*****************************************************************
07/15/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.162
*****************************************************************
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 Irna: Iran, Russia discuss closer cooperation -
2 Irna: Russia determined to continue nuclear cooperation with Iran -
3 Xinhua: US urges DPRK to engage in talks "in constructive manner"
4 Japan Times: Priorities in the six-party talks
5 US: [southnews] US to Test Massive 'Bunker-Busting' Missile
6 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Rejects China General's Nuke Remarks
7 US: St. Louis Post-Dispatch: The atomic bomb turns 60
8 US: DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD: privacy act
9 US: SF Chronicle: Radical nuclear weapons overhaul recommended
10 Guardian Unlimited: Unanswered questions still surround the sinking
11 BBC: Cold War bunker fails at
NUCLEAR REACTORS
12 US: Epstein Out; Nuclear & Safety Issues in Play
13 US: NRC: NRC Schedules Regulatory Conference to Discuss Crystal Rive
14 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: Diablo study is a nod to safety
15 US: NRC: NRC Issues $60,000 Fine for Inattentive Control Room Superv
16 US: Lancaster Online.com: NRC ups TMI oversight following training l
17 US: APP.COM: Put evacuation to the test
18 canada.com: Fort St. John N.B. may still refurbish plant
19 canada.com: Liberal leaders from N.B. and P.E.I. agree nuclear power
20 canada.com: N.B. government considers nuclear facility retrofit with
21 CBC New Brunswick: Lord will decide on Lepreau in 2 weeks
NUCLEAR SECURITY
22 Guardian Unlimited: Reactor on Olympic site no cause for alarm
NUCLEAR SAFETY
23 US: [du-list] COUNTERPUNCH: DU - States Take Action to Protect
24 US: Cibola County Beacon: Attorney explains claim E to miners
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
25 AU News.com.au: Northern Territory named for new dump
26 NEWS.com.au: Dump confirmed for NT
27 Nevada Appeal: Bryan honored for public service with building dedica
28 AU ABC: Critics slam NT nuclear waste dump
29 AU ABC: Union seeks risk assessment for nuclear waste transport
30 US: Yahoo: Australia's Deep Yellow Plans Uranium Acquisitions
31 Las Vegas SUN: State building named in honor of Richard Bryan
32 Las Vegas SUN: Porter prepared to turn up heat on e-mails
33 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Transportation Dept. prepares for nuke hauls
34 US: Sioux City Journal: Kansas, other states not ready to give up
35 US: NRC: RIN 3150-AH72 Spent fuel casks
36 US: Mos News: France Blocking Russia’s Entry to Spent Nuclear Fuel M
37 AU ABC: NT chosen as site of new waste dump
38 AU ABC: NT set to oppose Govt nuclear waste plan
39 US: NRC: RIN 3150-AH72 spent fuel casks
40 AU ABC: Union seeks risk assessment for nuclear waste transport.
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
41 SF Chronicle: LIVERMORE / Remove plutonium from lab, task force says
42 KRQE News 13: Group recommends combining Sandia, LANL
43 Newsday.com: Judge dismissed BNL pollution suit
44 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Rocky
45 DOE: Biological and Environmental Research (BER); Federal Interagenc
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 Irna: Iran, Russia discuss closer cooperation -
Moscow, July 15, IRNA
Iran-Lavrov-Meeting
Iranian Ambassador to Russia Gholam-Reza Ansari and the Russian
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in a meeting here Friday
exchanged views on cooperation on the national, regional and
international levels.
During the meeting, the two sides reviewed the latest position
of collaboration in the fields of politics and economy as well
as peaceful nuclear projects.
For his part, Lavrov underlined the significance of Iran's
membership in Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and
referred to its impact on expansion of regional collaboration.
The Iranian diplomat hoped that SCO will manage to play an
active role in settling the regional issues.
Ansari thanked the timely amicable message of congratulation
addressed to the President-Elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by the
Russian President Vladimir Putin and noted that expansion of
mutual ties will secure the interests of both sides.
During the meeting, both sides dismissed the interference of
the ultra-regional states in the Caspian Sea security and
reiterated the need for closer intra-regional cooperation.
Meanwhile, the two officials reminded the need to expedite the
process of drawing up the convention of the Caspian Sea Legal
Regime.
Besides, Lavrov and Ansari exchanged views on energy and
transportation.
Lavrov also expressed the will of Russian enterprises to
participate in Iran's oil and gas projects.
*****************************************************************
2 Irna: Russia determined to continue nuclear cooperation with Iran -
Moscow, July 15, IRNA
Iran-Russia-Nuclear
In a meeting with head of the Russia Federal Atomic Energy
Agency Alexander Rumyantsev here Thursday declared the firm
determination of his country to continue peaceful nuclear
cooperation with Iran.
Speaking to reporters, he added that Russia will also
participate in establishment of a nuclear power plant in the
Islamic Republic of Iran.
Rumyantsev noted that Iran is definitely entitled to set up
atomic power stations, given that they will help boost its
economy and industries.
Turning to the draft on construction of 20 more new power
stations examined by Majlis, he underlined that Russia cannot
manage to help Iran establish twenty power plants simultaneously.
He added that obviously the cooperation of other countries in
these projects is required. He pointed out that establishment of
new power stations in Iran will provide a competitive market.
The Russian official hoped that his country will be a
forerunner in this respect.
He referred to the US sensitivity towards cooperation between
Iran and Russia on peaceful nuclear issues and said that US
criticizes Iran that it intends to produce its required nuclear
fuel, which could be used for non-peaceful purposes.
"We propose Iran to purchase its required nuclear fuel from
other countries and to return the waste fuel, given that from
economic point of view this will be to its interest. However,
Iran is legally entitled to produce its required atomic fuel,"
he added.
Rumyantsev noted that Iran-Russia collaboration is not limited
to nuclear issues and termed Iran as one of the best trade and
economic markets both in the region and worldwide.
"We intend to bolster our cooperation with Iran in the domains
of gas and oil extraction, transportation, North-South Corridor,
launching Zohre satellite and purchase of goods produced by the
Iranian small industries including carpets, handicrafts and
foodstuff.
As the head of Iran-Russia Commission, Rumyantsev once more
referred to the great potentials of both sides and reiterated
the need to broaden trade and economic collaboration.
He put the current volume of trade exchange between the two
states at two billion dollars, which shows a twofold boost
compared to the similar figure of the past years.
"However, such a figure is not satisfactory to any of the two
countries. The volume of the trade exchanges should be increased
10 times in the future and reach 20 billion dollars," he added.
Rumyantsev expressed confidence that collaboration between the
two states will broaden in future.
Go Top [Go Top]
*****************************************************************
3 Xinhua: US urges DPRK to engage in talks "in constructive manner"
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-07-16 04:14:33
WASHINGTON, July 15 (Xinhuanet) -- The United States urged
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) on Friday to
engage in the six-party talks "in a constructive manner" and
give up its nuclear weapons.
"We are talking about the modalities with other members of
the six-party talks, but we are ready to roll up our sleeves and
engage in a discussion. But what has to happen first is we need
the North Koreans to engage in a constructive manner, respond to
the proposal that they have before them," State Department
spokesman Sean McCormack said at a briefing.
The United States put forward a proposal to solve the DPRK
nuclear issue during the last round of six-party talks in
Beijing in June last year, but the DPRK has criticized the
proposal as unbalanced.
"We're ready to see if the North Korean government has made
a strategic decision to give up its nuclear weapons," McCormack
said.
The DPRK has agreed to return to the six-party talks in the
week of July 25. The talks were stalled in the third round of
talks held in June last year. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
4 Japan Times: Priorities in the six-party talks
Saturday, July 16, 2005
EDITORIAL
The next round of six-party talks, the multilateral negotiations
over North Korea's nuclear-weapons programs, are scheduled to
resume the week of July 25 in Beijing. While it is unclear what
motivated North Korea to return to the talks, success will
depend on whether the other five parties -- Japan, the United
States, South Korea, China and Russia -- can convince Pyongyang
that nuclear weapons do not enhance its security but rather
detract from it. To do so, the five governments must work out a
strategy that enables them to speak with one voice.
Much has transpired since the last round of talks, which was
held over a year ago. At that meeting, the U.S. finally put a
detailed proposal on the table: It reportedly provided the long
awaited road map that spelled out what Pyongyang could expect in
return for agreeing to the dismantlement of its nuclear-weapons
programs. Instead of responding, though, the North suspended
participation in the talks, citing hostile comments by the
government in Washington. Pyongyang was most likely waiting for
the outcome of the U.S. presidential elections, hoping for a
"regime change" in Washington that would soften the U.S.
position. Those hopes were frustrated by the re-election of
President George W. Bush, but North Korea continued to hold out,
awaiting clarification of U.S. policy.
When things were clarified, Pyongyang remained unhappy with the
results. The North demanded that Washington end its "hostile
policies" and retract statements calling North Korea "an outpost
of tyranny" and referring to supreme leader Kim Jong Il as "a
tyrant." In an attempt to up the ante, North Korea on Feb. 10
declared itself a nuclear-weapons state, a move aimed at
transforming relations among the six parties and shifting
negotiations from the focus on the North to disarmament
throughout the region.
The statement was a tactical mistake. It was ignored, and it
helped convince Seoul and Beijing, North Korea's two most
important supporters, that Pyongyang was the cause of this
crisis, rather than Washington. As a result, both governments
have become less tolerant of the North's tactics and demanded
that it return to the talks. Seoul, in particular, has taken a
harder line and conditioned assistance to the impoverished
country on a resumption of negotiations. The U.S. has helped by
repeating earlier statements that it respects North Korean
sovereignty and has no intention of invading or attacking. Mr.
Bush has gone out of his way to offer the respect that North
Korea's leader craves by referring to him as "Mr. Kim."
That may have given North Korea the "victory" it needed to
return to the negotiations. South Korea's promise to provide
fertilizer and rice sweetened the pot. Finally, the prospect of
2 million kilowatts of electricity -- Seoul's latest offer to
the North, conditioned on the dismantling of its nuclear program
-- gives Pyongyang an incentive to discuss the U.S. proposal.
Getting the North back to the table is a step forward, but it
is only that; talks for the mere sake of talking is not
progress. There must be genuine movement toward eliminating
North Korea's nuclear-weapons programs and dismantling the
stockpiles of plutonium and whatever weapons the North now
claims to have. Getting Pyongyang to do that requires that the
other five parties speak with one voice and insist on
denuclearization. Those other five parties must also be ready to
meet North Korea's legitimate security needs. Some form of
security assurances are needed, as is economic assistance.
Resumption of the talks poses particular problems for Japan.
It, perhaps more than any other country, is threatened by the
North's nuclear arsenal. Pyongyang is unlikely to target China,
Russia or South Korea, and does not yet have the capability to
threaten the U.S. with its missiles. Disarmament is therefore a
key security concern for Japan. But questions about the fate of
Japanese abductees still top the public's agenda with the North.
This issue, although emotional, pales beside the nuclear one.
Japan must be ready to compromise. It can and should demand
security assurances from North Korea, just as Pyongyang makes
demands from its interlocutors. But it is unlikely to get more
than rhetorical support for resolution of the abductee issue
within the six-party framework. The other governments will focus
on nuclear-related questions and large-scale economic
assistance, as well as on a broader conceptual framework for
normalizing relations among all six parties.
That is the setting in which Tokyo and Pyongyang will be able
to settle the abductee issue. It is not going to be a very
satisfactory situation, but it is important that Tokyo focus on
priorities. Only a unified position will get North Korea to
deal, and only then will Japan be able to settle its grievances
with Pyongyang. It will be a long and frustrating process.
The Japan Times: July 16, 2005
(C) All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
5 [southnews] US to Test Massive 'Bunker-Busting' Missile
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 01:24:44 -0500 (CDT)
The United States is close to testing a new missile aimed at destroying
deep bunkers where suspected weapons of mass destruction are stored, the
a British science magazine New Scientist in Saturday's issue of has
reported.
US Close To Testing Massive "Bunker-Busting" Missile
Paris (AFP) Jul 13, 2005
The United States is close to testing a new missile aimed at destroying
deep bunkers where suspected weapons of mass destruction are stored, the
a British science magazine has reported.
Four prototypes of the new "bunker-buster" will be tested later this
year by Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control of Dallas, Texas,
which are working with US Navy scientists on behalf of the Pentagon's
Threat Reduction Agency, it says.
Traditional bunker bombs are streamlined bombs whose sheer weight
enables them to force through soil, rock or concrete before they detonate.
The new design is different, the report, in next Saturday's issue of New
Scientist, says.
The missile has a blunt nose that, combined with high velocity, creates
a bubble of air in front of the weapon. The idea is that the bubble
forces earth out to the sides as the missile descends, creating a cavity
that the weapon can slide through.
The warhead could thus reach much deeper buried structures than
conventional bunker-busters, the inventors hope.
The principle for the weapon comes from a new generation of high-speed
torpedoes, which create a gas bubble around themselves called a supercavity.
A Russian torpedo of this kind, called Shkval, can move through the
water at 360 kilometers (225 miles) per hour because it is essentially
moving through water vapour rather than water, and resistance is thus
very low.
"Lockheed Martin hopes the supercavitating missile will reach 10 times
the depth of the current air-force record holder, the huge BLU-113
bunker-buster, which can break through seven metres of concrete (22.7
feet) or 30 metresfeet) of earth," New Scientist says.
In addition, the new weapon could carry more explosives than its
predecessors.
The BLU-133 needs a thick casing to resist friction, but a
supercavitating missiles could have a thin casing, leaving more space
for explosives or incendiaries.
The Pentagon wants an incendiary payload in order to incinerate chemical
or biological weapons, the report says.
_______________________________________________
Top Chinese general warns US over attack
By Alexandra Harney in Beijing and Demetri Sevastopulo and Edward Alden
in Washington
Published: July 14 2005 21:59
China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is
attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese
general said on Thursday.
If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on
to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond
with nuclear weapons, said General Zhu Chenghu.
Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in
part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its
territory included warships and aircraft.
If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be
determined to respond, said Gen Zhu, who is also a professor at China's
National Defence University.
We . . . will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the
cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared
that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.
Gen Zhu is a self-acknowledged hawk who has warned that China could
strike the US with long-range missiles. But his threat to use nuclear
weapons in a conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a senior
Chinese official in nearly a decade.
However, some US-based China experts cautioned that Gen Zhu probably did
not represent the mainstream People's Liberation Army view.
He is running way beyond his brief on what China might do in relation
to the US if push comes to shove, said one expert with knowledge of Gen
Zhu. Nobody who is cleared for information on Chinese war scenarios is
going to talk like this, he added.
Gen Zhu's comments come as the Pentagon prepares to brief Congress next
Monday on its annual report on the Chinese military, which is expected
to take a harder line than previous years. They are also likely to fuel
the mounting anti-China sentiment on Capitol Hill.
In recent months, a string of US officials, including Donald Rumsfeld,
defence secretary, have raised concerns about China's military rise. The
Pentagon on Thursday declined to comment on hypothetical scenarios.
Rick Fisher, a former senior US congressional official and an authority
on the Chinese military, said the specific nature of the threat is a
new addition to China's public discourse. China's official doctrine has
called for no first use of nuclear weapons since its first atomic test
in 1964. But Gen Zhu is not the first Chinese official to refer to the
possibility of using such weapons first in a conflict over Taiwan.
Chas Freeman, a former US assistant secretary of defence, said in 1996
that a PLA official had told him China could respond in kind to a
nuclear strike by the US in the event of a conflict with Taiwan. The
official is believed to have been Xiong Guangkai, now the PLA's deputy
chief of general staff.
Gen Zhu said his views did not represent official Chinese policy and he
did not anticipate war with the US.
Additional reporting by Richard McGregor in Beijing
Find this article at:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8,ft_acl=,s01=1.html
The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southnews/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
southnews-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
6 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Rejects China General's Nuke Remarks
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Friday July 15, 2005 8:31 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) - The State Department on Friday rejected as
``highly irresponsible'' a Chinese general's warning that China
might use nuclear weapons against the United States in the event
of a U.S. attack on China over Taiwan.
Spokesman Sean McCormack said he hopes that the views expressed
by Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu, a dean at China's National Defense
University, do not reflect the views of the Chinese government.
Zhu told Hong Kong-based reporters that if the Americans ``draw
their missiles and position-guided ammunition into the target
zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with
nuclear weapons.''
Zhu stressed that he was expressing a personal view, not
official policy, and was confident that China and the United
States would not go to war.
From what he had seen of the quotes, McCormack said, ``I would
say they are highly irresponsible.''
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited China last weekend
and said U.S.-China relations have more positives than
negatives. Of particular concern to the United States, she said,
was the pace of China's military buildup.
McCormack said Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick will
travel to China later this month to begin a dialogue on security
concerns of mutual interest.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
7 St. Louis Post-Dispatch: The atomic bomb turns 60
STLtoday - News - Science & Medicine
By Eric Hand Of the Post-Dispatch07/14/2005
[Roy Greenlee]
In an interview Wednesday in Des Peres, Roy W. Greenlee, 84,
talks about a protective hood he used while working on plutonium
in a Chicago lab during World War II. The chemist was on the
team that helped develop the atomic bomb.
(J. B. Forbes/P-D)
The whiz-kid chemist from West Virginia took a train to snowy
Chicago and joined the Manhattan Project. It was Jan. 11, 1944.
A scientist told him: "We're going to make an atomic bomb. We're
going to drop it on Japan. And we're going to end the war."
On Saturday, 60 years will have passed since the world's first
atomic blast turned the New Mexico desert sand to green glass.
The Trinity test site used only 13.5 pounds of plutonium. A
simpler uranium bomb fell a month later on Hiroshima - but it
used 141 pounds of the precious stuff.
The Nagasaki bomb - and future bombs - would rely on plutonium,
element No. 94, atomic weight 239.
Roy W. Greenlee didn't know it existed until he came to the
University of Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory. Over coffee near
his Des Peres home this week, Greenlee, 84, recalled his
mission: Extract enough plutonium from uranium for a bomb.
Lead bricks surrounded the yellow tubes of uranium dissolved in
nitric acid. But he still spit all day to avoid swallowing
radioactive dust.
Some of the plutonium had an extra neutron - an isotope of
atomic weight 240. Greenlee was the first to calculate its
half-life. The isotope made plutonium unstable. The critical
mass would have to be kept as separate pieces until the
millisecond of explosion. A tricky implosion device would be
needed. Trinity would test that device.
By May 1945, the test was close. A senior scientist asked the
chemists to sign a petition. He wanted the United States to
demonstrate the bomb to Japanese leaders on an unpopulated
island.
Greenlee had friends dying in the South Pacific. He walked out
without signing it.
"I was probably wrong about that," said Greenlee, who feels
guilt about the past and anxiety for the future.
His body has softened with his views. His thick, dark hair has
faded and receded. A hip and shoulder are made of steel. His
prostate was removed in 1990.
"You lose a lot of things. The challenge for me is not to lose
everything too fast," he said.
He plays tennis on Thursdays in Creve Coeur with retired doctors
and businessmen.
Few of them understand his car's license plate: PU 240.
Reporter Eric Hand
E-mail: ehand@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 314-340-8250
St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
*****************************************************************
8 DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD: privacy act
FR Doc 05-13914
[Federal Register: July 15, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 135)]
[Notices] [Page 40992-40996] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr15jy05-53] [[Page
40992]]
Privacy Act; Systems of Records AGENCY: Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board. ACTION: Notice of systems of records.
SUMMARY: Each Federal agency is required by the Privacy Act of
1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, to publish a description of the systems of
records containing personal information defined by the Act. In
this notice the Board updates the descriptions of seven systems
it currently maintains, and announces the creation of an eighth
system.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Azzaro, General
Counsel, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana
Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (202)
694-7000.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board has previously maintained
seven systems of records under the Privacy Act. It has created a
new system DNFSB-8, Travel, Procurement and Administrative Files,
but the creation of this system does not involve collection of
additional information or changes in use or storage of records.
Instead, it is only a minor records management reorganization for
streamlining purposes. The records now to be found in DNFSB-8
were originally contained in DNFSB- 2, which is now limited to
Time and Attendance Records. DNFSB-1
SYSTEM NAME: Personnel Security Files.
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:
Unclassified materials.
SYSTEM LOCATION:
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue,
NW.,
Washington, DC 20004-2901.
CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:
Employees and applicants for employment with DNFSB and DNFSB
contractors; consultants; other individuals requiring access to
classified materials and facilities.
CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:
Personnel security folders and requests for security clearances,
Forms SF 86, 86A, 87, 312, and DOE Forms 5631.18, 5631.29,
5631.20, and 5631.21. In addition, records containing the
following information:
(1) Security clearance request information;
(2) Records of security education and foreign travel
lectures;
(3) Records of any security infractions;
(4) Names of individuals visiting DNFSB;
(5) Personal identity verification documents (including
photographs and proof of identity documentation) maintained for
Federal identification badge and access purposes.
AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: 42 U.S.C. 2286. ROUTINE
USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF
USERS AND THE PURPOSE OF SUCH USES:
DNFSB--to determine which individuals should have access to
classified material; to be able to transfer clearances to other
facilities for visitor control purposes; and to verify the
identity of its employees and contractors. DOE--to determine
eligibility for security clearances.
Other Federal and State agencies--to determine eligibility for
security clearances. POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING,
RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE
SYSTEM:
STORAGE:
Paper records and computer files.
RETRIEVABILITY:
By name, social security number, and numeric code.
SAFEGUARDS:
Access is limited to employees having a need to know. Paper
records are stored in locked file cabinets, computer records are
maintained on a desktop PC with password protection. The office
of the system manager is locked when not in use.
RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:
Records retention and disposal requirements are contained in the
``General Records Schedules'' published by National Archives and
Records Administration, Washington, DC. Paper records are
destroyed by shredding, computer files by erasure.
SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS:
Security Management Officer, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC
20004-2901.
NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:
Requests by an individual to determine if DNFSB-1 contains
information about him/her should be directed to the Privacy Act
Officer, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana
Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901. Required
identifying information: Complete name, social security number,
and date of birth. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE:
Same as Notification procedure above, except individual must show
official photo identification, such as driver's license,
passport, or government identification before viewing records.
CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURE:
Same as Record Access procedure.
RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:
Subject individuals, Questionnaire for Sensitive Positions
(SF-86), agency files, official visitor logs, contractors, and
DOE Personnel Security Branch.
SYSTEM EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT:
None.
DNFSB-2
SYSTEM NAME:
Time and Attendance Records.
SYSTEM CLASSIFICATION:
Unclassified.
SYSTEM LOCATION:
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20004-2901.
CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:
Employees of the DNFSB.
CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:
Records containing the following information: Time and attendance
records including names, addresses, social security numbers,
service computation dates, leave usage data and corresponding
balances, and authorizations for overtime and/or comptime.
AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:
42 U.S.C. 2286.
ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING
CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:
Bureau of the Public Debt--To maintain payroll, time and
attendance, for Board employees.
Treasury Department--To collect withheld taxes and issue savings
bonds.
Internal Revenue Service--To process Federal income tax.
State and Local Governments--To process state and local income
tax.
Savings Institutions--To credit accounts for savings made through
payroll deductions.
Health Insurance Carriers--To process insurance claims. [[Page
40993]]
POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING,
RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE:
Paper records and computer files. RETRIEVABILITY:
By name, social security number, and alphanumeric code.
SAFEGUARDS:
Access is limited to employees having a need to know. Paper
records are stored in locked file cabinets, computer records are
maintained on a desktop PC with password protection. RETENTION
AND DISPOSAL:
Records retention and disposal authority are contained in the
``General Records Schedules'' published by National Archives and
Records Administration, Washington, DC. Paper records are
destroyed by shredding, computer files by erasure. SYSTEM MANAGER
AND ADDRESS:
General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625
Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901.
NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:
Requests by an individual to determine if DNFSB-2 contains
information about him/her should be directed to the Privacy Act
Officer, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana
Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901. Required
identifying information: Complete name, social security number,
and date of birth.
RECORDS ACCESS PROCEDURE:
Same as Notification procedures above, except individual must
show official photo identification, such as driver's license,
passport, or government identification before viewing records.
CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURE:
Same as Record Access procedure. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:
Subject individuals, timekeepers, supervisors, BPD for payroll
records, and IRS and State officials for withholding and tax
information. SYSTEM EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT:
None. DNFSB-3 SYSTEM NAME:
Drug Testing Program Records. SYSTEM CLASSIFICATION:
Unclassified. SYSTEM LOCATION:
Division of Human Resources, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004-2901.
Duplicate systems may exist, in whole or in part, at contractor
testing laboratories and collection/evaluation facilities.
CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:
DNFSB employees and applicants for employment with the DNFSB.
CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:
Records containing the following information:
(1) Requests for and results of initial drug tests, random tests,
confirmatory, and follow-up testing, if appropriate;
(2) Information supplied by employees or applicants challenging
positive test results;
(3) Information supplied by individuals concerning alleged drug
use by Board employees or contractors;
(4) Written statements or medical evaluations of attending
physicians and/or information regarding prescription or
nonprescription drugs. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:
Executive Order 12564, ``Drug-Free Federal Workplace,'' September
17, 1986, 51 FR 32889, codified at 5 U.S.C. 7301, note (1987).
ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING
CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSE OF SUCH USES:
Information in these records may be used by the DNFSB management:
(1) To identify substance abusers within the agency;
(2) To initiate counseling and rehabilitation programs;
(3) To take personnel actions;
(4) To take personnel security actions; and
(5) For statistical purposes. POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING,
RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE
SYSTEM: STORAGE:
Test records are maintained on paper in file folders. Records
used for initiating a random drug test are maintained on the
Random Employee Selection Automation System. This is a
stand-alone system resident on a desktop computer and is
password-protected. RETRIEVABILITY:
Records maintained in file folders are indexed and accessed by
name and social security number. Records maintained for random
drug testing are accessed by using a computer database which
contains employees' names, social security numbers, and job
titles. Employees are then selected from the available pool by
the computer, and a list of employees and alternates selected for
drug testing is given to the Drug Program Coordinator.
SAFEGUARDS:
Access to and use of these records is limited to those persons
whose official duties require such access. Records in the
Division of Human Resources are stored in a locked file cabinet.
Records in laboratory/collection/evaluation facilities are stored
under appropriate security measures so that access is limited and
controlled. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:
Records retention and disposal authority are contained in the
``General Records Schedules'' published by National Archives and
Records Administration, Washington, DC. Paper records are
destroyed by shredding, computer files by erasure. SYSTEM MANAGER
AND ADDRESS:
Director of Human Resources, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC
20004-2901. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:
Requests by an individual to determine if DNFSB-3 contains
information about him/her should be directed to the Privacy Act
Officer, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana
Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901. Required
identifying information: Complete name, social security number.
RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE:
Same as Notification procedures above, except individual must
show official photo identification, such as driver license or
government identification before viewing records. CONTESTING
RECORD PROCEDURE:
Same as Notification procedures above. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:
DNFSB employees and employment applicants who have been
identified for drug testing, who have been tested, or who have
admitted abusing drugs prior to being tested; physicians making
statements regarding medical evaluations and/or authorized
prescriptions for drugs; individuals providing information
concerning alleged drug abuse by Board employees or contractors;
DNFSB contractors for processing, including but not limited to,
specimen collection, laboratories for [[Page 40994]] analysis,
and medical evaluations; and DNFSB staff administering the drug
testing program to ensure the achievement of a drug-free
workplace. SYSTEM EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT:
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), the Board has exempted portions
of this system of records from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1),
(e)(4)(C), (H), and (J), and (f). The exemption is invoked for
information in the system of records which would disclose the
identity of a person who has supplied information on drug abuse
by a Board employee or contractor. DNFSB-4 SYSTEM NAME:
Personnel Files. SYSTEM CLASSIFICATION:
Unclassified. SYSTEM LOCATION:
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20004-2901. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY
THE SYSTEM:
Employees and applicants for employment with the DNFSB, including
DNFSB consultants. CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:
Records concerning the following information:
(1) Name, social security number, sex, date of birth, home
address, grade level, and occupational code;
(2) Federal employment application materials;
(3) Records on suggestions, awards, and bonuses;
(4) Training requests, authorization data, and training course
evaluations;
(5) Employee appraisals, appeals, grievances, and complaints;
(6) Employee disciplinary actions;
(7) Employee retirement records;
(8) Records on employment transfer;
(9) Records of promotions, payroll changes, and benefit
elections;
(10) Proof of identity documents. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF
THE SYSTEM:
42 U.S.C. 2286. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM,
INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSE OF SUCH USES:
Bureau of the Public Debt--Maintain Official Personnel Folders
(OPFs) for the DNFSB.
Office of Personnel Management--Transfer and retirement records
and benefits, and collection of anonymous statistical reports.
Social Security Administration--Social Security records and
benefits.
Department of Labor--To process Workmen's Compensation claims.
Department of Defense--Military Retired Pay Offices--To adjust
Military retirement.
Veterans Administration--To evaluate veteran's benefits to which
the individual may be entitled.
States' Departments of Employment Security--To determine
entitlement to unemployment compensation or other state benefits.
Federal, State, or Local government agencies--For the purpose of
investigating individuals in connection with, security
clearances, and administrative or judicial proceedings.
Private Organizations--For the purpose of verifying employees'
employment status with the DNFSB. POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR
STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF
RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE:
Paper records and computer files. RETRIEVABILITY:
By name and social security number. SAFEGUARDS:
Access is limited to employees having a need-to-know. Paper
records are stored in locked file cabinets, computer files are
password- protected. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:
Records retention and disposal authority are contained in the
``General Records Schedules'' published by National Archives and
Records Administration, Washington, DC. Paper records within
DNFSB are destroyed by shredding, computer files by erasure.
SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS:
Director of Human Resources, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC
20004-2901. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:
Requests by an individual to determine if DNFSB-4 contains
information about him/her should be directed to Director of Human
Resources, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana
Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901. Required
identifying information: Complete name, social security number,
and date of birth. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE:
Same as Notification procedures above, except individual must
show official photo identification, such as driver license or
government identification before viewing records. CONTESTING
RECORD PROCEDURE:
Same as Notification procedures above. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:
Subject individuals, official personnel records, OPM for official
personnel records, State employment agencies, educational
institutions, and supervisors. SYSTEM EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT:
None. DNFSB-5 SYSTEM NAME:
Personnel Radiation and Beryllium Exposure Files. SECURITY
CLASSIFICATION:
Unclassified materials. SYSTEM LOCATION:
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20004-2901. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY
THE SYSTEM:
DNFSB employees, contractors, and consultants. CATEGORIES OF
RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:
Radiation and beryllium exposure information. AUTHORITY FOR
MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:
42 U.S.C. 2286. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM,
INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSE OF SUCH USES:
DNFSB--to monitor radiation and beryllium exposure of its
employees and contractors.
DOE--to monitor radiation and beryllium exposure of visitors to
the various DOE facilities in the United States.
Other Federal and State Health Institutions--To monitor radiation
and beryllium exposure of DNFSB personnel. POLICIES AND PRACTICES
FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF
RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE:
Paper records and computer files. RETRIEVABILITY:
By name, social security number, and numeric code. SAFEGUARDS:
Access is limited to employees having a need to know. Paper
records are stored in locked file cabinets in a controlled access
area. Individual employees can view their radiation exposure
records by [[Page 40995]] entering a name and password from the
desktop. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:
Records retention and disposal authority are contained in the
``General Records Schedules'' published by National Archives and
Records Administration, Washington, DC. Paper records within
DNFSB are destroyed by shredding, computer files by erasure.
SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS:
Security Management Officer, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC
20004-2901. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:
Requests by an individual to determine if DNFSB-5 contains
information about him/her should be directed to the Privacy Act
Officer, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana
Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901. Required
identifying information: Complete name, social security number,
and date of birth. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE:
Same as Notification procedure above, except individual must show
official photo identification, such as driver's license,
passport, or government identification before viewing records.
Current employees can view their radiation exposure record using
a name and password system from the desktop. CONTESTING RECORD
PROCEDURE:
Same as Record Access procedure for viewing paper records. RECORD
SOURCE CATEGORIES:
Subject individuals, previous employee records, DOE contractors'
film badges, whole body counts, bioassays, dosimetry badges, and
beryllium exposure surveys. SYSTEM EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT:
None. DNFSB-6 SYSTEM NAME:
DNFSB Staff Resume Book. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:
Unclassified materials. SYSTEM LOCATION:
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20004-2901. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY
THE SYSTEM:
Members of the Board's technical and legal staff. CATEGORIES OF
RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:
A summary of each DNFSB technical and legal employee's
educational background and work experience, with emphasis on
areas relevant to the individual's work at the Board. AUTHORITY
FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:
42 U.S.C. 2286. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM,
INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSE OF SUCH USES:
The Resume Book may be distributed to representatives of the
press, Congressional staff, representatives of Federal, State and
local governments, and to any member of the public or any
organization having a legitimate interest in understanding the
technical and legal qualifications of the Board's staff. POLICIES
AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND
DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE:
Paper records and computer files. RETRIEVABILITY:
By employee name. SAFEGUARDS:
Copies of the Resume Book are sequentially numbered and all
copies will be stored under the control of a Board employee. A
record will be kept of each disclosure of the book by name of the
receiving party and purpose for which the information is
provided. The Resume Book will not be available via Internet nor
will it be placed in the Board's Public Reading Room. RETENTION
AND DISPOSAL:
The Resume Book will be periodically updated, and out-of-date
copies will be destroyed when updated copies are printed. SYSTEM
MANAGER AND ADDRESS:
Director, Division of Information Technology and Security,
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW.,
Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:
Board employees covered by the Resume Book may examine their
entry in it at any time. They may also examine the list of
disclosures maintained by the System Manager. RECORD ACCESS
PROCEDURE:
Same as Notification Procedure. CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURE:
Any Board employee covered by the Resume Book may request that
corrections be made in his/her resume at any time. RECORD SOURCE
CATEGORIES:
Subject individuals. SYSTEM EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT:
None. DNFSB-7 SYSTEM NAME:
Supervisor Files. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:
Unclassified materials. SYSTEM LOCATION:
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20004-2901. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY
THE SYSTEM:
Members of the Board's technical, legal and administrative staff.
CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:
Records containing the following information:
(1) Information used to write annual or mid-year performance
appraisals or to propose awards and honors;
(2) Files may also contain written correspondence, examples of an
employee's work, hard-copy of electronic communications, private
notes by the supervisor, and other records bearing on the
employee's performance. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:
42 U.S.C. 2286. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM,
INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSE OF SUCH USES:
Records are used by supervisors to write annual or mid-year
performance appraisals for their employees or to propose awards
and honors. Records may also be used in connection with
disciplinary and adverse actions. These records are not disclosed
outside DNFSB and will not be accessed by persons other than the
supervisor maintaining the record and administrative staff
personnel assigned to file or retrieve records. POLICIES AND
PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND
DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE:
Paper records and computer files. RETRIEVABILITY:
By employee name. SAFEGUARDS:
Access is limited to the individual supervisor keeping the
records and administrative personnel who may file [[Page 40996]]
or retrieve records. Paper records are stored in locked file
cabinets or in locked desk drawers; computer files are
password-protected. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:
Records retention and disposal authority are contained in the
``General Records Schedules'' published by National Archives and
Records Administration, Washington, DC. Most files in DNFSB-7 are
purged once per year following completion of appraisals. Paper
records are destroyed by shredding, computer files by erasure.
SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS:
Director, Division of Information Technology and Security,
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW.,
Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:
Requests by an individual to determine if DNFSB-7 contains
information about him/her should be directed to the Privacy Act
Officer, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana
Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901. Required
identifying information: Complete name, social security number,
and date of birth. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE:
Same as Notification procedure above, except individual must show
official photo identification, such as driver's license,
passport, or government identification before viewing records.
CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURE:
Same as Record Access procedure. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:
Subject individuals. SYSTEM EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT:
None. DNFSB-8 SYSTEM NAME:
Travel, Procurement, and Administrative Files. SYSTEM
CLASSIFICATION:
Unclassified. SYSTEM LOCATION:
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20004-2901. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY
THE SYSTEM:
Employees and applicants for employment with DNFSB, including
DNFSB contractors and consultants. CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE
SYSTEM:
Records containing the following information:
(1) Official travel documents including names, addresses, social
security numbers, birth dates, passport numbers, relocation
records, and travel credit card numbers;
(2) Purchase credit card number, invoice, and payment records;
(3) Employee credit evaluations, credit check information, and
travel/purchase card histories;
(4) Parking permit records;
(5) Public transit subsidy applications and issuance records;
(6) Miscellaneous reimbursements. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF
THE SYSTEM:
42 U.S.C. 2286. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM,
INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:
GSA--To reimburse Board employees, applicants for employment and
consultants for travel related expenses and miscellaneous
reimbursements.
General Accounting Office--Audit--To verify accuracy and legality
of disbursement.
Travel Agencies--To process travel itineraries. POLICIES AND
PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND
DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE:
Paper records and computer files. RETRIEVABILITY:
By name, social security number, travel dates, relocation dates,
and alphanumeric code. SAFEGUARDS:
Access is limited to employees having a need to know. Paper
records are stored in locked file cabinets, computer records are
maintained on a desktop PC with password protection. RETENTION
AND DISPOSAL:
Records retention and disposal authority are contained in the
``General Records Schedules'' published by National Archives and
Records Administration, Washington, DC. Paper records are
destroyed by shredding, computer files by erasure. SYSTEM MANAGER
AND ADDRESS:
Director of Acquisition and Finance, Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC
20004- 2901. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:
Requests by an individual to determine if DNFSB-8 contains
information about him/her should be directed to the Privacy Act
Officer, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana
Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901. Required
identifying information: Complete name, social security number,
and date of birth. RECORDS ACCESS PROCEDURE:
Same as Notification procedures above, except individual must
show official photo identification, such as driver's license,
passport, or government identification before viewing records.
CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURE:
Same as Record Access procedure. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:
Subject individuals, GSA for official accounting records, and
travel agency contract. SYSTEM EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS
OF THE ACT:
None.
Dated: July 11, 2005. A.J. Eggenberger, Acting Chairman. [FR Doc.
b05-13914 Filed 7-14-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
*****************************************************************
9 SF Chronicle: Radical nuclear weapons overhaul recommended
James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, July 15, 2005
An Energy Department task force has proposed a radical
transformation of the nation's complex for producing nuclear
weapons, recommending the manufacturing of a new generation of
more flexible warheads at a single site that would consolidate
activities previously done at plants across the country.
If adopted, the extremely expensive changes would resuscitate
America's warhead manufacturing capabilities even while
requiring substantial downsizing of the weapons design labs at
Livermore and Los Alamos, N.M., which are administered by the
University of California. The proposals would also change the
weapons design and production processes into operations run more
like businesses in the private sector.
As envisioned by the task force, the work of the weapons complex
would be driven more by engineering and rigorous cost reduction
than by an interchange of scientific ideas conducted in a
university-like setting -- a profound shift in the culture that
has prevailed since a group of physicists detonated the first
atomic bomb 60 years ago this week in the high desert of New
Mexico.
"Successful businesses know when products and services are good
enough, and recognize that cost is one of the metrics for
excellent performance," the report says. "The complex must learn
to balance quality, safety, security and cost in order to meet
the needs of the nation in a cost-effective, appropriate
manner."
The proposals will now be reviewed by senior government
officials, including the secretary of energy, and then by
Congress before any changes can be undertaken.
The six-member task force -- two retired energy lab officials
and four from the private sector -- used strong language in
making clear its view that the current system, which has
struggled to define its mission since the end of the Cold War,
is obsolete.
"In summary, the task force found a complex neither robust, nor
agile, nor responsive, with little evidence of a master plan,"
the report said.
Taken together, the costly recommendations in the 124-page
report would amount to the most sweeping restructuring of the
way the United States produces nuclear weapons since the years
right after World War II, when scientists working under J.
Robert Oppenheimer and the University of California laid the
foundations for the network of facilities.
The report is described as a draft, but it supports several
goals of the Bush administration -- in particular, producing a
new generation of more reliable warheads to replace the current
arsenal, and giving the complex the ability to design and build
new warheads in a fraction of the time it once took.
Those ideas have long been disputed by some weapons experts,
including some retired weapons designers and government
advisers. For instance, Sidney Drell, a professor emeritus at
the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and a longtime adviser to
the government on weapons issues, has said that the current
warheads in America's arsenal will work fine for years and that
it would be a waste of billions of dollars to build new ones.
Other critics, such as Michael May, a former director of the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, contend that an
aggressive new production effort by the United States might
encourage other countries to ramp up their own programs,
creating proliferation.
The task force report said new weapons should be developed
without resuming underground nuclear testing, prohibited by U.S.
government policy since 1992, but it does urge the construction
of new facilities at the Nevada Test Site, including preparation
for possible underground tests.
The report, in short, is a blueprint for a large-scale
resuscitation of the nuclear weapons production system.
In its Nuclear Posture Review, issued in 2001, the Bush
administration called for creation of a smaller but more
reliable stockpile of warheads, as well as construction of a
manufacturing capability that would allow the United States to
respond quickly to new threats. But the administration has never
determined exactly how many or what kind of warheads it will
need in the future -- a problem that the task force said must be
addressed before the details of the new complex could be fixed.
Even so, the task force's report urges swift action, saying that
the new complex, which probably would cost tens of billions of
dollars, should be up and able to produce 125 new warheads a
year by 2030.
While the recommendations would reduce the number of jobs at the
existing design labs, they would also improve safety in and
around them by removing all sensitive nuclear materials, such as
plutonium and uranium, and placing the materials at the new
manufacturing site.
The report included no proposals on where that facility should
be located.
Any changes would be battled vigorously in Congress, not least
because the recommendations call for a huge investment at a time
when the United States is spending more than $5 billion a month
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman did not comment directly Thursday
on the proposals by the task force, which reports to his
department's advisory board. A department spokesman said only
that Bodman welcomed a debate over ideas for improving the
nuclear weapons complex.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Pete
Domenici, R-N. M., who has long been a major supporter of the
Los Alamos National Laboratory, showed immediate resistance,
issuing a statement making it clear that no funds would be
available until fiscal 2007 at the earliest.
"I do not think we should rush into any quick fixes," Domenici
said.
But Rep. Dave Hobson, R-Ohio, who as chairman of the
subcommittee that oversees the weapons complex called for
creation of the task force in March, 2004, endorsed the
recommendations.
"The task force concludes that the current stockpile and
supporting weapons complex is neither technically credible nor
financially sustainable," he said in a statement. "I agree 100
percent."
The existing system was developed as a highly decentralized
operation that placed talented scientists in the leading roles,
with the Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos labs working not just
independently of each other, but in open competition. That has
meant some redundancies, but the system was justified as
producing greater innovation.
Both labs have been managed since their inception by the
University of California, which underscored the principle that
the labs were essentially about developing creative scientific
ideas. UC officials said they would have no comment on the draft
task force report.
In the early 1990s, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the
complex stopped designing new warheads and halted all
underground testing. Initially, budgets at the design labs fell
until Congress agreed to give them a new task, known as
science-based stockpile stewardship.
The labs were given free rein to develop new techniques for
testing warhead components without detonating them and coming up
with methods for refurbishing older warheads. The result has
been a doubling of the weapons budget since the mid-1990s and an
arsenal that is deemed safe and reliable.
But the design labs have been hit with a series of management
and security scandals over the past three years that have eroded
the credibility of the University of California and tried the
patience of even some of the strongest lab supporters in
Congress.
For the first time, the Energy Department is putting the lab
management contracts up for bidding.
The task force called for an end to the competition between the
labs and said they should share some equipment and facilities,
such as computing centers and high-energy testing gear, to
eliminate costly redundancies.
With all production activities to be consolidated at the new
site, the task force said, the costs of securing sensitive
nuclear materials would drop. Under the task force proposals,
the last Cold War-era warhead would be dismantled by 2030.
The aim would be to use modern manufacturing technology from the
private sector to make warheads cheaper and easier to modify and
maintain, and to speed up design and production. Cost reduction
would be an overriding concern.
"Cost goals add a healthy degree of discipline to the design
process," the report says.
The panel's chairman is David Overskei, president of Decision
Factors Inc. , in San Diego. It also includes John Crawford, the
retired deputy director of the Sandia National Laboratories,
Hermann Grunder, the retired director of the Argonne National
Laboratory, Donald Kaczynski, the director of technology at
Brush Wellman, Robert Nickell, an engineering consultant to
Applied Science &Technology, and Donald Trost, vice president of
TechSource Inc.
E-mail James Sterngold at jsterngold@sfchronicle.com.
Page A - 1
The San Francisco Chronicle]
*****************************************************************
10 Guardian Unlimited: Unanswered questions still surround the sinking of the Rainbow
Warrior
Paul Brown:
Felling of a Warrior
Twenty years ago this week Rainbow Warrior was sunk by French
agents in Auckland harbour. Paul Brown, who had sailed with the
Greenpeace flagship just days earlier, recalls the worldwide
shock at a callous act of state-sponsored terrorism - and asks
why so many questions remain unanswered
Friday July 15, 2005
Driving past Hampstead Heath pond to chase an interview
the car radio was tuned in to the 2pm news. All was as it should
be for any news reporter just back from a foreign assignment and
keeping up with events. The first item, tagged "news just in",
made me listen a bit more closely. The shock of the words that
followed made me swerve, then swing the car round in a U-turn,
and head straight back to the office.
Article continues
The report said, "Greenpeace environment group's
flagship the Rainbow Warrior has been sunk in Auckland, New
Zealand following explosions. Early reports say crew members are
missing but there are no more details."
The faces of those crew members flashed before me immediately. A
few days before, 12,000 miles away, I had been laughing,
drinking with and hugging this crew of eight nationalities as I
left the ship after a month's hard labour and fun. My cabin
partner had been Fernando Pereira, a Portuguese photographer. We
had some good times together; I had attended his 35th birthday
party on board just before I left.
The 11 crew had taken on Greenpeace's most ambitious campaign in
its history, moving a contaminated people to a safe haven. The
Americans, whose 1956 Bravo bomb had covered the people of
Rongelap island in radiation, had removed all the population's
thyroid glands to prevent cancer killing them and were using
them as guinea pigs to see what further effect continued
radiation had on their health. An increasing proportion of
children were being born deformed. The island's elders appealed
to Greenpeace for help, and I had signed on as a deckhand for a
month to report the evacuation for the Guardian.
The next stage of the trip was for the Rainbow Warrior to sail
to Auckland for supplies and then head a peace flotilla into the
French nuclear test zone at Mururoa in the South Pacific. The
Greenpeace crew, having seen the long-term effects of previous
nuclear testing on innocent bystanders, was determined to do its
best to disrupt the French programme.
In the shock of the news of the sinking all these memories and
thoughts swirled through my mind. My job was to write the story,
the facts as known, but there were not too many of those. This
was July 11 1985, before mobile phones. New Zealand was still a
long way away. In Auckland it was the middle of the night and
every telephone line to Greenpeace's New Zealand office was
jammed.
But by first edition I was able to report that all members of
the crew had been accounted for but one - the body of Fernando
Pereira had been found by navy frogmen. He had been trapped in
his cabin by a second explosion as he went to retrieve his
precious cameras.
The headline assigned to my piece was the first inkling of a
longer-running and more disturbing story. It said: "Saboteurs
sink Greenpeace campaign ship." At first the Auckland police
were not sure what had caused the explosions. To them, sabotage
seemed "the most likely explanation", but in an old ship with
what they regarded as a bunch of amateur crew members, accident
or stupidity were just as plausible.
Davey Edwards, the Rainbow Warrior's Yorkshire-born chief
engineer, also had doubts "I was desperate for the first 24
hours because I thought it must be my fault. The explosion had
come from the engine room, my responsibility. I kept racking my
brains about what could have caused it, there were banks of
batteries that could have caused a spark but nothing explosive."
But the following day an inspection of the hull by divers meant
that an accident could be ruled out . The very substantial
riveted plates of the converted Aberdeen-built trawler had had
huge holes torn in them, but the jagged pieces of metal that
remained were all bent inwards. The divers said limpet mines had
been attached to the outside of the hull.
"It may sound strange but when we were told the explosion had
come from outside, it was sabotage, or terrorism, it came as a
relief," said Edwards.
It is hard to understand now that what came as a relief to
Edwards came as an extraordinary shock to the rest of the world,
and particularly New Zealand, which had never seen a bomb
explode in anger on its territory, let alone an act of
terrorism. Neither has there been one since, the event remaining
deeply scored on the nation's psyche.
The puzzle for the police was who could be responsible for this
murderous act against a peace group, their whole ethos based on
the Quaker principle of non-violent direct action, of bearing
witness to moral wrongs.
In my mind, and for the crew, suspicion naturally fell on
someone French; after all, they were next in line for a protest.
They also had a long history of violence against Greenpeace,
albeit confined to boardings vessels, using tear gas and beating
crew members with truncheons. Yet an act of terrorism by the
French state on the soil of a friendly power, clearly designed
to kill, was still unthinkable.
Twenty years on it seems just as strange. State terrorism is
something the United States and the United Kingdom are prepared
to go to war over. It is something carried out by rogue states,
members of the "Axis of Evil". Members of the European Union
somehow do not fit the description.
But by day two of the Rainbow Warrior inquiry Auckland police
were looking for French people. One had visited the ship hours
before the explosion when, during an open day for the Auckland
public, one unknown Frenchman had spent time looking round the
crew quarters.
Within hours information was flooding into the police from all
over the North Island of events involving French nationals,
sightings of yachts, strange landings of equipment, movements of
camper vans and rendezvous in obscure places. In a country where
the population is tiny, strangers a curiosity, and French
tourists rare, the sighting of so many French people seemed a
remarkable coincidence.
Five days later a French "honeymoon" couple, Alain Jacques
Turenge and his wife Sophie Turenge, were arrested. Inquiries
revealed they were French secret agents Major Alain Mafart, aged
35, and Captain Dominique Prieur, aged 36. They were first
charged with passport offences then arson and murder.
The information pouring in from all over New Zealand, the
Pacific and even England built up a picture of an extensive
French secret service operation to cripple the Rainbow Warrior.
But it was too late to catch the perpetrators. Even though
detectives interviewed four Frenchmen in the Australian
territory of Norfolk Island after the attack they had not got
enough evidence to hold them and the Australian government
insisted the New Zealanders leave.
These four agents disappeared on a yacht which was never seen
again. The official police report says officers believe the
Ouvea was scuttled when the men were picked up and returned to
France in a nuclear submarine.
In the time leading up to the trial of the two agents in custody
French journalists continued to press President Mitterand for
who had sanctioned the operation. On August 27 he issued a
report which fully exonerated the French secret service. It was
not credible, and when a request by New Zealand for the
extradition of the crew of the Ouvea was refused it was clear
this was a cover-up at top level.
By September 22 the game was up. Prime Minister Laurent Fabius
admitted that the French secret service had ordered the attack
on the Rainbow Warrior and the French defence minister Charles
Hernu, a close ally and friend of Mitterrand, resigned,
accepting responsibility and saying the president was not
involved. We know now that this was not the full truth either: a
recent confession by the former head of the Secret Service
claims that Mitterand did, in fact, sanction the attack after
all.
Astonishingly no government outside New Zealand condemned the
French action, least of all Britain, despite the fact it was a
British vessel.
The role and attitude of the French state remains murky. Marfart
and Prieur, who clearly did not plant the bombs themselves, had
their charges reduced to manslaughter and were sentenced to 10
years. The French government was horrified and leaned heavily on
New Zealand, even threatening trade sanctions, and barring lamb
imports to the European Union. Within three years the UN had
brokered a deal between the two countries. The French would
formally apologise, and pay $13m in compensation to the New
Zealand government. They also paid a further $8m to Greenpeace,
which was already suing them in the Paris courts for
compensation.
As part of the deal the convicted agents were transferred to
French terrority to complete their sentences. Within months they
were freed to a heroes' welcome in Paris.
Greenpeace could not repair the original Rainbow Warrior and it
was towed out to sea off North Island to be sunk again as a reef
for sea life. The organisation used the money paid in
compensation to launch the new Rainbow Warrior, a flagship
larger, better equipped, and because of the French action,
recognised worldwide. What happened in Auckland made Greenpeace
a multinational in its own right.
The new Rainbow Warrior went back, and back again to Mururoa,
and in 1996 was again the subject of an attack by the French
military when it was boarded, the crew tear-gassed and equipment
smashed. This time, as a journalist covering the event, I was
arrested on the high seas, briefly imprisoned and interrogated
on Mururoa itself while the tests continued. The worldwide
protests finally led to the French abandoning nuclear testing in
the Pacific.
This year I travelled to New Zealand for an anniversary party.
It was clear that among the celebrations of meeting old friends
and happy past times there was still some anger. Edwards, who
now runs a fish restaurant in the Bay of Islands, which
ironically was once a meeting place for the four French frogmen,
summed up his current view: "The response, or rather non
response, of the British government was a disgrace. Up to that
moment I had always been proud to be British, but this was a
British flagged vessel with a British citizen in desperate need
of help and I heard nothing. Everything I had was sunk with the
Warrior, but there was no offer of help, not even a new
passport."
The Guardian applied in April under the Freedom of Information
Act to try and find out what the British government knew about
the attack and when, to perhaps give a clue as to why in 1985
state terrorism against British ships was acceptable. So far
Downing Street has refused to answer although the Foreign Office
has said it will do so soon.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited ¿ Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
11 BBC: Cold War bunker fails at
Last Updated: Friday, 15 July, 2005
[The bunker (picture by Nick Catford)]
The complex has 50 rooms
A former nuclear bunker made redundant by the end of the Cold War
failed to sell at auction on Friday.
The 50-room complex in Goosnargh, Lancashire, was built during
World War II and refitted during the Cold War to act as a
military command centre.
Lincoln-based chartered surveyors JH Walter had hoped to make
£250,000 but it even missed its reserve price.
Rob Ward, of JH Walter, said: "We will continue to market the
bunker, it is very much still on the market."
Blast proof
Mr Ward said the property was close to reaching its "realistic"
reserve price during the auction at the Bentley Hotel in Lincoln.
"I would imagine some of those potential buyers were not able to
attend the auction and the ones who did were not prepared to go
quite far enough," he said.
The 15,000 sq ft building was one of two national headquarters of
the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation and the
Royal Observer Corps Group HQ.
It has 50 rooms on two floors ranging from operations room to
dormitories behind blast proof doors.
There is a restaurant-sized kitchen and canteen and the bunker
also features decontamination rooms, water tanks to supply the
complex for months and a huge air filtration system dating from
the height of East-West tensions.
It began life as one of four bunkers built for RAF Fighter
Command in 1940 but by the 1960s had been refitted to survive a
nuclear bomb.
Mr Ward said former nuclear bunkers have been used for anything
from a recording studio to the base of an internet security firm.
*****************************************************************
12 Epstein Out; Nuclear & Safety Issues in Play
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:44:31 -0700
OSA-0216* A-110550F0160
Joint Application of PECO ENERGY COMPANY and PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND
GAS CO. for Approval of the Merger of Public Service Enterprise Group Inc.
with and into EXELON CORP. –
Initial Decision Granting Motion to Dismiss Protest and Petition to
Intervene. Various Exceptions filed to ALJ Chestnut-s
April 26, 2005 Initial Decision. RECOMMENDATION that the Commission deny
the Exceptions and adopt the Initial Decision consistent with the proposed
Opinion and Order; 5-0.
PENNSYLVANIA
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
Harrisburg, PA 17105
Public Meeting held July 14, 2005
Commissioners Present:
Wendell F. Holland, Chairman
James H. Cawley, Vice Chairman
Bill Shane
Kim Pizzingrilli
Terrance J. Fitzpatrick
Joint Application of PECO Energy Company
and Public Service Electric and Gas Company A-110550F0160
for Approval of the Merger of Public Service
Enterprise Group Incorporated with and into
Exelon Corporation
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Commission for consideration are Exceptions filed to the April
26, 2005 Initial Decision of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Marlane R.
Chestnut. In the Initial Decision, ALJ Chestnut granted a Motion to
Dismiss Protest of Mr. Eric Joseph Epstein filed by PECO Energy Company and
Public Service Electric and Gas Company (alternately, Joint Applicants) and
dismissed the Protest of Mr. Epstein and further denied Mr. Epstein¹s
Petition to Intervene in the above-captioned proceedings. Mr. Epstein¹s
Protest and Intervention were contested by the Joint Applicants on the
primary basis of standing.
Exceptions were filed by Mr. Epstein (Epstein hereafter), appearing pro se,
on May 16, 2005. On May 16, 2005, Exceptions were also received from the
Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA), the Office of Small Business Advocate
(OSBA), and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP). Replies to Exceptions were received from the Joint Applicants on
May 26, 2005.
History of the Proceeding
This proceeding is a Joint Application filed on February 4, 2005, by PECO
Energy Company (PECO) and Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G)
pursuant to Chapter 11of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa. C.S. §§ 1100-1103,
inter alia, requesting that the Commission issue an order approving, to the
extent necessary, the merger of Public Service Enterprise Group
Incorporated (PSEG), PSE&G¹s corporate parent, with and into Exelon
Corporation (Exelon), PECO¹s parent corporation. See April 26, 2005,
Initial Decision (I.D.), Finding of Fact 1, infra.
Notice of the Joint Application was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin
on February 19, 2005. On March 7, 2005, Epstein filed both a Protest and
Petition to Intervene. (Finding of Fact 2, infra). In his Protest,
Epstein stated: (1) he is a PECO shareholder in good standing; (2) he is
Chairman of Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. (TMIA), a ³safe-energy²
organization based in Harrisburg which monitors Peach Bottom, Susquehanna,
and Three Mile Island nuclear generating stations; (3) he is Coordinator of
the EFMR Monitoring Group, a community based organization which, inter
alia, monitors radiation levels at Peach Bottom and Three Mile Island
nuclear generating stations; (4) he was an active participant and signatory
to the Joint Petition for Settlement of the application of PECO for
approval of a plan of corporate restructuring, including the creation of a
holding company and the merger of the newly formed holding company and
Unicom Corporation, Docket No. A-1100550F0147; and (5) he actively
participated in the settlement negotiations related to the Unicom Merger
and ³helped to facilitate² the resolution of certain issues, which included
nuclear decommissioning. (Petition at 1). Although Epstein referenced
TMIA and the EFMR Monitoring Group in the Petition to Intervene, the
Petition to Intervene and Protest were filed by Epstein as an
individual. See I.D., n. 1. Epstein is not a customer of PECO and does
not live in PECO¹s service territory. Also, Epstein is not a marketer of
electricity or gas in PECO¹s service territory. (Finding of Fact 3).
On March 24, 2005, the Joint Applicants filed an Answer in opposition to
the Epstein Petition to Intervene and a Motion to Dismiss the Protest. The
Joint Applicants alleged that Epstein lacked standing and that he attempted
to raise issues that are outside the scope of the proceeding and outside
the Commission¹s jurisdiction. (I.D. at 3).
Subsequent to the prehearing conference, held on March 29, 2005 in
Philadelphia, in which Epstein was permitted to participate, the Initial
Decision was issued. ALJ Chestnut concluded that Epstein did not
demonstrate an interest which was ³directly affected and which is not
adequately represented by existing participants, and as to which the
petitioner may be bound by the action of the Commission in the
proceeding.² See 52 Pa. Code § 5.72, I.D. at 5. Therefore, the Joint
Applicant¹s Motion was granted. The Exceptions and Replies were filed as
noted.
Discussion
The Joint Applicants and the presiding ALJ addressed two grounds in
opposition to the Epstein Protest and Petition to Intervene. Those grounds
were: (1) Epstein failed to establish a direct, immediate or substantial
interest in the proceeding that would confer the requisite standing to
protest or to intervene and (2) the issues raised by Epstein¹s Protest and
Petition to Intervene were outside the scope of this proceeding. (I.D. at 3).
ALJ Chestnut, on review of 52 Pa. Code § 5.72, and the positions of the
parties, concluded that Epstein failed to establish the direct and
immediate interest necessary to permit his intervention or to prosecute his
protest. (I.D. at 4). The ALJ was persuaded by the following
factors. First, the ALJ concluded that Epstein¹s participation in prior
PECO proceedings was not relevant to the question of his participation in
the instant proceeding. The ALJ observed that standing is
waivable. Consequently, the fact that PECO did not contest Epstein¹s
participation in other PECO proceedings was insufficient, in and of itself,
to confer a direct and immediate interest relative to Epstein¹s
participation in this particular proceeding.
Second, ALJ Chestnut observed that if one were to concede that Epstein had
a direct, immediate and substantial interest which may be directly affected
by the instant proceeding, these interests were adequately represented by
existing participants. (I.D. at 4). The ALJ noted the participation of
several customer groups, as well as the public advocates representing the
public interest, in this proceeding. She also concluded that these
entities d have identified issues related to nuclear power generation in
their respective Prehearing Memoranda. Id. In light of the participation
of these entities, ALJ Chestnut concluded there is no aspect of the public
interest that requires intervention on the part of Epstein. ALJ Chestnut
concluded that Epstein would not be aggrieved in any way as the result of
the Commission¹s final order in the matter. (I.D. at 6).
Third, ALJ Chestnut concluded that Epstein¹s status as a shareholder of
Exelon Corporation is insufficient to confer any direct, immediate or
substantial interest in this proceeding. See I.D. at 6, citing American
Society of Utility Investors v. Pa. PUC, 54 PA PUC 560, 1980 Pa. PUC LEXIS
3, *2.
Finally, the ALJ was not persuaded by the fact that Epstein has been
recognized as an expert witness before the Commission on nuclear economics
and ³has worked cooperatively with AmerGen, FirstEnergy, PPL, PECO Energy,
PPLICA, PAIEUG, the OCS and the OTS to resolve nuclear tariffs as
sufficient to confer the requisite standing. (I.D. at 6, referencing
Epstein Response, Paras. 25 and 26).
ALJ Chestnut additionally concluded that various issues raised by Epstein
were either outside the scope of the proceeding, or not within the
Commission¹s jurisdiction. (I.D. at 8-9;citing Pa. PUC v. Met-Edison Co.,
54 PA PUC 276 (1980) and Re: Petition of Met-Edison Co., 65 PA PUC 190 (1987).
In Exceptions, Epstein raises four contentions. First, he explains that
the Commission has broad discretion in determining standing and argues for
the exercise of such discretion in regard to his participation as an
intervenor in the present case. Epstein does not articulate the nature of
his interest. Epstein, in connection with his concluding argument on this
Exception, further points out that he has claimed ³representational²
standing. (Exc. at 2). Epstein states that he represents dedicated
interests managed and administered by Epstein for ratepayers, citizens and
communities in South Central Pennsylvania. Id.
In his second Exception, Epstein argues that the ALJ did not consider
whether standing is appropriate under 52 Pa. Code § 5.72(a)(3), which
permits intervention based upon the assertion of an interest of such nature
that participation of the petitioner may be in the public interest.
Epstein acknowledges that nuclear power production issues relating to
licensing and operations fall primarily under the jurisdiction of the
NRC. (Exc. at 2). However, he explains that the unique and special
interest that he represents would assist the Commission in determining to
what extent its jurisdictional decisions impact upon or are affected by
decisions made by the NRC. (Exc. at 3). He further maintains that his
unique expertise affords him the ability to compare explanations made by
PECO Energy to the NRC and to this Commission. Id.
Epstein additionally refers to the Joint Petition for Negotiated
Settlement, wherein PECO recognized that Epstein and the EFMR Monitoring
Group at Peach Bottom have a special interest in the continued safe
operation of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. (Exc. at 3). Based on
the foregoing, Epstein argues that this is an interest which comes within
the ³public interest² criteria of the Commission¹s regulations, sub-section
(a)(3) and confers standing under sub-section (a)(2). Id.
In his third Exception, Epstein submits that notwithstanding that several
parties to the proceeding have expressed an interest in aspects of issues
he intends to raise, no other party can supplant his recognized expertise
in nuclear economics, nuclear safety, and nuclear waste isolation. (Exc.
at 4). Consequently, Epstein maintains that other parties cannot
adequately represent the interest he would advance in the proceeding and
that their participation should not operate as a bar to his
participation. Id. Here, Epstein makes substantive argument concerning
his position on the merits of the proposed merger transaction and how it
will impact the production of high-level radioactive waste. (Exc. at 5-6).
In his fourth Exception, Epstein argues that the presiding ALJ did not
acknowledge that he identified ³non-nuclear² issues, i.e., issues not
related to nuclear power production. Epstein, thereafter, argues that it
is discriminatory to leave South-Central Pennsylvanians dependent upon
well-intentioned groups from different geographic regions of the state to
protect or advocate for their interests. (Exc. at 11).
In conclusion, Epstein notes that he owns and operates a business in
South-Central Pennsylvania (EFMR Monitoring, Incorporated) that, inter
alia, invests in economic development, distributes potassium iodide free of
charge to residents, and provides emergency planning and radiation
monitoring at no charge to PECO rate payers, area residents, and concerned
citizens living in proximity to Peach Bottom. Thus, Epstein states that he
is the only active party in a position to monitor whether reductions in
shareholder services will flow back to PECO rate payers. (Exc. at 12).
The OSBA, in its Exceptions, notes its disagreement with the ALJ Conclusion
of Law No. 4 that the Commission is without jurisdiction to regulate the
generation of electricity as a public utility function. Id. The OSBA
cites provisions of the Electricity Generation Customer Choice and
Competition Act, 66 Pa. C.S. § 2801-2812, (Competition Act) to argue that
the ALJ statement that the Commission has no jurisdiction to regulate
generation is a ³severe overstatement.² (Exc. at 5).
In Exceptions, the OCA takes the position that the ALJ¹s interpretation of
the Commission¹s jurisdiction and scope of this proceeding is unduly narrow
and should not be adopted. (Exc. at 1). The OCA adds that the ALJ¹s
Conclusions of Law are untimely and, essentially premature at this stage of
the proceeding. Consequently, the OCA argues that Epstein has met the
standard for intervention under the ³public interest² criterion of the
Commission¹s regulations and should be permitted to participate, albeit on
³appropriate issues.² (OCA Exc. at 2).
The OCA argues that Epstein¹s expertise is relevant to this proceeding and
cites an example in support of its position, the fact that Epstein was
intimately involved with the establishment of PECO¹s existing Nuclear
Decommissioning Cost Adjustment Clause. (Exc. at 9). The OCA also
distinguishes the factual circumstances in Mid-Atlantic Power Supply Assoc.
v. Pa. PUC, 746 A.2d 1196 (Pa. Cmwth. 2000) (MAPSA), with the circumstances
involved in this case. (Exc. at 10).
In its Exceptions, the DEP also takes the position that the ALJ¹s
discussion concerning the scope of issues which will be relevant or
material in the case is advisory in nature and premature. The DEP cites
ARIPPA v. PA. PUC, 792 A.2d 636 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), in support of its
position that matters associated with electricity generation are
appropriate to consider in the context of a utility¹s application for a
certificate of public convenience. (DEP Exc. at 5).
The DEP does not directly assert a position on the participation of Epstein
in this proceeding.
In its Replies to the Exceptions of Epstein, the OSBA, OCA, and DEP, the
Joint Applicants state that the Commission need not reach the broader
question of the scope of our authority over the ³wholesale² generation
market. (R.Exc. at 4). The Joint Applicants view the issue at this stage
of the proceedings as a narrow one, which is focused on the participation
of Epstein. Id. The Joint Applicants assert that all but two issues of
the twenty-five issues set forth in Epstein¹s Protest, pertain to
operational or safety-related matters at nuclear plants owned by entities
other than PECO. (R. Exc. at 2). Thus, the generational and nuclear
safety issues that Epstein identifies are not properly before this
Commission. (R. Exc. at 4). The Joint Applicants state that these issues
can be addressed in other proceedings, namely in proceedings before the NRC
in which Epstein has intervened. Id. The Joint Applicants also note that
Epstein does not have representational standing, as he does not seek to
prosecute the interests of an association; that the assertion that standing
is appropriate based on the fact that Epstein facilitated the negotiation
of a monitoring agreement with PECO Energy and Unicom is contrary to the
express terms of the agreement; and that his allegations of a special
interest is not sufficient to grant him party status as this interest is
not direct, immediate and substantial under the standards of William Penn
Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 464 Pa. 168, 346 A.2d 269
(1975); also Landlord Service Bureau, Inc. v. Equitable Gas Co., Docket No.
C-0093481 (Order entered June 8, 1993).
Also, the Joint Applicants, rely on L.G. Spielvogel, P.E., et al. v. PECO,
et al., Docket No. R-00963728C0001, et al. (Order entered January 17,
1997), 1997 Pa. PUC LEXIS 2, for the proposition that superior expertise in
an area does not, in and of itself, confer the requisite interest necessary
for standing. (R. Exc. at 8-9). Also, note the Joint Applicants, the
issues on which Epstein claims superior expertise are issues that are
outside the scope of the proceedings. (R. Exc. at 9-11).
Finally, the Joint Applicants do not agree with the OSBA, OCA, and DEP,
that the ALJ¹s statements concerning the scope of the proceedings were in
error. (R. Exc. at 13-15).
Disposition
On consideration of the Initial Decision and the Exceptions filed thereto,
we shall adopt the decision of the ALJ consistent with our discussion
herein. Our adoption should not be construed as a pre-disposition
concerning any issue pertaining to the scope of issues involved in the
instant application. Rather, our determination is focused upon the narrow
question of whether or not Epstein should be permitted to intervene
pursuant to the public interest criterion of our regulations.
ALJ Chestnut correctly noted that, notwithstanding that our rules of
practice and procedure are patterned after the rules of Pennsylvania rules
for civil practice in the courts, intervention is a matter within the sound
discretion of the Commission.
Allowance of intervention is a matter within the discretion of the
Commission. City of Pittsburgh v. PA Public Utility Comm¹n, 153 Pa.Super.
83, 33 A.2d 641(1943), N.A.A.C.P., Inc. v. PA Public Utility Comm¹n, 5
Pa.Commw. 312, 290 A.2d 704 (1972). ³The interest of a petitioner seeking
intervention must be direct and immediate.² Re Pennsylvania Power & Light
Company, 50 Pa. PUC 38, 40 (1976).
(I.D. at 4).
On consideration of the positions of the parties, we note that Epstein and
the participants essentially concede that he is unable to affirmatively
demonstrate an interest which is direct, immediate, and substantial. The
parties also concede that Epstein does not have an interest which will be
directly affected and as to which he may be bound by the action of the
Commission in the proceeding.
On careful review of the pleadings, we acknowledge Epstein¹s expertise in
the areas of nuclear decommissioning, nuclear waste isolation, nuclear
economics, nuclear safety, universal service, and community
investment. See Epstein Protest, para. 10. We further acknowledge his
prior history of active participation in matters involving nuclear
generation. However, this expertise and the prior participation of Epstein
do not, based on the facts of this case, support intervention based on the
public interest criterion on our regulations. On balance, we find that
Epstein¹s asserted interest does not go beyond the interest of all citizens
in seeking compliance with the law, or is speculative in relation to the
proposed transaction. The requirement of a ³substantial² interest means
there must be some discernible adverse effect to some interest other than
the general interest in having others comply with the law. See William
Penn Parking Garage, 464 Pa. at 195, 346 A.2d at 282; also Friends of the
AtGlen-Susquehanna Trail, Inc. v. PA. PUC, 717 A. 2d 581 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1998), appeal denied 559 Pa. 695 (1999). Also, the requirement that an
interest be ³direct² means that a person claiming to be aggrieved must show
causation of the harm by the matter of which he or she complains. Epstein
can point to no disruption of any of the settlements, stipulations, or
accords with which he has familiarity, or with which he has previously been
involved, that will be adversely affected by the proposed transaction.
Finally, we acknowledge the ³regional² concern articulated by Epstein,
namely that the interests of South-Central Pennsylvanians in the proposed
transaction may not be adequately represented absent his participation. On
review of this aspect of Epstein¹s argument, we generally agree with the
position of the Joint Applicants that this appears to show an intent by
Epstein to vindicate an interest in a representational sense when, in fact,
Epstein pursues his Protest and Intervention as an individual. We are not
persuaded that this interest is not adequately protected by other active
participants.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, we shall adopt the Initial Decision of ALJ Chestnut
to the extent consistent with the discussion in this Opinion and
Order. Our adoption of the Initial Decision relative to the participation
of Epstein should not be construed as a disposition on the merits
concerning the scope of this proceeding; THEREFORE,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. That the Initial Decision of Administrative Law Judge Marlane R.
Chestnut issued April 26, 2005, is adopted consistent with the discussion
in this Opinion and Order.
2. That the Exceptions of Eric Joseph Epstein, the Office of Consumer
Advocate, the Office of Small Business Advocate, and the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection, are granted and/or denied
consistent with the discussion in this Opinion and Order.
3. That the Protest filed by Eric Joseph Epstein is, hereby, dismissed.
4. That the Petition to Intervene filed by Eric Joseph Epstein is,
hereby, dismissed.
BY THE COMMISSION
James J. McNulty,
Secretary
(SEAL)
ORDER ADOPTED: July 14, 2005
ORDER ENTERED:
*****************************************************************
13 NRC: NRC Schedules Regulatory Conference to Discuss Crystal River Nuclear Plant
Concern
News Release - Region II - 2005-03
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region II
61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303
No. II-05-032 July 15, 2005
CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416
Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has scheduled a
regulatory conference with officials of Progress Energy on July
22 in Atlanta to discuss the risk significance of an inspection
finding at the companys Crystal River nuclear power plant,
located near Crystal River, Fla.
NRC and Progress Energy officials will discuss the significance
of concerns associated with an NRC inspection finding involving
the lack of protection from fire damage to electrical cables at
the plant. Fire damage to the cables could adversely affect a
safe shutdown. Also, a local manual action by an operator to
recover from the effects of the fire damage to the cables was
not feasible because it involved entering a potentially
smoke-filled room.
The NRC evaluates regulatory performance at commercial nuclear
power plants with a color- coded system which classifies
findings as either green, white, yellow or red, in increasing
order of safety significance. The NRCs preliminary evaluation
determined that the safety significance of this issue at Crystal
River is greater than Green, meaning that it is considered to be
greater than a very low safety significance.
The meeting is open to public observation and is scheduled for
10:00 a.m., in the NRCs Region II office, located on the 24th
floor of the Atlanta Federal Center at 61 Forsyth Street SW in
Atlanta.
No decisions on the final safety significance, any apparent
violation or any possible enforcement action will be made during
the conference. Those decisions will be made by NRC officials at
a later time.
Last revised Friday, July 15, 2005
*****************************************************************
14 San Luis Obispo Tribune: Diablo study is a nod to safety
| 07/15/2005 |
Editorial Opinion of The Tribune
Like nuclear watchdog groups, we applaud
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.'s initiative to study how the utility
might need to better protect Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant
in the event of a large tsunami.
It's the right thing to do.
As environmental reporter David Sneed wrote in Thursday's
Tribune, PG&E seismologists in May toured the Banda Aceh region
of Sumatra, which was devastated by the Dec. 26 tsunami and the
undersea earthquake that spawned it.
The PG&E team looked at a cement factory, along with several oil
and gas facilities, and was pleased to learn that the cement
factory wasn't destroyed. This indicated to company officials
that well-engineered structures can survive tsunamis -- and
confirmed their belief that Diablo Canyon would be able to
withstand the largest waves that could be created by earthquake
faults offshore.
While the plant's construction took into account the possibility
of earthquakes and tsunamis, PG&E officials are spending
$500,000 to further study the possible impact of huge
earthquake- or storm-driven waves. They expect to complete the
study by year-end -- and then turn it over to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and make the results public.
The executives said they're considering whether to present the
findings at a local public forum. We urge them to do so. It
would make it far easier for local residents to understand the
results, ask questions and offer comments. The high level of
interest in this subject warrants such discussion.
*****************************************************************
15 NRC: NRC Issues $60,000 Fine for Inattentive Control Room Supervisor at Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Plant and Initial Inappropriate Response
News Release - Region I - 2005-04
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region I 475 Allendale Road, King of
Prussia, Pa. 19406 No. I-05-040 July 15,
2005 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan
(610) 337-5331 E-mail:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a $60,000 civil
penalty for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., for violations
that occurred at the Pilgrim nuclear power plant on June 29,
2004. The violations involve a control room supervisor who was
asleep for approximately 4 minutes while on duty in the control
room, and improper response by a shift manager and reactor
operator after observing the inattentive supervisor.
After the NRC learned of the event, the agencys Region I Office
of Investigations began an investigation at the plant, which is
located in Plymouth, Mass., and operated by Entergy. That
investigation determined, among other things, that the
supervisor in question fell asleep in a chair and was therefore
inattentive to his duties. (Public safety was still assured
because another reactor and senior reactor operator were also on
duty in the control room at the time.)
Based on the investigations findings, the NRC has identified
four violations of agency requirements. Specifically, they
involve: (1) the control room supervisor being asleep and
therefore neither alert nor attentive to his duties; (2) a
reactor operator observing the supervisor asleep but
deliberately failing to take immediate actions to awaken him,
inform appropriate site personnel and file a report on the
event; (3) the shift manager, in careless disregard of
requirements, failing to inform appropriate site personnel and
file a report on the event; and (4) the control room supervisor
not being relieved of duty and subjected to fitness-for-duty
testing.
Although there was no actual safety consequence resulting from
this event because there were no plant conditions that warranted
immediate action, it is important for licensed operators to be
alert and attentive to their control room duties at all times so
that they can adequately monitor the reactor, manipulate reactor
controls, and react to any plant transients, NRC Region I
Administrator Samuel J. Collins wrote in a letter to Entergy
regarding the enforcement action. It is also important that when
licensed operators are not alert or attentive to their duties,
appropriate action must be taken to immediately correct the
situation and inform management.
In addition to the fine proposed for Entergy, the NRC is issuing
a Severity Level III violation to the reactor operator involved;
a Severity Level III violation to the control room supervisor;
and a Letter of Reprimand to the shift manager. The Letter of
Reprimand for the shift manager is based on a settlement
agreement reached under the NRCs Alternate Dispute Resolution
Process. It acknowledges that under the agreement, the shift
manager will conduct outreach to peers at Pilgrim and other
licensed operators in the nuclear industry regarding his
experience and lessons learned. These commitments have been put
in place by a confirmatory order.
Entergy has taken several steps in response to the event,
including conducting training on behavioral observation and
other topics, as well as senior managers meeting with plant
personnel to discuss the event, fitness-for-duty obligations and
safety conscious work environment requirements.
The company will have 30 days to respond to the enforcement
action.
Last revised Friday, July 15, 2005
*****************************************************************
16 Lancaster Online.com: NRC ups TMI oversight following training lapse
For five months in 2004, half of the nuclear power plant’s
364-member emergency response team had not taken an annual
refresher course as required, inspectors say.
By Ad Crable
Lancaster New Era
Published: Jul 15, 2005 1:49 PM EST
LANCASTER COUNTY, PA - The operators of the Three Mile Island
nuclear plant are being hit with another training violation
involving workers who would handle an emergency at the plant.
Inspectors for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that
for five months in 2004, half the plant’s 364-member emergency
response team had not taken an annual refresher course as
required.
Technically, they were ineligible to respond to an emergency
involving a release of radiation at the plant for those five
months.
But realistically, says NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan, “They would
have, and they certainly would have been able to handle any
emergency that would have arisen. Nevertheless, this is one of
the annual requirements.”
The recent training violation comes after two of eight control
room crews at TMI flunked requalification exams in 2004 during a
hypothetical emergency in a simulated control room.
Two of five control room supervisors failed a portion of the
simulated tests and a third had to be retrained because of a
weak performance on the test.
In addition, the simulator used at TMI to test operators did not
accurately replicate some current plant conditions, and it was
determined that tests were not varied, as required, so that
inspectors conceivably could have told their colleagues what to
expect, the NRC found.
In all, four violations were issued.
All those who failed the tests were subsequently retrained and
certified.
In the latest accident-training development, the NRC has
notified TMI operator AmerGen Energy that the violation is of
low to moderate safety significance and that TMI will now come
under increased oversight by the federal agency.
AmerGen notified the NRC last Friday that it would not contest
the violation. The utility has addressed the problem, Sheehan
said.
Sheehan said there is no indication AmerGen willfully ignored
the requirement. “It appears to be confusion having to do with
their procedures,” he said.
AmerGen spokesman Ralph DeSantis concurred. AmerGen internal
plans had two different requirements, he said. One said
retraining had to be done every calendar year. The other that it
had to be done every 12 months, plus or minus up to three months.
Once the NRC’s intent was made clear, the emergency response
people were immediately retrained.
DeSantis noted that the retraining often involves a mere
one-hour training session. All the workers had passed training
exercises throughout the year, he added.
“We feel very comfortable everyone was very qualified to do
their job. It was more of an administrative issue than anything
else.”
Emergency responders at TMI would perform a wide range of roles
during an emergency, from working with the media and public to
addressing the problem at the plant.
Eric Epstein of Three Mile Island Alert, a safe-energy group,
says the incident is just the latest in a disturbing pattern at
TMI.
“Staffing cuts, forced overtime and an aging work force has
undermined training and eroded safety margins at Three Mile
Island,” Epstein said.
“For an industry based on safety and depth, poor training and
inadequate staffing are cause for alarm.”
© 2004 Lancaster Newspapers
PO Box 1328, Lancaster PA 17608, (717) 291-8811
*****************************************************************
17 APP.COM: Put evacuation to the test
Asbury Park Press
Published in the Asbury Park Press 07/15/05
An Oyster Creek nuclear power plant spokeswoman says the
emergency response plan for the Lacey plant gets regular
attention and is constantly reviewed and tested. If plant owner
AmerGen is so confident in that plan, it should have no objection
to the state conducting a "dry run" evacuation.
A full-fledged drill was the primary request of plant critics to
state emergency management officials at a hearing Tuesday on
whether to make any changes in the state's plan for radiological
emergencies. The drill would simulate what would happen if a
radioactive release were imminent.
No decision was made on the request from Paula Gotsch of Brick,
leader of Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety, a
citizens group that opposes the plant's continued operation
beyond its 2009 expiration date.
A state police captain defended the evacuation plan, which would
involve almost 250,000 people within a 10-mile radius of the
plant in the summer months. Capt. Jerome Hatfield said the plan
has been tested scientifically and would work.
The best way to prove that is to test it. Gotsch noted that a
dry run around the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant in May revealed
delays in sending out evacuation notices. The terrorism response
drill in New Jersey in April exposed vulnerabilities in
communications and hospital staffing.
Then there are the roads. They haven't changed much since work
on the plant started in 1965, but the population has. Ocean
County residents remember only too well the traffic nightmare
caused when a forest fire in Berkeley forced the closing of 20
miles of the Garden State Parkway in June 2002.
A drill would put Oyster Creek's planning to the test. If
successful, it can allay the fears of its critics. If glitches
come up, then emergency planners can fix them. There's nothing
to lose.
Copyright © 2005 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
18 canada.com: Fort St. John N.B. may still refurbish plant
Friday, July 15, 2005
FREDERICTON -- The New Brunswick government is still considering
the refurbishment of its aging nuclear power facility, despite
Ottawa's rejection of a request for federal help.
Premier Bernard Lord says he wants a final decision from NB
Power's board of directors within two weeks.
Hay says he'll meet with Bruce Power and Atomic Energy of Canada
Limited to see if they want to change their offers to partner.
He says the loss of federal funding will put pressure on future
power rates.
Lord says he was misled and betrayed by the federal government
after being assured that a deal was coming.
The federal government says funding the Lepreau retrofit would
have set an expensive precedent that would have seen other
provinces asking for similar deals.
Lord said that's nonsense, because the federal government has
helped the energy sector in other provinces, including the
decommissioning of coal plants in Ontario.
© Broadcast News 2005
Copyright © CanWest Interactive Inc. All rights reserved.
CanWest Interactive Inc. is an affiliate of CanWest Global
Communications Corp.
*****************************************************************
19 canada.com: Liberal leaders from N.B. and P.E.I. agree nuclear power needed
Canadian Press
Friday, July 15, 2005
CHARLOTTETOWN (CP) - Liberal leaders from Prince Edward Island
and New Brunswick agree that refurbishing the Point Lepreau
nuclear station is critical.
They met in Charlottetown on Wednesday to talk about energy
issues challenging the region.
Both Robert Ghiz and Shawn Graham said they believe in long term
renewable energy policies.
But both add that it is important to be practical and recognize
the need for backup.
Graham says decommissioning Point Lepreau, located near Saint
John, N.B., and building a new coal fired plant in New Brunswick
is not an option.
He said nuclear power is a stable fuel source that doesn't go
through the ups and downs of fossil fuels.
The Prince Edward Island government is hoping to move completely
to renewable energy by 2015, with an emphasis on wind power.
© The Canadian Press 2005
Copyright © CanWest Interactive Inc. All rights reserved.
CanWest Interactive Inc. is an affiliate of CanWest Global
Communications Corp.
*****************************************************************
20 canada.com: N.B. government considers nuclear facility retrofit without
federal cash
Kevin Bissett Canadian Press
Friday, July 15, 2005
FREDERICTON (CP) - The New Brunswick government is still
considering the refurbishment of its aging nuclear power
facility, despite Ottawa's rejection of a request for major
federal help.
New Brunswick politicians came out in droves Thursday to express
their dismay with the federal Liberal government's decision to
deny the province's request for money.
Since January, the province had been pressing for about $400
million to help with the $1.4-billion cost to extend the life of
the Point Lepreau reactor by another 25 years.
New Brunswick officials, including Premier Bernard Lord and NB
Power president David Hay only learned of Ottawa's rejection
through media calls Wednesday night.
Lord said Thursday he heard the news hours before getting calls
from a federal regional minister, Andy Scott, and Prime Minister
Paul Martin.
Scott told reporters during a news conference in Fredericton
that providing the assistance would have set an expensive
precedent.
"We simply could not adequately build a firewall that wouldn't
cause others to come forward with a similar request," said
Scott.
He said electrical generation falls within provincial
jurisdiction and federal involvement would have triggered a
clamour from other provinces.
"The problem was there was always this other issue having to do
with 'can we do this in a way that would allow us to say No to
the three power plants in Ontario that are in roughly the same
place, as well as one in Quebec?' " he said.
Lord said that's nonsense, because the federal government has
helped the energy sector in other provinces, including the
decommissioning of coal plants in Ontario.
Lord said he was strung along, trusting the prime minister and
members of the federal Liberal cabinet that a deal was coming.
"We were clearly misled by the federal government, because in
every single conversation I had in the last three or four
months, it was very clear that things were moving along," said
Lord.
Rob Moore, the Conservative MP for the New Brunswick riding of
Fundy-Royal, said the federal decision was purely political.
"I have almost 100 per cent certainty that if we were into an
election right now, Lepreau would have received the money," he
said.
"That is just how blatantly political these decisions have
become."
New Brunswick Liberal Leader Shawn Graham said he is also
disappointed with his federal counterparts.
"Expectations were raised," he said. "The federal government
could have been more forthcoming about its concerns of creating
a precedent."
But Graham also blamed the provincial Conservative government,
saying it wouldn't need the federal help if it had better
managed the provincial energy file.
Despite that, Graham said refurbishment is still the better
option than a new coal-fired plant.
Lord said a retrofit of Lepreau is still his preference, and he
has ordered Hay to call a meeting of the NB Power board of
directors to make a decision within two weeks.
Hay told reporters Thursday he wants to talk with prospective
partners Bruce Power of Ontario and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.
first.
"We're going to offer them an opportunity to negotiate here
before we bring the final proposal to our board," he said.
He said the loss of federal funding changes the project and will
put pressure on power rates.
"In a Bruce transaction it puts more pressure on rates . . .
that's where you've got private sector insurance," said Hay.
"If we go an (Atomic Energy of Canada) route there may be less
pressure now on rates, but we're assuming much more risk, which
could translate into rates later on."
Bruce Power had proposed it take over operations of the nuclear
power plant and then sell the power back to the province.
Nuclear power has provided a cushion from the energy market's
volatility, keeping power rates stable in a province heavily
dependent on manufacturing.
Lepreau came online in 1983 and faces the end of its life in
2008. It employs 700 workers and generates one-third of the
province's electricity.
Refurbishment of the plant would take 18 months, starting in the
spring of 2008.
Environmentalist David Coon of the Conservation Council of New
Brunswick said the New Brunswick government should take this
opportunity to shut down Point Lepreau.
"It think the provincial government should face up to the reality
that this is unaffordable, and we're going to have to transform
our electricity system to one that is Kyoto friendly and green,
and get away from these giant megaprojects," said Coon.
He said the federal government is willing to hand out money from
its $10-billion Kyoto plan to help make the transition of the
electricity system to a Kyoto-friendly one.
c The Canadian Press 2005
Copyright © CanWest Interactive Inc. All rights reserved.
CanWest Interactive Inc. is an affiliate of CanWest Global
Communications Corp.
*****************************************************************
21 CBC New Brunswick: Lord will decide on Lepreau in 2 weeks
Last updated Jul 15 2005 11:29 AM ADT
CBC News
Premier Bernard Lord has asked NB Power's board of directors
to make a recommendation on the refurbishment of the Point
Lepreau nuclear plant within two weeks.
David Hay, the utility's president, said he would meet that
deadline, given that the premier has to make a decision quickly
if the $1.4-billion refurbishment process is to proceed.
"From a physical point of view, we believe we could lose the
window to refurbish between April 2008 and September 2009," said
Hay. "So we'll make that decision in accordance with the
premier's wishes."
The project would add another 20 to 30 years to the operating
life of the 23-year-old generating station near Saint John.
However, it is in jeopardy because the federal government
decided this week not to contribute money toward the project.
+ MARCH 21, 2005: No quick decision on Lepreau:
Minister Lord said New Brunswickers have been betrayed
and abandoned by Ottawa. He said he was led to believe that the
federal government would help out.
"I trusted what I was being told by the minister and the prime
minister, only to#8230realize we were all misled," the premier
said Thursday.
Federal cabinet minister Andy Scott said Ottawa ultimately
decided that helping refurbish Point Lepreau wasn't its
responsibility and would have set an expensive precedent.
"We made an honest effort to come up with
a deal in response to the request by the premier," said Scott.
"But the reality is that electrical generation is a provincial
responsibility.
"We would have had to be able to justify it as & an exception
because otherwise other provinces would expect equal subsidy and
we had three power plants in Ontario and one in Quebec basically
at the same stage," Scott said.
Ottawa's decision comes as a major financial blow to the
project, after months of discussions between the provincial and
federal government.
The premier said the government would try to go ahead with
refurbishment, even without federal assistance.
"I can reaffirm today that it is our preference to proceed with
refurbishment of Point Lepreau," Lord said.
Lord had threatened to build a coal plant to supplement the
province's power supply in the absence of Ottawa's refurbishment
money, but he said he would keep the environment in mind when he
makes his final decision.
He warns, however, that Ottawa's decision could translate into
higher power rates to cover the costs of refurbishment if NB
Power goes ahead with the project.
Premier Bernard Lord said the province will decide in two weeks
if it will proceed with refurbishment of Point Lepreau.
*****************************************************************
22 Guardian Unlimited: Reactor on Olympic site no cause for alarm
David Pallister
Saturday July 16, 2005
The Guardian
London assembly Tories have been getting worked up this
week about the news that the Olympic Village in east London used
to house a nuclear reactor. Bob Blackman, the Tory economic
development spokesman, wants an immediate environmental survey.
The 2012 committee accused him of alarmism.
The Guardian can reveal today that it carried out its own geiger
counter inspection of the site and found only normal levels of
background radiation.
Article continues
The tiny reactor, with a core no larger than a bucket, was the
first to be built for a UK university. It was commissioned in
1966 for the department of nuclear engineering at Queen Mary
College and was deactivated in 1982. It was used for
undergraduate experiments and postgraduate projects.
Walk down Marshgate Lane on Stratford Marsh and the huge empty
building, divided into two hangars, still stands. Part of it is
used by Bywaters for waste disposal. Behind is the studio for
the television show Bad Girls.
There was no mention of the site in the environmental statement
accompanying the UK bid. But the remote possibility of
contamination prompted the Guardian to contact Greenpeace. It
has a nuclear expert with a sophisticated geiger counter.
Bywaters was happy to let us look around.
The readings were what you might expect anywhere. The same
applied to the mud in the stream running by the building.
End of story, until Mr Blackman got to his feet on Wednesday.
Two days before, the college finally issued a statement to the
Guardian explaining what had happened 23 years ago.
The reactor was decommissioned under supervision by the Nuclear
Installations Inspectorate, the college said. "The reactor was
exceptionally small ... and produced virtually no energy.
"Decommissioning staff were able to stand inside the reactor
void with no protective clothing. During decommissioning, the
biological shield was removed by a nuclear consultancy, and the
core was dismantled by staff on-site according to NII safety
guidelines.
"Following the completion of the decommissioning process, the
work was approved and verified, and Queen Mary's licence was
officially de-registered by the Nuclear Installations
Inspectorate in November 1983.
"There are absolutely no ongoing health implications."
Jean McSorley, senior adviser on Greenpeace's nuclear campaign,
said: "In our view there's nothing to worry about."
Mr Blackman said last night: "I'm reassured that someone has
done something."
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
23 [du-list] COUNTERPUNCH: DU - States Take Action to Protect
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:48:02 -0700
Date: 7/12/05 7:41:43 PM Mountain Daylight Time
July 12, 2005
An Interview with Bob Smith
Depleted Uranium: States Take Action to Protect Their Soldiers and Veterans
By KEVIN ZEESE
CounterPunch
Louisiana recently passed legislation giving all returning veterans the right
to get a best practices health screening test for exposure to depleted
uranium. Interviewed here is Bob Smith, one of the activists that helped
make this
bill possible. He is with the Louisiana Activist Network. He is also I am a
member of Veterans for Peace and the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War. Born a
Texan and raised in a Navy family with three siblings, moved to Louisiana in
1977 a few years after returning from Viet Nam. He worked with adolescents
in a
psychiatric hospital where he met his wife, a co-worker, returning to the
military and retired eight years ago as a Command Sergeant Major. He became
actively involved the day Congress gave the President unconstitutional,
power to make
war on Iraq and has been active ever since in the peace movement and with the
Presbyterian Church.
Zeese: What made you pursue legislation regarding depleted uranium in
Louisiana?
Smith: As a twenty year veteran I have been concerned about veterans health
since I returned from Viet Nam. From first hand experience I knew the
treatment
of veterans by our country was highly inadequate after their service. Each
year after Gulf War I, more and more veterans were being diagnosed with a
mysterious illness, Gulf War Syndrome (GWS) without significant research
for cause
and effect much like what happened with Agent Orange contamination.
I learned about how the government dealt with Agent Orange contamination
during the eighties as an outreach counselor at the VA's Viet Nam Veterans
Outreach Center or Vet Center here in New Orleans. We were actively
involved in
trying to alert the VA to the effects of Agent Orange contamination. For
twenty
five years a government study done by the Rand Corporation denied any cause
and
effect between Agent Orange and health problems experienced by veterans and
their offspring. Just this week the VA has finally recognized the connection
between Agent Orange and diabetes. Remember the last troops returned from
Viet Nam
over thirty years ago. Worth mentioning is that the same Rand Corporation now
denies any cause and effect between depleted uranium contamination and
health.
Late last year after a lot of reading I found out about depleted uranium. In
January at the Jazz Funeral for Democracy, a peace march in New Orleans
organized by the Louisiana Activist Network, I met a young Gulf War I veteran,
Dennis Kyne. He talked with me about what he knew first hand as a combat medic
about illnesses of our veterans even before they returned home and what he has
found out about DU since returning home. I then did more research and
studying.
In March I met Leuren Moret, a geoscientist, who reaffirmed everything that
Dennis Kyne had told me and reaffirmed what I had been reading. I then did
more
research and studying including conversation with Doug Rokke. Doug was the
overall supervisor in charge of the clean-up after Gulf War I and is an
expert in
depleted uranium. Thirty to forty percent of his team are now dead.
I then became concerned about what could be done to bring this issue out into
the public conversation. Leuren told me about a young lady in Connecticut,
Melissa Sterry, who was doing something about it. Working with Rep Patricia
Dillon of Connecticut they were introducing a bill to have all of their
state's
veterans tested. The always unselfish Melissa willingly shared a copy of the
Connecticut bill with me. Melissa had been a member of a depleted uranium
clean-up team after Gulf War I. She herself was very sick and had six of
her eight
team members die since returning home. All six were less than thirty-five
years
old.
Taking the Connecticut bill, changing the name to a Louisiana bill, and
making a few minor amendments preceded a call to my Louisiana
congressperson, Rep.
Jalila Jefferson-Bullock. The submission deadline was less than twenty-four
hours after our meeting. Rep. Juan LaFonta sponsored and Rep.
Jefferson-Bullock
co-sponsored the bill. The deadline was made.
Zeese: What does the legislation accomplish?
Smith: The legislation will allow all returning veterans to have the right to
get a best practices health screening test for exposure to depleted uranium.
The test will use a bioassay procedure involving sensitive methods capable of
detecting depleted uranium at low levels and the use of equipment with the
capacity to discriminate between different radioisotopes in naturally
occurring
levels of uranium and the characteristic ratio and marker for depleted uranium.
This test will determine if a soldier has been contaminated. It will prevent
mis-diagnosis so soldiers are not given the wrong medications that usually
make them sicker. It will allow the contaminated soldier to decide about
parenting further offspring who have an increased chance of serious birth
illnesses or
defects.
The bill also prescribes a reporting mechanism from the Louisiana's Attorney
General to the legislature that requires that awareness sessions and training
have been done as required by Army regulations.
Zeese: What tips do you have for activists in other states interested in
pursuing this in their state?
Smith: Stay focused. Depleted uranium testing is for discovery of
contamination of a very hazardous material made from radioactive nuclear
waste. This is
something that truly supports the troops. Remind your elected representatives
of that often. Read, study, and discuss with the experts and others
experienced
in this type of legislation. Other advocates should remember that the weapons
manufacturers do not want this in the public. They make a lot of money off
this death bringing material. Likewise the military does not want to give up
these very effective offensive weapons regardless of how it effects our
soldiers
or civilians, enemy soldiers, or the environment. Although we did not
encounter resistance from those two potential adversaries, weapons
manufacturers or
the military, others might and they should be prepared to bring in experts.
Having veterans testify helps. Another veteran, Ward Reilly, from Baton
Rouge was
instrumental in helping get the bill through committee.
Zeese: What were some of the challenges you faced with this legislation and
how did you overcome them?
Smith: The only real obstacle we encountered was educating our
representative. We knew we would have to educate her and do it quickly but
fortunately she
agreed to a minimum one-hour meeting. We were lucky as both representatives
cared deeply about our troops and taking care of them after they come home.
There
were no other obstacles.
Zeese: What are your next steps?
Smith: We have been having awareness sessions at coffeehouses and public
events to educate the public, either by passing out literature, making
educational
speeches, posting literature on the internet, or showing documentaries. We
are also communicating with advocates in other states by sharing information,
resources, networking, and offering tips to help. And if that doesn't work
I may
just stand on top of the roof and scream out the truth.
Note: I retired after 20 years in the Army and National Guard as a Command
Sergeant Major, serving three tours in Viet Nam as a Special Forces Green
Beret
and was mobilized for Desert Storm. Education includes a Bachelor of Arts in
Sociology and a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering. Currently
employed as an engineer living in New Orleans with Julie my wife and life
partner
for over twenty-six years and our dog, Maggie. Member of Veterans for Peace,
Viet Nam Veterans Against the War, and the Louisiana Activist Network.
Kevin Zeese is a director of Democracy Rising. You can comment on this column
on his blog spot at DemocracyRising.US.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
24 Cibola County Beacon: Attorney explains claim E to miners
Friday, July 15, 2005
GRANTS - Approximately 600 ex-uranium mineworkers and their
families packed the Cibola County Complex auditorium to hear the
latest information available on the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act (RECA) and the Energy Employee Occupational
Illness Compensation Act (EEOICP) on Wednesday.
Many came to hear about the "E-claim" money that will pay miners
or their families up to $250,000 if they qualify based on each
miner's level of impairment and wage loss.
"Basically what subpart E says is that uranium miners will be
covered under this provision which was originally drafted for
lab workers," said RECA attorney Kevin Martinez. Martinez went
on to explain to the crowd that if the miners have already
received their original $9,000, then they are eligible to begin
filing for these additional monies available under the E-claim
provision.
Martinez said another section of this provision is new and
untested. "It says that if you received your $100,000 or if you
contracted a covered illness or...[died] resulting from exposure
from a toxic substance," you or your family might be eligible -
based again on specific guidelines - for the additional money,
Martinez said.
Martinez added that the unique part of this small paragraph is
that it may open avenues for people to obtain compensation that
they did not qualify for under the original RECA provisions.
Martinez said that some workers suffering from an illness other
than a lung condition might now be eligible. "People who have
not been covered under RECA for a lung condition but who have
suffered some form of cancer - and all of us know in this room
know how common that has been in this area - there is a
possibility of developing a claim," he said.
Martinez said a doctor must diagnose the miner, and the doctor
must be willing to connect the cancer to the exposure to a toxic
substance while the miner was employed at the mine. Martinez
said it sounds a lot simpler than it is because the miner, in
fact, must go through a range of tests to determine the level of
exposure.
Martinez explained that there is a formula RECA will use to
determine the level of compensation due the miner. "It is
basically your impairment level plus your wage loss...[that will
be] your level of compensation," Martinez said.
Martinez said someone is going to have to determine each miner's
impairment rating. He said the government would require the
doctor in charge of the miner's care to meet the government's
specifications.
"They say, for example, the doctor has to be board certified in
the area of medicine that they are practicing. If it is lungs, I
am assuming they are going to want a board certified pulmonary
doctor," Martinez said. The attorney said the doctor must follow
the American Medical Association guidelines book that outlines
impairment ratings.
Martinez said that everybody is going to get a different amount
of money based on his or her impairment rating. Martinez
explained that the money would not come in the form of a lump
sum payment, but a medical payment.
Martinez encouraged the miners to find their own doctor and get
an impairment rating. "The reason I think that is a wise
decision is that you put the ball in their [the government's]
court to say that your doctor is wrong," Martinez said. He added
that a doctor chosen by the miner must still meet the criteria
of the Department of Labor (DOL), that the DOL may still require
the miner to use a doctor of DOL's choosing (depending on the
first doctor's findings) and that the two doctors may not agree
on the impairment rating. "The office of workers' compensation
will then decide which doctor to believe," Martinez added.
The impairment rating will then be multiplied by $2,500 to
attain the level of compensation due the miner or the miner's
family.
The second part of claim E is the wage loss provision. Miners
must prove - by either employment or social security records -
that they contracted an illness while at work, which, in turn,
caused them to take a lower paying job. This applies to miners
who worked before 1954. There are two different levels of
compensation available depending on the percentage of income
loss due to the illness.
If a miner was making from 50 percent to 75 percent less, the
worker will receive $10,000 multiplied by the number of years
until he or she retired. If the miner was making less than 50
percent of his or her previous income, the compensation jumps to
$15,000 per year multiplied by the number of years he or she
worked until retirement. "It sounds a lot simpler than it really
is, but we still do not know what the outcomes will be,"
Martinez said.
Martinez said their offices have been flooded with calls, and he
asked for the cooperation and patience of everybody as his staff
tries to catch up with returning all the phone calls.
Michael Nisbet, the Director of Government Relations for Case
Management Systems (CMS), said they do these presentations all
over the country. "We always get the biggest turnout of people
in this area," Nisbet said.
Nisbet said he and Ron Elmlinger, the Clinical Outreach Director
for CSM, will be meeting with Governor Concho in Acoma on
Thursday, and he has tried to meet with Governor Johnson at
Laguna, but Johnson has not been willing to sit down and meet
with them. "I am sure there are miners and their families on the
reservations who will benefit from this information," said
Nisbet.
By Will Kie
Copyright © 2005Cibola County Beacon.
*****************************************************************
25 AU News.com.au: Northern Territory named for new dump
| NT | Breaking News 24/7
-
NEWS.com.au (15-07-2005)
July 15, 2005 From: AAP Advertisement:
AUSTRALIA'S new nuclear waste facility will be located in the
Northern Territory, after the Federal Government today
identified three potential locations for development.
Federal Science Minister Brendan Nelson said the three sites
are Mount Everard, 27km north-west of Alice Springs, Harts
Range, 165km north-east of Alice Springs, and Fishers Ridge,
42km south-east of Katherine.
All are Commonwealth-owned land currently used for defence
purposes.
The Government will take a year to carry out the detailed site
selection process, Dr Nelson said, with the assessment to
include security, road access, geological suitability, flora and
fauna impacts and heritage issues.
"By the end of next year we will have selected one of those
sites specifically to be developed," Dr Nelson told reporters.
The preferred site will be developed and fully operational by
2011.
Dr Nelson said Australians needed to appreciate the proposal
was in the national interest.
"The reality is we've got to proceed with this now, there will
be no further mucking about, the Australian Government is
absolutely determined to make sure once and for all that one of
these three sites is chosen and then we will proceed to the
environmental impact statement and then to the construction of
the facility," he said.
"If we do not have this facility designed and built and ready
to receive waste by 2011, we will not be able to meet our
contractual and international treaty obligations."
Dr Nelson said he faxed a letter to the Northern Territory's
Chief Minister Clare Martin this morning, informing her of the
decision.
But he warned the Federal Government was working to a strict
timetable and had little patience for irrational and overhyped
objections.
"There needs to be a reality check by those who would be
opposed to this," he said.
"It is the kind of thing which should not under any
circumstances be generating any kind of hysteria among
politicians who are self-serving at a state and territory level
and are not prepared to put Australia's national interests
first."
Waste to be managed at the facility would come from the
medical, industrial and research use of radioactive materials by
commonwealth agencies, including the Australian Nuclear Science
and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), the operator of Australia's
research reactor.
Dr Nelson said Australians needed to realise that if they were
to live with the benefits of nuclear science they had to accept
nuclear waste as a realistic part of that.
All Australians already lived with nuclear waste in their
backyards, he said.
"We want to make it absolutely clear to Australians that
nuclear waste is stored in their suburbs, their hospitals, their
universities and their factories," he said.
"There is an enormous amount of adhockery at the moment in
Australia as to where (nuclear waste) is stored.
"The truth, which needs to be understood, is that every state
and territory has current low and intermediate levels of waste
which it is storing." Search for more stories on
*****************************************************************
26 NEWS.com.au: Dump confirmed for NT
(16-07-2005)
By Rebecca Hewett July 16, 2005
The Federal Government has confirmed it will build a nuclear
waste dump in the Northern Territory.
The site will be on Defence Department land near Katherine or
Alice Springs.
The options are Mt Everard, 27km northwest of Alice Springs on
the Tanami Rd; Harts Range, 165km north-east of Alice Springs
and Fishers Ridge, 42km south of Katherine.
The Northern Territory's two Federal CLP politicians, MHR Dave
Tollner and Senator Nigel Scullion, said before the election in
2004, the dump would not be in the NT.
The Federal Government's decision has angered the Northern
Territory's Labor Government.
NT Environment Minister Marion Scrymgour said Territorians were
lied to.
"The decision is a blatant broken promise," she said.
In the run-up to the Federal election in 2004, Environment
Senator Ian Campbell said: "The Commonwealth is not pursuing any
options anywhere on the mainland ... Northern Territorians can
take that as an absolute categorical assurance."
The Territory Government is powerless to stop the dump because
it will be on Commonwealth land.
Federal Science Minister Brendan Nelson said yesterday: "The
reality is we've got to proceed with this now -- there will be
no further mucking about.
"The Australian Government is absolutely determined to make sure
once and for all that one of these three sites is chosen."
Dr Nelson said the dump would take low and intermediate level
radioactive waste from Commonwealth agencies.
Low-level radioactive waste would include things such as
laboratory gloves, clothing, glassware and contaminated soil.
Intermediate radioactive waste would include materials from
radiation therapy and industrial waste.
But about 50 cubic metres of high-level radioactive waste
consisting of spent fuel from Lucas Heights will be encased in
glass and cement and brought back to the dump from overseas,
where it is sent for reprocessing.
The decision to build the dump in the NT has caused a rift in
the CLP.
Opposition leader Jodeen Carney said she would join Labor in
opposing the dump. But CLP Senator Nigel Scullion said he wanted
more details.
"I want to know exactly what low-level and intermediate-level
waste is," he said.
"I want detail and I want a letter from the Prime Minister
assuring us it won't be taking high-level waste."
Dr Nelson said construction would start after an environmental
impact study was conducted.
It would start taking intermediate, reprocessed waste in 2011.
*****************************************************************
27 Nevada Appeal: Bryan honored for public service with building dedication
July 15, 2005
Citing Richard Bryan's efforts to protect Nevada's natural
heritage, Gov. Kenny Guinn said Thursday the state's new
Conservation and Natural Resources building is the perfect
structure to name in the former governor's honor
More than 250 people - including many former officials from his
tenure as governor - turned out for the dedication honoring
Bryan, who served as U.S. Senator, governor, attorney general,
assemblyman and state senator during a 34-year career in public
service.
Bryan said he was "profoundly grateful" for the honor, and
pointed out to Guinn this is the first state structure in Carson
City named after a Democratic governor.
"And I'm not unmindful that the banner on the front of this
building is a temporary banner," he said.
Bryan, who retired from the U.S. Senate in 2001, said he was
raised in a tradition honoring public service. From Las Vegas
High, where he was student body president, to the University of
Nevada, where again he was student body president, through the
U.S. Senate, he ran in 19 elections.
"All of you made it possible for me to live my dream," he said.
"From the time I was a little boy, I always wanted to be
governor."
"But it is my wife, Bonnie, who has sacrificed the most," he
said. "Without her, none of this would have been possible."
"There has been a hand of Richard Bryan in so many things," said
Guinn, who ordered the building named in Bryan's honor.
He said Bryan helped author the Southern Nevada Lands Management
Act, which has freed thousands of acres for development in the
Las Vegas area while pumping money into conservation across the
state - especially in the Lake Tahoe Basin. He said Bryan headed
efforts to protect the Galena Creek watershed and Mount Rose
from development and created the Black Rock National
Conservation Area.
"He has always been a champion of Lake Tahoe and helped bring
President Bill Clinton to the forum there in 1997," he said.
In his initial opposition to the Yucca Mountain waste dump
plan, Bryan "left a template for us to follow as the first
governor to speak out against the Yucca Mountain Project," Guinn
said.
The Bryan Building is the state's first built under a
lease-purchase contract with the contractor. Instead of bonding
for the structure or paying in cash, the state will effectively
purchase the building from the developer much the same way a
family buys a home - making payments.
Agencies began moving in more than a week ago, even though walls
on the top floor were still being textured and painted,
high-tech filing systems for legal deeds and maps haven't
arrived and landscaping work was just beginning.
Over the past few days, crews performed minor miracles getting
the bushes, trees and other plants in the ground, decorative
rock in place and generally cleaning up construction debris.
Department officials said it will be sometime in August before
everyone is moved in.
-- Contact reporter Geoff Dornan at gdornan@nevadaappeal.comor
687-8750.
Bryan Building Fast Facts
• Address: 901 S. Stewart St.
• home to: More than 400 Conservation and Natural Resources
Department employees from a half-dozen divisions, the Public
Employee Benefits Program staff and two agencies from Business
and Industry
• Size: Five floors, 130,000 square feet
• Cost to Build: $20 million
• Mortgage/Lease payment: Starts at just under $1 million a year
and rises gradually to $2.5 million in 2030 - $83,333 a month
• term: 27-year mortgage
All contents © Copyright 2005 nevadaappeal.com
Nevada Appeal - 580 Mallory Way - Carson City, NV 89701
*****************************************************************
28 AU ABC: Critics slam NT nuclear waste dump
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Friday, 15 July 2005. 17:53 (AEST)Friday, 15 July 2005. 17:53
There is a growing chorus of opposition speaking out against the
Federal Government's decision to build a nuclear waste dump at a
defence site in the Northern Territory.
The Federal Minister for Science, Brendan Nelson, says one of
three NT sites will be chosen to house low and intermediate
level waste.
The federal ALP's deputy leader, Jenny Macklin, says the
decision is appalling.
"That's typical of Brendan Nelson and John Howard, they're just
riding roughshod over the laws and the wishes of the Northern
Territory community and completely breaking a promise that they
made to the people of the Northern Territory before the last
federal election," she said.
Two of the proposed sites - Hart's Range and Mt Everard - are in
the Alice Springs area, and the other, Fisher's Ridge, is near
Katherine.
The mayor of Katherine, Anne Shepherd, says she is absolutely
horrified.
"I would be concerned about the stability of our soils, we're in
limestone country," she said.
"Is it stable enough to support a facility such as this? I
certainly have grave, grave concerns."
Dr Nelson says the dump has to be built by 2011 to meet
international treaty obligations, and to start up a new nuclear
reactor in Sydney's south.
Dr Nelson says nuclear waste is stored all over Australia and
should not be generating hysteria amongst "self-serving" state
and territory politicians who are not prepared to put
Australia's national interests first.
"In Melbourne it is in the basement of the Peter MacCallum
Cancer Clinic, in New South Wales it's the EPA in Lidcombe, in
Darwin it's at the Royal Darwin Hospital," he said.
Dr Nelson says states can ask to put their waste in the
Commonwealth site, but he says he feels they should deal with
their own inappropriately stored nuclear waste.
In the lead-up to both the last federal election and the recent
NT election, the CLP's Federal Member for Solomon, Dave Tollner,
promised there would not be a nuclear waste dump in the NT.
The NT's Opposition Leader, Jodeen Carney, says the Country
Liberal Party (CLP) is disappointed by the Federal Government's
decision.
But she has defended Mr Tollner's previous comments.
"I'll certainly be talking with Dave Tollner in due course,
however, Dave Tollner is one of a team, this was a Cabinet
decision," she said.
"Unfortunately our CLP members are not part of Cabinet and I
would imagine that they would be disappointed with this news as
well."
In the past Mr Tollner has said he would support a nuclear waste
dump in the Territory if it were the best place for one. Mr
Tollner is overseas and unavailable for comment.
The Central Land Council (CLC) says the views of Territorians,
whether Indigenous or not, do not seem to matter to the Federal
Government.
CLC director David Ross says the two central Australian sites
being considered by the government for the dump, Mount Everard
and Harts Range, are close to people's homes and Aboriginal
communities.
Mr Ross says it seems as though people in Canberra simply looked
at a map and thought central Australia looked remote and empty.
He says he is sure traditional owners in the area will have deep
concerns for their personal safety as well as that of the
environment.
Related Audio
NT to get radioactive waste dump
Federal Cabinet has listed three defence land sites in the
Northern Territory as possible radioactive waste dump sites.
MP3RealMedia 28k+WinMedia 28k+
Govt slams NT dump decision
The Northern Territory Government says they have already passed
laws banning the storage of any radioactive waste from
interstate. MP3RealMedia 28k+WinMedia 28k+
NT chosen as site of new waste dump
After months of speculation the Northern Territory has been
chosen as the site for a new nuclear waste dump. Federal Cabinet
recently ticked off on the plan which will undoubtedly lead to a
voter backlash in that state. MP3RealMedia 28k+WinMedia 28k+
NT set to oppose Govt nuclear waste plan
The Northern Territory is set to oppose the Federal Government
plan for a nuclear waste dump site. MP3RealMedia 28k+WinMedia
28k+
*****************************************************************
29 AU ABC: Union seeks risk assessment for nuclear waste transport
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
07:14 (ACST)Saturday, 16 July 2005. 08:14 (AEDT)Saturday, 16
The Transport Workers Union (TWU) says nuclear waste can be
successfully transported by land but all safety procedures must
be of the highest standard and operated by union members.
The Federal Government has announced that a new radioactive
waste facility will be located at a Commonwealth-owned site in
the Northern Territory.
It has indicated that the waste will be transported by land but
no routes have been made public.
TWU spokesman Mark Crowsdale says the operation must be handled
by professionals.
"We'd like to see a risk assessment of the whole process," he
said.
"We'd like to see a major transport operator with unionised
transport workers because if someone is a member of a union then
they have the power to say when something is going wrong, they
don't fear for their job.
"Now the worst thing that could happen is if that waste was on a
vehicle with someone who was forced to do something wrong and
couldn't say anything about it and we had a major accident as a
result."
Meanwhile, CLP Senator Nigel Scullion says all Territorians,
including himself, need more information about the waste to be
stored at the Commonwealth nuclear dump.
Senator Scullion previously said he would not allow such a dump
"on his watch".
But he says he is less concerned about low or intermediate-level
waste coming to the Territory.
He says it is the used rods from the Lucas Height Reactor in
Sydney that concern him.
"You will not get my support for this if this a high-level
nuclear active waste and that's what most Territorians are
concerned about," Senator Scullion said.
"As a CLP policy, we're not having other people's waste,
particularly concerned with the Lucas Heights Waste so that I
think that I'm going to have to wait and see what Brendan Nelson
has to say about that."
"It's all about making some informed decision and I don't think
Territorians can make an informed decision at the moment," he
said.
*****************************************************************
30 Yahoo: Australia's Deep Yellow Plans Uranium Acquisitions
Friday July 15, 11:01 AM
PERTH (Dow Jones)--Australia's Deep Yellow Ltd. (DYL.AU) said
Friday that it plans to unveil an expansion of its uranium
exploration interests early next week.
Shares in Deep Yellow were placed in a trading halt before the
market opened Friday, pending a statement by the Perth-based
company.
"An announcement is likely to be made Monday morning about some
uranium acquisitions," Deep Yellow director Gary Steinepreis
told Dow Jones Newswires.
The upcoming deal follows news late last month that Deep Yellow
acquired the uranium exploration rights to prospects owned by
Tanami Gold NL. (TAM.AU) in the Tanami-Arunta region of the
Northern Territory and Western Australia.
"There are a couple of other things that we have put our foot
on," Steinepreis said, adding that the new projects are in
Australia.
Shares in several Australian uranium explorers have risen
sharply in recent months on the prospect of new mines opening up
in response to high uranium prices.
Deep Yellow was queried by the Australian Stock Exchange earlier
this month after its shares more than doubled in the space of
two weeks.
Its shares closed Thursday at 12 cents, off a high of 15 cents
struck earlier in the week.
-By Stephen Bell, Dow Jones Newswires; 61-8-9245-5120
stephen.bell@dowjones.com
-Edited by Ian Pemberton
Copyright © 2005Dow Jones &Company Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Pte Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
31 Las Vegas SUN: State building named in honor of Richard Bryan
Today: July 15, 2005 at 9:36:2 PDT
By Cy Ryan <>
SUN CAPITAL BUREAU
CARSON CITY -- Richard Bryan was praised Thursday as the first
governor to oppose Yucca Mountain and later for his efforts in
the Senate on the Southern Nevada Lands Act.
Gov. Kenny Guinn said Bryan was "right at the front" and "left
us a template to follow" in the battle over the nuclear dump.
Guinn's remarks were made at the naming of the $19 million
state Conservation and Natural Resources building in Carson City
in honor of Bryan, who served in the Assembly and state Senate,
was state attorney general, then governor and finally served in
the U.S. Senate.
About 250 people including former members of Bryan's
administration and former colleagues in the Legislature attended
the hourlong ceremony.
Bryan, now in private law practice, said he was "profoundly
grateful" to Guinn for this honor. He quipped that he is the
first Democratic governor to have a building named after him in
Carson City. Other buildings are named after Republican Govs.
Henry Blasdel and John Kinkead.
Bryan said he hoped future historians would find some merit in
the battles today to preserve and conserve Nevada's lands.
On the Southern Nevada Lands Purchase Act, Guinn said Bryan and
Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., worked on the measure and the latest
sale yielded nearly $800 million, some of which will be set
aside to buy and preserve other lands in Nevada.
The governor called Bryan a "champion for Lake Tahoe," and
Guinn also cited Bryan's help in preserving the Black Rock
Desert and Mount Rose in Northern Nevada.
The governor noted that the Conservation and Natural Resources
Department is scattered around Carson City in private buildings
at 40 to 50 locations. In the 27 years over the duration of the
lease-purchase agreement with which the building was
constructed, the state will save $78 million in rent.
The 120,000 square foot building, with financing costs, will
cost the taxpayers about $44 million.
Among those attending Thursday's event were former Assembly
Speakers Joe Dini of Yerington, Lawrence Jacobsen of Minden and
Bob Barengo of Reno and former and current Assembly members
Roger Bremner of Las Vegas, Dawn Gibbons of Reno, Bob Price of
North Las Vegas, Angelo Petrini of Storey County and Gary
Sheerin of Carson City, who also served in the Senate.
Others attending were Assembly Speaker Richard Perkins,
D-Henderson; Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio of Reno; Sen.
Mark Amodei of Carson City; Assemblyman Tom Brady of Yerington;
former Republican Attorney General Brian McKay, who succeeded
Bryan, and former state Sen. Thomas "Spike' Wilson of Reno.
Some of the members of Bryan's administration while he was
governor also showed up, including his chief of staff, Marlene
Lockard; legal assistant Tim Hay; commerce director Larry Struve
and Labor and Employment Security Director Stan Jones.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
32 Las Vegas SUN: Porter prepared to turn up heat on e-mails
Today: July 15, 2005 at 10:52:58 PDT
By Suzanne Struglinski
SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jon Porter may add another layer to the
fight for the Yucca Mountain project's draft license application
if he subpoenas the Energy Department for documents related to
his investigation into employee e-mails.
Porter, R-Nev., requested a copy of the draft during the April
5 subcommittee hearing on the e-mails, but the department has
still not turned it over. Porter includes the draft among the
pile of documents the department must willingly turn over by 4
p.m. Monday or Porter will get subpoenas for them.
Nevada officials want the draft license application, completed
last July, to see what decisions the department had made for the
proposed nuclear waste repository. The application was supposed
to have been turned in last December, but it ran into more
delays.
Porter wants the draft to see how potentially compromised
science may have worked its way into final research.
He heads the House Government Reform subcommittee on the
federal workforce and agency organization, which is
investigating e-mails sent by government employees that suggest
employees tampered with scientific research on the repository.
Porter has already subpoenaed U.S. Geological Survey scientist
Joseph Hevesi for the investigation. Hevesi testified at a June
29 hearing, where he emphasized that he did not falsify any
Yucca Mountain project documents.
House Government Reform Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., who has the
power to issue the subpoenas, supports Porter's efforts and said
the subpoena would be "more in your face to the administration."
"There is no reason they should be able to keep these secret,"
Davis said. "These should be made available to Congress."
Davis said getting the document will help members of the
committee and Congress as a whole have a better understanding of
what is going on at the project.
Beyond the draft application, Porter wants organizational
charts, correspondence on employment status and other documents.
The department did turn over redacted copies of e-mails sent by
Hevesi and other employees, but then sent a letter to Porter
saying he could view more documents at the department
headquarters.
"That is an insult to Congress and the American people," Porter
said.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
33 Salt Lake Tribune: Transportation Dept. prepares for nuke hauls
Article Last Updated: 07/15/2005 02:34:41 AM
Role in overseeing: But Hatch, Bennett ready to block funding for
the department positions
By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune
WASHINGTON - The Transportation Department is making
preparations for its role in overseeing shipments of spent
nuclear fuel to Private Fuel Storage's proposed nuclear waste
dump in Utah.
The department asked Congress to approve four new staff
positions at a cost of about $100,000 each, who would review
transit plans for the waste and ensure they comply with existing
regulations governing hazardous materials shipments.
The department's request indicates steps are already being
taken to prepare for shipments to the waste dump, even though
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not yet granted a license
to the facility. A license application filed by Private Fuel
Storage, a group of electric utilities, is in its final stages
of review and a decision is expected by the end of the summer.
Private Fuel Storage plans to store 44,000 tons of high-level
waste in steel and concrete casks on the Skull Valley Band of
Goshutes Indian reservation until the Energy Department opens a
permanent dump, presumably at Yucca Mountain, Nev.
Somehow, the language that ended up accompanying the House
transportation bill when it passed June 30 was an approval for
the Transportation Department to hire two staffers to handle
legal challenges over shipments to the waste site.
A Transportation Department official, speaking on condition
of anonymity, said that is not what the department was seeking
and he was not sure how the request morphed into the language
that ended up accompanying the House bill.
The single paragraph in a 252-page report caught Utah's
congressional delegation by surprise, with House members and the
state's new lobbyist unaware it had been tucked into the report
when the House passed the bill.
As it is written, the House passage gives the Transportation
Department permission to hire two employees to handle
anticipated legal challenges stemming from the shipment of the
nuclear waste to the Skull Valley site.
The state has made clear that it will go to court to try to
block the waste dump, but no lawsuits have been filed, which
made the language in the House bill puzzling, said Dianne
Nielson, director of the Utah Department of Environmental
Quality.
As it is written now, the provision in the House bill makes
no sense, said Sen. Orrin Hatch.
“If the government were to defend itself in a lawsuit - a
lawsuit which doesn't exist, by the way - the Department of
Justice would handle it, not Transportation. It needs to come
out,” he said. “This should not be in the Senate bill, and it
should not survive a conference with the House.”
The Transportation official said the department anticipates
going back and helping to rework the language before it passes
the Senate.
Sen. Bob Bennett's spokeswoman, Mary Jane Collipriest, said
that because of ambiguity in what came out of the House, Bennett
will make sure the provision does not make it into the Senate
bill when the committee considers it next week.
© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
34 Sioux City Journal: Kansas, other states not ready to give up
nuke dump project
Friday, July 15, 2005
LITTLE ROCK (AP) -- Representatives from four states seemed
ready Thursday to abandon two decades of work to build a
low-level radioactive waste dump but keep intact their
organization in case public health and environmental problems
arise.
Delegates from Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana and Oklahoma
expressed disappointment that their efforts as the Central
Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact has not produced
a waste facility as Nebraska, a former member, refused to
license a dump site in its northeastern corner.
Beginning a two-day meeting, they grappled with questions about
the compact's fate and a $141 million settlement the compact
will receive Aug. 1 to settle the legal dispute with Nebraska.
"It's hard to admit defeat. It's hard to work on something for a
long time. You know, at what point do you say 'Uncle?' said
Catherine Sharp, the compact commissioner for Oklahoma.
On the other hand, the delegates were encouraged that the waste
problem did not become as bad as what was envisioned 25 years
ago, when Congress passed a law mandating states to form
compacts and build interstate dumps, and that advanced
technology has reduced the waste mass and now disposes it more
effectively.
"We've been struggling for 25 years to solve a problem that
never existed," Kansas commissioner Joseph Harkins said. "The
private system today is meeting the demand, and there is no
pressing need for government intervention."
But none of the four commissioners seemed ready to disband,
saying it would be more practical to scale down and remain
prepared to respond if necessary. They noted that nuclear power
was regaining public acceptance as an energy source, especially
in light of U.S. dependency on fossil fuels and foreign oil. And
changes in the marketplace, they said, could make it difficult
for commercial operators to handle the waste.
A federal passed in 1980 law required states to form regional
compacts to dispose of their low-level waste, such as tools from
nuclear power plants, needles from hospitals and clothing from
research labs, or be individually responsible for the waste.
No compact to date has opened a regional dump and the country's
low-level waste is primarily handled by private facilities in
South Carolina, Utah and Washington state.
The commissioners approved resolutions Thursday to:
-- Not use any of the $141 million settlement to pursue building
another waste dump, and
-- Take control of about $14 million that had been placed in
escrow for a possible waste dump project involving Texas and
Nebraska.
With the Central Interstate compact, formed in 1983, each member
state has paid about $750,000, while private companies have
posted millions. States and waste generators have contributed
nearly $89 million to the failed disposal facility project in
Butte, Neb., according to the compact office in Lincoln, Neb.
Of that, the major generators and their estimated shares of the
total were Entergy Arkansas, 21 percent; Entergy Gulf States, 17
percent; Entergy Louisiana, 16 percent; Nebraska Public Power
District, 16 percent, Omaha Public Power District, 13 percent;
and Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, 17 percent.
In Arkansas, the state contribution came from the Health
Department budget. The Duratek facility in Barnwell, S.C.,
handles much of Arkansas' waste. But Gilson said it has been
threatening to shut down.
Copyright © 2005 Sioux City Journal
Tel: (712) 293-4250
*****************************************************************
35 NRC: RIN 3150-AH72 Spent fuel casks
FR Doc 05-13932
[Federal Register: July 15, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 135)]
[Proposed Rules] [Page 40924] From the Federal Register Online
via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr15jy05-18]
List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Standardized
NUHOMS[reg] -24P, -52B, -61BT, -32PT, -24PHB, and -24PTH
Revision; Withdrawal of Proposed Rule AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing a
proposed rule to revise the NUHOMS[reg] -24P, -52B, -61BT, -32PT,
- 24PHB, and -24PTH cask system listing within the list of
approved spent fuel storage casks to include Amendment No. 8 to
Certificate of Compliance (CoC) Number 1004. The NRC is taking
this action because the NRC staff has become aware of changes in
the Technical Specifications (TS) associated with this CoC. A
notice withdrawing the direct final rule is published in the
final rule section of this Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayne M. McCausland, Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-6219
(e-mail: jmm2@nrc.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 25, 2005 (70 FR 30015), the NRC
published in the Federal Register a proposed rule amending its
regulations in 10 CFR 72.214 to revise the Standardized
NUHOM[reg] System listing within the ``List of Approved Spent
Fuel Storage Casks'' to include Amendment No. 8 to the CoC.
Amendment No. 8 modifies the present cask system by adding a new
spent fuel storage and transfer system, designated the
NUHOMS[reg] -24PTH System. The NRC also concurrently published a
direct final rule on May 25, 2005 (70 FR 29931) that would have
become effective on August 8, 2005.
The NRC has become aware of changes in the TS associated with
this CoC; therefore, the NRC is withdrawing the proposed rule.
The NRC will publish a direct final rule, and its companion
proposed rule, after the needed revisions to the TS are made.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of July, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Martin J. Virgilio, Acting Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 05-13932 Filed 7-14-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
36 Mos News: France Blocking Russia’s Entry to Spent Nuclear Fuel Market —
Rosatom Head - MONEY - MOSNEWS.COM
Photo from www.wagingpeace.org
Created: 15.07.2005 12:51 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 12:51 MSK
Russia admitted difficulties with its plans for reprocessing
spent nuclear fuel, in the face of competition from France and
opposition by the U.S., AFX reported.
Alexander Rumyantsev, head of the Russian atomic energy agency
Rosatom, acknowledged that since Moscow adopted a June 2001 law
permitting it to import nuclear waste “we have not imported a
single gramme of spent nuclear fuel produced abroad”.
His comments do not include fuel from power stations built by
the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe.
“France does not let new players enter the market,” he told
reporters.
“And the Americans who criticize us over Iran do not accept the
importation to Russia of (spent nuclear) fuel which is under
their control in different countries,” he added.
Russia was not yet able to reprocess large amounts of fuel, he
said, adding: “Our industry can only reprocess some hundreds of
tonnes of fuel a year. But Russia can develop its industry.”
Russia continues to import spent nuclear fuel from Romania,
Bulgaria and Serbia under Soviet-era contracts.
Write us: info@mosnews.com
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
37 AU ABC: NT chosen as site of new waste dump
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
The World Today - Friday, 15 July , 2005 12:10:00
Reporter: Samantha Hawley
ELEANOR HALL: After months of speculation, the Federal
Government has this morning announced that the nation's new
nuclear waste dump will be located in the Northern Territory.
The Federal Government has outlined three possible sites on
Commonwealth defence land, but it's a move the Northern
Territory Labor Government has vowed to fight.
The Federal Science Minister Brendan Nelson made the
announcement at the Sydney Lucas Heights nuclear reactor a short
time ago.
Our reporter Samantha Hawley was there, and she joins us now
from Lucas Heights.
Sam, what sites are being proposed?
SAMANTHA HAWLEY: Well, at this stage, Eleanor, there's three
sites in the Northern Territory that are being considered.
They're all defence land and because of that, of course, are all
on Commonwealth land. And they will hold, the site will
eventually hold Commonwealth nuclear waste.
One option is in the north of the State, at the Fisher Ridge
defence property, and there's two options that the Government is
considering in the south of the State. One's at Hart's Range
defence property, and one's at Everland defence property, and
they're both, as I said, in the south of the Northern Territory.
Apparently, according to the Minister, who spoke a short time
ago, there are some defence members actually living on the sites
in the south of the Northern Territory, and presumably if one of
those sites is chosen, they will have to move.
Brendan Nelson's also explained to journalists at this press
conference a short time ago why the Government's decided on the
Northern Territory for the dump.
BRENDAN NELSON: The Keating Labor Government in the early 90s
did look at a range of sites and chose the Woomera site. We
spent specifically eight years building up that site. The
parochialism and the efforts undertaken by the South Australian
Government were such that in the end we had to abandon that site
last year.
Whether these sites were considered in the early process, I'm
not able to tell you. After the decision to move away from
Woomera, we did examine very closely an offshore site. We looked
specifically at Christmas Island, which we considered to be
unsuitable for security, geological, environmental, and other
reasons.
We have concurrently been looking at several sites in the
Northern Territory, and we have chosen these three.
ELEANOR HALL: And that's the Federal Science Minister Brendan
Nelson there.
*****************************************************************
38 AU ABC: NT set to oppose Govt nuclear waste plan
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
The World Today - Friday, 15 July , 2005 12:15:00
Reporter: Anne Barker
ELEANOR HALL: As we mentioned, the Northern Territory
Government is set to oppose the Federal Government's plan.
Already the Territory Opposition has pledged bipartisan support
to block any nuclear waste dump being located in the Territory,
but the Federal Government may well have the power to force its
way.
The NT Government is yet to comment publicly.
But Doctor Gary Scott from the Northern Territory Environment
Centre says he's extremely disappointed at the Commonwealth's
decision, and he's been speaking to Anne Barker.
GARY SCOTT: It means that we'll be taking the waste of, nuclear
waste, the dangerous nuclear waste, of the rest of Australia,
and the Territory doesn't need that waste. We've already got
uranium mining happening here. We don't need the waste from
Lucas Heights dumped on the Northern Territory.
ANNE BARKER: We're only talking about low-level waste, though,
aren't we?
GARY SCOTT: Well at the moment. The Government's still hoping to
have a higher level waste dump in Australia on the mainland, and
if the Northern Territory gets the low level waste dump, then
who knows what's next?
ANNE BARKER: Doesn't it make sense though to have a dump like
this in the most arid part of Australia, such as central
Australia?
GARY SCOTT: Well the Commonwealth Government has been forced to
find a site because they have insisted on building a new nuclear
reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney. The environment movement has
said all along that this new reactor is not necessary. And now
of course the Commonwealth is forcing a nuclear waste dump upon
the Territory because it's the last resort, they have tried
everywhere else, and now they are forcing it on the Territory,
because they have the constitutional power to do so.
ANNE BARKER: So you believe this is a political decision more
than an environmental one, because the Northern Territory
Government is perhaps an easier target?
GARY SCOTT: Oh definitely. They've tried South Australia, they
were told to go away. They've looked at other places offshore
and around Australia, and they haven't been able to find a site
that is politically acceptable, so now they are forcing it upon
the Territory, and Territorians don't want it.
ANNE BARKER: Well the Northern Territory Opposition is now
saying it will side with the Government in opposing this, but
can the NT do anything to stop it?
GARY SCOTT: The CLP representatives in Canberra, Dave Tollner
and Nigel Scullion, can oppose it in no uncertain terms. They
can cross the floor, they can talk to their Cabinet colleagues,
and say it's an unacceptable position to be forcing this nuclear
waste dump upon the Northern Territory.
ELEANOR HALL: Doctor Gary Scott from the Northern Territory
Environment Centre, speaking to Anne Barker.
*****************************************************************
39 NRC: RIN 3150-AH72 spent fuel casks
FR Doc 05-13933
[Federal Register: July 15, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 135)] [Rules
and Regulations] [Page 40879-40880] From the Federal Register
Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr15jy05-2]
List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Standardized
NUHOMS[supreg]-24P, -52B, -61BT, -32PT, -24PHB, and -24PTH
Revision; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule AGENCY: Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Direct final rule; withdrawal.
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing a
direct final rule that would have revised the NUHOMS[supreg]-24P,
-52B, -61BT, -32PT, -24PHB, and -24PTH cask system listing within
the list of approved spent fuel storage casks to include
Amendment No. 8 to the Certificate of Compliance (CoC). The NRC
is taking this action because the NRC staff has become aware of
changes in the Technical Specifications (TS) associated with this
CoC. A notice withdrawing the companion proposed rule is
published in the proposed rule section of this Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayne M. McCausland, Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-6219
(e-mail: ).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 25, 2005 (70 FR 29931), the NRC
published in the Federal Register a direct final rule amending
its regulations in 10 CFR 72.214 to revise the Standardized
NUHOMS[supreg] System listing within the ``List of Approved Spent
Fuel Storage Casks'' to include Amendment No. 8 to the CoC.
Amendment No. 8 modifies the present cask system by adding a new
spent fuel storage and transfer system, designated the
NUHOMS[supreg]-24PTH System. The direct final rule was to become
effective on August 8, 2005. The NRC also concurrently published
a companion proposed rule on May 25, 2005 (70 FR 30015).
The NRC has become aware of changes in the TS associated with
this CoC; therefore, the NRC is withdrawing the direct final
rule.
The NRC will publish a direct final rule, and its
[[Page 40880]] companion proposed rule, after the needed
revisions to the TS are made.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of July, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Martin J. Virgilio, Acting Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 05-13933 Filed 7-14-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
40 AU ABC: Union seeks risk assessment for nuclear waste transport.
16/07/2005. ABC News Online
Update: Saturday, July 16, 2005. 7:14am (AEST)
The Transport Workers Union (TWU) says nuclear waste can be
successfully transported by land but all safety procedures must
be of the highest standard and operated by union members.
The Federal Government has announced that a new radioactive
waste facility will be located at a Commonwealth-owned site in
the Northern Territory.
It has indicated that the waste will be transported by land but
no routes have been made public.
TWU spokesman Mark Crowsdale says the operation must be handled
by professionals.
"We'd like to see a risk assessment of the whole process," he
said.
"We'd like to see a major transport operator with unionised
transport workers because if someone is a member of a union then
they have the power to say when something is going wrong, they
don't fear for their job.
"Now the worst thing that could happen is if that waste was on
a vehicle with someone who was forced to do something wrong and
couldn't say anything about it and we had a major accident as a
result."
Meanwhile, CLP Senator Nigel Scullion says all Territorians,
including himself, need more information about the waste to be
stored at the Commonwealth nuclear dump.
Senator Scullion previously said he would not allow such a dump
"on his watch".
But he says he is less concerned about low or
intermediate-level waste coming to the Territory.
He says it is the used rods from the Lucas Height Reactor in
Sydney that concern him.
"You will not get my support for this if this a high-level
nuclear active waste and that's what most Territorians are
concerned about," Senator Scullion said.
"As a CLP policy, we're not having other people's waste,
particularly concerned with the Lucas Heights Waste so that I
think that I'm going to have to wait and see what Brendan Nelson
has to say about that."
"It's all about making some informed decision and I don't think
Territorians can make an informed decision at the moment," he
said.
*****************************************************************
41 SF Chronicle: LIVERMORE / Remove plutonium from lab, task force says
Draft paper by federal advisory panel urges nuclear materials be
centralized elsewhere
Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer
Friday, July 15, 2005
Livermore residents who fear nuclear accidents or terrorist
attacks at the weapons lab down the street will be able to
breathe a sigh of relief if the recommendations of a federal
task force are carried out.
The report, still in draft form and dated July 13, advises
protecting civilian populations by moving plutonium out of
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory -- where 1,500 pounds of
the fissionable material are now stored -- and shipping it to a
centralized lab elsewhere, probably in the American desert.
The shipment would be part of a massive consolidation of U.S.
nuclear materials. Such materials are now scattered throughout
the nation's nuclear weapons facilities -- which the report
depicts as a bloated complex rife with redundant functions.
The draft report comes from the U.S. Energy Department's
six-member Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure Task Force led
by physicist David Overskei of San Diego. Overskei, who received
his physics Ph.D. at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and later was a senior vice president at General Atomics in San
Diego, is chairman of the energy secretary's advisory board.
Overskei is also president of Decision Factors Inc., which bills
itself as providing "strategic analysis of complex programs and
issues."
For years, anti-nuclear activists have warned that Livermore's
cache of plutonium -- an element that, if inhaled even in trace
amounts, can cause cancer -- poses a dire public threat,
especially in the post-Sept. 11 age of terrorism.
On Thursday, Livermore spokeswoman Susan Houghton said the lab
would not comment on the Overskei panel's report "because it's a
draft report."
Until last year, Livermore officials were seeking permission to
double the amount of allowable plutonium storage on site.
The Overskei report says that moving all of the nation's
"special nuclear materials" such as plutonium out of Livermore
and other national labs to a single, centralized lab "will
substantially increase (U.S. nuclear weapons) Complex
efficiency, and reduce Complex transportation, security, and
other operating costs, while limiting the number of Complex
sites and civilian communities contiguous to the Complex sites
that could be targets of terrorist attacks."
The same point is elaborated elsewhere in the report:
"Consolidation would result in reduction of risk to adjacent
civilian populations." It noted that four U.S. sites --
Livermore lab, Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the
Y-12 plant near Oak Ridge, Tenn., and the Pantex plant at
Amarillo, Texas -- "are sufficiently close to residential and
commercial structures such that any partially successful
terrorist attack on these sites may cause collateral damage to
the surrounding civilian population and associated public and
private assets."
The report drew mixed reactions from lab-watchers Thursday.
"The plutonium at Lawrence Livermore is not safe," said Marylia
Kelley, leader of one of the Bay Area's most visible
anti-nuclear groups, Tri-Valley Cares. "This is a highly
populated area -- 7 million people live within a 50- mile radius
of the lab, and there are earthquake faults less than 200 feet
from the site boundary. This is the perfect time for the DOE to
make the decision to permanently halt plutonium operations at
Lawrence Livermore and undertake a study to decide where the
plutonium should go."
Others faulted not so much the report's ideas as its proposed
schedule for reforming the nuclear complex. The report talks
about the need to plan for a new nuclear weapons complex by the
year 2030.
But given the current prevalence of terrorism, "what the hell
are we going do over the next 25 years? We face some really
significant problems (in the nuclear complex) in the next five
years," said Pete Stockton, a spokesman for the independent
Project on Government Oversight in Washington, a frequent critic
of the national labs.
He advises moving the plutonium out of Livermore "in a matter of
months .. . because of the encroaching neighborhood."
In the past, Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, whose district
includes the Livermore lab, has resisted calls for immediate
removal of the plutonium from the lab. In April 2004 she told
The Chronicle: "I'm not going to tell you security is perfect,
but, because of criticisms, they have made dramatic improvements
and have invested sizable amounts of money to increase
security."
On Thursday, though, Tauscher issued a statement saying: "I
welcome many of the ideas" in the report, "which raises
important issues that should be part of a larger discussion
about the future of our nuclear weapons policy and our weapons
complex."
E-mail Keay Davidson at kdavidson@sfchronicle.com.
Page B - 1
The San Francisco Chronicle]
*****************************************************************
42 KRQE News 13: Group recommends combining Sandia, LANL
Posted: 7/14/2005 8:17:00 PM
Source: AP
WASHINGTON -- A federal task force recommends consolidating the
nation's nuclear weapons plants and sensitive material such as
plutonium into a single site.
The special task force to the secretary of energy says that
would increase security and reduce targets for terrorists.
Two of the three nuclear weapons labs -- Los Alamos and Sandia
-- are in New Mexico.
The report did not recommend a location. But it says site
selection should begin immediately.
It criticizes the current broad distribution of sensitive
nuclear material such as plutonium -- now located at six
facilities.
US Senator Pete Domenici says the nation shouldn't rush into
quick fixes.
Domenici says the Energy Department's spending bill prohibits
using money to put the recommendations in place.
*****************************************************************
43 Newsday.com: Judge dismissed BNL pollution suit
BY INDRANI SEN STAFF WRITER
July 15, 2005
Eight years after a group of North Shirley residents sued
Brookhaven National Laboratory, saying air, water, and soil
pollution from the lab caused elevated cancer rates and
stigmatized their neighborhood, a judge has dismissed their case.
State Supreme Court Justice Mary M. Werner ruled in May that a
plume of groundwater contamination from BNL was too deep to
affect residents' drinking water wells and that radioactive
contamination levels were within the limits allowed under federal
law. She also denied the plaintiffs' request that the case be
considered as a class action.
Angelo Drago, who is an unnamed plaintiff in the suit, was
dismayed to receive a letter from his attorney Tuesday informing
him of the decision.
The judge "had no right dismissing this lawsuit," said Drago,
58, of North Shirley. "They've destroyed this neighborhood."
Richard Lippes, one of the attorneys who brought the suit, said
they have filed an appeal and a motion to re-argue the case.
Among the problems with Werner's decision, Lippes said, is she
did not rule on claims of chemical water contamination, instead
focusing on the radioactive pollution covered by a federal law.
Mike Goldman, an attorney for BNL, said Werner's decision was
right, but the lab does not see it as cause to celebrate.
"We do feel sympathy for people who have suffered losses or
damages that they feel were attributable to the laboratory," he
said. "But the bottom line is that we don't feel we were
responsible for those losses or damages, and the court concurred
with us."
Drago, who has seen some neighbors get cancer and many others
move out of a community he now calls "a ghost town," said the
whole ordeal leaves him wondering what, if anything, happened.
"I feel like, wow, did something occur that was drastic enough
for all the lawyers to come down here? Or did nothing happen and
they just upset this whole place?" he said. "Even if somebody
was not injured, we lost something here that we had. We lost
peace of mind."
Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.
*****************************************************************
44 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Rocky
FR Doc 05-13941
[Federal Register: July 15, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 135)]
[Notices] [Page 40998-40999] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr15jy05-56]
Flats AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Rocky Flats.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770)
requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Federal Register.
DATES: Thursday, August 4, 2005, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.
ADDRESSES: College Hill Library, Room L-211, Front Range
Community College, 3705 W. 112th Avenue, Westminster, Colorado.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Korkia, Executive Director,
Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Board, 12101 Airport Way, Unit B,
Broomfield, CO 80021; telephone (303) 966-7855; fax (303)
966-7856.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of
environmental restoration, waste management, and related
activities.
Tentative Agenda 1. Presentation and Discussion on Results of the
Recent Aerial Gamma Survey Conducted at Rocky Flats.
2. Presentation and Discussion on Completion of the Process Waste
Lines Remediation Project.
3. Discussion with DOE on Projected Board Work Plan Activities
for 2006.
4. Other Board business may be conducted as necessary. Public
Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or
after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements
pertaining to agenda items should contact Ken Korkia at the
address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be
received at least five days prior to the meeting and reasonable
provisions will be made to include the presentation in the
agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to
conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly
conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment
will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their
comments.
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public
review and copying at the office of the Rocky Flats Citizens
Advisory Board, 12101 Airport Way, Unit B, Broomfield, CO 80021;
telephone (303) 966-7855. Hours of operation are 7:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday. Minutes will also be made available
by writing or calling Ken Korkia at the address or telephone
number listed above. Board meeting minutes are posted on RFCAB's
Web site within one month following each meeting at:
http://www.rfcab.org/Minutes.HTML.
[[Page 40999]] Issued at Washington, DC on July 12, 2005.
Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-13941 Filed 7-14-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
45 DOE: Biological and Environmental Research (BER); Federal Interagency
FR Doc 05-13942
[Federal Register: July 15, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 135)]
[Notices] [Page 40999] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr15jy05-57]
Steering Committee on Multimedia Environmental Modeling AGENCY:
Office of Science; Office of Biological and Environmental
Research (BER), Department of Energy, (DOE).
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
SUMMARY: The annual public meeting of the Federal Interagency
Steering Committee on Multimedia Environmental Modeling (ISCMEM)
will convene to review progress by the ISCMEM working groups and
to discuss initiatives for FY 2006.
DATES: August 16, 2005. Time: 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The American Geophysical Union (AGU) headquarters
building, 2000 Florida Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20009. FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Inquiries and notice of intent to
attend the meeting may be faxed or e-mailed to: Dr. Robert T.
Anderson, ISCMEM Chair, Office of Biological and Environmental
Research, SC-23.4/ Germantown Building, U.S. Department of
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290.
Tel: 301-903-5549. Fax: 301- 903-4154.
Todd.Anderson@science.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: On July 5, 2001, six
Federal agencies entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
on research and development of multimedia environmental modeling.
(For a copy of the MOU with addendums, and details of the
activities please see http://www.ISCMEM.Org. ) In 2002-2005,
three additional Federal Agencies joined the interagency
cooperative project. The MOU establishes a framework for
facilitating cooperation and coordination among the following
agencies (the specific research organization within the agency is
in parentheses): U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Engineer Research
and Development Center); U.S. Department of Agriculture
(Agricultural Research Service); U.S. Department of Agriculture
(Natural Resources Conservation Service); U.S. Department of
Energy (Office of Research and Development); U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; U.S. Geological Survey; U.S. National
Oceanographic and Atmosphere Administration; and U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research);
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. These agencies are cooperating and
coordinating in research and development (R) of multimedia
environmental models, software and related databases, including
development, enhancements, applications and assessments of site
specific, generic, and process-oriented multimedia environmental
models as they pertain to human and environmental health risk
assessment. Specifically, the MOU supports collaboration and the
exchange of technical information in support of multimedia
environmental modeling focusing on environmental risk
assessments, including developments/ enhancements of models and
mold frameworks or infrastructure and advancement of related
technical activities, such as considering uncertainty and model
application procedures.
Purpose of the Public Meeting: The annual public meeting provides
an opportunity for the scientific community, other Federal and
State agencies, and the public to be briefed on the progress of
the MOU working groups and their initiatives for the upcoming
year, and to discuss technological advancements in multimedia
environmental modeling.
Proposed Agenda: The ISCMEM Chair will open the meeting with a
brief overview of the goals of the MOU and the activities of
ISCMEM. The four MOU working groups, Software System Design and
Implementation, Uncertainty and Parameter Estimation, Subsurface
Reactive Transport Modeling, and Distributed Watershed/
Water-Quality Modeling, will then report on their progress during
the year. A series of technical presentations will focus on
topics related to working group(s) efforts followed by ISCMEM
steering committee business discussions. A detailed agenda with
presentation titles and speakers will be posted on the MOU public
Web site: http://www.ISCMEM.Org. Meeting Access: The headquarters
of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) is located at 2000
Florida Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20009. The most convenient
transportation to the meeting venue is via Metro. Take Metro to
the Dupont Circle Metro stop on the Red Line. Upon exiting the
Metro station proceed Northwest on Connecticut Avenue, NW., for
about 3 blocks. Turn right onto Florida Avenue for about \1/2\
block. AGU building is on the right. Please inform the security
personnel upon entering the building that you are attending the
public meeting on multimedia environmental modeling. The meeting
room is on the ground floor to your left as you enter the
building.
Robert T. Anderson, Chair, Federal Interagency Steering Committee
on Multimedia Environmental Modeling.
[FR Doc. 05-13942 Filed 7-14-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************