***************************************************************** 09/27/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.224 ***************************************************************** 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 IPS-English IRAN-NUKE PROGRAMME: UAE paper calls on Iran to 2 [NYTr] Iran Lines Up Allies for UN/IAEA Confrontation 3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Threatens to Resume Enrichment 4 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Threatens to Resume Uranium Enrichment 5 Guardian Unlimited: Long Road to Ridding North Korea of Nukes 6 US: ACLU: Sibel Edmonds v. Department of Justice 7 From Energy To Medicine, UN Forum Discusses Innovative Uses Of Nucle 8 RIA Novosti: Czech Republic returns Russian nuclear fuel 9 Xinhua: Russia test-launches new strategic missile 10 AU ABC: Hawke floats a rubbish idea 11 AU ABC: Russia ready to join US-led uranium fuel bank - 12 Closed Doors: In Russia, Securing Its Nuclear Arsenal Is an NUCLEAR REACTORS 13 Guardian Unlimited: Canada to Resume India Nuclear Energy Aid 14 US: Platts: NEI reorganizes, aims to focus on key policy issues 15 Platts: EU can phase out nuclear power, cut CO2 by 30% by 2020 - 16 Independent: Nuclear power 'will help combat global warming' 17 US: Green Bay Press-Gazette: Point Beach Nuclear Plant closed for ma 18 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find 19 National Post: Pickering nuclear reactor back online 20 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting NUCLEAR SECURITY 21 Illicit Trafficking In Radioactive Materials Rose Substantially From 22 US: New Scientist: US army plans to bulk-buy anthrax - NUCLEAR SAFETY 23 [du-list] Invitation 9th Nov. Geneva Workshop 'Uranium Weapons 24 [du-list] New DU article......Lowry unrealistic about depleted 25 Independent: Depleted uranium tests for US troops returning from Ira 26 US: NRC: In the Matter of Certain Panoramic and Underwater Irradiato NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 27 CNIC: Japanese uranium contaminated soil 28 US: [shundahaialert] Latest on the Skull Valley nuke dump. Please 29 NEWS.com.au: Hawke pushes for nuclear dump - 30 NEWS.com.au: Dump nuclear waste idea - ACF 31 US: Australian: Uranium policy causes labour fission 32 AU ABC: Hawke's dump plan 'easy for coast dwellers' 33 US: Heartland Institute: Hollywood Targets Nuclear Storage Facility 34 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Monopoly alleged in Tooele hot-waste limit 35 Reuters: Former PM proposes Australia as world's nuclear dump 36 US: NRC: Nuclear Management Company; Palisades Independent Spent Fue 37 US: Keene Sentinel: Dry-cask savings 38 US: AU ABC: Miner to capitalise on growing support for uranium mines 39 AU ABC: NT fails to sway Howard on nuclear dump. 40 US: AU ABC: Uranium sector: another stockmarket bubble? 41 AU ABC: Some support for Australian nuclear waste dump 42 AU ABC: Nuclear waste a pressing issue - Hawke 43 US: AU ABC: Hawke urged to push for WA uranium ban lifting. 44 EPA: Extension of comments for radiation protection standards @ Yucc 45 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada files opposition to Yucca rail corridor PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 46 reviewjournal.com: GROUNDWORK CRITICIZED: DOE land use plan disputed 47 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridg 48 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 IPS-English IRAN-NUKE PROGRAMME: UAE paper calls on Iran to Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:38:41 -0700 autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: newton.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com EU IP CR PR=20 IRAN-NUKE PROGRAMME: UAE paper calls on Iran to not end up as Saddam's Ir= aq Att.Editors: The following item is from the Emirates News Agency (WAM) DUBAI, Sep. 27 (WAM) - A United Arab Emirates (UAE) daily has called on I= ran to cooperate with the international community in regard to its nuclear programme. In an editorial on Tuesday, 'Khaleej Times' said Iran would be well advised to resist the temptation to stop the inspections of its nuclear installations in response to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA= ) resolution. It mustn't, suggests the Dubai-based newspaper, do anything now that creates the impression that it's indeed the sinner, adding that even now it's possible to prevent the issue from turning into a major showdown wit= h the West. Commenting on IAEA's decision to refer Iran's nuclear programme to the= UN Security Council, the paper said the Islamic republic appears more surpri= sed than shocked by the resolution. It went on to say in view of strong opposition from Russia, China and many developing countries, it was believed that the EU resolution wouldn'= t find any takers in the IAEA. What eventually forced the IAEA to pass the resolution despite vocal doubts of its chief Mohamed El Baradei, the paper added, was India's last minute, decisive backing for the resolution. =94Considering India's close relations with Iran and the recent bonhom= ie, the move must have come as a major jolt to Teheran. This is all the more surprising considering India has traditionally been the leader of the Non-Aligned Movement nations that have been defending Iran's right to peaceful nuclear power in accordance with the regulations of the Non-proliferation Treaty. =94More importantly, Iran and India have been working out the details = of a huge, multibillion gas pipeline project that will connect Iran with India through Pakistan. Surely, if India didn't want to be seen as siding with Iran, it could have abstained from the IAEA vote, just as Pakistan did,=94 argued the English language publication. The newspaper maintains that a veto by Russia and China block punitive sanctions on Iran is possible only when Iran demonstrates that it is inde= ed serious in cooperation with the international community and settling this dangerous business peacefully. =94Iran mustn't end up just as Saddam's Ir= aq did,=94 it concludes. (WAM) =20 ***************************************************************** 2 [NYTr] Iran Lines Up Allies for UN/IAEA Confrontation Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:29:14 -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 Power and Interest News Report - Sep 27, 2005 http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_printable&report_id=371&language_id=1 Confrontation Looms as I.A.E.A. Passes Resolution on Iran By Erich Marquardt For the past few years, Iran has been testing the resolve of the international community on the issue of its nuclear research program. Iran, a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (N.P.T.), argues that it reserves the right to control the nuclear fuel cycle. Tehran states that control over the cycle is important for Iran's development of nuclear energy. Indeed, according to the N.P.T., a state does reserve the right to control the nuclear fuel cycle, including the process of enrichment. The sticking point is that the process of enriching nuclear fuel is controversial because while enrichment is necessary to create nuclear energy, the enrichment process, if enhanced, can also be used to produce weapons-grade material to create nuclear weapons. On September 24, the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.) passed a resolution stating that "Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations [under the N.P.T.] ... constitute noncompliance." The resolution calls for Iran to end the conversion of uranium and to answer more questions about its past nuclear activities. Failure to comply with these demands could result in Iran's nuclear case being brought before the U.N. Security Council, an action that could result in economic and military sanctions being placed on the Persian state. Background to the Current Crisis Certain members of the international community, led by the United States, for years have feared that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons under the guise of its nuclear energy program. In the past, Iran has admitted to keeping aspects of its nuclear research program secret from the international community, and there is the possibility that there are still aspects of the program that remain hidden from international inspectors. Since the start of the current crisis, the I.A.E.A. has been trying to ascertain whether Iran's failure to disclose certain parts of its nuclear research program constitutes a violation of the N.P.T. The United States and its allies want to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons because such a development would give Iran more power in the Middle East. A country with nuclear weapons has more foreign policy leverage since it becomes more costly to threaten a nuclear power with military action. It would limit the ability of the United States -- or any other power in the region -- to take military action against Iran, since any such action could result in Tehran retaliating with nuclear weapons. [See: "Why States Seek to Acquire Nuclear Weapons"] If Iran were able to add nuclear weapons to its threat arsenal, it would also be better able to assert itself in the region, possibly to the detriment of regional stability and, therefore, to U.S. and Western interests. Regional instability can create uncertainty over the global supply of energy, a concern that was an important factor in the Bush administration's decision to push Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991, and played a factor in the current Bush administration's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Baghdad. Furthermore, Israel, which is the major U.S. ally in the Middle East, views a nuclear-armed Iran as a major security threat. Iran is the main sponsor of the Islamic group Hezbollah, an organization that was responsible for bearing the brunt of the resistance against the Israeli invasion and subsequent occupation of Lebanon and is still responsible for occasional attacks against Israeli interests today. Israel worries that if Iran were able to acquire nuclear weapons, it would be able to spread its influence better in the Middle East to the detriment of Israel's security situation. Israel remains the only Middle Eastern state that possesses nuclear weapons, and by losing its monopoly in nuclear arms, it would also lose some of its ability to influence Middle Eastern affairs. [See: "Can Israel Maintain its Nuclear Superiority in the Middle East?"] The United States has been very clear in its accusations that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons covertly. On September 21, for instance, State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said at a daily briefing that Iran needs to "stop pursuing a nuclear weapons program under the guise of a civilian nuclear program." Nevertheless, the United States does not consider military action against Iran a viable option under the present circumstances. For instance, the ongoing insurgency in Iraq has resulted in the overextension of the U.S. military; many of Iran's nuclear facilities are believed to be hidden, making it difficult to eliminate its nuclear research program through air strikes; and, the skyrocketing price of oil is weakening the economies of oil-dependent countries, and any military move on Iran would add more instability to energy supplies, thus lifting oil prices even higher. Because of these restraints, the United States has pursued a policy of isolating Iran from the international community with the hopes that this pressure will cause Iran to abandon its drive to control the nuclear fuel cycle. Iran has extensive relations with the international community, and the Bush administration thinks that this is the country's vulnerable point. [See: "Washington's Iran Strategy: Ostracizing Tehran from the International Community"] This explains why Washington has been careful not to be perceived as the primary party taking a hard line with Iran, as can be seen in U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent statement about the E.U.-3's role: "We are not trying to be in the lead on this one because it's the E.U. that they [Iran] walked out on. Remember that our strategy has been that the European Union offered to engage them in these talks." The administration's strategy has been to lobby the E.U.'s three most influential states -- the United Kingdom, France and Germany (the E.U.-3) -- to pursue Washington's hard line with Iran. On September 19, Rice explained this strategy in an interview with Time Magazine. Rice said, "Ultimately, I don't believe the Iranians can afford to be completely isolated from the international community. ... This is a very worldly population that is accustomed to being a part of the international economy, international politics. I don't think Iran wants to get that isolated. And I think it's one reason that they have been so anxious to avoid referral to the Security Council." Rice's statements do explain why Tehran has attempted to engineer a foreign policy that does not relinquish its right to control the nuclear fuel cycle but also does not permanently damage relations with its major trading partners, such as certain states in the European Union; Iran depends on European states economically and a loss of trading relations with the bloc would have a negative impact on the Iranian economy. Therefore, in the past, Tehran has retreated from its bold nuclear rhetoric in order to prevent the E.U.-3 from moving closer to Washington's policy line on Iran. For instance, on October 21, 2003, the E.U.-3 convinced Iran to place an extra protocol on its signed copy of the N.P.T.; the protocol allowed for more intrusive inspections by the I.A.E.A. and placed into effect a temporary halt on all uranium enrichment activities inside Iran. Nevertheless, after this agreement was established, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi made a statement highlighting Iran's motivations behind complying with the European demands: "We suspended uranium enrichment voluntarily and temporarily. Later, when our relations with the I.A.E.A. return to normal, we will definitely resume enrichment." Early in 2004, Kharrazi continued to pursue this policy line, arguing that "it's our legitimate right to enrich uranium." Yet, the next crisis occurred in late 2004. During this crisis, once the point came where Iran would lose the support of the E.U.-3, Tehran announced on November 14 that it would fully suspend all uranium enrichment-related activities. Throughout these crises, the E.U.-3 had been hesitant to take Washington's suggested hard line on Iran, which involved referring it to the U.N. Security Council for a vote on possible sanctions. The E.U.-3 attempted to work with Iran to offer it political and economic incentives in return for its commitment to not control the nuclear fuel cycle. The main goal of this policy was to provide Iran with the necessary enriched nuclear fuel so that it could pursue a nuclear energy program, yet not allow it to control the entire fuel cycle, thus removing the possibility that Tehran could seek to create nuclear weapons at a later stage through its own indigenous uranium enrichment program. However, Iran was unwilling to accept this deal, calling its right to control the nuclear fuel cycle a matter of national pride and security. Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani said that "pressuring a country like this is resisting a country's national pride." In response to the E.U.-3's offer of providing Iran with nuclear fuel, Larijani argued, "There is no international guarantee that governments would provide us with nuclear fuel. We cannot lay the fate of this nation in the hands of other governments." Therefore, the E.U.-3 began to move more toward Washington's current policy on Iran, and on September 24 pushed a resolution through the I.A.E.A. board that could result in Iran being referred to the Security Council. The September 24 Resolution In the days before the September 24 resolution, the E.U.-3 hesitated over their proposed draft since Russia and China -- two countries that have veto rights on the U.N. Security Council -- reacted negatively to the draft motion, implying that such a resolution could result in a veto. A veto of this resolution by Russia or China in the Security Council could create a diplomatic row with the two Asian states on one side, and the E.U. and the U.S. on the other; this is a development that most countries involved want to avoid. Indeed, while the E.U.-3 did decide to approve a resolution that could refer Iran to the Security Council, it was watered down from what the U.S. had initially hoped. Any threat of sanctions was removed from the resolution, although sanctions still would be a possibility if the issue makes it to the Security Council and it votes to sanction Iran for violating the N.P.T. Furthermore, the resolution did not outline a time frame when Iran would be put before the Security Council but instead said that such a referral could occur if Iran does not cease uranium conversion and if it fails to answer additional questions on its nuclear research program. The resolution also showed how the international community is divided over referring Iran to the Security Council. The resolution passed with 22 votes in favor, one vote against, and twelve abstentions. In the past 20 years, there have only been two instances where the I.A.E.A. board has not passed a resolution by consensus. Both Russia and China abstained from the vote. After the vote, members of the E.U.-3 stressed that Iran still had ways to avoid being referred to the Security Council. French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said, "This resolution shows the international community's concern about Iran's non-cooperation regarding the non-proliferation rules. At the same time, the text keeps open the possibility of negotiations which we must take advantage of, without delay, in order to put forward proposals which could re-establish trust." The U.K., which usually toes the closest to the U.S., said that, "Iran has an opportunity now to address the clear concerns of the I.A.E.A., and the lack of confidence in Iran's nuclear intentions." But the statements, and the resolution, did not proceed much further. While the resolution worked to the Bush administration's advantage, it still gives Tehran time to maneuver away from having any punitive measures placed upon it. Russian and Chinese Resistance Despite not voting against the I.A.E.A. resolution, Russia and China have reservations about bringing Iran before the Security Council. On September 21 in a speech in San Francisco, RIA Novosti reported that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, "While Iran is cooperating with the I.A.E.A., while it is not enriching uranium and observing a moratorium, while I.A.E.A. inspectors are working in the country, it would be counter-productive to report this question to the U.N. Security Council." Lavrov continued, "It will lead to an unnecessary politicizing of the situation. Iran is not violating its obligations and its actions do not threaten the non-proliferation regime." Moscow refuses to state that Iran has violated the N.P.T., saying instead that the country is still abiding by the treaty. Washington argues that because of Iran's decision to keep aspects of its nuclear research program secret, it has undercut the principles of the N.P.T. which act as a violation In a sign that Russia may be willing to veto any Security Council resolution punishing Iran, the Russian Foreign Ministry released a statement that "it will not contribute to the search for a solution to the Iranian problem by political and diplomatic methods." The statements made by Lavrov and the Foreign Ministry display Moscow's unwillingness to support tougher action on Iran. Indeed, for Moscow, E.U.-3 and U.S. action against an important trading partner and a country that resists U.S. influence in the Middle East is just another sign of Moscow's weakening international influence. Combined U.S. and E.U. efforts in Moscow's near abroad have led to its loss of influence in Eastern Europe and, at least temporarily, in Central Asia and the Caucasus. Moscow has been struggling to reassert itself after the devastating collapse of the Soviet Union, and so far it has not been very successful. Russia also is the party responsible for being the primary supporter of Iran's nuclear research program. Moscow is building the US$1 billion nuclear reactor at Bushehr, and has provided Iran with much of its nuclear knowledge. If the Bushehr reactor goes operational, it can be expected that Moscow will assist Tehran in the creation of more nuclear power plants, offering Russia a lucrative economic future in the field of nuclear energy. Moscow also provides Tehran with the bulk of its military equipment -- such as MiG-29 fighter aircraft, Su-24 fighter bombers, T-72 tanks, and Kilo-class attack submarines -- making it a major contributor to Iran's growth as a regional power. The Chinese, on the other hand, also warned against taking Iran's nuclear issue before the Security Council. Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing reportedly told an E.U. grouping, led by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, that bringing Iran before the Security Council "could encourage Iran to take extreme measures" and would, therefore, be counter-productive. China has its motives for preventing a condemning resolution. China, for instance, has seen a dramatic increase in energy demand due to its rapid economic development. In order to find new energy resources, it has looked to countries near its borders that still have reserves to be exploited. Since Iran does not share economic relations with the United States due to U.S. sanctions on the country that stem from the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Beijing has been able to foster new energy ties with the country. About 15 percent of China's imported oil and natural gas comes from Iran, and U.S. attempts to destabilize Iran would pose a threat to China's energy and economic interests. China, too, is wary of attempts by the U.S. to weaken countries such as Iran, since Beijing fears that Washington will take future actions aimed at containing China's rise as a major power in Asia. For instance, in an example that displays the Bush administration's views on China, on September 21 U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick argued that China's "actions on Iran's nuclear program will reveal the seriousness of China's commitment to non-proliferation." This statement can be read that China's continued support for Iran on this issue demonstrates its willingness to take actions counter to U.S. interests, explaining the U.S. rationale for containing China. Furthermore, China and Russia have been improving their bilateral relations and have been cooperating in order to limit the spread of U.S. influence in Central Asia. Both countries are working together to increase the cohesion of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (S.C.O.), and have caused the S.C.O. to release a statement calling for the withdrawal of the U.S. military from its member states. [See: "The Significance of Sino-Russian Military Exercises"] The resistance by China and Russia played a role on the E.U.-3's final proposed resolution; while the resolution passed did affect Iran's interests negatively, it did not result in any immediate action on Iran, giving Tehran once again more time to avoid being the victim of any substantial international action against it. Nevertheless, Russia and China still abstained from voting on the resolution. While the two states were not willing to vote against the resolution, questions remain on whether they would be willing to issue a veto if a future resolution that threatens sanctions comes before the Security Council. Despite their resistance to U.S. and E.U.-3 efforts on Iran, it cannot be said that Russia and China would welcome Iran becoming a nuclear power; both countries may be interested in placing restraints on Iran's nuclear development. Nevertheless, it appears that an Iran with nuclear weapons is not as much of a concern to Russia and China than is the ability of the United States and the E.U.-3 to refer Iran to the Security Council and to place economic and military sanctions on the country. How Iran Might Proceed Before the September 24 vote, Larijani said that it was unfortunate that "countries with economic ties with Iran, particularly in the petroleum area, have so far not defended Iran's rights." This tact taken by Iran was an effort to threaten with economic repercussions those countries that are supporting U.S. policy on Iran. Iran is the second largest oil exporting country in O.P.E.C., and has the ability to cancel billions of dollars in contracts with European energy companies. It also possesses the world's largest gas reserves. Larijani explained this threat, stating, "Some countries with economic interests especially in oil do not show any feelings of responsibility the [Supreme National Security Council] is determined to create a balance and provide the ground for their participation [in energy projects] accordingly." Billions of dollars in contracts are on the line, with companies such as Royal Dutch Shell, Repsol of Spain and Total of France facing a major loss of business. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was even more succinct on his country's economic threats, telling the Iranian parliament that "economic ties are not irrelevant to political ties" especially with "hostile" countries that "fail to recognize Iran's legitimate rights" under the N.P.T. For instance, China, Russia and India also have major energy contracts out with Iran, and those countries have shown no interest in jeopardizing such contracts due to questions over Iran's controversial nuclear program. For instance, in early 2005 India and Iran signed off on plans to construct a 1,609-kilometer (1,000 miles) natural gas pipeline from the Iranian port of Assaluyeh to the Indian state of Rajasthan, traversing Pakistan; additionally, in 2004, Iran signed a 30-year, US$70 billion liquefied natural gas deal with China's Sinopec. That being said, India did vote in favor of the I.A.E.A. resolution due to its hope of acquiring more nuclear technology from the United States. In July 2005, India and the U.S. signed a nuclear deal that granted New Delhi access to civilian nuclear energy cooperation; however, the U.S. Congress has not yet approved the entire deal. New Delhi was concerned that Washington was hinging future nuclear support on India's vote for the resolution condemning Iran. However, because India was not behind drafting the resolution, and has shown little outspoken regard for punishing Iran due to its nuclear program, Tehran views India in a different light as it does the U.S. and the E.U.-3. [See: "The Implications of the U.S.-India Strategic Partnership"] Therefore, behind these threats, Tehran's hope is that major European energy companies will lobby their governments and ask for a less confrontational foreign policy when it comes to dealing with Tehran. It will be important to note whether Iran proceeds with executing its economic threats now that the E.U.-3 has pushed through a resolution that threatens Iran with referral to the Security Council. Conclusion The three-year posturing between Iran and the United States is moving closer toward confrontation. The U.S. has been able to convince the E.U.-3 to put more pressure on Iran to abandon its desire to control the nuclear fuel cycle. However, as expected, both Russia and China have increased their resistance to attempts by the E.U.-3 and the U.S. to place Iran before the Council. Nevertheless, the U.S. and the E.U.-3 have managed to push the I.A.E.A. board to pass a resolution that threatens to refer Iran to the Security Council if it does not pursue a series of measures to explain its nuclear activities. Before the I.A.E.A. vote, Iran tried to demonstrate to the E.U.-3 that it will not abandon its wish to control the nuclear fuel cycle, even though this could damage economic and political relations with the European bloc. Tehran was betting that resistance by Moscow and Beijing to the joint U.S.-E.U.-3 maneuvers would soften the E.U.-3's line and give Iran the ability to continue its nuclear research program. While a softer resolution was passed, it still damages Iran's interests since the resolution demands that Iran end the conversion of uranium and demands that it answer more questions about its nuclear research program; failure to comply with these demands could result in it being referred to the Security Council. It is important now for Iran to keep Russia and China on its side. If Iran does eventually get referred to the Security Council, it will need one of those two countries to veto any resolution that calls for sanctions. However, any such veto would create an international crisis and there is little doubt that both Russia and China want to avoid this development. It can be assumed that they will now put pressure on Iran to make its nuclear efforts look innocuous and to prevent a major escalation of rhetoric with the U.S. and the E.U.-3. The United States, on the other hand, will have to continue to pressure the international community to resist Iran's wish to control the nuclear fuel cycle. With the intervention in Iraq draining U.S. resources, Washington is not in a position to begin a new front across the border in Iran, even if that only involves executing air strikes on Iran's suspected nuclear facilities. With the price of oil seeing record highs, the United States and the E.U.-3 cannot afford to pursue any action that could result in uncertainty over oil supplies since that would push the price of oil even higher, threatening a recession in oil-dependent countries. Indeed, this concern could also affect how willing the U.S. and the E.U.-3 will be eventually to implement sanctions on Iran, since this, too, would create concern in the market. Additionally, the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq continues to hinder the United States' credibility on the international scene, and an attack against a country that does not have a proven nuclear weapons program would not be welcomed in the international community and could further erode Washington's ability to pursue an effective, multilateral foreign policy. * ================================================================ .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 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Threatens to Resume Enrichment From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday September 27, 2005 1:01 PM AP Photo VAH102 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran on Tuesday threatened to resume uranium enrichment and block U.N. inspections of its nuclear facilities unless the U.N. atomic watchdog agency stepped back from its resolution to refer Tehran to the Security Council for possible sanctions. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Iran also would consider reducing trade with those countries that voted for Saturday's resolution, particularly India. ``We were very surprised by India,'' he said. The country is interested in importing Iranian natural gas through a pipeline that will pass through Pakistan. The International Atomic Energy Agency resolution put Iran on the verge of referral to the U.N. Security Council unless Tehran eases suspicions about its nuclear activities. The resolution told Iran to suspend all enrichment activities, including uranium conversion, to abandon construction of a heavy water nuclear reactor, and to grant access to certain locations and documents. Iran has rejected the resolution, saying it was politically motivated and without legal foundation. Asefi said Iran was asking its European negotiating partners - Britain, France and Germany - and the IAEA for two things: ``First, they should not insist (on the terms of the resolution). Second, they should correct it. If the other parties' reaction is not along these lines, the Islamic Republic of Iran will take these measures,'' Asefi said. He said Iran would cease to abide by the ``voluntary measures'' that it has been implementing as an expression of good will. ``If the IAEA and European countries don't make up for their error, we will cancel all voluntary measures we have taken,'' he said. Effectively, this means that Iran would resume enrichment of uranium, which is currently suspended, and disregard the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty under which it grants IAEA inspectors the right to unfettered inspections of its nuclear facilities. Asefi warned that referral to the U.N. Security Council could have unforeseen consequences. The resolution set no date for referral, but said it would be considered later. ``It's always easy to create a crisis, but not easy to control it,'' Asefi said. ``We are giving the IAEA and the Europeans a very serious warning about this.'' Iran would consider punishing those countries that voted for the resolution by cutting trade, Asefi said. ``We will regulate our relations with other countries based on mutual interest,'' he said. ``There are different levers in different areas to reduce economic ties.'' Asefi said Iran's offer to give foreign countries and companies a role in its nuclear program was a ``sincere measure of transparency.'' Europeans have disregarded the offer, which was made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at this month's U.N. summit in New York. ``What should we do to prove our sincerity?'' Asefi asked rhetorically. ``We are allowing them to lay their beds inside our facilities.'' Asefi reiterated that Iran would never abandon its uranium enrichment program, a right to which it is entitled as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 4 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Threatens to Resume Uranium Enrichment From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday September 27, 2005 10:31 PM By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran broadened its threats Tuesday over a move to refer it to the U.N. Security Council, saying that unless the U.N. atomic watchdog agency backs down, it will resume uranium enrichment, block inspections of its nuclear facilities, and cut trade with countries that supported the resolution. Despite the threats, Russia's minister of atomic energy and Vienna-based diplomats said Iran does not have ability to resume enrichment immediately. ``Currently Iran has no enrichment capacity - there is no possible way Iranians can enrich uranium,'' said Alexander Rumyantsev, Russia's minister of atomic energy and an expert on Tehran's nuclear program. He said Iran's only known enrichment facility - a small pilot project at Natanz - would take more than a year to begin operations. In another move that suggests a toughening of Iran's position, the hard-line dominated parliament was considering a measure to force the government to bar short-notice intrusive U.N. inspections of its facilities if Tehran's right to enrich uranium is not respected by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Iran was considering reducing its trade with those countries that voted for Saturday's resolution, particularly India. ``We will reconsider our economic relations with countries that voted against us,'' he told a news conference. ``We were very surprised by India,'' he said. The country is interested in importing Iranian natural gas through a pipeline that will pass through Pakistan. Iran insists its nuclear program is designed for generating electricity, but the United States and others accuse it of seeking to develop atomic weapons. ``Iran has every right for enrichment ... for peaceful use of nuclear energy,'' said Rumyantsev, the Russian minister. His comments on Iran's enrichment capabilities were backed by diplomats accredited to the IAEA who were briefed on the state of Iran's conversion efforts. The diplomats said the tons of uranium gas produced since Iran resumed that activity last month was contaminated and therefore unusable as the feedstock for enrichment. ``It would need purification before it would be suitable,'' said one of the diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity as a condition of discussing the confidential information. Still he warned against dismissing the conversion efforts. ``They need to work on their ... production, but they're getting expertise'' - learning through their mistakes, said the diplomat. The IAEA resolution put Iran on the verge of referral to the U.N. Security Council unless Tehran eases suspicions about its nuclear activities. The resolution ordered Iran to suspend all enrichment activities, including uranium conversion, to abandon construction of a heavy water nuclear reactor and to grant access to certain military locations, individuals and documents. Iran has rejected the resolution, protesting it was politically motivated and without legal foundation. Asefi said Tuesday that Iran was asking its European negotiating partners - Britain, France and Germany - and the IAEA for two things. ``First, they should not insist (on the terms of the resolution). Second, they should correct it,'' Asefi said. He said Iran would otherwise cease to abide by the ``voluntary measures'' that it has been implementing as an expression of good will. Effectively, this means that Iran would resume enrichment of uranium, which is currently suspended, and disregard the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, under which it grants IAEA inspectors the right to unfettered inspections of its nuclear facilities at short notice. ``The timing for Iran to resume some voluntary suspended activities depends on the behavior of the Europeans. We don't accept the language of force,'' Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani told reporters after addressing a closed session of the parliament Tuesday. Iranian lawmakers on Tuesday were considering legislation that would force the government to bar intrusive inspections as long as Iran's right to possess the whole nuclear fuel cycle - from extracting uranium ore to enriching it - is not recognized. --- Associated Press writer George Jahn conributed to this report from Vienna, Austria. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 5 Guardian Unlimited: Long Road to Ridding North Korea of Nukes From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday September 27, 2005 9:46 AM AP Photo NY109 By BURT HERMAN Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - Steam rises in a steady plume from North Korea's main nuclear reactor, a nagging reminder that the recent pact on ridding the communist nation of its nuclear programs has yet to change reality on the ground. Last week's international accord on the principles for disarmament faces its first test in November when six countries will again hold talks, this time on how to verify the North has abandoned nuclear activities. The November talks are just the first step on a long road to a nuclear-free North Korea, analysts say. ``This is really just the beginning of the negotiations, if we're lucky,'' said former U.S. diplomat Robert Galucci. ``But we have to start someplace.'' Galucci helped broker the 1994 Washington-Pyongyang deal to freeze the North's nuclear program. But that agreement fell apart in late 2002, after the U.S. said the North had admitted having a secret project. The Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington-based think tank, recently released satellite photos showing the North's reactor at Yongbyon was operating - a sign that Pyongyang could still produce weapons-grade plutonium. Earlier this year, the North shut down the reactor and announced it had removed the fuel rods, which could allow it to extract radioactive material for bombs. The North also has not refrained from its usual bombast since the six-party accord was signed in Beijing. Pyongyang continues to demand a reactor for power, despite Washington's repeated rejections. Under the Sept. 19 agreement, China, Japan, Russia, the United States and the two Koreas agreed only to discuss the possibility of providing a light-water nuclear reactor to the North ``at an appropriate time.'' Light-water reactors are more difficult to use for nuclear weapons production. North Korea would likely say now is the time to discuss the reactor. But the U.S. wants to consider it only after the North rejoins the global Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and allows inspections. Since the agreement, the North has also boasted it could repel a nuclear attack from the United States. ``The army and people of (North Korea) are proud of having built such a self-defensive deterrent, strong enough to protect the national dignity and security from the U.S. nuclear threat,'' the North's official Minju Joson newspaper said in a commentary carried Sunday by the country's Korean Central News Agency. There was no elaboration on the ``deterrent,'' a term the North regularly uses to imply its nuclear program. ``Nuclear weapons are no longer the monopoly of the U.S.,'' the newspaper said. In another sign the North hasn't changed its ways, it has said it no longer needs emergency food delivered through the United Nations - but wants development assistance instead. The food deliveries required the North to let international inspectors prowl its countryside to ensure that 6.5 million starving people were really being fed. Given the many obstacles, the success of the disarmament talks will likely depend on how far Washington is willing to go, said longtime North Korea watcher Selig Harrison, director of the Asia program at the Washington-based Center for International Policy. He said the U.S. must agree to give the North more incentives such as ending sanctions imposed after the Korean War, removing the North from a list of state sponsors of terrorism and resuming oil shipments - a part of the 1994 agreement that was cut off amid the latest nuclear crisis. ``If the U.S. is willing to offer sufficiently attractive inducements ... I don't think that North Korea will hold up future progress in order to get a commitment for a reactor right away,'' said Harrison, director of the Asia program at the Washington-based Center for International Policy. One way to push the issue could be a high-level U.S. visit to Pyongyang. The main U.S. nuclear negotiator, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, has expressed interest in such a trip. But a South Korean news report said last week that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il is seeking someone of higher political stature - like President Bush or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Just after this month's agreement, Hill urged North Korea to shut down the Yongbyon reactor as a sign of good faith - a step that could be confirmed when the satellites peering down on the country stop seeing the plume of steam. So far there is no indication the North has complied. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 6 ACLU: Sibel Edmonds v. Department of Justice A Patriot Silenced, Fighting to Keep America Safe American Civil Liberties Union September 26, 2005 FOR IMMEDIATE RLEASE CONTACT: media@aclu.org By ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson WASHINGTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court's dismissal of the case of Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who was fired in retaliation for reporting security breaches and possible espionage within the Bureau. Lower courts dismissed the case when former Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the rarely used "state secrets" privilege. Watch ACLU Leaders discuss the whistleblower and reproductive freedom cases, among other issues in the 2005 term. FEATURES ACLU Legal Director Steve Shapiro: Supreme Court Term Preview ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project Deputy Director Jennifer Dalven, A Matter of Women's Health More About Whistleblowers Sibel Edmonds, a Turkish-American woman, was hired as a translator by the FBI shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 because of her knowledge of Middle Eastern languages. Judge Reggie Walton in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Edmonds retaliation case, citing the government's “states secrets privilege.” The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling, and on August 4, 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Edmonds' case. The Supreme Court created the so-called state secrets privilege more than 50 years ago but has not considered it since. The privilege, when properly invoked, permits the government to block the release in litigation of any material that, if disclosed, would cause harm to national security. The need for clarification of the doctrine is acute because the government is increasingly using the privilege to cover up its own wrongdoing and to keep legitimate cases out of court. History has shown that the government has relied on the state secrets privilege to cover up its own negligence. In the 1953 Supreme Court case that was the basis for today's state secrets privilege doctrine, United States v. Reynolds , the government claimed that disclosing a military flight accident report would jeopardize secret military equipment and harm national security. Nearly 50 years later, in 2004, the truth came out - the accident report contained no state secrets, but instead confirmed that the cause of the crash was faulty maintenance of the B-29 fleet. The government is engaged in a similar cover-up in the Edmonds case. In 2002, at the request of Senate Judiciary Committee members Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the FBI provided several unclassified briefings to Members of Congress in which it confirmed many of Edmonds' allegations. More than two years later, the Justice Department retroactively classified those briefings, which were reported in the Congressional Record, and asked Members who had the information posted on their web sites to remove certain documents. This move was a blatant attempt to bolster the government's efforts to dismiss Edmonds' case on state secrets grounds. After the Project On Government Oversight filed a separate lawsuit challenging the retroactive classification, the Justice Department agreed the information could be distributed. An unclassified summary of a report by the DOJ's Inspector General, released in January 2005, corroborates Edmonds' allegations . The IG report concludes that the FBI had retaliated against Edmonds for reporting serious security breaches, stating that “many of her allegations were supported, that the FBI did not take them seriously enough, and that her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI's decision to terminate her services.” Edmonds' case is not an isolated incident. The federal government is routinely retaliating against government employees who uncover weaknesses in our ability to prevent terrorist attacks or protect public safety. The states secrets privilege should be used as a shield for sensitive evidence, not a sword the government can use at will to cut off argument in a case before the evidence can be presented. We are urging the Supreme Court, which has not directly addressed this issue in 50 years, to rein in the government's misuse of this privilege. The outcome in Edmonds' case could significantly impact the government's ability to rely on secrecy to avoid accountability in future cases, including one pending case charging the government with “rendering” detainees to be tortured. We are asking the Supreme Court to reverse the D.C. appeals court's decision to exclude the press and public from the court hearing of Edmonds' case last April. The appeals court closed the hearing at the eleventh hour without any specific findings that secrecy was necessary. Fourteen 9/11 family member advocacy groups and public interest organizations filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Edmonds case before the District Court, and many are expected to join an amicus brief supporting Supreme Court review of the case, including the National Security Archive. Edmonds' ordeal is highlighted in a 10-page article in the September 2005 issue of Vanity Fair titled “An Inconvenient Patriot.” The article, which chronicles FBI wrongdoing and possible corruption charges involving a high-level member of Congress, further undercuts the government's claim that the case can't be litigated because certain information is secret. © ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 This is the Web site of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation. Learn more about the distinction between these two components of the ACLU. ***************************************************************** 7 From Energy To Medicine, UN Forum Discusses Innovative Uses Of Nuclear Physics Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:04:31 -0400 FROM ENERGY TO MEDICINE, UN FORUM DISCUSSES INNOVATIVE USES OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS New York, Sep 27 2005 10:00AM >From meeting burgeoning energy needs through innovative technologies to boosting cancer treatment in developing countries, nuclear physics and the United Nations atomic energy agency have a key role to play on the road to sustainable development, an international scientific forum was told today. “Even the most conservative estimates predict at least a doubling of energy usage by mid-century,” International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2005/ebsp2005n011.html">IAEA) Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei told the opening session of 8th Scientific Forum being held in Vienna within the framework of the IAEA’s annual General Conference. “Coupled with concerns related to the risk of climate change and the security of energy supply, this anticipated growth is creating a sense of rising expectations for nuclear power,” he said, stressing the need for innovation ranging from advanced fuel cycles using fissile and fertile materials more efficiently to contributing to “energy currencies” other than electricity, such as hydrogen, desalination and heating. Noting that lack of energy restricts every aspect of development in developing countries, from increasing food production to improving health care, he again cited the role of innovation, such as regional collaboration to address the issues of upfront capital costs, infrastructure, workforce needs and electrical grid capacity. Turning to nuclear technology for health care, Mr. ElBaradei noted that fully two-thirds of global radiotherapy equipment, offering curative or palliative benefits for over 50 per cent of cancer patients, serve the 1 billion people living in industrialized countries, while the remaining one-third is stretched among the world’s remaining 5.5 billion. “The Agency´s Programme of Action for Cancer Radiotherapy (PACT) is designed to increase our capacity to assist developing Member States, by mobilizing more resources to address personnel, infrastructure, technology and training needs,” he said. Stressing that nuclear power must be both “economically viable and unequivocally safe” in order for nuclear power to have a future, he called for a focused commitment to ensure that lessons learned in one country are effectively and thoroughly communicated to all countries. “The Scientific Forum is an opportunity to share new ideas, to learn from each other and to forge new collaboration,” he concluded. 2005-09-27 00:00:00.000 ________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml ***************************************************************** 8 RIA Novosti: Czech Republic returns Russian nuclear fuel 27/ 09/ 2005 MOSCOW, September 27 (RIA Novosti) - The Czech Technical University in Prague has returned 14kg of new (non-radiated) Russian nuclear fuel from its research reactor to Russia, the Russian nuclear power agency said Tuesday. The nuclear fuel will soon be sent to the Nuclear Reactor Research Institute in Dimitrovgrad in central Russia "where [the fuel] will be converted into low-grade nuclear material and transported further to produce fuel assembly of power reactors at nuclear plants," the agency's press service said. The fuel was brought into Russia in accordance with a Russian-U.S. 2004 intergovernmental agreement on cooperation in returning Russian nuclear fuel from research reactors to Russia. It is the eighth operation of the kind carried out through the Russian nuclear power agency and its institutes. Russian high-grade new nuclear fuel has been returned from Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Libya, Uzbekistan, Latvia and the Czech Nuclear Research Institute. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 9 Xinhua: Russia test-launches new strategic missile www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-09-28 03:05:47 MOSCOW, Sept. 27 (Xinhuanet) -- Russia successfully test-launched a new sea-based intercontinental ballistic missile on Tuesday, navy officials said. The new-generation Bulava missile was launched from the Northern Fleet's strategic nuclear submarine Dmitry Donskoi in theWhite Sea to the Kura firing range on the Kamchatka Peninsula, a spokesman for Navy Commander Igor Dygalo told the Interfax news agency. The missile's warhead hit the target on the range at a pre-calculated time in its first test-launch, the spokesman said. The solid-fuel Bulava missile can carry up to ten individually guided nuclear warheads and has a range of up to 8,000 km. It is based on the Topol-M land-based intercontinental ballistic missile. The missile is to be fine-tuned in 2006. "The successful launch confirmed the high readiness of the marine strategic missile forces and the reliability of the navy's combat command system," Dygalo said, according to Interfax. The launch came in the same day as President Vladimir Putin used a live call-in show on television to tout Russia's new strategic missile systems. "We are developing and will provide the army with new high-precision strategic missile systems that are unique and unlikely to appear earlier in any other country," Putin said during the nationally televised phone-in. Putin described the new missile systems as "hypersonic and capable of changing course and height during flight," saying the missiles will be invulnerable to the missile defense systems being developed in some of Russia's partner countries. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 AU ABC: Hawke floats a rubbish idea 7.30 Report - 27/09/2005: Australian Broadcasting Corporation 7.30 Report Broadcast: 27/09/2005 Reporter: Mark Bannerman MAXINE McKEW: Bob Hawke has never been a politician afraid to court controversy. His government deregulated the finance system, floated the dollar, and cut tariffs. But now as an elder statesman of the Labor Party, he's put forward an idea that many - both inside and outside the ALP - think is unsaleable. He says Australia should offer itself as the site for a global nuclear waste dump. The proposal has drawn immediate reaction from environment groups who warn such a proposal would simply invite an expansion of the nuclear industry worldwide. We'll talk with the former prime minister in a minute, but first this report from Mark Bannerman. MARK BANNERMAN: Right now across the globe, 440 commercial nuclear power stations supply one-fifth of the world's electricity. Each year a typical reactor produces 30 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste. By any measure, it is a major problem. Now Bob Hawke says the country that supplies much of the world's uranium has to be part of the solution. BOB HAWKE, Former PRIME MINISTER: If we took the world's nuclear waste, we would contribute to the safety of the world's nuclear cycle. We'd be making an enormous contribution to the rest of the world. MARK BANNERMAN: The question is: what's in it for Australia? Well, the former prime minister has an answer for that, too - money. He says the millions of dollars generated by a nuclear waste facility could be used to fund the rehabilitation of Australia's salt ravaged environment. BOB HAWKE: We'd have a source of income which we could hypothecate to environmental issues in this country - salinity. We could revolutionise the economics of Australia if we did this. MARK BANNERMAN: As it happened Mr Hawke delivered this bombshell with Labor's current leader Kim Beazley close at hand. He reacted immediately. KIM BEAZLEY, OPPOSITION LEADER: Bob is a father figure in the Labor Party, but that's well outside the platform. MARK BANNERMAN: But if Kim Beazley was laughing, others are not. Indeed, some environmentalists are simply nonplussed. JEFF ANGEL, TOTAL ENVIRONMENT CENTRE: I think it's a crazy idea. I mean, we're trying to be a clean, green country and how are we going to look if we're a depository for highly toxic radioactive waste, as well as being the worst greenhouse emitters in the world. DANNY KENNEDY, GREENPEACE: We don't need to be, you know selling our souls and selling the outback as a waste dump that no-one can ever visit in perpetuity in order to get money to fix salinity. We just need to redirect the bad, perverse subsidies that we have for fossil fuels now and start promoting the clean energy options. MARK BANNERMAN: Others including Professor Aidan Burn, head of the physics department at the ANU, says the idea is well worth consideration. PROF AIDAN BURN, HEAD DEPT PHYSICS, ANU: One has to be, certainly, very careful with nuclear waste, one has to treat it very carefully. But I think Australia is a country where those processes and procedures can be put in place. One has to treat it very, very carefully It's highly activated material, but I think the control of that material can be done and I think Australia is one of the places that should consider storing nuclear waste. ADVERTISEMENT VOICEOVER: Above all, Pangea will provide the world with a safe solution to the disposal of nuclear materials. MARK BANNERMAN: The idea of Australia becoming the world's nuclear waste dump isn't new. In 1999 a foreign company, Pangea floated a very specific proposal, detailed in this video to create a high-tech waste storage site underground in the centre of Australia. The Federal Government wasn't impressed at the time. NICK MINCHIN, MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY &RESOURCES: And the Government has absolutely no intention of accepting the radioactive waste of other countries. MARK BANNERMAN: So has the Federal Government's view on this matter changed? Well, last night Health Minister Tony Abbott, a guest at the same forum as Bob Hawke, wasn't about to dismiss the idea out of hand. TONY ABBOTT, HEALTH MINISTER: It is a visionary suggestion, but unfortunately - BOB HAWKE: Always buts. TONY ABBOTT: There are a lot of politics in this. Now, right at the moment, we can't even get agreement on where to put a nuclear repository for Australia's waste, let alone a repository for the world's waste. MARK BANNERMAN: The Federal Government insisted Woomera is the safest place to store the nation's radioactive waste. Little wonder he's sceptical. Four years ago, the Federal Government announced plans to make South Australia the site of a low-level nuclear waste dump. A major battle ensued. MIKE RANN, SA PREMIER: Well, I want the barrels out, anything that comes from other states, I want out of South Australia. I mean, that's been my position right from the start and it applies to whoever is in power federally. NICK MINCHIN, FINANCE MINISTER: We do regret the sabotage of a good policy by the Premier of South Australia. ADVERTISEMENT VOICEOVER: Waste transport to the facility will be strictly governed by stringent national and international standards. MARK BANNERMAN: Having lost out in South Australia, The Federal Government is now proposing that the Northern Territory will be the site for the low-level waste dump. Again, there is opposition. WOMAN 1: If it's safe, as I say, take it down to the Lodge, put it under Kirribilli House. I think they've got a hide. MARK BANNERMAN: If low-level waste dumps get people agitated, imagine the potential reaction to a never ending line of ships and trains bringing high-level waste from reactors and decommission weapons from around the world to Australia? It would be a very brave government that took that on. No matter what the worldwide benefit might be. ***************************************************************** 11 AU ABC: Russia ready to join US-led uranium fuel bank - Wednesday September 28, 05:02 AM VIENNA (AFP) - Russia said it is ready to join the United States in creating a bank of uranium fuel for countries that pledge not to make enriched uranium but only if there is an international mandate. "We support this American initiative," Alexander Rumyantsev, who is head of the Russian federal nuclear agency, said in Vienna. But he said it should be "incorporated in international agreements" since current US-Russian efforts to turn weapons-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU) into low-enriched uranium (LEU) were governed under a bilateral, US-Russian political agreement. The fuel bank should be overseen by the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency, Rumyantsev said. He was speaking to reporters at a general conference in Vienna this week of the IAEA's 139 member states. "The IAEA is the organization that will have to develop the regulations and rules for such a mechanism," he said. The United States is ready to convert HEU into LEU, which does not have a proliferation risk, and offer it to countries which give up the enrichment process, US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Monday in a statement read out on his behalf. A senior US diplomat said the offer was made in order to "kick-start" the creation of a multinational fuel bank so that countries could have access to nuclear fuel without having the capability to make it themselves. The diplomat said it was not yet determined, however, who would participate, where the bank would be, who would run it or how it would be run. Besides the United States, the other countries which produce enriched uranium for commercial use are France, Russia, Japan, Brazil, China and the Netherlands, Germany and Britain in the Urenco consortium. There was however agreement that the so-called "break-out" capability, when nations are capable of enriching uranium, is a proliferation risk since HEU can be either fuel for reactors or bomb material. LEU, which is also reactor fuel, is not a direct bomb risk. Both US President George W. Bush and IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei have made proposals to create an international fuel service but details have not been made clear. ElBaradei said Monday in opening the IAEA conference that he was "convinced that a key to strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime lies in arresting the dissemination of sensitive fuel cycle activities and the development of a framework for multilateral management of such activities." But the ability to control supply is limited since there is currently an abundant amount of enriched uranium on the world market. The senior US diplomat said Bodman was trying to deliver the message "that the United States strongly supports the peaceful use of nuclear energy." The diplomat said the exact amount of HEU the United States is ready to "blend down" is 17.4 metric tons, which is enough for hundreds of atom bombs and would make enough low enriched uranium to power 10 nuclear reactors. The HEU is an amount "currently in the US inventory but declared in excess of national security needs." The blended-down LEU will be "available about 2009." IAEA officials said they had been alerted to the US offer but had not yet studied it. Copyright © 2005 AFP. All rights reserved. All information ***************************************************************** 12 Closed Doors: In Russia, Securing Its Nuclear Arsenal Is an Uphill Battle--A Warehouse Sits Empty The Wall Street Journal Monday, September 26, 2005: 09:35 Closed Doors In Russia, Securing Its Nuclear Arsenal Is an Uphill Battle Despite U.S. Help, Program Faces Resistance, Delays Amid Chill in Relations A Warehouse Sits Empty By CARLA ANNE ROBBINS and ALAN CULLISON OUTSIDE OZERSK, Russia—Twenty-one months after the U.S. turned over the keys to the Russian government, the Mayak nuclear warehouse near here sits empty. Built with more than $400 million in U.S. funds, the fortress-like building was supposed to be a centerpiece of American efforts to lock up Russia's vast nuclear arsenal. It has room for more than 50 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium and 23-foot-thick walls designed to withstand earthquakes, fires and armor-piercing bombs. U.S. officials say they've been told that a Kremlin budgeting glitch delayed personnel training but that loading of the warehouse should begin by mid-2006. A senior Russian official suggests that it might not be filled until there's an agreement on how the U.S. will monitor what goes inside. People living around this once-secret city, the site of some of the world's worst nuclear pollution, say they'd like to keep it empty forever. The warehouse shows how the effort to secure Russia's vast arsenal remains an uphill battle even as concerns about nuclear terrorism have risen in the post-9/11 world. So far, the U.S. has provided state-of-the-art security for 48 of the 85 nuclear warhead storage and handling sites slated for upgrades, but there could be dozens more sites that the two sides may never agree to work on. With Russian nationalism and oil revenues on the rise, the relationship is increasingly uneasy. Russian officials say flatly that they will never allow the Americans near two huge weapons assembly facilities that are believed to hold a quarter of the country's highly enriched uranium and plutonium not already in warheads. Since 1991 the U.S. has spent about $7 billion on Russian nuclear security and achieved some important successes. To help Russia meet its arms-control treaty commitments, the U.S. has paid to slice hundreds of nuclear-launch missiles, submarines and bombers into scrap metal. Thousands of weapons scientists have received at least temporary nonweapons work. In a separate commercial venture, 250 metric tons of highly enriched uranium taken from dismantled warheads have been blended down and burned as fuel in American nuclear-power reactors. Still, with Washington's attention focused on the nuclear proliferation dangers posed by Iran and North Korea, many of the efforts to secure Russia's far larger arsenal have been mired in midlevel bureaucratic wrangling. The pace has picked up since President Bush pressed the issue at a February summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin. But U.S. officials say privately that a chill in U.S.-Russian relations and the growing power of Russia's security services make any gains fragile. Throughout, the program has faced resistance from Russian officials who saw it as a way for the U.S. to steal military secrets and from members of the U.S. Congress who saw it as another foreign-aid boondoggle. One of the most difficult issues continues to be the U.S. demand that American officials get access to any site, no matter how sensitive, to ensure that U.S. tax dollars aren't being wasted. In a scene reminiscent of the Cold War, border guards in the Russian city of Perm late last month briefly detained a U.S. delegation led by Sen. Richard Lugar, a father of the nuclear security program. The guards insisted on searching the delegation's plane, relenting only after Washington protested to the Kremlin. In 1991, with the Soviet Union unraveling, Mr. Lugar and former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn began pushing for funding to help Moscow dismantle and secure its nuclear weapons. The main fear in those days, says Mr. Lugar, was of "Red Army privateers and maybe even high-ranking officials" trying to seize their own arsenals. More Stability Today, the Russian government is far more stable, and with oil over $60 a barrel, increasingly able to pay its own bills. But U.S. officials say the Kremlin has been disturbingly slow to react to the new threats it faces, even after a series of brutal attacks by Chechen terrorists. "I don't think they've internalized" the dangers, says Paul Longsworth, until recently a deputy administrator of the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, which helps Russia secure its nuclear sites. He says it's worthwhile for the U.S. to pay for Russian nuclear security because "if we do the job we know that it's done." The size of Russia's nuclear arsenal is a state secret. U.S. analysts estimate that Russia may have as much as 600 metric tons of plutonium and highly enriched uranium stored outside of weapons and around 16,000 warheads stored at 100 to 150 sites of varying size. During the Cold War the Soviet Union hid its nuclear design and production facilities in 10 secret cities, including Ozersk, site of the empty Mayak warehouse. The Soviets erased the names of these cities from maps, and they barred outsiders from entering and most residents from leaving. Even today, rusting barbed-wire fences surround Ozersk, and the city is still off-limits to most outsiders. A sign on the road toward the city warns in English and Russian: "Entrance of the foreign citizens is strictly prohibited without special permission." Further down is a security post, gate and guards armed with assault rifles. Once U.S. officials got beyond that perimeter they found security frighteningly lax. Rose Gottemoeller, then a senior official in the Department of Energy, visited Ozersk in 1999 and recalls being taken to an old warehouse where the wooden door was closed with a single, creaky metal lock and the glass windows had no bars. Inside, she says, "on the floor were rows and rows of little buckets with their handles sticking up and plutonium inside." Ms. Gottemoeller says her guide asked her if she'd like to see what a bucket of plutonium looks like and then handed her one. While limited contact with plutonium isn't dangerous unless it is ingested, she says it was "pretty frightening" to think how easily those buckets could end up in the wrong hands. Since then the U.S. has provided high-tech security and accounting systems for more than half of the buildings with nuclear material in Russia's far-flung research and development complex. They are believed to contain about 30% of Russia's stocks of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium. Getting Russia's military brass to accept help at secret warhead storage sites involves particularly delicate wooing. In a nation where the military is cash starved and facilities are often rundown, the main attraction is the offer of free high-tech security. A small training base in the town of Sergeev Posad outside Moscow—built with some $20 million in U.S. funds for the Russian Army's main nuclear security force-is a glittering showroom of all the Americans can provide. The grass along the three rows of concrete and barbed-wire fences is freshly mowed and the tree lines are trimmed to prevent aggressors from hiding. To gain entrance on a recent morning, a visitor had to pass first through a "mantrap"—a metal cage in which the gate to get inside the base opens only after the gate to the outside is closed. Security Measures Standing beside the thick metal door of a model nuclear bunker, base commander Col. Sergei Gruzdiev ticked off all the features that he says would make it "nearly impossible" for thieves or terrorists to steal a warhead. Key cards, code pads, motion detectors and three levels of video surveillance would all have to be disabled just to get to this point. lb then unlock the bunker door, three people with proper clearance must place their hands on a biometric scanner. "It has to be a live hand," the colonel noted. Such enthusiasm is bearing fruit. The Pentagon is currently installing technology similar to the kind Col. Gruzdiev showed off at a dozen of the Russian army's nuclear warhead storage sites. And Moscow recently turned over a list of a further 18 for which it wants help. The Pentagon, which says it won't contribute to Russian military readiness by upgrading security at active military bases, is likely to approve 15 to 16 of those requests. For all Col. Gruzdiev's enthusiasm, there was a noticeable chill in the air when a group from Raytheon Co., which had just won a Pentagon contract to up-grade security at several storage sites, arrived for its tour. They were left standing on the town road outside the base for more than 30 minutes—apparently a gesture to show who controlled the gate. The U.S. is now pressing Russia hard to accept help securing its two largest nuclear sites: the warhead assembly and disassembly facilities in the secret cities of Lesnoy and Trekhgorny. But the Russian nuclear establishment is fearful of letting slip the closely guarded secrets of its warhead manufacturing and design. To calm those fears, last fall the U.S. took a group of experts from Russia's nuclear agency for a tour of its own top-secret nuclear-weapons assembly plant in Amarillo, Texas. U.S. officials say they hoped to show the Russians that the limited access the U.S. was seeking wouldn't endanger any secrets. Vladimir Kuchinov, who heads the international cooperation department at Russia's Federal Agency for Atomic Energy, wasn't impressed. "Have you any information about what the Russians saw?" he asks. "Just the fence and nothing more. We also can in the spirit of reciprocity show them the fence." As for letting the U.S. help_ protect Lesnoy and Trekhgorny, Mr. Kuchinovwho Washington considers one of the more sympathetic Russian officials says flatly: "It's off the table." Driven in part by new oil wealth, Russians increasingly bridle at being portrayed as a junior partner or a nation in need of handouts. Evgeny Avrorin, the scientific director at the closed nuclear city of Snezhinsk, says the Nunn-Lugar program was essential when the Soviet Union was collapsing. "It's all become more difficult," he says. A common view on the Russian side, he says, is: "We gave up too many of our secrets for too little money." Even program boosters in Russia say the U.S. has sometimes made problems worse by appearing deaf to these sentiments. The two governments have agreed to jointly get rid of 68 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium, each burning 34 tons as reactor fuel. But the project was stalled for more than two years after a newly assertive Moscow insisted that if U.S. government personnel or contractors committed an act of sabotage or terrorism while building a new fuel fabrication plant in Russia, they should be held liable. Administration hawks including then-top State Department official John Bolton demanded the same blanket exemption from liability that Russia first granted in the early 1990s when Moscow was flat on its back. After becoming secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice reversed course and ordered her aides to accept the Russian position. But other issues, including who will pay to run Russia's fuel plant, need to be settled before construction begins in the two countries. Meanwhile, some U.S. officials say privately that if the program is delayed much longer, the White House—which is looking for cost savings in the wake of Hurricane Katrina—could pull the plug on the American plant. That would probably kill the entire project. The effort to fill the Mayak warehouse has gotten caught up in a similar swirl of bureaucracy and mistrust. Fears of man-made disasters and government malfeasance are all too familiar around here. In 1948 engineers from Ozersk dumped highly radioactive waste into the nearby Techa River, contaminating 100,000 people in farming villages downstream. When a nuclear waste tank exploded in 1957 it spewed radioactivity across a large swath of countryside. The Soviet government bulldozed entire villages, but only months and sometimes years after the accidents happened. Others were left standing, prompting some people to suspect they were being used as guinea pigs to test the effects of radiation. Russia first raised the idea of a huge warehouse in 1991. It warned that to meet its treaty commitments it would need a secure place to keep all the nuclear material coming out of deactivated warheads. In December 2003, the huge concrete structure in Ozersk was finally completed after many delays caused by debates over location, design and funding. `Transparency' Agreement Washington and Moscow have yet to complete a "transparency" agreement. It would lay out how the U.S. will ensure the hermetically sealed stainless-steel containers being loaded into the warehouse are filled with weapons-grade plutonium—without learning the precise composition of the plutonium used in Russian warheads. U.S. officials say the two sides have agreed in principle on the monitoring technology. The Pentagon has sent two letters in recent months to Russia insisting that loading can proceed even without an agreement. Mr. Kuchinov of the Russian atomic agency says that might be theoretically so but "nevertheless we are trying to have an agreement." Another unsettled issue is how much plutonium the warehouse should hold. American scientists say it can safely store up to 100 metric tons. But the U.S. is also insisting that any plutonium stored there can only be removed if it's on the way to being destroyed rather than recycled into weapons. Under those conditions Russian officials say they're only prepared to store 25 metric tons, all of it slated to be burned if the fuel plant is ever built. Meanwhile, political resistance to the facility is growing. Russian nationalists denounce it as a way to lure the country into storing all of its weapons stocks in one vulnerable basket, while environmentalists claim the massive building is so flimsy that a single intruder with a grenade could set off an explosion that would pollute half of Europe. The allegations have been trumpeted by members of parliament and in a recent Moscow television expose' by a popular tabloid journalist. The history of nuclear accidents weighs heavily on German Lukashen, a member of Ozersk's city council. He says he considers the U.S. a friend but questions whether it has done all it can to make the warehouse safe. "If they had the security systems and the environmental controls, then it would all be different," he says. He wants to produce a Web site recounting the alleged problems including an online computer game in which people would try to defend the warehouse from attackers. The U.S. and Russian governments have done little to allay those fears. A Pentagon-commissioned study completed last year pronounces the facility structurally safe from most accidents and disasters, but the study hasn't been released publicly. (The study didn't consider insider theft or terrorism.) On the Russian side, Mr. Kuchinov says "it's useless" trying to rebut sensationalist charges. ***************************************************************** 13 Guardian Unlimited: Canada to Resume India Nuclear Energy Aid From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday September 27, 2005 2:31 AM By BETH DUFF-BROWN Associated Press Writer TORONTO (AP) - Canada said Monday it would resume nuclear cooperation with India, reversing a long-standing policy to boycott nuclear sales to the South Asian nation. Officials said the purpose of the move was to recognize India's growing economic clout, while encouraging the country to join the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Canada stopped supplying India nuclear materials after Canadian plutonium was used when Indian exploded its first nuclear device in 1974, and Ottawa held to sanctions after India and Pakistan began their tit-for-tat testing of nuclear bombs in 1998. Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew and Indian External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh signed an agreement in Ottawa, the federal capital, that would allow Canada to supply nuclear-related material to Indian civilian nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. ``India is a global power and an important partner with whom we are building an intense, broad and enduring relationship,'' Pettigrew said. ``We have to acknowledge the substantial progress that has been made in India.'' He didn't further specify what type of material Canada would provide, fuel or technology, but emphasized the items would be kept under strict international safeguards to make sure they were not used in India's military nuclear-weapons program. Though ``dual-use'' items can be used for both civilian and military purposes, Pettigrew's office insisted the materials would be for peaceful energy means. ``We don't see this as a reversal; Canada has been seeking to engage India on nuclear safety for many years,'' said Kim Girtel, a spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Canada. ``Part of this initiative is in the civilian nuclear field.'' She emphasized there were no specific Canadian sales of nuclear items currently on the table. Despite New Delhi's refusal to sign the global nonproliferation treaty, India scored big points when it joined the United States and other nations on Saturday in backing a resolution calling on the International Atomic Energy Agency to consider reporting Iran to the U.N. Security Council for not complying with the international nuclear arms control treaty. India has also pledged to stand by its policy of no-first-use of nuclear weapons. The U.S. Congress is debating whether Washington should give India access to its civilian nuclear technologies and the European Union has pledged to press for India's participation in an international nuclear fusion research program. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 14 Platts: NEI reorganizes, aims to focus on key policy issues + The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) said today it was reorganizing to better focus on key policy issues and future energy challenges. NEI President/CEO Frank "Skip" Bowman said in a statement that industry members provided input for the restructuring. Angelina Howard, previously the executive vice president of the member relations and external affairs division, was named vice president in the Office of the President and executive adviser to Bowman. Federal, state, and local government affairs and coalition-building will be integrated under the government affairs division, which will be temporarily headed by John Kane until he retires April 30 or until his replacement is hired. Phyllis Rich, currently vice president of the corporate services division, will add member relations to her duties and also will become treasurer. Richard Meyers was named executive director and special assistant to the president. NEI also created a new post for vice president for used fuel management. The post is currently vacant. The new structure takes effect Oct. 1. Washington (Platts)--26Sep2005 Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 15 Platts: EU can phase out nuclear power, cut CO2 by 30% by 2020 - report + Europe could phase out nuclear power and reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 30% by 2020 to avoid "catastrophic climate change," Greenpeace said in a report launched Tuesday. The "Greenpeace Energy Revolution Senario" report shows that half of Europe's energy demand could switch to renewable energy sources and CO2 emissions could be reduced by nearly 75% by 2050. It also shows that if the European Union fails to reform its energy sector, CO2 emissions would increase by nearly 50% by 2050, Greenpeace said. "This blueprint maps out how to build a future based on clean, renewable energy sources, independent of imported fossils and nuclear fuels. This will not only protect the climate, it will insulate national economies from the fluctuations of the global markets for fossil and nuclear fuels, benefit the economy and provide secure access to energy for future generations," Greenpeace International expert, Sven Teske said. According to the report, the power sector will continue to be the forerunner of renewable energy. In 2050, more than 70% of the electricity is to be produced from renewable energy sources, followed by renewables in the heating sector, which will produce more than half of the needed energy. "There is no quick fix when it comes to the power sector--investments and solutions are long-term. Renewable energies have slightly higher costs now, but most of them will be cheaper in less than 15 years," said Teske. For more nuclear stories, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/ London (Platts)--27Sep2005 Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 16 Independent: Nuclear power 'will help combat global warming' By Marie Woolf, Chief Political Correspondent Published: 28 September 2005 The Government gave its clearest signal yet that it is considering expanding nuclear power in Britain. Tony Blair made it clear that "all options" would be considered to tackle climate change, including building a new generation of nuclear power stations. The Government is to hold a full review of nuclear power and renewable energy sources - including clean coal - next year. Malcolm Wicks, the Energy minister, said yesterday that it would be "more difficult" for Britain to meet its targets on cutting carbon emissions without nuclear power. Speaking at a fringe meeting organised by the nuclear industry, Mr Wicks said the government was "keeping options open" about expanding the nuclear industry as a way of reducing global warming. "I think, in principle, we can meet our climate change targets without going down the nuclear route but it would be more difficult," Mr Wicks said. "I think it would help us tackle our challenge of climate change, all things being equal. But there is no silver bullet." Mr Wicks is to lead the review into energy sources that will examine the cost of nuclear power and the role it can play in securing future energy supplies and tackling climate change. Mr Blair has put his personal authority behind a fresh look at nuclear power as a way to cut carbon emissions. He also indicated it could help guarantee the security of future energy supplies in Britain, reducing reliance on oil and gas piped in from abroad. His speech drew a furious reaction from green campaigners who said the Government would be foolhardy to presume nuclear power was the answer to reducing carbon emissions. "There are far better solutions to our climate change problems than nuclear power that are cheaper, more sustainable and less dangerous," said Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth. The Prime Minister is understood to want to resolve the issue of whether to build more nuclear power stations before he leaves office. Many of the unions are believed to be on board and, yesterday, Jack Dromey, the deputy general secretary of the T&G, indicated he favoured a fresh look at nuclear power to tackle climate change. Mr Wicks said the civil nuclear issue would be resolved within three or four years. But he said the Government would not provide direct state subsidy to the nuclear industry to renew its ageing stock of nuclear power stations. The nuclear issue has divided the Government, with Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary, expressing concern that the question of how to deal with tons of nuclear waste has yet to be resolved. Others have raised fears that expanding nuclear energy could encourage nuclear proliferation worldwide and make it more difficult to criticise nuclear expansion in countries such as Iran. Mr Blair has ordered his strategy unit to examine whether nuclear could be an answer to tackling global warming and is said personally to favour pursuing the technology. © 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd. ***************************************************************** 17 Green Bay Press-Gazette: Point Beach Nuclear Plant closed for maintenance Posted Sept. 27, 2005 Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 1 was taken off line Saturday for scheduled maintenance and refueling. Also, the reactor vessel head will be replaced during the outage. Reactor vessel head corrosion problems were discovered in 2002 at the Davis-Besse plant in Ohio. Owners of pressurized water reactors, as most U.S. nuclear plants are, have been replacing reactor vessel heads as a precautionary measure. The reactor head on Unit 2 at Point Beach was replaced during its most recent maintenance and refueling outage. Unit 1 completed 472 consecutive days of operation, the longest run in plant history. Point Beach, in Two Creeks, is owned by We Energies of Milwaukee and managed by Nuclear Management Co. of Port Hudson. — Richard Ryman/Press-Gazette Copyright © 2004 ***************************************************************** 18 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding FR Doc E5-5177 [Federal Register: September 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 186)] [Notices] [Page 56497-56498] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27se05-105] of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for Safety Light Corporation in Bloomsburg, PA AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Prince, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406, telephone (610) 337-5376, fax (610) 337-5269; or by e-mail: . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Safety Light Corporation (SLC) to renew Materials License No. 37-00030-02, to authorize characterization and decommissioning under specified conditions at its facility in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania. NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment [[Page 56498]] (EA) in support of this action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. The renewed license would also grant SLC exemptions from the financial assurance requirements for decommissioning contained in 10 CFR 30.32 and 30.35. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. II. EA Summary The purpose of the proposed action is to renew NRC Materials License No. 37-00030-02 for characterization and other decommissioning activities through December 2007, and pursuant to 10 CFR 30.11, grant SLC exemptions from the financial assurance requirements for decommissioning contained in 10 CFR 30.32 and 30.35. The renewed license will require that the SLC submit work plans and health and safety plans to the NRC for approval prior to beginning other decommissioning activities at the Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania facility. The renewed license will also require that SLC develop a plan for the orderly shutdown of licensed activities and make prescribed monthly deposits into the decommissioning trust fund during the license renewal period in accordance with the Settlement Agreement between NRC, SLC and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, as approved by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on June 29, 2005. The NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of the license amendment. The licensee does not have sufficient financial assurance to complete remediation activities. The issuance of this amendment covers existing material already present on the site from past operations and does not authorize an increase in the amount of material authorized by the license. No changes are being made to the type or amount of effluents that may be released from the site, and no significant increase in public radiation exposure is expected. By renewing the license, NRC can also require the completion of certain actions to provide for an orderly cessation of licensed activities, and require SLC to cooperate with the Environmental Protection Agency in its evaluation and conduct of future remediation activities. The actions to be taken by the licensee are also in the public interest, and the exemption of specific financial assurance requirements until December 31, 2007 will not endanger life or property or common defense and security. Therefore, the NRC staff concluded that the action to renew License No. 37-00030-02 and grant SLC exemptions from the financial assurance requirements for decommissioning complies with 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR 30.11. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The staff has prepared the EA (summarized above) in support of the license amendment to renew the license and grant the exemptions. On the basis of the EA, the NRC has concluded that the environmental impacts from the action are expected to be insignificant and has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the action. Accordingly, a FONSI is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for the license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at . From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this Notice are the Environmental Assessment (ML052630022 and the SLC renewal request dated April 24, 2004 (ML041310318). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at (800) 397- 4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to . Documents related to operations conducted under this license not specifically referenced in this Notice may not be electronically available and/or may not be publicly available. Persons who have an interest in reviewing these documents should submit a request to NRC under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Instructions for submitting a FOIA request can be found on the NRC's Web site at . Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, this 20th day of September, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Marie Miller, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. [FR Doc. E5-5177 Filed 9-26-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 19 National Post: Pickering nuclear reactor back online nationalpost.com Steve Erwin Canadian Press September 27, 2005 TORONTO -- One of four reactors at Ontario's Pickering A nuclear facility is back on line for the first time in nearly eight years, but it still won't generate enough power to ease a potential supply crunch next summer, says a new report on the province's energy supply. Ontario Power Generation said Unit 1 at the Pickering A plant began sending electricity to consumers again early Monday evening and should be ready for wider commercial use within a few weeks. The reactor had been offline since December 1997 and was refurbished over the past 15 months at a cost of more than $1 billion -- about $100 million more than initial budget estimates, said OPG chief nuclear officer Pierre Charlebois. The budget revision came after the province fired OPG's top three executives in December 2003 for botching the restoration of Unit 4, which resumed service in September that year after costing $1.25 billion to fix, almost three times the original $457-million projection. Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator, manager of the province's electricity system, said Unit 1 will add another 515 megawatts to the power grid next year. Also coming online are eight renewable energy projects, including 350 MW of wind power and 117 MW of gas-fired generation. With the added supply, Ontario will be able to meet its energy needs next summer under normal weather conditions, the IESO said. Another summer of sweltering heat, however, would strain the system and require more power imports regardless of the new supply. "During periods when the supply and demand situation is tight, such as conditions experienced this past summer, or during extreme weather conditions, Ontario will need good performance from generation within Ontario and will rely on imports from neighbouring markets," the IESO said in its latest 18-month outlook. Record demand, transmission constraints and limited hydroelectric resources taxed Ontario's grid to the limit this summer. Extreme heat had consumers and businesses running air conditioners constantly, while on the supply side, high demand in early summer meant water available for hydroelectric use was used up quickly and never replaced by rainfall. As a result, there were 12 days of public appeals to curb energy use and 23 emergency alerts issued by the IESO this summer. Voltage was reduced by five per cent for 13 hours during two days in August. "This is clearly a situation that we cannot afford to repeat in the summer of 2006," said Paul Murphy, IESO's chief operating officer. Ontario electricity demand hit an all-time peak of 26,160 MW on July 13, surpassing the previous record of 25,414 MW reached in August 2002. The IESO estimates that under extreme weather conditions, demand could set a new record next summer of 27,378 MW. The Ontario government has acknowledged that it needs to add new, base supply to the province's energy grid over the next few years to meet future demand. Premier Dalton McGuinty said earlier this month he'll agree to build new nuclear plants if that's what's called for by the Ontario Power Authority, which is reviewing the province's energy supply. The OPA's report is due Dec. 1. OPG is lobbying for a role in the province's nuclear future, despite past cost overruns and uncertainty about whether the province will look to the private sector instead of the publicly controlled corporation of which it is the sole shareholder. "Once the government decides on a path forward, OPG will be happy to participate if we're asked to do so," Charlebois said Tuesday. OPG, which has already determined that it's not worth the cost to refurbish Pickering A's units 2 and 3, is mulling whether to refurbish Pickering B's four nuclear units. Charlebois said OPG would need a commitment by 2009 for a "significant investment" in Pickering B so it can begin retrofits there in 2013 or 2014. © Canadian Press 2005 Copyright © CanWest Interactive, a division of All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 20 NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting FR Doc 05-19321 [Federal Register: September 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 186)] [Notices] [Page 56498-56499] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27se05-106] Dates: Weeks of September 26, October 3, 10, 17, 24, 31, 2005. Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Status: Public and Closed. Matters to be Considered: Week of September 26, 2005 There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of September 26, 2005. Week of October 3, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of October 3, 2005. Week of October 10, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of October 10, 2005. Week of October 17, 2005--Tentative Tuesday, October 18, 2005 9:30 a.m.--Briefing on Decommissioning Activities and Status (Public Meeting) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . Week of October 24, 2005--Tentative Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:30 p.m.--Discussion of Security Issues (Closed-Ex. 1) Week of October 31, 2005--Tentative Tuesday, November 1, 2005 9:30 a.m.--Briefing on Implementation of Davis-Besse Lessons Learned Task Force (DBLLTF) Recommendations (Public Meeting) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . *The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)--(301) 451- 1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415- 1662. * * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. * * * * * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify the [[Page 56499]] NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, August Spector, at 301-415-7080, TTD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at ask@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. * * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: September 22, 2005. Debra L. McCain, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 05-19321 Filed 9-23-05; 9:52 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M ***************************************************************** 21 Illicit Trafficking In Radioactive Materials Rose Substantially From 2003-2004 - Un Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:00:28 -0400 ILLICIT TRAFFICKING IN RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS ROSE SUBSTANTIALLY FROM 2003-2004 – UN New York, Sep 27 2005 4:00PM Continuing its bid to pre-empt nuclear and radiological terrorism, the United Nations atomic watchdog agency today reported a substantial increase in illicit trafficking and unauthorized activities with nuclear and other radioactive materials in 2003-2004, including one case involving weapons-grade material. The majority of the incidents reported by States showed no evidence of criminal activity, the International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2005/traffickingstats.html">IAEA) said. But, it warned: “In the hands of terrorists or other criminals, some radioactive sources could be used for malicious purposes, for example in a radiological dispersal device or ‘dirty bomb.’” Countries reported 121 incidents to the IAEA in 2004, according to new statistics from the Agency's Illicit Trafficking Database (ITDB). The case involving fissile material - highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium - needed to make a nuclear weapon, occurred in June 2003 when an individual was arrested in possession of 170 grams of HEU, attempting to illegally transport it across the border from Georgia. The increased number of incidents during 2003-2004 could in part be due to improved reporting, IDTB said. Since IDTB started in 1993, there have been 18 confirmed case of trafficking in HEU and plutonium. A few of these involved kilogram quantities of weapons-usable nuclear material but most involved very small quantities. In some cases the material was allegedly a sample of larger quantities available for illegal sale or at risk of theft. In the past 12 years, 220 incidents involved nuclear materials, mainly low-grade and mostly reactor fuel pellets, natural uranium, depleted uranium and thorium. While the quantities were rather small to be significant for nuclear proliferation or use in a terrorist bomb, they indicate gaps in control and security of nuclear material and facilities. The majority of confirmed nuclear incidents during 1993-2004 involved criminal activity, such as theft, illegal possession, illegal transfer or transaction. Where data on motives is available, it indicates profit seeking as the principal goal. In the 12 year period, 424 incidents were reported involving other radioactive materials, mostly radioactive sources, which are used worldwide in a host of legitimate applications, such as radiography. Measures to protect and control their use, storage or disposal are much less strict than those applied toward nuclear materials. As well as possible terrorist use, radioactive sources also have the potential to harm human health or the environment. Unlawfully discarded or disposed of radioactive sources, when melted at scrap metal recycle plants, may lead to severe environmental and economic related consequences, the Agency said. Activity levels of the majority of these sources were too low to pose serious radiological risk if used for malicious purposes, but some 50 incidents involved high-risk “dangerous” radioactive sources, presenting considerable radiological danger if so used. The overwhelming majority of such “dangerous” cases were reported over the last six years. 2005-09-27 00:00:00.000 ________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml ***************************************************************** 22 New Scientist: US army plans to bulk-buy anthrax - [NewScientist.com] 10:00 24 September 2005 + NewScientist.com news service THE US military wants to buy large quantities of anthrax, in a controversial move that is likely to raise questions over its commitment to treaties designed to limit the spread of biological weapons. A series of contracts have been uncovered that relate to the US army's Dugway Proving Ground in Utah. They ask companies to tender for the production of bulk quantities of a non-virulent strain of anthrax, and for equipment to produce significant volumes of other biological agents. Issued earlier this year, the contracts were discovered by Edward Hammond, director of the Sunshine Project, a US-German organisation that campaigns against the use of biological and chemical weapons. One "biological services" contract specifies: "The company must have the ability and be willing to grow Bacillus anthracis Sterne strain at 1500-litre quantities." Other contracts are for fermentation equipment for producing 3000-litre batches of an unspecified biological agent, and sheep carcasses to test the efficiency of an incinerator for the disposal of infected livestock. Major concern Although the Sterne strain is not thought to be harmful to humans and is used for vaccination, the contracts have caused major concern. "It raises a serious question over how the US is going to demonstrate its compliance with obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention if it brings these tanks online," says Alan Pearson, programme director for biological and chemical weapons at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington DC. "If one can grow the Sterne strain in these units, one could also grow the Ames strain, which is quite lethal." The US renounced biological weapons in 1969, but small quantities of lethal anthrax were still being produced at Dugway as recently as 1998. It is not known what use the biological agents will be put to. They could be used to test procedures to decontaminate vehicles or buildings, or to test an "agent defeat" warhead designed to destroy stores of chemical and biological weapons. Highly provocative There are even fears that they could be used to determine how effectively anthrax is dispersed when released from bombs or crop-spraying aircraft. "I can definitely see them testing biological weapons delivery systems for threat assessment," says Hammond. Whatever use it is put to, however, the move could be seen as highly provocative by other nations, he says. "What would happen to the Biological Weapons Convention if other countries followed suit and built large biological production facilities at secretive military bases known for weapons testing?" A spokesperson for Dugway said the anthrax contract is still at the pre-solicitation stage, and the base has not yet acquired the agent. They refused to say what it will be used for. ***************************************************************** 23 [du-list] Invitation 9th Nov. Geneva Workshop 'Uranium Weapons Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:42:06 -0700 version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: newton.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com Subject: invitation 9 nov 2005 Geneva We kinldy invite you to the Workshop : TOWARD A BAN ON DU WEAPONS - NOVEMBER 9th, 2005 GENEVA On the occasion of 'the international day for preventing the exploitation of the environment in war and armed conflicts' and on the occasion of 'the international action day to Ban Uranium Weapons' the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW) organises in cooperation with the International Peace Bureau (IPB), a workshop and press conference at the International Conference Center in Geneva on the 9th of November 2005. address: CCV Centre de Conferences de Varembé 1211 Geneva. more details will follow for ICBUW Ria Verjauw ria.verjauw@telenet.be www.bandepleteduranium.org ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 24 [du-list] New DU article......Lowry unrealistic about depleted Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:41:56 -0700 version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: newton.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com Lowry unrealistic about depleted uranium http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/107382_uranium06.shtml [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 25 Independent: Depleted uranium tests for US troops returning from Iraq By Andrew Buncombe in Washington Published: 28 September 2005 US troops returning from Iraq are for the first time to be offered state-of-the-art radiation testing to check for contamination from depleted uranium - a controversial substance linked by some to cancer and birth defects. Campaigners say the Pentagon refuses to take seriously the issue of poisoning from depleted uranium (DU) and offers only the most basic checks, and only when it is specifically asked for. But state legislators across the US are pushing ahead with laws that will provide their National Guard troops access to the most sophisticated tests. Connecticut and Louisiana have already passed such legislation and another 18 are said to be considering similar steps. Connecticut's new law - pioneered by state legislator Pat Dillon - comes into effect on Saturday. "What this does is establish a standard," said Mrs Dillon, a Yale-trained epidemiologist. "It means that our Guardsmen will have access to highly sensitive testing that can differentiate between background levels of radiation." DU - a heavy metal waste-product of nuclear power plants - has been used by the US military since the 1991 Gulf War. It is used to tip tank shells and missiles because of its ability to penetrate armour. On impact DU burns at an extremely high temperature and is widely dispersed in micro particles. The science surrounding DU remains hotly contested though the majority of studies have concluded there is no genuine risk from battlefield contamination. One 2001 study by the Royal Society, concluded: "Except in extreme circumstances any extra risks of developing fatal cancers as a result of radiation from internal exposure to DU arising from battlefield conditions are likely to be so small that they would not be detectable above the general risk of dying from cancer over a normal lifetime." But, campaigners such as the British-based Campaign Against Depleted Uranium (CADU), cite other studies which suggest a risk. In 2003,New Scientist reported that a study by the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, found that human bone cells could suffer genetic damage when exposed to DU, even at levels deemed to be non-toxic. Gerard Matthew has no doubts about the effect of DU. The former member of the New York National Guard served in Iraq from April to September 2003. On his return he was not offered testing until a New York newspaper offered to arrange it for him and some friends. "[With the military] it never came up. They suppressed the whole DU thing," he said. Mr Matthew, who said he was found to have considerable radiation exposure, said two years on he suffers from migraines, erectile dysfunction and a swollen face - conditions that have developed since he returned from Iraq. But his conviction about the dangers of DU was fixed when his daughter, Victoria Claudette, was born with only two digits on her right hand. Whatever debate may be going on among scientists, Mr Matthew is convinced his daughter - conceived the month after he returned from Iraq - suffered because of his own exposure to DU. "It's concealment," he said. "We have 18 and 19-year-old coalition forces out there fighting and they should not be exposed to this." Dr Doug Rokke, a health physicist who was part of a Pentagon team that studied DU in the mid 1990s, concluded that there was no way DU weapons could be used without the risk of contamination. He said the Pentagon responded to his conclusions by denouncing him. He told the In These Times newspaper: "DU is a war crime. It's that simple. Once you've scattered all this stuff around and then refuse to clean it up you've committed a war crime." © 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd. ***************************************************************** 26 NRC: In the Matter of Certain Panoramic and Underwater Irradiators FR Doc E5-5188 [Federal Register: September 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 186)] [Notices] [Page 56509-56513] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27se05-108] Authorized to Possess Greater than 370 Terabecquerels (10,000 Curies) of Byproduct Material in the Form of Sealed Sources, and All Other Persons Who Obtain Safeguards Information Described Herein; Order Imposing Compensatory Measures and Requirements for the Protection of Certain Safeguards Information (Effective Immediately) I The Licensees identified in Attachment 1 to this Order hold licenses issued in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and 10 CFR Part 36 or comparable Agreement State regulations by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) or an Agreement State authorizing possession of greater than 370 terabecquerels (10,000 curies) of byproduct material in the form of sealed sources either in panoramic irradiators that have dry or wet storage of the sealed sources or in underwater irradiators in which both the source and the product being irradiated are under water. Commission regulations at 10 CFR 20.1801 or equivalent Agreement State regulations, require Licensees to secure, from unauthorized removal or access, licensed materials that are stored in controlled or unrestricted areas. Commission regulations at 10 CFR 20.1802 or equivalent Agreement States regulations, require Licensees to control and maintain constant surveillance of licensed material that is in a controlled or unrestricted area and that is not in storage. II On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, N.Y., and Washington, DC, utilizing large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its Licensees in order to strengthen Licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State and local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment in order to assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. In addition, the Commission has been conducting a review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements. As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and license requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community, the Commission has determined that certain compensatory measures are required to be implemented by Licensees as prudent measures to address the current threat environment. Therefore, the Commission is imposing the requirements, as set forth in Attachment 2, on all Licensees identified in [[Page 56510]] Attachment 1 of this Order \1\ who currently possess, or have near term plans to possess, greater than 370 terabecquerels (10,000 curies) of byproduct material in the form of sealed sources. These requirements, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the public health and safety and common defense and security continue to be adequately protected in the current threat environment. These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise. \1\ Attachment 1 contains sensitive information and Attachment 2 contains SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION and will not be released to the public. The Commission recognizes that Licensees may have already initiated many measures set forth in Attachment 2 to this Order in response to previously issued advisories or on their own. It is also recognized that some measures may not be possible or necessary at some sites, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the Licensees' specific circumstances to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe use and storage of the sealed sources. Although the additional security measures implemented by the Licensees in response to the Safeguards and Threat Advisories have been adequate to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety, the Commission concludes that the security measures must be embodied in an Order consistent with the established regulatory framework. The security measures contained in Attachment 2 of this Order contain safeguards information and will not be released to the public. The Commission has broad statutory authority to protect and prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of safeguards information. Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, grants the Commission explicit authority to ``issue such orders, as necessary to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of safeguards information * * *'' This authority extends to information concerning special nuclear material, source material, and byproduct material, as well as production and utilization facilities. This Order imposes requirements for the protection of Safeguards Information in the hands of any person \2\ whether or not a licensee or applicant of the Commission, who produces, receives, or acquires Safeguards Information. Licensees, and all persons who produce, receive, or acquire Safeguards Information, must ensure proper handling and protection of safeguards information to avoid unauthorized disclosure in accordance with the specific requirements for the protection of safeguards information contained in Attachment 3. The Commission hereby provides notice that it intends to treat all violations of the requirements contained in Attachment 3, applicable to the handling and unauthorized disclosure of safeguards information as serious breaches of adequate protection of the public health and safety and the common defense and security of the United States. Access to safeguards information is limited to those persons who have established the need to know the information, and are considered to be trustworthy and reliable. A need to know means a determination by a person having responsibility for protecting Safeguards Information that a proposed recipient's access to Safeguards Information is necessary in the performance of official, contractual, or licensee duties of employment. Licensees and all other persons who obtain Safeguards Information must ensure that they develop, maintain and implement strict policies and procedures for the proper handling and unauthorized disclosure of safeguards information in accordance with the requirements in Attachment 3. All licensees must ensure that all contractors whose employees may have access to safeguards information either adhere to the licensee's policies and procedures on safeguards information or develop, maintain and implement their own acceptable policies and procedures, but the licensees remain responsible for the conduct of their contractors. The policies and procedures necessary to ensure compliance with applicable requirements contained in Attachment 3 must address, at a minimum, the following: the general performance requirement that each person who produces, receives, or acquires Safeguards Information shall ensure that Safeguards Information is protected against unauthorized disclosure; protection of safeguards information at fixed sites, in use and in storage, and while in transit; inspections, audits and evaluations; correspondence containing safeguards information; access to safeguards information; preparation, marking, reproduction and destruction of documents; external transmission of documents; use of automatic data processing systems; and removal of the Safeguards Information category. \2\ Person means (1) any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, public or private institution, group, government agency other than the Commission or the Department, except that the Department shall be considered a person with respect to those facilities of the Department specified in section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1244), any State or any political subdivision of, or any political entity within a State, any foreign government or nation or any political subdivision of any such government or nation, or other entity; and (2) any legal successor, representative, agent, or agency of the foregoing. In order to provide assurance that the Licensees are implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current threat environment, all Licensees identified in Attachment 1 to this Order shall implement the requirements identified in Attachment 2 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that in light of the common defense and security matters identified above, which warrant the issuance of this Order, the public health, safety and interest require that this Order be effective immediately. III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 81, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR Part 30, and 10 CFR Part 36, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that all licensees identified in Attachment 1 to this Order, and all other persons who produce, receive, or acquire the compensatory measures identified in Attachment 2 or any related safeguards information, shall comply with the requirements in Attachment 3. In addition, all licensees identified in Attachment 1 to this Order shall comply with the requirements of this Order as follows: A. The licensees shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any Commission or Agreement State regulation or license to the contrary, comply with the requirements described in Attachment 2 to this Order. The licensee shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachment 2 to the Order and shall complete implementation by March 16, 2006, or the first day that greater than 370 terabecquerels (10,000 curies) of byproduct material in the form of sealed sources is possessed, which ever is later. B. 1.The Licensee shall, within twenty-five (25) days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission, (1) if it is unable to comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment 2, (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in its specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation of any of the requirements would cause the Licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission or Agreement State [[Page 56511]] regulation or its license. The notification shall provide the Licensee's justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement. B.1. If the Licensee considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment 2 to this Order would adversely impact safe operation of the facility, the Licensee must notify the Commission, within twenty-five (25) days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 2 requirement in question, or a schedule for modifying the facility to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, the Licensee must supplement its response to Condition B.1 of this Order to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications as required in Condition B.1. C. 1. The Licensee shall, within twenty-five (25) days of the date of this Order, submit to the Commission a schedule for completion of each requirement described in Attachment 2. 2. The Licensee shall report to the Commission when it has achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 2. D. Notwithstanding any provisions of the Commission's or Agreement State's regulations to the contrary, all measures implemented or actions taken in response to this order shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise. Licensee response to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2 above shall be submitted to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. In addition, Licensee submittals that contain specific physical protection or security information considered to be safeguards information shall be put in a separate enclosure or attachment and, marked as ``SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION--MODIFIED HANDLING'' and mailed (no electronic transmittals; i.e., no e-mail or FAX) to the NRC in accordance with Attachment 3. The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by the Licensee of good cause. IV In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the Licensee must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty-five (25) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the Licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, and to the Licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the Licensee. Because of possible disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to and also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to . If a person other than the Licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d). If a hearing is requested by the Licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(I), the Licensee may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty-five (25) days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this Order. Dated this 16th day of September, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Margaret V. Federline, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. Attachment 3--Modified Handling Requirements for the Protection of Certain Safeguards Information (SGI-M) General Requirement Information and material that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) determines are safeguards information must be protected from unauthorized disclosure. In order to distinguish information needing modified protection requirements from the safeguards information for reactors and fuel cycle facilities that require a higher level of protection, the term ``Safeguards Information-Modified Handling'' (SGI-M) is being used as the distinguishing marking for certain materials licensees. Each person who produces, receives, or acquires SGI-M shall ensure that it is protected against unauthorized disclosure. To meet this requirement, licensees and persons shall establish and maintain an information protection system that includes the measures specified below. Information protection procedures employed by State and local police forces are deemed to meet these requirements. Persons Subject to These Requirements Any person, whether or not a licensee of the NRC, who produces, receives, or acquires SGI-M is subject to the requirements (and sanctions) of this document. Firms and their employees that supply services or equipment to materials licensees would fall under this requirement if they possess facility SGI-M. A licensee must inform contractors and suppliers of the existence of these requirements and the need for proper protection. (See more under Conditions for Access.) State or local police units who have access to SGI-M are also subject to these requirements. However, these organizations are deemed to have adequate information protection systems. The conditions for transfer of information to a third party, i.e., [[Page 56512]] need-to-know, would still apply to the police organization as would sanctions for unlawful disclosure. Again, it would be prudent for licensees who have arrangements with local police to advise them of the existence of these requirements. Criminal and Civil Sanctions The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, explicitly provides that any person, ``whether or not a licensee of the Commission, who violates any regulations adopted under this section shall be subject to the civil monetary penalties of section 234 of this Act.'' Section 147a. of the Act. Furthermore, willful violation of any regulation or order governing safeguards information is a felony subject to criminal penalties in the form of fines or imprisonment, or both. See sections 147b. and 223 of the Act. Conditions for Access Access to SGI-M beyond the initial recipients of the order will be governed by the background check requirements imposed by the order. Access to SGI-M by licensee employees, agents, or contractors must include both an appropriate need-to-know determination by the licensee, as well as a determination concerning the trustworthiness of individuals having access to the information. Employees of an organization affiliated with the licensee's company, e.g., a parent company, may be considered as employees of the licensee for access purposes. Need-to-Know Need-to-know is defined as a determination by a person having responsibility for protecting SGI-M that a proposed recipient's access to SGI-M is necessary in the performance of official, contractual, or licensee duties of employment. The recipient should be made aware that the information is SGI-M and those having access to it are subject to these requirements as well as criminal and civil sanctions for mishandling the information. Occupational Groups Dissemination of SGI-M is limited to individuals who have an established need-to-know and who are members of certain occupational groups. These occupational groups are: 1. An employee, agent, or contractor of an applicant, a licensee, the Commission, or the United States Government; 2. A member of a duly authorized committee of the Congress; 3. The Governor of a State or his designated representative; 4. A representative of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) engaged in activities associated with the U.S./IAEA Safeguards Agreement who has been certified by the NRC; 5. A member of a state or local law enforcement authority that is responsible for responding to requests for assistance during safeguards emergencies; or 6. A person to whom disclosure is ordered pursuant to Section 2.744(e) of Part 2 of part 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 7. State Radiation Control Program Directors (and State Homeland Security Directors) or their designees. In a generic sense, the individuals described above in (II) through (VII) are considered to be trustworthy by virtue of their employment status. For non-governmental individuals in group (I) above, a determination of reliability and trustworthiness is required. Discretion must be exercised in granting access to these individuals. If there is any indication that the recipient would be unwilling or unable to provide proper protection for the SGI-M, they are not authorized to receive SGI-M. Information Considered for Safeguards Information Designation Information deemed SGI-M is information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to have a significant adverse effect on the health and safety of the public or the common defense and security by significantly increasing the likelihood of theft, diversion, or sabotage of materials or facilities subject to NRC jurisdiction. SGI-M identifies safeguards information which is subject to these requirements. These requirements are necessary in order to protect quantities of nuclear material significant to the health and safety of the public or common defense and security. The overall measure for consideration of SGI-M is the usefulness of the information (security or otherwise) to an adversary in planning or attempting a malevolent act. The specificity of the information increases the likelihood that it will be useful to an adversary. Protection While in Use While in use, SGI-M shall be under the control of an authorized individual. This requirement is satisfied if the SGI-M is attended by an authorized individual even though the information is in fact not constantly being used. SGI-M, therefore, within alarm stations, continuously manned guard posts or ready rooms need not be locked in file drawers or storage containers. Under certain conditions the general control exercised over security zones or areas would be considered to meet this requirement. The primary consideration is limiting access to those who have a need-to-know. Some examples would be: Alarm stations, guard posts and guard ready rooms; Engineering or drafting areas if visitors are escorted and information is not clearly visible; Plant maintenance areas if access is restricted and information is not clearly visible; Administrative offices (e.g., central records or purchasing) if visitors are escorted and information is not clearly visible; Protection While in Storage While unattended, SGI-M shall be stored in a locked file drawer or container. Knowledge of lock combinations or access to keys protecting SGI-M shall be limited to a minimum number of personnel for operating purposes who have a ``need-to-know'' and are otherwise authorized access to SGI-M in accordance with these requirements. Access to lock combinations or keys shall be strictly controlled so as to prevent disclosure to an unauthorized individual. Transportation of Documents and Other Matter Documents containing SGI-M when transmitted outside an authorized place of use or storage shall be enclosed in two sealed envelopes or wrappers. The inner envelope or wrapper shall contain the name and address of the intended recipient, and be marked both sides, top and bottom with the words ``Safeguards Information- Modified Handling.'' The outer envelope or wrapper must be addressed to the intended recipient, must contain the address of the sender, and must not bear any markings or indication that the document contains SGI-M. SGI-M may be transported by any commercial delivery company that provides nationwide overnight service with computer tracking features, U.S. first class, registered, express, or certified mail, or by any individual authorized access pursuant to these requirements. Within a facility, SGI-M may be transmitted using a single opaque envelope. It may also be transmitted within a facility without single or double wrapping, provided adequate measures are taken to protect the material against unauthorized disclosure. Individuals transporting SGI-M should retain the documents in their personal possession at all times or ensure that the information is appropriately wrapped and also secured to preclude compromise by an unauthorized individual. Preparation and Marking of Documents While the NRC is the sole authority for determining what specific information may be designated as ``SGI-M,'' originators of documents are responsible for determining whether those documents contain such information. Each document or other matter that contains SGI-M shall be marked ``Safeguards Information-Modified Handling'' in a conspicuous manner on the top and bottom of the first page to indicate the presence of protected information. The first page of the document must also contain (i) the name, title, and organization of the individual authorized to make an SGI-M determination, and who has determined that the document contains SGI-M, (ii) the date the document was originated or the determination made, (iii) an indication that the document contains SGI-M, and (iv) an indication that unauthorized disclosure would be subject to civil and criminal sanctions. Each additional page shall be marked in a conspicuous fashion at the top and bottom with letters denoting ``Safeguards Information-Modified Handling.'' In addition to the ``Safeguards Information--Modified Handling'' markings at the top and bottom of page, transmittal letters or memoranda which do not in themselves contain SGI-M shall be marked to indicate that attachments or enclosures contain SGI-M but that the transmittal does not (e.g., ``When separated from SGI-M enclosure(s), this document is decontrolled''). In addition to the information required on the face of the document, each item of [[Page 56513]] correspondence that contains SGI-M shall, by marking or other means, clearly indicate which portions (e.g., paragraphs, pages, or appendices) contain SGI-M and which do not. Portion marking is not required for physical security and safeguards contingency plans. All documents or other matter containing SGI-M in use or storage shall be marked in accordance with these requirements. A specific exception is provided for documents in the possession of contractors and agents of licensees that were produced more than one year prior to the effective date of the order. Such documents need not be marked unless they are removed from file drawers or containers. The same exception applies to old documents stored away from the facility in central files or corporation headquarters. Since information protection procedures employed by state and local police forces are deemed to meet NRC requirements, documents in the possession of these agencies need not be marked as set forth in this document. Removal From SGI-M Category Documents containing SGI-M shall be removed from the SGI-M category (decontrolled) only after the NRC determines that the information no longer meets the criteria of SGI-M. Licensees have the authority to make determinations that specific documents which they created no longer contain SGI-M information and may be decontrolled. Consideration must be exercised to ensure that any document decontrolled shall not disclose SGI-M in some other form or be combined with other unprotected information to disclose SGI-M. The authority to determine that a document may be decontrolled may be exercised only by, or with the permission of, the individual (or office) who made the original determination. The document should indicate the name and organization of the individual removing the document from the SGI-M category and the date of the removal. Other persons who have the document in their possession should be notified of the decontrolling of the document. Reproduction of Matter Containing SGI-M SGI-M may be reproduced to the minimum extent necessary consistent with need without permission of the originator. Newer digital copiers which scan and retain images of documents represent a potential security concern. If the copier is retaining SGI-M information in memory, the copier cannot be connected to a network. It should also be placed in a location that is cleared and controlled for the authorized processing of SGI-M information. Different copiers have different capabilities, including some which come with features that allow the memory to be erased. Each copier would have to be examined from a physical security perspective. Use of Automatic Data Processing (ADP) Systems SGI-M may be processed or produced on an ADP system provided that the system is assigned to the licensee's or contractor's facility and requires the use of an entry code/password for access to stored information. Licensees are encouraged to process this information in a computing environment that has adequate computer security controls in place to prevent unauthorized access to the information. An ADP system is defined here as a data processing system having the capability of long term storage of SGI-M. Word processors such as typewriters are not subject to the requirements as long as they do not transmit information off-site. (Note: if SGI- M is produced on a typewriter, the ribbon must be removed and stored in the same manner as other SGI-M information or media.) The basic objective of these restrictions is to prevent access and retrieval of stored SGI-M by unauthorized individuals, particularly from remote terminals. Specific files containing SGI-M will be password protected to preclude access by an unauthorized individual. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) maintains a listing of all validated encryption systems at . SGI-M files may be transmitted over a network if the file is encrypted. In such cases, the licensee will select a commercially available encryption system that NIST has validated as conforming to Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS). SGI-M files shall be properly labeled as ``Safeguards Information-Modified Handling'' and saved to removable media and stored in a locked file drawer or cabinet. Telecommunications SGI-M may not be transmitted by unprotected telecommunications circuits except under emergency or extraordinary conditions. For the purpose of this requirement, emergency or extraordinary conditions are defined as any circumstances that require immediate communications in order to report, summon assistance for, or respond to a security event (or an event that has potential security significance). This restriction applies to telephone, telegraph, teletype, facsimile circuits, and radio. Routine telephone or radio transmission between site security personnel, or between the site and local police, should be limited to message formats or codes that do not disclose facility security features or response procedures. Similarly, call-ins during transport should not disclose information useful to a potential adversary. Infrequent or non-repetitive telephone conversations regarding a physical security plan or program are permitted provided that the discussion is general in nature. Individuals should use care when discussing SGI-M at meetings or in the presence of others to insure that the conversation is not overheard by persons not authorized access. Transcripts, tapes or minutes of meetings or hearings that contain SGI-M should be marked and protected in accordance with these requirements. Destruction Documents containing SGI-M should be destroyed when no longer needed. They may be destroyed by tearing into small pieces, burning, shredding or any other method that precludes reconstruction by means available to the public at large. Piece sizes one half inch or smaller composed of several pages or documents and thoroughly mixed would be considered completely destroyed. [FR Doc. E5-5188 Filed 9-26-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 27 CNIC: Japanese uranium contaminated soil Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:28:48 -0700 HTML_TITLE_EMPTY,MAILTO_LINK,SP_HAM_EXTREME,WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: newton.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [NukeNet] Japanese uranium contaminated soil
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:54:24 +0900
From: Citizens' Nuclear Information Center <cnic@nifty.com>
To: nukenet@energyjustice.net 


NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

We have sent several messages to this list regarding the plans of the  
Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Organization (JNC) to ship 290 cubic  
meters of uranium contaminated soil to the US for refining and  
disposal. Background information is available on the following pages:

http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit107/nit107articles/ 
nit107uraniumsoil.html

http://cnic.jp/english/news/newsflash/uransoil7Sep05.html

JNC continues to refuse to publish the name of the company to which the  
soil is being sent, but information obtained through a freedom of  
information inquiry seems to narrow the possibilities to two US uranium  
mills in Utah: Shootering Canyon and White Mesa. Of these, according to  
DOE's Domestic Uranium Production Report (2003-2004), the operational  
status of the former is 'reclamation', whereas the operational status  
of the latter is 'standby'. We deduce from this that JNC has contracted  
with the owners of the White Mesa mill to refine the above soil. The  
name of this company is White Mesa LLC. JNC has neither confirmed nor  
refuted this deduction.

  It is expected that the soil will be shipped from Kobe Port early in  
October. Previously, newspaper reports suggested that the soil would be  
shipped to Seattle, however we don't know whether this is accurate.

As we have stated previously, CNIC opposes this method of disposing of  
JNC's radioactive waste. It goes against the principle of not dumping  
radioactive waste in another country. JNC has conveniently changed its  
labeling of the waste to call it 'uranium ore', but the motivation for  
sending the waste to the US is simply to escape an intractable waste  
problem caused by its own shoddy practices back in the 1950s and 60s.  
JNC is paying for the soil to be taken off its hands, so clearly it has  
no value as ore for the US company.

We have continued to relay information obtained from other groups,  
which are following this issue more closely, on the assumption that the  
above principle is worth defending, regardless of the level of  
radioactivity involved (3-4 becquerels per gram). We are also concerned  
about the bad precedent that this case sets.

We would be keen to hear of any developments at the US end.

Philip White
International Liaison Officer

Citizens' Nuclear Information Center
3F Kotobuki Bdg, 1-58-15, Higashi-Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003
Phone: 81-3-5330-9520
Fax: 81-3-5330-9530
http://cnic.jp/english/
cnic@nifty.com


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
***************************************************************** 28 [shundahaialert] Latest on the Skull Valley nuke dump. Please Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:42:03 -0700 version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: newton.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com Dear friends, The fight against the globally unprecedented, high-level nuclear waste dump proposed for the small Skull Valley Goshute Indian reservation in Utah continues to heat up. Within the past month it has come to a fever pitch. This project has been resisted for eight years, and now it's getting scary. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission passed the license for this dump this past month, literally in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster, and we are honestly concerned that this is being pushed at a time when the nuclear industry and the government agencies that serve it are counting on people not to pay attention. Please. Many of you who subscribe to this news alert are well aware of the whole process. We need to hear from you. We need your help. We finished updating our website tonight with the latest news that we could find on this issue. Events since September 9th, When the NRC approved the license for the Skull Valley nuke dump, have sparked a media discussion that can be almost impossible to keep up with. But we are doing our best to provide everything you need to know to help stop this project from moving forward. We have attached the latest news. You can also check our website www.shundahai.org for an archive of news that tracks the whole process to resist this nuclear dump. And, as a critical part of this process, Shundahai Network needs your help. Please write letters to the media outlets we have listed and copy them to our email address shundahai@shundahai.org so we can see what our subscribers have to say about these nuclear projects. Please send money. Our work cannnot survive without it. We have programs, operations, and personnel responsibilities that cannot keep going without financial support. You can donate via our website www.shundahai.org, or by mail http://shundahai.org/donation_form.htm, You may also purchase Shundahai Network logo apparrel and accessories at http://www.cafepress.com/shundahainet. Please show your support for environmental justice and nuclear abolition by proudly wearing Shundahai Network logo apparrel. The Shundahai Network logo features a peace pipe being passed between the Native people of this "western" hemisphere who continue to resist US nuclear projects here on sacred land, and indigenous Khazaks, inhabitants of the land where the former Soviet Union tested its nuclear weapons. It has a deep tradition, continues to serve as a profound symbol of peace and justice, and has motivated action the world over. Please stay strong and accept our deep gratitude for your dedication to environmental justice, our beautiful Mother Earth, and an end to nuclear madness. In love and Solidarity, Shundahai Network -------------------------------------------------------------- Latest news: 9-24-05 Bennett: Yucca Mountain — not!--- Davis County Clipper (UT) http://shundahai.org/092405DavisCoClipper_Bennett_No_Yucca.htm 9-24-05 Western Nuke storage not a fix--- Deseret News http://shundahai.org/092405DesNews_Western_NStorageNoFix.htm 9-24-05 Hatch to continue lobbying White House vs. nuke dump--- Ogden Standard Examiner http://shundahai.org/092405OgdenSE_Hatch_lobbies_Bush.htm 9-23-05 Senator Hatch letter to NY Times against PFS Nuke dump--- New York Times http://shundahai.org/092605NYTimes_Hatch_Letter_vs_PFS.htm 9-23-05 UT Senator Bennett: About-face against Yucca--- Ogden Standard Examiner http://shundahai.org/092305OgdenSE_Bennetts_About_Face.htm 9-23-05 Senator Hatch: No Goshute nuke dump, yes to Yucca--- The Daily Herald (Provo, UT) http://shundahai.org/092305ProvoDH_Hatch_Bill_NoSV_%20YesYucca.htm 9-22-05 U.S. Panel Called Racist for Backing Res. Waste Dump--- Nukewatch Pathfinder http://shundahai.org/092205Nukewatch_NRC_PFS_Racist.htm 9-22-05 Defense Alliance Opposes Skull Valley Nuke Dump--- Davis County Clipper http://shundahai.org/092205DavisClipper_DefAlli_Blasts_NYTPFS.htm Shundahai Network www.shundahai.org P.O. Box 1115 Salt Lake City, UT 84110 Phone- 801.533.0128 Fax- 801.533.0129 shundahai@shundahai.org Online Fundraising Store- www.cafepress.com/shundahainet If you are a Myspace user, you can now add us! www.Myspace.com/shundahai Shundahai is a Newe (Western Shoshone) word meaning "Peace and Harmony with all Creation" ***************************************************************** 29 NEWS.com.au: Hawke pushes for nuclear dump - From: AAP September 27, 2005 [Nuclear / Steve Pohlner] Cash flow ... Bob Hawke believes there is money to be earnt from storing nuclear waste / Steve Pohlner FORMER prime minister Bob Hawke says Australia should become the dumping ground for the world's nuclear waste. In a speech at a gathering of Oxford University graduates in Sydney last night, the former Labor prime minister said his party should abandon the three mines policy on uranium and promote Australia as a safe repository for the waste. The money Australia received for being a global repository could be used for environmental programs, he said. "Australia has the geologically safest places in the world for the storage of waste," Mr Hawke said. "What Australia should do in my judgement, as an act of economic sanity ... and environmental responsibility, (is) say we will take the world's nuclear waste." Mr Hawke later said the initiative would give Australia a huge source of income. "If we were to do that, we would have a source of income ... which we could hypothecate to environmental issues in this country - salinity, also to Aborigines because this would be in an area where the Aboriginal people would be and I have reason to believe that we could negotiate with them," he said. "We could revolutionise the economics of Australia if we do this." Opposition Leader Kim Beazley, also an Oxford graduate, joked about Mr Hawke's proposal after the speech. "Bob is a father figure in the Labor Party; that's well outside the platform", he said. Health Minister Tony Abbott praised the idea, but admitted it may be difficult to act on it. "It is a visionary suggestion but unfortunately there are a lot of politics in this," he said. "Now right at the moment, we can't even get agreement on where to put a nuclear repository for Australia's waste, let alone a repository for the world's waste. "That is the kind of parochialism that would need to be overcome." Mr Hawke said he had already raised the idea with the Greens. "One of them, I'm not going to talk about his name, his initial reaction was 'oh, s--t, and then when I went through these things and what it could mean, he said this should be talked about," Mr Hawke said. "I know in our party, the Labor Party, there'll be people who'll just be horrified, but they were horrified about some of the things I proposed with my colleagues in '83-'84 - tariffs, and so on. "You talk them through." Search for more stories on SitemapCopyright 2005 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT + 10). ***************************************************************** 30 NEWS.com.au: Dump nuclear waste idea - ACF From: AAP September 27, 2005 THE Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has called on the Federal Government to reject the idea that Australia become a dump for the world's nuclear waste. The ACF's call followed a speech by former prime minister Bob Hawke in which he called for Australia to be promoted as a safe repository for the waste. ACF executive director Don Henry said Australia should instead concentrate on becoming a world leader in safe, clean renewable energy technologies. "Getting more deeply involved in the dirty, dangerous nuclear industry is not the path we should be taking," Mr Henry said. "In fact, it's a debate that's already been had. "Parliaments in South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory have already made the dumping of international nuclear waste illegal." Mr Henry said Australia probably had the best supplies of solar and wind energy in the world. "We have the potential to become an international leader in the development of clean, safe energy sources," he said. "To revolutionise our economy we should be looking at becoming the world's solar energy factory, not the global nuclear tailings dump." Mr Henry said nuclear power capacity in Europe was falling and was expected to drop 25 per cent over the next 15 years. "In contrast, wind power and solar power are growing by 20 to 30 per cent internationally each year," he said. "In 2004, renewable energy generation added nearly three times as much net generating capacity as nuclear power." He also said it was worth remembering that every Australian state and territory, and the Australian public, when asked in opinion polls, remained overwhelmingly opposed to the transport, storage and disposal of nuclear waste. "The latest Newspoll, released today, found more than 83 per cent of respondents were opposed to Australia taking nuclear waste from countries that buy Australian uranium. "The majority are also opposed to Australia exporting uranium to China." Greenpeace said there was no economic case for Australia to become the world's nuclear waste dump. "The idea to turn Australia into a global nuclear dustbin is dangerous, immoral and completely unwarranted," Greenpeace energy campaigner Ben Pearson said. "It would be unconscionable to burden present and future generations of Australians with waste that will remain deadly for tens or hundreds of thousands of years," Mr Pearson said. "No economic case exists that could justify such a proposal." He said it was absurd to propose that Australians poison their landscape when safe, clean energy was already available. "Wind, solar, bio-energy and energy efficiency are viable alternatives to polluting coal and nuclear power," Mr Pearson said. "These solutions to the climate change crisis can be implemented now. "Clearly, Mr Hawke is mired in the outdated 19th century quarry mentality of digging up minerals, burning them and attempting to bury the waste. "The 21st century has moved on. It's time our leaders started pushing smarter industries, namely renewable energy and energy efficiency." | | Copyright 2005 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT + 10). ***************************************************************** 31 Australian: Uranium policy causes labour fission [September 27, 2005] Katharine Murphy THE union representing uranium workers in the Northern Territory has dug in over its opposition to an expansion of the industry, deepening a split in the labour movement. Helen Creed, national president of the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, said federal Labor should maintain its three-mines policy and any new mines would be opposed by her members. "We don't see any need to change Labor Party policy," Ms Creed said. "I don't see a move within LHMU to change our policy. Our position is a long-standing one which is opposition to uranium mining." The LHMU's national position puts it at odds with another of Australia's largest unions, the right-wing Australian Workers Union, which also covers uranium mining workers. AWU president Bill Ludwig said last week that his union would support Labor scrapping "three mines". Mr Ludwig also urged Queensland Premier Peter Beattie to axe Queensland's ban on uranium mining. The divisions follow a concerted push by Labor resources spokesman Martin Ferguson to expand uranium mining and generate debate over Australia's future energy needs. As part of a coming televised forum on nuclear energy, Mr Ferguson continues to argue for an expansion of the uranium industry. "I'm talking about reality. Have a look at what's happening in Asia. The growth and energy demand is just going through the roof," Mr Ferguson told the SBS television forum, to be screened tonight. But the LHMU's position has been to represent workers in the industry while maintaining ideological opposition to uranium mining. Ms Creed said the union's recent national council meeting had not considered any motions to change that position. A new poll shows Australians may be warming to the idea of domestic nuclear power, with more people supporting the concept than opposing it. A Newspoll taken for SBS shows that 47 per cent of people support using nuclear power for electricity generation, while 40per cent are opposed to it. Australian men are solidly in favour of nuclear power, with 60per cent of men in the 1200-person sample expressing support. Women were less enthusiastic, with only 35 per cent supporting nuclear electricity generation. But the community remains steadfastly opposed to importing nuclear waste from the countries that buy Australian uranium. More than four in five, or 83per cent, say they oppose bringing waste home. And a small majority, 53 per cent, oppose the Howard Government's efforts to export Australian uranium to China. The Howard Government has sparked a debate on nuclear power and uranium mining by arguing for a substantial expansion of the industry in Australia to take advantage of a trebling in the world price of uranium. Canberra is negotiating an export agreement with China which would see Australian uranium sold to Beijing for civilian use. But Australians are uneasy with the idea of selling uranium to China, according to the poll. Thirty-one per cent of the sample said they would support selling uranium to Beijing, while 53 per cent opposed the idea. © The Australian ***************************************************************** 32 AU ABC: Hawke's dump plan 'easy for coast dwellers' (AEDT)Tuesday, 27 September 2005. 13:47 (AWST) The Alice Springs Mayor has rubbished former prime minister Bob Hawke's suggestion that Australia should store the world's nuclear waste. The Alice Springs Town Council is already fighting Federal Government plans to build a national nuclear waste dump on proposed sites near the central Australian town. The Mayor, Fran Kilgariff, says it is easy for people who live in wealthy east coast suburbs to make such suggestions when they know a nuclear waste dump will not be built in their back yard. "I'm not in favour of the idea at all," she said. "I think, you know, people on the east coast can sit counting the money that comes from such a dump, if there is such a benefit, and we'll sit out here counting the Geiger ticks." ABC CENTRAL AUSTRALIA ***************************************************************** 33 Heartland Institute: Hollywood Targets Nuclear Storage Facility HEARTLAND INSTITUTE 19 South LaSalle Street Suite 903 Chicago, IL 60603 312.377.4000 think@heartland.org Fall 2005 Consumer Directed Health Care Conference "The Goshute nation is a sovereign entity, and so long as the depository meets federal health and safety standards, ..." Sterling Burnett National Center for Policy Analysis Environment News October 2005 Written By: James M. Taylor Published In: Environment News Publication Date: October 1, 2005 Publisher: The Heartland Institute Opponents of the Goshute Indians' plans to build a state-of-the-art nuclear storage facility on their Utah desert reservation flew a small group of activist celebrities to Washington, DC on July 25 to lobby members of Congress to block the Native Americans' project. Anti-Goshute lobbying efforts have intensified as, supported by federal safety reviews, the tribe is on the verge of obtaining a federal permit to store spent nuclear fuel until a permanent facility at Nevada's Yucca Mountain is certified. The Yucca Mountain facility is scheduled to be ready in 2010, subject to the outcome of current legal challenges. In 1987, Goshute tribal leaders signed a contract to set aside a small portion of their reservation for the construction of an advanced-technology storage facility. The tribe will receive $3 billion for hosting the facility, and it expects additional economic benefits from continuing operation of the facility. Opposition from Afar Nevertheless, antinuclear activists who have no direct stake in the facility or the region are stepping up pressure to deny the Goshutes the right to house the facility on their land. The July 25 Washington protest and celebrity lobbying campaign, for example, was notable for its absence of anybody remotely connected to Utah. Ohio congressman and failed 2004 Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich hosted a July 25 press conference with punk rocker Ani DeFranco, singers Emily Saliers and Amy Ray of the Indigo Girls, and actor James Cromwell. The celebrities visited with non-Goshute and non-Utah legislators and staff in an effort to enlist the federal government in blocking the Goshute plans. "We ask people to stand in solidarity with Native American people against nuclear waste dumping," said Ray, according to the July 26 Salt Lake Tribune, apparently forgetting the Goshute tribe was seeking to build the facility rather than block it. "We cannot allow this trampling of Native American rights," added Kucinich, in apparent opposition to the Goshutes. "Anyone who is trying to tell me that radioactive waste is clean is lying to me," added DiFranco. Utah Perspective Contradicts Celebrities Salt Lake City columnist Ted McDonough gave a contrasting, more local perspective to the Hollywood lobbying blitz. "Nearly every objection raised to the project's federal permit has been dismissed by federal nuclear regulators," wrote McDonough in the August 11 Salt Lake City Weekly. "As the project moves ever closer to an expected federal permit this summer, Utah's congressional delegation is attempting increasingly desperate measures, from designating the area around the proposed above-ground storage site as wilderness to stalling the plan through a terrorist threat study." Referring to the Hollywood protesters as "a few B-list celebrities," McDonough noted the protesters' lack of success so far. A similar effort to make an end-run appeal to Interior Secretary Gale Norton is also likely to fail, reported McDonough. "The state has every opportunity to fight the project on a scientific and legal basis. That ought to be enough. To ask the Department of the Interior not to sign off on the lease seems to me to be an infringement on the sovereign rights of the Goshute Indians," said Sue Martin, spokeswoman for Private Fuel Storage, the company that is constructing and operating the facility for the Goshutes, as reported by McDonough. Goshutes Emphasize Safety On their tribal Web site, the Goshutes stress their decision is based on scientific assessments showing little risk of health or safety concerns. "Static storage of shielded containers of spent fuel is one of the least challenging problems for health and safety," the tribal Web site notes. "The spent fuel is solid, and if the condition of the fuel changes at all, it will change slowly. This makes radiation monitoring especially simple. If a mistake is suspected, there is ample time to correct it. "The risks attributable to a waste storage facility are also smaller than the risks of living in Salt Lake City," observes the Goshute Web site. "For example, the risk of particulate air pollution is one of the largest risks to the American people. A simple visual inspection shows that the particulate concentration is less in Skull Valley than in Salt Lake City." Celebs Ignore Tribal Interests Another important benefit of the facility has often been overlooked, according to the tribal Web site: "This proposed facility is likely to make it financially attractive for many more of the Skull Valley Band to live on their reservation" and preserve tribal heritage. "Dennis Kucinich is making a mistake if he thinks he can resurrect his failed presidential bid by pandering to the ultraliberal wing of his party," said Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. "Calling in entertainers to pose as scientists and policy analysts simply does not bode well for one's credibility. "Defending those who don't want defense is the defining characteristic of the far left," Burnett added. "Whenever somebody says 'We know what's better for you than you do,' people wisely hide their wallets and keep a close eye on their freedoms. The Goshute nation is a sovereign entity, and so long as the depository meets federal health and safety standards, then the Goshutes should be able to make up their own minds regarding what is in their best interests." James M. Taylor (taylor@heartland.org) is managing editor of Environment &Climate News. For more information ... For more information on the Goshute tribe's nuclear storage plans, visit the tribal Web site at http://www.skullvalleygoshutes.org. More information on nuclear power and spent fuel storage is available through PolicyBot™, The Heartland Institute's free online research database. Point your Web browser to http://www.heartland.org, click on the PolicyBot™ button, and select the topic/subtopic combination Environment/Nuclear Power. ***************************************************************** 34 Salt Lake Tribune: Monopoly alleged in Tooele hot-waste limit Article Last Updated: 09/27/2005 12:11:33 AM Tooele County may curb hot waste dumps By Lori Buttars The Salt Lake Tribune TOOELE - Saying they are acting in the interest of the public, Tooele County officials are looking at limiting how much low-level radioactive waste can come into the county. In a special meeting Monday, the commissioners unanimously approved a temporary moratorium on accepting new applications from companies to process low-level nuclear and hazardous waste. But at least one potential competitor of Envirocare says the county is playing favorites. "This is just one more example of how they are trying to protect that monopoly at all costs," says Charles Judd, a former Envirocare executive who had hoped to open a rival waste-processing plant. The county enacted a similar policy last year that barred Judd from opening another facility. He later filed a lawsuit when county officials allowed Envirocare to expand its operations on property Judd sold to Envirocare after his attempt to open a new facility failed. "This will be Exhibit B or C," said Judd. Monday's action gives the county up to six months to "study the future of waste in Tooele County," said Commissioner Matt Lawrence. "We have already said it is a good idea to shrink that zone [of where waste and waste-processing is allowed]," Lawrence said. "This gives us time to formulate what goes into the code and say what role waste will play in our future." The moratorium will not affect Envirocare's application to reconfigure its operations on the property that Judd sold to the company. Commissioner Dennis Rockwell said that is being done to allow Envirocare better railroad access so trainloads of hazardous waste will not back up at the processing site. "They are adding a rail loop on that property to make it more efficient, not adding to their operations," Rockwell said. But he made no apologies for blocking a new company from coming into Tooele County. "What we are hearing from our people is that they are [finished]. They don't want any more waste coming in," he said. "We wish all these other companies would understand that we don't want it and they aren't welcome." lorib@sltrib.com © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 35 Reuters: Former PM proposes Australia as world's nuclear dump World Crises | Reuters.com Tue 27 Sep 2005 1:11 AM ET By Xenya Cherny SYDNEY, Sept 27 (Reuters) - A former Australian prime minister has proposed that the country offer to store the world's nuclear waste in its vast desert interior and use the money earned on environment and social welfare programmes. Bob Hawke, who led a centre-left Labor government from 1983 to 1991, stunned political and business leaders when he made the proposal at an informal debate, widely reported in local media on Tuesday. "What Australia should do in my judgment, as an act of economic sanity and environmental responsibility, is say we will take the world's nuclear waste," Hawke said. "Australia has ... geologically the safest places in the world for the storage of waste," he was quoted as telling a gathering of Australian alumni of Oxford University. Labor opposition leader Kim Beazley said the plan was not party policy but Tony Abbott, the conservative government's health minister, said it was a good idea even though the government was not considering importing nuclear waste. "It is a visionary suggestion but unfortunately there are a lot of politics in this," Abbott told Australian Broadcasting Corp. (ABC) radio. "Now right at the moment, we can't even get agreement on where to put a nuclear repository for Australia's waste, let alone a repository for the world's waste," he said. Prime Minister John Howard's administration scrapped plans for a national dump to store Australia's own medical, industrial and research waste from the country's sole nuclear reactor after states failed to agree on a location. It is now considering three potential sites in the continent's outback heart, including one a few hundred kilometres from the Uluru monolith, a popular tourist attraction. Hawke said money earned from the plan could be used for environmental programmes such as combating increasing salinity and supporting underprivileged outback indigenous communities. "We can revolutionise the economics of Australia if we do this," Hawke said. Large parts of Australia are geologically stable and could be a safe repository for nuclear waste, University of New South Wales geologist David Cohen told Reuters. "Of course, proper engineering would need to address potential problems of leakage of nuclear materials," Cohen said. But the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) said Australia should instead focus on becoming a world leader in renewable energy. "Getting more deeply involved in the dirty, dangerous nuclear industry is not the path we should be taking," ACF director Don Henry said in a statement. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 36 NRC: Nuclear Management Company; Palisades Independent Spent Fuel FR Doc E5-5176 [Federal Register: September 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 186)] [Notices] [Page 56496-56497] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27se05-104] Storage Installation; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption to Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC or licensee), pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from specific provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214. The licensee wants to use the Transnuclear, Inc. (TN) NUHOMS Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1004 (CoC or Certificate) Amendment No. 8 (32PT dry shielded canister (DSC)) to store spent nuclear fuel under a general license in an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) associated with the operation of the Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP), located in Van Buren County, Michigan. The requested exemption would allow NMC to store fuel in the TN NUHOMS[supreg]-32PT system using revised fuel specifications and fuel qualification tables prior to completion of the proposed TN NUHOMS CoC Amendment No. 8 rulemaking. Environmental Assessment (EA) Identification of Proposed The proposed action would exempt NMC from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 and enable NMC to use the TN NUHOMS[supreg]-32PT cask design as amended by proposed TN NUHOMS[supreg] CoC No. 1004, Amendment No. 8 at PNP. These regulations specifically require storage in casks approved under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 72 and compliance with the conditions set forth in the CoC for each dry spent fuel storage cask used by an ISFSI general licensee. The TN NUHOMS[supreg] CoC provides requirements, conditions, and operating limits in Attachment A, Technical Specifications. The proposed action would exempt NMC from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2) and 72.214 enabling the licensee to store fuel in the TN NUHOMS[supreg]-32PT DSC system prior to the effective date of the final rule change for the Amendment No. 8 approving the issuance of this amended CoC. The proposed action would also exempt NMC from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A) and 72.212(b)(7) to allow the use of revised fuel specification and fuel qualification tables in the proposed CoC for Amendment No. 8. Specifically, the exemption would be from the requirement that does not include provisions for the loading of low enrichment/high burnup fuel, assemblies with stainless steel plugging clusters, and reconstituted fuel into the NUHOMS-32PT storage system. NMC requested that the exemptions remain in effect for 90 days following the effective date of the final rule change to 10 CFR 72.214 to incorporate TN CoC No. 1004, Amendment No. 8. The proposed action would allow NMC to use the 32PT system as described in the proposed TN NUHOMS[supreg] CoC Amendment No. 8 requests currently under staff review. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's request for exemption dated August 22, 2005, as supplemented on September 20, 2005, Need for the Proposed Action The proposed action is needed because NMC plans to initiate the transfer of the PNP spent fuel pool contents to the ISFSI in October 2005. The NMC transfer campaign includes loading fuel assemblies with low enrichment/high burnup, assemblies with stainless steel plugging clusters, and reconstituted fuel from the spent fuel pool into the 32PT DSC. Loading of these types of fuel assemblies would not be permitted based on the current TS for the NUHOMS[supreg]-32PT storage system. The proposed Amendment No. 8 to CoC No. 1004, as transmitted by TN in a letter dated, June 10, 2005, includes proposed changes to TS 1.2.1, ``Fuel Specifications.'' The proposed TS changes contain provisions for low enrichment/high burnup fuel, assemblies with stainless steel plugging clusters, and reconstituted fuel to be loaded into the NUHOMS[supreg]-32PT DSC. The proposed action is necessary because the 10 CFR 72.214 rulemaking to implement the TN NUHOMS[supreg] CoC Amendment No. 8 is not projected for completion until late Fall 2005, which will not support the PNP fuel transfer and dry cask storage loading schedule. [[Page 56497]] Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that there will be no significant environmental impact if the exemptions are granted. The staff reviewed the analyses provided in the TN NUHOMS[supreg] amendment application addressing the NUHOMS[supreg]- 32PT system. Included in this application were the revised fuel specification and fuel qualification tables that allow the loading of fuel assemblies with low enrichment/high burnup fuel, assemblies with stainless steel plugging clusters, and reconstituted fuel. The staff has completed its Safety Evaluation Reports (SER) associated with review of this application. The staff concluded that the NUHOMS system with the revised contents (low enrichment/high burnup fuel, assemblies with stainless steel plugging clusters, and reconstituted fuel) for the 32PT DSC meets the acceptance criteria specified in 10 CFR Part 72. The SER for the TN NUHOMS[supreg]-32PT system documenting the staff's safety findings and conclusions was included as an enclosure to the letter to U.B. Chopra, dated March 30, 2005. The NRC concludes that there is reasonable assurance that the proposed exemptions have no impact on off-site doses. The potential environmental impact of using the NUHOMS[supreg] system was initially presented in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Final Rule to add the TN Standardized NUHOMS[supreg] Horizontal Modular Storage System for Irradiated Nuclear Fuel to the list of approved spent fuel storage casks in 10 CFR 72.214 (59 FR 65898, dated December 22, 1994). The potential environmental impact of using the NUHOMS[supreg]-32PT system was initially presented in the EA for the proposed rule to add the 32PTH system to the Standardized NUHOMS[supreg] system, Amendment No. 5 (68 FR 49726, dated August 19, 2003). The TN 32PT system does not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Alternative to the Proposed Action Since there is no significant environmental impact associated with the proposed action, alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact were not evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial or ``no-action'' of the proposed action. Denial of the exemption would result in no change in current environmental impact. NMC considers the ``no-action'' alternative to impact NMC's ability to provide affordable and competitive power since rescheduling of the fall 2005 loading campaign could impact future NMC budget planning. Agencies and Persons Consulted This exemption request was discussed with Mr. Lou Brandon, Chief of the Nuclear Facilities Unit, Department of Environmental Quality, for the State of Michigan, on September 7, 2005. He stated that the State had no comments on the technical aspects of the exemption. The NRC staff has determined that a consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required because the proposed action will not affect listed species or critical habitat. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not a type of activity having the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Finding of No Significant Impact The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed in accordance with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51. Based upon the foregoing EA, the Commission finds that the proposed action of granting the exemption from specific provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A), 72.212(b)(7), and 10 CFR 72.214, to allow NMC to use the proposed CoC No. 1004, Amendment No. 8, will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption is not warranted. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of NRC's ``Rules of Practice,'' final NRC records and documents regarding this proposed action are publicly available in the records component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). The request for exemption dated August 22, 2005, and September 20, 2005, was docketed under 10 CFR Part 72, Docket No. 72-7. These documents may be inspected at NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O- 1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of September, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. L. Raynard Wharton, Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E5-5176 Filed 9-26-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 37 Keene Sentinel: Dry-cask savings Editorial Tuesday, September 27, 2005 If you want to see what Vermont Yankees proposed dry-cask fuel storage platform will look like, you need only drive over to Rowe, Massachusetts. There, on a concrete pad, 16 steel and concrete casks are lined up behind chain-link fencing and razor wire. The 11-foot-high casks, looking like small, white silos, are all thats left of the Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Station, which was shut down in 1992. The reactor building and the other elements of the nuclear plant have been dismantled and shipped away, except for a few pieces that are in one of the casks. But the casks also contain every bit of the dangerous spent nuclear fuel the plant produced during its 31-year life span  1,700 tons of it. That waste has to be isolated from the environment for 100,000 years, give or take a few thousand. So its 13 down, 99,987 to go. The hope is that the federal government will figure out what to do with the waste, but the government wasnt able to keep its promise to take charge of it in 1998. And now theres concern that even if a disposal site is developed, it would be too risky to try to move the waste to it, through the nations cities and along its highways. Power plant owners are suing the government, demanding action, but it will be tough to win a lawsuit against science. You can see the Yankee Rowe casks from the road, a few miles from the site. You can see them from the wooded hills that rise from the site. You can see them from the skies above, generating nothing but endless expense. The casks are inspected every day, to make sure there are no dangerous radiation leaks and that the air vents are clear. They must be looked after 24 hours a day by cameras and security guards with automatic weapons. Some people contend that casks such as these are a magnet for terrorists, and they may be. But they are at least as safe as the water pools that now hold spent fuel in at other reactor sites, such as Vermont Yankee, in the town of Vernon. Vermont Yankee is asking permission to put some of its older nuclear fuel into casks that would be a little taller but otherwise similar to those at Rowe. Without the casks, Vermont Yankee will have to shut down in either 2007 or 2008, depending upon whether it gets permission to increase its power in the interim. With the casks, it could hang on until 2012, when its operating license expires. By then, its owner plans to ask the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license extension. Approval would mean more high-level waste and eventually more casks for homeless waste lining the riverfront across from Hinsdale. Theres no obvious solution to this dilemma. At a hearing in Brattleboro the other day, some people complained that the introduction of casks at Vermont Yankee would simply put off the day when nuclear plants can be closed and the country can move to less dangerous forms of electricity generation. Theyre right. The trouble is that few people in positions of authority in this country are talking about safe, alternative energy. A glance at the recently passed federal energy bill makes that clear. So, also at the hearing, former Vermont governor Tom Salmon spoke in favor of the dry casks. He said his state needs Vermont Yankee to keep operating, because its a relatively inexpensive source of electricity. He was obviously referring to short-term expenses, not to the future cost of 100,000 years of armed guards and radiation inspectors. The Keene Sentinel 60 West Street Keene, New Hampshire 03431 Phone: (603) 352-1234 or (800) 765-9994 (NH or VT) Fax: (603) 352-0437 or news: (603) 352-9700 email: ***************************************************************** 38 AU ABC: Miner to capitalise on growing support for uranium mines. 27/09/2005. ABC News Online Resources company Pepinnini Minerals says it is hoping to make the most of growing political support for establishing new uranium mines in South Australia. The company says it appears to have found a very high quality deposit at its Becaroo prospect in the state's north-east. Pepinnini Minerals managing director Norman Kennedy says strong market demand for uranium and the favourable political climate help make this the perfect time to start mining at the site. "It's really a matter of putting in place the methods of processing the uranium ore," he said. "The mining operation isn't that complicated and we'd also need the government approvals and at the moment both the South Australian Government and the Federal Government appear to be very aligned to pushing approvals for uranium mining." Mr Kennedy says the big bonus is that the uranium is present in surface rocks. "There's certainly a lot of underground potential there which we haven't looked at but the current deposits that we've got would all be open-cut mines, not huge mines compared to coal mines or anything like that, but they would be in ore right at the surface and more like a quarrying exercise, I suppose, than a huge mine." copy; 2005 ABC| Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 39 AU ABC: NT fails to sway Howard on nuclear dump. 27/09/2005. ABC News Online No change: Ms Martin says she will continue to fight the proposal. The Northern Territory Chief Minister says she has been unsuccessful in trying to change the Prime Minister's mind about building a national nuclear waste dump in the Territory. The Federal Government announced earlier this year that it was looking at putting a Commonwealth waste dump in the Territory. The Commonwealth has the power to overturn any local legislation against such a move. Clare Martin met with Prime Minister John Howard in Canberra today. She says Mr Howard indicated he would not be changing his mind and she told him the decision would not sit well with Territory residents. "Territorians are really angry - we feel as though because we're a territory that the Commonwealth can have a greater licence about establishing such a nuclear waste facility in the Territory," she said. Ms Martin says her Government is prepared to fight a dump with any means it can. "You've got someone like the Minister responsible, Brendan Nelson, sitting on a drum of nuclear waste saying this stuff's safe," she said. "I said to the Prime Minister, if it's so safe keep it in Sydney. I can find some defence sites in Sydney." In other developments: + A spokeswoman for the Federal Industry Minister, Ian Macfarlane, has dismissed a suggestion that Australia should store the world's nuclear waste. (Full Story) + The Alice Springs Mayor has rubbished former prime minister Bob Hawke's suggestion that Australia should store the world's nuclear waste. (Full Story) ***************************************************************** 40 AU ABC: Uranium sector: another stockmarket bubble? PM - Tuesday, 27 September , 2005 18:42:21 Reporter: Neal Woolrich MARK COLVIN: It's not so long since the dot-com crash but already another stockmarket bubble could be emerging, in Australia's uranium sector. There's been a flood of small uranium miners listing recently, and some shareholders have almost doubled their money. Last night the former prime minister Bob Hawke kept the nuclear energy debate alive by suggesting that Australia could host a nuclear waste dump. But analysts warn that there's very little real activity out in the field, and most of the action is in boardrooms. Neal Woolrich reports. NEAL WOOLRICH: Monax Mining is one of several small uranium explorers to have listed on the Stock Exchange recently. Last week it enjoyed a spectacular debut, hitting the markets at 34 cents, almost 75 per cent above its issue price. Its $5 million capital raising was over-subscribed – not bad for a company which has only recently been granted two exploration licences in South Australia. But Monax's Executive Director Neville Alley says the company isn't being distracted by the market hype around uranium stocks at the moment. NEVILLE ALLEY: It doesn't worry us. It's important to have good awareness out there in the market and have the market support, but we intend to ensure that we're going to get out there and get on with our business so that our share price continues to look attractive for investors. NEAL WOOLRICH: Uranium continues to be a hot topic in Australia's energy debate. The former prime minister Bob Hawke kept the issue bubbling overnight when he suggested that Australia could host a nuclear waste dump. But that idea was quickly dismissed by the Labor leader Kim Beazley and the Greens. The price of uranium has more than trebled in five years, sparking growing interest in the sector in Australia. And nuclear power is increasingly being suggested as a cleaner energy source than coal generators. Monax Mining's Neville Alley says these factors were important in the company's decision to explore for uranium. NEVILLE ALLEY: That was an important part of our decision-making process on electing to go into uranium exploration, but I mean saying it, it's an important part of our portfolio, but it's not the only part. NEAL WOOLRICH: And Neville Alley says he's confident that Monax's suite of assets, not just in uranium, will make a solid long-term investment. But energy analysts warn that Australia's uranium sector is showing all the signs of an emerging stockmarket bubble. Far East Capital Managing Director Warwick Grigor says most of the investments by shareholders and companies are highly speculative. WARWICK GRIGOR: Companies and investors have cottoned onto the fact that we're seeing a major shift in the debate on uranium, nuclear power, tied up with the greenhouse gasses, Kyoto, all that sort of thing. And we're seeing a major structural change. Companies are out there scrambling to get hold of anything that's go uranium attached to it, just because they want a seat at the table. So it's really all happening in boardrooms and in meetings. Very little is actually happening out in the field at present. NEAL WOOLRICH: Warwick Grigor says that one in 10 of the current batch of uranium companies might deliver something of lasting value, but the rest are being pumped up by a boom in the uranium sector. WARWICK GRIGOR: Booms are never totally healthy, because they always have a bust afterwards. I think investors need to really have a look, and there's a lot of rubbish out there, and they need to keep their heads about them. At the moment there's a lot of inexperienced players in mining racing in to buy anything that's got uranium attached to it. And it's got all the signatures of the crazy buying that we saw in the dot-com boom. MARK COLVIN: Warwick Grigor, the Far East Capital Managing Director, with Neal Woolrich. ***************************************************************** 41 AU ABC: Some support for Australian nuclear waste dump PM - Tuesday, 27 September , 2005 18:47:03 Reporter: David Weber MARK COLVIN: The major political parties have rejected Bob Hawke's suggestion that Australia should set up an international nuclear waste dump, but some scientists are taking a different view. The National President of Scientists for Global Responsibility says the idea is based on sound reasoning. And a researcher in WA agrees it's a visionary suggestion. Dr Vincent Cusack from the Centre for Social Research at Edith Cowan University has studied the concept of multinational repositories. He became interested in the issue when the international company Pangaea started lobbying for a waste dump in Western Australia. Dr Cusack spoke to David Weber. VINCENT CUSACK: Well the advantages are economies of scale, because there are for example… some countries will be able to have their own repository, to go it alone, if you like. Others may not be able to because of the cost issue, and they might be better pooling resources. The second advantage is environmental benefits, because if it's more secure in maybe one central facility or whatever, it takes from the, you know, the issue of safeguarding and that sort of thing, and of course security is perhaps the biggest advantage in recent times with the threat of terrorism. DAVID WEBER: Security advantages given that some nuclear waste sites in the world are not well guarded or monitored. VINCENT CUSACK: Well, that's correct, especially some of the Eastern European countries. It's not, however, the… they're not the only ones. The UK, for example, is in a strange position because they reprocess their waste, and that's got to be solidified, it's a process called vitrification. But there's been big massive delays in the UK, and that's currently that highly active liquid is being stored in no more than a warehouse on the west coast of England, just at the nuclear plant itself even. DAVID WEBER: Bob Hawke has said that Australia has the geologically safest places in the world for the storage of waste. VINCENT CUSACK: Yes, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's the safest place. It's certainly got great stability, and that was one of the arguments that Pangaea made in, as I said, '99, 2000. DAVID WEBER: Some of the things that Bob Hawke has been saying appear to mirror some of the arguments that were being used by Pangaea. VINCENT CUSACK: Yes, you'd have to agree with that, but Australia's already had that debate, they've rejected it. One of the problems with it, apart from there'd be the ethical problems of taking someone else's waste, was that the waste was going to become the responsibility of Australia after 40 years. I've heard that the claims that he's been called visionary this morning. He's certainly visionary because if we… if countries chose to go down the shared multinational path, then really they'd need to also share in the responsibility and potential liability for it as well. DAVID WEBER: What would be the advantages to Australia if it stored the world's nuclear waste? VINCENT CUSACK: Mr Hawke is right when he says there are massive economic advantages, there's no doubt about that, but would also provide regional, you know, it's more of a secure region if you have… because there is talk of China and various states maybe going down the nuclear path. DAVID WEBER: You think that if Australia was going to have a nuclear waste dump it would serve the region more effectively than perhaps Europe or Eastern Europe where there may be transportation issues? VINCENT CUSACK: Oh, yes. I mean, it was a massive claim to say to take the world's nuclear waste, but in the future, yes, the transportation, like if you had say just used an example of transporting waste from Europe to Australia, that really also becomes a potential terrorist threat along the way. MARK COLVIN: Dr Vincent Cusack from the Centre for Social Research at Edith Cowan University, speaking to David Weber. 2005 ABC| Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 42 AU ABC: Nuclear waste a pressing issue - Hawke Broadcast: 27/09/2005 Reporter: Maxine McKew MAXINE McKEW: Bob Hawke is with me now in the studio. Now, look, this very problematic notion, as you know, as we've just seen, why put it on the table now? BOB HAWKE, FORMER PRIME MINISTER: Why shouldn't you put it on the table? We have a real issue in the world of nuclear waste being stored in unsafe places - in the UK they've got it in 20 different places. They are scared stiff of the problems that are associated with it and that's just one example. Now, what I am saying is let's put the emotions to one side, because I understand how people feel about this. Let's dispassionately examine the pros and cons. I understand the feelings and the arguments that people have against it. But there are very strong arguments in a situation where environmental movement says environmental issues are global in their ramification and they are right. Now, if in fact we in Australia have, as we do have, the safest geological formations in which you can dig deep mines, vitrify the material and put it down and it would be safer than anywhere else in the world, I believe, prima facie at least, I believe we have a moral responsibility to do that. That's the environmental argument. The bonus from Australia's point of view, is that we would revolutionise the economics of Australia. Forget this current account deficit problem. We would have a situation where as far as you could see into the future, Australia would be earning billions of dollars making the world safer and doing the world a great turn and in return we would be able to hypothecate those billions of dollars to dealing with the environmental problems, like salinity, that we haven't got the money to deal with now. Not only that, but other things. MAXINE McKEW: Let's take that latter argument first. You say revolutionise the economics of Australia which is a big claim. What kind of dollars are we talking about in terms of revenues? BOB HAWKE: We are talking about billions and billions of dollar as year. Again, this is one of the things that should be put on the table. I'm asking for a calm, dispassionate discussion. I mean, I see some the reports today where some fellow from Greenpeace said, "Oh, Hawke's mired in the mentality of the 19th century digging minerals out of the ground", I don't know if he's a youngster or he just has a bad memory - I mean, who stopped mining at Coronation Hill? I am not a growth at all cost man. I stopped mining at Coronation Hill. I would put my environmental credentials against any of these people, in terms of what I've done. None of them will ever begin to get within a bull's roar of what I've done in terms of protecting the environment of Australia. But we've got to look at this globally. MAXINE McKEW: Let 's look at the practicalities and be clear what you are talking about. You are talking about all of the world's nuclear waste coming to Australia, that's from North America, from Asia, from Europe, from all of the nuclear establishments? BOB HAWKE: All of those countries that believe they haven't the capacity to safely store this. MAXINE McKEW: That's big volumes, isn't it? BOB HAWKE: Of course. MAXINE McKEW: That's 12,000 tonnes of high-level waste per year. Are you also talking about weapon's waste as well from decommissioned weapons? BOB HAWKE: Why not? Here's another aspect of what I am saying, one of the great elements of the concern of those who addressing the issue of terrorism, is the way in which so much of this stuff is just loosely stored, particularly in Russia. Now, of course, bring that in, too. Vitrify it and put it deep in the ground - because the point about this is, it's in remote areas and there's no water table which is going to disseminate the waste. MAXINE McKEW: I don't think there's any doubt about the safety once it is in the ground. What about that immense management exercise of the transportation to somewhere in the outback in... BOB HAWKE: Look, do you think it's beyond the wit of our people? MAXINE McKEW: No, but you are talking about taking it out of cities in Europe, cities in North America, to the coast, on the ships and then on to trains again. BOB HAWKE: The Brits - let's say we take the Brits. They've got it stored in one they regard as virtually relatively unsafe places. We take the ships there, they get it, we put it in the ships and bring it here and then by rail we get it to the remote places. Now, look at the things that our technological and engineering geniuses have done. Is anyone suggesting it is beyond the wit of our capacity to build the mines, build the railways, have the ports and have the security facilities to do this? Who is suggesting that that is beyond our capacity? MAXINE McKEW: No, but would it not also be beyond the capacity of potential terrorists to hijack the ships, the trains to get access to that material? I agree with you, some of the material is sitting around now very poorly guarded. BOB HAWKE: It's an existing problem now and it always will be. Once you get it here and put it deep in the ground, it will be a clever terrorist who will get down there and get it out of. MAXINE McKEW: Want about the politics of this? You heard Tony Abbott last night. He said a visionary idea. Is that a way of saying it is totally politically unsaleable? BOB HAWKE: You never know what Tony means. He was obviously, relatively positive. No doubt I've been in politics a long time. I know that the politics of getting this accepted is very difficult. In my own party, the Australian Labor Party, the Greens, and I respect the concerns, the emotions of these people. What I'm pleading for is, let's put the emotions aside. Let's try and analyse the arguments. What are the arguments in favour for the world of providing what is desperately needed, the safest possible repository for this dangerous material? We've got that safest repository and that's the argument, the environmental one. And you can't... MAXINE McKEW: Can you ever imagine having or trying to win this argument while in Office? Would you have floated this while you were Prime Minister? BOB HAWKE: Well, I was just gathering the ideas then and I've thought about it more since. Look, I'm not a pessimist. Look, when we're in Office we did things like slashing tariffs. Now, this was against the Labor Party platform almost and the philosophy and it was against the views of most of the Trade Union Movement. But I said, "Let's sit down, look at the arguments rationally, put the emotions to one side, look at the national interest." Out of rational, calm discussion, we got decisions which were in the national and international interest. Now, I believe if we sat down with the Greens, with representatives of the Greens, the Labor Party and others, let's sit down and talk about it. May I say, I've already spoken to two reasonably significant figures in the Green movement. MAXINE McKEW: Can you name them? BOB HAWKE: No. Well, I can, but I'm not going to because it wouldn't be fair. MAXINE McKEW: Have you talked, for instance, to Mike Rann, to Geoff Gallop, to Claire Martin? Because one would imagine the safest repositories would be in either Northern Territory. BOB HAWKE: Northern Territory or Western Australia. MAXINE McKEW: Or South Australia. BOB HAWKE: No, not South Australia. The scientific advice that I've had, the best advice is north of Western Australia and Northern Territory. MAXINE McKEW: Do you think the argument is winnable in those states? BOB HAWKE: Well, not at this stage. But, arguments - I mean, progress doesn't come from sitting down and saying, "The forces are against you. You can't win, can you?" No, so we stay in the cave. Progress is about facing up to challenges. Facing up to prejudice. Facing up to emotion. And putting reason on the table. Putting national interest on the table. That's what good policy making and leadership is about. MAXINE McKEW: Let me just turn to another issue just in the time we've got left. Mark Latham's diaries. Have you read them? BOB HAWKE: No. MAXINE McKEW: Are you going to? BOB HAWKE: No. You won't buy a copy? BOB HAWKE: I won't give him $3.90. MAXINE McKEW: It is $39. BOB HAWKE: No, he doesn't get $39. He gets $3.90. Simple arithmetic. MAXINE McKEW: Oh, I see, I see. You campaigned for him during the last election. BOB HAWKE: Of course I did. MAXINE McKEW: Do you feel let down? BOB HAWKE: I worked as hard as I possibly could to stop him becoming leader. I rang so many people in the Caucus urging them not to vote for this man because I thought he would be a disaster. In their lack of wisdom, they voted for him and he became the leader. I regarded it as my obligation, as a loyal member of the Labor Party, once they had made their mistake, to go out and do what I could. I had him to my home. I talked calmly with him about what I thought was the right tactics; the right strategy, the right policy, the right approach. Unfortunately, he took no notice of anything I said. But I regarded that as my duty. They made a mistake in electing him. But they made him. It was my responsibility as a loyal party member to see if I could get him up. MAXINE McKEW: Has he betrayed his party? BOB HAWKE: Yes. MAXINE McKEW: Should he hand in his ALP membership? BOB HAWKE: That's for him to decide. I would have thought it's the logical thing to do after what you've said about the party. MAXINE McKEW: Bob Hawke, thank you for your time tonight. BOB HAWKE: Thankyou, Maxine. ***************************************************************** 43 AU ABC: Hawke urged to push for WA uranium ban lifting. 28/09/2005. ABC News Online The Federal Member for Kalgoorlie, Barry Haase, has urged former prime minister Bob Hawke to lobby the Western Australian Government to lift its anti-uranium ban. Mr Hawke says Australia should store the world's nuclear waste and could spend the income it generated on Indigenous people and environmental problems. The State Government does not allow uranium mining or the storage of nuclear waste in Western Australia. Mr Haase says while he does not have a position on the storage of nuclear waste in WA, he does believe uranium mining would benefit the state. "Given that Mr Hawke is so forward thinking he could do West Australians a great service to use his political influence in talking to Dr Gallop's West Australian Labor Government and convince them to move into the modern age by allowing uranium mining," he said. The chief executive of the Minerals Council, Mitch Hooke, says there needs to be more public debate on the issue. "Otherwise people tend to be backed into corners ... more of emotional ideology, religious fervour approach to things instead of understanding what are some of the profound facts," he said. "I mean I think it's a great credit to Bob Hawke to put this kind of thing on the table and have people consider it." ***************************************************************** 44 EPA: Extension of comments for radiation protection standards @ Yucca FR Doc 05-19256 [Federal Register: September 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 186)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 56418-56419] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27se05-33] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 197 [FRL-7975-6] RIN 2060-AN15 Notice of Extension of the Public Comment Period, Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, NV; Proposed Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period and announcement of additional public hearing in Las Vegas on October 6, 2005. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is extending the comment period for the Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada; Proposed Rule which appeared in the Federal Register on August 22, 2003 (68 FR 65120). The public comment period for this proposed rule was to end on October 21, 2005. The purpose of this notice is to extend the comment period to November 21, 2005, and to announce an additional public hearing in Las Vegas on October 6, 2005. DATES: EPA will accept public comments on this proposed rule until November 21, 2005. Comments received after that date will be marked ``late'' and accepted at our discretion. The public hearing will be on October 6, 2005 from 11 a.m. to 12. a.m. This hearing will be preceded by an information session from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. ADDRESSES: Procedures for preregistering for and testifying at the public hearing are detailed in the ``Hearings Procedures'' subsection of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. 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 Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0083. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray Clark, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Radiation Protection Division (6608J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460- 0001; telephone (202) 343-9601; fax number: 202-343-2305; e-mail address: clark.ray@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Extension of the Public Comment Period The proposed rule which is the subject of this notice was published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2005 (70 FR 49014). That notice requested public comment on the proposed amendments to the public health and environmental radiation protection standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada (40 CFR part 197). At that time, EPA announced a 60-day public comment period ending on October 21, 2005. However, the Agency has received formal requests from several stakeholders to extend the comment period to 180 days. EPA recognizes the high level of interest in the issue of Yucca Mountain and that the proposed rule addresses safety over unprecedented time frames. Furthermore, the Agency agrees that it is important to allow adequate time for public information to readily reach more rural areas, particularly in Nevada, which may be affected by decisions related to Yucca Mountain. In view of these factors, and in consideration of requests from the stakeholders, EPA is extending the comment period an additional 30 days to end on November 21, 2005. This will provide a full three months for the public to submit comments, as much time as EPA provided for the full Yucca Mountain standards issued in 2001, which covered a significantly wider array of issues. II. Additional Public Hearing in Las Vegas, Nevada EPA is also adding an additional day, October 6, 2006, for a public hearing in Las Vegas, to respond to concerns about schedule conflicts with religious holidays. Hearings for two days (October 4 and October 5) in Las Vegas were announced in a previous Federal Register notice published on September 14, 2005 (70 FR 54325-54327). That notice also announced hearings in [[Page 56419]] Amargosa Valley, Nevada and in Washington, DC. The hearings previously announced in the Federal Register will be held as described in the earlier notice; EPA is simply providing an additional hearing in Las Vegas. The additional hearing will be held October 6, 2005, at the Cashman Center, 850 North Las Vegas Blvd, Las Vegas, Nevada, from 10 a.m. until 12 p.m. An information session will be held from 10 a.m.-11 a.m. and a public hearing from 11 a.m.-12 p.m. Meeting Purpose and Format The meetings will provide opportunities for both informal exchanges of information and formal comments. Meeting formats are as follows: Information Sessions: an informal opportunity to learn about the standards, meet EPA staff, and ask questions. Comments on the record can also be provided in writing or on tape. Public Hearings: a formal opportunity to make verbal statements that will be recorded for the public record. For the convenience of the public, individuals and organizations should schedule a specific time to make their comments (see Hearings Procedures below). Hearing Procedures Persons wishing to testify at any of the public hearings are requested to pre-register by calling EPA's toll-free Yucca Mountain Information Line at 1-800-331-9477 at any time. You will be asked to leave a message with the following information: Name/Organizational Affiliation (if any). Hearing time(s) available to testify. Daytime telephone number. Your call will be returned within one business day to confirm a scheduled time for testimony. In order to obtain a scheduled speaking time, EPA must receive requests no later than September 30, 2005, for the hearings in Las Vegas, Nevada. Speakers not registered in advance may register at the door but are not guaranteed the opportunity to testify, depending on time constraints (all individuals will also be able to comment in writing or on tape). Individuals testifying on their own behalf will be allowed 5 minutes. Groups or organizations must designate one individual to testify as the official representative, and each group will be allocated ten minutes for an oral presentation. Individuals and organizations may submit written comments in addition to oral testimony. Time allowed is exclusive of any time consumed by questions from the government panel and answers to these questions. Testimony from individuals and representatives of organizations is limited to one hearing location. In order to ensure that all individuals and groups are given an opportunity to testify, substitutions will not be permitted for any pre-registered person. Registrants will not be permitted to yield their time to other individuals or groups, nor will hearing time be used to ``read into the record'' testimony from individuals not present at the hearings. In the event any person wishes to enter comments for the record, but either cannot or does not appear personally at the hearings, EPA will accept written comments during the hearings and other meetings. These written comments will be considered to the same extent as oral testimony and will be included as part of the official hearings transcripts. The hearing transcript will constitute the official record of the hearings. Written comments submitted outside of the public hearings must be received by EPA Docket OAR-2005-0083 in Washington, DC, by November 21, 2005. All comments received by EPA, whether written or oral, will be given equal consideration in development of the final rule. III. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? EPA is providing numerous ways for the public to provide comments for us to consider in developing our final rule. First, the Agency has scheduled two public hearings in Nevada and one in Washington, DC. A Federal Register notice has been published with times, locations, and format of the meetings. In addition, 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 by November 21, 2005. Comments received after that date will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments, but will do so at its discretion. To submit comments electronically: Follow the instructions at the Federal e-Rulemaking Web site: http://www.regulations.gov, OR Go to EPA's E-Docket for item OAR-2005-0083, click on submit comment, OR, E-mail comments to: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov and specify ``to the attention of Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0083.'' Do not use e-mail or the E-Docket to submit confidential business information or other legally protected information. Send comments by surface 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-2005-0083. Send comments by fax to: 202-566-1741, Attention: Docket ID. No. OAR-2005-0083. Deliver comments by courier or in-person to: Air and Radiation Docket, EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Dated: September 20, 2005. William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. 05-19256 Filed 9-26-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ***************************************************************** 45 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada files opposition to Yucca rail corridor land restrictions Today: September 27, 2005 at 13:8:15 PDT ASSOCIATED PRESS LAS VEGAS (AP) - The federal Energy Department hasn't laid the proper groundwork to justify restricting public land use along a proposed railroad corridor to Yucca Mountain, Nevada argues in a statement opposing the plan. "It's poor planning and the wrong agency is in charge," Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, said Tuesday of the Energy Department plan to build a railroad to haul radioactive waste across the state. Loux filed a seven-page letter Friday opposing the Energy Department proposal to withdraw 308,600 acres from public use across parts of Lincoln, Nye and Esmeralda counties. Public comments end Wednesday. "Apart from causing impacts and disruption to existing land users, the proposed action has the potential to negatively affect the environment, grazing allotments, mining and energy development activities, property values, the economy, important cultural resources and more," the state said. The state also argued the Energy Department should let the Bureau of Land Management and the federal Surface Transportation Board conduct the needed studies, and called on the department to withdraw its assessment and conduct a full environmental impact study. The department held public hearings this month in rural Nevada, and as of Monday had received 30 comments on its proposal, Energy Department spokesman Allen Benson said. The plan is to remove from public use a mile-wide swath stretching 319 miles, dubbed the Caliente Corridor. The Energy Department proposes to forbid new mining claims and prevent the BLM from selling property on the parcels that would be withdrawn for 10 years. Federal officials have said current mining claims, grazing permits, water rights and public access would not be affected. In its environmental assessment, the Energy Department projected minimal disruptions from the land withdrawal. It said engineers plan to photograph land features and conduct field surveys to narrow specific routes for the nuclear waste railroad. No rail line currently runs to the site the Bush administration and Congress picked in 2002 to entomb 77,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste now stored at nuclear reactors and military facilities in 39 states. The Energy Department announced in April 2004 that it intends to build the rail line from Caliente, a small town 150 miles northeast of Las Vegas, to the Yucca Mountain site, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Department estimates have put the cost at $880 million. Arguments are scheduled Oct. 18 in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on a state request to halt planning for the rail line until more studies are done. --- On the Net: Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects: http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste Yucca Mountain project: http://www.ymp.gov All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 46 reviewjournal.com: GROUNDWORK CRITICIZED: DOE land use plan disputed Sep. 27, 2005 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Nevada officials question proposed rail corridor that leads to Yucca Mountain WASHINGTON -- The Department of Energy has not laid the proper groundwork to justify restricting public land use along a proposed railroad corridor to Yucca Mountain, Nevada officials said. The DOE plan for a 308,600-acre land withdrawal across parts of Lincoln, Nye and Esmeralda counties will have broad impacts that have not been studied adequately, state officials said in a formal statement. The proposed action "is not just any land withdrawal," the state said in a seven-page critique signed by Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. "Apart from causing impacts and disruption to existing land users, the proposed action has the potential to negatively affect the environment, grazing allotments, mining and energy development activities, property values, the economy, important cultural resources and more," the state said. The commentary was submitted as the Department of Energy nears the end of a 30-day public comment period on the proposed land withdrawal. DOE held public hearings this month in rural Nevada. As of Monday, the department received 30 comments on its proposal, spokesman Allen Benson said. The Energy Department proposes to forbid new mining claims and prevent the Bureau of Land Management from selling property on the parcels that would be withdrawn for a period of 10 years. The land to be withdrawn is a mile wide and stretches roughly 300 miles from Caliente to the Yucca site. Current mining claims, grazing permits, water rights and public access would not be affected, federal officials have said. In its environmental assessment, DOE projected minimal disruptions from the land withdrawal. It said engineers plan to photograph land features and conduct field surveys to narrow down specific routes for a nuclear waste railroad line. Nevada called on DOE to withdraw its assessment and conduct a full environmental impact study of the land withdrawal. The state also argued the Energy Department should step aside and allow the BLM and rail experts at the Surface Transportation Board to conduct the needed studies. "Expecting DOE to objectively and comprehensively assess the impacts of this action is like permitting the fox to report on the safety and security of the chicken coop," the state said. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2005 ***************************************************************** 47 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge FR Doc 05-19278 [Federal Register: September 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 186)] [Notices] [Page 56446] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27se05-48] Reservation AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Oak Ridge Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register. DATES: Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 6 p.m. ADDRESSES: DOE Information Center, 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat Halsey, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities. Tentative Agenda: Bethel Valley Groundwater Study 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 the agenda item should contact Pat Halsey at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Department of Energy's Information Center at 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, TN between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, or by writing to Pat Halsey, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, or by calling her at (865) 576-4025. Issued at Washington, DC on September 20, 2005. Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 05-19278 Filed 9-26-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 48 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah FR Doc 05-19279 [Federal Register: September 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 186)] [Notices] [Page 56446-56447] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27se05-49] AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE). ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Paducah. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register. DATES: Thursday, October 20, 2005 5:30 p.m.-9 p.m. ADDRESSES: 111 Memorial Drive, Barkley Centre, Paducah, Kentucky 42001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William E. Murphie, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office, 1017 Majestic Drive, Suite 200, Lexington, Kentucky 40513, (859) 219-4001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental [[Page 56447]] restoration, waste management and related activities. Tentative Agenda 5:30 p.m.--Informal Discussion 6 p.m.--Call to Order --Introductions --Review of Agenda --Approval of September Minutes 6:15 p.m.--Deputy Designated Federal Officer's Comments 6:35 p.m.--Federal Coordinator's Comments 6:40 p.m.--Ex-officios' Comments 6:50 p.m.--Public Comments and Questions 7 p.m.--Task Forces/Presentations Waste Disposition Task Force Water Quality Task Force--C-746 S Site Evaluation Report Long Range Strategy/Stewardship Task Force Community Outreach Task Force 8 p.m.--Public Comments and Questions 8:10 p.m.--Break 8:20 p.m.--Administrative Issues Budget Review Review of Workplan Review of Next Agenda 8:30 p.m.--Review of Action Items 8:35 p.m.--Subcommittee Reports Executive Committee --Chairs Meeting Overview 8:50 p.m.--Final Comments 9 p.m.--Adjourn 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 David Dollins at the address listed below or by telephone at (270) 441-6819. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the U.S. Department of Energy's Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available at the Department of Energy's Environmental Information Center and Reading Room at 115 Memorial Drive, Barkley Centre, Paducah, Kentucky between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., on Monday thru Friday or by writing to David Dollins, Department of Energy, Paducah Site Office, Post Office Box 1410, MS-103, Paducah, Kentucky 42001 or by calling him at (270) 441-6819. Issued at Washington, DC on September 20, 2005. Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 05-19279 Filed 9-26-05; 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: *****************************************************************