***************************************************************** 08/31/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.202 ***************************************************************** 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 Guardian Unlimited: White House Renews Tehran Sanctions Push 2 RIA Novosti: Is there a way out of Iranian nuclear deadlock? 3 BBC: Iran nuclear chief in India talks 4 Reuters: Iran eyes Indian support as nuclear row escalates 5 IRNA: Russian official: Iran-Russia nuclear cooperation like Moscow' 6 IRNA: Attempts to deprive nations of nuclear energy futile - 7 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: North called ¡®violator' of arms agreements 8 US: Codfish Press: From The Outer Beach Looking West To An American 9 US: lamonitor.com: Group debunks bunker buster 10 Reuters: U.S. lifts some curbs on India nuclear cooperation 11 MercoPress: The Brazilian Navy’s atomic bomb ambition NUCLEAR REACTORS 12 US: [epa-impact] Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 13 US: La Crosse Tribune: Genoa plant to remove reactor vessel 14 US: Free Lance-Star: More nuclear plants and more oil don't make goo 15 Bellons: Reactor storage facility at Russian Far East will cost $80m 16 US: NRC: NRC Continues to Monitor Nuclear Plants Affected by Hurrica 17 US: Portsmouth Herald: NRC will take more time on power-boost review 18 Haaretz: Senior official in Dimona nuclear facility suspected of tak 19 US: adn.com alaska : Air Force's departure threatens Galena nuclear 20 US: Platts: Early site permit review schedules slip, but little impa 21 US: APP.COM: Oyster Creek managers want more options to get permit 22 US: NRC: NRC Renews Operating Licenses for Donald C. Cook Nuclear Pl 23 US: APP.COM: Nuclear energy best option for reducing foreign depende 24 US: JOURNAL NEWS: NRC meetings to draw officials, activists from reg 25 US: NRC: Duke Energy Corporation; Notice of Consideration of Issuanc 26 US: NRC: Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; 27 SIFY: PTI: US removes 6 Indian facilities from entity list 28 Japan Times: Pluthermal reactor plan approved 29 US: NRC: Energy Policy Act of 2005 Requirements; Treatment of Accele 30 UK: Telegraph: Costain joins £2bn reactor clean-up 31 New Scientist: Nuclear technology salesman kept under wraps 32 US: Reuters: Exelon shuts Ill. Dresden 2 nuke for transformer work 33 US: Reuters: Exelon's Illinois Dresden 2 nuke shut 34 Reuters: German minister rejects extension of nuke lifespan 35 Reuters: Japan draws up security steps for airports,reactors NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 36 [du-list] DU in the news.. Bush is the real threat 37 US: toledoblade.com: No cleanup planned for former beryllium plant 38 US: DOE: Ridge Reservation Health Effects Subcommittee NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 39 US: AU ABC: WA Greens back NT nuclear dump protests 40 AU ABC: NT Govt won't give up nuclear waste dump fight 41 United Press International: Attorney General Sandoval seeks help 42 Las Vegas RJ: YUCCA MOUNTAIN FIGHT: Sandoval recruits supporters 43 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Nuke utilities pay for most of Yucca 44 Las Vegas SUN: Sandoval seeks help in Yucca Mountain fight 45 US: Daily Sentinel: Company will wait to drill near site of nuclear 46 Waste News: Energy Dept. issues draft assessment on Yucca Mt. rail c 47 US: PE.com: Star power fuels perchlorate fight 48 KLAS: Ten States Asked to Join Yucca Mountain Fight 49 Pahrump Valley Times: YUCCA MOUNTAIN Radiation standards explained PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 50 [NukeNet] Article on Livermore Lab worker's widow 51 Rocky Mountain News: Idaho backs plutonium plan 52 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Guardian Unlimited: White House Renews Tehran Sanctions Push From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday September 1, 2005 12:31 AM By ANNE GEARAN AP Diplomatic Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration renewed its insistence Wednesday that the United Nations Security Council take up the question of punitive censure or sanctions for Iran, saying Tehran must face international judgment over its disputed nuclear program. The United States wants the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to take the first step toward sanctions this month, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said in an interview with The Associated Press. ``We fully expect that the governments of the IAEA will exercise their responsibility,'' Burns said. The Bush administration is also aggressively lobbying other countries to end Tehran's suspect nuclear activities, Burns said. The United States has long favored using the punitive power of the United Nations Security Council against Iran, but had said little about it recently in hopes that a European-led diplomatic outreach to Iran would bear fruit. Burns said the United States still strongly supports that effort, but he also denounced Iran in strong terms and made an unambiguous threat that sanctions will follow if Tehran does not reinstate a freeze on nuclear activities that could be part of a covert effort to build a bomb. ``We fully expect that the IAEA will refer this issue to the United Nations Security Council, where it should be,'' Burns said. ``Iran must (face the) judgment of the international community, now that it has acted in defiance of the international community,'' Burns said. The talks suffered a blow earlier this month when Iran rejected the Europeans' central proposal - an offer of economic incentives in return for permanently giving up uranium development. Tehran also resumed uranium conversion at its plant in the central city of Isfahan. The United States is not a direct party to the talks and has no diplomatic relations with Iran. Iran insists that its nuclear program is purely peaceful and notes, correctly, that it has the right to pursue the disputed nuclear activities. ``We're at a delicate phase right now,'' Burns said. ``We are trying to make the Iranians understand they are isolating themselves by doing this.'' By resuming nuclear activities they had voluntarily suspended while talks were underway in Europe, ``they have instilled more doubt around the world about what their intentions are,'' Burns said. ``We are working with a wide range of countries, not just the EU-3, but all the members of the IAEA and a lot of other countries around the world, to try to create an environment where the Iranians hear one message,'' Burns said. The Bush administration purposely said little about the possibility of sanctions over the past few weeks, since the IAEA Board of Governors issued a relatively mild rebuke to Iran in August. Although the United States and other nations had predicted strong action from the IAEA then, the 35-member board opted, after three days of intense negotiations, only to express ``serious concern'' over Tehran's decision to resume uranium conversion, well short of a referral to the U.N. Security Council. Afterward, diplomats privately said Tehran faced a Sept. 3 deadline to stop the disputed nuclear activities or face another possible referral to the Security Council. The Vienna-based IAEA board meets again in mid-September. Since the last meeting, Iran has sent conflicting signals, first saying it was preparing new proposals to discuss with the Europeans and then, on Sunday, breaking off talks. Burns is not alone in adopting a newly tougher line. French President Jacques Chirac issued an ultimatum to Iran on Monday, warning Tehran that it faces almost certain referral to the Security Council if it did not accept the European deal. Iran, meanwhile, has said it does not fear U.N. Security Council action. ``With the power it enjoys in the region, there is no way that Iran can be worried about the threat of the Security Council,'' Ali Larijani, the country's top nuclear negotiator, said Friday. ^On the Net: State Department: http://www.state.gov Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 2 RIA Novosti: Is there a way out of Iranian nuclear deadlock? Opinion &analysis - 31/ 08/ 2005 MOSCOW, (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Goncharov). -- Is there a way to break the deadlock over the Iranian nuclear problem without submitting the Iranian nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council? The talks between Iran and the European Union (EU) have not yet come up with a positive answer to this question. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is to submit a new report on the Iranian nuclear program to the IAEA Board of Governors by September 3. Many experts say that this date could mark the start of "the latest, planned" aggravation of the crisis. The report by the IAEA head will highlight the Iranian experiments to obtain plutonium and discuss the progress of the talks between Tehran and the EU. The report's conclusions will determine whether or not the agency will submit the dossier to the UN Security Council. Iran is not particularly concerned about attention being drawn to its plutonium experiments, as inspectors have found only a few milligrams of plutonium, which cannot serve as a formal reason for sending the Iranian nuclear dossier to the UN. However, Iran's talks with the EU, which are supervised by the IAEA, are quite another matter. The international community thinks that these talks offer the best hope of finding a solution to the Iranian nuclear problems, but negotiations broke down recently, just ahead of the IAEA session on September 3. The European Trio (France, Germany and Britain) refused to resume the talks on the scheduled date, August 31, accusing Iran of violating the Paris agreements. In retaliation, Tehran accused the Trio of abusing its powers within the same Paris agreements and questioned the expediency of continuing talks in the present format. The two sides have smoothed over this latest conflict, but as the talks become more and more heated it is logical to ask: is there a way out of the Iranian nuclear deadlock? The situation is paradoxical, as Tehran cannot prove to the EU that it does not have a nuclear weapons program, while the EU cannot convince Tehran to terminate it (the military program). Can the negotiating parties find a compromise that will suit all of them and, most importantly, that will suit Iran's main opponent, the United States? Under pressure from Washington, the IAEA inspectors have scoured Iran's nuclear facilities in the past nine-ten months, trying to find traces of enriched uranium. They did find traces, but they were very minor and led to Pakistan. There is another crucial issue on which the parties cannot agree. The EU is demanding that Iran should abandon its uranium enrichment program for good, while Tehran claims that it has an "inalienable right" to create a full nuclear fuel cycle, stressing that the word "fuel" points to its peaceful character. Once again this raises the question of whether the talks really can move forward. Ali Larijani, the new secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council and the man who is responsible for the Iranian nuclear program, has said that Tehran will soon put forward new initiatives that will break the deadlock. The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may announce these initiatives at the UN General Assembly session in September, though Tehran promised to make them public within four-six weeks. Larijani recently met with ElBaradei. The Iranian news agency IRNA reports that the IAEA general director accepted an invitation to visit Iran for talks with officials. Will his visit jump-start the Iran-EU talks? Everything will depend on the nature of Iran's "new initiatives." If Iran continues to claim the "inalienable" right to enrich uranium, ElBaradei's visit could prove totally unproductive, and the same question will arise yet again: is there a way out of the deadlock over the Iranian nuclear problem that does not necessitate the involvement of the UN Security Council? © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 3 BBC: Iran nuclear chief in India talks Last Updated: Wednesday, 31 August 2005 [Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh with Ali Larijani] India's Foreign Minister Natwar Singh met Mr Larijani Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, has met top Indian leaders as part of an effort to build support for its controversial nuclear programme. Mr Larijani met India's foreign minister and national security advisor and is due to meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh later on Wednesday. He said Iran was looking to enhance its "strategic cooperation" in the region. Iran recently resumed uranium enrichment at one of its plants despite strong US and European opposition. The focus of our negotiatio with India was on strategic relations Ali Larijani But Mr Larijani said that Iran had not violated any international regulations by restarting operations at the Uranium Conversion Plat at Isfahan. "We are fully committed and bound by international regulations in the nuclear field," he said. "We have accepted and signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. The work at the Isfahan facility is being done under the supervision of the IAEA inspectors." India India, which conducted nuclear tests in 1998, has not openly criticised Iran but said that it should abide by its international obligations. The two countries enjoy good relations and have been focussed on a possible project to pipe natural gas from Iran through Pakistan to India. "The focus of our negotiations with India was on strategic relations, particularly in the field of energy and, more particularly, on a natural gas pipeline and the liquefied natural gas supply to India," the Associated Press quotes him as saying. But correspondents say the pipeline project is unlikely to go ahead without approval from the United States. ***************************************************************** 4 Reuters: Iran eyes Indian support as nuclear row escalates Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:01 AM ET By Y.P. Rajesh NEW DELHI, Aug 31 (Reuters) - Iran's top nuclear negotiator held talks with Indian leaders on Wednesday to garner support for Tehran's controversial nuclear programme and stave off a threat of sanctions, Indian officials said. Ali Larijani's two-day visit to the Indian capital came days ahead of a trip to Tehran by Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh, aimed at building contacts with Iran's new leadership. India is facing a delicate balancing act as it tries to maintain a longstanding friendship with Iran while moving closer to Washington, which wants Tehran to halt what it says is a secret nuclear weapons programme. India has so far merely said that Iran should abide by its international obligations but has refused to join Western condemnation of its nuclear programme. "We are old friends and we have a lot of experiences to share," an Indian foreign ministry official told Reuters. "Iran needs to strengthen its position on the (nuclear) issue and it is natural that they will turn to old friends first," said the official, who did not want to be named. The Iranian negotiator held talks with Singh and Indian National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan. Larijani's visit comes after negotiations between Iran and the European Union over resolving the nuclear row broke down this month when Tehran rejected an offer of incentives in return for a suspension of sensitive nuclear work. The move to call off the talks marked a breakdown in two years of negotiations and has raised the threat of sanctions against Iran. The Islamic republic says it wants nuclear technology only to cope with booming electricity demand. The EU and the United States suspect it of secretly trying to build nuclear weapons. Traditional ties with Iran have put India in a tight spot as the United States -- with which New Delhi's ties have improved dramatically in recent years -- has eyed the relationship with suspicion. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in March that Washington was concerned about New Delhi's plans for a $7 billion gas pipeline from Iran through Pakistan to energy-hungry India. Analysts say that pressure has only multiplied after U.S. President George W. Bush, in a landmark decision last month, agreed to assist India's civilian atomic power programme. The gas pipeline would be high on Foreign Minister Singh's agenda in Tehran but no deal was imminent, the Indian official said. "The pipeline is not something that you can agree today and build tomorrow," he said. "There are international issues, security concerns, funding concerns and the dynamics are changing all the time." "As far as our ties with Iran go, the world should look at our history of being a reasonable country, a country that does not encourage aggression or violence." © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 5 IRNA: Russian official: Iran-Russia nuclear cooperation like Moscow's cooperation with EU - Irna Moscow, Aug 31, IRNA Iran-Russia-Nuclear Russian Federation's new Permanent Envoy to Europe Vladimir Chizhov said here Wednesday, "Peaceful nuclear cooperation between Russia and Iran is exactly of the same nature as our cooperation with European countries." Speaking at a press conference in Moscow, Chizhov added, "Construction of eighteen out of the nineteen new nuclear reactors constructed in Europe has been made possible relying on Russian cooperation and technology." Focusing on negotiations between the three European countries, (Germany, France and Britain), and the Islamic Republic of Iran on Tehran's nuclear programs, he said, "Russia is constantly in contact with those countries and harmonizes its policies with them." He considered Europe's cooperation with Russia in campaign against terrorism "more difficult" than Russia-EU cooperation in other fields, arguing, "That is due to the double standards observed by the Europeans in that regard." Chizhov added, "Just like any other field, adopting double standards leads to nowhere in this camping as well." The new Russian envoy in Europe turning to his country's cooperation with the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), said, "Moscow does not consider any monopoly for itself in its cooperation with the former soviet republics." He said, "In dealing with the chaotic conditions and tensions that emerge in those countries, too, Moscow is ready to cooperate with EU, just as we have proved our good will both at the UN and in the Middle East." ***************************************************************** 6 IRNA: Attempts to deprive nations of nuclear energy futile - , Aug 31, IRNA -- Head of Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Alaeddin Boroujerdi here Wednesday underlined that the attempts of US and the West to deprive world nations of peaceful application of nuclear energy are quite useless. Speaking during a meeting with the President of Algerian People's National Assembly Abdelkader Bensalah, he said that since the West's discriminatory policy in this respect threatens the interests of Iran as well as all developing countries and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) member states, they should exchange views on the issue to come up with a solution. Boroujerdi called upon the NAM member states and developing countries to cooperate with one another in international fora, in particular within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors to safeguard their right for access to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in line with the relevant international agreements. He stressed that Iran's nuclear activities are in full accordance with IAEA nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the related international laws. Meanwhile, Boroujerdi presented a report on Iran's recent presidential election, the victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the process of the vote of confidence given by Majlis to the president's proposed ministers. He further underlined that the new government and Majlis are determined to expand bilateral relations with Muslim countries. Boroujerdi arrived in Algiers on Monday evening on a three-day working visit. He met Algerian President Abdel-Aziz Bouteflika to deliver President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's written message to his North African counterpart. Upon his arrival in Algiers on Monday, Boroujerdi met the Algerian Foreign Minister Mohamed Bedjaoui. ***************************************************************** 7 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: North called ¡®violator' of arms agreements September 1, 2005 KST 12:49 (GMT+9) September 01, 2005 ¤Ñ North Korea was named on Tuesday by the U.S. State Department as one of the world's biggest violators of international weapons agreements. In a report assessing the state of countries with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, the department said North Korea is believed to have tried to develop biochemical weapons programs. The report cited concern over the North's withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003 and its current nuclear ambitions. North Korea has been negotiating with the United States, South Korea, China, Japan and Russia to resolve the crisis over its development of nuclear weapons, but the nations have yet to reach an agreement. The fourth round of the talks, which began in July, is currently on hiatus. In February, Pyongyang officially said it had nuclear weapons. Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use | ***************************************************************** 8 Codfish Press: From The Outer Beach Looking West To An American Hiroshima August 31st, 2005 Greg O'Brien, author/editor of several books about Cape Cod & The Islands, a Boston Metro newspaper columnist, freelance writer for national and regional magazines, and a television script writer, comments about Cape Cod and the world beyond Codfish Press. By Greg OBrien The closest Cape Codders have ever come to witnessing war firsthandor the direct affects of warwas in 1918 when Orleans residents were stunned to see a German U-Boat surface just offshore and fire on an unarmed tugboat and four barges it was pulling. The moment was surreal; as if it were an eerie out-take from a 1960s classic, like The Russians Are Coming! Torpedoes set the tug ablaze and injured its crew, while constant shelling sank the barges, notes the Massachusetts Foundation for the Humanities history of the event. Thanks to the skill and courage of Coast Guardsmen, everyone was rescued. Some of the shells fired from the sub landed on the beach, making this the first time the U.S. mainland had been attacked since the War of 1812, and the only time the country was attacked during World War I. Massachusetts had been producing arms, vehicles, and supplies for the war effort and sending soldiers abroad, but no one expected what occurred that Sunday in Orleans. Cape Codders since have regularly stood on the eastern shore and pondered wars, conflicts and weapons worlds away, sensing the tragedies of its victims. But lost in the recent newspaper headlines of the 60th anniversary of the dropping of nuclear bombs over two Japanese cities that brought World War II literally to a screeching halt are the downwinders of this countrythe forgotten victims of our atomic testing program in the 1950s and 60s, the road kill of this American Hiroshima, the scores who have died from radiation exposure and their families who were left to cope with this numbing loss. The government had told the downwinders it needed to test these fireballs to stay ahead of the Soviets, who had detonated their first atomic device on Aug. 29, 1949; in the years to follow, the Soviets ignited 266 surface and air nuclear bombs in the Kazakhstan region of Semi Palatinsk. And so no one in the remote downwind corridor of southern Utah and northwest Arizona blinked when over the course of two decades more than 100 nuclear weapons were exploded above and below the ground at the Nevada Test Site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Residentsmany of them patriotic Mormons who seldom questioned the governments authoritywere not dissuaded in the early days from viewing the explosions at a distance. Warnings at first were casual. Families were told there would be a test, and hours later the ash would fallat first light, then heavyas pink clouds of fallout, carried by downwind air currents, drifted over Arizona and Utah. The ash tingled the skin, almost stung. Children brushed it off. The debris covered playgrounds, homes and fields where milk cows ate the grass coated with radioactive ash. It wasnt long before children and their parents began getting sick. Many died, and soon the downwiders began to feel that they had been deemed expendable by their government in its quest for nuclear superiority. Government officials privately specified that if it turns out that we have killed children, as we were clearly doing in the 1950s, lie about it, Stewart Udall, Interior Secretary in the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, and a lawyer for some of the downwinders, said several years ago in an interview for a documentary, Downwind of Morality, produced by Bill Turpie. I served as associate field producer on the project and co-wrote the script. The government lies would hide a multitude of sins: at the Nevada Test Site and the Los Alamos (New Mexico) Lab where the bombs were designed; at Hanford reservation in southwest Washington where the government processed plutonium during World War II and the Cold War, and secretly released radioactive iodine up the stack of a plutonium processor in 1949; and at government laboratories throughout the country, like Oak Ridge Laboratory in Tennessee where a number of terminal patients were injected without consent many years ago with plutonium (the critical isotope needed in a nuclear chain reaction) to determine how much exposure humans could endure. Not only is radiation that is injected or burns the skin deadly, but equally lethal is the absorption into the body of plants and animals that have been contaminated. We have killed off or maimed millions of people without any war at all, Rudi Nussbaum, an expert on the nuclear issue who then taught at Portland State University in Oregon, noted in Downwind of Morality. In our fear, we sacrificed whole parts of this country by the creation of these weapons, William Lanouette, biographer of Leo Szilard, the Hungarian scientist who first contemplated a nuclear chain reaction, said in the documentary. We sacrificed a generation of peoplethrough the radiation affects of producing these weapons. The litany of suffering and death in the wake of atomic test explosions in the Nevada desert is stunning. It defies any coincidence suggested by defenders of the testing program, or statements by nuclear energy officials, that evidence of radiation poisoning is anecdotal. One woman interviewed for the documentary said she had a brother whose entire class, with the exception of one, ultimately died from cancer. A retired Air Force worker said that after Nevada test blasts Geiger counters were often placed on cars in the area, and they buzzed like rattlesnakes! And in nearby Utah, a hardware store owner lost 14 members of his family to cancer. The government lied to us, said a downwinder in Northern Arizona. Thats the greatest travesty. They told us we were safe, and they knew that we were not. More than 50 years later, the tragedies continue. Entire family trees have been seared, and the toll, passed down through heredity, sadly keeps rising. Website ©2005 eCape, Inc.& Best Read Guide Cape Cod. Questions? Comments? Call (508) 385-0003 or email info@ecape.com ***************************************************************** 9 lamonitor.com: Group debunks bunker buster The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS, , Monitor Assistant Editor SANTA FE - Whether the nuclear weapon project known as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) lives or dies may depend on how hard Sen. Pete Domenici fights for it. That's why opponents of the concept are beating the bushes in northern New Mexico this week, looking for support from Domenici's constituents that might be decisive. "He's the person we hope to convince," said Sue Gunn, senior Washington representative for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "If we could just get 50 people to write." Domenici, chair of the Senate Energy and Energy Appropriations subcommittee, included a $4 million item in the FY06 budget to support the study, which was not included in the House version. The issue, among a number of discrepancies between the House and Senate on nuclear weapons, will be decided in a conference committee after Congress resumes next month. In those negotiations, Domenici's influence and how he plays his cards will be critical, the UCS officials said. Gunn and UCS Senior Scientist Robert Nelson met with the Monitor Tuesday to discuss the legislative status of the bunker buster, as it is also known. The RNEP is the subject of a proposed engineering study on reconfiguring the B83 nuclear warhead in a stronger and heavier casing, for the purpose of attacking hard, deeply buried targets. The work would be done at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, in collaboration with Sandia National Laboratories, which has satellite offices there. The idea has had a roller coaster ride in Congress, after receiving some initial funding. Last year it was zeroed out by the House and defended by Domenici in the Senate, but abandoned in the last minute crunch to pass a comprehensive appropriations measure. This year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., proposed an amendment to strike the RNEP provisions from a Senate appropriations bill. In debate on the Senate floor, Domenici said the issue was not about making a new nuclear weapon. "I don't know what you could build for $4 million," he said, adding, "None of that (arguments against nuclear weapons) has anything to do with this amendment. The United States of America, through its experts says we should have a study." The amendment was defeated by a 53-43 vote, along party lines. Nelson said it was another old Cold War fossil that was resurfacing using 9/11 and the war on terrorism as an excuse. "They say, 'It's just a study,' that's the cover they use," he said, noting that last year NNSA was asked to do a five-year budget projection which gave a different impression. The total came to $485 million, "all the way out to the phase 6.3 production stage where they actually cut metal," said Gunn, a theoretical physicist working on technical arms control and nonproliferation issues at Princeton University and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Gunn published a technical study in Science and Global Security in 2004 that disputed the effectiveness of bunker busters against buried targets used for chemical or biological weapons. Only a fraction of the chem-bio agents close to the underground explosions would be destroyed, he concluded. "Agent munitions located outside of the small sterilization zone, but within the final crater volume, would be ruptured by the shock and ejected along with the radioactive fallout," Gunn wrote. A National Academies of Sciences study, requested by Congress last year and released in April, agreed with the Defense Department's premise that many underground targets were beyond the reach of conventional explosives and that they might be "held at risk of destruction by one or a few nuclear weapons." But the NAS report also concluded that "the number of casualties from an earth-penetrator weapon detonated at a few meters depth is, for all practical purposes, equal to that from a surface burst of the same weapon yield." "It would be a big mess," Gunn said, who believes a better strategy for dealing with bunkers would be to seal access points until the site could be captured and safely decontaminated. In defending the House's decision not to fund the RNEP, Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, said that in briefings with DOD he had never heard of any specific mission for the bunker buster. "The development of new weapons for ill-defined future requirements is not what the Nation needs at this time," he said in a key speech before the Arm Control Association in February. Hobson has also argued against the contradiction of advocating nuclear non-proliferation in the world, while developing new nuclear options at home. UCS, a nonprofit citizen-scientist partnership based in Washington, D.C., will be holding informational meetings in New Mexico through this week. The meetings began in Taos Monday night and Santa Fe Tuesday. The team will be in Albuquerque at UNM on Wednesday and finish the week at N.M. Tech in Socorro and NMSU in Las Cruces. Gunn and Roberts said they had tried to arrange a Los Alamos meeting but were unable to find a local sponsor. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 Reuters: U.S. lifts some curbs on India nuclear cooperation Tue Aug 30, 2005 9:20 PM ET By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent WASHINGTON, Aug 30 (Reuters) - The United States on Tuesday moved to further nuclear cooperation with India by allowing six Indian entities involved in civil nuclear and satellite work to purchase less sensitive U.S.-made items without special licenses. The new rule, published in the Federal Register, removes some restrictions imposed after New Delhi sparked international condemnation when it conducted nuclear weapons tests in 1998. Since then, U.S. President George W. Bush has accelerated a diplomatic embrace of the world's largest democracy. U.S. officials said the Commerce Department rule change does not clear the way for the transfer of the kind of advanced nuclear power reactors and other technology that New Delhi is keen to obtain to meet its civilian energy needs. An agreement announced in July after Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met Bush at the White House promised such broad nuclear cooperation in the future. But that agreement, upending decades-old nonproliferation standards, would require changes in U.S. law and international policy that the administration has yet to propose. The new rule, however, does constitute a modest advance in a deepening nuclear cooperation between the two major democracies. It is built on a series of reciprocal steps agreed by India and the United States in January 2004. U.S. officials told Reuters that Tuesday's rule change responded to India's recent enactment of tighter export controls and its formal commitment that U.S. items sold to Indian government facilities would not be used for weapons purposes. The rule change affects three civilian nuclear power reactors as well as three units of the Indian Space Research Organization. A Commerce Department official said items no longer subject to licensing when purchased by the six entities include equipment outside the reactor that could transfer nuclear power to an electrical grid as well as safety improvements. The rule change also allows U.S. firms to sell India oscilloscopes, an electronic testing device which has nuclear weapons as well as civilian uses. The three civilian nuclear reactors exempted from the licensing curbs are subject to international monitoring and are judged not to have weapons-related functions, U.S. officials said. The space-related entities are also considered separate from the Indian weapons program because these units work on satellites, not space-launched vehicles, officials said. After the 1998 nuclear tests, the United States put hundreds of Indian entities under export licensing restrictions. Over the years, the number was whittled down and now a couple of dozen entities remain under the curbs, a Commerce Department official said. Nonproliferation expert Henry Sokolski said while Tuesday's rule change was rather modest, it underscores that U.S. plans for even more sweeping nuclear cooperation with India remain so unclear. He and other experts worry the July deal could undermine long-fought efforts to stem the spread of nuclear arms and say how Washington implements the agreement will be key. "I think the administration would do well to go further than it has already in publicly clearing the air as to what its plan of action is," he said. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 11 MercoPress: The Brazilian Navy’s atomic bomb ambition Falklands-Malvinas & South Atlantic News [MercoPress - www.mercopress.com] - Wednesday, 31 August The news was revealed by nuclear scientist Jose Luiz Santana who was president of the Brazilian National Atomic Energy Commission under former President Fernando Collor de Mello, 1990/92. According to Mr. Santana who was the guest star in the program “Fantastic” of the Globo television network, his team not only found uranium, but a detonator and other elements including a special sphere to lodge the nuclear explosive. On finding the evidence Mr. Santana was ordered to immediately deactivate the Brazilian Navy’s atomic bomb program, and ended with police protection following three attempts on his life. However the Brazilian National Atomic Energy Commission in an official release this week tried to dismiss Mr. Santana’s statements arguing that “no documents or information in the institution’s archives have been found to support the claim”, adding that all Brazilian nuclear material is stored under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Two weeks ago former Brazilian president Jose Sarney (1985/90) revealed on the same program that in 1986 he was informed that the Armed Forces had deep drilled in the north of the country with the purpose of testing an underground nuclear explosive. “We found out the military wanted to test a bomb, but I immediately ordered the hole to be refilled and all atomic weapons experiments stopped”, said Mr. Sarney. The then Brazilian president admitted keeping the entire incident secret so as not to offend neighbouring Argentina. The two revelations would confirm that the Brazilian Armed Forces disobeyed a civilian president and ignored the 1988 constitution which specifically bans all nuclear development which is not specifically for peaceful purposes. According to Mr. Santana part of the uranium to be used as fuel for the bomb was stored for some time in the University of Sao Paulo campus, possibly in the Nuclear Research Department. “I took office in April 1990, but only in August was the Atomic Energy Commission able to get hold of the container”, added Mr. Santana who said the enriched uranium was sent by a country with which Brazil had secret nuclear cooperation agreements. Mr. Santana refused to name the country. Nationalist sectors of the Brazilian Armed Forces had the entire project under strict secrecy and it was not easy to dismantle it, since over fifty different teams of scientists and experts were involved, all working independently. “I guess most of the scientists involved had no idea that the final objective was an atomic bomb”, Mr. Santana said. When asked how powerful a bomb, he replied like “those in Japan”. Apparently Brazilian intelligence services were aware of what the Brazilian Navy was up to, but the Sarney administration was too involved in restoring democracy and civilian control to a country which had experienced 21 years of military rule (1964/85). Pedro Paulo Leoni Ramos, former head of the Strategic Affairs Office revealed that on taking office President Collor de Mello he ordered the arrest of a van which was leaving government house packed with documents, and “among the many papers we found some with clues leading to the atomic bomb project”. The van belonged to government intelligence, at the time under control of the military, which had an office next to the president’s desk. It was finally former president Collor de Mello who in a public act dropped lime into the Amazon drilled well which he ordered destroyed thus symbolically ending Brazil’s nuclear arms race. In November 2003, the first year of ruling President Lula da Silva, Science and Technology minister Roberto Amaral surprised the world revealing that “Brazil has the largest uranium reserves in the world, so instead of enriching it in Canada, we’ll do it here in Brazil; we have the necessary capacity, and it’s a far more effective system”. He went on to say that “whether you are responsible or if the material could end in terrorist hands are questions never asked to Canada, but why to they ask those questions to South Americans?”. The original Brazilian atomic energy development project included three nuclear plants for electricity generation, of which two are operating, and building a nuclear powered submarine which still remains in the blue prints. Fin del Texto - Mercosur - Wednesday, 31 August . © 1997-2001 Mercopress - E-mail: admin@mercopress.com- Web technical help: webmaster@mercopress.com ***************************************************************** 12 [epa-impact] Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:04:11 -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-31/ ======================================================================= [Federal Register: August 31, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 168)] [Notices] [Page 51853-51854] >From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr31au05-167] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318] Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an exemption from Subsection (b)(1) of Section 50.68, ``Criticality accident requirements,'' of part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) for Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69, issued to Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc. (the licensee), [[Page 51854]] for operation of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (CCNPP), located in Calvert County, Maryland. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1) during the handling and storage of spent nuclear fuel in a 10 CFR part 72 licensed spent fuel storage container that is in a CCNPP spent fuel pool. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated December 21, 2004, as supplemented on May 31, 2005. The supplemental letter provided clarifying information that did not expand the scope of the original request. The Need for the Proposed Action Under 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1), the Commission sets forth the following requirement that must be met, in lieu of a monitoring system capable of detecting criticality events. Plant procedures shall prohibit the handling and storage at any one time of more fuel assemblies than have been determined to be safely subcritical under the most adverse moderation conditions feasible by unborated water. Section 50.12(a) allows licensees to apply for an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 if the regulation is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule and other conditions are met. The licensee has stated that the NRC has previously established five criteria that, if met, would satisfy the intent of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1). Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the exemption described above would continue to satisfy the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1). The details of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in the exemption that will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the exemption to the regulation. The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off site. There is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent released off site. There is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non- radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, dated April 1984, and the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (NUREG- 1437, Supplement 1), dated October 1999. Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on August 24, 2005, the staff consulted with the Maryland State official, R. McLean of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated December 31, 2004, as supplemented by letter dated May 31, 2005. Documents may be viewed, 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. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http:// www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800- 397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or send an e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of August, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Patrick D. Milano, Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-4750 Filed 8-30-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ------------------------------------------ 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 ------------------------------------------ ***************************************************************** 13 La Crosse Tribune: Genoa plant to remove reactor vessel www.lacrossetribune.com - Wednesday, August 31, 2005
By REID MAGNEY | La Crosse Tribune . DE SOTO, Wis. — Dairyland Power Cooperative is stepping up plans to decommission its closed nuclear reactor in Genoa, Wis. In the coming two years, Dairyland will remove the old reactor vessel and ship it to a low-level nuclear storage facility in South Carolina. That clears the way to remove high-level radioactive spent fuel rods, plant manager Roger Christians told about 30 people at a public information meeting Tuesday night at De Soto High School. Where those fuel rods will ultimately go remains unclear, but Christians said they may remain on site in dry storage casks for several years until the federal government can open its own storage facility. Chuck Sans Crainte, Dairyland vice president of generation, said the cooperative isn't fully committed to using a proposed temporary storage site in the Utah desert, known as Private Fuel Storage. Dairyland officials also disclosed they'll spend $50 million over the next two years on new pollution control equipment at the adjacent coal-fired electric plant. The federal government built Dairyland's nuclear plant, known as the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor, in 1967. Dairyland shut down the reactor in 1987, and has been working to decommission it. Anti-nuclear activists at the meeting said that even though they're concerned about storing the rods at the site, it's preferable to shipping them across the country to Utah or Nevada's proposed Yucca Mountain. "I like the idea of dry casks," said Gail Vaughn of La Crosse, who maintains the Web site www.no-nukes.org. Environmentalist Guy Wolf of Stoddard, Wis., questioned how long it might take to get federal approval for the dry cask storage, based on Xcel Energy's experience at Prairie Island, Minn. But he also praised Dairyland for taking steps to clean up particulate emissions from its Genoa coal plant, which he said ranks among the five highest in the state. Christians explained how Dairyland has hired Duratek Inc. to help them remove the 200-ton reactor pressure vessel, which will be encased in concrete and steel and shipped by train to South Carolina. The entire shipment will weigh 400 tons, and require a special 20-axle rail car. The train will go south from Genoa to the Quad Cities and then to Barnwell, S.C., not north through La Crosse, officials said. Removing the low-level waste to South Carolina will cost Dairyland an estimated $18.5 million, he said. The same special crane that will lift the vessel will also be used to remove the spent fuel rods and put them into the dry casks, Christians said. Genoa nuclear plant timeline 2005: Fill reactor pressure vessel with concrete grout. 2006: Cut hole in shield wall, which vessel will be removed through. 2006-2007: Install crane, construct shipping container. 2007: Lift vessel and package in container. Spring 2007: Ship container. . Related Copyright © 1997 - 2005 The La Crosse Tribune. All rights ***************************************************************** 14 Free Lance-Star: More nuclear plants and more oil don't make good policy Fredericksburg.com: Wed, Aug. 31, 2005 The Aug. 15 editorial supporting the energy bill and its pork-barrel projects baffles me ["Energy, Ink"]. Yes, the energy bill includes some incentives for renewables and energy efficiency, but it does not address the main source of our foreign oil addiction: automotive fuel inefficiency. Drilling for oil in the precious Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or subsidizing new, expensive, and potentially dangerous nuclear power plants will not make a noticeable dent in the nearly 21 billion barrels a day of oil or 22 trillion cubic feet of gas that we use. However, if the average vehicle in the country got 40 mpg instead of the current 20, we would not need to import any oil at all. Why aren't there any fuel-efficiency standards included in the energy bill? The nuclear provision of the bill is meaningless with regard to oil imports, since oil is hardly used for electrical power generation anymore. Why is The Free Lance-Star so hot on new nuclear generation? While it is possible that it could be safe, the lack + of hard regulatory oversight and least-cost market forces currently undermine the possible safety gains from technology. One has just to look at the draft environmental impact statement, prepared for the proposed early site permit to double the nearby North Anna Nuclear Reactor, to see the lack of critical thinking and lack of attention to detail that would be required to manage a successful nuclear revival. If the new nukes are so safe, why does the energy bill include new insurance subsidies (on top of the liability limits already in place by the Price-Anderson Act)? Furthermore, it is foolish to expand nuclear generation until real solutions exist for long-term safe nuclear waste disposal. I challenge The Free Lance-Star to host a local debate on nuclear expansion. After you've heard both sides of the argument, I look forward to a more comprehensive editorial based on the facts. Aviv Goldsmith Spotsylvania Date published: 8/31/2005 (Wednesday, 01:07, The Free Lance-Star) Fredericksburg.com, 605 William Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401 Comments? Send us Feedback, Phone: 540-368-5055 To contact all other newspaper departments, please call 540-374-5000. Copyright 2005, The Free Lance-Star Publishing Co. of Fredericksburg, Va. ***************************************************************** 15 Bellons: Reactor storage facility at Russian Far East will cost $80m The construction of the storage facility for the empty reactor units from nuclear submarines in Razboynik Bay at the Far East will cost not less $80m, said Viktor Akhunov, head of Federal Nuclear Agency’s ecology and decommissioning department. 2005-08-31 19:22 It was earlier reported that Russia is already building such a facility using own resources at the Pacific Fleet, Novosti-online reported. However, the allocated sums do not allow to complete the construction in time, therefore Rosatom has offered the Japanese Government to contribute to the project. Because Russia has no onshore facility for storing decommissioned submarine reactors, the practice is to cut three-compartment sections out of the submarines - the reactor compartment in the middle, flanked by compartments on either side that provide buoyancy. The three-compartment sections, welded with steel sheets over each end, are stored afloat. According to Akhunov, Japanese representatives will give their answer this Autumn. At the moment 120 nuclear submarines have been taken out of operation, 120 of them were dismantled till three-compartment sections, where later the reactor compartment will be cut out and placed on the onshore storage facility. Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 16 NRC: NRC Continues to Monitor Nuclear Plants Affected by Hurricane Katrina News Release - Region IV - 2005-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington TX 76011 No. IV-05-031 August 30, 2005 CONTACT: Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is working closely with operators at three nuclear plants to ensure continued safe and secure operations in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. As a precautionary measure, the Waterford 3 nuclear plant near Taft, La., shut down when a hurricane warning was issued for St. Charles Parish on Saturday. It remains in an Unusual Event, the lowest of four emergency action levels. Electrical power for key safety systems on site is being supplied by the plant's standby diesel generators, following a loss of off-site power caused by instability in the regional electrical grid. NRC staff have independently verified that key plant systems and structures, are undamaged and able to support current plant operations. At the direction of the NRC, the nations nuclear plants, which are among the most robust structures in the critical infrastructure, have increased security preparedness and capabilities available during emergencies. A member of the NRC staff plans to accompany officials from the State of Louisiana and the Federal Emergency Management Agency during a survey of the site within the next 48 hours. NRC approval is needed before the plant can be restarted. This survey will include off-site evacuation routes and emergency sirens. The Grand Gulf nuclear plant near Port Gibson, Miss., and River Bend Nuclear Station near Baton Rouge, La., were both operating at reduced power this morning. The plants operated through the storm, but voluntarily reduced power generation to assist in restoring stability to the electrical grid when a drop in energy consumption caused grid voltage to fluctuate. Some emergency sirens were unavailable at Grand Gulf and River Bend, but Entergy Nuclear has informed the NRC they can make offsite notifications in the event of an emergency, should the need arise. The NRC will work with FEMA to independently verify siren operability. NRC staff continue to monitor the situation from its incident response center at its Region IV office in Arlington, Texas. Last revised Wednesday, August 31, 2005 ***************************************************************** 17 Portsmouth Herald: NRC will take more time on power-boost review Wed. August 31, 2005 By Associated Press MONTPELIER, Vt. - The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant’s hopes of boosting its power output after this fall’s refueling outage have been dashed, with federal regulators saying they need more time to review the proposal. Entergy Nuclear, which owns the 33-year-old reactor in Vernon in Vermont’s southeast corner, had said for more than two years that it hoped to be able to begin increasing the plant’s power output from 540 megawatts to 650 megawatts as the plant started up again after this fall’s scheduled refueling outage. But a recent letter from Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff members to a special NRC panel reviewing the proposed power boost indicated the staff is a long way from satisfied that increasing the aging plant’s output is a good idea. The NRC staff wrote to the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that its review had been slowed by continuing concerns about the ability of a plant component known as the steam dryer to withstand increased pressures that would be caused by running the plant harder. Some plants around the country that have boosted power have seen cracks develop in their steam dryers, a plant component that removes moisture from steam generated in the plant’s reactor. Cracks were found in Vermont Yankee’s steam dryer last year - even before a power boost - but plant officials said they were not in areas of the dryer most likely to see new stresses after the power boost. The NRC board had been asking the staff for a schedule indicating when it might complete its review of the power boost proposal. In a July 15 letter distributed Tuesday by a nuclear watchdog group, the staff said in essence: Not soon. Entergy sent the NRC the last of several addendums to it initial application for the power boost on April 5, the staff letter said. "These supplements collectively contained a substantial amount of information that has necessitated significant staff review time and has engendered further staff questions." The letter said the staff had generated and would soon be sending Entergy about 200 new requests for additional information. Entergy’s "estimated response date (or dates) to these ... questions is necessary before the staff can set the schedular milestones requested by the Licensing Board," the letter said. Vermont Yankee spokesman Robert Williams said the questions and delayed approval were a testament to the thoroughness of the NRC review. Raymond Shadis, technical adviser with the watchdog group New England Coalition, said the NRC’s decision to take more time meant there was ample time for a "thorough physical inspection" of plant components before granting permission for a power boost. When it issued conditional approval for the power boost nearly 18 months ago, the Public Service Board said it wanted to see an independent engineering assessment of the plant to determine its fitness to increase its power output. Shadis’ group has maintained that the NRC inspection that resulted was not thorough enough. The Public Service Board still has not said whether it believes its condition was met. That question was expected to be debated Wednesday evening at a meeting of the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel, set for 6 p.m. at the Vernon Elementary School. Back to the Portsmouth Herald Copyright © 2005 Seacoast Online. All rights reserved. Please ***************************************************************** 18 Haaretz: Senior official in Dimona nuclear facility suspected of taking bribe Last update - 21:41 31/08/2005 By Nir Hasson, Haaretz Correspondent Police on Wednesday announced they have recently arrested a senior official in the Dimona nuclear facility on suspicion of accepting bribes from suppliers. The Beer Sheva Magistrate's Court on Wednesday extended the suspect's remand by six days. The suspect, 52, from Beer Sheva, is a senior worker in the facility's purchase department. He is suspected of having accepted bribes and other perks from suppliers during the last five years in exchange for contracts with the facility. The Beer Sheva court lifted a gag order initially placed on the police investigation. © Copyright Haaretz. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 19 adn.com alaska : Air Force's departure threatens Galena nuclear plan Anchorage Daily News: Alaska's Newspaper The Associated Press Last Modified: August 31, 2005 at 05:46 AM FAIRBANKS -- Galena's hopes for a small nuclear power generator could be threatened by the Air Force decision to end operations in the Yukon River community. Galena officials are seeking to use a nuclear power generator being developed by Toshiba Corp. as a test case for providing cheap electricity to rural communities. The city of 700 is involved in discussions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about licensing a plant. Yoder said it will take at least until 2010 just to know if the plan is feasible. Late last week, the Base Closure and Realignment Commission voted unanimously to shut down the Galena Airport Forward Operation Location as part of a Pentagon plan to save $48 billion over the next 20 years, potentially robbing the city of its biggest power customer. The Air Force buys 60 percent of the 8.5 million kilowatts of electricity produced annually by the city. Removing that demand raises the question of whether there's a need to operate a 10-megawatt nuclear power plant. City manager Marvin Yoder said there is. When the Air Force reduced its presence in Galena in the early 1990s, Yoder and other local officials developed a plan to fill empty military buildings with high school students. The Project Education Residential School leases a dining hall, dormitory, classrooms, gymnasium and auto mechanics shop on the base and provides 35 full-time jobs in the community. The program last year served 85 predominantly Alaska Native high school students from 43 communities. City and tribal officials want to expand the school to 400 students and use more military buildings. "We're going to take over as much of the base as possible," said Peter Captain Sr., first chief of the Louden Tribal Council. "We're not just going to let them mothball it and go away." Expanding the boarding school would make power use in the community about what it is with the Air Force, Yoder said. "If we have a redevelopment plan in place, most of the electricity load is going to continue," he said. "If we can't put a plan together, then the nuclear plant is in jeopardy." Galena relies on burning $2.55-a-gallon diesel oil to produce electricity. The diesel oil is towed to the village 350 miles by barge, contributing to electricity prices of 33 cents a kilowatt hour. Yoder said installing a small nuclear power plant could reduce the cost of electricity to 10 cents a kilowatt hour. The national average is 8.71 cents. © Copyright 2005, The Anchorage Daily News, a subsidiary of The ***************************************************************** 20 Platts: Early site permit review schedules slip, but little impact + NRC said last week that the review schedules for the first round of early site permit (ESP) applications would slip between four and nine months, but that the delays would have little impact on its first-of-a-kind new plant licensing work. The unexpected delay, attributed primarily to the need to sort through thousands of comments the agency received on its three preliminary environmental reviews, pushes the targeted timeframe for a commission decision on the ESP applications to 32-39 months. Initially, NRC staff estimated it would take about 30 months from the application submittal date to the granting of the permit. But later it revised the estimate to about 33 months?roughly breaking down to about 21 months for the safety evaluation and environmental review portions and 12 additional months for completing the mandatory hearing. More recently, some staffers had upped the estimate to 37 months for more complex applications. The three ESP applications under review are for Dominion's North Anna site, Exelon Generation's Clinton site, and System Energy Resources Inc.'s (SERI) Grand Gulf site. SERI is a subsidiary of Entergy Corp. Laura Dudes, chief of the new reactors section in NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, said the number of comments sent to the agency took the staff by surprise. "Our previous experience had been with license renewal environmental impact statements, and we had not received anywhere near the number of comments," she told reporters in an Aug. 16 teleconference. "It's not the nature of the issues," Dudes said, "but we are required?and it's our job?to appropriately review each and every comment and provide a response to those comments." New schedules In an Aug. 16 letter to Dominion, William Beckner, program director of the New, Research and Test Reactors Program, said 1,300 people provided about 7,000 comments on the staff's draft environmental impact statement (EIS). "The number of comments significantly exceeded what had been planned for in the previous schedule," he said, in explaining the reason for a four-month delay in the final EIS. In separate letters to Exelon and SERI, Beckner said the effort devoted to responding to the draft EIS comments on the Dominion application would impact the review schedules for their applications. Dudes said there appeared to be a similar number of "substantive" comments on the Exelon and SERI draft EIS reports. She said the final EIS for the Grand Gulf application would be pushed back four months to April?and now moved ahead of Exelon's Clinton application. The Clinton EIS was rescheduled for issuance in July 2006, a nine-month delay, she said. Dominion and Exelon filed their applications on the same day, Sept. 25, 2003, and SERI followed about a month later, on Oct. 21, 2003. Dominion's application was put in the lead, with the review of the Exelon application next, and SERI's application as the final of the three. Now, SERI's application will be second and Exelon's application will be completed last. Dudes said the staff had encountered another challenge unique to Exelon's application. Exelon's ESP referenced a seismic methodology that has not been previously reviewed by the staff. While both Exelon and Dominion had originally submitted applications containing a new, performance-based methodology for seismic analyses, Dominion later revised its application to incorporate NRC-approved methodology after learning that the staff review would be slowed by a few months if it did not make the change. Exelon, however, stuck to the new methodology for determining the safe shutdown earthquake ground motion for the its site. Exelon spokesman Craig Nesbit said Aug. 17 that his company had not had time yet to determine the "practical effects" of the delay. But, he added, "We're disappointed NRC doesn't have the resources" for the review. Karl Neddenien, a Dominion spokesman, said his company understood the reason for the review schedule change. "Public participation is truly an important part of the process," he said. The review extension was not expected to have any significant impact on the company's plans, Neddenien said. Dudes said the staff was using its experience on the first batch of ESP applications to prepare for other new licensing activities, particularly for combined construction permit-operating licensing (COL) applications, which might be filed starting around mid- to late 2007 and in 2008. "We've learned some lessons on how to resource and develop sufficient electronic tools," she said. Budget considerations Commissioner Jeffrey Merrifield cautioned the industry earlier this month that the agency's resources would play a significant factor in managing the work load of new plant licensing requests. Merrifield said he worried there could be a "stacking up"?or backlog?of applications, particularly if licensees do not provide the NRC with enough notice of their intentions. And even with advance notice, NRC still might have to prioritize the work, he said. "We will obviously be prepared to handle the few applications that we have been made aware of to date," Merrifield said in an Aug. 8 speech to the American Nuclear Society (ANS) conference in Amelia Island, Fla. "But beyond that, I think there is some uncertainty as to how the agency would handle any unexpected bow wave of 'surprise' applications for combined licenses, design certifications, or early site permits." NRC had originally budgeted $37-million in fiscal 2006 for work on new reactor licensing, which included the three ESP applications, two design certification applications, and work on a technology-neutral regulatory framework for advanced reactor designs. But NRC officials told lawmakers in the spring that since it developed its budget, the demand for new reactor licensing projects has increased. Congress responded to NRC's request, allocating another $20-million to support pre-application and other licensing work for COL applications expected to be filed starting in FY-08. Congress directed the agency to use the funds, which would be recouped through fees charged to licensees, to begin training new technical staffers to handle the expected load of three to five COL applications that could be submitted in the next couple years. NRC Executive Director for Operations Luis Reyes, in a separate session at the ANS conference, said the agency might receive an application from Southern Co. in 2006 and another from Constellation in 2007. Several COL applications are expected in 2007?from Dominion, the NuStart consortium, and Duke. A chart included in his presentation showed that there might be a COL application from the Tennessee Valley Authority in 2007 and a second from NuStart in 2008. In addition, design certification applications are expected for General Electric's Economic Simplified BWR, Areva's EPR, and PMBR Pty Ltd.'s Pebble Bed Modular Reactor. The agency also anticipates continuing licensing work on Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.'s advanced Candu reactor design, and possibly Toshiba's 4S reactor and Westinghouse's International Reactor Innovative &Secure design. Reyes told the conference that the agency would need to hire about 300 more technical staffers to prepare for the anticipated work. An NRC spokesman said last week that the staff increases would occur over fiscal years 2006-2009. Adrian Heymer, director of plant performance improvement at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), said the industry planned to discuss the cost issue for new reactor licensing, among other topics, at a chief nuclear officers' meeting at NEI on Aug. 18. "NRC is trying to do the right thing?train up [staffers] to understand the [10 CFR] Part 52 process" for new plant licensing, Heymer said. "That way, when they get the applications, they are halfway down the runway, so to speak." Heymer said some utilities have balked at having to cover costs associated with activities being pursued by a small group of companies. But to support the future of the industry, these expenses might have to be shared by all companies, he said. Southern says Vogtle possible site for new reactor Last week, Southern Nuclear Operating Co. told the NRC it had selected Vogtle to evaluate for possible future reactors. Southern Nuclear said it will file this summer either an application for an early site permit or information that would ultimately become part of a construction permit-operating license application. Southern Nuclear, a Southern Co. subsidiary, emphasized that the plant's owners have not decided to build a new unit. Letting the NRC know of the company's plans will help ensure the agency has sufficient resources for the application review, it said. Also, Southern Nuclear said, selection of the Vogtle site doesn't preclude other sites within Southern Co.'s service area from being considered for future nuclear units. Southern began seismic borings this week at Vogtle as part of its evaluation of that site. The drilling will check the site's integrity, including identifying any faults, said Southern spokesman Steve Higginbottom. The borings will also determine whether the site is stable enough to support containment and other structures for a new reactor, he said. Vogtle is owned by Georgia Power, Oglethorpe Power Corp., the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton. It is operated by Southern Nuclear. 'First in' policy? In his speech, Merrifield likened the possible influx of new reactor licensing applications to airport congestion and said NRC would have to play a role similar to that of air traffic controllers. "They know they have a limited number of gates with which to accommodate arriving and departing flights and a limited number of people who can arrive at the gates," Merrifield said. "But they also know that sometimes there are far more planes trying to land than there are available gates and personnel to handle them," he said. One solution, he suggested, would be to establish a "first in, first-out" policy, like the one it set up for license renewals. Also, the agency might have to limit the number of applications it could work on at any given time, he said. Merrifield also said he fully supported prioritizing work on reactor designs based on whether there was "licensee interest" rather than on designs that "vendors wish to certify in hopes of leveraging reactor orders." Heymer said he believed the agency should be able to handle the work load, based on past history. He said the agency had received about five operating license requests per year in the 1970s and four per year in the 1980s. That meant there could be eight or nine license applications at any time. "It would be somewhat sad to say we can't manage four or five COLs," he said. But, he said, "I think NRC should be able to handle the initial surge" of applications. This story was originally published in Inside NRC. To request a free trial to this newsletter go to http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/ London (Platts)--31Aug2005 Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 21 APP.COM: Oyster Creek managers want more options to get permit Published in the Asbury Park Press 08/31/05 BY MANAHAWKIN BUREAU LACEY — Managers at the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant dislike both options given as ways the facility could obtain a necessary permit and will consider taking legal action if state environmental officials don't revamp their proposal. At issue is how the plant will obtain permission to cool steam created during the reaction process, using water from a Barnegat Bay tributary. Plant Vice President Bud Swenson said a closed-cycle cooling system, which state officials prefer because they believe it would kill fewer aquatic creatures, has its own environmental drawbacks. Plant owner AmerGen could also implement a combination of mandatory wetlands restoration and changes to its existing cooling system, but Swenson said it would be impractical to pursue that route because New Jersey and other states have challenged restoration as a legal way to meet clean-water regulations. The state Department of Environmental Protection on Tuesday plans to respond to Swenson's comments at the end of the public comment period on a draft version of the permit, DEP spokesman Fred Mumford said. The public comment period ends Nov. 6. Swenson spoke Monday night at a state hearing and said salty water vapor that would be released from a cooling tower involved with a closed system would harm vegetation, degrade air quality and increase the amount of fog and ice on nearby roads, which include Route 9. But Michele Donato, a Lavallette attorney representing several environmental groups that have called for a closed system at the plant, said AmerGen could install filters and other devices to prevent the release of harmful amounts of salt. "Modern technology at that facility would not allow that to occur," she said. Also on Monday, Swenson said the state should give AmerGen five options it could take to obtain the permit, not two. The company also should be allowed to study the plant's effects on bay ecology before choosing an option, he said. Nicholas Clunn: (609) 978-4597 or Copyright © 2005 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 22 NRC: NRC Renews Operating Licenses for Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant for an Additional 20 Years News Release - 2005-11 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: No. 05-119 August 30, 2005 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has renewed the operating licenses of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, for an additional 20 years. The D.C. Cook plant is located about 11 miles south of Benton Harbor, Mich. The licensee, Indiana Michigan Power Co., submitted its license renewal application on Oct. 31, 2003. With the renewal, the license for Unit 1 is extended to Oct. 25, 2034, and the license for Unit 2 to Dec. 23, 2037. The NRCs environmental review for this license renewal is described in a site-specific supplement to the NRCs Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-1437, Supplement 20), issued in April. The review concluded there were no environmental impacts that would preclude renewal of the licenses for environmental reasons. Two public meetings to discuss the environmental review were held near the plant on March 8 and Nov. 9, 2004. After carefully reviewing the plants safety systems and specifications, the staff concluded that there were no safety concerns that would preclude license renewal, because the licensee had demonstrated the capability to manage the effects of plant aging. The Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, was published in May. In addition, NRC conducted inspections of the plants to verify information submitted by the licensee. The reports relating to the D.C. Cook renewal are available on the NRC Web site at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati ons/cook.html. On July 18, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards an independent body of technical experts which advises the Commission issued its recommendation that the operating licenses for D.C. Cook be renewed. That recommendation is contained in Report on the Safety Aspects of the License Renewal Application for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. This document is available on the NRC Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/letters/2005/. The D.C. Cook renewals bring the total number of renewals to 35 reactor units. A complete listing of renewal applications can be found on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati ons.html. Last revised Wednesday, August 31, 2005 ***************************************************************** 23 APP.COM: Nuclear energy best option for reducing foreign dependence Published in the Asbury Park Press 08/31/05 BY JAMES MCGOVERN American consumers are in for a shock when the heating season arrives: Natural gas prices around the country are up 60 percent to 90 percent from last year. That will complete the triple energy wallop: skyrocketing gasoline prices, higher electric bills and painful increases in home-heating costs. What can we do about it? The first step is to recognize the danger in our growing use of natural gas. No longer used only for home heating and in the production of petrochemicals, natural gas is now burned at power plants that generate nearly 30 percent of New Jersey's electricity and 20 percent of the nation's power. And the amount we use for electricity is rapidly increasing. More than 90 percent of the new electric-power capacity built in the past decade relies on natural gas. This heavy reliance has been one of the major pressures leading to the unstable natural gas market. The trend is likely to become even more pronounced. The Energy Information Administration foresees continuing increases in the use of natural gas for electricity generation. So whatever energy source we choose for our homes and offices — electricity or gas — it will ultimately rely on the availability of natural gas. Unfortunately, our production of natural gas in the United States has peaked and is falling faster than anticipated. We can no longer produce enough to meet our growing demand. Imports of liquefied natural gas, or LNG (gas chilled to a liquid, then shipped in tankers like oil) is expected to help meet demand as soon as some of the 59 proposed LNG terminals are approved and brought into commercial operation. Energy experts predict that by 2025, imported LNG will provide more than 20 percent of the natural gas used in the United States, compared to 2 percent today. Such an increase is alarming because it means we will rely on trouble-plagued foreign nations such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Algeria and Indonesia not only for our oil but also for our natural gas. Inevitably, we will see another reason for rapid price increases: formation of an international gas cartel, patterned after Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries but led by Russia, which has the world's largest gas reserves. Russia's President Vladimir Putin has made no secret of his desire to establish a gas cartel. It will be able to establish production levels for natural gas, subjecting American consumers to even greater price volatility and higher energy bills. Already, the U.S. price of natural gas ranks as the highest of any industrial country in the world, and many industries that require large quantities of natural gas — plastics, chemicals, aluminum and steel — have been forced to close factories in the United States and move them abroad. The Labor Department estimates that more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2000 as a result of high natural gas prices. So, while the rise in prices is bad enough for consumers, pushing up heating costs for homeowners and businesses, there is an even greater danger close at hand: the possibility that tens of thousands more workers will be laid off. At a time when the need for energy security is foremost, heavy dependence on imported natural gas is extremely dangerous. We have alternative methods for producing electricity without depending on increasing amounts from distant and unreliable countries. The prudent course is to build more nuclear power plants that produce large amounts of "base-load" electricity, safely and reliably, without depending on unstable countries for vast amounts of fuel. And unlike fossil fuels, nuclear plants don't pollute the air or emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Our national goal should be to increase the use of nuclear power 50 percent by 2020. We can meet this goal. Recently, Congress provided loan guarantees and other federal incentives to spur construction of the first few new nuclear plants using standardized designs certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And electric utilities in four states — Virginia, Illinois, Mississippi and Georgia — have announced sites at which new reactors might be built. In addition to nuclear power, we should also make use of increased energy efficiency, increased use of clean-coal technology and renewable energy sources. At the same time, we should be doing everything we can to scale back the use of natural gas in electricity generation, recognizing that the appeal of natural gas should not distract us from the huge threat that foreign dependence, and its connection to higher prices, poses to the economy. For the OPEC embargo that produced gasoline shortages and skyrocketing prices in the 1970s, the United States had no warning. This time, for natural gas, the warning is clear. James McGovern, Ocean Grove, is a consultant to industry and government on nuclear energy issues. Copyright © 2005 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 24 JOURNAL NEWS: NRC meetings to draw officials, activists from region By GREG CLARY (Original publication: August 31, 2005) The Indian Point nuclear power plant will be the focus of area emergency coordinators, public health officials and environmental activists who plan to attend Nuclear Regulatory Commission meetings in Maryland today and tomorrow that will address security at nuclear plants across the nation. The meetings, which are open to the public, will be run by the agency's Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response and will deal with issues such as spent fuel pools and backup power for emergency alert systems, two areas that have been integral to the region's debate over Indian Point in Buchanan. Participants will include officials from the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Anthony Sutton, Westchester's commissioner of emergency services, said he would attend the sessions primarily to remind regulators that, while overall guidelines are important, so is the ability to assess each nuclear plant individually. "There are many plants that they deal with where, quite honestly, there are more prairie dogs than there are people," Sutton said of the federal nuclear regulators. "They really need to treat sites, particularly like Indian Point, as individual sites and not try and use a cookie-cutter approach to emergency planning or response or guidelines." Sutton said the New York metropolitan area was not a typical emergency planning zone for a nuclear power plant, mostly because of the estimated 20 million people who live close enough to Indian Point that they could be affected by an emergency at the site. Rockland and Orange counties also will send representatives to Maryland. Putnam County is not, though the four-county coordinator for emergency preparedness will attend, Sutton said. The four counties fall within the 10-mile evacuation zone around the plant. "We're sending people from our Health Department and emergency services, including our radiological expert, because this a very important issue," said C.J. Miller, a spokeswoman for Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef. "This is an opportunity for us to learn more and be part of the regulation review process. In the post-9/11 world, it's very important that these regulations are revisited and redefined." Jim Steets, a spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, Indian Point's owner and operator, said the company was sending a security official to the meetings. In the two days, federal officials hope to hold round-table discussions on a variety of topics, including protective actions taken on and and off the sites of the more than 100 nuclear plants the NRC regulates. They include drills and other preparation exercises, how quickly the NRC and local officials are notified in the event of a problem, and alternatives for alerting the public. Members of the environmental group Riverkeeper, a leading opponent of Indian Point, will attend the meetings to emphasize recent problems with Indian Point's emergency siren system, among other issues. "We want to have immediate action on the backup siren issue," spokeswoman Lisa Rainwater said. "We want a direct answer from the NRC on the record as to what they're going to do to address the problem." Indian Point's owner, Entergy Nuclear Northeast, has vowed to install backup power to the sirens or to replace the entire system within 18 months to two years, a schedule Rainwater said was troubling. Copyright 2005 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. ***************************************************************** 25 NRC: Duke Energy Corporation; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of FR Doc E5-4749 [Federal Register: August 31, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 168)] [Notices] [Page 51852-51853] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr31au05-166] [[Page 51852]] Amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55, issued to Duke Energy Corporation (the licensee) for operation of Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, located in Seneca, South Carolina. The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications to accommodate replacement of the Reactor Building Emergency Sump (RBES) suction inlet trash racks and screens with strainers in response to NRC Generic Letter 2004-02. 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. The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves 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 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) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated: Duke is replacing the RBES [Reactor Building Emergency Sump] trash racks and screens with strainers in support of the response to Generic Letter 2004-02 on all three Oconee Units in the next refueling outage for each Unit. A change to Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 3.5.2.6 and 3.5.3.6 is needed to reflect this change. Although the configurations of the existing sump screen and the replacement strainer assemblies are different, they serve the same fundamental purpose of passively removing debris from the sump's suction supply of the supported system pumps. Removal of trash racks does not impact the adequacy of the pump NPSH [net positive suction head] assumed in the safety analyses. Likewise, the change does not reduce the reliability of any supported systems or introduce any new system interactions. A missile evaluation of the new strainer design concluded that there is no credible missile that could damage the strainer when needed during a LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident]. A jet impingement evaluation of the new strainer design concluded that there are no credible HELB [high energy line break] jets that could damage the strainer when needed during a LOCA. The greatly increased surface area of the new strainer will reduce the approach velocity of the strainer face significantly, further decreasing the risk of impact from large debris entrained in the sump flow stream. The proposed rewording of the SRs will continue to ensure that the reactor building sump suction inlet is not restricted by the debris and suction inlet strainers show no evidence of structural distress or abnormal corrosion for Unit(s) with or without the strainer modification complete. As such, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated: Duke is replacing the RBES trash racks and screens with strainers in support of the response to Generic Letter 2004-02 on all three Oconee Units in the next refueling outage for each Unit. The RBES strainers are passive components in standby safety systems used for accident mitigation. As such, they cannot be accident initiators. Therefore, there is no possibility that this change could create any accident of any kind. A change to TS SRs 3.5.2.6 and 3.5.3.6 is needed to reflect this change. These changes do not alter the nature of events postulated in the Safety Analysis Report nor do they introduce any unique precursor mechanisms. Therefore, the proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety: The proposed changes do not adversely affect any plant safety limits, set points, or design parameters. The changes also do not adversely affect the fuel, fuel cladding, Reactor Coolant System (RCS), or containment integrity. Therefore, the proposed TS change, which revises the terminology associated with TS SRs, does not involve a significant reduction in the 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 amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment 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 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 [[Page 51853]] 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, 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 requestors/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 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: 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 . A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn, Duke Energy Corporation, 422 S. Church Street, Mail Code--PB05E, Charlotte, NC 28201-1006, attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated [date], 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 23rd day of August, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Leonard N. Olshan, Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-4749 Filed 8-30-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 26 NRC: Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; FR Doc E5-4750 [Federal Register: August 31, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 168)] [Notices] [Page 51853-51854] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr31au05-167] Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an exemption from Subsection (b)(1) of Section 50.68, ``Criticality accident requirements,'' of part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) for Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69, issued to Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc. (the licensee), [[Page 51854]] for operation of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (CCNPP), located in Calvert County, Maryland. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1) during the handling and storage of spent nuclear fuel in a 10 CFR part 72 licensed spent fuel storage container that is in a CCNPP spent fuel pool. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated December 21, 2004, as supplemented on May 31, 2005. The supplemental letter provided clarifying information that did not expand the scope of the original request. The Need for the Proposed Action Under 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1), the Commission sets forth the following requirement that must be met, in lieu of a monitoring system capable of detecting criticality events. Plant procedures shall prohibit the handling and storage at any one time of more fuel assemblies than have been determined to be safely subcritical under the most adverse moderation conditions feasible by unborated water. Section 50.12(a) allows licensees to apply for an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 if the regulation is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule and other conditions are met. The licensee has stated that the NRC has previously established five criteria that, if met, would satisfy the intent of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1). Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the exemption described above would continue to satisfy the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1). The details of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in the exemption that will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the exemption to the regulation. The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off site. There is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent released off site. There is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non- radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, dated April 1984, and the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (NUREG- 1437, Supplement 1), dated October 1999. Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on August 24, 2005, the staff consulted with the Maryland State official, R. McLean of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated December 31, 2004, as supplemented by letter dated May 31, 2005. Documents may be viewed, 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. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800- 397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or send an e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of August, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Patrick D. Milano, Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-4750 Filed 8-30-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 27 SIFY: PTI: US removes 6 Indian facilities from entity list Wednesday, 31 August , 2005, 19:51 Washington: In a significant step that would help increase the Indo-US high-technology trade, the United States has removed six Indian nuclear and space facilities from its restricted entities list. The removal of the six Indian facilities from the Department of Commerce’s entity list was expected to reduce the number of licence applications for exports and re-exports to India and increase high-technology trade between the two countries, an official statement said. The move follows the signing of the landmark civilian nuclear energy pact between the two countries during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to the US last month. The entities removed from the list included the Department of Atomic Energy facilities at Tarapur, Rajasthan and Kudankulam. The other three are ISRO subordinate entities, specifically, the ISRO Telemetry, Tracking and Command Network, the ISRO Inertial Systems Unit, Thiruvananthapuram, and the Space Applications Centre, Ahmedabad. The ruling allowing removal of export and re-export licence requirements for the six Indian facilities became effective on Tuesday. © Copyright Sify Ltd, 1998-2004. All rights reserved. Sify.comhosted at SifyHosting India's first Level 3 Internet ***************************************************************** 28 Japan Times: Pluthermal reactor plan approved Wednesday, August 31, 2005 The Atomic Energy Commission on Tuesday approved safety evaluations for Kyushu Electric Power Co.'s project for pluthermal nuclear power generation designed to work off a growing stockpile of spent nuclear fuel. The approval will allow the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, which conducted the evaluations, to issue a permit for the utility to promote the project. Pluthermal, or plutonium-thermal power generation, burns plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel, made from spent fuel at nuclear reactors. Kyushu Electric is hoping to get consent from local residents before it starts the power generation possibly in fiscal 2010 at the No. 3 reactor of its Genkai nuclear power plant in Saga. Though it was not the first to apply for the project, Kyushu Electric now stands to be the first utility to introduce it. The Japan Times: Aug. 31, 2005 (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 29 NRC: Energy Policy Act of 2005 Requirements; Treatment of Accelerator- FR Doc 05-17293 [Federal Register: August 31, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 168)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 51581-51582] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr31au05-4] Produced and Other Radioactive Material as Byproduct Material; Waiver AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Time-limited waiver of Energy Policy Act of 2005 requirements. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a time- limited waiver of the requirements enacted by section 651(e) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, titled ``Treatment of Accelerator-Produced and Other Radioactive Material as Byproduct Material'', as they pertain to byproduct material as defined in paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 11 e. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as added by section 651(e). The waiver will allow persons owning, using, and otherwise engaging in activities involving the material to continue with their activities and States to continue to regulate this material during the applicable waiver period. DATES: This waiver is effective August 31, 2005. This waiver is effective through August 7, 2006, for the import and export of materials covered by the waiver, unless terminated sooner if the Commission determines that an earlier termination is warranted. For all other matters, it is effective through August 7, 2009, unless terminated sooner if the Commission determines that an earlier termination is warranted or required. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Chidakel, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-1535, e-mail ssc@nrc.gov or Merri Horn, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-8126, e- mail, mlh1@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The President of the United States signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 on August 8, 2005. The provisions of the Act became effective immediately, unless another effective date was expressly provided. Since no effective date was stated for the provisions of section 651(e) of the Act, section 651(e) became effective immediately, and brought byproduct material, as defined in paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 11 e. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.), as added by section 651(e)(1), under the immediate regulatory authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Section 11 e.(3) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 now includes as byproduct material: (i) any discrete source of radium-226 that is produced, extracted, or converted after extraction (before, on, or after the date of enactment of section 651(e) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005), for use for a commercial, medical, or research activity; and (ii) any material that has been made radioactive by use of a particle accelerator and is produced, extracted, or converted after extraction (before, on, or after the date of enactment of section 651(e) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005), for use for a commercial, medical, or research activity. Section 11 e.(4) expands the definition to include any discrete source of naturally occurring radioactive material, other than source material, if certain conditions are met. Section 11 e.(4) is considered to be a place-holder and NRC staff does not anticipate a need for active regulation of the latter material at this time. Prior to enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the NRC did not have authority over the newly covered byproduct material, and it fell under the authority of the States. Therefore, the NRC does not currently have regulations in place that would specifically apply to the material. With the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the States may no longer assert the authority to regulate the newly covered byproduct material, except as authorized to do so by the Act. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 allows the Commission up to 18 months after the date of enactment to issue final regulations for the newly covered byproduct material. To facilitate an orderly transition of regulatory authority with respect to the newly defined byproduct material, the Act also provides for preparation and publication of a transition plan for States that have not previously entered into an Agreement with the Commission under section 274 b of the Atomic Energy Act and for those States that have entered into such an Agreement. However, neither the regulations nor the transition plan have yet been developed. Until such time as the regulations and transition plan have been completed and are in place, persons that engage in activities involving the material will want to continue with their activities. To ease the transition period from individualized State programs to a more uniform regulatory program developed under the Atomic Energy Act and its section 274b Agreement State Program, section 651(e) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes the Commission to issue waivers of its authority. Waivers of the Commission's jurisdiction will permit existing State authorities to continue. Ultimate transition from NRC to State authority for those States with an existing Agreement State program is expected to proceed easily. For States without such programs currently, that want to enter into an agreement with the NRC, this waiver period will permit them to go through the processes necessary to establish and carry out an Agreement State program to regulate this material after the waiver period expires. Section 651(e)(5) authorizes the Commission to grant a waiver to any entity of any requirement under section 651(e) with respect to a matter relating to the newly defined byproduct material, except as required by section 651(e)(5)(B)(i)(l). Thus, such a waiver can also be granted to entities that engage in activities involving the material. Without the waiver, States that seek to continue regulation of the material would be, and persons that carry on activities involving the newly defined byproduct material could be, in technical violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by section 651(e) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. [[Page 51582]] The authorization to grant waivers is subject to the Commission's determination that the waiver is in accordance with the protection of the public health and safety and the promotion of the common defense and security. The Commission has determined that there is no basis on which to conclude that these materials will not continue to be used in a manner that ensures that the public health and safety will be protected while this waiver is in effect. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also specifically requires the Commission to consider, in promulgating regulations, the impact on the availability of radiopharmaceuticals to physicians and to patients the medical treatment of which relies on radiopharmaceuticals. The Commission believes that it is in the best interests of the country to allow continued use of the newly defined byproduct material in radiopharmaceuticals for medical purposes, and to allow the States to continue to regulate the newly defined byproduct material until the Commission can codify new regulations for these materials. In sum, the Commission currently does not have in place a specific set of regulations to oversee the use of byproduct material as defined in paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 11 e. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as added by section 651(e) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Granting of the waiver set forth at the end of this document will allow, for the applicable waiver period, States to continue with their programs, persons engaged in activities involving the newly defined Atomic Energy Act byproduct material to continue their operations in a safe manner, and continued access to medical radiopharmaceuticals. This will also permit the Commission and States that currently do not have Sec. 274i Agreement State regulatory programs, but wish to enter into an agreement with the NRC, to appropriately address the newly defined byproduct material. The Commission has determined that issuance of this waiver is in accordance with the protection of the public health and safety and the promotion of the common defense and security. Waiver Except as required by section 651(e)(5)(B)(i)(I), the Commission hereby grants a waiver from the requirements of section 651(e) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, titled, ``Treatment of Accelerator-Produced and Other Radioactive Material as Byproduct Material'', as follows: (1) To all persons engaged in export from or import into the United States of byproduct material as defined in section 11 e.(3) and (4) of the Atomic Energy Act 1954, through August 7, 2006, unless terminated sooner if the Commission determines that an earlier termination is warranted; except that the requirements of the Department of Commerce relating to export of such material will continue to apply to such material during the waiver period; (2) To all persons that acquire, deliver, receive, possess, own, use, or transfer byproduct material as defined in section 11 e.(3) and (4) of the Atomic Energy Act 1954, through August 7, 2009, unless terminated sooner if the Commission determines that an earlier termination is warranted; and (3) To all States that have entered into an agreement with the Commission under section 274 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(e)) and to States that have not entered into such an Agreement, through August 7, 2009, unless terminated sooner if the Commission determines that an earlier termination is warranted; except that such a waiver for an Agreement State will be terminated by the Commission, if the Commission makes the determinations required by section 651(e)(5)(B)(ii) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of August, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 05-17293 Filed 8-30-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 30 UK: Telegraph: Costain joins £2bn reactor clean-up Thursday 1 September 2005 By Philip Aldrick (Filed: 01/09/2005) Costain, the civil engineering group, has moved into the nuclear decommissioning market to cash in on the Government's vastly increased spending on the controversial energy sector. In the past couple of years, expenditure on nuclear decomissioning has increased from around £500m a year to £2 billion, Costain chief executive Stuart Doughty said. "There wasn't really a market before, now we are making a small business out of it," he added. Costain has contracts worth £150m over five years to dismantle and clean up certain sites. Mr Doughty said: "The jobs are in part demolition of existing facilities with great care and laying foundations for future build. We are helping to stabilise the sites." First-half pre-tax profits rose 39pc to £7.5m on sales 2.3pc higher at £345m. The forward order book is now nearly £2 billion, with 90pc of next year's forecast revenues secured. The shares fell 1¼ to 48½p. © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005. Terms &Conditions ***************************************************************** 31 New Scientist: Nuclear technology salesman kept under wraps [NewScientist.com] 01 September 2005 PAKISTAN'S president, General Pervez Musharraf, is still resisting calls to let the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) interview disgraced nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, preferring instead to drip-feed information when the clamour becomes too loud. On 29 August, Pakistan's ambassador to the US, General Jahangir Karamat, said that the country was doing its best to help dismantle the Khan nuclear supermarket, but that extraditing Khan, who is seen as a national hero by most Pakistanis, was out of the question. "[The US] should not even talk about it," he said. Last week, Musharraf admitted for the first time to Japanese news agency Kyodo News that Khan had sent entire nuclear centrifuge machines and their designs to North Korea, and that he may have exported uranium hexafluoride, which can be used both as reactor fuel and to make the material used in warheads. The admission means that North Korea joins Iran and Libya as a confirmed recipient of technology via Khan. “Khan sent entire nuclear centrifuge machines and their designs to North Korea” Pakistani investigators are understood to be submitting a list of questions to Khan on the IAEA's behalf. A source close to Musharraf told New Scientist that Khan is likely to remain under house arrest for the rest of his life. + © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd. Home ***************************************************************** 32 Reuters: Exelon shuts Ill. Dresden 2 nuke for transformer work Wed Aug 31, 2005 4:25 PM ET NEW YORK, Aug 31 (Reuters) - Exelon Corp. (EXC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) shut the 850-megawatt unit 2 at the Dresden nuclear power station in Illinois by early Wednesday to work on a main transformer, a spokesman for the Chicago-based company said. Depending on what the technicians find, the spokesman said the company may be able to fix the transformer with parts available on site or may be forced to replace the transformer. If the company has to replace the transformer, the spokesman said that as of this afternoon the company does have a spare on site. He noted the company has not determined whether it needs to replace the transformer. He could not say how long the outage would likely last due to competitive reasons. Electricity traders said the outage could last as little as a few days if Exelon can fix the problem with parts available on site or a couple weeks if the company has to replace the transformer. Over the past few days, the spokesman noted, the company reduced the unit in an attempt to fix the problem while the plant was still operating. The unit was operating at 77 percent of capacity early Tuesday. Separately, traders noted the unit would shut this autumn for a refueling outage expected to start in late October or early November. The last time the unit, which is on a 24-month cycle, shut for refueling was from Oct. 14-Nov. 12, 2003. The 1,700 MW Dresden station is located in Morris in Grundy County, about 60 miles southeast of Chicago. There are two 850 MW units 2 and 3 at the station. Unit 3, meanwhile, continued to operate at full power. One MW powers about 800 homes, according to North American averages. Chicago-based energy company Exelon's unregulated Exelon Generation Co LLC subsidiary operates the station. Exelon's subsidiaries own and operate more than 38,000 MW of generating capacity, market energy commodities, and transmit and distribute electricity (5.1 million) and natural gas (460,000) to customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 33 Reuters: Exelon's Illinois Dresden 2 nuke shut Wed Aug 31, 2005 7:09 AM ET NEW YORK, Aug 31 (Reuters) - Exelon Corp.'s (EXC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) 850-megawatt unit 2 at the Dresden nuclear power station in Illinois shut by early Wednesday, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a report. On Tuesday, the unit was operating at 77 percent of capacity. The 1,700 MW Dresden station is located in Morris in Grundy County, about 60 miles southeast of Chicago. There are two 850 MW units 2 and 3 at the station. Unit 3, meanwhile, continued to operate at full power. One MW powers about 800 homes, according to North American averages. Chicago-based energy company Exelon's unregulated Exelon Generation Co LLC subsidiary operates the station. Exelon's subsidiaries own and operate more than 38,000 MW of generating capacity, market energy commodities, and transmit and distribute electricity (5.1 million) and natural gas (460,000) to customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 34 Reuters: German minister rejects extension of nuke lifespan Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:33 AM ET FRANKFURT, Aug 31 (Reuters ) - Extending the lives of Germany's 17 nuclear reactors would prevent the necessary renewal of the country's power stations, environment minister Juergen Trittin said on Wednesday. He also said that deferring investments in modern plants and keeping the old ones open would hinder job creation. There would be a higher risk of hazardous incidents, potential delivery gaps, and more nuclear waste to dispose of, he said. "Whoever wants to keep open old dinosaur plants such as Biblis and Brunsbuettel instead of closing them by 2009, interferes with the renewal of our generation facilities," Trittin of the Green Party said in a press release. "This is because new power installations cannot compete with old, written-off plants." A top adviser to the conservative opposition, which is tipped to lead a new government after national elections on Sept 18, earlier said utilities should be allowed to run the reactors beyond the 40 years proposed by the conservatives. Heinrich von Pierer, a former chief executive of industrial group Siemens AG (SIEGn.DE: Quote, Profile, Research), said in a newspaper interview that 60 years was a feasible lifespan option. Five years ago, the current government agreed with nuclear operators to shut all reactors, which meet just under a third of national electricity needs, by the early 2020s by limiting their life cycles to an average 32 years. Under the deal, Biblis A and B and Brunsbuettel, together with Neckarwestheim 1, must be shut in 2006-2008. Trittin said the old plants had efficiency rates below 40 percent while half of some 15,000 megawatt (MW) of currently planned new plants were state-of-the art gas turbines which, if not postponed, offered rates of nearly 60 percent. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 35 Reuters: Japan draws up security steps for airports,reactors 31 Aug 2005 12:12:25 GMT Source: Reuters TOKYO, Aug 31 (Reuters) - Japan, which is tightening security ahead of an election next month, has drafted guidelines to shut down major airports and train stations if a terrorist attack seems imminent, Kyodo news agency said on Wednesday. Japan votes in a general election on Sept. 11 and many in the country are worried about a repeat of last year's deadly train explosions in Madrid, which came just three days before an election. Spain, like Japan, had provided support for the U.S. war in Iraq. Under the new rules, the government would immediately close any major airport or train station if it obtains information about a possible attack on such facilities, Kyodo said. Security at key facilities such as nuclear power plants would be improved by installing more surveillance cameras and sensors, it added. The guidelines also call on research facilities handling hazardous materials to strengthen steps against theft, Kyodo said. Government and police officials were not immediately available for comment. Concerns about an attack in Japan rose last week after France's top terrorist investigator, Jean-Louis Bruguiere, was quoted by the Financial Times as saying that al-Qaeda was preparing an attack on an Asian financial centre such as Tokyo, Sydney or Singapore. The National Police Agency has said up to 13,600 police would be deployed throughout Japan in the run-up to the election, with the emphasis on major cities such as Tokyo and the western city of Osaka. ***************************************************************** 36 [du-list] DU in the news.. Bush is the real threat Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:29:18 -0700 autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1559617,00.html Bush is the real threat Tony Benn Wednesday August 31, 2005 The Guardian Now that the US president has announced that he has not ruled out an attack on Iran, if it does not abandon its nuclear programme, the Middle East faces a crisis that could dwarf even the dangers arising from the war in Iraq. Even a conventional weapon fired at a nuclear research centre - whether or not a bomb was being made there - would almost certainly release radioactivity into the atmosphere, with consequences seen worldwide as a mini-Hiroshima. We would be told that it had been done to uphold the principles of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) - an argument that does not stand up to a moment's examination. The moral and legal basis of the NPT convention, which the International Atomic Energy Agency is there to uphold, was based on the agreement of non-nuclear nations not to acquire nuclear weapons if nuclear powers undertook not to extend nuclear arsenals and negotiate to secure their abolition. Since then, the Americans have launched a programme that would allow them to use nuclear weapons in space, nuclear bunker-busting bombs are being developed, and depleted uranium has been used in Iraq - all of which are clear breaches of the NPT. Israel, which has a massive nuclear weapons programme, is accepted as a close ally of the US, which still arms and funds it. Even those who are opposed, as I am, to nuclear weapons in every country including Iran, North Korea, Britain and the US, accept that nuclear power for electricity generation need not necessarily lead to the acquisition of the bomb. Indeed, many years ago, when the shah - who had been put on the throne by the US - was in power in Iran, enormous pressure was put on me, as secretary of state for energy, to agree to sell nuclear power stations to him. That pressure came from the Atomic Energy Authority, in conjunction with Westinghouse, who were anxious to promote their own design of reactor. It is easy to understand why president Bush might see the bombing of Iran as a way to regain some of the political credibility he has lost as a result of the growing hostility in America to the Iraq war due to the heavy casualties suffered by US forces there . It is inconceivable that the White House can be contemplating an invasion of Iran, and what must be intended is a US airstrike, or airstrikes, on Iranian nuclear installations, comparable to Israel's bombing of Iraq in 1981. Israel has publicly hinted that it might do the same again to prevent Iran developing nuclear nuclear weapons. Such an attack, whether by the US or Israel, would be in breach of the UN Charter, as was the invasion of Iraq. But neither Bush, Sharon nor Blair would take any notice of that. Some influential Americans appear to be convinced that the US will attack Iran. Whether they are right or not, the build-up to a new war is taking exactly the same form as it did in 2002. First we are being told that Iran poses a military threat, because it may be developing nuclear weapons. We are assured that the President is hoping that diplomacy might succeed through the European negotiations which have been in progress for some months. This is just what we were told when Hans Blix was in Baghdad talking to Saddam on behalf of the UN, but we now know, from a Downing Street memorandum leaked some months ago, that the decision to invade had been taken long before that. That may be the position now, and I fear that if a US attack does take place, the prime minister will give it his full support. And one of his reasons for doing so will be the same as in Iraq: namely the fear that, if he alienates Bush, Britain's so-called independent deterrent might be taken away. For, as I also learned when I was energy secretary, Britain is entirely dependent on the US for the supply of our Trident warheads and associated technology. They cannot even be targeted unless the US switches on its global satellite system. Therefore Britain could be assisting America to commit an act of aggression under the UN Charter, which could risk a major nuclear disaster, and doing so supposedly to prevent nuclear proliferation, with the real motive of making it possible for us to continue to break the NPT in alliance with America. The irony is that we might be told that Britain must support Bush, yet again, because of the threat of weapons of mass destruction, thus allowing him to kill even more innocent civilians. · Tony Benn will be talking about War; Religion and politics; and Democracy, at the Shaw Theatre in London on September 7, 8 and 9 Tony@tbenn.fsnet.co.uk ---------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.17/85 - Release Date: 8/30/05 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 37 toledoblade.com: No cleanup planned for former beryllium plant Wednesday, August 31, 2005 ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS By JENNIFER FEEHAN BLADE STAFF WRITER BOWLING GREEN - Remediation plans for a former beryllium production plant near Luckey do not call for cleaning up or removing the buildings on the site, but the Army Corps of Engineers now says it will test the soil beneath the buildings and "determine if further action is needed." That's the good news, said Graham Mitchell, chief of the Office of Federal Facilities Oversight for the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. "[This] is the first we've heard that they intend to do some sampling under the buildings. That's a real positive sign," Mr. Mitchell told a group of neighbors, company officials, and local and federal officeholders gathered at the Wood County Health Department yesterday. Representatives of the Army Corps of Engineers, which is charged with cleaning up the former defense site, did not attend the meeting, but sent written responses to a long list of questions posed by Brad Espen, director of environmental health for the health department. The Corps is expected to finalize a plan for the Luckey site this fall and begin the three-year cleanup as early as 2007. The Atomic Energy Commission built the beryllium plant in 1949, and it was operated by Brush Beryllium, the forerunner to Cleveland's Brush Wellman Inc., until 1958. The federal agency shipped the beryllium pebbles produced there to plants that made nuclear weapons. While property owners living near the site at Gilbert and Luckey roads in eastern Wood County have been waiting years for the federal cleanup, Mr. Espen said now that the remediation plan is close to being done, he fears it might not be enough. "I don't understand why we can't address the entire site all at once rather than going back to retest and reassess and possibly do a second cleanup," he said, adding that his intention was not to impede the Corps' plans. "I don't want to throw a wrench into this thing and have the Army Corps of Engineers delay and back off from the plan they have now." Mr. Mitchell, joined by U.S. Rep. Paul Gillmor (R., Old Fort), suggested the group show its full support for the Corps' cleanup plan, known as a record of decision, but express its concerns about areas of other possible contamination at the site. "We believe the Corps' program that's on the table right now is a good plan as far as it goes," Mr. Mitchell said. "We'd like to support that." When the Corps investigated contamination in 1998 and 1999, buildings on the property were in use, so testing was not done in the soil underneath. The metal can cause an incurable, chronic lung disease. The Corps said it found small amounts of beryllium in some of the buildings, but found no evidence of a release or threat of a release into the environment. Now that the buildings are vacant, Corps officials said they would collect soil samples under the buildings, probably by boring through the building slabs. "The Corps of Engineers will evaluate the sample results to determine if further action is necessary," the agency said in its written response to Mr. Espen's query. Larry Chako, environmental director for Brush Wellman's Elmore plant, attended the meeting in support of concerned community members. He said Brush Wellman favors a total site cleanup at Luckey. "We feel that is the right thing to do and the prudent thing to do," he told the group. The property is owned by Hayes-Lemmerz, an automotive wheel producer from Northville, Mich. Fredrick Dindoffer, attorney for Hayes-Lemmerz, said the company does not intend to raze the buildings on the property until the government cleans them up. He said the company has found beryllium dust on floors and equipment that it believes is "residue from the government's operation," not from other tenants'. Those at the meeting agreed to write to the Corps and legislators asking that the government move ahead with the cleanup. Contact Jennifer Feehan at: jfeehan@theblade.com or 419-353-5972. The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000 ***************************************************************** 38 DOE: Ridge Reservation Health Effects Subcommittee FR Doc 05-17296 [Federal Register: August 31, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 168)] [Notices] [Page 51825] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr31au05-132] Name: Public meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee on PHS Activities and Research at DOE Sites: Oak Ridge Reservation Health Effects Subcommittee (ORRHES). Time and Date: 12 p.m.--8 p.m., September 22, 2005. Place: Oak Ridge Mall, Alpine Room, 333 East Main Street, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830. Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 50 people. Background: A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed in October 1990 and renewed in September 2000 between ATSDR and DOE. The MOU delineates the responsibilities and procedures for ATSDR's public health activities at DOE sites required under sections 104, 105, 107, and 120 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or ``Superfund''). These activities include health consultations and public health assessments at DOE sites listed on, or proposed for, the Superfund National Priorities List and at sites that are the subject of petitions from the public; and other health-related activities such as epidemiologic studies, health surveillance, exposure and disease registries, health education, substance-specific applied research, emergency response, and preparation of toxicological profiles. In addition, under an MOU signed in December 1990 with DOE and replaced by an MOU signed in 2000, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has been given the responsibility and resources for conducting analytic epidemiologic investigations of residents of communities in the vicinity of DOE facilities, workers at DOE facilities, and other persons potentially exposed to radiation or to potential hazards from non-nuclear energy production and use. DHHS has delegated program responsibility to CDC. Community involvement is a critical part of ATSDR's and CDC's energy-related research and activities, and input from members of the ORRHES is part of these efforts. Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to address issues that are unique to community involvement with the ORRHES, and agency updates. Matters To Be Discussed: Agenda items will include a brief discussion on the Beir VII report; a presentation on the draft public health assessment: Current and Future Chemical Exposure Evaluation (1990-2003); an update on ATSDR's project management plan and the schedule of public health assessments to be released in FY2005-2006; updates and recommendations from the Exposure Evaluation, Community Concerns and Communications, and the Health Outcome Data Workgroups; and agency updates. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate. For Further Information Contact: Marilyn Horton, Designated Federal Official and Health Communication Specialist, Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., M/S E-32, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone 1-888-42-ATSDR (28737), fax (404) 498-1744. The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both CDC and ATDSR. Dated: August 25, 2005. B. Kathy Skipper, Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. 05-17296 Filed 8-30-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P ***************************************************************** 39 AU ABC: WA Greens back NT nuclear dump protests (AEDT)Wednesday, 31 August 2005. 17:28 (AWST) The Australian Greens say they will not stand by and let radioactive waste be transported through Darwin Harbour. Western Australian Greens Senator Rachel Siewert is in Darwin to attend tonight's protest meeting against the Federal Government's proposal to build a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory. Senator Siewert says the transportation of nuclear waste is one of the riskiest stages in the nuclear fuel chain. She does not believe the the Northern Territory is an appropriate location for the dump. "This is high level nuclear radioactive waste that they are talking about bringing into the Territory," she said. "The Howard Government's been very cunning in reclassifying the waste. It is no longer called high level radioactive waste, but it is high level radioactive waste that will be coming into this proposed dump. "If that is spilled the whole of this area is at risk." The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation has previously said there is little chance radioactive waste could spill while being transported. ***************************************************************** 40 AU ABC: NT Govt won't give up nuclear waste dump fight (AEDT)Thursday, 1 September 2005. 05:37 (AWST) The Northern Territory Government has pledged to use every available trick to stop the Commonwealth building a nuclear waste facility in the Territory. About 100 residents gathered in Darwin last night to discuss the proposed facility, which is to be built on defence land. Mining Minister Kon Vatskalis promised the Government would obstruct and delay until the Commonwealth gives up. "We are going to fight it, we are going to use your own legislation to delay it, we are going to use our own legislation, which as a matter of fact is not invalid," Mr Vatskalis said. "Territory legislation that passes throughout the Territory Parliament is valid until it is overruled by special legislation in Canberra." But the Country Liberal Party's federal Member for Solomon, Dave Tollner, says the Territory Government would be better off coming up with an alternative site. "The Federal Government has very limited locations from which it can choose a repository," Mr Tollner said. "The Northern Territory Government on the other hand has a greater degree of choice of land availability and knowing the best location to put it. "My view is that they should work with the Commonwealth Government rather than fighting tooth and nail against us." Meanwhile, the Western Australian Greens have urged Northern Territory residents to prepare for a long hard fight with the Federal Government over the dump plans. Western Australia Greens Senator Rachel Siewert told the meeting defeating the plans could take years. But she said the dump is now a national issue, not just a Territory one. "It is part of plans to escalate the nuclear industry in Australia. It is absolutely essential that together we campaign to oppose this dump." Senator Siewert told the meeting it might take years to defeat the plans and the rest of the country needs to join the fight. "We can't knock this on the head if we don't look at the source and start also campaigning to actually decrease and stop the generation of waste in the first place, which is why the people near Lucas Heights [in Sydney] don't want this dump either," Senator Siewert said. "It's because they know it is part of the chain that will inevitably lead to a nuclear reactor in Sydney." ***************************************************************** 41 United Press International: Attorney General Sandoval seeks help The Washington Times, America's : Wednesday, August 31, 2005 04:01 Nevada's attorney general sent letters to attorneys general in 10 states seeking help in the fight against the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear dump. The letter from Attorney General Brain Sandoval urges them to oppose the new radiation standards proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Sandoval said the new standard would set a "dangerous precedent for the relaxation of all radiation protection standards for Department of Energy sites everywhere." The EPA set a two-tier standard for radiation in the area. For the first 10,000 years the limit is 15 millirems of radiation. That is the equivalent to a chest X-ray each year, according to the Las Vegas Sun. After 10,000 years, the limit would increase to 350 millirems a year for up to 1 million years. "This amounts to the least stringent radiation protection standard in the world by far," Sandoval wrote in his letter to attorneys general in Idaho, Washington, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio, and New York. Sandoval said he chose those states because they each have a Department of Energy facility. He is asking them to write the EPA opposing the standard before the Oct. 21 deadline. Copyright 2005 United Press International ***************************************************************** 42 Las Vegas RJ: YUCCA MOUNTAIN FIGHT: Sandoval recruits supporters Wednesday, August 31, 2005 Nevada attorney general writes letters to colleagues in 10 states to oppose EPA radiation standards By SEAN WHALEY REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU CARSON CITY -- Attorney General Brian Sandoval on Tuesday sent letters to the attorneys general in 10 states urging them to speak out about what he called unacceptable proposed radiation standards for the planned nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Letters sent to the attorneys general in Idaho, Washington, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio and New York ask them to oppose the standards during the 60-day public comment period that ends Oct. 21. Nevada officials believe those 10 states will be most affected by the radiation standards proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency. "I am writing to alert you to a disturbing proposed rule that, if promulgated, has the clear potential to destabilize the cleanup standards for all Department of Energy facilities, including the DOE facility in your state," Sandoval said. The proposed standard for Yucca Mountain "threatens to undermine the negotiations and tri-party cleanup agreements that have taken years for states to develop for the protection of their citizens from DOE's nuclear contamination," he said. Sandoval said the EPA previously determined that people should be exposed to no more than 15 millirems per year. The new standard would permit exposures of between 350 and 1,050 millirem per year, depending on whether median or mean exposures are considered. "This amounts to the least stringent radiation protection standard in the world by far," he said. A person living in the United States receives an average annual 300 millirem dose of radiation from natural and man-made sources. A millirem is a small amount of energy. An EPA official has said the standards, rewritten to satisfy a federal court ruling, would offer health protection to Nevadans from buried canisters of decaying nuclear fuel for as long as 1 million years. Jeffrey Holmstead, EPA assistant administrator for air and radiation, has said the agency was attempting to set limits that will affect 25,000 generations. "It's a real scientific challenge, but we think we've done it in a way that is consistent with the best science," Holmstead said. The Energy Department, which seeks to entomb 77,000 tons of nuclear waste inside the mountain 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, believes it can meet the proposed EPA standard. "The new standard is based on EPA's unstudied view that it is appropriate to expose unconsenting local populations to high levels of radiation so long as they do not exceed the highest levels of natural background radiation tolerated in the most radiation-prone states, such as Colorado," Sandoval said in the letter to Colorado Attorney General John Suthers. In addition to the letters, Sandoval sent some background information on the proposed EPA standard. It says the EPA proposal: • Abandons any long-term groundwater protection standard. • Includes home radon exposure in calculations of natural background levels used to set thresholds, a practice never done in such calculations because home radon exposure is routinely mitigated. • Assumes it is ethically permissible to expose future generations to radiation levels far higher than would be tolerated today. Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 43 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Nuke utilities pay for most of Yucca Today: August 31, 2005 at 9:21:49 PDT This refers to your Aug. 17 editorial, "Yucca's cost is no object?" The point made that there is likely to be cost growth for the repository project probably has some basis, as both regional and national construction cost trends suggest. I would agree that a more current cost estimate is needed, but also note that the 2001 estimate was made in "constant 2000" dollars, which is important to recognize for a project that is to extend over a very long construction and operational period. You were in error when you wrote that the Energy Department should level with "the taxpayers of Southern Nevada and the whole country" who are "footing the bill." There is an agreed cost-sharing formula for the repository program expenses in which nuclear utilities pay 72.8 percent of the costs and the Defense Department budget pays for the balance. Nevada taxpayers are helping to pay for 27.2 percent of the repository costs and nuclear utilities and their customers in states using nuclear energy are paying the larger share. Nuclear utilities have been paying fees to the Treasury for nuclear waste disposal since 1983 and still do today. Congress appropriates all repository funds, but the point is that it also collects revenue from utilities to pay the majority of those funds. The energy secretary is required by law to periodically assess the adequacy of the fee rates to see if they need to be adjusted. BRIAN O'CONNELL Washington, D.C. Editor's note: The writer is director of the Nuclear Waste Program Office of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 44 Las Vegas SUN: Sandoval seeks help in Yucca Mountain fight Today: August 31, 2005 at 9:21:49 PDT By Cy Ryan SUN CAPITAL BUREAU CARSON CITY -- Attorney General Brian Sandoval is seeking help from attorneys general in 10 other states in the fight against the proposed nuclear dump at Yucca Mountain. Sandoval on Tuesday sent letters urging them to oppose the new radiation standards proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency. He said the new standard would set a "dangerous precedent for the relaxation of all radiation protection standards for Department of Energy sites everywhere." He is asking the other attorneys general to write the EPA opposing the proposed standard before the deadline of Oct. 21. The EPA earlier this month set a two-tier standard for radiation. One tier sets a standard of up to 10,000 years at 15 millirems, equivalent to a chest X-ray. Each year a person living near the site would not be subject to more than 15 millirems. The agency set the standard at 350 millirems for 10,000 years to 1 million years. "Despite the fact that EPA previously determined that citizens should be exposed to no more than 15 millirems per year, the new standard would permit exposures of between 350 and 1,050 millirems per year," Sandoval wrote. "This amounts to the least stringent radiation protection standard in the world by far." He said the DOE has sought to loosen its nuclear cleanup standards for sites in other states from exposure levels of 25 millirems per year to 100 millirems and some states are considering suit. "The new standard is based on EPA's unstudied view that it is appropriate to expose un-consenting local populations to high levels of radiation so long as they do not exceed the highest levels of natural background radiation tolerated in the most radiation-prone states, such as Colorado." The letter went to attorneys general in Idaho, Washington, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio and New York. Sandoval said those attorneys general were singled out because each have a Department of Energy facility in their state. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 45 Daily Sentinel: Company will wait to drill near site of nuclear blast Wednesday, August 31, 2005 By MIKE McKIBBIN BATTLEMENT MESA Plans to drill natural-gas wells within a half-mile of the Project Rulison underground nuclear blast site south of Battlement Mesa have been postponed until next year. Presco Vice President of Exploration and Production Kim Bennetts said the company would drill wells outside a half-mile moratorium area to test for any radioactivity in the ground the rest of this year. Project Rulison was one of three federal government tests in 1969. The 8,426-foot-deep underground explosion of a 43-kiloton nuclear bomb was meant to free gas reserves. After the blast, the Energy Department burned 455 million cubic feet of gas and found no radioactivity above background levels. The department is now notified and can impose conditions whenever a well is proposed within a three-mile radius of the blast. A 40-acre parcel surrounding the project's well site was placed off limits to any drilling below 6,000 feet because of possible residual radioactivity. The company had asked the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to lift the moratorium. The commission scheduled an October hearing on the request. It now may be held in January. Garfield County Commissioners earlier this year supported Presco's plan to drill one well in the moratorium area, if the well taps into gas outside the area. The county opposed a later plan by Presco to drill four wells in the area. ? Mike McKibbin can be reached via e-mail at mmckibbin@gjds.com. © 2005 Cox Newspapers, Inc. - The Daily Sentinel ***************************************************************** 46 Waste News: Energy Dept. issues draft assessment on Yucca Mt. rail corridor [Wastenews.com headlines e-mailed daily] [Win a DVD player] Aug. 31 -- The U.S. Department of Energy has issued a draft environmental assessment related to the Yucca Mountain rail corridor for 30 days of public comment ending Sept. 27. The environmental assessment supports the Energy Department´s application to the U.S. Department of the Interior for an order protecting a one-mile-wide corridor along the proposed rail line to Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, from surface entry and new mining claims for a period of as much as 20 years. The Department of Energy is proposing building a rail line to transport nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, if the federal government moves forward with plans to build a permanent waste repository at the site. The rail corridor is on public lands and goes from the Union Pacific railhead near Caliente, Nev., to the Yucca Mountain site. The environmental assessment is available online at www.ocrwm.doe.gov/wat/ccdea.shtml, and a comment form also is available at the site. In a separate action related to the proposed rail line, the Department of Energy is preparing an environmental impact statement to evaluate potential impacts of the construction, operation and maintenance of alternative rail alignments. The environmental impact statement will be issued in draft form next year for public review and comment. Entire contents copyright 2005 by Crain Communications Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 47 PE.com: Star power fuels perchlorate fight | Inland Southern California | Local News WATER: Celebrities sign a letter asking the state to remove the pollutant from the Colorado River. 01:50 AM PDT on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 By DAVID DANELSKI / The Press-Enterprise Environmentalists demanding the removal of a rocket fuel chemical from the Colorado River got some star power behind them. Alec Baldwin, Don Cheadle and more than a dozen other movie and TV personalities, as well as celebrity legal researcher Erin Brockovich, signed a letter sent to Gov. Schwarzenegger on Tuesday calling on the state to act immediately to remove perchlorate from the river and other drinking water supplies. The river provides water to an estimated 16 million people in Southern California. Perchlorate, used in rocket fuel, munitions and fireworks, leaked into the river from a former perchlorate factory near Las Vegas owned by the Kerr-McGee Corp. The factory is near the Las Vegas Wash, which empties into Lake Mead, a part of the Colorado River system. In sufficient amounts, perchlorate can block the absorption of iodide into the thyroid gland, interfering with production of hormones that guide brain and nerve development in fetuses and babies. Federal officials have concluded that the small amounts in the river are not harmful. However, some scientists believe research has been too inconclusive to know whether the small amounts of perchlorate in the river and other drinking water sources is safe for the most sensitive people, such as pregnant women, their fetuses, babies, and people with impaired thyroid function. California's current perchlorate "health goal" -- considered safe for everyone but not an enforceable limit -- is six parts per billion in drinking water. This fall, state health officials are expected to propose a legal limit for perchlorate in drinking water. Levels in the river vary but generally are less than six parts per billion when they reach California consumers. "Please require full cleanup on the Colorado River by setting a cleanup standard for perchlorate in water no more than one part per billion," says the letter to Schwarzenegger, written by Environment California, a group that lobbies for cleaner air and water. A standard of one part per billion would force water purveyors to clean up river water before delivering it to consumers, or blend it to reduce perchlorate concentrations. Others who signed the letter included Ed Begley Jr., Maria Bello, Rebecca DeMornay, Dylan McDermott, Shiva Rose, Mike Farrell and Harry Hamlin. 2005, The Press-Enterprise Company ***************************************************************** 48 KLAS: Ten States Asked to Join Yucca Mountain Fight August 31, 2005 Nevada's attorney general is asking counterparts in 10 states to join the fight against a proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Attorney General Brian Sandoval says he sent the letters to the 10 attorneys general because each has an Energy Department facility in their state. Sandoval says new radiation standards the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed for the Yucca site would set a precedent toward relaxing radiation protection standards for Energy Department in other states. The E-P-A earlier is proposing a two-tier radiation standard for the site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Sandoval says he sent the letters to Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Washington. (Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and KLAS. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 49 Pahrump Valley Times: YUCCA MOUNTAIN Radiation standards explained August 31, 2005 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced proposed radiation standards for the high-level nuclear waste facility planned at Yucca Mountain in Nye County. It is important that the public understands what these standards mean in relation to background radiation levels. Background radiation is either measured directly or estimated from the best information available. Radiation units for effective dose equivalent are called "roentgen equivalent man," or rem. The amount of radiation a person receives is measured in thousandths of a rem (called the millirem) and is abbreviated or shortened to mrem. The mrem is used to measure how the body reacts to radiation exposure. Typical background radiation is either natural or manmade. Natural radiation can come from cosmic or terrestrial sources or even the human body. Man-made radiation results from medical treatments, consumer products or fallout from historical international weapons testing. Cosmic radiation is high-energy gamma radiation that originates in outer space and filters through our atmosphere. People are exposed to more cosmic radiation at higher altitudes than at lower ones. According to the Environmental Protection Agency Web site, at sea level, a cosmic radiation dose can be approximately 26 mrem per year; by contrast, the annual cosmic radiation dose in mile-high Denver is approximately 50 mrem per year. No matter where you live, the soil on which you stand contains trace amounts of radioactive material. This terrestrial radiation originates from naturally occurring radionuclide in the soil. External exposure from terrestrial radiation can occur both indoors and outdoors. The background dose from terrestrial radiation depends on the materials of the earth's crust at a particular locality. Some areas of the United States, like the Colorado Plateau, are rich in uranium and thorium. Other areas may be rich in granite, which produces radon. The U.S. average dose of radiation from radon is 200 mrem per year; the average dose from stone, concrete, or brick house construction is approximately 10 mrem per year. Internal radiation originates within our own bodies from naturally occurring Potassium 40 and Carbon 14. Additional exposure comes from the foods we eat and how we live. The radiation dose from elements and minerals in the human body is approximately 25 mrem per year; the U.S. average exposure to radiation from food, air and water is 40 mrem per year. If you use salt substitute (potassium chloride) or eat potassium-rich foods, like bananas or Brazil nuts, the dose is 10mrem per year. Smoking one pack of cigarettes every day for a year results in a dose of 4,000 mrem per year. Exposure to manmade radiation results from medical tests, such as X-rays and cancer therapies. It may also come from consumer products, such as microwaves, smoke detectors, dentures, color television or some cameras. Some examples of average doses of man-made radiation are medical x-rays (40 mrem each), nuclear medical procedures (14 mrem each), using a computer terminal (0.1 mrem per year), and weapons test fallout (1mrem per year). The annual average background radiation dose from all sources for a person living in the U.S. is 360 mrem per year. The average dose for people living in Florida is 131 mrem per year, and for those living in South Dakota, the background is 963 mrem per year. If you would like to determine your own yearly exposure to radiation, visit the EPA Web site at www.epa.gov/radiation/students/calculate.html The U.S. Department of Energy has estimated that the average background dose to the people living near the Yucca Mountain repository is slightly below the U.S. average of 340 mrem/year. The new EPA proposed standard for Yucca Mountain might add 15 mrem per year to this figure for the first 10,000 years and 350 mrem per year for 10,000 to a million years Health effects experts are divided on the "safe" level of radiation a person can be exposed to without ill effects. Some organizations suggest setting a lower limit of 5,000 to 10,000 mrem per year for long-term exposure. Both EPA and OSHA have stated that health effects are clearly noted when an individual receives doses above 50,000 mrem per year. Nye County is concerned about how the performance confirmation is going to be implemented and managed. Nye County has historically requested to be an integral part of the performance program to ensure that the health and safety of its citizens are protected. Nye County will continue to use whatever resources it has to become a part of this process. For comment or questions, please e-mail webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2005 ***************************************************************** 50 [NukeNet] Article on Livermore Lab worker's widow Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:29:22 -0700 autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) 2005 ContraCostaTimes.com and wire service sources http://www.contracostatimes.com Posted on Tue, Aug. 30, 2005 Bittersweet win for lab worker's widow *By Betsy Mason* *CONTRA COSTA TIMES* More than five years after her husband Carl died and four years after her first attempt to file for compensation for his death, Joyce Brooks has finally gotten justice from the Department of Labor in the form of a $275,000 check. Before he died, Carl asked Joyce to pursue restitution from the Department of Energy for his illness, which he believed was caused by 32 years at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, including work as a beryllium machinist. It has been a long hard road for Brooks. Her claim was denied three times. But she persisted, and now she has what she was looking for: an admission of guilt. Experts at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, who deal with any claim that is not clear cut, decided it was "more likely than not" that Carl, 70, died of chronic beryllium disease from exposure at the lab. "For me, I found out what caused his death, and that was a big part of it," Brooks said. "It wasn't a matter of the money." Carl was initially diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis, but he believed the beryllium was to blame. He died six months later. Motivated by her promise to her husband, Brooks refused to give up until she proved her husband's hunch true. Each time her claim was denied, Brooks went back to work. She tracked down more experts on beryllium disease, uncovered more lab reports, mined her husband's personal files for travel documents and medical charts, gathered every scrap of evidence she could get her hands on, and filed again. The resulting six-inch stack of evidence, including 40-year-old x-rays, finally tipped the scales in her favor. "I don't want to be big about it, but I took the Labor Department to task," Brooks said. She's the first to point out help she has had along the way. She credits Inga Olsen of Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment with encouraging her to keep trying and intervening with a hug when things got tough. "Joyce is unusual because she had the skills and conviction to stick with it," Olsen said. "She's been willing to do the work above and beyond what most people would be willing to do." Olsen joined Tri-Valley CARES shortly after President Clinton signed the Energy Employees Compensation Act into law in December 2000 and has been helping sick workers and their families file claims ever since. Brooks also had the support of Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Alamo, who co-sponsored the compensation act and lobbied to get the sick worker's resource center that opened in Livermore in 2004. Tauscher's office made calls on Brooks' behalf to the departments of Energy and Labor urging prompt consideration and trying to find out why she had been denied, and is working with a handful of other claimants who have asked for help. "I'm relieved to see Joyce finally receive this compensation after four long years, and I hope other East Bay families will see their claims completed soon," Tauscher said. "I intend to continue to work to reform this program and improve its efficiency, so that families don't have such ridiculously long waits in the future." The Department of Labor is processing claims as quickly as possible, said Peter Turcic who directs the compensation program. His staff is "working like crazy" to stay ahead of the claims that keep pouring in at the rate of 300 to 500 a week. "We have a very dedicated staff," Turcic said. "They are doing what I believe is a really great job getting as many payments made as quickly as possible knowing that individuals have been waiting a long time." Part of the hold-up for claimants has been the need to complete a site evaluation for each facility that characterizes what kind of work was going on, and what workers may have been exposed to, Turcic said. This has been completed for Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and so far 49 claims totaling $6.9 million have been paid under "Part B" of the act which deals with radiation cancers, beryllium disease and silicosis. Ten claims have been paid under "Part E," which covers any toxic illness for a total of $1.2 million. In addition, $270,965 has gone toward sick workers' medical bills. Brooks received payment from both Part B and E. But some workers have been waiting for years for a decision on their claims, and others are trudging through the appeals process after having their claim denied. Francine Moran worked as an administrative assistant at Lawrence Livermore for seven years, overseeing installation and maintenance of copy machines all over the lab. She often spent hours in areas where lab workers were in protective clothing, but she was unprotected. Today she has gastronoma and has had six major abdominal surgeries in five years. Her claim has been denied twice but she's not giving up. "I appealed again and told them that I don't accept that answer," Moran said. That's the right attitude according to Brooks. "I had never thought that this would go through," Brooks said of her payment. "I want the others to know this: If you're sure, don't give up." Brooks is sharing her compensation with her five children. She also hopes to help a granddaughter pay for college, something she knows would have made Carl proud. But there is still a note of sadness in Brooks' voice as she talks about her victory. "It's bittersweet. I'm not jumping for joy, because I lost someone and no amount of money can change that." BENEFITS ASSISTANCE Workers or survivors who need information or assistance to apply for benefits may call toll-free 866-606-6302, or visit the resource center, 2600 Kitty Hawk Road, suite 101, Livermore, CA 94551. / / Betsy Mason covers science and the national laboratories. Reach her at bmason@cctimes.com or 925-847-2158. ends Marylia Kelley Executive Director Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment) 2582 Old First Street Livermore, CA USA 94551 - is our web site address. Please visit us there! (925) 443-7148 - is our phone (925) 443-0177 - is our fax _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 51 Rocky Mountain News: Idaho backs plutonium plan By Christopher Smith, Associated Press August 31, 2005 BOISE, Idaho - The state is supporting an Energy Department proposal to start producing plutonium-238 for NASA and national security agencies at a federal nuclear research compound in eastern Idaho. But in comments submitted Monday to the government, the state called on the Bush administration to spell out a plan to transfer the highly radioactive waste created at the Idaho National Laboratory to disposal sites out of state. The state also wants the Energy Department to allow independent monitoring of air emissions and workplace safety at the proposed $300 million production facility. With those caveats, the administration of Gov. Dirk Kempthorne said it will endorse the government's plan to consolidate U.S. production of plutonium-238 "space batteries" at the 890-square-mile complex outside of Idaho Falls. "It's a concept we can support, but there are some details that still need to be worked out and DOE needs to improve some of its evaluation and communication," said Kathleen Trever, Kempthorne's coordinator for oversight of the lab. Some Idaho residents have opposed the plan, fearing that it would increase cancer deaths, threaten the nearby Yellowstone ecosystem and make the region a potential terrorist target. Plutonium-238 is not used for nuclear weapons, but its steady, virtually infinite release of heat during decay makes the isotope valuable as a heat source to produce electricity in spacecraft and for some satellites that are unable to rely on the sun for energy. And it is many times more radioactive than weapons-grade plutonium-239. The U.S. stopped producing plutonium-238 when it shut the last weapons reactor at the Savannah River complex in South Carolina in the mid-1990s. Instead it has relied on existing stockpiles and a supply provided by Russia that is limited to use by NASA in the space program. 2005 © Rocky Mountain News ***************************************************************** 52 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah FR Doc 05-17307 [Federal Register: August 31, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 168)] [Notices] [Page 51760-51761] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr31au05-65] River AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open meeting and retreat. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Savannah River. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register. DATES: Thursday, October 6, 2005, 8:30 a.m.-4:45 p.m.; Friday, October 7, 2005, 8:30 a.m.-12 p.m. ADDRESSES: Wild Dunes, 5757 Palm Boulevard, Isle of Palms, SC 29451. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerri Flemming, Closure Project Office, Department of Energy Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC, 29802; Phone: (803) 952-7886. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities. Tentative Agenda Thursday, October 6, 2005 8:30 a.m.--Small Group Discussions CAB Organizational Structure Public Outreach Board Communications 12:00 p.m.--Lunch Break 1 p.m.--Large Group Discussions 2:15 p.m.--Break 2:30 p.m.--Small Group Discussions Membership Process Improving Meeting Productivity Public Participation Recommendation Process 4:45 p.m.--Adjourn Friday October 7, 2005 8:30 a.m.--Large Group Discussion and Decisions 12 p.m.--Adjourn If needed, time will be allotted after public comments for items added to the agenda, and administrative details. A final agenda will be available at the meeting Thursday, October 6, 2005. Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Gerri Flemming's office at the address or telephone listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the U.S. Department of Energy's Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available by writing to Gerri Flemming, Department of Energy Savannah River Operations [[Page 51761]] Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC, 29802, or by calling her at (803) 952- 7886. Issued at Washington, DC, on August 26, 2005. Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 05-17307 Filed 8-30-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************