***************************************************************** 09/07/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.207 ***************************************************************** 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 IRAN: The Nuclear Threat - Council on Foreign Relations 2 Reuters: EU wants UN to take up Iran nuclear issue -Germany 3 Reuters: Iran seeks to soothe West's nuclear concerns 4 Times of Oman: Iran to challenge UN nuclear report 5 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. Stresses Progress in 6-Party Talks 6 Korea Times: Cheju Seeks to Host Nuke Negotiations 7 Korea Times: No Closing Date for 6-Way Nuke Talks 8 Reuters: N.Korea nuclear talks likely early next week: Seoul ministr 9 Minjok-Tongshin: DPRK Will Never Waive Its Right to Peaceful Nuclear 10 US: Secrecy News -- 09/07/05 11 US: csmonitor.com: The Bolton backfire: Weaken UN, imperil Americans 12 Bellona: Putin fires navy chief Kuroyedov and brings in tough-talkin 13 BBC: Tide turns to new power sources 14 New Scientist: Nuclear stockpiles could create 300,000 bombs 15 Xinhua: India, EU agree to enhance nuclear co-op 16 Daily Times: Indo-US nuclear deal comes under serious scrutiny 17 India Rediff: US unhappy over India's N-statements NUCLEAR REACTORS 18 NIRS Statement on UN Chernobyl Report 19 US: [epa-impact] Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Haddam Nec 20 US: [epa-impact] Indiana Michigan Power Company, Donald C. Cook Nucl 21 US: SignOnSanDiego.com: University nuclear reactors slow to stop usi 22 RIA Novosti: Novovoronezh nuclear power plant shuts down fifth react 23 RIA Novosti: Russia satisfied with atomic power plant safety exercis 24 RIA Novosti: Russian-Chinese Experimental Fast Reactor to be ready 25 NIRS: UN Chernobyl Report - 26 US: NRC: Indiana Michigan Power Company, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plan 27 US: NRC: Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Haddam Neck Plant; 28 US: NRC: Carolina Power and Light Company, Brunswick Steam Electric 29 US: Monticello Times: Officials give plant nod of approval 30 US: Reuters: NRC ends monitoring of Entergy La. Waterford 3 nuke 31 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting 32 US: Reuters: PSEG's N.J. Hope Creek nuke back at full power 33 US: Reuters: Duke's S.C. Oconee 3 nuke exits outage, up to 18 pct 34 US: Reuters: Exelon replacing transformer at Ill. Dresden 2 nuke 35 US: MPG Newspapers: Pilgrim is running out of room - 36 New Matilda: Delusions of Power: Levelling the Playing Field for Nuc 37 US: Joplin Globe: Time to get rid of our nukes 38 US: Free Lance-Star: Multifaceted energy policy must include nuclear NUCLEAR SECURITY 39 US: NRC: NRC, States to Coordinate Increased Controls Over Radioacti 40 RIA Novosti: Russia to be the first to sign nuclear terrorism conven NUCLEAR SAFETY NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 41 [NukeNet] Uranium-Contaminated Soil Radioactivity 42 Las Vegas SUN: State balks at Yucca rules on water flow 43 NRC: NRC Proposes to Change Regulations on Yucca Mountain to Be Cons 44 Platts: Ukraine to build spent fuel storage facility without Framato 45 Japan Times: Plutonium from spent fuel at 43 tons 46 US: Emagazine: Native Dumping Ground 47 US: RedNova News: Yankee, State Make Deal Over Dry Casks 48 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear worry over undersea volcanos 49 US: AU ABC: NT 'cooperating' with uranium mine management 50 US: AU ABC: Federal Minister applauds SA stance on uranium debate PEACE 51 Japan Times: Exhibition on 1945 atomic bombings opens in Paris US DEPT. OF ENERGY 52 Tri-Valley Herald: Nuclear facility may face the ax ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 IRAN: The Nuclear Threat - Council on Foreign Relations Op-Ed See Also Iran, International Law, International Peace and Security, Weapons of Mass Destruction IRAN: The Nuclear Threat Author: Esther Pan September 6, 2005 + What is the nuclear threat from Iran? + What is the status of efforts to rein in Iran’s nuclear program? + What has Iran done recently to attract world suspicion? + How can a civilian nuclear-energy program be transformed into a program to build nuclear weapons? + What has Iran done to advance its nuclear program? + What’s the background of Iran’s nuclear program? + Is there public support in Iran for a nuclear program? + Would the United States use force to stop Iran’s nuclear activities? What is the nuclear threat from Iran? Iranian officials claim they are pursuing nuclear technology for peaceful civilian purposes only, such as generating electricity. But most international proliferation experts suspect the fundamentalist Muslim theocracy is using its nuclear program to enrich uranium to higher levels than necessary for civilian nuclear-energy production and secretly trying to manufacture nuclear weapons. What is the status of efforts to rein in Iran’s nuclear program? Since the revelations ofTehrans nuclear ambitions became public in 2002, the United Statesand other countries have been pressuring Iran to halt the program. TheUnited Statesrefused to deal directly with Tehran, but the European Union began negotiations to reach a diplomatic solution to the standoff. In late 2004, U.S. officials agreed to support European efforts. In Novemberof that year, Iran negotiated a deal with Britain, France, and Germany: The Europeans promised to give Iran economic incentives and assistance with its civilian nuclear program, and Iran promised to halt uranium enrichment. What has Iran done recently to attract world suspicion? After Iranian dissidents blew the whistle in 2002, Tehran admitted withholding information for nearly twenty years from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations (UN) nuclear watchdog, about aspects of a uranium-enrichment program. Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, Irans new president, said after he was elected in June that Iran had a right to a nuclear program. In August, Iran also resumed sensitive nuclear work at some of its facilities, bringing two years of negotiations with the European Union on its nuclear program nearly to collapse. How can a civilian nuclear-energy program be transformed into a program to build nuclear weapons? Under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT), which governs nuclear-energy use around the world, any nation can enrich uranium for civilian nuclear-power reactors. Uranium enrichment is a critical part of both nuclear energy and nuclear-weapons programs. During the enrichment process, naturally occurring uranium is converted into nuclear fuel. Depending on its enrichment level, this fuel can power either energy plants or, in a more refined state, nuclear weapons. Under Article IV of the NPT, which Iran ratified in 1968, a country can develop its nuclear-power capacity under a legal civilian program. Then the country could give ninety days notice that it intends to drop out of the NPT, convert its civilian nuclear program to a nuclear-weapons program, and declare itself a nuclear-armed power. What has Iran done to advance its nuclear program? Its program has facilities considered legal under international agreementsthat is, declared to the world and open to IAEA inspectionsand facilities that were either kept secret or are suspected of hosting activities not permitted by international agreements. The legal facilities include: + A light-water commercial nuclear reactor at Bushehr, a city on the Persian Gulf coast of southwestern Iran. Iranian officials say the facility, which will be Irans first operational reactor when it opens in 2006, will use nuclear energy to generate electricity only. Russia helped build the $800 million reactor and signed a deal with Iran March 1 that guarantees a supply of Russian fuel for Bushehr. Russia also agreed to remove all of Bushehrs spent fuel to prevent its use in an illicit nuclear-weapons program. The United States opposed the deal. Experts say Bushehr will produce enough spent fuelwhich can potentially be reprocessed to produce plutonium suitable for fueling nuclear weaponsfor about thirty atomic bombs per year.   + Several small research reactors, which are not considered proliferation risks because they produce only very small amountsgrams, not kilogramsof nuclear material. The facilities that were previously undisclosed or host suspect activities include: + Isfahan. The uranium-conversion facility at Isfahan in central Iran is capable of converting yellowcake into uranium hexafluoride (UF-6), a gas used in centrifuges to produce weapons-grade uranium. In May, Iran revealed for the first time that it had used the Isfahan facility to convert thirty-seven tons of yellowcake into the gas uranium tetrafluoride (UF-4), a precursor to UF-6. + Natanz. Many experts suspect the UF-6 produced at Isfahan is taken to an enrichment facility at Natanz in central Iran, which was secret until Iranian dissidents revealed its existence in August 2002. There the gas is enrichedby being spun in high-speed centrifugesto the relatively low level required to fuel electricity-generating power plants or to the higher level needed for nuclear bombs. There are at least two plants at Natanz, says Charles Ferguson, a nuclear expert and the science and technology fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. One is a small-scale pilot plant that was likely used to test centrifuges and enrich small amounts of uranium; the other facility is a bigger, commercial-scale plant able to enrich much larger amounts of uranium. According to information from IAEA investigations, Iran has completed neither the pilot-scale nor the commercial-scale enrichment plants, although the pilot-scale plant houses more than 100 centrifuges. A commercial-scale plant would have as many as 50,000 of that type of centrifuge, Ferguson says. After the 2002 revelations, Iran admitted the existence of the Natanz facilities and allowed IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei to tour them in February 2003. In August 2003, IAEA inspectors found samples of highly enriched uranium, which Iran is not allowed to have under the NPT, on some of the centrifuges at Natanz. Tehran claimed the centrifugeswhich were likely purchased from the network of rogue Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khanwere already contaminated with the material when Iran received them. + Arak. Experts say the planned heavy-water research reactor is about five years from completion. Once the plant is operational, it could produce enough plutonium for about one nuclear bomb per year. What’s the background of Iran’s nuclear program? Iran has long pursued nuclear energy and weapons, experts say. The shah had these aspirations, says Ashton Carter, a former assistant secretary of defense for international security policy and the Ford Foundation professor of science and international affairs at Harvard University. Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi governed Iran from 1941 to 1979, except for a brief period in 1953. In the 1970s, Iran had a fledgling program to develop nuclear weapons even as it negotiated to buy nuclear reactors from France, Germany, and the United States, experts say. Is there public support in Iran for a nuclear program? Yes, experts say, and it is widespread and enthusiastic. Many Iranians feel, and their leaders reiterate, that as a great state, Iran should have access to nuclear technology, experts say. Iranian officials have repeatedly defended their right to a nuclear-energy program, also citing possible threats from Israel and U.S. forces in the region. Would the United States use force to stop Iran’s nuclear activities? Its unlikely at the moment. The U.S. military is already stretched thin in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, and there would be little domestic support for another war, many experts say. But Bush said August 13 that all options are on the table regarding Iran . If you tried and failed in negotiationsreally tried and failedforce is something to consider, says Robert Gallucci, a former ambassador-at-large for nonproliferation issues and dean of the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service. One possibility is that the United States or Israel could carry out a disabling pre-emptive strike on Irans nuclear facilities. However, Iranian officials have issued strongly worded warnings against such an attack, saying they would retaliate. + [Foreign Affairs] September/October 2005 Council Experts are based in the Council’s New York and Washington offices. Each expert’s bio page contains his or her contact information, professional and educational history, links to publications and current research, a downloadable one-page biographical narrative, a high-definition photo. + Alphabetical + By Region + By Issue Communications Contacts For general enquiries contact: communications@cfr.orgor 212-434-9537 Lisa Shields Vice President 212-434-9888 lshields@cfr.org Marie Strauss Deputy Director 212-434-9536 mstrauss@cfr.org Anya Schmemann Communications Manager DC Office 202-518-3419 aschmemann@cfr.org Kathleen Zimmerman Assistant Director 212-434-9537 kzimmerman@cfr.org Amy Gunning Communications Coordinator 212-434-9679 agunning@cfr.org Copyright 2005 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved. [ /] ***************************************************************** 2 Reuters: EU wants UN to take up Iran nuclear issue -Germany Wed Sep 7, 2005 7:33 PM By Louis Charbonneau BERLIN, Sept 7 (Reuters) - European powers want Iran sent to the U.N. Security Council, after a U.N. watchdog said Tehran had resumed work that could be used to make nuclear arms, but will not at first seek sanctions, a German negotiator said on Wednesday. It was the first confirmation, since the nuclear watchdog confirmed last week Iran had resumed uranium processing work, that Europe would support U.S. calls for such a referral. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna confirmed Iran had resumed uranium processing work, ending a suspension of sensitive atomic work that was the cornerstone of a November 2004 agreement with France, Britain and Germany. The Berlin Foreign Ministry official said the IAEA, whose board meets on Sept. 19, should ask the Council to call on Iran to suspend the work. "We are unanimous in our assessment of the way forward that following what has happened, now it should be for the board of governors of the IAEA to report the issue to the Security Council," Ruediger Luedeking told an audience at the American Academy in Berlin. The IAEA report, released to its 35 board members on Friday, said that since resuming work last month Iran had produced nearly seven tonnes of uranium gas, which can be purified into fuel for a single nuclear weapon. Luedeking, a member of Germany's negotiating team in the EU-Iran talks, said the EU big three were negotiating with other IAEA members to convince them to report the issue to the Council, which has the power to impose economic sanctions. Luedeking, deputy head of the ministry's arms control and disarmament commission, said they would not immediately seek sanctions, but Council backing for the IAEA's calls that Iran freeze its uranium enrichment programme and resume negotiations. He said reporting Iran to the council would be "not so much in order to trigger an automatic development leading up to economic and other sanctions". Russia, which is helping build a nuclear plant in Iran, said on Monday it opposed reporting Tehran to the council. It has a veto on the council and could block any move to sanctions. Luedeking said the Council could "echo and endorse the calls that the (IAEA) board of governors has made on Iran and thereby lending those calls the weight of the Security Council and hopefully get a new impetus to a negotiated settlement". U.S., EU AGREE ON WHAT TO DO WITH IRAN The EU broke off talks with Iran after it resumed uranium processing work at a plant in Isfahan, which converts uranium into a gaseous form that is fed into centrifuges. The centrifuges can produce fuel for nuclear energy or weapons. Iran rejects U.S. and European suspicions that it is trying to develop the capability to produce atomic weapons and has accused the EU trio of trying to rob it of its sovereign right to a full-scale nuclear programme. Tehran says its nuclear ambitions are limited to generating electricity. Luedeking said the United States and the Europeans agreed on how to proceed with Iran and the challenge would be to convince developing countries in the non-aligned movement, which comprise around a third of the IAEA board, that it was time to get the council involved. "The ball is now in the IAEA board of governors' hands," Luedeking said. The EU trio has been negotiating with Iran for two years to persuade it to abandon its uranium enrichment programme in exchange for economic and political incentives, but Tehran rejected the EU's offer last month and resumed work at Isfahan. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said in his report last week that after two and a half years of intensive inspections his agency was "still not in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran". On Monday British and German officials had toned down rhetoric and called for more diplomacy. Wolfgang Gerhardt, who could become Germany's foreign minister after the Sept. 18 general election, said Iran should not be referred to the Security Council. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 3 Reuters: Iran seeks to soothe West's nuclear concerns Wed Sep 7, 2005 5:36 AM ET ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Iran's top nuclear negotiator sought to soothe international unease over his country's nuclear programme during a visit to Pakistan on Wednesday, days after a U.N. watchdog confirmed Tehran had resumed uranium conversion. Ali Larijani has been seeking support from non-Western nations for Iran's plan to pursue what it says is a programme designed for power generation and not atomic weapons. "Having stated this principle that we are determined to have nuclear technology... We are fully prepared to have any international negotiations, discussions to remove the international concerns," Larijani said after meeting Pakistan's Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a fresh initiative that will "facilitate work to assure the international community of the exclusively peaceful (nature) of our activities," Larijani told reporters, without expanding on what that initiative contained. Larijani, appointed last month by Iran's new president, was due to meet Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf and Foreign Minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri, after his talks with Aziz. Iran is facing mounting diplomatic pressure after an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report issued last Friday confirmed Tehran had resumed uranium conversion, one of several activities previously suspended under a deal with three European Union nations -- France, Britain and Germany. Larijani said his government was continuing to discuss its nuclear programme with the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, and hold negotiations with other countries. TALKS CLOSE TO COLLAPSE But, a senior EU diplomat told reporters in Brussels on Tuesday that the negotiating process, begun with Iran in Paris last November, appeared to be at an end. He said the next logical step was for the IAEA to report Iran's nuclear programme to the U.N. Security Council, although discussions on sanctions against Iran were a long way off. The IAEA board meets in Vienna on September 19. The United States and the Europeans are trying to reach a broad consensus for reporting the Iranian case to the Security Council, but Russian and Chinese support are in doubt. Iran could develop bomb-making capability in as little as five years, although the International Institute of Strategic Studies reckons a 15-year time frame was more likely. The assessment is in line with British estimates, although U.S. intelligence reports have been more conservative, with a study last month putting the date for a bomb at 2015. Pakistan, the only Islamic country with nuclear weapons, is opposed to any use of force against its western neighbour, and Larijani voiced his appreciation of Islamabad's stance. Washington has not ruled out using force to stop Iran's nuclear programme although its main ally Britain has said such action would be inconceivable. Pakistan said last March that a now disgraced scientist regarded as the father of its own atomic bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan, had supplied Iran with centrifuges that can be used to produce enriched uranium for nuclear power plants or weapons. Khan is under house arrest after admitting in early 2004 to his role in an international black market in nuclear parts. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 4 Times of Oman: Iran to challenge UN nuclear report Wednesday, September 07, 2005 TEHRAN –– Iran is to challenge a tough report on its nuclear programme by the UN's atomic energy watchdog as it contains "errors" and makes "unacceptable" demands of the Islamic republic, a senior official told AFP Wednesday. The senior nuclear negotiator, Ali Agha Mohammadi, also warned the United States and European Union that referring Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions was "a threat that is doomed to fail". "We are in the process of examining the report and responding point by point to its errors. Several demands are unacceptable and go beyond international treaties and the additional protocol" of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, said the spokesman for Iran's Supreme National Security Council. A report last week by Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), outlined Iran's failure to completely allay suspicions it is seeking nuclear weapons. ElBaradei wrote that Iran had continued with nuclear fuel work, despite calls for a suspension, and noted that the IAEA was "not yet in a position to clarify some important outstanding issues after two and a half years of intensive inspections and investigation". "Iran's full transparency is indispensable and overdue," said the report, which has already been slammed by Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani as "political". Iran says its nuclear programme is a peaceful effort to generate electricity -- something it insists it has a right to do as a signatory of the NPT. It has also signed the NPT's additional protocol -- which gives the IAEA reinforced powers of inspection. Mohammadi said that any talk of a freeze therefore went beyond the NPT. "We will accept anything that is a part of international norms. We have accepted to apply the additional protocol but the IAEA cannot invent specific rules for Iran," he said. Iran had agreed to suspend uranium enrichment-related work as part of a deal struck with Britain, France and Germany in November last year. Uranium enrichment can make reactor fuel but the process can be diverted to military purposes. The EU-3 have been trying to convince Iran to abandon enrichment work altogether in exchange for a package of trade and technology incentives. But angered by the proposal, Iran last month resumed uranium conversion -- a precursor to enrichment. –– AFP + ***************************************************************** 5 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. Stresses Progress in 6-Party Talks Home> National/Politics Updated Sep.7,2005 14:45 KST The U.S. has urged the resumption of the 6-party nuclear talks as soon as possible and said it is prepared and ready to pick up negotiations. North Korea had proposed through China to restart talks on September 13, and alluding to this, U.S. State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack said Beijing has yet to announce a final date. If the talks resume next week, McCormack said Washington will be prepared and ready to "roll up our sleeves and work to make progress in these discussions." The 6-way talks on dismantling North Korea's nuclear weapons program went into recess 5 weeks ago as the participating countries, the two Koreas, the U.S., Japan, China and Russia remained deadlocked over the scope of dismantlement and whether to allow the North to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Arirang News ***************************************************************** 6 Korea Times: Cheju Seeks to Host Nuke Negotiations Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation By Park Song-wu Staff Reporter The Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry said Wednesday that it would propose Cheju Island be the venue for the six-party talks if the participating countries agree to decide on a new place to host the negotiation on North Korea¡¯s nuclear programs. But the ministry made it clear that the six participating nations have not as yet brought up the idea of changing the venue. At the five other countries¡¯ request, China, a close ally of North Korea, has hosted the talks in Beijing since 2003. A ministry official said that the idea came in response to a request from Cheju¡¯s provincial council. The local assembly officially asked the foreign ministry on July 6 to consider the island as a venue for the talks, saying that Cheju is a symbol of peace and has the potential to become a center of diplomacy in Northeast Asia. But diplomatic sources have said that it is unlikely Cheju will be chosen as the venue because North Korea does not have a diplomatic mission on the scenic island. They said that North Korea would decline to dispatch its delegation to a place where a safe communication with Pyongyang is not guaranteed. im@koreatimes.co.kr 09-07-2005 20:04 ***************************************************************** 7 Korea Times: No Closing Date for 6-Way Nuke Talks Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation By Park Song-wu Staff Reporter The six-party talks on North Korea¡¯s nuclear programs, if resumed next week, will not have a scheduled closing date this time either, in following with the format of the first session of the negotiations, Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister Ban Ki-moon said Wednesday. The talks, held from July 26 to Aug. 7, entered a recess after the participating nations failed to narrow their differences on a pair of key issues _ the scope of nuclear dismantlement and Pyongyang¡¯s hope to retain civilian nuclear facilities. ``There will be no closing date this time either,¡¯¡¯ Ban said at a weekly media briefing in Seoul. ``The talks will be held in various formats such as plenary and bilateral sessions. We will do our best to produce an agreement.¡¯¡¯ He said China, the host of the talks, will decide the resumption date within the week. ``We hope the second session of the fourth round of the talks will resume early next week,¡¯¡¯ Ban said. ``China will soon come up with a fixed date after consulting with other countries.¡¯¡¯ Participating countries originally planned to reconvene in Beijing in the week of Aug. 29. But North Korea delayed it two weeks, citing the annual South Korea-U.S. military exercise and Washington¡¯s appointment of a special envoy to monitor Pyongyang¡¯s human rights situation. ``It is difficult to predict the outcome of the talks now,¡¯¡¯ Ban said. ``Over the past six weeks of the recess, we devoted ourselves to finding a diplomatic solution. Now we roughly understand North Korea¡¯s stance. I think it is time for us to wait and see the negotiation process in Beijing.¡¯¡¯ During his stay in New York from Sept. 16-22 for the 60th U.N. General Assembly session, Ban said he plans to hold bilateral talks with his counterparts, especially from the U.S., China and Russia, to move forward the six-way talks. Officials in Seoul say that Washington might have a ``flexible¡¯¡¯ approach toward Pyongyang¡¯s hope to have peaceful nuclear programs. But it remains to be seen how much flexible the U.S. will be toward the ``nuclear ex-convict.¡¯¡¯ The U.S. insisted that North Korea should not be allowed to have any nuclear programs, citing Pyongyang¡¯s past history of violating international nuclear treaties including the 1994 accord. But South Korea says Pyongyang should be given the right to have peaceful nuclear programs if it abandons all nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons programs and restores confidence by rejoining the non-proliferation treaty and abiding by the U.N.¡¯s nuclear safeguard regulations. North Korea expelled nuclear inspectors at the end of 2002 and quit the non-proliferation treaty in January 2003 when Washington accused Pyongyang of running a secret uranium-enrichment program. North Korea has denied the claim. im@koreatimes.co.kr 09-07-2005 20:02 ***************************************************************** 8 Reuters: N.Korea nuclear talks likely early next week: Seoul ministry Wed Sep 7, 2005 2:38 AM ET SEOUL (Reuters) - Six-country talks aimed at negotiating an end to North Korea's nuclear weapons programmes are likely to restart early next week and could accomplish progress, South Korea's foreign minister said on Wednesday. North Korea has told the host of the talks, China, that it is willing to return to the table on September 13, South Korea's Yonhap news agency said, quoting an official in Seoul, on Tuesday. "We expect the second session of the fourth round of the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear programmes to resume early next week," Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon told reporters. China is currently consulting with the other parties and will soon announce the date, Ban said. Despite a deadlock on key issues that cut short the previous session of the talks on August 7, there was no change to South Korea's position that North Korea must give up all its nuclear programmes, he said. "But the countries will continue the talks without setting the end-date as long as there is a possibility of progress," he said. Negotiators from South and North Korea, the United States, Japan, Russia and China, went through several drafts of a broad set of principles in 13 days of discussions on dismantling the North's nuclear programmes in return for aid and security guarantees. But the talks ended inconclusively because North Korea insisted on the right to a civilian nuclear programme. Washington is wary that Pyongyang would use such a programme as a ruse to develop nuclear weapons. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 9 Minjok-Tongshin: DPRK Will Never Waive Its Right to Peaceful Nuclear Activity 2005.09.07 16:17:02 KCNA 2005-09-07 - Pyongyang, September 6 (KCNA) -- The Koreans regard the independent right of the country and their interests as their life and soul and it is their characteristic feature to protect them to the last. So nobody should expect the DPRK to waive its right to peaceful nuclear activity. Rodong Sinmun Tuesday says this in a commentary. The news analyst goes on: At the first-phase of the 4th six-party talks, the U.S. was adamant in insisting that the DPRK totally give up all its nuclear activities including the use of nuclear energy for a peaceful purpose, to say nothing of its nuclear weapons program. That was unilateral and high-handed demand on which the latter can neither make any compromise nor accept. A complete removal of the U.S. nuclear threat to the DPRK and its drop of hostile policy aimed at stifling the latter would automatically lead to lifting its measures taken to bolster the nuclear deterrence for self-defence. The DPRK's nuclear activity for a peaceful purpose is one of key economic sectors which should be further developed as economy makes progress and the material and cultural demand of the people increases. The nuclear activity for a peaceful purpose is an exercise of a legitimate right enshrined in international law. Russia, China, Japan, the U.S. and south Korea, parties to the six-party talks except for the DPRK, massively produce and use nuclear energies. This being a hard reality, the U.S. is faulting the DPRK's nuclear activity for a peaceful purpose though it is an exercise of its sovereign right and permitted by international law and leaves no stone unturned to stop it. The DPRK is neither a war criminal state nor a defeated state and has not done anything harmful to others. For what reason should it abandon its right to peaceful nuclear activity? The DPRK had built the nuclear power facilities for decades tightening its belts. It is unimaginable for the DPRK to dismantle its independent nuclear power industry built with so much effort, yielding to outsiders' pressure, without getting any proposal for compensating for the loss of nuclear energy. The DPRK will as ever make ceaseless peaceful nuclear activity for the economic construction and the improvement of the standard of people's living. Consistent is the DPRK's stand to seek a negotiated solution to the nuclear issue and denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. If the U.S. tries to have its unreasonable demand met by coercion from the stand of strength in defiance of the principle of impartiality, the situation will only get further complicated, much less any successful progress at the six-party talks. The U.S. should acknowledge the DPRK's legitimate right to nuclear activity for a peaceful purpose and take an option to find a fair settlement of the nuclear issue. Copyright © 1999-2005 Minjok Tongshin ***************************************************************** 10 Secrecy News -- 09/07/05 Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:56:38 -0400 X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com SECRECY NEWS from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy Volume 2005, Issue No. 85 September 7, 2005 ** DEMONSTRATED DESTRUCTION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS (1967) ** SECRECY REPORT CARD ** A RAFT OF CRS REPORTS DEMONSTRATED DESTRUCTION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS (1967) Once upon a time, the government of the United States sought ways and means to achieve negotiated reductions in stockpiles of nuclear weapons through the verified destruction of such weapons. In 1965, US Ambassador to the United Nations Arthur J. Goldberg presented what was known as the "Transfer" proposal, under which the U.S. would transfer 60,000 kilograms of weapons grade uranium to nonweapons uses if the Soviet Union would transfer 40,000 kilograms. Each country would destroy existing nuclear weapons to make these materials available. In order to assess whether nuclear weapons could be verifiably destroyed for this purpose without disclosing sensitive design information, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the Defense Department conducted a field test of the process in summer 1967. The field test was part of a program known as "Cloud Gap," a remarkable government initiative established in 1963 "to test the feasibility of hypothetical arms control and disarmament measures." The 1967 Cloud Gap Field Test-34 was "an investigation of the demonstration of the destruction of nuclear weapons by visual observation, use of radiation detection equipment, inspection of X-ray plates of weapons, and laboratory analyses of the resulting fissionable material." The field test, which was documented in more than a thousand pages, did in fact identify weaknesses in the protection of classified information and in the ability of inspectors to distinguish real weapons from decoys. The final report on the test, however, also noted ways in which these weaknesses could be mitigated. Today, Cloud Gap Field Test-34 is scarcely a footnote in the history of nuclear weapons and national security, a road not taken. Yet in its unusual dedication to the empirical testing of policy options, Cloud Gap may still have something to teach. An assortment of Cloud Gap documents obtained by the Federation of American Scientists, including the Final Report on Field Test-34, may be found here: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cloudgap/index.html SECRECY REPORT CARD Many Americans have sensed a qualitative reduction in their access to government information, particularly when it concerns matters of security policy. Now a new publication from the coalition OpenTheGovernment.org provides some quantitative benchmarks that confirm and document the rise in official secrecy. Metrics cited in the report range from formal classification -- which is at a record high -- to the fraction of federal advisory committee meetings closed to the public -- nearly two-thirds. See the Secrecy Report Card 2005 by Rick Blum, OpenTheGovernment.org, September 2005: http://www.openthegovernment.org/otg/SRC2005.pdf A RAFT OF CRS REPORTS Some recent reports of the Congressional Research Service obtained by Secrecy News include the following: "Oil and Gas: Supply Issues After Katrina," August 31, 2005: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22233.pdf "Tactical Aircraft Modernization: Issues for Congress," updated August 30, 2005: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/IB92115.pdf "Strategic Petroleum Reserve," updated August 29, 2005: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IB87050.pdf "Federal Disaster Recovery Programs: Brief Summaries," updated August 29, 2005: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31734.pdf "Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance: Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities, and Funding," August 29, 2005: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL33053.pdf "Risk-Based Funding in Homeland Security Grant Legislation: Analysis of Issues for the 109th Congress," August 29, 2005: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL33050.pdf "Sudan: Humanitarian Crisis, Peace Talks, Terrorism, and U.S. Policy," updated August 26, 2005: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IB98043.pdf "Department of Homeland Security Reorganization: The 2SR Initiative," August 19, 2005: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL33042.pdf "Al Qaeda: Profile and Threat Assessment," August 17, 2005: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL33038.pdf "Legislative Approaches to Chemical Facility Security," August 16, 2005: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL33043.pdf "Loss-of-Use Damages From U.S. Nuclear Testing in the Marshall Islands: Technical Analysis of the Nuclear Claims Tribunal's Methodology and Alternative Estimates," August 12, 2005: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL33029.pdf "Tsunamis and Earthquakes: Is Federal Disaster Insurance in our Future?," April 6, 2005: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32847.pdf _______________________________________________ Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the Federation of American Scientists. To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to secrecy_news-request@lists.fas.org with "subscribe" in the body of the message. To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email message to secrecy_news-remove@lists.fas.org OR email your request to saftergood@fas.org Secrecy News is archived at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html Secrecy News has an RSS feed at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.rss SUPPORT Secrecy News with a donation here: http://www.fas.org/static/contrib_sec.jsp _______________________ Steven Aftergood Project on Government Secrecy Federation of American Scientists web: www.fas.org/sgp/index.html email: saftergood@fas.org voice: (202) 454-4691 ***************************************************************** 11 csmonitor.com: The Bolton backfire: Weaken UN, imperil Americans Commentary > Opinion from the September 08, 2005 edition By Helena Cobban CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA.  Why is the Bush administration seemingly hurtling toward confrontation with the rest of the world in the lead-up to the World Summit in New York next week? Almost the first act taken by Washington's new energetic, sometimes pugnacious, UN envoy John R. Bolton, was the submission of a list of 750 amendments he seeks in the draft of the summit's declaration. That text, which deals with issues as important as nuclear disarmament, human rights, global warming, and counterterrorism, had been painstakingly negotiated by world diplomats over preceding months. There is still time to reach a friendly accommodation on the contested portions of the text. But many nations - most notably the European states that are the strongest supporters of the present draft - now fear that US intransigence on the proposed revisions may be a serious blow to the heart of the UN. It's true that the UN also faces a serious issue of mismanagement and corruption in its bureacuracy. That issue must be resolved - whatever it takes. But right now, Washington's deteriorating relationship with the world's other peoples concerns me even more: The compact that underlies the way all nations interact within the UN is truly vital to human survival. President Bush and his aides surely should work hard to reach agreement with other nations on the issues around the World Summit declaration. It would also be good for Bush and all Americans to reflect on the circumstances of the UN's creation and the many benefits it has brought the US throughout its 60 years. Back in 1945, Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman made decisions marked by broad strategic restraint and great wisdom. Two of these were particularly crucial: first, not to retreat to the isolationism the US had pursued after World War I; and second, to exercise Washington's continued engagement with the world through a new body, based on principles of national sovereignty, national equality, and human solidarity. That body was the UN. The past 60 years have been very good indeed to the US. The UN and the compact among nations that underlies it have certainly contributed to those benefits. During the cold war, the UN helped mediate what would otherwise have been an even more precarious situation of hair-trigger nuclear destruction. After the Soviet empire collapsed, the UN helped ease transitions on several continents - as it did earlier in helping manage instabilities that arose when the West European nations' empires splintered. The UN-related economic bodies - the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Trade Organization - have meanwhile buttressed a global market system that has generally been very good to Americans. So why - at a time when it is increasingly evident that in Iraq, as in the fight against violent extremism elsewhere, the US needs international cooperation more than ever - should the Bush administration and its man in New York be threatening to cause serious disruption to Washington's relations with the world body? Mr. Bolton - named by Mr. Bush as a "recess appointment" ambassador to the UN last month, bypassing the wait for a Senate confirmation - startled the representatives of most other nations in New York with his list of amendments to the summit declaration. On one issue he wants amended - the list of "Millennium Development Goals" that the UN adopted back in 2000 - a key Bolton spokesman got downright ornery, accusing UN officials of "manipulating the truth" when they claimed the US had previously endorsed these goals and now seemed to be backtracking from that earlier commitment. (The UN officials look right on that one.) The tiff over this key issue in international development efforts epitomizes the deeper discord over whether the US really judges that responsibilities within the world system should be reciprocal and based on the principles of human equality and human solidarity - or not. The UN majority today thinks they should be. Bolton and his boss, the president, apparently disagree with that majority. Yes, it's true that the UN itself is far from perfect. But at the end of the day, the United Nations is just that: a confederation of the world's largely independent nation-states. It has very little independent existence of its own, and can only ever be as strong as the commitment it gets from its members. Under Bush - especially since he made the near-unilateral decision to initiate a war against Iraq in 2003 - the commitment of the world's most powerful nation to the UN and its principles has eroded drastically. To reduce American support for the foundations of this vital institution any further would be crazy. A UN that is any further weakened means the increased insecurity of everyone in the world. And, yes, that includes Americans. " Helena Cobban is writing a book on violence and its legacies. www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 Bellona: Putin fires navy chief Kuroyedov and brings in tough-talking successor In a widely anticipated shake-up earlier this week, President Vladimir Putin has fired long-serving Navy chief Vladimir Kuroyedov, who had managed to dodge responsibility for mishandling a series of naval disasters, from the sinking of the Kursk submarine in 2000 to an accident with a mini-submarine last month. President Vladimir Putin (left) shaking hands with former navy commander Vladimir Kuroyedov (right) Sunday as Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov looks on. Reuters Charles Digges, Anna Kireeva, 2005-09-07 15:03 Kuroyedov, 60, has headed the Navy since 1997 and was relieved of his duties by a presidential decree, the Kremlin announced Sunday and was replaced by Admiral Vladimir Masorin, 58, who has been acting commander in chief of the navy for the past two months. Many have been demanding Kuroyedov’s head since the Kursk disaster in August 2000. But, even though he tendered his resignation at the time—which was rejected by Putin—he dodged the Kursk bullet, and blame was ferreted out to underlings, and the same has occurred in several other naval disasters and near misses ever since. Vladimir Masorin. AP Kremlin spokesmen confirmed Wednesday to Bellona Web that he was replaced by Admiral Masorin. Putin gave no reason for Kuroyedov’s sacking. “The president’s decree did not specify the reasons for firing the commander in chief of the Navy,” a Kremlin spokesman, who requested anonymity, said on Wednesday morning. “The general idea, however, is that a greater degree of discipline is needed in our Fleets.” Others within Russia’s Ministry of Defence speculated that the firing could be linked to Kuroyedov’s ill health. Indeed, Masorin has been acting commander in chief of the navy for two months as Kuroyedov has been too sick to discharge his duties, said one Defence Ministry official to Bellona Web on Wednesday. This report was underscored by Admiral Eduard Baltin, who told Ekho Moskvy radio that Kuroyedov's dismissal may have been linked to his bad health. "Kuroyedov is very ill. He has been lying in hospital for two months, he had a complicated operation," Baltin told the radio station. Kuroyedov is also of official Russian pension age, but that could have been extended by Putin. Masorin has two years to go until retirement age, and Russia’s Kommersant daily newspaper speculated that Masorin has only been appointed to find his own predecessor. But Masorin wasted no time sinking his teeth into his new position, and began his tenure Monday by singling out several officers who he is holding responsible for recent naval accidents and mishaps and trumpeting the development of Russian nuclear vessels. A rescue submarine of the AS-28 design photographed at an undisclosed location. AP Accidents on Kuroyedov’s watch The Kremlin spokesman pointed out that Russian media had been speculating that Kuroyedov could get the sack ever since seven Russian sailors were freed last month with British help after three days trapped in an AS-28 rescue mini-submarine 300 meters down in the Pacific with dwindling air supplies. The AS-28 accident was a humiliating blow requiring that, once again, foreign help had to be summoned to save an imperilled Russian submarine. The AS-28 bathyscape rescue sub became critically ensnared in the depths off the coast of the Far East Primorskaya-Kamchatka Region on August 7th in fishing nets and under water sonar antennae. Another Russian rescue sub, using state of the art Scorpio technology, was unable to free the vessel after the rescuers apparently damaged the Scorpio device. British crews that were standing by managed to free the vessel in hours using the same technology. The same day Putin fired Kuroyedov, he also formally signed off on awards for the crew of the narrowly rescued AS-28 sub and the British crew that saved them with medals. He also fired Admiral Alexander Zaika, deputy commander of military operations in Russia’s Northwest, who directed Russian rescue efforts to save the sunken rescue sub. Critics of the mini-sub operation have asked why the navy did not have the necessary equipment or expertise to perform the operation itself. The Kursk after it was raised by the Dutch company "Mammoet" in autumn 2001 and transported to a military shipyard No 82 in Roslyakovo, Russia. Alexander Raube Russian media said last month's events showed the navy had failed to learn lessons after the Kursk nuclear submarine disaster five years ago. The sinking claimed the lives of the entire 118-man crew when the vessel went down during a training exercise in the Barents Sea after two on board explosions. Russian rescue workers were then also unable to save those who had survived the wreck, and a Norwegian team accomplished the opening of an escape hatch on the Kursk that Russian crews could not open for a week. By then, however, the sub had entirely flooded. The K-159, a Russian first generation November class submarine, was doomed when it set sail, towed by a tugboat from the Northern Fleet's semi-abandoned Gremikha Base, on August 29th, 2003. KSF.RU/Bellona The sinking of the K-159, a derelict nuclear sub being towed through rough waters to a dismatlement point near Murmansk, also sank in 240 meters of water on Kuroyedov’s watch. The accident killed nine of the boats 10 crew members, who were aboard to clog up leaks that sprang up along the way, and brought 800 kilograms of highly active spent uranium fuel to the ocean floor. Kuroyedov again escaped discipline, which was transferred to the tug boat captain, the port chief from where the K-159 was towed and the head of Russia’s Northern Fleet. But the blame chain stopped there. Sacking at Putin’s estate Kuroyedov was fired during a gentle dressing down by Putin—thus the speculation about Kuroyedov’s apparent ill health—who met both Kuroyedov and Masorin at the president’s country home outside Moscow. The meeting was also attended by Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov and the media. Putin told Masorin previously chief of the main staff of the navy—that he had a lot of work ahead to build on reforms already undertaken in the navy. At the same time he subtly laid the blame for several of Russia’s naval embarrassments at Kuroyedov’s feet. "You [...] face difficult tasks," Putin told Masorin according to international press reports. "We would not be able to solve all these problems even with the state's economic potential growing if we do not strengthen discipline and order and solve tasks of social protection of seamen." Putin praised Kuroyedov's efforts in helping with naval reform, but also noted the hard times during his tenure in office since 1997. "Since that time, we have not simply restored a significant part of the navy but also created a realistic programme for its development," Putin said, according to media reports. "At the same time, there were difficult events, tragedies. We all know about that. But I would like to underline once again that with all these problems, all these tragedies, the main thing is that the navy is undergoing a revival." Masorin brings in sharp knives Masorin himself, as then-acting commander of the Navy, brought Viktor Novikov captain of the Russian rescue vessel in the AS-28 incident up on charges, and the naval prosecutors’ office launched an investigation of the incident at Masorin’s behest. On Monday, following his appointment as Commander in Chief of the Navy, Masorin said the investigation showed that those in charge of the operation underestimated the challenge of the operation they were dealing with. His investigation implicated a host of high Navy brass, most notably Viktor Fyodorov, commander of the Pacific Fleet, for incompetence in handing the situation. In total, Masorin has doled out charges against five people, including the vice admiral of the Paficic Fleet, Konstantin Sidenko and the commander of the Northeast military region, Vice Admiral Viktor Gavrilov. Masorin also announced his plans for the Russian navy to the press. “There are plans to develop the fleet, they need to be carried out, and I will carry them out," he said according to international news agencies. “In the first place, more focus will be placed on the development of the nuclear navy,” he said, adding that the new upper brass of the navy intends to preserve that line of developing the Russian Fleet. “We must preserve the direction we have begun,” he said. 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 ***************************************************************** 13 BBC: Tide turns to new power sources Last Updated: Wednesday, 7 September 2005 [Waves] Marine energy could help meet Scotland's electricity needs New measures to encourage electricity suppliers to use wave and tidal power have been unveiled by the Scottish Executive. Enterprise Minister Nicol Stephen said renewable wave and tidal energy could provide up to 10% of Scotland's electricity production. About 7,000 jobs could be created by such projects. Mr Stephen said the changes he was making would "unlock Scotland's marine powerhouse". Fossil fuel The minister told Offshore Europe delegates in Aberdeen that he would take action to award additional Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) to wave and tidal output, with the aim of putting Scotland at the global forefront of marine energy. The executive's target is that 18% of electricity generated in Scotland should come from renewable sources by 2010, rising to 40% by 2020. "Tens of millions of pounds of support will be available - with the potential for hundreds of millions to be invested in new wind and wave projects around Scotland's shores," Mr Stephen said. "Our aim is to generate up to 10% of Scotland's electricity from the sea around us. That is equivalent to completely replacing one of Scotland's huge fossil fuelled power stations. To date, we h seen no significant commercial projects for wave or tidal power in Scotland. That has to change. Nicol Stephen Enterprise Minister "Already we have the technology to become the global capital for the development and generation of energy from world's oceans. Marine power could become one of our biggest industries of the future. "We have already done much to support the sector, particularly at the world class testing centre on Orkney," he said. "Yet to date, in contrast to wind power, we have seen no significant commercial projects for wave or tidal power in Scotland. That has to change. Business opportunities "To deliver, we need to do more. Development on a large scale will drive down costs and make it possible for these devices to power the engine of a sustainable Scotland." He said the plans would bridge the funding gap and mean that while wind schemes would continue to get support, wave and tidal projects would get an even greater boost. A group of industry experts said the potential exists to install over one gigawatt of wave and tidal capacity in Scottish waters - about one-tenth of the country's total electricity production. This could help reduce o reliance on polluting fossil fuel and hazardous nuclear plants Duncan McLaren Friends of the Earth Scotland "These developments will not only boost our renewable energy output, but we can expect to see many new jobs created in the design, manufacture, installation and export of these technologies," Mr Stephen added. "The opportunity for Scottish business is truly worldwide. If we can establish a lead in marine energy, the global potential for our companies is massive. "Wave and tidal energy is one of Scotland's biggest opportunities. We must take action today to produce the clean energy of tomorrow." Skilled employment Green energy group, Scottish Renewables, welcomed the measures. Chief Executive Maf Smith said: "This major announcement shows that the executive is not going to stand idly by and watch our early lead in marine industry drift away and their leadership is very welcome. "Wave and tidal energy has vast potential and if properly supported could join hydro and onshore wind projects as a means of delivering our future electricity needs, tackling climate change and bringing skilled employment to Scotland." [Waves] Scotland is said to have "vast potential" to exploit wave energy Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "The UK's coastline has huge potential for wave and tidal power, which could help reduce our reliance on polluting fossil fuel and hazardous nuclear plants. "We know the public backs renewables and many would jump at the chance to have their home powered by a combination of electricity generated from the waves and tides." The Scottish National Party's energy spokesman Richard Lochhead said: "At long last ministers have woken up to the power of Scotland's seas and the potential for marine renewables. "For decades, the marine renewables community have been crying out for action and now we find ourselves playing catch-up with other countries when we should have been leading the pack." Shiona Baird, the Green Party's enterprise spokeswoman, said: "It remains to be seen whether this will truly capture the market potential for Scotland but it is a step in the right direction." ***************************************************************** 14 New Scientist: Nuclear stockpiles could create 300,000 bombs The world has made enough explosives for more than 300,000 nuclear bombs, according to the latest scientific assessment of countries' nuclear stockpiles. Stores of plutonium are growing, and there are new dangers from two lesser-known nuclear explosives, neptunium-237 and americium. Experts are worried that terrorists could steal enough to trigger a nuclear catastrophe. "Our first concern is the risk of nuclear terrorism," says David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a think tank in Washington, DC, US. "We worry about what could happen in Russia, Pakistan, India and China." Nuclear stores in Europe and Japan could also be vulnerable to theft, he warns. "Even the best protected bank can be robbed," he told New Scientist. "Someone, maybe an insider, could make off with something - and then we'll have hell to pay." Spent fuel An updated global nuclear inventory, published by ISIS on Wednesday, reveals that there were 1830 tonnes of plutonium in 35 countries at the end of 2003. That is enough to make 225,000 nuclear bombs. The total amount of plutonium, which is created in nuclear reactors, is increasing by 70 tonnes per year, the report says. Most of it is combined with radioactive waste in spent fuel, and is hence relatively difficult to access. But ISIS points out that 238 tonnes has been extracted by reprocessing plants, and that this total is expected to rise to 286 tonnes by 2010. The largest stockpile - 90 tonnes - will be owned by the UK, followed by Japan (62 tonnes), Russia (50), France (48) and Germany (27). Efforts to reduce these stockpiles by blending the plutonium into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for power reactors are “not going well", Albright says. World stores of highly enriched uranium, however, are on the decline, though there were still 1900 tonnes in more than 50 countries. That is enough for over 75,000 bombs. Problems looming The ISIS report also highlights the risks from neptunium-237 and americium, which declassified information from the US government suggests can be made into bombs. At the end of 2003, there were more than 140 tonnes of the two materials in 32 countries. If separated from other wastes, that would be enough for 5000 weapons. This presents a problem that has not been appreciated by the authorities, Albright argues. "It's looming on the horizon and people aren't thinking it through," he says. The estimates of nuclear stockpiles made by ISIS are widely regarded as amongst the most authoritative available. "ISIS is performing a valuable service in publishing this information," says Dave Andrews, a consultant to the British American Security Information Council (BASIC), based in London and Washington, DC. "The increasing worldwide civil stocks of separated plutonium represent a considerable proliferation risk which is too often ignored," he says. "Likewise, official pronouncements pay little heed to the proliferation potential of highly enriched uranium." NewScientist.com ***************************************************************** 15 Xinhua: India, EU agree to enhance nuclear co-op www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-09-07 16:59:57 NEW DELHI, Sept. 7 (Xinhuanet) -- India and the European Union signed a Joint Action Plan at their sixth summit Wednesday, in which they pledged to secure India's participation in the ITER nuclear fusion project jointly. The two sides signed the action plan after a meeting here between Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The International Thermo nuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)project to build a fusion reactor by pooling scientific and financial resources has included the United States, the European Union, Russia, South Korea, China, Japan and Switzerland. They also agreed to conclude a framework agreement on India's participation in the Galileo satellite navigation system as was agreed upon at the last summit at The Hague last year, according to a joint political declaration after the meeting. The Galileo satellite positioning and navigation services system project is a joint initiative of the EU and the European Space Agency, regarded as a rival to the US Global Positioning System. China and Israel have already signed for the project. "As part of the joint efforts to fight terrorism we will establish contacts between India-EU counter-terrorism coordinators to work towards blocking access to terrorist funding and cooperatein the fight against money laundering," said the joint political declaration. An India-EU security dialogue on global and regional issues, disarmament and non-proliferation will also be established. According to the action plan, the two sides will establish a high-level trade group, explore ways of increasing bilateral trade flows including negotiations on a comprehensive trade and investment agreement. The European Union delegation also included Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, and Javier Solana, EU secretary general. Tony Blair, whose country holds the rotating chair of EU president, arrived here Tuesday night for a two-day visit. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 16 Daily Times: Indo-US nuclear deal comes under serious scrutiny | Thursday, September 08, 2005 By Khalid Hasan WASHINGTON: Leading nuclear expert George Perkovich has criticised the Indo-US nuclear deal for the “potentially major departures” it has made from US and Indian nuclear policies. In an analytical paper, the expert from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said the deal was “hatched” by top US and Indian officials who minimised interagency review, congressional briefings and international consultations. President Bush and his advisers had made up their minds to lead a bold departure from long-standing policies toward India and toward US and international rules governing nuclear technology commerce. They knew that extended vetting would suck the boldness out of their strategy. They wanted to move quickly to herald their new initiative during Singh’s state visit to Washington and to enable implementation to begin in time for President Bush’s expected visit to India in early 2006. Perkovich points out that the authors of the deal based the new US strategy on six fundamental premises, “which may or may not be widely shared throughout the US government.” Those were: to dissuade or prevent China from competing harmfully with the US, states on China’s periphery should be mobilised to balance Chinese power; a partnership with India should be cultivated as a more powerful and collegial India will balance China’s power in Asia; to win over India, the United States should change national and international laws and rules that bar technology cooperation with New Delhi due to its nuclear-weapons and ballistic missile programmes. Changing these rules is necessary to bolster India’s strategic capabilities; help India increase its use of nuclear energy in order to fuel economic growth and reduce its rate of greenhouse gas emissions; India not being a proliferation threat, is rather a partner to be cultivated in isolating terrorists and “rogue” states that are proliferation threats; and since the established global nonproliferation regime is predicated on rules that do not sufficiently discriminate between bad actors and good actors, the objective should be not to constrain or burden good actors, including the United States and India, but rather to concentrate power on removing or nullifying bad actors. Perkovich writes that the consequences of the proposed deal are so far reaching that they deserve to be assessed fully, either with a distant hope of altering the terms or with a view to mitigating undesirable effects. He questions the administration’s assumption that the top priority should be balancing Chinese power and that strengthening US-India relations is a promising way to do this, and that both of these objectives are more important than maintaining a rule-based nonproliferation regime. He also differs with the administration’s “insistence” that even if geostrategic considerations are more important than the global nonproliferation regime, the proposed deal with India enhances nonproliferation. He argues that unless problems are corrected in implementation, the United States will not achieve even its minimal nonproliferation objectives. The Carnegie expert points out that critics of the Bush administration’s initiative fail to fully appreciate the legitimacy crisis afflicting the nonproliferation regime or the irony that the administration’s proposal will be welcomed by most non-nuclear weapons states, which are tired of being denied technology. The Carnegie scholar who has written a book on India’s nuclear programme and ambitions concludes that while two central thrusts of the administration’s initiative deserve support, two others should be reversed. The administration should be applauded for recognising India’s global importance and seeking to elevate US relations with it. And the administration is correct to try to adjust the global nuclear nonproliferation regime so that it does not stifle India’s economic development. “But the administration is unwise to conceive or frame US partnership with India in terms of balancing China’s power. This frame is unnecessary and will channel cooperation away from areas that are most important for India’s development, leading to long-term disappointments. The second major problem is the looseness of the nuclear ‘deal,’ which if not tightened in the implementation phase, will undermine important non-proliferation objectives without corresponding gains in Indian good will or containment of Chinese influence,” he argues. Perkovich suggests a modestly scaled-back alternative. “Instead of casting all nonproliferation restrictions aside in return for relatively little adjustment in Indian policies, the United States should focus on changing international rules to allow sale of nuclear fuel to Indian civilian installations, which would accommodate India’s most pressing interests without undermining the international nonproliferation system. Indeed, an adaptation of rules to allow such transfers of nuclear fuel to India (and other countries) could demonstrate the wise resilience of the international nonproliferation regime,” he recommends. According to Perkovich, if policies to balance China by bolstering India’s nuclear-weapons capabilities will have the effect of weakening the non-proliferation regime, US security, on balance, will be damaged. India’s capacity and willingness to cooperate with the United States in balancing Chinese power are too uncertain to form the foundation of a strategic partnership. The United States should base its partnership on the intrinsic value of augmenting the political-economic development of democratic India’s one billion people. He argues that American accommodation of the Indian government’s preoccupation with nuclear power will not buy lasting Indian partnership. The Bush administration, he believes, has not made a strong case that US interests would suffer significantly if Washington did not accommodate all of India’s nuclear demands and end all non-proliferation restrictions on nuclear commerce with India. “It is strange and unexplained why an administration known for being exceptionally unaccommodating to most countries in most international discussions - climate change, Iraq, International Criminal Court, nuclear test ban, and others- finds it wise to completely accommodate India in this case,” he points out. The Carnegie expert writes that one major test of India’s intentions and US seriousness will be when the Indian nuclear establishment proposes to exclude India’s prototype Fast Breeder Reactor and all other research and development facilities from safeguards. To much of the world, especially non-nuclear weapons states and developing countries, the five acknowledged nuclear-weapon states already have changed the rules of the non-proliferation regime. Thus, defending the sanctity of NPT-related rules to deny nuclear technology to a developing country – India - while doing little to defend the sanctity of disarmament commitments by the world’s most powerful states seems the height of hypocrisy. He notes that no developing countries have denounced the US intention to open foreign supply of nuclear fuel and technology to India. The most important and direct way to support India’s nuclear development would be for the United States and others to endorse international supply of nuclear fuel to Indian power plants, he suggests. Daily Times - All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 17 India Rediff: US unhappy over India's N-statements PTI September 07, 2005 23:37 IST A day ahead of important testimonies in the American Congress on the agreement with India on civil nuclear cooperation, Washington on Wednesday voiced its disapproval on certain statements emanating from New Delhi relating to nuclear issues. "I want to make a cautionary point that we need to be extremely careful in our public statements. We are both engaged in a difficult process," US Ambassador to India David C Mulford told reporters in New Delhi. + PM's US Tour Mulford was apparently referring to the reported statement by India's Atomic Energy Commission chief Anil Kakodkar that the segregation of civil and defence nuclear facilities, as committed by New Delhi in the nuclear collaboration agreement, will be undertaken in a phased manner over a period of time. "We should avoid statements that make things difficult," the US envoy said. He said it was important to make sure that India's commitment to separating civil and military nuclear facilities had to be clear. + India, US sign pact for transfer of civilian nuclear reactors The change in laws needed to make the collaboration possible was a public process, requiring the nod of the US Congress, he said indicating that public statements could influence opinions. US Under Secretary Nicholas Burns will on Thursday make a testimony before the US Congress on the nuclear agreement. Congress' approval is needed for certain changes in US laws to allow the transfer of technology. "There will be hearings in the US Congress. It is not a bureaucratic process, but a public process," Mulford said. Asserting that the US was working towards building support for India, he said America approached the Nuclear Suppliers Group to obtain a consensus in that group for India. The US envoy said his country was engaged in moving forward on the agreement with India on the civil nuclear front even as it was maintaining its commitment to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its allies. "We are not moving away from that position, but we want to normalise relations with India," he said. © Copyright 2005 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or Copyright © 2005 Rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 18 NIRS Statement on UN Chernobyl Report Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 10:22:50 -0500 (CDT) version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com Subject: NIRS Statement on UN Chernobyl Report Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 14:27:32 -0400 From: "Michael Mariotte" To: undisclosed-recipients Statement of Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), on UN Chernobyl Report September 6, 2005 A press release issued yesterday by the International Atomic Energy Agency about a United Nation s Chernobyl Forum report on the health consequences of the 1986 Chernobyl accident demonstrates once again how habitually and dramatically the nuclear industry understates the impacts of a reactor accident. Although the report itself remains unavailable to the public, the press release states that 4,000 people are likely to die as a result of the Chernobyl accident. This is in stark contrast to industry propaganda that insists the deaths of only about 32 to 36 emergency responders can be directly attributable to the accident. However, the press reports to date indicate that, despite these findings, the UN is downplaying the accident s impacts. To downplay the loss of 4,000 lives, not to mention the non-fatal cancers and other health effects, hundreds of billions of dollars in damages and permanent loss of land-use demonstrates an obscene disregard for human life and wellbeing. Such consequences are entirely unacceptable for an industrial accident of any sort. And the real consequences, when considering the entire affected population, are likely to be much higher: the 4,000-fatality estimate appears to be based on a population of only 600,000 exposed individuals. Given that tens of millions of people were exposed to Chernobyl radiation, a study using the standard method of accounting for radiation damage (the linear no-threshold method) among the entire affected population would be expected to find far greater casualties. This is especially significant considering that the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in June 2005 (in a report entitled Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, VII ) reaffirmed the linear no-threshold model and concluded that there is no safe exposure level to radiation. NIRS urges full disclosure of the report to the public. Until this happens, the scant information made available to date clearly is insufficient to provide knowledgeable analysis on the report, nor does it allow for peer review of the report s findings and conclusions. Contact: 202-328-0002; nirsnet@nirs.org; www.nirs.org ***************************************************************** 19 [epa-impact] Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Haddam Neck Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 11:54:30 -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/September/Day-07/ ======================================================================= [Federal Register: September 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 172)] [Notices] [Page 53258-53259] >From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07se05-98] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-213] Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Haddam Neck Plant; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theodore B. Smith, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone: (301) 415- 6721; fax number: (301) 415-5398; e-mail: tbs1@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering granting a partial exemption from the Recordkeeping requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Appendix A Criterion 1, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B Section XVII, and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3), for the Haddam Neck Nuclear Plant (HNP), East Hampton, CT, as requested by Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CY) on February 16, 2005. An environmental assessment was performed by the NRC staff in support of its review of the exemption request. I. Introduction CY is the licensee and holder of Facility Operating License No. DPR-61 for the HNP, a permanently shutdown decommissioning nuclear power plant. Although permanently shutdown, this facility is still subject to all rules, and orders of the NRC. On December 5, 1996, CY notified NRC that operations had permanently ceased and that all fuel had been permanently removed from the reactor. On July 7, 2000, CY submitted its License Termination Plan, which the NRC approved on November 25, 2002. CY began actively decommissioning HNP in April 1999, through a contract with Bechtel Power Corporation. On March 26, 2005, CY completed transfer of all spent nuclear fuel to its Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation. II. Environmental Assessment Summary Identification of Proposed Action CY, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, ``Specific Exemptions,'' has requested the following exemptions, to the extent necessary, from the record retention requirements of: (1) 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A Criterion 1 which requires certain records be retained ``through the life of the unit''; (2) 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B Criterion XVII which requires certain records be retained consistent with regulatory requirements for a duration established by the licensee; and (3) 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) which requires certain records be maintained until ``Termination of a license issued pursuant to'' Part 50. Instead, CY proposes the following: 1) for Structures, Systems, and Components (SSCs) associated with safe power generation, eliminate records when the nuclear power unit and associated systems no longer exist, or 2) for SSCs associated with safe storage of fuel in the spent fuel pool, eliminate records when spent nuclear fuel has been completely transferred from the spent fuel pool and the spent fuel pool building is ready for demolition. Need for Proposed Action The requested exemption and application of the exemption will eliminate the requirement to maintain certain records, when they are no longer necessary due to the permanently shutdown status of the facility, and will thereby reduce the financial burden on ratepayers associated with the storage of a large volume of hardcopy records. The Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts The proposed action is purely administrative in nature and will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluent that may be released offsite and 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 effluent and it has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non- radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will have no significant effect on the environment. 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). Under this alternative CY would continue to store the records in question until license termination which would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Agencies and Persons Contacted None. III. Finding of No Significant Impact Based on this review, the NRC staff has concluded that there are no significant impacts on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the staff had determined that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not warranted, and a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated February 16, 2005 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML050550025). Publically available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/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's Public Document [[Page 53259]] Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e- mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O1 F21, One White Flint, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of August, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Daniel M. Gillen, Deputy Director, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E5-4852 Filed 9-6-05; 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 ------------------------------------------ ***************************************************************** 20 [epa-impact] Indiana Michigan Power Company, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 11:54:28 -0400 (EDT) version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com http://epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2005/September/Day-07/ ======================================================================= [Federal Register: September 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 172)] [Notices] [Page 53256-53257] >From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07se05-96] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316] Indiana Michigan Power Company, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 And 2; Notice of Issuance of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 And DPR-74 for An Additional 20-Year Period Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) has issued Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74 to Indiana Michigan Power Company (licensee), the operator of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), Units 1 and 2. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-58 authorizes operation of CNP, Unit 1, by the licensee at reactor core power levels not in excess of 3304 megawatts thermal, respectively in accordance with the provisions of the CNP renewed license and its Technical Specifications. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-74 authorizes operation of CNP, Unit 2, by the licensee at reactor core power levels not in excess of 3468 megawatts thermal, respectively in accordance with the provisions of the CNP renewed license and its Technical Specifications. CNP Units 1 and 2 are Pressure Water Reactors located in Bridgman, Michigan. The licensee's application for the renewed license complied with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's [[Page 53257]] regulations. As required by the Act and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Chapter 1, the Commission has made appropriate findings, which are set forth in each license. Prior public notice of the action involving the proposed issuance of the renewed license and of an opportunity for a hearing regarding the proposed issuance of the renewed license was published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2003 (68 FR 68956). For further details with respect to this action, see (1) Indiana Michigan Power Company's license renewal application for Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 dated October 31, 2003, as supplemented by letters dated through March 24, 2005; (2) the Commission's safety evaluation report, dated July 2005 (NUREG-1831); and (3) the Commission's final environmental impact statements (NUREG-1437, Supplement 20, for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, dated May 2005). These documents are available at the NRC's Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852 and can be viewed from the NRC Public Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Copies of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74 may be obtained by writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Director, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs. Copies of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-1831) and the Final Environmental Impact Statements (NUREG-1437, Supplement 20) may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161 (http://www.ntis.gov), 703-605-6000, or Attention: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 371954 Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954 (http://www.gpoaccess.gov), 202-512-1800. All orders should clearly identify the NRC publication number and the requestor's Government Printing Office deposit account number or VISA or MasterCard number and expiration date. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of August 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director, License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-4851 Filed 9-6-05; 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 ------------------------------------------ ***************************************************************** 21 SignOnSanDiego.com: University nuclear reactors slow to stop using weapons-grade fuel By Alan Scher Zagier ASSOCIATED PRESS 2:34 p.m. September 7, 2005 COLUMBIA, Mo.  For University of Missouri tailgaters, the name of the new parking lot down the hill from Memorial Stadium is little more than a curiosity: Reactor Field, a nod to the nearby nuclear research reactor. The nation's largest university-based reactor keeps an intentionally low local profile, despite its cutting-edge research into promising cancer drugs. But among regulators and nuclear energy watchdogs, it has a troubling distinction: The reactor is one of only two university reactors still unable to switch from highly enriched uranium  an ingredient crucial to building nuclear weapons  to a safer fuel. "These things have been used for education for so long, the operators don't seem to accept they can be used for nuclear weapons," said George Bunn, a professor at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation who helped negotiate the 1968 global Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. As little as 25 kilograms (about 55 pounds) of highly enriched uranium is needed to build a nuclear bomb on the scale of the one dropped on Hiroshima 60 years ago. Smaller bombs could use as little as 12 kilograms, experts say. The Missouri reactor's federal license limits to five kilograms the amount of unirradiated, or "fresh" highly enriched uranium. The nation's other university reactor with fresh HEU is at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MIT officials declined to disclose the amount stored there, though previously published reports suggest at least nine kilograms are in the reactor at any given time. The distinction between irradiated and unirradiated fuel is significant. Once uranium-based fuel is doused with radiation, the number of isotopes rapidly increases, making the fuel highly radioactive and unsuitable as a weapon. Research reactors sprouted worldwide in the wake of President Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" program in 1953, including at dozens of American colleges. But by 1978, Cold War tensions and security concerns prompted a Department of Energy initiative to convert research reactors to the low-enriched alternative more commonly found at commercial power reactors. "Domestic and international security concerns dictate very strongly that we halt the use of research reactor fuels which contain highly enriched uranium because of its nuclear explosive properties," then-Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Victor Gilinsky wrote to the MIT reactor director on Oct. 7, 1983. "Universities, especially, should make every effort to shift away from nuclear explosive fuels." At least 40 research reactors worldwide have already been converted, including those at the University of Michigan, Ohio State University and the Georgia Institute of Technology. The University of Florida and Texas A&M are scheduled to convert their reactors next year, and more federal money is budgeted to speed the work at the University of Wisconsin, Washington, Purdue and Oregon State. The emphasis on conversion of American research reactors only increased after the 2001 terrorist attacks, when the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ordered enhanced security at nuclear sites in the wake of concerns that terrorists would target such power supplies. That leaves Missouri and MIT among the 31 research and test reactors worldwide that cannot switch from highly enriched uranium because of technical limitations, primarily because of smaller reactor core sizes. The Department of Energy has set a target date of 2014 to convert the remaining reactors. At MIT, officials have set aside $50,000 to expedite the conversion process, said reactor director John Bernard. "If that fuel does get through its test phase, we're in a position to move rapidly at that point," he said. "There's no reason not to convert." At Missouri, though, officials hope to upgrade the 10-megawatt reactor to 20 megawatts  an increase contingent on continued use of highly enriched uranium. Reactor director Ralph Butler declined an Associated Press interview request, but in a written response said that a power upgrade would enhance the university's ability to produce radioactive isotopes used for medical diagnosis and treatment. "The majority of isotopes used in the United States today are provided by foreign suppliers," Butler wrote. "The nation needs a consistent, reliable supply of radioactive and stable isotopes for medical, security, space power and research uses." | | | © Copyright 2005 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 22 RIA Novosti: Novovoronezh nuclear power plant shuts down fifth reactor 07/ 09/ 2005 VORONEZH, September 7 (RIA Novosti) - The fifth reactor at the Novovoronezh Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) was shut down Wednesday for maintenance, an official at the plant said. The reactor was initially stopped for maintenance in late June 2004. Technicians from the plant and Rosenergoatom, the state's nuclear power generator, replaced all 109 pipes with new ones and changed defective parts in the VVER-1000 reactor lid. The fifth block only became operational on August 30, 2005, since its start-up had been postponed many times due to cracks in the welded seams of the reactor lid. On August 30 and September 2 two generating units (N14 and N13, respectively) were switched on, and on September 3 the fifth block produced 910 megawatts, 91% of its 1000-megawatt design capacity. An emergency shutdown of the reactor occurred September 5. The causes are being analyzed, the official said. He added that the third and fourth blocks of the NPP were fully operational, and the radiation environment was normal. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 23 RIA Novosti: Russia satisfied with atomic power plant safety exercises 07/ 09/ 2005 MOSCOW, September 7 (RIA Novosti) - Head of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency Alexander Rumyantsev is satisfied with the on-going comprehensive nuclear power safety exercises, the state-run Rosenergoatom consortium, which operates the nation's nuclear power plants, said in a statement Wednesday. Rumyantsev heard reports on the pace of the exercises being held at the Kola nuclear power plant in northwestern Russia. The plant's personnel are practicing operating special equipment, including robotic devices and measures to protect the residents of adjacent populated areas. The exercises cover NPP anti-accident procedures, including those dealing with the safety of staff and the population. The drill feigns an emergency situation and a plan of urgent action for personnel protection. It is being supervised by the management of Rosenergoatom and the Kola NPP © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 24 RIA Novosti: Russian-Chinese Experimental Fast Reactor to be ready by end of 2006 07/ 09/ 2005 MOSCOW, September 7 (RIA Novosti) - The construction of the China Experimental Fast Reactor (CEFR), a joint Russian-Chinese project, will be finished by the end of 2006, the Russian Federal Nuclear Agency said Wednesday. The 65-megawatt reactor is being built in China under an inter-governmental agreement signed on July 18, 2000 between China and Russia. Fuel for starting the reactor has already been delivered and the main components have already been installed in the building containing the reactor. Parts of the main body of the reactor are being transported to the assembling area. 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 25 NIRS: UN Chernobyl Report - Statement of Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), September 6, 2005 A press release issued yesterday by the International Atomic Energy Agency about a United Nations Chernobyl Forum report on the health consequences of the 1986 Chernobyl accident demonstrates once again how habitually and dramatically the nuclear industry understates the impacts of a reactor accident. Although the report itself remains unavailable to the public, the press release states that 4,000 people are likely to die as a result of the Chernobyl accident. This is in stark contrast to industry propaganda that insists the deaths of only about 32 to 36 emergency responders can be directly attributable to the accident. However, the press reports to date indicate that, despite these findings, the UN is downplaying the accidents impacts. To downplay the loss of 4,000 lives, not to mention the non-fatal cancers and other health effects, hundreds of billions of dollars in damages and permanent loss of land-use demonstrates an obscene disregard for human life and wellbeing. Such consequences are entirely unacceptable for an industrial accident of any sort. And the real consequences, when considering the entire affected population, are likely to be much higher: the 4,000-fatality estimate appears to be based on a population of only 600,000 exposed individuals. Given that tens of millions of people were exposed to Chernobyl radiation, a study using the standard method of accounting for radiation damage (the linear no-threshold method) among the entire affected population would be expected to find far greater casualties. This is especially significant considering that the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in June 2005 (in a report entitled Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, VII) reaffirmed the linear no-threshold model and concluded that there is no safe exposure level to radiation. NIRS urges full disclosure of the report to the public. Until this happens, the scant information made available to date clearly is insufficient to provide knowledgeable analysis on the report, nor does it allow for peer review of the reports findings and conclusions. Contact: 202-328-0002; nirsnet@nirs.org; www.nirs.org ***************************************************************** 26 NRC: Indiana Michigan Power Company, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, FR Doc E5-4851 [Federal Register: September 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 172)] [Notices] [Page 53256-53257] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07se05-96] Units 1 And 2; Notice of Issuance of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 And DPR-74 for An Additional 20-Year Period Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) has issued Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74 to Indiana Michigan Power Company (licensee), the operator of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), Units 1 and 2. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-58 authorizes operation of CNP, Unit 1, by the licensee at reactor core power levels not in excess of 3304 megawatts thermal, respectively in accordance with the provisions of the CNP renewed license and its Technical Specifications. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-74 authorizes operation of CNP, Unit 2, by the licensee at reactor core power levels not in excess of 3468 megawatts thermal, respectively in accordance with the provisions of the CNP renewed license and its Technical Specifications. CNP Units 1 and 2 are Pressure Water Reactors located in Bridgman, Michigan. The licensee's application for the renewed license complied with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's [[Page 53257]] regulations. As required by the Act and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Chapter 1, the Commission has made appropriate findings, which are set forth in each license. Prior public notice of the action involving the proposed issuance of the renewed license and of an opportunity for a hearing regarding the proposed issuance of the renewed license was published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2003 (68 FR 68956). For further details with respect to this action, see (1) Indiana Michigan Power Company's license renewal application for Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 dated October 31, 2003, as supplemented by letters dated through March 24, 2005; (2) the Commission's safety evaluation report, dated July 2005 (NUREG-1831); and (3) the Commission's final environmental impact statements (NUREG-1437, Supplement 20, for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, dated May 2005). These documents are available at the NRC's Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852 and can be viewed from the NRC Public Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Copies of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74 may be obtained by writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Director, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs. Copies of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-1831) and the Final Environmental Impact Statements (NUREG-1437, Supplement 20) may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161 (http://www.ntis.gov), 703-605-6000, or Attention: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 371954 Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954 (http://www.gpoaccess.gov), 202-512-1800. All orders should clearly identify the NRC publication number and the requestor's Government Printing Office deposit account number or VISA or MasterCard number and expiration date. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of August 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director, License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-4851 Filed 9-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 27 NRC: Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Haddam Neck Plant; FR Doc E5-4852 [Federal Register: September 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 172)] [Notices] [Page 53258-53259] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07se05-98] Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theodore B. Smith, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone: (301) 415- 6721; fax number: (301) 415-5398; e-mail: tbs1@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering granting a partial exemption from the Recordkeeping requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Appendix A Criterion 1, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B Section XVII, and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3), for the Haddam Neck Nuclear Plant (HNP), East Hampton, CT, as requested by Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CY) on February 16, 2005. An environmental assessment was performed by the NRC staff in support of its review of the exemption request. I. Introduction CY is the licensee and holder of Facility Operating License No. DPR-61 for the HNP, a permanently shutdown decommissioning nuclear power plant. Although permanently shutdown, this facility is still subject to all rules, and orders of the NRC. On December 5, 1996, CY notified NRC that operations had permanently ceased and that all fuel had been permanently removed from the reactor. On July 7, 2000, CY submitted its License Termination Plan, which the NRC approved on November 25, 2002. CY began actively decommissioning HNP in April 1999, through a contract with Bechtel Power Corporation. On March 26, 2005, CY completed transfer of all spent nuclear fuel to its Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation. II. Environmental Assessment Summary Identification of Proposed Action CY, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, ``Specific Exemptions,'' has requested the following exemptions, to the extent necessary, from the record retention requirements of: (1) 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A Criterion 1 which requires certain records be retained ``through the life of the unit''; (2) 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B Criterion XVII which requires certain records be retained consistent with regulatory requirements for a duration established by the licensee; and (3) 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) which requires certain records be maintained until ``Termination of a license issued pursuant to'' Part 50. Instead, CY proposes the following: 1) for Structures, Systems, and Components (SSCs) associated with safe power generation, eliminate records when the nuclear power unit and associated systems no longer exist, or 2) for SSCs associated with safe storage of fuel in the spent fuel pool, eliminate records when spent nuclear fuel has been completely transferred from the spent fuel pool and the spent fuel pool building is ready for demolition. Need for Proposed Action The requested exemption and application of the exemption will eliminate the requirement to maintain certain records, when they are no longer necessary due to the permanently shutdown status of the facility, and will thereby reduce the financial burden on ratepayers associated with the storage of a large volume of hardcopy records. The Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts The proposed action is purely administrative in nature and will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluent that may be released offsite and 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 effluent and it has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non- radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will have no significant effect on the environment. 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). Under this alternative CY would continue to store the records in question until license termination which would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Agencies and Persons Contacted None. III. Finding of No Significant Impact Based on this review, the NRC staff has concluded that there are no significant impacts on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the staff had determined that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not warranted, and a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated February 16, 2005 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML050550025). Publically available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/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's Public Document [[Page 53259]] Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e- mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O1 F21, One White Flint, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of August, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Daniel M. Gillen, Deputy Director, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E5-4852 Filed 9-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 28 NRC: Carolina Power and Light Company, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant FR Doc E5-4853 [Federal Register: September 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 172)] [Notices] [Page 53257-53258] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07se05-97] Units, 1 and 2; Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplement 25 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Public Meeting for the License Renewal of Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) has published a draft plant-specific supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), NUREG-1437, regarding the renewal of operating licenses DPR-71 and DPR-62 for an additional 20 years of operation at Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP), respectively. BSEP is located in Brunswick County in southeastern North Carolina, near the mouth of the Cape Fear River. Possible alternatives to the proposed action (license renewal) include no action and reasonable alternative energy sources. The draft Supplement to the GEIS is publicly available in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852 or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the Public Electronic Reading Room on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. The Accession number for draft Supplement 25 to the GEIS is ML052380154. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the PDR reference staff at 1-800-397- 4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. In addition, the William Madison Randall Library, located at 601 S. College Rd., Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 has agreed to make the draft plant- specific supplement to the GEIS available for public inspection. Interested parties may submit comments on the draft supplement to the GEIS for consideration by the NRC staff. To be certain of consideration, comments on the draft supplement to the GEIS and the proposed action must be received by December 2, 2005. Comments received after the due date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC staff is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Written comments on the draft supplement to the GEIS should be sent to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mailstop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Comments may be hand-delivered to the NRC at 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-6D59, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Electronic comments may be submitted to the NRC by e- mail at BrunswickEIS@nrc.gov. All comments received by the Commission, including those made by Federal, State, and local agencies, Native American Tribes, or other interested persons, will be made available electronically at the Commission's PDR in Rockville, Maryland, and in ADAMS. The NRC staff will hold two public meetings to present an overview of the draft plant-specific supplement to the GEIS and to accept public comments on the document. The public meetings will be held on October 18, 2005, at the Southport City Hall, 201 E. Moore Street, Southport, North Carolina 28461. The first meeting will convene at 1:30 p.m. and will continue until 4:30 p.m., as necessary. The second meeting will convene at 7 p.m. and will continue until 10:00 p.m., as necessary. Both meetings will be transcribed and will include: (1) A presentation of the contents of the draft plant-specific supplement to the GEIS, and (2) the opportunity for interested government agencies, organizations, and individuals to provide comments on the draft report. Additionally, the NRC staff will host informal discussions one hour before the start of each meeting at the Southport City Hall. No comments on the draft supplement to the GEIS will be accepted during the informal discussions. To be considered, comments must be provided either at the transcribed public meetings or in writing, as discussed below. Persons may register to attend or present oral comments at the meetings by contacting Mr. Richard L. Emch, Jr., by telephone at 1-800-368-5642, extension 1590, or by e-mail at BrunswickEIS@nrc.gov no later than October 11, 2005. Members of the public may also register to speak at the meeting within 15 minutes of the start of each session. Individual oral comments may be limited by the time available, depending on the number of persons who register. Members of the public who have not registered may also have an opportunity to speak, if time permits. The meeting is on the second floor of the building and there is no elevator. Therefore, the meeting room is not handicap accessible. If special equipment or accommodations are [[Page 53258]] needed to attend or present information at the public meeting, Mr. Emch will need to be contacted no later than October 11, 2005, so that the NRC staff can determine whether the request can be accommodated. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard L. Emch, Jr., License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Mr. Emch may be contacted at the aforementioned telephone number or e-mail address. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of August, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director, License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-4853 Filed 9-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 29 Monticello Times: Officials give plant nod of approval www.monticellotimes.com Thursday, September 08, 2005 by Bobby Hart Times Reporter State specifies focus for waste storage EIS The Minnesota Department of Commerce announced last week which areas it would focus on in an environmental impact study of waste storage at Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. The Department of Commerce took over the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) work from the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, because legislation passed this year shifted the responsibility for such from from the EQB to the Department of Commerce. The EIS is the part of the review process by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission as it decides whether to allow Xcel Energy, which owns the Monticello plant, and Nuclear Management Co., which operates it, to store spent fuel rods in dry cask storage outside the plant in a concrete storage bunker. Xcel and NMC have filed for an extension of the plant’s operating license with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The plant’s current license expires in 2010; Xcel and NMC have asked for a 20-year extension to 2030. If the plant continues to operate, outdoor storage of the fuel rods will be necessary. While the operating license extension is decided at the federal level, the state must give permission on the fuel storage facility. The state’s EIS will include analysis of the following areas: the environmental and economic impacts of continued operation of the power plant until 2030; a summary of radiological health and safety impacts of the waste storage facility and continued plant operation; the potential impact of long-term onsite storage, for up to 200 years, of the additional spent fuel generated at Monticello during the relicensing period; impacts on groundwater and surface water due to normal operation, and the potential for impacts due to flooding; and an analysis of the feasibility and impacts of generation alternatives–including renewable power alternatives–to continued operation of the plant from 2010 to 2030. A draft EIS is scheduled for publication in November. Final publication will come early next year. Nuclear Management Company–the operators of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant–conducted a radioactive preparedness exercise Tuesday, Aug. 30, which simulated a dangerous release of radioactivity around the plant’s 10-mile emergency planning zone. For the most part, the plant passed the exercise and performance evaluation with flying colors. At a press conference Friday at the Wright County Government Center in Buffalo, officials from both the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) gave the plant an overall passing grade in their preliminary findings. “The exercise scenario presented a good test of the utility’s radiological emergency planning for the Monticello plant,” said NRC Emergency Planning Specialist Thomas Ploski. “The utility’s overall exercise performance was successful. ” Gary Naskrent of FEMA– the lead federal agency for all off-site radiological emergency preparedness exercises–read a statement from the federal government’s preliminary report from the evaluation team. “The State of Minnesota, along with the counties of Sherburne and Wright, continue to demonstrate the capability to protect the health and safety of the citizens around the 10-mile emergency planning zone of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant,” Naskrent said. The plant was evaluated by approximately 120 officials from the NRC and FEMA on 140 performance categories which evaluated areas such as, how the plant exercised immobilization, direction and control, communication systems, equipment, the decision-making process, and traffic and access control points. Out of the 18 criteria selected by the state, the Monticello plant met 16. There were no deficiencies, but there were two areas requiring corrective action, according to Naskrent. The first problem was that the evacuation shelter for schoolchildren outside the danger zone didn’t have adequate space. The second arose with an ineffective bullhorn and loudspeaker system on a state helicopter used in the drill. Preparedness exercises are conducted regularly at all U.S. nuclear power plants. The NRC oversees about eight exercises a year around the northwest area, and the agency tries to check each plant every other year. The last exercise at Monticello’s plant was conducted Nov. 18, 2003, and also revealed no major concerns. In the next couple weeks, narratives and preliminary reports by FEMA will be provided to state and local counties. The final report will be available within 90 days. NRC’s conclusions will be documented in an inspection report, which will be available on the NRC Web page (www.nrc.gov) with in 45 days. But so far, the plant is happy with the outcome of its exercise. “I’m pleased with the exercise,” said site vice president John Conway in a prepared statement. “It demonstrated that the site emergency plan is effective in protecting the health and safety of the public and all participating entities, including the plant, the county, the state, the NRC and FEMA, are all able to work together to that end.” Copyright 2005, Monticello Times ***************************************************************** 30 Reuters: NRC ends monitoring of Entergy La. Waterford 3 nuke Wed Sep 7, 2005 7:36 AM ET NEW YORK, Sept 7 (Reuters) - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ended its monitoring of Entergy Corp.'s (ETR.N: Quote, Profile, Research) Waterford 3 nuclear power station in Louisiana on Sept. 6, the nuclear regulator said in an event report. Entergy shut the unit on Aug. 28 as Hurricane Katrina approached southern Louisiana. Electricity traders guessed the NRC announcement meant the unit would soon return to service. The company has said restart depends on the approval of the NRC, the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency and the ability of the grid to accept the reactor's output. The NRC and FEMA have said they will not approve a restart until the off-site evacuation routes are open and emergency sirens are available. The hurricane did not damage the plant. The 1,911 MW Waterford station is located in Taft, in St. Charles Parish, about 30 miles west of New Orleans. There are three units at the Waterford station, including two 411 MW natural gas- and oil-fired units 1 and 2, and the 1,089 MW nuclear unit 3. One MW powers about 800 homes, according to North American averages. Entergy's regulated Entergy Louisiana Inc. subsidiary owns the station. Entergy's subsidiaries own and operate about 30,000 MW of generating capacity, market energy commodities, and transmit and distribute power to 2.6 million customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 31 NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting FR Doc 05-17776 [Federal Register: September 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 172)] [Notices] [Page 53259] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07se05-99] AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. DATE: Weeks of September 5, 12,19, 26, October 3, 10, 2005. PLACE: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. STATUS: Public and Closed. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Week of September 5, 2005 Wednesday, September 7, 2005 9 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1). 1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 3 & 9). Thursday, September 8, 2005 9:25 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative). a. Private Fuel Storage Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation) Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI; Review of Utah Contention K (Aircraft Crash Hazards) Rulings (Tentative). 9:30 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1). Week of September 12, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of September 12, 2005. Week of September 19, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of September 19, 2005. Week of September 26, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of September 26, 2005. Week of October 3, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of October 3, 2005. Week of October 10, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of October 10, 2005. *The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)--(301) 415- 1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415- 1662. * * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. * * * * * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, August Spector, at 301-415-7080, TDD: 301-415- 2100, or by e-mail at aks@nrc.gov, Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. * * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: September 1, 2005. Dave Gamberoni, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 05-17776 Filed 9-2-05; 10:04 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M ***************************************************************** 32 Reuters: PSEG's N.J. Hope Creek nuke back at full power Wed Sep 7, 2005 7:17 AM ET NEW YORK, Sept 7 (Reuters) - Public Service Enterprise Group Inc.'s (PEG.N: Quote, Profile, Research) 1,049-megawatt Hope Creek nuclear power station in New Jersey returned to full power by early Wednesday, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a report. On Tuesday, the unit was operating at 40 percent of capacity after exiting an outage over the weekend. The unit shut on Aug. 28 due to the inoperable vacuum breaker. The company fixed the breaker by Aug. 30 and started to perform some other work. Vacuum breakers act as a check valve to prevent a vacuum from forming in the reactor building that could affect the structural integrity of the containment during an accident. With any outage at Hope Creek, traders are interested in whether the work will keep the unit down long enough (about three weeks) to require PSEG to replace a vibrating recirculation pump shaft. In an agreement with the NRC in January, PSEG agreed to replace a vibrating recirculation pump shaft during the unit's next refueling outage in the spring of 2006 or during an outage expected to last at least three weeks. The Hope Creek station is located in Hancocks Bridge in Salem County, about 40 miles south of Philadelphia. One MW powers about 800 homes, according to North American averages. Exelon Nuclear, a unit of Chicago-based energy company Exelon Corp.'s (EXC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) Exelon Generation Co LLC subsidiary, operates the station for PSEG. In December, Exelon, the biggest nuclear power operator in the United States, agreed to acquire New Jersey-based PSEG. Pending regulatory and shareholder approvals, the companies expect to complete the deal in 2006. 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. PSEG's regulated and unregulated subsidiaries own and operate more than 16,000 MW of generating capacity, market energy commodities, and transmit and distribute electricity and natural gas to customers in North America, South America, the Middle East, Europe and India. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 33 Reuters: Duke's S.C. Oconee 3 nuke exits outage, up to 18 pct Wed Sep 7, 2005 7:32 AM ET NEW YORK, Sept 7 (Reuters) - Duke Energy Corp.'s (DUK.N: Quote, Profile, Research) 846-megawatt unit 3 at the Oconee nuclear power station in South Carolina exited an outage and ramped up to 18 percent of capacity by early Wednesday, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a report. The unit automatically tripped off line during a routine test of the alternate power source for the control rod drive system on Aug. 31. Following the trip, some of the reactor's safety systems actuated to help stabilize the plant. The NRC began a special inspection on Sept. 6 to look into the circumstances surrounding the event, including the design of some equipment and systems, the response of plant employees and the adequacy of plant procedures. The NRC said all safety systems performed as required including the start of both 80 MW Keowee hydro units and plant operators stabilized the plant quickly during the shutdown, but "we want to make sure we completely understand the sequence of events and whether there are lessons to be learned," the commission said in a statement. The NRC noted the shutdown did not cause any public health and safety impacts. The 2,538-MW Oconee station is in Seneca in Oconee County, about 145 miles northwest of Columbia, South Carolina. There are three 846-MW units at Oconee. Units 1 and 2, meanwhile, continued to operate at full power. One MW powers about 800 homes, according to North American averages. North Carolina-based Duke Energy's regulated Duke Power subsidiary owns and operates the Oconee station. Duke's subsidiaries own and operate about 30,000 MW of generating capacity in North America, market energy commodities, and transmit and distribute electricity to more than 2 million customers in North and South Carolina. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 34 Reuters: Exelon replacing transformer at Ill. Dresden 2 nuke Wed Sep 7, 2005 12:18 PM ET NEW YORK, Sept 7 (Reuters) - Exelon Corp. (EXC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) is replacing the main transformer at the 850-megawatt unit 2 at the Dresden nuclear power station in Illinois, a spokesman for the Chicago-based company said Wednesday. The company shut the reactor by Aug. 31 to either fix the old transformer or replace it with a spare on-site. He could not say how long the outage would last due to competitive reasons. Electricity traders said it usually takes about a week to 10 days to replace a transformer if one is available on site, meaning the unit could return either by or over this weekend. 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. ***************************************************************** 35 MPG Newspapers: Pilgrim is running out of room - Old Colony Memorial Entergy to bury spent fuel in Plymouth if Yucca Mountain isn't used by 2012 By Daniel Axelrod Tuesday, September 06, 2005 Plymouth officials will have some pull after Entergy applies with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission in January to relicense the Pilgrim nuclear power plant for 20 years beyond 2012. Town officials and the public can influence the scope of the environmental impact study the utility must complete and raise concerns about how well some of the plant's aging technical systems work. If the plant gets a new license, town officials can even negotiate a more lucrative annual tax payout deal. But one thing Plymouth's brass can't control is whether and when Entergy officials remove multiple tons of spent nuclear fuel. All the nuclear fuel ever used to power the Pilgrim plant's boiling water reactor since 1972 is still at the plant cooling in a concrete pool full of water. Spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste is temporarily stored above ground at 131 locations in 39 states. That fuel is part of a decades-old controversy about whether Nevada's Yucca Mountain is the place to put it. Plymouth officials visited Yucca Mountain The Yucca Mountain Ridge sits on the edge of the nuclear weapons test site in Nye County Nevada, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas and its population of nearly 2 million. Over the years, military and government officials tested some 800 nuclear weapons at the site, which abuts Nellis Air Force Base. Death Valley is nearby over the California border. Roughly 15 people live 12 miles south of the Yucca Mountain site in Lathrop Wells. About 1,400 people live 18 miles to the south in the small farming community of Amargosa Valley. Most jobs near Yucca Mountain relate to farming, tourism and the government. Three years ago, chairman of the board of selectmen Kenneth Tavares, former selectman David Rushforth, former town manager Eleanor Beth and Pilgrim plant spokesman David Tarantino visited the mountain. The Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry-lobbying group, paid for the trip. After receiving security clearance and safety training the town officials put on hard hats and earplugs and rode a mining train equipped with emergency respirators into the main tunnel under the mountain's ridge. Town officials explored the 25-foot diameter 5-mile long U-shaped main tunnel 1,000 feet below the Yucca crest. The tunnel sits 1,000 feet above the water table. Scientists work in several alcoves off that main loop and tests are performed in a 161/2 foot diameter roughly 2-mile long drift cut through the mountain. At the time, the selectmen came away impressed and convinced Yucca Mountain is where the country's nuclear waste should go. "I was very impressed by what had been done," Tavares said. "We toured all day with people who had worked on the construction, and they were telling us everything from how it had been constructed to why it was a safe place to be." "The people we talked to were in favor of it, saying it was the place to be, but at same time there was a great deal of discussion in newspapers that senators and the governor didn't want it out there and didn't want it to be a desert dumping ground," Tavares added. Water cooler chat or cover-up? Critics of the government's plans to store the nation's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain think the mountain's seemingly remote and secure looks are deceiving. Michele Boyd is the legislative director of Public Citizen, a national non-profit public interest organization that, along with Nevada officials and a host of public safety and environmental organizations, sued the government to prevent the use of Yucca Mountain. "The groundwater under Yucca Mountain is used for drinking and irrigation," Boyd said. "One area that uses the water is an organic community called Amargosa Valley that's 20 miles away, which provides a huge amount of milk to the state." Boyd is concerned about the accuracy of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) models about the amount of moisture that will penetrate the mountain and corrode containers of radioactive materials, the speed of groundwater in the mountain and the rock's ability to keep radiation from escaping. Water underneath Yucca Mountain flows toward the Amargosa Valley and that water is the "vehicle most likely to move radioactive particles from a repository to the water table and on to contact with people and the environment," according to Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management's Web site. Energy department officials' April announcement that they discovered e-mails written by U.S. Geological Survey employees that could have lead to data being falsified about Yucca Mountain are fueling Boyd's concerns. According to an April Las Vegas Sun article, Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., released edited copies of the e-mails and various documents in which "employees discussed how to 'fudge' information, make things up and get around a Quality Assurance program in place to back up and document scientific work." "The Investigator General's Office of both the DOE and the USGS as well as the FBI are checking to see if there was criminal activity along with the Work Force Subcommittee," Boyd said. "But the problem is the DOE is doing an internal investigation about the ramifications of the falsification," Boyd said. In May, Nevada officials released additional e-mails containing long conversations between DOE employees and contractors - documents the state officials claim support their position Yucca Mountain is unsafe for nuclear waste storage. The Nevada officials found the e-mails after months of compiling documents from the Licensing Support Network. That network is a database of DOE documents related to the Yucca Mountain project entitled a "Chronology of Selected Yucca Mountain Project E-mails," according to the Las Vegas Sun. Nevada officials posted the e-mails they found on the state's Web site including correspondence sent from DOE employee Larry Rickertsen to Robert Andrews, Jean Younker and Thomas Statton in 1996. One e-mail from Rickertson reads: "We have been able to get by NWTRB (Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board) reviews and other similar situations, but ... we will have severe difficulties when we get into the real arenas," the Las Vegas Sun reported. "I am convinced that the data we have been using are not only uncertain, they are not even representative of the ranges that we will be able to defend when we get into those arenas," Rickertson wrote. A year later Rickertsen wrote another e-mail to Jan Docka. In it, Rickertsen wrote that it's impossible to show the doses of radiation released from the spent fuel containers - even with special drip shields designed to keep out moisture - would be less than the standard the EPA originally set of how much radiation individuals could be exposed to annually. According to the Las Vegas Sun, another e-mail sent from government employee Bob Levich to Paul Dixon reads: "We CANNOT and CAN NEVER rely completely (or even mostly) on engineering barriers for protection of the public health and safety in a geologic repository system. If we try to do so, this program is dead! Just build concrete pads on Jackass Flats and shove the waste inside concrete bunkers.... It is ridiculous to completely rely on engineered barriers, the lifespan of which has never been tests for even tens or hundreds of years." Indeed, Yucca Mountain critics think the government is trying to cover-up evidence and data that show the site isn't safe for nuclear waste. Allen Benson, DOE Communications Manager for Yucca Mountain Project, said the DOE reviewed and tested the mountain and the validity of the e-mails' information and determining the mountain is safe for storage. "We found these issues and we made them public, so I don't know what kind of cover-up others are talking about," Benson said. "And in a Congressional hearing the principal architect of the e-mails testified under oath that he falsified no information (about the mountain or its safety)." "In terms of these e-mail issues, a couple of people were involved in venting, if you will, and my comments to the press at the time when all this came out, were this was water cooler chatter," Benson added. Benson said the DOE took the e-mails very seriously. "We're giving credence to these because we referred them to Inspectors General of Department of Energy and the Department of the Interior," Benson said. Go put it in the mountain More than 161 million Americans- including Plymouth's 56,000 residents - live within 75 miles of a nuclear waste storage facility. In 30 years, U.S. utilities will produce 105,000 more metric tons of nuclear waste, roughly double the current amount in the U.S. today. Government workers plan to put roughly 70,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel and solid high-level radioactive waste in Yucca Mountain. "Unfortunately with nuclear power there is no good solution," Boyd, of Public Citizen, said. "We need a finite problem, not an infinite problem, so we need to stop making the waste and leave it where it is until we figure out a better solution. Congress began planning for a nuclear repository in 1982, when it enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which directed the federal government to take charge of disposing the nation's nuclear waste. Before choosing Yucca Mountain, scientists considered leaving spent nuclear fuel at current storage sites, burying it in the ocean floor, sticking it in salt flats, putting it in polar ice sheets and sending it into outer space. According to the Office of Civilian Waste Management, experts ruled out the most of those options. Current sites don't have enough room. Waste put in salt flats would sink and be irretrievable, hot nuclear waste containers could melt polar ice sheets. It would also be too expensive - and dangerous if there was an accident - to send nuclear waste into space. Placing it deep underground in a geologic repository became government officials' favored waste disposal option. The Congressional legislation in the early '80s created the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for the cost of fuel disposal. "People paying electric bills have been paying a fee into a DOE fund and there's been somewhere between $18 and $20 billion collected by the federal government for the purpose of shipping and storing fuel," Entergy spokesman David Tarantino said. Congress charged the DOE with selecting, designing and operating a repository, while the EPA must decide standards for protecting the environment from radiation. Besides Yucca Mountain, the DOE recommended two others sites for study to President Ronald Reagan in 1986: the salt beds of Deaf Smith County, Texas and the basalt rocks of the semi-arid region of the Columbia Plateau in southeastern Washington stateknown as Hanford. "Yucca Mountain was recommended by the U.S. Geological Survey because of the attributes the site possesses including a stable geology, a deep water table, no one lives there, it's a desert environment and ... it's remote," Yucca Mountain Project communications manager Benson said. Congress later passed the Nuclear Policy Amendments Act of 1987, which directed the DOE to look only at Yucca Mountain. "And we did look at it," Benson said. "We studied it, characterized it and in February of 2002 the (DOE) secretary recommended it to the president who recommended it to Congress." If Yucca Mountain does become America's nuclear waste repository, the waste will be placed in concrete casks or canisters. These containers will be laid horizontally on pedestals prior to closing or sealing the mountain. Future generations will be able to potentially reuse or reprocess the spent nuclear fuel. NRC repository regulations require keeping the mountain open for at least 50 years as waste is placed inside and allowing individuals to open the mountain 100 or more years later. The debate continues Yucca Mountain's critics argue it's in an earthquake zone. They question how safe the mountain is because there are volcanic cones in the area. (See sidebar on page A7) "There are questions whether there could be eruptions in the area that are unresolved because scientists haven't figured out the likelihood of volcanic activity," Boyd said. "Magma could enter underground tunnels and cause canisters to fail, and of course earthquakes are obvious. They'll cause massive damage to facilities," she added. Boyd said it's a myth that using Yucca Mountain will consolidate all America's waste in one space and make America safer. "You can't move waste away from a site for five years, because it needs to cool, so there will always be waste all over (the country)," Boyd said. "We'll have waste on site, waste at Yucca Mountain and waste on roads and rails (while it's transported to the repository), so instead of consolidating waste we will move it all over the country," Boyd said. He wonders how quickly canisters of spent fuel would corrode at the site. Inevitably, some moisture will absorb into Yucca Mountain. Nevada officials argue it's full of holes or faults from past earthquakes. Some scientists favor using man-made barriers such as titanium drip shields to cover the spent fuel canisters to keep them from corroding as quickly. "But there's still a lot of controversy around what chemicals are in the water that could corrode them," Boyd said. Initially, the spent fuel's canisters will be so hot condensation won't necessarily form, but as they cool condensation could form and water could potentially drip on them, Nevada officials argue. Benson said the DOE is considering drip shields. "Even though you get five to six inches of rain each year and we're in a desert environment, some amount of moisture will penetrate the mountain and over the millennia we might want to make sure we'll use a drip shield," Benson said. Boyd, however, thinks there are alternatives to the government transporting waste across the country and storing it in the mountain. One common alternative idea to using Yucca Mountain is storing 40,000 of tons nuclear waste at an interim site in Utah. "Right now we don't have a good solution, and we need to do more research, and we need to stop wasting money at Yucca," Boyd said. According to U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., the price tag for Yucca is expected to climb to $60 billion or more. So far, the enactment of the nuclear waste policy act cost $8 billion, while Yucca Mountain was $5 billion, according to Benson. Berkley, along with other Yucca Mountain critics, thinks storing nuclear waste at the reactor sites themselves is the safest and most affordable solution for dealing with the nation's nuclear waste "High-level nuclear waste is already being stored at nuclear power plants across our nation, and there is no reason why it cannot safely remain there for decades," Berkley wrote in a press release. Berkley thinks the stakes are too high to transport nuclear waste across the country for burial in Yucca Mountain because terrorists might target the waste. "The terrorist threat created by decades of waste shipments and the enormous likelihood of an accident involving nuclear waste make on-site storage the safest option for the nation's spent nuclear fuel," according to Berkley's press release. "One accident or terrorist strike involving high-level waste would endanger lives and cause a catastrophe that would leave millions of dollars in damages and take years to clean up," Berkley said. Berkley remains unconvinced Yucca Mountain is safe in light of USGS and DOE employee e-mails that surfaced in recent months questioning aspects of Yucca Mountain's safety. "The latest allegations only compound existing deficiencies at the quality assurance program as identified last year by the General Accountability Office and outlined in its April 2004 report, 'Yucca Mountain: Persistent Quality Assurance Problems Could Delay Repository Licensing and Operation,'" Berkley said. Benson dismissed critics' arguments. "Yucca Mountain was formed 10 to 15 million years ago, and it's not a volcano; it's the result of volcanoes," Benson said. "We did intensely study this, and when you stand on Yucca Mountain the cinder cones are moving away. The youngest one is 80,000 years old so if any new ones develop they're moving south and away," Benson said. He thinks the radiation is going to stay safely in the mountain because its top is 5,000 feet above sea level. Plus the waste would sit 1,000 feet under the top of the mountain and about 1,000 feet above the water table. As far as safely transporting the waste, Benson said there's never been a major accident before. "Everything would be convoyed safely," Benson said. "We've been moving this kind of material around country for a very long time, and we're confident in our ability to safely transport this material." He added the nuclear material would be shipped over a period of 24 years in multiple shipments and not all at once. "When you want to stop something you'll find every excuse you can to question it, but what are the alternatives (to Yucca Mountain)?" Benson said. "Nobody is coming up with any realistic or valuable alternatives." Benson questioned whether Yucca Mountain critics have ulterior motives against nuclear power itself. Benson added leaving waste at reactor sites isn't possible since many sites don't have room to store spent fuel rods, and they'd have to go off-line as a result. Here in Plymouth, Entergy spokesman Tarantino said the Pilgrim plant has plenty of room to bury spent fuel rods in big dry caste storage after the spent fuel rod pool fills when the plant's license expires in 2012. The plant sits on 150 acres of industrial-zoned land. Entergy owns another 1,600 acres of forestry land to the west of the plant. "For however long the plant operates, we have sufficient room to store things, but that's not the desirable option," Tarantino said. Yucca Mountain is located near the Ghost Dance and the Solitario Canyon faults. But when it comes to earthquakes, Benson is quick to point out Yucca Mountain has already proven itself to be sturdy. "In an earthquake, the motion is at surface," Benson said. "Back in '92 there was a 5.6 or 5.7 earthquake not far from Yucca, and there were scientists in a tunnel near the epicenter and they didn't even know an earthquake happened." "All facilities will be built to withstand a 6.5 level earthquake at Yucca Mountain, and the University of Nevada will monitor seismic activity," Benson added. So what's next? For the last 10 years, Nevada officials sued the federal government on multiple grounds to stop the Yucca Mountain Project. These lawsuits were merged into four different cases argued before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on Jan. 14, 2004. Appeals' court judges dismissed all but one of state officials' claims, but ruled in favor of the Nevada official's radiation standards complaint. The judges ruled that the length of time the EPA allowed the DOE to have for Yucca Mountain before higher levels of radiation leaked out and the amount of radiation allowed to be emitted were unacceptable. The EPA originally had a 10,000-year standard for how long the mountain must contain most of the spent fuel's radiation, which didn't follow the standard required by Congress. According to the EPA's original standard, the DOE would have to prove individuals were exposed to more than 15 millirems of radiation - or about the radiation of a chest x-ray - annually for 10,000 years. However, Congress requires the EPA follow the National Academy of Sciences' recommendations, which determined Yucca Mountain should be able to contain radiation based on peak levels or what's emitted when the bulk of the radioactive waste is decayed. Peak doses of radiation could come anywhere from 100,000 to 300,000 years or more from the time the radiation is deposited in the mountain. At the beginning of August the EPA announced it was keeping the standard that individuals only be exposed to 15 millirems annually from nuclear radiation for the next 10,000 years at Yucca Mountain. The EPA retained that standard despite the fact it was thrown out by the federal appeals court last year because 10,000 was dubbed "arbitrary" and it didn't follow National Academy of Sciences Recommendations. However, EPA officials said they'd create a different limit for how much radiation it's acceptable for individuals to be exposed to from 10,000 to 1 million years. Individuals now can be exposed to 350 millirems per year for 10,000 to one million years, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, argues the average American is exposed to 360 millirems of radiation from mostly natural sources, such as radon and other radioactive elements in the earth already. Nevada officials wonder why the EPA would let Americans be exposed to 350 millirems more per year than the average exposure. Medical and dental treatments, television sets and emissions from coal-fired power plants are also sources of radiation. DOE officials are convinced Yucca Mountain is safe and sound, but Nevada officials and other Yucca critics will keep fighting the project. Ultimately, NRC officials will decide whether the mountain is safe. They will consider and potentially issue the application for Yucca Mountain to be used as a repository. The next step in the process is for the DOE to certify the licensing support network of millions of pages of material in support of the license application. That could occur sometime within the next several weeks. Six months later the DOE will submit an application to NRC, which would determine whether the application is complete and docket it to be reviewed. Then, by law, the NRC can review the application for up to four years. If the application is approved, the NRC will issue a license to construct the facility at the earliest in mid- to late-2010 and construction could be finished by 2012, Benson said. http://oldcolony.southofboston.com/articles/2005/09/06/news/news0 4.txt ***************************************************************** 36 New Matilda: Delusions of Power: Levelling the Playing Field for Nuclear Energy www.newmatilda.com Wednesday 7 September 2005 Peter Christoff Melting glaciers, the dissolving Russian tundra, Hurricane Katrina... climate scientists, and politicians like Tony Blair, agree that global carbon emissions must be cut by 60% from 1990 levels by 2050 if we are to avert the worst impacts of accelerating climate change. But how? John Morris suggests that nuclear power should be part of the debate about our energy future and his recent contribution in New Matilda rightly says that efficiency, availability of uranium, and the economic viability and environmental impact of nuclear facilities and the nuclear cycle, should be part of such a review. But Morris himself fails to consider fully these and other issues relating to nuclear power - and as a result he is able to conclude that fossil fuels and nuclear power are likely to be more economically attractive than renewable energy sources for at least the next 10 to 20 years. Positive assessments of the economics of nuclear power invariably underestimate, or exclude, a range of major costs. They usually overlook the extraordinary public subsidy the industry has received for mine rehabilitation, for the construction and operation of nuclear plants, and for waste storage. For example, Goldberg and Oosterhuis suggest direct public subsidies amount to $115 billion and indirect subsidies to $145 billion in the US alone, while annual subsidies in the UK equal US$543 million, and in Germany some US$845 million. The costs of fully insuring against severe accidents or terrorist attack is rarely incorporated - and in the US, liability insurance has been capped at unrealistically low levels, in effect offering another massive state subsidy should anything go awry. The costs of maintaining and then decommissioning non-functioning reactors have usually been ignored - yet decommissioning the UK's plants alone has been estimated to cost GBP 85 billion. Meanwhile the economic costs of the effectively indefinite storage of radioactive waste have not been calculated. If these estimates were incorporated into any comparison of the cost of power (per Kw) of different energy technologies, nuclear would fail to compete on economic grounds alone. Put another way, if the renewables sector (wind, solar, wave, hydrogen, etc.) received the same level of public subsidy, and if the environmental costs of nuclear and fossil fuels were fully factored into the equation, renewables would be much further advanced technologically and vastly cheaper than their competitors. Even if we set these economic concerns aside, nuclear power would still fail to contribute significantly to solving the climate problem. Globally, electricity generation contributes some 40% of total emissions, and nuclear power only 17% of this 40%. A doubling of global nuclear capacity would only reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by some 5%. Furthermore, with only 17% of global electricity being produced by nuclear power, the total global supply of high grade uranium will last only 50 years. Increasing nuclear power's stake to 50% of total electricity supply would mean uranium reserves would be depleted in two decades or so. (While Morris writes warmly of breeder reactors, none have been commercially viable to date.) We urgently need to begin the transition to alternative energy sources now. However a new 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant has, on average, a 10 year lead time before it produces electricity. This is greater than for all other sources of power, including coal and gas. The delays involved in planning and construction in part result from significant public opposition to reactor siting. Overcoming such objections to the siting of a large number of new nuclear reactors and waste dumps would certainly depend on authoritarian breaches of planning codes in Western countries, or their absence in other places. Then there are the core arguments of environmentalists worldwide. Nuclear technology is exceptionally risky and dangerous. Morris approvingly cites the 1976 Fox (Ranger Inquiry) Report's comments about 'wildly exaggerated statements about the risks and dangers of nuclear energy'. Yet he fails to mention that the reactor meltdowns at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl occurred in the decade after the Fox Report's release. Significant accidents, while likely to be infrequent, would have widespread and horrific impacts. Estimates of human deaths and illness after Chernobyl range from several hundred to hundreds of thousands of individuals. Large areas of the Ukraine, Belarus and Russia were contaminated, some 200,000 people resettled, and over 3000 square kilometers of productive land 'lost' for generations to come. And the risks of terrorist assaults on nuclear facilities, of 'dirty bombs' and nuclear proliferation, have all increased significantly. Indeed, the anxieties associated with reactors, waste dumps, and the impacts of uranium mining on Indigenous peoples, have led Australians to conclusively reject uranium mining and nuclear power. Civilian nuclear power is banned by law in Victoria and NSW, and disposal of nuclear waste is illegal in New South Wales, Victoria, West Australia and South Australia. It has only been made possible in the NT through Commonwealth intervention. Morris talks glowingly of plans to dispose of vitrified nuclear waste. In reality, for 50 years, and with billions of dollars spent on research and temporary storage, no safe, permanent and economically feasible solution for disposing of radioactive waste has emerged. Over 250,000 tonnes of nuclear waste exist in unsafe stockpiles around the world. In all, the nuclear solution is a delusion. Investment in it would be a massive and potentially dangerous waste of money and resources. Its 'climate effects' would come too late, would be slight and very temporary at best, and would leave a legacy of radioactive waste which will remain environmentally hazardous and unmanageable long into the future. All this while draining private and public funds from more viable alternatives. The debate over nuclear power has been part of an important shift towards recognition that we must deal with global warming. But, equally, its selective inclusion of facts about nukes has been biased against renewable energy technologies, which could be available sooner, and would be cheaper, safer, and more socially acceptable, than the nuclear alternative. There is no economic or environmental case for Australia - or other countries - to build nuclear power plants, or to boost uranium exports from Australia. The real alternative is for Australia, with its lavish endowment of sun, wind and waves - and for the rest of the planet - to 'go renewable' and start reaping the benefits: more jobs, clean air, reduced emissions, safe technologies and an enduring supply of energy. Dr Peter Christoff teaches at the University of Melbourne and is Vice President of the Australian Conservation Foundation. ***************************************************************** 37 Joplin Globe: Time to get rid of our nukes The Joplin Globe • 117 E. Fourth St. • Joplin, MO 64801 • 417.623.3480 • 800.444.8514 • Fax 417.623.8450 | Editorial Features By Craig Eisendrath columnist 9/7/05 For well over 30 years, the United States and the Soviet Union confronted each other with the horror of mutually assured destruction. By the inverse logic of the Cold War, the tens of thousands of nuclear warheads, poised to be launched by Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, as well as nuclear bombs from aircraft, actually helped to create peace. Not only did the two superpowers not attack each other, but the rest of the world, with the exception of only six other countries — the United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India and Pakistan — were content to be non-nuclear bystanders. Today, with the breakup of the Soviet Union some fifteen years ago, this situation is beginning to unravel. Already North Korea and possibly Iran are developing nuclear weapons, and it is not difficult to see other countries following in their wake. What is to be done? As the world’s super nuclear power, the United States can take a number of steps to reverse this trend. First, the United States should stop threatening other nations and so creating the incentive for them to acquire nuclear weapons. Proclaiming North Korea and Iran members of the “axis of evil” and threatening military reprisals have created results that should teach us not to do this again. Second, equally destructive has been the doctrine of the preemptive use of force, rather than the use of force only as a last resort and in self-defense, as prescribed by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Such a doctrine cannot help but induce other countries to acquire nuclear weapons. Third, the United States should immediately desist from developing new nuclear weapons, as it is currently doing with bunker busters, and thereby edging toward a point where these weapons must be tested, thus breaking the standing moratorium on nuclear testing. We cannot demand that other countries adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 if we are developing new nuclear weapons ourselves. Fourth, as we rightly pressure non-nuclear states to adhere to the NPT, we should adhere to it ourselves. Under the NPT, non-nuclear states agreed not to acquire nuclear weapons, but the nuclear signers agreed over time to give up their nuclear weapons. To date, the United States has made little effort to do this. The 2002 Moscow Treaty, officially the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, between the United States and the Russian Federation, does stipulate major nuclear reductions to a level of 1,700 to 2,200 warheads by 2012, but with no schedule and no inspections, and is subject to virtual immediate withdrawal. Rather than such a hollow treaty, the United States should attempt to achieve a genuine worldwide denuclearization treaty, including the acceptance by us and other signatories of intrusive inspections. At this point, there is nothing to be gained by our possession of nuclear arms provided other nations give theirs up. We are not ourselves subject to a national attack and, in any case, we can handily defend our territory and vital interests with the sophisticated conventional arms we possess. But beyond this, by cutting off the nuclear option, we can literally save the world from a nuclear holocaust that will appear increasingly likely as nuclear powers and alliances proliferate. We can also save the world, and ourselves, the tens of billions of dollars that presently maintain nuclear weapons at a time when our economy is in jeopardy. By saving the $15 billion to $20 billion that go into nuclear arms every year, and the tens of billions more which go into obsolete Cold War weapons, we could redress the effects of poverty at home and deal decisively with the poverty of the world. Today, we spend only a meager $16.5 billion on foreign aid or 0.16 percent of our present economy. With the military savings suggested above, we could work with other developed nations to launch a Marshall Plan for the world that would be far more effective against terrorism than our present posture of dominance and nuclear belligerency. Craig Eisendrath, a former diplomat, is the foreign policy adviser for Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities. His column is distributed by Minuteman Media. Comment on this story | Send a Letter to the Editor | Email this story to a friend Add a comment to the guestbook Comments Gene writes: ""If Craig believes that a 'Marshall Plan' would be more effective than our present posture that we have with dominance and nuclear belligerency,' he may need to take a new look at this issue. I think we are seeing the results of a country such as North Korea who has misused nuclear information from the US for peaceful purposes. Instead the end result was the capability of building a nuclear bomb. The reality, this is the kind of world we live in today. Even countries will lie to get this kind of information. North Korea fits this catagory, who is, for all practical purposes, an enemy of the US. All of the countries that he mentions would not probably adhear to a nuclear treaty. If they did, it would only be for publicity reasons, while at the same time, continuing to build their nuclear arsenal. (It is true both the US and the Soviet Union 'broke' treaties during the cold war.) Our aim should be to deter the nuclear arsenals from the terrorist hands. The 'Marshall Plan,' as good as it was, fails miserably. That is why 'the nuclear option is an absolute necessity in our current circumstances.'(thanks Shutter for that observation)"" Bob Hosmer writes: "Threatened governments want nuclear weapons for the same reasons the US wanted them in the cold war, to deter aggression from enemies, regional and global. Why have we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, but not Iran, Pakistan and North Korea. Duh, they have nukes. Can you blame Syria, India, and every other nation that can't or won't devote massive US-like resources to armed forces for wanting a cheap and effective deterent. This madness must stop somewhere, and the US should seize or create and opportunity to lead rather than obstruct. " Ollie writes: "And maybe if the police were nicer to the criminal street gangs, they would stop murdering people. Yeah, that's gonna work. Thank God the vast majority of the American People are smart enough not to put idiots like this in charge of our national security. " © 2005 The Joplin Globe Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 38 Free Lance-Star: Multifaceted energy policy must include nuclear Fredericksburg.com: Date published: 9/7/2005 This is in response to a letter ["More nuclear plants and more oil don't make good policy," Aug. 31]. It might be hard for Aviv Goldsmith to remember, but way back in the early 1970s, when nuclear technology was young, the U.S. generated about 20 percent of its electricity from oil. By the 1980s, less than 10 percent of electricity was generated from oil, and today it is virtually nonexistent. In the '70s and '80s, nuclear energy replaced oil in the electrical energy market. Because of advances in hydrogen fuel cells, nuclear stands ready to replace oil yet again as a fuel for automobiles. Today's advanced reactor designs are ideally suited for the production of both electricity and hydrogen, a critical component to our future energy independence. The U.S. imports nearly half of its oil. One would think that if demand is cut by 50 percent, then we would not import any oil at all, but one would be very wrong. The cost of oil production in Saudi Arabia is about 80 cents a barrel. Compare that to the domestic production cost of about $10. If oil demand was reduced, the cheap foreign oil will still be bought first, putting a financial strain on domestic suppliers. Ironically, cutting oil consumption would most likely increase our dependence on foreign oil. Instead of doubling gas mileage, we should stop using oil altogether. As for the waste issue, calling spent nuclear fuel "waste" is like calling used motor oil "waste." More than 90 percent of the energy contained in used nuclear fuel is still there. As with used motor oil, we should recycle this fuel and use it as a source for future energy supplies. The energy bill is right-on in promoting the use of nuclear energy, as well as the use of renewables and encouraging conservation. It puts the U.S. another step closer to energy independence and security. Michael Stuart Hanover Date published: 9/7/2005 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. ***************************************************************** 39 NRC: NRC, States to Coordinate Increased Controls Over Radioactive Materials News Release - 2005-12 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-123 September 6, 2005 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the 33 Agreement States are coordinating efforts to increase the control of radioactive materials that could potentially be of use to terrorists. "We believe we have been successful in establishing an approach that achieves the common objective of the NRC and the Agreement States of enhancing controls over certain radioactive materials and enhancing the protection of public health and safety," NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz said. "This approach will leverage federal and state resources most effectively to increase protection and accountability of these materials." Under the Atomic Energy Act, the NRC has signed agreements with 33 states, relinquishing to the states responsibility for regulating radioactive materials used in academia, industry and medicine. The Agreement States regulate approximately 17,000 materials licensees, of which an estimated 1,650 will be affected by the new requirements. About 550 of the 5,000 NRC licensees in the remaining 17 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico also will be affected. The NRC retains exclusive authority over nuclear power plants, fuel cycle facilities and research reactors; those licensees are not affected by this decision. Over approximately the next 90 days, affected NRC licensees will receive Orders from the agency spelling out increased controls for certain radioactive materials. Over the same period, individual Agreement States will issue their licensees legally binding requirements essentially identical to the NRCs Orders. Materials covered by these requirements will be consistent with the International Atomic Energy Agencys Code of Conduct for the Safety and Security of Radioactive Materials, which is the internationally recognized standard for categorizing and protecting radioactive materials. Last revised Wednesday, September 07, 2005 ***************************************************************** 40 RIA Novosti: Russia to be the first to sign nuclear terrorism convention 07/ 09/ 2005 MOSCOW, September 7 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will be the first to sign the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism in New York on September 14, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Yakovenko said Wednesday in an article in the government daily Rossiiskaya Gazeta. The UN General Assembly unanimously adopted the international document, which was proposed by Russia in 1998, on April 13, 2005. Yakovenko said: "The adoption of the convention is the result of systematic, resourceful and energetic work, first of all on the part of Russia." "The convention is largely an innovative document," Yakovenko said, adding that the international community had worked out a document for the first time to prevent certain terrorist attacks. "The convention's adoption shows the resolve and capabilities of the UN member states to adapt the Organization to modern realities and security requirements," the official said. Yakovenko said that many countries would follow Russia's example, first of all the participants in a UN Security Council session at the World Summit 2005, which will be held in New York on September 14-16. An anti-terrorist resolution, which includes a call to countries to make signing the convention a priority, should be adopted at the summit. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 41 [NukeNet] Uranium-Contaminated Soil Radioactivity Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:02:03 -0700 SP_HAM_VERY,SUBJ_GROUP,WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=no version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) CNIC has been asked to give details of the radioactivity of the 290 cubic meters of uranium-contaminated soil to be shipped to the US for refining. Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute (JNC) is being particularly uncooperative in regard to information that could be of use to anti-nuclear activists. Nevertheless, we have extracted the following: Dose Rate (JNC figures) Maximum surface dose rate: 4.2 micro-sieverts per hour (approx. 36.8 milli-sieverts per year) Average surface dose rate: 0.85 micro-sieverts per hour (approx. 7.4 milli-sieverts per year) Radioactivity (Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport figure) 4 becquerel per gram The 4 becquerels per gram figure was provided verbally by an officer of the Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport when we went to seek information under freedom of information. Our main purpose was to get the name of the US company that would take the soil, but we were unsuccessful on that point. When JNC was confronted with this figure, it said that the radioactivity was 3 becquerels per gram. The basis for these two radioactivity figures is unclear, except that JNC said that it never measured the radioactivity directly. It said that it calculated the figure from the dose rate. We haven't delved further, so we can't say whether the calculation took into consideration all the uranium isotopes and their daughters. One must be skeptical about JNC's claim not to have measured the radioactivity directly, but 3-4 becquerel per gram is plausible. Uranium Concentration Based on the above, we would expect the uranium concentration to be in the order of 200-350 ppm. US Company's Name Regarding the US company's name, JNC said that it doesn't have the company's permission to release the name, so it doesn't plan to do so. We understand that residents of Okayama Prefecture have been pursuing this under freedom of information, but so far without success. Perhaps an easier route would be through a question in the Diet, but that won't be possible till after the election. If the information is important, we would have to say that time is running out at this end. Hopefully the above is of some use. Philip White International Liaison Officer Citizens' Nuclear Information Center 3F Kotobuki Bdg, 1-58-15, Higashi-Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003 Phone: 81-3-5330-9520 Fax: 81-3-5330-9530 http://cnic.jp/english/ cnic@nifty.com _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 42 Las Vegas SUN: State balks at Yucca rules on water flow Today: September 07, 2005 at 11:20:22 PDT By Suzanne Struglinski <> SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- New proposed Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules for the Yucca Mountain project match radiation exposure rules proposed last month but also specify how the Energy Department can measure potential water flow through the rock. That's a problem, Nevada officials say, because the proposed rule for the planned nuclear waste repository 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas was issued without consulting any outside experts. Water flow is a key issue in the state's fight against the mountain. If water moves through the rock, it can lead to corrosion on waste casks causing them to fail faster and contaminate groundwater with radiation. "Infiltration is the whole ballgame," said attorney Joe Egan, who handles Yucca issues for the state. "They have just declared what that is; we don't think it is proper." A 60-day public comment period will begin once the rule is published in the Federal Register, which will happen soon, according to the commission. The state is likely to submit comments on the proposed rule. Egan said once it is finalized, if no changes are made, the state would evaluate whether to take legal action. The NRC rules are important because the commission will use them to decide whether the department can store nuclear waste inside Yucca. The department expects to apply for a license next year. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 43 NRC: NRC Proposes to Change Regulations on Yucca Mountain to Be Consistent with EPA Changes News Release - 2005-12 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-124 September 7, 2005 regulations to govern the U.S. Department of Energys (DOEs) proposed high-level radioactive waste disposal facility at Yucca Mountain, Nev. The amendments would adopt the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys (EPAs) recently proposed revisions to its standards for radiation doses that could occur more than 10,000 years after waste disposal. The Energy Policy Act requires the NRC to make its regulations consistent with EPAs standards for Yucca Mountain. The new EPA standards, published Aug. 22, would leave in place the current standard of a peak dose of 15 millirems for the first 10,000 years following disposal. After 10,000 years, the standard would be 350 millirems. These same EPA values would be contained in the revised NRC regulations. The proposed NRC regulations also indicate that, in demonstrating compliance with the radiation dose standards, DOE must assess the effects of climate changes more than 10,000 years after disposal. The proposal specifies a range of values that DOE should draw from when representing these changes. The climate change analysis would be limited to the effects of increased water flow to the repository as a result of the change (up to approximately 6 times greater than would be expected today), and any resulting release of radioactive materials to the environment. In addition, the proposed NRC changes specify that DOE should calculate radiation doses to workers at the Yucca Mountain facility using current scientific methods, in the same way that EPA is proposing for calculating doses for members of the public. Interested persons may submit comments on the proposed NRC regulations within 60 days of publication of NRCs proposed rule in the Federal Register, expected shortly. The comments should sent by mail to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff; e-mail to SECY@nrc.gov; or fax to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, at 301-415-1101. Last revised Wednesday, September 07, 2005 ***************************************************************** 44 Platts: Ukraine to build spent fuel storage facility without Framatome + Framatome is "incompetent" and Ukraine will build a spent fuel storage facility for Chernobyl fuel without the French vendor, Ukraine's Deputy Minister for Emergency Situations, Tatyana Asomova, said today. She told Platts at an international conference in Vienna that Framatome's proposal to finish the fuel facility in 2010, instead of 2005 as originally contracted, and at three times the original cost, was "unprofessional" and "unacceptable" for Ukraine. Donors to the International Chernobyl Fund managed by the European Bank for Reconstruction &Development have postponed a decision on how to proceed on the spent fuel project, now projected to cost 232-million euros (U.S.$289-million), until the end of the year. Paris (Platts)--6Sep2005 Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 45 Japan Times: Plutonium from spent fuel at 43 tons Wednesday, September 7, 2005 Japan's stockpile of plutonium extracted and separated from spent nuclear fuel increased to 43.1 tons as of the end of 2004, up 2.5 tons from the previous year, the government reported to the Atomic Energy Commission on Tuesday. Most of the increase was from reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, conducted in Britain. Of the total amount, 37.4 tons were stored overseas. The government plans to use the reprocessed plutonium to produce plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel for use in plutonium-thermal nuclear power plants in the future. The Japan Times: Sept. 7, 2005 (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 46 Emagazine: Native Dumping Ground September/October 2005 Vol. XVI, no. 5 by Christine Graef The scent of sage and the pounding hooves of abundant wild game are a memory to the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Shoshone Indians in Utah, an hour from Salt Lake City. Today, when the people look north from their 18,000-acre reservation, they smell chlorine gas from the Magnesium Corporation plant, identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the most polluting plant of its kind in the country. Turning northwest, they see the Envirocare Low-Level Radioactive Disposal Site, where waste from the entire country is buried. The site has neighbors: two hazardous waste incinerators and one hazardous waste landfill. Directly south, there is the Intermountain Power Project, which provides coal-fired electrical power mostly to California but pollutes local skies. Finally, to the east, lies the world’s largest nerve gas incinerator. And now pending is a plan to transport 44,000 tons of radioactive waste (80 percent of the entire U.S. supply) for interim storage on leased reservation land. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ruled in favor of granting a license to Private Fuel Storage (PFS) last February. Tribal Chairperson Leon Bear, a primary supporter of the lease, signed the agreement despite significant tribal opposition at public hearings. “They’re treating the tribe as invisible people,” says Kevin Kamps, nuclear waste specialist at Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) in Washington, D.C. “The company says, ‘If there was an accident it would only extend out two miles.’ But that includes the entire Goshute community.” An NIRS petition protesting the plan contains signatures representing 31 Native nations, a variety of national and international groups, and numerous state and local agencies. According to the petition, “The…storage/transport containers are of questionable structural integrity and there is an increasing risk that PFS could well become de facto permanent storage.” Among the petition signatories is the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) in Minnesota. “We believe this country has an unsustainable energy problem,” says IEN Executive Director Tim Goldtooth, a Native American member of the Dine’ (Navaho) and Dakota tribes. “What right do we have to leave this problem for future generations? It reflects a society out of balance with the sacredness of nature.” The Nuclear Energy Institute defends the location of the federal dump. “It was kind of a natural match between people looking for a place to store nuclear waste and people looking for economic development,” said senior project manager Rod McCullum to the San Diego Union-Tribune. Kamps adds that if President Bush achieves his nuclear revival goals, uranium mining on tribal lands would probably be revived. McCullum agrees, noting that “anyone who wants to move forward with nuclear energy realizes we have to take care of the waste.” CONTACTS Nuclear Information and Resource Service 1424 16th Street NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 328-0002 Editors, if you are interested in reprinting this article, please contact Featurewell / (212) 924-2283 E MAGAZINE.COM ***************************************************************** 47 RedNova News: Yankee, State Make Deal Over Dry Casks Posted on: Monday, 5 September 2005, 03:01 CDT With support from state regulators and a consortium of business interests, the owner of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant is proposing a radioactive waste storage system intended to help keep the facility on line for at least six more years. Anti-nuclear activists argue, however, that the Yankee storage plan does not adequately address existing safety issues involving used nuclear fuel rod's kept in pools at the Vernon plant. These critics, organized into a group called the New England Coalition, say they will urge the Public Service Board to impose stricter waste- disposal requirements when the Yankee proposal is reviewed later this year. Specifically, the coalition wants the wastes now stored in spent fuel pools to be moved to the dry casks that Entergy Nuclear, the plant's owner, is proposing to install at the site along the Connecticut River. Yankee's containment pools may reach their storage capacity as early as 2007. And Entergy says its dry cask system would be sufficient to handle newly produced wastes through 2011. "Spent fuel pools contain several hundred tons of the most deadly toxin known to man," says New England Coalition director Peter Alexander. "If exposed to air they will spontaneously ignite and spread a cloud of radioactivity over New England." Vermont Public Service Commissioner David O'Brien says his department supports the dry cask proposal partly because of "legitimate safety concerns" related to the spent fuel pools. O'Brien notes that Entergy does intend to move some of the wastes from the pools to the steel-and- cement casks. "The more you can put in the casks, the better," O'Brien says. Entergy spokesman Larry Smith rejects claims that radioactive wastes are more dangerous in the pools than in the casks. "Wet storage and dry storage are equally safe," Smith says. Yankee storage issues can best be resolved, Smith adds, through establishment of a national nuclear waste repository. A plan to build such a facility inside Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been stalled for several years. O'Brien sees Entergy's proposal as a means of ensuring that Vermont Yankee remains in operation at least until 2012, when the plant's current license is due to expire. The commissioner points out that the electrical power produced by Yankee costs close to 4 cents per kilowatt hour, compared to a New England market rate of about 6 cents. "We want to be sure Vermonters continue to benefit from that rate," O'Brien says. The same considerations have led the recently formed Vermont Energy Partnership to favor the dry cask storage plan. The group's members include public utilities, business associations, construction companies, ski resorts and Vermont's largest private employer: IBM. "Vermont Yankee supplies one-third of the state's electrical energy, and we want that supply to remain available," says Paul Steidler, a spokesman for the partnership. Yankee's power is distributed around Vermont under contracts with the state's two largest utilities: Green Mountain Power and Central Vermont Public Service. Experts regard dry casks as the preferred means of storing radioactive wastes, Steidler notes, adding that this storage method is used at many nuclear plants around the country. Environmentalists generally agree that Entergy is making the right choice in seeking to move toward a dry storage system. The plan also finds favor among many environmentalists because of a conditional $2 million-a-year storage fee set by the State Legislature. Under a law adopted in the past session, Entergy would have to pay that amount into a state-sponsored renewable energy fund. "If the Public Service Department gets smart about using this fairly modest amount of money, they can create a big ripple effect on behalf of renewable energy projects in the state," says Mark Sinclair, an attorney with the Montpelier-based Clean Energy Group. Sinclair says that a nuclear waste disposal fee adopted 10 years ago by Minnesota lawmakers produced such sizable gains for renewable energy that the state decided it no longer needed to rely on nuclear energy. A similar outcome in Vermont would give the state more options when Entergy files an expected application to extend Yankee's operating license beyond 2012, Sinclair says. But the $2 million annual storage charge will be levied on Entergy only if the Louisiana-based company gets permission from federal regulators to increase Yankee's power output by 20 percent. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is reviewing this so-called uprate proposal, which would enable Yankee to produce 110 additional megawatts, from its current output of 535 megawatts. A decision is not expected until sometime next year. The New England Coalition and some Windham County residents have criticized the Democratic-controlled State Legislature for agreeing to a compromise that links payment of the $2 million fee to approval of Entergy's uprate proposal. Opponents of the power increase say the deal improves Entergy's prospects of prevailing in the uprate battle. In a ruling issued in June, the NRC said it would not fine Entergy for initially failing to account for parts of two spent fuel rods. No records were kept on the fuel rod pieces that were placed in a containment pool in 1979. The pieces could not be located when an inventory was conducted last year, but they were eventually found to be still safely stored in the pool. The NRC noted that Entergy, which purchased Yankee in 2002 from a consortium of New England utilities, did not own the plant when the fuel rod fragments were misplaced. And it was Entergy that discovered the mistake, the regulators added. Vermont US Senator James Jeffords criticized the NRC's decision, saying the lack of a fine sends the wrong message to the nuclear power industry. Copyright Boutin-McQuiston, Inc. Aug 01, 2005 © 2002-2005 RedNova.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 48 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear worry over undersea volcanos Thursday September 8, 2005 The Guardian Burying nuclear waste in trenches that suck the ocean floor towards the Earth's interior is a bad idea, according to a study published in Geology. Darren Tollstrup and James Gill from the University of California-Santa Cruz have shown that sediment near to the Mariana trench, on the floor of the Pacific Ocean, is partially recycled back to the surface via submarine volcanos. Using a small submarine, the researchers collected sediments from around the Kasuga seamounts in the Philippine Sea. Back in the lab they used chemical isotopes of the elements hafnium and neodymium to trace the path taken by lava emerging from these seamounts. The isotopes suggested that sediments are compressed and melted to a depth of about100km beneath the sea floor, before being reborn and spurted out again in a submarine volcano. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 49 AU ABC: NT 'cooperating' with uranium mine management 2005. 07:24 (ACST)Thursday, 8 September 2005. 08:24 Federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane says uranium exports have brought an extra $32 million into the Northern Territory economy in the last financial year. He says the NT Government has moved on from the spat in which he seized control of approving new uranium mines a month ago. Mr Macfarlane says he does not expect further political wrangling to derail the Territory's uranium industry, which has blossomed in recent weeks, with 25 companies now exploring for the mineral. The Minister says the NT Government has indicated it will cooperate. "I think they've made it clear that they wish to remain involved in the day-to-day management of mines, that's certainly something I'd support," he said. "So I think it that whilst we'll continue to have differences about the approvals process, I think it is a case of getting on with business from both sides, the Northern Territory Government and the Commonwealth Government." Mr Macfarlane says there will still be five new mines within 10 years even if only one-in-five of the companies currently looking for uranium are successful. ***************************************************************** 50 AU ABC: Federal Minister applauds SA stance on uranium debate ABC Queensland | Local News | Story 2005. 08:08 (ACST)Thursday, 8 September 2005. 09:08 The Federal Government has credited the South Australian Labor Government for showing leadership in the uranium mining debate. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) Mineral Statistics report, released yesterday, shows strong potential for Australia in the global uranium market. But Federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane says the industry is being held back by attitudes in states such as Western Australia and Queensland. "There are factions within the Federal Labor Party - Martin Ferguson in particular was advocating an expansion of uranium mining, but the only clear voice on future uranium mining coming from the Labor Party is coming from the South Australian Labor Government," he said. ***************************************************************** 51 Japan Times: Exhibition on 1945 atomic bombings opens in Paris Wednesday, September 7, 2005 PARIS (Kyodo) An exhibition of photos and drawings opened Monday in Paris to mark the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The event is being held at Paris City Hall until Sept. 30. Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba is scheduled to visit Paris to deliver a speech to call for nuclear disarmament on Sept. 21, designated by the United Nations as the international day of peace. Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe requested cooperation from the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in opening the exhibition when he visited Japan last November. Hiroshima provided the school uniform of a junior high school student who died in the bombing of the city, 48 photographs, 53 drawings and 15 original copies of the comic book series Hadashi no Gen (Barefoot Gen), about a boy who survived the bombing. Nagasaki offered pieces of bomb-shattered bricks, a doll and a deformed glass container that were exposed to radiation. At the exhibition, Delanoe said, "At the outset of the 21st century, it is important to preserve this inadmissible memory . . . so that our children can gather together to realize peace for a better world." Akiba and Nagasaki Mayor Itcho Ito also released a message saying, "We hope the exhibition will be a new step toward recognizing a cruel crime committed by humanity and toward ensuring such a disaster will never be repeated." The Japan Times: Sept. 7, 2005 (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 52 Tri-Valley Herald: Nuclear facility may face the ax Article Last Updated: 09/07/2005 06:39:16 AM U.S. talks of closing Livermores Superblock By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER The federal government is talking about closing Superblock, the plutonium facility at Lawrence Livermore lab, and the labs main explosives testing area, Site 300 — moves that would end nearly a half century of secret work on nuclear-weapons components at both places. Closing Superblock and Site 300 could be a decade or more away, according to documents obtained by the Oakland Tribune, a sister paper of the Herald. Closing the facility would come only after the federal government had spent more than $30 million on safety improvements neglected in recent decades at the fortress-like Superblock, which opened in 1961. Prospects for the closures came as a shock to Livermoreweapons officials and would mark a dramatic change for the weapons lab. Its scientists would move away from hands-on, day-to-day work with bomb quantities of weapons plutonium and uranium, and toward more virtual weapons work relying on supercomputer simulations and miniaturized nuclear tests on the labs giant laser, the National Ignition Facility. Federal officials stress that no final decisions have been made. Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration, said federal weapons executives are planning for multiple scenarios in response to budget pressures in Congress and a series of reports suggesting the government pull its scattered tons of weapons materials into one or a few well-guarded locations, possibly underground. Federal officials acknowledge that they dont expect to defeat a full, Sept. 11-sized terrorist attack on a weapons facility until 2008. Its way past due, and we simply have to do something about it quickly before they sink a bunch of money into places that cannot be protected, said Peter Stockton, investigator for the Project on Government Oversight and former chief security adviser to Clinton Energy Secretary Bill Richardson. Livermore is such a place, critics say, surrounded by so many homes that its guards cannot be given the heavy firepower needed to keep large numbers of attackers out of Superblock. During an internal planning meeting in April for the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, senior government managers called for an exit strategy for both Superblock and Site 300, according to documents presented at the meeting in Kansas City. According to the documents, the closing of Site 300 would occur after the Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrotest Facility, or DARHT, is fully operational at Los Alamos, in as little as two years. A centerpiece of Site 300 is a similar, older experimental setup called the Contained Firing Facility, which can take high-speed photographs and X-ray movies of mock nuclear-weapons components. On DARHT, however, scientists can use real weapons materials and take pictures faster and in three dimensions. The closing of Superblock would come in 10 years, the documents said, after Los Alamos replaces one of its oldest weapons facilities, the Chemistry and Metallurgical Research Building, a hulking chemistry lab for bomb materials built in the late 1950s. Almost no progress has been made on funding a smaller, more modern lab to replace it. Livermore executives have fought the loss of Superblock and its stores of plutonium and highly enriched uranium, amounting to a few hundred atom bombs worth, portraying it as a death knell for the labs nuclear-weapons mission. They argue it is essential for Livermore scientists to have ready access to weapons plutonium and uranium. But a recent high-level security review performed for the National Nuclear Security Administration suggested arguments such as those were more for convenience than necessity and overweighed by mounting difficulty in protecting weapons materials at multiple sites nationwide. Security costs over U.S. defense plutonium and uranium have soared 400 percent since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as intelligence officials upgraded their estimates of the size and capability of a potential attacking force on U.S. nuclear weapons facilities. In a report released last week, experts led by retired Admiral Richard Mies found that security in the U.S. weapons complex remains plagued by a number of cultural problems, including a bias against training, a lack of accountability and a tendency to let that contractors operating weapons sites to assess their vulnerability to terrorist attack. None of the dozens of findings and recommendations in the Mies report specifically mention Livermore or its plutonium inventory. But the report concludes that moving this material to more secure and remote sites, and bringing the scientists and mission to the material, would decrease the number of storage locations and consolidate SNM (special nuclear materials) in more secure, unpopulated areas. If closed, Superblocks work could go to New Mexico and its sister lab counterpart at Los Alamos, known as Technical Area 55, or to a new plutonium plant deep inside either the desert Nevada Test Site or Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. The moves would toll the end of a Cold War era when military authorities and weapons scientists insisted on the redundancy of two high-security plutonium handling labs in case one were destroyed — to a new, post-Sept. 11 era when federal officials worry about terrorists breaking in and stealing a nuclear weapon or detonating one inside a national laboratory. Contact Ian Hoffman at . © 2005 ANG Newspapers ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************