*****************************************************************
08/16/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.189
*****************************************************************
   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 [NYTr] Iran plays a clever hand in uranium dispute
2 albawaba.com: New Iran nuclear chief wants negotiations to continue
3 AFP: Iran to be nuclear capable in three years: Israel spy chief -
4 Reuters: New Iran atomic negotiator backs talks to solve row
5 Reuters: N.Koreans have unprecedented talks with South's MPs
6 Guardian Unlimited: North Koreans Visit South's Legislature
7 US: ArmsControlWonk: U235 Designs for the Reliable Replacement Warhe
8 Bellona: Nuclear subs on lease from Russia to India
9 Mos News: Former Russian Nuclear Minister Says U.S. Charges Politica
10 Japan Times: The other nuclear crisis resumes
11 www.satribune.com: There is No Justice or Moral Standards in the Wes
12 Asian Tribune: Intelligence Brief: Nuclear Nonproliferation
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
13 US: NRC: NRC Finds No Significant Environmental Impacts from Extende
14 Xinhua: Likely site of 4th nuke plant emerges   
15 US: NRC: Sunshine Federal Register Notice
16 US: Journal News: Nuke sirens fail a third time
17 US: IEER: Nuclear Power: Poor Way to Meet Energy Needs
18 US: Technology Review: Nuclear Powers Up
19 Xinhua: National nuclear corporation issues $ 240 mln bonds   
20 US: NRC: Entergy Operations, Incorporated; Notice of Consideration o
21 US: NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Notice of Consideration of
22 US: Heritage Foundation: Lacking Energy
23 UK: Nuclear power: Government: No plans for new nuclear power plants
24 US: Author Considers Nuclear Lesser of Two Evils
25 UK Politics: Nuclear power: Today's issue
26 Business Day: Budget for SA's nuclear project R10bn shortÂ        
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
27 US: [epa-impact] Irradiation in the Production, Processing, and Hand
28 US: HSE: HSE publishes criterion for delicensing nuclear sites
29 US: Hawk Eye: Labor Dept. to explain illness program 
30 US: OH: OSHA Extends Comment Period On Revisions to Ionizing Radiati
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
31 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Gyeongju applies for nuclear waste
32 Las Vegas RJ: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Fuel assembly plan in works, official 
33 RIA Novosti: Nuclear storage site in Murmansk to be commissioned 
34 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca to cost Clark County $2.5 billion 
35 Las Vegas SUN: Rising construction costs to affect Yucca 
36 US: The Dispatch: Perchlorate lawsuits more legitimate for a few rea
37 Las Vegas SUN: DOE: Plan in the works to handle damaged Yucca waste 
38 US: Cibola County Beacon: Retired miners meet to discuss RECA standi
39 US: NEWS.com.au: Public uranium hearing this week 
40 AU ABC: NT Parliament passes 'no nuclear dump' motion. 
41 US: AU ABC: Rum Jungle tipped as NT's next uranium mine. 
42 KVBC: Yucca Mountain Shipping Could Cost A Bundle
43 US: NEWS.com.au: Risk of overindulgence in uranium 
44 US: Buffalo News: We would all be safer without parkway and West Val
45 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: Waste may remain at Diablo for decades
 
                           PEACE
 
46 Daily Yomiuri: WWII's end remembered / Koizumi stresses Asian ties a
47 asahi.com: 60 Years on¡§Wartime students left record of their though
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
48 Radioactive Pork released today
49 DOE: Lessons Learned HQ-EH-2004-01
50 Paducah Sun: Water cleanup good, but not foolproof 
51 DOE: 2005 OE Summaries
52 ANA: Top Ten Department of Energy Radioactive Pork Projects in the 2
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 [NYTr] Iran plays a clever hand in uranium dispute
 
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:02:52 -0500 (CDT)

 
	autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by Simon McGuinness

[The first sane report on Iraq and its nuclear ambitions that I have read
in the western media.  Well worth reading.-SMcG]

The Irish Times, Tue, Aug 16, 05 
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2005/0816/2079914775OPLARA16.html

Iran plays a clever hand in uranium dispute
        
Opponents of Iran's nuclear programme are struggling to make a
convincing case and are unlikely to gain UN support, writes Lara Marlowe

Tehran's handling of the confrontation over its nuclear power programme
has so far been a strategic triumph. Iran's resumption of uranium
conversion in Isfahan last week left the E3 (Britain, France and
Germany) and the US with no good options.

This self-described, four-nation "international community" is unlikely
to obtain the UN Security Council resolution it seeks against Iran. A
military intervention - again threatened by President Bush in an
interview with Israeli television last weekend - would probably create
more problems for the US than it would solve. Iran's underground
facilities are scattered. Experts predict that bombing raids would
barely slow the programme, would strengthen Iranian nationalism, and
inflame anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world.

Most galling to the Americans and Europeans, Iran has cloaked itself in
international legality. Before the yellow-cake uranium ore was fed into
the conversion facility on August 8th, Iran waited for inspectors from
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to return and install
their cameras.

Since the Islamic Republic was caught cheating in 2002, Tehran has
become an almost model student of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, abiding
by the Additional Protocol, which allows surprise inspections. The
implicit threat to pull out of the Protocol - or leave the NPT
altogether - is a powerful diplomatic weapon. An unsupervised Iran would
be far more dangerous than an Iran that co-operates, says the IAEA.

US officials have described Iran's decision to resume processing uranium
as a "violation" of its November 2004 agreement with the E3. But that
agreement specifically noted that "this suspension is a voluntary
confidence building measure and not a legal obligation."

Article IV of the NPT states: "Nothing in this treaty shall be
interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the parties to the
treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes without discrimination . . ."

The IAEA, Iran, and most members of the Non-Aligned Movement say this
means that as a party to the 1968 treaty, Iran has the right to ensure
its nuclear power programme can function. "The NPT was never intended to
prevent a country from having access to the fuel cycle," says an
official at the IAEA. "This legislation offered everyone the right to
the fuel cycle in return for the commitment not to produce weapons. The
fact is that Iran legally has the right to every aspect of a [ civil]
nuclear programme."

The NPT also called for "the liquidation of ... existing stockpiles, and
the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons". Yet
Washington, London and Paris are not about to give up their "nukes".

On the contrary, Mr Bush renounced the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty to
pursue the "star wars" programme and is now miniaturising nuclear
warheads for use as "bunker-busters".

Pakistan and India exploded their first nuclear devices seven years ago.
Last week, Pakistan, which shares a border with Iran, tested a cruise
missile. In July, Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh concluded an
extensive agreement on nuclear co-operation with Mr Bush. India is not a
party to the NPT.

As the influential Center for Strategic and International Studies in
Washington notes: "The United States is proposing to change 35 years of
nonproliferation policy by finding a way for a country that has
developed nuclear weapons capability outside the boundaries of the NPT
to participate in the system." Mr Bush's agreement with India violates
the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of
1978, and the rules of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which ban
co-operation with non-signators of the NPT.

Yet India had the nerve to demand the freezing of sensitive Iranian
activities at the IAEA meeting last week. It took three days for 35 IAEA
members to reach a consensus. China and Russia, which have billions of
dollars in oil and weapons contracts with Tehran, oppose taking the
issue to the Security Council. Malaysia, Brazil, Syria, Cuba, Algeria
and Argentina supported Iran. Pursuit of the nuclear power programme has
struck a nationalist chord among the often divided Iranian population.
In discussing nuclear matters, Iran's new president, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, talks about the rights of the Iranian nation, rather than
the Islamic Republic.

In the unlikely event the Security Council votes on the Iranian
programme, the best Washington could hope for would be a watered-down
resolution that would neither authorise military action nor enact
economic sanctions. With oil at $67 per barrel, no one wants to take
Iranian crude off the market.

Equally dangerous for Mr Bush, Iran exerts considerable influence in
Iraq. The Dawa and SCIRI parties - the two main Shia Muslim groups in
Iraq - were nurtured by Tehran for two decades. The Iraqi prime
minister, Ibrahim Jaafari, is a member of Dawa. President Jalal
Talabani, though a Kurd, also has strong links with Iran, where he took
refuge during the inter-Kurdish war of the late 1990s. In Afghanistan
too, Iran pulls many strings. The province of Herat lives on trade with
Iran, and the Hazara (Afghan Shia) look to Tehran.

None of which answers the fundamental question of whether Iran intends
to pursue a military nuclear programme. Though the Tehran government has
never said so, the answer is almost certainly yes. "I'm sure they want
to have nuclear weapons," says Prof Elie Kheir, a specialist in
strategic studies. "In their neighbourhood, Israel, Pakistan and India
are nuclear powers. It's the only way they can protect themselves."

There are powerful psychological reasons for Iran to seek nuclear
weapons. Iraq attacked Iran with chemical weapons during the 1980-1988
Gulf War, and the world was silent. With US bases in Iraq, Afghanistan
and throughout Central Asia, and the US 5th fleet headquartered in
nearby Bahrain, Iran is virtually surrounded by US forces.

Prof Kheir says Mr Bush must stop acting as the sole arbiter of nuclear
regulation. "If the Americans and Europeans want to do something, the
treaty must be respected in its entirety, by all members, including
themselves. It must apply to everyone, not just Iran."

) The Irish Times  
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 2 albawaba.com: New Iran nuclear chief wants negotiations to continue

middle east news information::

  Posted: 16-08-2005 , 13:47 GMT   				
 		  
Iran's recently appointed chief nuclear negotiator has expressed
his support to resume talks in order to resolve the standoff
with the EU and the USA. [Ali Larijani] 
  
"Iran deems it a principle to continue talks and it accepts
negotiation as the right manner," Ali Larijani, the new general
secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, was
quoted as saying on Tuesday by Sharq daily. 
  
Earlier, Western diplomats have expressed concern that Larijani,
a close aide to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, will
adopt a tougher line on the nuclear issue than his predecessor
Hassan Rohani. 
  
"We can reach a conclusion with a win-win situation defined for
both sides ... We should try to solve the problem in a friendly
way and our objective is still preserving the fuel cycle,"
Larijani stated. 
  

© 2005 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com)   	 	 	
*****************************************************************
 3 AFP: Iran to be nuclear capable in three years: Israel spy chief -
                     
Tuesday August 16, 07:34 PM

JERUSALEM (AFP) - Israel expects Iran to be capable of producing 
a nuclear weapon within three years, military intelligence chief 
General Aharon Zeevi told MPs at a closed-door briefing, 
parliamentary sources said.

"Barring an unexpected delay, Iran is going to become nuclear 
capable in 2008 and not in 10 years as was recently reported in 
the American press, Zeevi told members of the foreign affairs and 
defence committee.

He was referring to a recent report in the Washington Post citing 
a US Central Intelligence Agency assessment that Iran would not 
be capable of producing a nuclear weapon for a decade.

Zeevi said he feared the report might be a deliberate leak 
intended to provide cover for inaction on Iran while the 
administration remained preoccupied by Iraq.

"If there is no response from the international community, the 
Iranians are going to overcome the technical difficulties in 
producing enriched uranium and will be able to produce the bomb," 
he warned.

Israel has been pressing its US ally to take a tough line with 
Iran, after it rejected a European package of incentives to 
abandon sensitive nuclear fuel cycle work, including both 
enrichment and its precursor uranium ore conversion.

"Iran made this decision because they are getting the impression 
that the United States and the Europeans are spineless," a senior 
official from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office told AFP 
earlier this month when Iran resumed uranium ore conversion, 
ending a nine-month suspension agreed with the EU.

In an interview with Israeli television broadcast on Friday, 
President George W. Bush pointedly refused to rule out the use of 
force against Iran after the setback to a negotiated solution.

"All options are on the table," he said.

Israel itself is believed to be the only nuclear power in the 
Middle East. Although it has never admitted to having nuclear 
weapons, it is believed to possess an arsenal of about 200 
warheads.

In 1981, Israeli warplanes bombed Iraq's French-built Osirak 
nuclear reactor.

         Copyright © 2005 AFP AFP. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 4 Reuters: New Iran atomic negotiator backs talks to solve row

Tue Aug 16, 2005 6:37 AM ET

 TEHRAN, Aug 16 (Reuters) - Iran's new chief nuclear negotiator 
has said further talks can resolve its atomic standoff with the 
West, while insisting that Tehran will not give up its plans to 
develop a full nuclear fuel cycle.

 "Iran deems it a principle to continue talks and it accepts 
negotiation as the right manner," Ali Larijani, installed as 
secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council on Monday, 
told the Sharq daily in an interview published on Tuesday.

 European diplomats have expressed concern that Larijani, a 
conservative close to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, will 
adopt a tougher line on the nuclear issue than his predecessor 
Hassan Rohani.

 Larijani takes over the nuclear portfolio with Iran in the 
international spotlight after removing U.N. seals at a nuclear 
facility and resuming uranium conversion -- a process which 
yields material that can be used to make atomic bombs.

 Iran, which says its nuclear programme will only be used to 
generate electricity, rejected a resolution adopted by the 
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board of governors last 
week calling on it to halt all nuclear fuel work.

 But Larijani said a solution to the dispute could be found.

 "We can reach a conclusion with a win-win situation defined for 
both sides ... We should try to solve the problem in a friendly 
way and our objective is still preserving the fuel cycle," he 
said.

 Iran angered the European Union and the United States by 
resuming uranium conversion at the Isfahan plant on Aug. 8 after 
rejecting an EU offer of political and economic incentives in 
return for giving up a large part of its atomic programme.

 Iranian officials have said they will never suspend work at the 
Isfahan plant again and Tehran now wants to discuss resuming the 
most sensitive part of the nuclear fuel cycle -- uranium 
enrichment -- at its facility in Natanz.

 "Natanz is a part of our fuel cycle and we insist on it. 
However, it should pass the channel of negotiations," Larijani 
said.

 About 1,000 Iranian students gathered at the Isfahan nuclear 
plant on Tuesday to stage a noisy demonstration in support of 
Iran's nuclear programme.

 The students linked arms outside the facility and read a 
statement condemning last week's IAEA resolution and calling on 
Iranian officials to push ahead with their atomic plans.

 "The movement of Iranian students insists on a complete 
resumption of nuclear activities as we deem it impossible to 
bargain about," the statement said.                                             

© Reuters 2005. 
All Rights Reserved.                    
*****************************************************************
 5 Reuters: N.Koreans have unprecedented talks with South's MPs

Tue Aug 16, 2005 8:31 AM ET

 By Jack Kim

 SEOUL, Aug 16 (Reuters) - Senior North Korean communist party 
officials held an unprecedented meeting with South Korean 
parliamentarians on Tuesday but skirted talks on Pyongyang's 
pursuit of nuclear weapons and international efforts to stop it.

 Kim Ki-nam, who is also a vice chairman of the North's body 
overseeing ties with the South, met the speaker of South Korea's 
parliament and legislative leaders.

 Speaker Kim Won-ki said there were issues in international 
affairs that prevented a deepening of ties with the North.

 "In that sense, the six-party talks are important so let's all 
work together," he told the visiting North Koreans.

 The North's Kim thanked the South for the welcome his delegation 
received but made no mention of the nuclear crisis.

 Neither were the other delegates meeting South Korean lawmakers 
separately willing to discuss the subject despite strong words 
from both conservative and liberal legislators urging the North 
to drop its nuclear ambitions.

 "We understand the North's troubles, but on the other hand, we 
in the South cannot accept nuclear weapons in the North," 
conservative Grand National Party member Won Hee-ryong said.

 Key members of the delegation also visited former South Korean 
president Kim Dae-jung, who met North Korean leader Kim Jong-il 
in Pyongyang in 2000 in the first and only summit of leaders on 
the divided peninsula. The former president has been in hospital 
with pneumonia.

 NORTH'S "GREAT GENERAL" CONCERNED

 "The great general is concerned," the communist envoy was quoted 
as telling the former president in a pool report, referring to 
the North's leader.

 Kim Jong-il rules North Korea as the chairman of its powerful 
defence commission.

 "The general told us to make sure to visit you if allowed upon 
hearing of your hospitalisation," the North Korean said.

 He conveyed an invitation for the former president to visit the 
North, and Kim "accepted, saying he will be in touch and go at a 
good time," Kim's aide, Choi Kyung-hwan, told reporters.

 A 182-member North Korean delegation is in the South for joint 
celebrations marking the 60th anniversary of the end of Japanese 
colonial rule over the Korean peninsula.

 Members of the delegation, which arrived on Sunday, were also 
scheduled to meet President Roh Moo-hyun before returning to 
Pyongyang on Wednesday.

 The meetings come during a recess in multilateral talks aimed at 
persuading North Korea to end its nuclear weapons programmes in 
exchange for security guarantees and economic aid.

 South Korean officials have said they hope the parties in the 
talks -- the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United 
States -- will be able to narrow differences through bilateral 
exchanges before the discussions are due to resume in Beijing in 
the week of Aug. 29.

 The two Koreas are technically at war under a truce that ended 
the 1950-53 Korean War, but have forged closer ties since the 
meeting of their leaders five years ago and in particular in 
recent months.                                          

© Reuters 2005. 
All Rights Reserved.                    
 			
*****************************************************************
 6 Guardian Unlimited: North Koreans Visit South's Legislature
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday August 16, 2005 11:01 AM

AP Photo SEL802 

By BO-MI LIM 

Associated Press Writer 

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korean officials visited South
Korea's parliament for the first time Tuesday in a symbolic
gesture of reconciliation with their democratic rivals. 

The visit to the National Assembly came on the last of three
days of joint celebrations to mark the 60th anniversary of the
Korean Peninsula's liberation from Japanese colonial rule. 

``Real and substantial cooperative relations between the South
and the North start now,'' National Assembly Speaker Kim One-ki
said. ``The South and the North should combine their strong
points and complement each other's shortcomings.'' 

Kim proposed talks between South and North Korean lawmakers that
would provide a ``most appropriate channel to deliver and raise
understanding of the North's views'' for South Koreans,
according to pool reports. He promised to implement laws that
would help Seoul and Pyongyang proceed with their joint
projects. 

Also Tuesday, the North Korean delegation visited former South
Korean President Kim Dae-jung, who was hospitalized last week
with bacterial pneumonia. Kim, in a hospital gown, shook hands
with North Korean head delegate Kim Ki Nam, who delivered
get-well wishes from North Korean leader Kim Jong Il. 

Kim Dae-jung met his North Korean counterpart in June 2000 at an
unprecedented summit between leaders of the divided countries,
which remain technically at war. 

``If the (summit) marked the beginning of the South-North
cooperation, this time, it provides a chance to pledge a leap
forward,'' Kim said. 

The two Koreas were to wrap up their three-day celebrations
Tuesday evening with a farewell dinner and soccer match between
their national women's teams. Their men's soccer teams played an
exhibition match Sunday at the start of the joint events, with
the South beating the North 3-0. 

South Korea has continued with its engagement with the North
despite an ongoing international standoff over the communist
nation's nuclear weapons program. 

The latest round of talks aimed at ending the North's nuclear
ambitions is in recess after the six negotiating countries
failed to agree earlier this month. The talks - among the two
Koreas, United States, China, Japan and Russia - are to resume
during the week of Aug. 29 in Beijing. 

South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon will travel to
Washington on Saturday to discuss the upcoming talks with U.S.
officials, his ministry said Tuesday. Ban is to meet with
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Assistant Secretary of
State Christopher Hill, the chief U.S. envoy to the nuclear
talks. 

The two Koreas have remained separated by the world's most
heavily armed border since the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a
cease-fire, not a peace treaty.	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 7 ArmsControlWonk: U235 Designs for the Reliable Replacement Warhead?

| an arms control weblog: Back to the Future:

1992 www.nukephoto.com/Paul Shambroom] 	

 Back to the Future: U235 Designs for the Reliable Replacement
Warhead? 
	
John Fleck, writing in the Albuquerque Journal, reportssome
folks think the reliable replacement warhead program should
emphasize uranium designs: 	

A veteran of the U.S. nuclear weapons program thinks the
weaponeers should consider giving up on plutonium. 	

In a paper informally circulating among senior government
advisers, retired Sandia National Laboratories vice president
Bob Peurifoy argues that U.S. nuclear weapons designers should
considerusing uranium instead. 	

[snip] 	

To those outside the nuclear weapons community, this might sound
like little more than a debate about whether Coke or Pepsi makes
the better cola. 	

But much more is at stake than an arcane question of materials
science. Since the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons factory shut down
in 1989, the costs, dangers and difficulties of working with
plutonium have left the United States with no capability to make
new nuclear bombs. 	

Building a replacement to make new plutonium bombs would likely
cost billions of dollars. Parts made of uranium, a much less
dangerous material, could easily be made at an existing weapons
plant in Tennessee, Peurifoy argues. 	

[snip] 	

Heading down the path Peurifoy is suggesting would requirer
thinking the nuclear weapons complex of the future, where the
need for a new plutonium factory looms as a central feature. 	

It would also require weapons designers to abandon their
lightweight, highly optimized nuclear weapon designs in the
current arsenal for bigger, simpler devices. 	

Im a tractor engineer. Im not a Ferrari designer, Peurifoy
said in an interview. I want to pull the Ferrari out of the
mudpuddle. 	

Peurifoy is being careful in advancing his argument, making
clear that his first choice is to stick with the arsenal the
United States currently has. But as designers begin work on a
new generation of Reliable Replacement Warheads, with
plutonium the likely choice for a bomb material, Peurifoy is
trying to spark a discussion of the uranium alternative. 	

Uranium designs can utilize either a gun-type assembly (as was
dropped on Hiroshima, diagram above) or implosion (e.g. tested
by the Chinese). 	

The gun-type assembly is insanely simple. We didnt even bother
to test the one we dropped on Hiroshima. Uranium implosion is a
little more dicey, but not reallyafter all, the Khan network
was peddling the Chinese implosion design. 	

Peurifoys proposal comes as Congress considers what sort of
work will be appropriate for the Reliable Replacement Warhead
Program, something about which your humble authorand Stephen
Youngboth have strong opinions. 	

I like the Peurifoy proposals Swiftian modesty. After all, if
the Reliable Replacement Warhead program really is about making
more reliable designs and a less toxic nuclear
infrastructurerather than rationalizing current
practicesUranium is the way to go. 	

If what you really want to do is get back to designing new
nuclear weapons, well, then youre a plutonium man. 	

In 2000, Stephen Youngerthen Associate Laboratory Director for
Nuclear Weapons at Los Alamos National Laboratoryproposed
emphasizing lower yield, uranium weapons. The reaction from my
colleagues in the arms control community, particularly Stephen
Schwartz, was undertsandably tepid. 	

After all, Youngers interest in arms control seemed rather like
a death-bed conversion for the nuclear enterprise. 	

But Peurifoy is a different man, in a different time. I loook
forward to hearing from Schwartzand the rest of youon
Peurifoys proposal. 

· Posted by Jeffrey Lewis · 16 August 05 
Comment
 
 Title photograph of Peacekeeper (MX) missile W87/Mk-21 warheads
(Reentry Vehicles or RVs) in storage, F.E. Warren Air Force
Base, Cheyenne, Wyoming, is used with the generous permission of
photographer Paul Shambroom, nukephoto.com. 

*****************************************************************
 8 Bellona: Nuclear subs on lease from Russia to India
 
ST. PETERSBURG—The construction of a training centre for the
Indian military in Sosnovy Bor, 70 kilometers west of St.
Petersburg, confirms Russia’s intentions to lease nuclear
submarines to India, said Green World Chairman Oleg Bodrov. 

Vera Ponomaryova, 2005-08-16 15:56

The international centre will open in September in the town that
also hosts the Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant, and will train
some 300 Indian naval officers. 

Sosnovy Bor is home to the Russian Training Centre for Officers
of the Russian Navy which houses working nuclear reactors of the
type found on nuclear submarines. These reactors are used to
test nuclear fuel and other technologies applicable to nuclear
submarine reactors. A building recently went up along side the
training centre, where Indian specialists will apparently be
schooled. 

According to Green World, the building went up in record time
following the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to India
last December. 

What is the new building?

 A spokesman for the Sosnovy Bor administration confirmed to
Bellona Web that the international training centre had been
built, but had no specific information about the programme of
study or the number of officers who will study there.

  Bellona's Blue Report   
  
  Prior to 1991, crews of Soviet submarines were trained in
three locations: Paldisky (Estonia); Sevastopol (Ukraine) and
Sosnovy Bor.
   
According to the spokesman, the new building will not house any
special equipment or installations—such as nuclear reactors—but
is only a wing for classrooms and has no relation to the nuclear
industry. 

Bodrov, who earlier worked at the Alexandrov Scientific and
Technical Research institute (NITI in its Russian abbreviation)
where tests of new submarines prototypes are carried out,
clarified how such a center would be built. “As far as I can
judge from my own experience at [NITI] the centre would hold
simulators—computers that imitate submarines.”

  An Akula class submarine.   
  Bellona   

Nuclear Submarines for rent? 

Bodrov said that the training of Indian submariners in Sosnovy
Bor was a testament to the notion that Russia has not given up
on its plans of leasing nuclear submarines. Representatives of
the Russian Ministry of Foreign affairs and the Ministry of
Defense said they were not ready to comment on the potential
nuclear submarine leasing. 

Nonetheless, India’s defense minister, Pranab Mukharjee, said
that negotiations about obtaining a Russian nuclear submarine
were underway. At the same time, Mukharjee said that, as yet,
the sides were not bound by “any obligations relative to the
acquisition by the Indian side of an Akula class submarine.”
Mukharjee said the conclusion of any deals hinged on “various
international obligations and agreements.” 

Representatives of various Russian ministries have also spoken
many times of similar intentions. Russian Navy Chief Admiral
Vladimir Kuroyedov announced in early 2002 his readiness to
lease two nuclear submarines to India. It was planned that the
first sub would to India in 2004. But the Indian side did not
follow up with any official commentary to Kuroyedov’s words. 

Discussion of this contract was again taken up in the press
toward the beginning of last year, but is was denies by Russian
Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov. 

Now, according to Green World, “Leasing India two third
generation multi-purpose submarines with the option to buy them,
as many media reports indicated in late 2004, is apparently
becoming a reality.” 

Bodrov commented further, asking “otherwise, why train some 300
Indian submariners in Russia? That constitutes 4 Akula crews.” 

Russian has experience in leasing nuclear subs to India. In
January 1988, India leased three Soviet-era Skat class—known as
Charlie class in NATO designation—multi-purpose submarines,
equipped with eight nuclear missile installations. After the
term of the lease ran out, the subs were returned to Russia and
decommissioned. 

“If India is sending its submariners to us to learn how to
operate their submarines, then that likely means a number of
nuclear sub leasing agreements exist,” said Alexander Nikitin,
who heads Bellona’s St. Petersburg office, the Environmental
Right’s Centre. 

“Moreover, such a scheme was already worked out in 1988—then the
theoretical preparation of the crews took place in Vladivostok,
and the practical training in the submarines themselves with
Russian sailors aboard.” 

Bodrov thinks that this time, the matter concerns the building
of two Akula class submarines, which is taking place at the Amur
Shipbuilding yard. Current published figures indicate that the
two Akulas—one 70 to 85 percent complete and the other 40 to 60
percent complete—will cost India some $400m. The leasing costs
would amount to some $25m a year. 

The construction of both submarines, on shore infrastructure for
them and training of the crews could run Russia, according to
experts, some $2 billion. 

It is worth bearing in mind that the Akula class sub is a
Project 971 nuclear strike submarine—one of the fastest-moving
submarines in the Russian fleet. Their crews consist of 73
sailor. The subs carry OK-650 type reactors. The subs are
outfitted with four 650 millimeter torpedo tubes and as many 533
millimeter tubes. Akulas are armed with winged Granit torpedoes
carrying nuclear warheads, under water missiles and missile
torpedoes of the “Shkval,” “Vodopad,” and “Veter” types.

  The Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier.   

  www.gov.karelia.ru   

Russia-Indian military co-operation 

It is noteworthy that Russia already has experience selling
diesel submarines and other weapons to India. Between 1968 and
1971, India purchased eight submarines of project number I-641
and I-641K, eight Project 159AE battle cruisers, eight Project
Project 205E missile cruisers and several other assistance
vessels. 

During 1983 to 1991, India completed its navy with the purchase
from the then-USSR of three Project 61ME destroyers, three
projects 1234E corvettes, six Project 1258E mine-sweepers, and
eight Project 877EKM (NATO Kilo class) submarines. 

Then, on January 20th, 2004, India purchased from Russia in one
of the biggest contracts to date the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft
carrier, built in 1978. The Russian firm Rosoboroneksport took
upon itself the modernisation of the ship and equipping it with
state of the at weapons systems and deck-borne aviation, such as
MiG 29Ks, and Ka-27 and Ka-31 anti-submarine helicopters. 

At present the foundation of the Indian Navy is nine diesel Kilo
submarines from Russia’s Rubin graving yard in St. Petersburg
and several ships analogous to the West German JKL 209/1500
type. 

Proliferation Risks 

In the opinion of ecologists, the coming submarine lease deal
poses a serious threat to international security, stimulating,
as it does, the Indian-Pakistani nuclear arms race. 

“Arming of third world countries is a very dangerous business
that can lead to military escalation in the east,” said Vladimir
Chuprov, coordinator of energy programmes at Greenpeace Russia. 

Chuprov said that selling weapons to India was a “regurgitation
of the Cold War.” 

”Kremlin bureaucrats still live on the fundamentals of the last
century, considering the basic task of the state to be
wide-scale preparation for war, arming India, North Korea and
other countries.” 

Chuprov continued saying that a submarine can contain up to 10
kilograms of plutonium in its spent nuclear fuel. “And even
though nuclear scientists are usually specify that this is not
weapons quality plutonium, energy plutonium still explodes,” he
said. 

India is one of four influential countries that are not
signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

A new installation—a new target for terrorists 
According to Green World’s Bodrov, the current deal not only
sharpens the situation in Southeast Asia, but implies another
danger: Placing the training centre in Sosnovy Bor puts the city
on the radar of terrorists. 

At the Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant alone there are four
reactors of the Chernobyl-type RMBK 1000, several naval reactors
at NITI, temporary storage for highly radioactive waste from the
nuclear power plant, and enough highly toxic waste to constitute
dozens of Chernobyls. The Northwest Russian regional facility of
RADON for the outdoor storage of medium and high level nuclear
waste also operates in Sosnovy Bor as does the Ekomet-S firm, a
smelting plant for radioactive metals. 

“The appearance in Sosnovy Bor of an international
Russian-Indian centre for nuclear cooperation in the military
sphere could create a nuclear and radiological dangerous
installation on the Russia Baltic into a target for
international terrorism,” said Bodrov.   

  
  Publisher: , President: 
Information: , Technical contact: 
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62  * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
 9 Mos News: Former Russian Nuclear Minister Says U.S. Charges Politically
Motivated - NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM
 
 	Photo from www.novayagazeta.ru 	 	
 	 	
Created: 16.08.2005 15:42 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 15:42 MSK 	
 	
A former Russian nuclear minister in Swiss custody pending a
U.S. extradition request has accused the American authorities of
fabricating a criminal case against him to avenge his push for
nuclear contracts with Iran, India and China, Associated Press
reported.

Yevgeny Adamov intended to improve Russia’s nuclear safety, said
in a letter published by Izvestia daily that the U.S. criminal
charges against him were intended to convey a hidden political
message: “You guys ... don’t forget who’s the boss in the world.”

Adamov, who served as Russia’s nuclear minister in 1998-2001,
was arrested on May 2 while visiting his daughter in Bern. He
has since been indicted by a U.S. federal grand jury in
Pittsburgh on charges of conspiracy to transfer stolen money and
securities, conspiracy to defraud the U.S., money laundering and
tax evasion.

Adamov has denied the charges. He said the U.S. grudge against
him dated back to 1998, when he visited China, India and Iran to
speed up efforts to build Russian nuclear power plants in these
countries.

Shortly afterwards the U.S. Vice President Albert Gore visited
Moscow and tried vainly to persuade him to drop the nuclear
contract with Iran in a conversation that lasted nearly two
hours, Adamov said in the letter.

“By 1998, the Americans got accustomed to the fact that people
in Russia must listen to them and they don’t have to listen to
anyone here,” Adamov said.

He claimed that a later Russian probe against alleged financial
abuse in the nuclear ministry had been encouraged by the
Americans.

U.S. prosecutors say he diverted up to $9 million from U.S.
Energy Department funds intended to improve Russian nuclear
security, and want him extradited to the U.S.

Russian authorities, concerned that he could divulge nuclear
secrets if extradited to the U.S., have demanded he be sent to
Russia.

Switzerland now must decide whether to extradite Adamov to the
U.S. or Russia, or to reject both extradition requests. 	 	 	 	
	 	     
  Write us: <b>info@mosnews.com</b>
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
 10 Japan Times: The other nuclear crisis resumes

Tuesday, August 16, 2005   
  
EDITORIAL

Iran appears to be headed -- once again -- toward conflict with
the rest of the world over its nuclear programs. Tehran has
rejected a European proposal that was designed to end concerns
over its determination to develop facilities that would allow
Iran to build a nuclear weapon -- an objective the Iranian
government says it does not have. The International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), the world's nuclear watchdog, last week
expressed serious concern over the program, but it has given the
parties a few more weeks to find a solution. A great deal rides
on that solution -- including perhaps the ultimate contours of
any agreement with North Korea.

 There are many questions surrounding Iran's nuclear energy
program, not least of which is why a country so rich in energy
resources even needs such an effort. Iranian officials have long
maintained that Iran should diversify its energy supplies and
that it has a right to do so as a member of the IAEA and the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran's credibility has
been eroded by the steady drip of revelations that show Tehran
has been less than forthcoming in its declarations to the IAEA,
the discovery of undisclosed facilities, and programs and
research seemingly at odds with a peaceful program. Nonetheless,
the IAEA has only expressed concern over Iranian activities; it
has yet to find Iran in violation of its NPT obligations.

 The key concern is Iran's intent to develop the capacity to
enrich and reprocess uranium. This capability is needed to
ensure that Iran has fuel for its nuclear-power reactors --
natural uranium is not sufficient -- and to dispose of the waste
generated by the production of energy. Enriched uranium can also
be used for a bomb, however, and there is no way to ensure that
the fuel developed for peaceful purposes is not diverted for
weapons. There is also concern over the spent fuel; it too could
be processed to provide materials to make a bomb.

 Last November, Iran suspended its enrichment program while it
began negotiations with the European troika -- Britain, France
and Germany -- over ways to allay these concerns. Negotiations
focused on ensuring a supply of nuclear fuel and other trade and
economic incentives for Iran that would better integrate it into
the world economy; backing for Iran's membership in the World
Trade Organization was one component of the deal. Tehran has
become increasingly frustrated with the pace of those talks and
has said that the lack of progress obliged it to resume
enrichment activities. That threat prodded the troika to up
their offer to include more generous political and economic
incentives, as well as more advanced nuclear technologies.

 That still was not enough for Tehran. While the European Union
proposal guarantees a source of fuel, it does not acknowledge
Iran's right to enrich uranium, which is inherent in the NPT. As
a result, Tehran has asked IAEA inspectors to return to Iran to
observe the removal of seals on reprocessing equipment so that
work could resume. (The IAEA obliged.) Iran has said that it
will continue to honor IAEA safeguards, however.

 That stalemate brought Iran before the IAEA board of directors
last week. Meeting at the behest of the EU troika, the board
expressed "serious concern" over the resumption of nuclear
activities and set a Sept. 3 deadline for Iran to stop the
uranium conversion activities. If there is no agreement by then,
the board could refer the issue to the United Nations Security
Council, which could then impose sanctions on Iran. At this
time, however, all parties remain committed to a diplomatic
solution.

 The reluctance of the IAEA to take more serious action reflects
a critical division on the board: Despite concerns about Iranian
intentions, the NPT allows all countries the right to reprocess
uranium as long as it does not violate its treaty obligations.
There is no proof that Iran is cheating and therefore Tehran
maintains the right to reprocess. The success of any deal with
Iran ultimately depends on squaring that particular circle.

 Any solution will also be closely watched by North Korea, too.
Pyongyang also demands the right to maintain a peaceful
nuclear-energy program and North Korean pride will dictate that
it not be singled out. In other words, any deal with Tehran will
serve as a benchmark for negotiations with Pyongyang.

 In both cases, success depends on the governments in Tehran and
Pyongyang realizing that nuclear weapons do not enhance national
security, but detract from it. For their part, each country's
negotiating partners must recognize -- and respond to -- the
fundamental insecurities that drive it to seek a nuclear weapon.
In other words, the focus should be on demand-side solutions to
the proliferation problem. 

The Japan Times: Aug. 16, 2005
(C) All rights reserved 


*****************************************************************
 11 www.satribune.com: There is No Justice or Moral Standards in the West on Nuclear Affairs
 
WASHINGTON DC, Aug 19, 2005 | ISSN: 1684-2057 |
  
For the Galleries: Indian and Pakistani Army officers shake
hands on Independence Day 

There is No Justice or Moral Standards in the West on Nuclear
Affairs 

By Eric Margolis

 Special to the South Asia Tribune 

WASHINGTON, August 19: Few people are aware just how close the
world came to a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan in
the spring of 1999. 

As the two old foes battled fiercely in northern Kashmir above
the strategic city of Kargil, over 1.5 million troops on both
sides were ready to attack. Powerful Indian armored 'strike
corps were poised to strike into Pakistan and cut it in half.

Unable to match Indias overwhelming conventional might,
Pakistan prepared to defend itself with tactical nuclear
weapons. 

Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and the Kargil confrontation
abated, but not before a horrible scare. Western experts
estimate a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would
kill up to 2 million people outright, cause 100 million
casualties, and pollute the entire globe with radioactive dust. 

Today, Pakistans and Indias nuclear forces remain on
hair-trigger alert. Both nations fear a surprise, decapitating
first strike by the other could destroy their nuclear forces and
the command units that control them. 

Flight times of Indias and Pakistans nuclear-armed ballistic
missiles are only minutes. Neither side has adequate early
warning systems against nuclear attack  or the time to consider
a response when enemy missiles or aircraft are reported
incoming. 

On top of this, Indias nuclear command and control system is
still shaky, unlike Pakistans which is believed to be more
reliable and highly professional. False reports approaching
enemy missiles or aircraft, or a missile test gone astray, could
trigger a nuclear exchange. Even the most advanced early-warning
systems can fail or give false readings. 

During the Cold War, a scientific sounding rocket launched from
northern Norway caused the Soviet Union to believe itself under
attack by American missiles and begin a countdown to launch its
own missile force. Fortunately for mankind, the Soviets realized
their error in time to abort launch sequences. 

With these grim thoughts in mind, the just-concluded agreement
between Delhi and Islamabad to exchange advance notice of
missile tests is welcome and long overdue news. They also agreed
to extend the cease-fire along the Line of Control that divides
Kashmir. 

But Indians and Pakistanis just cant seem to miss a chance to
one up each other. A week after the missile accord was
announced, Pakistan proudly revealed the test of its first
nuclear-capable, 500 km-range cruise missile, 'Babur. 

Pakistan didnt warn India of the test. Why? According to
Islamabads lame excuse, 'Babur was an air-breathing missile
and thus a different class of weapon from ballistic missiles. 
Delhi was not amused by such deceptive semantics, and rightly
so. Pakistans test blatantly undermined efforts to build
confidence and normalize relations between the two old foes. If
anything, the terrain-hugging 'Babur, which is almost invisible
to radar, poses even a greater threat to India of a surprise
first strike than Pakistans 2,000 km- ranged 'Shaheen-II
ballistic missiles. 

'Baburs advanced radar mapping technology and engine puts it
in the class of western and Russian cruise missiles  and will
undoubtedly produce a firestorm of protest from Americas right
wingers and pro-Israel lobby. Development of the cruise missile
is a significant achievement for Pakistani defense technology. 
Not to be one-upped, India announced its 3,000 km-range
'Agni-III nuclear capable missile would be tested by year end.

Indias shorter-ranged 'Agni-II' and 'Prithvi missiles can hit
nearly all useful targets in Pakistan. 

'Agni-III is clearly designed to be used against China, a point
not lost on Beijing. In fact, China has watched the recent
strategic alliance between the US and India with growing
concern. 

India has a very large nuclear weapons program that is being
covertly aided by Israel. India is even building sea-launched
strategic missiles and developing an ICBM with a 7,000 km range
that can serve only one purpose: to attack North America or
Europe. Americas defense establishment has not yet comprehended
this fact, or has turned a blind eye to this new threat. 

Delhi has always rejected UN nuclear inspection, accusing
western powers of 'nuclear apartheid in seeking to maintain
their monopoly on weapons of mass destruction. The Indians, of
course, are perfectly correct. They and Pakistan had as much
right to nuclear weapons as France, Britain or Israel, not to
mention the United States which is updating its nuclear arsenal
and may soon begin work on small warheads designed to attack
underground targets. 

Eager to enlist India in its so-called 'war on terrorism, and
to build a strategic counterweight to China, the Bush
Administration recently embraced India, sanctified Delhis
covert nuclear program, and approved the sale of US nuclear
technology, conventional arms and advanced technology to India
while keeping Pakistan in the nuclear dog-house. 

The Indians were cock-a-hoop o be granted major ally status by
the US and have their much-criticized nuclear program sanctified
by Washington. What many Indians failed to see in their euphoria
was that their entente with Washington risked driving them into
growing confrontation with neighboring China. 

The Bush Administrations powerful neoconservatives opened all
doors in Washington for India after it became a close ally and
major arms customer of Israel. In fact, Israel has become
Indias second largest supplier of arms and military technology
after Russia. 

These same neocons have designated China as Americas new enemy
of choice - once Iran is destroyed. They plan to use India as a
weapon against both China and Pakistan, whose nuclear arsenal is
seen as a potential threat enemy of Israel. 

The Indians are no fools. They hope to use their new strategic
alliance with the US to advance their own very evident
superpower ambitions. But Beijing must view the new US-India
alliance as a major national security threat, and India as a
primary enemy. 

Moreover, far from promoting 'stability, as President Bush
claimed, the US-India axis threatens to destabilize Asia by
re-igniting tensions between India and China that led their
Himalayan border war in 1962, as well as making Pakistans
position even more precarious. 

But while the White House encourages Indias nuclear power, it
is moving closer to attacking Irans nuclear infrastructure, as
President Bush indicated last week in a speech on Israeli TV. 
Western intelligence estimates Iran would require 10 years to
develop nuclear weapons. But Israeli intelligence reportedly
believes Tehran could produce a nuclear warhead by 2006. So
Israel has been exerting intensive pressure on the Bush
Administration through its US supporters to destroy Irans
nuclear plants. Pakistan may be the next target. 

Ironically, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea all rejected
UN nuclear inspection, and all developed nuclear weapons. Taiwan
and South Korea have all had secret nuclear weapons programs.
Iran has no nukes but is suspected of wanting to develop them
behind the cover of a civilian power program. 

However, a UN nuclear agency report last week confirmed Irans
assertion that particles of enriched uranium found by inspectors
on some of its centrifuges were indeed of Pakistani origin. This
important finding was largely ignored by the US media which has
joined the neocons in agitating for war against Iran. 

After resuming uranium enrichment for civilian purposes last
week, Tehran now faces sanctions or even war over what it might
do in the future. There are clearly no justice nor moral
standards when it comes to nuclear affairs. 

The writer is a Canada-based Defense Analyst & Columnist who
contributes to several leading newspapers including Daily Dawn,
Karachi. Email: margolis@foreigncorrespondent.com 


Copyright © 2002-05 South Asia Tribune Publications, L.L.C. All
rights reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 12 Asian Tribune: Intelligence Brief: Nuclear Nonproliferation
 
Date : 17/08/2005 , Wed     

A Newspaper Published by World Institute for Asian Studies.     
Vol. 5 No. 114      

Drafted By: Dr. Michael A. Weinstein 

  
During the first two weeks of August, the separate negotiations
aimed at reversing and ending North Korea's nuclear weapons
program, and at preventing Iran from producing nuclear weapons
were stalled by conflicting and divided interests among and
within concerned states. 

At the outset of George W. Bush’s first administration in 2001,
Washington's primary, specific, geostrategic focus was to effect
the denuclearization of the three states composing what
Washington termed the "axis of evil" -- Iraq, North Korea and
Iran -- all of which were perceived to be adverse to U.S.
interests and irreconcilably resistant to a stable, globalized,
capitalist order. Although the suicide aircraft bombings of the
World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001
temporarily shifted priority to combating Islamic revolution,
Washington's military intervention in and occupation of Iraq in
2003 restored emphasis on nonproliferation. 

Undertaken to break the weakest link in the group of
confrontational states and to force compliance from the other
two or, most optimistically, to undermine their regimes, the
Iraq intervention has had the opposite result. The intervention
failed to uncover a nuclear weapons program in Iraq and the
occupation has foundered in an unanticipated insurgency and
incipient civil war. Mounting evidence of the limitations of
U.S. military power has emboldened Pyongyang and Tehran, and has
driven Washington to pursue multilateral diplomacy rather than
military and economic pressure. 

The six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program --
including the U.S., Japan, South Korea, Russia, China and North
Korea -- and the European Union's diplomatic engagement with
Iran -- pursued by France, Germany and Great Britain -- have
leagued Washington with powers that would prefer Pyongyang and
Tehran to denuclearize, but that have other interests that often
push them to take a softer line than Washington's. The
ambivalence of the powers associated with Washington in
nonproliferation diplomacy provides Pyongyang and Tehran with
leverage to prolong and stall negotiations, buying time for
their nuclear programs. 

Pyongyang Plays a New Card

 Having declared that it possesses nuclear devices, Pyongyang
either wants to keep them and build more, or to bargain hard for
generous economic aid and, more importantly, credible security
guarantees from Washington that would preserve its Stalinist
regime, in return for denuclearization. Washington is adamant
that Pyongyang abandon its nuclear program. 

The other four parties to the negotiations with Pyongyang run
the spectrum from Tokyo, which supports Washington's position,
to Beijing, which claims to favor denuclearization, but desires
preservation of North Korea's regime in order to curb
Washington's influence in the Korean peninsula and to prevent a
flood of refugees across its border in case of an implosion.
Seoul leans toward Washington, but has pursued a policy
stressing conciliation with Pyongyang, rendering its support for
a hard line problematic. Moscow tilts toward Beijing on the
basis of its growing strategic partnership with the latter
against Washington. 

A new round of six-party talks, arranged and hosted by Beijing,
began on July 26 and was greeted with cautious optimism, as
Washington abandoned its resistance to bilateral discussions
with Pyongyang and repeated its pledge that it would not act to
foster regime change in North Korea, and Pyongyang expressed its
intention to negotiate seriously. 

Despite the hopeful early signs, the talks collapsed on August
7, when negotiators failed to agree on a joint statement of
principles that would set the parameters for future rounds. The
deal breaker was Pyongyang's new demand that it be permitted to
have its own civilian nuclear program, including a light-water
reactor. Washington refused to concede to Pyongyang and the
talks were suspended until the end of August, with Beijing,
which provides essential energy supplies to North Korea and is
its protector, urging restraint. 

Although the future of the talks is uncertain, it is clear that
Beijing is not heeding Washington's call to exert greater
pressure on Pyongyang, leaving the latter free to complicate
negotiations and throw obstacles in the way of an agreement. 

Tehran Breaks the Seals

 Tehran does not possess nuclear weapons, but has a nuclear
energy program that it insists is for civilian purposes. Unlike
Pyongyang, which has withdrawn from the nonproliferation treaty,
Tehran remains within the agreement, which permits civilian
nuclear development, but prohibits weapons production. Tehran
has faced opposition from Washington over its intention to begin
enriching uranium, because doing so would move it closer to the
ability to produce nuclear weapons. Washington's hard line is
based on the fact that Tehran hid much of its nuclear energy
program from international inspections for 18 years. 

Originally committed to attempting to change the Iranian regime,
Washington has had to fall back, at least temporarily, to
letting the E.U. negotiating states proceed unhindered with
their diplomatic approach to halting Tehran's move to enrich
uranium. Washington's problem is that the European powers have
extensive trading relations with and investments in Iran, and
have never been committed to regime change. Although the
Europeans would prefer that Tehran abandon enrichment, they are
reluctant to follow Washington's call for imposing sanctions on
Tehran through the United Nations Security Council. The E.U.'s
divided interests and consequent indecisiveness have encouraged
Tehran to proceed with enrichment. 

After rejecting an August 5 E.U. offer that would have
guaranteed it fuel for its nuclear reactors in exchange for its
abandoning enrichment, Tehran, on August 10, broke the
International Atomic Energy Agency's (I.A.E.A.) seals on its
uranium processing equipment and resumed enrichment. The
European powers, which had threatened Tehran that they would
join Washington in calling for action in the Security Council if
Tehran resumed enrichment, backtracked, urging further
negotiations and acting through the I.A.E.A. to pass a consensus
resolution calling for Tehran to reinstate its previous
suspension of enrichment and directing the I.A.E.A. executive to
report on Iran's nuclear program by September 3. 

Washington hopes that the I.A.E.A. report will pave the way for
referral of the issue of Tehran's nuclear program to the
Security Council, but that eventuality is far from certain.
Tehran will continue to try to split Brussels from Washington
and a move in the Security Council to impose sanctions on Tehran
would face possible vetoes by Moscow and Beijing. 

The Bottom Line

 Critics of the Bush administration have long argued that it
should adopt a foreign policy based on multilateralism. Now that
Washington has been forced by circumstances to do so, the
limitations of multilateralism have become apparent. Putative
U.S. allies and associates often have divided interests that do
not allow them to accept Washington's leadership wholeheartedly,
giving Washington's adversaries’ room to maneuver. 

During the first half of August, Pyongyang and Tehran escalated
their conflicts with Washington over their nuclear programs, and
Washington had no recourse but to continue on increasingly
problematic diplomatic tracks, surrendering leadership to
Beijing and Brussels. 

The divided interests of Washington's partners make it most
likely that the nonproliferation issues will continue to fester
without any decisive conclusions, giving Pyongyang and Tehran
the latitude to which they have become accustomed. 

http://www.pinr.com

Asian Tribune   

Asian Tribune is an independent online news daily and we seek
your support and contributions in kind and cash. If you consider
our coverage as the loud and clear voice for Democracy, Rule of
Law, Protecting Human Values, Dignity and Human Rights in Asia,
then kindly consider making a donation to ensure our continued
existence. 

*****************************************************************
 13 NRC: NRC Finds No Significant Environmental Impacts from Extended Operation of Point Beach
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2

News Release - 2005-11
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION   
  Office of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200   
  Washington, DC 20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov  
  No. 05-110     August 16, 2005   
  


The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued its final
environmental impact statement on the proposed renewal of the
operating licenses for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1
and 2. The report contains the NRCs finding that there are no
environmental impacts that would preclude license renewal for an
additional 20 years of operation. 	

 The Point Beach plant is located on the western shore of Lake
Michigan in Two Rivers, Wis., approximately 30 miles southeast
of Green Bay. The current operating licenses expire on Oct. 5,
2010, for Unit 1 and March 8, 2013, for Unit 2. Nuclear
Management Company LLC, which operates the plant for Wisconsin
Electric Power Co., submitted an application for renewal of the
licenses on Feb. 25, 2004. 	

 As part of its environmental review of the applications, the
NRC held public meetings near the plant to discuss the scope of
the review and the draft version of the environmental impact
statement. Comments were received from members of the public,
local officials and representatives of state and federal
agencies. 	

 The Point Beach Final Environmental Impact Statement is
available on the NRCs Web site at this address:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437
/supplement23/index.html. Copies are also available for
inspection at the NRCs Public Document Room at One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md, and the Lester
Public Library, 1001 Adams Street, Two Rivers, Wis.   



  


 	Last revised Tuesday, August 16, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 14 Xinhua: Likely site of 4th nuke plant emerges   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-08-16 09:09:51   

    BEIJING, Aug. 16 -- Lufeng, a city in the east of South
China's Guangdong Province, is emerging as the favourite
location for the province's fourth nuclear power plant, with
construction likely to start at the end of 2007. 

    China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding Co Ltd confirmed the
news to China Daily yesterday. 

    Preparation for the fourth nuclear plant, part of the 11th
Five-Year Plan (2006-10), started two years ago. Four possible
sites in Guangdong's eastern coastal area were put originally
forward two each in Huilai County and Lufeng. 

  The photo shows the nearly-finished Tianwan nuclear power
plant, co-constructed by China and Russia, in Lianyungang, east
Jiangsu Province on December 16, 2004. (newsphoto)  

    During a conference on the project on Friday and Saturday,
both the Development and Reform Commission of Guangdong Province
and Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding recommended the Tianwei
District of Lufeng as the best choice. 

    "The site in Tianwei, Lufeng, has enough fresh water
supplies and enjoys advanced land and water transportation
facilities," said Yu Jiechun, an executive from Guangdong
Nuclear Power Holding. 

    "The first phase of the project will be finished in 2013,"
Hu Guangyao, an official of Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding,
said yesterday. "Two 1-million-kilowatt nuclear generating units
will be put into operation at that time, producing 15 billion
kilowatt-hours a year." 

    But he would not predict a completion date for all six
turbines or talk about the total investment. 

    Guangdong is also speeding up preparations for construction
of another nuclear power plant in Yangjiang, a western coastal
city. Construction of the nuclear reactor of that plant will
officially begin by the end of 2006, Yu said. 

    The plant will include six generating units, each with
installed production capacity of 1 million kilowatts. 

    The first two units will be finished in 2010, with the last
one coming online in 15 to 20 years. 

    When all six turbines are operating, the project will
generate more than 45 billion kilowatt-hours a year. 

    Guangdong already has two nuclear plants in operation. Daya
Bay and Ling'ao nuclear power stations comprise four turbines,
each with an output of 1 million kilowatts. 

    Due to rapid economic growth, the electricity shortage in
Guangdong exceeded 3 million kilowatt-hours, or more than 10 per
cent, last year, according to provincial authority statistics. 

    Hu said: "We hope that increasing nuclear electricity output
will help ease Guangdong's energy crisis." 

(Source: China Daily)   

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 15 NRC: Sunshine Federal Register Notice
 
                        FR Doc 05-16256 
[Federal Register: August 16, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 157)] 
[Notices] [Page 48200] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16au05-120]                         
 
Agency Holding The Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Date: Weeks of August 15, 22, 29, and September 5, 12, 19, 2005.
 
Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
 
Status: Public and closed.
 
Matters to be considered: Week of August 15, 2005 Tuesday, August 
16, 2005.
 
10 a.m. Meeting with Organization of Agreement States (OAS) and 
the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors CRCPD) 
(Public Meeting) (Contact: Shawn Smith, 301-415-2620).
 
This meeting will be Web cast live at the Web 
address--http://www.nrc.gov .
 
1 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 3 & 9). Week of 
August 22, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for 
the week of August 22, 2005.
 
Week of August 29, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings 
scheduled for the week of August 29, 2005.
 
Week of September 5, 2005--Tentative Wednesday, September 7, 
2005.
 
9 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1). 1:30 p.m. 
Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 3). Week of September 
12, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the week 
of September 12, 2005.
 
Week of September 19, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings 
scheduled for the week of September 19, 2005. *The schedule for 
Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To 
verify the status of meetings call (recording)--(301) 415- 1292. 
Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415- 
1662.
 
* * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the 
Internet at: 
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. * * * 
* * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with 
disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable 
accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need 
this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from 
the public meetings in another format (e.g., braille, large 
print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, 
August Spector, at 301-415-7080, TDD: 301-415- 2100, or by e-mail 
at aks@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable 
accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
 
* * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred 
subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like 
to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the 
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, 
distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is 
available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission 
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic 
message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: August 11, 2005.
 
R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary.
 
[FR Doc. 05-16256 Filed 8-12-05; 10:22 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M

 
*****************************************************************
 16 Journal News: Nuke sirens fail a third time

By GREG CLARY
 
THE JOURNAL NEWS

(Original publication: August 16, 2005)
 

BUCHANAN — For the third time in less than a month, the
four-county emergency siren system at the Indian Point nuclear
plants did not work properly yesterday, the result of telephone
line problems that were still not fixed by late in the day,
Westchester and Rockland county officials said.

Emergency officials from both sides of the Hudson River spent
much of the day trying to figure out when the malfunction
occurred and when the communication system might be back in
operation. A spokesman for Indian Point's owner said that,
despite the problem, the sirens themselves could have been
activated from the plants if needed.

About 9:15 a.m. yesterday, emergency officials in Rockland
County ran a silent test regularly done on Mondays to make sure
the 156-siren system was performing properly.

When the test showed a network failure, Rockland officials
contacted Indian Point officials, who were unaware of the
problem, said Dan Greeley, Rockland's deputy commissioner for
emergency services.

Greeley said the problem appeared to be with a Verizon telephone
line, a relay point that connects the four counties and the
siren network with Indian Point via computers.

Verizon workers still were trying to rectify the problem last
night, county and Entergy officials said, though the cause had
not been determined.

There were initial problems with Putnam's relay, emergency
officials said, and the entire network normally is taken down to
work on one county's link.

Cliff Lee, a Verizon spokesman, said last night that technicians
would work around-the-clock until the problem was fixed.

Anthony Sutton, Westchester's head of emergency services,
confirmed that the system's automatic communications were
knocked out by the second single-point failure since July 19,
when a storm cut power to a transmitter at the nuclear plants
and left the sirens lifeless for about six hours.

Another storm July 27 rendered 20 of the sirens inoperable.

Jim Steets, a spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, the
plants' owner, said the sirens could have been activated from
Indian Point, so the system still would have functioned in the
event of an emergency. He said Entergy employees would be the
first to know if something happened at the plant and would
automatically activate the sirens.

Steets also said radios could have been used in each county to
activate the sirens, a backup plan that county officials said
had yet to be field-tested.

"It was the frame relay that affected all four counties," Steets
said. "They would have been able to activate them with the
radios, or we could have activated them directly from Indian
Point on their command. At no time did we lose the ability to
operate the sirens."

Entergy said last month that it had started a nationwide search
for a siren backup system that could be in place in about two
years. The company has said it also is considering installing a
new system that wouldn't rely primarily on sirens, as the
current one does.

"We still don't have the ability to notify by siren," Sutton
said about 4:30 p.m. "Entergy has a night watch set up for us
now."

Rockland, Putnam and Orange counties can activate their portions
of the 156-siren network by using radio frequencies, but Sutton
said Westchester's 70 percent reliability was too low to trust.
The four counties have communities within the 10-mile radius of
Indian Point's emergency evacuation zone.

Using the radios also has a downside, Sutton said, because they
don't have the capability to let officials know if a siren
actually sounded, which would hamper law-enforcement efforts to
alert residents in individual areas in the event of an emergency.

                                
  - - - - - - - -914-694-9300 -

  Copyright 2005 The Journal News, . Inc. newspaper serving
Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York.
*****************************************************************
 17 IEER: Nuclear Power: Poor Way to Meet Energy Needs
 
Atomic Myths, Radioactive Realities: Why Nuclear Power Is a Poor 
Way to Meet Energy Needs Arjun Makhijani* Journal of Land, 
Resources, & Environmental Law, Vol. 24 No. 1 2004 University of 
Utah College of Law 
                                
  "It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in
their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter, will know of
great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of
history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them
and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great
speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours ...
. This is the forecast for an age of peace." Lewis Strauss, AEC
Chairman, 19541 

"It is safe to say ... that atomic power is not the means by
which man will for the first time emancipate himself
economically, whatever that may mean; or forever throw off his
mantle of toil, whatever that may mean. Loud guffaws could be
heard from some of the laboratories working on this problem if
anyone should in an unfortunate moment refer to the atom as the
means of throwing off man's mantle of toil. It certainly is not
that! ...At present, atomic power presents an exceptionally
costly and inconvenient means of obtaining energy which can be
extracted much more economically from conventional fuels... .
The economics of atomic power are not attractive at present, nor
are they likely to be for a long time in the future. This is
expensive power, not cheap power as the public has been led to
believe." C. G. Suits, Director of Research, General Electric,
19512 

Atomic power was born of self-deception as well as deliberate
deception. There were messianic pronouncements of paradise on
Earth that began at the end of World War II. Alvin Weinberg, a
nuclear reactor designer and the first director of Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, said in retrospect, in 1981, that he had "a
little bit of the same spirit as the Ayatollah [Khomeini] has at
the moment."3 

Such fervent and self-deceptive excitement seemed to slide
seamlessly into deliberate propaganda that the government knew
was false. For by 1954, when Lewis Strauss made his famous
statement that nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter" in
the foreseeable future, a number of government and corporate
studies had concluded the contrary.4 None showed that it would
be cheap, let alone "too cheap to meter."5 The assessment of C.
G. Suits of General Electric, quoted above, was distinguished
from many others only in that it was more blunt. 

Nor was there any reasonable prospect based on basic engineering
considerations that nuclear power could be so cheap that any
task, no matter how energy intensive, would have negligible
energy costs. In the most optimistic scenario for nuclear power,
it might be assumed that the fuel cost would be nearly zero. But
that would still leave eighty-five percent of the costs of
electricity for residential and small business consumers and
sixty percent for the largest industrial users intact. The
reason is that the bulk of the costs of electricity are related
not to the fuel and the boiler (the functions served by the
nuclear fuel and nuclear reactor), but by the power generating
equipment, and the transmission and distribution network.
Moreover, it was clear even then that (i) nuclear reactors would
cost far more than coal-fired boilers, and (ii) it would be
difficult to manage and dispose of nuclear waste. And of course,
nuclear fuel was not free. Uranium was thought to be a scarce
resource in the 1950s and fuel costs then were expected to be an
important part of the costs of generating nuclear power.

 The West knows the costs of uranium fuel well. This is
especially so in the Colorado Plateau, which is dotted with
about two hundred million tons of radioactive mill tailings6 and
possibly a comparable amount of uranium mine waste. These wastes
have injured health, polluted precious water supplies, and
resulted in billions of dollars in clean-up costs.7 And the
liabilities will extend into the future for tens of thousands of
years. The half-life of thorium-230, the radionuclide that
drives the radioactivity content of mill tailings, is about
75,000 years. Thorium-230 decays into radium-226, which has a
half-life of 1,600 years.8

 Yet the propaganda continues in the face of this radioactive
mess. In a recent article in Foreign Affairs, which is an
advocacy piece for nuclear power, Richard Rhodes and Denis
Beller stated that the annual output of waste from a nuclear
power plant was only a tiny twenty cubic meters (compacted).
They then compare this to a weight measure - compared to half a
million metric tons of waste for a coal-fired plant.9

 The figure of twenty cubic meters for nuclear power plant waste
completely ignores the largest volume of waste, which is
generated at uranium mines and mills. When that component is
taken into account, the waste associated with coal is typically
only about five or ten times that of nuclear power-related
waste, a far cry from ratio of about ten thousand implicit in
the Rhodes and Beller article. Rhodes and Beller therefore have
exaggerated the volume of waste produced by coal relative to
nuclear power by roughly one thousand times.

The biggest current argument for nuclear power that has been put
forth with considerable vigor by the nuclear industry is that it
is the solution to the problem of severe climate change. Nuclear
power does not emit carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the most
important greenhouse gas, or at least not very much at all
compared to a coal-fired power plant. Coal and oil burning are
the principal sources of CO2 emissions that threaten serious
climate change.

The new push for nuclear power also contains a messianic element
- that it will make for a peaceful world. In this view, the
world needs a vastly greater supply of energy to meet the needs
of a growing world population, most of which has still to taste
the kind of material consumption levels that are routine in the
United States and other industrialized countries. This rising
energy consumption in developing countries is crucial to
national security. According to Rhodes and Beller,

 Development depends on energy, and the alternative to
development is suffering: poverty, disease, and death. Such
conditions create instability and the potential for widespread
violence. National security therefore requires developed nations
to help increase energy production in their more populous
developing counterparts.10 


I. Energy Supply, Use, and Needs

 The assertion that "development depends on energy" conflates
energy supply, prevailing energy use patterns, and energy needs.
These are very different concepts. Energy, other than in the
forms of sunshine and food, is not a need in itself. Our needs
are not for oil or electricity or coal. Rather we need to be
able to see things at night, to cook, to go from one place to
another with reasonable speed, safety, and comfort, etc. It
takes some supply of energy to accomplish these things. But how
much? The amount of fuels that we use to accomplish these tasks
depends centrally on how efficiently the primary source of
energy, the energy supply, is used to perform the given task.

 The efficiency of use of energy even in industrialized
countries is pathetically low. For instance, a typical
"high-efficiency" gas-fired furnace has an efficiency of less
than ten percent, when evaluated by strict physics criteria.
Electric resistance heating is even more inefficient. The
average efficiency of electric lighting systems is about one
percent - that is, only about one percent of the energy in the
fuel used to generate the electricity comes out as visible light
energy. The rest is wasted as heat either at the power plant or
in the light bulb. Even high-efficiency lamps have an efficiency
of only about three percent.11

 Passenger transportation efficiency is similarly dismal. The
useful work done when a car weighing 1.5 tons transports one
person weighing 150 or 200 pounds is typically about one percent
or less of the energy content of the fuel input, even if one
does not take into account the fact that much of the driving is
typically done to earn the money needed to purchase and maintain
the vehicle.12

 The scope of increasing the efficiency of energy use with
currently available technology is vast. Two-thirds of U.S.
energy use per unit of economic output could be eliminated using
available technology, while still maintaining all the functions
present-day fuel use performs.13 With a sensible program of
energy research and public policy, it is quite possible to
achieve energy use per unit of economic output at one-tenth
present levels within a few decades.

 While energy use in Western Europe and Japan is somewhat more
efficient than in the United States, energy use in developing
countries is less efficient. For instance, hundreds of millions
of poor people still use candles and kerosene wick lamps for
lighting because they have no electricity. The amount of light
output that they can avail themselves of can be increased a
hundred-fold or more without any change in energy input by going
to efficient electric lighting.

 Moreover, the most important components of energy use for the
rural poor, who are the majority of the world's poor, are not
even counted in energy data as it is normally compiled. For
instance, wood and crop residues are rarely considered when
arguments that large increases in energy supply are needed for
development. Further, the energy used by draft animals, which
provide the main source of energy for agricultural work for
hundreds of millions of peasants in Asia, is not compiled in
energy data or considered in development discussions. Such
traditional energy sources are far more important energy inputs
than non-traditional fuels like oil or natural gas. In rural
Nepal, for instance, these traditional energy sources provide
over fifty times the energy input of modern energy sources and
the efficiency of their use is typically lower than that of
modern fuels.14

 In sum, it is quite possible to greatly improve material
standards of living without increasing energy input in
developing countries, and while actually reducing energy input
in industrialized countries. Yet, the use of electricity, if
done properly, can be one crucial element in increasing energy
use efficiency. Hence, the issue of the fuel source for
increased electricity production is not resolved by the
efficiency argument. So it is still important to consider the
pros and cons of electric power systems and the energy sources
that can power them.

 
II. Comparing Energy Systems


 Nuclear power brings its own severe vulnerabilities that are
not related to climate change or the severe routine pollution
often associated with coal mining and oil production. These
vulnerabilities relate to:

 
  + Nuclear weapons proliferation: Nuclear power technology has
a large overlap with nuclear weapons technology. Nuclear power
plants create weapons usable materials - plutonium in current
designs.

 
  + Severe accidents: Severe accidents on the scale of Chernobyl
can occur with nuclear power plants, even though the details of
accident mechanisms and accident probabilities vary with design,
care of construction, and degree of independent oversight and
regulation.

 
  + Nuclear waste management: Wastes associated with nuclear
power, from mill tailings to spent fuel, are very long-lived and
threaten essential resources, notably water resources.

 If the world continues to use oil for transportation (and oil
accounts for about forty percent of carbon dioxide emissions
from fossil fuel use today, most of it in the transport
sector),15 a very large number of nuclear power plants will have
to be built in the next four decades to mitigate carbon dioxide
emissions. Most existing coal-fired power plants would have to
be replaced with nuclear ones, and present-day nuclear power
plants (over 400 in all) will have to be retired and replaced
with new ones. In order to make a significant dent in CO2
emissions, at least one-third, and perhaps one-half or more of
the global growth in electricity demand must be supplied by
nuclear power. In any scenario involving two percent or greater
global electricity growth, the use of nuclear power will mean
the construction of thousands of nuclear power plants in the
next four decades. Consider for instance, an electricity growth
rate of two percent, which is far less than that occurring in
China and India, but more or less typical of recent U.S. trends.
To make a substantial contribution to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, we might hypothesize that (i) all present day nuclear
power plants will be replaced by new ones, (ii) half the
electricity growth will be provided by nuclear power, and (iii)
half of the world's coal-fired plants will be replaced by
nuclear power plants. This would mean that about two thousand
large (1,000 megawatts each) nuclear power plants would have to
be built over the next four decades. That is a rate of about one
per week. If small plants, like the proposed Pebble Bed Modular
Reactor were built instead, the required rate of construction
would be about three reactors every two days.

 The proliferation implications of building so many plants and
supplying them with fuel are stupendous. Inspecting them,
enriching the uranium, ensuring that materials are not diverted
into weapons programs would present challenges that would make
today's proliferation concerns look like the proverbial Sunday
school picnic. We already have confrontations between the United
States and other countries over alleged nuclear weapons
aspirations from far more modest programs involving a handful of
power plants. The risk of losing a city once in a while to
nuclear bombs should be an unacceptable part of an energy
strategy.

 Similarly, it would be difficult to inspect, regulate and
maintain such a vast number of plants properly. Even the U.S.
regulatory system is currently under considerable strain. In
fact, oversight and safety are deteriorating. There have been
unexpected leaks and severe corrosion problems missed by
inadequate regulation. Nuclear power plant owners are operating
their plants at very high capacity factors, churning out
profits, while the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows them to
service some safety backup equipment while the power plants are
still running.16 That makes no sense from a safety point of
view. Backup systems are there in case the normal systems break
down. If a break down occurs while the back system is being
maintained, it will not be available in case of emergency.

 Consider an analogy with commercial aircraft. Commercial
airlines in the United States have a reasonably good safety
record. It would be unacceptable for commercial airlines to
service backup equipment while in the air (if it could be
arranged to save money). Yet, the present regulatory system for
nuclear power allows on-line servicing of backup equipment, even
though many more lives are at stake. If that is the situation
today in the wealthiest country in the world, one might imagine
and shudder at the problems of nuclear safety with one large
plant a week coming on line around the world. Such a world might
not be a pleasant place even for nuclear boosters.

 The vulnerability of nuclear power plants, spent fuel storage,
and plutonium storage facilities to terrorist attack, were
revealed by the violent tragedy of September 11, 2001, as never
before. Studies in the past had hypothesized the potentially
catastrophic effects of accidents, war, or terrorist attacks on
certain portions of the nuclear energy infrastructure.17 They
can no longer be ignored as they have been.

The crash of one of the airliners in Pennsylvania, not far from
the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, as well as statements
by a prisoner held in Afghanistan showing his awareness of
nuclear power plants as potential targets,18 should greatly
heighten serious concerns about nuclear vulnerabilities. Most
spent fuel storage sites as well as storage sites of other
nuclear materials, notably plutonium, have serious
vulnerabilities to terrorist attack. A breach of spent fuel
containment or a meltdown in a nuclear reactor could cause
catastrophic releases of radioactivity and immense disruption of
energy, environmental, and financial systems.

 Despite these vulnerabilities, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission has been lax and has not required hardened storage of
spent fuel on site. It has not required power plant owners to
postulate a September 11 type attack in evaluating where the
public might be safe from catastrophic radioactivity exposure in
case of attack. It is extending the licenses of power plants
without allowing consideration of terrorism risks.

 
III. Commercial Plutonium
 

The problems with nuclear power don't stop there. The romance
with nuclear power has, from the start, been strongly associated
with the use of plutonium as a fuel. This is because the most
abundant uranium isotope in nature is uranium-238 - more than
ninety-nine percent of natural uranium is U-238, which cannot
sustain a chain reaction and is therefore not useful as a
reactor fuel. The starting reactor fuel must necessarily be
uranium-235, which is fissile but constitutes only about 0.7
percent of natural uranium. But U-238 has another property -
when placed in a reactor, it absorbs a neutron, undergoes
nuclear reactions, and gets transmuted into plutonium-239, which
is fissile. Like uranium-235, plutonium-239 can be used to make
bombs and fuel reactors. Converting uranium-238 into
plutonium-239, in a kind of reactor called a "breeder reactor,"
can create more fuel than the reactor uses in its power
generation mode. This is the "magical" aspect of nuclear power
that has fascinated physicists and propagandists alike.

About $ 100 billion have been spent worldwide over half a
century in the effort to commercialize plutonium fuel and
reactors that will "breed" it from uranium-238.19 The effort has
been a vast economic and technical failure. Plutonium fuel is
used to supply part of the fuel of less than three dozen
reactors, most of them in France, out of a world total of more
than 400 commercial reactors. The fuel is subsidized by
ratepayers and taxpayers to the tune of about one billion
dollars per year in France alone.

 Surplus commercial plutonium extracted from spent fuel rods is
piling up in enormous quantities at several nuclear sites. The
largest stores are at the sites in Britain and France where
plutonium is separated chemically from the rest of spent fuel in
vast factories known as reprocessing plants, to the point that
the separated commercial plutonium stock now rivals the military
one and is in more locations. The Sellafield site in Britain and
the La Hague site in France each store about eighty metric tons
of separated commercial plutonium stored. The combined stock is
enough to make more than twenty thousand nuclear bombs. More
than thirty metric tons of commercial plutonium is stored at the
Mayak site in the Southern Urals in Russia, where both military
and commercial nuclear activities take place. The United States
and Russia have worked together to improve security at Mayak,
but the weak economic conditions in Russia, including at the
nuclear weapons sites, the rapidly fluctuating tensions in an
unstable world, and the spread of the idea that nuclear weapons
can change a power equation all by themselves, has resulted in a
situation where the dangers of diversion of plutonium into the
non-state terrorist arena are now considerably higher than they
were during the Cold War.

 While nuclear weapon states may not use commercial plutonium to
make weapons (since most also have military plutonium, which
nuclear weapons designers prefer for its somewhat different mix
of plutonium isotopes), separated commercial plutonium is an
ever-present temptation for non-nuclear states that want to make
weapons. For instance, the leader of the Liberal Party in Japan
said in April 2002 that "if (China)gets too inflated, the
Japanese people will become hysterical in response," and that
"we have plenty of plutonium in our nuclear power plants, so
it's possible for us to produce 3,000 to 4,000 nuclear
warheads."20 Japan owns enough plutonium to accomplish this,
though some of it is currently stored at the British and French
reprocessing sites, where almost all Japanese commercial
reprocessing takes place. Japan is also building a large new
reprocessing plant at home.

 The risks of commercial plutonium diversion to military
purposes has led the United States to adopt a bi-partisan policy
against use of plutonium as a commercial fuel in the United
States. It was initiated during the Ford administration in 1976
and then consolidated during the Carter administration. The fact
that such fuels were also uneconomical (and remain so) also
helped decide the issue. Unfortunately, the trend since 2001,
when the energy plan created by Vice-President Cheney's task
force was published, is towards lifting that taboo and
re-opening the question of possible use of plutonium fuel in
commercial reactors in the United States.21

 Figure 1: History of cumulative global military and commercial
plutonium stocks since 1945, in metric tons.22

 


  Type  	  1945  	  1950  	  1960  	  1970  	  1980  	  1990  	 
2000   
  Total military  	  0.1  	  2  	  45  	  130  	  200  	  250  	
  260   							 
  Unseparated commercial  	  0  	  0  	  0  	  1  	  145  	  530
 	  1,200   
  Separated commercial  	  0  	  0  	  0  	  5  	   40  	  120 
	   210   
  Total commercial  	  0  	  0  	  0  	  6  	  185  	  650  	 
1,410   							 
  Total, military and commercial  	  0.1  	  2  	  45  	  136  	
 385  	  900  	  1,670  

IV. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions


 So where will the added electricity generating capacity come
from? Clearly, coal has its problems, and the world needs also
to reduce its consumption of oil, if only to reduce CO2
emissions. Table 2 below shows a comparison of the environmental
effects of fossil fuel and nuclear power dominated energy
systems.

 If we keep in mind the basic economic fact that the amount of
money that we have to address the problem of reducing greenhouse
gas emissions is limited, the answer begins to emerge even apart
from the proliferation problems with nuclear power.

 Of the fossil fuels, natural gas is the least polluting. If it
is used in highly efficient "combined cycle" power plants, it
emits only about one fourth as much CO2 per unit of electricity
than coal. The cost of such natural gas-fired power plants is
also quite low, so that for a fixed number of dollars, combined
cycled plants can reduce CO2 emissions by forty percent more
than nuclear power plants when used to replace coal-fired
plants. This disparity exists even if we assume that nuclear
power plants and their associated systems emit no CO2
whatsoever. The reason is that nuclear power plants are much
more expensive.

 Natural gas represents a good transition energy source. But
much of the growth in electricity must come from renewable
energy sources - wind, solar, and sustainably produced biomass.
In developing countries, the efficiency of use of biomass can be
greatly increased. Wind power is available in plentiful supply.
Large wind power plants are cheaper than new nuclear power
stations today. That is part of the reason why many countries,
like Germany, Denmark, and the United States are building new
wind power plants, but not nuclear power plants. Nuclear power
plants now tend to be concentrated in countries where direct
government programs decree them, or where there is a strong
element of government or ratepayer subsidy. This is even more
true of plutonium fuel programs, none of which are economical.23

 In the United States, where Wall Street has had a big say in
whether and what kind of power plants get built, investors are
not willing to put up money for nuclear plants. None have been
ordered since 1978. While nuclear companies say they want to
order such plants, in practice they appear to want the
government to provide loan guarantees. A Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) analysis of proposed U.S. government loan
guarantees for new nuclear power plants said that the "CBO
considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be
very high" and that if the power plant were complete "we expect
it would financially default soon after beginning operations ...
."24 That doesn't necessarily mean the plants would shut down -
just that the taxpayers would wind up paying for much of the
nuclear generated electricity.

 We have the technologies to economically phase out nuclear
power, drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve
material standards of living in the United States and the world.
It is not difficult to demonstrate that. One reasonable estimate
of the possibilities using the same economic and demographic
assumptions as the Cheney energy plan is shown in Figure 2,
taken from my November 2001 study, .25

 It is the political will to accomplish these goals that is
lacking. Or rather, the political will is forcefully present in
increasing oil supply and nuclear power, while being tepid when
it comes to actually tapping the immense potential of
efficiency, natural gas, and renewable energy sources. The
political and institutional problems in tackling the problems of
energy security and greenhouse gas emissions are actually far
more severe than the technological challenges.

 Figure 2: Comparison of Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power -
Tabular Sketch*26


       Nuclear, with plutonium economy Nuclear, once-through
uranium use Fossil Fuels, present approach Fossil Fuel,
moderated use, and Renewables   
  Resource Base, present economics  	  indefinite future  	  50
to 100 years, possibly more  	  a few hundred years  	 
indefinite future   
  Resource Base, including very low-grade resources  	  not
required	    indefinite future  	  thousands of years  	  not
required   
  Incremental Climate Change Risk  	  none**  	  none  	 
potentially catastrophic  	  none if fossil fuels are largely
phased out   
  Potential Consequences of catastrophic accidents  	  severe:
long-lasting effects over large regions  	  severe: long lasting
effects over large regions  	  no consequences for large regions
but may be locally severe; effects generally short term  	  no
consequences for large regions but may be locally severe;
effects generally short term   
  Air Pollution, routine operations  	  relatively low  	 
relatively low  	  severe to moderate, depending on control
technology  	  moderate to low, depending on control technology 
 
  Water Pollution, routine operations  potentially serious at
mines and mills, but limited due to low uranium requirements;
potentially serious at waste disposal sites often serious at
mines, mills, and uranium processing sites (includes
non-radioactive and radioactive pollutants); potentially serious
at waste disposal sites  	  often serious at coal mines; serious
at some oil fields (includes non-radioactive and radioactive
pollutants, notably radium-226 near many oil-wells)  	 
potentially very low   

  Risk of Nuclear Weapons Problems yes yes, but less than with a 
breeder reactor economy none none   

  * These are incremental risks, assuming facilities are run
with reasonable attention to environmental protection.
 ** Questions have been raise about the effect of krypton-85
from extensive reprocessing necessary for a breeder reactor
system on cloud formation and hence potential climate change.
However, krypton-85 can be removed from exhaust gases by
cyrogenic cooling.   


FOOTNOTES:

 * President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research in Takoma Park, Maryland. This paper was adapted from
an oral presentation given at the Eighth Annual Wallace Stegner
Center Symposium titled "Nuclear West: Legacy and Future."

 1. Daniel Ford, The Cult of the Atom: The Secret Papers of the
Atomic Energy Commission 50 (1982) (quoting Lewis L. Strauss,
Address to the National Association of Science Writers (Sept.
1954)). 

2. C.G. Suits, Power from the Atom - An Appraisal, Nucleonics,
Feb. 1951, at 3-4. 

3. Ford, supra note 1, at 25 (quoting Alvin Weinberg (1981)). 

4. These early studies are reviewed in Arjun Makhijani & Scott
Saleska, The Nuclear Power Deception: U.S. Nuclear Mythology
from Electricity "Too Cheap to Meter" to "Inherently Safe"
Reactors (1999). This article draws on technical details and
analysis of these studies in this book, where additional
references and explanations may be found. 

5. Id. at 53-69. 

6. Nuclear Wastelands: A Global Guide to Nuclear Weapons
Production and its Health and Environmental Effects 122 (Arjun
Makhijani et al. eds., 2000) (the figure includes mill tailings
attributable to both commercial and military activities). 

7. Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear
Weapons Since 1940, 378 (Stephen I. Schwartz ed., 1998) 

8. These are standard half-lives and require no reference. They
can be found in any radiochemistry text and in some periodic
tables. 

9. Richard Rhodes & Denis Beller, The Need for Nuclear Power, 79
Foreign Affairs No.1 30, 32 (2000) (the volume of coal waste
would likely be between 200,000 and 300,000 cubic meters,
depending on the density of the wastes. Rhodes and Beller do not
specify densities of various wastes so an exact comparison is
not possible). 

10. Id. at 30. 

11. These are efficiencies based on fuel input. For light output
per unit of electricity input, see
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light bulb (last visited Dec. 4,
2003). To get an efficiency based on fuel input (overall
efficiency), the figures for lumens per watt in this source must
be divided by three, since about two-thirds of the fuel energy
is typically rejected in thermal electricity generation (mainly
coal and nuclear). 

12. These are my calculations based on average car performance
of 15 percent efficiency, vehicle weight of 3000 pounds and
passenger weight of 175 pounds - that is the useful load is only
about 6 percent of the overall weight of the car and efficiency
with which the fuel is converted into the mechanical motion of
the car is about 15 percent. The engine efficiency itself is
somewhat higher, but one must account for losses in the
transmission and tires also. The efficiency is better for
advanced engines, of course, but 15 percent or so would be
typical for the car and 20 percent is typical for the engine.
For the latter figure see
http://courses.washington.edu/me341/oct22v2.htm (last visited
Dec. 4, 2003). Therefore, taking into account that the useful
load is only about six percent of the total load, we get
0.060.15 = 0.009 or about 0.9 percent overall. 

13. Arjun Makhijani, Securing the Energy Future of the United
States: Oil, Nuclear, and Electricity Vulnerabilities and a
Post-September 11, 2001 Roadmap for Action, at 15 fig.4 (Nov.
2001), at www.ieer.org/reports/energy/bushrpt.pdf (last visited
Dec. 4, 2003). 

14. Arjun Makhijani, Draft Power in South Asian Foodgrain
Production, at ch. 2 tbl.5 (Sept. 1990), at
www.ieer.org/reports/energy/2-ovrvw.html (last visited Dec. 4,
2003). 

15. World Resources Institute, Greenhouse Gas Emissions by
Source, at
http://earthtrends.wri.org/datatables/index.cfm?theme=3&CFID=3756
36&CFTOKEN=84012239 (last visited Dec. 4, 2003). 

16. Nuclear Energy Agency Committee on Regulatory Activities,
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
Inspection of Maintenance on Safety Systems During NPP Operation
NEA/CNRA/R(2001)6, 19 (Aug. 16, 2001), available at
http://www.nea.fr/html/nsd/docs/2001/cnra-r2001-6.pdf (last
visited Dec. 4, 2003). 

17. See generally Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Dispersed, Decentralized and Renewable Energy Sources:
Alternatives to National Vulnerability and War (1980) (this
study was prepared by the Energy and Defense Project); Amory B.
Lovins & L. Hunter Lovins, Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for
National Security (1982) (2001 updated version is available at
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/S-BrPwr-Parts123.pdf (last
visited Dec. 4, 2003)). 

18. William Branigin, In Afghan Jail, a Terrorist Who Won't
Surrender: Bin Laden Disciple Held by N. Alliance Would Attack
U.S., Washington Post, Oct. 30, 2001, at A13. 

19. Arjun Makhijani, Plutonium End Game: Managing Global Stocks
of Separated Weapons - Usable Commercial and Surplus Nuclear
Weapons Plutonium, at 28 (Jan. 2001), at
http://www.ieer.org/reports/pu/peg.pdf. The data and analysis on
plutonium in this and the following paragraphs are drawn from
this report. 

20. Ichiro Ozawa, Japan Can Counter China with Nuclear Weapons,
Mainichi Shimbun, Apr. 7, 2002, available at
http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/news/archive/200204/07/20020407p2a00m0f
p022000c.html (last visited Dec. 4, 2003). 

21. Makhijani, supra note 13, at 39-41. 

22. Estimates by Arjun Makhijani from various sources. 

23. Makhijani, supra note 19, at 19-30. 

24. Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate, S. 14 Energy
Policy Act of 2003 12 (May 7, 2003), available at
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=4206&type=3 (last visited
Dec. 4, 2003). 

25. Makhijani, supra note 13. 

26. Estimates by Arjun Makhijani from various sources. 
  
Comments to Outreach Coordinator: ieer at ieer.org
 Takoma Park, Maryland, USA

 Published 2004
 Posted August 13, 2005 
*****************************************************************
 18 Technology Review: Nuclear Powers Up
 
By David Talbot                                                         

September 2005

The Case: Improved nuclear-power technologies are at hand--but
the public is still wary. Entergy Nuclear decided that before
proposing a new plant, it should band together with other
utilities, lobby for subsidies, and make the link between
nuclear power and the "hydrogen economy." 				 	

The U.S. nuclear-power industry has been stagnant for three
decades; the last successfully completed reactor order was made
back in the early 1970s. The 1979 Three Mile Island accident,
and the far worse 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe, helped stop the
industry in its tracks. Public confidence plunged; regulatory
pressures, political opposition, and costs surged. And by the
1990s, fossil fuels were cheap enough that nuclear power--even
with more-efficient designs--wasn't worth pursuing. Instead,
U.S. utilities dotted the landscape with advanced
natural-gas-fired power plants.

But today, natural-gas prices are three times what they were 10
years ago, making all alternatives, from wind turbines to
nuclear reactors, more attractive. Abroad, 24 nuclear
plants--including eight in India, four in Russia, and three in
Japan--are now under construction. And in the United States,
several utilities are reconsidering the nuclear option.

Why not simply build new plants, which would benefit from three
decades' worth of technology advances in materials, sensors, and
control software? Today's 104 operating U.S. nuclear power
plants, after all, reflect the designs of the 1960s and the
technologies of the 1970s. But the job of actually building
plants requires much more than better technology; it requires
partnerships, public relations, and lobbying to overcome the
ghosts of the recent past.

Entergy Nuclear of Jackson, MS, already operates 10 nuclear
power plants over eight locations, and it would like to build
more at some of those sites. But as a practical matter, the
company realized it needed to band together with others in the
industry to reduce its exposure to market risk, promote enough
competition between major reactor suppliers to yield an
affordable design, sell the communities near the sites on the
plants' economic benefits, and extract federal subsidies. 

Entergy also believed it needed to try to replace the "No Nukes"
slogan of yesterday with a "No CO2" slogan for today. In essence
it's pushing the idea that the slight risk of meltdown and the
proliferation of bomb ingredients are lesser evils than global
warming triggered by the buildup of carbon dioxide from fossil
fuels (see "Environmental Heresies," May 2005).

Entergy knew it needed to tread carefully, especially at the
outset. "If one utility was to step out [and propose a nuclear
plant], they could become the lightning rod for the antinuclear
community, and for people's concerns on Wall Street," says Dan
R. Keuter, Entergy Nuclear's vice president for nuclear-business
development. As the last U.S. nuclear plants were being built in
the 1970s and '80s, delays caused by new regulatory pressures,
political opposition, construction problems, and the slow
issuance of operating permits caused enormous cost overruns. 

So in 2003, Entergy, along with the Chicago-based utility
Exelon, took the lead in forging a coalition. The companies
called five other utilities and suppliers to a meeting near the
Atlanta airport. "We called it the 'Atlanta seven' meeting, and
our goal was to see if we could respond together to come up with
a new reactor design and share those costs and those risks,"
Keuter recalls. Out of that meeting came a consortium called
NuStart, which now includes nine power companies and two major
reactor builders, Westinghouse and GE. Each member contributes
$1 million annually to the consortium's joint operations.

The consortium has revived the approach to nuclear power that
prevailed in the 1950s, says Andrew Kadak, a nuclear engineer at
MIT. One of the first nuclear power plants, Yankee Rowe in Rowe,
MA--completed in 1960--was built by 10 utilities who shared
costs and the resulting power. NuStart "is an important new
initiative for the industry," says Kadak. "The new initiative
may end up being the same model [as the one of the 1950s]." But
before construction of a plant can begin, the utilities will
need two permits from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The first would approve the site selection, the other the
construction and operation of the reactor.

The design question is fairly simple. While some farther-out
technologies, such as the helium-cooled pebble bed modular
reactor--an updated version of the gas-cooled reactors
prototyped over the past 30 years in Germany and the United
States--are being pursued in China and South Africa, NuStart is
betting on so-called evolutionary advances in the tried-and-true
water-cooled designs that predominate today. In this basic
design, water flows through a superhot reactor core, creating
steam to drive turbines.   

The goal of the evolved design is to keep things as simple and 
affordable as possible without compromising safety. Today's U.S. 
nuclear plants include at least two redundant sets of safety 
equipment, including auxiliary pumps to supply cooling water to 
the reactors and auxiliary diesel generators to keep the 
equipment humming. One way of reducing the need for such systems 
is to make safety systems "passive." For instance, huge tanks of 
water placed uphill can, in an emergency, flood reactors without 
the use of power or pumps.

 

"You can make [nuclear power plants] cheaper with less equipment, 
and that was the reason for the focus on passive safety," says 
Keuter. Improvements in a range of supporting technologies, he 
argues, have enabled the construction of very safe plants. 
"Instrumentation and control systems have become much smaller and 
faster and solid state and more reliable, all of which allow you 
to monitor the operation more precisely."

In its drive to execute a new power plant design, the NuStart 
coalition is benefiting from generous federal subsidies. NuStart 
and the U.S. government are splitting the $400 million to $500 
million cost of coming up with the detailed designs for two 
versions of evolutionary water-cooled reactors, one from General 
Electric and the other from Westinghouse. The NRC has already 
approved a Westinghouse design for a 1,000-megawatt reactor; 
General Electric is readying the design of a 1,500-megawatt 
reactor for NRC approval later this year. Both of these reactors 
incorporate passive safety features.

After settling on a pair of possible designs, the consortium 
approached the delicate question of where to actually build a new 
plant. It was helped by a 1992 change in federal law that 
streamlined the permitting process. Previously, the NRC would 
authorize the construction of a reactor and then, when it was 
finished, issue a separate operating permit. The 1992 change 
created a combined construction and operating license.

In May, the NuStart coalition announced it had settled on six 
potential sites: Entergy's Grand Gulf Nuclear Station in Port 
Gibson, MS, and River Bend Nuclear Station in St. Francisville, 
LA; Constellation Energy's Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in 
Lusby, MD, and Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station in Scriba, NY; and 
two federally owned sites, the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant in 
northeast Alabama, owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority, and 
the Savannah River Site, a U.S. Department of Energy facility 
near Aiken, SC. Of these, the coalition plans to pick two by 
October 1; it will then apply for construction and operation 
permits for both.

Now that NuStart has broken the ice, some utilities--members of 
the consortium and nonmembers alike--have gone ahead with their 
own permit applications or announcements. Three companies have 
applied for site permits: Entergy at Grand Gulf; Exelon 
Generation at a site in Clinton, IL; and Dominion Nuclear--which 
is not a member of NuStart--at its North Anna plant in Virginia. 
Finally, though it hasn't applied for a site permit, Duke Energy 
of Charlotte, NC, says it is planning to seek an NRC combined 
construction-operation permit for an undisclosed site. Each of 
these plants would use one or the other of the two competing 
NuStart designs. The companies also say they need the U.S. 
Congress to continue subsidizing the process; subsidies are part 
of the president's proposed energy bill.

Of course, technologies such as wind turbines and hybrid cars 
also make a good case for government subsidies. The nuclear 
industry is promoting itself as a pathway to the hydrogen 
economy. The electricity produced by a nuclear power plant can 
split water into hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis, 
without creating air pollution. And hydrogen can also be produced 
directly: the extremely high temperatures inside nuclear reactors 
can be used to split water molecules.

 

None of the utilities applying for NRC permits has ordered a new 
reactor. But if one or more actually goes ahead, it could open 
the door to investments in a new generation of more efficient 
plants. "If they are successful in getting new plant construction 
started in the United States during the next three to five years, 
that will open the door for other nuclear technologies," says 
Regis Matzie, chief technology officer and senior vice president 
at Westinghouse, who is also a director of the South African 
consortium seeking to build a pebble bed plant in that country. 
"Further, restarting nuclear build in the United States will have 
a profound impact on new nuclear build around the world."

In a pebble bed reactor, the uranium fuel is encased in billiard 
ball-sized graphite spheres. The reactor is cooled by helium gas, 
so it can operate at much higher temperatures than water-cooled 
plants do, greatly increasing its efficiency. In addition, the 
technology's advocates argue, pebble bed plants are ideal for 
hydrogen production because their operating temperatures make it 
easier to split water into oxygen and hydrogen without 
electrolysis. "The success of NuStart should be of great value to 
[the South African consortium] for the future," says Matzie.

But there is an inescapable problem with any nuclear-energy 
strategy: waste. In the past two decades, the U.S. government has 
spent some $6 billion to develop an underground storage 
repository at Yucca Mountain, about 140 kilometers from Las 
Vegas. But there are serious questions about whether the mountain 
is dry enough to prevent waste containers from eroding for many 
thousands of years (see "A New Vision for Nuclear Waste," 
December 2004).

"The industry should be trying to solve the waste problem. If 
they want more nuclear power plants, there's not going to be 
enough space at Yucca. They are going to have to keep visiting 
this issue over and over again. If they don't, it will come back 
to haunt them," says Allison Macfarlane, a geologist at MIT and 
editor of a forthcoming book on Yucca Mountain (Uncertainty 
Underground: Yucca Mountain and the Nation's High-Level Nuclear 
Waste).

While the waste problem remains unsolved, current trends favor a 
nuclear renaissance. Energy needs are growing. Conventional 
energy sources will eventually dry up. The atmosphere is getting 
dirtier. But resurrecting the industry will prove to be a 
delicate task. Neither Entergy nor any other U.S. company has 
committed to actually building a nuclear power plant. Entergy 
says that it will wait to see whether Congress approves subsidies 
before making its next move. 

David Talbot 

*****************************************************************
 19 Xinhua: National nuclear corporation issues $ 240 mln bonds   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-08-16 19:27:24   

    BEIJING, Aug. 16 (Xinhuanet) -- The China National Nuclear
Corporation (CNNC) recently issued bonds worth 2 billion yuan
(247 million US dollars) in the domestic market, the
Beijing-based Economic Information Daily reported on Tuesday. 

    This is the first time for the CNNC to issue bonds publicly
in the domestic market, according to the newspaper. All the
funds raised will be used in the construction of the Qinshan and
Sanmen Nuclear Power Plants in eastern Zhejiang Province. 

    The bonds were in two varieties. One had 10-year term and
annual interest rate of 4.98 percent, and another came with
15-year term and annual interest rate of 5.20 percent. 

    China is taking steps to increase the proportion of nuclear
power in its overall energy supply and make it an important
element of energy development in future. 

    Nuclear power is intended to become the pillar of energy
supply in coastal areas of east China, and by 2020, the
generating capacity of China's nuclear power sector is expected
to reach 40 million kw, accounting for four percent of the total
installed power generating capacity in the country, according to
governmental designs. Enditem   

    
  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 20 NRC: Entergy Operations, Incorporated; Notice of Consideration of 
 
                         FR Doc E5-4418 
[Federal Register: August 16, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 157)] 
[Notices] [Page 48196-48198] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16au05-118]                         
 
Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity 
for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission, NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to 
Facility Operating License No. NFP-6, issued to Entergy 
Operations Incorporated (the licensee), for operation of Arkansas 
Nuclear One Unit 2 (ANO-2), located in Pope county.
 
The proposed amendment would define spent fuel loading 
restrictions for the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask 
System Multi-Purpose Canister (MPC)-32. The licensee will be 
removing spent fuel from the spent fuel pool and placing it in 
dry storage as early as September 2005. This activity will 
restore the full-core offload capability at ANO-2.
 
The licensee believed that the calculation that considered the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.68 for loading/unloading an MPC-32 met 
the criteria of 10 CFR 50.59 and 10 CFR 50.36, and did not 
require NRC review and approval. However, based on Regulatory 
Information Summary (RIS) 2005-05, ``Regulatory Issues Regarding 
Criticality Analyses for Spent Fuel Pools and Independent Spent 
Fuel Storage Installations,'' the licensee submitted a 
pre-application letter to the NRC outlining the plans to submit a 
non-exigent technical specification (TS) change and justification 
for continued operations without prior NRC approval based on 
guidance contained in Administrative Letter 98-10, 
``Dispositioning of Technical Specifications that are 
Insufficient to Assure Plant Safety,'' and Generic Letter 91-18, 
``Information to Licensees Regarding Two NRC Inspection Manual 
Sections on Resolution of Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions 
and on Operabiltiy.'' In a teleconference between the licensee 
and the NRC staff held on July 19, 2005, the NRC stated that it 
did not believe ANO-2 was in compliance with 10 CFR 50.68 and, 
therefore, the proposed change required NRC approval prior to 
proceeding with cask loading activities.
 
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under 
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. 
Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means 
that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; 
or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 
CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated? Response: No.
 
The fuel handling accidents described below can be postulated to 
increase reactivity. However, for these accident conditions, the 
double contingency principle of ANS N16.1-1975 is applied. This 
states that it is unnecessary to assume two unlikely, 
independent, concurrent events to ensure protection against a 
criticality accident. Thus, for accident conditions, the presence 
of soluble boron in the SFP [spent fuel pool] water can be 
assumed as a realistic initial condition since its absence would 
be a second unlikely event.
 
Loading/unloading a storage cask in the SFP does not affect the 
previously evaluated fuel handling accidents (i.e., criticality 
effects) in the SFP. The ANO-2 TS for SFP boron concentration 
ensures subcritical conditions in the SFP during fuel movement 
activities, whether within the SFP racks or to a storage cask 
during normal and accident conditions.
 
The cask configuration for the storage cask (MPC-32) is 
sufficiently similar to spent fuel racks in the SFP as to not 
induce new or different spent fuel assembly damage in the 
unlikely event of the occurrence of a fuel handling accident 
during storage cask loading/unloading activities. The fuel 
handling accident includes four drop scenarios (fuel drop 
horizontally on a cask, fuel drop on a fuel assembly, fuel drop 
next to a cask, and a fuel drop on the cask basket). The same 
equipment and procedural controls for controlling fuel within the 
SFP are utilized when loading/unloading a storage
 
[[Page 48197]] cask. In addition, the postulated fuel handling 
accidents associated with loading/unloading a storage cask are 
bounded by current ANO-2 TS SFP requirements for minimum boron 
concentration.
 
Loading/unloading a storage cask will have no impact on the boron 
dilution event probability. The same controls for prohibiting a 
dilution event during spent fuel movement activities in the SFP 
are in use when loading/unloading fuel in a cask located in the 
cask pit.
 
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
 
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated? Response: No.
 
The storage casks have the same basic design and control of a SFP 
rack. The cask cell walls are thicker than the SFP rack walls; 
the outside wall on the cask is thicker than the SFP racks and 
the space for mishandling is tighter than around the racks. When 
the cask loading pit gate is open and the Technical 
Specifications are applicable, the pit is in direct 
communications with the spent fuel pool. Boron concentrations and 
decay heat removal for fuel in the cask loading pit is controlled 
in the same manner as it is for fuel in the spent fuel pool 
proper.
 
An accident analysis for the MPC-32 was performed assuming the 
same SFP rack accidents that are discussed in the ANO-2 SAR 
[safety analysis report]. The ANO-2 TS boron concentration 
assures that a subcritical margin is maintained during any 
postulated accident condition (i.e., keff [effective neutron 
multiplication coefficient] is less than or equal to 0.95). 
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
 
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety? Response: No.
 
The ANO-2 TSs require for criticality concerns in the SFP that 
keff remain less than or equal to 0.95. For the MPC-32, the 
criticality analysis demonstrated that when the ANO-2 TS for SFP 
boron concentration is met, a loading restriction is required to 
ensure keff remains less than or equal to 0.95. The proposed 
change to the ANO-2 TS will ensure the criticality margin is 
maintained.
 
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
 
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 
determine that the amendment request involves no significant 
hazards consideration.
 
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 14 days after the 
date of publication of this notice will be considered in making 
any final determination.
 
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of the 14-day notice period. However, should 
circumstances change during the notice period, such that failure 
to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or 
shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license 
amendment before the expiration of the 14-day notice period, 
provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. The final 
determination will consider all public and State comments 
received. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish 
in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. The Commission 
expects that the need to take this action will occur very 
infrequently.
 
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page 
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also 
be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal 
workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at 
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 
North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
 
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
 
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating 
license and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the 
proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with 
the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing 
Proceedings and Issuance of Orders'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested 
persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 
available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint 
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be 
accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 
at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request 
for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the 
above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by 
the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or 
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a 
hearing or an appropriate order.
 
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner 
in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the 
results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) 
The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or 
petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right 
under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the 
nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, 
financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in 
the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The 
petition must also identify the specific contentions which the 
petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
 
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the 
bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged 
facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which 
the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the 
hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to 
those specific sources and documents of which the 
petitioner/requestor is aware and on which the 
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or 
expert opinion. The petitioner/requestor must provide sufficient 
information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the 
applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall 
be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under 
consideration.
 
The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the 
petitioner/ requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails 
to satisfy these
 
[[Page 48198]] requirements with respect to at least one 
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
 
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to 
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the 
conduct of the hearing.
 
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when 
the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing 
held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the 
final determination is that the amendment request involves a 
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take 
place before the issuance of any amendment.
 
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the 
presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that 
the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted 
based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for 
leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, 
express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the 
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 
and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to 
the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at 
(301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of 
the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene 
should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it 
is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of 
facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to

 
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to Nicholas 
S.
 
Reynolds, Esquire, Winston and Strawn, 1700 K Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20006- 3817, attorney for the licensee.
 
For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated July 21, 2005, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room 
(PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 
available records will be accessible electronically from the 
ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC 
Web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Persons who do not 
have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference 
staff by telephone at 1-800-397- 4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail 
to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of 
August 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Drew G. Holland, Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate 
IV, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E5-4418 Filed 8-15-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 21 NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Notice of Consideration of 
 
                         FR Doc E5-4419 
[Federal Register: August 16, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 157)] 
[Notices] [Page 48198-48200] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16au05-119]                         
 
Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed 
No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and 
Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(the Commission) is considering issuance of amendments to 
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27 issued to 
Nuclear Management Company, LLC (the licensee), for operation of 
the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Units 1 and 2, located in 
the Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin.
 
The proposed amendments would revise the licensing basis as 
described in the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Final Safety Analysis 
Report to incorporate the proposed Unit 1 reactor vessel head 
(RVH) drop analysis and the revised Unit 2 RVH drop analysis.
 
Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the 
Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy 
Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's 
regulations.
 
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. 
Under the Commission's regulations in title 10 of the Code Of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), section 50.92, this means that 
operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendments would not (1) involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; 
or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 
CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below: 1. Would the proposed amendment involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated? Response: No.
 
The proposed change incorporates the revised heavy load analysis 
into the PBNP FSAR. This analysis involves the postulated drop of 
the RVH [reactor vessel head] over a reactor vessel containing 
fuel assemblies. Assuming that the BMI [bottom mounted 
instrument] tubes are severed as a result of displacement of the 
reactor vessel, a decrease in reactor coolant inventory will 
occur. Thus, a RVH drop can be postulated as an initiator of a 
Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) under shutdown conditions.
 
A RVH drop is of sufficiently low probability such that, for Unit 
1, the probability of a LOCA is not significantly increased over 
the current licensing basis large break LOCA. For Unit 2, the 
probability is unchanged from the previously approved RVH drop 
analysis.
 
For Unit 1, supplemental administrative controls have been 
established to assure continued availability of multiple 
independent sources of water to provide core cooling and makeup 
water well in excess of the postulated LOCA. Containment closure 
will also be established during this evolution. No pressurization 
of the reactor coolant system will occur as a result of this 
postulated event.
 
For Unit 2, the previously approved administrative controls have 
been revised, consistent with those submitted for Unit 1 herein, 
to provide additional makeup water capacity.
 
The calculated radiological consequences of the postulated RVH 
drop are within those calculated for the current licensing basis 
large break LOCA. Therefore, the consequences of a LOCA are not 
increased. The proposed change is consistent with safety analysis 
assumptions and resultant consequences. All Technical 
Specifications are satisfied and required equipment is operable. 
Therefore, this change would not
 
[[Page 48199]] significantly increase the probability of 
occurrence or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
 
2. Would the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated? Response: No.
 
For Unit 1, the proposed change incorporates the revised heavy 
load analysis into the PBNP FSAR. This analysis involves the 
postulated drop of the RVH over a reactor vessel containing fuel 
assemblies. Assuming that the BMI tubes are severed as a result 
of displacement of the reactor vessel, a decrease in reactor 
coolant inventory will occur. Thus, a RVH drop can be postulated 
as an initiator of a LOCA under shutdown conditions.
 
Adequate core cooling and makeup water remains available from 
core cooling water systems. Maintaining core cooling and makeup 
and closing containment assures that the drop of a RVH is bounded 
by the existing licensing basis analysis for a LOCA. The drop of 
a RVH was previously evaluated by the NRC for Unit 2 in a safety 
evaluation dated June 24, 2005. Therefore, the proposed changes 
would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any previously evaluated.
 
3. Would the proposed amendment result in a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety? Response: No.
 
For Unit 1, the proposed change incorporates the revised heavy 
load analysis into the PBNP FSAR. This analysis involves the 
postulated drop of the RVH over a reactor vessel containing fuel 
assemblies. Assuming that the BMI tubes are severed as a result 
of displacement of the reactor vessel, a decrease in reactor 
coolant inventory will occur. Thus, a RVH drop can be postulated 
as an initiator of a LOCA under shutdown conditions.
 
The frequency and consequences of a RVH drop are comparable to or 
within those of the current licensing basis large break LOCA.
 
The proposed change does not alter any safety limits, limiting 
safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation as 
defined in the Technical Specifications. The drop of a RVH was 
previously evaluated by the NRC for Unit 2 in a safety evaluation 
dated June 24, 2005. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not 
result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
 
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 
determine that the amendment request involves no significant 
hazards consideration.
 
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the 
date of publication of this notice will be considered in making 
any final determination.
 
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendments until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. The Commission may issue the license amendments before 
expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final 
determination is that the amendments involve no significant 
hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the 
amendments prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period 
should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such 
that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in 
derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take 
action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or 
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will 
take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need 
to take this action will occur very infrequently.
 
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page 
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also 
be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal 
workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at 
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 
North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
 
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
 
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to 
issuance of the amendments to the subject facility operating 
license and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the 
proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with 
the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing 
Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult 
a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the 
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, .
 
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is 
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer 
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge 
of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the 
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
 
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner 
in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the 
results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) 
The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or 
petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right 
under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the 
nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, 
financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in 
the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The 
petition must also identify the specific contentions which the 
petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
 
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the 
bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged 
facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which 
the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the 
hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to 
those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is 
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish 
those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include 
sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with 
the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions 
shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment 
under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, 
would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor 
who fails to satisfy
 
[[Page 48200]] these requirements with respect to at least one 
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
 
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to 
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the 
conduct of the hearing.
 
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when 
the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing 
held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the 
final determination is that the amendment request involves a 
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take 
place before the issuance of any amendment.
 
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the 
presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that 
the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted 
based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for 
leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, 
express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the 
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 
and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ; or (4) 
facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, 
verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for 
hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent 
to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that 
copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission 
to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to . A copy of the request for 
hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent 
to the Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire, Vice President, Counsel & 
Secretary, Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 700 First Street, 
Hudson, WI 54016, attorney for the licensee.
 
For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendments dated July 24, 2005, which is 
available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located 
at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 
available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, .
 
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems 
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the 
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1- 800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to .
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of August 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Harold K. Chernoff, Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project 
Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E5-4419 Filed 8-15-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 22 Heritage Foundation: Lacking Energy

[Press: Commentary] 

  [Edwin J. Feulner] Lacking Energy
 August 16, 2005

It sometimes seems the longer that legislation hangs around
Washington, the worse it gets. Thats certainly the case with the
recently signed energy bill.
 
President Bush had been trying for years to convince lawmakers
to pass an energy bill. But when they finally did, all the 
well, energy had been sucked out of it. In the end, it was
typical Washington pork. Theres plenty of new spending -- an
estimated $12.3 billion over 10 years, twice as much as the
original proposal -- but few real solutions.
 
Start with oil. When most people think of energy, they think of
gasoline. Any sensible bill would take steps to increase the
domestic production of oil. Its critical we start reducing our
dependence on foreign providers, especially since so many of
them are in bad neighborhoods.
 
We happen to have large oil reserves waiting to be tapped
beneath the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. But the
bill Congress passed specifically ignores ANWR. If we put it in,
we wouldnt be here, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, explained to reporters.
 
Its true that previous energy bills had failed because liberals
wouldnt agree to pass a measure that allowed drilling in ANWR.
But no bill is better than a bad bill. If were not going to take
the most reasonable step available to boost energy production,
theres really no point in passing an energy bill at all. (ANWR,
fortunately, isnt dead; its likely to pass when lawmakers try to
reconcile the budget in September.)
 
Not only does this bill ignore potential solutions, it actually
recycles the failed policies of the past. The bill provides tax
breaks for homeowners who install solar panels -- a reform
measure first drafted by the Carter administration.
 
President Reagan removed those tax breaks when it became clear
they wouldnt work, just as a future administration is certain to
remove them again. In the meantime, another generation of
homeowners will learn to their chagrin that the upfront cost of
solar panels is larger than the amount theyre likely to save by
installing them.
 
Lawmakers deserve credit for at least attempting to take a step
forward on nuclear power. Nuclear plants are efficient and
produce zero emissions, and we need to build more of them to
fill our growing need for electricity. The bill provides
billions of dollars in tax credits for utilities, which could
translate into as many as six new nuclear plants.
 
But the energy bill leaves the big question unanswered. Until
utilities are assured they will have a permanent place to store
their nuclear waste, theyre not likely to break ground on new
plants, regardless of tax breaks. At one existing plant in
Illinois, there are 24 silos, each packed with 13 tons of
nuclear waste. No utility wants to assume that sort of headache.
A useful energy bill would do something to fix the problem.
 
Having the waste stored in a secure, central location would be
far safer than storing it on-site at scores of plants around the
country. Plenty of studies have shown Yucca Mountain is the best
place to put our nuclear waste. But again, lawmakers ducked that
issue in the energy bill.
 
Washington insiders, even conservative officials, seem resigned
to the big spending status quo. Its the best energy bill that
can be passed, Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell said.
 
Respectfully, sir, it isnt. It must be possible to solve a
problem without throwing tens of billion of dollars at it. And
it must be possible for lawmakers to target bills narrowly -- so
the new law will solve problems rather than merely providing tax
breaks to the energy industry.
 
Something good can still come out of this bill, if it energizes
conservatives in Congress to finally take charge and crack down
on wasteful spending. Otherwise, the bills merely another waste
of time, money and power.
 
Ed Feulner is president of The Heritage Foundation
(heritage.org), a Washingtonbased public policy research
institute. 

© 1995 - 2005 The Heritage Foundation
All Rights Reserved.

24-Hour Media Hotline:
 (202) 675-1761 

Need to fax? 202.544.6979 

MEDIA CONTACTS: 

Khris Bershers (e-mail)
 Director of Media Services
 desk: 202.608.6148
 cell: 202.439.4986 

Chris Kennedy (e-mail)
 Senior Associate, Media Services
 desk: 202.608.6156
 cell: 202.439.5183
 
Brian Phillips (e-mail)
Media Services Associate
 desk: 202.608.6176
 cell: 202.439.5145 

Aerica Veazey (e-mail)
International Communications Associate
 desk: 202.608.6153
 cell: 202.439.6175 

For Op-Eds:
 Paul Gallagher (e-mail)
Manager of Editorial Services
 desk: 202.608.6151
 cell: 410-591-1123   

*****************************************************************
 23 UK: Nuclear power: Government: No plans for new nuclear power plants
 
 [politics.co.uk]   		 	 
	 
Updated, Wednesday, 17 Aug 2005 05:00 GMT+1 Debate - Issue of
the Day
For journalists, politicians, and interested members of the
public, 'Issue of the Day' provides a snapshot of responses and
views on the leading issues of the day. 	
Nuclear power: Government: No plans for new nuclear power plants
Tuesday, 16 Aug 2005 	

The government said today it had no plans to build new power
plants in the future but that option had "not been ruled out".

A spokesman for the Department of Trade and Industry told
politics.co.uk that government policy was set out in the white
paper of 2003 â€“ which stated there were no proposals for new
nuclear stations but that option had been "left open".

He said a decision on nuclear power stations would be made some
time in this parliament.

"But the focus had to be on renewable energy," he said,
highlighting the "unresolved" issue of nuclear waste disposal
and the costs associated with that problem.

The government anticipated Britain's demand for energy being met
from a variety of sources, such as gas and renewable sources
 			 			 			 	 			 
Issue Briefs
 				 
*****************************************************************
 24 Author Considers Nuclear Lesser of Two Evils
                                
August 16, 2005

by Roddy Scheer

After a speech last month in San Francisco, an audience member
asked Collapse author Jared Diamond if the threat of global
warming augured a renewed role for nuclear power--as has been
suggested recently by such environmental luminaries as Stewart
Brand and James Lovelock. To the surprise of the audience,
Diamond said he agreed: "To deal with our energy problems we
need everything available to us, including nuclear power."
Echoing the concerns of others, Diamond added that it should be
done carefully "like they do in France" so as to avoid accidents.

Diamond's recent book Collapse documents how the mismanagement
of natural resources and the environment led to the downfall of
some of humanity's greatest civilizations. Most attendees of the
San Francisco speech would have thought that Diamond considered
nuclear power to be the kind of folly that could lead to the
collapse of our existing civilization. But apparently Diamond,
along with some environmentalists, considers global warming to
be so serious a threat that any power source that doesn't load
up the atmosphere with carbon dioxide looks more appealing.

Ultimately, most environmentalists envision a future powered by
renewable energy sources like solar, wind, biomass and
geothermal. But with renewables currently meeting less than
three percent of our energy needs, that future is a long way off
indeed. In light of these facts, a growing number of
environmentalists are changing their tune to support nuclear
power--which they previously derided due to safety and nuclear
waste disposal concerns.

Even so, in June nearly 300 environmental, consumer and safe
energy groups called on Congress to reject the argument that
nuclear power can solve global warming. Contributors included
the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Public Citizen, the
Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and many others.
The groups outlined five key reasons for their statement,
including that nuclear energy is unnecessary, too expensive, too
dangerous, too polluting and that using nuclear power to address
global warming would exacerbate the problems posed by the
technology. The groups argue that diverting limited resources to
subsidies for the nuclear industry (which is economically
feasible only when propped up by substantial government
assistance) would take away from much safer, and ultimately more
successful, solutions.

Source:
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/07/ING95E1VQ71.
DTL&hw=nuclear&sn=001&sc=1000

  
Editors, if you are interested in reprinting this article,
please contact Featurewell / (212) 924-2283
    
E MAGAZINE.COM
A service of E/The Environmental Magazine. Copyright 1995 -
2004. All Rights Reserved.    Copyright Notice  
*****************************************************************
 25 UK Politics: Nuclear power: Today's issue

 [politics.co.uk]   		 	 
	 
Tuesday, 16 Aug 2005 	

                        
Reports today suggesting the UK's largest low-level nuclear
dump - at Drigg in Cumbria - is unfit for handling future waste
are fuelling the growing debate on the future of Britain's
energy supply.

With oil prices rocketing and the future of gas supply
uncertain, there are questions about how Britain will meet its
energy needs in the years to come.

Nuclear energy offers the prospect of carbon-emission free
energy, and as such was hailed by 'father' of the
environmentalist movement James Lovelock as the way forward.

But the 14 nuclear power stations in the UK are coming to the
end of their lifetimes with half due to be decommissioned by
2010.

Environmentalist groups question what will happen to the nuclear
waste â€“ which can be stored and not destroyed â€“and fear
Chernobyl-style accidents.

A recent poll in the Times also showed the public supported
renewable energy and not nuclear power as the answer to future
energy shortages.

*****************************************************************
 26 Business Day: Budget for SA's nuclear project R10bn shortÂ                                                                  

  Posted to the web on: 16 August 2005

Siseko Njobeni

Trade and Industry Correspondent

 SA WOULD have to spend about R25bn on the proposed pebble-bed
modular reactor (PBMR) project  R10bn more than current
projections  before it would be financially viable, a report on
the project has said. 

The venture entails building a demonstration reactor project at
Koeberg, near Cape Town and a pilot fuel plant at Pelindaba,
near Pretoria. Government has thrown its weight behind the
proposed project as it wants to diversify the countrys energy
sources and move away from fossil fuel-based energy. 

But the report, written by Steve Thomas of the Public
International Research Unit at the UKs University of Greenwich,
said the costs of building the demonstration plant had risen
considerably since 1999 and that planners of the project had not
taken that into account. 

The report is part of the submission that environmental group
Earthlife is scheduled to make to the Parliaments minerals and
energy committee today, Legal Resources Centres Angela Andrews
said yesterday. 

Andrews said Earthlifes submission would look at the economic
and health effects of the project. 

In January this year, the group halted environmental affairs and
tourism departments decision to allow construction of the
reactor in Koeberg. 

The Cape High Court said the department should allow Earthlife
an opportunity to make written submissions regarding the
proposed plant. 

PBMR spokesman Tom Ferreira yesterday said the company was
surprised by Thomas comments. 

We do not know where Thomas got the R25bn figure from and what
it is based on, Ferreira said. The figure that we have
mentioned is R14,5bn, and that amount has been verified by a
number of international consultants. 

Earthlife Africa project co-ordinator Richard Worthington
yesterday said he expected the project to need more money before
it got off the ground. This project is very expensive. That
explains why they are struggling to get international backers,
Worthington said. 

But PBMR GM Thabang Makubire yesterday denied the company was
struggling to get investors. He told a members of the
Parliaments committee on minerals and energy that the company
was talking to a number of local and international investors. 

Ferreira said he was not aware of French nuclear company Arevas
reported intention not to fund the demonstration plant. 

News portal Finance24 yesterday said the French company was no
longer keen on the project. 

Areva has been in talks with SA with the intention to buy a
stake in the project. 

We are still talking to Areva. We do not know anything about
their plans to withdraw from the project as they have not
indicated anything to us, Ferreira said. 

Government has been looking for an international investor since
US energy group Exelon pulled out in 2002. 

The remaining investor is British Nuclear Fuels. 

Electricity utility Eskom and state-owned financier Industrial
Development Corporation are the local shareholders. 

Without international financial backing, the project would be a
burden to the South African public, Thomas said. With Sapa 
                                        
Copyright Notice
 Â© 2005 BDFM Publishers (Pty) Ltd. All Rights Reserved
 
*****************************************************************
 27 [epa-impact] Irradiation in the Production, Processing, and Handling
 
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:50:36 -0400 (EDT)

 
	autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

http://epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2005/August/Day-16/  
=======================================================================


[Federal Register: August 16, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 157)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48057-48073]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16au05-3]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 179
[Docket No. 1999F-4372]
 
Irradiation in the Production, Processing, and Handling of Food

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the food 
additive regulations to provide for the safe use of ionizing radiation 
for control of Vibrio species and other foodborne pathogens in fresh or 
frozen molluscan shellfish (e.g., oysters, mussels, clams, etc.). This 
action is in

[[Page 48058]]

response to a petition filed by the National Fisheries Institute and 
the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry.

DATES: This rule is effective August 16, 2005. Submit written or 
electronic objections and requests for a hearing by September 15, 2005. 
See section VI of this document for information on the filing of 
objections.

ADDRESSES: You may submit written or electronic objections and requests 
for a hearing identified by Docket No. 1999F-4372, by any of the 
following methods:
    ? Federal eRulemaking Portal: <A HREF="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</A>. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    ? Agency Web site: <A HREF="http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments">http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments</A>. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the agency Web site.
    ? E-mail: <A HREF="mailto:fdadockets@oc.fda.gov">fdadockets@oc.fda.gov</A>. Include Docket No. 1999F-
4372 in the subject line of your e-mail message.
    ? FAX: 301-827-6870.
    ? Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For paper, disk, or CD-ROM 
submissions]: Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug 
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this rulemaking. All objections received will be 
posted without change to <A HREF="http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm">http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm</A>, 
including any personal information provided. For detailed 
instructions on submitting objections, see the ``Objections'' heading of 
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to <A HREF="http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm">http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm</A> 
and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading 
of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or 
go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, 
Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lane A. Highbarger, Center for Food 
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-255), Food and Drug Administration, 
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301-436-1204.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Safety Evaluation
    A. Analyses of Data by the World Health Organization
    B. Radiation Chemistry
    C. Assessment of Potential Toxicity
    D. Microbiological Profile of Molluscan Shellfish
    E. Nutritional Considerations
III. Comments
    A. Studies Reviewed in the 1999 FAO/IAEA/WHO Report on High-Dose 
Irradiation
    B. Review Article
    C. Irradiated Strawberry
    D. Reproduction Performance
    E. Mutagenicity Studies
    F. International Opinions
    G. Alkylcyclobutanones
    H. Promotion of Colon Cancer
    I. Indian National Institute of Nutrition Studies
    J. Toxicity Data
    K. Failure to Meet Statutory Requirements
    L. Trans Fatty Acids
    M. Elevated Hemoglobin
    N. Dangers of Radiation
    O. Nutritional Deficiency
IV. Conclusions
V. Environmental Impact
VI. Objections
VII. References

I. Background

    In a notice published in the Federal Register of October 19, 1999 
(64 FR 56351), FDA announced that a food additive petition (FAP 9M4682) 
had been filed by the National Fisheries Institute, 1901 North Fort 
Myer Dr., Arlington, VA 22209, and the Louisiana Department of 
Agriculture and Forestry, P.O. Box 3334, Baton Rouge, LA 70821. The 
petition proposed that the food additive regulations in part 179, 
Irradiation in the Production, Processing, and Handling of Food (21 CFR 
part 179), be amended to provide for the safe use of approved sources 
of ionizing radiation for control of Vibrio and other foodborne 
pathogens in fresh or frozen molluscan shellfish.

II. Safety Evaluation

    Under section 201(s) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(the act) (21 U.S.C. 321(s)), a source of radiation used to treat food 
is defined as a food additive. The additive is not added to food 
literally, but is rather a source of radiation used to process or treat 
food such that, analogous to other food processing technologies, its 
use can affect the characteristics of the food. In the subject 
petition, the intended technical effect is for control of foodborne 
pathogens, including but not limited to Vibrio bacteria, that might be 
present in fresh or frozen molluscan shellfish.
    In evaluating the safety of a source of radiation to treat food 
intended for human consumption, the agency must identify the various 
effects that may result from irradiating the food and assess whether 
any of these effects pose a public health concern. In this regard, the 
following three areas of concern need to be addressed: (1) Potential 
toxicity, (2) nutritional adequacy, and (3) potential microbiological 
risk from the treated food. Each of these areas is discussed in detail 
in this document. FDA has fully considered the data and studies 
submitted in the subject petition as well as other data and information 
relevant to safety.

A. Analyses of Data by the World Health Organization

    Based on a joint FAO/IAEA/WHO\1\ Committee's conclusion on the 
toxicological, microbiological safety and nutritional adequacy of 
irradiated foods, the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) published 
its standard for irradiated foods in 1983 (revised in 2003) for 
adoption by Codex member countries (Refs. 1 and 2). This standard was 
based on the conclusion that the irradiation of any food commodity at 
an overall average dose of up to 10 kiloGray (kGy) presents no 
concerns. The newly revised standard (2003) states that the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FAO is the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 
Nations; IAEA is the International Atomic Energy Agency; and WHO is 
the World Health Organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [m]inimum absorbed dose should be sufficient to achieve the 
technological purpose and the maximum absorbed dose should be less 
than that which would compromise consumer safety, wholesomeness [of 
the food]
or would adversely affect structural integrity, functional 
properties, or sensory attributes. The maximum absorbed dose 
delivered to a food should not exceed 10 kGy, except when necessary 
to achieve a legitimate technological purpose.
    (Ref. 2) The original version of the standard explains in a 
footnote that ``wholesomeness [in the context of the standard]
refers 
to safety for consumption of irradiated foods from the toxicological 
point of view * * * and that irradiation up to an overall average dose 
of 10 kGy introduces no special nutritional or microbiological problems.''
    FDA did not adopt the 1983 Codex recommendations because, at that 
time, it had not sufficiently analyzed the issues of nutritional 
adequacy and microbiological safety for all foods at all doses, nor had 
the agency pursued the analysis of toxicity beyond the examination of 
individual studies (62 FR 64107 at 64112, December 3, 1997).
    At the request of one of its member states, WHO conducted a 
subsequent review and analysis of the safety data on irradiated food 
(Ref. 3). WHO

[[Page 48059]]

considered the extent to which data on one type of food can be 
extrapolated to other foods and the extent to which individual studies 
of irradiated foods can be integrated into a single database to be 
evaluated as a whole, as opposed to separate evaluations of a series of 
individual studies (62 FR 64107 at 64112). This review included all of 
the studies in FDA's files considered to be reasonably complete by the 
agency, as well as those studies that appeared to be acceptable but had 
some deficiencies interfering with interpretation of the data (51 FR 
13376 at 13378, April 18, 1986). WHO's review also included data from 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and from the Federal Research 
Centre for Nutrition at Karlsruhe, Germany (62 FR 64107 at 64112). WHO 
concluded that while levels of some vitamins are decreased when food is 
irradiated at doses relevant for food irradiation, few vitamins are 
severely affected, with the exception of thiamine and vitamin E. 
However, these losses are small (on the order of 10 to 20 percent or 
less) at or below an overall average absorbed dose of 10 kGy and are 
comparable to losses seen with other forms of food processing, such as 
thermal processing and drying (Ref. 3).

B. Radiation Chemistry

    Scientists have compiled a large body of data regarding the effects 
of ionizing radiation on different foods under various conditions of 
irradiation. These data indicate that the effects of ionizing radiation 
on the characteristics of treated foods are a direct result of the 
chemical reactions induced by the absorbed radiation. The types and 
amounts of products generated by radiation-induced chemical reactions 
(``radiolysis products'') depend on both the chemical constituents of 
the food and on the specific conditions of irradiation. The principles 
of radiation chemistry also govern the extent of change, if any, in 
both the nutrient levels and the microbial load of irradiated foods. 
For a detailed discussion and evaluation of radiation chemistry, 
nutrition, toxicology, and microbiology related to irradiation of 
flesh-based foods under various conditions of use, see the agency's 
final rule permitting the irradiation of meat (62 FR 64107). In the 
current rulemaking, FDA has reviewed relevant data and information 
regarding radiation chemistry as it applies specifically to fresh or 
frozen molluscan shellfish irradiated at absorbed doses not to exceed 
5.5 kGy.
    The major components of fresh or frozen molluscan shellfish are 
water, protein, and lipid. Irradiation of water produces reactive 
hydroxyl and hydrogen radicals. These radicals can either recombine to 
form water, hydrogen gas, or hydrogen peroxide, or react with other 
components of molluscan shellfish. While the most significant effect of 
radiation-processing on the protein and lipid components of fresh or 
frozen molluscan shellfish results from the chemical reactions induced 
by hydroxyl radicals generated from the radiolysis of the water, 
radiolysis products of protein and lipid may also result from directly 
absorbed radiation. These radiolysis products, however, form in very 
small amounts and are usually the same as compounds found in foods that 
have not been irradiated (Ref. 4).
    The amounts of radiolysis products generated in a particular food 
are directly proportional to the radiation dose. Therefore, FDA can 
draw conclusions about the amounts of radiolysis products expected to 
be generated at radiation doses relevant to the subject petition by 
extrapolating from data obtained at higher doses for foods of similar 
composition irradiated under similar conditions. In general, the types 
of products generated by irradiation are similar to those products 
produced by other methods of food processing, such as canning, cooking, 
etc., because all chemical reactions caused by the addition of energy 
must follow the laws of chemistry. The radiation chemistry of food is 
also strongly influenced by the physical state of the food (solid, 
liquid, dry, or frozen) during irradiation. For example, the extent of 
chemical change that occurs in a particular food in the dry or frozen 
state will be less than the change that occurs in the same food when 
liquid water is present, all other conditions (including dose and 
ambient atmosphere) being equal, because indirect reaction products 
from water will be minimized (Ref. 5).
    During the course of reviewing chemical effects of irradiation as 
part of the evaluation of this and other petitions, FDA became aware of 
a reference that suggested that irradiating apple juice may produce 
furan (Ref. 6). Because furan has been shown to cause cancer in 
laboratory animals, FDA initiated research on whether the referenced 
report was accurate and whether furan was a common radiolysis product 
in food. FDA has confirmed that certain foods form furan in low 
quantities when irradiated and also that some foods form furan when 
heated. Studies on the irradiation of molluscan shellfish show that if 
furan is formed when molluscan shellfish are irradiated, it is formed 
at levels that are undetectable, or below the background levels of 
natural furan formation (Ref. 7). Therefore, the consumption of 
irradiated molluscan shellfish will not increase the amount of furan in 
the diet and is not an issue with this petition.
    In the Federal Registers of May 2, 1990 (55 FR 18538), and December 
3, 1997 (62 FR 64107), FDA issued final rules permitting the use of 
ionizing radiation for the control of foodborne pathogens in poultry 
and meat, respectively (referred to henceforth as the poultry and meat 
final rules). In the poultry final rule, the agency concluded that 
poultry irradiated at a dose not to exceed 3 kGy was safe. In the meat 
final rule, the agency concluded that refrigerated uncooked meat, meat 
byproducts, and meat food products, as defined in Title 9 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (CFR), irradiated at doses up to 4.5 kGy are 
safe, and that frozen meat, meat by-products, and meat food products 
irradiated at doses up to 7.0 kGy are safe. Because meat is high in 
protein, lipid, and water, the radiation chemistry of proteins, lipids, 
and water (in both the liquid and frozen state) was extensively 
discussed in the meat final rule. The radiation chemistry of proteins 
and lipids discussed in the meat final rule is also relevant to other 
flesh foods, including foods such as poultry and fish, that may be 
referred to as ``meat'' in common usage, but that do not conform to the 
definition of meat in Title 9 of the CFR. Molluscan shellfish, 
depending on the species, differ from other flesh foods in that they 
contain between 2 and 6 percent carbohydrate, up to 20 percent protein, 
and up to 10 percent fat; the remainder is primarily water. While the 
carbohydrate level is higher than in other flesh foods, the level is 
still low.
1. Protein
    With respect to proteins, several types of reactions can occur as a 
result of irradiation. One type of reaction is the breaking of a small 
number of peptide bonds to form polypeptides of shorter length than the 
original protein. Radiation-induced aggregation or cross-linking of 
individual polypeptide chains can also occur; these processes result in 
protein denaturation. In irradiated flesh foods, most of the radiolytic 
products derived from proteins have the same chemical composition 
regardless of the protein sources, but are altered in their secondary 
and tertiary structures. These changes are similar to those that occur 
as a result of heating, but in the case of irradiation, such changes 
are far less pronounced and the amounts of reaction products generated 
are far lower (Refs. 4 and 8). Studies have established that

[[Page 48060]]

there is little change in the amino acid composition of fish irradiated 
at doses below 50 kGy (Ref. 9), which is well above the petitioned 
maximum absorbed dose for molluscan shellfish. Therefore, no 
significant change in the amino acid composition of fresh or frozen 
molluscan shellfish is expected to occur under the conditions set forth 
in this regulation.
2. Carbohydrate
    The main effects of ionizing radiation on carbohydrates in foods 
have been reviewed previously in the literature and by WHO (Refs. 5, 
10, and 11). One of the main effects of ionizing radiation is the 
abstraction of hydrogen from the carbon-hydrogen bonds of the 
carbohydrate, resulting in directly ionizing and exciting the 
carbohydrate molecule. Carbohydrate radicals may result from ionization 
of monosaccharides such as glucose or polysaccharides such as starch. 
Radiolysis products formed from starches of different origin are 
reported to be qualitatively similar (Refs. 5 and 11). In 
polysaccharides, the glycosidic linkages between constituent 
monosaccharide units may be broken, resulting in the shortening of 
polysaccharide chains and reduction in the viscosity of polysaccharides 
in solution. Starch may be degraded into dextrins, maltose, and 
glucose. Sugar acids, ketones, and other sugar monosaccharides may also 
be formed as a result of ionizing radiation. Irradiation of 
carbohydrates at doses up to 10 kGy has minimal effect on the 
carbohydrate functionality. The overall effects of ionizing radiation 
are the same as those caused by cooking and other food processing 
treatments. Carbohydrates that are present as a component of food are 
less sensitive to the effects of irradiation than pure carbohydrates 
(Ref. 5). No significant change in the carbohydrate composition of 
fresh or frozen molluscan shellfish is expected to occur under the 
conditions set forth in this regulation, i.e., a maximum absorbed dose 
of 5.5 kGy.
3. Lipid
    The meat final rule also discussed the radiation chemistry of 
lipids (predominantly triglycerides in meat). A variety of radiolysis 
products derived from lipids have been identified, including fatty 
acids, esters, aldehydes, ketones, alkanes, alkenes, and other 
hydrocarbons (Refs. 12 and 13). Identical or analogous compounds, 
however, are also found in foods that have not been irradiated. In 
particular, heating food produces the same types of compounds, but in 
amounts far greater than the trace amounts produced from irradiating 
food (Refs. 4 and 14). In addition, alkylcyclobutanones (ACBs), which 
are formed in small quantities when fats are exposed to ionizing 
radiation, have been identified in meat and poultry. The specific ACBs 
formed will depend on the fatty acid composition of the food. For 
example, 2-dodecylcyclobutanone (2-DCB) has been reported to be formed 
from palmitic acid in amounts from 0.3 to 0.6 microgram per gram lipid 
per kGy (microg/g lipid/kGy) from irradiated chicken (Ref. 15). Other 
researchers have found that (2--DCB) is formed at significantly lower 
rates, 0.04 microg/g lipid/kGy from ground beef (Ref. 16). For 
comparison, ground beef tallow contains approximately 25 percent 
palmitic acid and chicken fat contains approximately 22 percent 
palmitic acid.
    One major difference between fish (including shellfish and finfish) 
and other flesh foods is the predominance of polyunsaturated fatty 
acids (PUFAs) in the lipid phase of fish. PUFAs are a subclass of 
lipids that have a higher degree of unsaturation in the hydrocarbon 
chain than the saturated (e.g., stearic acid) or monounsaturated (e.g., 
oleic acid) fatty acids. Due to the higher level of unsaturation, PUFAs 
are generally more readily oxidized than saturated fatty acids. 
Therefore, PUFAs could be more radiation-sensitive than other lipid 
components, as observed in some studies of irradiated oil. However, 
evidence from meat studies suggests that the protein component of meat 
may protect lipids from oxidative damage (Ref. 5). Because the lipid 
fraction of meat consists primarily of saturated and monounsaturated 
fatty acids with negligible quantities of PUFAs, FDA did not explicitly 
address the radiation chemistry of PUFAs in its previous reviews.
    The effects of irradiation on PUFAs in fish have been described in 
several studies reviewed by FDA. Adams et al. studied the effects of 
radiation on the concentration of PUFAs in herring and showed that 
irradiation of herring fillets at sterilizing doses (50 kGy), well 
above the petitioned maximum dose for molluscan shellfish, had no 
effect on the concentration of PUFAs (Ref. 17). Similarly, Armstrong et 
al. conducted research on the effects of radiation on fatty acid 
composition in fish and concluded that no significant changes occurred 
in the fatty acid profiles upon irradiation at 1, 2, or 6 kGy (Ref. 
18). The authors also concluded that variations in fatty acid 
composition between individual samples were greater than any radiation-
induced changes.
    Sant'ana and Mancini-Filho studied the effects of radiation on the 
distribution of fatty acids in fish (Ref. 19). They studied two 
monounsaturated fatty acids and seven PUFAs (including three different 
omega-3 fatty acids) before and after irradiation at doses up to 3 kGy. 
The authors observed insignificant changes in the concentration of 
total monounsaturated fatty acids and an approximately 13 percent 
decrease in total PUFAs at the highest dose, largely attributable to a 
loss of the long chain PUFAs, including docosahexaenoic acid. The 
overall change for essential fatty acids (e.g., linoleic and linolenic 
acids) was minimal (less than 3 percent). The authors also observed an 
increase in lipid oxidation based on levels of thiobarbituric acid 
reactive substances, but noted that antioxidants such as tocopherol 
protect against lipid oxidation (Ref. 4).
    In addition, a study summarized in an International Consultative 
Group on Food Irradiation monograph compared the fatty acid composition 
of unirradiated and irradiated herring oil (Ref. 20). The profile for 
12 fatty acids was compared to controls 1 day and 28 days after 
irradiation. Only two fatty acids appeared to have decreased by day 28 
following irradiation at 50 kGy (Ref. 4).
    Research conducted by FDA on various species of seafood also 
demonstrated that the concentrations of PUFAs are not significantly 
affected by irradiation (Refs. 21 and 22). Therefore, based on the 
totality of evidence, the agency concludes that no significant loss of 
PUFAs is expected to occur in the diet under the conditions of 
irradiation set forth in this regulation. In summary, FDA's review of 
the radiation chemistry of proteins and lipids in the subject petition 
raises no issues that have not been considered previously in the meat 
and poultry final rules (Ref. 4).

C. Assessment of Potential Toxicity

    In the safety evaluation of irradiated meat and poultry, the agency 
examined all of the available data from toxicological studies relevant 
to the safety of irradiated flesh-based foods, including studies on 
fish high in PUFAs. These included 24 long-term feeding studies, 10 
reproduction/teratology studies, and 15 genotoxicity studies with 
flesh-based foods irradiated at doses from 6 to 74 kGy. No 
toxicologically significant adverse effects attributable to irradiated 
flesh foods were observed in any of the studies (62 FR 64107 at 64112 
and 64114).

[[Page 48061]]

    The proposed maximum absorbed dose of 5.5 kGy for fresh and frozen 
molluscan shellfish in the subject petition is somewhat higher than the 
currently permitted maximum dose for the irradiation of non-frozen 
meat. However, FDA previously evaluated the long-term toxicological 
studies of flesh foods fed at a range that includes absorbed doses that 
are either similar to or considerably higher than the absorbed dose 
requested in this petition. In addition, the absorbed dose exceeded 50 
kGy in many studies with no adverse effects reported. Therefore, these 
data demonstrate that molluscan shellfish irradiated at levels up to 
the dose proposed in this petition will not present a toxicological 
hazard (Ref. 8).
    In summary, FDA has reviewed a large body of data relevant to the 
assessment of potential toxicity of irradiated foods. While all of the 
studies are not of equal quality or rigor, the agency concludes that 
the quantity and breadth of testing and the number and significance of 
endpoints assessed would have identified any real or meaningful risk. 
The overwhelming majority of studies showed no evidence of toxicity. On 
those few occasions when adverse effects have been reported, FDA finds 
that those effects have not been consistently produced in related 
studies conducted at a higher dose or longer duration, as would be 
expected if the effects were attributable to irradiation (62 FR 64107 
at 64112 and 64114). Therefore, based on the totality of evidence, FDA 
concludes that irradiation of fresh and frozen molluscan shellfish 
under the conditions proposed in this petition does not present a 
toxicological hazard.

D. Microbiological Profile of Molluscan Shellfish

    Vibrio bacteria predominate in estuarine environments, and 
consequently, are naturally present in most finfish and shellfish (Ref. 
23). Most cases of reported diseases attributed to Vibrio species are 
associated with consumption of raw molluscan shellfish, particularly 
raw oysters. Although Vibrio species from shellfish infect relatively 
few individuals, they can cause severe illness, including mortality. Of 
the 12 Vibrio species known to cause human infections, 8 have been 
associated with consumption of food. V. parahaemolyticus and V. 
vulnificus are most commonly isolated from oysters. V. vulnificus is 
associated with 95 percent of all seafood-related deaths in the United 
States (Ref. 24).
    In general, the subject petition relies on published or other 
publicly available information or material from previous food additive 
petitions to address microbiological issues. The petitioner has 
documented that Vibrio species in uncooked molluscan shellfish provide 
a significant public health risk. Vibrio bacteria are highly sensitive 
to ionizing radiation and are usually eliminated by doses as low as 0.5 
kGy. Published D<SUB>10</SUB> values\2\ for V. parahaemolyticus and 
other Vibrio species range from 0.02 to 0.4 kGy (Ref. 25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ D<SUB>10</SUB> is the absorbed dose of radiation required to 
reduce a bacterial population by 90 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Control of contaminating Salmonella or Listeria generally requires 
higher doses than for Vibrio species, because the D<SUB>10</SUB> values 
are higher, about 0.5 to 1.0 kGy and 0.4 to 0.6 kGy, respectively (Ref. 
26). Several publications referenced in the subject petition state that 
these three genera can be eliminated by doses well under 10 kGy. 
Numerous studies demonstrate that a dose of 5 kGy will reduce a 
population of Salmonella serotypes, Staphylococcus aureus, Shigella, 
and Vibrio by at least six log cycles. Other studies report 5-log 
reductions for Listeria and Salmonella at 2.3 kGy and 2.8 kGy. In 
addition, D<SUB>10</SUB> values for irradiation cited in published 
literature for several Salmonella serotypes in various fresh foods 
ranged from 0.2 to 0.9 kGy. Therefore, irradiation at doses up to the 
dose limit in the regulation could significantly reduce the populations 
of these organisms (Ref. 25).
    Clostridium botulinum (C. botulinum) type E can sometimes be found 
in seafood. Because this organism is relatively resistant to radiation, 
as compared to non-spore forming bacteria, the petitioner provided data 
regarding the likelihood that C. botulinum would grow and produce toxin 
in irradiated molluscan shellfish. Included in the petition's 
references is an in-depth discussion of the likelihood for outgrowth 
and toxin production by C. botulinum type E in fish (Ref. 27). The 
author cites studies conducted in his laboratory on the effect of 
storage temperature and irradiation on toxin production by C. botulinum 
type E in fish. In these studies, no toxin was detected after 
incubation with fish of up to 10\5\ organisms at 0 degrees Celsius for 
8 weeks, well beyond the shelf life of these products. At 5 degrees 
Celsius, no toxin was produced for up to 6 weeks of storage in 
inoculated fish that had not been irradiated or for up to 7 weeks when 
irradiated at 2 kGy. Thus, it took longer for toxin to be produced in 
the irradiated fish than in fish that were not irradiated. 
Additionally, the time required for toxin production, 7 weeks, is far 
beyond the shelf life of fresh seafood. Therefore, irradiation would 
not increase the risk from botulinum toxin.
    Current Hazard Assessment and Critical Control Point plans in 
effect for molluscan shellfish require storage under proper conditions, 
including maintenance at controlled temperatures. Therefore, 
irradiation can serve as an effective method for the primary intended 
use of eliminating populations of Vibrio species and other pathogens in 
molluscan shellfish without adding a significant risk from the growth 
of and toxin production by C. botulinum type E (Ref. 25).
    The subject petition includes data and information that support the 
effectiveness of the proposed irradiation of fresh and frozen molluscan 
shellfish at a maximum absorbed dose of 5.5 kGy to control Vibrio 
species and other foodborne pathogens. While the data show that 
irradiation is effective in reducing the levels of Vibrio species and 
other bacteria in fresh and frozen molluscan shellfish, the data also 
show that irradiation will not increase the risk of toxin production 
from germinated spores of C. botulinum type E.
    Based on the available data and information, FDA concludes that 
irradiation of fresh or frozen molluscan shellfish conducted in 
accordance with current good manufacturing practices will reduce or 
eliminate bacterial populations with no increased microbial risk from 
pathogens that may survive the irradiation process.

E. Nutritional Considerations

    Lipids are a component of molluscan shellfish contributing 
approximately 20 to 30 percent to the caloric value of molluscan 
shellfish. PUFAs are a significant source of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty 
acids and are therefore nutritionally important components of the fat 
of molluscan shellfish. As noted in section II.A of this document, PUFA 
levels were not reduced significantly by ionizing radiation. 
Additionally, the amount of omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs can vary widely 
within a single species and between species of molluscan shellfish. The 
omega-3 fatty acid content among most species varies within a factor of 
2, and the total PUFA content can vary by more than a factor of 10 
(omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs) within an individual species. Furthermore, 
molluscan shellfish are only one of several fish sources of long chain 
PUFAs. Because of the variety of seafood sources of long chain PUFAs, 
the variation of fatty acid content in molluscan shellfish, and the 
observed insensitivity of PUFAs to irradiation, FDA concludes that 
irradiation of fresh

[[Page 48062]]

and frozen molluscan shellfish under the conditions proposed will not 
adversely affect the nutritional adequacy of the diet with respect to 
PUFAs (Ref. 8).
    Molluscan shellfish contain several B-vitamins including thiamine, 
niacin, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12.\3\ Individual food intake data is 
available from nationwide surveys conducted by the USDA. These surveys 
were designed to monitor the types and amounts of foods eaten by 
Americans and food consumption patterns in the U.S. population. FDA 
routinely uses these data to estimate exposure to various foods, food 
ingredients, and food contaminants. The relative contribution of the 
food category ``shellfish and fish (excluding canned tuna)'' is less 
than 3 percent of the dietary intake for thiamine, niacin, and vitamin 
B6 (Ref. 28). Fish and shellfish are, however, significant contributors 
to vitamin B12 intake among U.S. adults, contributing to approximately 
20 percent of the total vitamin B12 intake.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Dietary sources of nutrients have been evaluated using the 
1994/1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Irradiation of any food, regardless of the dose, has no effect on 
the levels of minerals that are present in trace amounts (Ref. 5). 
Levels of certain vitamins, on the other hand, may be reduced as a 
result of irradiation. The extent to which this reduction occurs 
depends on the specific vitamin, the type of food, and the conditions 
of irradiation. Not all vitamin loss is nutritionally significant, 
however, and the extent to which a reduction in a specific vitamin 
level is significant depends on the relative contribution of the food 
in question to the total dietary intake of the vitamin. While thiamine 
is among the most radiation sensitive, the more nutritionally 
significant vitamin in fish and shellfish, vitamin B12, is extremely 
resistant to radiation.
    Based on the available data and information, FDA concludes that 
irradiation of fresh or frozen molluscan shellfish under the conditions 
set forth in the regulation in this document will have no adverse 
impact on the nutritional adequacy of the diet.

III. Comments

    FDA has received numerous letters, primarily form letters, from 
individuals that state their opinions regarding the potential dangers 
and unacceptability of irradiating food. None of these letters contain 
any substantive information that can be used in a safety evaluation of 
irradiated molluscan shellfish.
    Additionally, FDA received several comments from Public Citizen 
(PC) and the Center for Food Safety (CFS) requesting the denial of this 
and other food irradiation petitions. The comments were largely of a 
general nature and not necessarily specific to the petitioned requests. 
Some of the comments specifically questioned a report of a Joint FAO/
IAEA/WHO Study Group on the wholesomeness of foods irradiated with 
doses above 10 kGy. Because the comments were addressed to the Docket 
for this rulemaking, the comments and FDA's response are discussed as 
follows:

A. Studies Reviewed in the 1999 FAO/IAEA/WHO Report on High-Dose 
Irradiation

     (1) One comment states that the petition should be denied because 
there are four positive studies mentioned but mischaracterized in the 
1999 FAO/IAEA/WHO report on high-dose irradiation. The comment states:
    The 1999 FAO/IAEA/WHO report is the most detailed recent review 
of food irradiation safety. CFS [Center for Food Safety]
anticipates 
that FDA will seek to rely on it. It is critical that FDA understand 
the defects in that report before making a determination on the 
above-referenced additive petition...the four studies were 
incorrectly classified as ``negative for high-dose irradiation 
effect, possible effect of nutrition or diet.''* * *
    The 1999 FAO/IAEA/WHO report acknowledged the Anderson et al. 
study (on laboratory animal diets) showed ``evidence of weakly 
mutagenic effect'' with one diet that was irradiated, yet it 
classified the study as ``negative for high-dose irradiation effect, 
possible effect of nutrition or diet'' (p. 117). However, no 
indication exists that the irradiated standard PRD laboratory diet 
that produced the mutagenic effect was otherwise deficient. Further, 
the unirradiated control PRD diet did not produce the mutagenic 
effect. Anderson et al. found irradiation of the diet produced the 
effect. The 1999 FAO/IAEA/WHO report's classification of the study 
as ``negative'' was unfounded. (Emphasis in original.)
    In the study performed by Anderson et al. (1981) mice were fed four 
laboratory diets irradiated at 10 kGy, 25 kGy, and 50 kGy (Ref. 29). 
Mice were also fed unirradiated diets as a negative control. 
Additionally, mice were injected intraperitoneally with a known 
mutagen, cyclophosphamide, at 200 mg per kg of body weight (mg/kg body 
weight) as a positive control. The study report stated that mice 
consuming one diet (PRD diet)\4\ irradiated at 50 kGy resulted in a 
slight increase in post-implantation deaths over the unirradiated diet 
when compared to the positive control. The other three irradiated diets 
showed no significant increases in early post-implantation death. The 
comment provides no information to explain why the Anderson et al. 
study on radiation-sterilized laboratory diets should be considered 
relevant to the conditions proposed in this petition for the 
irradiation of molluscan shellfish to a maximum absorbed dose that will 
not exceed 5.5 kGy. Moreover, the comment provides no analysis of the 
study and no information to demonstrate that the ``weakly mutagenic 
effect'' associated with the laboratory diet irradiated at 50 kGy is 
attributable to irradiation of the diet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The PRD diet is a formulation of 5.125 g/100 g Barley, 10.0 
g/100 g maize meal, 18.125 g/100 g oats (Sussex Ground), 20.0 g/100 
g wheat, 20.0 g/100 g wheat feed, 5.0 g/100 g white fish meal (crude 
protein 66 percent), 2.5 g/100 g yeast, 10.0 g/100 g soya extract, 
7.5 g/100 g dry skimmed milk (crude protein 33), 0.75 g/100 g salt 
(NaCl), and a 1.0 percent vitamin mineral supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The comment states that ``[a]
thorough discussion of the 
Bugyaki et al. study in a 1970 FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committee report 
highlighted it as a significant positive finding.'' The comment goes on 
to state:
    The 1999 FAO/IAEA/WHO report admitted that Bugyaki et al. showed 
``chromosomal abnormalities in germ cells due to formation of 
peroxides and radicals,'' but - without explanation - classified the 
study as ``negative for high-dose irradiation effect, possible 
effect of nutrition or diet'' (p. 118). That is plain inconsistency; 
the `peroxides and radicals' resulted from the irradiation (see 
Bugyaki et al., at p. 118: ``... some of the changes produced by 
radiation -- the free radicals for example -- will disappear with 
time.'' [translated from French]). Further, the same Expert 
Committee agreed 29 years earlier that Bugyaki et al. demonstrated 
``certain disturbing effects'' of high dose irradiation. That 
Committee did not discount the effects as artifacts of nutrition or 
diet, as the 1999 Committee did. The 1999 FAO/IAEA/WHO report's 
classification of this study as `negative' again lacks a rational 
foundation. (Emphasis in original.)
    In Bugyaki et al., a 1968 report on irradiated wheat, mice were fed 
a diet containing 50 percent freshly irradiated wheat meal (50 kGy); 
the balance was basic food powder (the basic food powder was described 
by the author to contain 55 percent vegetable matter, 35 percent animal 
matter, and 10 percent complementary nutrients) (Ref. 30). Control 
animals were fed a diet containing 50 percent wheat that had not been 
irradiated with the balance being the basic food powder. Because the 
authors were concerned that compression into pellets may affect the 
irradiated foods, the animals were fed the food in powder form. The 
authors note that there were readily observable

[[Page 48063]]

physical and chemical changes in the wheat meal irradiated at 50 kGy.
    The authors state that both the treated and untreated animals 
developed tumors. However, the tumors found in the treated animals were 
different than the tumors found in the untreated animals. The authors 
note that the treated animals had a slight increase in anatomic-
pathological lesions; however, they go on to state that there was no 
well defined damage. Additionally, they state that there were 
alterations in the meiotic chromosomes of the treated animals. The 
authors conclude that animals consuming a large part of their diet 
irradiated at doses as high as 50 kGy may deserve special attention.
    The comment provides no information to demonstrate why the Bugyaki 
et al study on freshly irradiated wheat at 50 kGy is relevant to the 
conditions proposed in this petition for the irradiation of molluscan 
shellfish to a maximum absorbed dose that will not exceed 5.5 kGy. 
Foods irradiated at such a high dose often require careful control of 
temperature and atmosphere to prevent compositional changes that would 
make them unsuitable for food use. The agency notes that several long 
term feeding studies using foods irradiated under appropriate 
conditions at doses greater than 50 kGy demonstrated no toxicological 
effects that could be attributed to the irradiated foods.
    (3) The comment states:
    The 1999 FAO/IAEA/WHO report states the study performed by 
Moutschen-Dahmen et al. showed ``increased pre-implantation 
embryonic deaths; not confirmed by cytological analysis'' and 
classified the study as ``negative for high-dose irradiation effect, 
possible effect of nutrition or diet'' (p. 115). The suggestion of 
an effect of nutrition or diet is unsupported. (Emphasis in original.)
    The agency has previously addressed the study by Moutschen-Dahmen 
et al. (51 FR 13376 at 13387) and noted:
    There was no increase in post-implantation losses. Post-
implantation losses, determined by counting dead embryos, are 
believed to be the most reliable and sensitive indicator of dominant 
lethality. The authors found only pre-implantation losses, which are 
much less sensitive than post-implantation losses and merely a 
measure of total implants dead or alive subtracted from the total 
number. In addition to the possibility that results of the study 
could be spurious, any number of factors other than dominant 
lethality may cause pre-implantation losses, such as a decrease in 
the number of eggs ovulated.
    If these effects were real, one would expect to see some effect 
on post implantation losses at a lower dose because post-
implantation losses are a much more sensitive indicator than pre-
implantation losses, as mentioned previously.
    The agency concluded:
    Although the findings reported may be statistically significant, 
the authors were uncertain as to what to attribute these results. 
They concluded that the most probable mechanism by which these 
effects could be produced would be via chromosomal aberration. The 
studies necessary to establish an association between these effects 
and chromosomal aberrations were not conducted. Additional treatment 
levels below that conducted as mentioned previously to detect post-
implantation losses or examinations of the 24 to 48 hour fertilized 
eggs could have proved better evidence of causality, but these 
studies were not conducted. Thus, although pre-implantation losses 
were observed, FDA concludes that there is no biological 
significance to this observation because it was not reproducible.
    The comment provides no information to demonstrate why the 
Moutschen-Dahmen et al. (Ref. 31) study (1970) in which mice were fed a 
laboratory chow diet, of which 50 percent was irradiated at 50 kGy is 
relevant to the conditions proposed in this petition for the 
irradiation of molluscan shellfish to a maximum absorbed dose that will 
not exceed 5.5 kGy. The study was designed to look for mutations that 
would be lethal to the animals. Further, the comment provides no 
information to demonstrate that the pre-implantation deaths were caused 
by dominant lethal mutations that were induced by the consumption of 
irradiated food. Finally, the comment provides no evidence to refute 
the agency's previous conclusion.
    (4) With regard to another study (Ref. 32), the comment states that:
    The 1999 FAO/IAEA/WHO report admits the study showed 
``significant increase in the mutation frequency induced by the high 
dose irradiated foods,'' but nevertheless classified the study as 
``negative for high-dose irradiation effect, possible effect of 
nutrition or diet'' (p. 115). This is patently contradictory; the 
`negative' classification again lacks explanation. (Emphasis in original.)
    In the study performed by Johnston-Arthur et al. (1975), Swiss 
albino mice were starved for 36 hours and then fed normal and 
irradiated ( 7.5 kGy, 15 kGy, and 30 kGy) laboratory chow for 7 hours 
(Ref. 32). The mice were then injected intraperitoneally with 
Salmonella typhimurium TA 1530 and the bacteria were incubated in the 
mice for 3 hours. The mice were then sacrificed and the bacteria were 
harvested and tested using the host-mediated assay test for 
mutagenicity. The results indicated a significant increase in the 
mutation frequency in the bacteria that were exposed to the 30 kGy-
sterilized food. No significant differences were observed in the 
bacteria that were harvested from the mice fed the 7.5 kGy and 15 kGy 
diet when compared with the control.
    The comment provides no information to demonstrate why the 
Johnston-Arthur et al. study on the irradiation sterilization of lab 
chow at 30 kGy is relevant to the irradiation of molluscan shellfish to 
a maximum absorbed dose that will not exceed 5.5 kGy. Moreover, 
mutation studies with S. typhimurium are intended to screen for 
possible mutations affecting animals that can be tested in long term 
animal studies. However, several properly conducted long term feeding 
studies performed on animals fed with foods irradiated at higher doses 
(up to 56 kGy) have shown no mutagenic effects to the subject animals.
    Finally, the agency notes that the subject of this regulation is 
the petition (FAP 9M4682) regarding shellfish and not the 1999 FAO/
IAEA/WHO report on high-dose irradiation. In its review of the 
published literature on the safety of irradiated foods, the agency 
finds that properly conducted animal feeding studies showed no evidence 
of toxicity attributable to irradiated food. On the few occasions when 
studies reported adverse effects, the effects were not consistently 
reproduced in related studies conducted with similar foods irradiated 
to doses equal to or higher than those for which the adverse effects 
were reported, as would be expected if the reported effect were a toxic 
effect caused by a radiolysis product (62 FR 64107 at 64112 and 64114).

B. Review Article

    One comment submitted a paper (Kevesan and Swaminathan, 1971) that 
reviewed studies performed in the 1950s and 1960s on irradiated 
substrates and irradiated foods (Ref. 33). The comment states that 
numerous studies from the 1950s and 1960s found a variety of toxic 
effects in animal feeding and in vitro studies, which on the whole cast 
doubt on the safety of the technology. The comment asks FDA to ``take a 
closer look at the host of past positive studies cited therein.''
    The comment further states:
    [A]ttempts to discount all of the past positive findings as 
aberrations, products of chance, or artifacts of diet will no longer 
suffice. These studies need further FDA review particularly in view 
of the 2003 Codex Alimentarius standard revision that allowed for 
higher absorbed doses of radiation than previously permitted.
    The agency notes that the subject of FAP 9M4682 is the irradiation 
of molluscan shellfish to a maximum absorbed does of 5.5 kGy, not the 
recently revised Codex standard. Furthermore, the authors of the paper 
referenced by the comment do not come to the conclusion that the 
comment implies. Rather, the study's authors

[[Page 48064]]

(Kevesan and Swaminathan) conclude that ``major deficiencies in the way 
some of the experiments have been designed and conducted coupled with 
inadequacy of genetic data urgently necessitates further investigations 
before concluding that the irradiated food materials `can be consumed 
with impunity'.''
    FDA agrees with the conclusions of the review article in the 
context of studies performed prior to 1970. However, many properly 
conducted studies have been performed after this review was written. As 
previously noted in this document, the agency finds that properly 
conducted animal feeding studies showed no evidence of toxicity 
attributable to irradiated food. On the few occasions when studies 
reported adverse effects, the effects were not consistently reproduced 
in related studies conducted with similar foods irradiated to doses 
equal to or higher than those for which the adverse effects were 
reported, as would be expected if the reported effect were a toxic 
effect caused by a radiolysis product (62 FR 64107 at 64112 and 64114). 
The comment provides no additional information that would cause the 
agency to change its conclusion on the safety of irradiated food.

C. Irradiated Strawberry

    One comment submitted a paper (Verschuuren, Esch, and Kooy, 1971) 
describing the effects of feeding rats irradiated strawberry-powder and 
irradiated strawberry-juice (Ref 34). The comment states that rats fed 
``irradiated strawberry powder supplement showed a statistically 
significant growth deficit compared to the control animals fed the same 
diet, including the powder supplement, but which was unirradiated.'' 
The comment goes on to state:
    FDA's internal reviewers in 1981 and 1982 (reviews are attached 
to study) twice classified the Verschurren (sic) et al. study as one 
the agency should ``accept'' without reservations, only to be later 
overridden by a third reviewer who was able to reclassify the study 
as ``reject.'' This change was based on the third reviewer's 
suggestion that the study was hampered by ``inadequate diet and 
restricted food intake,'' a surprising suggestion as nothing in the 
study supported that conclusion
    The comment misrepresents the conclusion of one of the reviewers 
who did the initial review of the study. Initially, the study was 
accepted by two reviewers. However, upon further review by one of the 
initial reviewers and a third reviewer, this paper was rejected in the 
secondary review because of inadequate diet and restricted food intake. 
The comment provides no information that would alter the agency's 
conclusion that some of the diets were incomplete and restricted. 
Moreover, the comment provides no information that explains why the 
consumption of irradiated strawberry-powder is relevant to the 
consumption of irradiated molluscan shellfish with a maximum absorbed 
dose of 5.5 kGy.

D. Reproduction Performance

    One comment states that a study conducted at Columbia University in 
1954 ``supports other studies that yielded adverse health effects, 
which our organizations have previously submitted to this docket.''
    The comment submitted part of a report, ``Termination Report--Part 
1, Food Irradiation and Associated Studies, September 15, 1954,'' which 
was conducted at Columbia University for the U.S. Atomic Energy 
Commission. The report compares the fertility of ``Professor Sherman's 
high generation rats'' that were fed either ``Sherman diet 16'' or a 
``modified Sherman diet''\5\ (milk powder was replaced by skim milk 
powder and irradiated butterfat). The report concluded that there was a 
significant decrease in the fertility of the rats fed the irradiated 
diet. The report also mentions that there is significant vitamin E 
destruction; however, the comment did not include the entire results 
and discussion section with the authors' discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The control diet was ``Sherman diet 16,'' consisting of 1000 
g ground whole wheat, 200 g whole milk powder, and 20 g salt. The 
``irradiated diet'' consisted of 1000 g ground whole wheat, 147 g 
skim milk powder, 53 g irradiated butterfat, and 20 g salt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDA reviewers have previously reviewed a subsequent publication of 
a report of this study (Ref. 35). At the time of the study, it was not 
well recognized that irradiation of fat in the presence of air can 
stimulate oxidation leading to rancidity and high levels of peroxides. 
Such rancidity can lead to nutritional deficiencies due to the animals 
reducing their food consumption and destruction of vitamins. FDA 
reviewers concluded that it appears that littermates were mated and 
that the females were mated almost continually, allowing little time 
for rest between litters. If there was a nutritional or oil 
peroxidation and palatability problems with the diet, it would be 
exacerbated by the continuous breeding of the females. Considering the 
report's mention of considerable vitamin E destruction, the effects 
seen appear to be the result of a nutritionally inadequate diet, not 
toxicity, and would not be relevant to irradiation of molluscan shellfish.

E. Mutagenicity Studies

    One comment states that the petition should be denied because the 
number of positive mutagenicity studies (including those discussed 
previously that were identified by the comment as mischaracterized or 
ignored) compares favorably with the number of negative studies. The 
comment states that ``[m]ore than one-third of both in vivo and in 
vitro studies are positive'' for mutagenicity, suggesting there is 
``bias in the official posture in support of the safety of irradiation.''
    The suggestion of the comment that FDA showed a ``bias in the 
official posture'' on the safety of the consumption of irradiated food 
is not supported by any substantive information.
    The Bureau of Foods Irradiated Foods Committee (BFIFC) recommended 
that foods irradiated at a dose above 1 kGy be evaluated using a 
battery of mutagenicity tests to assess whether long-term feeding 
studies in animals were necessary (Ref. 36). Mutagenicity studies are 
primarily used to screen for potential mutagenic effects. Animal 
feeding studies are more reliable for determining the true mutagenic 
potential of a compound that is consumed in food (Ref 37). Moreover, 
one cannot draw valid conclusions from data simply by summing positive 
and negative results without fully evaluating the individual studies 
and assessing what conclusions such studies support and considering the 
totality of evidence. If the occasional report of a mutagenic effect 
were valid and significant to health, one should have seen consistent 
adverse toxicological effects in the many long term and reproduction 
studies with animals. This has not been the case.

 F. International Opinions

    The comment states that the petition should be denied because ``[a]
majority of Parliamentary Members voted for a provision that the EU's 
list of foods authorised (sic) for irradiation should not be 
expanded,'' and ``[a]
working group of the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission's Contaminants and Food Additives Committee in November, 
2002, recommended against approval of a Codex proposal to remove the 
present 10 kiloGray radiation dose cap, which would allow any foods to 
be irradiated at any dose -- regardless of how high. (Emphasis in 
original.)''
    The agency notes that the subject of this regulation is the 
petition (FAP 9M4682) to permit irradiating shellfish at a dose up to 
5.5 kGy, not whether the maximum dose in the Codex General Standard for 
Irradiated Foods should be

[[Page 48065]]

raised above 10 kGy. The act requires FDA to issue a regulation 
authorizing safe use of an additive when safety has been demonstrated 
under the proposed conditions of use. FDA notes that the Codex General 
Standard for Irradiated Foods has recently been revised (Codex 2003) by 
supplanting reference to a maximum overall average dose of 10 kGy with 
the statement that ``[t]he maximum absorbed dose delivered to a food 
should not exceed 10 kGy, except when necessary to achieve a legitimate 
technological purpose.'' (Ref. 2). The comment fails to demonstrate why 
the debate within Codex leading up to this change is relevant to the 
conditions proposed in this petition for the irradiation of molluscan 
shellfish to a maximum absorbed dose that will not exceed 5.5 kGy.
    One comment states that the petition should be denied because of a 
report published by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and 
Development (OECD) which states:
    Hitherto available data indicate, however, that increased rates 
of mutation and chromosomal aberration will probably be induced in 
certain cases. Although experiments indicate that the genetical 
(sic) effect, in cases where it is induced, is relatively small 
compared to the effect of direct exposure of animals to radiation, 
the same experiments indicate that the possible effect will not be 
negligible.
    The comment goes on to state that ``[r]ather than being refuted by 
subsequent evidence, the OECD's statement regarding likely induction of 
mutations and chromosomal aberration has been confirmed in many 
studies, cited in this and our earlier comments.''
    The 1965 OECD report, entitled ``Steering Committee for Nuclear 
Energy Study Group on Food Irradiation,'' reflects scientific 
understanding at the time it was written (Ref. 38). The document is a 
compendium of published and unpublished (at the time) reports on the 
effect of irradiated substances on a variety of organisms. The report 
concluded that ``it is impossible to arrive at any definite conclusion 
as to the presence or absence of genetic effects if irradiated food 
were used for human consumption or for animal feeding.'' Furthermore, 
the report states that more rigorous studies should be performed and 
when contradictory results are found, the reasons should be determined. 
Since the report was compiled in 1965 numerous studies have been 
performed on the effects of consuming irradiated foods in multiple 
animal species and in humans. Starting in the 1980's, FDA has reviewed 
these and other studies, and while many of these studies cannot 
individually establish safety, they still provided important 
information that, when evaluated collectively, supports a conclusion 
that there is no reason to believe that irradiation of flesh foods 
presents a toxicological hazard. The comment provides no evidence to 
refute the agency's conclusion.

G. Alkylcyclobutanones

    One comment states that ``certain chemical by-products formed in 
food that has been irradiated, known as cyclobutanones, could be toxic 
enough to cause significant DNA damage, potentially leading to 
carcinogenic and mutagenic effects.'' In addition, the comment states 
that ``[t]wo major international food safety groups -- CCFAC (Codex 
Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants), and SCF (The Scientific 
Committee on Food of the European Commission) -- deemed the indications 
of toxicity strong enough to necessitate considerable additional study.''
    2-ACBs have been reported as radiolysis products of fats (Refs. 39a 
and 39b). Studies performed by researchers have reported that certain 
alkylcyclobutanones can cause single strand DNA breaks detectable by 
the COMET\6\ assay (Ref. 40). Several animal feeding studies have been 
conducted with fat-containing foods irradiated at doses far higher than 
would be used on molluscan shellfish. If 2-ACBs, at the level present 
in irradiated foods, were of sufficient toxicity to cause significant 
DNA damage, one would expect to have seen adverse effects in those 
studies where animals were fed meat as a substantial part of their 
diet. Moreover, the COMET assay has not yet reached the level of 
reliability and reproducibility that is needed to be considered a 
standard procedure for testing potential genotoxins. At present, the 
assay is of value primarily in basic research of cellular response to 
DNA damage and repair, in both in vitro and in vivo systems (Ref. 41).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Single cell gel electrophoresis or `Comet assay' is a rapid 
and very sensitive fluorescent microscopic method to examine DNA 
damage and repair at individual cell level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, contrary to what is implied by the comment, the Scientific 
Committee on Foods of the European Commission concluded, in July 2002, 
``[a]s the adverse effects noted refer almost entirely to in vitro 
studies, it is not appropriate, on the bases of these results, to make 
a risk assessment for human health associated with the consumption of 
2-ACBs present in irradiated fat-containing foods.'' The genotoxicity 
of 2-ACBs has not been established by the standard genotoxicity assays 
nor are there any adequate animal feeding studies in existence to 
determine no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) for various 
alkylcyclobutanones. Reassurance as to the safety of irradiated fat-
containing food can be based on the large number of feeding studies 
carried out with irradiated foods which formed the basis for the 
wholesomeness assessments of irradiated foods published by FAO/IAEA/WHO.
    Moreover, researchers have recently demonstrated that 2-DCB does 
not induce mutations in the Salmonella mutagenicity test or 
intrachromosomal recombination in Saccharomyces cerevisiae or the 
Escherichia coli tryptophan reverse mutation assay (Refs. 42 and 43). A 
further study, published in 2004, has demonstrated that the Ames assay 
showed no difference between 5 concentrations of 2-DCB and the 
controls, including samples incubated with S9. The results indicate 
that 2-DCB does not produce point or frameshift mutations in Salmonella 
and is not activated by S9. The study also investigated the toxicity of 
2-DCB and concluded ``that the potential risk from 2-DCB, if any, is 
very low'' (Ref. 44).
    One comment states that 2-DCB is a unique radiolysis byproduct of 
palmitic acid, and ``[b]ecause palmitic acid appears in molluscan 
shellfish in varying quantities and high percentages, the FDA should 
refrain from considering the petition until potential cytotoxicity and 
genotoxicity of 2-DCB in each type of shellfish covered by the petition 
is thoroughly studied.''
    FDA agrees that 2-DCB is a radiation by-product of triglycerides 
with esterified palmitic acid and that molluscan shellfish contain 
significant amounts of such triglycerides. FDA previously reviewed 
studies in which animals were fed diets containing irradiated meat, 
poultry, and fish which contain triglycerides with palmitic acid (62 FR 
64107 at 64113), and concluded that no adverse effects were associated 
with the consumption of these irradiated flesh foods. The comment 
provides no evidence to refute the agency's conclusion regarding the 
irradiation of molluscan shellfish to a maximum absorbed dose that will 
not exceed 5.5 kGy.
    One comment states that two studies by Delinc[eacute]e et al. on 
the potential genotoxicity of 2-DCB were mischaracterized in the 1999 
FAO/IAEA/WHO report. The comment states that while ``[t]he 1999 FAO/
IAEA/WHO report properly labeled Study 5 as demonstrating a `possible 
effect of high-dose irradiation.'* * * it rationalized this by saying 
the level of the lipid

[[Page 48066]]

present in the experiment was three orders of magnitude greater than 
the normal lipid level in chicken meat.'' In addition, the comment 
states that ``[s]tudy 6 did not, in fact, use an `extremely high level' 
of 2-DCB as claimed in the WHO Secretariat's proof note. The level of 
2-DCB, according to the researchers, was carefully calibrated and 
multiplied by the appropriate toxicological safety factor, to determine 
the safety of chicken irradiated for shelf sterilization.'' In summary, 
the comment states that ``Delinc[eacute]e et al. conclude that applying 
the standard toxicological safety factor of 100 below the `no-effect 
level' means that 2-DCB failed the standard safety test'' and should be 
denied under Sec.  170.22 (21 CFR 170.22).
    In the first study cited, Delinc[eacute]e et al. incubated rat and 
human colon cells for 30 minutes in solutions containing 0.3-1.25 mg/ml 
2-DCB and determined by the COMET assay that there were single strand 
DNA breaks (Ref. 45). The authors also state that they observed a 
cytotoxic effect at increased concentration. Cytotoxicity can confound 
the results of the COMET assay such that standard protocols attempt to 
use concentrations below that producing cytotoxicity (Ref. 46). 
Delinc[eacute]e notes that the 2-DCB concentration in the lipid 
fraction of chicken irradiated at 58 kGy (Raltech study) is 17 microg/g 
lipid (Refs. 45 and 47). Thus, the concentration of 2-DCB used in the 
assay was 17 to 73 times higher than that in the lipid fraction of 
radiation sterilized chicken. As the average dose in the Raltech study 
was 10 times higher than the maximum dose requested in the shellfish 
petition, the concentration of 2-DCB and other alkylcyclobutanones 
would be far lower in the lipid fraction of shellfish than in the 
experiment by Delinc[eacute]e. Moreover, the concentration reported in 
the study cited is the concentration in a liquid solvent (solvent not 
reported) in direct contact with colon cells. As one would not consume 
pure irradiated lipid from shellfish, the concentration of any 2-DCB 
from shellfish would be diluted substantially by the major components 
in shellfish and further by other components being consumed 
simultaneously. Thus, cells in the colon of humans would be in contact 
with concentrations more than a thousand times lower than those used in 
Delinc[eacute]e's study. In the Raltech study in mice, chicken 
constituted 35 percent of the diet by dry weight, and there were no 
adverse toxicological effects that could be attributed to the 
consumption of irradiated chicken.
    In the second paper (Ref. 40), the authors administered 2-DCB to 
rats by pharyngeal tube at doses of 1.12 and 14.9 mg/kg body weight. 
They reported the higher concentration as equivalent to the amount 
found in 800 broiler chickens treated at 60 kGy (equivalent to 
approximately 40,000 wild eastern oysters irradiated at the maximum 
dose requested by the petition). They harvested colon cells from the 
rats 16 hours later and performed the COMET assay. Although the authors 
observed single strand DNA breaks at the higher concentration, no 
effect was seen at the lower concentration.
    In its review of studies in which animals were fed diets containing 
beef irradiated at 56 kGy, pork at 56 kGy, poultry at 6 kGy, fish at 6 
kGy, horse meat at 6.5 kGy, fish at 56 kGy, and others (62 FR 64107 at 
64113), the agency found no evidence of toxicity attributable to the 
consumption of various flesh foods, which contain esterified palmitic 
acid and other fatty acids, and which should also contain 2-DCB and 
other alkylcyclobutanones.
    Furthermore, the comment misrepresents the paper's conclusions. The 
comment states that the ``failure to pass the 100-fold safety factor'' 
means that 2-DCB fails the standard set under Sec.  170.22, and 
therefore, the petition should be denied. Contrary to what the comment 
implies, the authors did not conclude that the ``test failed the 100-
fold safety factor.'' Rather, the dose applied to the animals was set 
on the basis of calculations such that the lower dose would be 
equivalent to 100 times the amount of all 2-ACBs consumed if all fat in 
the diet were irradiated at a pasteurizing dose (3 kGy); and the larger 
dose was set to be 100 times the total alkylcyclobutanones from 
radiation sterilization (60 kGy) of all dietary fat. The authors noted 
that there was no effect at the lower dose and that the higher dose was 
equivalent to the amount from 800 radiation-sterilized broiler chickens 
and questioned this approach to the use of safety factors.
    FDA notes that Sec.  170.22 provides that ``[e]xcept where evidence 
is submitted which justifies use of a different safety factor, a safety 
factor in applying animal experimentation data to man of 100 to 1 will 
be used.'' FDA and food safety scientists worldwide have long agreed 
that the evaluation of the safety of irradiated foods requires 
consideration of the whole food, not the testing of each component 
(although identification of major radiolysis products will aid in the 
interpretation of data) (Ref. 5). Applying a 100-fold safety factor to 
a processed food is neither feasible nor rational. Similarly, testing 
each component of a food separately is impossible. There are too many 
components to test them all, and many food components that occur 
naturally will cause adverse effects if tested in isolation at an 
exaggerated dose. For example, naturally occurring food components, 
such as solanine from potatoes, tomatine from tomatoes or various 
vitamins and minerals, would cause toxic effects if consumed in amounts 
100 times greater than normal. Thus, requiring a 100-fold safety factor 
for each component of a food (that occurs naturally or is produced 
through processing) is not appropriate.
    An affidavit written by Dr. William Au that was submitted by CFS 
and PC, states that radiolysis compounds (e.g., 2-DCB) are formed 
during the irradiation of food and that ``[t]heir potential health 
hazard has not been adequately evaluated. Without conclusive evidence 
of the potential health consequences of these products, the safety of 
irradiated food cannot be assured.''
    The affidavit provides no basis to conclude that the multitude of 
studies on irradiated foods (which contain the radiolysis products 
referred to) are inappropriate for the evaluation of the safety of 
those foods. In FDA's review of the consumption of irradiated flesh 
foods for a previous petition on irradiated meat, FDA concluded that 
``the results of the available toxicological studies of irradiated 
flesh foods also demonstrates that a toxicological hazard is highly 
unlikely because no toxicologically significant adverse effects 
attributable to consumption of irradiated flesh foods were observed in 
any of these studies'' (62 FR 64107 at 64114). As those foods would 
have contained the radiolysis products, including 2-DCB, produced by 
the irradiation of fats, Dr. Au is incorrect in stating that its 
potential hazard to health has not been evaluated.
    One comment references a paper published in 2004 that summarizes 
the European testing of 2-ACBs. The comment quotes language from the 
paper stating that ``the in vitro and in vivo experiments with 
laboratory animals demonstrated that 2-ACBs have potential toxicity,'' 
and the comment states that ``the paper concludes that as far as the 
possibility of health hazards from consuming irradiated food, `further 
research is highly required''' (Ref. 48). The comment concludes by 
asserting that ``unfortunately, no comprehensive research on the 
toxicity of 2-ACBs has been undertaken to date, leaving this 
uncertainty as a huge obstacle to FDA's making a reliable decision on 
the five pending petitions.''
    FDA disagrees that the conclusions of this paper would prevent 
completing

[[Page 48067]]

the safety review of FAP 9M4682. The conclusions submitted by the 
comment selectively quote from the authors' conclusions. The authors 
state:
    Although our results point towards toxic, genotoxic and even 
tumor promoting activity of certain highly pure 2-ACBs, it should be 
emphasized that these experimental data are inadequate to 
characterize a possible risk associated with the consumption of 
irradiated fat containing food. Other food components may influence 
the reactions of 2-ACBs not evident from our experiments on purified 
2-ACBs. More knowledge is also needed about the kinetics and 
metabolism of 2-ACBs in the living organism. It would, therefore, at 
present be premature to draw the final conclusion that 2-ACBs are a 
health hazard on consumption of irradiated food, but further 
research is highly required.
    (Emphasis added) As previously noted in this document, FDA has 
reviewed studies in which animals were fed diets containing irradiated 
meat, poultry, and fish which contain triglycerides (62 FR 64107 at 
64113). The agency concluded that no adverse effects were associated 
with the consumption of these irradiated flesh foods. The comment 
provides no additional information that would alter the agency's 
conclusion that the consumption of irradiated fat-containing foods does 
not present any health hazard.

H. Promotion of Colon Cancer

    One comment submitted a paper entitled Foodborne Radiolytic 
Compounds (2-Alkylcyclobutanones) May Promote Experimental Colon 
Carcinogenesis (Ref. 49) and a commentary by Chinthalapally V. Rao, 
Ph.D. (Ref. 50) that states that the petition should not be approved 
until additional research is performed on a purported correlation 
between the consumption of ACBs and the promotion of colon carcinogenesis.
    Raul et al designed their study to determine if 2-ACBs, 
specifically 2-tetradecylcyclobutanone (2-tDCB) and 2-(tetradec-5'-
enyl)-cyclobutanone (2-tDeCB), will promote the carcinogenic effects of 
azoxymethane (AOM), which is known to induce colon preneoplastic 
lesions, adenomas, and adenocarcinomas in rats (Ref. 49). The paper 
states that the ``[p]resent report is the first demonstration that pure 
compounds, known to be exclusively produced on irradiation in dietary 
fats, may promote colon carcinogenesis in animals.''
    Many different chemicals, some of which occur naturally in the 
human body, are known to promote carcinogenesis (Ref. 51). 
Additionally, Dr. Rao states that colon cancer is largely influenced by 
dietary lipids such as animal fat. Moreover, FDA notes that Dr. Rao 
states that the precursor lipids (which will be consumed in millions of 
times greater amount than the 2-ACBs, 2-tDCB and 2-tDeCB) are 
influential in the promotion of colon cancer.
    The data showed no significant difference in tumor incidence 
between treatment groups. Raul et al reported no apparent difference in 
the number of aberrant crypt\7\ foci (ACF)\8\ per centimeter of colon, 
except that the 6 month treatment group receiving 2-tDeCB showed an 
increase in the total number of aberrant crypts (Refs. 52 and 53). 
However, the study has design flaws that make it difficult to 
understand the relevance of the data. Both FDA and Dr. Rao note that 
these flaws include: (1) Use of a limited number of animals (6 male 
Wistar rats per group); (2) use of a poor animal model (Wistar rats); 
and (3) alcohol, the vehicle in the study, has been linked to tumor 
promotion in many studies. Most importantly, as Raul et al point out in 
the discussion in their paper, the exposure of rats to 2-ACBs 
(milligrams per kilogram body weight) was three orders of magnitude 
higher than human exposure would be (micrograms per kilogram body weight).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A crypt is a cell that is used as a pathological marker. A 
crypt focus is a grouping of crypts. An aberrant crypt is a crypt 
that has altered luminal openings, thickened epithelia and are 
larger than adjacent normal crypts.
    \8\ Aberrant crypt foci of the colon are possible precursors of 
adenoma and cancer, and ACF have been observed in animals exposed to 
colon specific carcinogens, e.g. AOM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the limitations of the animal model and study design, 
ambiguous data, and the absence of close relationship between the 
chemical exposure used in the study and the expected human exposure, 
the agency finds that the comment provides no substantial or reliable 
scientific information to show that there is reason to believe that the 
consumption of 2-ACBs will promote colon cancer. Moreover, the agency 
notes that long term feeding studies performed using irradiated foods 
that contain 2-ACBs did not show any promotion of colon cancer. The 
results of these latter long term feeding studies are more relevant 
than results from the Raul paper because the 2-ACBs were fed in the 
diet as in human exposure and the levels of exposure would still have 
been increased over usual dietary levels.

I. Indian National Institute of Nutrition Studies

    One comment states that the petition should be denied because six 
positive studies conducted by the Indian National Institute of 
Nutrition (NIN) were ignored in the 1999 FAO/IAEA/WHO report. The 
comment states that FDA should give full consideration to the NIN 
studies, most notably the children's study using freshly irradiated 
food. The comment also states that the validity of these studies is 
supported by expert commentary and two published defenses by the NIN 
researchers.
    A commentary by Dr. William Au submitted with the comment states 
``[s]ome reports in the peer-reviewed literature on mutagenic 
activities of irradiated foods were not considered in the 1999 FAO/
IAEA/WHO report (Bhaskaram and Sadasivan, 1975; Vijayalaxmi, 1975, 
1976, 1978; Vijayalaxmi and Sadasivan, 1975; Vijayalaxmi and Rao, 
1976).'' ``Although the observations from these studies are not 
confirmed by some publications in the literature, the positive findings 
have support from other publications (Bugyaki et al., 1968; Moutschen-
Dahmen, et al., 1970; Anderson et al., 1980; Maier et al., 1993). 
Furthermore, repeated observations of activities that have significant 
public health implications such as polyploidy in somatic cells, genetic 
alterations in germ cells and reproductive toxicity should not be 
ignored, but should be considered seriously and explicitly by FDA with 
respect to the pending food irradiation petitions.''
    The agency notes that the subject of this regulation is the 
petition (FAP 9M4682) submitted by NFI regarding shellfish, not the 
1999 FAO/IAEA/WHO report on high-dose irradiation. The studies cited by 
the comment are not related to irradiated shellfish or other irradiated 
flesh foods.
    The comment implies that FDA has not considered the cited studies 
despite the fact that FDA previously discussed the reason why some of 
the study reports could not be used to support a decision on irradiated 
foods (51 FR 13376 at 13385 and 13387). In 1986 FDA addressed the 
studies performed at the NIN (Ref. 54) and stated:
    A committee of Indian scientists critically examined the 
techniques, the appropriateness of experimental design, the data 
collected, and the interpretations of NIN scientists who claimed 
that ingestion of irradiated wheat caused polyploidy in rats, mice, 
and malnourished children. After careful deliberation, this 
committee concluded that the bulk of these data are not only 
mutually contradictory, but are also at variance with well-
established facts of biology. The committee was satisfied that once 
these data were corrected for biases that had given rise to these 
contradictions, no evidence of increased polyploidy was associated 
with ingestion of irradiated wheat.
    The agency agreed with the conclusions of the committee of 
scientists that the studies

[[Page 48068]]

with irradiated foods do not demonstrate that adverse effects would 
be caused by ingesting irradiated foods.
(51 FR 13376 at 13385)
    Moreover, the agency notes that adverse effects which should have 
been seen if the conclusions drawn by the NIN researchers were valid 
were not observed in studies performed using similar foods irradiated 
at higher doses and consumed for longer periods of time. Finally, we 
note that the paper by Maier cited in the comment by Dr. Au concluded 
that ``* * * the consumption of irradiated wheat does not, therefore, 
pose any health risk to humans.''

J. Toxicity Data

    One comment states that the petition should be denied because it 
does not contain specific data about the potential toxicity of 
irradiated molluscan shellfish. The comment concludes that ``FDA cannot 
credibly assess the safety and wholesomeness of foods covered by the 
petition if no toxicology data were included in the petition.''
    The petitioner (FAP 9M4682) did not submit copies of toxicological 
data specific to irradiated shellfish. However, as noted earlier, FDA 
has reviewed a large body of data relevant to the assessment of the 
potential toxicity of irradiated flesh foods. The agency disagrees with 
the statement that ``FDA cannot credibly assess the safety and 
wholesomeness of foods covered by the petition if no toxicological data 
were included in the petition.'' There was no reason to submit 
additional copies of studies that have previously been reviewed by FDA. 
The comment provides no basis to challenge FDA's reliance on these 
studies to assess the safety of irradiated molluscan shellfish.
    One comment states that the petition should be denied because ``* * 
* in the course of legalizing the irradiation of numerous classes of 
food over a 14-year span, the FDA relied on dozens of studies declared 
`deficient' by agency toxicologists.''
    FDA notes that the animal feeding studies reviewed in support of 
this petition (FAP 9M4682) were not considered deficient by agency 
scientists. Rather, they were considered acceptable or accepted with 
reservation by the agency scientists because even though all studies 
may not have met modern standards in all respects, they provided 
important information. Those studies categorized by FDA scientists as 
deficient were not relied on in the review of this petition. Although 
some of the studies accepted with reservation might not have been 
reported in full, used fewer animals, or examined fewer tissues than is 
common today, they still provide important information that, when 
evaluated collectively, supports the conclusion that consumption of 
molluscan shellfish irradiated under the conditions proposed in this 
petition is safe (Ref. 55).

K. Failure to Meet Statutory Requirements

    One comment submitted by CFS and PC states that the petition should 
be denied because Delinc[eacute]e et al (Ref. 40). stated that ``* * * 
the results urge caution and should provide impetus for further 
studies.'' The comment further states that if established irradiation 
researchers and numerous medical experts urge caution and further 
research on the safety of irradiated food, then ``reasonable 
certainty,'' as required by 21 CFR 170.3(i), is missing.
    The comment quotes selectively from the conclusions of 
Delinc[eacute]e regarding ACBs and omits other portions more relevant 
to this petition. For example, the sentence immediately prior to the 
sentence quoted states: ``The requisite concentrations are very much 
higher than those that can be reached through the consumption of 
irradiated foods that contain fat.'' Additionally, the authors note in 
the referenced article that ``[i]t should be mentioned once again that 
in many animal feeding experiments with irradiated foods in which it is 
known that cyclobutanones was also in the feed, no evidence has been 
found to indicate an injury from irradiated foods that have been 
consumed.'' In a comment to the docket in response to the statement 
made by CFS and PC, Dr. Delinc[eacute]e states that ``[u]nfortunately, 
the authors Worth and Jenkins did not take my precautions into account 
but made a story about the `dangerous' cyclobutanones. In my opinion 
they greatly exaggerate the risks of 2-alkylcyclobutanones (2-ACB), 
which we still do not know very much about'' (Ref. 56).
    One comment requests that the agency remove the food additive 
petition from the expedited review process.
    FDA has established a process to give priority to petitions for 
technologies intended to reduce pathogen levels in foods (64 FR 517, 
January 5, 1999). FDA notes that petitions under expedited review are 
subject to all controls and requirements regarding safety data 
applicable to comparable petitions in the standard review process. 
Accordingly, valid scientific evidence, as defined by Sec.  171.1 (21 
CFR 171.1), is required to support the approval of an expedited 
petition. Likewise, the standards for safety and for data presentation 
are identical to the standard review process. The comment provides no 
information to support removing the petition from the expedited review 
process.
    One comment requests that FDA review all of part 179 to determine 
if the regulations adequately protect the public health based on the 
best available scientific information.
    This comment is outside the scope of this petition.
    One comment states that the petition should be denied because ``FDA 
did not review studies that met the protocols established by the 
National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council (NAS/NRC) as 
required by 21 CFR 170.20.''
    The comment provides no information to demonstrate that the studies 
reviewed by the agency in support of this petition (FAP 9M4682) fail to 
meet the standards set forth under Sec.  170.20 (21 CFR 170.20). 
Section 170.20 states:
    The Commissioner will be guided by the principles and procedures 
for establishing the safety of food additives stated in current 
publications of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research 
Council. A petition will not be denied, however, by reason of the 
petitioner's having followed procedures other than those outlined in 
the publications of the National Academy of Sciences-National 
Research Council if, from available evidence, the Commissioner finds 
that the procedures used give results as reliable as, or more 
reliable than, those reasonably to be expected from the use of the 
outlined procedures.
    FDA has consistently taken the position that many scientifically 
valid types of data may properly support a finding that the proposed 
use of a food additive will cause ``no harm'' to consumers. For 
example, Sec.  170.20 which sets forth the general scientific criteria 
that FDA uses in evaluating a food additive petition, cites the 
``principles and procedures * * * stated in `current' publications of 
the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council'' as a 
guide that the agency uses in its safety evaluation of food additives. 
NAS has written testing standards for both public and agency use, but 
these testing requirements have been stated in relatively general 
terms. In practice, FDA has applied toxicological criteria and exposure 
information that were current for the time in assessing the safety each 
food additive. The agency has continuously adjusted food additive 
testing recommendation as necessary to reflect both the steady progress 
of science and the most current information about population exposure 
to additives (Ref. 57).
    FDA concludes that the data considered for this regulation, when

[[Page 48069]]

evaluated in its entirety, are sufficient to support the safety of 
consumption of irradiated molluscan shellfish at a maximum absorbed 
dose that will not exceed 5.5 kGy.
    One comment states that the petition should be denied because the 
battery of experiments prescribed by the BFIFC to assess the potential 
toxicity and mutagenicity of irradiated food was based on the 
assumption that only 10 percent of the food supply would likely be 
irradiated and fell ``[f]ar short of those battery prescribed by the 
FDA's Red Book, but the FDA [did]
not comply with the abbreviated 
battery of experiments before legalizing the irradiation of pork, fruit 
and vegetables, poultry, red meat, eggs, sprouting seeds and juice.''
    The agency notes that the subject of this regulation is the 
petition (FAP 9M4682) on shellfish, not the BFIFC report (Ref. 36) nor 
the FDA Red Book (Ref. 37).
    The BFIFC report is an internal document prepared by FDA scientists 
that provides recommendations for evaluating the safety of irradiated 
foods based on the known effects of radiation on food and on the 
capabilities of toxicological testing. While the report and the 
commentary on it have aided FDA's thinking regarding the testing of 
irradiated foods, the report established no definitive requirements. 
BFIFC recognized that it may not be necessary to perform reproduction 
and chronic toxicity studies in cases where there was evidence that 
irradiated foods provided no mutagenic or other toxic effects that 
could be seen in shorter studies. Therefore, BFIFC recommended that in 
the absence of chronic and reproductive feeding studies, foods 
irradiated at a dose above 1 kGy be evaluated using a battery of 
mutagenicity tests, as well as 90-day feeding studies in two species 
(one rodent and one non-rodent). BFIFC also recommended that chronic 
studies would only be indicated when two of the four mutagenicity tests 
showed mutagenic effects, and that the reproductive toxicity tests 
would only be indicated when the 90-day studies showed a potential for 
effects on the reproductive system. Furthermore, BFIFC also recommended 
that foods should be considered generically as a class, based on their 
composition i.e., proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates. Consistent with 
these recommendations, FDA has considered several relevant chronic 
feeding studies, as well as the macronutrient composition of molluscan 
shellfish in the safety determination for this regulation. Therefore, 
there is no need to conduct additional mutagenicity studies to 
determine whether chronic studies are needed.
    Finally, FDA's Red Book represents the agency's current thinking on 
the information needed for the safety assessment of food ingredients, 
not processed foods, such as irradiated molluscan shellfish, and it 
does not bind the petitioner to follow specific procedures that are 
recommended in the Red Book. Furthermore, even if the Red Book applied 
to processed foods, alternative approaches would be permissible if such 
approaches satisfy the requirement of the applicable statute and 
regulations. The comment contains no evidence to demonstrate that the 
studies considered for this regulation, when evaluated in totality, are 
insufficient to support the safety of consumption of irradiated 
molluscan shellfish at an absorbed dose no to exceed 5.5 kGy.

L. Trans Fatty Acids

    One comment states that the petition should be denied because there 
is evidence that the consumption of trans fatty acids increases the 
risk of coronary heart disease and recent research shows that 
irradiation increases the amount of trans fatty acids present in ground 
beef (Ref. 58).
    The paper submitted by the comment purports to show a 3.4 percent 
increase in the amount of trans fatty acids when ground beef is 
irradiated at 1 kGy at 25 degrees Celsius, and a greater increase in 
trans fatty acids at higher doses. For example, the paper states that 
unirradiated beef contains 4.60 ? 0.31 percent trans fatty 
acid, 4.40 ? 0.31 percent trans fatty acid when stored for 
60 days, and 5.00 ? 0.31 percent trans fatty acid when 
stored for 90 days. When beef was irradiated at 3 kGy, they report 8.00 
? 0.00 percent trans fatty acid for all three storage times. 
When beef was irradiated at 8 kGy, they report 11.00 ? 0.50 
percent trans fatty acid at day zero, 10.50 ? 0.50 percent 
trans fatty acid when stored for 60 days, and 10.00 ? 0.31 
percent trans fatty acid when stored for 90 days.
    The fat in beef has a natural background of trans fat that ranges 
from 3 percent to 10 percent and research performed by the agency shows 
no change in the amount of trans fatty acids present when ground beef 
is irradiated at 25 degrees Celsius (Ref. 59). Additionally, Consumer 
Reports (August 2003) found no trans fats were produced when ground 
beef was irradiated. The agency has reviewed the paper submitted by the 
comment and concludes that the researchers did not demonstrate that 
there was an increase in the amount of trans fatty acid present in 
irradiated ground beef, or that irradiation showed a dose dependent 
response. In fact, the paper fails to demonstrate that the researchers 
were measuring the quantity of trans fatty acids (Ref. 60). Therefore, 
the agency concludes that there is no basis to deny the petition based 
on increased amount of trans fatty acids in irradiated ground beef.

M. Elevated Hemoglobin

    One comment states that the petition should be denied because the 
consumption of irradiated food may contribute to an increase in the 
number of still-born children. The comment provides three studies to 
substantiate this comment: (1) An unpublished report states that the 
consumption of irradiated potatoes increased the hemoglobin 
concentrations in healthy human volunteers; (2) a published study that 
shows that elevated hemoglobin levels were found in pigs consuming 
irradiated potatoes; and (3) a published study appearing to show that 
``high hemoglobin concentration at first measurement during antenatal 
care appears to be associated with increased risk of stillbirth, 
especially preterm and small-for-gestational age antepartum stillbirths.''
    The comment suggests that the consumption of a high carbohydrate 
diet may increase hemoglobin levels and this may lead to an increase in 
the frequency of still born children among pregnant women who consume 
irradiated carbohydrates. FDA notes that consumption of shellfish would 
not contribute significant carbohydrates to the diet because the 
maximum proximate carbohydrate composition of shellfish is 10 percent 
or less.
    The first study (1967) compares the hemoglobin and hematocrit 
levels of 7 human volunteers who, for 14 weeks, consumed potatoes that 
had been irradiated at 14 kGy (Ref. 61). The study does not include a 
baseline prior to feeding; it provides a single measurement. The 
hemoglobin values reported show a slight increase during the period of 
consumption of irradiated potato, but they are still within the normal 
range of hemoglobin values (Ref. 62). Additionally, there is no 
concurrent control group to demonstrate that the irradiated potatoes 
were the cause of the increase in hemoglobin values.
    The second study (1966) submitted by the comment compares piglets 
fed both irradiated and non-irradiated potatoes (Ref. 63). The authors 
conclude that the pigs fed irradiated potatoes did not differ 
significantly from the control animals in the parameters measured,

[[Page 48070]]

except that the pigs fed irradiated potatoes grew slightly faster, had 
a more rapid increase in hemoglobin levels, and had a higher hemoglobin 
concentration at the end of the experiment. The authors state that 
``[t]he second generation pigs provided no indication that the 
irradiated potatoes might give rise to deleterious effects'' (Ref. 64).
    The third study entitled ``Maternal Hemoglobin Concentration During 
Pregnancy and Risk of Stillbirth'' (2000) compares the hemoglobin 
concentration during antenatal care, the change in hemoglobin 
concentration during pregnancy and the risk of still birth (Ref. 64). 
The study compares the hemoglobin concentrations at first measurement 
of 702 primiparous (bearing first child) women with stillbirths 
occurring at 28 weeks or later to 702 primiparous women with live 
births. The authors concluded that high hemoglobin concentrations at 
first measurement appeared to be associated with an increased risk of 
stillbirth, especially preterm and small-for-gestational-age antepartum 
stillbirths. The authors note that the study was limited to primiparous 
women with singleton (first) pregnancies and that the conclusions can 
only be interpreted within that small sub-population. FDA also notes 
that the study did not investigate other potential confounding 
variables such as nutrition or physical activity.
    FDA acknowledges that hemoglobin concentrations were not reported 
in studies such as the Bugyaki et al. study that reported gestational 
effects. However, FDA notes that none of the long term reproductive 
studies performed with irradiated foods that were found to be 
acceptable or acceptable with reservation in 1982 showed effects on 
reproduction. This is substantiated in the second study identified by 
the comment. Therefore, given the limitations in design of the 
additional two studies, the agency finds no basis to conclude that the 
consumption of irradiated shellfish will increase hemoglobin levels. 
Similarly, FDA finds no basis to the purported association between 
increased hemoglobin levels and an increase in stillbirth rates.

N. Dangers of Radiation

    In an affidavit written by Dr. William Au that was submitted by CFS 
and PC, he states that ``[i]onizing radiation is a teratogen, mutagen, 
and carcinogen whereas some other procedures for food decontamination/
sterilization such as heat and steam are not. Whenever other processing 
methods or combination of methods are equally effective in reducing the 
risk of foodborne disease are available, the use of radiation procedure 
should be avoided.''
    While methods other than treatment with ionizing radiation are 
available to eliminate or reduce microbial contamination of food, the 
existence of such methods is not a reason to prohibit safe 
alternatives. Additionally, the act does not authorize FDA to 
arbitrarily limit other safe alternatives. The fact that radiation can 
be teratogenic, carcinogenic, or mutagenic when applied directly to 
living organisms is not relevant to the safety of irradiated shellfish. 
Most food processing techniques (such as grinding, slicing, boiling, 
roasting) would be harmful to living mammals but that is unrelated to 
the safety of the food. Irradiating the shellfish will not expose 
consumers to additional amounts of radiation.

O. Nutritional Deficiency

    One comment states that the petition should be denied because the 
BFIFC ``* * *cautioned that even if 10 percent of the food supply were 
irradiated: `When irradiation results in the significant loss of 
micronutrients, enrichment may be considered appropriate.''' The 
comment goes on to state that to date, FDA has authorized the 
irradiation of several classes of food that comprise more than half of 
the U.S. food supply. ``If the FDA approves the pending `ready-to-eat' 
petition [FAP 9M4697], an estimated 80-90 percent of the U.S. food 
supply would be eligible for irradiation.'' The comment further states 
that ``no analysis has been done of the nutritional deficiencies that 
would be created among the populace should 80-90 percent of the food 
supply be irradiated.''
    The comment provides no information to conclude that irradiating 
80-90 percent of the diet is probable or feasible. Additionally, 
molluscan shellfish are a small part of the food supply. The comment 
provides no basis for the statement that consumers will suffer 
nutritional deficiencies from being exposed to irradiated food.
    FDA agrees that treatment of food with ionizing radiation, as with 
heat processing, decreases the levels of some nutrients and irradiation 
must be evaluated by considering the nutritional consequences on the 
diet as a whole. The agency has specifically addressed the impact of 
irradiation on vitamins and other nutritional components in the 
Nutrition section in this document. Irradiation has essentially no 
effect on the quantity of fatty acids, amino acids, and carbohydrates 
in foods and no effect on the overall dietary intake of these 
macronutrients. While irradiation may reduce the levels of some 
vitamins, similar to heat processing, the agency concludes that the 
irradiation treatment of shellfish would have no significant effect on 
dietary intake of vitamins. The comment provides no evidence to refute 
the agency's conclusion that the consumption of irradiated molluscan 
shellfish would not result in nutritional deficiencies. The effects of 
ionizing radiation on the nutritional qualities of the foods that are 
the subject of other petitions, such as FAP 9M4697, will be evaluated 
as part of the safety evaluation for those petitions.
    Another comment states that a statement by D. R. Murray in Biology 
of Food Irradiation\9\ suggests that ``disproportionate and selective 
losses of nutrients occur in foods as consequence of irradiation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Murray, D. R., Biology of Food Irradiation, Research Studies 
Press Ltd. Staunton, UK, Chapter 4, Radiolytic products and 
selective destruction of nutrients, 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comment provided the bulk of a chapter from this book and 
states that FDA must address the negative impact on fatty acids, 
vitamins, amino acids, carbohydrates and other essential components on 
food as a consequence of irradiation and in combination with cooking. 
The comment requests that the agency respond to the following four 
questions regarding the nutritional impact of irradiated foods.
    ? ``What would be the impacts of irradiation as proposed on 
each important vitamin and other nutritional component in each 
different food type that is included?''
    ? ``What would be the projected national rates of 
consumption of each different food type included in the petition after 
foreseeable market penetration of the product, e.g., after 5-10 years 
of marketing?''
    ? ``How would this projected future consumption vary across 
age, ethnic, gender, economic status, education status, and other 
variables in the American population?''
    ? ``To what extent would the various population groups 
likely be affected by the nutritional/vitamin impacts identified under 
question 1, above?''
    In the review of this petition (FAP 9M4682), FDA considered whether 
the nutritional quality of irradiated molluscan shellfish would differ 
in any meaningful way from that of non-irradiated molluscan shellfish 
and concludes that consumption of irradiated molluscan shellfish will 
not result in nutritional deficiencies. FDA notes that foods are 
commonly processed more than once, such as by heating in the factory 
followed by

[[Page 48071]]

cooking one or more times in the home, without an adverse effect on the 
diet. The comment provides no rationale as to why irradiation should be 
considered differently from heat processing in this regard, nor why the 
major data research projects envisioned in the final three questions 
are necessary to evaluate the safety of irradiated shellfish.

IV. Conclusions

    Based on the data and studies submitted in the petition and other 
information in the agency's files, FDA concludes that the proposed use 
of irradiation to treat fresh and frozen molluscan shellfish with 
absorbed doses that will not to exceed 5.5 kGy is safe, and therefore, 
the regulations in Sec.  179.26 should be amended as set forth in this 
document.
    In accordance with Sec.  171.1(h), the petition and the documents 
that FDA considered and relied upon in reaching its decision to approve 
the petition are available for inspection at the Center for Food Safety 
and Applied Nutrition by appointment with the Information contact 
person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). As provided in Sec.  
171.1(h), the agency will delete from the documents any materials that 
are not available for public disclosure before making the documents 
available for inspection.
    This final rule contains no collections of information. Therefore, 
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

V. Environmental Impact

    The agency has carefully considered the potential environmental 
effects of this action. The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(j) 
that this action is of a type that does not individually or 
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. 
Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental 
impact statement is required.

VI. Objections

    Any person who will be adversely affected by this regulation may 
file with the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) written or 
electronic objections. Each objection shall be separately numbered, and 
each numbered objection shall specify with particularity the provisions 
of the regulation to which objection is made and the grounds for the 
objection. Each numbered objection on which a hearing is requested 
shall specifically so state. Failure to request a hearing for any 
particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a 
hearing on that objection. Each numbered objection for which a hearing 
is requested shall include a detailed description and analysis of the 
specific factual information intended to be presented in support of the 
objection in the event that a hearing is held. Failure to include such 
a description and analysis for any particular objection shall 
constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing on the objection. Three 
copies of all documents are to be submitted and are to be identified 
with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this 
document. Any objections received in response to the regulation may be 
seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday.

VII. References

    The following sources are referred to in this document. References 
marked with an asterisk (*) have been placed on display at the Division 
of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and may be seen by interested 
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. References 
without asterisks are not on display; they are available as published 
articles and books.
    1. WHO, ``Wholesomeness of Irradiated Food: Report of a Joint 
FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committee,'' World Health Organization Technical 
Report Series, No. 659, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1981.
    2. Codex 2003, ``Codex General Standard for Irradiated Foods 
(CODEX STAN 106-1983, Rev.-2003)'' and ``Recommended Code of 
Practice for the Operation of Radiation Facilities Used for the 
Treatment of Foods (CAC/RCP 19-1979, Rev.-2003).'' Codex 
Alimentarius Commission, Food and Agriculture Organization and World 
Health Organization, Rome, 2003.
    3. Safety and Nutritional Adequacy of Irradiated Food, World 
Health Organism, Geneva, 1994.
    *4. Memorandum for FAP 9M4682 from D. Folmer, FDA, to L. 
Highbarger, FDA, August 2, 2002.
    5. Diehl, J.F., Safety of Irradiated Foods, Second Edition, 
Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1995.
    6. Seibersdorf Project Report, International Programme on 
Irradiation of Fruit and Fruit Juices, Chemistry and Isotopes 
Department, National Centre for Nuclear Energy, Madrid, Spain, vol. 
8, 1966.
    *7. Memorandum for FAP 9M4682 from K. Morehouse, FDA, to L. 
Highbarger, FDA, July 15, 2005.
    *8. Memorandum for FAP 9M4695 from I. Chen, FDA, to L. 
Highbarger, FDA, April 7, 2003.
    *9. Uderdal, B., J. Nordal, G. Lunde, and B. Eggum, ``The Effect 
of Ionizing Radiation on the Nutritional Value of Fish (Cod) 
Protein,'' Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft Technologie, 6:90-93, 1973.
    10. Von Sonntag, C., ``Free-radical Reactions of Carbohydrates 
as Studies by Radiation Techniques, ''Advances in Carbohydrate 
Chemistry Biochemistry, 37:7-77, 1980.
    11. WHO, ``High-dose Irradiation: Wholesomeness of Food 
Irradiated With Doses Above 10 kGy,'' World Health Organization 
Technical Report Series, No. 659, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1999.
    *12. Delinc[eacute]e, H., ``Recent Advances in Radiation 
Chemistry of Lipids,'' in Recent Advances in Food Irradiation, 
edited by P.S. Elias and A.J. Cohen, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 89-114, 1983.
    *13. Kavalam, J.P., and W.W. Nawar, ``Effects of Ionizing 
Radiation on Some Vegetable Fats,'' Journal of the American Oil 
Chemical Society, 46:387-390 (1969).
    *14. Nawar, W.W., ``Thermal Degradation of Lipids. A Review,'' 
Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry, 17(1): 18-21, 1969.
    *15. Crone A.V.J., Hamilton, J.T.G., and M.H. Stevenson, 
``Effect of Storage and Cooking on the Dose Response of 2-
Dodecylcylobutanone, a Potential Marker for Irradiated Chicken, 
Journal of Science and Food Agriculture, 58:249-252, 1992.
    *16. Gadgil, P., Hachmeister, K.A., Smith, J.S., and D.H. Kropf, 
``2-Alkylcyclobutanones as Irradiation Dose Indicators in Irradiated 
Ground Beef Patties,'' Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 
50:5746-5750, 2002.
    *17. Adams, S., G. Paul, D. Ehlerman, ``Influence of Ionizing 
Radiation on the Fatty Acid Composition of Herring Fillets,'' 
Radiation Physics Chemistry, 20:289-295, 1982.
    *18. Armstrong, S.G., Wylie, S.G., and D.N. Leach, ``Effects of 
Preservation by Gamma-Irradiation on the Nutritional Quality of 
Australian Fish,'' Food Chemistry, 50:351-357, 1994.
    *19. Sant'Ana, L.S. and J. Mancini-Filho ``Influence of the 
Addition of Antioxidants in Vivo on the Fatty Acid Composition of 
Fish Fillets'' Food Chemistry, 68:175-178, 2000.
    *20. Status Report on Food Irradiation by Member Countries of 
the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation, IAEA 
Headquarters, Vienna, Austria, October 20-22, 1998.
    *21. Morehouse, K.M., Y. Ku, ``Gas Chomatographic and Electron 
Spin Resonance Investigations of Gamma-Irradiated Shrimp,'' Journal 
of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 40(10), 1963-1971, 1992.
    22. Morehouse, K.M., ``Identification of Irradiated Seafood,'' 
in Detection Methods for Irradiated Foods: Current Status, edited by 
C.H. McMurray, E.M. Stewart, R. Gray, and J. Pearce, The Royal 
Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, UK, pp. 249-258, 1996.
    *23. Buck, J.D., ``Potentially Pathogenic Vibrio spp. In Market 
Seafood and Natural Habitats from Southern New England and 
Florida,'' Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology, 7(4):53-61, 1998.
    24. Oliver, J.D. and Kaper, J.B., ``Vibrio Species,'' In M.P. 
Doyle, L. Beuchat and T.J. Montville (ed.) Food Microbiology, 
Fundamentals and Frontiers, 2d Ed., ASM Press, Herndon, VA, 2001.
    *25. Memorandum for FAP 9M4682 from R. Merker, FDA, to L. 
Highbarger, FDA January 2, 2003.

[[Page 48072]]

    26. Tauxe, R.W., Emerging Infectious Diseases, 7:516-21, 2001.
    27. Diehl, J.F., Safety of Irradiated Foods, Marcel Decker, New 
York, Basel, 1990.
    *28. Cotton, P.A., Subar, A.F., Friday, J.E., Cook, A., 
``Dietary Sources of Nutrients Among US Adults, 1994 to 1996,'' 
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 104:921-930, 2004.
    *29. Anderson D, M.J.L. Clapp, M.C.E. Hodge, and T.M. Weight, 
``Irradiated Laboratory Animal Diets--Dominant Lethal Studies in the 
Mouse,'' Mutation Research: 80:333-345, 1981.
    *30. Bugyaki L., A.R. Deschreiaer, and J. Moutschen, ``Do 
Irradiated Foodstuffs Have a Radiomimetic Effect: II. Trials With 
Mice Fed Wheat Meal Irradiated at 5 MRad,'' Atompraxis, 14, 112, 1968.
    *31. Moutschen-Dahmen M., J. Moutschen, and L. Ehrenberg, ``Pre-
implantation Death of Mouse Eggs Caused by Irradiated Food,'' 
International Journal of Radiation Biology, 18:201-216, 1970.
    *32. Johnston-Arthur T, M. Brena-Valle, K. Twanitz, R. Hruby, 
and G. Stehuk, ``Mutagenicity of Irradiated Food in the Host-
mediated Assay System,'' Studia Biophysica Berlin, 50:137-141, 1975.
    *33. Kesavan, P.C. and M.S. Swaminathan, ``Cytotoxic and 
Mutagenic Effects of Irradiated Substances and Food Material,'' 
Radiation Botanay, vol. 11, pp. 253-281, 1971.
    *34. Verschuurn, H.G., G.J. Esch, and J.G. Kooy, Ninety Day Rat 
Feeding Study on Irradiated Strawberries; Food Irradiation; 7 (1-2); 
pp. A17-A21, 1966.
    *35. Memorandum from Food Additives Evaluation Branch, HFF-156 
to C. Takaguchi, Petition Control Branch, December 28, 1982.
    *36. Bureau of Foods Irradiated Foods Committee, Recommendations 
for Evaluating the Safety of Irradiated Food, Prepared for the 
Director, Bureau of Foods, FDA, July 1980.
    37. Toxicological Principles for the Safety Assessment of Direct 
Food Additives and Color Additives Used in Food, ``Red Book II,'' 
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and 
Applied Nutrition, 1993, revised 2001.
    *38. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 
European Nuclear Energy Agency, Steering Committee for Nuclear 
Energy Study Group on Food Irradiation, On Genetic Effects Produced 
by Irradiated Foods and Food Components, Scarascia-Mugnozza, G.T., 
A.T. Natarajan, and L. Ehrenberg, 1965.
    *39a. Miesch, M., B. Ndiye, C. Hasselmann, and E. Marchioni, 
``2-Alkylcyclobutanones as Markers for Irradiated Food Stuffs - I. 
Sysnthesis of Saturated and Unsaturated Standards,'' Radiation 
Physics and Chemistry, 55:337-344, 1999.
    *39b. Horvatovich, P., Miesch, M, Hasselmann, C., and E. 
Marchioni, ``Supercritical Fluid Extractin of Hydrocarbons and 2-
alkylcyclobutanones for the Detection of Irradiated Foodstuffs,'' 
Journal of Chromatography, 897:259-268, 2000.
    *40. Delinc[eacute]e H, B.L. Pool-Zobel, and G. Rechkemmer 
``Genotoxicity of 2-dodecyclcyclobutanone,'' Food Irradiation: Fifth 
German Conference, Report BFE-R-99-01, Federal Nutrition Research 
Institute, Karlsruhe, Germany, unpublished, 1998.
    *41. Memorandum for FAP 9M4682 from R. Sotomayer, FDA, to L. 
Highbarger, FDA, April 28, 2003.
    *42. Sommers C.H., and R.H. Schiestl, ``2-Dodecylcyclobutanone 
Does Not Induce Mutations in the Salmonella Mutagenicity Test or 
Intrachromosomal Recombination in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae, Journal 
of Food Protection, 67(6):1293-8, 2004.
    *43. Sommers, H., ``2-Dodecylcyclobutanone Does Not Induce 
Mutations in the Escherichia coli Tryptophan Reverse Mutation 
Assay,'' Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 51:6367-6370, 2003.
    *44. Gadgil, P. and J.S. Smith, ``Mutagenicity and Acute 
Toxicity Evaluation of 2-Dodecylcyclobutanone,'' Journal of Food 
Science, 69(9), 713-716, 2004.
    *45. Delinc[eacute]e H, and BL Pool-Zobel, ``Genotoxic 
Properties of 2-Dodecyclcyclobutanone, a Compound Formed on 
Irradiation of Food Containing Fat,'' Radiation Physics and 
Chemistry, 52:39-42, 1998.
    *46. Henderson, L., A. Wolfreys, J. Fedyk, C. Bourner and S. 
Windebank ``The Ability of the Comet Assay to Discriminate Between 
Genotoxins and Cytotoxins,'' Mutagenesis, 13:89-94, 1998.
    *47. Victoria, A., J. Crone, J.T.G. Hamilton, and M. Hilary 
Stevenson, ``Detection of 2-dodecylcyclobutanone in Radiation 
Sterilized Chicken Meat Stored for Several Years,'' International 
Journal of Food Science and Technology, 27:691-696, 1992.
    *48. Marchioni, E., F. Raul, D. Burnouf, M. Miesch, H. 
Delinc[eacute]e, A. Hartwig, D. Werner, ``Toxicological Study on 2-
alkylcyclobutanones--Results of a Collaborative Study;'' Radiation 
Chemistry and Physics, 71:147-150, 2004.
    *49. Raul, F., F. Gosse, H. Delinc[eacute]e, A. Hartwig,, E. 
Marchioni, M. Miesch, D. Werner, and D. Burnouf, ``Food Borne 
Radiolytic Compounds (2-Alkylcyclobutanones) May Promote 
Experimental Colon Carcinogenesis,'' Nutrition and Cancer, 
44(2):181-191, 2002.
    *50. Rao, C., ``Do Irradiated Foods Cause or Promote Colon 
Cancer?,'' Division of Nutritional Carcinogenesis, Institute for 
Cancer Prevention, American Health Foundation-Cancer center, 
Valhalla, NY, Unpublished, 2003. FDA notes that this article has now 
been published as a commentary in Nutrition and Cancer, 46(2):107-
109, 2003.
    51. Casserett & Doull's Toxicology, the Basic Science of 
Poisons, 2001.
    *52. Memorandum for FAP 9M4682 from T. Twaroski, FDA, to L. 
Highbarger, FDA, July 14, 2005.
    *53. Mori H., Y. Yamada, T. Kuno, and Y. Hirose, ``Aberrant 
Crypt Foci and [Beta]-catenin Accumulated Crypts; Significance and 
Roles for Colorectal Carcinogenesis,'' Mutation Research, 566:191-
208, 2004.
    *54. Kesavan, P.C. and P.V. Sukhatame. ``Summary of the 
Technical Report on the Data of NIN,'' Hyderabad and BARC, Bombay on 
the Biological Effects of Freshly Irradiated Wheat, Report submitted 
to the Indian Ministry of Health and Family Planning, 1976.
    *55. Memorandum for FAP 4M4428, from D. Hattan, to FAP 4M4428; 
Further Evaluation of Toxicological Studies, November 20, 1997.
    *56. Comment submitted by Henry Delinc[eacute]e to the docket.
    57. Toxicological Principles for the Safety Assessment of Direct 
Food Additives and Color Additives Used in Food, ``Red Book I,'' 
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and 
Applied Nutrition, 1982.
    *58. Britto M.S., A.L.C.H. Villavicencio, and J. Mancini-filho, 
``Effects of Irradiation on Trans Fatty Acids in Ground Beef,'' 
Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 63:337-340, 2002.
    *59. Memorandum for FAP 9M4682 from K. Morehouse, FDA, to L. 
Highbarger, FDA, July 15, 2005.
    *60. E-mail from Paul Kuznesof to L. Highbarger to be added to 
FAP 9M4682, April, 28, 2003.
    *61. Jaarma, M., ``Studies of Chemical and Enzymatical Changes 
in Potato Tubers and Some Highber Plants Caused by Ionizing 
Radiation, Including Studies on the Wholesomeness of [ggr]-
Irradiated Potato Tubers and Effects on Some Carbohydrates in vitro, 
Biokemiska Institutionen, Kuugl, Univeritetet I Stockholm, 
Stockholm, Sweden, 1967.
    *62. Memorandum 2 for FAP 9M4682 from T. Twaroski, FDA, to L. 
Highbarger, FDA, July 14, 2005, 2005.
    *63. Jaarma, M., G. ``Bengtsson On the wholesomeness of [ggr]-
irradiated Potatoes II. Feeding Experiments with Pigs'' Nutritio et 
Dieto--European Review of Nutrition and Dietetics, 8:109-129, 1966.
    *64. Stephansson, O., Dickman, P.W., Johansson, A., and S. 
Cnattingus, ``Maternal Hemoglobin Concentration During Pregnancy and 
Risk of Stillbirth,'' Journal of the American Medical Association, 
248(20):2611-2617, 2000.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 179

    Food additives, Food labeling, Food packaging, Radiation 
protection, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Signs and symbols.

0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under 
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 
179 is amended as follows:

PART 179--IRRADIATION IN THE PRODUCTION, PROCESSING AND HANDLING OF FOOD

? 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 179 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 343, 348, 373, 374.

? 2. Section 179.26 is amended in the table in paragraph (b) by adding a 
new item ``11.'' under the headings ``Use'' and ``Limitations'' to read 
as follows:

[[Page 48073]]

Sec. 179.26  Ionizing radiation for the treatment of food.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Use                              Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. For the control of Vibrio         Not to exceed 5.5 kGy.
 bacteria and other foodborne
 microorganisms in or on fresh or
 frozen molluscan shellfish.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Dated: August 11, 2005.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-16279 Filed 8-12-05; 1:19 pm]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

------------------------------------------

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/index.html
Comments: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/comments.htm
Search: http://epa.gov/fedreg/search.htm
EPA's Federal Register: http://epa.gov/fedreg/

------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to epa-impact as: NEWS@energy-net.org

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to leave-epa-impact-46782Y@lists.epa.gov
OR:
Use the listserver's web interface at https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_forums/ to manage your subscription.

For problems with this list, contact epa-impact-Owner@lists.epa.gov
------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
 28 HSE: HSE publishes criterion for delicensing nuclear sites
 
E107:05 16 August 2005 
 

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has today published its
criterion for delicensing parts of, or entire sites licensed
under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. 

The policy statement, â€˜HSE Criterion for Delicensing Nuclear
Sitesâ€™ forms the basis from which HSE can establish, from its
own assessment, the licenseeâ€™s evidence and information from
other regulators, that any residual radioactivity on a nuclear
site, additional to the natural background, represents â€˜no
dangerâ€™. Once the licensee demonstrates it can meet HSEâ€™s
â€˜no dangerâ€™ criterion, HSE will be able to make a decision
on delicensing all or part of the site. 

The requirement for licensees to demonstrate â€˜no dangerâ€™ is
a legal duty imposed by the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. HSE
believes the most helpful way to define â€˜no dangerâ€™ is to
present it in terms of an assessed numerical risk to human life,
rather than simply using a vague phrase such as â€œvery low
riskâ€. 

In summary, HSEâ€™s requirement for establishing â€˜no dangerâ€™
when considering a delicensing application is â€œA demonstration
that any residual radioactivity, above background radioactivity,
which remains on the site, which may or may not have arisen from
licensable activities, will lead to a risk of death to an
individual using the site for any reasonably foreseeable
purpose, of no greater than one in a million per yearâ€. 

With an expected increase in requests for delicensing, HSE
considers that the publication of a policy statement setting out
its interpretation of â€˜no dangerâ€™ is timely, and will help
make regulatory decision-making more transparent. 

The policy statement, 'HSE Criterion for Delicensing Nuclear
Sites', (available in English and Welsh) can be accessed on
HSEâ€™s website at: and 

respectively. 
Notes to editors
 
  + The legislation governing the licensing of nuclear sites in
the UK is the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, as amended. 
  + Sections 3(6) and 5(3) of the Act require that before
allowing all or part of a site to be delicensed, HSE must be
satisfied that â€œthere has ceased to be any danger from
ionising radiations from anything on the site or, as the case
may be, on that part thereofâ€. 
  + Several sites (and part sites) have already been delicensed
over the last 30 years, but always on a case-by-case basis. 
  + The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) consulted on HSEâ€™s
proposed policy statement between May-August 2004 and the
statement was slightly modified as a result of comments
received. A summary of the main points made and HSEâ€™s response
can be viewed in Annex A to HSC paper HSC/05/30 at the following
website address: 
  + With an expected increase in requests for delicensing, HSE
considers that the publication of a policy statement that
interprets the â€˜no dangerâ€™ criterion is now necessary for
transparency and to enable HSE to make demonstrably consistent
assessments of delicensing applications. 

Public Enquiries : HSE InfoLine, Tel: 0845 345 0055, visit: or
write to: HSE InfoLine, Caerphilly Business Park, Caerphilly
CF83 3GG. 

Press Enquiries : Journalists only : Mark Wheeler 020 7717 6905 

*****************************************************************
 29 Hawk Eye: Labor Dept. to explain illness program 

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 Site updated daily at 11 a.m. CST   
      
IAAP Brief –16
 

The Department of Labor plans two meetings today and Wednesday
to explain portions of a compensation program for former Iowa
Army Ammunition Plant nuclear weapons workers. 

The meeting will focus on Part E of the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program, which benefits former
energy workers ill from exposure to toxic chemicals. 

The meetings are scheduled for 7 p.m. today and 1 p.m. Wednesday
at the Grand Orleans Hotel, 2759 Mount Pleasant St.   
  
                          

The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 
· 1-800-397-1708 · FAX 319-754-6824 · webmaster@thehawkeye.com
  


*****************************************************************
 30 OH: OSHA Extends Comment Period On Revisions to Ionizing Radiation Rule

Occupational Hazards - 

THE AUTHORITY ON OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, HEALTH AND LOSS PREVENTION                                                         

- 08/16/2005                               

The National Academy of Science (NAS) has released a report on
health risks for exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation,
prompting OSHA to grant stakeholders more time to comment on
whether the agency should revise its decades-old regulation on
this hazard. 				

Because the NAS study, "Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels
of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2 (2005)," was not issued
until June 29, members of the public now have until Nov. 28 to
submit comments to help the agency determine what action, if
any, should be taken to update the standard, 29 CFR 1910.1096. 

In its most recent regulatory agenda, OSHA has explained its
decision to consider revising the 31-year old rule by observing
that, "radiation is now used for a broader variety of purposes,
including health care, food safety, mail processing and baggage
screening." Exposure to high doses of radiation can cause
cancer, heart disease, stroke and mental retardation in the
children of pregnant women. 

The new NAS study concludes, "there is a linear, no-threshold
dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing
radiation and the development of cancer in humans." In other
words, low doses of exposure to radiation are neither more, nor
less, harmful to humans than estimated by a linear model based
on the risks posed by higher exposures. 

As of Aug. 15, there were 95 documents on a docket OSHA has
established for public comments on whether to revise the
radiation rule. 

Many of the comments from industry groups point out that other
federal and state agencies, particularly the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, already regulate ionizing radiation. For example,
the Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals Inc.
(CORAR), opposes OSHA rulemaking on ionizing radiation because
it "would duplicate or potentially conflict with NRC." CORAR
members include manufacturers and shippers of diagnostic and
therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals. 

The group states it has submitted data concerning trends toward
a marked reduction in collective and average occupational
exposures. 

New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP),
however, writes it is "dismayed" that OSHA mentions throughout
its summary on ionizing radiation that not changing its
"outdated" regulations is a possibility. "The current OSHA rules
on radiation exposure as applied, could allow 50 times more
radiation exposure to a worker than is currently allowed under
NRC regulations and most state regulations." 

The DEP comment argues that although OSHA rules are applicable
only to radiation workers, they are often applied to workers
exposed to radiation but untrained in radiation safety, such as
water treatment workers, construction workers and paper and pulp
mill workers.				

- James L Nash 				
 			 						 		   	 	   			 Quick Links
Occupational Hazards   |   © 2004                             
*****************************************************************
 31 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Gyeongju applies for nuclear waste

August 17, 2005 KST 13:34 (GMT+9) 

  August 17, 2005 ¤Ñ GYEONGJU, North Gyeongsang province ¡ª With
hope of ridding this historic city of a mounting stockpile of
highly radioactive material produced by its nuclear power plant,
local officials submitted a bid yesterday to become a disposal
center for low-level radioactive waste.

 Gyeongju's mayor, Baek Sang-sung, said the city wanted to be
designated as a site for low-level radioactive waste disposal
because current laws exempt such a city from having to store
higher-level nuclear wastes. The application to the central
government makes Gyeongju the first city to seek approval to
become a disposal site for low-level nuclear waste. 

With a population of 280,092 today, Gyeongju was the ancient
capital of the Silla Kingdom, which existed from 57 B.C. to A.D.
935. The city is famous for its many ancient royal burial mounds.

 The proposed site for the new waste depository is near the
Wolseong Nuclear Power Plant on the city's outskirts, and the
government said it already conducted a safety survey earlier
this summer.

 "Because the Gyeongju city government officially filed its
application, we will begin in-depth feasibility studies and
safety assessments," Lee Hee-beom, minister of commerce,
industry and energy, said yesterday at a press conference.

 Mayor Baek said, "High-level radioactive wastes are now stored
at the Wolsong nuclear plants, and we'll be able to get rid of
them by taking the low-level facility."

 The low-level waste includes contaminated paper, plastic bags,
protective clothing, packaging material, organic fluids and
water-treatment residues. 
The Gyeongju council passed a resolution Friday declaring the
city would accept a nuclear disposal center, but some Gyeongju
residents have protested the initiative. 

Lee Jae-geun, secretary general of the Gyeongju chapter of the
Korean Federation of Environmental Movements, said the mayor
should withdraw the bid immediately and called on city
councillors to resign. 

Environmental activists said they would file petitions with
UNESCO and the Cultural Heritage Administration seeking to
protect Gyeongju as the home of cultural treasures. 

With the central government promising incentives to cities and
regions to take nuclear waste, competition is expected to grow.
Gunsan, Uljin, Pohang, Yeongdeok and Samcheok have expressed
interest. The government has promised 300 billion won ($300
million) in subsidies to the host region, in addition to an 8.5
billion won annual fee for the nuclear deposits. The
headquarters of the Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power Corp. will
move to the area selected, and a 120 billion won project to
build an atom smasher will also be sited in the area selected
for the disposal facility. 

by Song Yee-ho, Jung Kyung-min myoja@joongang.co.kr>   
	  
Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
 32 Las Vegas RJ: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Fuel assembly plan in works, official says 
 
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
 

Engineers' study pointed to possibility of radioactive leaks at
nuclear repository By KEITH ROGERS
REVIEW-JOURNAL
 
A facility or process for handling damaged spent fuel assemblies
at the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository will be
added to the site's design in the coming weeks, a Department of
Energy spokesman said Monday.
 
 "Over the next several weeks that's going to be closed and
solved," said Allen Benson, a spokesman for the department's
Office of Repository Development.
 
 He was responding to questions raised by a Review-Journal story
Saturday about a study by department contractor engineers who
were hired to troubleshoot the repository's design. 
The engineers conducted the study so there wouldn't be any
surprises when a license application is submitted to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Benson said.
 
 "We are in the process of refining the design to accommodate
the issue identified in the report. It will be dealt with
through refinement of design or operational techniques," he
said, referring to the contractor's report.
 
 Benson said Yucca Mountain project scientists and engineers are
working to finalize the design but the department is not ready
to release the blueprint in its current stage. 
Contractor engineers reported in March that thousands of highly
radioactive fuel assemblies are expected to arrive damaged at
the site's surface facilities, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
 
 There the fuel assemblies will be removed from transportation
casks, inspected and sent to above-ground facilities for aging
and repackaging before they are put in maze of tunnels deep
inside the mountain for permanent storage. 
The study found that 4 percent, or roughly 8,880, are expected
to have varying amounts of damage to the zirconium-alloy
cladding that surrounds spent fuel pellets.
 
 Unless precautionary measures are taken to repackage the fuel
assemblies in an oxygen-free environment, engineers believe
cracks or undetected leaks could result in oxidation of the fuel
and contamination released in the form of highly-radioactive
powders. This in turn would pose potential risks to workers and
the public.
 
 Benson said there will be a complete surface facility design
for the NRC staff to review in the license application for the
repository. "All operational facilities will be designed to
handle damaged fuel assemblies" if there are any, he said.
 
 He said the NRC is aware of the oxidation potential "and it is
up to the Department of Energy to address it in the license
application."
 
 In the past, critics of the project including consultants for
Nevada's Nuclear Projects Agency have expressed concerns about
the potential for accidents at the surface facilities.
 
 As much as 20,000 tons of spent fuel casks could be left on
pads outside the repository where the decaying waste will age
before it is put below ground. While being handled or stored
above ground, the waste could be vulnerable to shaking from
strong earthquakes or damage and fire from aircraft crashes,
critics have said.
 
 
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
 33 RIA Novosti: Nuclear storage site in Murmansk to be commissioned 
two months late
 
16/ 08/ 2005

MOSCOW, August 16 (RIA Novosti) - The first stage of a storage
facility in the Murmansk Region (European Russia's north) for
reactor blocks from dismantled Russian nuclear submarines will
be commissioned in November 2005, deputy head of the Federal
Nuclear Power Agency Sergei Antipov said Tuesday.

 The joint Russian-German construction management committee made
the decision to commission the first stage, Antipov said.
Originally, he added, commissioning was scheduled for September.

 He said the site chosen for this facility had turned out to be
more geographically complicated than planned, so the project had
become more expensive and the timeframe for its implementation
had been extended.

 The Russian-German construction management committee was
established following a 2003 agreement between the countries on
creating a long-term storage site for reactor blocks in the
Murmansk region.

 Today it is the partnership's major project, at a cost of
around 300 million euros. Antipov said the German government had
provided guarantees on financing the construction of two stages
of the storage site.

 Germany allocated some 1 billion euros for this program, with
300 million to be spent on the construction of the two stages,
and another 300 million on chemical weapons destruction.
 
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
 34 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca to cost Clark County $2.5 billion 

Today: August 16, 2005 at 11:11:32 PDT 

By Stephen Curran <stephen.curran@lasvegassun.com>
 LAS VEGAS SUN

 A proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain is likely to
cost Clark County roughly $2.5 billion in added fire, police and
emergency expenses, according to a report that was expected to
come before the commission this morning.

 That figure, an estimate spread out over the Energy
Department's planned 24-year shipment schedule, covers what
officials from the county's Nuclear Waste Division say will be
necessary for added security for Clark County, Las Vegas, North
Las Vegas, Henderson and Mesquite, the county's nuclear planning
manager Irene Navis said.

 It's the most recent study of the impact of the proposed
319-mile rail line that would carve its way through Lincoln and
Nye counties before ending at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest
of Las Vegas. The previous review, which examined only all-truck
shipments, was conducted in 2002, Navis said.

 The steep costs include possible impacts to public safety
agencies, including fire police and emergency management, which
would be tapped to protect "the health, safety and welfare of
(Clark County) citizens in the event of an emergency," according
to a draft version of the report.

 This latest study takes into consideration truck and rail
shipments. Rail shipments are the Energy Department's preferred
option.

 The Yucca-associated costs amount to what county officials are
calling an unfunded mandate that would shift a burden to the
local government for safety near the corridor, which would see
up to 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste.

 "It means Nevada taxpayers would end up paying the brunt of
it," Commissioner Myrna Williams, an outspoken Yucca opponent
who has sat on the state's Nuclear Waste Projects Commission for
the past 12 years, said this morning. "It's ridiculous."

 Commission Chairman Rory Reid said the costs from shipping
waste from power plants scattered throughout the country would
create an unfair burden on the county that could mean cutbacks
in other services funded out of its roughly $1 billion general
fund budget each year.

 "There are nuclear power plants all over the country that
generate power for other people and we're being asked to take
out their garbage," Reid said. "It's not fair."

 The total costs to all jurisdictions in Clark County skyrockets
to more than $3.7 billion, with the city of Las Vegas' $562
million share over 24 years coming in second to the county,
according to the report.

 While spread out over almost two and a half decades, each
entity will begin to see a financial burden within the next 10
years as the potential nuclear waste dump is expected to reach
completion. Clark County, which is expected to shoulder the
largest cost, is expected to see a $291 million public safety
spike in the project's first year, according to the report.

 The commission, which is expected to maintain its steadfast
stance against Yucca Mountain, has no plans to negotiate for
federal assistance with those costs, Reid said.

 "I don't think we have the best relationship with the DOE
(Energy Department) right now," he said. 


All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 35 Las Vegas SUN: Rising construction costs to affect Yucca 

Today: August 16, 2005 at 11:11:32 PDT 

DOE estimates are badly outdated

 By Benjamin Grove <grove@lasvegassun.com>
 SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF

 WASHINGTON -- Las Vegas home buyers aren't the only ones being
pummeled by the skyrocketing cost of construction -- rising
prices are likely to deliver a severe wallop to Yucca Mountain.

 Rapidly increasing costs of labor, materials and fuel could
drive the construction cost of the proposed high-level nuclear
waste repository up at least 40 percent from badly outdated
Energy Department cost estimates, experts said.

 Some segments of the construction industry are experiencing
some of the worst cost inflation since the 1980s, and that will
translate to a higher Yucca price tag, UNLV construction
management professor Neil Opfer said.

 "You have to wonder if they (Energy Department) are getting
whip-sawed by all these costs," Opfer said. "You're just seeing
this huge inflation. Some of these costs are getting out of
sight."

 The Energy Department has said the total cost of Yucca Mountain
would be about $58 billion by the time it is filled with 77,000
tons of nuclear waste, closed and monitored well into the next
century.

 The cost of actually constructing Yucca -- including excavating
and developing miles of underground tunnels and constructing
waste-processing and temporary storage facilities at the surface
-- would be only about $4.5 billion, the department said.

 But the department has not updated its Yucca cost estimates
since May 2001, and officials now say even that estimate was
based on a repository design the department is no longer
planning to use.

 Energy Department officials last week said they would not
disclose a more up-to-date construction cost estimate until they
have completed their design plan. And they won't unveil the
design plan until they submit the application to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission early next year.

 When pressed on why the department does not have a construction
cost estimate this late in the process, department spokesman
Allen Benson said, "We will not speculate on costs until the
design is finalized."

 The Energy Department can expect some sticker shock when it
gets around to a cost estimate, experts said.

 Construction costs around the nation have shot through the roof
since 2001, with Nevada experiencing some of the steepest price
jumps in some cases, experts said. To compound the Energy
Department's problem, last year officials acknowledged Yucca
faced at least a two-year delay -- two more years for prices to
climb ever higher.

 A 2001 cost estimate for a construction project such as Yucca
is "woefully out of date," said Ken Simonson, chief economist
for Associated General Contractors of America.

 The department faces a number of material cost spikes, Simonson
said. For example, steel mill products are up 54 percent since
2001, said Simonson, who studies government product price
statistics. Concrete-related materials are up 16 percent since
2001, he said.

 Notable increases in diesel fuel and petroleum products also
would increase costs at Yucca, a remote desert site 90 miles
northwest of Las Vegas, he said.

 National increases in material costs are reflected in Southern
Nevada prices for everything from PVC piping to lumber, said
Steve Holloway, vice president of the Associated General
Contractors' Las Vegas chapter. Competition from opening markets
in China and others around Asia are driving those costs up,
Holloway said.

 And union labor costs are now increasing from 4 to 6 percent a
year, he said. Nonunion labor costs have increased even more
dramatically, Holloway said.

 Construction worker salaries in Clark County have gone up from
$765 per week in 2001 to $836 last year, according to the Nevada
Employment, Training and Rehabilitation Department.

 "They (Energy Department) would have some problems getting
labor, given the shortage of skilled labor here," Holloway said.

 Workers won't easily give up good construction jobs on and
around the Strip to toil at the remote Yucca site, Holloway said.

 "It's a heck of a commute," Holloway said.

 When labor, materials and other cost factors are considered,
the overall cost of construction has gone up 20 percent each
year in the last two years, said Las Vegas real estate
consultant John Restrepo. No contractor or agency has been
immune to the price spikes, he said.

 The plights of two major government builders -- the Clark
County School District and the Clark County Public Works
Department -- illustrate what a much larger government builder
such as the Energy Department might face in Southern Nevada.

 More and more, there are so many construction jobs that
contractors can name their price, officials with the School
District and Public Works said.

 The School District in recent years had endured construction
cost increases of 5 to 10 percent, but in the last year alone
costs spiked 40 percent, district director of construction Fred
Smith said. Part of that is due to unprecedented levels of
competition for contractors with private developers, especially
those constructing medium- and high-rise condos, Smith said.

 "The amount of work in the Las Vegas Valley has outstripped the
abilities of contractors, subcontractors and laborers," Smith
said. "They are able to put some premium prices on bids for
their work."

 It's often difficult as a government entity to compete with
private developers who have more flexibility to pay contractors
more, Smith said. There is no relief in sight, Smith said.

 "They just keep putting more and more of these (private
development projects) on the books," Smith said.

 The Clark County Public Works has been staggered by the price
of three commodities -- concrete, steel and petroleum products,
which are used to make asphalt, deputy director Les Henley said.
A cement shortage about a year ago has mostly abated, but it
left prices higher -- roughly 30 to 40 percent higher than two
years ago, Henley said.

 And "steel prices have just been ridiculous over the last few
years," Henley said.

 Yucca watchdog groups are demanding an updated Yucca price tag.

 "We'd like to know the cost," said Tom Schatz, president of
Citizens Against Government Waste. "Four years for the last
estimate is fairly poor, even for government."

 Increasing construction costs may just be one factor that
ultimately could drive up the overall estimated cost of $58
billion, Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency director Bob Loux said.

 "A lot of people in and out of government are saying that the
overall cost is well over $100 billion," Loux said. According to
a 2001 Energy Department estimate, it would cost roughly $4.5
billion to construct Yucca, including about $1.2 billion to
excavate and develop the underground tunnels where nuclear waste
would be stored in metal containers. It would cost another $1.7
billion to construct a facility at the surface opening of the
repository for a waste acceptance and transfer station and
temporary storage.

 Other costs would include:

 
 $200 million for waste containers and titanium "drip shields"
to protect the containers from moisture.

                               •••


 $330 million for testing the performance of the repository

 
                               •••


 $940 million for other "regulatory, infrastructure and
management support" costs. 

         All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 36 The Dispatch: Perchlorate lawsuits more legitimate for a few reasons 

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Dear Editor,

I agree with what you are fundamentally saying about the amount
of lawsuits launched in this day and age. 

However to level the playing field:

1. Olin required that homeowners sign a contract waiving all
further liability after installing the filtration systems. This
is before a conclusive study and health goal has been decided by
the EPA and NRDC. 

2. A recent study “Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion”
by the National Research Council stated that infants cannot
consume a rate of 6ppb of perchlorate without facing a myriad of
developmental effects (mental retardation being one of them) and
nursing mothers are also at risk for perchlorate consumption. 

3. The Environment California (www.environmentcalifornia.org)
group has written a number of perchlorate studies (not funded by
chemical companies) warning of the dangers or lack thereof of
the chemical. 

4. Sen. Dianne Feinstein recently issued an amendment to a bill
that is asking for funding to conduct a full scope of studies so
that finally we might have a definitive answer as to the after
effects of perchlorate consumption. 

In essence, it is not fair to belittle someone over a lawsuit
that brings attention to an issue that needs attention brought
to it. 

Melissa Schilling, Gilroy

[Gilroy Dispatch's Budget List]                               
                
*****************************************************************
 37 Las Vegas SUN: DOE: Plan in the works to handle damaged Yucca waste containers 

Today: August 16, 2005 at 12:3:5 PDT 

ASSOCIATED PRESS 

LAS VEGAS (AP) - Plans are being developed to handle damaged
radioactive fuel assemblies at the planned Yucca Mountain
nuclear waste repository, an Energy Department spokesman said. 

"Over the next several weeks that's going to be closed and
solved," said Allen Benson, a spokesman for the department's
Office of Repository Development. 

Benson was responding to questions raised about a March report
by engineers hired to troubleshoot repository design. They found
that some nuclear waste containers are expected to arrive at the
Yucca site with undetected leaks and cracks, potentially
exposing workers to high levels of radioactive contamination. 

The contractors conducted the study so there wouldn't be any
surprises when a license application is submitted to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Benson said. The department plans to
submit a formal application for a license to the NRC next year. 

"We are in the process of refining the design to accommodate the
issue identified in the report," Benson told the Las Vegas
Review-Journal. "It will be dealt with through refinement of
design or operational techniques." 

Plans currently call for fuel assemblies to be removed from rail
and truck transportation casks in aboveground facilities,
inspected and repackaged before being entombed in permanent
storage tunnels 1,000 feet below the mountain, 90 miles
northwest of Las Vegas. 

The study said 4 percent, or about 8,880 assemblies are expected
to have varying amounts of damage to the zirconium-alloy
cladding surrounding spent fuel pellets. 

Engineers believe that unless repackaging is conducted in an
oxygen-free environment, the fuel could oxidize and release
highly radioactive powder. 

Benson said there will be a complete surface facility design for
Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff to review in a license
application for the repository. 

In the past, critics of the project including consultants for
Nevada's state Nuclear Projects Agency have expressed concerns
about the potential for accidents during surface transfer
operations. 

Officials say up to 20,000 tons of spent fuel casks could be
left on pads outside the repository where the decaying waste
will age before it is put below ground. 

--- 

Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal, http://www.lvrj.com 

         All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 38 Cibola County Beacon: Retired miners meet to discuss RECA standings
                                
Tuesday, August 16, 2005

GRANTS - Retired uranium miners met last week to hear updates on
the progress of attempts to obtain RECA (Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act) benefits for uranium miners effected by
radiation after 1971.

Margarito "Mag" Martinez, former president of the Oil, Chemical
and Atomic Workers International, and Tony Sena presented
information on compensation paid to date to workers effected by
radiation prior to 1971. According to Sena, "There are five
diseases covered by the act, including silicosis, pulmonary
fibrosis, various cancers and pneumoconiosis. As of November
2004, the Federal Government had paid out $700 million to 11,000
families, but no payments have been made to uranium workers who
worked the mines after 1971."

Melton Martinez is concerned with the Native American mine
workers who have not been able to access the compensation fund.
He says, "In the Navajo Nation alone, 12,000 people have been
affected by exposure problems. In eleven chapters, there are
almost 7,000 people with respiratory problems. It is hard to get
information from the hospitals although the National Academy of
Sciences did research in St. George, Utah, and Shiprock. Nearby
mills were left unattended and dust from the tailings blew
around, contaminating water and plant and animal life. We need
to find a champion in the political arena. Stewart Udall [former
Secretary of the Interior] put the issue on the table, but
Senator Domenici says he will help and then does nothing."
Martinez points out that there are problems specific to Native
Americans which prevent them from accessing compensation funds.
"Often Indians have no proof of addresses or marriages and no
documentation of where they were born or went to school," he
explains.

Some miners attending the meeting inquired about accidents in
the mines and were advised to apply for Workman's Compensation.
Another cited cases of miners who suffered respiratory problems,
but were not qualified for compensation because they worked
after 1971. Mag Martinez advised those victims to get an
attorney and not accept a settlement.

A petition was circulated that requested compensation for
uranium workers who were employed after 1971, and the
possibility of a class action federal lawsuit combining miners
from New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Montana and Wyoming was
mentioned as a possibility for redress of grievances. The
parting message to the miners was the need for unity.

By Diane Fowler 

Copyright © 2005Cibola County Beacon. 
*****************************************************************
 39 NEWS.com.au: Public uranium hearing this week 

From: AAP                       

August 17, 2005                                                  

MINING company representatives and conservationists will state
their views on the use of Australia's uranium resources at a
public hearing in Melbourne this week. The hearing, conducted by
the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and
Resources, will gather evidence for a parliamentary inquiry into
the development of the non-fossil fuel energy industry in
Australia.

 Representatives from the CSIRO, organisations such as Friends
of the Earth and mining companies, Southern Gold and Heathgate
Resources, will contribute to the hearing in Melbourne this
Friday.

The parliamentary inquiry will examine the global
demand for Australia's uranium resources, the strategic
importance of resources and the potential implications for
global greenhouse gas emission reductions from the further
development and export of Australia's uranium resources. 		  		

 Privacy Policy| SitemapCopyright 2005 News Limited.
All times AEST (GMT + 10). 
*****************************************************************
 40 AU ABC: NT Parliament passes 'no nuclear dump' motion. 

16/08/2005. ABC News Online
 	
The Northern Territory Parliament has passed a motion urging the
Commonwealth not to put a nuclear waste facility in the
Territory. 

Despite heated debate between the Government and the Opposition,
the CLP supported the motion.

 But CLP Leader Jodeen Carney ruled out the Government demands
to pressure the CLP Senator Nigel Scullion to cross the floor of
the Senate on the issue. 

Independent Member for Nelson Gerry Wood called the motion
"stupid" and criticised both the Government and the CLP for
clouding the scientific arguments. 






*****************************************************************
 41 AU ABC: Rum Jungle tipped as NT's next uranium mine. 

17/08/2005. ABC News Online
 	
A site near the disused Rum Jungle mine 75 kilometres south of
Darwin could become the Northern Territory's next uranium mine.

 The Territory Minerals Council says 14 companies are currently
exploring for uranium in the Territory.

 It says areas of most interest are in West Arnhem Land and just
south of Borroloola.

 In central Australia, areas of interest are near Yuendemu and
north of Alice Springs at Nolans Bore and the Napperby region.

 The council's Kezia Purick says the most likely site is near
the abandoned Rum Jungle mine, where an exploration company has
plans to mine cobalt, nickel and copper by the end of this year.

 "[That] could lead to an operation in uranium mining starting
within five years, possibly eight years," she said.

 The council says it could take between two and 15 years to mine
uranium at the other sites.

 "Some of the other companies are a little bit further back,
still doing exploration work but compass resources are moving
forward quite positively," Ms Purick said.

Water concerns

 The Northern Territory Environment Centre says it would have
concerns for the supply of drinking water to Darwin if the Rum
Jungle site is mined for uranium.

 The centre's Peter Robertson says a new mine there could spell
disaster for an environment already damaged by a 20-year history
of uranium mining.

 "There is that dreadful legacy of uranium mining there from
decades gone by," he said.

 "There obviously would be quite strong concerns from members of
the local community, and of course it's not very far away from
the drinking water supply catchment for Darwin itself."

 Mr Robertson says the Rum Jungle site is seen as an easy option
because of mining activity in the past.

 "It's interesting to note that Koongarra and Jabiluka have
obviously dropped off the Minerals Council's hit list... because
those uranium mines are strongly opposed on environmental and
cultural grounds," he said.

 "They've obviously decided to pick up on the third cab off the
rank at Rum Jungle." 

*****************************************************************
 42 KVBC: Yucca Mountain Shipping Could Cost A Bundle

August 17, 2005   

Shipping nuclear waste through southern Nevada would create a
financial burden on Clark County taxpayers. Today county
commissioners are outlining their expense plan on how much money
they would need to protect local families from high-level
nuclear waste. 

In all, they say the price tag would be around 2 and a half
billion dollars. That would cover police, fire and emergency
crews over the Department Of Energy's 24-year shipment schedule. 

Spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste will come
from more than 100 sites around the country. Most of it by rail
and most of it from the eastern half of the country. Shipments
coming from southern California and other southwestern states
could travel right through Las Vegas, in specially designed
casks. The train would use the existing Union Pacific rail
lines. 

Once the shipment arrives at Caliente, the DOE would move it
onto a dedicated rail line to Yucca Mountain. Those shipments
coming by truck from the southern California area would travel
along 1-15, and then use the 215 beltway to avoid the congested
Spaghetti Bowl. 

The State of Nevada can request an alternative route for those
truck shipments. Currently, Nevada has a agreement with the
secretary of energy that low level waste not travel through the
Las Vegas Valley. 

Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and KVBC. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 43 NEWS.com.au: Risk of overindulgence in uranium 

(16-08-2005)
 	
From:                   By Robin Bromby
 August 16, 2005   		 		 		 

URANIUM investors may be getting ahead of themselves by pushing
up share prices whenever a company announces it has a sniff of
yellowcake. The message coming out of two industry bodies is
that, contrary to some scenarios, there is plenty of uranium,
and the chances of a world shortage -- even with China's demand
-- are slight, if they exist at all. 

Yesterday, Yamarna Goldfields (yam.ASX:Quote,News) became the
latest junior to excite investors after telling the market it
had acquired a uranium project -- on, of all places, the remote
coral atoll of Niue, in the South Pacific. 

The company said geological modelling showed the island
contained uranium deposits of equal or greater quantity to
Olympic Dam, the largest in the world. 

Yamarna (yam.ASX:Quote,News) will take up to 80 per cent of the
project from Canberra-based Avian Mining, which did the
modelling work in conjunction with government scientists from
Australia and New Zealand. It will also spend $1.2 million on
exploration work. 

Yarmana's shares (yam.ASX:Quote,News) rose 22 per cent, with 57
million traded. 

Investors are reacting to uranium announcements because of the 
soaring Chinese demand and scenarios sketched by various 
organisations.

 The European Commission and the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development has forecast uranium resources will
be severely depleted in the next 50 years, jeopardising plans to
increase the number of nuclear power stations. 

Ian Hore-Lacy, manager of the Melbourne-based Uranium
Information Centre, said this line was disinformation pushed by
the Greens and other anti-nuclear organisations. "It's
nonsense," he said. 

Mr Hore-Lacy also warned that investors who backed uranium may
not get the price ride they were clearly hoping for. 

"It's not going to go to the astronomical levels that oil may
well do." 

Mr Hore-Lacey said that, contrary to popular belief, uranium was
found around the world very widely, forming in far more rock
types than oil. 

UIC estimates the known inferred and probable resources -- about
3.6 million tonnes -- amount to 50 times present yearly
consumption. 

Moreover, a new exploration cycle was starting with the
likelihood that resources would increase dramatically over the
next decade. 

His view is about to be backed by the London-based World Nuclear
Association, which will issue a new paper that states uranium
supplies will be more than adequate. "The world faces many
challenges in achieving a global expansion of nuclear energy to
fully realise the technology's clean-energy potential. A limited
supply of uranium resources is not among them," the WNA report
stated. 

The association said current estimates put uranium resources,
including those not yet economic or properly explored, at
volumes to fulfil about 200 years' use at today's consumption
rates. 

Moreover, technology had improved since the first uranium boom
of the 1970s. 

Miners, including those at the Beverley operation in South
Australia, were now able to use in-situ leaching -- a process by
which miners leave the ore in the ground and remove the metal by
pumping a solution through the ore and bringing the uranium to
the surface. 

The technology allows for smaller deposits to be considered
economic. 

WNA, on the back of a tripling of the spot price on uranium
since 2003, sees more junior explorers entering the business. 

That trend continues to gather pace in Australia. 

Yamarna and Matrix Metals joined the growing crowd yesterday.
Yamarna's shares rose 0.2c to 1.1c. 

Matrix said it had been granted two tenements north of Mt Isa
and the old Mary Kathleen uranium mine. 

Rock chip samples at one tenement had assayed at 1.18 per cent
uranium oxide.                                 

*****************************************************************
 44 Buffalo News: We would all be safer without parkway and West Valley 

Another Voice   														 					 				
 										  [ border=]    					 										 						 									
Potential terrorism sites

We would all be safer without parkway and West Valley
 										 										
8/16/2005 				 					   									 									
 										  [ border=]    					
Not to get paranoid on you, but suppose, just suppose, an 
al-Qaida cell in Tonawanda decided to attack Western New York. 
Which targets would it hit? Where in Western New York are we 
vulnerable? What can we do to protect ourselves? 

Consider the Robert Moses Parkway, which traverses the length of 
the Niagara River Gorge and nuzzles across the face of the 
Niagara Power Project dam. (Whose four lanes carry little traffic 
and cut the City of Niagara Falls off from the Niagara Gorge 
park.) Consider the high-level radioactive waste at the West 
Valley Nuclear Storage Site, perched on a cliff above Cattaraugus 
Creek just off Route 219. 

My Tonawanda terrorists might be upright citizens, work as 
teachers and have their kids in Little League. They might not 
wear turbans or beards. In Ireland I took some kidding about my 
namesake, Brendan Behan, a union house painter - and a famous IRA 
bomber. And there's our neighbor, ex-GI Timothy McVeigh. 

I toured the Niagara Power Vista with my grandson. He took me 
down to the platform beneath the dam where he and his dad fish. 
Behind that mass of concrete lies the Power Project reservoir, 
which contains an enormous head of water destined to provide 
electric power for New York State. I reconnoitered the reservoir 
for fishing possibilities, and a patrol car warned me that the 
area was restricted. Since the al-Qaida bombings in London, I am 
reassured by that officer's vigilance. 

But what about the Robert Moses Parkway? Supposing one 90-degree 
Sunday in August, my terrorists, the teacher and his house 
painter buddy, mixed a tank of fertilizer and diesel fuel, loaded 
it in a pickup and detonated themselves on the parkway in front 
of that dam? 

If the Power Project dam blew out, it would shut down the 
Northeast power grid. How long would it take to replace the power 
generated by the Niagara? 

I've hiked into Zoar Valley, waded Cattaraugus Creek several 
times and passed picnickers and swimmers enjoying the sunshine in 
the view of the moss-covered shale cliffs. 

Not far upstream, the West Valley Nuclear Storage Site teeters on 
a cliff. It was a noble experiment in disposal of nuclear waste. 
Spent nuclear fuel was turned into stable glass logs, but then 
regulators sent lower-level nuclear waste to accumulate there as 
well. The debate goes on: When will this dangerous stuff be sent 
to Nevada's relatively safe, isolated, desert site at Yucca 
Mountain? 

Suppose that on the same 90-degree Sunday, my Little League dad 
and his businessman friend rig up their SUV as a bomb and blow 
the West Valley Nuclear Storage Site into the creek? Cattaraugus 
Creek would be inundated with shards of radioactive glass and 
other evil materials. Radioactivity would foul the creek water 
flowing into Lake Erie, down the Niagara River and into Lake 
Ontario. When would it be drinkable again? 

To prevent these scenarios, we don't need another Patriot Act. We 
need simply to move all of that nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, 
now, and close the Robert Moses Parkway, now. 

Larry Beahan lives in Snyder.
 
Buffalo News Services |                  
Copyright  1999 - 2005 - The Buffalo News                                                

*****************************************************************
 45 San Luis Obispo Tribune: Waste may remain at Diablo for decades

| 08/16/2005 | 

A report given to the California Energy Commission on Monday
casts doubt on plans for a storage facility for radioactive
waste at Yucca Mountain

 By David Sneed

 The Tribune

SACRAMENTO - Communities near California's two nuclear power
plants can expect to have hundreds of tons of highly radioactive
waste in their midst for decades to come. 

Those plants are Diablo Canyon near San Luis Obispo and San
Onofre, north of San Diego. 

On Monday, the California Energy Commission received a highly
pessimistic report on the likelihood of a central national
storage repository for spent nuclear reactor fuel ever opening
up in the Nevada desert at Yucca Mountain, north of Las Vegas. 

Although Californians have paid more than $1 billion for Yucca
Mountain, "uncertainty remains over whether the project will
ever be constructed," a report to the commission concluded
Monday. 

Several speakers on the first of the two-day workshop in
Sacramento about the future of nuclear power in California were
more blunt. 

"No matter how you slice it, Yucca Mountain flunks," said Bob
Loux with Nevada's nuclear office. 

Paul Craig, a former member of California's Nuclear Waste
Technical Review Board, said the federal Department of Energy
has made so many mistakes in its scientific studies of the site
that it has lost its credibility. 

"This is a classic example of an organization that is vastly
less than the sum of its parts," Craig said of the Energy
Department. 

The agency was invited to participate in the workshop but
declined. 

Because of delays at Yucca Mountain, electricity customers will
soon be paying hundreds of millions of dollars to store nuclear
waste at temporary storage sites that might not be temporary at
all. 

The fact that spent fuel will likely be stored in large
steel-and-concrete casks for decades also raises the possibility
that the casks will fail and that nuclear plant operators will
have to repackage the spent assemblies in new casks. This would
be a complicated and expensive process, Craig said. 

Those casks are designed to last for 40 years, but the prospect
that Yucca Mountain may never open means the waste could be
stored on site at the nuclear plants for hundreds of years. 

Steven Kraft, with the nuclear industry advocacy group Nuclear
Energy Institute, told the commission that scientific problems
with Yucca Mountain can be overcome and the project should move
forward. 

"Yucca Mountain is an important national priority," he said. 

First in 30 years 

This week's hearings were the first time in 30 years that the
state has taken a comprehensive look at the part of California's
utility infrastructure that produces 13 percent of the state's
electricity. 

Diablo Canyon and San Onofre are California's two operating
nuclear power plants. Southern California also gets part of its
electricity from the Palo Verde nuclear plant in Arizona. 

These plants were built with the assumption that the federal
government would provide a central storage facility for nuclear
waste for all of the nation's 103 operating reactors. 

However, staunch opposition by the state of Nevada and questions
about the reliability of technical studies done of Yucca
Mountain have caused numerous delays. 

The facility was supposed to open in 1998 but is now expected to
open no sooner than 2013, and that date is considered
optimistic. 

Operators at Diablo Canyon expect to begin transferring its
spent fuel from storage pools to aboveground dry casks late in
2007. The casks will be mounted on a thick concrete slab built
on a hillside behind the plant. 

Eventually, 138 casks will be filled over the next 35 years at a
cost of $250 million. 

A similar storage facility is planned for San Onofre at a cost
of $162 million to Southern California ratepayers. 

Rochelle Becker, a San Luis Obispo County woman who is a member
of the anti-nuclear group Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility,
said she wants the federal government to use part of the $1
billion California has paid for Yucca Mountain to make the
state's dry cask storage facilities more robust and able to
withstand terrorist attacks and earthquakes. 

The Utah alternative 

The nuclear power industry is planning a temporary alternative
to Yucca Mountain. But utilities in California are showing
little interest in using it. 

The temporary facility is planned for an Indian reservation in
Skull Valley, Utah. It could take 4,000 casks, or about as much
waste as the nation has generated. This so-called private
fuel-storage facility could open in 2007. 

Jeff Lewis, Diablo Canyon's spokesman, said that Pacific Gas and
Electric Co. would prefer to concentrate its efforts on its own
on-site storage facility and wait for a federal repository to
open. The power company would prefer not to have to ship its
fuel twice, once to Skull Valley and then again to a federal
site.   

*****************************************************************
 46 Daily Yomiuri: WWII's end remembered / Koizumi stresses Asian ties at milestone
60th anniversary 

The Yomiuri Shimbun 

The Emperor makes his address as the Empress look on during the
war memorial service at Nippon Budokan hall in Tokyo on Monday. 

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi expressed anew Japan's remorse
for World War II, commitment to ensure world peace and
prosperity and to not wage war again at a government-sponsored
memorial service Monday marking the 60th anniversary of the
war's end. 

About 6,300 people, including the Emperor and Empress, came to
honor 3.1 million war dead at the service held at the Nippon
Budokan hall in Chiyoda Ward, Tokyo. 

It was the fifth time Koizumi has attended the memorial service
since becoming prime minister. 

As in his past attendances, Koizumi said: "Our country has
caused tremendous damage and pain to the peoples of many
countries, especially Asian countries...I heartily pray for the
souls of the dead and victims of the war in and outside Japan." 

According to the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry, of the
attendees, family members of the war dead numbered 5,118, up
about 200 compared with last year. 

But this was the first time that there were no parents of war
dead. On the other hand, the number of children of the war dead
exceeded 60 percent. 

The attendees observed a minute's silence for the war dead at
noon. The Emperor made a memorial address, saying: "With all the
nation's people, I offer my sincere remorse for those who lost
their lives on the battlefield and others killed in the
disaster. I pray for world peace and Japan's further
development." 

As the post of the speaker of the House of Representatives is
vacant due to the lower house dissolution, this was the first
memorial service since they began in 1963 that one of the heads
of the three branches of government was not present. 

As a representative of the war bereaved families, Takao
Yorimitsu, 75, of Tosayamadacho, Kochi Prefecture, whose father
died from a disease contracted at the front in Tianjin, China,
said: "We [war] bereaved families live by encouraging each
other. We give thanks that our peaceful life was founded on the
ultimate sacrifice of the war dead and pray for their souls." 

=== 

Koizumi issues statement 

The government approved at a Cabinet meeting Monday morning a
statement by Koizumi to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the
end of the war that expressed the nation's remorse, apologized
for the war and reiterated its resolution to follow the path of
a peaceful nation. 

Koizumi's statement was made out of consideration of this year
as a significant milestone after the war's end. 

It was the second such statement by a prime minister to be
endorsed by a cabinet after then Prime Minister Tomiichi
Murayama's statement in 1995 to mark the 50th anniversary of the
end of World War II. 

Koizumi also said, "The postwar history of our nation is indeed
60 years of peace, where we have expressed our reflections on
the war through action." 

Koizumi's statement also stressed the necessity of joining hands
with other countries, especially with near neighbors such as
China and South Korea, to maintain peace and boost development
in the region. 

In addition, Koizumi said he would like to forge a
forward-looking cooperative relationship on the basis of mutual
understanding and confidence with Asian countries by squarely
facing up to the past and reaching an understanding of history. 

The government made the statement in consideration of
anti-Japanese sentiment that has recently erupted in China and
South Korea. 

=== 

47 lawmakers visit Yasukuni 

Forty-seven lawmakers belonging to a nonpartisan group visited
Yasukuni Shrine on Monday. The group consisted of 23 former
lower house and 24 upper house members. 

Among them was Hiroshi Imazu, deputy director general of the
Defense Agency, and Akira Shichijo, a Cabinet Office senior vice
minister. 

Other lawmakers included Shinzo Abe, deputy secretary general of
the Liberal Democratic Party, former Transport Minister Jiro
Kawasaki, former state minister for natural disaster prevention
Yoshitada Konoike and Shingo Nishimura, former Democratic Party
of Japan lower house member. 

Tokyo Gov. Shintaro Ishihara also visited the shrine. He has
visited it on Aug. 15 every year since 2000. (Aug. 16, 2005) 

 Copyright © The Yomiuri Shimbun.   
*****************************************************************
 47 asahi.com: 60 Years on¡§Wartime students left record of their thoughts

  [asahi.com]     
  
08/16/2005 By HAJIMU TAKEDA

The Asahi Shimbun

Even now, 60 years after the end of World War II, documents are
still surfacing that record the heartfelt cries of students in
wartime Japan. 

One such document is a notebook containing entries by students
at Kyoto's Doshisha University who abruptly had to abandon their
studies after they were drafted into the imperial forces. 

Many of them were sent to the battlefield and only a few
survived. The students were all members of a group that studied
English. The club still exists, although now it is known as the
English Speaking Society. 

During World War II, when speaking the language of the enemy was
taboo, the group went by the name of Shurendan Gogakuhan,
literally, the group studying languages within the training
unit. 

Machiko Suekane, 52, found the notebook in July at her Yokohama
home while clearing out a den. The notebook belonged to a
relative, Yoshie Suekane, who died in 2000 at age 77. The elder
Suekane graduated from Doshisha in September 1945. 

Doshisha officials said the university had few documents that
record the thoughts of students who were drafted. It called the
notebook an important discovery. 

The notebook, which measures 15 centimeters by 9 cm, includes
comments written in fountain pen or brush by 22 students who
were conscripted. 

One entry by a student who was part of the first wave of
students drafted into the military on Dec. 1, 1943, starts out,
"Exchanging our brushes for guns, we depart, taking along the
many memories we have of our short time on campus." 

As the fighting turned increasingly ugly for Japan, the
government resorted to more desperate measures. One was the
lifting in October 1943 of the suspension of the draft for all
college students in the arts and humanities. 

As a result, Doshisha held a ceremony to see off the departing
students by mobilizing about 6,000 of their contemporaries and
others. 

Another student who was sent off to war in 1943 wrote: "Standing
resolutely, we students will leave for the land and the air to
serve as a shield for the country. We hold in our hearts our
gratitude and enthusiasm." 

An entry by another student, whose admittance into the military
was unclear, said, "Wanting to cry on the breast of our girl
friend, and hurling ourselves onto an enemy ship, both arise
from the passion of we youth." 

A student who joined the military in 1944 expressed his feelings
in a poem that hinted at premonitions of death. "Throwing away
our brushes and closing the books, we leave for the battlefield/
We will scatter, wishing to become the rock of East Asia." 

Yoshimasa Miwa, 80, a resident of Fujisawa, Kanagawa Prefecture,
was stunned to learn that the notebook in which he recorded his
thoughts had survived to this day. 

According to Miwa, the English study group was run by a
professor Fukujiro Minaishi. Minaishi died in 1972 at age 88. 

The group's activities were colored by the rise in militarism at
the time, with members reciting an English translation of the
Imperial Rescript on Education. 

"I remember writing in the notebook to commemorate a farewell
party held at a Kyoto restaurant," Miwa said. 

Miwa was part of the second wave of college students that was
conscripted in 1944. After completing an Imperial Army reserve
training course for officers, he was based in Kyushu when the
war ended. 

"At that time, we all thought that we could not avoid death,"
Miwa said. "We tried to grapple with what our deaths would mean
by passing around and reading philosophy books. While believing
that the cause of the war was `liberation of Asia,' we also had
mixed emotions about having to fight young people who used the
English that we had tried so hard to study." 

Doshisha has its roots in the Doshisha English School, which was
established in 1875 by Jo Niijima, who studied at an American
school of theology. 

Once war broke out, American teachers at Doshisha were expelled.
University publications include a record of the university
president quoting from the Bible to praise the deaths of
students on the battlefield. 

However, there are almost no records of the students who went
off to fight or who died on the battlefield. 

Yasuhiro Motoi, a professor in the Faculty of Theology who is
also associated with the Doshisha Archives Center, said: "As a
graduate, I always felt badly about the fact that while the
university as a whole praised those students who went off to
fight the war, there were no records in the postwar era of even
the names of those students who went to war. In order to pass on
the tragedy of history, I want to preserve the document within
the university once the bereaved family members give their
approval." 

Doshisha President Eiji Hatta, who joined the English Speaking
Society after the war, said: "I feel sorrow for my seniors who
studied the enemy language, English, during the war and then had
to fight against those who used it. 

"In order to prevent such a thing from recurring, I hope that a
time of peace when English can be fully studied will continue
permanently."(IHT/Asahi: August 16,2005) 
  
  + The Asahi Shimbun Company  

*****************************************************************
 48 Radioactive Pork released today
 
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:31:38 -0700

 
	version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

<x-flowed>
Please read and circulate. The web address to obtain the radioactive pork
report is at the end of the press release. --Marylia Kelley

for further information:
Marylia Kelley, Tri-Valley CAREs, (925) 443-7148
Jackie Cabasso, Western States Legal Foundation, (510) 839-5877
Bob Schaeffer, Alliance for Nuclear Accountability,  (239) 395-6773

for immediate release Tuesday, August 16, 2005

CALIFORNIA GROUPS ENDORSE NEW NATIONAL REPORT
DOCUMENTING $2 BILLION IN "RADIOACTIVE PORK" TO SLICE
FROM DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FY 2006  BUDGET REQUEST

         As U.S. House and Senate negotiators begin working out details of
the nation's nuclear weapons and nuclear energy spending plan for the
coming year, Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive
Environment) and Western States Legal Foundation have endorsed a report
identifying nearly two billion dollars in programs that should be cut by
conferees to enhance national security and protect the environment.

         "Top Ten Department of Energy Radioactive Pork Projects in the 2006
Budget" was delivered to Congress today by the Alliance for Nuclear
Accountability (ANA), a network of groups from communities near U.S.
nuclear weapons facilities. The Livermore, California-based Tri-Valley
CAREs and Western States Legal Foundation in Oakland have been ANA member
organizations since 1989.

         "This report identifies seven nuclear weapons and three nuclear
energy projects that waste taxpayers' money and escalate, not ameliorate,
the nuclear dangers we face," explained Marylia Kelley, Executive Director
of Tri-Valley CAREs and author of the pork report's chapter on the National
Ignition Facility, which is one of the top ten recommended cuts.

         Kelley continued, "The conferees should halt all programs
supporting the research, design, production and testing of new nuclear
weapons as well as those that subsidize the nuclear power industry. Some of
the savings should be used to fund cleanup projects essential to protecting
public health and the environment."

         Significant policy differences involving billions of dollars remain
between the House and Senate nuclear spending plans. The House struck all
funding for research into a new nuclear bunker buster slated to be
developed at Livermore Lab and a plutonium bomb plant while significantly
reducing appropriations for new plutonium fuel manufacturing.  The Senate
cut money for the National Ignition Facility, a controversial weapons
research facility, and a radioactive waste dump.

         The DOE proposals targeted for elimination by Tri-Valley CAREs,
Western States Legal Foundation and ANA member groups and their projected
costs in the coming federal budget year include:

         o Life Extension Program ($348 million), which seeks to extend
indefinitely the lifetimes of weapons in the existing Cold War-sized
nuclear arsenal and to improve their military capabilities.

         o Reliable Replacement Warhead ($9.4 million), which duplicates
work performed under the Stockpile Stewardship Program and could encourage
the development of new nuclear weapons designs.

         o Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator ($8.5 million), which will be
ineffective for many military targets, cause substantial radioactive
fallout, and undermine U.S. nonproliferation goals.

         o Modern Pit Facility ($7.7 million), an unnecessary new,
multi-billion dollar factory to manufacture plutonium triggers, an activity
that has produced massive contamination in the past.

         o Enhanced Nuclear Testing Readiness ($25 million), a provocative
plan to prepare the Nevada Test Site to resume full-scale underground
nuclear explosions on 18 months notice.

         o National Ignition Facility ($142 million), the multi-billion
dollar Livermore Lab weapons design project, which has been plagued by cost
overruns and technical problems.

         o Tritium Production ($87.5 million), to produce additional
quantities of the radioactive gas used to boost weapons' yields even though
the current inventory is sufficient for more than a decade.

         o Plutonium Fuel Fabrication ($338 million), designed to
manufacture nuclear reactor fuel from plutonium, ignoring implications for
the environment, health, proliferation and homeland security.

         o Yucca Mountain ($651 million), the much-delayed radioactive waste
dump for which the Environmental Protection Agency just issued
controversial health protection standards.

         o Nuclear Energy Revival ($191 million), subsidies underwriting
expansion of the nuclear power industry, transportation of its radioactive
wastes, and extraction of plutonium from used fuel rods.

         The analysis supports cuts made by the House of Representatives in
the Life Extension Program, Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, Modern Pit
Facility, Test Readiness, and Plutonium Fuel Fabrication as well as the
Senate's elimination of construction money for the National Ignition
Facility and cuts in Yucca Mountain funding.

        "Tri-Valley CAREs has long advocated the termination of new nuclear
weapons development world-wide and has consistently opposed the tools that
allow U.S. nuclear weapons designers to continue this deadly pursuit, such
as the National Ignition Facility here at Livermore Lab," said Kelley. "New
plans at the NIF include experiments using plutonium, highly enriched
uranium and lithium hydride, which will expand its nuclear weapons design
capabilities. The NIF construction funding should be cancelled, saving $142
million in 2006 - and $30 billion over the coming years," Kelley stated.

         Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director of the Western States Legal
Foundation, asked: "How can the Bush Administration threaten military
action against Iran while at the same time modernizing its own nuclear
warheads and delivery systems and more thoroughly integrating nuclear
weapons into its global warfighting plans?"

         Cabasso concluded, "A national debate on the future role of nuclear
weapons in U.S. national security policy is desperately needed and long
overdue. The ANA 'Radioactive Pork' report can provide impetus for such a
debate. I welcome the report and its conclusions."

         "Implementing the ANA recommendations would save taxpayers almost
two billion dollars immediately and billions more over the coming years,"
agreed Cabasso and Kelley. "This report should help conferees understand
that money could be better used to address the environmental and health
legacy of nuclear weapons production and to reduce the federal deficit."

- - 3 0 - -

The ANA Radioactive Pork report is available online at:
http://ananuclear.org/2005porkreport.pdf

Chapters analyzing each of the proposed cuts are online at:
http://ananuclear.org/topten2005.html

Marylia Kelley
Executive Director
Tri-Valley CAREs
(Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
2582 Old First Street
Livermore, CA USA 94551

<http://www.trivalleycares.org> - is our web site address. Please visit us
there!

(925) 443-7148 - is our phone
(925) 443-0177 - is our fax

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 49 DOE: Lessons Learned HQ-EH-2004-01
 
[U.S Department of Energy - Environment, Safety and Health
banner]    		 
     
Title: Degradation and Failure of Stored Radiological Material
Containers and 		Packages
Identifier:     HQ-EH-2004-01
Date: 2004-01-01

  Summary:

The failure of an irradiated test specimen canister on December
3, 2003 and the breaching of a plutonium-238 package and
resulting in worker uptake exposures on August 5, 2003
demonstrate that long-term storage of radioactive material
containers and packages continue to pose hazards. Corrosion and
other degradation of radioactive material packages and their
contents, in combination with the buildup of pressurized
flammable gases from radiolysis and decomposition, can create
the potential for accidents unless such conditions are
considered in design and maintenance, and for the actual storage
lives of the packages.   

Lesson Learned Statement: Recent events demonstrate that
long-term storage of radioactive material containers and
packages continue to pose hazards. Corrosion and other
degradation of radioactive material packages and their contents,
in combination with the buildup of pressurized flammable gases
from radiolysis and decomposition, can create the potential for
accidents unless such conditions are considered in design and
maintenance, and for the actual storage lives of the packages. 

Discussion: On December 3, 2003, at the Naval Reactors Facility
on the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory,
a canister containing an irradiated non-fuel test specimen
failed catastrophically while stored in a water pool. The
failure made a large noise, dislodged the stainless steel
canister (made from 4-inch diameter schedule 40 pipe, 18 inches
long), ruptured its brass cap, and projected part of the cap 10
feet away underwater. No injuries or other damage occurred and
there was no measurable release of radioactivity to the
environment. 

The brass cap screwed onto the canister, with two nitrile rubber
o-rings providing a watertight seal. Investigators found
evidence of water leakage inside the canister. Their preliminary
conclusion is that during the 14 years the canister was stored
in the water pool, the nitrile rubber seals degraded from
exposure to high-flux gamma radiation emitted from the test
specimen. Water leaked into the canister and the canister
subsequently resealed tightly as a result of the brass cap's
corrosion. Radiolysis caused the captured water to break down
into hydrogen and oxygen gas, pressurizing the canister.
(Decomposition of the nitrile rubber could also generate
flammable gases.) The investigators concluded that the hydrogen
detonated and caused the failure. Although the ignition source
is not now clear, it could have been thermal energy from the
specimen, reactions from radicals produced by the radiolysis,
sparking from interaction of metallic components, or static
electricity discharge. 

Another recent case involving hazards from degradation of a
radioactive materials container occurred on August 5, 2003, at
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Technical Area 55. A
package containing residues from plutonium-238 operations
breached while being handled by two workers performing a
pre-inventory check. The pressurized release of materials from
the package gave the workers uptake doses of two or three rems
CEDE. Slightly different release conditions could have increased
the doses by orders of magnitude. 

The plutonium-238 package had been in storage since 1996. A
subsequent Type B investigation concluded that chemical,
radiolytic, and thermal decomposition of the package and its
contents produced significant corrosion and gas in the package.
The corrosion caused "breathable" seams in the package to seal
and resulted in the buildup of gas pressure. Handling the
package dislodged corrosion in the package and pressurized
contaminated gases vented into the room's atmosphere. 

Analysis: In DOE, the causes and potential consequences from
aging and degradation of radiological material packages have
been well know since at least the early 1990's. Then, many
packaging configurations intended for only temporary storage
became subjected to much longer storage periods. The increased
frequencies and mechanisms of radioactive material packaging
failures were analyzed and disseminated in initiatives such as
the Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium Vulnerability Studies.
A considerable effort was made to process or repackage the
stored materials. Today, however, there are still radioactive
material packages poorly designed for extended storage, as
evidenced by recent events. 

The report of the Type B accident for the LANL occurrence noted
that corrosion and degradation of similar plutonium-238 residue
packages had caused multiple near miss events since 1994. In the
prologue to this report, the Manager of the Los Alamos Site
Office stressed that the accident could have been avoided if
only the lessons learned from the near misses had been
addressed. 

Recommended Actions: 
  + The design, evaluation, and maintenance of radioactive
material packages must address aging and degradation of their
contents and packaging components. 
  + The design, evaluation, and maintenance of radioactive
material packages should consider potential scenarios involving
combinations of component failures, particularly aging
mechanisms that open and seal containment and vents in
combination with those that generate flammable and pressurized
gases. 
  + The packaging of radioactive materials in long-term storage
should be checked to see if they have design specifications
compatible with currently planned storage lives and conditions. 
  + If such design specifications are not met, or do not exist,
then the packaging needs to be evaluated for currently planned
storage lives and conditions. 
  + Near misses from packaging failures need be recognized and
addressed to prevent future accidents. 
  + When dealing with radioactive material packages that have
not been designed to current standards (i.e., legacy materials),
always assume that the package is unsafe until it is proven safe
or repackaged to current standards. 

Originator: Dan Guzy, EH-3 

Validator: Jim Mangeno, NA-1 

Contact: Dan Guzy, 301-903-2428 

Name of Authorized Derivative Classifier:
 Not required. 

Name of Reviewing Official: 
Frank Russo 

Priority Descriptor:
 Blue / Information 

Keywords: 
Container, canister, package, aging, degradation, corrosion,
storage, radiolysis, hydrogen. 

References: 


ALO-LA-LANL-TA55-2003-0017, Two Employees Found Contaminated
After CAM Alarmed During Work in TA-55, Building 4, Room 201B 

Type B Accident Investigation of the August 5, 2003
Plutonium-238 Multiple Uptake Event at the Plutonium Facility,
Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, December, 2003. 

DOE/EH-0415, Plutonium Working Group Report on Environmental,
Safety and Health Vulnerabilities Associated with the
Department's Plutonium Storage, November 1994. 

DOE/EH-0525, Highly Enriched Uranium Working Group Report on
Environmental, Safety and Health Vulnerabilities Associated with
the Department's Storage of Highly Enriched Uranium, December
1996. 

Information in this report is accurate to the best of our
knowledge. As means of measuring the effectiveness of this
report please use the "Comment" link at the bottom of this page
to notify the Lessons Learned Web Site Administrator of any
action taken as a result of this report or of any technical
inaccuracies you find. Your feedback is important and
appreciated. 

DOE Function / Work Categories:
 Storage
 Maintenance 

ISM Category: 
Analyze Hazards
 Develop / Implement Controls 

Hazard: 
Fire and Explosion 
Over-pressurization
 Personal Injury
 Radiological Exposure and Contamination 


*****************************************************************
 50 Paducah Sun: Water cleanup good, but not foolproof 

The $40 million project will use electrodes to evaporate
contaminated water beneath a gaseous diffusion plant building. 

By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com 270.575.8656 

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 

Although the goal of a $40 million project is to clean up the
groundwater beneath a Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant building
to within safe drinking water standards, the Department of
Energy is making no promises. 

"You can't guarantee treating every nook and cranny," said Bill
Murphie, DOE site manager for the plant, which has an estimated
10 billion gallons of groundwater below it. 

About 1 billion gallons of groundwater containing about 1,800
gallons of the degreaser trichloroethylene (TCE) have been
removed by pumping and treating over the past several years. But
that has not attacked the key source — the C-400 building in the
center of the 750-acre plant where TCE was used for decades to
clean machinery used to enrich uranium for use in nuclear fuel. 

Murphie joined state and federal environmental regulators
Tuesday in signing a "record of decision" to bury electrodes
deep in the ground beneath the building. The electrodes will
evaporate the degreaser, and the vapor will be pumped to the
surface and trapped in carbon filters. 

Construction will begin by November 2006, with the system
operational the following year. Murphie said the system probably
will operate for two or three years, long enough for most of the
chemical to be removed and the electrodes to reach the end of
their cost-effectiveness. 

Two years ago, 22,000 pounds of the solvent were removed by test
electrodes that proved more than 98 percent effective, Murphie
said. 

Historic leaks and spills of TCE — and some former workers say
the intentional dumping years ago of the chemical down a drain
in C-400 — have left nearly 180,000 gallons of TCE beneath the
building. Some groundwater concentrations are more than 20,000
times greater than the drinking water standard of five parts per
billion, equal to five drops of ink in a canal lock full of
water. 

Because the cleaned machinery contained radiation, the
groundwater also is polluted with Technetium-99, brought into
the plant decades ago in uranium recycled from nuclear fuel.
Tc-99 is not as prevalent in the aquifer as TCE, but it can't be
removed using the electrodes, regulatory officials say. 

"We'll deal with that (other contamination) as the project moves
along," said Bruce Scott, director of the Kentucky Division of
Waste Management. 

A system to remove other contamination will be devised after the
electrode project ends, Murphie said. "This action is a focused
action." 

Although the electrode system isn't foolproof, members of the
plant's citizens advisory board generally agree it is the best
known cleanup method, board member Jim Smart said. 

"That's where the rubber meets the road," he said. "If they go
after the mother lode, maybe they can get the plant cleaned up." 
*****************************************************************
 51 DOE: 2005 OE Summaries

http://www.eh.doe.gov/paa/oesummary/oesummary2005.html

 
[U.S Department of Energy - Environment, Safety and Health
banner]    		 
  
 --> In response to input from our readers, we have developed a
screen-only version of the OE Summary. This version allows
readers to view the Summary from their web browsers without
having to print a hard copy. In addition, an icon at the top
right allows readers to download individual articles in PDF
format for further dissemination. We hope that this new version
of the OE Summary will enhance our readers' experience and
welcome any feedback. 

Viewing documents in Adobe PDF format requires the Acrobat
reader. Acrobat Reader can be downloaded at Adobe's 
          
   Web Site.
 
                                
  
                           OE Summary 
    
                           Print PDF 
    
                           Screen PDF 
  			
 			  2005-11 (July 25, 2005)   			   PDF   			  PDF [New]   			
			
 			  2005-10 (June 30, 2005)   			   PDF   			  PDF   			 			
 			  2005-09 (June 7, 2005)   			   PDF   			  PDF   			 			
 			  2005-08 (May 12, 2005)   			   PDF   			      			 			
 			  2005-07 (April 11, 2005)   			   PDF   			      			 			
 			  2005-06 (March 21, 2005)   			   PDF   			      			 			
 			  2005-05 (March 7, 2005)   			   PDF   			      			 			
 			  2005-04 (February 22, 2005)   			  PDF   			      			 			
 			  2005-03 (February 7, 2005)   			  PDF   			      			 			
 			  2005-02 (January 24, 2005)   			  PDF   			      			 			
 			  2005-01 (January 10, 2005)   			  PDF   			      			 			
 		

Search OE Summaries (back to TOC)                              
2004-26 (December
29, 2004) - [PDF] 					
+ 2004-25 (December 15, 2004) - [PDF] 					
+ 2004-24 (December 1, 2004) - [PDF] 					 
+ 2004-23 (November 17, 2004) - [PDF] 
+ 2004-22 (November 3, 2004) - [PDF] 					
+ 2004-21 (October 20, 2004) - [PDF]					 					
+ 2004-20 (October 6, 2004) - [PDF] 					 
+ 2004-19 (September 22, 2004) - [PDF] 
+ 2004-18 (September 8, 2004) - [PDF] 	 
+ 2004-17 (August 25, 2004) - [PDF] 
+ 2004-16 (August 11, 2004) - [PDF] 
+ 2004-15 (July 28, 2004) - [PDF] 
+ 2004-14 (July 14, 2004) - [PDF] 
+ 2004-13 (June 30, 2004) - [PDF] 
+ 2004-12 (June 16, 2004) - [PDF] 					 
+ 2004-11 (June 2, 2004) - [PDF] 
+ 2004-10 (May 19, 2004) - [PDF] 					 					 
+ 2004-09 (May 5, 2004) - [PDF] 
+ 2004-08 (April 21, 2004) - [PDF] 					 
+ 2004-07 (April 7, 2004) - [PDF] 
+ 2004-06 (March 24, 2004) - [PDF] 					
+ 2004-05 (March 10, 2004) - [PDF] --->	 					 
  All Operating Experience Summaries   

  oesummary)" CHECKED>     Search all OE Summaries   					 
  oesummary2004)">     Search 2004 OE Summaries   					 
  oesummary2003)">     Search 2003 OE Summaries   
  oesummary2002)">     Search 2002 OE Summaries   
  oesummary2001)">     Search 2001 OE Summaries   

*****************************************************************
 52 ANA: Top Ten Department of Energy Radioactive Pork Projects in the 2006 Budget

Alliance for Nuclear Accountability

August 2005 

http://ananuclear.org/topten2005.html

Summary (pdf) 

Introduction (pdf) 

1. Stockpile Life Extension Programs (pdf) 
2. Reliable Replacement Warhead (pdf) 
3. Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (pdf) 
4. The Modern Pit Facility (pdf) 
5. Enhanced Nuclear Test Readiness (pdf) 

6. National Ignition Facility (pdf) 

7. Tritium Production (pdf) 

8. Plutonium Fuel Fabrication Facility (MOX) (pdf) 

9. Yucca Mountain (pdf) 

10. Nuclear Energy Revival (pdf) 

    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************