*****************************************************************
01/26/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.19
*****************************************************************
   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 UK The Times: A fresh voice adds to the alarm over Iran's nuclear am
2 BBC: Iran rejects Mossad nuclear claim
3 BBC: Crunch time at Iran nuclear talks
4 Independent: Israel refuses to rule out attack on Iran 
5 IPS-English POLITICS: U.S. Missile Shield Finds Few Takers in
6 US: Las Vegas SUN: White House: Deficit Will Hit Record $427B
7 [NYTr] Israel May Expel BBC Reporter Over Vanunu Censorship
8 BBC: Israel bars senior BBC producer
9 Scotsman.com: Nuclear Option If Renewable Energy Targets Not Met
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
10 US: [NukeNet] Nuclear plants cut 51 nonunion jobs
11 SABCnews: Court orders Eskom to stop Pebble reactor development     
12 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: Diablo inspection results to be aired
13 US: NRC: NRC COMMISSIONER LYONS TAKES OATH OF OFFICE
14 US: SF Chronicle: CALIFORNIA / Greater security for nuclear plants u
15 US: toledo blade: Fermi leak nonnuclear, but source uncertain
16 Business Line: NTPC mulls nuclear power generation                  
17 Reuters: S.Africa court suspends nuclear plant approval
18 US: Suffolk Life Newspapers: NRC Reinforces Millstone Safety
19 US: Newsday: Group slams power plants over pollutants
20 US: NRC: Emergency Planning and Preparedness For Production and Util
21 US: NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC Point Beach Nuclear Plant, 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
22 [du-list] perchlorate
23 US: Local10.com: Radioactive Leak Reported In West Palm Beach
24 Guardian Unlimited: Energy Dept. Issues Nuke Safety Rules
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
25 US: The Australian: Mine's suitors calling 
26 US: The Australian: The half-life and times of Australia's uranium d
27 EducationGuardian.co.uk: Drips feed case against N-dump
28 US: Nevada Appeal - Opinion: Water wars to begin for rural Nevada
29 Las Vegas RJ: Judicial panel orders Yucca parties to resolve documen
30 Las Vegas SUN: Energy secretary nominee sees end of 2005 date for Yu
31 US: Arkansas News Bureau: Lincoln revives SEFOR clean-up bill
32 US: www.mineweb.net: energy Uranium decades away from major new prod
33 Las Vegas SUN: Court orders common ground on Yucca documents
34 Las Vegas SUN: Bodman sets new Yucca deadline
35 US: CNW: UEX Acquires Five New Uranium Projects in Northern Athabasc
36 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Hotter waste than class A? Sen. Arent says no
37 PISJ: Energy consumers stand to benefit from INL research 
 
                         NUCLEAR WEAPONS
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
38 Seattle Times: Three elk at Hanford Reach killed to test for radioac
39 Tri-City Herald: Opinions Protests over contracts demand DOE attenti
40 Tri-City Herald: A clean hunt 
41 Platts: USEC begins centrifuge component testing at Oak Ridge
42 WVLT TN: Former DOE Workers Just Want Answers
 
                          OTHER NUCLEAR
 
43 Las Vegas SUN: New Nellis boss sees continued growth at base
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 UK The Times: A fresh voice adds to the alarm over Iran's nuclear ambitions 
 
January 27, 2005                       
 
Foreign Editor's Briefing

By Bronwen Maddox
		   		 		

IRAN could be less than a year away from “the point of no return” 
in acquiring nuclear weapons, according to Shaul Mofaz, the 
Israeli Defence Minister. 

“I feel that none of the Western countries can live with Iran 
having a nuclear capability,” he said in London yesterday before 
today’s remembrance service for the victims of Auschwitz, and 
after a meeting with Tony Blair. 

Under lengthy questioning he did not reject remarks by Dick
Cheney, the US VicePresident, who speculated last week that
Israel might be prompted to attack Iran’s nuclear sites to
prevent it from obtaining the nuclear bomb. 

The first route should be diplomacy by the US and the European
“troika” — Britain, France and Germany — Mr Mofaz said. 

But he noted that diplomacy had so far failed to achieve a “full
stop” of the programme, and that “the goal should be the full
stop”. “If they achieve nuclear power [weapons], it is a threat
to the free world,” he said. “I believe in the long run this is
the main threat that will exist, not only against Israel but
against Western countries.” 

His remarks are bound to stir up the past week’s alarm that
Israel has a pre-emptive military strike high in its planning
after a series of aggressive comments by the Bush
Administration, including the President. 

Certainly Mr Mofaz, in his choice of language, did nothing to
dispel such speculation, although he stopped short of saying
that Israel had such a plan. 

The Defence Minister stuck to the formal line that diplomacy
must be tried until it was seen to have failed. “I believe the
negotiations that took place between Iran and the troika and
Mohamed ElBaradei [director-general of the UN International
Atomic Energy Agency] have achieved something by suspension of
the Iranian nuclear programme,” he said. 

But almost in the same breath he dismissed their value, saying
“the dialogue [Iran] had with the European troika was mainly to
buy time”. 

The way forward now, he argued, “is by leadership of the US with
the European countries, taking this issue to the UN”, where “the
tools should be sanctions and very deep inspections in all
nuclear sites in Iran”. 

He dismissed Iran’s claims to be interested only in civilian
nuclear power. “We know they have a very high desire to achieve
the goal of nuclear power [weapons] in their hands.” 

He added that “they already have long-range surface-to-surface
missiles”. 

He defined “the point of no return” as the “enrichment of
uranium”, the most controversial part of the Iranian nuclear
work as it can be used for military as well as civilian
purposes. 

It goes almost without saying that such belligerent talk suits
Israel’s — and Washington’s — purpose, given their shared
scepticism of the value of the European troika’s diplomacy. 

However, independent analysts are sceptical of the detail of
Israel’s alarming claims. Gary Samore, the director of studies
at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the
London-based think-tank, who was an anti-proliferation
negotiator for the Clinton Administration, believes that Iran is
still “a couple of years away” from nuclear weapons potential.  
	 		

							   	 	
Copyright The Times - timesonline.co.uk
*****************************************************************
 2 BBC: Iran rejects Mossad nuclear claim
 
  Last Updated: Wednesday, 26 January, 2005
 
[Bushehr nuclear reactor]                               

Iran says it is building a civilian nuclear energy programme                                                            

Iran has rejected a warning by Israel's Mossad intelligence 
agency that it could have a nuclear bomb within three years as 
"baseless". 

Iran's foreign ministry insisted its nuclear regime was peaceful 
and accused Israel of misleading world opinion. 

Meanwhile Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz said Israel could 
not accept a nuclear-armed Iran but played down the possibility 
of air strikes. 

He said diplomatic action should be the priority for the US, the 
UN and Europe. 

Iran has always insisted it is building a civilian nuclear energy 
programme. 

However, Israel and the US maintain the Islamic state is using 
the energy programme as a front for a covert weapons regime. 

The unfounded claims we made to deviate world attention from 
Israel's organised terror activities and efforts to strengthen 
its nuclear power Hamid Reza Asefi Foreign ministry spokesman      

Gen Mofaz, speaking in London, echoed a warning by Israel's 
Mossad spy agency that Iran was "very close to the point of no 
return" on the nuclear issue. 

He said: "The way to stop Iran is by the leadership of the US 
supported by European countries and taking this to the UN and 
using the diplomatic channel with sanctions as a tool, plus a 
very deep inspection regime and full transparency." 

Gen Mofaz said decisions on further action would have to be taken 
at the time if diplomacy did not work. 

"This is the main threat to Israel and the free world in the long 
run," he said. "We know Iran has a high desire to be a nuclear 
power. It is an extremist regime." 

Defuse tensions 

But Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi is quoted 
by the Iranian news agency Irna as saying Israel's allegations 
were "unfounded" and designed to distract attention from its own 
nuclear capabilities. 

Israel "brazenly tries to portray Iran's nuclear activities as a 
threat to the world", Mr Asefi said, while continuing to 
strengthen its own nuclear power. 

Last week US Vice-President Dick Cheney said Iran's nuclear 
programme put it "top of the list" of global issues. He also 
warned that Israel might launch a pre-emptive strike on its own 
to shut down Iran's nuclear programme 

Iran agreed in November to halt uranium enrichment under pressure 
from the US, Europe and the International Atomic Energy Agency - 
but wants to be allowed to continue. 

Gen Mofaz dismissed the agreement negotiated by Britain, France 
and Germany as a way of Iran "buying time". 

The BBC News website's World Affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds 
says Gen Mofaz was trying to defuse tensions raised by Mr Cheney. 

But he was also laying down a warning for the future and 
indicating that only about a year remained during which this 
issue could be solved by diplomatic action, our correspondent 
adds. 

		 	 		 	 



*****************************************************************
 3 BBC: Crunch time at Iran nuclear talks
 
  Last Updated: Wednesday, 26 January, 2005
 
[Staff at work at Iran's Isfahan nuclear reactor] 
                                
Iran agreed to halt enriching uranium last November                                              
		
European countries are calling on Iran to cease uranium 
enrichment permanently because the process could be used to 
produce material for nuclear weapons. 

Britain, France and Germany are negotiating with Iran at the UN's 
nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

The EU countries are reported to be offering political and 
economic incentives as part of any deal. 

Tehran agreed to a temporary freeze on enrichment last November. 

But it has repeatedly said it will never give up its right to 
full mastery of the nuclear fuel cycle. 

A confidential EU document said the European trio would not 
settle for anything less than a complete cessation. 

"Iran has to recognise that the fuel cycle programme is the core 
of the problem," the document said, Reuters news agency reported. 

But a senior member of Iran's negotiating team, Hossein 
Mousavian, told the official Irna news agency that the talks were 
not about terminating the programme. 

"The core of the discussions is not the cessation of enrichment 
but rather giving objective guarantees about Iran's fuel cycle 
not being diverted to make atomic bombs," he said. 

Washington says Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons - 
Iran says its nuclear programme is for purely peaceful purposes. 

Correspondents said the tough-sounding tone of the EU document 
will please the United States, which is warning that it might 
resort to military force to tackle the issue.                                            



*****************************************************************
 4 Independent: Israel refuses to rule out attack on Iran 

independent.co.uk

By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor 27 January 2005

Israel's Defence Minister refused to rule out a pre-empt-ive
strike on Iran yesterday, claiming that Tehran was "close to a
point of no return" on its suspected development of a nuclear
weapon. 

At a meeting with journalists in London, Shaul Mofaz did little
to dispel the sense of unease caused by comments last week by
the US Vice-President, Dick Cheney, who suggested Israel might
"decide to act first" to end Iran's nuclear threat. 

Mr Mofaz said: "I believe that none of the Western countries can
live with Iran having a nuclear capability - not the US, not the
European countries and nor other countries." 

But he stressed that the "first step" should be through
diplomatic channels to resolve the standoff with Iran, suspected
by the US and Israel of using its civilian programme as a cover
for weapons development. 

"The way to stop Iran is by the leadership of the US, supported
by European countries and taking this issue to the UN, and using
the diplomatic channel with sanctions as a tool and a very deep
inspection regime and full transparency." 

Asked what Israel would do if diplomatic channels failed, Mr
Mofaz went on: "The US is a strong power that can stop any kind
of nuclear programme, especially in the hands of an extreme
regime." 

The Israeli minister left no doubt, however, he was sceptical
about the outcome of negotiations with the Iranian government,
which he said had been "buying time" through talks with Britain,
France and Germany. 

He warned that Tehran was "less than a year" from enriching
uranium, which he described as the "point of no return" towards
making a nuclear weapon. He echoed comments by the Mossad
intelligence agency, which said that Iran could have developed a
nuclear bomb in three years, a statement dismissed by Iran as
baseless. Mr Mofaz rejected Iranian assertions that it was
working on a peaceful civilian programme, saying that there was
"no goal by the Iranian side for a civilian programme. Their
goal is to achieve a military programme". 

Pressure on Iran has been increasing recently in the form of
aggressive statements from the Bush administration, branding the
Tehran regime an "outpost of tyranny". Mr Cheney said Iran's
nuclear programme put it at the "top of the list" of global
issues. 

The Iranian President, Mohamed Khatami, retorted: "We say that
America is at the top of the list of countries that are
endangering world peace and security and we hope that one day
they come to their senses. 

"[Negotiations with the EU] haven't reached a dead end," Mr
Khatami went on. "Of course, we have our own stances and we are
talking to the Europeans and we hope to reach a conclusion."
Iran has agreed to suspend activities which could be used to
make nuclear bomb material, such as uranium enrichment, and to
try to reach a negotiated solution. But Mr Mofaz said: "Although
there are some achievements by the suspension of the military
programme, there is not a full stop." 	           

©2005 Independent News &Media (UK) Ltd.   
*****************************************************************
 5 IPS-English POLITICS: U.S. Missile Shield Finds Few Takers in
 
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:43:55 -0800

 
<x-flowed>
ROMAIPS NA IP
POLITICS: U.S. Missile Shield Finds Few Takers in Canada
By Mark Bourrie

OTTAWA, Jan 26 (IPS) - With Canada's governing Liberal party clinging to 
power by a shaky minority in Parliament, Washington's controversial North 
American missile defence programme may create a crisis that will force the 
country into a snap election.

Even within the Liberal party, many MPs are opposed to the missile defence 
system and the George W. Bush administration's reported use of strong-arm 
tactics to get Canada to sign on to the scheme.

In a Dec. 27 appearance on Canadian television, Prime Minister Paul Martin 
insisted that "we are against the militarisation of space. We're against 
the weaponisation of space, and we will not participate in it today nor 
will we tomorrow".

Much of the pressure is coming from U.S. ambassador to Canada Paul 
Cellucci, who said earlier this month that he expects Canada to sign onto 
the missile defence system by the end of March.

Canada's leftist New Democratic Party, which supports the government in 
most parliamentary votes, opposes missile defence, as does the nationalist 
Bloc Quebecois, the second-largest opposition party in parliament.

The pro-U.S. Canadian Alliance party, the largest opposition bloc, supports 
the programme and would likely provide the government with enough support 
to survive a vote on the issue. However, it could cause the New Democrats 
to withdraw support for other government measures, including the federal 
budget.

In the Canadian system, a lost budget vote automatically causes the 
government to fall. The budget will be presented within the next two months.

"We're pushing the government very hard for a parliamentary vote. The 
government had already gone halfway down the road last summer when it 
agreed to amend the NORAD agreement," New Democrat leader Jack Layton said 
in an interview Wednesday.

The amendments to the North American Air Defence agreement, accepted in 
mid-2004 by both countries, place the joint Canada-U.S. air defence command 
in charge of monitoring the missile system.

"The Canadian public is very opposed to missile defence and the 
weaponisation of space. We hear it every time we go door to door or talk 
with Canadians on the street," Layton said.

"If we accept this, we'll in effect be giving a Canadian imprimatur to 
George Bush's arms race. It would add legitimacy to Star Wars but it would 
erode Canada's reputation in the world as an independent country, an honest 
broker, and a peacekeeper.

"Paul Martin says it won't cost anything but I don't think Americans will 
sit there forever and let us 'get' this for free. Even if we end up paying 
just one per cent of the cost, that's 10 billion of the one-trillion-dollar 
cost."

Prime Minister Martin and his officials had been assured by the White House 
that missile defence would not be on the agenda when Bush made his first 
visit to Ottawa as president last November.

But, according to a Washington Post article published earlier this week, 
Bush pressured Martin at the Nov. 30, 2004 meeting, going so far as to 
suggest that the future of the Canada-U.S. defence relationship may be at 
stake.

Close Canada-U.S. military cooperation goes back to 1940, when the two 
countries reached a defence agreement at Ogdensburg, New York. In effect, 
the U.S. promised to protect Canada from attack by Nazi Germany or any 
other power.

An unnamed official quoted in the Washington Post said Bush "leaned across 
the table and said: 'I'm not taking this position, but some future 
president is going to say: Why are we paying to defend Canada?'"

Canadian officials, according to this account, told Bush the Martin 
government might have trouble selling missile defence to this country's 
parliament and people.

Bush supposedly "waved his hands and remarked 'I don't understand this. Are 
you saying that if you got up and said this is necessary for the defence of 
Canada, it won't be accepted?"

Amy Butcher, a spokesman for Martin, said the government would not comment 
on the substance of the report.

"Our position is clear on BMD (Ballistic Missile Defence)," she said. "The 
government will make a final decision based on Canadian interests and 
Parliament will have an opportunity to express its views on the issue."

Canadian opponents of the project say this country's government should 
avoid missile defence because it violates the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, 
to which Canada is a signatory. As well, they say, the technology still 
isn't proven to work.

Several tests of the system have failed, including one last month that the 
Pentagon blamed on a minor glitch in computer software. The Pentagon, 
however, says they may never publicly declare when the shield is fully ready.
*****
+U.S. Missile Defence Agency 
(http://www.acq.osd.mil/mda/mdalink/html/mdalink.html)
+Project Ploughshares 
(http://www.ploughshares.ca/CONTENT/ABOLISH%20NUCS/BMD%20Page/BMD.update.htm)

(END/IPS/NA/IP/MB/KS/05)
= 01262256 ORP016
NNNN

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 6 Las Vegas SUN: White House: Deficit Will Hit Record $427B

Today: January 26, 2005 at 12:04:23 PST 

 By ALAN FRAM ASSOCIATED PRESS 

White House: Deficit Will Hit Record $427B 

WASHINGTON (AP) - 

The White House says its drive to halve federal deficits by 2009
remains on track, though it projects that the cost of wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan will help drive this year's shortfall to a
record $427 billion. 

The figure, provided by a senior Bush administration official
who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity, was among a
flood of numbers released Tuesday that underscored a gloomy
budget picture. 

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said projected
deficits for the decade ending in 2014 had grown $503 billion
worse than it calculated in September, excluding war costs. The
deterioration was chiefly due to tax cuts and hurricane aid
enacted since then. 

The congressional analysts projected that this year's deficit
would hit $368 billion, excluding war expenses, and about $400
billion with them. 

The highest deficit ever was last year's $412 billion. The
administration official said the White House's 2005 projection
of $427 billion showed progress because it was less than last
year's gap when compared with the size of the growing U.S.
economy - a key measure of the deficit's potency. 

"By working with Congress to exercise responsible spending
restraint" and cutting taxes to spark economic growth, "we've
got a plan to cut the deficit in half over the next five years,"
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. 

The congressional analysts said deficits over the decade ending
in 2015 would total $855 billion. But because the budget
offices' estimating techniques require it to count existing law
- and omit anything else - that estimate was not being taken
seriously by many people. 

Not included were war spending, the costs of renewing President
Bush's expiring tax cuts and keeping the alternative minimum tax
from affecting more middle-income Americans. 

Including extra interest the government would have to pay, the
budget office estimated those items together would add more than
$2.9 trillion to projected deficits. 

Combined, that would keep projected deficits over the next 10
years above $330 billion each year and growing steadily in the
decade's latter half, budget office figures showed. 

Those numbers exclude Bush's still-evolving plan to revamp
Social Security, which analysts have estimated could cost
another $1 trillion to $2 trillion over the next decade. 

"No one should be lulled into thinking that this is a good news
report," the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group that favors
balanced budgets, said of the congressional figures. "To the
contrary, it is further confirmation that fiscal policy is on a
dangerous path." 

On Capitol Hill, Republicans said the figures showed the need to
clamp down on spending. 

"We must get serious about putting our financial house in order,
beginning with short-term deficit reduction and then long-term
control" of expensive federal benefit programs, said Senate
Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H. 

Democrats used the numbers to attack Bush. 

"The nations financial woes can be directly attributed to the
irresponsible fiscal policies of this administration," said Sen.
Kent Conrad of North Dakota, top Democrat on the Senate Budget
panel. 

Senior administration officials invited reporters to the White
House to outline their upcoming request for an additional $80
billion, or slightly more, to help pay this year's war costs. 

The latest proposal would bring war spending since the terrorist
attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to about $308 billion, including $25
billion to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the
Congressional Research Service, which provides reports to
lawmakers. 

Bush sends his 2006 budget to Congress on Feb. 7. The
administration won't request war funds for 2006 until later, the
officials said. 

The officials said that of the $80 billion, $75 billion would be
for the Defense Department, mostly for the Army. They said it
would include personnel costs, the start of an effort to add at
least 17 combat brigades to the Army and replacing worn out
equipment. 

The rest of the money would largely be for aid the State
Department would give to U.S. allies and for other expenses.
Included would be money to help new Palestinian leader Mahmoud
Abbas, to build an embassy in Baghdad at an estimated cost of
$1.5 billion, and to aid victims of fighting in Sudan's Darfur
province. 

The officials did not say whether the request would include aid
for Indian Ocean countries staggered by last month's devastating
tsunami. One said the United States was spending $5 million
daily there, and the administration would seek "very generous
assistance." 

The United States already has committed $350 million to tsunami
recovery efforts. 
*****************************************************************
 7 [NYTr] Israel May Expel BBC Reporter Over Vanunu Censorship
 
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:26:52 -0600 (CST)

 
Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
The Guardian - 26 January 2005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1398596,00.html

Israel ready to expel BBC reporter

By Chris McGreal in Jerusalem

Israel is poised to expel a senior BBC journalist it accuses of
criminal defiance of censorship laws over an interview with the
nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu.

Simon Wilson, deputy chief of the BBC's Jerusalem bureau, has been
unable to return to Israel since the beginning of the year, when
his work permit expired.

The government says no new visa will be issued until Wilson agrees
to sign a letter acknowledging that he deliberately defied Israeli
law, apologising and promising that it will not happen again.

BBC sources say that the corporation is unwilling to agree to such
a move, in which case Wilson will be barred from Israel
indefinitely.

Although the dispute arose out of a BBC interview with Mr Vanunu
last year, it reflects the increasingly troubled relationship
between the corporation and the Israeli government which has led
Ariel Sharon's administration to break off cooperation at times
and his ministers to refuse to appear on BBC programmes.

It is highly unusual for Israel to expel journalists from
established news organisations, but an official said the prime
minister's office was particularly angered at the "conspiratorial"
actions of the BBC Jerusalem bureau.

Wilson was acting bureau chief when a private production company
with a BBC contract interviewed the whistleblower last year on his
release after 18 years in prison.

Although Mr Vanunu is barred from talking to the foreign press, he
has spoken to dozens of reporters. Israel says the issue is the
failure to abide by censorship laws.

Israel says officials from the Shin Bet security service and
military twice called the BBC bureau and told Wilson that they
required to see the interview with Mr Vanunu before it left the
country. Although Israel's strict censorship laws are rarely
enforced, it is a criminal offence not to submit security-related
material for review if requested.

The tapes were smuggled out of Israel. Israeli officials say
Wilson knowingly broke the law. BBC sources say he played no role
in the decision not to hand over the interview and had no
knowledge of how it left the country.

Israeli officials say they confronted the corporation with
evidence from Shin Bet that the tapes were copied on the BBC
bureau's machines and taken to Jordan.

Wilson's work permit expired in August but was renewed until the
end of the year at the behest of the Israeli embassy in London.
BBC officials have told Israel that, whether or not the
corporation erred, it does not accept that Wilson is responsible.
       
                                *
Search the NYTr Archives at:
http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/

To subscribe or unsubscribe or change your settings via the web, visit:
http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr

=================================================================
  NY Transfer News Collective   *   A Service of Blythe Systems
           Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
              339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012
  http://www.blythe.org                  e-mail: nyt@blythe.org
================================================================= 
*****************************************************************
 8 BBC: Israel bars senior BBC producer
 
  Last Updated: Wednesday, 26 January, 2005
 
[Mordechai Vanunu on release from prison]                               
Vanunu was released in April from an 18-year prison term for 
treason
			 			   		
A senior BBC producer has been barred from re-entering Israel 
over his alleged role in an interview of nuclear technician 
Mordechai Vanunu. 

Israeli authorities are refusing to renew Simon Wilson's visa, 
preventing him from returning to his post as deputy chief of the 
Jerusalem bureau. 

Mr Wilson is accused of deliberately defying Israeli law by not 
submitting the interview to the authorities. 

The BBC has said it sees no reason why Mr Wilson should be 
refused entry. 

He has not returned to Israel since his visa expired at the end 
of last year. 

Mr Vanunu served 18 years in jail for disclosing details of 
Israel's nuclear programme, and was released in April under 
strict conditions. 

Mr Wilson was acting bureau chief when a private production 
company interviewed Mr Vanunu for the BBC in May 2004, shortly 
after his release. 

Israel says military and Shin Bet security service officials 
called Mr Wilson requesting to see the interview before it left 
the country in case it contained material sensitive to national 
security. 

The BBC is seeking to clarify the situation with Israel in the 
hope of finding a quick and amicable resolution. 

A BBC spokesman said: "We can see no reason why Simon Wilson's 
visa application should be turned down, or why he should be 
denied permission to re-enter Israel to resume his duties. "            
	 		 	 



*****************************************************************
 9 Scotsman.com: Nuclear Option If Renewable Energy Targets Not Met
 
Wed 26 Jan 2005   			 			

By Anthony Looch, PA Lords Staff 

The Government said tonight it could consider again the nuclear
option if targets for renewable energy – including wind farms
– are not met.
 
Junior trade and industry minister Lord Sainsbury of Turville
was responding to question time challenges in the Lords.
 
He said: “We have not ruled out the nuclear option and if we
are not going to be able to achieve our targets, we will
consider nuclear power again.”
 
Baroness Miller of Hendon, for Tories, said: “Communities must
have a say over where wind turbines and wind farms are placed.
 
“The Prime Minister has supported and listened to his local
community in helping stop four wind turbines being sited near to
Sedgefield. Given that, how is anyone ever going to meet their
targets?”
 
Lord Sainsbury said: “Across the country, including in the
Prime Minister’s constituency, there should be the ability to
object to this as part of people’s democratic right.
 
“All wind turbines have to go through the planning process.”
 
He said total installed wind power capacity up to December was
890 megawatts – 766 onshore and 124 offshore.
 
“The challenge we have, to achieve the 2010 target of 10%,
means that we need to build the equivalent of 1,200 megawatts of
new wind capacity on average each year.”
 
He added: “Capacity is now being built at a rapidly increasing
rate but we still have a long way to go.”
 
Labour’s Lord Tomlinson said the targets were “remarkably
long on optimism and short on realism, particularly when you
consider that the 2010 target has got to be doubled again by
2020.
 
“If we fail on either of those targets, it will be imperative
that we have non-carbon producing electricity generation. That
requires the sustenance and maintenance of our nuclear
capacity.”
 
Lord Sainsbury said the 2020 target would only be achievable by
bringing in other renewable energy sources. “That’s why we
will be putting more than ÂŁ500 million between 2002 and 2008
into emerging renewables and low-carbon technologies.
 
“We have not ruled out the nuclear option and if we are not
going to be able to achieve our targets, we will consider
nuclear power again.”   		  [ border=]    	 

*****************************************************************
 10 [NukeNet] Nuclear plants cut 51 nonunion jobs
 
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:41:35 -0800

 
<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

does anyone know what kind of jobs these were?

brendan

===========================================

WSTM: Nuclear plants cut 51 nonunion jobs

January 26, 2005

SCRIBA, N.Y. Constellation Energy has cut 51 jobs at its two Lake
Ontario nuclear plants and plans to eliminate more.A company
spokeswoman says no decision was made on how many more workers at
the Nine Mile Point plants could be eliminated.

Those who lost their jobs were non-union workers, and officials
say the company will meet soon with union leaders to discuss
further layoffs.

Baltimore-based Constellation also laid off 34 workers at its
Calvert Cliffs nuclear plants in Maryland.Constellation acquired
the Nine Mile Point nuclear plants in Oswego County in 2001 from
Niagara Mohawk, which employed 13-hundred people at the
facilities, located 45 miles north of Syracuse.

Constellation has spent more than 50 (m) million dollars to
upgrade the plants and is seeking permission to extend their
40-year operating licenses by 20 years. The company also recently
acquired the Ginna (guh-NAY') nuclear plant, on Lake Ontario near
Rochester.

Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and WSTM, a Raycom Media Station.


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 11 SABCnews: Court orders Eskom to stop Pebble reactor development                           

south_africa/general
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
South African Broadcasting Corporation Copyright © 2000 - 2003 SABC                        

January 26, 2005, 12:30
 				

The Cape High Court has ruled that Eskom should stop the
development of pebble bed nuclear reactors at Koeberg near Cape
Town, overturning approval by the department of environmental
affairs. The court has ruled in favour of the environmentalist
lobby group, Earthlife Africa. 

Earthlife argued that the public had not seen all the reports
used for an environmental impact assessment on which the
department based its appoval of the reactor. The battle between
the department of environmental affairs and tourism began almost
four years ago. 

Earthlife Africa was not afforded a hearing by the department
before it took the decision to allow Eskom to begin development
on the reactor.
 The decision means that the inititaive that was set at R10
billion has been stopped. 

Earthlife says that in their recommendation to the department
they will encourage alternatives. 

No-one from government or Eskom appeared in court today. 				

Mcdaid, Earthlife spokesperson, says their court victory is in
the public interest ]      [Fani Zulu, Eskom spokesperson, says
the ruling doesn't permanently stop the project]      [Cape High
Court has ruled that Eskom should stop the development of 
Pebble Bed Nuclear Reactors ]        

*****************************************************************
 12 San Luis Obispo Tribune: Diablo inspection results to be aired

| 01/26/2005 | 

PG&E officials and the general public will hear federal nuclear 
regulatory officials deliver the findings Feb. 15

 David Sneed The Tribune

Federal nuclear regulatory officials will hold a meeting Feb. 15
in San Luis Obispo to discuss results of a recent series of
Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant engineering inspections. 

The agency recently completed some 700 hours of engineering
inspections at the plant as part of its reactor oversight
process. The results of those inspections will be presented to
senior Pacific Gas and Electric Co. officials. 

"Five inspectors spent three weeks conducting a very
comprehensive review, and this meeting will provide the public
with an opportunity to hear about our findings and ask
questions," said Bruce Mallet, director of the agency's Western
region based in Arlington, Texas. 

The results of the inspection will not be available before the
meeting, said Victor Dricks, agency spokesman. 

NRC meetings typically begin with Mallet and other agency
officials presenting the results of the inspection to PG&E.
Plant managers will then respond to the report and discuss the
findings. 

Before the meeting adjourns, the public will be given the
opportunity to ask questions and make comments about the
inspection or other issues regarding the nuclear plant. 

Several recent NRC meetings have turned contentious with some
members of the public questioning whether the agency is
responsive enough and is adequately protecting public safety. In
response, the agency said it plans to hold more meetings in San
Luis Obispo, rather than holding them at the NRC regional
offices in Texas. 

David Sneed covers environmental issues for The Tribune. E-mail
story ideas and comments to him at dsneed 

@thetribunenews.com.   

*****************************************************************
 13 NRC: NRC COMMISSIONER LYONS TAKES OATH OF OFFICE
 
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs     
Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001     E-mail: 
opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov   

  No. 05-015     January 26, 2005   
  
 JANUARY 25 

Peter B. Lyons was sworn in as a commissioner of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission yesterday at 1:00 p.m. by Chairman Nils J.
Diaz in a brief ceremony at the NRC in Rockville, Md. 

The addition brings the NRC to its full complement of five
commissioners for the first time since March 2003. The other
members of the Commission are Edward McGaffigan Jr., Jeffrey S.
Merrifield, and Gregory B. Jaczko who was sworn in last Friday
(see Jan. 21 press release, No., 05-0013).
 
Because Lyons was appointed by the President during a
congressional recess, his term will expire at the end of the
Senate's next session in late 2006. 

Lyons, 61, served eight years as science advisor to Sen. Pete
Domenici, R-N.M., and to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee. During that time, he focused on issues of nuclear
technologies, national science policy, national and
international nuclear policy, non-proliferation, energy research
and development, and hydrogen technology. 

Before his assignment in Washington, Lyons worked as a
management official at the Los Alamos National Laboratory for
over 25 years supporting energy and environmental programs,
industrial interactions, nuclear test diagnostics, and strategic
defense initiative programs. 

Biographies of Commissioners Lyons and Jaczko will be available
soon on NRCs Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/who-we-are/organization/commfuncdesc.html.   

 	Last revised Wednesday, January 26, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 14 SF Chronicle: CALIFORNIA / Greater security for nuclear plants urged
 
SFGate.com

Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer
Wednesday, January 26, 2005

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer and the attorneys
general from six other states, warning of possibly unimaginable
nuclear catastrophes, have called on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to order action to protect nuclear power plants
against terrorist attack by air and water. 

Their seven-page petition, filed with the commission late
Monday, says the federal agency should upgrade the plants'
safety "to reflect the realities of 2005, beginning with an
immediate recognition of what we all learned on September 11,
2001 ('9/11') and earlier -- terrorists may attack by air or
water and in numbers greater than four." 

"The United States has over 100 active and retired nuclear power
plants containing thousands of tons of highly radioactive and
toxic fuel, waste and equipment," their petition continues.
"Some of these facilities are close to major population centers
where tens of millions of people live. Any significant release
of radiation from such nuclear power plants could cause
unimaginable human injury and economic loss." 

In past public discussions, critics of the nuclear industry have
suggested protecting nuclear plants in ways that range from the
installation of anti-aircraft guns to the erection of steel
beams and barriers to shield the plants against crashing
aircraft. 

The attorneys general from California, Arizona, New York,
Illinois, Connecticut, Wisconsin and Arkansas don't recommend
specific changes in plant safety procedures. But they urge the
agency to "require nuclear power plant owners to prepare to
repel air, water or land assaults by a group at least as large
as the 19 terrorists who acted on 9/11, attacking at more than
one point at the same time and using any appropriate weapons,
means of sabotage and vehicles." 

For now, they complain, "the (NRC) standard defining the threat
against which owners must protect nuclear power plants remains
essentially what it was in the 1970s -- a land attack by no more
than four men." 

Lockyer spokesman Tom Dresslar said the presence of the two
major nuclear power plants -- Diablo Canyon near San Luis Obispo
and San Onofre in San Diego County -- "on California soil brings
into sharp relief our state's interest in strengthening the
protections for nuclear power plants against terrorist attack." 

The petition -- which carries no legal force but could bring
public pressure to bear on the agency or serve as a pretext for
joint legal action by the state attorneys general -- drew a
skeptical reaction from the U.S. nuclear industry. 

"Nuclear power plants were very secure before the Sept. 11
attacks and now, with many additional security measures in
place, they are even more secure," Douglas J. Walters, director
of emergency planning and security for an industry organization,
the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington, D.C., said in a
statement Tuesday. "It is correct that nuclear power plants were
not originally designed to withstand the impact from jet
airliners being deliberately crashed into the structures.
However, the nuclear industry and the NRC have conducted
independent studies of such an attack on a nuclear power plant
and concluded that it is unlikely that significant harm to the
public would result from such an attack." 

Jeff Lewis, a spokesman for Pacific Gas and Electric Co., which
runs the Diablo Canyon plant, said that "dozens of improvements
in security have been ordered since 9/11 by the NRC, and they've
all been implemented. We've invested more than $20 million in
security improvements, and that does not include raising the
number of armed officers by 30 percent." 

He added, "I think people often don't understand how well
nuclear power plants like Diablo Canyon are made. Analysis has
shown that the (nuclear) containment structures would withstand
the impact of a larger commercial aircraft." 

Ray Golden of Southern California Edison, which operates the San
Onofre nuclear plant, declined to comment. The attorneys general
filed their comments in support of a petition originally filed
with the NRC on July 23 by the Committee to Bridge the Gap, a
"nuclear watchdog" group based in Los Angeles. Its president,
Daniel Hirsch, and his colleagues advocate protecting the
nation's nuclear plants with a low-cost array of steel girders,
mesh netting and cable barriers. Ideally, these barriers --
"Beamhenge shields," an allusion to England's Stonehenge --
could destroy an incoming plane before it rammed the plant. 

"It's really cheap -- it's a few steel beams," Hirsch said
Tuesday. He added that he was thrilled by the attorneys
general's action: "They have weighed in to say that the federal
government is inadequately protecting the nation's nuclear
reactors." 

The attorneys general behind the petition are Lockyer, Terry
Goddard of Arizona, Eliot Spitzer of New York, Lisa Madigan of
Illinois, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Peg Lautenschlager
of Wisconsin and Mike Beebe of Arkansas. 

Their petition notes that "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the admitted
mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, described his original plan as:
'A total of 10 aircraft to be hijacked, nine of which would
crash into targets on both coasts -- they included those
eventually hit on Sept. 11 plus CIA and FBI headquarters,
nuclear power plants, and the tallest buildings in California
and the state of Washington.' " 

E-mail Keay Davidson at kdavidson@sfchronicle.com. 				
Page B - 1 			

2005 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ | Contact                                             
*****************************************************************
 15 toledo blade: Fermi leak nonnuclear, but source uncertain
 
Article published Wednesday, January 26, 2005
 
 Coolant involved not part of reactor system
 
By TOM HENRY BLADE STAFF WRITER

NEWPORT, Mich. - Fermi II's unexpected leakage was not reactor
coolant, a bit of information that drew a collective sigh of
relief from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others
yesterday.

Loss-of-coolant accidents are symptoms that a catastrophic
meltdown could be in the making. Lose enough coolant over a
reactor, and it's a full-fledged emergency to avoid a nuclear
meltdown.

At 4:19 p.m. Monday, Detroit Edison knew nothing other than that
there was an unexplained leak and excessive water being
collected by the sump inside Fermi II's radioactive containment
area.

Jan Strasma, a NRC spokesman, said the company acted responsibly
by manually shutting down the reactor and not assuming anything.

Mr. Strasma said the regulatory agency's initial fear was a leak
of radioactive coolant water, but that concern subsided after
inspections ruled that out. "Initially, they didn't know what
the source was, so they acted as if it was a reactor coolant
leak when they started," he said.

"The utility took the appropriate action in shutting down the
plant. We do not have any issues with their handling of the
event," he added.

Although the actual leak wasn't expected to be pinpointed until
after workers entered the containment area last night, the
utility on Monday night attributed the problem to a separate,
closed water system that's used to cool equipment other than the
reactor. That particular system cools equipment both inside and
outside of the radioactive containment area, Mr. Strasma said.

The company ruled out reactor coolant water after analyzing a
sample drawn by the containment sump. It found a
corrosion-inhibiting chemical that's typically in the
non-reactor cooling water.

Operators also did not see any increase in radioactivity within
the containment area - a symptom they would have expected to
find if reactor coolant, which is radioactive, leaked. Instead,
radioactivity in the containment area declined slightly,
indicating the presence of nonradioactive water, Mr. Strasma
said.

The utility's next step was to close part of the nonreactor
cooling water system. Doing so instantly dropped the leakage
rate from 50 gallons a minute to less than 1 gallon a minute, he
said.

The plant was put on an alert status at 4:40 p.m. Monday, when
the rate of leakage started to exceed 50 gallons a minute.
Shortly before 10 p.m., the nonreactor cooling water system was
identified as the likely source of rupture. The leakage was
under control enough for the alert to be called off at 10:28
p.m., he said.

John Austerberry, a Detroit Edison spokesman, said it was not
known if the leak was overlooked during the plant's recent
maintenance outage or if it developed within the past couple of
days.

The leak involved about 20,000 gallons of water, roughly enough
to fill a backyard swimming pool that's about 16 feet by 34 feet
and five feet deep.

But it's only a little more than 1 percent of the 1.5 million
gallons of water used to snuff out a Christmas day fire in 1993
at Fermi II, after a turbine blade broke off, ripping through a
floor and causing extensive damage, including the fire.

Water used to extinguish that fire picked up radiation from the
plant, but was gradually discharged into Lake Erie.

Mr. Austerberry said there are no plans to discharge water from
Monday's leakage. The water has been processed through a
radioactive waste treatment system and will be put back into the
cooling system, he said.

Detroit Edison hopes to get Fermi II back into operation soon,
but declined to predict when the plant will restart.

"From all we know at this point, we think it would be a matter
of days instead of weeks or longer," Mr. Austerberry said.

The Michigan Public Service Commission yesterday ordered Detroit
Edison to file a report about the incident by Feb. 4. The
utility will comply, Mr. Austerberry said.

The NRC will leave its inspection up to its two full-time
resident inspectors, Mr. Strasma said.

Contact Tom Henry at: thenry@theblade.com or 419-724-6079.

© 2005 The Blade. The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., 
Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000 
*****************************************************************
 16 Business Line: NTPC mulls nuclear power generation                   
     	
Wednesday, 26 January , 2005, 09:04                   
     	
Mumbai: National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) is in talks 
with Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) for possibilities 
of entering into nuclear power business, as part of its 
diversification agenda. 

Officials of the Rs 26,000-crore company have met
representatives of Nuclear Power Corporation three times in the
last six months to learn more about nuclear power generation. 

Currently, NPCIL is the only Indian company specialising in
nuclear power generation. As per the Atomic Energy Act, only
Government-owned companies can set up nuclear power generation
units. 

According to a senior NPCIL official, the company has suggested
that NTPC take up an equity stake in one of the upcoming nuclear
power projects. NPCIL is currently working on eight projects at
four sites and will generate close to 7,000 mega watts by
2007-08, more than double its current capacity. 

It has also suggested that NTPC train its people on how to
`balance' a nuclear plant, to begin with, and then it could
proceed from there, the senior official said. 

NTPC, which generates more than 21,000 mega watts every year,
has been pursuing the nuclear power option more aggressively for
the last two quarters. 

Industry observers are sceptical about NTPC's move, mostly
because of the technical stringency required for setting up
nuclear power plants. And the fact that the Government has so
far not allowed any other company to enter the atomic energy
field. 

Although the previous NDA Government had considered allowing
private sector participation in nuclear power generation, the
new United Progressive Alliance Government has not yet moved on
the idea. 

NTPC had, in its Corporate Plan 2017 approved by the Union
Government, announced its plans to diversify into hydro and
nuclear power generation. 

According to estimates, the viability of thermal power is
expected to take a hit because of rise in costs of mining and
transporting coal over the coming decade. 

The per unit cost of generating coal-based power is expected to
go up to Rs 4 in the next 10 years, making it unviable for the
average Indian customer, according to estimates drawn up by
NTPC, said a senior NTPC official. 

Although nuclear power has been considered to be an expensive
option, the average capacity of the plants operated by Nuclear
Power Corporation has steadily risen from 60 per cent in 1995-96
to 85 per cent in 2001-02. 		   	 

  © Copyright Sify Ltd, 1998-2004. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 17 Reuters: S.Africa court suspends nuclear plant approval
 
26 Jan 2005 08:51:59 GMT Source: Reuters
 	 		 		   

CAPE TOWN, Jan 26 (Reuters) - South Africa's Cape High Court on
Wednesday suspended a government decision to allow electricity
utility Eskom to start developing a new nuclear power reactor
near Cape Town.

 The government had given Eskom the go-ahead to build a pilot
pebble bed modular reactor near the site of its only existing
nuclear power-generating plant in an effort to meet rising
demand for power, forecast to outstrip supply within three years.

 "The decision was flawed and has been set aside," Judge Ben
Briesel said, adding that environmental groups must be given
further opportunity to comment on the project. 

	 
  AlertNet news is provided by       



*****************************************************************
 18 Suffolk Life Newspapers: NRC Reinforces Millstone Safety
 	 	 	 		
'US Nuclear Plants Do Not Explode'
   
By:Stephen Feller     January 26, 2005   

Despite the concerns of state and local representatives of the 
East End of Long Island, the federal agency responsible for 
nuclear power plants maintains the standard area for an emergency 
plan is enough, adding that under no circumstance would residents 
on that part of the Island be in danger in the event of an 
emergency at a Connecticut nuclear power plant located just 
across the Long Island Sound.                                                   
 			 			
A spokesperson for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reinforced
accepted science and support for the required emergency
preparedness zone that provides for plans within a 10-mile
radius around the Millstone Power Station, saying residents of
the North Fork and other Long Island regions would not be in
danger in the event of an emergency.

 "We don't believe any dosage [of nuclear radiation or
materials] would affect residents ... beyond the 10-mile EPZ,"
said Diane Screnci, NRC Region 1 spokesperson. "It's based on
science; what you expect the dose to be."

 Screnci said even if an emergency were to occur, and it was
decided that residents beyond the 10-mile zone could be in
danger, "with detailed planning in place for 10 miles, it can be
expanded."

 Southold Supervisor Josh Horton, who mentioned at a January 11
NRC public discussion forum that only a small portion is within
the defined EPZ, said he was skeptical of the safety assurances
given by the agency.

 "Solid science is not going to keep the residents of the North
Fork and the rest of Long Island from trying to quickly vacate
the area," Horton said.

 Joseph Williams, deputy commissioner of fire rescue and
emergency services for Suffolk County, said he was not sure how
long it would take to evacuate the entire North Fork in the
event of an emergency because that sort of drill has not been
run before. He did, however, agree with Horton's assertion that
the only way off the North Fork is Route 25, aside from a small
selection of even smaller roads.

 Assemblywoman Pat Acampora (R-Riverhead) said the Shoreham
nuclear plant was not permitted to fully go online because of a
lack of an evacuation plan, and that the lack of a plan was due
to a lack of viable ways to evacuate residents.

 Sighting a desire to "be prepared to move people," Acampora
said these are not the first discussions of expanding the
Millstone EPZ to include more of LI.

 "We've been fighting for the expansion of that 10-mile radius
for a few years," Acampora said. "We'd like the federal
government to be considerate of a population that keeps growing."

 According to Screnci, nuclear doses would have to exceed
protection guidelines set by the federal government which are
tied to the decision that a 10-mile radius was further than
would be needed in the event of an emergency at a nuclear power
plant during related hearings held in the 1970s.

 While there was a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island
nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, the most notable nuclear
power plant accident was the one at Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986.
After that explosion, public access to an 18.6-mile radius
around the plant was closed off and 135,000 people were
evacuated from the area, according to an NRC fact sheet.

 Citing knowledge gained from the accident, as well as
differences between Chernobyl and American nuclear plants,
Screnci said comparing the two was like comparing apples to
oranges. She said a containment building, which Chernobyl did
not have, would contain a good portion of any nuclear material
or explosion, for the most part protecting the surrounding area.
Screnci also cited the extreme safety of American plants.

 "American nuclear power plants do not explode," Screnci said,
basing this on both the construction and oversight of nuclear
plants in this country.

 Screnci said that in addition to built-in safety and extreme
precautionary operational guidelines, every American nuclear
plant has full-time NRC inspectors working on-site. She said
Millstone has three to monitor the two active units at the power
station, and if there is a reason to look into something at the
permanently shut down third unit, an additional inspector is
called in.

 All three units had been shut down in 1996 by the NRC, who
sited safety concerns for shutting them off. However, two were
permitted to restart operation in 1998 and 1999, after intense
supervision of repairs to problems. Horton sighted the permanent
shutdown of one of the three Millstone units as evidence that
"there's problems" with the facility - which continues to raise
his concern over the plant and the desire to have the
federally-mandated EPZ extended to cover not only Southold, but
both the North and South Forks and other potentially affected
areas of Long Island.

 "If something happens at Millstone, it's not going to be enough
to go on WLNG and tell residents to put duct tape on their
windows," Horton said. 

©Suffolk Life Newspapers 2005                                    

Mary Lampert                                                    

Jan, 26 2005                                                  
                                        
Sandia National Laboratory to perform a study of the
consequences of a core melt at each commercial nuclear reactor.
According to their 1982 study if you live in Southold NY, you
live within injury range of the Millstone 2 nuclear reactor
located 3.2 MI WSW of New London CT. You also live within injury
range of the Millstone 3.

What does living within injury range mean?

The zone for peak early injuries is the area surrounding a plant
in which radiation-related injuries are expected to occur
following an accident. This includes only injuries that would
require hospitalization or other medical attention - such as
sterility, thyroid nodules, vomiting and cataracts. 

Government data estimates that an accident at Millstone 2 would
lead to 18,000 deaths and 18,000 injuries within a year, as well
as 33,000 cancer deaths over the lifetime of the exposed
population. The cost of such an accident was predicted to be
$135 billion in 1980.

The estimates from the 1982 Sandia Study are conservative
because the federal study, CRAC II:
•	used census data from 1970;
•	assumed entire 10-mile EPZ would be evacuated within at most
six hours after issuance order;
•	assumed aggressive medical treatment for all victims of acute
radiation exposure in developing numbers for early fatalities
and used a now obsolete correlation between radiation dose and
cancer risk that underestimated the risk by a factor of 4
relative to current models;
•	sampled only 100 weather sequences out of over eight thousand
(an entire year’s worth), a method that underestimates the peak
value over the course of a year by 30%

Copyright © 1995 - 2005 PowerOne Media, Inc.All Rights
*****************************************************************
 19 Newsday: Group slams power plants over pollutants

 NY Newsday.com      

 Newsday series examines the mounting weight of war in Iraq.
 
Juliet Di Frenza (PHOTO BY HOWARD SCHNAPP)

Jan 26, 2005                               

BY CYNTHIA DANIELS STAFF WRITER
 	 	
 Two of Long Island's oldest power plants have gotten dirtier,
according to a Clear the Air report released Wednesday by the
New York Public Interest Research Group.
 
"Communities living in the shadows or downwind of these
polluting power plants are actually breathing in dirtier air,"
said Eric Bruzaitis, Long Island regional coordinator for
NYPIRG, during a news conference Wednesday at the H. Lee
Dennison building in Hauppauge.
 
The report, which examined power plant emissions from 1995 to
2003, showed that 75 percent of the state's dirtiest power
plants increased their annual sulfur dioxide emissions and 52
percent increased their annual carbon dioxide emissions.
 
Long Island's Northport Power Plant, which began operating in
1967, increased its sulfur dioxide emissions by 202 percent,
nitrogen dioxide emissions by 103 percent and carbon dioxide
pollutants by 50 percent. The Port Jefferson Power Plant, which
opened in 1958, increased sulfur dioxide emissions by 6 percent,
nitrogen dioxide emissions by 21 percent and carbon dioxide
emissions by 19 percent.
 
Robert Teetz, director of environmental engineering and
compliance for KeySpan, which owns and operates both plants,
said the company has spent more than $100 million in the past
decade to add emissions-reducing dual fuel capability to the
facilities.
 
"Whether we're burning oil or gas, we are still meeting our
emissions limitations in permits by a very high margin," Teetz
said. "You have to look over long time period to see change in
emissions, you can't pick out selected years."
 
Although Teetz said he hadn't seen the report, he said that from
1985 to the present, KeySpan has lowered total emissions by 75
percent.
 
As the news conference took place, the U.S. Senate Subcommittee
on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety met in
Washington, D.C., to listen to testimony regarding President
George W. Bush's Clear Skies Act of 2005, an initiative
Bruzaitis said would weaken clean air safeguards.
 
"Unfortunately, because they seem to be more concerned often
with the economic health of the major polluters than the health
of local residents, we can no longer count upon the EPA," said
Suffolk County Leg. Jon Cooper (D-Lloyd Harbor).
 
The assembled group plans to lobby state and federal
legislatures for a mandatory carbon dioxide emissions' limit,
strengthening of existing clean air programs and enforcement of
the New Source Review Program, which ensures healthy air for
every community.
 
"We have two power plants on the Island that are spitting out
increasing numbers," Bruzaitis said. "We need to be doing more."
	 
Copyright © 2005, Newsday, Inc.    
*****************************************************************
 20 NRC: Emergency Planning and Preparedness For Production and Utilization Facilities

FR Doc 05-1352 

[Federal Register: January 26, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 16)] 
[Rules and Regulations] [Page 3591-3599] From the Federal 
Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] 
[DOCID:fr26ja05-1]                         

Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory 
documents having general applicability and legal effect, most of 
which are keyed to and codified in the Code of Federal 
Regulations, which is published under 50 titles pursuant to 44 
U.S.C. 1510. The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the 
Superintendent of Documents. Prices of new books are listed in 
the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each week.

[[Page 3591]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150-AH00
 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its 
emergency planning regulations governing the domestic licensing 
of production and utilization facilities. The final rule amends 
the current regulations as they relate to NRC approval of 
licensee changes to Emergency Action Levels (EALs). The final 
rule also clarifies exercise requirements for co-located 
licensees. These amendments are intended to resolve an 
inconsistency and an ambiguity in current regulations.

DATES: Effective Date: April 26, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone: (301) 415-3224. E-mail: . 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission is making two changes 
to its emergency preparedness regulations contained in 10 CFR 
Part 50, Appendix E. The first amendment relates to NRC approval 
of licensee changes to EALs, paragraph IV.B and the second 
amendment relates to exercise requirements for co-located 
licensees, paragraph IV.F.2. A discussion of each of these 
revisions follows. (1) NRC Approval of Licensee Changes To EALs, 
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Paragraph IV.B.

    EALs are part of a licensee's emergency plan. There is an 
inconsistency in the emergency planning regulations regarding the 
threshold for when NRC approval of nuclear power plant licensee 
changes to EALs is required. Section 50.54(q) states that 
licensees may make changes to their emergency plans without 
Commission approval only if the changes ``do not decrease the 
effectiveness of the plans and the plans, as changed, continue to 
meet the standards of Sec. 50.47(b) and the requirements of 
appendix E'' to 10 CFR part 50. By contrast, Appendix E states 
that ``emergency action levels shall be * * * approved by NRC.'' 
Current industry practice follows the provisions of Sec.  
50.54(q). Industry has generally made and implemented revisions 
to EALs without requesting NRC approval after determining that 
the changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the emergency 
plan. When the determination is made that a change constitutes a 
decrease in effectiveness, licensees submit the changes to the 
Commission for approval. If a change involves a major change to 
the EAL scheme, for example, changing from an EAL scheme based on 
NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, ``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation 
of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in 
Support of Nuclear Power Plants,'' guidance to an EAL scheme 
based on NUMARC/NESP-007, ``Methodology for Development of 
Emergency Action Levels,'' or NEI-99-01, ``Methodology for 
Development of Emergency Actions Levels,'' guidance or if the 
license proposes an alternate method for complying with the 
regulations, the industry practice has been to seek NRC review 
and approval before implementing the change.

    The Commission believes that prior NRC approval of every EAL 
change is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance that EALs 
will continue to provide an acceptable level of safety. This 
final amendment focuses on EAL changes that are of sufficient 
significance that a safety evaluation by the NRC is appropriate 
before the licensee may implement the change. The Commission 
believes that EAL changes that reduce the effectiveness of the 
emergency plan are of sufficient regulatory significance that 
prior NRC review and approval is warranted. This standard is the 
same standard that the current regulations provide for when 
determining whether changes to emergency plans (except EALs) 
require NRC review and approval. As such, this regulatory 
threshold has a long history of successful application. 
Therefore, this standard should also be used for EAL changes. On 
the basis of NRC's inspections of emergency plans, including EAL 
changes, the Commission believes that licensees have generally 
made appropriate determinations regarding whether an EAL change 
reduces the effectiveness of the emergency plan and that 
licensees have the capability to continue to do so. Limiting the 
NRC's approval to EAL changes that reduce the effectiveness of 
emergency plans or to an alternate method for complying with the 
regulations will ensure adequate NRC oversight of 
licensee-initiated EAL changes. This both increases regulatory 
effectiveness (through use of a single consistent standard for 
evaluating all emergency plan changes) and reduces unnecessary 
regulatory burden on licensees (who would not be required to 
submit for approval EAL changes that do not decrease the 
effectiveness of the emergency plan).

    The Commission believes a licensee's proposal to convert from 
one EAL scheme (e.g., NUREG-0654-based) to another EAL scheme 
(e.g., NUMARC/NESP-007 or NEI-99-01 based) or to a proposed 
alternate method for complying with the regulations is of 
sufficient significance to require prior NRC review and approval. 
NRC review and approval for such major changes in EAL methodology 
is necessary to ensure that there is reasonable assurance that 
the final EAL change will provide an acceptable level of safety.

    Accordingly, the Commission is revising Appendix E to 10 CFR 
Part 50 to provide that Commission approval of EAL changes is 
necessary for all EAL changes that decrease the effectiveness of 
the emergency plan and for changing from one EAL scheme (e.g., 
NUREG-0654-based) to another EAL scheme (e.g., NUMARC/NESP-007 or 
NEI-99-01-based) or for a proposal of an alternate method for 
complying with the regulations. [[Page 3592]] (2) Exercise 
Requirements for Co-Located Licensees, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 
E, Paragraph IV.F.

    The emergency planning regulations were significantly 
upgraded in 1980 after the accident at Three Mile Island (45 FR 
55402; August 19, 1980). The upgraded 1980 regulations required 
an annual exercise of the onsite and offsite emergency plans. The 
regulations were amended in 1984 to change the frequency of 
participation of state and local governmental authorities in 
nuclear power plant offsite exercises from annual to biennial (49 
FR 27733; July 6, 1984). The regulations were amended in 1996 to 
change the frequency of exercising the licensees' onsite 
emergency plans from annual to biennial (61 FR 30129; June 14, 
1996). Appendix E to part 50, Paragraph IV.F.2, currently 
provides that the ``offsite plans for each site shall be 
exercised biennially'' (emphasis added) with the full or partial 
participation of each offsite authority having a role under the 
plans, and that ``each licensee at each site'' shall conduct an 
exercise of its onsite emergency plan every 2 years, an exercise 
that may be included in the full or partial participation 
biennial exercise.\1\ Thus, Paragraph IV.F.2 is ambiguous about 
the emergency preparedness exercise requirements where multiple 
nuclear power plants, each licensed to different licensees, are 
co- located at the same site. Specifically, it is ambiguous 
regarding whether each licensee must participate in a full or 
partial participation exercise of the offsite plan every 2 years, 
or whether the licensees may alternate their participation such 
that a full or partial participation exercise is held every 2 
years and each licensee (at a two-licensee site) participates in 
a full or partial participation exercise every 4 years.

    \1\ 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, IV.F.2, states: 

2. The plan shall describe provisions for the conduct of 
emergency preparedness exercises as follows: Exercises shall test 
the adequacy of timing and content of implementing procedures and 
methods, test emergency equipment and communications networks, 
test the public notification system, and ensure that emergency 
organization personnel are familiar with their duties.

    a. * * *
    b. Each licensee at each site shall conduct an exercise of 
its onsite emergency plan every 2 years. The exercise may be 
included in the full participation biennial exercise required by 
paragraph 2.c. of this section.* * *

    c. Offsite plans for each site shall be exercised biennially 
with full participation by each offsite authority having a role 
under the plan. Where the offsite authority has a role under a 
radiological response plan for more than one site, it shall fully 
participate in one exercise every 2 years and shall, at least, 
partially participate in other offsite plan exercises in this 
period. ``Full participation'' when used in conjunction with 
emergency preparedness exercises for a particular site means 
appropriate offsite local and state authorities and licensee 
personnel physically and actively take part in testing their 
integrated capability to adequately assess and respond to an 
accident at a commercial nuclear power plant.

    ``Full participation'' includes testing major observable 
portions of the onsite and offsite emergency plans and 
mobilization of state, local and licensee personnel and other 
resources in sufficient numbers to verify the capability to 
respond to the accident scenario. ``Partial participation'' when 
used in conjunction with emergency preparedness exercises for a 
particular site means appropriate offsite authorities shall 
actively take part in the exercise sufficient to test direction 
and control functions; i.e., (a) protective action decision 
making related to emergency action levels; and (b) communication 
capabilities among affected State and local authorities and the 
licensee.

    Upon consideration of the language of the current regulation 
and the legislative history of the exercise requirements, the 
Commission believes that the ambiguity in the current regulation 
shall be interpreted such that each nuclear power plant licensee, 
co-located on the same site, must participate in a full or 
partial participation offsite exercise every 2 years (and that 
each offsite authority is to participate on either a full or 
partial participation basis in each licensee's biennial offsite 
exercise). However, upon consideration of the matter, the 
Commission believes that requiring each licensee on a co-located 
site to participate in a full or partial participation exercise 
every 2 years, and for the offsite authorities to participate in 
each licensee's full or partial participation exercise, is not 
necessary to provide reasonable assurance that each licensee and 
the offsite authorities will be able to fulfill their 
responsibilities under the emergency plan should the plan be 
required to be implemented. Furthermore, the Commission believes 
that such an interpretation could impose an undue regulatory 
burden on offsite authorities. Currently, there is only one 
nuclear power plant site with power plants licensed to two 
separate licensees: The James A. FitzPatrick and Nine Mile Point 
site. Although the ambiguity in Paragraph IV.F.2 has limited 
impact today, the Commission understands that future nuclear 
power plant licensing concepts currently being considered by the 
industry include siting multiple nuclear power plants on either a 
single site or adjacent, contiguous sites. These plants may be 
owned and/or operated by different licensees. Therefore, the 
Commission believes that this final rulemaking is necessary to 
remove the ambiguity in Paragraph IV.F.2 and clearly specify the 
emergency preparedness exercise requirements for co-located 
licensees.

    The Commission finds that where two nuclear power plants are 
licensed to different licensees and meet the definition of being 
co- located, reasonable assurance of emergency preparedness 
exists where:

    1. The co-located licensees would exercise their onsite plans 
biennially;

    2. The offsite authorities would exercise their plans 
biennially; and,

    3. The interface between offsite plans and the respective 
onsite plans would be exercised biennially in a full or partial 
participation exercise alternating between each licensee.

    Thus, each co-located licensee would participate in a full or 
partial participation exercise quadrennially. In addition, when 
one of the co-located licensees is participating in a full or 
partial participation exercise, the final rule requires any other 
co-located licensees to participate in activities and interaction 
(A) with offsite authorities. For the period between exercises, 
the final rule also requires the licensees to conduct emergency 
preparedness A. The purpose of these A would be to test and 
maintain interface among the affected state and local authorities 
and the licensees.

    The Commission concludes that biennial full or partial 
participation exercises for each co-located licensee are not 
warranted and that this final regulation provides a sufficient 
level of assurance of emergency preparedness for the following 
reasons. First, the final rule is consistent with the current 
licensees' practice for the James A. FitzPatrick/Nine Mile Point 
plants. This practice has been reviewed periodically by the NRC, 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the State of 
New York. NRC has continued to find that there is reasonable 
assurance that appropriate measures could be taken to protect the 
public health and safety in the event of a radiological emergency 
based on NRC's assessment of the adequacy of the licensees' 
onsite Emergency Plannings (EP) programs, FEMA's assessment of 
the adequacy of the offsite EP programs, and the current level of 
interaction between the onsite and offsite emergency response 
organizations in the period between full or partial participation 
exercises.

    Second, the central requirement of a ``partial 
participation'' exercise under the current regulations is to test 
the ``direction and control functions'' between the licensee and 
the offsite authorities (i.e., protective action decision making 
related to emergency action levels and communications 
capabilities among affected State and local authorities and the 
licensee). The

[[Page 3593]]
final rule contains a requirement that, in each of the 3 years 
between a licensee's participation in a full or partial 
participation exercise, each licensee shall participate in A with 
offsite authorities to test and maintain interface. By requiring 
that the licensee's emergency preparedness organization engage in 
activities and interactions with offsite authorities to exercise 
and test effective communication and coordination, the final rule 
provides the functional equivalent of a biennial exercise which 
tests the ``direction and control functions'' between the 
licensee and the offsite authorities. Id.

    Third, the burden of requiring each licensee to participate 
biennially in a full or partial participation exercise with 
offsite participation falls most heavily on the offsite 
authorities (i.e., the state and local authorities). The 
Commission's 1984 and 1996 rulemakings were specifically intended 
to reduce the schedule for offsite exercises to remove 
unnecessary burden on offsite authorities. However, the 
Commission did not explicitly address the unique circumstance of 
two plants located on a single site, with each plant owned by a 
different licensee. This final rulemaking addresses the undue 
burden placed upon offsite authorities in these circumstances.

    The final rule defines co-located licensees as two different 
licensees whose licensed facilities are located either on the 
same site or on adjacent, contiguous sites, and that share most 
of the following emergency planning and siting elements:

    1. Plume exposure and ingestion emergency planning zones;
    2. Offsite governmental authorities;
    3. Offsite emergency response organizations;
    4. Public notification system; and/or
    5. Emergency facilities.

Paragraph-by-Paragraph Discussion of Changes to 10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix E

A. Paragraph IV.B--Assessment Actions

    This paragraph is amended by adding new language governing 
the type and scope of EAL changes that must receive NRC approval 
before implementation. The final amendment clarifies that the 
Commission approval of EAL changes is required for changes that 
decrease the effectiveness of the emergency plan when a licensee 
proposes an alternate method for complying with the regulations, 
when converting from one EAL scheme (e.g., NUREG-0654-based) to 
another EAL scheme (e.g., NUMARC/NESP-007 or NEI-99-01-based). 
The final language also clarifies the existing requirement that 
applicants for initial reactor operating licenses and initial 
COLs must obtain Commission approval of initial EALs.

B. Paragraph IV.F.2.--Training

    This paragraph is amended to articulate the emergency 
planning exercise requirements for co-located licensees. Under 
the final amendment, co-located licensees are required to 
exercise their onsite plans biennially. The offsite authorities 
will exercise their plans biennially. The interface between 
offsite plans and the respective onsite plans will be exercised 
biennially in a full or partial participation exercise 
alternating between each licensee. Thus, each co-located licensee 
will participate in a full or partial participation exercise 
quadrennially. In addition, when one of the co-located licensees 
is participating in a full or partial participation exercise, the 
final rule requires any other co-located licensees to participate 
in A with offsite authorities. For the period between exercises, 
the final rule also requires the licensees to conduct emergency 
preparedness A. The purpose of A is to test and maintain 
interface among the affected State and local authorities and the 
licensee. Table 1 provides a graphical description of one 
possible way of meeting the requirements of the final rule. Table 
1.--Example of Emergency Preparedness Training for Two (2) 
Co-Located Licensees

                    Year                           1           2
          3           4           5           6           7     
     8           9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
Licensee 1..................................          X        
A         A         A           X         A         A         A 
         X
Licensee 2..................................        A         A 
         X         A         A         A           X         A  
      A
Notes: X = Full or partial participation exercise (with 
appropriate activities and interactions with offsite 
authorities).

 A = Activities and interactions with offsite authorities.

    A new footnote 6 is also added to provide a definition of co- 
located licensees. There are two elements to the definition, both 
of which must be satisfied. First, co-located licensees are two 
different licensees whose licensed facilities are located either 
on the same site, or on adjacent, contiguous sites. Secondly, the 
co-located licensees must share most of the following emergency 
planning and siting elements.

    1. Plume exposure and ingestion emergency planning zones;
    2. Offsite governmental authorities;
    3. Offsite emergency response organizations;
    4. Public notification system; and/or
    5. Emergency facilities.

The proposed rule did not actually specify that co-located 
licensees are those whose facilities either share the same site, 
or be located on adjacent contiguous sites, this is inherent in 
the concept of being ``co-located.'' Nonetheless, the Commission 
believes that the rule should explicitly address this, and the 
final rule's language has been modified to include the concept of 
physical co-location as one of the criteria for a ``co-located'' 
licensee. Comments on the Proposed Rule

    On July 24, 2003 (68 FR 43673), the Commission published a 
notice of proposed rulemaking and requested public comments by 
October 7, 2003. A total of seven comment letters were received. 
One comment letter was from a member of the public, six from 
utilities. All of the utility letters were in favor of the 
proposed changes, while the public commenter suggested that the 
changes were unnecessary. However, the comment letters did 
provide suggested clarifications to the proposed amendments. A 
detailed evaluation of each comment received is outlined below.

    Comment: In Paragraph IV.B (Assessment Actions), in lieu of 
adding ``or licensee'' in the third sentence, one commenter 
proposed that the following be added after the fourth sentence, 
``A revision to an EAL must be discussed and agreed on by the 
licensee and state and local government authorities prior to 
implementation.''

    Response: The Commission disagrees with this comment because 
the Commission wants the original EAL submittals from applicants 
and licensees to be discussed and agreed on with the state and 
local governments and approved by the Commission. Additionally, 
the Commission continues to want EALs to be reviewed by the state 
and local governments annually and not only when revisions are 
made to the EALs.

[[Page 3594]]

    Comment: ``Reference is made throughout the proposed rule to 
NUMARC/NESP-007 as an alternative EAL scheme. Since the proposed 
rule was issued for public comment, NRC has endorsed NEI-99-01 as 
another acceptable EAL scheme. It is proposed that NEI-99-01 be 
referenced in addition to or in lieu of NUMARC/NESP-007.''

    Response: The Commission agrees with this comment and has 
referenced NEI-99-01 throughout the final amendment accordingly.

    Comment: ``The sixth and seventh sentences in the proposed 
Appendix E, Paragraph IV.B appear redundant to Sec.  50.54(q), 
with regard to emergency plan revisions, and Appendix E Paragraph 
V, with regard to implementing procedure revisions. Furthermore, 
these additions might necessitate a complementary change to Sec.  
50.4(b)(5) which explicitly references submittals pursuant to 
Sec.  50.54(q) and appendix E Paragraph V. It is proposed that 
these two sentences be excluded from the final rule.''

    Response: The Commission disagrees with this comment in that 
sentences six and seven are consistent with Sec.  50.54(q) and 
50.4 regarding sending information to the Commission. Therefore, 
these sentences do not necessitate a complementary change to Sec. 
50.4, nor should they be deleted from the final regulation.

    Comment: ``There is a possible ambiguity in Table 1--Example 
of Emergency Preparedness Training for Two (2) Co-Located 
Licensees. The table, as well as the text of the proposed 
changes, does not indicate that in those years when a licensee 
participates in a full- participation exercise, that licensee 
also participates in A with offsite response organizations. The 
result of this ambiguity could be an interpretation that only the 
non-participating licensee has any responsibility for A during an 
exercise year. The wording of the text and the table should be 
clarified.''

    Response: The Commission agrees and has modified Table 1 
accordingly.

    Comment: ``The list of A in the proposed rule contains 
requirements that may not apply to sites other than the James A. 
FitzPatrick and Nine Mile Point sites, currently the only site 
with two power plants licensed to two separate licensees. For 
instance, the last recommended interaction is ``Licensee provides 
use of weapons firing range to local and state law enforcement 
(Sheriff, State Police).'' While this interaction may have been 
negotiated as part of a support agreement for offsite response 
agencies at one site, it may not be appropriate at other sites.''

    Response: The Commission agrees and has modified the list of 
A that are now contained in Regulatory Guide 1.101, Rev 5.

    Comment: The language in Sec.  50.54(q) could be further 
improved by establishing clear criteria for what constitutes a 
decrease in effectiveness of the Emergency Plan. Specifically, 
the following language should be revised, ``may make changes to 
these plans without Commission approval only if the changes do 
not decrease the effectiveness of the plans and the plans, as 
changed, continue to meet the standards of paragraph 50.47(b) and 
the requirements of Appendix E to this part.''

    The commenter suggested to add the words ``a change to an 
emergency plan will not decrease the effectiveness of the plan if 
the change will not decrease the abilities of the emergency 
response organization, and/ or supporting emergency response 
facilities and equipment, as required by paragraphs 10 CFR 
50.47(b) and appendix E, or equivalent measures approved under 10 
CFR 50.47(c), to reasonably assure the adequate protection of 
public health and safety in the event of a radiological emergency 
as stated in 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1). The change cannot delete any of 
the capabilities described in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and (d), or in 
appendix E to 10 CFR part 50.''

    Response: While the Commission recognizes the merits of this 
comment, revising 10 CFR 50.54(q) to define what is meant by 
``decreasing the effectiveness'' of the emergency plans was not 
published as part of the proposed rule and is therefore beyond 
the scope of this rulemaking.

    Comment: One commenter believes that clarifying exercise 
requirements to allow alternating participation in exercises for 
co- located licensees will remove ambiguity that currently 
exists. The proposed exercise frequency, coupled with the 
detailed activities and interactions, will continue to provide a 
sufficient level of assurance of offsite emergency preparedness. 
Also, it will provide clear guidance for future licensing actions 
and avoid undue burden on offsite response organizations. Section 
B. [69 FR 43675-43676] is very specific in its wording as to what 
is the responsibility of the licensee. In this regard the rule 
should not be specific but refer to the commitments defined in 
the respective emergency response plans. The commenter believes 
the licensee, state, and local emergency response organizations 
should have the latitude to determine the appropriate training 
and implementation responsibilities.

    Response: The Commission agrees and has removed the list of A 
from this rulemaking but has placed that list of A into 
Regulatory Guide 1.101, Rev. 5.

    Comment: One commenter believes the proposed amendment to 
Appendix E, paragraph IV.B is unnecessary. The commenter states 
that the conclusion that the current regulations are unclear and 
can be interpreted to require prior NRC approval for all changes 
to a licensee's EAL requires a torturous reading of the current 
language.

    Response: The Commission disagrees with this comment. The 
Commission believes that the regulations are ambiguous enough to 
be read to require NRC approval for all EAL changes. 
Consequently, the amendment to appendix E, paragraph IV.B is 
necessary to clarify that NRC approval of all EAL changes is not 
necessary to ensure an adequate level of safety. Metric Policy

    On October 7, 1992, the Commission published its final Policy 
Statement on Metrication. According to that policy, after January 
7, 1993, all new regulations and major amendments to existing 
regulations were to be presented in dual units. These final 
amendments to the regulations contain no units. Voluntary 
Consensus Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, 
Public Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical 
standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies unless using such a standard is inconsistent 
with applicable law or is otherwise impractical. This final 
rulemaking addresses two matters:

    (1) The circumstances under which a licensee may modify an 
existing EAL without prior NRC review and approval; and

    (2) The nature and scheduling of emergency preparedness 
exercises for two different licensees of nuclear power plants 
which are co- located on the same site (co-located licensees). 
These are not matters which are appropriate for addressing in 
industry consensus standards, and have not been the subject of 
these standards. Accordingly, this final rulemaking is not within 
the purview of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113. [[Page 3595]] Environmental 
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The Commission has determined under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the 
Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, that the 
final amendments are not major Federal actions significantly 
affecting the quality of human environment, and therefore, an 
environmental impact statement is not required. The basis for 
this determination reads as follows: Need for the Action

1. NRC Review of Changes to Emergency Action Levels 10 CFR 
50.54(q) states that licensees may make changes to their 
emergency plans without Commission approval only if the changes 
``do not decrease the effectiveness of the plans and the plans, 
as changed, continue to meet the standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and 
the requirements of Appendix E'' to 10 CFR part 50. By contrast, 
Appendix E states that ``emergency action levels shall be * * * 
approved by NRC.'' The industry practice, in general, has been to 
revise EALs in ways that do not reduce the effectiveness of the 
emergency plan and to implement the changes in accordance with 
Sec.  50.54(q) without requesting NRC approval. The Commission 
believes that the current regulations are unclear and can be 
interpreted to require prior NRC approval for all licensee EAL 
changes. The Commission has determined that NRC approval of all 
EAL changes is not necessary to ensure an adequate level of 
safety. Thus, the current regulation imposes an unnecessary 
burden on licensees and the NRC.

2. Exercise Requirements for Co-Located Licensees (paragraph 
IV.F.2.)

    10 CFR Part 50, appendix E, requires that the offsite 
emergency plans for each site shall be exercised biennially with 
the full or partial participation of each offsite authority 
having a role under the plans and that each licensee at each site 
shall conduct an exercise of its onsite emergency plan every 2 
years, an exercise that may be included in the full participation 
biennial exercise. Paragraph IV.F.2 is ambiguous about the 
emergency preparedness exercise requirements where two nuclear 
power plants, each licensed to a different licensee, meet the 
definition of being co-located. Specifically, it is ambiguous 
regarding whether each licensee must participate in a full- 
participation exercise of the offsite plan every 2 years, or 
whether the licensees may alternate their participation, so that 
a full participation exercise is held every 2 years and each 
licensee (at a two-licensee site) participates in a full 
participation exercise every 4 years.

    Upon consideration of the language of the current regulation 
and the legislative history of the exercise requirements, the 
Commission believes that the ambiguity in the current regulations 
can be interpreted that each nuclear power plant licensee 
co-located on either the same site, or two or more adjacent, 
contiguous sites, must participate in a full participation 
offsite exercise every 2 years (and that each offsite authority 
is to participate on either a full or partial participation basis 
in the licensee's biennial offsite exercise).

    However, the Commission believes that requiring each 
co-located licensee to participate in a full participation 
exercise every 2 years, and for the offsite authorities to 
participate in each licensee's full participation exercise, is 
not necessary to provide reasonable assurance that each licensee 
and the offsite authorities will be able to fulfill their 
responsibilities under the emergency plan should the plan be 
required to be implemented. Furthermore, the Commission believes 
that this interpretation could impose an undue regulatory burden 
on offsite authorities. Therefore, the Commission believes that 
rulemaking is necessary to make clear that each co-located 
licensee need not participate in a full participation offsite 
exercise every 2 years.

    The Commission finds that where two nuclear power plants are 
licensed to different licensees and meet the definition of being 
co- located, reasonable assurance of emergency preparedness 
exists where:

    (1) The co-located licensees would exercise their onsite 
plans biennially;

    (2) The offsite authorities would exercise their plans 
biennially; and,

    (3) The interface between offsite plans and the respective 
onsite plans would be exercised biennially in a full or partial 
participation exercise alternating between each licensee.

    Thus, each co-located licensee would participate in a full or 
partial participation exercise quadrennially. In addition, when 
one of the co-located licensees is participating in a full or 
partial participation exercise, the final rule requires the other 
co-located licensee to participate in A with offsite authorities. 
For the period between exercises, the final rule also requires 
the licensees to conduct emergency preparedness activities and 
interactions. The purpose of A would be to test and maintain 
interface among the affected state and local authorities and the 
licensees. Environmental Impact of the Final Actions

    The NRC believes that the environmental impact for the final 
rule is negligible. The final rule does not require any changes 
to the design or the structures, systems and components of any 
nuclear power plant. The final rule would not require any changes 
to licensee programs and procedures for actual operation of 
nuclear power plants. Thus, there would be no change in radiation 
dose to any member of the public which may be attributed to the 
final rule, nor will there be any changes in occupational 
exposures to workers. Furthermore, the final rule will not result 
in any changes that would increase or change the nature of 
nonradiological effluents from nuclear power plants. Alternative 
to the Final Actions

    The alternative to the final action is to not revise the 
regulations (i.e., the no action alternative). No environmental 
impacts are associated with the no action alternative. Agencies 
and Persons Consulted

    Cognizant personnel from the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency and New York State (for the co-located licensee part of 
the rule change), were consulted as part of this rulemaking 
activity. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    This final rule increases the burden on co-located licensees 
to log activities and interactions with offsite agencies during 
the years that full or partial participation emergency 
preparedness exercises are not conducted and to prepare a 
one-time change to procedures to reflect the revised exercise 
requirements. The public burden for this information is estimated 
to average 30 hours per co-located licensee per year. 

Because the burden for this information collection is 
insignificant, OMB clearance is not required. Existing 
requirements were approved by the OMB, approval number 3150-0011. 
Public Protection Notification

    The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a request for information or an 
information collection requirement unless the requesting document 
displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Regulatory Analysis

    The NRC has prepared a regulatory analysis on this 
regulation. This analysis examines the costs and benefits [[Page 
3596]] of the alternatives considered by the Commission.

I. Statement of Problem and Objectives

    The Commission is making two changes to its emergency 
preparedness regulations contained in 10 CFR part 50, appendix E. 
The first amendment relates to the NRC approval of licensee 
changes to EALs, paragraph IV.B and the second amendment relates 
to exercise requirements for co-located licensees, paragraph 
IV.F.2. A discussion of each of these final amendments follows.

(1) NRC Approval of Licensee Changes to EALs, 10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix E, Paragraph IV.B

    EALs are part of a licensee's emergency plan. There is an 
inconsistency in the emergency planning regulations regarding the 
threshold for when NRC approval of nuclear power plant licensee 
changes to emergency action levels is required. Section 50.54(q) 
states that licensees may make changes to their emergency plans 
without Commission approval only if the changes ``do not decrease 
the effectiveness of the plans and the plans, as changed, 
continue to meet the standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the 
requirements of appendix E'' to 10 CFR part 50. By contrast, 
appendix E states that ``emergency action levels shall be * * * 
approved by NRC.'' Current industry practice has been to make 
revisions to EALs and to implement them without requesting NRC 
approval, after determining that the changes do not reduce the 
effectiveness of the emergency plan in accordance with Sec. 
50.54(q). When the determination is made that a final change 
constitutes a decrease in effectiveness, licensees submit the 
changes to the Commission for approval. If a change involves a 
major change to the EAL scheme, for example, changing from an EAL 
scheme based on NUREG-0654 guidance to an EAL scheme based on 
NUMARC/NESP-007 or NEI-99-01 guidance, or when proposing an 
alternate method for complying with the regulations, it has been 
the industry practice to seek NRC review and approval before 
implementing the change.

(2) Exercise Requirements for Co-Located Licensees, 10 CFR Part 
50, Appendix E, Paragraph IV.F

    The emergency planning regulations were significantly 
upgraded in 1980 after the accident at Three Mile Island (45 FR 
55402; August 19, 1980). The updated 1980 regulations required an 
annual exercise of the onsite and offsite emergency plans. The 
regulations were amended in 1984 to change the frequency of 
participation of state and local governmental authorities in 
nuclear power plant offsite exercises from annual to biennial (49 
FR 27733; July 6, 1984). The regulations were amended in 1996 to 
change the frequency of exercising the licensees' onsite 
emergency plans from annual to biennial (61 FR 30129; June 14, 
1996). Appendix E, to 10 CFR part 50, paragraph IV.F.2, currently 
provides that the ``offsite plans for each site shall be 
exercised biennially'' with the full or partial participation of 
each offsite authority having a role under the plans, and that 
``each licensee at each site'' shall conduct an exercise of its 
onsite emergency plan every 2 years, an exercise that may be 
included in the full participation biennial exercise. Thus, 
paragraph IV.F.2 is ambiguous about the emergency preparedness 
exercise requirements where two nuclear power plants, each 
licensed to a different licensee, and meet the definition of 
being co-located. Specifically, it is ambiguous regarding whether 
each licensee must participate in a full participation exercise 
of the offsite plan every 2 years, or whether the licensees may 
alternate their participation so that a full participation 
exercise is held every 2 years and each licensee (at a 
two-licensee site) participates in a full participation exercise 
every 4 years.

    Upon consideration of the language of the current regulation 
and the legislative history of the exercise requirements, the 
Commission believes that the ambiguity in the current regulations 
can be interpreted that each co-located nuclear power plant 
licensee must participate in a full participation offsite 
exercise every 2 years (and that each offsite authority is to 
participate on either a full or partial participation basis in 
each licensee's biennial offsite exercise). However, upon 
consideration of the matter, the Commission believes that 
requiring each co-located licensee to participate in a full 
participation exercise every 2 years, and for the offsite 
authorities to participate in each licensee's full participation 
exercise, is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance that 
each licensee and the offsite authorities will be able to fulfill 
their responsibilities under the emergency plan should the plan 
be required to be implemented. Furthermore, the Commission 
believes that this interpretation could impose an undue 
regulatory burden on offsite authorities. Currently, there is 
only one nuclear power plant site with two power plants licensed 
to two separate licensees: the James A. FitzPatrick and Nine Mile 
Point site. Although the ambiguity in paragraph IV.F.2 has 
limited impact today, the Commission understands that future 
nuclear power plant licensing concepts currently being considered 
by the industry include siting multiple nuclear power plants on 
either a single site or adjacent, contiguous sites. These plants 
may be owned and/or operated by different licensees. Therefore, 
the Commission believes that this rulemaking is necessary to 
remove the ambiguity in paragraph IV.F.2 and clearly specify the 
emergency preparedness exercise obligations of co-located 
licensees.

    The Commission has determined that where two nuclear power 
plants are licensed to different licensees and meet the 
definition of being co-located, reasonable assurance of emergency 
preparedness exists where:

    (1) The co-located licensees would exercise their onsite 
plans biennially;

    (2) The offsite authorities would exercise their plans 
biennially; and

    (3) The interface between offsite plans and the respective 
onsite plans would be exercised biennially in a full or partial 
participation exercise alternating between each licensee.

    Thus, each co-located licensee would participate in a full or 
partial participation exercise quadrennially. In addition, in the 
year when one of the co-located licensees is participating in a 
full or partial participation exercise, the final rule requires 
the other co- located licensee to participate in A with offsite 
authorities. For the period between exercises, the final rule 
also requires the licensees to conduct emergency preparedness 
activities and interactions. The purpose of A would be to test 
and maintain interface among the affected state and local 
authorities and the licensees.

    The final rule defines co-located licensees as two different 
licensees whose licensed facilities are located either on the 
same site or on adjacent, contiguous sites, and that share most 
of the following emergency planning and siting elements.

    1. Plume exposure and ingestion emergency planning zones;
    2. Offsite governmental authorities;
    3. Offsite emergency response organizations,
    4. Public notification system; and/or
    5. Emergency facilities.

II. Background

(1) Emergency Action Levels (Paragraph IV.B)

    EALs are thresholds of plant parameters (such as containment 
pressure and radiation levels) used to classify events at nuclear 
power plants

[[Page 3597]]

into one of four emergency classes (Notification of Unusual 
Event, Alert, Site Area Emergency, or General Emergency). EALs 
are required by appendix E to 10 CFR part 50 and Sec.  
50.47(b)(4), and are contained in licensees' emergency plans and 
emergency plan implementing procedures.

    Section 50.54(q) states that licensees can make changes to 
their emergency plans without Commission approval only if the 
changes ``do not decrease the effectiveness of the plans and the 
plans, as changed, continue to meet the standards of Sec.  
50.47(b) and the requirements of appendix E'' to 10 CFR part 50. 
However, Appendix E to 10 CFR part 50 states that, ``These 
emergency action levels shall be discussed and agreed on by the 
applicant and state and local governmental authorities and 
approved by NRC.'' Because EALs are required to be included in 
the emergency plan, the issue is whether changes to EALs 
incorporated into the emergency plan are subject to the change 
requirements in 10 CFR 50.54(q), or to the more restrictive 
requirement in appendix E to 10 CFR part 50.

(2) Exercise Requirements for Co-Located Licensees (Paragraph 
IV.F.2)

    The NRC's current regulations contained in appendix E to 10 
CFR part 50, require that the offsite emergency plans for each 
site shall be exercised biennially with the full or partial 
participation of each offsite authority having a role under the 
plans and that each licensee at each site shall conduct an 
exercise of its onsite emergency plan every 2 years, an exercise 
that may be included in the full participation biennial exercise. 
This exercise requirement, though straightforward, has 
implementation and compliance problems when two or more 
licensees' facilities are located either on the same site or on 
adjacent, contiguous sites, thereby requiring the same state to 
conduct a full participation exercise with each co-located 
licensee every year.

    There is currently only one site with two licensees, the Nine 
Mile Point and James A. FitzPatrick site. However, the nuclear 
industry has expressed the possibility of locating new plants on 
currently approved sites, possibly with different licensees, thus 
the need for this final rule change.

III. Rulemaking Options for Both Amendments

    Option 1--Revise the regulations to reflect current staff and 
licensee practices.

    Option 2--Not to revise the regulations. IV. Alternatives 
Impact(s)

    Option 1 for the EAL revisions would amend the existing 
regulations to eliminate the inconsistency between the 
requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E and Sec.  50.54(q) 
relating to approval of changes to EALs and reflect current staff 
and licensee practice. This would be done by amending appendix E 
to 10 CFR part 50 to require NRC to approve new EAL schemes, as 
well as proposals of alternate methods for complying with the 
regulations, and requiring Commission approval of revisions to 
EALs that reduce the effectiveness of the emergency plans in 
accordance with Sec.  50.54(q). The rulemaking would provide a 
means for licensees to make changes to their EALs while reducing 
unnecessary regulatory burden.

    Once the rule is revised, licensees could make EAL changes 
that do not decrease the effectiveness of the emergency plan 
without a submittal for prior approval from the Commission. This 
approach would reduce the unnecessary regulatory burden on 
licensees.

    Option 2 for EAL changes would retain the inconsistency in 
the regulations, thereby increasing the unnecessary burden on 
licensees and the NRC staff in addressing questions on a 
case-by-case basis.

    Option 1 (to amend the regulation) for co-located licensees 
would maintain safety because emergency planning exercises would 
continue to be required at the frequency which has provided 
reasonable assurance that the emergency plans can be implemented. 
The impact of Option 1 on the resources of licensees and offsite 
authorities would be minimal. Option 1 would reflect what 
licensees are currently doing and, therefore, there would not be 
a change in existing acceptable practices. Clarification of the 
regulatory requirements would modify wording that has resulted in 
an ambiguous understanding of the requirements. This option would 
require NRC resources to conduct the rulemaking. The activities 
and interactions that would test and maintain the interface for 
co-located licensees and offsite authorities in the period 
between exercises will provide a consistent expectation and basis 
for these activities. The level of A adequate to maintain an 
appropriate level of preparedness would be ensured.

    The impact of the no rulemaking option (option 2) for the co- 
located licensee exercise revision on the resources of staff, 
licensees and offsite authorities would be minimal. However, 
without clarification of the regulatory requirements, there would 
be the continued ambiguity in the requirements for future 
co-located licensee situations. The impact of these continued 
ambiguities is that potential confusion over requirements would 
have to be resolved on a case-by-case basis by the staff. This 
option would not require NRC resources for conducting a 
rulemaking.

V. Estimation and Evaluation of Values and Impacts

    The final amendments modify current requirements in the NRC's 
approval of changes to EALs and the participation in emergency 
preparedness exercises for co-located licensees. The change in 
the requirement for NRC approval of EALs is being made for 
consistency, and because it reflects current practice. It 
reflects the Commission's original intent and does not impose a 
burden on licensees. However, the second change does modify the 
information collection requirements and impacts the burden on 
future co-located licensees. Current co-located licensees have 
implemented an emergency planning training regime consistent with 
the final rule.

    The final amendment requires that future co-located licensees 
exercise their onsite plans biennially. The offsite authorities 
would exercise their plans biennially. The interface between 
offsite plans and the respective onsite plans would be exercised 
biennially in a full or partial participation exercise 
alternating between each licensee. Thus, each co-located licensee 
will participate in a full or partial participation exercise 
quadrennially. In addition, in the year when one of the 
co-located licensees is participating in a full or partial 
participation exercise, the final rule requires any other 
co-located licensees to participate in activities and 
interactions with offsite authorities. For the period between 
exercises, the final rule requires each licensee to conduct 
emergency preparedness activities and interactions. Likewise each 
co-located licensee would log the activities and interactions 
with offsite authorities that are also conducted in the period 
between exercises. This final rule does not increase the burden 
on current co-located licensees because they have an emergency 
planning training regime consistent with the final rule. Future 
co-located licensees would keep a log of the A with offsite 
authorities which is estimated to average 30 hours per co-located 
licensee per year.

[[Page 3598]]

VI. Presentation of Results

    As noted, the impact on a co-located licensee to implement 
the final rule change is 30 hours per year per co-located 
licensee. This time would be used to maintain a log of the A with 
offsite authorities. At an assumed average hourly rate of 
$156/hour, the total industry implementation cost is estimated at 
$9,360. The cost for an individual co-located licensee is $4,680 
per year.

    With respect to the EAL rule change, licensees would save 
staff time by having explicit NRC requirements and guidance that 
will assist the licensees in the proper submittals of EAL 
changes. The impact of improved regulations on the NRC is a 
decrease in the amount of staff time needed to review licensee 
EAL changes. This is estimated to be about a 100 staff-hour 
reduction or a $8,000 savings to the NRC per year (assuming a $80 
hourly rate for NRC staff time). However, it is uncertain as to 
how many EAL changes might have been received by the NRC.

    There would be several additional benefits associated with 
these amendments. The greatest would be the increased assurance 
that the Commission's regulations are consistent and not 
ambiguous. Further, by addressing these issues generically 
through rulemaking rather than continuing the current 
case-by-case approach, it is expected that the burden on the NRC 
staff would be reduced by several hours for each licensee EAL 
change as well as future co-located licensees' exercise 
requirements that NRC would need to approve. Another beneficial 
attribute to this final action is regulatory efficiency resulting 
from the expeditious handling of future licensing actions by 
providing regulatory predictability and stability for the EAL 
changes as well as the exercise requirements for co-located 
licensees.

VII. Decision Rationale for Selection of the Final Action

    As previously discussed, the additional burdens on a licensee 
and the NRC are expected to be modest. However, a revision of the 
requirements is desirable to remove ambiguities in the current 
regulations while maintaining safety and reducing unnecessary 
regulatory burden.

VIII. Implementation

    The final rule takes effect 90 days after publication in the 
Federal Register. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 
U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that the final rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The final rule would affect only States and 
licensees of nuclear power plants. These States and licensees do 
not fall within the scope of the definition of ``small entities'' 
set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or the size 
standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).

Backfit Analysis

(1) NRC Approval of EAL Changes

    The final rule, which eliminates the need for NRC approval 
for certain EAL changes, does not constitute a backfit as defined 
in Sec. 50.109(a)(1). Although 10 CFR 50.54(q) permits licensees 
to make changes to their emergency plans which do not decrease 
the effectiveness of the plans, 10 CFR part 50, appendix E 
currently requires that all EALs shall be approved by NRC. The 
final rule clarifies the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E requirement 
to permit licensee changes to EALs without NRC approval if the 
changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the emergency plan. 
The final rule requires NRC approval for those EAL changes which 
decrease the effectiveness of the emergency plan, NRC approval 
when a licensee proposes to change from one EAL scheme to another 
as well as proposals of an alternate method for complying with 
the regulations. The final rule clarifies the requirements and 
represents the current practice of making changes under Sec.  
50.54 (q) requirements and is therefore not a backfit.

    In addition, the final rule applies prospectively to changes 
initiated by licensees. The Commission has indicated in various 
rulemakings that the Backfit Rule does not protect the prospects 
of a potential applicant nor does the Backfit Rule apply when a 
licensee seeks a change in the terms and conditions of its 
license. A licensee- initiated change to an EAL does not fall 
within the scope of actions protected by the Backfit Rule and, 
therefore, the Backfit Rule does not apply to this final 
rulemaking.

(2) Co-Located Licensee

    The amendment that addresses the regulatory ambiguity 
regarding exercise participation requirements for co-located 
licensees applies to the existing co-located licensees for the 
Nine Mile Point and James A. FitzPatrick site and prospectively 
to future co-located licensees.

    With respect to the Nine Mile Point and James A. FitzPatrick 
licensees, the final rule would arguably constitute a backfit, 
inasmuch as there is some correspondence between the licensees 
and the NRC which may be interpreted as constituting NRC approval 
of ``alternating participation'' by each licensee in a full or 
partial participation exercise every 2 years. The backfit may not 
fall within the scope of the compliance exception, 10 CFR 
50.109(a)(4)(i), in view of the lack of new information showing 
that the prior NRC approval of ``alternating participation'' was 
based upon a factual error or new information not known to the 
NRC at the time that the NRC approved ``alternating 
participation.'' However, these licensees have informally been 
implementing an emergency planning training regime since year 
2000 that is consistent with the final rule. Accordingly, the NRC 
will not prepare a backfit analysis addressing the Nine Mile 
Point and James A. FitzPatrick licensees.

    With respect to future holders of operating licenses 
(including combined licenses under Part 52) for nuclear power 
plants which meet the definition of being co-located, the 
Commission has indicated in various rulemakings that the Backfit 
Rule does not protect the prospects of a potential applicant. 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is 
not a major rule and has verified this determination with the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB).

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50

    Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire 
protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and 
reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

0

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority 
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy 
Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 
and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendment to 10 CFR 
part 50.

PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATIONS 
FACILITIES 0

1. The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as 
follows:

[[Page 3599]]

    Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 
68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 
234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 
2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 
206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 
5846), sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C 3504 note).

    Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L 95-601, sec. 10, 92 
Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5841). Section 50.10 also issued under 
secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); 
sec. 102, Pub L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 
50.13, 50.43 (dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 
Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 
50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 
U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued 
under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). 
Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 
1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also 
issued under Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). 
Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 
2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 
954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also issued under 
sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237). 0 2. In appendix E to 
part 50, paragraphs IV. B and F.2.c are revised, footnote 5 is 
revised, footnotes 6 through 10 are redesignated as 7 through 11 
respectively, and a new footnote 6 is added to paragraph IV.F.2.c 
to read as follows:

Appendix E to Part 50--Emergency Planning and Preparedness for 
Production and Utilization Facilities * * * * *

IV. Content of Emergency Plans * * * * *

B. Assessment Actions

    The means to be used for determining the magnitude of, and 
for continually assessing the impact of, the release of 
radioactive materials shall be described, including emergency 
action levels that are to be used as criteria for determining the 
need for notification and participation of local and State 
agencies, the Commission, and other Federal agencies, and the 
emergency action levels that are to be used for determining when 
and what type of protective measures should be considered within 
and outside the site boundary to protect health and safety. The 
emergency action levels shall be based on in- plant conditions 
and instrumentation in addition to onsite and offsite monitoring. 
These initial emergency action levels shall be discussed and 
agreed on by the applicant or licensee and state and local 
governmental authorities, and approved by the NRC. Thereafter, 
emergency action levels shall be reviewed with the State and 
local governmental authorities on an annual basis. A revision to 
an emergency action level must be approved by the NRC before 
implementation if:

    (1) The licensee is changing from one emergency action level 
scheme to another emergency action level scheme (e.g., a change 
from an emergency action level scheme based on NUREG-0654 to a 
scheme based upon NUMARC/NESP-007 or NEI-99-01);

    (2) The licensee is proposing an alternate method for 
complying with the regulations; or

    (3) The emergency action level revision decreases the 
effectiveness of the emergency plan.

    A licensee shall submit each request for NRC approval of the 
proposed emergency action level change as specified in Sec. 50.4. 
If a licensee makes a change to an EAL that does not require NRC 
approval, the licensee shall submit, as specified in Sec.  50.4, 
a report of each change made within 30 days after the change is 
made. * * * * *

F. Training

    2. * * *

    c. Offsite plans for each site shall be exercised biennially 
with full participation by each offsite authority having a role 
under the plan. Where the offsite authority has a role under a 
radiological response plan for more than one site, it shall fully 
participate in one exercise every 2 years and shall, at least, 
partially participate \5\ in other offsite plan exercises in this 
period.

    If two different licensees whose licensed facilities are 
located either on the same site or on adjacent, contiguous sites, 
and that share most of the elements defining co-located 
licensees,\6\ each licensee shall:

    (1) Conduct an exercise biennially of its onsite emergency 
plan; and

    (2) Participate quadrennially in an offsite biennial full or 
partial participation exercise; and

    (3) Conduct emergency preparedness activities and 
interactions in the years between its participation in the 
offsite full or partial participation exercise with offsite 
authorities, to test and maintain interface among the affected 
state and local authorities and the licensee. Co-located 
licensees shall also participate in emergency preparedness 
activities and interaction with offsite authorities for the 
period between exercises. * * * * *

    \5\ ``Partial participation'' when used in conjunction with 
emergency preparedness exercises for a particular site means 
appropriate offsite authorities shall actively take part in the 
exercise sufficient to test direction and control functions; 
i.e., 

(a) protective action decision making related to emergency action 
levels, and (b) communication capabilities among affected State 
and local authorities and the licensee.

    \6\ Co-located licensees are two different licensees whose 
licensed facilities are located either on the same site or on 
adjacent, contiguous sites, and that share most of the following 
emergency planning and siting elements:

    a. plume exposure and ingestion emergency planning zones, b. 
offsite governmental authorities, c. offsite emergency response 
organizations, d. public notification system, and/or e. emergency 
facilities * * * * *

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of January 2005. 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette Vietti-Cook, 
Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 05-1352 Filed 1-25-05; 8:45 
am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
 
*****************************************************************
 21 NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 
 
                         FR Doc 05-1353 
[Federal Register: January 26, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 16)] 
[Notices] [Page 3744-3745] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26ja05-134]                         
 
1 and 2; Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplement 23 to the 
Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Public Meeting for the 
License Renewal of Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC, the Commission) has published a draft 
plant-specific supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact 
Statement (GEIS), NUREG-1437, regarding the renewal of Facility 
Operating Licenses DPR-24 and DPR-27 for the Point Beach Nuclear 
Plant, Units 1 and 2 (PBNP), for an additional 20 years of 
operation. PBNP is located on the western shore of Lake Michigan 
in Two Rivers, Wisconsin, approximately 30 miles southeast of 
Green Bay, Wisconsin. Possible alternatives to the proposed 
action (license renewal) include no action and reasonable 
alternative energy sources.
 
The draft Supplement to the GEIS is available for public 
inspection in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) located at One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852, or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of 
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). 
ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS, should contact the PDR reference 
staff at 1-800-397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to 
pdr@nrc.gov. In addition, the Lester Public Library, located at 
1001 Adams Street, Two Rivers,Wisconsin 54241, has agreed to make 
the draft supplement to the GEIS available for public inspection.
 
Any interested party may submit comments on the draft supplement 
to the GEIS for consideration by the NRC staff. To be certain of 
consideration, comments on the draft supplement to the GEIS and 
the proposed action must be received by April 13, 2005. Comments 
received after the due date will be considered if it is practical 
to do so, but the NRC staff is able to assure consideration only 
for comments received on or before this date. Written comments on 
the draft supplement to the GEIS should be sent to: Chief, Rules 
and Directives Branch, Division of
 
[[Page 3745]] Administrative Services, Office of Administration, 
Mailstop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC, 20555-0001. Comments may be hand-delivered to the NRC at 
11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-6D59, Rockville, Maryland, between 
7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Electronic comments 
may be submitted to the NRC by e- mail at PointBeachEIS@nrc.gov. 
All comments received by the Commission, including those made by 
Federal, State, local agencies, Native American Tribes, or other 
interested persons, will be made available electronically at the 
Commission's PDR in Rockville, Maryland, and from the PARS 
component of ADAMS.
 
The NRC staff will hold a public meeting to present an overview 
of the draft plant-specific supplement to the GEIS and to accept 
public comments on the document. The public meeting will be held 
on March 3, 2005, at the Fox Hills Convention Center, 250 West 
Church Street in Mishicot, Wisconsin. There will be two sessions 
to accommodate interested parties. The first session will 
commence at 1:30 p.m. and will continue until 4:30 p.m. The 
second session will commence at 7 p.m. and will continue until 10 
p.m. Both meetings will be transcribed and will include: (1) A 
presentation of the contents of the draft plant-specific 
supplement to the GEIS, and (2) the opportunity for interested 
government agencies, organizations, and individuals to provide 
comments on the draft report. Additionally, the NRC staff will 
host informal discussions one hour prior to the start of each 
session at the same location. No comments on the draft supplement 
to the GEIS will be accepted during the informal discussions. To 
be considered, comments must be provided either at the 
transcribed public meeting or in writing, as discussed below. 
Persons may pre-register to attend or present oral comments at 
the meeting by contacting Ms. Stacey Imboden, by telephone at 
1-800-368-5642, extension 2462, or by e-mail at

 
PointBeachEIS@nrc.gov no later than March 1, 2005. Members of the 
public may also register to provide oral comments within 15 
minutes of the start of each session. Individual, oral comments 
may be limited by the time available, depending on the number of 
persons who register. If special equipment or accommodations are 
needed to attend or present information at the public meeting, 
the need should be brought to Ms. Imboden's attention no later 
than February 23, 2005, to provide the NRC staff adequate notice 
to determine whether the request can be accommodated.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Stacey Imboden, License 
Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program, Division of Regulatory 
Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555-0001. Ms. 
Imboden may be contacted at the aforementioned telephone number 
or e-mail address.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of January, 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Samson S. Lee, Acting Program Director, License Renewal and 
Environmental Impacts Program, Division of Regulatory Improvement 
Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. 05-1353 Filed 1-25-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 22 [du-list] perchlorate
 
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:34:13 -0800

 
<x-flowed>

I would like information on whether anyone has found that perchlorate can 
be created from DU. Someone with whom I spoke said that DU can comine 
through mineralized water and develop dangerous compounds. This person 
referred to the court case Viequez versus the US Navy. I would like some 
solid scientific information on the dangers here.
Linda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/79vVAA/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>
*****************************************************************
 23 Local10.com: Radioactive Leak Reported In West Palm Beach

Area Reopens Following Scare

UPDATED: 6:09 pm EST January 26, 					 					2005

A malfunction in a radioactive testing device closed down part of 
downtown West Palm Beach Wednesday afternoon.

[ id=] Sky10 was overhead after the device was reported to have 
leaked a higher than acceptable level of radioactivity near the 
courthouse.

The fire department couldn't get into the area to check out 
reports of the leak because of the possibility of radioactive 
contamination. Hazardous material crews were sent in to check the 
area.

The downtown from Quadrille Boulevard east to Olive Avenue and
from Gardinia Street south to Evernia Street was closed and was
evacuated for a short time.

Normal radiation levels are from 12 to 25 rems (the unit used to
measure radioactivity). A Geiger counter at the location of the
leak showed a reading of 95 rems, considered low-grade.

HazMat crews determined that the leak was emitting a lower level
of radiation than originally suspected, and the area was
reopened by 5:30 p.m.


Copyright 2005 by . All rights reserved. This material may not

*****************************************************************
 24 Guardian Unlimited: Energy Dept. Issues Nuke Safety Rules
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday January 26, 2005 9:31 PM

By NANCY ZUCKERBROD 

Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The government would be able to fine
contractors who violate worker safety standards at federal
nuclear facilities under rules proposed Wednesday by the Energy
Department. 

The proposal comes a year after withdrawal of a much-criticized
draft rule that failed to set minimum safety standards for all
department sites. 

The old proposal would have allowed contractors to pick and
choose which safety rules they should be required to follow,
something that was criticized by lawmakers, workers and the
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, an advisory board that
oversees safety throughout the Energy Department weapons
complex. 

``We felt there was too much leeway given to contractors rather
than requiring the government to set the standards,'' John
Conway, chairman of the advisory board, said of the old rule. 

Congress ordered the department two years ago to issue safety
rules and said contractors who violate the rules should be
subject to civil penalties, such as fines. 

The government can now fine contractors for exposing workers to
radiation but not for exposing them to toxic chemicals or other
industrial hazards. 

The new proposal outlines a minimum set of safety standards that
generally mirror Occupational Safety and Health Administration
regulations at private industrial sites, including commercial
nuclear power plants. 

``This rule is a substantial improvement over the other draft
rule because it sets minimum safety standards based on OSHA
standards, which is exactly what Congress wanted,'' said Richard
Miller, a senior policy analyst with the Government
Accountability Project, a Washington-based watchdog group. 

Contractors also will have to come up with safety plans that
address specific hazards at their facilities. 

``This rule is very positive ... in that we set a minimum set of
standards but allow each facility to use the minimum standards
as a baseline and set additional standards specific to the
mission of that facility,'' Energy Department spokesman Mike
Waldron said. 

The safety standards are expected to affect more than 100,000
workers. The workers' responsibilities include maintaining a
nuclear arsenal, dismantling surplus weapons, disposing of
excess radioactive materials, cleaning up old facilities and
conducting energy research. 

The Energy Department is currently seeking public comments on
the new proposal. 

^--- 

On the Net: 

Energy Department: http://www.energy.gov/ 

Federal Register:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su-docs/aces/fr-cont.html 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board: http://www.dnfsb.gov/ 	 
  
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 25 The Australian: Mine's suitors calling 

[January 27, 2005]

By Andrew Trounson

THE world's two biggest uranium miners have joined the throng of 
international suitors vying for a stake in the massive Olympic 
Dam mine in outback South Australia, holder of one-third of the 
world's known uranium.

Amid a political campaign to keep the deposit in Australian 
hands, it is understood officials from Cameco of Canada and 
Cogema of France have inspected the Olympic Dam facilities near 
Roxby Downs in recent weeks. 

Both companies are said to be closely watching the $7.4 billion
takeover battle for the mine's owner, iconic Australian mining
house WMC Resources. 

Although they are likely to prefer a partnership with WMC,
either international company could be forced to launch a
takeover bid if WMC appears likely to fall to Swiss-based mining
giant Xstrata, which is offering shareholders $6.35 a share. The
bid has been rejected by WMC, whose shares are trading at $7.18. 

Olympic Dam contains a third of the globe's known resources of
uranium, and already supplies nuclear power stations around the
world with yellowcake. 

WMC is proposing a $5 billion expansion that would treble output
to 15,000 tonnes of yellowcake a year by 2010 - potentially
making the mine the world's largest producer of the radioactive
material. 

The prospect of Olympic Dam, the world's largest known uranium
deposit, falling into foreign hands has sparked an urgent
national interest debate. 

Former Liberal Party treasurer Ron Walker has voiced security
concerns, while South Australian Premier Mike Rann wants to
ensure any new owner fully develops the mine, which also
contains copper and gold. 

Treasurer Peter Costello is awaiting a report from the Foreign
Investment Review Board and is expected to decide by the end of
next month whether to approve Xstrata's bid for WMC. 

In 2001, he blocked a takeover bid for Woodside Petroleum,
operator of the giant North West Shelf gas project in Western
Australia, from Shell on the grounds the Anglo-Dutch group could
focus on overseas projects at the expense of operations in
Australia.

 Regardless of who controls Olympic Dam, all Australian uranium
sales are subject to strict export controls that ensure the
uranium is used only for peaceful purposes. 

Australia, in co-operation with the International Atomic Energy
Agency, monitors uranium sales through the nuclear fuel cycle. 

Australia's two other smaller uranium mines are both
foreign-owned - Ranger, in the Northern Territory, by
London-based Rio Tinto; and Beverley, in northeastern South
Australia, by US-based General Atomics. 

The Olympic Dam deposit is strategically important for Canada,
the world's biggest producer, and for France, where nuclear
power accounts for 78 per cent of electricity generation. Cogema
is part of France's state-owned nuclear power company, Areva. 

Uranium prices have almost trebled in the past three years to
more than $US20 ($26) a pound, powered by shrinking stockpiles
of ex-military material. 

Any expansion of Olympic Dam, which draws water from the Great
Artesian Basin, will face opposition from the Australian
Conservation Foundation. It says the mine has reduced the
natural water pressure and an expansion would pose a long-term
threat. 

Cameco and Cogema have closely tracked Olympic Dam for years,
and in recent weeks both have had guided tours over the
operation. 

Cameco pitched a deal to WMC in 2003, offering financing in
return for a share of Olympic Dam's production. It contemplated
launching a bid for WMC at the time the miner split from its
alumina business in 2002. 

Speaking on the sidelines of a mining conference in Vancouver,
Cameco chief executive Gerald Grandey said he was "watching"
Xstrata's attempted takeover of WMC. 
		 			 			
terms      © The Australian   
*****************************************************************
 26 The Australian: The half-life and times of Australia's uranium dilemma 

[January 27, 2005]

ROBERT GOTTLIEBSEN   

WHEN John Howard arrives at the World Economic Forum tomorrow 
he'll be confronted with the theme of the world's biggest 
business and political gathering: "Taking responsibility for 
tough choices".

And the toughest choice our Prime Minister, and Treasurer Peter 
Costello, will face this year is whether to hand dominance of the 
global uranium market to a bunch of Swiss commodity traders. 

The stakes are high: there's a high likelihood of a price cartel 
and a considerable reduction in control over where our uranium 
goes. 

Although there are difficult environmental issues, such as waste 
management, nuclear energy is emerging as the key fuel source for 
maintaining global growth rates while cutting emissions. 

Australia has well over a third of the world's uranium and 
whoever controls it will have enormous global power over the next 
20 years. 

Historically, the Swiss are best known for their watches, cheese, 
chocolates and secretive bankers. But just over 20 years ago 
Switzerland became a big global force in commodity trading when 
Marc Rich fled to the country, pending US criminal charges. 

To pay his US taxes in 1984 Rich sold his stake in Twentieth
Century Fox to his partner, oil billionaire Marvin Davis, who in
1985 onsold it to News Corporation, publisher of The Australian 
a deal that led to the transformation of the then
Australian-based company. 

Rich developed one of the world's biggest commodity empires to
take advantage of Swiss neutrality and laws. 

These days Rich is ageing, but his legacy remains. 

He enticed many top global traders to Switzerland using various
lures: freedom from US laws, low taxes in the canton of Zug, and
the advantages of Swiss education. 

The traders would use Swiss law to legally break trade embargoes
imposed by the US and other governments and take advantage of
the turmoil in the former USSR to buy metals and other
commodities at attractive prices. In the process Rich and his
traders would become fabulously rich. 

These days Rich is less active but his techniques are embedded
in the generation of traders he trained. Almost every trade
embargo  including Cuba, Iran, Libya, South Africa and more
recently Iraq  has given the Swiss the chance to make big
profits. 

The Swiss developed techniques to use derivatives so that
governments could never trace what was happening to physical
material. 

The Zug canton  I passed through the place on the way to the
World Economic Forum  has set up a training school for traders. 

It is clear that their biggest coup may come if Xstrata can gain
control of WMC Resources, owner of a third of the world's
uranium through its Olympic Dam mine in outback South Australia. 

On the surface, Zug-based Xstrata looks remote from the Swiss
traders but most of its products are marketed by Glencore, a
company owned by the Swiss traders. 

Glencore officially owns only 16 per cent of Xstrata, but that
stake is more than doubled via the traders' influence over
Xstrata shares held by Credit Suisse. 

Australia's Foreign Investment Review Board has an old file on
Glencore. When the Swiss traders tried to make a bid for a
significant stake in the Portland aluminium smelter in the early
1990s they were told quietly a rejection was possible, so they
sold their small stake.

 Whereas the hedge fund traders in London and New York simply
borrow money to punt in the market, Rich and his people are much
smarter and constantly look for an edge. 

In the early 1950s, when Rich dropped out of New York
University, no one could have believed what would happen to him
in the next 50 years. 

His first opportunity to star arose out of the Korean War, when
governments stockpiled mercury. Rich acquired the rights to the
production of the world's two biggest mercury producers, and the
squeeze he imposed delivered a fortune to his employer, Philipp
Bros. 

The firm then sent Rich to Cuba and later he devised ways to get
around the US embargoes. But he split with Philipp and, while
still residing in the US, set up Marc Rich AG in Switzerland to
take advantage of Swiss law. 

Two enormous opportunities arose. Marc Rich AG made a fortune
breaking the Cuban embargoes and marketing Iranian oil in
defiance of US bans. After the OPEC crisis the US began to
classify its oil into various categories, including "old oil"
selling at $US6 a barrel. 

For Rich that was a ticket to a bonanza, as he purchased oil at
around $US6 and found a way to sell it for between $US25 and
$US45 a barrel. But the US reckoned that as a US citizen he
could not hide behind a Swiss company. With charges pending it
was time to move to Switzerland, and in the next 11 years he
obeyed Swiss law, unfettered by US restrictions. 

In 1994, Rich sold his Swiss trading company to the traders who
had come to Switzerland to learn from him. They dropped the name
Rich for Glencore International and widened its activities. 

I'm sure Rich is right in saying he has no ownership of Glencore
(he now has his own Swiss trading company) but the culture is
the same  it is owned by his traders and headed by one of his
lieutenants. 

In a derivative-based trading world, if the Swiss gain control
of the marketing of Australia's one-third of the world's
uranium, the three biggest suppliers of nuclear fuel will be
Switzerland, Canada and Russia. 

The Swiss have very close ties to Russian marketers, and with
the Australian third in their pocket they will be in the
position that Rich achieved back in the 1950s with mercury. 

The combination of uranium embargoes and a small tight cartel
has the potential to deliver profits that will dwarf anything
the Swiss traders previously achieved. The Swiss will argue they
will obey any Australian restrictions (sensitive markets can be
supplied from Russia) because Zug's potential cartel rewards are
so great. 

But the Swiss leopards will have to convince Australia that they
have managed a complete change of spots. 

Xstrata chief executive Mick Davis might be the world's greatest
mineral strategist but he is saddled with the past activities of
his biggest shareholder and the marketer of his minerals. 

If Costello and Howard allow the Swiss traders to control a
significant chunk of global uranium they will have to accept
global responsibility for the consequences. 
		 			 
  privacy       terms      © The Australian   
*****************************************************************
 27 EducationGuardian.co.uk: Drips feed case against N-dump
 
Thursday January 27, 2005
The Guardian 		
 		
Campaigners battling to stop the US establishing a nuclear waste 
dump at Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert have a new ally - 
condensation. Plans to seal waste in underground bunkers have 
seesawed for years. One concern is whether water could penetrate, 
corrode the tins and help carry away the deadly particles.

Most research has focused on whether rain could seep through 300m 
of rocky roof. Now Rohit Salve and Timothy Kneafsey at the 
Lawrence Berkeley national lab in California turn the spotlight 
on a different problem.

The duo investigated seepage into a 2.7km tunnel dug at the site, 
sections of which have been sealed for months at a time - 
stopping ventilation carrying water vapour away. In the journal 
Water Resources Research they report "water droplets coating 
impermeable surfaces such as electrical cables, rubber sheets 
along the conveyer belt and the bulkhead doors". They found mould 
on canvas sheets and fungus on the railway tracks, which they say 
is due to water vapour diffusing from the atmosphere through 
cracks and fissures in the rocks. 
	

[UP] 

   EducationGuardian.co.uk © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 28 Nevada Appeal - Opinion: Water wars to begin for rural Nevada
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
January 26, 2005     				 				
                         
Abby Johnson
 						
 "Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over." -
attributed to Mark Twain


It's been along time coming, but the water wars are about to
begin in rural Nevada. 

The water grab is shaping up to be as hot an issue as Yucca
Mountain or MX, the Air Force's ill-conceived scheme in the late
1970s to base nuclear missiles in the Great Basin.

Sixteen years ago, Southern Nevada Water Authority filed on all
of the unappropriated water in much of rural eastern Nevada, in
parts of northern Clark, Nye, Lincoln and White Pine counties.

Now they are focusing attention on these areas in preparation
for a comprehensive environmental impact statement on the
impacts of their ambitious project to pipe water from the north
into the Las Vegas Valley.

The town of Baker, in the Snake Valley on the Utah border, 65
miles southeast of Ely, and the host town to the Great Basin
National Park, is one focal point for the voracious SNWA.

SNWA has formed the Integrated Water Planning Advisory Committee
to help them consider how to go about obtaining more water for
the overgrown and sprawling Las Vegas Valley. The committee has
representation from Clark County, the targeted counties to the
north, and environmental groups.

White Pine County Commissioner and Baker resident Gary Perea
spoke up on behalf of White Pine County and rural Nevada at
Monday's meeting in Las Vegas (televised to targeted rural
communities, and broadcast over the Internet - www.snwa.com).

Commissioner Perea said that SNWA's plan to pipe White Pine
County water to Las Vegas is a costly temporary solution that
jeopardizes the state's natural resources and the future of
rural Nevada. "There cannot be enough water under White Pine and
Lincoln Counties to keep up with the growth of Las Vegas." "SNWA
is gambling with my future, the future of my family and friends,
and our ability to live in Snake and Spring Valleys," Perea
said. 

He noted that the rural Nevada water grab is just part of SNWA's
total water portfolio. Perea suggested that the solution to
SNWA's problem should be "all encompassing" and should be
addressed regionally among the western states. 

As a White Pine County commissioner and resident he pledged "to
fight to keep water in White Pine County so we can be assured we
have a future."

Perea wasn't the only one to voice concern. Anne Huskin, a Las
Vegas resident, spoke about the damaging effects of water
exportation on agriculture in rural Nevada.

"If they can't grow their crops and raise their cattle, there
will be only so many steaks for the Bellagio," said Huskin,
linking urban survival to rural economy. 

Noted social critic and environmental writer Charles Bowden
asserts in his book "Killing the Hidden Waters" that resource
problems are almost always cultural problems and not the result
of scarcity.

He cites two ecological principles that apply. "Systems expand
to devour the maximum power available." A city (he suggests the
Los Angeles area) "grows until it consumes everything it can
find to sustain its growth and very existence."

The second is that American culture is largely open to
consumption and closed to conservation. Our efforts to conserve
water through low-flow toilets and shower heads have lowered
water consumption per capita, but overall water consumption has
still increased due to population growth. 

When he first wrote the book in 1977, he thought that
consumption and growth would be limited, not envisioning our
culture's appetite for expensive gas guzzling cars or that
rising water rates would not in any way limit population in
resource-strained regions.

Older and wiser, he now suggests that giving new water resources
to a city in the American West (Las Vegas perhaps?) is akin to
sending a case of whiskey to an alcoholic. It postpones the
problem for awhile but does not solve it.

The solution to the water needs of Las Vegas shouldn't be at the
expense of rural communities, agriculture, or the economic
foundation of rural Nevada.

When the Legislature convenes, it is likely that water law and
water supply issues will be debated.

It is incumbent on all legislators to consider the destructive
effect of the water exportation project on rural communities
like Baker, and to consider the thoughtful comments of
Commissioner Perea and Anne Huskin. 

Perea is telling Southern Nevada Water Authority not to
sacrifice rural Nevada in its quest for a temporary solution to
an insatiable resource problem, and letting them know they have
a fight on their hands.

Both legislators and the Southern Nevada Water Authority should
heed the words of southern Nevadan Anne Huskin in evoking the
state song: "The state song isn't Home Means Southern Nevada;
it's Home Means Nevada."

Abby Johnson consults on rural community development, public
involvement and nuclear waste issues in Carson City. She is a
property owner in Baker. Her views are her own and do not
necessarily reflect those of her clients.

All contents © Copyright 2005 nevadaappeal.com
Nevada Appeal - 580 Mallory Way - Carson City, NV 89701                         
*****************************************************************
 29 Las Vegas RJ: Judicial panel orders Yucca parties to resolve document disputes 
 
Wednesday, January 26, 2005

By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- A judicial board on Tuesday ordered attorneys for
the Energy Department and the state of Nevada to work out a way
to resolve their disputes over Yucca Mountain documents.
 
 The judges said they expect fights over "hundreds, if not
thousands" of documents that the Energy Department has compiled
during its decades-long bid to operate a nuclear waste
repository in Nevada.
 
 The disputes threaten to cause long delays as the judges, a
three-member administrative panel assembled by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, prepare to study a repository license
application, officials said. 
The panel set a 40-day deadline for the parties to reach
agreement on resolving document fights.
 
 The issue involves millions of documents, including studies,
technical reports and e-mails, that the Energy Department, the
state and other parties are placing in an online database called
the Licensing Support Network.
 
 The judges last August ordered the Energy Department to rework
the database, after Nevada complained the network was
unworkable. 

Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
 30 Las Vegas SUN: Energy secretary nominee sees end of 2005 date for Yucca license
 
 
ASSOCIATED PRESS 

LAS VEGAS (AP) - The Energy Department intends to submit a
license application by the end of 2005 to open a national
nuclear waste dump in Nevada, according to President Bush's
nominee for energy secretary. 

Samuel Bodman's comments on a Yucca Mountain timetable came in
response to questions from members of the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee during confirmation proceedings in
Washington, D.C. 

The committee recommended approval for Bodman's nomination to
replace Spencer Abraham as energy secretary. The full Senate is
expected to quickly confirm Bodman, perhaps as soon as next
week. He currently serves as deputy secretary of the Treasury
Department. 

The Energy Department missed a self-imposed December 2004 date
to submit a Yucca license application to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. The department has yet to complete a requirement
that millions of pages of supporting documents be accessible at
an NRC online database, the Licensing Support Network. 

The Energy Department wants to open the Yucca Mountain
repository by 2010. 

Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the energy committee, noted
the department also needs time to respond to a July federal
court ruling that threw out a crucial Environmental Protection
Agency radiation health safety standard. 

For the Yucca project to go forward, the EPA must set a new
standard or Congress could consider a law creating a less strict
radiation standard than one recommended by the National Academy
of Sciences. 

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada would block such a
law, Domenici said. 

Energy Department officials have said they plan to announce a
new Yucca Mountain project timeline next month. 

"It is the department's responsibility to make sure that the
repository will comply with whatever standard emerges from the
EPA's ongoing process," Bodman said in written response to
questions from the committee. "My first priority will be the
protection of the health and safety of the citizens of Nevada
and the rest of the country." 

Bodman, who also has served as deputy secretary of the Commerce
Department, spent 31 years in the private sector. He worked at
Fidelity Investments and Cabot Corp., an international chemical
company. He is a chemical engineer and a former professor at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he received his
doctor of science degree. 

-- 


 
*****************************************************************
 31 Arkansas News Bureau: Lincoln revives SEFOR clean-up bill
 
WASHINGTON D.C. BUREAU 
  
Today's Vic Harville Cartoon 

Wednesday, Jan 26, 2005 

By Alison Vekshin
Stephens Washington Bureau 

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., has renewed efforts
to clean up a 37-year-old contaminated former nuclear reactor
site south of Fayetteville.

 Lincoln re-introduced a bill on Monday directing the Energy
Department to rid the Southwest Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor
(SEFOR) of asbestos, explosive chemicals and other toxic
materials.

 "The federal government helped create these contaminants, and
therefore should pay to help clean them up," Lincoln said in a
statement.

 The bill would require the Energy Department to oversee the
decontamination process, a controversial point since the
department has argued the reactor is the responsibility of the
University of Arkansas.

 Owned by the university since 1975, the reactor is located on a
128-acre, restricted site west of Strickler, about 18 miles
southwest of Fayetteville and 29 miles northwest of Fort Smith.

 The reactor was built in 1968 by the Southwest Atomic Energy
Associates, a consortium of investor-owned electric utilities.
The now-defunct U.S. Atomic Energy Commission managed the
reactor's construction and operation. 

The reactor tested liquid metal fast breeder reactor fuel from
1969 until it was shut down in 1972.

 In recent years, Lincoln has tried various ways to get a
clean-up bill passed, including inserting the language into a
sweeping energy bill. Congress so far has failed to pass the
legislation. 

"We've had a real promising effort with it," Lincoln said
Tuesday. "Consistently, as we've introduced it, we've gotten it
into larger bills, which is the real ticket because we know it's
going to be difficult to pass on its own."

 Lincoln said she planned to once again try adding the Arkansas
clean-up to a larger energy bill that Congress is expected to
debate. 

Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., is a co-sponsor of Lincoln's bill.

 Pryor believes that "bottom line, the government should take
responsibility for its experiment, clean up the contaminated
site and allow the University of Arkansas to put this land to
good use," spokesman Rodell Mollineau said. 

The Lincoln measure authorizes $16 million for decontamination. 

The process would cost between $16 million and $18 million and
would take about four years, said Collis Geren, dean of the
University of Arkansas Graduate School and vice provost for
research.

 "It is a federal problem because we do not have the state
resources to clean up the site that was created by the federal
government," he said.

 Geren said the university spends at least $50,000 annually on
monitoring, routine testing and repairs at the site.

 "Ideally, I would like to see it turned into a green field,"
Geren said. 

-- 30 --


Copyright © Arkansas News Bureau, 2003 - 2005 
*****************************************************************
 32 www.mineweb.net: energy Uranium decades away from major new production
 
 By: By Dorothy Kosich

 Posted: '26-JAN-05 03:00' GMT © Mineweb 1997-2004

VANCOUVER--(Mineweb.com) Gerald Grandey, President and CEO of
major uranium miner Cameco, declared Tuesday that his industry
"has been starved for exploration for three decades."
 
Meanwhile, one of the biggest challenges faced by uranium mining
companies is how quickly new projects can be permitted,
developed and brought in production. In a presentation to the
Mineral Exploration Roundup and a subsequent news conference,
Grandey insisted that the uranium mining industry is "decades
away from having significant new production." 

"The essential issue about nuclear power is not whether it will
grow, but how fast," Grandey declared. "Will it grow fast enough
to meet the world's urgent need for clean energy? And will
exploration for uranium fuel keep pace?" 

Three years ago, only ten junior uranium exploration companies
were seeking uranium worldwide, he said. "Today, there are over
45 in Saskatchewan, many more in the world and new ones being
created every day." Cameco has budgeted C$22 million for
exploration in 2005, he added. 

Annual world consumption of uranium is 180 million pounds while
mines are only producing 100 million pounds yearly, according to
Grandey, despite the fact that uranium is 40 times more common
than silver. Meanwhile, the spot price of uranium has doubled
within the past decade. 

Grandey insists that the nuclear power industry "is in the early
stages of a renaissance, leading someday to a complete
transformation of world energy supply. ...The issue, quite
simply is how to meet the world's energy needs in the coming
decades." 

"In the years to come, all forms of energy will be
required--renewables, fossil and nuclear," Grandey explained.
"The world is rediscovering the benefits of nuclear energy and
so are investors. Nuclear energy is no longer in the proverbial
woodshed." 

Grandey said more than 440 nuclear power reactors generate 16%
of the world's electricity. "These reactors avoid the emission
of over two billion tonnes of carbon dioxide annually and large
quantifies of toxic air pollutants. ...We will require hundreds
of new nuclear power plants by mid-century, producing not only
electricity--but clean water and, most like hydrogen," he
insisted. 

The decision of two significant environmental activists, global
warming expert James Lovelock and Bishop Hugh Montefiore, to
support nuclear power to reduce global warming is significant in
Grandey's opinion. "Studies by MIT, the University of Chicago
and projections by the International Energy Agency and the World
Energy Council all point to the same conclusion. Our need for
clean energy on the scale required cannot be met without
increased use of nuclear power," he declared. 

"The value of uranium, discovered and yet to be discovered,
could be magnified many times over by emerging technologies like
hydrogen," according to Grandey. "Hydrogen technology offers a
means to store enormous quantities of electricity which can be
used, on demand, in cleanly powered transportation and in homes
and industry." 

Even nuclear waste may prove to be the "strongest singular asset
of our industry," Grandey claimed. Used nuclear fuel is a
resource, which will retain 90% of its energy after decades. 
Grandey noted that very little uranium is hedged, estimating
that hedge funds trade about one million pounds annually.

Meanwhile, considerable capital is being directed for uranium
projects in Australia and Africa. Meanwhile, Cameco is
contemplating restarting reactors which belonged to Bruce Power.
Within the next six months, Grandey said Cameco will decide if
it will get into power generation. 

Cameco does not fear being a potential takeover target for the
Chinese or other international companies because of Canada's
limitation on foreign ownership, he added.


  © Mineweb, a division of Moneyweb Holdings Limited, 1997-2004.
*****************************************************************
 33 Las Vegas SUN: Court orders common ground on Yucca documents

Today: January 26, 2005 at 9:48:18 PST 

By Suzanne Struglinski <suzanne@lasvegassun.com> SUN WASHINGTON 
BUREAU

 WASHINGTON-- An administrative court wants the lawyers for
Nevada and the Energy Department to find common ground regarding
the handling of millions of Yucca Mountain project documents
destined for a federal database.

 Lawyers for the state expected to have to raise numerous
complaints about documents the department marked as "privileged"
information that may not deserve the distinction, which would
drag out an already delayed process even longer.

 But on Tuesday, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, a board
within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said it needs to set
specific criteria for marking documents privileged to avoid
"hundreds, if not thousands" of disputes.

 "Mindful of the enormous task that looms before us, it is
incumbent on this board to develop procedures to manage and to
resolve efficiently a very large number of privilege disputes,"
the board's decision notes.

 The board gave Nevada, the department and the commission 40
days to submit an agreed upon procedure for handling the
documents.

 Last year, the board rejected the department's first attempt to
finalize its documents based on objections raised by the state.
The database, known as the License Support Network, is supposed
to contain all documents related to work on the application,
from lengthy technical documents to e-mails between department
employees. The commission cannot start work on the project's
license application, once submitted by the department, until six
months after the documents are finalized.

 As an example of the many problems, Nevada's lawyer Joe Egan
cited the database's classification of 2,200 documents on Alloy
22 as privileged information. Alloy 22 is the metal to be used
to make the storage containers for the nuclear waste. There was
no indication as to why users could not see those documents
about Alloy 22, Egan complained.

 Egan and the state's other lawyers also have complained that
the department has refused to provide them with a copy of the
software the department uses to sort through its documents.

 
 
*****************************************************************
 34 Las Vegas SUN: Bodman sets new Yucca deadline

Today: January 26, 2005 at 11:19:26 PST 

License application to be delayed again

 By Benjamin Grove 
 LAS VEGAS SUN

 WASHINGTON -- The man expected to be confirmed as the new
energy secretary said the Energy Department would submit its
license application to construct Yucca Mountain "by the end of
the calendar year" -- an admission that the nuclear waste
repository program may be another year behind schedule.

 The Energy Department had hoped to submit the application to
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the end of 2004. But the
department missed the deadline, in part because it is still
reviewing several million Yucca documents.

 As part of his confirmation process, energy secretary nominee
Samuel Bodman responded in writing this week to wide-ranging
questions on energy issues from senators on the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee. In response to a question about the
long-delayed Yucca repository, Bodman wrote: "Although I am not
personally familiar with the details of the Yucca Mountain
licensing process, I have been informed that the department is
currently working through the schedule with its contractor and
over half of the documents (2.1 million) are yet to be reviewed."

 That was not surprising news to two leading Yucca advocates in
the Senate.

 "There have been so many delays that it's not disheartening,"
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the energy panel, said
today after the panel approved Bodman's nomination. "This ought
to be the last significant delay. We ought to get on with this
if it's going to be a significant part of nuclear (power
generation)."

 Domenici also noted that the Energy Department needs additional
time to "thoroughly analyze" a July federal court ruling that
threw out a 10,000-year radiation health safety standard set for
the repository. That ruling effectively stalled Yucca because
the department's license application aims to prove to the NRC
that the repository can meet that safety standard, set by the
Environmental Protection Agency. With the standard in question,
so is the license application.

 For Yucca to proceed, the EPA must set a new standard or
otherwise respond to the court ruling, or Congress could
legislate a new standard that Yucca could meet.

 But the latter option likely won't happen because Senate
Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada would block it, Domenici
said today. Legislating a new standard would be "too difficult"
politically, he said.

 Energy Department officials have said they planned announce a
new Yucca Mountain project timeline next month. Sen. Larry
Craig, R-Idaho, a longtime advocate of Yucca, today said he had
not heard that the department may not be ready to submit the
license application until the end of the year.

 "We will push this issue to move it along as quickly as
possible," Craig said. "We want this to be a thorough,
transparent, valid process. If due diligence means more time,
fine."

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which would license and
regulate Yucca, also had not been notified by the Energy
Department that the license application could be submitted as
late as year's end, NRC spokeswoman Sue Gagner said.

 A nuclear industry spokesman today said industry leaders expect
the department to turn in the application this year. "The sooner
the better," said Steve Kerekes, spokesman for the Nuclear
Energy Institute, the top industry and Yucca lobby group in
Washington. Industry leaders have implored Bodman to advance
U.S. nuclear power generation by supporting the construction of
new nuclear plants and Yucca Mountain.

 The Senate panel also asked Bodman: Do you agree that the
nation needs a permanent nuclear waste repository, and is Yucca
the best site?

 Bodman answered in writing with a simple, "Yes."

 Another question: Will you work with Congress to ensure full
funding for Yucca?

 Again, Bodman answered, "Yes." Yucca advocates in Congress have
long sought to give the Energy Department the money it requests
each year, but Reid negotiates to cut the program budget. Last
year the department asked for $880 million for Yucca but got
about $577 million.

 Bodman sidestepped a question about whether Yucca could meet
the radiation standard recommended by the National Academy of
Sciences.

 "My first priority will be the protection of the health and
safety of the citizens of Nevada and the rest of the country,"
Bodman wrote. "It is the department's responsibility to make
sure that the repository will comply with whatever standard
emerges from the EPA's ongoing process."

 Michele Boyd, an analyst with Public Citizen who tracks Yucca
issues, said she was glad to hear that Bodman is pledging to
protect public health, but it will be difficult for Yucca to
meet a radiation standard that accomplishes that.

 The full Senate is likely to approve Bodman, who currently
serves as deputy secretary of the Treasury Department, as early
as this afternoon.

 The Energy Department has a notable presence in Nevada. In
addition to Yucca, the department's affiliate, the Nuclear
Security Administration, runs the Nevada Test Site.

 But Bodman's views on a number of energy issues including Yucca
are not widely known, and perhaps not fully shaped yet, Yucca
observers said.

 Reid and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., have each met privately with
Bodman. Reid has not decided how he will vote on Bodman, a
spokeswoman said today. Ensign has found no reason to vote
against Bodman, he said.

 In his Senate confirmation hearing in committee last week,
Bodman vowed to "follow through with Yucca Mountain." The
repository, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, has long been beset
by congressional budget cuts and delays.

 Energy Department officials have long said they plan to open
Yucca by 2010, although Yucca critics say that is highly
unlikely. Congress originally set a goal of opening Yucca by
1998.

 Bodman also faces running a department grappling with how best
to meet the energy needs of a growing nation. The department
also manages a number of low- and high-level radioactive waste
issues and oversees billions of dollars in research projects.

 Bodman, who also has served as deputy secretary of the Commerce
Department, spent 31 years in the private sector. He worked at
Fidelity Investments and Cabot Corp., an international chemical
company. He is a chemical engineer and a former professor at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he received his
doctor of science degree.

 
 
*****************************************************************
 35 CNW: UEX Acquires Five New Uranium Projects in Northern Athabasca Basin 

Canada NewsWire: 

[CNW Group]                                                           
				 			  
    Trading Symbol: UEX-TSX

    VANCOUVER, Jan. 26 /CNW/ - UEX Corporation ("UEX") is pleased 
to announce that it has acquired five new uranium projects in the 
northern Athabasca Basin (the "Basin"). The five 100%-owned 
projects, totaling 83,758 hectares (206,900 acres) are located on 
the northern rim of the Basin near Stony Rapids, Saskatchewan. 
UEX staked the ground following a new uranium discovery at the 
Black Lake Uranium Project, a joint venture between UEX and AREVA 
subsidiary COGEMA Resources Inc. ("COGEMA"). The Black Lake 
discovery has renewed interest in the northern Basin, with its 
numerous uraniferous occurrences such as radioactive boulders, 
radioactive springs, and lake sediment and uranium-in-till 
anomalies.

    UEX's new projects are as follows:
    Butler Lake - 19,648 hectares (48,531 acres)
    Fond du Lac - 16,838 hectares (41,590 acres)
    Otherside River - 12,762 hectares (31,522 acres)
    Munroe Lake - 18,275 hectares (45,139 acres)
    Jacques Point - 16,235 hectares (40,100 acres)
    To access a map depicting the new projects, please visit 
UEX's website at www.uex-corporation.com under "Latest Updates".

    The northern rim of the Basin is relatively underexplored 
compared to its southeastern and western regions, where uranium 
mines were discovered and developed beginning in the late 1960s. 
In the 1970s, explorers such as Eldorado Nuclear Ltd., 
Saskatchewan Mining and Development Corporation (both predecessor 
companies of Cameco Corporation), Amok Ltd. (a predecessor 
company of COGEMA) and Marline Oil carried out prospecting and 
sampling programs, airborne electro-magnetic and radiometric 
surveys, and limited drilling programs in the northern Basin. 
However, the discovery of large, high grade deposits in the 
southeastern part of the Basin such as Cigar Lake in 1981 
diverted exploration funds away from the northern rim, and areas 
that had been blanket-staked in the 1970s gradually lapsed. Some 
areas of UEX's new northern Basin projects were held by Pioneer 
Metals Corporation ("Pioneer Metals") but work on those areas was 
limited, and although prospective, the claims were allowed to 
lapse.

    UEX selected the five new project areas in consideration of 
their favourable geophysical and structural characteristics. The 
most prospective ground in the Basin is characterized by a low 
amplitude magnetic signature and associated regional fault 
structures.

    2005 Exploration Program
    ------------------------

    A $950,000 (CDN) exploration program is to be carried out 
this winter on the five new projects, including airborne 
geophysics and diamond drilling. A new generation, 
deep-penetrating, airborne electro-magnetic survey ("MEGATEM") 
will provide blanket coverage of all five projects. The MEGATEM 
system has a substantially better depth of penetration than the 
airborne systems used previously to survey the area and is 
capable of mapping graphitic conductors in the basement to a 
depth of approximately 700 metres. The results of the survey will 
direct future follow-up of any conductors located by MEGATEM 
using ground geophysical surveys and diamond drilling.

    In the 2005 winter exploration program at least one drill 
hole is planned at the new Jacques Point Project on a target 
previously identified by Pioneer Metals, using a diamond drill 
from the neighbouring Riou Lake Project.

    About UEX
    ---------

    UEX is a uranium exploration company formed under an 
agreement between Pioneer Metals and Cameco Corporation. Cameco 
Corporation, the world's largest supplier of uranium, is UEX's 
largest shareholder and manages exploration at UEX's Hidden Bay 
Project. UEX began trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange in July 
2002 and is actively involved in the exploration and development 
of uranium projects in the Athabasca Basin. UEX now has 19 
projects either 100% owned, joint ventured or under option 
totaling approximately 390,000 hectares (962,000 acres) located 
in the eastern, western and northern perimeters of the Athabasca 
Basin, the richest uranium belt in the world.

           ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF UEX CORPORATION
                                  "signed"
                   Stephen H. Sorensen, President & C.E.O.
    %SEDAR: 00017609E
 
For further information: UEX CORPORATION, BOX 12151, NELSON 
SQUARE, SUITE 1007 - 808 NELSON STREET, VANCOUVER, B.C., V6Z 2H2, 
PH: (604) 669-2349, FAX (604) 669-1240, Website: 
www.uex-corporation.com, e-mail: uex@intergate.ca
 	
UEX CORPORATION - More on this organization                       
© 2005 CNW Group Ltd.                                                                           PRIVACY &TERMS
*****************************************************************
 36 Salt Lake Tribune: Hotter waste than class A? Sen. Arent says no
way 

Article Last Updated: 01/26/2005 01:07:18 AM 

Radioactive material: She plans a measure that would ban all 
waste not currently allowed; it might face a competing bill 

By Patty Henetz The Salt Lake Tribune 

Sen. Patrice Arent says she will introduce a bill this week 
that would ban all radioactive waste hotter than what the state 
already allows, pushing the proposal in advance of the expected 
closing date for the sale of the state's only radioactive waste 
disposal business. 

The Murray Democrat said Tuesday she would not limit the ban 
to so-called class B and C waste, but instead would make sure 
her bill would cover anything beyond the lesser class A waste 
Envirocare of Utah now is allowed to accept at its west desert 
facility. 

Arent says she is working closely with some Republican 
senators on the bill as well as with Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., who 
in his State of the State address last week vowed B and C waste 
"will not be dumped in Utah." 

Arent's bill could be introduced in the Senate as early as 
Thursday. But it might be overtaken by a competing bill 
sponsored by Sen. Curtis Bramble, who says he is considering 
amendments to a pending hazardous waste bill should Envirocare's 
new owners decide not to pursue the hotter waste. 

Arent said her bill is independent of Envirocare's sale or 
the concerns of its prospective owners, Salt Lake City 
businessman Steve Creamer and a New York investment firm. 

"From my perspective, this has nothing to do with the sale 
of Envirocare or its new owners," Arent said. "The goal is to 
get the ban passed." 

Arent also discounts Bramble's argument that banning B and C 
waste in advance of the sale closing, which could be as early as 
the end of the month, would result in litigation that could take 
regulatory authority from the Legislature or governor and hand 
it to the courts. 

A week ago, after a Senate committee advanced Bramble's 
Senate Bill 24, the Provo Republican said that because 
Envirocare had spent a considerable amount of money - between $5 
million and $6 million - to secure its state permit to accept B 
and C waste, passing a law banning it now could invite a lawsuit.

Bramble has sponsored other legislation, in particular a 
bill last year that banned certain late-term abortions, that he 
knew would result in lawsuits. The waste permit is different, he 
said, because the license is pending and banning the radioactive 
substances now could amount to an illegal taking of property. 

But Arent pointed to an opinion by legislative counsel Robert 
Rees, who said legislative attorneys didn't believe the 
regulatory permit amounted to a vested property right. 

Envirocare owner Khosrow Semnani in 2001 received a 
regulatory permit from the state Department of Environmental 
Quality to accept the B and C waste. On Dec. 15, Semnani 
announced he had sold Envirocare. 

Sources on and off Capitol Hill, including Huntsman's chief 
of staff, Jason Chaffetz, say Creamer has indicated he will give 
up the B and C permit if the sale goes through. 

State law now requires the consent of the governor and the 
Legislature to allow B and C waste into Utah. Bramble, who 
co-chaired a task force that examined radioactive waste and 
taxation issues, was one of eight task force members who voted 
against advancing a ban bill Arent presented at the panel's 
final meeting. 

Now, however, Bramble is holding up SB24, which embodies 
the task force's work. The bill moved forward to a final vote in 
the Senate on Monday, but Bramble said it probably would face 
"major modifications" should Envirocare's new owners decline to 
pursue the B and C license. Bramble won't say exactly how he 
would amend SB24. But Jason Groenewold, spokesman for the 
anti-nuclear waste group Healthy Environment Alliance Utah and a 
persistent critic of the senator and Envirocare, said Bramble's 
maneuvering "shows that backroom deals are being crafted to 
control the state's nuclear waste policy." 

--- 

Tribune reporter Thomas Burr contributed to this story. 

ABCs of radioactive waste 

State and federal regulators use an ABC scale to label 
low-level radioactive waste. 

* Class A waste is the least radioactive but most abundant 
and the only one currently allowed for disposal in Utah. 

* Class B and C waste can be thousands of times more 
radioactive than class A waste and its disposal is not allowed 
in Utah. 

© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 37 PISJ: Energy consumers stand to benefit from INL research 

Pocatello Idaho State Journal: Journal Views
 
An interesting fact: The nuclear waste depository planned for
Yucca Mountain, Nev., is already full. 
  
That's right. The safe storage facility for radioactive nuclear
waste that hasn't even been constructed yet is at its capacity,
according to the Battelle Energy Alliance, the new contractor at
the newly renamed 		Idaho National Laboratory.

Reservations for waste material created by nuclear reactors
around the country are at their maximum. When (and if) the
facility opens, it will fill up immediately with high-level
nuclear waste. 
Not something to brag about, right? Especially for an
organization that, if all goes as planned, will generate nuclear
waste right here in Idaho.

The folks at Battelle do believe this statistic is a bit
alarming, but unlike critics of continued nuclear energy
research, they believe the solution to the problem of an
overallocated nuclear waste dump is to do more nuclear research
and learn how to get the most out of reactor fuels and create
less waste. 
Present-day nuclear reactors are not very efficient - they
convert just a portion of their fuel into energy. The bulk of
the fuels are then deemed "spent" and require cautious storage
and eventual disposal into a safe and remote locale - hence the
need for a depository like Yucca Mountain.

But Battelle, in gaining the contract for the INL, seems to
realize the need to improve fuel efficiency. 
That'll take research, of course, and with the INL officially
designated as the nation's lead nuclear laboratory, that
research will likely occur right here in eastern Idaho. The next
generation of nuclear research in the U.S. will get its start
here.

It's a bit daunting and a bit scary, given the potential for
nuclear disaster. But it's also promising and, in the long-term,
the research may very well uncover cleaner and more efficient
energy production methods that will see our nation through the
21st century. 

So long as Battelle keeps as part of its mission the goal of
reducing waste while working to improve nuclear energy
technology, the company and the site will be very important
economic assets for our region.

There will always be detractors, and there's always a place for
careful oversight by outside interests, especially where nuclear
research is concerned. If Battelle, which officially takes over
the site on Tuesday, can find ways to invite critical input and
further America's understanding of nuclear energy by making it
safer and more efficient, the site's importance to the federal
government and the energy consumer in the United States will
become even more significant. 

Best of luck to Battelle and its mission at the INL. The world
is watching. 

January 26, 2005
 
Copyright © 2005 Pocatello Idaho State Journal
 P O Box 431 Pocatello, ID 83204-0431   
*****************************************************************
 38 Seattle Times: Three elk at Hanford Reach killed to test for radioactivity
 
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - Page updated at 12:32 P.M. 	 	 	 	
 	
The Associated Press 	 	 		
 		 		
 RICHLAND, Wash.  Three elk were killed at the Hanford Reach
National Monument to conduct tests to determine if they had been
contaminated by radioactivity from the Hanford nuclear site. 

Officials with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service tracked the
herd of about 700 elk early yesterday morning and shot three
animals. 

Initial Geiger counter tests of the elk showed no indication of
contamination. Scientists from Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, a national science laboratory under the U.S.
Department of Energy, also took bone, liver and muscle samples
for future tests. 

Results will influence whether more of the animals will have to
be killed. 

The rapidly reproducing elk herd has found the Hanford Reach to
be the perfect refuge, with no hunting, plenty of food in nearby
farms and few natural predators. In the process, the animals
have angered farmers and sparked debate about how to manage the
growing population. 

Officials with the Fish &Wildlife Service, which manages the
Hanford Reach monument, say they need to cull the herd by about
100 animals by winter's end. 

But officials have said no private hunting will be allowed in
the protected area this season. Instead, special hunting permits
have been issued to private hunters to kill any elk that wander
off the Hanford Reach to forage. 

Wildlife officials also want to make sure the elk herd is
healthy - in particular, free of any radioactive contamination. 

Members of the Wanapum American Indian band helped with
Tuesday's kill and hauled away the carcasses. The animals' heads
were given to the Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife so the brains can be checked for chronic wasting
disease, an illness similar to mad cow disease that attacks the
brains of infected animals. 

		 		
Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company 	 	 		

*****************************************************************
 39 Tri-City Herald: Opinions Protests over contracts demand DOE attention 

This story was published Wednesday, January 26th, 2005 

The successful protest of a $235 million contract to dismantle
Hanford's Fast Flux Test Facility ought to be setting off alarms
at federal offices here and in Washington, D.C. 

By itself, the Government Accountability Office's ruling in
favor of a team of Tri-City contractors isn't especially
troubling, especially since the reasoning behind the agency's
decision hasn't even been announced. 

But in the context of recent history, GAO's finding of a fatal
flaw in the way the contract was awarded casts doubt on the
process for selecting winning bidders on cleanup projects at
Hanford. 

Clearly, something is amiss. Until about a decade ago,
challenges to even the biggest contract awards came at a rate
that fell somewhere between rare and nonexistent. 

Now, the trend is toward a state of permanent protest, where
every award -- large and small -- ends up challenged by the
losing bidders. 

Just last week, a small Maryland-based business awarded a
contract to operate a testing lab for highly radioactive samples
was forced to stop work after two protests were filed. 

Last year, four protests were filed against the award of a
contract for Hanford's environmental medicine program. In each
case, the GAO eventually ruled in the Department of Energy's
favor, but that hardly made the protests painless. 

And two years ago, the $3 billion contract to clean up and close
Hanford's 210-square-mile Columbia River corridor was
successfully challenged. The new contract award is imminent, but
a winner still hasn't been announced. 

At first blush, all that might seem like a problem for DOE and
whatever companies are battling for a piece of the billions
spent on Hanford cleanup. 

But the uncertainty that's now attached to virtually every
request for proposals at Hanford is slowing the pace of cleanup,
damaging worker morale and eroding public confidence in the
program. Those are problems that affect everyone in the
Mid-Columbia. 

The right to file a protest is a necessary part of the federal
bid process, helping protect taxpayers as much as contractors.
It's a precaution that makes bad decisions less likely and
reduces the risk of corruption. But the costs are starting to
outweigh the benefits. 

DOE isn't entirely, perhaps not even mostly, to blame for the
growing frequency of protests. With the costs of putting
together a bid proposal sometimes running into the millions of
dollars, there's bound to be some sore losers. 

And the stigma that might have once encouraged discretion from
contractors has disappeared. With everyone protesting, no one
has to worry about alienating DOE. Each protest that's
successful only reinforces the trend. 

But that's no excuse for taking the successful protests lightly.
DOE needs to take a hard look at what's going on, inside and
out, or risk further damage to the cleanup effort. An open and
thorough assessment is essential to making future decisions more
bullet-proof. 

The introspection ought to start immediately with the FFTF
contract. DOE risks missing a chance to reverse a disturbing
trend if it views this latest GAO ruling as an attack on the
agency rather than an opportunity to improve the process. 

© 2005 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 40 Tri-City Herald: A clean hunt 

This story was published Wednesday, January 26th, 2005 

By Anna King, Herald staff writer 

Three elk were killed Tuesday by U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service
officials on the Hanford Reach National Monument, staining the
sparse grass crimson to answer an important question. 

Early in the morning, officials tracked the animals and selected
a few from the herd of nearly 700 elk to be killed and tested to
determine if they had been contaminated by radioactivity from
the Hanford reservation. 

Scientists from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory took bone,
liver and muscle samples for testing. But initial Geiger counter
tests of the animals showed no indication of contamination. 

The results will influence whether Fish &Wildlife officials can
trap and relocate the animals or whether more of the animals
will have to be shot. 

The rapidly reproducing elk herd has found the Reach to be the
perfect refuge, with no hunting, plenty of food in nearby farms
and few natural predators. 

In the process, the animals have angered farmers and set off a
debate about what to do with the growing population. 

Officials with the Fish &Wildlife Service, which manages the
Reach monument, say they need to cull the herd by about 100
animals by winter's end. But officials have said no private
hunting will be allowed in the protected area this season. 

Instead, special hunting permits have been issued to private
hunters to kill any elk that wander off the Reach to forage. If
those hunters do not kill 100 elk, government officials will
step in to either trap or shoot them by the third week of
February while the cold weather keeps the herd together. 

But first, wildlife officials want to make sure the elk herd is
healthy -- in particular, free of any radioactive contamination. 

Mike Ritter, Fish &Wildlife deputy project leader at the Reach,
said officials might kill two more elk today as part of the
sampling. 

The three animals killed Tuesday did not go to waste. Members of
the Wanapum band helped and hauled away the carcasses. 

"We will probably cook some over an open fire, freeze it and use
it for our Sunday services," said Patrick Wyena, a member of the
Wanapum band. 

After their ceremonies in the longhouse, the Wanapum have a
feast, he explained. 

About 6 a.m. Tuesday, officials in about five pickups drove
along rutted roads to find the wintering herd. They used
high-powered rifles to kill two cows near the Yakima Ridge on
the Arid Lands Ecology Reserve on the monument. 

A short time later, a young bull was shot nearby. 

"This animal is in really good shape," Ritter said, talking
about the operation to someone on his cell phone. "We are going
to gut it right now and see if we have any problems." 

The PNNL technicians waved Geiger counter wands over each of the
hooves of the animal to make sure the elk hadn't walked through
anything contaminated. Tissue samples were taken from the
steaming entrails and placed in plastic bags for testing later. 

The animals' heads were given to the Washington State Department
of Fish and Wildlife so the brains can also be checked for
chronic wasting disease, an illness similar to mad cow disease. 

Ritter said the hunt was done with care and he considered the
day a success. 

"The main priority was a good clean kill," he said. "They did a
good job." 

© 2005 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 41 Platts: USEC begins centrifuge component testing at Oak Ridge
 
  [The McGraw-Hill Companies]   
    
 
+ USEC Inc. announced today that it has begun testing together
key components of a full-size gas centrifuge machine at the
K-1600 test facility in Oak Ridge, Tenn. 

This facility, which USEC leases from DOE, contains special test 
stands that have instrumentation to assess the performance of an 
individual centrifuge. 

The current testing, however, does not involve the use of any 
UF6, USEC said. 

The next milestone for USEC is in June when the manufacturing of 
centrifuges for installation at the company's lead cascade 
facility at Portsmouth, Ohio is expected to begin. 

USEC has contracted with Boeing and Honeywell to manufacture 
those centrifuges. USEC said it still expects to have that lead 
cascade up and running this year. 

Washington (Platts)--25Jan2005
 
Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 42 WVLT TN: Former DOE Workers Just Want Answers

VOLUNTEER TV Knoxville, 

January 26, 2005 

Day two of meetings for sick Department of Energy workers in
Anderson County are ongoing at the American Museum of Science
and Energy in Oak Ridge. 
  
The meetings are sponsored by the US Department of Labor, which
is now in charge of the compensation program for workers, and
their families suffering from sicknesses believed to have come
from working with radioactive or toxic materials. 
  
As Volunteer TV's Eric Waddell reports, the workers we spoke
with today told us what they are looking for from the government
is simple-- answers they can depend on, a common message among
workers who attended the meetings, a need for justice. 
  
"It has been a lot of frustration.  As a matter of fact, I've
had a lot of people ask, do I get angry? I say no, getting angry
doesn't help anything," says Curtis Eskridge, former worker. 
  
But Eskridge and others, like George Latham, who suffer from
reoccurring skin maladies from working with cyanide, want
action. 
  
"I am hoping for myself but for all of the other thousands of
people that worked down there.   Especially those on unsafe
conditions that they will do something about it," says George
Latham, former worker. 
  
Clyde Chiles worked for four decades at three Oak Ridge
facilities. 
  
When he did his job with heavy metals he didn't wear special
protective clothing, he would take his work clothes home for his
wife to wash. Both are sick. 
  
"I feel like they owe us.  My wife has had cancer and everything
else," says Clyde Chiles, former worker. 
  
Most we spoke with are pleased that the Department of Labor are
now handling their cases. 
  
"I'd like to hear something before I die, at least.  It has been
prolonged, prolonged, prolonged. I know the money is available
to us all," says John Cadle, former worker. 
  
The question on the mind of many, are the words they are hearing
today just words, or will action follow. 
  
The Department of Labor said Tuesday that possibly tens of
thousands of folks might be eligible for claims. 
    
Copyright 2001 - 2005 WorldNow and WVLT VOLUNTEER TV,
*****************************************************************
 43 Las Vegas SUN: New Nellis boss sees continued growth at base

Today: January 26, 2005 at 9:48:18 PST 

By Jace Radke <jace@lasvegassun.com> LAS VEGAS SUN

In more than 24 years in the Air Force, Maj. Gen. Stephen
Goldfein never found himself stationed at Nellis Air Force Base
-- but now he is in Las Vegas commanding the Air Warfare Center
and overseeing the country's premier test and training base.

 "I think I'm probably the only one in this position who hasn't
served here in the past," said Goldfein, who said he was happy
to be assigned to Nellis from the Pentagon. "Here I have a
chance to be around the airmen. I have a chance to serve them
and provide vision and guidance and insure they have what they
need.

 "To command is a privilege, and I've noticed that the community
is proud of the airmen at Nellis and they have every right to
be."

 Goldfein, who took over command at Nellis in October, said in
an interview Tuesday that Nellis will continue to see new weapon
technologies in the coming years, and additional construction at
both the Indian Springs Auxiliary Air Field and Nellis to house
the systems and the airmen that will run them.

 There will continue to be growth in the Predator remote-piloted
aircraft operations at Indian Springs in the coming years
Goldfein said.

 "It's quite possible that we could expand to another squadron
in Indian Springs, or at least see the three squadrons we have
out there continue to grow," Goldfein said. "We need to continue
to meet the high demand for the Predator that has provided such
a great support capability, especially for our brothers in the
Army."

 Goldfein said that construction to house more Predators, which
are remotely flown by pilots at Nellis everyday in the skies
over Afghanistan and Iraq and have been used to strike targets
with Hellfire missiles, could begin by the end of the year or in
2006.

 The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is another high-tech weapons
system that could arrive in Nellis by the end of 2006 or 2007.
The F-35 is designed to take over the air-to-ground combat
responsibilities of the A-10 and the F-16, while the FA-22 is
being groomed as a replacement to the F-15.

 Goldfein, who previously served in the Pentagon as the director
of Operational Capability Requirements and deputy chief of staff
for Air and Space Operations, said Nellis will also be hosting a
new kind of Red Flag training exercise in March.

 Nellis hosts four Red Flag training missions a year, often
including more than 100 aircraft flying over the Nevada Test and
Training Range in mock combat situations.

 On March 19 Nellis will host a joint Red Flag that will include
the Army, Navy and Marines in an exercise that is the first of
its kind.

 "It will allow us to connect at an operations level, making
strategic decisions while managing large forces jointly,"
Goldfein said. "It should help us understand how to operate and
understand each other together."

 The Navy, Marine and Army portions of the exercise will be
conducted at various training bases, while the Air Force will be
flying over the test and training range, but it will all be
coordinated at the command and control center at Nellis.

 Goldfein, 47, grew up in an Air Force family, with his father
retiring as a colonel at Nellis. Both his brothers are also in
the Air Force, and his son is scheduled to graduate from the Air
Force Academy later this year.

 Goldfein said that he has been impressed with the warmth of
local leaders and citizens and their knowledge of the Air Force
and the service of Nellis airmen in the war on terrorism.

 "Right now we have a little over 500 airmen deployed all over
the world," Goldfein said. "We have security force, engineers,
pilots, and maintainers. You can pick a function and we've had
them deployed."

 The majority of Nellis deployed troops have been assigned to
Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle East.

 Also, members of Nellis's 99th Logistics Readiness Squadron
were named as part of the outstanding Air Force unit of the year
for serving as drivers and gunners in Army convoys in Iraq.

 
 
    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************