***************************************************************** 03/24/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.67 ***************************************************************** 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 AFP: EU studying Iranian plan for small-scale uranium enrichment - 2 Daily Yomiuri: KEPCO cancels plan to build thermal plant 3 US: Inside Bay Area: Jury awards whistleblower $2.1 million 4 US: SitNews: Punish government liars 5 sacbee.com Editorial: U.N. makeover - 6 The Herald: How to meet Scotland’s future energy needs 7 Asahi Shinbaum: EDITORIAL: Sweeping U.N. reform NUCLEAR REACTORS 8 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance Assessment for Palisades Nu 9 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance Assessment for Beaver Valle 10 US: NRC: NRC Approves Power Uprate for Indian Point Nuclear Power Pl 11 US: NRC: NRC Returns FirstEnergy Application to Renew Licenses of Be 12 US: NRC: NRC Announces Availability of License Renewal Application f 13 Helsingin Sanomat: French company to construct nuclear reactor build 14 Korea Herald: Nuclear energy key to growth, stability 15 New Scientist: Cracks may force shutdown of UK reactors 16 US: North Adams Transcript: Reduction in nuclear plant advisory boar 17 CNS News: Nuclear Power Set for Comeback -- NUCLEAR SAFETY 18 US: Guardian Unlimited: WMD Commission to Release Tough Findings 19 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Hyundai Helped Fund N.K. Uranium Program 20 Guardian Unlimited: Iran agrees fresh nuclear talks 21 US: Hawk Eye: Meeting in works for former weapons workers 22 US: Salt Lake Tribune - Opinion: Out of his mind? 23 US: NT: Toxic waste chemicals are disposed of by feeding to humans, NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 24 US: Bradenton Herald: State finds DEP at fault in plant contract 25 US: Bradenton Herald: State works to notify public 26 US: DailyBulletin.com - Opinions: Move radioactive pile away from Co 27 IPS: ARGENTINA: Uranium-Polluted Water Is Legally Safe to Drink 28 US: decatur daily: TVA: Clean air comes with price 29 Whitehaven News: SELLAFIELD PAID FOR LATE WORK 30 Las Vegas City Life: Yucca Mountain of lies 31 US: Las Vegas SUN: Nevada files brief in suit against nuclear waste NUCLEAR WEAPONS 32 US: MetroWest Daily News: Peace group targets nukes US DEPT. OF ENERGY 33 Guardian Unlimited: Feds Award Contracts to Clean Nuke Sites 34 DOE: Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting 35 DOE: Office of Science, Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee 36 Santa Fe New Mexican: Report details wasting of water at LANL 37 ENS: Nuclear Development Booms in Idaho 38 Tri-City Herald: DOE names contractor for $1.9 billion cleanup 39 Cincinnati Enquirer: Nuclear sword site now unplowed shares 40 Idaho Statesman: WGI gets piece of nuke cleanup jobs 41 PISJ: INL awards $2.9 billion contract for cleanup: Job to be perfor 42 PR News: CH2M HILL-Washington Group Team Selected to Lead $2.9 Billi 43 KLAS: Federal Judge Will Hear Shoshone Tribe's DOE Lawsuit OTHER NUCLEAR ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 AFP: EU studying Iranian plan for small-scale uranium enrichment - Thursday March 24, 06:11 PM PARIS (AFP) - The EU is considering an Iranian proposal to allow the Islamic republic to produce enriched uranium on a small scale, despite the bloc's demand that Tehran abandon enrichment to guarantee it will not make atom bombs, officials and diplomats said. Iran made the written proposal to be allowed to run a pilot centrifuge project for uranium enrichment at a meeting in Paris on Wednesday with EU negotiators Britain, France and Germany, according to a European official who asked not to be named. The European trio said in a joint statement released after the meeting that Iran had "presented certain ideas on objective guarantees that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes." But neither they nor Iran provided details. Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Thursday that the proposal it has made to the European Union on easing international concerns over its nuclear programme demonstrated the Islamic republic's "seriousness" in resolving the issue. Iran suspended uranium enrichment in November as a confidence-building measure to get EU-Iran talks going. But it refuses to permanently abandon enrichment, saying its nuclear program is peaceful and pointing out that it has a right to make nuclear fuel under the provisions of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, regardless of US charges that Tehran is secretly developing atomic weapons. The pilot plant would have a relatively small number of centrifuges, the officials said. Centrifuges, placed in sequence, refine increasingly enriched uranium with each cycle. In highly refined form, the substance can be used in the explosive core of nuclear weapons, but less refined forms of enriched uranium can be fuel for civilian nuclear reactors. Experts have told AFP the pilot plant would have 500 to 2,000 centrifuges instead of the 54,000-centrifuge cascade Iran has said it wants to build. The Iranians said they would allow close monitoring of a pilot facility by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the official said, adding that the European trio would "look at this (proposal) with experts." "If the experts find a way to monitor this in an effective way, then why not?" the official said. The United States, which wants to haul Iran before the UN Security Council over what it says is a covert nuclear weapons program, has softened its stance and agreed to support European countries in offering Tehran trade, technology and security incentives if it gives up enrichment. US officials however say that if Iran is allowed to keep any sort of enrichment capability, it would gain the capacity to make nuclear weapons. The Europeans told the Iranians on Wednesday that "for us it is clear Iran should not be doing enrichment," the European official said. The European trio made it clear that Tehran must give "objective guarantees that (the Iranians) take away from their nuclear program everything that can be dangerous" in terms of nuclear weapons proliferation, the official said. The official noted that this referred not only to uranium enrichment but also to reprocessing spent fuel, a process that can extract plutonium, which also can be used to make nuclear weapons. But a senior European diplomat told AFP: "If you want to have an agreement, both sides will have to compromise." The diplomat insisted that "the sheer fact that this (the Iranian proposal) is being studied does not mean it is accepted." "The only meaning of what is happening is that the negotiating process is alive and kicking. There is something to be discussed," the diplomat said. Iran and the European trio agreed Wednesday to continue their nuclear talks despite having failed to secure an agreement on uranium enrichment. Tehran had previously threatened to break off the talks that had begun in December if Wednesday's meeting in Paris failed to make progress, but both sides praised the encounter as constructive. Copyright © 2005 AFP AFP. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 2 Daily Yomiuri: KEPCO cancels plan to build thermal plant The Yomiuri Shimbun Kansai Electric Power Co. is to cancel construction of the Gobo No. 2 Thermal Power Plant, as it has determined that the demand for power will not significantly increase in the future, The Yomiuri Shimbun learned Thursday. Underlying the decision are doubts about economic growth and the intensified competition triggered by liberalization of the power industry. The power plant planned for Gobo, Wakayama Prefecture, was supposed to be one of the firm's largest, with an output of 4.4 million kilowatts. KEPCO also plans to postpone the opening of the Wakayama Thermal Power Plant in Wakayama by at least one year until fiscal 2015 or later. The two plants are among KEPCO's three major planned thermal power plants. Construction of the remaining Maizuru No. 2 Thermal Power Plant has already begun. KEPCO applied to the Gobo municipal government for the construction of the Gobo plant in 1996. According to the plan, the plant is to built on a reclaimed island off the city's shores. The firm began reclamation work in 2000. KEPCO initially planned to begin limited operations of the plant in 2007, but rescheduled it for fiscal 2014 or later. The firm planned to use Orimulsion, a fuel made from South American tar, for the first time for a KEPCO power plant. KEPCO had a capacity of 33.58 million kilowatts in its fiscal 2004 plan. Following a fatal accident at the Mihama No. 3 Plant in Mihamacho, Fukui Prefecture, last summer, the firm stopped all nuclear power plant operations for inspections and purchased power from other power firms. Normally, KEPCO has 3.7 million kilowatts in surplus power. Copyright 2005 The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 3 Inside Bay Area: Jury awards whistleblower $2.1 million [http://www.insidebayarea.com/ Article Last Updated: 03/24/2005 08:38:46 AM Lab operators express disappointment in verdict, claiming actions were merited By Ian Hoffman Jurors awarded $2.1 million to an ex-Lawrence Livermore lab worker after finding that in-house counsel and executives illegally fired her eight years ago chiefly because she was going to be a witness in a sexual-harassment case against the nuclear weapons lab. It is the second time that an Alameda County jury sided with former lab computer technician Dee Kotla, this time assessing double the monetary damages against the lab's operator, the University of California. "I feel good," said Kotla, 55. "I've been vindicated twice." Lab officials argued to jurors that Kotla was fired for using her lab computer to convert some files and disks for a friend's business and for making $4.30 in personal phone calls. "The Laboratory is extremely disappointed in today'sverdict," lab officials said in a prepared, unattributed statement. "We believe our actions were appropriate and our case has merit." Jurors concluded Kotla's technical violations of lab policy didn't warrant firing. Instead, the majority of jurors found a likelier explanation in Kotla's efforts to testify for a co-worker who alleged the lab tolerated the sexual harassment of several workers by a senior scientist. Lab defense attorneys asked her pointed questions and demanded the password to her work computer. "She walked into a hostile environment," said juror Charles Hartje, a retired Safeway worker. Within two months, the lab tried twice unsuccessfully to file criminal charges against Kotla and fired her. She became emotionally distraught and attempted suicide. Jurors awarded Kotla $127,000 in lost wages and benefits and $2 million for emotional distress and other non-economic damages. The university and its two nuclear weapons labs, Livermore and Los Alamos, often challenge jury verdicts and awards, drawing on a legal war chest funded by federal taxpayers. But the Kotla case, amassing legal bills at least twice as large as the jury award, could make that practice less common. A powerful House committee investigating the University of California's operation of two nuclear weapons labs last year took an interest in its billing of legal expenses to the U.S. Department of Energy. A bipartisan majority on the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed a provision denying reimbursement of legal fees to any Energy Department contractor at the first loss on the merits of a case. The House approved the provision last year as part of an energy bill that did not pass the Senate. "I think this verdict puts it over the top," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington, D.C., watchdog and whistleblower-protection group. "It's clear this case has gone through every hurdle and continues to come up a winner for the whistleblower. UC has no business spending taxpayer money fighting her." Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., expects the restriction that he authored on taxpayer reimbursement of legal expenses to the university and other Energy Department contractors will make the new energy bill. "I will continue to fight the reimbursement of costs associated with the wasteful, abusive and senseless legal maneuverings (that) Livermore has engaged in in this case," Markey said in a prepared statement on the Kotla verdict. He said he hoped the university would pay Kotla and let her get on with her life. "If these sorts of abuses are not stopped, Livermore and other DOE contractors will lack any incentive to settle cases with legitimate whistleblowers or refrain from pursuing frivolous legal actions against innocent people and companies," Markey said. While Kotla attorney Gary Gwilliam portrayed a high-level lab conspiracy to get rid of Kotla, several jurors said it appeared the lab's bureaucracy made several mistakes and miscommunications that required her firing to cover itself. The U.S. Department of Energy so far has approved reimbursement of $1.2 million of the university's legal bills, a figure that may not include $1 million or more in additional billings. Kotla's legal bills are likely to fall between $2.5 million and $3 million. Gwilliam said he offered to settle for $499,000 years ago. If the past is an accurate indicator, a judge will order them paid by the university as the losing party. According to the General Accounting Office, the Energy Department reimbursed 96.5 percent of its contractor' litigation costs, settlements and judgments from 1998 to 2003, paying out more than $330 million. The Kotla case alone, with at least $3.7 million in legal bills for both sides and climbing, is likely to end up costing taxpayers $6 million to $9 million. The laboratory's internal reports concluded the amount of Kotla's unpaid outside work could be "insignificant," plus $4.30 in phone calls. "I think in this instance," said Hartje, the juror, "common sense didn't prevail." Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffma@angnewspapers.com [ihoffma@angnewspapers.com] . ***************************************************************** 4 SitNews: Punish government liars By Martin Schram - Stories In The News - Ketchikan, Alaska - News, March 24, 2005 Our focus today is on governments that lie. Which is to say: Governments. Also, how journalists who cover governments communicate to citizens the fact that the government has just told another lie. Which is to say: Accurately, but usually euphemistically. Journalists who cover a town hall, city hall, statehouse or White House have all had the experience of covering a story in which the government is lying. It makes no difference whether the halls and houses are controlled by Democrats or Republicans. Lies happen. Sometimes daily. We begin with a primer on government lies. There are two ways government officials lie to us: (1) By telling us things that are not true; (2) By not telling us things that are true. So it is that journalists who cover government, like golfers, are required to play it as it lies, as a matter of course. It has become so routine that we do it by rote and write it in code. On Tuesday, March 22, The Washington Post told us about two instances that fall within Category 2 - lies by willful omission. But, of course, the Post journalists did not quite call it that, because we have been trained to use all the euphemisms that are fit to print. A front-page story headlined, "New EPA Mercury Rule Omits Conflicting Data," reported that the Environmental Protection Agency had contended its modest new limits on mercury emissions from U.S. power plants controls could not be tougher because the cost to industry already far exceeded any public health benefit - but the EPA stripped from the documents the fact that an EPA-financed study had reached the opposite conclusion. Indeed, that analysis, peer reviewed by a number of EPA scientists, estimated health benefits 100 times greater than the EPA said they were. A page A3 story headlined, "Justice Redacted Memo on Detainees: FBI Criticism Of Interrogations Was Deleted," reported: "U.S. law enforcement agents working at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, concluded that controversial interrogation practices used there by the Defense Department produced intelligence information that was 'suspect at best,' an FBI agent told a superior in a memo in May last year." But the Justice Department, at the urging of the Defense Department, blacked out that key fact when a federal judge ordered that the memo had to be released to the American Civil Liberties Union last December. Officials also redacted the agent's warning that the practices could undermine future trials of terrorism suspects. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., forced Justice to reveal the blacked-out matters and then released the actual memo, saying: "As I suspected, the previously withheld information had nothing to do with protecting intelligence sources and methods, and everything to do with protecting the DOD from embarrassment." This points up a need for another quickie primer. There are two reasons government officials lie: (1) Because it is easier/more expedient/less embarrassing to tell untruths and withhold tough truths; (2) Because officials know that mayors/governors/presidents rarely, if ever, fire officials who lie in their behalf. No wonder governments find it convenient to lie to their own citizens and even lie to the world. Consider two examples of domestic and global nuclear lies from last Sunday's news. On March 20, The New York Times reported about a home-front government lie: "E-Mail Shows False Claims About Tests at Nevada Nuclear Site." The article reported that internal Energy Department e-mails about Bush administration plans to open a nuclear waste repository within Nevada's Yucca Mountain revealed that the department made "false claims" in documenting its assurances that the radioactive material could be safely stored for eons. For example, equipment was certified as properly calibrated before it had even been received. On March 20, The Washington Post reported about a global government lie: "U.S. Misled Allies About Nuclear Export: North Korea Sent Material To Pakistan, Not to Libya." The article reported that "In an effort to increase pressure on North Korea," Bush officials had told Asian allies that Pyongyang provided nuclear material to Libya - but that U.S. intelligence had reported the material went to Pakistan, which sold it to Libya, and officials had no evidence North Korea knew of the second transaction. So we have four examples with one common trait. They are lies with footprints. It should be easy to find and fire the officials who invented - and approved - each plan to tell untruths and withhold tough truths. Just give the order, Mr. President. Martin Schram writes political analysis for Scripps Howard News Stories In The News Ketchikan, Alaska ***************************************************************** 5 sacbee.com Editorial: U.N. makeover - Kofi Annan calls for sweeping reforms Published 2:15 am PST Thursday, March 24, 2005 B10--> Repeated calls for reforming the United Nations, many of them from Washington, have brought forth a proposal by Secretary-General Kofi Annan that sets the stage for a debate whose outcome - ideally, at a special session of the U.N. General Assembly in September - is more critical than many of the United Nations' detractors understand. If the United Nations often seems to be a forum for empty debate, a bureaucracy devoted to self-preservation and an arena where the veto power held by any of only five of 191 member states can thwart action, it is also the proper place to confront the world's ills and, with great effort and compromise, resolve them. Annan has laid out a blueprint that many members will seek to alter, or shelve. But whatever its defects, it suggests a comprehensive approach to restructuring the United Nations in the hope of clearing away barriers to collective progress. That's a start, and none too soon. The debate over Iraq is not forgotten, and its residue has fostered a mutual awareness that such a bitter experience, if repeated, could do even more lasting damage. Whether consensus can be reached on fundamental issues is questionable. But if the United Nations is to play the role given it at its birth 60 years ago, finding common ground is imperative. Core elements of Annan's proposal, drawn from recommendations by several special panels, include: * Expanding the Security Council by adding countries such as India, Brazil, Japan, Nigeria and one or two others to allow them to play roles commensurate with their growing importance. * Replacing the discredited 53-member Human Rights Commission with a smaller human rights council from which, Annan says, abusive regimes would be barred. * Setting a timetable for wealthy states to provide 0.7 percent of gross national income as development aid. * Requiring full compliance with treaties limiting proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. * Agreeing on a definition of terrorism. * Adopting a standard under which the Security Council would determine when force could be used pre-emptively. * Strengthening internal U.N. controls to guard against scandals and improve efficiency, in part by getting rid of bureaucratic deadwood. That's a breathtaking agenda for change, any part of which will encounter resistance. Indeed, the Bush administration has reservations about the use-of-force proposal, which it fears would curb its freedom to defend U.S. interests. Nor is it likely to agree to a deadline for raising its aid contribution nearly fivefold. What's most critical is not the amounts involved but the process for determining who gets how much aid for what purpose, and how its use will be monitored. Still, this country would be on more solid ground if it were not the least generous among all wealthy countries. Notwithstanding the need for more effective economic aid, security remains the most critical issue. Nearly everyone agrees that the Security Council should be expanded. But no matter how many countries sit there, the use of the veto to defend national interests will remain a barrier to collective action. The impasse over the Darfur region of Sudan, whose oil China buys and whose military Russia supplies, is a tragic example. Despite the obstacles, Annan is responding to the demands for changes that can help the United Nations do the job it was meant to. But if the world body is ever to be more effective, major powers must agree to suppress some of their own desires in the interest of a common approach to challenges and threats. Merely to state that ambitious objective is to imply how difficult achieving it will be. But as Annan has often said, the United Nations is a collection of sovereign nations who are responsible for whether it succeeds or not. Copyright The Sacramento Bee ***************************************************************** 6 The Herald: How to meet Scotland’s future energy needs Web Issue 2230 March 24 2005 Times [http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/] Sunday Herald [http://www.sundayherald.com/] Your Letters March 24 2005 Anyone doubting the continuing usefulness of a strong Scottish voice at Westminster should read the excellent report published on March 23 by the Scottish Affairs Committee on meeting Scotland's future energy needs. Media coverage may well be skewed towards the debate over the need for a new nuclear power station, but MPs have produced a balanced analysis starting from the premise that we must safeguard supply and tackle climate change. The Scottish Council for Development and Industry continues to be a strong supporter of the Scottish Executive's renewable energy plans. This week we organised an event in Aberdeen for 150 local businesses at which they heard about offshore windfarm developments in the north-east. We are also pressing with some success for the government to pay more attention to the wider benefits to Scotland of pump-priming the growth of green energy by reversing the proposed punitive transmission charges from the Highlands and Islands. But, if the waste management issues can be addressed, it is increasingly clear that new-generation nuclear power should also form part of the energy mix if we do not want to become overly dependent on imported gas. Nor can we ignore the incredible demand for fossil fuels in China and India. SCDI endorses the MPs' call for further investment in carbon abatement technology. China accounts for a quarter of the world's coal consumption, and exporting this technology would undoubtedly be one of the biggest contributions that Scotland could make to curbing carbon emissions. SCDI argues that investment should come from the executive's £20m green jobs fund. The government apparently intends to initiate a debate on energy after the general election. This debate should start now and it is one of the challenges we are putting to all Scottish MPs and MSPs in our own manifesto, Policy Agenda. The nuclear case is of such importance to our economy and environment that it should form part of the forthcoming campaign. Alan Wilson, chief executive, Scottish Council for Development and Industry, 17 Park Circus Place, Glasgow. [http://www.pressnow.co.uk/] :: About Us :: Terms of Use ***************************************************************** 7 Asahi Shinbaum: EDITORIAL: Sweeping U.N. reform 03/24/2005 Japan should respond with its own vision. The world has continued to change since the creation of the United Nations 60 years ago. How should the international body be reformed to meet the needs of today? U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has presented his basic concept. The obvious focus of U.N. reforms is the reorganization of the Security Council. Formed around World War II victor nations, the council no longer necessarily represents the power dynamics of today's world. Annan's proposal is that the council expand its membership. Specifically, council seats are to be increased from the present 15 to 24. As to how, Plan A calls for more new permanent as well as nonpermanent seats, while Plan B calls for an additional nonpermanent seat plus the creation of new ``rotating semi-permanent'' seats. But whichever option is taken, the veto power is to rest only with the five current permanent members-the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia. Annan urged world leaders to think about these and other proposals and make their decisions before they meet for the special 60th anniversary summit in September. Enlarging the Security Council membership to better reflect global interests is vital to making the council more reliable and fair. It will also accommodate the wishes of nations that believe they deserve a say commensurate with their U.N. contributions and stature in the international community. Japan and Germany are strong candidates for Security Council membership. We welcome the proposed deletion of the ``former enemy states'' clause from the U.N. Charter. For Japan's ambitions for a permanent seat, Annan's proposals represent a big step forward. However, this is no time to be smug. For the Security Council to be reorganized, the U.N. Charter has to be rewritten, but this will not happen unless the proposed amendment is ratified by two-thirds of all U.N. member nations-including the five permanent members with the veto power. Now is the time for Japan to seriously consider what it should do to win the support and trust of the world. Obviously, Japan must present its own vision for world peace. Having found a niche in disarmament and nuclear nonproliferation, Japan should commit itself more firmly than ever to these causes, and also assert leadership in the area of human security, including economic cooperation. Japan needs the support of China and other Asian neighbors on Charter revision. And since the deletion of the ``enemy clause'' will be a subject of debate, Japan must sincerely attempt to settle all disputes over the understanding of history. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi ought to rethink his visits to Yasukuni Shrine in this context. One weakness inherent in the Security Council is that it tends to become paralyzed whenever the five permanent members cannot agree with one another and use their veto power. In fact, the council failed to reach a consensus on the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo and the issue of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Both cases resulted in the use of force without council resolutions. Something definitely must be done about the fact that the leading nations differ greatly on their understanding of the conditions that permit the use of force. This is why Annan demanded a Security Council resolution on guidelines for the use of force. A new set of rules must be created without delay to deal with new threats. We urge the United States to participate actively in debate. Annan asked advanced nations to raise their respective official development assistance outlays to 0.7 percent of gross national product within 10 years. Japan's current proportion is about 0.2 percent, and the amount itself is shrinking. Getting the figure up to 0.7 percent is one of the yardsticks of seeking a permanent Security Council seat. The world is eager for Japanese aid. --The Asahi Shimbun, March 23(IHT/Asahi: March 24,2005) Copyright Asahi Shibaum ***************************************************************** 8 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance Assessment for Palisades Nuclear Power Plant News Release - Region III - 2005-00 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III No. III-05-008 March 24, 2005 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov [opa3@nrc.gov] 31, to discuss the agencys assessment of safety performance for the year 2004 at the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant. The plant is located at Covert, MI. The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. at the Guesthouse International Lighthouse Inn, 2320 Phoenix Rd, South Haven, MI. Before the meeting is adjourned, NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the public on the safety performance of the Palisades plant, as well as the role of the NRC in ensuring safe plant operation. "The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Palisades plant and the nations other commercial nuclear power facilities," NRC Region III Administrator James Caldwell said. "This meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment of safety performance with the company and with local officials and residents who live near the plant. Our goal is to explain the NRC oversight process and make as much information as possible available to the public regarding our regulation of these facilities." A letter sent from the NRC Region III Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/pali_2004q4.pdf [PDF Icon] . The NRCs assessment concluded that the Palisades plant operated safely during the period. The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start with "green" and then increase to "white," "yellow" or "red," commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. All of the inspection findings and performance indicators for Palisades during 2004 were determined to be "green." As a result of this performance, the NRC will conduct the normal, baseline level of inspections during the upcoming year. Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle, IL, and the agencys headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant operations to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are emergency preparedness, maintenance, safety system performance, and radiological safety. Current performance information for Palisades is available on the NRCs web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PALI/pali_chart.html. Last revised Thursday, March 24, 2005 ***************************************************************** 9 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance Assessment for Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Plant News Release - Region I - 2005-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-05-015 March 23, 2005 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov [opa1@nrc.gov] Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company on Wednesday, March 30, to discuss the agencys annual assessment of safety performance at the Beaver Valley nuclear power plant. The period of performance to be discussed is Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2004. FirstEnergy operates the twin-reactor plant, which is located in Shippingport, Pa. The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. in Room 103 of the plants Training Building, located on Shippingport Road across from the Beaver Valley parking lot entrance. Before the session is adjourned, NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the public on the plants safety performance, as well as the agencys role in ensuring safe operation of the facility. "The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Beaver Valley plant and the nations other commercial nuclear power facilities," NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins said. "This meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment of safety performance with the company and with local officials and residents who live near the plant. Our goal is to explain the NRC oversight process and make as much information as possible available to the public regarding our regulation of these facilities." A letter sent from the NRC Region I Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/bv_2004q4.pdf [PDF Icon] . The slides for the meeting are available in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under accession number ML050750418. ADAMS is accessible via the agencys web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in using ADAMS is available by contacting the NRCs Public Document Room at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail at PDR@nrc.gov [PDR@nrc.gov] . Overall, the Beaver Valley plant operated safely during the period. The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear power plant performance. The colors start with "green" and then increase to "white," "yellow" or "red," commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. Because all of the inspection findings and performance indicators for the plant during 2004 were determined to be "green," Beaver Valley will receive a baseline level of inspections during the upcoming assessment period. Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the Region I Office in King of Prussia, Pa., and the agencys headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant operations to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are radiological safety, permanent plant modifications and the planned replacement of the Unit 1 steam generators and reactor vessel head. Current performance information for Beaver Valley Unit 1 is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/BV1/bv1_chart.html. Current performance information for Beaver Valley Unit 2 is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/BV2/bv2_chart.html. Last revised Thursday, March 24, 2005 ***************************************************************** 10 NRC: NRC Approves Power Uprate for Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant News Release - 2005-05 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-051 March 24, 2005 of Unit 3 at the Indian Point Energy Center by 4.85 percent. The NRC staff determined that Entergy could safely increase the reactors power output primarily by upgrading minor plant components, as well as performing evaluations that showed the plants existing design can handle the increased power level. The NRC's safety evaluation of the plants proposed power uprate focused on several areas, including nuclear steam supply systems, instrumentation and control systems, electrical systems, accident evaluations, radiological consequences, operations, and other technical specification changes. The power uprate for the unit, located 24 miles north of New York City, will increase its generating capacity from approximately 979 to 1024 megawatts electric. Entergy intends to operate Indian Point Unit 3 at the higher power level following its spring refueling operations. NRC previously published a notice about the power uprate application in the Federal Register providing the public an opportunity to comment or request a hearing. No comments or hearing requests were received by the NRC. The agencys evaluation of the Indian Point Unit 3 uprate will be available through the NRCs ADAMS electronic document database by entering ML050600380 on this Web page: http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm [http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm] . Last revised Thursday, March 24, 2005 ***************************************************************** 11 NRC: NRC Returns FirstEnergy Application to Renew Licenses of Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Plant News Release - 2005-05 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: [opa@nrc.gov] No. 05-052 March 24, 2005 operating licenses of Units 1 and 2 at the Beaver Valley nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years is unacceptable for docketing. The NRC requires that applications such as this meet very high quality standards, and the Beaver Valley application has not yet done so. FirstEnergy Nuclear submitted the license renewal application Feb. 9, and NRC staff have been reviewing the application since that time. The staff had previously discussed, both with FirstEnergy and other licensees, quality issues with recent license renewal applications. Beaver Valley continues to operate safely. "The NRCs primary mission is ensuring protection of public health and safety, and we cant do that for an additional 20 years of Beaver Valley operation unless we have complete, accurate and up-to-date information on the plant," said David Matthews, Director of the Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs in the NRCs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. "Given the gaps in the current application, we simply could not properly review FirstEnergys request." In a March 24 letter to FirstEnergy (attached), the NRC gives the company 30 days to decide what course of action it will take concerning Beaver Valleys license renewal. If FirstEnergy submits a revised application that passes the staffs initial review and audit activities, the NRC will establish a review schedule for Beaver Valley. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. L. William Pearce Vice President Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Post Office Box 4, Route 168 Shippingport, PA 15077 SUBJECT: BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 - RESULTS OF ACCEPTANCE REVIEW FOR LICENSE RENEWAL (TAC NOS. MC5913 AND MC5914) Dear Mr. Pearce: By letter dated February 9, 2005, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) submitted an application for renewal of Operating License Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73 for the Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS), Unit 1 and Unit 2, respectively. Notice of receipt of this application was published in the Federal Register on March 4, 2005, (70 FR 10694). The purpose of this letter is to provide the results of the NRC staffs acceptance review of the license renewal application for BVPS. The acceptance review determines whether or not the application is sufficiently complete to allow the NRC staff to proceed with its detailed technical review. The NRC staff has reviewed your request following the guidance in NUREG-1800, "Standard Review Plan for Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants," and determined that the application is not complete and is not acceptable for docketing. A description of the deficiencies found in the application is included in the enclosure. FENOC has the opportunity to modify its application to provide the missing and incomplete information. The staff will review a revised application, if submitted, to determine whether it is acceptable for docketing. We request that you notify us in writing within 30 days of the issuance of this letter of your plans with respect to your renewal application. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact the NRC Project Manager, Kimberley Corp, at 301-415-1091 or e-mail [kar1@nrc.gov] . Sincerely, Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412 Enclosure: As stated ----------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF DEFICIENCIES FOUND IN BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION By letter dated February 9, 2005, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) submitted a license renewal application (LRA) for Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS), Units 1 and 2. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.101(a), the NRC staff performed a review of the LRA following the Guidance in NUREG-1800, "Standard Review Plan for Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants," to determine whether the LRA is complete and acceptable for docketing. The staff has found deficiencies in the LRA and has grouped examples of these deficiencies into eight general areas. Each portion of the LRA that the staff examined contains similar defects. Accordingly, should the applicant determine to revise the application, the applicant should closely examine all the information in the application to correct all similar deficiencies. The examples are provided under each of the following categories, however, they are not exhaustive: (I) Information that is too general Some examples are: + The LRA provides information that is too general and inappropriate for review. For example, description of material type as "ANY" is listed in the aging management review (AMR). The staff cannot perform a specific review on "ANY" materials. + The LRA cites component names that are too general: + BVPS repeatedly lists material/environment instead of the component name. Material and environment are factors to be considered in aging management and, without more information, do not identify and list a component. For example, "structural steel in air," "concrete in air," and "polymer in soil above the ground water table" are inappropriately listed as components. If this type of listing is an attempt to identify commodity groups, it fails to identify the types or classes of components or structures falling within those groups. + BVPS repeatedly lists "non-safety related (NSR) fluid-retaining components in safety-related buildings and areas" as components. 10 CFR 54.21(a)(1) requires the identification and listing of structures and components subject to an AMR. However, BVPS has not identified the structures and components within the scope of 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2). + BVPS identified components that are too general for an AMR. For example, the LRA lists "Vessel (pressurizers)" as components, which are to be managed by the nickel-alloy nozzles and penetrations aging management program (AMP). In the LRA, however, this AMP only discusses reactor vessel control rod drive mechanisms (CRDM) and does not refer to pressurizers. The pressurizer nozzles should have been identified separately in the AMR and matched to an AMP, as appropriate. + The LRA cites intended functions that are too general. For example, BVPS lists "NSR Functional Support" as an intended function. NSR Functional Support can represent different component intended functions that would affect the associated AMR. + The LRA does not identify which piping and pipe fittings are buried. Also, it is not clear whether jockey pumps, fire hydrants, and hose stations are included within the scope of license renewal and subject to an AMR. + The time-limited aging analysis (TLAA) for the metal fatigue program in the LRA did not identify plant-specific critical fatigue locations with high cumulative usage factors. The AMP description for the metal fatigue of the reactor coolant pressure boundary only includes generic locations described in NUREG/CR-6260. + The definitions of the Notes shown in the LRA Tables 3.X.2-Y are not specific or valid (these tables appear in Chapter 3 of the LRA for multiple [X] groups of systems and multiple [Y] individual systems/components and are denoted as Tables 3.X.2-Y). The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) has established an agreed upon standard list of definitions, "Consistency Notes for Aging Management Review Results A-H," as set forth in NEI 95-10, Industry Guideline for Implementing the Requirements of 10 CFR Part 54 - The License Renewal Rule, Rev. 5, Nuclear Energy Institute, January 2005. The LRA deviates from this standard list by adding ambiguous definitions that are not consistent with NEI 95-10. + Application Tables 3.X.2-Y, Note U states, "Specific material/environment combinations were not determined. Comparison to NUREG-1801 is not possible." The staff cannot evaluate any items to which Note U applies because an AMR is not possible in the absence of the identification of specific materials and environments. + Application Tables 3.X.2-Y, Notes R, S, T, and V mention aging mechanisms. Aging mechanisms are not identified in the corresponding LRA tables. Accordingly, the significance of these notes is not apparent. Otherwise, these notes are the same as A, E, C, and B, in NEI 95-10, respectively. The staff has no objection to these notes in so far as they conform to notes in NEI 95-10. (II) Insufficient Basis for Conclusions Some examples are: + The LRA does not provide bases for the conclusions stated under the "Discussion" column in Tables 3.X.1. In Section 3.5 of the LRA, all items included under the "Further Evaluation Recommended" column were dispositioned by the applicant under the "Discussion" column as either "not applicable" or "consistent with NUREG-1801." During the review, the NRC staff searched LRA Section 3.5 for additional information for items listed in this manner under the "Further Evaluation Recommended" and "Discussion" columns, and there is no sub-section in Section 3.5 that specifically describes what further evaluation the applicant proposes for such items. + The LRA states (on page 3-22) that the NUREG-1801 program for managing the loss of material due to pitting and crevice corrosion in the steam generator shell assembly is not applicable because the flow accelerated corrosion (FAC) will dominate the listed aging effects. The LRA indicates that further evaluation is documented in Appendix B of the LRA for the Steam Generator Tube Integrity (SGTI) program. However, there is no basis on why FAC will dominate other aging effects, and there is no information in Appendix B of the LRA to justify how a program to manage tube degradation can also manage loss of material from the steam generator shell. + For Item 3.5.1-02 (on page 3-398), the LRA states that crack initiation and growth due to stress corrosion cracking (SCC)/cyclic loading is not applicable because BVPS components with this aging effect/mechanism are considered under row 3.5.1-01 (fatigue TLAA) on the same page. Row 3.5.1-01, however, indicates it is not applicable because there is no fatigue analysis. Thus, there is no information in the LRA to indicate how crack initiation and growth due to SCC/cyclic loading will be managed for license renewal. (III) Inconsistencies and Inadequate QA of Renewal Application Some examples are: + The LRA does not clearly mark the system boundaries in the LRA drawings to identify which systems, structures, and components (SSCs) are within scope and the use of markings is inconsistent. For example, LRA Section 2.1.2.1, License Renewal (LR) Boundaries, page 2-9, states that LR boundaries are defined by identifying the boundaries associated with the intended functions of the system. License renewal drawing conventions are not defined. There is no explanation of what the symbols in the "boundary flags" mean. An example of this is "LR-1-09" found on LR-8700-RM-409-1, which is not defined in the application. Also, LRA Section 2.1.2.1, LR Boundaries, page 2-9, describes how the applicant defined the physical/functional boundaries of a system. It states that "component designations" were used from an Asset Equipment List (AEL) but does not identify what these component designations are. + The LRA also does not clearly identify the boundaries of complex assemblies in the drawings. LRA Section 2.1.2.3, Paragraph 6, Page 2-11 states : "Some structures and components, when combined, are considered a complex assembly. For purposes of performing an AMR, boundaries of review were clearly established. BVPS results consider certain emergency diesel generator system components to be part of a complex assembly, based on their association with the active diesel engine component." However, complex assemblies are neither identified in the LRA nor are their boundaries shown on the LRA drawings. For example, LRA Section 2.3.3.17, Emergency Response Facility (ERF) Substation System, states that the ERF Substation receives standby power from a 2500 kw diesel generator, and LRA drawing 8700-RM-458E-2 shows the RG-EG-1 complex at location E2, but does not identify the boundaries of the ERF substation diesel generator. Similarly, LRA Drawing 8700-RM-458E-1 shows the engine mounted valve block at location B7, but does not identify the boundaries for the ERF substation diesel generator. + The LRA tables do not correctly identify notes in the "Notes" column. + In Table 3.3.2-26 (on page 3-297), stainless steel piping components in treated water or steam environments are identified as subject to crack initiation and growth. The application assigns Note "Q" to such components, i.e., the component is identified as "not in NUREG-1801 for this material, environment, and aging effect." The staff does not understand this, since this is a very common combination for component, material, environment, and aging effect in NUREG-1801. For example, in NUREG-1801, Item A.1.1 lists stainless steel piping and fittings in treated water for crack initiation and growth. + In LRA Table 3.1.2-1 (on page 3-37), the last line item on the page states that the external surfaces-pressurizer, which are made from materials of carbon steel, low alloy steel, and ductile malleable cast iron, are exposed to environments in air with potential for leaking borated water. This component item will experience the aging effect of loss of material and will be managed by the Boric Acid Corrosion (BAC) program. The application assigns Note "A" to this component, i.e., "consistent with NUREG-1801 item for component, material, environment, and aging effect." The application states that this program is consistent with the NUREG-1801 AMP in Item IV.C2.5-b. However, this reference in NUREG-1801 only lists low-alloy steel as the applicable material. + In Table 3.3.2-1 (on page 3-172), the line item states that the "collar" component which is made of polymers and is used for pressure boundary is exposed to an air environment. The LRA states that this line item will experience crack initiation and growth, hardening and shrinkage, and loss of strength as its aging effect and will be managed by the System Monitoring program. The LRA assigns Note "A" to this component, i.e., that the AMP is consistent with NUREG-1801. However, in Appendix B of the LRA, the System Monitoring program is listed as plant specific. (IV) Insufficient Explanation of Information Some examples are: + The scoping methodology description is incomprehensible. The LRA discussion of the methodology for identifying systems, structures, and components within scope under 10 CFR 54.4(a)(1) does not explain why some components classified as safety related were not included in scope. The LRA simply states, "This equipment was not considered within the scope of the LR Rule simply because of its classification." The staff does not understand this statement. + BVPS uses system realignment for scoping. However, the LRA does not explain the method used to realign components from one system to another system for scoping purposes. LRA Section 2.1.1.5, General Scoping Discussion, page 2-8, describes that some systems may contain only a few components that support intended functions. Further, it explains that for these types of systems, those few components may be realigned to an interfacing system, and as a result, the system that originally contained in scope components would be identified as not within the scope of license renewal. LRA Table 2.2-1, Plant Level Scoping Results, does not identify how specific components are realigned. In LRA Section 2.2, Plant Level Scoping Results, it is necessary to understand the effects of realignment. + The SGTI is stated to be an existing program that with enhancements will be consistent with NUREG-1801. The LRA includes a vague statement regarding enhancement of the SGTI program, with no detailed description of the enhancement to credit this program to manage aging of the steam generator shell. Enhancement of the existing SGTI program is beyond the scope of the corresponding AMP in NUREG-1801. In fact, NUREG-1801 identifies other programs to manage the steam generator shell. (V) Lack of Non-Safety Related Structures and Components Scoping Some examples are: + The LRA discussion of methodology and results for the scoping of 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2) components is vague and lacks description. The LRA does not provide an inclusive list of such components nor does the LRA include exclusion criteria. Components in scope under 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2) are simply listed as "NSR fluid-retaining components in safety-related buildings and areas." + In Section 2.1.1.3, the methodology for scoping 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2) components is incomplete. The components identified as within the scope of license renewal resulting from 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2) scoping are not identified in the boundary drawings nor listed in the LRA tables, and other such components that are subject to an aging management review are not listed in the LRA tables. Some examples are LRA Tables 2.3.3.8-1, 2.3.3.24-1, and 2.3.4.7-1. + There is no discussion of anchorage or the concept of an equivalent anchor in the LRA. + The LRA also does not include how sources of design basis information for NSR components were used. Also plant specific and industry operating experience with respect to such components were not discussed. (VI) Insufficient Information for Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis + The Environmental Report (ER) did not include a description of any unresolved probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) peer review findings or the potential impact of unresolved findings on the results of the SAMA analysis. + The description of the chronology and interim results of the various updates to the Level 1 and Level 2 PRA since the Individual Plant Examination (IPE) was not adequate. Section C.1.1 appears to address only those changes made since the last revision in 1998. Core damage frequency (CDF) and large early release frequency (LERF) values are not provided. The ER also did not describe any changes to the binning of Level 1 sequences into release categories, nor did it describe changes to source terms used to represent each release category. + The ER did not include a discussion of the major differences between the Unit 1 and Unit 2 plant designs and PRAs and how these are related to differences in the risk profiles for the two units. + The ER did not provide a listing of the accident sequences contributing to each release category and the respective frequencies of each sequence; the source terms used in the MACCS2 analysis for each of the release categories, including release fractions, release time and duration, warning time, release height, and release energy; and the basis for the source terms. + The SAMA identification process did not consider sequences important to population dose rather than LERF to identify additional SAMAS. Accordingly, no further assessment of any such SAMAs could be provided. + The ER provided an inadequate description of the SAMA screening process and the screening criteria used. The ER did not identify the number of SAMAs eliminated by the application of each criterion. + The ER failed to provide a description of the implementation status of each of the potential improvements identified in the IPE and individual plant examination of external events (IPEEE). No justification as to why these potential improvements were not implemented or addressed by a SAMA were provided. + The ER did not include adequate discussion on how the reduction in population dose for each SAMA was estimated. Section C.3 provides estimates only for the reduction in CDF. (VII) Lack of Discussion of Recent Renewal Review Experiences Some examples are: + Leak-before-break (LBB) analysis cannot be considered as an acceptable cast austenitic stainless steel thermal aging management program. The LRA does not include a flaw tolerance evaluation or enhanced volumetric inspection. Rather than using one of these inspection methods, the LRA substitutes LBB analysis. + The LRA AMP for buried piping and tanks is solely opportunistic for inspections. The LRA does not identify at least one inspection during the first ten years of extended operations in the AMP. + The TLAA for pressurized thermal shock (PTS) and Upper Shelf Energy does not include actual materials data, calculations and 10 CFR 50.61 analysis for 54 effective full power years (EFPY). This number is more representative of the EFPY at the end of the period of extended operation because of the high capacity factor based on current operating experience. BVPS only performed 10 CFR 50.61 analysis for 48 EFPY. (VIII) Technically Incorrect Information Some examples are: + The LRA states that cast iron is used in the reactor coolant system (RCS). The staff has no knowledge of cast iron in the RCS for any plant. + The LRA credits the Flow Accelerated Corrosion (FAC) program to manage cracking. However, FAC manages wall thinning, but cannot detect cracking. + The LRA credits the Boric Acid Corrosion (BAC) program to manage cracking initiation and growth for RCS pressure boundary bolting and for managing loss of material for stainless steel components. However, BAC manages loss of material due to boric acid corrosion, but cannot detect stress corrosion cracking (SCC). In addition, stainless steel components are not susceptible to boric acid corrosion. + The LRA credits the Metal Fatigue of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary program to manage crack initiation and growth for all mechanical systems. However, this program addresses the time-limited aging analysis (TLAA) for fatigue, but cannot detect SCC. Other Staffs Observations: In addition to the above concerns, the staff has identified matters that should be addressed should the applicant decide to revise the LRA. In particular, because of realignment, some unrelated structures are being put in common groups or identical items are being treated inconsistently, and this has caused longer review and required more staff resources. One such example is: The LRA Section 2.4.2.2 is titled "Auxiliary Building," but includes the Service Buildings and Diesel Generator Buildings of both units and Unit 1's Fuel Building, Primary Water Storage Building, Safeguards Building, and Solid Waste Building. LRA Section 2.4.2.10 is titled "Safeguards Building," but does not include Unit 1's Safeguards Building and includes Units 2's Fuel and Decontamination Building, Main Steam Valve and Cable Vault area, Primary Demineralized Water Storage Tank Enclosure, Refueling Water Storage Tank Foundation Mat and Shield Wall, and Service Water Valve Pits. The presentation is inconsistent in that Unit 2's Safeguards Building is under the title of "Safeguard Building" while the Unit 1's Safeguard Building is under the title of "Auxiliary Building", and that Unit 1's Fuel Building is under the title of "Auxiliary Building" while Unit 2's Fuel Building is under the title of "Safeguards Building". Another example is that LRA Table 3.X.2-Y, Notes K and P seem to state the same thing. This is confusing to the staff. Last revised Thursday, March 24, 2005 ***************************************************************** 12 NRC: NRC Announces Availability of License Renewal Application for Monticello News Release - 2005-05 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-053 March 24, 2005 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced today that an application for a 20-year renewal of the operating license for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant is available for public review. The Monticello plant is located approximately 30 miles northwest of Minneapolis, Minn., and its current operating license expires on Sept. 9, 2010. The licensee, Nuclear Management Company, submitted the renewal application March 24. It will be available on the NRC Web site at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati ons.html. The NRC staff is currently conducting an initial review of the application to determine whether it contains enough information for the required formal review. If the application has sufficient information, the NRC will formally docket, or file, the application and will announce an opportunity to request a public hearing. For further information, contact Daniel Merzke, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop O-11F1, Washington, D.C. 20555; Telephone (301) 415-3777. Last revised Thursday, March 24, 2005 ***************************************************************** 13 Helsingin Sanomat: French company to construct nuclear reactor buildings in Olkiluoto Verkkoliite [http://www.helsinginsanomat.fi/] | Friday 25.3.2005 Construction to take three years The French construction company Bouygues Travaux Publics SA has won the contract to build the buildings and structures required by for Finlands fifth commercial nuclear reactor in Olkiluoto on Finlands west coast. The supplier of the power plant itself, Framatome, announced the result on Wednesday. The three-year construction project should commence next summer. The deal is for the single largest construction project relating to the third nuclear reactor in Olkiluoto, which has been ordered by power company Teollisuuden Voima (TVO). Framatome sources reported on Wednesday that Bouygues won the contract in a tight competition, with the other participants coming from Finland, France, and Germany. Bouygues will carry out the construction work in cooperation with Finnish companies. The contract covers the reactor building, four security system buildings, as well as a building for the nuclear fuel. According to Framatome, construction companies will be asked for bids concerning numerous auxiliary structures within the coming year. Framatome did not publish the value of the contract. The structures will be among the largest construction projects ever carried out in Finland. The solid concrete outer shells are in compliance with the security design of European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR) power plants. The reactor building is designed to withstand even being hit by a large airplane. The capacity of the new power plant will be 1,600 megawatts, and it should be operational be the end of the decade, beginning commercial electricity production in 2009. 24.3.2005 - TODAY ***************************************************************** 14 Korea Herald: Nuclear energy key to growth, stability 2005.03.24 By Yoo Soh-jung The government this year has allocated 202 billion won for nuclear energy research and development, underlining its commitment to strengthen Korea's global competitiveness in the field. The Ministry of Science and Technology said the budget will cover such areas as future-oriented reactors, safe nuclear energy and radiation technologies. The ministry also earmarked another 28.6 billion won this year for the newest nuclear fusion research facility, which is part of a multi-billion-dollar nuclear fusion experimental project. Called the KSTAR (Korea superconducting tokamak advanced research), the new fusion facility project worth 309 billion won is being built in Daejeon with plans for completion by August 2008. The Korea National Fusion Program, which is managing the project, said KSTAR will serve as a test bed for the clean, safe and inexhaustible energy source that is similar to the sun's nuclear fusion. KSTAR is important for Korea's role in the ITER (international thermonuclear experimental reactor) project, which will serve as an experimental nuclear fusion reactor. Other participating countries in ITER are Japan, the European Union, China, Russia and the United States. Korea is the only participant without a nuclear fusion research facility. To realize the objectives of its long-term nuclear energy policy, the government draws up the "Comprehensive Nuclear Energy Promotion Plan" every five years. The current plan, formulated for 2002 to 2006, is the second since the first was drawn up in 1997. At that time, the government also proposed a guideline for nuclear energy policy until 2015. The decision to establish the plan was made with an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act in January 1995. The comprehensive plan includes long-term nuclear policy objectives and basic directions, sector-by-sector objectives, budget and investment agenda, among others. The Atomic Energy Act stipulates that the minister of science and technology and the heads of concerned ministries shall formulate sector-by-sector implementation plans for areas under their jurisdiction every five years in accordance with the comprehensive plan. They are also to establish and implement annual action plans according to the sector-by-sector implementation plans. The Comprehensive Nuclear Energy Promotion Plan covers 10 promotion areas -- nuclear electricity generation and reactor development, nuclear fuel cycle, utilization of radiation and radioisotopes, fostering and promoting the nuclear industry, enhancement of public understanding and site acquisition, nuclear safety and radiation protection. Others are radioactive waste management, basic and fundamental nuclear research and development, training of nuclear manpower and nuclear diplomacy and international cooperation. In 2002, the Act on the Utilization of Radiation and Radioisotopes was enacted to accelerate radiation technology development. The act aims to secure a radiation technology fund and support development of related industries and manpower. It also hopes to help establish the Radiation and Radioisotopes R Center by 2005. To realize the goals of the Atomic Energy Act, the Atomic Energy Commission wrote the "Direction to Long-term Nuclear Energy Policy Toward 2030" as early as 1994. This direction emphasizes the safe and peaceful use of nuclear energy with the spirit of pursuing a better life in harmony with nature. It describes four primary objectives aimed at contributing to economic and technological development, with the ultimate goal of improving human welfare. This encompasses enhancing the stability in energy supply by promoting nuclear energy as a major source of domestic electricity, as well as achieving self-reliance in a nuclear reactor and proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel cycle technology through comprehensive and systematic nuclear energy research and development. It further includes fostering nuclear energy as a strategic export industry by securing international competitiveness through the advancement of nuclear technology, on the basis of active participation and initiatives by the public sector, as well as playing a leading role in the improvement of human welfare and the advancement of science and technology by expanding the use of nuclear technology in agriculture, engineering, medicine and industry, and by enacting basic research of nuclear technology. To effectively realize the four objectives, 10 basic directions for a long-term nuclear energy policy were established. Some of them include continuing to expand the development and use of nuclear energy in the future, unless an epoch-making alternative energy source becomes available in the near future; to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes only and to consistently uphold this policy; to further strengthen the efforts to improve nuclear safety, recognizing the fact that ensuring nuclear safety is a prerequisite to the development and use of nuclear energy; to improve the economy and strengthen the international competitiveness of domestic industries through the advancement of nuclear technology. The basic directions also feature increasing the public's understanding of and support for nuclear energy while respecting the public's right to know under the ideals of democracy and openness; implementing nuclear energy policy in such a way as to promote balanced development of the entire spectrum of both nuclear industries and technologies; implementing nuclear energy policy on the basis of international understanding and cooperation in order to keep up with international harmonization; and consistently implementing nuclear energy policy on the basis of long-term perspectives on the techno-economic and socio-political environment. In Korea, nuclear-related activities are planned and carried out by various organizations such as the Atomic Energy Commission, the Nuclear Safety Commission, the Ministry of Science and Technology and the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy. Under the Atomic Energy Act, the Atomic Energy Commission is the highest decision-making body on policy issues and use of nuclear energy. The commission comprises nine to 11 members representing various sectors of the government, academia and industry. The commission chair is the prime minister. The Ministry of Science and Technology has overall responsibility for the nation's nuclear research and development, regulatory and licensing works. In order to deal with the important issues related to nuclear safety, the Nuclear Safety Commission was established under the ministry in December 1996. The NSC consists of seven to nine members, including the minister of science and technology, who is the chair. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy is responsible for the construction and operation of nuclear power plants, nuclear fuel supply and management of low and intermediate-level radioactive waste. (sohjung@heraldm.com) By Yoo Soh-jung 2005.03.24 ***************************************************************** 15 New Scientist: Cracks may force shutdown of UK reactors [NewScientist.com] 25 March 2005 Reactors in many UK nuclear power stations are in danger of developing cracks in their graphite cores. This could force some plants to close down earlier than expected, dealing a blow to the idea that nuclear power can become a "green" option in the fight against global warming. Documents obtained by New Scientist under the UK's Freedom of Information Act have revealed unsuspected problems with the country's ageing advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGRs). Government nuclear inspectors say they have uncovered weaknesses in the safety analyses carried out by British Energy, the company that runs the reactors. The UK's 14 AGRs provide nearly a fifth of the country's electricity. The graphite bricks that form part of their core help sustain the nuclear reaction by slowing down fast-moving neutrons. They also play a vital part in maintaining the core's structural integrity. While irradiation and thermal stress would eventually cause the graphite bricks to crack, new estimates suggest these cracks could develop up to two years earlier than thought, according to British Energy. In a letter in August 2004, the company warned the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) of "possible errors" in the computer models used to predict the onset of cracking. Radiation leaks In December, British Energy found cracks in the graphite bricks at one of the two AGRs in Hartlepool, County Durham. Cracking is now suspected in six other reactors at Heysham in Lancashire, Hinkley Point in Somerset and Hunterston in Ayrshire. Widespread cracks in these bricks could cause the core to distort, overheat and leak radiation. To ensure this does not happen, the NII has asked British Energy to conduct more inspections of the bricks. This means that reactors may have to be closed down for maintenance more frequently and for longer, at a cost in lost income of £250,000 a day for each reactor that is shut down. Two reactors at Hinkley Point and Hunterston are scheduled for maintenance shutdowns later this year. In letters sent in February, the NII told the stations' directors that their safety analyses of the graphite cores were "weak", and demanded answers to 47 technical questions about cracking before it will permit the reactors to restart. Shareholder warnings British Energy has warned its shareholders that graphite cracking could kill its hopes of extending the lives of AGRs, and that there may have to be "early closures". The reactors, which were built in the 1970s and 1980s, were expected to operate for 35 years, and not start closing until after 2010. British Energy stresses that, at present, no reactors have been shut down because of graphite cracking. "The implication is one of periodic monitoring and inspection within our normal programme of planned maintenance shutdowns," a spokeswoman says. Critics of nuclear power argue that the safety and economic implications are more serious. The worst-case scenario is that cracking could cause part of the core to collapse and the reactor to be written off, says John Large, an independent nuclear engineering expert. Pete Roche, a consultant to the anti-nuclear group Greenpeace, says graphite cracking highlights the unreliability of nuclear power. "Generic problems can shut down several large nuclear stations all at the same time," he says. "So they are not the best solution to combat climate change." ***************************************************************** 16 North Adams Transcript: Reduction in nuclear plant advisory board eyed March 24, 2005 North Adams, MA NORTH ADAMS -- Yankee Rowe nuclear power plant officials are seeking to shrink the Yankee Rowe Community Advisory Board as the plant's decommission is winding down and the board's regular functions are rapidly winding down with it. The board currently exists as an "unofficial oversight body" without any actual powers, and consists of 16 representatives -- 12 from nearby communities and four state officials, said Gailanne M. Cariddi, city councilor and board representative. It was formed about eight years ago to watch over the decommission and removal of the nuclear plant, she said. Yankee Rowe officials want to reduce the board number to seven, with only one representative for North Adams, Williamstown and Florida -- instead of the current three, said Cariddi. Also, the name of the board will change to the Yankee Rowe Spent Fuel Storage and Removal Advisory Board, with a new focus to advocate the prompt removal of the nuclear waste on the site, said Cariddi. "I think the changes to the charter are warranted, because the purpose of the board will change," though the actual number of board members still needs to be considered, said Cariddi. "All three local representatives are very good about coming to the meetings, so who would you tell to stop going?" She added that the plant currently has about a dozen one-and-a-half story, concrete, double-encased casks holding spent nuclear rods and high-level waste. According to current federal law, the waste should be sent to Yucca Mountain in Nevada, though many notable Nevada officials are fighting fiercely against taking the nation's nuclear waste. The board changes will be voted on at a public meeting on April 6, Cariddi said. --Ben Rubin Copyright ©1999-2005 New England Newspapers, Inc., ***************************************************************** 17 CNS News: Nuclear Power Set for Comeback -- 03/24/2005 [http://www.cnsnews.com] By Patrick Goodenough CNSNews.com International Editor (CNSNews.com) - Nuclear power looks set to make a comeback as energy-hungry nations look for alternative sources of supply. Environmentalists are skeptical, however, despite claims that reliance on nuclear energy will combat climate change -- a key concern of green activists. An international conference on nuclear power ended in Paris this week with a statement saying the "vast majority" of the more than 70 nations participating "affirmed that nuclear power can make a major contribution to meeting energy needs and sustaining the world's development in the 21st century." The statement said nuclear energy was proven technology, and one that did not contribute to air pollution or generate "greenhouse gases" -- pollutants many scientists say are affecting the world's climate. Participants in the conference, which was hosted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), stressed the importance of security at nuclear facilities, and the need for countries to commit themselves to preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Some 30 countries have civilian nuclear programs, but there are concerns that some, notably Iran, may use the facilities and know-how to secretly develop nuclear weapons. Although most operating nuclear plants are in Europe and North America, with 104 in the U.S. alone, anti-nuclear sentiment has grown in the West in recent decades. Four countries in Western Europe -- Germany, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands -- are phasing out nuclear power. At the same time, interest has soared in Asia, according to the U.N. nuclear watchdog. The IAEA says 22 of the last 31 new nuclear power plants started up in Asia, and 18 of 27 nuclear power plants now under construction around the world also are in Asia. The most significant expansion programs are in China and India, the world's two most populous countries. Japan and South Korea are also big consumers of nuclear energy, and Indonesia announced this week that it plans to build two nuclear plants over the next decade. In the West, too, there is growing recognition that nuclear energy may provide the solution to future needs. Countries including the United States, France and Finland are pursuing new programs. In his State of the Union speech earlier this year, President Bush called on Congress to enact legislation to support an energy program that included "safe, clean nuclear power." Last January, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi surprised many in his country when he indicated that Italy would once again consider nuclear energy after almost two decades of shunning it. And in Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair has come under increasing pressure - from one of Britain's most prestigious scientists, Royal Society president Lord May, among others - to give nuclear energy serious consideration. Risking the anger of what critics have called the Labor Party's "sandal-wearing left wing," Blair told lawmakers last summer that he had "fought long and hard, both within my party and outside, to make sure that the nuclear option is not closed off." "You cannot remove it from the agenda if you are serious about the issue of climate change," he said. 'Combating climate change' Concerns about climate change led to the Kyoto Protocol, a global treaty that requires industrialized countries to reduce by specified amounts the volume of carbon dioxide and other pollutants produced by facilities like coal-fired power stations. The production of electricity is blamed for a full one-third of these pollutants. The IAEA argues that if all of the 442 nuclear plants operating around the globe were shut down and replaced with non-nuclear alternatives, 600 million tons of additional carbon would be released into the atmosphere each year. That figure is twice the total amount of carbon that the Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce through emission cuts by developed nations by 2010. For proponents of the theory that human activity is causing "global warming," nuclear power should provide a "clean" alternative to fossil fuel-burning energy sources. According to the London-based World Nuclear Association, which lobbies for nuclear power, population growth over the next 50 years will see the world consume more energy than the combined total used in all of previous history. Although "renewable" power sources like solar and wind can help, it says, "only nuclear power offers clean, environmentally friendly energy on a massive scale." But many campaign groups worried about climate change are also concerned about nuclear energy, which they argue is "not the answer." Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Britain's Green Alliance, the World Wildlife Fund and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) in the U.S. all oppose reliance on nuclear energy as a way to combat climate change. Last month, NIRS responded to Bush's reference to "safe, clean nuclear power" in his State of the Union address by saying the American people and lawmakers should reject the administration's energy policy. "Where Bush sees 'safe, clean nuclear power,' we see an industry that spews radiation into the air and water on a daily basis from all of its reactors, mines, processing plants, and other facilities, and poses the constant threat of atomic meltdown," said the group's executive director Michael Mariotte. "There is nothing 'safe' or 'clean' about nuclear power." During this week's Paris conference, Greenpeace campaigners blocked the entrance to the government complex hosting the gathering, displaying a banner reading "Nuclear-free future." "Wasting money on expensive, inefficient and dangerous nuclear power is counter-productive to combat climate change and should be rejected by anyone genuinely concerned about the environment," Greenpeace France representative Helen Gassin said in a statement. The campaign group based its argument on the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. "Those promoting the benefits of nuclear power for the new century are in the same dangerous mindset that created the nuclear nightmare of the last one," Greenpeace said in a statement. "We cannot allow them to make same mistakes all over again, its time to move on to real energy security through renewables and massive efficiency." Safety, disposal fears Anti-nuclear groups and many others are concerned about safety issues, including radiation leaks and terrorism. At the Paris meeting, IAEA director-general Mohamed ElBaradei said security was a prime concern, both with relation to proliferation and to terrorists using stolen material to build "dirty bombs." "Our aim should be to protect nuclear materials the way we protect gold in Fort Knox," he said. Another key point made by anti-nuclear campaigners relates to nuclear waste disposal - what to do with radioactive waste generated in reactors. Putting the problem into perspective, Roy Hemmingway, an American who heads a government electricity commission in New Zealand, told a forum last year: "You can take 30 years of waste from a nuclear power plant and keep it safely in a space smaller than the average house, whereas the waste from a coal- or gas-fired plant goes into the atmosphere and can't be recaptured." The IAEA says the volume of waste is relatively small -- "all the spent fuel produced annually by the world's 442 nuclear power plants would cover a space the size of a soccer field to a depth of 1.5 meters." Nonetheless the material is highly-radioactive, and needs to be stored safely for thousands of years. Although spent fuel is today mainly stored at the power plant where it was produced, the agency says that in the long term, scientists agree it can be safely disposed "by deep geological burial in suitable hard rock, salt or clay formations, using both natural and engineered barriers to isolate the waste." Finland's nuclear waste management firm, Posiva, has won praise for its proposals for dealing with spent fuel in a country regarded as "green-friendly." The waste will be set in cast iron canisters, encased in a two inch-thick copper shell and dropped down a borehole drilled in bedrock hundreds of meters from the surface. The holes are then filled with bentonite clay, which expands as it absorbs water, protecting the canisters from any bedrock movement. Send a Letter to the Editor about this article. [letters@cnsnews.com] All original CNSNews.com material, copyright 1998-2005 Cybercast News Service. ***************************************************************** 18 Guardian Unlimited: WMD Commission to Release Tough Findings From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday March 24, 2005 11:46 PM By KATHERINE SHRADER Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - A presidential commission investigating weapons of mass destruction is highly critical of U.S. intelligence agencies' performance on Iran, North Korea and Libya and attempts to lay out what went wrong on Iraq, according to individuals familiar with the findings. None of the 15 agencies is expected to be singled out as doing an exemplary job of collecting or assessing intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. The report from the nine-member panel led by Republican Laurence Silberman and Democrat Charles Robb is expected next week. ``I don't get the impression that one (agency) is better than the other,'' said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and a member of the commission. The report comes at a critical time for the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and others charged with collecting, protecting and analyzing secrets. They all face the prospect of sweeping changes from the intelligence reform bill passed in December, including the appointment of a national intelligence director. President Bush's nominee, John Negroponte, has a Senate confirmation hearing next month. The new director takes over a sprawling bureaucracy, beset by infighting and finger-pointing following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the botched prewar intelligence on the threat from Iraq. The commission's recommendations will largely fall to him to implement. Individuals familiar with the report, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, said the commission devoted significant time to dissecting what went wrong on the Iraq intelligence, including many issues that have been examined by internal government investigations and the Senate Intelligence Committee. The commission, for instance, has reconsidered the issue of aluminum tubes. A National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in October 2002 said that most intelligence agencies believed that Iraq's ``aggressive pursuit'' of high-strength aluminum tubes provided ``compelling evidence'' that the Saddam Hussein's regime was reconstituting its uranium enrichment effort and nuclear program. In its report last summer, the Senate Intelligence Committee found that the Energy Department was more accurate in its assessment that Iraq sought the tubes for a conventional rocket program, not a nuclear program. The Silberman-Robb commission also closely examined U.S. capability to understand the weapons of mass destruction, or WMD, programs of Libya, North Korea and Iran. Libya has agreed to give up its efforts to develop such weapons of mass destruction and dismantle those it has. Iran and North Korea, however, remain significant hot spots for the United States. Intelligence operatives and analysts are not expected to get glowing marks on their abilities there. Based on Bush's direction, the commission looked at the merits of creating a new intelligence center devoted to tracking WMD proliferation, as written in the intelligence overhaul law passed in December. The panel also consulted lawmakers on congressional oversight and considered how the president actually receives intelligence, including his daily briefings. In contrast to the Sept. 11 commission, the WMD commission's work has been done largely behind closed doors, with only brief press releases about witnesses who appeared provided to the public. McCain said he's learned much about the intelligence agencies and how they interact now and in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. He said he's gotten an understanding of the value of ``human intelligence'' - or traditional spying - and that the report was worth the $10 million Congress dedicated to it. ``I think questions had to be answered as to why we were so wrong,'' McCain said, referring to faulty intelligence on Iraq. ``We needed to have recommendations as to how to prevent something like this from ever happening again.'' Final drafts of the commission's report are now being circulated among the intelligence agencies for declassification. Historically, they have tried to use that process to keep secret some of the most embarrassing or critical details of investigative findings. It's unclear how much of this report, which is expected to run hundreds of pages, will be available to the public. Commission spokesman Larry McQuillan said commissioners intend to release as much as possible. ^--- On the Net: The commission's Web site: http://www.wmd.gov Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 19 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Hyundai Helped Fund N.K. Uranium Program - Expert Updated Mar.24,2005 18:28 KST An American Asia expert says money Hyundai gave to North Korea might have accelerated North Korea's highly enriched uranium (HEU) weapons program. Larry A. Niksch of the Congressional Research Service (CRS), who regularly publishes reports on North Korea and the Korea-U.S. relationship, said in his Feb. 22 report Hyundai funds went into accelerating North Korea's secret HEU development program. He said the money Hyundai gave Pyongyang accounted for at least 30 percent of North Korea's foreign currency earnings between 1999 and 2000. According to a CIA estimate, it was between this time and 2001 that North Korea accelerated its HEU program, he said. He added it was at that time that the North went shopping for supplies and parts from abroad for the program, and its HEU program went from the research and development stage to procuring and installing equipment capable of producing weapons. But Niksch said the conclusion about the ultimate use of Hyundai's money was not the CIA's but his own, based on strong circumstantial evidence. The report said Hyundai's funds went straight into the Korean Workers Party's Bureau 39 reportedly managed by North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. Bureau 39 has been in charge of obtaining parts and supplies for the country's weapons of mass destruction program. Hyundai is said to have paid North Korea an estimated US$600 million for its Geumgang Mountains tourism project and two other business projects in the North, as well as US$500 million in under-the-table remittances, between 1999 and 2003. Niksch first fingered Hyundai for covert transactions with the North in a report released in March 2002 in which he claimed that the company had secretly paid North Korea US$400 million in addition to the US$400 million it officially gave Pyongyang. (englishnews@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 20 Guardian Unlimited: Iran agrees fresh nuclear talks Ewen MacAskill Thursday March 24, 2005 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] The Iranian government decided to enter into a fresh round of negotiations with Britain, France and Germany next month, aimed at resolving the nuclear stand-off, after a meeting with British, French and German officials in Paris yesterday. A European diplomat said: "On balance, it is a reasonably positive outcome. The Iranians have decided it is still worth talking and see benefits from this." Iran denies being engaged on a covert programme to build a nuclear bomb. Britain, France and Germany remain suspicious and want Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment programme indefinitely. Failure to agree a new round of negotiations would have triggered an international crisis, with referral to the United Nations security council and the possibility of sanctions against Tehran. Israel has hinted at military action. Sirus Naseri, an Iranian negotiator, said Iran rejected the demand that it terminate its uranium enrichment. "This is not something we're prepared to consider," he said. "There will be a further discussion within the next few weeks. Time is of the essence." The meeting in Paris was to review whether the first round of negotiations, which broke up in Geneva last week after three months, had made enough progress to justify continuation. Iran is entitled under international law to carry out uranium enrichment. Since negotiations began in December, it has temporarily suspended its nuclear enrichment programme as a confidence-building measure. Britain, France and Germany want an indefinite suspension as "an objective guarantee" to satisfy them that Tehran is not building a bomb. The three European countries have found themselves cast in the role of buffers between Iran and the US and Israel. The US initially favoured an immediate referral of the issue to the UN security council for the implementation of sanctions, but in recent weeks has swung round behind the European approach. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 21 Hawk Eye: Meeting in works for former weapons workers [http://archive.thehawkeye.com] Wednesday, March 23, 2005 Site updated daily at 11 a.m. CST NIOSH advisory board considering April meeting. By KILEY MILLER kmiller@thehawkeye.com The advisory board considering potential medical compensation for former Iowa Army Ammunition Plant workers likely will meet next month in Iowa. Fred Blosser, a spokesman for the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, said Tuesday the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health tentatively is scheduled to gather in late April. The most likely city for the meeting is Cedar Rapids. "We haven't nailed down a final location or dates yet," Blosser said. "We're still in the process of looking at people's schedules and availability and determining a meeting space." The advisory board has been reviewing a petition from individuals who worked on Line 1 at the plant, site of a secret atomic weapons program from the 1940s to the 1970s. Many Line 1 workers from that era now have cancer or have died from the disease, yet they and their families have been unable to win compensation from the federal government. They are asking for automatic access to $150,000 apiece through the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, legislation passed in 2000 to pay back the nation's Cold War weapons builders. At a meeting last month in St. Louis, the advisory board accepted the IAAP workers application for Special Exposure Cohort status, the designation needed to smooth the compensation process. But a subsequent decision from NIOSH rendered the board's decision moot. The IAAP issue is certain to be back on the docket if the next meeting is held in Iowa. "This would have been a regularly scheduled meeting at which the board would probably have discussed various issues," Blosser said. "But knowing the interest in the Iowa ammunition plant SEC petition, that would certainly be an issue we are aware of in considering the location. Bob Anderson, a former plant security guard and the lead petitioner for the IAAP workers, encouraged anyone interested to go to the meeting. Anderson also admitted he was lukewarm about the new meeting, after all that has gone before. "You kind of get the feeling of an end run," he said. The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 · 1-800-397-1708 · FAX 319-754-6824 · webmaster@thehawkeye.com [webmaster@thehawkeye.com] ***************************************************************** 22 Salt Lake Tribune - Opinion: Out of his mind? Article Last Updated: 03/23/2005 11:58:32 PM So, U.S. Rep. Chris Cannon wants to build a new class of nuclear weapons (also known as weapons of mass destruction) to “scare” (his word) others into changing their government. I have always broadly defined terrorism as the use of, or the threat to use, violence to advance a political agenda. Maybe the definition of terrorism should include the phrase, “only when such acts are perpetrated by the bad guys against us, the good guys.” While I won't accuse Congressman Cannon of being a terrorist, I will ask a simple question: Is this man out of his mind? Marc Hoenig Salt Lake City © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. All material found on Utah Online is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune and associated news services. No material may be ***************************************************************** 23 NT: Toxic waste chemicals are disposed of by feeding to humans, then calling it fluoride NewsTarget.com Thursday, March 24, 2005 Commentary | Home If I told you you could have great-looking skin by eating skin cream, you'd think I was crazy, but that's exactly what dentists are telling you when they say people should ingest fluoride in order to improve the health of their teeth. Fluoride is a topical treatment. When natural mineral fluoride is placed onto the surface of your tooth enamel, it helps remineralize that enamel, thus improving your resistance to cavities. But to swallow fluoride in order to treat your teeth is a lot like swallowing hair coloring chemicals to change the color of your hair. If you're going to treat the area with the topical treatment, you're not supposed to swallow it. You're supposed to put it in contact with the surface needing treatment. The whole argument about fluoridating public water supplies brings out, I think, the worst of organized medicine and organized dentistry. It shows the egotistical, power-hungry nature of the American Dental Association and those dentists who follow its dangerous philosophy of demanding that people swallow bioactive substances on command -- "for their own good," of course. With the fluoridation argument, a few people in authority positions want to force every single citizen of this country to be medicated on a psychoactive, biologically active substance without having any medical diagnosis, with no public warnings of side effects, and with no real studies to back up its efficacy. But that's just the beginning of this story... To make matters even worse, it's not that municipalities are actually dripping genuine fluoride into the water supplies in the first place -- they're largely using fluorosilicic acid, which, as I've covered before, is actually a toxic waste product produced in the smokestacks of various industrial chemical producers. If they weren't selling this substance to cities, they would have to pay a lot of money to have it handled as an environmental hazard and buried in EPA-approved landfills. Thus, it is illegal to take this fluorosilicic acid and bury it in the ground or dump it in rivers or streams in this country, but it is perfectly legal to sell it to cities that drip it into the water supply with the intended purpose of it being ingested by human beings. And those human beings, of course, eventually pass the fluoride through their bodies and directly into the rivers and streams. Thus, it brings us to this bizarre reality of fluoridation: this environmentally hazardous, toxic substance is illegal to dump into rivers and streams, unless it passes through the bodies of human beings first, in which case it's not only perfectly legal, it's actually demanded by ADA dentists. That's a pretty bizarre situation. (Of course, these are the same people who are still putting mercury into peoples' mouths, so what did you expect?) I'll hand it to the dentistry community on this one: they sure have come up with a creative way to get rid of toxic waste chemicals without using landfill -- just sell 'em to cities and call it a "public health policy!" Brilliant marketing. Seriously. Think about it: now instead of dumping toxic waste products into landfills where the chemicals leach into the groundwater supplies and get consumed by people, these toxic chemicals get consumed by people first, then they get flushed into the rivers and streams. It reminds me of the beef industry, where one of the USDA-approved feed ingredients for cows is, believe it or not, "chicken litter." (I'm not making this up.) Apparently, there's no good way to get rid of all that chicken excrement unless you feed it to cows. You can look this up on the USDA website if you don't believe me. Here's a Google search [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2005-08 %2CGGLD%3Aen&q=USDA+chicken+litter+cattle+feed] that will bring up some articles on it. With fluoridation, the American public is basically being treated like cattle. Here: eat some industrial waste products for us, please! Meanwhile, we're going to feed chicken excrement to cows, and then you can eat the cows after that, too! Heck, with enough segments in the food chain, they can get American consumers to eventually eat just about anything. Back to fluoride, keep in mind that all the public debate about fluoride isn't even about fluoride in the first place, because most cities that claim to be dripping "natural" fluoride into the water supply aren't even buying natural fluoride to begin with. They're buying the toxic waste product fluorosilicic acid and using that instead. Why? Basically because it's cheaper and it starts with the letters f-l-u-o-r, meaning they can pass it off as fluoride since most people don't know the difference. (There's a sad and disturbing history of mass populations being poisoned with things that start with "f-l-u-o-r," by the way. Fluorine gas, anyone?) I was just thinking if we used the American Dental Association approach of eating everything that's supposed to be a topical treatment, then we could revolutionize the cosmetic industry. Women could eat lipstick to make their lips turn red. People could eat deodorant to stop body odor. And we could just eat shampoo instead of actually washing our hair. Maybe the American Dental Association label of approval will be found on these products as well. Maybe people should just start eating toothpaste instead of brushing their teeth with it, because certainly a lot of children eat toothpaste already, and many of those children suffer from dental fluorosis as a result. (A lot of senior citizens in this country also suffer from hip fractures and bone loss due partly to an overdose of fluoride.) Or let's take a different track and follow the line of thinking of the American Dental Association -- let's mass medicate the entire population with lots of other drugs. Why stop at fluoride? Why don't we drip antidepressants into the water supply, and that way we can have more people committing violent acts and suicide -- documented side effects of antidepressants. Why don't we drip statin drugs into the water supply so that we can lower the HDL cholesterol of every citizen in this country? Believe it or not, that has actually been suggested by some doctors. They think we should mass medicate the entire population with a number of biochemically active drugs, with or without their consent. Fluoride could be just the beginning! The public waterways could be a genuine chemical cocktail... that is, if they weren't already. All this demonstrates how egomaniacal and power-hungry organized dentistry is today. These people want to force drugs into the bodies of people, and they want to do it through a system of subterfuge that drips these drugs slowly into the water supply. That way people are taking these drugs whether they know it or not, and they don't even need a prescription. I think the American Dental Association members and supporting dentists may have been dripping a little too much fluoride into their own water, because they've apparently gone mad with the idea that everyone needs fluoride in order to have healthy teeth. If you want fluoride, rub it on your teeth for a few minutes and then spit it out -- don't drink it. It's a topical treatment, folks. You wouldn't eat lipstick or deodorant or shampoo -- why are you eating fluoride in unmonitored quantities? Finally, given that drinking fluorosilicic acid helps industrial companies get rid of a toxic waste product, shouldn't you get paid something for helping them dispose of this EPA-regulated substance? If you're going to feed poison to the American public, at least offer to pay them something for it. Right now, cities are being charged for this stuff. Frankly, industrial companies should be paying cities for their help in getting rid of it. Then those cities should turn around and pay the citizens for being willing to swallow it. "Here, I'll give you a dollar if you drink this!" You'd be amazed how many people would say yes. Think about the possibilities: you could solve the whole Yucca Mountain problem in Nevada by feeding radioactive waste to the American public! Or, if that didn't work, just feed it to the chickens and cows! (Don't laugh. There's probably some bureaucrat somewhere that takes the idea seriously.) ***************************************************************** 24 Bradenton Herald: State finds DEP at fault in plant contract | 03/24/2005 | A key official was connected with the company selected HERALD STAFF REPORT MANATEE - The Department of Environmental Protection violated its ethics codes in the process of hiring CDM Contractors to help complete the state closure of the former Piney Point phosphate plant, an administrative judge ruled. Judge Donald Alexander in Tallahassee found this week that a member of the state's evaluation team for the bidding process had a business relationship with Mosaic Co., which is listed as a subcontractor for CDM. The "relationships give rise to the appearance of ethical impropriety," Alexander wrote in his 42-page decision. The bid was challenged by two companies who also were vying for the contract, Compass Environmental and Shaw Environmental. DEP spokesman Russell Schweiss said all sides have 10 days to file any exception to the ruling. Then, DEP Secretary Colleen Castille will have 20 days to enter a final decision on the bid award. Piney Point nearly became an environmental disaster after the bankrupt Mulberry Corp. abandoned it in 2001. The biggest concern was the low-level radioactive by-product of processing called phosphogypsum, which was stacked outside the plant and holds wastewater. At Piney Point, millions of gallons of toxic wastewater collected in four enormous stacks and threatened to overflow into Tampa Bay after the plant closed. The state was suddenly left responsible for removing wastewater brimming in several ponds. DEP this year reported the project is largely under control and crews are moving into the final stages of closing the last of four phosphogypsum ponds. ***************************************************************** 25 Bradenton Herald: State works to notify public | 03/24/2005 | SCOTT RADWAY Herald Staff Writer MANATEE - For months, state officials have quietly been assembling a list of 1,600 Florida pollution sites where groundwater and soil contamination has spread to neighboring properties and where landowners are potentially unaware of the problem. The goal is to notify all affected landowners before the end of this year, state officials said. The effort marks the first time such a comprehensive state effort has been made to inform the public of contamination issues in their communities. But officials said the list should not cause public alarm. "It is not that no one has ever been notified," said Mary Jean Yon, director of the waste management division for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. "But we never had something quite as formal. We are going to notify people on all sites," Yon said. The list could also grow substantially as the state continues to investigate the thousands of contamination sites statewide where the extent of the pollution is not yet known. The effort is ultimately aimed at getting the public involved early in contamination investigations that could affect their property values and health, DEP officials said. The plight of the Tallevast community has helped fuel an ongoing debate on public notification of contamination sites. Four years after the Lockheed Martin investigation into the American Beryllium Co. plant started, Tallevast residents found out that some of their drinking water wells contained cancer-causing solvents. Another case like Tallevast, DEP officials said, could be prevented by the new notification effort, although they said Tallevast is not representative of the vast majority of contamination sites around the state. The compilation comes in advance of new state contamination cleanup rules that include stiffer notification requirements, said Russell Schweiss, DEP spokesman. Those rules come into effect in mid-April, though DEP plans to voluntarily apply the notification requirements to the 1,600 old sites as well as future sites. The 1,600 sites - 13 of which are in Manatee County, according to information obtained by The Herald - are also being prioritized by public health risks. Neighbors whose drinking-water wells could be affected by contamination will be notified first. "If we know a plume has migrated off a property and there are wells threatened, those (sites) will be first in terms of getting notification out the door," Yon said. But Yon added DEP is already working on cleaning up all the 1,600 sites individually and does not expect to find any unaddressed public health exposure, although it cannot be ruled out. Notification has already been made for some sites, either by the responsible party for liability reasons or by the state because health risks were found. The list and assessment are primarily a new and more comprehensive look at the sites to ensure nothing has been missed, she said. DEP expects it to take six months to send notification out on all 1,600 sites. "We don't think there will be a lot of surprises," Yon said. "We hope there will be none." The state has 19,000 contamination sites in all, of which the 1,600 are known to have off-site contamination, according to DEP. Another portion of sites were found to have no off-site issues, and the rest remain under investigation. The DEP will notify property owners as necessary as the contamination plume on those sites under investigation is defined, Schweiss said. The new cleanup rules were developed and adopted this year as the result of a law passed by the Florida Legislature in 2003. The main goal of the rules was to allow DEP to govern cleanups based on future property uses and potential health and environmental risks. Measures already used for petroleum and dry-cleaning sites will not be applied across the board. But Tallevast has drawn the most attention to the notification requirements in the rules. Prior to 2003, Schweiss said the state had no formal notification requirements for contaminated sites. In 2003, leading up the new rules, DEP established a policy to notify people once a cleanup plan was established. The new rules will require any party that discovers contamination has migrated off-site to notify the DEP. Schweiss said DEP would in due course then notify residents. But not everyone is satisfied with the new rules. State Rep. Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton, has filed a bill in Tallahassee that would require the DEP to tell the affected landowners within 30 days of discovering that contamination spread off site. While DEP maintains it would notify residents after the proper research was conducted, Galvano said it is important to guarantee the public gets notice as soon as possible. "I want to make sure the public knows what is gong on," Galvano said. Galvano agreed with DEP's assessment that the public should be concerned there are scores of sites in Florida silently harming residents. Galvano said he believes DEP is doing a good job assessing sites and public health risks. Galvano said it is still important that people are involved every step of the way if they are affected. Galvano's bill would apply to old sites as well as to new. Some of the 13 sites in Manatee County that would require notification include the Tallevast site and an abandoned warehouse that abuts the American Beryllium plant. Both sites are well-known contamination sites today. On all 13 sites, well surveys have been conducted to see if anyone was affected by the contamination, according to documents provided by DEP. Charles Henry, Manatee County supervisor of Environmental Health, said the state has been diligent about investigating any potential health risks from off-site contamination. But he also applauded the DEP for compiling the new list as such a comprehensive database does not currently exist. "It is a good way to consolidate the information in one place to make sure the right people are looking at the right things to help protect the health and welfare of our citizens," Henry said. "There is certainly no intent to frighten people. It is a good process to ensure all of the information is being looked at appropriately." Scott Radway, environmental reporter, can be reached at 708-7919 or at [sradway@HeraldToday.com] . Herald Watchdog ***************************************************************** 26 DailyBulletin.com - Opinions: Move radioactive pile away from Colorado River Article Published: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - Here’s a comforting thought: A pile of radioactive waste the size of a sports stadium is sitting on the banks of the river that provides a major part of Southern California’s water supply. Here’s another: The Department of Energy might renege on a promise to transport the waste to a less volatile site. The department is considering capping the waste pile and leaving it where it is, just a few hundred feet away from the Colorado River near Moab, Utah. All sarcasm aside, moving a pile of radioactive waste away from a major water source ought to be one of the easiest decisions the federal government ever had to make. The waste must be moved. Yet the Energy Department may choose the cheapest option instead of the best available one. The 12-million-ton, 130-acre and nine-story-deep waste pile is made up of uranium tailings from an abandoned mine near Moab that harvested yellowcake uranium from 1956 to 1984. In addition to uranium, a known carcinogen, the waste also contains radium, ammonia, arsenic, mercury and other hazardous substances. Every day, the pile leaches about 15,000 gallons of toxic waste into the Colorado River (though officials say that amount is safely diluted below dangerous levels). And what about during a flood? A study commissioned by the state of Utah showed that a major, catastrophic flood could push the entire waste pile into the river, contaminating two major lakes (Powell and Mead) and polluting the drinking supplies of millions and millions of people in four Western states. Terrorists couldn’t plot a more effective public health disaster. From Moab, the Colorado River flows through Utah, Nevada, Arizona and California and provides drinking water for millions of people – more than 25 million in Southern California alone. Some Nevada and Arizona cities rely on the Colorado for their entire drinking water supply. Leaving the radioactive pile in place is foolish and entirely unacceptable. The department agreed five years ago to transport the pile to a disposal site but is now backtracking on that pledge. The department has released four proposals now under consideration, including the plan to cap the waste and leave it in place. Capping the pile would cost $166 million; moving it would cost about $400 million. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last week called the capping plan ‘‘environmentally unsatisfactory” because it could result in the continued release of toxins into the river and groundwater. A coalition of Western governors, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, dozens of water agencies and several members of Congress from both political parties have publicly opposed the proposal. Friday was the deadline for public comments; now department officials will choose from one of the four proposals. There’s no hard decision to be made here. The Moab uranium pile is the largest remaining toxic waste site by the edge of a major river in all of the United States. It must be removed. Copyright © 2005 Inland Valley Daily Bulletin ***************************************************************** 27 IPS: ARGENTINA: Uranium-Polluted Water Is Legally Safe to Drink [http://www.ips.org Marcela Valente BUENOS AIRES, Mar 24 (IPS) - Laboratory testing ordered by an Argentine court concluded that the water consumed by close to a million people living near a nuclear facility is contaminated with uranium and not fit for human consumption. However, there is every indication that the residents affected will be defeated in the legal proceedings underway for the last five years. On Wednesday, environmental activists from Greenpeace Argentina dressed up as waiters and attempted to serve "uranium-contaminated" mineral water to Minister of Federal Planning, Public Investment and Services Julio de Vido outside the headquarters of the ministry, which oversees the country's nuclear activities. The issue goes back to 1958, when the Ezeiza Atomic Centre (CAE) -- located 40 kilometres from the Argentine capital and next to the international airport of the same name -- began to bury radioactive waste despite the protests of nearby residents who feared the contamination of the Puelches aquifer, the source of their drinking water. Argentina has two fully functioning nuclear plants, Atocha I and Embalse, under the direction of the National Atomic Energy Commission and agencies for the development of nuclear technology applied to health care, agriculture and industry. The CAE is one of these agencies. Despite continued protests, no action was taken until 2000, when a federal prosecutor saw a complaint published in the letters to the editor section of a Buenos Aires newspaper and proceeded to file a suit in the federal court of Judge Alberto Santamarina. The letter had been written by Valentín Stiglitz, president of the Association Against Environmental Pollution in the Buenos Aires district of Esteban Echeverría. In his letter to the editor, Stiglitz called attention once again to the danger of uranium contamination of the water from the Puelches aquifer, resulting from the CAE's burial of radioactive waste nearby, a practice that continued until the late 1990s. Esteban Echeverría, Ezeiza, Montegrande and la Matanza are heavily populated working-class districts of Greater Buenos Aires that have all been affected by the pollution. Claudio Carusso, a member of the Association, told IPS that the number of people endangered is close to one million. After two years of struggling with the lack of funds to pay for the water to be tested abroad, the judge contracted geologist Fernando Díaz of the University of Buenos Aires to carry out the testing. He submitted his results in late December 2004. A copy of the study, more than 600 pages in length, was anonymously deposited in the mailbox of the Esteban Echeverría headquarters of the Association, said Carusso, which is how the local residents learned of its results. The study determined "the existence of significant contamination from the activities of the Ezeiza Atomic Centre, which affected the underground water in the region to a degree that prevents it from being suitable for drinking by humans." Díaz concluded that the water in 74 percent of the 46 wells tested was not fit for drinking, with uranium concentrations of between 50 and 80 micrograms per litre. Two other radioactive agents, radon and strontium, were also detected, along with nitrate levels far greater than those permitted for human consumption. When the study was made public, it prompted a reaction from the Argentine Nuclear Regulatory Authority (ARN), which is responsible for monitoring activities in the industry. A statement released by ARN ensured that regular testing was carried out in the area around the atomic centre, and the results "comply with Argentine standards in this respect." ARN also stated that the proportion of uranium in the water also met World Health Organisation (WHO) recommendations, and that the drinking water in the region was therefore "radiologically fit for human consumption. This point constitutes the crux of the issue, noted Carusso. The WHO establishes 15 micrograms of uranium per litre of water as the maximum for human consumption. But Argentina's hazardous waste legislation sets the threshold at 100 micrograms per litre. "The ARN protects itself by saying that the levels are within legal limits, despite the maximum amounts allowed by the WHO and by many other countries, which are between 20 and 25 micrograms per litre," said Carusso. "Obviously, the law needs to be changed." Local residents are also angered by the fact that the judge failed to take precautionary measures once he was in possession of the test results. "On the contrary, it seems that they did everything possible to keep the study from getting out," said Carusso. Judge Santamarina's secretary, Guillermo González, told IPS that preventive measures were in fact ordered. However, he failed to specify what these measures were, and merely referred to a copy of a one-page press release prepared by the court, which also leaves out any details of the purported measures, as he himself admitted. The communique states that "the testing that reports the presence of radioactive elements in the underground water is preliminary," and that "complementary measures" had been requested from a team of specialists in various disciplines, who were to draft a counter-report. The court also forwarded Díaz's study to the Ministry of Health (which oversees the Secretariat of the Environment and Natural Resources) and to the corresponding provincial authorities in Buenos Aires, "for any health-related efforts that may eventually be entailed." Environmental Secretary Atilio Savino said he was "not worried", because the ARN had established that the complaints were unfounded. Dozens of environmental organisations are backing the campaign waged by the residents of Esteban Echeverría, and will be taking part on Apr. 1 in a demonstration aimed at drawing attention to the issue and demanding the adoption of measures to protect the public from the pollution. Juan Carlos Villalonga, the director of campaigns at Greenpeace Argentina, commented to IPS that "the battle between the interests of the health of the citizens and the nuclear industry is very uneven." He also admitted that he is afraid the ruling in the trial currently underway will go against the local residents. Villalonga maintained that even if the exact concentrations of uranium are not known, it is still obvious that the water is highly toxic and harmful to human health. When Argentina set the maximum allowable limit for uranium at 100 micrograms per litre of water, it based its decision on the legislation used in Canada, a country with significant natural deposits of this heavy metal, Villalonga said. However, Canada subsequently lowered the limit to 20 micrograms, while Argentina kept it at 100. "Argentina's legislation is outdated, and is designed to shelter a dirty industry," he said. Unfortunately, though, it is still the law of the land, and will most likely lead to defeat for the victims of uranium contamination. (END/2005) + Greenpeace Argentina - in Spanish [http://www.greenpeace.org.ar/] [http://www.ips.org] Copyright © 2005 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 28 decatur daily: TVA: Clean air comes with price [http://www.decaturdaily.com/ THURSDAY, MARCH 24, 2005 Directors say tougher standards will force rates to increase in future GREENEVILLE, Tenn. (AP) Tennessee Valley Authority directors said Wednesday that tougher clean air standards likely will force future rate increases and a continuing review of its aging fleet of coal-fired plants. When rates may be raised next is unclear, and there are no immediate plans to close any of TVA's 11 fossil fuel power plants in Tennessee, Alabama and Kentucky, most built in the 1950s. But demand to curb smokestack soot and smog-forming pollution was the reason TVA last raised rates in 2003  supporting a $1-million-a-day capital program for new emission controls. While that multibillion-dollar effort continues  and is beginning to show results  new Environmental Protection Agency rules will force TVA to cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions substantially further by 2015. TVA, the nation's largest public utility, estimates those improvements will cost $4 billion to $5 billion. The self-supporting agency, which serves 8.5 million in seven Southern states, has annual revenues of more than $7 billion. "The air is cleaner today than it was a decade ago," TVA Chairman Glenn McCullough said Wednesday after the board approved more than $400 million in contracts to support the clean-air program. "And it will be cleaner in the future," he said. "But it will come at a cost." McCullough, whose nine-year term ends May 18, wouldn't speculate about when a rate increase might come, but said the decision will be driven by rising fuel prices and new pollution requirements. "I am sure the board will have to take rate action to ensure that the revenues of the corporation are sufficient," he said. TVA director Bill Baxter said, "I would love to tell you we could cut costs by $6 billion between now and 2018 but I don't think we can do that. . . . I don't see any way that any utility in the country could absorb those kinds of additional costs." Environmentalists say TVA should instead consider closing some of its oldest or smallest coal-fired boilers. "For me the short answer is: No, it is not time to start closing down any coal plants," Baxter said. "Now, having said that, we have got to continue to analyze it on an annual basis as the laws and the regulations change." TVA director Skila Harris, the third member of the TVA board, said the federal utility still views pollution controls as a cheaper option than turning to other fuel sources, such as natural gas. A long-mothballed reactor at the Browns Ferry nuclear station near Athens is scheduled to return to service in May 2007 after a $1.8 billion restoration. The reactor is rated at 1,280 megawatts. Baxter called the issue of supply a critical point. "It is important to consider if you were going to look at an option of closing a unit or a coal plant, where is that replacement power going to come from?" he said. Wednesday, the TVA directors approved a $200 million, five-year contract to supply anhydrous ammonia for its nitrogen oxide pollution controls and a $31.5 million three-year contract to lease up to 1,375 railroad cars to ship low-sulfur coal from Wyoming. They also endorsed a $55 million five-year contract to supply more than 1 million tons of limestone a year to pollution controls at the Paradise and Shawnee fossil plants in Kentucky. And the board agreed to spend up to $120 million to design, test and build a hydrated lime injection system to reduce sulfur trioxide emissions  a safe though visible pollutant created by pollution control equipment. On the Net: TVA, www.tva.gov. Copyright 2005 THE DECATUR DAILY. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 29 Whitehaven News: SELLAFIELD PAID FOR LATE WORK By David Siddall SELLAFIELD is getting rewarded £2,700 a day for allegedly failing to meet German nuclear reprocessing deadlines. One German power station operator is contesting the bill for “storage fees”. The Thorp plant was supposed to reprocess 75 tonnes of German nuclear fuel in 2000, but because Thorp has not yet tackled the German waste BNFL has allegedly been charging the Germans £2,700 a day in storage fees. A spokesman said: “Sorry, we cannot comment on this matter as it is before the High Court.” A study in Ireland has revealed that there is no evidence that higher rates of cancer in County Leath, near Dublin, are connected to Sellafield. The National Cancer Registry concluded that the factors such as social deprivation and smoking were to blame. [http://www.whitehavennews.co.uk/ ***************************************************************** 30 Las Vegas City Life: Yucca Mountain of lies Tuesday, March 22, 2005 BY BOB LOUX The admission last week by the U.S. Department of Energy that its scientists falsified crucial site suitability information regarding the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository is likely just the tip of the iceberg. Anyone who has been around this project for any length of time knows that DOE scientists and researchers have been under tremendous pressure almost from the beginning to report findings supporting DOE's predetermined conclusions about the Yucca Mountain site. This is not the first time the DOE has tried to hide findings that contradict the assumption that Yucca Mountain is capable of isolating waste. As early as the late 1980s, DOE was desperate to counter data developed by state scientists showing fast water pathways or "fracture flow" through the Yucca Mountain, a condition that could and should have disqualified the site. Later, after initial findings by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory confirmed the state's research, the DOE hired the U.S. Geological Survey to come up with data more to DOE's liking. The e-mails detailing falsified documents and data that are the subject of Secretary Bodman's recent admission relate directly to this work. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, DOE sought to suppress information indicating a repository at Yucca Mountain would emit so much radioactive radon gas that it would not be able to meet the EPA's radon release limits and would be a significant contributor to worldwide radon levels. When the information finally came out despite the DOE's efforts to hide it, the DOE got Congress to exempt Yucca Mountain from radon standards altogether. Nevada's oversight representatives have long suspected collusion and data manipulation on the part of the DOE and its contractors charged with evaluating the site and developing information for licensing. The way the DOE kept constantly changing the repository design and its performance models -- everything from waste disposal package performance to predictions about climate change, hydrology, the potential for renewed volcanic activity and the like -- made it obvious that the DOE was shopping for acceptable data and findings, throwing out things that didn't fit the conclusions officials were seeking, and exerting tremendous pressure on scientists and others to toe the party line. How pervasive the falsification of data and the manipulation of information has been is something that must be addressed immediately. What was DOE's role in fudging data? Is it reasonable -- or even believable -- to think that the USGS scientists blithely did this on their own, or were they acting on instructions from DOE managers? Is it reasonable to assume that this is an isolated instance implicating only one DOE contractor, USGS, or is there evidence of a broader, program-wide effort to coerce contract scientists to manipulate information to fit predetermined conclusions? When combined with Nevada's recent legal victory in federal court, persistent budget problems facing the project, massive cost escalations, ongoing and pervasive management problems, and indications that congressional and nuclear industry support for the project may be waning, disclosures about fraudulent science at Yucca Mountain may very well be the last straw in a litany of disastrous events showing just how rotten this project is. It's time to put it out of its misery once and for all. BOB LOUX IS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NEVADA AGENCY FOR NUCLEAR PROJECTS. Copyright © 2005 Las Vegas City Life ***************************************************************** 31 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada files brief in suit against nuclear waste railroad Today: March 24, 2005 at 18:23:23 PST By KEN RITTER ASSOCIATED PRESS LAS VEGAS (AP) - Nevada is accusing the Energy Department of failing to complete required environmental studies and usurping jurisdiction of the government's railroad agency in planning to build a rail line to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site. In documents filed Thursday in Washington, D.C., the state asks the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to put the brakes on the Energy Department plan to ship nuclear waste by rail to the southern Nevada site. "We're asking to enjoin any further progress on the project," said Martin Malsch, a Vienna, Va.-based lawyer representing Nevada in the case. "They have to go back and start again." There is no evidence the Energy Department consulted the Surface Transportation Board, which oversees the nation's railroads, before pressing forward with the rail plan, according to the brief. It calls jurisdiction "a purely legal issue" that alone should send the process back to the start. An Energy Department spokeswoman said staff would be reviewing the filing. The department is expected to file opposing briefs in coming weeks. The court has yet to schedule oral arguments in the lawsuit, which was filed Sept. 8. Blocking the railroad is one of a series of legal maneuvers Nevada is using to try to derail federal plans to bury 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The effort gained momentum last week when Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman revealed a government worker may have falsified data concerning water infiltration and climate tests at the site. There currently is no rail line to the site the Bush administration and Congress picked in 2002 to entomb spent nuclear reactor fuel and high-level radioactive waste now stored in 39 states. The Energy Department announced in April 2004 that it wants to ship most of the waste by train and said it would build the new rail line from Caliente, a small town 150 miles northeast of Las Vegas, to the Yucca Mountain site. The cost was estimated at $880 million. In the lawsuit, the state claims the department violated the National Environmental Policy Act, a federal law that requires environmental studies before federal projects are finalized. The brief also casts radioactive waste shipments as vulnerable to accident or attack, which will "pose extraordinary hazards to the populations and environment on the way to Yucca." Nevada officials have long criticized plans for shipping nuclear waste cross-country, through cities like Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City and Salt Lake City, as dangerously flawed. State officials call plans to build the 319-mile rail line across Nevada on a route dubbed the "Caliente Corridor" expensive, impractical and unsafe. But Bob Loux, the top Nevada official fighting the project, said Thursday that if the court rules against the Energy Department in the railroad case, Yucca project planners might still opt to ship waste by truck. The same court last year threw out a 10,000-year Environmental Protection Agency radiation standard for the repository. That prompted the Energy Department to push back plans for opening the Yucca repository from 2010 to 2012 or later. It is awaiting a new EPA radiation standard, and officials say they intend by the end of the year to apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a repository operating license. On the Net: Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects: http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste [http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste] Yucca Mountain project: http://www.ymp.gov [http://www.ymp.gov] ***************************************************************** 32 MetroWest Daily News: Peace group targets nukes MetroWestDailyNews.com By Rob Haneisen / Daily News Staff Thursday, March 24, 2005FRAMINGHAM -- Concerned that nothing is being done to eliminate the vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons worldwide, a Framingham-based group continues to beat the drum on peace and a nuclear weapons-free world. Tonight, the Working Group to Reduce Military Spending will host a forum from 7 to 9 at the Framingham Public Library. Tufts University physics professor Gary Goldstein, a vocal opponent of the Iraq war, will be the main speaker in a forum titled "Nuclear Proliferation and the United States -- Preventing Another Arms Race." Members of the Working Group will also use the event to pitch their Framingham ballot question, which asks the Board of Selectmen to support the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, which seeks to have nuclear power nations negotiate the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons. The movement was started by the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and worldwide it is known as Mayors for Peace Campaign. Already, 63 U.S. mayors, including Cambridge, New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles, have endorsed the campaign. The question, considered an advisory and non-binding referendum question, will be on the April 5 ballot along with contested races for Board of Selectmen, Planning Board, and Keefe Tech School Committee. The question was placed on the ballot by the Board of Selectmen after the Working Group approached them for an endorsement. The board wanted to see how voters felt about the subject before endorsing it. "This is a scary subject in a way because a war is being fought partly because of fear of nuclear weapons in Iraq," said Julia Esty of Framingham. "People are either unclear about the dangers or overly frightened by the terrorists." The campaign aims to have negotiations on the elimination of nuclear weapons completed by 2010 and fully implemented by 2020. Esty said she is hopeful voters will support the ballot question but she has some doubts. "There is now a whole generation of people who were not subjected to the acute fear of actually being hit by weapons coming from Russia," she said. "I think people are not tuned into what the treaty is about." ( Rob Haneisen can be reached at 508-626-3882 or rhaneis@cnc.com. © Copyright of CNC and Herald Interactive Advertising Systems, Inc. ***************************************************************** 33 Guardian Unlimited: Feds Award Contracts to Clean Nuke Sites From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday March 24, 2005 6:46 AM YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) - The U.S. Department of Energy awarded two contracts valued in the billions of dollars Wednesday to clean up portions of two nuclear sites in Washington and Idaho. A $1.9 billion contract was awarded to Washington Closure LLC, a team of five companies led by Boise, Idaho-based Washington Group, to clean up the 210-square-mile Columbia River corridor at southcentral Washington's Hanford nuclear reservation. A separate $2.9 billion contract was awarded to the team of CH2M Hill and Washington Group to treat and dispose of radioactive waste at the Idaho National Laboratory. CH2M Hill is based in Denver. Both contracts run through 2012, the department said. For 40 years, the Hanford reservation made plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal. It's the nation's most contaminated nuclear site. Cleanup costs are expected to total $50 billion to $60 billion. The work, under way since 1994, is supposed to be finished by 2035. At the Idaho National Laboratory, Cold War-era radioactive waste was dumped into unlined pits that sit over the Snake River Plain aquifer, which supplies water to much of southern Idaho. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 34 DOE: Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting FR Doc 05-5606 [Federal Register: March 24, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 56)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 15163-15169] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24mr05-10] [[Page 15163]] 10 CFR Part 300 Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting; Interim Final Rules [[Page 15164]] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 300 AGENCY: Office of Policy and International Affairs, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of availability and opportunity to comment. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) today gives notice that draft Technical Guidelines for the revised Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program are available for review and comment. DOE will hold a public workshop to receive stakeholder views on the draft Technical Guidelines, as well as the interim final General Guidelines that DOE is publishing in the Rules and Regulations section of today's issue of the Federal Register. In addition, DOE and the United States Department of Agriculture will jointly hold a public workshop to receive stakeholder views on the draft Technical Guidelines for Agriculture and Forestry and related interim final General Guidelines. DATES: Written comments must be received by May 23, 2005. The DOE public workshop will be held on April 26 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on April 27, from 8 a.m. to 12 noon. The public workshop on agricultural and forestry issues, jointly sponsored by DOE and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, will be held on May 5, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: Send e-mail comments to: 1605bguidelines.comments@hq.doe.gov [1605bguidelines.comments@hq.doe.gov] . Alternatively, written comments may be sent to: Mark Friedrichs, PI-40; Office of Policy and International Affairs; U.S. Department of Energy; 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585. The DOE public workshop will be held at the following location: Crystal City Marriott Hotel at Reagan National Airport, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202. Persons interested in registering for, or in obtaining more information about, this workshop should visit the following Web site: http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregistry/workshops [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregis try/workshops] . The joint DOE/USDA workshop for Agriculture and Forestry will be held on May 5 at the following location: USDA-APHIS Conference Center, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD. Persons interested in registering for this workshop or in obtaining more information about USDA's efforts to develop accounting rules and guidelines for forestry and agriculture should visit the following Web site: http://www.usda.gov/agency/oce/gcpo/greenhousegasreporting.htm [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.usda.gov/agency/oce/gcpo/greenh ousegasreporting.htm] . You may obtain electronic copies of this notice, the draft Technical Guidelines and other related documents, find additional information about the planned workshops, and review comments received by DOE and the workshop transcripts at the following Web site: http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregistry/ [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregis try/] . Those without internet access may access this information by visiting the DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room, Rm. 1E-190, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 202-586-3142, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday to Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Friedrichs, PI-40, Office of Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy; 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585, or e-mail: 1605bguidelines.comments@hq.doe.gov [1605bguidelines.comments@hq.doe.gov] . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 directed DOE, with the Energy Information Administration (EIA), to establish a voluntary reporting program and database on emissions of greenhouse gases, reductions of these gases, and carbon sequestration activities (42 U.S.C. 13385(b)). A specific purpose of the program is to enable the entities to report reductions of greenhouse gases. Section 1605(b) directs DOE to issue guidelines, after opportunity for public comment, that establish procedures for the voluntary reporting of specific greenhouse gas emissions information. In 1994, DOE issued General Guidelines and sector-specific guidelines, and EIA issued reporting forms, for the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program. On February 14, 2002, the President, as part of a larger initiative to address the issue of global climate change, directed the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to propose improvements to the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program. These improvements are to enhance measurement accuracy, reliability, and verifiability, working with and taking into account emerging domestic and international approaches. On December 5, 2003, DOE proposed revised General Guidelines for the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program and, simultaneously, announced that it intended to develop for public comment Technical Guidelines that would specify the methods and factors to be used in measuring and estimating greenhouse gas emissions, emission reductions, and carbon sequestration (68 FR 68204-05). DOE is today making draft Technical Guidelines available for review and public comment. The draft Technical Guidelines complement and are inter-related with the interim final revised General Guidelines that DOE is publishing in the Rules and Regulations section of today's issue of the Federal Register. When issued as final, the revised General Guidelines and the Technical Guidelines, together with new reporting forms being developed by EIA, will fully implement the revised Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program. The draft Technical Guidelines have three parts: Emissions Inventory Guidelines (Chapter 1), which includes detailed guidance on how to measure or estimate greenhouse gas emissions; Emission Reductions Guidelines (Chapter 2), which includes guidance on the selection and application of emission reduction calculation methods, including the establishment and modifications of base periods and base values; and Glossary, which defines terms used only in the Technical Guidelines and references the definitions in section 300.2 of the General Guidelines. Components of the guidelines relevant for agriculture and forestry reporting have been shared with a selected set of evaluators with experience in greenhouse gas mitigation technologies in agriculture and forestry. The evaluators' views on the technical components and operability of the draft Technical Guidelines as they relate to the agriculture and forestry sectors will be made available during the public review process. II. Summary of Draft Technical Guidelines and Issues for Comment The following discussion summarizes the content of the draft Technical Guidelines and identifies key issues upon which DOE would like to focus public review and comment. 1. Emission Inventory Guidelines (Chapter 1) The Inventory Chapter identifies and rates methods for estimating emissions and sequestration from a wide range of sources. These guidelines build on (and reference) several publicly available documents related to the development [[Page 15165]] of emissions inventories. The Inventory Chapter consists of nine sections covering the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions: Overview; Collecting Information; Stationary Combustion; Transportation; Industrial Processes; Indirect Emissions; Engineered Sequestration; Agricultural Emissions and Sequestration; Forestry Emissions and Sequestration. The Agriculture and Forestry sections include technical appendices that can be found at the following Web site: http://www.usda.gov/oce/gcpo/greenhousegasreporting [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.usda.gov/oce/gcpo/greenhousegas reporting] . a. Emissions Rating System. As described in the preamble to the interim final General Guidelines (see section II. C. vi.), the emissions rating system ordinally rates estimation methods and is based on four criteria: Accuracy, reliability, verifiability and practical application. The best available method is rated ``A,'' and given a value of four points. The next best method is rated ``B'' and given a value of three points; the next best is rated ``C'' and given a value of two points; and the least accurate method is rated ``D'' and given a value of 1 point. If a reporter is seeking to register reductions, the weighted average rating for emissions for the years used to calculate such reductions must be 3.0 or greater. Comments are invited regarding the ordinal rating system in general (including comparisons with other systems, such as a cardinal rating system); the appropriateness of the estimation methods specifically identified and their assigned ratings; and other methods not covered in the draft Technical Guidelines. b. Alternative Inventory Methods. The revised General Guidelines require reporters to use methods described in the Draft Technical Guidelines, unless an alternative method has been specifically approved by the Department (see Sec. 300.6(c) of the revised General Guidelines). If a reporter wishes to propose the use of a method that is not described in the Draft Technical Guidelines, the reporter must submit to DOE a description of the method, an explanation of how the method is implemented (including information requirements), and empirical evidence of the method's validity and accuracy. c. Inventories of Indirect Energy. DOE believes that the indirect emissions reflected in entity inventories should reflect, where practicable, the average emissions rate of the power being purchased. Since the average emissions rates of electricity generation vary widely by region, Chapter 1 of the draft Technical Guidelines specifies that entities reporting inventories of indirect emissions associated with the purchase of electricity within the U.S. must use regional values specified by EIA that correspond to the average emission rates of power generated within each of the twelve North American Electricity Reliable Council regions. Comparable methods for determining the emission rates of non-U.S. power generation must be used to estimate the indirect emissions from non-U.S. operations. If the entity's purchase contract specifies that the electricity supplied is from particular power generation sources, then it may use an emission coefficient that corresponds to these specific sources. However, entities should note that the emission reduction guidelines contained in Chapter 2 specify the use of a single emission coefficient for purchased electricity, based on the national average emissions rate for the electric sector as a whole. DOE believes that the national average emissions rate is a better indicator of the emission reductions resulting from reduced demand for electricity than are the regional values used in the development of emission inventories. This means that the indirect emissions associated with purchased electricity will differ depending on whether they are part of the entity's emissions inventory or emission reduction assessment. DOE specifically solicits comments on the effects of specifying the use of different emission coefficients for emission inventories and emission reductions. One form of electricity demand, the losses associated with electricity transmission and distribution, is not explicitly addressed in the draft Technical Guidelines for emission inventories, although the emission reduction guidelines identify an action-specific method for calculating the emission reductions that result from reducing such losses. DOE solicits recommendations on appropriate methods for measuring or estimating such losses that would permit the associated emissions to be included in entity inventories. 2. Emission Reduction Guidelines (Chapter 2) This chapter of the draft Technical Guidelines provides detailed guidance on the calculation of emission reductions as described in section 300.8 of the revised General Guidelines. a. Choosing calculation methods and identifying subentities. The first step in the process of calculating emission reductions is the selection of the appropriate calculation method and the identification of the subentities, if necessary, depending on the number of calculation methods needed to capture the entity's total reductions. As entities change, it may be necessary to add or modify subentities. This part of the process is described in detail in section 2.2.3 of the Emission Reductions Guidelines. The guidance on the selection of appropriate emission reduction calculation methods makes clear that the five methods identified in the revised General Guidelines usually have specific applications and are not generally interchangeable. Any entity that is using more than one method of calculating emission reductions must identify a distinct subentity for each method used. As entities change, it may be necessary to add or modify subentities, so this section also provides guidance on this process. b. Base periods. The determination of emission reductions requires that current levels of emissions or some other measure be compared with a comparable measure for some previous year or time period of up to four years, referred to as the base period. Chapter 2 of the draft Technical Guidelines describes how to establish base periods and the circumstances under which they can be changed. DOE permits this flexibility in defining the base period so that reporters can select the time period that is most representative of the actual past operations of the entity or subentity for which reductions are being estimated. However, DOE does limit this flexibility by requiring the last year of the base period to be the year immediately preceding the first year of reported reductions. Once established, the base period should remain fixed unless changes in the entity or its output require a change to the base period. For entities that intend to register reductions, all initial base periods must end in the start year. This requirement will limit the ability of reporters to select a base period for which a particular subentity had the highest emissions or emissions intensity in order to maximize the amount of emission reductions. Reporters are permitted to change the base period used to calculate reductions for an entity or subentity in a subsequent reporting year only under limited circumstances where there has been a fundamental change in the activity or structure of the entity or subentity. Public comment is specifically solicited on the flexibility to set and modify base periods, as well as on limits to this flexibility, which are designed to reduce the likelihood that reporters will manipulate base periods in order to maximize emission reductions. [[Page 15166]] c. Base Values. A base value is the emissions level, emissions intensity or other value to which a comparable reporting year value is compared in order to calculate an emission reduction. A base value can be a historic emissions level, historic emissions intensity, carbon stock, benchmark emissions intensity or other quantity. The Emission Reduction Guidelines describe how to establish base values and the circumstances under which they can be changed. DOE believes that base values should be derived from or be directly correlated to historic data to ensure that registered reductions represent real reductions relative to past emissions or emissions intensity levels. In some cases, the draft Technical Guidelines specify the use of a benchmark provided by DOE or calculated by the reporting entity according the DOE's guidelines. DOE solicits comment on whether or not reporters should be given the flexibility to establish base values that are more stringent than (usually lower than) the base values derived from actual performance during the base period. While a more stringent base value would reduce the quantity of registered reductions for which an entity qualified, such flexibility would enable entities to use as the basis for calculating emission reductions an emissions intensity or technology threshold that might be more meaningful or relevant to their industry. If the base value is based on historic conditions, it represents the emissions or emissions intensity in the base period of the entity or subentity as it is configured in the reporting year. The base value must be adjusted to reflect the acquisition and divestiture of business units and the insourcing and outsourcing of emissions-producing activities that has occurred since the base period. Such adjustments to the base value are necessary to ensure that the comparison between base period and reporting year emissions or emissions intensity is valid and the difference in emission or emissions intensity are not due to changes in the boundary of the entity or subentity. Without such adjustments, a reporter would be able to achieve a nominal reduction in emissions intensity by outsourcing an activity and related emissions sources contributing to the output of the entity or subentity. Likewise, a reporter could be penalized for insourcing emissions- producing activities that it previously purchased from outside sources. Public comment is solicited on the flexibility to set and modify base values, as well as on limits to this flexibility, which are designed to reduce the likelihood that reporters will manipulate base periods in order to maximize emission reductions. d. Method-specific guidance. The Emission Reduction Guidelines provide detailed guidance for each of the five calculation methods identified in section 300.8 of the revised General Guidelines. i. Emissions intensity. This section of the draft Technical Guidelines provides detailed guidance on the use of emission intensity methods to calculate emission reductions. Greenhouse gas intensity metrics, which measure improvements in emission intensity independent of economic growth or growth in production, use either a physical or an economic value for the denominator. The draft Technical Guidelines provide a list of criteria to assist reporters in selecting output metrics. A number of trade associations and manufacturers were interviewed to test their comfort with physical metrics, and any desire to use composites or indices. Based on their responses, and comments from stakeholders at workshops and in writing, DOE has decided to urge the use of physical metrics; however, in some cases the use of physical metrics becomes increasingly difficult and the use of economic metrics may be an appropriate alternative * * * Section 2.4.1.1 of the draft Technical Guidelines lists acceptable measures of physical output to assist potential reporters. Public comment is specifically solicited on this list and the need for additional efforts to standardize the definition and application of output metrics. ii. Absolute emissions. The change in absolute emissions method for calculating reductions compares an entity's current (reduction year) emissions with its emissions in the base period. However, when using this method, entities must demonstrate that any emission reductions have not been caused by reductions in the entity's output. This section of the draft Technical Guidelines provides further guidance on how to calculate emission reductions using this method. To demonstrate that its output has not declined, a reporting entity must identify a physical or economic measure of the entity's activity that can serve as a sufficiently credible proxy for output. The relationship between this activity measure and entity output needs to be sufficiently close to indicate the direction of the change in activity. The draft guidelines describe some of the acceptable activity measures that might be used for this purpose. Base period emissions used to calculate changes in absolute emissions must be adjusted to reflect boundary changes, including acquisition and divestiture of emission sources and outsourcing or insourcing of emissions-producing activities that existed during the base period. Base period emissions may include emissions from sources that are no longer emitting in the reduction year. However, no adjustment may be made to base period emissions resulting from the addition of new emissions sources unless the reporter can demonstrate that the addition of this source represents the insourcing or acquisition of an activity previously conducted by another entity, rather than the expansion of the existing activity of the entity (also referred to as organic growth). This approach to calculating emission reductions from changes in absolute emissions is similar to the approach specified in the Greenhouse Gas Protocol developed by WRI/WBCSD, with the proviso that this method cannot be used if the entity's output has declined during the reporting period. iii. Avoided emissions. Only entities or subentities that do not have emissions in their chosen base period may rely exclusively on the method specified in the Draft Technical Guidelines for calculating avoided emissions. Most entities that generate and export (sell) electricity, heat or hot/chilled water must use either changes in absolute emissions or a method that combines the consideration of changes in emissions intensity and changes in avoided emissions, which is described below and in section 2.4.6 of the draft Technical Guidelines. Avoided Emission Benchmarks and Indirect Emission Coefficients. The draft Technical Guidelines specify various benchmarks that must be used in the calculation of reductions associated with avoided emissions. For electricity, the draft Technical Guidelines explain that an avoided emissions benchmark will be specified by EIA based on the average emissions intensity of the U.S. electric sector. Comparable benchmarks must be used by entities when reporting emissions reductions generated outside the United States. During the development of the draft Technical Guidelines, a number of alternative methods for establishing such benchmarks were considered. In theory, such benchmarks should approximate the emissions being displaced by the incremental generation of power from low or no emitting sources. However, there is no accepted methodology for identifying such marginal emissions. Various possible methods were explored, but none yielded values that were considered more reliable or useful [[Page 15167]] than the U.S. average emissions intensity value ultimately included in the draft Technical Guidelines. DOE specifically solicits comments on the selection of this benchmark value and the related benchmarks described in the draft Technical Guidelines. iv. Carbon storage. DOE received comments proposing up-front registration of forest carbon sequestration. Forestry projects generally have high up-front costs with carbon sequestration benefits that accumulate gradually over long time frames. High initial costs coupled with delayed benefits may discourage forestry projects as well as other similar long-term investments. Up-front registration may over- or under-estimate actual sequestration over the lifetime of a project because it is based on estimated actions and timelines. DOE has decided not to adopt the proposed up-front registration of forest sequestration. DOE solicits additional comments on including provisions that would allow early recognition of long term carbon sequestration benefits. The draft Technical Guidelines describe the procedures that should be followed to calculate annual volumes of reductions associated with increases in carbon stocks. (1) Reductions from increases in terrestrial carbon stocks (forest, agriculture, rangelands). The terrestrial carbon pools described in the draft Technical Guidelines include forest trees, forest under-story, forest dead and downed wood (on-site), forest floor, forest soils, agricultural soils, range soils, and grazing land soils. Absolute increases in terrestrial carbon stocks can contribute to an entity's registered reductions. In addition, the draft Technical Guidelines specify how reductions associated with these pools should be treated when the reported lands are sold, purchased, converted to other uses, certified as sustainably managed, considered incidental lands, or affected by a natural disturbance. Carbon losses associated with natural disturbance are generally beyond the control of landowners. In the interest of not penalizing entities for such uncontrollable losses, DOE has included the following provision for accounting for natural disturbance in emission reductions calculations in the draft Technical Guidelines: Entities that experience natural disturbance such as wildfire, pests, or extreme weather, can choose to separately account for the carbon stock losses associated with these natural phenomena. In this case, entities will report the disturbance-associated carbon stock changes as a separate item in their terrestrial carbon stock inventory; however, they will not include the carbon stock changes in their calculation of reductions. Entities will continue to track carbon stocks on the identified land in their inventory. Until the carbon stocks return to pre-disturbance levels, carbon fluxes on lands that have undergone disturbances cannot be included in calculating reductions. (2) Reductions from increases in carbon stored in wood products. Significant quantities of carbon harvested from forest systems can be stored for long periods in the form of wood products or in materials deposited in landfills. Entities reporting changes in terrestrial carbon can include the expected storage of carbon in the wood products pool in their estimates of annual carbon stock changes. The draft Technical Guidelines describe two approaches for estimating the amount of carbon stored in the wood products pool. Entities may estimate the decay of materials stored in wood products over time and account for the carbon stock losses in the year in which they occur. Alternatively, entities may calculate the amount of carbon expected to remain in products and landfills after a 100-year period and include this amount in their terrestrial carbon stock inventory. The latter approach is intended to limit the complexity associated with tracking annual decay rates in the wood products pool. Recognizing that the simpler approach uses a 100-year time frame and does not reflect actual annual fluctuations in carbon storage, the method is included with the understanding that it cannot over-estimate carbon stored in wood products. Public comments on this option are specifically solicited. (3) Reductions from the preservation of existing carbon stocks. Actions to legally protect existing terrestrial carbon stocks can result in emissions of greenhouse gases being avoided. While it is difficult to know with certainty if or when carbon that is currently stored in terrestrial systems will be released in the future, it is probable that actions to ensure the protection of existing stocks will result in greenhouse gas benefits in the future. As a consequence, the 1605(b) program would allow entities to register reductions associated with actions taken to protect existing terrestrial carbon stocks, equivalent to 1/100th of the start year carbon stocks in each reporting year. This provision requires an entity to document the action and follow the draft Technical Guidelines for estimating and reporting annual carbon stocks on legally protected lands. v. Action-specific. There are a number of circumstances under which reporters may undertake specific actions (often referred to as ``projects'') that yield emission reductions that cannot be quantified using any of the other measurement or estimation methods provided for in the guidelines. In such cases, reporting entities would have to follow the guidance provided in section 2.4.5 of the draft Technical Guidelines. There are a number of action-specific reductions that do not allow reporters to develop an estimate of base-year emissions based on an extant technology or process and base-year activity levels. DOE has provided guidance in the draft Technical Guidelines for a limited positive list of such action-specific reductions (see section 2.4.5.6). This positive list of actions includes: coalmine degasification; landfill methane recovery; transmission and distribution improvements; and geologic sequestration. DOE solicits recommendations on other specific actions for which guidance should be provided. There are other actions that have been reported to the current Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Program that will not be eligible for registration as action-specific reductions. In some cases they might be reported as ``offsets'' under the revised guidelines, if the reporting entity enters into an agreement with the entity directly responsible for the reductions. In circumstances where no such agreement is feasible, the reduction would not qualify for registration. These actions typically fall within one of three categories: --They result in avoided emissions from activities other than energy supply (increased use of less emissions intensive materials in manufactured products); --They result in reduced emissions from highly diffuse sources (public education related to energy conservation); or --The location and ownership of resulting reductions is impossible to determine (retail sales of discounted compact fluorescent bulbs). Actions that often fall into these categories include: Utility- sponsored DSM programs; manufacturer improvement in the energy efficiency of products; employee commuting reduction; coal ash reuse; halogenated substance substitution; and materials recycling/source reductions. DOE seeks comment on the practicality of reporting these actions directly or as offsets, and suggestions on estimation methods that would mitigate the constraints identified above and allow reductions from a broader range of such actions to [[Page 15168]] be reported. In particular, DOE is open to future consideration of practical methods, consistent with the structure and objectives of the revised guidelines, to enable manufacturers of more energy efficient products to register the emission reductions resulting from the use of these products. DOE recognizes that product manufacturers often play an important role in accelerating the introduction of new, more energy efficient technologies, and that the revised guidelines might be designed to enable such manufacturers to register such emission reductions under certain circumstances. In theory, such reductions might be reported as offsets, but this would require an agreement between the manufacturer and the end-user, and the reporting requirements contained in the revised guidelines would likely discourage such arrangements. Further, some of the improvements in product efficiency are mandated by Federal law. vi. Estimating Reductions Associated with Energy Exports. Entities that export (sell) electricity, steam or hot/chilled water and have emissions in their base period must calculate emission reductions using either changes in absolute emission reductions or a method that combines the consideration of changes in emissions intensity and avoided emissions. This combined method, described below and in section 2.4.6 of the draft Technical Guidelines, takes into account the effects of a wide range of actions that generators can take to reduce the emissions intensity of the generating sector. These actions can be categorized into two main types: (1) Those that reduce the emissions intensity of a generator's own, existing capacity, and (2) those that decrease generation from other, high-emissions intensity generators. DOE assessed the following four options for estimating the emission reductions in this sector in order to compare their ability to recognize reductions from both types of actions, and their tendency to favor or disadvantage generators according to their historical emissions rate. The four options were: (1) Average Intensity: Reductions would be calculated from the change in entity-wide, average emissions intensity from the base period to the reporting year. (2) Plant-by-Plant: Reductions would be calculated separately for each plant, either from changes in the emissions intensity of existing plants from the base period to the reporting year or from the emissions intensity of new plants compared to the emission intensity of a ``benchmark'' emissions intensity value. (3) Existing and New Plants: Reductions would be calculated from the change in the average emissions intensity of existing plants from the base period to the reporting year; new plants would qualify for reductions if their emissions intensity was below a ``benchmark'' value. (4) Base and Incremental Generation: Reductions would be calculated from entity-wide, average emissions intensity calculated in two parts. For quantities of power that are equal to or less than the quantity generated in the base period, the emissions intensity value would be entity's average for its base period. For quantities in excess of the base period generated, the average emissions intensity would be the ``benchmark'' value. For all four methods, emissions reductions are calculated by multiplying the difference between the appropriate base period and reporting year generation intensity values (CO2/MWh) by the reporting year generation (MWh). Following analysis and review, DOE concluded that Method 4 best serves the purposes of the program. Method 1 allows high emitting entities to register reductions for actions that do not reduce the emissions intensity of the power sector on the whole, while making it very difficult for low emitting entities to register reductions, even if they were taking actions that did reduce the emissions intensity of the power sector as a whole. Method 2 would not capture reductions for certain actions that do lead to sector-wide reductions, including shifting load to lower-emitting generators. Method 4 is preferable to Method 3 in that it is able to recognize the benefits of a broader range of load shifting actions and tends to treat generators with substantially different characteristics more `equitably'; increased generation output, for instance, is compared to the benchmark value regardless of whether it is from new capacity or increased output from existing generation. DOE solicits public comment on its selection of Method 4, Base and Incremental Generation, as the preferred method. Combined Heat and Power (CHP), and Thermal Energy Generators. Some energy generators distribute heating and/or cooling to multiple end users, either exclusively or in addition to electric power. Reductions from CHP or district heating/cooling systems are to be calculated using the same basic method specified for electricity generators, although reductions associated with electricity generation and with thermal generation must be calculated separately. Appropriate thermal energy benchmarks are to be specified by EIA or calculated by reporters according to guidelines provided by DOE. This approach would enable CHP and thermal energy generators to obtain recognition for reductions that result from a broad range of different actions, including increased generation (since most CHP plants are more efficient than conventional power and heat generation), fuel substitution or improved system performance. III. Public Workshop A public workshop will be held to receive comment on all elements of the draft Technical Guidelines, as well as interim final General Guidelines that DOE is publishing in the Rules and Regulations section of today's issue of the Federal Register. DOE invites any person who has an interest in the draft Technical Guidelines and revised General Guidelines to participate in this workshop. Because space is limited, persons wishing to participate in the workshop should inform DOE by identifying the person or persons likely to attend, an e-mail or phone number for follow-up contacts, and providing a brief description of the specific issues of particular interest. This information may be provided electronically at the following Web site: http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregistry/draftTechnicalGuide lines.html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregis try/draftTechnicalGuidelines.html] or may be provided in writing to the person listed in the beginning of this notice. DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the workshop, and may also use a professional facilitator to facilitate discussion. The workshop will not be conducted under formal rules governing judicial or evidentiary-type proceedings, but DOE reserves the right to establish procedures governing the conduct of the workshop. The workshop will be organized so as to encourage the open discussion of specific issues by the range of stakeholders and government representatives present. Prior to the workshop a draft agenda, identifying specific issues for discussion, will be made available at the following Web site: http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregistry/draftTechnicalGuide lines.html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregis try/draftTechnicalGuidelines.html] . There will also be opportunities during the workshop for the identification and discussion of issues not specifically identified on the agenda. The presiding official will announce any further procedural rules, or modification of the above procedures, needed for the proper conduct of the workshop. Statements for the record of the workshop will be accepted at the workshop. [[Page 15169]] Joint DOE/USDA Workshop DOE and USDA invite persons interested in the draft Technical Guidelines for Agriculture and Forestry and related revised General Guidelines to participate in this workshop. The workshop will provide an overview of the draft technical guidelines for agriculture and forestry sources and sinks, opportunities to ask questions about the proposed methods, and opportunities to discuss specific issues. Persons interested in registering for the meetings or in obtaining more information about USDA's efforts to develop accounting rules and guidelines for forestry and agriculture should visit the following Web site: http://www.usda.gov/agency/oce/gcpo/greenhousegasreporting.htm [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.usda.gov/agency/oce/gcpo/greenh ousegasreporting.htm] . The Web site will also be used to make available draft and final meeting agendas, information on lodging, or other information made available before the meetings. Inquiries regarding the logistics for this meeting may be e-mailed to sharon_barcellos@grad.usda.gov [sharon_barcellos@grad.usda.gov] . IV. Forms EIA, which is responsible for the operation of the 1605(b) program, is preparing a set of draft forms for reporting under the revised guidelines. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, EIA plans to issue a Federal Register notice soliciting public comment on these draft forms as soon as practicable and to complete the comment review, and revisions resulting from that review, before the effective date of the guidelines. Issued in Washington, DC, on March 16, 2005. Karen A. Harbert, Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs. [FR Doc. 05-5606 Filed 3-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 35 DOE: Office of Science, Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee FR Doc 05-5833 [Federal Register: March 24, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 56)] [Notices] [Page 15075] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24mr05-37] AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92- 463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the Federal Register. DATES: Thursday, April 7, 2005, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Friday, April 8, 2005, 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. ADDRESSES: The Holiday Inn, 2 Montgomery Village Avenue, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20879. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert L. Opdenaker, Office of Fusion Energy Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290; telephone: 301-903-4927. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Meeting: The purposes of the meeting include hearing final reports from the Panel dealing with Program Priorities and the Committee of Visitors that examined the management processes involved with managing the Confinement and Basic Plasma Sciences programs. FESAC will also hear a report on the status of the ITER project in the U.S., a briefing on the International Tokamak Physics Activity, and a discussion of program performance measures. This notice is being published less than 15 days before the date of the meeting due to programmatic issues. Tentative Agenda: Thursday, April 7, 2005 Office of Science Perspective. Office of Fusion Energy Sciences Perspective. Presentation by the Priority Panel on its findings and recommendations. Public Comments. Friday, April 8, 2005 ITER Project Status. Performance Measures Update. Adjourn. Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Albert L. Opdenaker at 301-903-8584 (fax) or [ albert.opdenaker@science.doe.gov] (e-mail). You must make your request for an oral statement at least 5 business days before the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule. Minutes: We will make the minutes of this meeting available for public review and copying within 30 days at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, IE-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Issued in Washington, DC, on March 18, 2005. Carol Matthews, Acting Advisory Committee Officer. [FR Doc. 05-5833 Filed 3-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 36 Santa Fe New Mexican: Report details wasting of water at LANL Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:59 pm [http://www.santafenewmexican.com While everyday citizens caught rain in barrels, installed low-flow toilets and watched plants wither from drought in 2003, Los Alamos National Laboratory missed opportunities to reduce waste, limit water consumption and save taxpayer dollars. According to a new U.S. Department of Energy Inspector General report, the lab could have saved 41 million gallons of water a year -- plus associated chemicals -- but didn't have the $60,000 necessary to design the filters to accomplish it. The filters, which would have removed sand from water, could have saved the lab $500,000 annually through improved operational efficiencies of its cooling towers. What's more, the lab failed to replace leaking faucets and install low-flow shower heads because the projects weren't funded, according to the report. Combined, the projects would have cost $4,000 and saved an estimated $380,220. "It's unconscionable for the lab to waste so much of New Mexico's most precious resource when it could have been easily prevented and could have also saved taxpayers' money," Scott Kovac, research director for the nonprofit Nuclear Watch of New Mexico, said. "The lab stated that these projects were not implemented because of insufficient funding. This is another example of lab management's pennywise and pound-foolish priorities." Across the country, Energy Department sites should do more to reduce pollution in cost-effective ways, the report says. Some sites didn't research new opportunities to prevent and recycle waste; others didn't practice strategies they had identified as workable. In 2003 alone, Energy Department sites produced 1.2 million cubic meters of waste, including radioactive waste. Some blame falls on Washington. "We found that the department did not always support and fund pollution prevention programs, nor did it establish performance measures to monitor waste reduction activities," the report says. Los Alamos lab, however, is ready to put the past behind it. In May, it will unveil a new, $4.5 million plant where sand will be removed from water before the water is used in cooling towers. This prevents sludge from building up inside the cooling towers and makes them more efficient. It's expected to save 21 million gallons of water a year at first, then 50 million gallons in future years, lab spokeswoman Kathy DeLucas said. Currently, the lab consumes 400 million gallons of water annually. Silica -- a white compound found in quartz, sand and flint -- is a huge problem in volcanic-rich soils. "Parts of Northern New Mexico are some of the worst in the country for the level of silica in water," said DeLucas, who has a problem with silica buildup in her hot-water heater at home. Meanwhile, the faucet and shower projects are still under consideration, she said. DeLucas noted the report does not cover more than 20 pollution-prevention projects the lab is doing. It focused on what wasn't done. In February, Los Alamos received more than half the Energy Department's pollution-prevention awards, though none of these had to do with water, she said. After reading the report, Ron Curry, the state's environment secretary, said the waste is unfortunate. "Director (Pete) Nanos has made many positive changes at the lab, and I think this report opens the opportunity for him to make some more," Curry said. Privacy Policy | ©2005, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 37 ENS: Nuclear Development Booms in Idaho Environment News Service Nuclear Development Booms in Idaho IDAHO FALLS, Idaho, March 24, 2005 (ENS) - Big changes are taking place at the Idaho National Laboratory on the Snake River Plain in southeastern Idaho. A new contractor has been chosen to clean up the large amounts of highly radioactive nuclear waste at the U.S. Energy Department facility. Advanced nuclear energy systems are planned for development there, and the lab may become the production site for plutonium-238 power systems. The plutonium-238 fueled radioisotope power systems are used to provide power for classified national security missions. The Department of Energy (DOE) is preparing an environmental impact statement for producing plutonium-238 in Idaho that is due out in late April. Meanwhile, the DOE is changing contractors at the Idaho National Laboratory. Under a contract announced Wednesday, CH2M-WGI will take over management of the cleanup work on May 1 from Bechtel BWXT Idaho. CH2M-WG Idaho will be responsible for treatment and disposal of radioactive waste; retrieval, disposal and other remediation related to buried waste; safe management of spent nuclear fuel; disposition of nuclear materials; disposition of reactor and non-reactor nuclear facilities; and other environmental remediation activities through the year 2012. [spent fuel] Spent nuclear fuel consists of nuclear fuel rods that no longer have enough of the fissionable material needed to power a reactor. (Photo courtesy INL Oversight [http://www.oversight.state.id.us/] ) “We are pleased to announce this selection to ensure a seamless transition and continued excellence in our cleanup effort,” Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Wednesday. “The Idaho Cleanup Project is a very complex and technically challenging project requiring significant skill and expertise," Bodman said. "By awarding this contract, we are one step closer to achieving the vision laid out by Idaho’s 2012 plan.” The contract, which runs through September 20, 2012, is valued at about $2.9 billion and was selected as a result of competition to determine the best value for the taxpayer, said Bodman. It requires that over 2,600 employees now employed in the cleanup effort be offered employment by CH2M-WGI. About the size of the state of Rhode Island, the Idaho National Laboratory is located on 890 square miles in southeastern Idaho, west of the Snake River and 32 miles west of the city of Idaho Falls. The laboratory lies within the original aboriginal territories of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall reservation. Known until February as the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), the site then was expanded to include the Argonne National Laboratory West and is now known as the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The laboratory is situated above the upstream end of the Snake River Aquifer. It was established in 1949 for nuclear reactor research, nuclear navy research, training, nuclear waste storage, reprocessing irradiated fuel, and for the storage and disposal of radioactive and hazardous waste from nuclear weapons production. Fifty-two test reactors, most of them first-of-a-kind, were built and operated at the site, including the Navy's first prototype nuclear propulsion plant and the first reactor to utilize nuclear fission to produce a usable quantity of electricity. Of these, three reactors are still operating. [test] An INL technician tests for radiation near a road crossing the site. (Photo courtesy DOE) "Most had meltdowns, either intentionally or unintentionally. This legacy of nuclear waste either has, or is today, contaminating the Snake River Aquifer," warns the Snake River Alliance, a citizen watchdog group. The Snake River Aquifer is North America's second largest unified aquifer, containing about the same amount of water as Lake Erie. The aquifer has been designated a "sole-source" aquifer by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as it is the only source of drinking, cooking, cleaning, and bathing water for more than 270,000 people in southern Idaho. "Twenty-five percent of the nation's potatoes and 75 percent of the nation's trout are produced with Snake River Aquifer water," says the Snake River Alliance. The legacy of radioactive waste at INL is expected to take at least 11 more years to clean up, even on the accelerated schedule announced by the DOE in 2002. From the 1950s through the 70s, waste containing plutonium from the production of nuclear weapons was buried in shallow unlined pits and trenches at the facility. In addition, "millions of gallons of high-level liquid waste from reprocessing the Navy's spent nuclear fuel to recover weapons grade uranium was stored in underground tanks, often with leaking pipes contaminating the soil and groundwater," the Snake River Alliance says. Today, the Idaho National Laboratory houses naval spent fuel as well as spent fuel and debris from the Three Mile Island reactor in Pennsylvania, where the nation's worst nuclear accident occurred in 1979. [lab] The Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project was constructed by British Nuclear Fuel Limited. The facility will prepare transuranic waste now buried or stored at the INL for shipment. 1: Waste Storage Facilities; 2: Treatment Facility; and 3: Characterization Facility. (Photo courtesy INL Oversight [http://www.oversight.state.id.us] ) In addition, INL houses some 65,000 cubic meters of transuranic waste, at least half of the U.S. burden of this type of waste. It is being trucked to the WIPP isolation facility in New Mexico at the rate of about 2,000 cubic meters per month. All transuranic waste must be out of the state by December 31, 2018. The INL site now contains at least one million gallons of liquid sodiumbearing waste, as well as newly generated waste, at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC), which occupies about 200 acres of the laboratory site. In addition, 4,400 cubic meters of solid high-level nuclear waste is stored at INL. INL is still accumulating spent nuclear fuel from naval vessels. Under a 1995 court ordered settlement agreement with the state of Idaho and the EPA, the laboratory can receive only those shipments of naval spent fuel that are necessary to meet national security requirements to fuel or refuel nuclear powered submarines, surface warships, or naval prototype or training reactors. In any case, shipments of naval spent fuel to INL from 1995 through 2035 may not exceed 55 metric tons of spent fuel, equivalent to about 500 truck shipments. INTEC is a focal point for implementing the 1995 settlement agreement. Key objectives of this agreement are to remove all spent fuel from Idaho by the end of 2034, and to treat all high-level waste currently stored at INEEL so that it is ready to be moved out of Idaho by 2035. This highly radioactive waste is supposed to be headed for the Yucca Mountain geologic repository in Nevada, now undergoing a contentious licensing process before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. INTEC is responsible for INL's High-Level Waste Tank Farm - 11 underground stainless steel tanks used to store the radioactive liquid waste generated during the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and plant decontamination work. Most of the tank farm liquid has been calcined, reducing the volume and converting it to a more stable solid form. About one million gallons of liquid waste remains stored in underground tanks. [reactor] The Advanced Test Reactor at INL produces many of the nation's medical and industrial isotopes. This photo looks down into the reactor core from above. (Photo courtesy INL) The corrosion-resistant tanks are encased in concrete vaults which have sumps and leak detection. One tank is always kept empty for use as a transfer backup should a problem develop with one of the other 10 tanks, says INTEC. While no leakage has been detected from the tanks, "Some leaks from transfer lines outside the tanks have occurred, and this drives the current cleanup program," INTEC says. Under an agreement with the state of Idaho, all waste must be removed from the tanks by 2012. DOE is currently evaluating technologies to accomplish that. Waste that has been buried for decades is being retrieved from a half-acre portion of the INL’s Subsurface Disposal Area at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. In January, workers began removing selected waste containing uranium, plutonium and americium from a portion of an area known as Pit 4. The project will also remove volatile organic compounds, which are the most mobile constituents in the waste. Pit 4 was chosen for this retrieval action because it is known to contain some of the highest levels of transuranic contamination in the Subsurface Disposal Area. Under a 1991 federal-state agreement, all INL environmental cleanup activities were to be completed by the year 2070. Then, in 2002, DOE, the EPA and the state agreed to accelerate cleanup at INL. Under the accelerated timeline, all cleanup work is to be completed by 2020 or even as early as 2016. By accelerating the remediation activities, not only will the risks to human health and the environment be reduced faster, the DOE and citizens' groups say, but cleanup costs can be reduced by billions of dollars. The cleanup status of all major areas across the laboratory site is detailed here [http://www.inel.gov/facilities/] . New Nuclear Missions for the Idaho National Lab While cleanup of legacy waste is taking place, the Energy Department is planning new nuclear activities at INL. In February, the Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC (BEA) assumed the management and operational responsibility for the Idaho National Laboratory under a $4.8 billion, 10 year contract to transform the Idaho facility into the what the DOE calls the nation's “preeminent” nuclear energy laboratory. BEA is owned by the Battelle Memorial Institute. Team members include BWXT Services Inc. of Lynchburg, Virginia; Washington Group International of Boise, Idaho; the Electric Power Research Institute and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [Grossenbacher] Idaho National Laboratory Director John Grossenbacher is a former vice admiral in the U.S. Navy, assigned as Commander, Submarine Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet and Commander, Submarine Allied Command Atlantic, Norfolk, Virgina. (Photo courtesy INL) Leading the Battelle team is Laboratory Director John Grossenbacher. “We have been given a unique opportunity to lead a national renaissance in nuclear energy and build a world class national laboratory,” he said. One of the laboratory's major tasks is to develop a system that uses nuclear energy to produce hydrogen as a transportation fuel, to reduce the nation’s dependence on imported fossil fuel. "This work supports the President’s National Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and is an important element in the development of a clean and efficient hydrogen economy in the United States," the DOE said in a February statement. The new plan for the laboratory includes programs in areas such as materials science, chemistry, environmental science, computation and simulation. The lab will help protect the country’s critical infrastructure and prevent the proliferation of nuclear material, the DOE said. One of the laboratory’s major tasks will be to lead an international research and development effort to create advanced nuclear energy technology to provide for U.S. electrical demand. INL and Argonne National Lab are organizing and coordinating the Generation IV Initiative to develop nuclear technologies that achieve safety performance, waste reduction, and proliferation resistance. The DOE says Generation IV should provide a nuclear energy option that is economically competitive and ready for deployment before 2030. Internationally, the two labs have organized meetings of the Generation IV International Forum. Ten countries have so far joined the United States: the United Kingdom, France, Japan, Canada, Argentina, South Korea, Republic of South Africa, Switzerland, and Brazil. Six advanced nuclear technologies have been chosen for exploration. They are described here [http://energy.inel.gov/gen-iv/] . Production of Plutonium-238 Power Systems at INL The INL is being considered as the site for locating all of the nuclear activities associated with production of plutonium-238 fueled radioisotope power systems. Currently this work is done in New Mexico and Tennessee, as well as Idaho. Brad Bugger, spokesman for the DOE's Idaho Operations Office, says the DOE is currently looking at two alternatives for producing plutonium-238 power systems from radioactive neptunium-237. Placing the targets into the Advanced Test Reactor at the INL, and irradiating it, thereby converting some of the neptunium into plutonium-238. [reactor] INL's Advanced Test Reactor Critical Facility is used to verify reactivity of experiments placed in the reactor and core. (Photo courtesy DOE Idaho Operations office [http://www.id.doe.gov/] ) "The first would involve shipping neptunium-237 from Idaho, where it will be stored, to Oak Ridge in Tennessee, where it would be fabricated into targets. Then it would be shipped back to Idaho for irradiation, then down to Los Alamos in New Mexico for processing, then finally back to Idaho for construction of the radioisotope power systems. The second alternative would be to consolidate all of that work in Idaho," Bugger said. DOE officials maintain they intend to begin construction of the INL plutonium facility in October of this year. The Snake River Alliance is organizing public meetings across Idaho to inform people of the potential risks involved with such a proposal. The DOE is in the scoping phase of developing the environmental impact statement. The agency has held meetings in Wyoming, New Mexico, Tennessee and Washington, DC, asking the public for other alternatives that the department should consider. Bugger acknowledges that "some citizens are concerned that plutonium or other potentially hazardous materials might escape from the production facilities. In particular, they questioned the reliability of the high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters that are used to protect the air from hazardous particles, especially under accident scenarios." While he could not answer this concern, he said, "The Department has heard the public, loud and clear, about how important it is to look at this concern." At the scoping meetings some citizens have questioned why the DOE cannot discuss the classified national security uses of the radioisotope power systems. "Some have inferred from this that the systems will be used in nuclear weapons. Others have noted that Pu-238 has been used in nuclear weapons systems in the past," said Bugger. "I understand that some citizens may never accept the fact that we can’t tell them what those uses are, but we can’t change the rules of the game," said Bugger. "I can tell you that the systems produced for national security are not intended for use in nuclear weapons or to support nuclear weapons, and will not be used in space. The systems will be used to produce power for the national security mission." [drum] The Integrated Waste Tracking System tracks solid, hazardous, radioacitve, and mixed waste from generation through final disposition. The system does not track spent nuclear fuel or high level waste. (Photo courtesy INL [http://tech.inel.gov] ) There has been a good deal of concern raised about nuclear waste, how much would be generated by this project and what would happen to it. In reply, Bugger said, " DOE will do everything it can to minimize the amount of waste generated by this project, and to reuse as much neptunium and plutonium as possible, because they are both very valuable materials. We also will comply with all existing laws and regulations governing this waste, and we intend to ship whatever waste is finally generated off-site to regulated disposal facilities." There has been concern raised about the transportation of the nuclear materials that will be used in the production of the plutonium-238, and of the finished radioisotope power systems, especially by the Shoshone-Bannock tribes whose lands would be crossed by trucks bearing the radioactive materials. Some at scoping hearings asked if the consolidation of the plutonium-238 in Idaho might make the INL a bigger terrorist target. To this concern, Bugger would only say, "Terrorism is always a concern we take very seriously at the INL, no matter what the potential target – a reactor, waste storage, special nuclear materials, etc. – might be. We have a well trained, well-armed security force, a sophisticated information network and the full resources of the United States government to rely upon." The laboratory will also lead the establishment of the Center for Advanced Energy Studies, a collaborative effort between the state of Idaho, the laboratory and universities in Idaho and across the country. This center will bring academia into the life of the laboratory and provide students and professors access to the laboratory’s unique capabilities. The DOE intends that through this center, the INL will become a nationally and internationally recognized focal point in the advancement of education in energy science and technology. Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 38 Tri-City Herald: DOE names contractor for $1.9 billion cleanup This story was published Thursday, March 24th, 2005 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The Department of Energy awarded a $1.9 billion, seven-year contract Wednesday to Washington Closure to clean up the 210 square miles of Hanford's Columbia River corridor. Washington Closure is a limited liability corporation owned by three contractors with decades of experience at Hanford: Washington Group International, Bechtel National and CH2M Hill. Washington Group will take the lead on the project as majority owner. Subcontractors are Eberline Services and Integrated Logistics Services. "The Washington Closure proposal provided DOE an obvious best-value solution with the highest confidence and the lowest cost to complete the closure of the Hanford Site River Corridor," said Paul Golan, DOE's principal deputy assistant secretary for environmental management, in a prepared statement. This is DOE's second attempt to award the contract, and a new alliance has been formed by former adversaries. In 2002, Washington Group teamed with Fluor Federal Services and Earth Tech to submit what was named the winning bid in 2003. That bid was successfully challenged by the contractors that have since teamed up with Washington Group -- Bechtel National and CH2M Hill -- to win the contract Wednesday. In the meantime, work to clean up the river corridor has continued with 10 short-term contract extensions awarded to Bechtel Hanford. It has done the work now for almost 11 years. "Awarding this important and high-profile contract is a major step forward in the Hanford cleanup," said Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman in a prepared statement. Work covers cleanup of Hanford near the outer edge of the nuclear reservation along the Columbia River from just north of Richland to the reactors that line the Columbia River almost to the Vernita Bridge. For more than 40 years, Hanford made plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program. DOE's goal is to clean up the river corridor by 2015, and the contract award includes incentives for Washington Closure to accelerate work and finish in 2012, according to DOE. DOE calls it a "cost-plus-incentive-fee" contract. For every dollar the work comes in under Washington Closure's target cost, the company will receive 20 cents in additional fees. For every dollar in increased expenses, it will lose 20 cents in fees. The River Corridor Contract as proposed in 2001 would have offered an incentive fee, but the Hanford Advisory Board told DOE the winning contractor also should face an equal penalty for failing to meet target costs. The contract requires that 60 percent of the work be subcontracted, with at least half of the subcontracted work going to small businesses. That means at least $3 of every $10 in the contract will be paid to small business. The contract "will get us the best of what both large and small businesses have to offer -- experience, innovation and performance," Bodman said. DOE changed the revised contract solicitation in July after Tri-City-area small businesses asked U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., for more opportunity to participate in the work. Hastings also intervened to help protect benefits. Washington Closure will be required to keep present Hanford workers in the traditional Hanford retirement plan, rather than moving them to a corporate plan after five years. The previous contract award that was overturned would have paid Washington Closure $974 million for five year's work covering Phase 1 of the cleanup. The contract could have been extended for five more years to continue the cleanup. The Bechtel team, which bid close to $1.5 billion, got the contract award overturned after complaining the Washington Closure proposal was unrealistically low. The contract awarded Wednesday is for nearly $1 billion more than the previous contract award but includes all the work needed to close the river corridor. It also adds some work to the contract farther from the river not included in 2003. DOE said the contract award is a savings of $2 billion to $3 billion over prior estimates. The proposed Hanford budget for fiscal year 2006 does not appear to support the new contract, said Gerald Pollet of Heart of America Northwest, a Hanford watchdog group. It would decrease current spending by $43 million to $168 million annually, he said. "You can't possibly get the work done by 2012 at this funding level," he said. The solicitation for bids included a range of annual spending, and the $168 billion falls on the low end of the range. Spending on the contract would have to be increased in future years, particularly as work advances to include difficult projects like cleanup of the highly radioactive 618-10 and 618-11 burial grounds. The contract includes placing four more reactors along the river, some dating back to the 1940s, into storage. Reactors are torn down to their radioactive cores, which are roofed and closed up. Work also could include cocooning the historic B Reactor, if efforts to save it as a museum are not successful. The contract also covers cleaning up the 300 Area just north of Richland where uranium fuel was fabricated and processes used in central Hanford were tested. Many of the laboratories and buildings there are used by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which is working to have new laboratories ready by 2009. The river corridor contractor will tear down all buildings and continue to dig up sites where radioactively contaminated materials were buried. The contractor also would operate the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, a huge landfill in central Hanford. Responsibilities added to the new contract include work to clean up the 400 Area where Hanford's research reactor, the Fast Flux Test Facility, operated. However, it does not include FFTF, which DOE plans to have shut down by the winner of a small-business contract. More challenging is the addition of the cleanup of the 618-10 and 618-11 burial grounds where waste from nuclear fuel tests and other experiments were dumped. Some of the waste was so radioactive that drivers making the 10-mile haul from the 300 Area north to the burial grounds had to be replaced with relief drivers halfway there in the 1950s and 1960s. A 90-day transition period between contractors is planned. Although Bechtel Hanford workers were told Wednesday that the transition would begin immediately, Washington Closure later said it still is awaiting word from DOE on beginning the transition. About 645 people are employed under the expiring contract, plus 100 to 150 subcontractor employees. Washington Group will determine the number of people needed to do the work under the river corridor contract, said Washington Closure spokesman Todd Nelson. The transition could be halted if one of the losing bidders files a protest with the Government Accountability Office, until the office makes a ruling. Also bidding on the contract were Fluor Corp. and a team led by Tetra Tech FW with Entergy. The Environmental Protection Agency, a regulator on the project, had begun to fear that work would be delayed as it waited for a new contractor to be selected, said Nick Ceto, EPA Hanford project manager, adding he was pleased the contract had been awarded. "This has been a long wait and I appreciate all you have done to stay focused on the job at hand," said Tom Logan, Bechtel Hanford president, in a message to employees. Washington Group International, based in Idaho, was formed from a series of mergers that included Westinghouse Government Services Group. Westinghouse is a former prime contractor at Hanford. Bechtel National is building the $5.8 billion vitrification plant at Hanford that Washington Group will operate, and CH2M Hill operates Hanford's 177 underground tanks holding radioactive waste. © 2005 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 39 Cincinnati Enquirer: Nuclear sword site now unplowed shares [http://www.cincinnati.com] [http://www.enquirer.com] | [http://www.cincypost.com] | Thursday, March 24, 2005 Fernald site to become world-class wetlands By Dan Klepal Enquirer staff writer Biologist Joe Bartoszek checks a pond trap to see what kind of wildlife is making itself at home at the former Fernald nuclear weapons site in northwest Hamilton County. Photos by Michael E. Keating/The Enquirer • Fernald Wetlands This spring peeper frog was spotted at the property where, for years, uranium was processed for nuclear weapons. Decontamination at the site is estimated to be about 80 percent complete. Restoration should be finished next year. CROSBY TWP. - In its day, the Fernald plant was a world-class facility where high-grade uranium was produced for the country's Cold War-era nuclear weapons program. Today, it's becoming a world-class wetland. About half of the 1,000-acre site has been returned to nature - in the form of a variety of wetlands, prairie and forest - with the other half scheduled for completion by this time next year. Soon after the entire Fernald site is certified clean, scheduled for June 2006, it will be open to the public as an undeveloped park where people can observe nature. Scientists with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency trudged through the Fernald property this week looking for a variety of bugs, frogs and other critters that told them these man-made wild places are indeed returning to nature. "These are restored wetlands, so we can't expect something we dug out to be as good as a natural wetland that has been preserved," said Tom Schneider, the OEPA's representative at Fernald. "But this is in the upper echelon of restored sites in the state. It's not a small wetland surrounded by houses. "It's a lot of small wetlands surrounded by other small wetlands," Schneider said. "This will be one of the largest restored wetland areas in the state, and one with the largest diversity of wildlife." The restoration will put to rest most of the claims in a lawsuit filed by OEPA against the federal Department of Energy in the 1970s. That suit, which initiated the cleanup, claims damage to the state's natural resources from Fernald contamination. There is still one sticking point - whether or not the federal government will spend about $5 million building an education center at the site that tells how the contamination, and the subsequent cleanup, unfolded. Lawyers for the Department of Energy say that once the restoration is complete, the state has no claim. But OEPA officials say they are still owed compensation for the 20 years of not being able to use the underground aquifer under the site that is contaminated with uranium. That aquifer supplied drinking water to thousands of people in the township. OEPA wants the government to build the education center instead of writing it a check. Lawyers for both sides are still negotiating. Education center or not, the plan is to return all but about 200 acres of the site to nature. That will be done by this time next year, said Harold Swiger, an ecologist and forester for the contractor performing the work. It has been Swiger's job to design the wild areas. Swiger said all man-made wetlands are not created equal. He has tried to make sure these wetlands at Fernald have all the features that dotted the landscape before the land was spoiled. His crews have removed plants and trees that are not native to the area, replacing them with native species. They have brought in truckloads of muck - full of rich soil, plant seeds, bugs and other tiny critters - to give life a jump start. "We have a couple of flocks of turkeys out here and we only had two animals in 1997," Swiger said. "During flyover season, we have a large number of shore birds - ducks and geese - using our areas. We have mink in another pond, and we've even seen some beaver. It's very rewarding to see different animals coming in." Crews at Fernald have a guidebook, of sorts, in restoring the land. They've used the original Hamilton County land survey, circa 1807, that has many descriptions of native plants, wetland size and the animals seen. Joe Bartoszek, an aquatic biologist with the OEPA who oversees water quality issues at Fernald, says the wild areas at the site are doing better than anyone could have imagined before the project started. Bartoszek said he often visits natural wetlands to survey the wildlife in them for comparison to what he finds in the ponds and swamps at Fernald. "We've just got a very good diversity of aquatic insects, amphibians and other critters, and that's always a good thing," he said between pulling insect and amphibian traps out of ponds Wednesday. "We're doing really, really well." E-mail [dklepal@enquirer.com] ***************************************************************** 40 Idaho Statesman: WGI gets piece of nuke cleanup jobs [http://www.idahostatesman.com 03-24-2005 $5 billion deal covers work at INL, Hanford Related Links + [http://www.wgint.com/] [mmaharry@idahostatesman.com] The Idaho Statesma Shannon Dininny The Associated Press The Idaho Statesman | Edition Date: 03-24-2005 After months of delays, the U.S. Department of Energy awarded two contracts valued at nearly $5 billion Wednesday to clean up portions of two nuclear sites in Idaho and Washington. Washington Group International, with headquarters in Boise, will share in both contracts. A $2.9 billion contract was awarded to the team of Denver-based CH2M Hill and Washington Group International to treat and dispose of radioactive waste at the Idaho National Laboratory, located in the Snake River Plain between Arco and Idaho Falls. A separate $1.9 billion contract was awarded to Washington Closure LLC, a team of five companies led by Washington Group International, to clean up the 210-square-mile Columbia River corridor at south-central Washington's Hanford nuclear reservation. Both contracts run through 2012, the Energy Department said in news releases. "This is one of the greatest days our company has ever had in respect to new contract awards," said Stephen G. Hanks, WGI president and chief executive officer. "Both of these awards are a credit to our company's ability to perform highly complex and technically advanced projects. It's even more important to our company that these projects are within hours of our corporate headquarters and will have a positive effect on the people who live in the Northwest, as we do." In addition to treating and disposing of radioactive waste, the contract to clean up Idaho National Laboratory involves managing nuclear fuel, dismantling nuclear reactors and other buildings, and additional environmental remediation. Last week, the Energy Department had announced that the contract award to clean up the Idaho National Laboratory would be delayed, possibly by up to several months, due to "unresolved issues." The agency never released details. The department originally planned to announce the contractor for the cleanup work last November, but delays in writing the contract's scope pushed back the announcement. Bechtel and BWXT hold the current contract until April 30. The contract requires that the more than 2,600 Bechtel and BWXT employees already involved in the cleanup be offered jobs by CH2M Hill and Washington Group, which will take over management of the cleanup work on May 1. "Washington Group has been a contractor at the site for more than a half-century, during which time we either designed, built or operated many of the primary facilities on the site," Hanks said. "We're thrilled to continue our involvement in work so vital to our state and nation." For 40 years, the Hanford reservation made plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal, beginning with the top-secret Manhattan Project to build an atomic bomb. Today, it is the nation's most contaminated nuclear site. Cleanup costs are expected to total $50 billion to $60 billion, with the work to be finished by 2035. The work covered under the river corridor contract primarily involves removing radioactive and chemically contaminated soil from the shoreline, demolishing and sealing Hanford's nine nuclear reactors and cleaning up an area at the south end of the 586-square-mile reservation. The government's independent cost estimate for the work was about $3 billion, but the contract was awarded at about $1.9 billion over seven years. The contract includes incentives to stay in budget. For every dollar the work comes in under budget, the company will receive an additional 20 cents, but the company will lose 20 cents of its fee for every dollar in increased expense, according to the release. "We have a talented team that has a lot of creative ideas, and we have an incentive package we believe will help us to get the job done," said Jack Herrmann, vice president of communications for Washington Group's energy and environment business unit. The contract award follows two years of disputes among bidders, workers and the Energy Department. Bechtel Hanford, a subsidiary of Bechtel National, began managing the removal of contaminated soil and the cocooning of nuclear reactors in 1994. The contract was expanded and rebid in 2002. The Energy Department awarded the contract a year later to a group led by Washington Group, but losing bidder Bechtel Hanford successfully challenged that award. The Energy Department then reopened the bidding process last summer, only to see new delays. Hanford workers complained that the plan called for removing them from the Hanford Site Pension Plan after five years, forcing them to transfer to the contractor's pension plan. The provision was intended to reduce long-term liabilities to the federal government. Small businesses complained that they were being left out of the work. Under the new contract, employees of Hanford contractors handling the work will be able to continue to participate in the federal pension plan. In addition, 60 percent of the work must be subcontracted out, with 50 percent of that going to small businesses. In the end, Washington Group and Bechtel National joined forces with CH2M Hill, Eberline Services and Integrated Logistics Services to win the contract award. They will take over the work in 90 days. Washington Group has been remarkably successful since emerging from bankruptcy in 2002. The company now has about 25,000 employees at work in more than 40 states and 30 countries. The company last week reported record year-end profits of $51.1 million, up 22 percent from the previous year, on sales of $2.9 billion, up 17 percent. ***************************************************************** 41 PISJ: INL awards $2.9 billion contract for cleanup: Job to be performed by CH2M-WG Idaho Pocatello Idaho State Journal: Taking risks, turning profits: British native finds success in Pocatello By Casey Santee [csantee@journalnet.com] - Journal Writer POCATELLO - The U.S. Department of Energy announced Wednesday that CH2M-WG Idaho was awarded a $2.9 billion contract to lead a seven-year cleanup project at the Idaho National Laboratory. CH2M-WG Idaho, which is a multi-company team comprised of Denver- based CH2M Hill and Boise-based Washington Group International, among others, said the effort will pave the way for INL's future. This contract follows a $4.8 billion DOE contract awarded to Battelle Energy Alliance in November to manage the INL. The two contractors are separate, but according to the DOE, they will work together. "We are honored to be entrusted with this important project," said Alan Parker, CH2M-WG Idaho president and chief executive officer. "As someone who grew up in the state, I understand how critical this project is to the future of Idaho. We need to safely and effectively perform this work to protect our environment." Chubbuck-based Premier Technology will also have a stake in the project. "We are part of the winning team," Premier spokesman Arlen Wittrock said. "We will do a small percentage of the work, but it's a small percentage of a very big contract. It's great news for Premier Technology to be a part of this." Wittrock said he could not elaborate on Premier's part in the project, but according to a CH2M Hill officials, Premier will help by designing and building "specialty fabricated stainless steel equipment." CH2M Hill spokesman John Corsi said they will treat and dispose of radioactive waste, manage spent nuclear fuel, and demolish out-of-date reactor and non-reactor facilities at the 890-square mile INL site. He said their top goals will be working with local communities, involving them in key cleanup issues, and protecting the Snake River Aquifer. Corsi also said more than 2,600 INL employees currently working on the cleanup will be offered positions with CH2M-WG Idaho. CH2M-WG Idaho, which was selected as a result of competition to determine the best value for the taxpayer, will immediately begin transitioning into its new role and will take over management of cleanup work May 1, 2005, according to a DOE press release. CH2M Hill is an employee-owned firm with more than 14,000 employees. It has more than 200 offices worldwide, including one in Boise and another in Idaho Falls. Washington Group International designed, built and managed many of the original facilities at the INL site. WGI has more than 27,000 employees working in 40 states and 30 countries. "Both CH2M Hill and Washington Group International have deep roots in Idaho," Corsi said. "We think this project will benefit the state and help ensure the viability of the lab's mission." Casey Santee - Journal Writer'> CH2M-WG Idaho, which is a multi-company team comprised of Denver- based CH2M Hill and Boise-based Washington Group International, among others, said the effort will pave the way for INL's future."> This document was originally published online on Thursday, March 24, 2005 Copyright © 2005 Pocatello Idaho State Journal P O Box 431 Pocatello, ID 83204-0431 ***************************************************************** 42 PR News: CH2M HILL-Washington Group Team Selected to Lead $2.9 Billion Cleanup of Idaho National Laboratory Site BOISE, Idaho, March 23 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Washington Group International Inc. (Nasdaq: WGII [http://studio.financialcontent.com/Engine?Account=prnewswire&Pag eName=QUOTE&Ticker=WGII] ) announced today that CH2M-WG Idaho, LLC has been selected by the U.S. Department of Energy to lead the $2.9 billion environmental cleanup of the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) site in Eastern Idaho. CH2M-WG Idaho, LLC is comprised of Denver-based CH2M HILL and Boise-based Washington Group. The project, named the Idaho Cleanup Project (ICP), will be a seven-year undertaking to safely perform the cleanup of the 890-square-mile site. "This is the second major contract award for Washington Group at the Idaho National Laboratory in the last few months, and we are thrilled to continue our involvement in work so vital to our state and nation," said Stephen G. Hanks, president and chief executive officer of Washington Group. Hanks noted that the company is part of the Battelle Energy Alliance that was selected by the DOE for a $4.8 billion contract to operate the INL in November of last year. Under the contract announced today, CH2M-WG Idaho will be responsible for treatment and disposal of radioactive waste; retrieval, disposal, and other remediation related to buried waste; safe management of spent nuclear fuel; disposition of nuclear materials; disposition of reactor and non-reactor nuclear facilities; and other environmental remediation activities. The DOE announced that CH2M-WG Idaho is expected to work closely with the public, regulators, and other contractors working at the Idaho site to ensure success of the cleanup. The CH2M-WG Idaho team will immediately begin transitioning into its new role and take over management of the cleanup work on May 1, 2005. The contract runs through September 20, 2012. The contract specifically states that the more than 2,600 employees currently employed in the cleanup effort will be offered employment by CH2M-WG Idaho. According to the DOE, CH2M-WG Idaho was selected for the contract as a result of a competition to determine the best value for the taxpayer. "Washington Group has been a contractor at the site for more than a half-century during which time we either designed, built, or operated many of the primary facilities on the site," said Hanks. "Today's announcement and Washington Group's participation with the Battelle Energy Alliance team certainly says a great deal about our company's ability to take on a broad range of complex and challenging projects." Washington Group International, Inc. http://www.wgint.com [http://www.wgint.com] provides the talent, innovation, and proven performance to deliver integrated engineering, construction, and management solutions for businesses and governments worldwide. With approximately 25,000 employees at work in over 40 states and more than 30 countries, the company provides professional, scientific, management, and development services in more than two dozen major markets: power generation, transmission and distribution, and clean air solutions; environmental remediation; heavy civil construction; mining; nuclear services; defense, homeland security, and global threat reduction; industrial, chemical, and pharmaceutical processing; manufacturing; facilities operations and management; transportation; and water resources. This news release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which are identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as may, will, could, should, expect, anticipate, intend, plan, estimate, or continue or the negative thereof or other variations thereof. Such forward-looking statements are necessarily based on assumptions and estimates of management and are inherently subject to various risks and uncertainties. Actual results may vary materially as a result of changes or developments in social, economic, business market, legal, and regulatory circumstances or conditions, both domestically and globally, as well as due to actions by our customers, clients, suppliers, business partners, or government bodies. We are subject to numerous factors, including demand for new power generation and for modification of existing power facilities, public sector funding, demand for extractive resources, capital spending plans of our customer base, and spending levels and priorities of the U.S., state and other governments. Results may also vary as a result of difficulties or delays experienced in the execution of contracts or implementation of strategic initiatives. For additional risks and uncertainties impacting the forward-looking statements contained in this news release, please see "Note Regarding Forward-looking Information" and "Item 1. Business -- Risk Factors" in Washington Group's annual report on Form 10-K for fiscal year 2003. SOURCE Washington Group International Inc. Web Site: http://www.wgint.com [http://www.wgint.com] [http://www.prnewswire.com/media/] ***************************************************************** 43 KLAS: Federal Judge Will Hear Shoshone Tribe's DOE Lawsuit March 24, 2005 A federal judge has agreed to hear a lawsuit filed by the Western Shoshone tribe against the Department of Energy. The Shoshone tribe claims that an 1866 land use treaty involving Yucca Mountain only allows the federal government to use the land to establish settlements and to build roads and railroads. The suit maintains that putting nuclear waste in the mountain would violate the treaty. The Shoshone tribe's claim will be heard in federal court Wednesday, April 27 here in Las Vegas. Brian Allen, Reporter Peace Treaty of 1866 Could Stop Yucca Mountain Project There's a new legal challenge against Yucca Mountain. The Western Shoshone Nation is suing the DOE, claiming the proposed nuclear dump violates a land use treaty dating back to the 1800s. [http://www.worldnow.com] All content © Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and KLAS. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************