***************************************************************** 09/09/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.209 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 AFP: UN speech on Iraq's WMDs "a blot" on my record: Powell 2 [NYTr] US 'Warns' China: Stop Helping Iran's Energy Program 3 [NYTr] Landau: How the US Supplied Iran with Nuclear Know-How 4 Xinhua: Iran's shift to east in nuclear diplomacy draws controversy 5 Xinhua: Iran's Rafsanjani stresses determination on nuclear issue 6 Reuters: Rice sees referral of Iran to UN Security Council 7 Reuters: Iran cleric says atomic work will go ahead 8 Reuters: ANALYSIS-Iran readies for UN nuclear battle with EU, US 9 Xinhua: Success of six-party talks hinges on joint document - Russia 10 Japan Times: Position on North Korea unchanged 11 Korea Times: Resumption of Six-Party Talks 12 Reuters: US promotes S. Korea offer of electricity for North 13 US: [NukeNet] e- vote on nukes MSN Money - CNBC TV: Investing 14 Deccan Herald: US moves gingerly on nuke ties with India 15 Deccan Herald: US says no to Pak demand 16 Rediff: CIA asked Dutch govt not to act against A Q Khan 17 Guardian Unlimited: Blair backs improved nuclear cooperation with In 18 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Summit to Give Leaders 'Face Time' 19 Xinhua: Annan calls for compromises on document for UN summit 20 Reuters: 63 nations to sign new UN nuclear terrorism treaty 21 PTI: US rejects Pak's demand for parity with India on nuclear pact NUCLEAR REACTORS 22 US: NRC: NRC Authorizes Restart of Waterford Nuclear Plant 23 RIA Novosti: Russian nuclear plants increase energy production by 3% 24 US: NRC: New Senior Resident Inspector Named at Indian Point 2 25 US: APP.COM: NRC reaching out to public on Oyster Creek permit 26 US: record online: Katrina raises Indian Point safety issue 27 Daily Times: EDITORIAL: Give Pakistan civilian nuclear technology! 28 Indian Express: Nuclear is in! 29 Mos News: Russia to Build World’s First Floating Nuclear Power Stati 30 US: NRC: NRC Receives Award for Excellence in Performance and Accoun 31 Korea Times: Light-Water Reactors Biggest Block in 6-Way Talks - Chu 32 PDC: Brazil uses less nuclear energy than other developing countries 33 US: Reuters: Exelon shuts Pa. Peach Bottom 2 nuke for work 34 US: Reuters: 7 Entergy power units still shut near New Orleans 35 US: Reuters: Entergy keeps Arkansas 2 nuke reduced after dropped rod 36 US: Reuters: Entergy Ark. Arkansas 2 nuke dips to 66 pct power 37 US: Reuters: Exelon Pa. Peach Bottom 2 nuke shut 38 NewsRoom Finland: Safety of Finnish nuclear power station inadequate NUCLEAR SECURITY 39 Mos News: U.S. Wants Me for My Nuclear Secrets” - INTERVIEW - 40 US: Deseret News: NRC: Secrecy push within NRC NUCLEAR SAFETY 41 US: NRC: NRC Staff Proposes $3,250 Fine Against Columbia, Mo., Hospi 42 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss Apparent Violations at Lancaster, PA., Hospi NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 43 US: [NukeNet] NRC Approves Utah Nuclear Waste Dump 44 US: Las Vegas SUN: Feds OK Nuclear Waste Site for Utah 45 US: Las Vegas SUN: NRC clears way for nuclear fuel storage in Skull 46 Las Vegas SUN: DOE turns over more documents in Yucca probe 47 Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear industry exec picked to head Yucca Mountain p 48 North Lake Tahoe Bonanza: Unrest over Yucca Mountain 49 US: AP Wire: Shipment of tritium from TVA arrives in South Carolina 50 US: AU ABC: AWU backs more uranium mining 51 Las Vegas RJ: NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY: Bush picks Sproat for Yucca 52 Las Vegas SUN: Porter is expecting more Yucca documents to use 53 US: Las Vegas SUN: License for nuke storage site OK'd 54 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca chief choice: 'John Q. Public' 55 Mos News: Abkhazia Nuclear Storage Facilities Inspected by UN Expert 56 US: Salt Lake Tribune: NRC clears way for nuclear fuel storage in Sk 57 US: San Bernardino County Sun: Perchlorate deal OK'd 58 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Meeting Notice 59 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Meeting on Planning and 60 US: Platts: Nuclear fuel business booming despite uncertainties 61 US: NRC: NRC Denies Utah’s Final Appeals, Authorizes Staff to Issue 62 US: PE.com: Schools near Wyle Labs to get water tested 63 US: AU ABC: ALP reopens divisive uranium mine debate 64 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste to Hold a Meeting i 65 US: EPA: INEL transuranic waste characterization PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 66 DOE: International Energy Agency Meeting 67 DOE: Office of Environmental Management; Environmental Management ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 AFP: UN speech on Iraq's WMDs "a blot" on my record: Powell 09/09/2005 05h11 Colin Powell addresses the United Nations Security Council ©AFP/File - Timothy A. Clary WASHINGTON (AFP) - Former US secretary of state Colin Powell said in a television interview to broadcast Friday that his UN speech making the case for the US-led war on Iraq was "a blot" on his record. In the February 2003 presentation to the UN Security Council, Powell forcefully made the case for war on the regime of Saddam Hussein, offering 'proof' that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The presentation included satellite photos of trucks that Powell identified as mobile bioweapons laboratories. After the invasion US weapons inspectors reported finding no Iraqi nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. "It's a blot" on my record, Powell said in an interview with ABC News. "I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and (it) will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now." Powell spent five days at the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters ahead of the speech studying intelligence reports, many of which turned out to be false. He said he felt "terrible" at being misinformed. He did not, however, blame CIA director George Tenet. Tenet "did not sit there for five days with me misleading me," he said. "He believed what he was giving to me was accurate." However some members of the US intelligence community "knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up," Powell said. "These are not senior people, but these are people who were aware that some of these resources should not be considered reliable," he said. "I was enormously disappointed," he added. Powell also said that he had "never seen evidence to suggest" a connection between the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States and the Saddam regime. As for post-Saddam Iraq, Powell said there was little choice but to keep investing in the Iraqi armed forces. "What we didn't do in the immediate aftermath of the war was to impose our will on the whole country, with enough troops of our own, with enough troops from coalition forces, or, by (quickly) recreating the Iraqi (armed) forces," he said. "It may not have turned out to be such a mess if we had done some things differently," he said. Powell also voiced concern over a possible civil war in Iraq. "A way has to be found for the Sunnis to be brought into the political process. You cannot let . . . Iraq devolve into a mini-state in the north, a larger mini-state in the south, and sort of nothing in the middle," he said. "The mission we set for ourselves at the beginning, and which we told the Iraqis that we were going to do, is to keep this as a single state. And that's the challenge that we have now," he added. Powell downplayed his reported differences with Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and said he was on good terms with President George W. Bush. "There are some who say, well, you shouldn't have supported (the war), you should have resigned. But I'm glad that Saddam Hussein is gone," Powell said. On Washington's differences with Tehran, Powell also said he does not see "a clear military option with respect to Iran." Copyright Disclaimer ©AFP 2005 ***************************************************************** 2 [NYTr] US 'Warns' China: Stop Helping Iran's Energy Program Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 14:34:15 -0500 (CDT) autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Reuters - Sep 6, 2005 http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticleSearch.aspx?storyID=15640+07-Sep-2005 U.S. warns China on energy ties to Iran By Carol Giacomo Diplomatic Correspondent WASHINGTON, Sept 6 (Reuters) - China will be increasingly in conflict with the United States if it continues to pursue energy deals with countries like Iran and is unlikely to gain the energy security it seeks, a senior U.S. official said on Tuesday. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick said he was not sure how much of Beijing's energy drive was propelled by new Chinese oil companies or by a government "strategic plan." But he told a group of reporters it was unlikely that Beijing could guarantee its own energy security through contracts with countries which Washington and other states consider troublesome "because you can't lock up energy resources" in a global marketplace. Instead, the Bush administration was encouraging China to adopt a broader definition of energy that included cooperative efforts with Washington and others to develop energy sources beyond oil and gas, expanding sources of oil and gas and improving energy efficiency, he said. Zoellick, in charge of what Washington calls a new U.S. strategic dialogue with Beijing, discussed key issues facing the two powers ahead of Chinese President Hu Jintao's attendance at the United Nations summit in New York next week. Hu had been due to make his first official visit to the White House on Wednesday but it was canceled so President George W. Bush could focus on the Hurricane Katrina aftermath. The two are still expected to meet on the fringes of the U.N. summit. Cooperation on trying to end the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs will be on the U.S. agenda. Zoellick launched the strategic dialogue on a trip to Beijing last month amid rising U.S. concern over China's growing economic and military clout. Washington aims to foster greater cooperation and avoid dangerous miscalculation by examining Sino-American relations in a larger framework. Zoellick acknowledged "there are questions that are being asked not only in the U.S. but other parts of Asia and Europe about how China will use this growing power." CHINA AS WORLD POWER China became the world's third largest importer of oil in 2003. It sought energy and mineral deals with Iran, whom the United States and Europe accuse of pursuing nuclear weapons, with Sudan, accused of genocide in the Darfur region, and Venezuela, where the president has allied with Cuba, a U.S. adversary. Zoellick said he told Chinese officials that from a U.S. perspective "it looked like Chinese companies had been unleashed to try to lock up energy resources." This is an elusive goal because even when governments think they "own" the resources of another country, that country could nationalize the assets, he said. He said Beijing's ties to what the United States considered troublesome states -- the list also included Burma and Zimbabwe --were "going to have repercussions elsewhere" and the Chinese would have to decide if they wanted to pay the price. China must choose whether to work with the United States to ameliorate problems posed by these states -- while still protecting Beijing's energy interests -- or whether it "want(ed) to be against us and perhaps others in the international system as well," Zoellick said. The State Department's former chief China official, Randall Schriver, told Reuters last week he feared the two powers were on a "collision course" over the ties Beijing is forging in its search for energy to feed its growing economy. Some U.S. experts worry Beijing is gobbling up energy assets to secure control over vital resources that would allow it eventually to supplant the United States as the world's dominant power. China this year made a bid for a U.S.-owned oil giant but withdrew after a torrent of criticism from the U.S. Congress. * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 3 [NYTr] Landau: How the US Supplied Iran with Nuclear Know-How Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 22:57:06 -0500 (CDT) WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Progreso Weekly - Sep 8, 2005 http://www.progresoweekly.com/index.php?progreso=Landau&otherweek=1126242000 How the U.S. supplied Iran with nuclear know-how By Saul Landau A doctor friend expressed concern over the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Sixty years ago, some 250,000 people died when U.S. atomic bombs fell over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You needn't become a scientist to understand that radioactivity from nuclear bombs or malfunctioning power plants, like those at Chernobyl (Ukraine, 1986) and Three Mile Island (Pennsylvania, 1979), can contaminate the environment for a very long time. Nevertheless, since the devastating 1945 Japanese blasts and with full knowledge of what nuclear weapons produce, Washington continues to allocate $27 billion a year to maintain them and create new ones. The United Sates, Russia and England have more than 11,000 nuclear weapons. India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea have some 400 more. No wonder my doctor friend and other informed people share nuclear concerns. In addition to the big nuclear states, terrorists, controlled by fanatics, might also detonate a dirty bomb. Al-Qaeda, or whatever the fiends who did 9/11 call themselves, could potentially radiate urban areas and spread panic. What an array of dicey issues! The North Korean nuclear weapons program apparently proceeds as negotiations proceed - or don't. A nuclear proliferation scandal dances along in Pakistan because A. Q. Khan, father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, made extra cash by selling nuclear know-how to Iran, Libya, and who knows who else. Reports abound that despite denials, Iran's new hard line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad plans to resume uranium conversion. According to reliable leaks Bush's national security gang responding in panic has suggested an invasion of Iran, an air strike against its nuclear facilities, a Special Forces operation to take out its nuclear capability, or some combination of the above. French President Jacques Chirac apparently offered to play front man for Washington and threatened Iran with UN Security Council sanctions if it resumed work on its plutonium processing (NY Times, Aug. 30). Such stories provoke the question: how could Iran have obtained nuclear capabilities? Surely, those irresponsible former Soviet scientists must have sold them the technology, a colleague guessed. "Those people would sell anything after the fall of the Soviet Union." Not quite! It was U.S. policy, not anti-American Moslem fanaticism, that led Iran directly into the nuclear age. In the late 1960s, Iran stood out as a model ally of the United States. After all, the ruling Shah owed the CIA after the Agency's operatives ousted elected Premier Mossadegh's government in 1953. CIA action followed Mossadegh's declaration that he would nationalize foreign oil holdings. The Shah understood loyalty to those who reinstalled his "royal family" to dictatorial power. His servility won him nuclear access. "The U.S. and her allies were in fact the driving force behind the birth of Iran's nuclear program in the late 1960s and early 1970s" (Mohammad Sahimi, Iran's Nuclear Program. Part I: Its History October 2003). By 1974, the Shah, after consulting with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, boasted that nuclear power plants in Iran would soon produce more than 20,000 megawatts of energy. In the mid-1970s, led by Kissinger who saw in Iran a "platform state" to fight communism in the region, Washington proposed that The Shah expand his nuclear capacity by acquiring as many as 23 nuclear reactors. According to Mohammad Sahimi, the work on the reactors began in 1974 with the help of MIT engineers who contracted to train Iranian nuclear technicians. Sahimi cites a speech by Sydney Sober, a State Department official who in October 1977 "declared that the Shah's government was going to purchase eight nuclear reactors from the U.S. for generating electricity. On July 10, 1978, only seven months before the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the final draft of the U.S.-Iran Nuclear Energy Agreement was signed. The agreement was supposed to facilitate cooperation in the field of nuclear energy and to govern the export and transfer of equipment and material to Iran's nuclear energy program. Iran was also to receive American technology and help in searching for uranium deposits." Why, asked critics, should a nation with huge oil and gas reserves invest in nuclear technology? Why not? Both General Electric and Westinghouse sold Iran reactors. These manufacturers of nuclear energy plants for the third world and their media acolytes regaled The Shah for his "westernizing policies," his far-sightedness in seeing beyond the age of oil. Although his own people had a less flattering view of him, who could Washington trust more? The prestigious Stanford Research Institute "experts" had projected that Iran's nuclear initiation would serve both world peace and U.S. interests. Not only would U.S. companies build nuclear reactors, but the Pentagon would continue to sell weapons and torture equipment to the Shah's army and police and the United States could even recoup some of what it spent buying oil from Iran. In the mid 1970s, Iran also signed nuclear power construction contracts with France and Germany. The Shah said that these undertakings would generate electricity and desalinate water. But only the naove would not also suspect that Iranian would also experiment for military purposes. Hey, when good friends get curious, we shouldn't dampen their creativity! In 1976, President Gerald Ford even authorized the Shah to buy and operate a plutonium-extracting and processing facility - a big step toward converting energy processing to weapons making (David Isenberg, Asia Times, August 24). It all seemed so ideal! Then, in 1979, a very angry Iranian public made its voice heard. Massive demonstrations brought down The Shah's regime and the new government took U.S. embassy officials hostage. By 1980, an orthodox Moslem regime headed by the Ayatollah Khomeni had replaced the pro-Western monarchy with a very backward looking ideology - or at least theology. Labeling the United States "The Great Satan," the Ayatollah turned his attention to reversing the Shah's westernizing tendencies. Also, tied down with a bloody war against Iraq, Iran's nuclear program went inert. Indeed, it took several rocket and bombing hits that disabled some of the facilities. By the late 1980s, however, Iran's new leaders resumed interest in things nuclear. Teheran offered Washington and Western Europe reentry possibilities for building nuclear reactors. But this time, the West behaved much more cautiously, albeit seemingly oblivious to the short-sightedness of its past policies and the contradictions that it built into them. The United Sates, England, France, Russia and China all signed onto the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and agreed to work towards nuclear disarmament. The contract called for non-nuclear states to forego nuclear weapons and open their facilities to UN inspection. In return, they could receive nuclear energy technology. But the nuclear giants, while making some strategic reductions, have not taken serious steps toward ridding themselves of their massive stockpiles. They have, however, insisted that the non-nuclear nations abstain. Instead, "the U.S. and Britain are upgrading: the Bush administration is developing nuclear "bunker busters" that can strike deep underground, while Britain has ordered a new generation of Trident missiles." (Anne Penketh, Independent August 5, 2005) Iran now claims implicitly the right to pursue its nuclear power ambitions. After all, neighboring India and Pakistan barged into the elite nuclear club in 1998. In addition, Israel, a formidable Iranian enemy, has a considerable nuclear arsenal. And, in 1981, Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor with impunity. In 2003, the United States would not have invaded Iraq if Saddam had possessed a nuclear deterrent. North Korea, another member of Bush's axis of evil, took note and has used its nuclear weapons supply - if it really has them - to forestall a possible U.S. invasion. Nuclear strategy is inherently insane, my doctor friend concluded. Nukes can't defend our country. Would we drop them on Texas if Mexico invaded? But the big nuclear weapons powers, he continued, "could annihilate the world umpteen times. Who knows how many other countries will obtain them?" His concerns have escaped the agendas of recent presidential candidates, except Ronald Reagan, who wanted to abolish nuclear weapons - almost as much as he wanted to destroy the Sandinista revolution. In 1987, as Reagan's Contra terrorists continued to mine Nicaraguan harbors, he regally concluded at the Iceland Summit that "A nuclear war cannot be won, and must never be fought." Reagan's zany commitment to Star Wars (Strategic Defense Initiative), however, became an impediment that caused Soviet Premier Gorbachev to back away from a nuclear disarmament agreement. Bush, however, disregards The Gipper's advice. He has used the "n" word - even though he can't pronounce it - as a threat that worked to provoke nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran, two of the three states he lumped into his "axis of evil." Will it take someone who has made his reputation as a religious nut, like the vicarious assassin and evangelical geezer Reverend Pat Robertson to convince Bush to use his bully pulpit to do something good for the world: spend his remaining years as president getting rid of nuclear weapons? [Landau is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies. His films are available through Cinema Guild in New York City.] * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 4 Xinhua: Iran's shift to east in nuclear diplomacy draws controversy www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-09-09 19:05:32 TEHRAN, Sept. 9 (Xinhuanet, By Zhang Shengping, Chen Wendi) -- Pressed by Europe to re-suspend its sensitive nuclear activities, Iran has adopted a new east-oriented diplomacy, but the tactic has touched off debates within the country. The pro camp began a busy diplomatic manoeuvre to hammer home its idea that by relying more on other, mainly eastern, partners, Iran's nuclear issue can be solved to Iran's advantage. Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani visited India and Pakistan in the past two weeks, during which Tehran secured a long-awaited deal with the two sides to export Iran's liquid natural gasto India through Pakistan. In return, Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh paid a visit to Tehran earlier this month, pledging India's support for Tehran to resist a US-backed referral of Iran's nuclear case to the UN Security Council. India's move has drawn US concerns. The United States and the European Union has repeatedly warned to refer Iran's nuclear case to the Security Council for possible sanctions, if the Islamic republic doesn't downright suspend its nuclear activities. Pakistan was also quick to join the chorus of throwing its backing behind Tehran. Pakistan's Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz expressed support on Wednesday for a peaceful resolution of Iran's nuclear issue and Iran's right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy in accordance with related international conventions. Russia, which has long been sympathetic to Iran on its nuclear issue and is aiding the Islamic republic with its first nuclear power plant, has already voiced strong opposition to the referral. The three countries are all members of the 35-member board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog which has the final say on the US proposal of referral. It seems that Tehran is marching ahead smoothly on what it's Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki has advocated as "balanced diplomacy". The new orientation of nuclear diplomacy has also gained loud applause among the conservative media and analysts, who said it will benefit Iran more to be less dependent on the European Union (EU), represented by the big three of Britain, France and Germany. They said by acting as the nuclear brokers, Europe's aim is not to help Iran secure its legal rights and remove international suspicion but is to keep the status quo of Iran's nuclear standoff so as to keep what it has obtained from Iran and cater to Washington at the same time. The official media such as IRNA has been enthusiastically reporting comments by the eastern countries, highlighting such a shift will benefit Tehran. However, dissenting voices also emerged doubting the government's shift in diplomacy. Analysts expressed fear that the eastern countries like India and Pakistan are not powerful or determined enough to defy the United States and the EU on Iran's nuclear case. Iran News, a pro-reformist daily, said on Thursday in an editorial that "the countries in the East may be up and coming world powers but the political reality is that Britain, France, Germany and the United States still dominate and exert enormous influence on global politics and international relations." There are also some with a neutral view. They support the government's shift in diplomatic orientation but warn at the same time that EU's role in the nuclear issue should be reduced to a certain extent but can never be ignored. Namely, they believe the government should not go from one extreme to another. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 5 Xinhua: Iran's Rafsanjani stresses determination on nuclear issue www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-09-10 03:01:12 TEHRAN, Sept. 9 (Xinhuanet) -- Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said on Friday that Iran was determined to press on with its nuclear program regardless of pressure from the West. "We will continue our efforts to defend our undeniable rights on nuclear technology," Rafsanjani told worshippers at a Friday prayers ceremony. Rafsanjani said it was contradictory to international conventions to deny Iran's right to get access to peaceful nuclear technology, saying a referral of Iran's nuclear case to the UN Security Council will harm many sides. "Unreasonable decisions on the Iranian nuclear case of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors at its upcoming meeting would hurt not only Iran but also other parties," Rafsanjani said. The IAEA Board of Governors will hold a meeting on Sept. 19, and the European Union (EU), the longtime broker of the Iranian nuclear issue, has urged Iran to re-suspend uranium conversion activities before the opening of the meeting. The EU has warned that a failure to observe the deadline of Sept. 19 will prompt the referral of Iran's case to the UN Security Council. Rafsanjani, who is currently chairman of Iran's powerful Expediency Council, described the EU warning as a "hegemonic and colonist" behavior. "IAEA inspectors have proved that the accusation on Iran's nuclear program launched by the United States is totally baseless,but they (the Europeans) are still dealing with the issue based onsuch a fabricated accusation," Rafsanjani said. Iran resumed uranium conversion activities, a preliminary step toward uranium enrichment, on Aug. 8 and rejected a comprehensive proposal made by the EU to solve the nuclear issue. In the proposal, the EU asked Iran to abandon its efforts to build nuclear reactor cycles, including uranium enrichment, to provide objective guarantees that its nuclear research will not beused for military purpose. But, Tehran insists that it will never give up its legal rightsset out by the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The United States accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons under the disguise of civil usage, a charge rejected by Tehran. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 6 Reuters: Rice sees referral of Iran to UN Security Council Fri Sep 9, 2005 12:20 PM ET WASHINGTON, Sept 9 (Reuters) - The United States expects Iran will be referred to the U.N. Security council over fears it may be developing nuclear weapons, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Friday. Rice appealed to China, Russia and India to join the United States and the European Union in pushing Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions and to make clear that Iran should not be allowed to break previous agreements. Iran insists its atomic ambitions are peaceful and has been lobbying Russia, China, India and others to fight against any referral to the Security Council, which has the power to impose economic sanctions against Iran. A report by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which was circulated to its members last week, indicated Iran was not meeting its promises to the international community, said Rice. "We have all said that the next step to be expected would be referral to the Security Council. I think that after the IAEA report a couple of days ago it is clear that Iran is not living up to its obligations and so U.N. Security Council referral seems to be a reasonable option," Rice told a news conference. EU and U.S. diplomats have been lobbying key members of the IAEA to send Iran's case to the Security Council after it resumed uranium processing at Isfahan last month, a facility that had been mothballed under a November 2004 agreement with the EU's three biggest powers -- France, Britain and Germany. Rice said the so-called EU3 had negotiated with Iran in good faith but Tehran had not and action would have to be taken. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 7 Reuters: Iran cleric says atomic work will go ahead Fri Sep 9, 2005 8:12 AM ET TEHRAN, Sept 9 (Reuters) - Iran will not be intimidated by international threats to abandon its nuclear programme, which the West fears is a front for covert bomb-making, said former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani on Friday. Rafsanjani called on the western countries to stop making a fuss over Iran's atomic activities, which he said was only to meet the Islamic state's energy needs and not to build bombs. Iran faces mounting international pressure after the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Tehran had resumed uranium conversion at Isfahan last month, ending a freeze of sensitive nuclear work under a November 2004 deal with France, Britain and Germany. "Iran is determined to use peaceful nuclear technology and no intimidation or threat can make us give it up," Rafsanjani told Friday prayer worshippers at Tehran University. Washington and the EU that suspect Iran could use its nuclear power programme to develop the capability to produce atomic weapons, are trying to reach a broad consensus for sending Iran's case to the U.N. Security Council. The International Atomic Energy Agency's governing board meet on Sept. 19 in Vienna to discuss Iran's nuclear programme. Rafsanjani called on the United States and the Europeans to avoid adopting "illogical" measures at the IAEA meeting. "If they make immature decisions or implement their threats, Iran will not be the only country to be harmed," he said in a sermon broadcast live on state radio. "It is our sovereign right to obtain atomic technology for peaceful purposes." 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. Rafsanjani, head of the Expediency Council which arbitrates on legislative disputes, accused the United States of trying to create a negative atmosphere about Iran. "The world knows that we have nothing to hide. But Americans are making a fuss over it," Rafsanjani told worshippers who chanted "death to America". Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, attending a U.N. meeting in New York next week, is expected to present a new proposal to resolve Iran's nuclear stand-off with the West. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 Reuters: ANALYSIS-Iran readies for UN nuclear battle with EU, US Fri Sep 9, 2005 7:43 AM ET By Louis Charbonneau BERLIN, Sept 9 (Reuters) - Iran is working hard to gather allies to defeat a joint effort by the European Union and Washington to refer Tehran to the U.N. Security Council because of their fears it may be developing nuclear weapons. The 35 nations on the governing board of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), meet on Sept. 19 to discuss Iran's nuclear programme and the EU wants it to report Tehran to the highest body of the United Nations. EU and U.S. diplomats are lobbying key members of the IAEA to send Iran's case to the Security Council after it resumed uranium processing activities at Isfahan last month, a facility that had been mothballed under a November 2004 agreement with the EU's three biggest powers, France, Britain and Germany. Washington and the EU trio believe Iran is amassing the capability to develop nuclear weapons and have called on Tehran to abandon its uranium enrichment programme, which could be used to produce fuel for either nuclear energy or weapons. But Iran, which insists its atomic ambitions are peaceful, refuses to give up what it says is its sovereign right to a full nuclear programme and has begun its own lobbying effort to keep the matter out of the hands of the Security Council. "They (the EU and U.S.) have to realize that they cannot talk to Iran with a language of force," Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, told reporters this week on returning from Pakistan, where he put his case to top officials. "Many countries will sustain a loss if Iran's nuclear dossier is securitized (by the Council)," Larijani warned. EU diplomats said Iran was focusing its lobbying efforts on key IAEA board members such as China, Russia, India, Pakistan, South Africa and other non-aligned developing states, which have a good deal of sympathy for Tehran's arguments. NOT LAST WORD Despite opposition from Russia, China and other states, the EU and the United States want the powerful U.N. Council involved to ensure that Iran's nuclear ambitions are finally recognised as one of the key global security issues. This is something the IAEA, a non-political technical agency that accounts for countries' nuclear materials, cannot do. "We (the EU3) 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, a senior German negotiator in the EU-Iran talks, said in Berlin this week. British and other EU officials made similar declarations. Russia said this week it opposed a Security Council referral but some diplomats and analysts doubt this is Moscow's last word. "As long as the EU and the U.S. are serious about Iran, the Russians will be serious too," said former CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack, an Iran expert at the U.S. Brookings Institute. But he said he had serious doubts about the ability of the divided IAEA board to take a firm and unanimous stand on Iran this month. Those doubts are shared by officials of the EU3, which has tried for two years to get Iran to give up parts of its nuclear programme in return for economic and trade rewards. "There's no guarantee it will succeed," an EU official said. Luedeking said the aim of a Security Council referral would not automatically be to trigger sanctions. Rather, the Council could use its authority to demand that Iran resume negotiations with the EU3 and the suspension of its uranium enrichment programme that it ended last month, he said. IRAN PREPARES NEW PROPOSAL Next week in New York, on the sidelines of a U.N. summit of world leaders, Iran's new hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will show U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan a new proposal to resolve Iran's atomic stand-off with the West. "This proposal will be submitted right before the IAEA board meeting and could lead to calls that Iran not be sent to the Security Council until the proposal has been studied closely," a diplomat told Reuters in Berlin this week. "This is Iran's strategy to delay a U.N. referral," he said. Citing intelligence gathered by his country, the diplomat, who declined to have him or his country identified, said the proposal would call for expanding the negotiations with the Europeans to include countries more sympathetic to Iran's cause, specifically Russia, China, India or South Africa. Regardless of Iran's new proposal, EU officials have said there can be no more talks without a full enrichment suspension. But they acknowledged that the non-aligned developing countries, which make up around a third of the IAEA board, would prefer to delay any Security Council referral of the Iran issue. "We are trying to persuade them otherwise," an official from one of the EU trio said this week. (Additional reporting by Paul Taylor in Brussels, Paul Hughes in Tehran and Madeline Chambers in London) © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 9 Xinhua: Success of six-party talks hinges on joint document - Russia www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-09-09 21:29:24 MOSCOW, Sept. 9 (Xinhuanet) -- The success of the fourth around ofsix-party talks on the nuclear issue of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) hinges on the adoption of a joint document, Russia's chief negotiator said Friday. "Approval by all the sides of a joint document on the principles and ways leading to the demilitarization of the Korean Peninsula ... would mean a success of the fourth round's continuation," Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alexeyev, who ledthe Russian delegation to the talks in Beijing last month, told the Itar-Tass news agency. The current round of talks, which gathered officials from the six countries involved -- China, the DPRK, the United States, South Korea, Russia and Japan -- in Beijing for 13 days last month, is now taking a recess. China announced Thursday the talks will resume Tuesday in Beijing and be open-ended. The Russian negotiator said the talks will be time-consuming and that two or three problems remain unsettled due to serious differences between the DPRK and the United States, which "caused a break in the talks and entailed consultations in their respective capitals." "Everybody is going to the negotiations with a certain degree of optimism, hoping that in the long run it will be possible to settle all the remaining problems" during the fourth round of talks, Alexeyev said. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 Japan Times: Position on North Korea unchanged Friday, September 9, 2005 Staff report Tokyo will maintain its stance of demanding complete abolition of North Korea's nuclear arms program during the six-party talks that are to resume next week, but is not yet sure whether the new round will lead to any substantial developments, the top government spokesman said Thursday. China officially announced earlier in the day that the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear ambitions will resume Tuesday in Beijing, with no closing date set. "We don't know yet," Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda told a regular news conference Thursday when asked if Tokyo expects substantial developments in the already extended talks with North Korea. "Much depends on North Korea's intentions, which are not known yet," he said. Hosoda added that Tokyo has not been informed yet by the U.S. or any other of the participants in the six-party talks EChina, Russia, South Korea and North Korea Eof the prospects for the new round. He also said Japan will continue to try to hold bilateral talks with the North Korean side during the six-way forum to discuss issues related to the abduction of Japanese nationals by North Korean agents, one of the thorny problems that have prevented between Tokyo and Pyongyang from establishing diplomatic relations. The Japan Times: Sept. 9, 2005 (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 11 Korea Times: Resumption of Six-Party Talks Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Opinion Pyongyang Should Sincerely Work to Resolve Nuclear Crisis The rickety six-party nuclear negotiations will be resumed in Beijing on Tuesday, five weeks after their recess. The discussions should have been reconvened by the end of last month, as agreed upon among the participants in the talks, which were resumed in late July, 13 months after their suspension. Once again, the North demonstrated its unreliability by refusing to return to the negotiating table in protest of Washington¡¯s appointment of a special envoy for monitoring human rights in the North and a joint military drill between South Korea and the United States. But the real purpose of its protest is to force the Bush administration to yield to its demand for civilian nuclear facilities. It seems that the communist regime will return to the six-party negotiations in a better bargaining position, as it is reported the U.S. is poised to accept its demand on terms less strict than previously called for. Specifically, Washington is willing to permit Pyongyang to run its nuclear facilities for peaceful purposes, such as generating energy, if the North re-joins the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) immediately after the complete dismantlement of nuclear weapons-related facilities. The position the U.S. has now is that the North will realize its peaceful nuclear use after it wins the trust and confidence of the global community by allowing U.N. nuclear inspections after the disposal of all such facilities and re-joining of the NPT. Now, what has emerged as the most glaring impediment to the progress of the six-party talks aimed at finding a peaceful resolution to the nuclear stalemate between Pyongyang and Washington is the North¡¯s request that the participants build light water nuclear reactors. The four other participants _ Seoul, Beijing, Tokyo and Moscow _ agree in principle on helping the North build light water reactors in place of its graphite-moderate reactors which make it easier to produce plutonium, the main ingredient of nuclear warheads, through reprocessing spent fuel rods. But they are divided over the issue of when the North should be allowed to operate its current nuclear facilities for peaceful purposes. No matter how the matter is resolved, the North ought to show sincerity at the coming multilateral negotiations to settle the nuclear stalemate. In particular, the North needs to cooperate with the other participants to bring about at a minimum a ¡°statement of principles¡± on a diplomatic settlement of the nuclear dispute. Otherwise, the six-party nuclear negotiations will be threatened, thus perpetuating tensions and instability on the peninsula. 09-09-2005 20:38 ***************************************************************** 12 Reuters: US promotes S. Korea offer of electricity for North Fri Sep 9, 2005 6:43 PM ET WASHINGTON, Sept 9 (Reuters) - Fuel-starved North Korea could be hooked up to South Korea's electrical grid within three years if it agreed to abandon its nuclear ambitions, chief U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill said on Friday. Speaking before the resumption of six-country talks on Tuesday in Beijing, Hill said he did not know if media reports of a toughened Pyongyang position are true but his delegation would keep its focus on the core issue of halting Pyongyang's nuclear programs. "Our position has been very clear on this. North Korea needs to get out of the nuclear business," Hill, assistant secretary of state for Asia and Pacific Affairs, told a news briefing. Although the North insists any deal must recognize its right to a civilian nuclear energy program, Hill said South Korea's offer to provide conventionally-generated electricity is the best solution. "In some two-and-a-half to three years, they could have new electricity being generated into towns and villages and cities in the DPRK," he said, using the initials of the North's official name, Democratic People's Republic of Korea. "So if this is about energy, we've got a very good proposal for that. This would really meet their capacity needs. We don't see any reason to go and develop additional capacity, especially through such very difficult and extremely expensive projects as nuclear energy," Hill added. In its first term, President George W. Bush's administration repeatedly insisted it would never reward Pyongyang for its what it called its "bad behavior" of producing nuclear arms. But Hill's talk about the speed with which the North could enjoy significant benefits from a nuclear deal put an emphasis on inducements. NUCLEAR WEAPONS The goal of the talks is to "get the DPRK out of the nuclear business ... and we're doing that with a package of proposals that address what we believe are the issues that they want to address," he said. The six-party talks resume after a month-long break. Hill plans to leave Washington Sunday for preliminary discussions in Seoul, arriving in Beijing on Tuesday afternoon. The negotiations are projected to last about a week, Hill said, but "my view is we'll be there as long as it's useful to be there." The six parties -- host China, Russia, Japan, the United States and the two Koreas -- have agreed in principle that the Korean peninsula must be free of nuclear weapons but analysts say North Korea and the United States remain far apart on key issues, including whether Pyongyang has a right to a civilian nuclear program. Under a 1994 accord the North agreed to freeze its nuclear weapons programs in return for a promise by the Clinton adminstration to build two light-water nuclear power reactors considered less susceptible to being used to create nuclear weapons material. The Bush administration always hated the deal because it felt Pyongyang could not be trusted. It fell apart after the United States in 2002 accused the North of pursuing covert weapons-related uranium enrichment program and Bush officials have insisted it will not be revived. Hill said a two-and-a-half page fourth draft of a statement of principles proposed by China remained the focus of the talks. While the United States considers it a good basis for agreement, Hill said he would suggest some changes. He gave no details. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 13 [NukeNet] e- vote on nukes MSN Money - CNBC TV: Investing Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:45:43 -0700 SUBJ_GROUP,URI_REDIRECTOR,WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) The pro-nukes are leading -- It seems you have to send an email to vote... http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV/Promos/P129167.asp?ShowResults=1&HasVotedTwice= a03fd.jpg MSN HomeMy MSNHotmailShoppingMoneyPeople & ChatSign InWeb Search: a0403.jpgMoneySearch MSN Money:a040c.jpgHelp Home News Banking Investing Planning Taxes My Money Portfolio Loans Insurance Investing Home Portfolio Markets Stocks Funds ETFs Commentary Brokers CNBC TV a0415.jpg a041b.jpg a0421.jpg More of CNBC L I V E V O T E RESULTS Total Votes: 131 Are you in favor of nuclear power as a source of energy? Yes a0430.jpg 89% No a0438.jpg 11% Votes tallied every 60 seconds. Read Squawk Box's blog Join the Squawk Box Message Board E-mail your comments on today's Squawk Box Poll Do you favor nuclear power? 'Squawk Box' wants to know whether the U.S. should build more nuclear reactors. The nuclear power industry could get a lift from the energy bill signed by President Bush. The legislation gives tax credits to utilities that operate reactors, guarantees loans taken out to pay for reactors, and subsidizes risk insurance. But basic concerns remain, particularly over the question of where to put the radioactive waste. Do you favor nuclear power? Register your vote, and e-mail "Squawk Box" to explain your thoughts. And watch CNBC's "Squawk Box" at 9:10 a.m. ET on Monday as guests debate nuclear power. Read more from CNBC.com: Stock picks: PepsiCo, Motorola Video: Apple unveils new iPod Stock picks: Gilead Sciences, Anadarko Petroleum MSN Money Search MSN Money | Message Boards | Site Status | Site Map If you have a comment or question about a show, you can call CNBC Viewer Services at 877-251-5685, or send an e-mail message directly to your favorite show from our Email CNBC page. a0444.jpg a044f.jpg © 2005 MicrosoftMSN PrivacyLegalAdvertiseFeedbackHelp _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net Attachment Converted: a03fd.jpg: 00000001,1f310475,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: a0403.jpg: 00000001,1f310476,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: a040c.jpg: 00000001,1f310477,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: a0415.jpg: 00000001,1f310478,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: a041b.jpg: 00000001,1f310479,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: a0421.jpg: 00000001,1f31047a,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: a0430.jpg: 00000001,1f31047b,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: a0438.jpg: 00000001,1f31047c,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: a0444.jpg: 00000001,1f31047d,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: a044f.jpg: 00000001,1f31047e,00000000,00000000 ***************************************************************** 14 Deccan Herald: US moves gingerly on nuke ties with India From L K Sharma DH News Service Washington: The Bush administration has begun to feel its way around the legislative jungle in order to reach the goal of civilian nuclear cooperation with India. President George Bush will have to invest some political capital in order to secure Congressional co-operation for implementing his plan for civil nuclear ties with India. The administration has yet to take a draft legislation before Congress to remove the legal hurdles. It told a Congressional committee that it was considering different options. Several rounds of consultations are being planned. After the first of the Congressional hearings on the contentious issue, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns said he found the Congressmen supportive. Vigorous defence He and Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Robert Joseph testified before the Congressional committee and answered a series of questions. They presented a vigorous defence of the deal struck between President George Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in July. They argued that it was in Americas national interest to have a new close partnership with India and to incorporate it in an informal international non-proliferation regime as a responsible nuclear power. While the sarkari experts attached to think tanks and anti-nuclear activists have objected to the deal on the ground that it would undermine the US non-proliferation strategy, the officials argued that the step taken by Bush will promote non-proliferation. The arms control strategy demanded a practical approach and the commitments made by India were a step towards the objective of non-proliferation, they said. The two officials promised intense consultations with Congressmen some of whom felt ignored since the deal was truck without any prior consultations with them. The State Department officials reported constant interaction with their Indian counterparts as well as with the fellow members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group whose co-operation will be needed to relax the export restrictions. Reaction They reported that the UK and Russia were very positive, while some other countries were either critical or were raising questions. China was in the second category. The pace of this effort and our ability to build a consensus in the Nuclear Suppliers Group relies on timely implementation of Indian steps. The President and the Prime Minister have agreed that they will review the progress when the President visits India in early 2006, the committee was informed. They clarified: The US does not and will not support Indias nuclear weapons programme. Our initiative with India in no way recognises India as a NPT nuclear weapons state and we will not seek to renegotiate the NPT. We remain cognisant of and will fully support all our obligations under the NPT. We remain committed to universal adherence. Copyright 2005, The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd., 75, M.G. Road, Post Box No 5331, Bangalore - 560001 Tel: +91 (80) 25880000 Fax No. +91 (80) 25880523 ***************************************************************** 15 Deccan Herald: US says no to Pak demand From L K Sharma DH News Service WASHINGTON: Pakistan too wants US nuclear technology but the Bush administration says India’s case is “uniqueâ€. In a bold diplomatic move, Pakistan demanded access to US civilian nuclear technology but within hours got a negative response from the Bush administration. Still recovering from the damage caused by the Khan Nuclear Superstore, Islamabad approached the Bush administration through the media and a US Congressman. Just before the first Congressional hearing on the US-India nuclear deal, Pakistani ambassador Jehangir Karamat gave an interview to AP saying the US should give to Pakistan whatever nuclear wares it was planning to give to India. Mr Karamat perhaps also wanted to take the temperature of the Congressional committee after the Pakistani foreign minister held the first publicised meeting with his Israeli counterpart. A mention of this was made by a Congressman. During the hearing, Representative Dan Burton was quick to plead Pakistans case and demanded an answer by the two senior State Department officials testifying before the Congressional committee. The committee was told that the administration was not planning to give equal treatment to India and Pakistan in this regard. The message was conveyed by Mr Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and Mr Robert Joseph, Under Secretary of of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs. We have not given consideration to extending this type of cooperation to Pakistan, Mr Joseph said. Two reasons were cited. Pakistan does not have the same energy requirements as India and its nuclear power programme was not significant. The other reason was Pakistans nonproliferation record. They said it gently without referring to the Khan network! They had made the point even in their written statements by referring to India as a responsible nuclear state but the Congressman who has always pleaded Pakistans case, did not take the hint. When they said that India was unique and that an exception was being made in its case, their precise objective was to discourage Pakistan and other friends to start lining up outside the White House asking for nuclear technology while promising not to steal in future. This is one context in which the US has departed from the tradition of treating Pakistan and India in a similar fashion. It remains to be seen whether the chilling words of the Pakistani ambassador will make a difference. When Gen Pervez Musharraf usurped power after a military coup his foreign minister was in Washington warning that unless the new ruler was supported, Pakistans nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists. Military experts had also noted that it was the possession of the nuclear bomb that encouraged Pakistan to launch an attack on Kargil. Demanding the nuclear technology, the Pakistani ambassador, who was the Army Chief earlier, warned that the balance of power in South Asia should not become so tilted in Indias favour...that Pakistan has to start taking extraordinary measures to ensure a capability for deterrence and defence. He did not spell out what the extraordinary measures will be but perhaps hoped that after his threat conveyed through an American news agency, a senior Bush official left for Islamabad with an offer of nuclear cooperation with Pakistan. Mr Karamat said: Whatever legislation is made, it shouldnt be a specific, one-time affair just for India. It should leave the door open for other countries that meet the same criteria, and show good responsibility, and satisfy the United States concerns. His plea was backed by Representative Burton who told the two State Department officials who reminded them that Pakistan has been doing everything it can do to help America. They helped us during the Cold War. Theyve been our friend forever. The Bush administration is not in a mood to withdraw its offer to India just because Pakistan too wants it. But the friends of India in the Congressional committee were far from shocked that one of their colleagues wanted to reward the Khan Network State with nuclear technology. Copyright 2005, The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd., 75, M.G. Road, Post Box No 5331, Bangalore - 560001 Tel: +91 (80) 25880000 Fax No. +91 (80) 25880523 ***************************************************************** 16 Rediff: CIA asked Dutch govt not to act against A Q Khan PTI September 09, 2005 11:40 IST Former Dutch Premier Ruud Lubbers has said that the Netherlands government, in 1975 and in 1986, had refrained from acting against disgraced Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadir Khan following requests from the United States Central Intelligence Agency, media reports said. A Q Khan transferred centrifuges to N Korea Dutch newspapers, Telegraaf, NRC Handelsblad, and Radio ARGOS quoted Lubbers as saying that BVD, the Dutch intelligence agency, had also asked the ministry of economic affairs in 1975, then headed by him, not to act against Khan. "I think the American intelligence agency put into practice what is very common there; just give us all the information. And do not arrest that man; just let him go ahead. We will have him followed and that way gain more information," Lubbers told VPRO Argos Radio in an interview. According to the interview transcript, he asked, "what are we doing here? We have watched this man for 10 years already. Apparently, he is up to some fairly serious things. .... And again I'm told: No, just leave it to the intelligence agencies. .... Yes, in hindsight that is very stupid indeed." Pak refuses US access to A Q Khan The economic affairs ministry, then headed by Lubbers, had in its purview Urenco, the uranium enrichment firm in Almelo where Khan worked in 1975 when suspicions about his spying had arisen in the Dutch government circles. Asked when did he first hear Khan's name, Lubbers said Khan was "a young Pakistani who works there (Urenco) and there are indications that he is doing things he shouldn't. He takes home information and copies it. And we have to sort that out. And maybe deny him entry from now on." Lubbers, who later rose to become the prime minister of the Netherlands, also said, "I seem to recall from those days that I had once asked whether it is sufficient to merely deny him entry or should we do  more. The answer I was given at that time was that the American intelligence agency preferred not to arrest the man but to have him followed." Complete Coverage: Pakistan's nuclear bazaar In the radio interview, he maintained that Khan was "caught in the act" by the security regime in Urenco which "reported it to the BVD. The BVD reported it to its counterpart in Washington. "The counterpart in Washington then follows a course that amounts to: let him go and we will gain more information. And that is where things start to go wrong," Lubbers said. The Dutch newspapers, Telegraaf and NRC Handelsblad, also reported that the matter was debated in the Netherlands Parliament and that a Dutch businessman appeared before the local courts on charges of trying to supply parts for nuclear bombs to Khan. 7333: The Latest News on Your Mobile! © Copyright 2005 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or Copyright © 2005 rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 17 Guardian Unlimited: Blair backs improved nuclear cooperation with India Michael White in Delhi Friday September 9, 2005 The Guardian Tony Blair yesterday endorsed George Bush's decision to extend nuclear technology cooperation with India in order to help it meet its growing energy needs. In July the White House was criticised for agreeing to sell nuclear components to India as part of Washington's global partnership initiative to extend its reach in Asia. But India is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and the five acknowledged military nuclear powers are obliged to restrict any help they give for civil nuclear programmes in such countries. Mr Bush was accused of giving de facto recognition to India as the world's sixth such power. Mr Blair endorsed Washington's stance during private talks with India's prime minister Manmohan Singh. When the two men later spoke to reporters about their ambitions for improved bilateral cooperation, Mr Singh singled out what he called India's "atomic energy needs" and the hope that the rules could be modified to give his country access to the right technology. "The prime minister was very supportive of India's concern in this regard," Mr Singh said. Standing at his side, Mr Blair nodded. India has agreed to Washington's request to separate its military and civilian nuclear programme as all "respectable" nuclear powers do and has agreed to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. But it was not required to sign the nuclear test ban treaty and is not bound by the NPT's restrictions either. Pakistan's recent admission that its leading nuclear scientist gave away nuclear secrets has increased fears that the non-proliferation regime is breaking down. Washington's concession to India, which it is using to balance China, comes at a time when it is seeking to curb the nuclear ambitions of Iran and - almost certainly too late - North Korea. Yesterday's talks, the second between the two leaders but with Mr Blair this time wearing his UK not EU presidency hat took place on the much-filmed hotel island at Udaipur - used in the James Bond Octopussy film - after being transferred from the old British hill station resort of Simla which was closed to helicopters because of low cloud. Security during Mr Blair's two-day visit has been intense because of the controversy he generated, particularly among Muslims, by supporting the US-led invasion of Iraq. Indian reporters challenged him on his strategy yesterday and he stood his ground. His wife, Cherie Blair, also risked controversy when she told women journalists in Delhi that, though Islam is a fascinating religion, the "anachronistic" way in which it is interpreted in some countries with regard to women's rights does it some harm. In a more light-hearted admission, she said that as a teenager she had dreamed of marrying an Indian prince. As for her husband's policies, she said: "Publicly I have never differed on any of the British government's policies. In most cases I support my husband's policies. But if I were to say whatever my husband did was excellent or good it would mean that either he is a saint or I am subservient. I am not subservient." [UP] Guardian Unlimited ¿ Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 18 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Summit to Give Leaders 'Face Time' From the Associated Press [UP] Friday September 9, 2005 10:01 AM AP Photo NY107 By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer UNITED NATIONS (AP) - A key attraction for leaders from more than 170 countries attending next week's U.N. summit is ``face time'' - that rare opportunity to look each other in the eye and talk about global hotspots from Nepal and central Africa to the Middle East. Secretary-General Kofi Annan asked heads of state and government to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the United Nations by adopting a sweeping blueprint for tackling the challenges of the 21st century and taking fresh action to fight global poverty. That will be the public focus of the Sept. 14-16 summit, the largest-ever gathering of world leaders. But Undersecretary-General Ibrahim Gambari said the main reason leaders come to U.N. summits and the annual ministerial meeting of the General Assembly is the rare chance to talk to each other and to the secretary-general in person about key issues. ``The leaders will have to respond to new as well as old threats to international peace and security,'' Gambari said Thursday. ``The new threats include terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, failed and failing states, and HIV/AIDS. The older ones range from the fight against poverty and disease to conflicts between states.'' The leaders are also certain to engage in some old-fashioned behind-the-scenes politicking on two fronts: expanding the powerful U.N. Security Council and choosing a new secretary-general to replace Annan, whose term ends on Dec. 31, 2006. It's supposed to be Asia's turn to choose a candidate, and at least one is expected to be at the summit, Thailand's Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai. In interviews last week and on Thursday, Gambari did a tour of the globe, talking about hotspots likely to be high on the agenda of the heads of state and government and their foreign ministers, who will stay on for the General Assembly's ministerial meeting from Sept. 17-28. In the Middle East, ministers from the so-called Quartet - the U.N., the U.S., the European Union and Russia - will meet on the summit sidelines to assess Israel's historic withdrawal from Gaza. They will focus on the difficulties in reviving the Palestinian economy and getting Israelis and Palestinians to return to the road map peace plan, Gambari said. Security will top the agenda in talks with Iraqi leaders and the United Nations will also be discussing help for the referendum on a new constitution and the elections to follow, he said. In talks with Iran's new President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the secretary-general will encourage him ``to really engage'' with the European Union, which is seeking to persuade Tehran to give up some nuclear activities that can be used to make weapons. The U.N. investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri - and the extent of Syria's cooperation - are also certain to be on some leaders' agendas. Sudan will be also in the spotlight, with many countries watching progress on implementing the peace agreement between the government and southern rebels following the death of rebel leader John Garang. They will also be trying to solve the conflict in western Darfur where peace talks are expected to resume next week. Elsewhere in Africa, there is concern Ivory Coast may not meet its October deadline for elections. If that happens, President Laurent Gbagbo will undoubtedly want to continue in power but rebels have called for an interim government, Gambari said. On Zimbabwe, the United Nations is struggling to reach agreement with President Robert Mugabe's government on an appeal for funds to help hundreds of thousands of people evicted from slums. Annan has indicated a willingness to visit Zimbabwe, and Gambari said the trip might be arranged during the summit. Gambari said the world body will consider how to help Somalia, where efforts to rebuild the failed state are ``unraveling'' and ``the prospect of resuming armed conflict is very real,'' he asked. In Asia, there is concern about the impact of another recent assassination - Sri Lanka's Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar - which raised tensions with Tamil rebels. The U.N. is also closely following Myanmar, trying to promote reforms in the military-ruled country, Gambari said. The six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program are scheduled to resume on the eve of the summit and Gambari said the U.N. needs to find ways to help meet the humanitarian needs of North Koreans. As for the possibility of renewed conflict between India and Pakistan, Gambari said he believes both countries are trying to make progress on the disputed region of Kashmir, the main flashpoint. ``Whatever can be done to promote good relations between India and Pakistan is good not only for both countries, the region, but for the world because they are declared nuclear powers,'' Gambari said. In Latin America, Gambari said leaders are concerned about recurring violence in Haiti, turbulence in the Andean region and Venezuela, threats to democratic governments and weak political institutions. In Europe, he said, prospects for renunification of Cyprus will be on the agenda but Annan is unlikely to relaunch his peace plan which was rejected by Greek Cypriots. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 19 Xinhua: Annan calls for compromises on document for UN summit www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-09-09 15:18:26 UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 8 (Xinhuanet) -- United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Thursday warned ambassadors to the UN of a failure of next week's UN summit if they could not make compromises and produce a solid draft outcome document for the largest gathering in the organization's history. "I really hope we don't get to that stage," said Annan in a joint interview with Xinhua and China Central Television. "I don't even want to contemplate the possibility of a failure." "This is a once in a generation opportunity and member states have to seize it and come up with a good outcome document that the heads of state can endorse," he said. A "core group," composed of the United States, Russia and 30 other nations, concluded another day of marathon negotiations on Thursday on the outcome document without any significant progress. The document, a blueprint for reforming the UN, calls for the creation of a peace building commission, establishment of a human rights council, recognition of the responsibility to protect civilians threatened with the risk of genocide, UN management reforms, among others. "There are very good ideas on the table and I think they will have to look at this in a broader context. If one stares at it in narrow national interests you can not move forward," he warned. "We have to look at it in the collective interest and try and make necessary compromises to move forward and I really expect the negotiations to do that," he stressed. Annan said he was disappointed that no progress had been made on the issue of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. "There is some consensus at the hall. But we don't seem to be able to come to an understanding as to how to move forward." He also repeated his call for support for reform of the UN's management after Paul Volcker, former US Federal Reserve chairman, released a new report on the investigation into the mismanagement and corruption in the oil-for-food program. "The outcome of that report is one more reason why we should press ahead with the reforms on the table and additional reforms may be needed," he said. When asked about whether opponents of the UN in the US would stop attacking the organization after the release of Volcker's report, Annan said: "Some of the critics will never stop, but reasonable men and women will know that we've done everything we can to find the truth and are going to take steps to correct that." "Those who are determined to destroy the UN and will attack me in the hope of getting to the UN will never stop," he predicted. "We accept fair and reasonable criticism, but those who go beyond the zone of reasonable and fair criticism and attack us unfairly, I don't think we should bother with them or let them bother us." Citing the UN's leading role in Asia tsunami relief campaign and the forthcoming summit, Annan rejected the assertion that the world organization is becoming irrelevant after the US led an invasion into Iraq without the UN's authorization. "We are the only one with such a convening power and legitimacyto get so many heads of state to attend a meeting of this sort and we are very actively engaged in the world apart from our peacekeeping operations and humanitarian efforts," he noted. The summit, which is slated for Sept. 14-16, is expected to bring together some 180 heads of state and government. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 20 Reuters: 63 nations to sign new UN nuclear terrorism treaty Fri Sep 9, 2005 2:53 AM ET UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Sixty-three nations have agreed to sign a new treaty against nuclear terrorism next week during a world summit in New York, U.N. Legal Counsel Nicolas Michel said on Thursday. The treaty, which would oblige governments to punish those who illegally possess atomic devices or radioactive materials, was approved by the 191-nation U.N. General Assembly on April 13 after seven years of drafting. The accord is first global anti-terrorism convention since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Called the "International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism," it is meant to stop clandestine networks from using or possessing nuclear weapons. Once it is opened for signature, it must then be ratified by at least 22 nations before it can become international law. Russia called for such a treaty in 1998 to keep nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorist groups. At the time, Alexander Lebed, then the Russian national security chief, said Moscow could not account for about 100 suitcase-sized nuclear arms. It obligates governments to prosecute or extradite individuals who possess radioactive materials or nuclear devices or those who threaten others while possessing such materials. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 21 PTI: US rejects Pak's demand for parity with India on nuclear pact outlookindia.com T V PARASURAM WASHINGTON, SEP 9 (PTI) Rejecting Pakistan's demand for parity with India in accessing civilian nuclear technology, the US has said that the landmark accord with New Delhi was a "mechanism to deepen" further its commitment to international non-proliferation. "We view India as an exceptional case, and see civil nuclear cooperation as a mechanism to deepen further India's commitment to international nonproliferation," Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert G Joseph said yesterday. His comments at the House International Relations Committee came close on the heels of Pakistan Ambassador Jehangir Karamat remarks that Islamabad should have the same access to US civilian nuclear technology as has been proposed by President George W Bush for India. Joseph said some countries have asked whether it might be possible for US to extend such cooperation to Israel and Pakistan--the only other two (de facto weapon) states that did not join the NPT, adding India, Israel and Pakistan are each unique and require different approaches. "Neither Pakistan nor Israel has a civil nuclear energy programme that approximates that of India. The United States has no plans to seek full civil nuclear cooperation with Israel or Pakistan," he said. Joseph said people have questioned the rationale behind inking a civil nuclear cooperation pact with India as it was not a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and have asked why a cap on India's production of fissile material for weapons was not part of the deal. He said the US recognise that India was a special case and see a clear need to come to terms with it. "India has informed us that it has no intention of becoming a party to the NPT as a non-nuclear state at this time. Despite this, it is important to seize this opportunity to assist India in becoming a more constructive partner in our global non-proliferation efforts," he said. Joseph also pointed out that Pakistan does not have the same energy requirements that India does and cited, without elaboration, Islamabad "non-proliferation record". This referred to the activities of the country's disgraced nuclear scientist A Q Khan's network which secretly provided nuclear weapons technology to Libya, Iran, North Korea and other countries. Karamat, Pakistan's former army chief, was quoted yesterday as saying that the "balance of power in South Asia should not become so tilted in India's favour, as a result of the US relationship with India, that Pakistan has to start taking extraordinary measures to ensure a capability for deterrence and defence." "Whatever legislation is made should'nt be a specific, one-time affair just for India but should leave the door open for other countries that meet the same criteria and show good responsibility and satisfy the United States' concerns. ©Outlook Publishing (India) Private Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 22 NRC: NRC Authorizes Restart of Waterford Nuclear Plant News Release - Region IV - 2005-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV No. IV-05-033 September 9, 2005 CONTACT: Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov plant near Taft, La. Workers are performing maintenance unrelated to the hurricane prior to initiating procedures leading to restart of the reactor. The plant shut down as a precautionary measure on Aug. 28 when a warning for Hurricane Katrina was issued for St. Charles Parish, La., where the plant is located. The plant was essentially undamaged by the storm, although it did lose offsite power and some communications systems were affected. NRC performed a readiness assessment to verify that the plant, its staff and onsite emergency preparedness are ready to support restart. NRC worked with other Federal agencies in their evaluation of the readiness of offsite emergency preparedness and response capabilities to support operation of the plant. Conditions are sufficiently stable to ensure that the plants emergency preparedness plans and procedures could be implemented should they be needed. The NRC has performed a comprehensive review of the plants readiness for restart, NRC Chairman Nils Diaz said. We are confident the plant can be operated safely. Once operational, Waterford will supply electricity to support recovery of the regional infrastructure. NRC and its licensees took aggressive and appropriate steps to prepare for Hurricane Katrina. NRC coordinated extensively with other Federal, State and local emergency response organizations before, during, and after the Katrina. From its inception, NRC headquarters and regional operations centers carefully tracked the status of Hurricane Katrina in the Atlantic Ocean and verified licensee preparedness and confirmed communications capability amongst emergency response organizations. NRC coordinated with its regional offices, other Federal agencies, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and State and local organizations and maintained close communications with its licensees throughout the passage of the storm. NRC also applied lessons learned from previous hurricanes and updated its communication and coordination protocols for determining offsite emergency preparedness for a natural disaster in advance of Hurricane Katrina. Last revised Friday, September 09, 2005 ***************************************************************** 23 RIA Novosti: Russian nuclear plants increase energy production by 3% in first two quarters of 2005 09/ 09/ 2005 MOSCOW, September 9 (RIA Novosti) - Russian Nuclear power plants (NPP) increased energy production from January-August of this year by 2.9% against the same period last year, the press-service of Rosenergoatom said Friday. The NPPs produced a total of 94.915 billion kilowatts/hour in the first eight months of 2005 with 11.130 billion kilowatts/hour in August alone, 184 million kilowatts/hour more than had been planned. The radiation background at the plants and neighboring territories complied with the normal exploitation of energy units and did not exceed natural figures. Russia operates 10 nuclear power plants with 31 energy units with a total output of 23.2 gigawatts. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 24 NRC: New Senior Resident Inspector Named at Indian Point 2 at the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant in Buchanan, N.Y. News Release - Region I - 2005-04 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-05-045 September 9, 2005 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov Entergy Northeast operates both Indian Point 2 and 3. The NRC has two inspectors assigned to each unit. Cox replaces Peter Habighorst who took a position at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, Md. Tom Hispchman and Brian Wittick are the NRC resident inspectors at Unit 3. "Mark Coxs experience and commitment to safety will help the NRC ensure that Indian Point 2 conducts operations with the highest safety standards to protect the public health and safety," said NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins Cox joined the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in May 2002 and was most recently assigned as the resident inspector at Indian Point 2. Previously, he served in the United States Navys nuclear program. He earned a bachelors of science degree in nuclear engineering and engineering physics from Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) in Troy, N.Y., and is currently pursuing a masters of science in electric power engineering from RPI. Each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has at least two NRC resident inspectors. They serve as the agency's eyes and ears at the facility, conducting regular inspections and monitoring significant work projects. The Indian Point 2 resident inspectors can be reached at 914/739-9360. Last revised Friday, September 09, 2005 ***************************************************************** 25 APP.COM: NRC reaching out to public on Oyster Creek permit Asbury Park Press Published in the Asbury Park Press 09/9/05 BY NEIL SHEEHAN The Aug. 27 editorial argues that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has, in your words, "stacked the deck" against those interested in a thorough review of the license renewal application for the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey. In essence, your newspaper contends that a 60-day window to request a hearing on the proposal is inadequate for a review of the application and the formulation of concerns. While we disagree with your characterization of our review process, the editorial also suffers from some missing context and several factual inaccuracies. I would like to highlight some facts involving the license renewal process in general and the Oyster Creek application in particular: It is true the period for seeking a hearing on the application will begin sometime in the near future and last roughly two months. However, the proposal was submitted to the NRC July 22 and made available on the agency's Web site (www.nrc.gov) July 28. People who are interested have had the ability to go online starting on that date, review the associated documents and determine whether they had any concerns pertaining to the two key areas scrutinized under the license renewal process: the managing of aging effects at the plant and the environmental impacts of an additional 20 years of operation. In addition, a paper copy of the application is available for review at the Lacey Branch of the Ocean County Library. The NRC staff had both hard copies and CD versions of the application available at our Aug. 24 public meeting in Lacey. We are making a concerted effort to get the application to the public in order to allow concerned stakeholders to review it and provide comments. The NRC has two resident inspectors at Oyster Creek and specialists who are constantly assessing the plant's performance. As with the license renewal application, their reports are available on the NRC's Web site. Members of the public for many years have had the ability to read those reports online and convey to the agency any concerns they might have with regard to safe operation of the facility. The suggestion that a 60-day hearing request period represents a "tight deadline" does not account for the fact that many branches of government use the same window for the handling of all manner of important reviews. A quick Internet search reveals several examples: The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection used such a time frame in 2003 when it sought comments on proposed stormwater controls. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency did the same for comments on proposed rules for reducing emissions from power plants. So did the Federal Aviation Administration for temporary flight restriction regulations in the vicinity of aerial demonstrations or major sporting events. Like other governmental entities, the NRC seeks to balance the need to provide the public with an opportunity for expressing concerns with the efficient and timely handling of licensing actions. With the experience of nearly three dozen now-completed license renewal reviews, we have found the 60-day period meets those objectives. The editorial asserts that the NRC should stretch out the deadline for hearing requests until the agency has issued its "preliminary findings" on the application. Some perspective is in order. Our time frame for reviewing license renewal applications is about 22 months if there is no hearing involved and roughly 30 months if one does take place. As noted, there are two primary areas of review for license renewal applications. Using the Millstone nuclear power plant as an example, the application for that plant was received on Jan. 22, 2004. The draft version of the NRC's environmental impact report for that Connecticut site was not issued until Dec. 3, 2004. Meanwhile, our initial version of the Safety Evaluation Report for the facility, which looked at aging management for key safety systems, was not issued until Feb. 24, 2005. Extending the hearing request window by more than a year would be neither practical nor prudent. The editorial also recommends that the NRC defer any decision on the Oyster Creek application until the rules governing license renewals can be broadened to include other areas, such as emergency planning and spent fuel storage and transportation. The NRC has received petitions seeking to make such changes to our regulations. The agency has an established, proven process for evaluating such requests. But to hold our review of the Oyster Creek application in abeyance while that process plays out would, again, be neither practical nor prudent. It's worth noting that the rules on license renewal were developed over many years, with input from the public, government officials and industry. We maintain that they capture those elements essential to safe operation during an extension period. Other aspects of plant operation have been and will continue to be inspected on an ongoing basis. An assertion that the NRC has repeatedly resisted efforts "not mandated by law" to improve the safety margins at Oyster Creek, or to respond to concerns about the plant remaining in service for another two decades, is simply not true. The NRC is always searching for ways to enhance nuclear plant safety and performance. For instance, we issued a series of orders following the 9/11 attacks that have led to a great strengthening of plant security programs. The agency strives, through its inspection program, to ensure there is no degradation in the significant safety margins already in place. The NRC has and will continue to respond to concerns about extending the plant's license. Anyone who attended our Aug. 24 public meeting on the review process would have learned a great deal about the many ways in which we seek input. Neil Sheehan is a public affairs officer for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Copyright © 2005 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 26 record online: Katrina raises Indian Point safety issue www.recordonline.com September 9, 2005 Buchanan With the federal government under fire for its response to Hurricane Katrina, a New York congresswoman is asking Washington officials to review emergency evacuation plans for the Indian Point nuclear power plant in Buchanan. In a letter to Federal Emergency Management Agency director Michael Brown, Rep. Sue Kelly, R-Katonah, requested agency staff meet with state and local officials in the five counties surrounding the nuclear facility to discuss how a disaster at the plant would be handled. "The response to Hurricane Katrina has spurred serious debate over the federal government's ability to work with state and local governments to quickly and effectively respond to a serious disaster event," including one at Indian Point, Kelly wrote. FEMA officials in Washington did not immediately return calls seeking comment. Jim Steets, a spokesman for Indian Point's owner, Entergy Nuclear Northeast, welcomed the suggestion. "It will take some time to figure out whether any lesson from (Hurricane Katrina) would be applicable to a nuclear plant situation," Steets said. "But it's clearly something that we should be cognizant of to see whether there are improvements to be made." Record Online is brought to you by the Times Herald-Record, serving New York's Hudson Valley and the Catskills. 40 Mulberry Street * PO Box 2046 * Middletown, NY 10940 Telephone 845-341-1100 or 800-295-2181 outside the Middletown, N.Y., area. CopyrightOrange County Publications. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 27 Daily Times: EDITORIAL: Give Pakistan civilian nuclear technology! Saturday, September 10, 2005 Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, General (retd) Jehangir Karamat, said in Washington that Pakistan “should have the same access to US civilian nuclear technology that President Bush has proposed for India”. He then went on to take exception to the Indo-US defence pact that will tilt the balance of power in India’s favour, which might compel Pakistan “to start taking extraordinary measures to ensure a capability for deterrence and defence.” This immediately brought a repartee from the audience that India and Pakistan were poised to get into a nuclear arms race, producing more nuclear weapons than they needed, thus acquiring more nuclear warheads than possessed by France and the United Kingdom. President George Bush is going ahead with legislation that would allow the US to export nuclear technology to India despite the fact that India is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The Pakistani ambassador is of the opinion that the forthcoming legislation should not be country-specific but should similarly exempt other non-signatory states (Pakistan, Israel) “provided they meet the same criteria as India”. The answer from the other side is that India is different from Pakistan in that it has democracy and has not indulged in the smuggling of lethal nuclear parts like Pakistan’s “national hero” scientist, Dr AQ Khan. Once India is exempted from the technology-export ban, it will open its civilian nuclear programme to full inspections by the IAEA. Pakistan can also submit itself to the same regime if it too is exempted from the ban. It may have a bad record with regard to its pledge not to export nuclear weapons technology, but it has come a long way from the period when people like AQ Khan operated without any let or hindrance. In fact, its policy of normalisation with India — more crucial than perhaps the world realises — will serve to strike at the very root of why Pakistan needed to have the bomb in the first place. India’s record on democracy may be impressive but Pakistan’s turnaround after 2001 is in many ways more important. It has put itself squarely in the middle of a global effort to stamp out terrorism and has rolled back those policies that had propelled it towards international isolation and dangerous internal trends. At the present moment it stands on the verge of an economic revival that should serve to take the Pakistani mind away from military insecurity. It is planning together with India and Iran to provide against future energy shortages that South Asia will face if the regional economies take off. Because of the nuclear ban, both India and Pakistan have not been able to keep abreast of their demand for electricity. Both deserve to be encouraged to go down the economic road that will bring relief to their hungry masses. It would be dangerous to leave Pakistan out of the civilian nuclear deal, and unwise to let it feel once again that “balance of power” in the region can be maintained through economic sacrifice. Another reason why the US must think of giving Pakistan civilian nuclear technology is Pakistan’s failure to develop an internal consensus on the management of its water resources to produce cheap electricity. Unfortunately India may not be persuaded under the Indus Water Treaty to divert waters belonging to it. This leaves Pakistan only the nuclear option in the field of energy. This means that as long as the ban is in place it has to make even nuclear electricity stealthily. But if nuclear technology for energy is made available in return for full-scope safeguards on civilian nuclear plants, this will help Pakistan come out of the closet. Sale of dangerous nuclear weapons technology is possible at all times when a state is under an economic crunch. As it is, the US is thinking of giving Pakistan a lot of military equipment including some 100 F-16 warplanes to maintain the “balance of power” in the region. All this will come to naught if India is exempted from the ban and civilian nuclear technology is made available to it and not to Pakistan. More complications will be introduced into the international nuclear control regime if other nuclear powers start reconsidering the ban. For instance, it would be natural for China to reconsider its decision to exercise restraint with regard to nuclear technology export to Pakistan. A lot of positive developments are taking place in Pakistan to transform it into a “normal” cooperative state in the world community. A fair and even-handed approach by the US at this stage would help it along that road. * EDITORIAL #2: That faint feeling at the UN For those already singing dirges about the post-cold war future of the United Nations, another fatal blow has been delivered by the Independent Inquiry Committee headed by US ex-chairman Federal Reserve Board, Paul Volcker. It has held, among others, the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, responsible for mismanaging a $64 billion UN oil-for-food programme for Iraq. The committee has more or less exonerated Secretary General Annan of direct personal culpability, but in return it has got from him the confession that he was remiss in his scrutiny of what was going on. In his apology, he has even made a reference to his son whose company benefited from the oil-for-food Iraqi programme under Saddam Hussein. Whatever may be the circumstances in Iraq at the time the programme was running there — the oil-bearing north was under American control and there was smuggling to Jordan under American watch — the fact is that Saddam Hussein was able to pocket $1.8 billion as kickbacks from companies that he was allowed a free hand to choose. He made another $8.4 billion from smuggling from 1997 to 2003. The UN has suffered a severe blow in retrospect. The authority of dispute mediation carried out by UN special envoy Benon Sevan — now found directly guilty — has been weakened. The strong rightwing opinion in America against the UN has won a crucial battle. And the fact that President George Bush inclines to that view bodes ill for the international organisation after “reforms” dictated by the UN-hating US permanent representative to the UN, John Bolton. The current secretary general has become a lame duck, and for a long time future secretary generals will be less proactive about international crises and more worried about housekeeping and accounting. * Daily Times - All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 28 Indian Express: Nuclear is in! Capacity can be added and priced competitively Posted online: Saturday, September 10, 2005 at 0000 hours IST The atomic energy department’s proposal to set up around 3,400 mw of new generation capacity is an incremental move at a time when we need large initiatives in the nuclear domain. At present, nuclear power is a mere 2.5% of overall installed power generation capacity. But stepping on the nuclear pedal requires more than simply placing a few projects on the table from time to time. So, how do we accelerate nuclear capacity addition at competitive pri-ces? For a start, place bulk orders as against project-specific orders, as is the current practice. This will not only reduce procurement cycles, but also pare capital costs. Real gains can be extracted by reducing the project construction period, where we have fared dismally. Globally, it is around four years and is dropping. The gains can be huge, since nuclear plants envisage high capital costs and reducing the construction time will pare interest cost and consequently the rates. Public-private partnerships can help, as these would incorporate best-in-class project management skills. Competitiveness of nuclear power is definitely on the ascend with rising coal and gas prices. Recent disclosures by a US utility shows that nuclear power becomes cheaper than coal within a few years of operation. However, notwithstanding the favourable economics and advances in safety technology, nuclear power is fraught with risks. The best way to ensure a check on risks is to list nuclear companies on the stock exchange, as is common in Europe. Resource constraints can be overcome by divesting minority stakes in the existing capacity. And, the lure to invest in existing plants is greater than in the case of coal or gas for nuclear plants live longer, twice longer than coal plants. There is, however, a caveat. What if uranium reserves become scarce or if the inflamed fuel prices spread to uranium, a fuel we import? We, therefore, need to lock into long-term contracts at fixed prices in the global uranium market and quickly commercialise fast-breeder reactors that operate on thorium, a substance found abundantly in the country. © 2005: Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd. All ***************************************************************** 29 Mos News: Russia to Build World’s First Floating Nuclear Power Station for $200,000 - MONEY - MOSNEWS.COM Image from www.narod.ru Created: 09.09.2005 11:54 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 12:00 MSK MosNews Russia’s Federal Nuclear Energy Agency has made a decision to build a low capacity floating nuclear power plant (FNPP), the first project of its kind in the world. The plant will be small and will produce roughly 1/150th of the power produced by a standard Russian nuclear power plant. Construction could begin in 2006 if the project finds financing. The mini-station will be located in the White Sea, off the coast of the town of Severodvinsk (in the Arkhangelsk region in northern Russia). It will be moored near the Sevmash plant, which is the main facility of the State Nuclear Shipbuilding Center. The FNPP will be equipped with two power units using KLT-40S reactors. The plant will meet all of Sevmash’s energy requirements for just 5 or 6 cents per kilowatt. If necessary, the plant will also be able to supply heat and desalinate seawater. “If conditions are favorable, the floating plant could be operational in four to five years’ time,” said Yevgeny Kuzin, general director of the joint-stock company Malaya Energetika. By “conditions” Kuzin, who is the project leader, means funding. The small nuclear power station will cost about $200,000. Kuzin says that it will be hard to secure the necessary money. Russian businessmen have become used to making quick returns on their investments, and few are prepared to wait for long-term returns. Yet there are still some businessmen who break the mold and are aware of the benefits of taking a longer-term perspective. And the concept of the FNPP is very promising. Small FNPPs would be a blessing for the Russian regions adjoining the Arctic Ocean. These areas lack centralized energy supplies, and an FNPP would be an independent source of energy. It is specifically this feature of the Russian technological innovation that is attracting attention abroad: Indonesia, Malaysia, and China have all shown interest in the project. The plant off the coast of Severodvinsk will therefore also act as a prototype that can be seen by potential foreign customers. The steps for implementing FNPP project are as follows. A site for the floating power unit has to be selected in coastal waters, not far from the recipient of the power supply (be it a town, village or enterprise). The unit, which is powered by two reactors and accommodates engineering and amenity services, is then towed out to this site by a tug. The unit should be supported by compact onshore infrastructure — transformers, pumps, heat supply units, etc. Then the plant is commissioned. It will have the capacity to supply energy to a town with a population of 200,000. If the entire capacity of the plant is switched over to desalinization of sea water, it will be able to produce 240,000 cubic meters of fresh water a day. “When the plant is decommissioned and pulled out, it leaves absolutely no pollution,” Kuzin said, quoted by RIA Novosti. Potential terrorist threats were also taken into account when designing the plant’s security system. The latest scientific and technological advances in this field have been incorporated to prevent unauthorized access to fissile materials aboard the plant. Among other things, fingerprint and iris identification technologies will be used. The plant will also be protected against possible subversive attempts by terrorist divers. Much thought has been given to protecting the plant from external factors. For example, if an airliner, even one as big as a Boeing, were to fall on the plant, there is no way it would destroy the reactor. The project head also maintained that Russia would not sell the floating nuclear plants to other countries, should a number of them be made in the future. “Russia will only sell its products — electric power, heat and fresh water. This means that there is no cause for concern with respect to the proliferation of nuclear technologies. A floating plant under the Russian flag would be taken up to the coasts of states that had signed the necessary agreements. It would drop anchor in a convenient place that was protected from potential natural disasters and contact local engineering services on the shore. Then it would start up its reactors and — let there be light!” he said. The plant will save up to 200,000 metric tons of coal and 100,000 tons of fuel oil a year. It will be fully supported by the infrastructure of the Russian nuclear industry, and will be serviced by rotating teams. The reactors will be loaded with nuclear fuel once every three years and will have a lifespan of 40 years. Every 12 years the plant will be sent home and overhauled. Write us: info@mosnews.com Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM ***************************************************************** 30 NRC: NRC Receives Award for Excellence in Performance and Accountability Reporting 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. 05-125 September 9, 2005 Commission received a prestigious award recognizing the quality of its annual performance and accountability reporting. The Association of Government Accountants (AGA) awarded the NRC the Certificate of Excellence in Accountability Reporting for its outstanding efforts in preparing the agencys Performance and Accountability Report for Fiscal Year 2004. The Certificate of Excellence is the highest form of recognition in federal government management reporting. It rewards excellence in a federal agencys annual illustration and assessment of agency performance and the cost of that performance. In its award letter, AGA complimented the NRCs report for its considerable information in a very readable format and responsiveness to suggestions from the previous year. NRCs Chief Financial Officer Jesse L. Funches considers this award an important recognition of the agencys commitment to excellence. We are very honored to receive this award. For the fourth year in a row, we have shown that the NRC consistently provides the public clear, timely, and reliable information about our performance and how we run our programs, he said. Thanks to the hard work of our staff, the NRC continues to demonstrate its commitment to excellence, openness and service. The Certificate of Excellence in Accountability Reporting will be presented to the NRC at an awards ceremony on September 14. Last revised Friday, September 09, 2005 ***************************************************************** 31 Korea Times: Light-Water Reactors Biggest Block in 6-Way Talks - Chung Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation By Seo Dong-shin Staff Reporter Unification Minister Chung Dong-young said Thursday that light-water reactors pose more difficulty in the six-nation talks on North Korea¡¯s nuclear programs than North Korea¡¯s right to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes. ``Of the two, light-water reactors are more problematic,¡¯¡¯ Chung said after delivering a speech at a meeting of heads of local offices of education in Socho-dong, southern Seoul. ``There have been some 15 points of difficulty at the six-nation talks, but those two are most crucial.¡¯¡¯ He, however, did not elaborate whether he meant the stalled light-water reactor project in Sinpo or the possibility of other kinds of light reactors in the future, if the North secures a right to the peaceful development of nuclear power, or what is meant by the term ``light-water reactors.¡¯¡¯ In his speech, Chung said there are two kinds of light-water reactors. ``There are those stalled in Sinpo, and there are others that are, as yet, hypothetical light-water reactors to be built in the North in the future.¡¯¡¯ The building procedure of the two planned light-water reactors pursued by the New York-based Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) has been in limbo over the past two years as the United States and Japan wanted to scrap it. ``The North asks why they can¡¯t have light-water reactors when the South has 20 of them, Japan 50 and the U.S. 100,¡¯¡¯ Chung said. ``While China and Russia are supportive of that position, the U.S. and Japan are strongly opposing it.¡¯¡¯ The minister expressed cautious optimism, however, on the prospects of the six-nation talks scheduled to reopen on Sept. 13 in Beijing. ``I think there will be room for negotiations on that issue. ``I also think it is fortunate to have an inter-Korean channel in Pyongyang, which could side-support the six-nation talks, ¡¯¡¯ he said, referring to the 16th round of inter-Korean Cabinet talks scheduled to open on Sept. 13 in Pyongyang. He stopped short of confirming whether there is a possibility he will meet again with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. ``I¡¯ve not thought about it. I am going there as a head of the delegation for the Cabinet talks, not as a special envoy.¡¯¡¯ saltwall@koreatimes.co.kr 09-09-2005 13:59 ***************************************************************** 32 PDC: Brazil uses less nuclear energy than other developing countries Portal da Cidadania 13:16 Thaís Leitão Reporter - Agência Brasil Rio - Brazil's production of nuclear energy is still small in comparison to the leading countries in this sector. This information comes from Aquilino Senra, professor of post-graduate courses in nuclear engineering at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). According to Senra, in France, for example, 78% of all the energy that is produced is derived from nuclear sources. He also recalled that countries such as the United States in the decade of the 1950's, France in the decade of the 1960's, Japan and South Korea in the decade of the 1980's, and, more recently, China induced significant transformations in their economies based on the development of their nuclear industries. "If Brazil also desires to belong to this group of countries that succeeded in sparking their economies, it cannot neglect the development of its nuclear industry. It is both strategic and economically viable," the UFRJ scientist affirmed. Antônio Teixeira, a researcher at the University of São Paulo's (USP) Institute of Energetic and Nuclear Research (Ipen), believes that Brazil should pay more attention to the development of this sector. He observes that "nearly all the Asian countries, principally China and India, are developing quite important programs in this area. And Brazil has much to gain from this, too." The United States is currently the world's biggest producer of nuclear energy, and Lithuania is the country in which production of nuclear energy accounts for the largest share (80%) of total energy production. The revised Brazilian Nuclear Program provides for investments of US$ 13 billion through 2022 to conclude the Angra 3 nuclear plant and built two other large-scale nuclear plants and four small-scale ones. Translation: David Silberstein 09/09/2005 ------ © Agencia Brasil - All material may be reproduced as ***************************************************************** 33 Reuters: Exelon shuts Pa. Peach Bottom 2 nuke for work Fri Sep 9, 2005 2:08 PM ET NEW YORK, Sept 9 (Reuters) - Exelon Corp. (EXC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) shut the 1,112-megawatt unit 2 at the Peach Bottom nuclear power station in Pennsylvania late on Sept. 8 for planned maintenance, a spokesman for the company said Friday. The spokesman said the company shut the unit to replace a seal on a reactor recirculation pump. He could not say when the unit would likely return to service due to competitive reasons. Electricity traders guessed the work would take about a week, which is about when the adjacent unit 3 at Peach Bottom will likely shut a planned refueling outage. The traders noted Exelon probably wanted to wait to shut unit 2 until after Public Service Enterprise Group Inc.'s 1,089 MW Hope Creek unit in New Jersey returned to service, which occurred earlier this week, but wanted to complete the work on unit 2 before Peach Bottom 3 shuts for refueling. Exelon operates Hope Creek for PSEG. Earlier on Thursday, unit 2 was operating at full power. The 2,224 MW Peach Bottom station is located in Peach Bottom, Pennsylvania, about 75 miles southwest of Philadelphia. There are two 1,112 MW units 2 and 3 at the station. Unit 3, meanwhile, continued to operate at 89 percent of capacity as it coasts down for the refueling outage expected to start in mid September. The last time unit 3 shut for refueling was from Sept. 14-Oct. 13, 2003. The unit is on a 24-month cycle. One MW powers about 800 homes, according to the North American average. Exelon Nuclear, a unit of Exelon's unregulated Exelon Generation Co LLC subsidiary, operates the station for its owners: Exelon (50 percent) and New Jersey-based energy company PSEG (50 percent). In December, Exelon, the biggest nuclear power operator in the United States, agreed to acquire 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. ***************************************************************** 34 Reuters: 7 Entergy power units still shut near New Orleans Fri Sep 9, 2005 3:31 PM ET NEW YORK, Sept 9 (Reuters) - Entergy Corp. (ETR.N: Quote, Profile, Research) is working to restore power to seven natural gas- and oil-fired generating units in southern Louisiana shut since Hurricane Katrina pummeled the Gulf Coast, a company spokeswoman said Friday. Entergy has 17 generating units in the New Orleans area fueled by natural gas and/or oil and has returned 10 of those units to service. The units that remain out of service include three units at the 959-megawatt Michoud station in Orleans Parish, three units at the 159 MW A B Paterson station in Orleans Parish and one unit at the 12 MW Buras station in Plaquemines Parish. One MW powers about 800 homes, according to North American averages. The spokeswoman could not say when the units would likely return to service, noting the flood waters at Michoud were starting to recede making that plant partially assessable so it was likely the company would start restoring service at that plant first. In addition, the spokeswoman noted Entergy was still working with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to return the 1,089 MW Waterford nuclear power station in St Charles Parish about 30 miles west of New Orleans. Entergy shut Waterford on Aug. 28 as Katrina approached southern Louisiana. 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 hurricane did not damage the plant. The federal agencies have said they will not approve the restart until the off-site evacuation routes are open and emergency sirens are available. The spokeswoman could not say when Waterford would return to service. Separately, Southern Co. (SO.N: Quote, Profile, Research) had just one unit still shut from Katrina -- the 1,047 MW Jack Watson coal and natural gas-fired station in Harrison County in southern Mississippi, which suffered extensive damage. Southern has said it will take from six weeks to three months to repair the plant. 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. Southern's subsidiaries own and operate more than 39,000 MW of generating capacity and provide power to more than 4 million customers in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 35 Reuters: Entergy keeps Arkansas 2 nuke reduced after dropped rod Fri Sep 9, 2005 3:39 PM ET NEW YORK, Sept 9 (Reuters) - Entergy Corp. (ETR.N: Quote, Profile, Research) kept the 1,000-megawatt unit 2 at the Arkansas Nuclear One nuclear power station in Arkansas at about 66 percent of capacity for control rod testing following a dropped rod on Thursday, a company spokesman said Friday. The spokesman said a rod inadvertently dropped while the company was conducting some maintenance in the area of the control rods. After raising the dropped rod, the company decided to keep the unit at reduced power to conduct some tests, the spokesman said. He could not say when the unit would return to full power due to competitive reasons, but noted the power reduction would likely not last a long time. Earlier on Thursday, the unit was operating at full power. The 1,840-MW Arkansas Nuclear One station is in Russellville in Pope County, about 75 miles northwest of Little Rock. There are two units at the station: 844 MW unit 1 and 1,000 MW unit 2. Unit 1, meanwhile, continued to operate at full power. One MW powers about 800 homes, according to North American averages. Entergy's regulated Entergy Arkansas Inc. subsidiary owns the station. Entergy's regulated and unregulated 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. ***************************************************************** 36 Reuters: Entergy Ark. Arkansas 2 nuke dips to 66 pct power Fri Sep 9, 2005 7:24 AM ET NEW YORK, Sept 9 (Reuters) - Entergy Corp.'s (ETR.N: Quote, Profile, Research) 1,000-megawatt unit 2 at the Arkansas Nuclear One nuclear power station in Arkansas dipped to 66 percent of capacity by early Friday, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said a report. On Thursday, the unit was operating at full power. The 1,840 MW Arkansas Nuclear One station is located in Russellville in Pope County, about 75 miles northwest of Little Rock. There are two units at the station: 844 MW unit 1 and 1,000 MW unit 2. Unit 1, meanwhile, continued to operate at full power. One MW powers about 800 homes, according to North American averages. Entergy's regulated Entergy Arkansas Inc. subsidiary owns the station. Entergy's regulated and unregulated 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. ***************************************************************** 37 Reuters: Exelon Pa. Peach Bottom 2 nuke shut Fri Sep 9, 2005 7:15 AM ET NEW YORK, Sept 9 (Reuters) - Exelon Corp.'s (EXC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) 1,112-megawatt unit 2 at the Peach Bottom nuclear power station in Pennsylvania shut by early Friday, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a report. On Thursday, the unit was operating at full power. The 2,224 MW Peach Bottom station is located in Peach Bottom, Pennsylvania, about 75 miles southwest of Philadelphia. There are two 1,112 MW units 2 and 3 at the station. Unit 3, meanwhile, continued to operate at 89 percent of capacity as it coasts down for a refueling outage expected to start in mid September. The last time unit 2 shut for refueling was from Sept. 14-Oct. 13, 2003. The unit is on a 24-month cycle. One MW powers about 800 homes, according to the North American average. Exelon Nuclear, a unit of Exelon's unregulated Exelon Generation Co LLC subsidiary, operates the station for its owners: Exelon (50 percent) and New Jersey-based energy company Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. (PEG.N: Quote, Profile, Research) (PSEG) (50 percent). In December, Exelon, the biggest nuclear power operator in the United States, agreed to acquire 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. ***************************************************************** 38 NewsRoom Finland: Safety of Finnish nuclear power station inadequately studied - British specialist 9.9.2005 at 13:06 According to a news release by Greenpeace Friday, an investigation by British consulting company Large and Associates has concluded that Finland's new nuclear power station should not have been granted building permission. Nuclear safety specialist, John Large, believes that the safety of the modern nuclear power station has not been studied sufficiently. The safety issues were studied for one year in Finland, when a licence for a comparable station in the USA would take 7-8 years to gain. The Olkiluoto III station to be built in Eurajoki is the first of its kind worldwide. It was granted building permission by the government last January. The Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority of Finland (STUK) maintains that the new nuclear power station's safety has been thoroughly investigated. /STT/ © Copyright STT 2005 News from Finnish News Agency STT © 1995 – 2005, Virtual Finland Produced by: Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland Department for Communication and Culture/Unit for Promotion and Publications ***************************************************************** 39 Mos News: U.S. Wants Me for My Nuclear Secrets” - INTERVIEW - MOSNEWS.COM Photo from www.bbc.co.uk Created: 09.09.2005 15:01 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 17:37 MSK Ekho Moskvy Yevgeny Adamov, a former nuclear minister facing fraud charges both in the U.S. and Russia, fielded questions from Russian journalists as he talked live on Ekho Moskvy radio this week. Yevgeny Adamov spoke on the phone from Switzerland where he is awaiting extradition to Russia. Yevgeny Adamov: To begin with, I would like to say hello to the audience, and everyone who has gathered at the Ekho Moskvy studio today. To be quite honest, after I resigned from the civil service in 2001 I hoped that I would never have to talk to the press again in my life. But the way things are I am forced to deal with it again. Before we start, I would like to remind you of the milestones of my service between 1998 and 2001. At the time when I was appointed to my post, the atomic power stations in Russia received only 5-7 percent of their revenues in cash. All in all, they were paid less than 30 percent of what they should have been. It is not surprising, therefore, that the power stations were plagued by strikes. Perhaps, you remember that in 1997 the staff of the Smolensk power station even went on a protest march to Moscow. By 2000 the power stations were receiving their payments in full. I realize it may sound annoying to certain people now, but just as I said back in 1999 I have to say again that such results were achieved — no matter how much he is detested nationwide — with the help of Mr. Chubais who was a reliable partner of mine at the time. By the year 1998 the industrial output was falling nationwide with the nuclear energy sector producing just 100 billion kilowatts per hour annually. In 2000 we were producing 130 billion kilowatts per hour, thus exceeding the Soviet-era record of 1989. 130 billion is what six new blocks of an atomic power station produce. They did not have to be commissioned anew because before that time we did not use the blocks we had available. Nonetheless, in 1999 we set about finishing construction of the first block at the Rostov nuclear station. Later it was renamed the Volgodonsk station. The facility was put into operation during my tenure. We did it simply to avoid losing the chance to do so in the future. Just as I have said many times lately —- though my words have met little understanding —- that we have to be ready for nuclear tests. If there is no way for us to part with nuclear weapons we must know how to handle it. It is impossible without tests. In 2000, on the basis of all I had been saying as regards the nuclear energy sector, we presented a plan for its development for the period of up to 50 years. The plan received the government’s approval. Later, in my capacity as an adviser to the prime minister, I took part in preparing the energy strategy where we set the target for the nuclear energy sector to develop at a rate exceeding all other energy producing sectors three-fold. I think it is possible to say that we succeeded in tackling the Chernobyl syndrome. I think there is no need to recall what was happening in the defense sector in 1997, there were strikes even in Arzamas, and in Snezhinsk a top executive took his own life. In the course of the three years we managed to boost financing of the defense sector six-fold. We took over the nuclear submarines from the Defense Ministry for their further dismantling. Many were against the move, and yet, the number of subs dismantled per year rose from three to 18, and, most importantly, we removed most of the spent nuclear fuel from their reactors thus eliminating what posed the highest risk of an accident. Science is the foundation of the nuclear industry and I take pride in the fact that the year 2000 saw funds invested in that sector that exceeded all that this country’s budget could spare for the entire Academy of Sciences. I don’t think I need to remind you of the uproar caused by the law on irradiated fuel. I still believe that the country could benefit from that kind of activity, and I regret that the opportunity is being ignored. In 2000, the president presented our initiative at the Millennium Summit in New York. Had they paid heed to his proposals, the European negotiators would not have had to reproach Iran over enriched fuel, the issue could have been settled on the technological level. In 1998, my colleagues and I rejoiced over the industry’s survival despite the loss of other Soviet-era ties within the defense industry. But we were aware that without economic leverages the sector was just an empty shell. I campaigned for the building of the atomic industry, but, as you may know, it still doesn’t exist today. In 2001, I tendered my resignation. Public attention towards myself was waning, but then the United States orchestrated an attack all fronts from abroad. I stood accused of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, espionage, of stealing technological secrets. All those charges have burst like soap-bubbles over the past three years, now they are stuck on fraud, so stuck that they ventured on my detention on May 2, in Bern. The outburst of publications, impetuous and often inaccurate, as is often the case, forced me to write an article in Izvestia [newspaper], to fight back the tide. Analytical reports followed but their analysis was too weak, unfortunately. Apparently, those analysts lacked knowledge. That prompted me to write another article in Izvestia on Aug.15. But I realize perfectly well that articles are a monologue, besides, who reads newspapers in the summer? That is why we agreed with [Ekho Mokvy chief editor] Alexei Alexeyevich [Venediktov] on a live interview. Maxim Bobrov, First Channel: Talking in terms of the Swiss laws of procedure, do you risk facing any sanctions for this telephone conversation? In other words, do you have the right to give interviews? Are there any special reasons that have prompted you to hold this dialogue, as you speak from a prison in Bern? Actually, this is an interesting question. I think that only future developments will answer that. But I think I would not sin much if I said that any person here has the right to talk to their lawyers, judges, and justice officials in general. I consider the people the supreme judge. With your help I am addressing the people. Dmitry Novikov, NTV Channel: No sooner were you arrested that certain hotheads in our parliament suggested eliminating you in order to prevent you disclosing state secrets. Have there been any attempts on the part of foreign secret services to put your loyalty to the Russian government to the test since you were placed in custody? As to those statements, I have already responded to them in my newspaper article. I think that, most likely, the deputy who publicized himself in such a manner will go down in history only as the author of that proposal because, as far as I know, apart from that there is nothing remarkable about that figure. The conditions of my detention here are absolutely normal; those I don’t want to meet and who have not received my lawyers’ approval are not allowed to see me. No secret services have ever been here; even our ambassador who visited me here had to walk through a metal detector to check whether he was trying to bring in something inappropriate. Mr. Adamov, you are 66 years of age now and if you are handed over to the U.S. they could, say, use psychotropic substances, drugs, maybe, even torture on you are you able to guarantee you will not disclose the motherland’s secrets? Dmitry, I think your question should be of interest, I would even say it should be of concern to those officials here in Switzerland who will pass the ruling considering what you’ve just said. After all, U.S. justice, if it is so interested in prosecuting me on criminal charges, could have easily got me as a free man. In March of this year, talks on the conditions of my appearance before a U.S. court began, and I am willing to appear before that court and contribute personally to the cause of refuting the absurd accusations brought against me. But the U.S. authorities refused to discuss the procedure; it appears, they did not want me to appear in court. Moreover, I even think that they know they will lose the case and then I will be able to return to Russia. They want me in handcuffs, brought there by force; maybe, my defense lawyers are now discussing the issue with them for the U.S. authorities not to lose face completely, for they have already lost face by promising there would be no pre-trial arrests, that the case would be examined with dignity. Now we see what kind of dignity it is. Perhaps, I will avoid even spending one night in jail as in line with their procedure you have to appear before the judge immediately. The judge asks you whether you agree with the charges. Of course, you say what you think whereupon you are discharged from custody and have to wait for quite a long time —- no less than nine months will elapse before the trial takes place. But if that night will have to be spent in jail then the problems you have mentioned, Dmitry, may arise. I think that the people who will pass the decision here realize that people like myself —- and I am 66, as you have reminded me —- people brought up in the Soviet Union, have a mentality that is different from that of U.S. nationals. Their key value is their family, personal interests, then their work, and only then comes the nation. I was brought up in a different environment. I set the priority on the interests of the state, work, my team. I am hardly able to prevent what you are talking of, but I will do everything in my power to prevent it. Boris Gevorkyan, the Interfax news agency: You have recently agreed to a summary procedure of extradition to Russia. The Prosecutor General’s Office insists on your return to Russia. Earlier you rejected the procedure. But lately, you have agreed. What is the reason for that change of heart? Boris, pardon me, but it appears that you have not been following the developments carefully. For me to depart for the U.S. it would suffice, on the next day after I was taken there, to say that I agree to the summary procedure of extradition to the U.S., to appear before the judge and to confirm that. And, as I was told, it would take just a couple of days for me to arrive in the U.S. But I believed and I still believe that my arrest was unlawful and insisted on my right as a free man to return to Russia. Andrei Reznichenko, RIA-Novosti: Have you appealed for support to some international institution, say, to the IAEA? If not, do you plan to do so? As for the IAEA, I see no need to do that. I am able to solve my problems on my own. Unfortunately, it is very time-consuming. As for the question of the lawfulness of my arrest, yes, we are considering the possibility of appealing to international institutions. I have asked my lawyers to consider filing a complaint to the European Court. And I think, we will go ahead with that plan. Alexei Kravchenko, Itar-Tass: Don’t you have a feeling that the charges brought against you are aimed not against you personally —- given your status as a former official, however high-ranking —- but against someone else in Russia, perhaps, even against the entire nation or the Russian government, that the whole affair is a sort of an international intrigue? What could lie at the base of it all? Are there any reasons of a political, economic or some other nature? Alexei, I fully agree with you. Indeed, I am just a target and there are different methods of selecting a target. Some seek them for shooting practice, in which case a couple of tin cans hanging on a bush will suffice. Others aim higher. You see, the U.S., FBI and the Prosecutor General’s Office probed WMD, espionage, that was quite comprehensible. Such cases are usually investigated by top law enforcers. As to the case of $9 million [allegedly embezzled by Yevgeny Adamov. — MosNews] — an amount that may seem enormous in Russia — in the U.S. such cases are overseen by police precincts, that is the level at which cases like those of Enron or Bill Gates are probed. And then, in my case where Condoleezza Rice and Gonzales endorse the inquiry, clearly, there is hope of killing big game. But I think, on their part, this is not even an attempt to kill any game but to scare the entire herd. The charges against me are not business-related. Some of my former civil service colleagues were quick to assert that the charges had nothing to do with the civil service. Let them take a look, then, at the title of the press statement released by [the U.S. Attorney] Mary Beth Buchanan: “Former minister of the Russian Federation has been charged”, or as the U.S. embassy here in Switzerland wrote in a cover letter to the indictment act — that Adamov had misappropriated a certain amount in the years of his tenure as a minister, in the period of 1998 to 2001. If we are talking here solely of embezzlement, if you have found the aggrieved party in Russia, then the case falls under Russian jurisdiction, let Russia examine it. Not long ago that proposal was made. They responded with a resolute ’no’. It is just that they do not need me in court, in fact, they do not really need a trial, they are not even afraid of losing. What they need is a carrier of state secrets, handcuffed, brought to them by force. As to why they are interested in such people, you can find the answer yourself. But that is half the work. Speaking of the other half, I cannot help recalling the arrest of [Pavel] Borodin, [a former Kremlin property manager arrested in the U.S. and extradited to Switzerland on fraud charges in 2001]. Borodin, that story-teller and jester, was not what they really needed. What they truly needed was Yeltsin. Or, do you remember the arrest of [Andrei] Vavilov? They were not looking for the deputy finance minister — we have seen a dozen finance ministers come and go since he resigned — in truth, what they sought was to lay their hands on compromising material on Viktor Chernomyrdin, who had held top posts in the government throughout all those years. Their aim was to prove what the CIA wrote in its report earlier — that he is a multibillionaire. Note whose name was the first to be mentioned in connection in the oil-for-food program! [Alexander] Voloshin, (the then-Kremlin chief of staff.- MosNews). Admittedly, there was also Mr. Galloway, a British MP, but he showed up in the U.S. and attended the hearings. And I think that he will not be remembered again any time soon, as it was the massacre of St. Bartholomew, not the hearings on the Galloway case. What names are there in the oil-for-food case today? Who of the UN officials have been stripped of their diplomatic immunity? Russians. Yakovlev, Kuznetsov… I don’t know if they are guilty or not and I won’t even discuss the issue before the court says so, but Russians are always the first to be targeted. Their main goal is to prove that the Russian government is entirely corrupt. That such a country, with nuclear weapons, cannot be left beyond Western control. Take [former U.S. ambassador to Russia] Alexander Vershbow’s recent interview to Ekho Moskvy where he said, firstly, that the Adamov case was by no means politically motivated. The charges are of a purely criminal nature. Secondly, the naive envoy, he seeks access to nuclear installations. Another couple of arrests, perhaps, mere kidnappings… Americans simply abduct people. Recently, they abducted an Arab in Italy whom they consider a terrorist, so they simply abducted him in Italy! What is there to say of Russia and other countries? They are bent on proving that the Russian government is corrupt, that the country should be placed under their control, their tutelage… WMDs were a pretext for attacking Iraq where they were never found. Alexei Venediktov, Ekho Moskvy: Do you see any link between your arrest and the ever-increasing tensions between Russia and the United States as regards the Iran issue, in particular, the contract with Iran you had been working on? As to Iran, I think that Iran understands perfectly well and has always understood that no one was going to develop any Marshall Plan to promote its economy; no one will pour billions of dollars into the development of that country. Iran’s development depends on export, on oil and gas exports. It turned out that Iran had uranium reserves. Naturally, the government decided to build nuclear power stations… Incidentally, not under the present post-revolutionary regime but as early as under the shah, the government planned to substitute up to 35 percent of the organic fuel with nuclear energy. The U.S. even intended to help them with that. Everyone is perfectly well aware that by building a nuclear station Iran does not pursue any plans of building a nuclear bomb. That is the sole reason why when the U.S. and North Korea launched nuclear cooperation and pursued their joint nuclear program, KEDO, the U.S. planned to build a nuclear station in North Korea but staunchly opposed our plans to do the same at Bushehr. Russia is not interested in neighbors with nuclear weapons, we understand our national interests in that sense, even better than the U.S. does, and therefore, all the accusations brought against us in that context have always been unfounded. But, to begin with, you have to appease Iran, which is a hard task, you know, given the unexpected political developments in that country of late. And then, take sanctions against India following nuclear tests there, the last test was held in 1998 — the year I joined the civil service. These days, there are no sanctions any more, but there is General Electric and Westinhaus swarming around India, seeking to build their stations there. This is a market where politics serves the economy. The U.S. seeks to reinstate control over Iran, which used to be within the U.S. sphere of interests in the days of the shah. As to fears that Iran may build nuclear weapons, double standards are also being applied here. Israel and Pakistan, they are friends of the U.S., so they are hardly ever mentioned. But Iran is a great concern. But if that is so, why hasn’t the U.S. agreed to our president’s proposal? Had it been implemented, we would have already had technology that would enable us to develop nuclear energy without having to enrich uranium or enrich plutonium to weapon-grade… Maxim Bobrov, First Channel: What can you say about the charges brought against you in Russia by the Prosecutor General’s Office? There is a rule I always follow, Maxim — when abroad never discuss domestic affairs, let alone criticize the situation at home. Once I am back in Russia we will discuss the issue, first and foremost, with those officially in charge, and later on, with the press. Dmitry Novikov: What was happening in Russia when multimillion loans were lost and target-oriented loans extended by the U.S.? If you do not admit your guilt, then who is to blame? Okay, let’s get back to it. The plot is as follows. It is said that NIKIET (also known as the Research and Design Institute for Power Engineering. — MosNews) had secured $15 million worth of foreign contracts — a figure that has little to do with reality. Americans say plus-minus $5 million is of no importance to them considering that the figure of $15 million is true, of which, actually, the Americans’ share is less than 1/3. All the contracts were duly honored. What the U.S. sought, in the first place, was to find orders for Iran, Iraq, or North Korea there. They failed; they saw that most of the partners were respectable European and American firms. Then they rushed to tell them they must have been deceived. All the partners confirmed that all the obligations had been honored, with good quality. Moreover, they paid only after the work was done. Wait a minute! So, it means no damage was inflicted, neither on the partners, nor on any government agencies, or government budgets in cases where our partners were receiving budget funding. In my article I cited an example. Let’s imagine that the U.S. Department of Justice buys a BMW — BMWs are produced in Bavaria — and pays a dealer, who, instead of transferring money to Bavaria, on the orders from the concern’s head office sends the money to the supplier in South Africa where BMW dashboards are produced. Now, let us look into the case. If you want to look into the case come to Russia, guys! Incidentally, my lawyers, after being on the case for about a year and seeing that all the Russian partners had received their orders, invited the investigators to Russia. Come here and see for yourselves, they said, you will see why in the 1990s direct cash transfers were hardly the best means of ensuring that partners got paid… The invitation was ignored. Furthermore, in 2004 Russia received an official request for legal assistance, from the Justice Department — a hundred-page document with all sorts of questions but one: had the firms who worked on the contracts received the money or not? There was no such question. Instead, there was detention. As to what happened next we have already discussed that. So, now I see no need to discuss the economic situation where the budget of the institute fell 36-fold, the stations were unable to pay while transferring funds to our banks or to our tax system, yet we managed to make sure that the partners were paid in full. I see no need in discussing that scheme. What matters is that the contracts were honored, partners received their share in full. But they don’t care! We have already discussed what they care about… Andrei Reznichenko, RIA-Novosti: Speaking of your work in the capacity as the nuclear energy minister, were there any projects where you would have done things differently today? Or would you have left everything unchanged? I think it would be absurd to assume that views do not change with time. We penned the strategy of atomic energy development for the next 50 years. Some saw me as insane because forecasts, it seemed, rarely reach that far ahead. Yet, I insisted that it was necessary to look further ahead and kept on saying, nothing happens fast in the energy sector, not even in five or seven years unless the targets are set today. Today’s decisions sometimes take 10-15 years to be implemented. But if, in three to five years we see that something new has emerged, we have the framework. And on the basis on the framework we will be able to build something new. Of course, certain things could have been done differently… For example, we could have refrained from stating our willingness to re-build Sredmash (the Ministry of Energy or the Soviet-era cover name for Minatom. — MosNews), instead focusing on restoring the energy sector on the basis of Sredmash, under new economic conditions. That had to be done. Unfortunately, I said that and in doing so, harmed the cause. There are other examples, too. Alexei Kravchenko, Itar-Tass: Do you think Russia has the effective instruments to get you extradited home? But if that does not happen, do you hope that the fight for your return will continue? What and whom do you count on in Russia? Alexei, I think that every country has sufficient instruments. The question is how those countries wield them. I, for one, am most afraid of a disservice, or what we call ’a bear service’ in Russian where a bear befriended a muzhik, and as they walked together side by side the bear saw a fly on the man’s forehead and hit him on the forehead to kill the fly. Unfortunately, he killed the man, too. Thus, of course, there is a question of how those means will be used. I am a Russian citizen, and, of course, I count on help from my country. Boris Gevorkyan, Interfax: What is your forecast for the so-called Adamov case? It is all about a soap-bubble, and soap-bubbles always burst, and this one will burst, too. Andrei Reznichenko, RIA-Novosti: What do you plan to do upon returning to Russia? To get on with my work that was interrupted in such a violent manner… Upon my resignation from the civil service I returned to the research institute that I headed in 1986-1998. It is my team, remarkable people fostered by the great Russian designer, Academician Dollezhal… Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM ***************************************************************** 40 Deseret News: NRC: Secrecy push within NRC Time For Westerners To Hang Together MONDAY, MAY 10, 1999 PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Steve Erickson (801) 359-4929 Email: erickson.steve1@comcast.net Winston Weeks (801) 502-9233 Email: w.weeks@comcast.net Benjamin Franklin said during our revolution that "We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately." As the failed nuclear power industry and the nuclear weapons establishment seek to dump their nuclear waste in Utah, Nevada, Idaho and New Mexico old Bens statement is surely true today for those of us who live in the West. Aiding and abetting this effort is the rogue offspring of the old Atomic Energy Commission, an independent governmental agency called the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). On March 1 the NRC issued a proposed rule that would allow the commission to circumvent open meeting laws. The rule, if adopted, would permit meetings to be held in secret by three or more of the commission's five members. As it stands now, only two members of the commission can discuss business privately that is not open to the public. Sen. Richard Bryan, D-Nev., is adamantly opposed to the plan. "With the NRC having control over some of the most dangerous and volatile substances known to mankind, the argument could be made that no federal agency should pay more attention to open meeting requirements," Bryan said. (Las Vegas Sun, April 30, 1999.) In Utah, the NRC arrogantly rubber-stamps the incredibly dangerous plans of International Uranium Corporation in Blanding to "reprocess" the deadly wastes of the Manhattan Project and approves a misguided and unscientific plan to "cap" the radioactive tailings in Moab which pollute the Colorado River system. Now the NRC tells us that "we the people" of the West don't need to know the financial details of the high-level nuke dump planned for the Goshute reservation. It is next to impossible for members of the public to get standing for hearings before the NRC. Even people living right next to a site or proposed site are not worthy of standing as far as the NRC is concerned. The White Mesa Utes, environmentalist Ken Sleight and others have failed repeatedly to gain standing with the NRC concerning the activities of International Uranium Corporation in Blanding. NRC policies make it impossible for anyone without the money to hire legal experts to even try to navigate the labyrinth of bureaucratic jargon and legalese that comprise their rules and regulations. Without strong Congressional pressure the nuclear cabals plan to dump their radioactive waste on the West is virtually assured, since the NRC, being an independent government agency, acts on its own as judge, jury, and executioner. Senator Bryan is so upset by what he sees as the NRC's lack of responsiveness to citizens that he sent a letter to the White House last week threatening to withhold future support for any new nominee to the commission, including for the chairman whose term expires June 30. We call on Utah Senators Hatch and Bennett, as well as our entire congressional delegation, to join Senator Bryan of Nevada in defending our interests as Westerners. As the West is under attack once again by the radioactive menace it is time that we "hang together" lest we "hang separately." ***************************************************************** 41 NRC: NRC Staff Proposes $3,250 Fine Against Columbia, Mo., Hospital for Inadvertent Loss of Medical Radiation Sources News Release - Region III - 2005-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III No. III-05-038 September 8, 2005 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed, and the Boone Hospital Center of Columbia, Mo., has paid a $3,250 fine for the inadvertent loss of radioactive iodine seeds used in the treatment of prostate cancer. An NRC inspection determined that the seeds, about the size of a grain of rice and containing radioactive iodine-131, were inadvertently washed down a sink during cleaning activities on May 18. The seeds were lost during a cleaning process normally used for empty containers. The cleaning was performed by an untrained and unauthorized employee. The seeds were washed into the sanitary sewer system where they would not represent a health and safety hazard because of the relatively short lifetime of the radioactive materials and because the radioactive iodine was contained in the metal seeds. The hospital was cited for failing to maintain control and constant surveillance over the seeds. Following the incident, the hospital took extensive corrective action, providing additional training for the hospital staff and strengthening procedures. "This fine was proposed to emphasize the importance of maintaining the security and control of NRC-licensed radioactive material," said James Caldwell, NRC Regional Administrator. The hospital paid the fine upon being told by the NRC that a civil penalty may be proposed for the violation. The letter and Notice of Violation issued to the hospital are available from the NRCs Region III Office of Public Affairs and will be posted on the NRCs web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/enforcement/current.html #materials. Last revised Friday, September 09, 2005 ***************************************************************** 42 NRC: NRC to Discuss Apparent Violations at Lancaster, PA., Hospital News Release - Region I - 2005-04 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-05-046 September 9, 2005 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: 16, to discuss three apparent violations of agency requirements. The apparent violations stem from the treatment of a patient with a medical device containing radioactive sources known as a gamma knife. The predecisional enforcement conference is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. at the NRC Region I Office, 475 Allendale Road in King of Prussia, Pa. It will be open to the public and there will be an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions of NRC staff before they adjourn the session. During a review that began last Oct. 21 at Lancaster General Hospital, NRC inspectors examined activities at the facility on North Duke Street that are licensed by the agency. They also looked into the circumstances surrounding a medical event at the facility in September 2003. That event involved a gamma knife, or gamma stereotactic radiosurgery, treatment administered to a patient at a location on the body other than the intended site. This occurred for only a portion of the treatment. (A gamma knife uses a special helmet to focus radiation from numerous radioactive sources to a specific location deep within brain tissue.) The NRC inspectors found that at the conclusion of the administration, one of the coordinates for the treatment site was 7 centimeters different from the initial setting, resulting in an estimated dose of 35 to 40 Gray to the wrong site. (A Gray is a measure of the amount of radiation absorbed by the body.) The event did not result in harm to the patient, a medical consultant retained by the NRC to review the incident determined. Hospital personnel concluded the event was caused when the patient moved vigorously during the treatment. However, the treatment was not suspended to verify the setting coordinates following this movement. Further, hospital staff did not return a subsequently replaced portion of the focusing mechanism known as the z-bars to the manufacturer for analysis despite a recognition it was not properly functioning. Based on the results of the inspection, the following apparent violations have been identified: (1) failure to implement adequate procedures to verify that the administration of the gamma knife dose was in accordance with the treatment plan and written directive; (2) failure to report to the NRC the medical event involving a dose administered to the wrong treatment site; and (3) failure to report to the NRC an equipment malfunction of the devices z-bars. The purpose of the meeting is to obtain information to enable the NRC to make an enforcement decision. This information can include a common understanding of the facts, root causes, missed opportunities to identify the apparent violations sooner, corrective actions, significance of the issues and the need for lasting and effective corrective action. No decision will be made during the meeting. Rather, the NRC will consider the facts and render a decision sometime following the conference. Last revised Friday, September 09, 2005 ***************************************************************** 43 [NukeNet] NRC Approves Utah Nuclear Waste Dump Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:55:42 -0700 WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) September 9, 2005 ---------- News Release Sept. 9, 2005 Contact: Melissa Kemp (202) 454-5176 Michele Boyd (202) 454-5134 Approval of Private Fuel Storage Means Dangerous and Unnecessary Storage of Highly Radioactive Waste in Utah Statement of Wenonah Hauter, Director, Public Citizen’s Energy Program Today’s decision by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC) to approve a temporary high-level radioactive waste storage site, Private Fuel Storage (PFS), on Native American land in Utah, is a significant mistake, made for all the wrong reasons. PFS is an unnecessary, irresponsible and unethical proposal that will do nothing to address the nuclear waste problem this country faces. The primary motivation for PFS is the nuclear industry’s need for a publicly presentable waste solution that it can use in its push for a nuclear renaissance. Despite what has been claimed, PFS will not consolidate waste in one safe and secure place. As long as we continue to operate nuclear reactors, waste will always remain near cities and communities around the country, because irradiated fuel must be stored on-site for at least five years to allow it to cool before it can be transported. In addition, PFS will mean the transportation of waste through densely populated urban and suburban areas across the country. The project will rush transportation forward and increase the number of times waste is moved. Even if all possible precautions are taken, and they have not been, the shipping of nuclear waste is a dangerous undertaking and should be absolutely minimized. Accidents of some nature are unavoidable. PFS will also bring risks to Utah. The dump is not planned for permanent storage and will simply place the waste storage containers on concrete pads above ground. There will be no waste repacking facility on-site, as there are presently at reactors, to deal with accidents or problems. The temporary nature of PFS is also questionable, as it is dependent on the opening of Yucca Mountain, which continues to have significant problems and may never open. Today’s irresponsible and misguided approval of this proposal should illustrate how far the NRC has strayed from its mission of protecting public health and safety. ### Public Citizen is a national, nonpartisan consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, visit http://www.citizen.org/. ---------- New Eye On Energy Newsletter Available The September issue of Public Citizen’s monthly energy newsletter Eye On Energy is now available! Articles this month include: * The Ever-Rising Price of Gas * Lax Radiation Standards Proposed for Yucca Mountain * Westar Energy Fined for Illegal Contributions to Congress * New Nuke for North Carolina? * New Power Plants Could Pollute Bush's Crawford Ranch Click here or visit www.EyeOnEnergy.org to read it online. You can also find a PDF version of the newsletter in a convenient 2-page format that you can print out and bring with you to meetings or give to your friends! ---------- Update: Thanks for Taking Action! Two weeks ago, we sent you an appeal to take action on a rulemaking at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to ensure nuclear plants that seek to operate for twenty years beyond their original anticipated lifetime were subjected to the same level of scrutiny that a brand new nuclear plant would be. We’re pleased to report that over 700 of you submitted comments to the NRC supporting the petition! Combined with our friends over at the organization Riverkeeper, over 1200 comments were received by NRC, completely overwhelming their staff and quite possibly setting a new record. Great work! Thanks for helping to shine a light on some of the NRC’s most outrageous practices. ---------- INVITATION to DC Premier of Documentary "Homeland: Four Portraits of Native Action" Public Citizen encourages people to attend the upcoming screening of the documentary film Homeland: Four Portraits of Native Action by Katahdin Productions. Homeland tells the story of Mitchell and Rita Capitan, co-founders of Eastern Navajo Diné Against Uranium Mining (ENDAUM) and three other leaders from Native American communities who are passionately struggling to preserve their sovereignty, protect their lands, and preserve their way of life. Nearly all Indian nations sit on land threatened by environmental hazards - toxic waste, strip mining, oil drilling, and nuclear contamination. Homeland tells the stories of just four of these tribal nations, chronicling the efforts of the remarkable Native American activists who are working to stop and reverse the devastating affronts of multi-national energy companies and the dismantling of 30 years of environmental laws. This feature-length film premiered in February 2005 at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival, where it won the Fund for Santa Barbara Social Justice Award for Documentary Film, and the Audience Award for Documentary Film. The Washington DC screening will take place on Wednesday, September 14, 2005, at Landmark's E Street Cinema (555 11th Street NW). All funds from tickets and sponsorships will benefit ENDAUM. Visit www.katahdin.org or call (202) 466-8585 to purchase tickets for $15. _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 44 Las Vegas SUN: Feds OK Nuclear Waste Site for Utah Today: September 09, 2005 at 17:51:52 PDT By JENNIFER TALHELM ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Friday approved a private company's plan to build a nuclear waste storage site on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation in Utah, moving the proposal a crucial step closer to fruition. Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman immediately vowed to challenge the decision in the courts, and state officials promised to fight the facility using all possible options. The state contends the project would be too dangerous. Private Fuel Storage, a group of utilities, wants to store 44,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel at the site about 50 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. Utah officials had argued the facility would be too close to a major population center and that the risk of a jet fighter from Hill Air Force Base crashing into the storage casks was too great. But commissioners dismissed the argument, taking a two-pronged vote. First, they affirmed an earlier ruling that the waste containers wouldn't release an unacceptable amount of radiation if a jet crashed into them. Then they voted 3-1 to authorize the NRC staff to issue a license to construct and operate the storage site. The license will be ready after paperwork is completed, said NRC spokesman Eliot Brenner. "I'm very happy," said Paul Gaukler, an attorney who for eight years has represented Private Fuel Storage in its quest to build the waste facility. "People can be assured it's a safe facility." Huntsman said in a statement that he was "deeply disappointed" in the NRC decision and would continue fighting the storage facility. In addition to a court appeal, another option for the state could be to designate a wilderness area to block construction of a rail spur to the site. "This is a battle that will take several years to fight to completion, but it is also a battle that I intend to win," Huntsman said. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in a statement that the plan was "dead on arrival." "This is a reckless, dangerous proposal, and I am pulling out all the stops to make sure this waste never makes a home in Utah," Hatch said. Private Fuel Storage's facility would be a temporary dump pending the opening of a national nuclear waste repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., has proposed storing nuclear waste at the facilities where it is produced - an alternative to both the Private Fuel Storage site and Yucca Mountain. On Friday, Reid, the Senate minority leader, said in a statement that he still believes that is the safest option. "Thousands of tons of deadly nuclear material will pass homes, schools, businesses and churches in communities all across the country, and there is simply no way to safely do this," Reid said. An impoverished tribe, the Goshutes had been looking for ways to make money and eventually teamed with Private Fuel Storage to propose the station. Under their plan, the waste would be kept aboveground in 4,000 steel casks, which can hold up to 10 tons of spent fuel each. The casks would be shielded in an overpack of two steel shells encasing a wall of concrete more than 2 feet thick. There are still more regulatory hurdles before construction can begin. The earliest the site is expected to be in operation is 2008. --- On the Net: Skull Valley Goshutes: http://www.skullvalleygoshutes.org Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 45 Las Vegas SUN: NRC clears way for nuclear fuel storage in Skull Valley Today: September 09, 2005 at 11:49:24 PDT By JENNIFER TALHELM ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Friday authorized a license to build a temporary private nuclear waste storage site on the Skull Valley Goshutes Indian Reservation in Utah. Private Fuel Storage, a group of utilities, wants to store 44,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel at the site 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. In a meeting that lasted only about two minutes, commissioners took a two-pronged vote. First, they affirmed an earlier ruling concluding that if a jet fighter crashed into the containers, they wouldn't release an unacceptable amount of radiation. Then they authorized the NRC staff to issue a license to construct and operate the storage site. The license will be ready after paperwork is completed, said NRC spokesman Eliot Brenner. The timing was not immediately clear. "I'm very happy," said Paul Gaukler, an attorney who has represented Private Fuel Storage in its quest to build the waste facility for eight years. "People can be assured it's a safe facility. The issue has been fully aired and resolved. Thank goodness - finally." Utah Sens. Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett were not immediately available for comment. Utah politicians have made numerous attempts to block construction of the storage site, including a last-minute unsuccessful attempt in July to amend the energy bill to require a terrorism threat study before the NRC could grant a license. The effort failed when Nevada Sen. Harry Reid objected. State officials have said they would fight the license in court if necessary. An impoverished tribe, the Goshutes had been looking for ways to make money and eventually teamed with Private Fuel Storage to propose the station. Private Fuel Storage's facility would be a temporary dump pending the opening of a national repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 46 Las Vegas SUN: DOE turns over more documents in Yucca probe Today: September 09, 2005 at 19:19:48 PDT By ERICA WERNER ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) - The Energy Department said it turned over more than 700 pages of additional documents Friday subpoenaed by a congressional panel investigating allegations of paperwork fraud on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump project in Nevada. But a spokesman for Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., who is pursuing the investigation, said the department still has not handed over some key items the panel is seeking. Among them: a draft of the license application the department will submit to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to get permission to open the dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. "The stuff that we got today, it wasn't a whole lot. We know they have a lot more they haven't given us," said Chad Bungard, deputy staff director and chief counsel for the congressional panel Porter chairs. Energy Department spokesman Craig Stevens said the department has sought to respond to the House Government Reform Committee subpoena. "As more information is assembled that is responsive to the request, we will provide it," Stevens said. Porter's panel, a subcommittee of the Government Reform Committee, is investigating e-mails written between 1998 and 2000 by government scientists suggesting they made up details of their work on Yucca and kept two sets of books, one for themselves and one to satisfy quality-assurance officials. In July, when the Energy Department declined to turn over papers he requested, Porter had them subpoenaed. The Energy Department turned over one large batch of papers later in July. Friday's batch was the second. Stevens said the new documents included glossaries and organizational charts. Porter's probe has been quiet during the August congressional recess, but Bungard said another hearing would be scheduled soon. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 47 Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear industry exec picked to head Yucca Mountain project Today: September 09, 2005 at 9:19:56 PDT ASSOCIATED PRESS LAS VEGAS (AP) - A nuclear industry executive from Pennsylvania has been picked to direct plans for a national nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Edward "Ward" Sproat was named Thursday by President Bush to head the Energy Department's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, which oversees development of the Yucca Mountain project and a system to transport nuclear waste to the site from commercial power reactors and federal plants. If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Sproat will be expected to reinvigorate a program where recent technical and legal setbacks have pushed back a projected opening from 2010 to 2012 or later. The Yucca project has been headed by interim leaders since Margaret Chu resigned as director in February. Sproat is managing partner of a consulting firm, McNeil, Sproat &Associates, in Berwyn, Pa. He has held executive posts at Exelon Corp., the nation's largest nuclear operator, and PECO Energy, the largest utility in Pennsylvania. Industry officials said Sproat is well known as the lead negotiator in a nuclear waste settlement that Exelon completed with DOE in 2004. DOE agreed to pay Exelon for keeping used nuclear fuel at its power reactors until the Yucca repository could be opened about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. In turn, Exelon agreed to drop lawsuits charging DOE with breach of contract for failing to meet a 1998 deadline to have a repository ready to accept spent fuel. The Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry trade association, applauded the nomination, saying Sproat's "nuclear project managerial experience should serve him well in his new position." "We expect the project will continue to move forward in the licensing process under Ward Sproat's leadership," NEI spokeswoman Trish Conrad said. Nevada officials who monitor the Yucca project said they knew little of the nominee. Bob Loux, who coordinates the state's official opposition, said it matters little who directs Yucca Mountain day by day because it has support from the nuclear industry and higher-ups in the Bush administration. "I think the die is cast relative to Yucca Mountain," Loux said, adding, "You can't alter the fact they have a bad site, and that is not going to change. "On the other hand," Loux continued, "if he is coming at it from the experience of negotiating with DOE, maybe that is an indicator he is going to move the department to the direction of settling with the utilities." The nomination will be considered by the Energy Committee before going to the Senate itself. "Any nominee will face tough questions moving through the hearing process," said Tessa Hafen, spokeswoman for Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., a repository critic who closely watches the project. Bush and Congress picked the Yucca site in 2002 as the site to bury 77,000 tons of the nation's most radioactive commercial, industrial and military waste now stored at sites in 39 states. Funding and problems including a controversy over possible paperwork fraud on the project have delayed the opening date. Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal, http://www.lvrj.com All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 48 North Lake Tahoe Bonanza: Unrest over Yucca Mountain September 9, 2005 Nevada Attorney General Brian Sandoval says a 1990 rule used to license nuclear power plants must be changed because it presumes Yucca Mountain will be licensed as a waste dump. The state sued the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last week demanding the so-called "Waste Confidence Rule" be changed. The rule states that the NRC can continue to license new nuclear power plants because a geologic repository to dispose of radioactive waste will be available by 2025. "Today, the only way NRC can meet its requirement that a repository will be available by 2025 is to presume it will give Yucca a license," he said. "For an ostensibly impartial regulator to make that prejudgment is simply unlawful. Frankly, it's also appalling public policy." The state petitioned NRC to change the rule in March but was rejected in August. Sandoval said that is the first time in NRC history a rulemaking petition was rejected without public comment. "They're bending over backwards to ram this project forward and we're confident the court will see through it," he said. Yucca Mountain, located 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is the proposed site of a repository to hold the nation's nuclear waste. The U.S. Department of Energy is currently trying to use the mountain to bury 77,000 tons of radioactive waste. All contents © Copyright 2005 tahoebonanza.com North Lake Tahoe Bonanza - 925 Tahoe Blvd., Suite 206 - Incline Village, NV 89452 ***************************************************************** 49 AP Wire: Shipment of tritium from TVA arrives in South Carolina | 09/09/2005 | Associated Press KNOXVILLE, Tenn. - Rods containing the first tritium produced by the United States in 15 years have arrived in South Carolina, where it will be stored and later extracted for use in nuclear weapons. The National Nuclear Security Administration announced Friday the shipment had recently arrived at the Savannah River Site near Aiken, S.C., from the Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar nuclear reactor. Tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen used in nuclear weapons, has to be replaced because it decays by 5 percent each year. TVA agreed to produce tritium for defense purposes. "This milestone is an important element to maintaining the safety, security and reliability of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile," Thomas D'Agostino, a deputy administrator at the NNSA, said in a statement. Tritium was produced at SRS's five reactors, but the last reactor was shut down in 1992. The NNSA has been recycling tritium since then. The Department of Energy then began production of new tritium at Watts Bar, and a Tritium Extraction Facility was built at SRS. The facility was scheduled to begin operations in 2007. ***************************************************************** 50 AU ABC: AWU backs more uranium mining 2005. 07:18 (ACST)Saturday, 10 September 2005. 08:18 The Australian Workers Union (AWU) says it is prepared to fight to get uranium mining back on the political agenda. Queensland Liberal Senator Russell Trood has told Federal Parliament four uranium mining sites in Queensland could begin production immediately if the Beattie Government agreed to issue licences. The State Government remains opposed to this, and has the backing of another union, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. National president of the AWU, Bill Ludwig, says Australia has a responsibility to provide uranium. "Who else is? I mean if we've got 40 per cent of it and there is more and more evidence that the emissions from coal-fired electricity is effecting the ozone layer," he said. Mr Ludwig says uranium mining is no more dangerous than its counterparts. "They've all got risks about them. So one is no better than the other. "There is just as many coal miners die through digging up coal throughout the world as there are people who would have been effected by any mishaps in nuclear power." The Northern Territory and South Australia already conduct uranium mining. ***************************************************************** 51 Las Vegas RJ: NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY: Bush picks Sproat for Yucca post Friday, September 09, 2005 Nominee is nuclear industry veteran By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Edward "Ward" Sproat, a nuclear industry executive from Pennsylvania, was nominated Thursday by President Bush to lead the Yucca Mountain Project. Sproat was named director of the Energy Department's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, which oversees development of an underground repository in Nevada and a system to transport nuclear waste to the site from commercial power reactors and federal plants. If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Sproat will be charged with reinvigorating a program buffeted by technical and legal setbacks that have caused a projected repository opening to be delayed into the next decade. The Yucca project has been headed by interim leaders since Margaret Chu resigned as director in February. Sproat is managing partner of a consulting firm, McNeil, Sproat &Associates, based in Berwyn, Pa. He has held executive posts at Exelon Corp., the nation's largest nuclear operator, and PECO Energy, the largest utility in Pennsylvania. Industry officials said Sproat is well known as the lead negotiator in a nuclear waste settlement that Exelon completed with DOE in 2004. DOE agreed to pay Exelon for keeping used nuclear fuel at its power reactors until a Yucca repository could be opened about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. In turn, Exelon agreed to drop lawsuits charging DOE with breach of contract for failing to meet a 1998 deadline to have a repository ready to accept spent fuel. Sproat in 2002 also was chief operating officer of a venture in South Africa to develop an advanced Pebble Bed Modular Reactor. The Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry trade association, applauded the nomination, saying Sproat's "nuclear project managerial experience should serve him well in his new position." "We expect the project will continue to move forward in the licensing process under Ward Sproat's leadership," NEI spokeswoman Trish Conrad said. Nevada officials who monitor the Yucca project said they knew little of the nominee. Bob Loux, who coordinates the state's official opposition, said it matters little who directs Yucca Mountain day by day because it has support from the nuclear industry and higher-ups in the Bush administration. "I think the die is cast relative to Yucca Mountain," Loux said, adding, "You can't alter the fact they have a bad site, and that is not going to change. "On the other hand," Loux continued, "if he is coming at it from the experience of negotiating with DOE, maybe that is an indicator he is going to move the department to the direction of settling with the utilities." The nomination will be considered by the Energy Committee before going to the Senate itself. "Any nominee will face tough questions moving through the hearing process," said Tessa Hafen, spokeswoman for Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., a repository critic who closely watches the project. Stephens Washington Bureau writer Elizabeth Piet contributed to this report. Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 52 Las Vegas SUN: Porter is expecting more Yucca documents to use in e-mail probe Today: September 09, 2005 at 10:4:51 PDT By Suzanne Struglinski SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., expects another set of documents from the Energy Department today to use in his investigation of government worker e-mails that insinuate poor management and possible falsified information at the Yucca Mountain project. It's unclear what documents Porter's committee will receive. The Energy Department would only say it continues to work with the committee and Porter staff members say they may be getting documents to comply with the subpoena issued in July. Porter, R-Nev., is chairman of the House Federal Workforce and Agency Organization subcommittee that is conducting an investigation into the alleged employee fraud and mismanagement of the Energy Department's plan to store nuclear waste inside Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The Energy Department announced in March that it discovered e-mails written by U.S Geological Survey employees working on water flows studies, a key component in determining the site's safety. The messages depict the employees' frustration with the department and procedures they had to follow. The inspectors general of the Energy and Interior departments also are conducting investigations. House Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., subpoenaed a list of 10 sets of documents from the Energy Department in July for Porter's investigation. The department turned over 1,652 pages to the committee by the July 22 deadline but left out the draft license application and several other documents listed in the subpoena, including the project's draft license application. Davis also subpoenaed USGS scientist Joe Hevesi to appear before Porter's subcommittee. Hevesi insisted at a hearing in June that he did not falsify any scientific information. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 53 Las Vegas SUN: License for nuke storage site OK'd Today: September 09, 2005 at 11:14:14 PDT Critics say plan will speed Yucca By Benjamin Grove and Suzanne Struglinski SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Utah lost an important battle today in its effort to keep a temporary nuclear waste dump out of its borders, and that could be a blow to Nevada's fight against Yucca Mountain. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted 3-1 to authorize a license to Private Fuel Storage, a consortium of nuclear power plant utilities, for a temporary high-level waste storage site planned on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian reservation, 50 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. The proposed above-ground site would store up to 4,000 steel storage containers, each of which could hold up to 10 tons of spent nuclear fuel rods. The commission's decision concluded an eight-year review of PFS's license application. "The adjudicatory effort, plus our staff's separate safety and environmental reviews, gives us reasonable assurance that PFS's proposed storage facility can be constructed and operated safely," the commission said in its decision. The state of Utah plans to appeal the decision within 60 days to the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, said Jim Soper, state assistant attorney general. The nuclear industry views the Goshute site as complementary to the planned Yucca Mountain repository for nuclear waste storage, not a substitution for it. Private Fuel Storage officials said today's announcement was the big victory they had been hoping for during an arduous licensing process. "We have been waiting for this for eight years," Private Fuel Storage's spokeswoman Sue Martin said. "It has been a long drawn-out process, but very thorough, with all the safety concerns addressed appropriately." The Utah site will be an important temporary storage point for nuclear utilities before and after Yucca Mountain opens because it will be a cheaper option than storing waste on-site at plants, Martin said. "It absolutely is not an alternative to Yucca Mountain," Martin said. "But it could prove to be a very helpful kind of staging area because, of course, everything can't go to Yucca Mountain all at once." Opinions vary on how today's action on the temporary site will affect the Energy Department's plan to construct a permanent government repository for 77,000 tons of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. But Yucca critics said the NRC decision bodes ill to those fighting Yucca because the temporary Utah site is considered a stepping stone for waste ultimately bound for permanent storage in Nevada. The NRC action is bad for Nevada because it puts more pressure on officials to complete Yucca Mountain, several anti-Yucca activists said. Nationwide, waste sits stored on-site at the nuclear power plants that produce it. Nevada lawmakers have argued that it is safe to leave it there at least another 100 years or so until a better waste solution is found. It's cheaper and safer to leave waste at nuclear plants, Nevada Nuclear Waste Projects Agency director Bob Loux said. Shipping waste out West and collecting it at a temporary site in neighboring Utah will put more pressure on Energy Department officials and politicians to open Yucca, activists said. "The state of Utah is not happy anyway (about the Goshute site)," Public Citizen analyst Michele Boyd said. "They are going to exert more pressure to get the stuff to Yucca Mountain." A victory for the Goshute project can be viewed as a victory for Yucca, anti-Yucca activist Kevin Kamps said. "The two dumps are joined at the hip," said Kamps, nuclear waste specialist for the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. Nuclear industry officials say it is safe to ship high-level waste. But activists and Nevada officials disagree. They say a significant argument against both sites is that it would be dangerous to ship so much high-level waste across the country. That argument will be muted once shipments start rolling to Utah, Kamps said. "They will point to any successful shipment," Kamps said. "It won't erase the danger, but they'll say, 'We have a track record.' " There are still lots of unanswered questions about the Goshute site, Kamps said. He said that site officials have inadequate plans to deal with nuclear fuel rods that have been damaged in transport other than to send it back to the nuclear plant. "They plan to ship damaged waste containers back across the country," Kamps said. Activists noted that there are still roadblocks to the Goshute site, including Bureau of Indian Affairs approval. Also, the Bureau of Land Management has not yet approved a revised land management plan that would allow PFS to construct a rail line that connects the site to Union Pacific's line. "This is not the end of the road at all," Boyd said. Utah officials and lawmakers have fought a long battle against the temporary waste site and are vowing to keep the battle going. The state has lost nearly 50 technical challenges in appeals to the NRC. Today the NRC had its final say in what was a potentially significant obstacle: jet crashes at the site. The commission rejected the state of Utah's assertion that there is too high a probability that radiation would be released after a crash. There are 7,000 F-16 training flights over Skull Valley each year by jets from Hill Air Force Base. The lone dissenter in the NRC vote was Greg Jaczko, a former top adviser to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Jaczko wrote that he believes an additional analysis of the consequences of the F-16 aircraft hazards should be done before a license could be issued for the PFS site. In a five-page dissent, Jaczko wrote, "The standard for establishing whether or not an accident is credible must be respected and if it is reached, the Commission should require the additional analysis necessary to determine any potentially harmful consequences." Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, told the Salt Lake City Tribune, "Once the proposal leaves the NRC, it becomes vulnerable to lengthy examination by the courts, as well as administrative actions, which we will pursue relentlessly." Nevada officials have opposed the Goshute site, arguing the same points they have against Yucca -- neither the project nor the transportation plan are safe. "Transporting high-level radioactive waste to Utah is as dangerous as it would be transporting it to Nevada," Reid said. A transportation plan was not part of the PFS license application. The Transportation Department regulates the shipment of nuclear waste. The NRC will regulate the casks that the waste is stored in. Attorney Joe Egan, who represents Nevada on Yucca, said the eight-year time frame it took to get NRC approval speaks volumes about how long the Yucca process could take, if it reaches that point. Yucca and the Goshute site are much different projects. Egan said the Goshute site is a concrete pad full of storage casks, a much "less ambitious" project than what the Energy Department has planned for the underground Yucca repository. But the NRC will have less time to consider Yucca Mountain. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act limits the commission to a three-year window to review the Yucca license application, with an optional additional year if approved by Congress. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 54 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca chief choice: 'John Q. Public' Today: September 09, 2005 at 11:20:8 PDT White House nominee says he doesn't know details of dump plan By Suzanne Struglinski SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The White House pick to head the Yucca Mountain project admits he doesn't know many of the details about the Energy Department's plan to store nuclear waste in Nevada, but he knows the nuclear waste problem needs to be solved. The White House on Thursday nominated Edward F. Sproat III of Berwyn, Pa., to head the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. The office oversees the Energy Department's plan to store 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste inside Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Margaret Chu, who headed the office for three years, resigned in February. In an interview with the Sun on Thursday, Sproat, 53, called himself "John Q. Public" on his overall perception and knowledge of Yucca. He knows getting the license application through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the next big step. "I am hoping at some point I will get a briefing book to be better prepared for the details," Sproat said. "Hopefully, I can get educated quickly." He said he knows the program faces a number of challenges, but he has not had the opportunity to talk with department officials at great length on specifics yet. He has not met with President Bush or Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. "All my information is based on what I read on the Web or in the press right now," said Sproat, who added later that he set his Google News Alert e-mails to include Yucca-related headlines. If confirmed by the Senate, Sproat would inherit a complicated program tainted with two decades of political, legal and scientific bickering. Nevada officials and numerous environmental groups strongly oppose storing nuclear waste at Yucca, while the nuclear industry wants the government to take used fuel off its hands as it was promised. Sproat said if he lived in Nevada, he would have a lot of concerns on how the waste was going to be stored in the state and moved there. "I think the people of Nevada have every right to understand that and have this process be as transparent as it can be," Sproat said. Yucca has been plagued by budgetary and legal problems. Congress has cut funding in recent years. Nevada has sued on several issues and is threatening to sue over a newly revised radiation standard recently released by the Environmental Protection Agency. Other lawsuits are pending, including a suit filed by the state last week against the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over a Yucca-related agency rule. And the Energy Department is still investigating Yucca worker e-mails that suggest quality assurance documents were falsified. "There are some pretty blatant DOE absurdities going on," said anti-Yucca activist Kevin Kamps, a nuclear waste specialist at Nuclear Information and Resource Service. "The whole program is pretty outrageous, and it will be hard for it to stand up in court." Staffers for Nevada lawmakers were researching Sproat's background Thursday. Sproat can be assured of tough questioning as he makes his way through the hearing process, said Tessa Hafen, spokeswoman for Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. Being Yucca Mountain chief is not an enviable job, said Jack Finn, spokesman for Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. "He's going to be looking after a program that has been fraught with delay, faulty science, mismanagement and misdirection," Finn said. Sproat has a long background in the nuclear industry, and as he told former colleagues he was considering the job, he acknowledged that "several said 'are you nuts?' " But overall, he said, "Everybody in the industry said this issue of spent fuel needs to be resolved." He said the position was "something I really wanted to try and go after" because he believes the future of nuclear power is important to the country. Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman Mitch Singer said Sproat is "well-respected" in the industry. "We certainly believe his leadership will be good," said Singer, noting he would be joining the project "at an important time." Sproat is now a managing partner with McNeill, Sproat and Associates, a consulting firm in Pennsylvania he started in 2003 with Corbin McNeill, the former co-chief executive officer of Exelon, the country's largest nuclear power generator. They worked to get a new type of nuclear power plant built at a national laboratory in Idaho in a previous version of the energy bill that failed. Sproat said he would dissolve the firm if confirmed for the position. Prior to starting the firm, Sproat spent 2002 in South Africa as chief operating officer of Pebble Bed Modular Reactor. Exelon invested $7.5 million in a joint venture with three South African companies to develop the new type of nuclear reactor that would use billiard-ball sized spheres containing nuclear material versus the long fuel rod used today. The reactor design is supposed to be safer than the traditional reactor and the fuel is supposed to be insoluble in water. Exelon eventually withdrew from the project. Sproat was also involved with the 2000 settlement between PECO and the Energy Department over the government's failure to take nuclear waste as promised in 1998. The agreement allowed PECO, which is now Exelon, to reduce payments into the Nuclear Waste Fund for all costs associated with keeping spent fuel at its Peach Bottom nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. Nevada officials often cite what it has deemed "the PECO alternative" as an example of what the government should do with nuclear companies still storing waste as opposed to moving it to the state. Sproat was Exelon's vice president of international projects from April 2001 to January 2003. He led Exelon's interest in developing the pebble bed reactors in the United States, but the company later withdrew the idea. From 1994 to 2001, Sproat held various positions at PECO Nuclear, including director of maintenance, director of engineering and director of strategic programs. PECO merged with Exelon in October 2000. It's no surprise the Bush administration chose a nominee from the nuclear industry, said Public Citizen analyst Michele Boyd. Boyd asked: Why can't the Bush administration choose someone for the job who has an open mind about the scientific work that has been conducted at Yucca? "Exelon clearly has a stake in getting Yucca Mountain open," Boyd said. "Yucca is the key for them, and it's clearly a bad site." Exelon has been an industry leader in advocating Yucca Mountain. Exelon officials have said that construction of new U.S. reactors relies in part on continued progress on Yucca. "My company is committed to supporting the Yucca Mountain solution," Exelon chairman and CEO John Rowe told the Sun last December. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 55 Mos News: Abkhazia Nuclear Storage Facilities Inspected by UN Experts - NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM [IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming / Photo from www.globalsecuritynews.com] Created: 09.09.2005 17:56 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 17:56 MSK MosNews A team of UN nuclear security inspectors was in Georgia’s breakaway Abkhazia region on Friday to check that all nuclear materials stored there were safe and accounted for, Reuters reported quoting the officials. The Abkhaz foreign ministry said the delegation from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was inspecting two scientific institutes in the capital, Sukhumi — once an important Soviet research centre. The inspectors arrived in the Black Sea region on Wednesday and were due to complete their inspection on Saturday, the ministry said. Diplomats close to the IAEA said earlier this year the Vienna-based body wanted to check Abkhazia for bomb grade plutonium or highly enriched uranium that may have gone missing from a nuclear institute. Abkhazia split from Georgia in a war in the 1990s but is internationally recognized as part of Georgia. “The aim of the visit was to verify Georgia’s nuclear materials and activities declared to the IAEA,” IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming was quoted by Reuters as saying. “It’s taken some time to get there for security reasons and now we’ve sent an inspection mission to verify their declaration,” Fleming said. UN inspectors last visited Abkhazia in 2001, but put off subsequent visits because of security concerns. The region is mined and there are frequent skirmishes between Abkhaz and Georgian forces, Reuters added. Write us: info@mosnews.com Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM ***************************************************************** 56 Salt Lake Tribune: NRC clears way for nuclear fuel storage in Skull Valley Article Last Updated: 09/09/2005 10:11:28 AM Jennifer Talhelm The Associated Press WASHINGTON - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Friday authorized a license to build a private nuclear waste storage site on the Skull Valley Goshutes Indian Reservation. Private Fuel Storage, a group of utilities, wants to store 44,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel at the site, 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. In a meeting that lasted about two minutes, commissioners took a two-pronged vote. First, they affirmed an earlier ruling that containers for the waste wouldn't release an unacceptable amount of radiation if a jet fighter crashed into them. Then they authorized the NRC staff to issue a license to construct and operate the storage site. The license will be ready after paperwork is completed, said NRC spokesman Eliot Brenner. The timing was not immediately clear. "I'm very happy," said Paul Gaukler, an attorney who has represented Private Fuel Storage in its eight-year quest to build the waste facility. "People can be assured it's a safe facility. The issue has been fully aired and resolved. Thank goodness - finally." Utah Sens. Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett were not immediately available for comment, nor was anyone from the Utah governor's office in Salt Lake City immediately available. Utah politicians have made numerous attempts to block construction of the storage site, including a last-minute unsuccessful attempt in July to amend the national energy bill to require a terrorism threat study before the NRC could grant a license. The effort failed when Nevada Sen. Harry Reid objected. State officials have said they would fight the license in court if necessary. An impoverished tribe, the Goshutes had been looking for ways to make money and eventually teamed with Private Fuel Storage to propose the station. Private Fuel Storage's facility would be a temporary dump pending the opening of a national repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 57 San Bernardino County Sun: Perchlorate deal OK'd Display Date: 09/09/2005 07:40:00 PM Nikki Cobb, Staff Writer RIALTO - City leaders have approved a county plan to staunch the plume of toxic perchlorate seeping toward the city's water supply. Perchlorate, an ingredient in munitions, fireworks and rocket fuel thought to cause thyroid malfunction, is oozing through underground waterways from county-owned land, where it originated, toward Rialto's Well No. 3. The city has filed lawsuits against San Bernardino County, the Defense Department and about 40 defense contractors over perchlorate contamination of the ground. Peter Fox, Rialto water superintendent, said that of all the parties held to be responsible for the contamination, the county has been the most responsive. "The county's been very cooperative, a good partner with the city to ensure that the city is able to provide the water to our customers," he said. The Defense Department manufactured perchlorate products during World War II on land now belonging to the county, including the Mid-Valley Landfill. Its contractors continued to use the toxic stuff through the 1950s and 1960s, further contaminating the area. The county is partially responsible for cleanup, Rialto officials maintain, because it owns the land and because it exacerbated the problem with some of its operations there. A year ago, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board ordered the county to either treat Well No. 3 or provide replacement water for the roughly 1,300 acre-feet the city pumps from it annually. An acre-foot of water is 326,000 gallons, or about the amount two families use in a year. The county has since installed an ion-exchange filtration system on Well No. 3, cleaning the water to the point where perchlorate is undetectable. Under the new agreement, the county will install a series of extraction wells a sort of picket fence that intercepts the perchlorate-tainted water before it seeps into Rialto's water system. The extraction wells will pump about 200 acre-feet of water each month. That water will be delivered to a treatment system to be built by the county on city land and operated by the city. The treated water will then be returned to Rialto's water system. It costs about $1 million to outfit a well for perchlorate treatment. Then there's an annual cost of $300,000 to $500,000 to maintain it and replace the resin that filters out the perchlorate. Rialto is treating two of its 11 wells besides Well No. 3. The county has provided replacement water to Rialto about 1,000 acre-feet this year, according to Fox from the Riverside-Highland Water District. Next the agreement will go before the Board of Supervisors. Rex Richardson, spokesman for the county Solid Waste Management Division, said he expects county supervisors to approve the plan by the end of the month. The county is fulfilling its current obligation to Rialto for now according to Kurt Berchtold, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board's assistant executive officer But the county may need to build more "picket fences" to prevent the migration of the perchlorate plume into other areas, Berchtold said. "(The county) will need to provide replacement water to the city and prevent the plume from migrating further," Berchtold said. "We'll be evaluating them, looking at whether the county needs to do other work to accelerate the cleanup of the plume." Berchtold said extensive testing and research remains to be done, to assess the hydrology of the basin and monitor the movement of the perchlorate plume. Richardson said the county is pleased to be able to address the perchlorate problem and intends to follow through. "For us this has been a really good thing. A real win-win situation, where we can address the county's problem of perchlorate spread of the plume," Richardson said. "Everybody's suing everybody. But everybody's working together, too," he said. Los Angeles Newspaper Group ***************************************************************** 58 NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Meeting Notice FR Doc E5-4901 [Federal Register: September 9, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 174)] [Notices] [Page 53693-53694] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09se05-118] In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b. of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) will hold a meeting on September 20-21, 2005, Pacific Enterprise Plaza Building One, 3250 Pepper Lane, Las Vegas, Nevada 89120. Tuesday, September 20, 2005, Pacific Enterprise Plaza Building One, 3250 Pepper Lane, Las Vegas, Nevada 89120 9:45 a.m.-10 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACNW Chairman (Open)--The ACNW Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting. 10 a.m.-11:45 a.m.: Discussion of Prepared Letters/Reports (Open)-- The Committee will discuss proposed ACNW reports on matters considered during this meeting. 1 p.m.-2 p.m.: Overview on Status of Yucca Mountain Project (Open)--The Committee will be briefed by a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) representative on recent developments affecting the geologic repository program at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 2 p.m.-3 p.m.: NRC Project Plan for the Yucca Mountain License Application Review (Open)--The Committee will be briefed by an NRC representative on staff plans for the review of a DOE license application to construct a proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. 3:15 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: 2005 Update to the DOE Performance Confirmation Program Plan (Open)--The Committee will be briefed by a DOE representative on the Performance Confirmation Plan to be included in any DOE license application requesting authorization to construct a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. 4:45 p.m.-5:15 p.m.: ACNW Low-Level Radioactive (LLW) White Paper: Status Report (Open)--The Committee will discuss progress in development of a proposed White Paper on LLW management issues. 5:15 p.m.-5:45 p.m.: ACNW Subcommittee Report on DOE Probabilistic Volcanic Hazards Analysis (PVHA) Workshop (Open)--The Committee will hear a report from those Members who observed the August 2005 DOE PVHA expert elicitation update. Wednesday, September 21, 2005, Pacific Enterprise Plaza Building One, 3250 Pepper Lane, Las Vegas, Nevada 89120 8:30 a.m.-8:40 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACNW Chairman (Open)-- The ACNW Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting. 8:40 a.m.-10:40 a.m.: 1995 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Recommendations for Yucca Mountain Standards and the 2000 Court Remand (Open)--Two Members of the NAS Committee that developed recommendations for site-specific radiation standards will discuss their individual views regarding the 2005 Court decision vacating the 10,000-year time period of regulatory compliance in 40 CFR part 197, as well as the NAS earlier one million year time frame recommendation. 11 a.m.-12 Noon: Evolution of Climate in the Yucca Mountain Area over the Next Million Years (Open)--An invited expert will brief the Committee on projected climate trends in the Yucca Mountain region and discuss possible implications for the regional ground-water flow system. 1:15 p.m.-2:15 p.m.: An Approach to the Modeling of Magma/ Repository Interactions (Open) An ACNW [[Page 53694]] consultant will discuss his views on how this potentially disruptive event might be modeled for the purposes of a Yucca Mountain performance assessment. 2:15 p.m.-3:15 p.m.: ACNW Summer Intern Project: Modeling a Volcanic Ash Plume (Open) The Committee will receive a briefing on how the HYSPLIT (Hyprid-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory) atmospheric dispersion model, developed by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, was used to develop an alternative ash plume dispersion analysis for the Yucca Mountain site. 3:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m.: ACNW Subcommittee Report on August 2005 Savannah River and Barnwell LLW Disposal Site Visit (Open)--The Committee will hear a report from those Members who participated in the aforementioned visits. 4:30 p.m.-5 p.m.: Continuation of Discussion of Possible Letter/ Reports (Open)--The Committee will continue its discussion of proposed ACNW reports. 5 p.m.-5:30 p.m.: Miscellaneous (Open)--The Committee will discuss matters related to the conduct of Committee activities and matters and specific issues that were not completed during previous meetings, as time and availability of information permit. 6 p.m.-8 p.m.: ACNW Public Outreach Meeting (Open)--The purpose of meeting is to develop information to advise the Commission on concerns of Yucca Mountain stakeholders, and to advise the NRC Commission on opportunities to provide better involvement of the stakeholders in NRC's prelicensing process. Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACNW meetings were published in the Federal Register on October 5, 2004 (69 FR 59620). In accordance with those procedures, oral or written views may be presented by members of the public, including representatives of the nuclear industry. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify the Cognizant ACNW staff named below five days before the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made to allow necessary time during the meeting for such statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the Chairman. Information regarding the time to be set aside for this purpose may be obtained by contacting the Cognizant ACNW staff prior to the meeting. In view of the possibility that the schedule for ACNW meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with the Cognizant ACNW staff if such rescheduling would result in major inconvenience. Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, as well as the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted therefor can be obtained by contacting Ms. Sharon Steele, ACNW Senior Staff Engineer (301-415-8065), between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET. ACNW meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) at pdr@nrc.gov, or by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from the Publicly Available Records System (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html or http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ (ACRS & oc-collections/ (ACRS & ACNW Meeting schedules/agendas). Videoteleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACNW meetings. Those wishing to use this service for observing ACNW meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACNW Audio Visual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m., ET, at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the videoteleconferencing link. The availability of videoteleconferencing services is not guaranteed. Notes: Presentation time should not exceed 50 percent of the total time allocated for a specific item. The remaining 50 percent of the time is reserved for discussion. Fifty (50) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of the presentation materials should be provided to the ACNW. ACNW meeting schedules are subject to change. Presentations may be canceled or rescheduled to another day. If such a change would result in significant inconvenience or hardship, be sure to verify the schedule with Ms. Sharon Steele at 301-415-6805 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. prior to the meeting. Special instructions concerning the meeting facility: --Attendees at this meeting will be subject to security screening prior to entering the meeting facility. --Attendees should plan to arrive approximately 45 minutes prior to the meeting. --No food or drink other than bottled water will be allowed in the meeting facility. --Access to the parking lot in front of the meeting facility is restricted to participants to the meeting and not available to the general public. Ample street parking for the public is available nearby on Pepper Lane and Sagebrush Lane. Dated: September 2, 2005. Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E5-4901 Filed 9-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 59 NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Meeting on Planning and FR Doc E5-4902 [Federal Register: September 9, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 174)] [Notices] [Page 53694-53695] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09se05-119] Procedures; Notice of Meeting The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) will hold Planning and Procedures meetings on September 20 and 22, 2005, in Las Vegas, Nevada. The meetings will be open to public attendance, with the exception of portions that will be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b (c) (2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of ACNW, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The agenda for the subject meetings shall be as follows: Tuesday, September 20, 2005, 8 a.m.-9:30 a.m. (Open) The Committee will discuss proposed ACNW activities and related matters. The purpose of this meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Thursday, September 22, 2005, 8:30 a.m.-12 Noon (Closed) The Committee will discuss current and future challenges, and future needs (e.g., staffing, qualification). Thursday, September 22, 2005, 1:30 p.m.-5 p.m. (Open) The Committee will (1) evaluate ACNW's progress against the 2005- 2006 Action Plan, (2) determine a path forward and action items to keep the Committee on track to successfully accomplish Action Plan items not yet completed, and (3) determine whether changes are needed to the Action Plan. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Ms. Sharon A. Steele (Telephone: 301/415-6805) between 8 [[Page 53695]] a.m. and 5:15 p.m. (ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 8:30 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. (e.t.). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda. Dated: September 1, 2005. Sharon A. Steele, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW. [FR Doc. E5-4902 Filed 9-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 60 Platts: Nuclear fuel business booming despite uncertainties The nuclear fuel business going forward presents many opportunities. But those opportunities are clouded by uncertainties larger than the strict market fundamentals that have propelled the price of uranium from about $10 per pound yellowcake (U3O8) three years ago to about $30 per pound today. The nuclear fuel business should clearly benefit from the many bullish signs indicating that nuclear power is poised to expand around the world from the 440 reactors in operation today to perhaps 470 by 2015, and more beyond that date. Fueling the optimism is the recently enacted US energy legislation, which contains a number of important provisions intended to jumpstart the ordering of new nuclear plants in the US; the announcement by the US that it intends to try to liberalize nuclear trade with India; the continued push by China to expand nuclear capacity; the possibility that the timetable for the phase-out of nuclear plants in Germany may be modified after the federal election there in September; and the growing recognition by Australia--the country with the world's largest uranium reserves--that uranium has strategic importance and that its production should be encouraged. Also encouraging is the progress that LES--a consortium of Urenco, Westinghouse, and three US utilities, Exelon, Entergy, and Duke Energy--is making in securing a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to build a uranium enrichment plant in New Mexico. The licensing of the LES plant is considered by many to be a bellwether for new nuclear reactor construction in the US. But there are clouds on this seemingly bright horizon: Uranium demand continues to outpace production Future of US-Russia HEU agreement uncertain Delays affect nuclear waste disposal, new enrichment technology Attend Platts Nuclear Fuel Strategies conference Sep 22-23 in Washington, DC, to learn how the leading operators of nuclear power plants fuel are managing fuel supply and on-site storage. UNCERTAINTIES ªNuclear fuel business booming despite uncertainties ªUranium demand continues to outpace production ªFuture of US-Russia HEU agreement uncertain ªDelays affect nuclear waste disposal, enrichment technology SOLUTIONS ªAustralia to start nuclear fuel talks with China ªEPA proposes 1-mil-year Yucca Mt. standard RESOURCES ªUS utility fuel costs for 2004 ªProposed waste storage site at Yucca Mountain: map ªUS nuclear plants: map ªNuclear fuel spot price, 2002-2005 Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 61 NRC: NRC Denies Utah’s Final Appeals, Authorizes Staff to Issue License for PFS Facility News Release - 2005-126- Releases > 2005 > 05-126 NRC NEWS U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov No. 05-126 September 9, 2005 NRC DENIES UTAHS FINAL APPEALS, AUTHORIZES STAFF TO ISSUE LICENSE FOR PFS FACILITY Printable Version The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today denied the state of Utahs final appeals in the adjudication on an application by Private Fuel Storage to construct and operate an independent spent nuclear fuel storage facility in Skull Valley, Utah, and by a 3-1 vote authorized the NRC staff to issue PFS a license once the staff has made the requisite findings under NRC regulations. Utah petitioned for Commission review of a Feb. 24 decision by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, which rejected the states assertions that there is too high a probability of a radiation release resulting from an accidental crash of one of 7,000 flights over the Skull Valley each year by F-16 single-engine jets from Hill Air Force Base. The Commissions memorandum and order also dismisses as moot petitions by PFS and the NRC staff for review of portions of an earlier ASLB ruling. Our decision today concludes this protracted adjudication, which has generated more than 40 published Board decisions and more than 30 published Commission decisions, the Commission said in its memorandum and order. The adjudicatory effort, plus our staffs separate safety and environmental reviews, gives us reasonable assurance that PFSs proposed [storage facility] can be constructed and operated safely, it said. There are no remaining adjudication issues to resolve. Accordingly, once it has made the requisite findings pursuant to 10 CFR 72.40, the staff is authorized to issue PFS a license to construct and operate its proposed [facility]. PFS submitted its application for the license in June 1997. The NRC issued its final Environmental Impact Statement in January 2002 and a Consolidated Safety Evaluation Report in March 2002. The PFS facility would be located on the Reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, about 50 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. The proposed above-ground facility would use up to 4,000 NRC-approved Holtec International HI-STORM 100 storage casks, each of which can hold up to 10 tons of spent fuel. The HI-STORM cask consists of a steel canister in which the fuel is stored and a steel and concrete overpack. To shield the spent fuel, the canister is welded closed and then placed in the overpack of two steel shells encasing a wall of concrete more than two feet thick. The concrete provides additional shielding from radiation during storage. The cask weighs 180 tons when full. Separate from the NRCs actions, the Bureau of Indian Affairs must issue final approval of the lease between the company and the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians. Also, the Bureau of Land Management must approve a revision of the land resource management plan for Skull Valley to permit PFS to construct and operate a rail line on a right-of-way through BLM land to connect the PFS site and the Union Pacific Railroad main line. Last revised Friday, September 09, 2005 ***************************************************************** 62 PE.com: Schools near Wyle Labs to get water tested | Inland Southern California | Corona-Norco NORCO: Officials say the procedure is to reassure the community, not a sign of contamination. 01:13 AM PDT on Friday, September 9, 2005 By PAIGE AUSTIN and LINDA LOU / The Press-Enterprise NORCO - Six sinks and drinking fountains will be tested for contamination next week at three Norco schools near Wyle Labs to make sure students and teachers aren't exposed to hazardous waste from Wyle, officials said. The city of Norco will take two samples from each school to test for cancer-causing chemicals along with radioactive particles that may have been used at Wyle Labs, a former hazardous testing facility. "The water in Norco is clean," said City Manager Jeff Allred. The tests are being conducted at the request of the school district and to put the community at ease, he added. Some residents have been worried that chemicals used when Wyle tested rocket engines and parts of space shuttles, could have gotten into the drinking water. The decision to test drinking water at the schools stems from findings of cancer-causing contamination in the groundwater, soil and indoor air vapor at the three schools last month. The recent findings pose no immediate health threat. City officials said there is no reason to believe the contamination could leach into drinking water pipes. The water comes from the Arlington desalter, where it has tested clean for the contaminants found at Wyle, including industrial solvents such as TCE, PCE, and vinyl chloride and perchlorate, a component of rocket fuel, said Norco Public Works Director Bill Thompson. Because of the water pressure running through the pipes, any leaks would send water shooting out rather than allowing groundwater to seep in, he said. "I really feel confident that the water is going to be safe in these buildings," said Norco Councilwoman Kathy Azevedo. "I think (the testing) is a great idea because it will make the residents, teachers and parents with kids at the schools assured that they are safe." The testing will cost about $400 and the results should be back within two weeks, said city officials. Reach Paige Austin at (951) 893-2106 or paustin@pe.com Reach Linda Lou at (951) 893-2109 or llou@pe.comMore 2005, The Press-Enterprise Company ***************************************************************** 63 AU ABC: ALP reopens divisive uranium mine debate The World Today - Friday, 9 September , 2005 12:26:00 Reporter: Melanie Christiansen ELEANOR HALL: The Labor Party may well reopen one of the most divisive debates in its history, with pressure building from within for it to scrap its opposition to any new uranium mines. A member of the ALP National Executive and head of the powerful Australian Workers Union, Bill Ludwig, has begun lobbying others in the party to scrap the three mines policy. He says Australia has an obligation to make its vast reserves of uranium available to help meet the world's energy needs. And he says he wants the issue on the agenda at the Labor Party's next national conference. In Brisbane, Melanie Christiansen reports. MELANIE CHRISTIANSEN: Labor powerbroker Bill Ludwig has never been one to shy away from a fight. Now he's weighed in again on one of the most divisive issues in the party's history, saying Australia should develop more uranium mines. BILL LUDWIG: I can't see why you only have to have three, you know, it's a bit limited. But we did try some years back to change the policy, but the party dropped off that again. But if the debate hits the deck again, well we'll be up there supporting the expansion of the three mine policy. MELANIE CHRISTIANSEN: With an estimated 40 per cent of the world's reserves of uranium, Australia is under growing pressure to export the commodity to energy hungry countries like China. Bill Ludwig says Australia has an obligation to help meet that demand, and he argues that mining uranium for energy is no more risky than coal mining. BILL LUDWIG: They've all got risks about them, both coal and uranium, so one is no better than the other. The only thing we do know is that the emissions from the nuclear power plants don't have the emissions that coal fires do. MELANIE CHRISTIANSEN: What about the environmental risk, though? BILL LUDWIG: Well, we're doing it now, aren't we? We're digging up uranium now in Australia. So does that… you know, another mine - does that say it's more risky? I don't think so. Another two mines? I don't think so. MELANIE CHRISTIANSEN: But that's incensed another union heavyweight, Doug Cameron, the National Secretary of Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. DOUG CAMERON: Nothing has changed since the party adopted the last uranium policy, and policy should not change. MELANIE CHRISTIANSEN: It appears the issue is now headed for a bitter debate at Labor's next national conference. Doug Cameron says it would be politically stupid to overturn the ALP's long-standing three mines policy. DOUG CAMERON: Well, I think if the Labor Party is to win the next election it will need the votes of environmentalists around this country. I think the Labor Party needs to differentiate itself from the Howard Government, not with some tame imitation of the Government, and by simply adopting a policy to support uranium mining, when none of the environmental issues have been properly dealt with. I think it's a wrong position for the Labor Party to take. It will be divisive and it will be a very robust debate at the next national conference. MELANIE CHRISTIANSEN: Will it be a bloody fight at the conference? DOUG CAMERON: It will be a very robust fight. MELANIE CHRISTIANSEN: And when the fight comes, Doug Cameron will have Queensland Premier Peter Beattie in his corner. PETER BEATTIE: I mean, frankly, people need to wake up to themselves. What's happening in the world now is the uranium industry is coming back as a major competitor to coal, and if we allow our coal industry to be subjugated to the uranium industry, frankly it will undermine the wealth of this state. I'm not prepared to support it. MELANIE CHRISTIANSEN: But Bill Ludwig isn't deterred by that. He thinks there's a growing mood to change Labor's policy on uranium mining, and he's spoiling for a fight. BILL LUDWIG: Oh, it'll be vigorous, if it gets to that stage. Now, I'm not too sure, Melanie, whether it's going to get there yet, but if it does, well yes, it will be a vigorous debate. MELANIE CHRISTIANSEN: You're ready for a fight? BILL LUDWIG: Yep. ELEANOR HALL: Labor National Executive Member Bill Ludwig, speaking there to Melanie Christiansen in Brisbane. ***************************************************************** 64 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste to Hold a Meeting in Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 20-22 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. 05-127 September 9, 2005 briefed on recent developments related to the proposed high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Committee members will also be briefed on the NRCs plans for reviewing the Department of Energy license application for Yucca Mountain and will hear the views of experts on such issues as the evolution of climate around the proposed site. In addition to the briefings all of which are open to the public the ACNW has set aside the evening of Sept. 21 to hear from those interested in the issue. On Sept. 22, the committee will conduct a planning meeting to discuss future agenda items that would form the basis for ACNW briefings over the next year. Those portions of the planning meeting addressing personnel matters will be closed to the public. The committee reports to and advises the Commission on all aspects of nuclear waste management. The briefings will be held at the Pacific Enterprise Plaza Building One, 3250 Pepper Lane, Las Vegas. They will run on Tuesday from 9:45 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. and on Wednesday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The portion for public input will run on Wednesday from 6 p.m to 8 p.m. The open portion of the planning meeting on Thursday will run from 1:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. Attendees will be subject to security screening before entering the meeting facility. Oral or written views may be presented by members of the public. Those wanting to make oral statements should notify Sharon Steele, at 301-415-8065. Videoconferencing may be available. Those interested in using this service should contact Theron Brown at 301-415-8066. Last revised Friday, September 09, 2005 ***************************************************************** 65 EPA: INEL transuranic waste characterization FR Doc 05-17926 [Federal Register: September 9, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 174)] [Notices] [Page 53659-53663] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09se05-85] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-7965-3] Proposed Approval of Central Characterization Project's Transuranic Waste Characterization Program at Idaho National Laboratory AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of availability; opening of public comment period. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the availability of, and soliciting public comments on the proposed approval of the transuranic (TRU) radioactive waste characterization program implemented by the Central Characterization Project (CCP) at Idaho National Laboratory (INL). INL CCP is characterizing waste from the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project (AMWTP) and the Idaho Closure Project (ICP), [[Page 53660]] respectively, for disposal at the Department of Energy's (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). In accordance with the EPA's WIPP Compliance Criteria, EPA inspected the INL CCP's characterization of TRU debris waste, solid waste and soil/gravel waste from May 3-5, 2005. EPA's inspection team determined that the INL CCP waste characterization program was technically adequate, and therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the INL CCP waste characterization program in the configuration observed during the inspection and as described in EPA's inspection report. In addition to proposing the approval of the INL CCP waste characterization program, EPA is proposing a tiered structure for reporting changes to the waste characterization program demonstrated by INL CCP. The results of the EPA's evaluation of the INL CCP program and the proposed approval are described in the EPA's inspection report which is available for review in the public dockets listed in ADDRESSES. We will consider public comments received on or before the due date mentioned in DATES. This notice summarizes the waste characterization processes EPA evaluated and EPA's proposed approval. As required by the 40 CFR 194.8, at the end of a 45-day comment period EPA will evaluate public comments, address relevant public comments in the final inspection report, and issue the final report and an approval letter to the DOE Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO). INL CCP is currently authorized to characterize TRU waste, however, INL CCP waste is not eligible for disposal at WIPP until EPA issues an approval letter to DOE. DATES: EPA is requesting public comment on the docketed document. Comments must be received by EPA's official Air Docket on or before October 24, 2005. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0162. Comments may also be submitted electronically, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rajani Joglekar, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, (202) 343-9462. You can also call EPA's toll-free WIPP Information Line, 1-800-331-WIPP or visit our Web site at . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0162. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include any Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742. These documents are also available for review in paper form at the official EPA Air Docket in Washington, DC, Docket No. A-98- 49, Category II-A2, and at the following three EPA WIPP informational docket locations in New Mexico: In Carlsbad at the Municipal Library, Hours: Monday-Thursday, 10 a.m.-9 p.m., Friday-Saturday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m., and Sunday, 1 p.m.-5 p.m.; in Albuquerque at the Government Publications Department, Zimmerman Library, University of New Mexico, Hours: Vary by semester; and in Santa Fe at the New Mexico State Library, Hours: Monday-Friday, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. As provided in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 2, and in accordance with normal EPA docket procedures, if copies of any docket materials are requested, a reasonable fee may be charged for photocopying. 2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at . An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff. For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket visit EPA [[Page 53661]] Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002. B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. However, late comments may be considered if time permits. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD-ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD-ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select ``Information Sources,'' ``Dockets,'' and ``EPA Dockets.'' Once in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. OAR- 2005-0162. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to , Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0162. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. 2. By Mail. Send your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0162. 3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket, EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. OAR- 2005-0162. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.A.1. 4. By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: (202) 566-1741, Attention Docket ID. No. OAR-2005-0162. C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternatives. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments. II. Background DOE is operating the WIPP near Carlsbad in southeastern New Mexico as a deep geologic repository for disposal of TRU radioactive waste. As defined by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) of 1992 (Pub. L. 102- 579), as amended (Pub. L. 104-201), TRU waste consists of materials containing processes having atomic numbers greater than 92 (with half- lives greater than twenty years), in concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries of alpha-emitting TRU isotopes per gram of waste. Much of the existing TRU waste consists of items contaminated during the production of nuclear weapons, such as rags, equipment, tools, and sludges. On May 13, 1998, EPA announced its final compliance certification decision to the Secretary of Energy (published May 18, 1998, 63 FR 27354). This decision stated that the WIPP will comply with EPA's radioactive waste disposal regulations at 40 CFR part 191, subparts B and C. WIPP began receiving shipments of TRU radioactive waste in March 1999. The final WIPP certification decision includes conditions that (1) prohibit shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP from any site other than the Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL) until the EPA determines that the site has established and executed a quality assurance program, in accordance with Sec. Sec. 194.22(a)(2)(i), 194.24(c)(3), and 194.24(c)(5) for waste characterization activities and assumptions (Condition 2 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 194); and (2) with limited exceptions, until EPA has approved the procedures developed to comply with the waste characterization requirements of Sec. 194.22(c)(4) (Condition 3 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 194), LANL or any other site may not ship TRU waste for disposal at WIPP. The EPA's approval process for waste generator sites is described in Sec. 194.8. In July 2004, EPA promulgated changes to the ``Criteria for the Certification and Recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance with Disposal Regulations' (69 FR 42571-42583, July 16, 2004). Some of these changes modified EPA's approval of waste characterization (WC) programs at DOE's TRU waste sites. EPA will now conduct baseline inspections for each waste generator site that is characterizing contact-handled (CH) TRU waste. During a baseline inspection EPA evaluates a waste characterization program by sampling the equipment, procedures and personnel training, qualifications and experience that are involved in several WC processes. EPA will then propose to approve a site's TRU waste characterization program based on the waste characterization ability demonstrated during the inspection. As a part of the approval, [[Page 53662]] EPA will also specify how changes to an approved WC program must be reported to EPA. EPA will designate changes to an approved waste characterization program as Tier 1 (T1) or Tier 2 (T2) depending on their potential impact on data quality. A T1 designation requires DOE to notify EPA of proposed changes to an approved WC program prior to implementing the change. EPA may choose to inspect a site before approving changes. A T2 designation allows DOE to implement changes to an approved WC process component without EPA approval, however, DOE is required to notify EPA of such changes. EPA may continue to conduct inspections at any time to evaluate waste characterization programs at the approved sites under the authority of Sec. 194.24(h). The new site inspection and approval process requires EPA to issue a Federal Register notice proposing the baseline compliance decision, docket the inspection report for public review, and seek public comment on the proposed decision for a period of 45 days. III. Proposed Baseline Compliance Decision The CBFO Quality Assurance (QA) Manager sent an e-mail March 14, 2005, notifying EPA that INL-CCP was prepared to ship waste and wants to demonstrate to EPA its ability to properly characterize TRU waste and meet regulatory requirements. EPA performed a baseline inspection (EPA Inspection No. EPA-INL-CCP-05.05-8) of the TRU waste characterization activities of the DOE's Central Characterization Project (CCP) at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) from May 3-5, 2005. The CCP is a mobile characterization program that assists TRU waste generator sites with waste characterization activities. Regardless of the CCP location, EPA evaluates and approves all sites that utilize the CCP as an independent waste characterization site. At INL, the CCP is characterizing waste from the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project (AMWTP) and the Idaho Closure Project (ICP). The purpose of EPA's inspection of INL CCP was to evaluate the adequacy of the sites's WC programs for the contact-handled (CH) TRU waste intended to be disposed at WIPP. EPA's inspection focused on equipment, procedures and personnel training/qualifications and experience for the following waste characterization processes: acceptable knowledge (AK), non-destructive assay (NDA), visual examination technique (VET) for newly-generated waste, visual examination/real-time radiography (VE/RTR) of retrievably-stored waste, load management, and the WIPP Waste Information System (WWIS). The activities examined during the inspection included: --AK and load management for the AMWTP's CH, retrievably-stored, TRU debris waste and solid waste. --VET for CH, newly-generated, debris waste, solid waste and soil/ gravel waste from ICP, Pit 4. --VE/RTR for the AMWTP's CH, retrievably-stored, debris waste and solid waste. --NDA and the WWIS for CH, retrievably-stored, and newly-generated, debris waste, solid waste, and soil/gravel waste from AMWTP and ICP, Pit 4. In addition to reviewing individual components (procedures and equipment) of each of the WC processes, EPA interviewed and reviewed training records of the personnel responsible for compiling data, analyzing waste contents, operating equipment, and preparing data for WWIS tracking. EPA also required radioassay replicate analysis on containers from the five waste categories that INL CCP is currently characterizing. The purpose of the replicate testing is to enable EPA to verify that the radioassay equipment being assessed for approval can provide consistent, reproducible results for determining the quantity of each of the 10 WIPP-tracked radionuclides (241Am, 137Cs, 238Pu, 239Pu, 240Pu, 242Pu, 90Sr, 233U, 234U, and 238U) and the TRU alpha concentration. At the time of the inspection, EPA identified no findings and two (2) concerns for the INL CCP waste characterization program. At the end of the inspection EPA gave DOE a written description of the concerns. Prior to the end of the inspection, DOE responded to EPA's concerns. EPA evaluated DOE's response for completeness and adequacy, and concluded that the corrective actions taken by DOE adequately resolved EPA's concerns. The details of EPA's findings and concerns from the INL CCP inspection can be found in the inspection report. Based on the results of the inspection discussed in EPA's report, EPA is proposing to approve the INL CCP waste characterization program in the configuration observed during this inspection. This includes the following: (1) AK and load management process for CH retrievable-stored, TRU debris and solid waste stored at AMWTP. (2) Three non-destructive assay systems (Tomographic Gamma Scanner, Waste Assay Gamma Spectrometer, SWEPP Gamma-Ray Spectrometer) for assaying CH TRU solid, soil/gravel, and debris waste. (3) VE as a quality control check of the RTR process and RTR of CH retrievably-stored, solid and debris waste. (4) VET process for newly-generated debris, solid, and soil/gravel waste. (5) WWIS process for tracking of waste contents of debris, solid, and soil/gravel waste. EPA proposes to approve CCP's TRU waste characterization processes listed above. This approval does not cover remote-handled TRU waste. Any changes to the waste characterization program from the baseline inspection must be reported to, and, if applicable, approved by EPA according to the following table. Additional details for the tiering designation can be found in EPA's inspection report. Tiering of TRU Waste Characteristics Processes Implemented by CCP at INL (Based on May 3-5, 2005 Baseline Inspection) INL-CCP WC process INL-CCP WC process INL-CCP general T2 WC process elements specific T1 changes specific T2 changes * changes * AK including load management......... Any new waste category. Updates or additions to Changes to site Changes to WWIS Waste Stream Profile procedures requiring algorithms specific to Forms for waste CBFO approvals. load management. stream(s) within an Changes in key areas of approved waste expertise. category. Changes to load management status of approved waste stream(s). [[Page 53663]] NDA.................................. New equipment of Changes to software for Same as above. physical modifications approved equipment. to approved equipment. Changes to operating Changes to approved range(s) upon CBFO calibration range for approval. approved equipment. RTR.................................. N/A.................... New equipment or Same as above. changes to approved equipment. VE and VET........................... N/A.................... N/A.................... Same as above. WWIS................................. N/A.................... N/A.................... Same as above. * Upon receiving EPA approval, every three (3) months INL-CCP will report to EPA all T2 changes. Availability of the Baseline Inspection Report for Public Comment EPA is seeking public comment on our proposed approval of the INL CCP waste characterization program and the proposed tiering structure for changes to the INL CCP waste characterization program. EPA's inspection report of INL CCP's waste characterization program is in the public dockets described in ADDRESSES. This report can also be found online in EDOCKET ID No. OAR-2005-0162 and at our Web site at . In accordance with 40 CFR 194.8, EPA is providing the public 45 days to comment on EPA's proposed approval and inspection report. EPA will evaluate public comments and revise the inspection report as necessary. If appropriate, EPA will then issue a final inspection report and a letter to DOE approving the INL CCP waste characterization program for disposal of TRU waste at WIPP. Any approval letter and final inspection report will be available from the DOCKETS and from our WIPP Web site. EPA will not make a determination regarding the approval of the INL CCP waste characterization program before the end of the 45- day comment period ends. Dated: August 3, 2005. William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. 05-17926 Filed 9-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ***************************************************************** 66 DOE: International Energy Agency Meeting FR Doc 05-18017 [Federal Register: September 9, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 174)] [Notices] [Page 53642-53643] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09se05-52] AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Industry Advisory Board to the International Energy Agency (IEA) will meet on September 14, 2005, at the headquarters of the IEA in Paris, France in connection with a meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel M. Bradley, Assistant General Counsel for International and National Security Programs, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586- 6738. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 252(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(i)) (EPCA), the following notice of meeting is provided: A meeting of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy Agency (IEA) will be held at the headquarters of the IEA, 9, rue de la Federation, Paris, France, on September 14, 2005, beginning at 8:30 a.m. The purpose of this notice is to permit attendance by representatives of U.S. company members of the IAB at an Ad Hoc Emergency Session of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency [[Page 53643]] Questions (SEQ), which is scheduled to be held September 14, 2005, at the same location beginning at 10 a.m., including a preparatory encounter among company representatives from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. The agenda for the preparatory encounter among company representatives is a review of the SEQ's meeting agenda. The agenda of the SEQ meeting is under the control of the SEQ. It is expected that the SEQ will adopt the following agenda: 1. Adoption of the Agenda of the Ad Hoc Emergency Session. 2. Introduction by the Executive Director. 3. Hurricane Katrina--Update of the Situation by the United States. 4. Update of the Oil Market Situation. 5. Report of the Industry Advisory Board. 6. Review of the IEA Initial Response Activities. --Review of recent IEA emergency activities. --Member country updates on the implementation of the Initial Emergency Response Plan. --Recommendations from the SEQ to the IEA Governing Board. As provided in section 252(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(ii)), this meeting is open only to representatives of members of the IAB and their counsel; representatives of members of the SEQ; representatives of the Departments of Energy, Justice, and State, the Federal Trade Commission, the General Accounting Office, Committees of Congress, the IEA, and the European Commission; and invitees of the IAB, the SEQ, or the IEA. DOE has determined that the IEA's scheduling requirements for this Ad Hoc Emergency Session of the SEQ require that the 7-day advance notice required by DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 209.32(b) be shortened. Issued in Washington, DC, September 6, 2005. Samuel M. Bradley, Assistant General Counsel for International and National Security Programs. [FR Doc. 05-18017 Filed 9-7-05; 12:29 pm] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 67 DOE: Office of Environmental Management; Environmental Management FR Doc 05-17917 [Federal Register: September 9, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 174)] [Notices] [Page 53642] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09se05-51] Advisory Board Meeting AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Advisory Board (EMAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the Federal Register. DATES: Thursday, September 29, 2005, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.; Friday, September 30, 2005, 9 a.m.-2 p.m. ADDRESSES: U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 1E-245, Forrestal Building, Washington, DC 20585. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terri Lamb, Executive Director of the Environmental Management Advisory Board (EM--30.1), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. Phone (202) 586-9007; Fax (202) 586-0293 or e-mail: terri.lamb@em.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Meeting: To provide the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management with advice and recommendations on corporate issues confronting the Environmental Management Program. The Board will contribute to the effective operation of the Environmental Management Program by providing individual citizens and representatives of interested groups an opportunity to present their views on issues facing the Office of Environmental Management and by helping to secure consensus recommendations on those issues. Tentative Agenda Thursday, September 29, 2005 9 a.m.--Public Meeting Open, Welcome, Opening Remarks, Review of End States Issues, Roundtable Discussion. 12 p.m.--Lunch. Review of Project Management and Oversight Issues, Review of Contract Strategy and Management Issues, Roundtable Discussion. 5 p.m.--Public Comment Period and Adjournment. Friday, September 30, 2005 9 a.m.--Opening Remarks, Board Discussion Board Business. 12 p.m.--Lunch. New Business and Set Date for Next Board Meeting. 2 p.m.--Public Comment Period and Adjournment. Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Terri Lamb at the address or telephone number above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. Those who call in and register in advance will be given the opportunity to speak first. Others will be accommodated as time permits. The Board Chair is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for viewing and copying at the U.S. Department of Energy Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday- Friday except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available by calling Terri Lamb at (202) 586-9007. Issued in Washington, DC, on September 2, 2005. Carol Matthews, Acting Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 05-17917 Filed 9-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************