (1) Np-237 storage at the Idaho 
Site and shipments to ORNL as needed for target fabrication; (2) 
Pu-238 production at ORNL using HFIR and ATR (Idaho) for 
irradiation and processing in REDC located at ORNL; (3) Pu-238 
purification and encapsulation in TA-55 facility at LANL; and (4) 
RPS assembly and test operations at the Idaho Site.
 
B. Consolidation of Nuclear Operations Related to Production of 
RPS at the Idaho Site, the Preferred Alternative: Under this 
alternative, DOE would consolidate all activities related to RPS 
production within the secure area at the Idaho Site. New 
construction for the Pu-238 production, purification, and 
encapsulation part of the infrastructure would be required due to 
the very limited capability of existing facilities in the secure 
area. No new construction would be required for the assembly and 
test operations that are already being located in the secure area 
at the Idaho Site. As previously stated, the consolidation of the 
RPS production infrastructure would include the following 
activities: (1) Np-237 would be stored at the Idaho Site as 
already decided; (2) Pu-238 production capability (including 
Np-237 target fabrication and processing) would be established at 
the Idaho Site with ATR serving as the primary irradiation 
facility, and HFIR would be used only as a back-up facility if 
necessary; (3) Pu-238 operations carried out at the TA-55 complex 
at LANL would be transferred to the Idaho Site; and (4) the 
existing facility, the Space and Security Power Systems Facility, 
at the Idaho Site would continue to be established and maintained 
for RPS assembly and test operations as already planned. This 
area of the Idaho Site where RPS nuclear operations are proposed 
to be consolidated is a highly secure location within the DOE 
complex.
 
C. Other Reasonable Alternatives: Any other reasonable 
alternatives identified through the scoping process will be 
evaluated as appropriate.
 
DOE considered whether consolidation at another site is 
reasonable. The proposed consolidation is not achievable at LANL 
since there is no operating reactor at the site for irradiation 
of targets.
 
Consolidation at ORNL would not allow the DOE to meet its 
programmatic need. Because the reactor at ORNL, HFIR, is a 
dedicated facility for projects related to basic energy sciences 
and isotope production, use of this reactor for the RPS program 
would only be on an ``as available'' basis and could not be 
guaranteed.
 
Consolidation at ORNL, therefore, could only partially meet the 
programmatic objective. Also, as analyzed in the NI PEIS, 
irradiation of targets in HFIR would be limited due to reactor 
design and could not produce enough Pu-238 to meet programmatic 
objectives.
 
Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues The issues 
listed below have been tentatively identified for analysis in the 
EIS. This list is presented to facilitate public comment on the 
scope of the EIS. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or to 
predetermine the potential impacts of any of the alternatives. 
DOE seeks public comments on the adequacy and completeness of the 
following issues: Potential impacts on ecosystems, including air 
quality, surface, and groundwater quality, and plants and 
animals.
 
Potential health and safety impacts to on-site workers and to the 
public resulting from operations including reasonably foreseeable 
accidents.
 
Potential health and safety, environmental, and other impacts 
related to the transport of radioactive materials to the 
consolidation location.
 
Considerations related to the generation, treatment, storage, and 
disposal of wastes including the potential acceptability of waste 
at appropriate disposal facilities.
 
Potential cumulative impacts of Pu-238 mission operations, 
including relevant impacts from other past, present, and 
reasonably foreseeable activities at the consolidation site.
 
Potential impacts on cultural resources.
 
 
[[Page 67142]] Potential socioeconomic impacts including any 
disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income populations.
 
Pollution prevention and waste minimization opportunities.
 
Related NEPA Documentation NEPA documents that have been prepared 
for activities related to the proposed action include, but are 
not limited to, the following: Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy 
Research and Development and Isotope Production Missions in the 
United States including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility 
(DOE/EIS-0310) (December 2000); and Environmental Assessment for 
Consolidation of Heat Source/ Radioisotope Thermoelectric 
Generator (HS/RTG) Assembly and Testing Operations (DOE/EA-1343) 
(August 2002).
 
These NEPA documents (DOE/EIS-0310) and (DOE/EA-1343) are 
available on the DOE NEPA Web site at .
 
Public Reading Rooms Documents referenced in this NOI and other 
related information are available at DOE-Idaho Operations Office 
Public Reading Room, 1776 Science Center Drive, Idaho Falls, ID 
83415 (telephone 208-526-0271) and U.S. Department of Energy, 
Freedom of Information Reading Room, Forrestal Building, Room 
1E-190,1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0117 
(telephone 202-586-3142). As mentioned above, DOE's NEPA 
documents, including this NOI, are available at the DOE NEPA Web 
site () and the RPS EIS Web site ConsolidationEIS.doe.gov. Public 
Involvement Opportunities DOE seeks public involvement in the 
preparation of the EIS and solicits public comments on its scope 
and content as well as participation at the public scoping 
meetings in Idaho, Wyoming, New Mexico, Tennessee, and 
Washington, DC. DOE personnel will be available at the scoping 
meetings to explain the proposed project and answer questions. 
DOE will designate a neutral facilitator for the scoping 
meetings. During the first hour of each meeting, attendees may 
register, view displays, and discuss issues and concerns 
informally with DOE representatives. Following registration and 
the informal session, there will be a formal presentation and a 
period for questions, answers, and comments. To ensure that all 
persons wishing to express their comments are given an 
opportunity, a five-minute limit may be applied for each person; 
however, public officials and representatives of groups would be 
allotted ten minutes each.
 
DOE encourages those presenting comments orally to also submit 
written comments, if possible.
 
Comment cards will be available at the meetings for those who 
prefer to submit their comments in writing. Participants may be 
asked clarifying questions to ensure that DOE representatives 
fully understand the comments and suggestions.
 
NEPA Process The EIS for the proposed consolidation of nuclear 
operations related to the production of RPS will be prepared 
pursuant to the NEPA of 1969, the Council on Environmental 
Quality's Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions 
of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500- 1508), and DOE NEPA Implementing 
Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021).
 
A 45- day comment period on the draft EIS is planned, during 
which public hearings will be held to receive comments. The draft 
EIS is scheduled to be issued in late spring 2005. Availability 
of the draft EIS, the dates of the public comment period, and 
information about the public hearings will be announced in the 
Federal Register and in local news media when the draft EIS is 
distributed. The final EIS is scheduled to be issued in late 
2005. No sooner than 30 days after the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency's notice of availability of the final EIS is 
published in the Federal Register, DOE may issue its ROD.
 
Issued in Washington, DC on November 10, 2004.
 
John Spitaleri Shaw, Acting Assistant Secretary for Environment, 
Safety and Health.
 
[FR Doc. 04-25406 Filed 11-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 56 DOE: National Petroleum Council
 
                        FR Doc 04-25409 
[Federal Register: November 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 220)] 
[Notices] [Page 67143] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16no04-39] [[Page 67143]]
 
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
This notice announces a meeting of the National Petroleum 
Council. Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463, 86 
Stat. 770) requires that notice of these meetings be announced in 
the Federal Register.
 
 
DATES: Wednesday, December 1, 2004, 9:30 am.
 
 
ADDRESSES: The Ballroom of The Westin Embassy Row Hotel, 2100 
Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT: James Slutz, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Office of Fossil Energy, Washington, DC 20585. Phone: (202) 
586-5600.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Committee: To provide 
advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary of 
Energy on matters relating to oil and gas or the oil and gas 
industry.
 
Tentative Agenda Call to Order and Introductory Remarks.
 
Remarks by the Honorable Spencer Abraham, Secretary of Energy.
 
Consideration of the Council's Response to the Secretary's 
Request for Advice on Petroleum Refining and Inventory Matters.
 
Administrative Matters.
 
Discussion of Any Other Business Properly Brought Before the 
National Petroleum Council.
 
Adjournment.
 
Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public, and will 
begin at 9:30 am and end before noon. The chairperson of the 
Council is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that 
will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Any member of 
the public who wishes to file a written statement to the Council 
will be permitted to do so, either before or after the meeting. 
Members of the public who wish to make oral statements pertaining 
to agenda items should contact James Slutz at the address or 
telephone number listed above. Requests must be received at least 
five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provisions will be 
made to include the presentation on the agenda.
 
Transcripts: Available for public review and copying at the 
Public Reading Room, Room 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
 
Issued at Washington, DC, on November 10, 2004.
 
Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee, Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. 04-25409 Filed 11-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 57 [du-list] the "interim US government"  and  DU genocide
 
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:03:11 -0800

 
<x-flowed>

http://www.medialens.org/   -  message board -

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/202473.html

  Hi David E.,

Here is my response to HB, but I need a password.. I think I may  have 
registered before but  have to  divert to other issues right now.

db



  Chere  Helen Boaden,

  Merci beaucoup pour  votre response.

  Yes, we know that the  journalists are operating under great danger..The 
Federation of Journalists reports that 62 have been killed in Iraq, (and 
many of them by US forces, I might add)
  As I stated in my letter, I think there may be a legal danger to those 
with desk jobs like your too, based on complicity in the  USUK war crimes 
by failure to relay the truth.

  I see you have omitted reference to your headline " Humanitarian aid 
enters Falluja"  3 days ago to which  I  responded with a claim of 
misrepresentation and raised the question possible liabilities thereby 
incurred. Aid still has not been  allowed into the areas of need.

Why have you adopted this particular vocabulary of the primary belligerent 
state,  the US ..eg "embedded" as in..

  - "We have made clear that correspondents embedded with the marines have 
seen little of civilians and their reports are restricted." -

(Of course not, they are  dead under rubble or  lying on the road, or still 
hiding on the floor inside..... reports  have said the US  army fires at 
anything that moves, small arms fire is met with shell from tank rounds, 
possibly with DU shells etc.)

Does this "embedding" of their  vocabulary illustrate an intelligence blind 
to  the larger issue of the illegality of the actions of the  belligerent 
states ?

  - "I have reminded our newsrooms that it is important to use the word 
"interim" when talking about the Iraqi government, to reinforce the fact 
that it is as yet non-elected by popular vote. " -

  Given the  wide evidence of the election fraud in the US and the 
estimated  3,000,000 uncounted and  ethnically cleansed from the rolls, 
will you now be referring to the  to the Bush administration as the 
"interim US government" ?

  -- "INSURGENTS

The use of such words is often contentious. This term was decided upon 
because it describes people who are "rising in active revolt". It is the 
best word to use in situations of rebellion or conquest when there is no 
free-standing government." --

I see  that on your Q&A section on the BBC website, your  answerer has 
responded to a query refering to " the resistance".

IMHO this is the proper word, as  this is the common usage for an occupied 
people fighting their occupiers. Admittedly the area is comprised of 
diverse regional interests that were only united by the British imperial 
power earlier this century.

  IMHO, in reality the Iraqi people will continue to oppose the USUK 
occupiers. As in Vietnam, the US  fails , or pretends to fail, to recognize 
that their opponents  are motivated by simple nationalism. Here this 
combines with a strong religious motive and  this is why USUK  can never 
"win" the certainty of  the  Iraqi oil supplies, other than by a policy 
of  genocide.

It is this policy of genocide that is a primary war crime, ranking with the 
invasion itself. The use of  USUK DU has been the primary tool for  the 
USUK genocide to date , and the   provocation of the natives by almost 
every action  by US troops, from torture to shooting demonstrators to 
bombing, creating a  resistance  fighters faster than they can be shot, 
seems  like a ploy to enable this second, faster means of genocide 
exemplified by the Phantom Fury" operation.

The question I raised last week was  the  liability of  the media as a 
party to the  USUK war crimes by  it's failing to report the horrific  and 
inhumane nature and illegality of events as they unfold to the sponsors 
with the power to prevent them, viz the British people.
  A majority of the  UK population opposed the illegal invasion, and in 
Spain some 90% opposed  the Aznar  decision 
to  provide  token  forces.  Although USUK does not itself have a proper 
democracy with PR as in Germany, an informed population is a first step to 
installing  a humane  government, lead by intelligent people, 
not  religious fundamentalist  looneys like Bliar.  While there is little 
hope of this in the US, where the  media is owned and/or controlled by the 
same interests that profit from arms manufacture and  their expenditure 
and  other  supplies to army contractors, in the UK it  has a reasonable 
chance of success. This difference would not mitigate the basic legal 
question raised of  the liability  of a complicit media, but impinges on 
the urgent need for the underlying change  of  the premise and 
understanding required in reporting events.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 58 BBC: EU tempts Japan on fusion deal
 
  Last Updated: Tuesday, 16 November, 2004
 
ITER - NUCLEAR FUSION PROJECT [Iter, BBC]    


The project is estimated to cost $10bn and will run for 20 years   
It will produce the first sustained fusion reactions

Iter is the final stage before a commercial reactor is built    

The EU has offered Japan a package of incentives to persuade it 
to give up its bid to host the world's biggest nuclear fusion 
reactor. 

Europe wants to base the reactor at Cadarache in France, while 
Tokyo favours Rokkasho-Mura, in north Japan. 

Japan would receive contributions to other fusion research 
initiatives and other benefits, EU officials said. 

But Europe said it would press ahead with building the reactor 
itself if agreement was not reached soon. 

"A central feature of a consensus would be a genuine partnership 
between the EU and Japan," the EU's executive commission said in 
a statement. 

"Japan could receive favourable conditions to reflect its special 
contribution to the Iter project. 

"Furthermore, the EU could contribute to other fusion research 
initiatives carried out in Japan to complement the Iter project 
as part of a broader approach to mastering fusion energy." 

Breaking the deadlock 

After the International Space Station, the multi-billion-dollar 
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (Iter) would be 
the largest international research and development collaboration. 

Unlike in fission reactions, in which atomic nuclei are split to 
release energy, fusion reactions release energy when nuclei are 
forced together. 

The process is the same as the one that powers the Sun. Achieving 
stable and sustained reactions on Earth present an immense 
challenge, however. 

Nonetheless, scientists believe they have learnt enough about the 
technical requirements over the past few decades to now push 
forward with a large-scale reactor. 

European Commissioner for Research, Louis Michel, told a news 
conference he was optimistic that a deal among the six partners 
in the international project could be reached - but made clear 
that the EU was willing to proceed without those partners if 
necessary. 

'Step aside' 

"I think there's a good chance to succeed with this project with 
six," he said. "But you never can be sure." 

Talks last week between the EU, South Korea, Russia, the US, 
China and Japan on where to build the multi-billion-dollar Iter 
ended in deadlock. 

EU sources say the European side is confident, largely because it 
is widely believed in Brussels that South Korea and the United 
States would be prepared to back Cadarache if Japan steps aside. 
China and Russia already favour the French site. 

"If there is no agreement at six we are determined to do it with 
fewer," Mr Michel told reporters, adding that the EU would prefer 
to reach a deal with the current partners or, even better, more. 

The EU wants an agreement on the project before the end of the 
year but has not set a deadline and would be willing to negotiate 
past December, Mr Michel added. 

    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************