***************************************************************** 12/01/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.279 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 Guardian Unlimited: Israel to Pressure Iran on Nuke Issue 2 AFP: US calls on Iran to return to nuclear talks 3 AFP: Israel will not accept Iran nuclear weapons - Sharon 4 AFP: Iran offers cold comfort for renewed EU nuclear talks 5 UPI: Intl. Intelligence - Sharon: Military option against Iran 6 RIA Novosti: No support for S. Korean proposal to hold informal six- 7 China Daily: Nuclear talks delayed over disagreements 8 China Daily: US needs to wake up to fast changing Asia 9 BBC: New drive for energy tax relief 10 Guardian Unlimited: Chinese River Town Shuts Down Water Supply 11 Japan Times: Host communities blast U.S. realignment plan 12 theage.com.au: Iron prices 'could hurt uranium deals' - NUCLEAR REACTORS 13 US: Nuclear Power's Dirty Secret 14 US: NRC: NRC to Hold Public Meeting on Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant 15 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] End of KEDO project 16 Herald: Blair’s choice of nuclear power 17 New Statesman: - Ministers insist new nuclear power stations would n 18 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Faulty Yorktown siren prompts Indian Point fears 19 US: Rutland Herald: Entergy to formalize nuclear plant relicensing a 20 US: DenverPost.com: Bill to shut nuclear plant now paid off 21 TheStar.com: Ontario nuclear expansion imminent - Sources 22 US: NRC: In the Matter of All Licensees Authorized To Possess Radioa 23 US: UPI: Nuke plant may be near upgrade OK 24 Whitehaven News: Last-minute protests fail to deter PM choosing nucl 25 US: Brattleboro Reformer: NRC asked to combine VY, Pilgrim relicensi 26 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Marlboro, VY at odds over evacuation plan 27 Guardian Unlimited: Beckett crushes hopes of new carbon deal NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 28 RIA Novosti: Russia to re-enrich France's depleted uranium 29 US: reviewjournal.com: NEVADA TEST SITE: Senator lobbies Bush 30 US: Crain's Cleveland Business: Brush to design new beryllium metal 31 Yggdrasil: Social Security Recognizes Work-Related Illnesses of Nucl 32 US: KLASTV.com: Nevada Test Site Workers Compensation NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 33 Bellona: Tender for Radon radwaste facility reconstruction to be 34 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Meeting on Planning an 35 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Notice of Meeting 36 AFP: Greenpeace activists arrested for blocking French nuclear shipm 37 Globe and Mail: Lights out for glow-in-the-dark sign factory 38 Reuters: Protesters block nuclear waste ship in French port 39 Yucca News: New EPA Rules Regarding Nuclear Waste 40 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Watershed group weighs in on plant's water 41 WebWire: Europe’s secret nuclear waste dumping in Russia revealed PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 42 Seattle Times: Cleanup attempts at Hanford 43 Seattle Times: Secretive study paints dire picture at Hanford 44 New Mexican: Group faults lab on plutonium records 45 SF Chronicle: LIVERMORE / Nuclear lab gets OK to double plutonium / 46 UPI: ORNL scientists look at nature in new way 47 BoiseWeekly: Jury Sides with Hanford Nuke Contractors 48 Guardian Unlimited: Report Finds Hanford Costs May Skyrocket 49 UPI: Hanford clean up to take longer, cost more ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Guardian Unlimited: Israel to Pressure Iran on Nuke Issue From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday December 1, 2005 12:01 pm AP Photo JRL120 TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Thursday that he is confident all diplomatic efforts will be exhausted before any military action might be taken against the Iranian nuclear program. When asked if any country is considering a strike against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons, Sharon said: ``I am sure that before anyone goes to take such steps, all attempts will be made to pressure Iran to stop all this activity.'' ``We see that the pressures that are exerted can bear fruit,'' Sharon told journalists in Tel Aviv. Israel is preparing for the possibility that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, but won't lead the fight against the Islamic state's nuclear ambitions, Sharon said. Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said earlier Thursday that the international community should use diplomacy to block Iran's nuclear program. He denied that Israel, which bombed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor more than two decades ago, was considering attacking Iran. ``The position of the state of Israel is that the diplomatic track is the correct way to deal with the Iranian nuclear policies,'' Mofaz told Army Radio. Israel will make every effort to get the U.N. Security Council to pass resolutions to bring sanctions against Iran to pressure it to abandon the nuclear program, Mofaz said. Israel and other countries claim Iran's nuclear power program is a camouflage for developing nuclear weapons capabilities. In 1981, Israeli warplanes destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor with a single strike. But experts say such a strike would be difficult, if not impossible, against Iran, because intelligence is weak and the Iranians have multiple nuclear installations, some of them underground. Recent media reports said Germany agreed to sell Israel two Dolphin submarines that could be armed with nuclear weapons and used against Iran in the event of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 2 AFP: US calls on Iran to return to nuclear talks Thu Dec 1, 8:43 AM ET VIENNA (AFP) - The United States called on Iran" /> Iranto return to talks on its disputed nuclear program and to "negotiate seriously." The United States hopes "that Iran will be prepared to come back to negotiations and negotiate seriously," said Gregory Schulte, the US ambassador to the UN's nuclear watchdog agency. Backed by the United States, the European Union" /> European Unionis trying to resume talks with Iran on guaranteeing the Islamic Republic is not secretly developing nuclear weapons, as Washington claims. Schulte said the Iranians "have an opportunity." "The question is will the Iranian leadership do what's best for the Iranian people or will they continue down that dangerous path that they are going at present," he told reporters. The EU and Iran had been trying to set up a meeting for next week but "it's more likely it will be in mid-December or early January," said a Western diplomat, who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the issue. The diplomat said there is still no confirmation of a date or site for the meeting, which could be in Moscow, Geneva, Vienna or Brussels. Late Wednesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said preliminary negotiations on resuming talks would begin by mid-December. "The preliminary negotiations between Iran and the EU will start within two weeks," Mottaki told a press conference in Ankara. "Officials will have talks on the timetable for negotiations, after which the negotiations will begin at ministerial level," he said, not specifying where they would take place. An EU diplomat close to the contacts now taking place said the idea is "for both sides to put their cards on the table and see if there is any opening for future talks. "But the Iranians want to have their cake and eat it. They want to have a meeting at the experts level first, and then at a more senior level, and dictate the terms and content of the meeting, that is when they can resume uranium enrichment," the diplomat said. EU negotiators Britain, France and Germany have insisted they will not "resume formal negotiations with Iran until Iran fully re-suspends uranium conversion work," another diplomat said. EU-Iran talks collapsed in August when Iran ended its suspension of uranium conversion, the first step towards making enriched uranium, which can be used to fuel nuclear reactors or as the explosive core of atom bombs. Iran has repeatedly said it will continue with conversion work, although it is suspending actual enrichment as a confidence-building measure. The UN nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agencylast week put off taking Iran to the UN Security Council after the so-called EU-3 agreed to give more time for new Russian diplomacy to work. Talks on a Russian proposal to allow Iran to conduct uranium enrichment -- in Russia, rather than Iran, so Tehran does not obtain the nuclear technology crucial to making atom bombs -- were expected to take center stage. Iran refuses to give up the right to enrichment on its territory, however. Last week's meeting at its Vienna headquarters of the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors was to review progress since September 24, when it found Iran in non-compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Such a finding requires eventual referral to the Security Council, which can impose sanctions. Schulte said he hoped Iran "would have received a clear message from the board and the clear message is that time is running out ... that countries have lost confidence in the peaceful nature of their activities and expect them to take advantage of the offers on the table from the EU-3 and Russia to regain international confidence." The EU diplomat said however that "the Iranians seem to be counting on Russia not following through on the proposal" and so to isolate the EU-3. Russia and China, which have strong economic ties to Iran, oppose referral to the Security Council, as do non-aligned states which point to Tehran's right under the NPT to work on the nuclear fuel cycle. Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 3 AFP: Israel will not accept Iran nuclear weapons - Sharon Thu Dec 1, 6:34 AM ET TEL AVIV (AFP) - Israel" /> Israelwill never accept a situation where Iran" /> Iranis in possession of nuclear weapons, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon" /> Ariel Sharonwarned. "Israel, and not only Israel, cannot accept a situation in which Iran would be in possession of nuclear weapons," Sharon told journalists on Thursday. "We must do everything possible to prepare for such a situation. But Israel is not on the verge of combat" with the regime in Tehran, he added. "It is not only a danger for Israel but for the Middle East as a whole and for other countries." Sharon was speaking after his defence minister, Shaul Mofaz, said that international diplomacy and pressure were the best way of confronting Iran over its nuclear ambitions. "The diplomatic track is the best way of dealing with the Iranian atomic programme," Mofaz told army radio. "We must do everything to put this hot potato before the UN Security Council so that sanctions and tight controls of the Iranian nuclear installations will be imposed," he said. "The challenge posed by Iran is not only a danger for Israel but for the entire free world, and the United States and the Europeans are aware of this danger." The minister, who was himself born in Iran, has previously hinted that Israel could take pre-emptive military action to halt the Islamic republic's quest for nuclear capabilities. The International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) in September found Iran in non-compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, paving the way for the matter to be referred to the UN Security Council if Iran does not halt nuclear fuel work and cooperate fully with an IAEA investigation. Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 4 AFP: Iran offers cold comfort for renewed EU nuclear talks Thu Dec 1, 1:56 PM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> 's hardline leaders appear more determined than ever to resist Western pressure over their disputed nuclear drive, raising the question of what any new talks with the European Union" /> could actually achieve. Britain, France and Germany are still hoping to convince Iran to limit work on the nuclear fuel cycle as an "objective guarantee" the process will not be diverted to make weapons. Their offer of trade and other incentives has already been rejected. "We have sent a message to the Westerners that we will resist to the end in order to master civil nuclear technology and will not give up our rights," ultra-conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said this week. Reflecting the sentiment among many Iranian officials that they are in a position of strength -- given that oil prices are high and the US is bogged down in Iraq" /> -- the president boasted that "they have seen our firmness and have backed down." The International Atomic Energy Agency" /> in September found Iran in non-compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, paving the way for a Security Council referral if Iran does not halt nuclear fuel work and cooperate fully with an IAEA investigation. But rather than immediately push for the case to go to New York, EU diplomats are now focussing on a proposal from Moscow that would involve Iran being able to conduct ultra-sensitive uranium enrichment work only on Russian soil but at the same time maintain some fuel cycle capabilities. But this idea too has been shot down by Tehran -- which maintains that nuclear fuel cycle work is perfectly legal under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The proposal's rejection by Iran came before Russia even had a chance to formally present it and before the EU-3 had the opportunity to fix a date and venue for renewed talks to discuss it. Diplomats at the IAEA in Vienna say the two sides are bickering over substance and form of any meeting. The message from Tehran seems to be perfectly clear: nuclear power is a matter of rights, pride, security and regime survival, and any compromise is out of the question -- regardless of the consequences. "If we abandon the nuclear fuel cycle, in 30 or 40 years we will have no more oil and then the countries that have the nuclear fuel cycle will create some kind of nuclear OPEC" /> and say: 'If you want fuel, you will have to change your foreign policy and culture'," is the reasoning of Iran's top negotiator, Ali Larijani. Speaking to a gathering of Revolutionary Guards, the hardliner signalled a possible further step away from a suspension of enrichment-related work. In August, the country had already ended a freeze on uranium conversion agreed with the EU-3 in November 2004 by Iran's former, more moderate negotiating team. "In my view the suspensions accepted by Iran were unreasonable. The suspension of enrichment was enough to build confidence, but the halt in making (centrifuge) parts and conducting research was not justifiable," he was quoted as saying. "The Westerners will have to get used to our new attitude," he said, before adding -- in a comment that one EU diplomat described as particularly worrying -- that "if Iran goes nuclear, nobody will be able to challenge it because the stakes would be too high." Although EU diplomats close to the talks insist they are engaged in a long-haul process, they admit that at present their two-year-old effort remains entirely deadlocked. "The Iranians are digging in. Everytime we speak to an official, we hear the same thing: 'What can you do to force us to give up nuclear technology?'," said one European diplomat. "We want to give the Russian proposal a chance, but let's just say a Security Council referral is still on the cards." + World - AFP ***************************************************************** 5 UPI: Intl. Intelligence - Sharon: Military option against Iran United Press International - 12/1/2005 3:49:00 PM -0500 Newstrack: The U.N. refugee agency says a new By JOSHUA BRILLIANT UPI Israel Correspondent TEL AVIV, Israel, Dec. 1 (UPI) -- Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Thursday Israel and other countries couldn't accept an Iran with a nuclear bomb, adding Tehran's program could be stopped by military means. Iran has been Israel's main foe since 1979, when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini deposed the Shah. Iran has vowed to eradicate the Jewish state. The nuclear issue came up Thursday at an annual meeting with the Israel Editors' Committee in Tel Aviv. Sharon stressed Israel and other countries "cannot accept a situation in which Iran will have a nuclear weapon. That is clear to us, known to us and we are also making all the preparations necessary in order to be ready for such situations." The meeting with the editors is an annual event held around the anniversary of the Nov. 29, 1947, United Nations decision to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. Shortly before the meeting, the Maariv newspaper ran a red banner headline quoting a "senior security source" as saying Israel by itself couldn't cope with Teheran. "We shall have to put up with a nuclear Iran," the unnamed source said. "I do not see any force in the world, today, that could reverse the situation -- namely Iran becoming nuclear ... and there will be no alternative but to put up with the emerging situation," he added. Sharon suggested the editors be skeptical over reports by anonymous sources, though the context indicated the source was, indeed, high. "Israel is not helpless and it is taking all the necessary steps," the prime minister asserted. He did not go into detail, but in recent years Israel has acquired long-range F-15I aircraft, developed its Arrow anti ballistic missile system mainly to intercept missiles with nuclear warheads and has recently ordered two more Dolphin Class submarines from Germany. Foreign reports suggest the three German made submarines Israel already has give it a second-strike capability. That is, the ability to destroy the enemy even after absorbing his first strike. It launched spy satellites into space, indicating it has powerful missiles. However, Sharon reiterated Israel's long-standing policy that stresses Israel is not at the forefront of the struggle with Iran. "The danger is not only to Israel but to the Middle East and many other countries in the world," he said. Israeli security sources have often noted that Iran is developing missiles that can reach Europe. "That is why the effort underway today, with the U.S. leadership, is an effort that all the free states who understand the terrible danger (of a nuclear Iran) must share," Sharon said. Israel is "in very close contact with other countries leading this struggle," he added. Asked whether the international community has a military option, should all the diplomatic efforts fail to stop Iran, Sharon said: "Yes, definitely." He said he was "sure that before anyone goes for such (military) steps, every effort would be made to pressure Iran to stop this activity." In 1981 Israel destroyed Iraq's Osiraq reactor and thereby prevented Saddam Hussein from developing an Iraqi nuclear bomb, but Iran has learnt the lesson and reportedly dispersed and fortified its facilities. Israel is particularly vulnerable to a nuclear attack because it is a small country (it is slightly smaller than New Jersey) and its population is concentrated in the center. In a paper the Institute for Contemporary Affairs published in Jerusalem Thursday, professor Gerald Steinberg wrote, "There is no basis for accepting the Iranian claim that it is not seeking nuclear weapons or the assertion that a nuclear Iran is not dangerous." Iran's leaders have repeatedly declared they aim to destroy Israel, he noted. Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, publicly repeated that threat in October 2005. "A few weeks earlier, the streets of Teheran were filled by missiles on parade, decorated with posters declaring the intention to "wipe Israel off the map," Steinberg wrote. The diplomatic option is still a serious one largely because Iran "seeks to be part of the international community and not (be) a rogue state or a member of the 'axis of evil,'" he wrote. International pressure has increased as India, whom Teheran considered a supporter, backed the International Atomic Energy Agency's decision in September, which said Iran has not complied with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Russia and China, who had traditionally been Iran's allies, suddenly ceased to support it, Steinberg noted. "The Iranian leadership has taken some measures and engaged in negotiations that only make sense when seen as efforts to avoid sanctions. It is also dependent to a degree on foreign technology for its nuclear weapons and missile development programs," Steinberg wrote. Technically Iran's nuclear program includes developing a nuclear fuel cycle, and it seeks an ability to produce highly enriched uranium that is primarily useful for producing bombs, Steinberg wrote. "In the Iranian case we have clear and detailed evidence of nuclear weapons efforts, not speculation or extrapolation. IAEA inspectors have samples of enriched uranium and other materials," Steinberg stressed. "It could take two years, five years, or even 10," until Iran is seen as a de facto nuclear weapons state. It has reportedly been facing technical difficulties. Nevertheless, Chief of Military Intelligence, Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi-Farkash, Wednesday reportedly told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Iran has already produced 45 tons of gas needed to make enriched uranium. The time for diplomatic efforts to bloc Iran's nuclear program is running out. In his address to the Cabinet Sunday, he reportedly spoke of few months before Iran makes a critical decision on how to move on with its research and development program. © Copyright 2005 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 6 RIA Novosti: No support for S. Korean proposal to hold informal six-party meeting 01/ 12/ 2005 MOSCOW, December 1 (RIA Novosti) - South Korea's September proposal to hold an informal meeting as part of the six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear issue has not received any solid support yet, a Moscow source said Thursday. Seoul repeated the proposal to hold the informal meeting at a South Korean resort during the fifth round of talks in Beijing in early November, the source said, adding that South Korea had hoped to shorten the recess in the talks that could last until January. "The sides agreed with the idea of an informal meeting but gave no appraisals and have not discussed it yet," the source said, commenting on Japanese Broadcasting Corporation NHK's Thursday report on the proposal. Russia, the United States, North and South Korea, Japan and China are involved in the six-party talks that began in 2003 with the goal of the nuclear-free status of the Korean Peninsula. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 7 China Daily: Nuclear talks delayed over disagreements By Wang Ying(China Daily) Updated: 2005-12-02 06:07 A final decision on which foreign companies will be invited to build four third-generation nuclear reactors in Zhejiang and Guangdong provinces might be postponed until the first half of next year. This is because of a disagreement about the technology to be used and the price, according to insiders. "It is unlikely that the talks will be finalized by the end of this year as originally planned," Chen Hua, a director from the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), yesterday told China Daily. The Chinese Government has approved the building of two nuclear plants in Sanmen in East China's Zhejiang Province, and in Yangjiang, South China's Guangdong Province. Each will have two 1,000-megawatt (MW) reactors and use advanced third-generation technology. Up to now, bidders involved in the talks include Paris-based Areva, Pittsburgh-based but UK-owned Westinghouse Electric Company and Russia's AtomStroyExport. None of these have been able to reach an agreement with CNNC, which is behind the building of the plants, said Chen. "These companies haven't given us satisfactory proposals on many key technical details, such as engineering and plant security," the CNNC director said. "Their price offers are still much higher than what we have budgeted for." The final decision will be delayed, he said, refusing to disclose the bid prices from these companies. "It is hard to say exactly when (the talks will be completed), but we hope to finalize them in the first half of next year," he said. Because of the prolonged negotiations, the construction schedule will also suffer delays, the director yesterday told China Daily. "It now seems improbable that construction (of the two nuclear plants) will start at the end of 2007 as we originally planned," he said. The company most likely to win the bid at the moment is Areva or Westinghouse, Chen said. "We haven't talked much with the Russians." An official from the preparatory office of the State Power Technology Corporation of China (SNPTC), who refused to be named, yesterday echoed Chen's comments. He said the talks were proceeding much slower than previously expected, with problems over "price and technology." SNPTC has been authorized to hold talks with Areva, Westinghouse and AtomStroyExport. Both Areva and Westinghouse yesterday declined to comment. CNNC's Chen yesterday also denied a recent media report that the French and US-based companies would be awarded one project each. "We will not use different technologies at the two plants," he said. China has used nuclear technologies from France, Canada and Russia in building its nuclear plants in Guangdong and Zhejiang. If Westinghouse wins the contract, the project will be the first in the Chinese nuclear power sector for the US unit of State-owned British Nuclear Fuels Plc, which designs half the world's nuclear reactors. The country will spend 400 billion yuan (US$48.33 billion) building new nuclear power plants by 2020. This will increase the amount of installed nuclear power capacity from the current 16 gigawatts (GW) to 40 GW or 4 per cent of the total installed capacity within 15 years, Kang Rixin, president of CNNC, said in June. This ambitious goal will translate into another 30 or so 1,000-MW units in China by 2020. The country currently has 19 reactors in operation, under construction or having received central government approval. (China Daily 12/02/2005 page9) ***************************************************************** 8 China Daily: US needs to wake up to fast changing Asia Wu XinboChina Daily Updated: 2005-12-02 05:54 A succession of events taking place in Asia seems to indicate that the United States' Asia policy is failing to keep up with the developments in the regional political arena. US-DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) relations have become a factor that affects the stability in Asia, with the talks on DPRK's nuclear programme issue travelling along a bumpy road. Revolving around the nuclear issue, disputes between the United States and the Republic of Korea crop up frequently, estranging the two allies. Sino-US relations are getting increasingly complex and different schools of thought inside the United States clash with each other over how to deal with a fast "rising China." The China policy, to a certain extent, has evolved into a bottleneck for the United States' Asia policy. The Taiwan question becomes ever pressing in the post-Cold-War period, but the United States has so far failed to come up with an effective way to address the situation. In Southeast Asia and South Asia, the US anti-terror campaigns have achieved little, and instead served to distance the United States from the Muslim masses in the region. Thousands upon thousands of US troops are stuck in the quagmire of Iraq. There seems no light at the end of the tunnel on the issue of Iran's nuclear undertakings. In the face of all this, US Asia experts have voiced their dissatisfaction over US Asia policy. They generally come to the conclusion that the US Asia policy lags behind the developments and that the definition of the US role in Asia is disorientated. The conclusion is drawn against the background of Asia's fast changing political, economic and security situations. Strong bias has always blurred the US analysis of international politics, often leading to misjudgement and miscalculation. Confrontation, for example, dominated Sino-US relations for 22 years after 1949, when the People's Republic of China was founded. This is because US policy-makers understood the event as an outcome of the Soviet Union's exporting of revolution, thinking China would go along steadily with the "Big Brother" concept for decades to come. The United States paid dearly for the confrontation. The US involvement in Viet Nam offers another example. Ho Chih Minh's drive for national unification was misread as the expansion of communism in Southeast Asia. Large numbers of American troops were committed to "contain" the "expansion." Again, the United States paid dearly. The United States, it seems to me, is now misreading China's fast development. China's high-speed economic growth is bringing wealth and prosperity to one-fifth of the world's population. But some American political elite think the rise of China poses a threat and challenge to the US supremacy. They are haunted by how to come up with the best way to deal with China's rise, and hence the hesitation between engagement and containment. This, in turn, helps explain the volatility of US-China relations. Apart from its misjudgement of the outside world, the wrong definition of its role in Asia is also responsible for policy errors. Desire for hegemony has dominated US Asia policy since World War II. Seeking supremacy is at the core of policy-making considerations. During the Cold War period, Washington claimed "containment of communism," but they were actually in pursuit of US hegemony. Driven by these hegemonic impulses, the United States got involved first in the Korean War and then the Viet Nam War, taking upon itself commitments that far outstripped its strength. After the debacle of Viet Nam, the United States had to reshape its Asia policy, seeking strategic balance instead of supremacy. The change of role helped free it from a predicament. When the Cold War ended in the early 1990s, the United States faced the test again in terms of defining its role in Asia. The Clinton administration wanted to use US values, US models of development and security concepts, the so-called "soft power," to shape regional politics, economics and security. It can be interpreted as applying new tools to play a leading role in Asia. After President George W. Bush assumed power, the United States' role was defined as a unilateral leader, which was intended to guard against any rising powers. The advent of the September 11 terrorist attacks changed the priorities of the US strategic agenda, but not the Bush administration's yearning for US supremacy. All this helps bring about the situation that the United States' Asia policy is increasingly distanced from the fast changing reality in Asia. The United States' constructive role in Asian affairs would be in the interest of Asian countries as well as in its own. Correct US assessment of the reality in Asia is thus called for. First, it should be understood that Asian countries' co-operation in political and security affairs among themselves is being strengthened. They are increasingly reluctant to be told what to do by outsiders. This kind of co-operation will help alter the political and economic landscapes of Asia and will also have a great impact on US-Asian relations. The economic co-operation among the 10+3 (10 countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations plus China, Japan and the Republic of Korea) framework and the planned East Asia Summit are but just two examples in Asian countries' intention of forming a single community. Second, China's development will not follow the old path of the newly emerging power replacing the old one, and will, therefore, not bring about the situation in which a hysteric arms race is set in motion because the parties involved fear to be left in a weaker position. Using the old-fashioned containment mentality to handle China- and Asia-related affairs is bound to end in tears. Third, Asian countries are becoming increasingly interdependent, whether in terms of economic co-operation or anti-terror campaigns. On the other hand, the United States is getting more and more dependent on other countries in many ways. This requires it to adapt to the fast changing situation in Asia. Fourth, the United States is powerful but not omnipotent. It won a war in Iraq but did not win peace. The United States cannot settle all the questions in Asia, let alone if it tries to do it all in its own way. The author is a senior researcher at the Centre for American Studies affiliated with Fudan University in Shanghai (China Daily 12/02/2005 page4) Copyright 2005 Chinadaily.com.cn All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 9 BBC: New drive for energy tax relief Last Updated: Thursday, 1 December 2005 Interview By Ollie Stone-Lee BBC News political reporter [Solar panels on a home in California] Campaigners say even basic efficiency measures can help Climate change targets will not be met if ministers let debate on new power plants obscure the drive for energy efficiency, experts are warning. The government-funded Energy Saving Trust says new nuclear or large scale renewable plants, whatever their merits, can only affect the long-term. It wants Gordon Brown to take immediate action by giving council tax rebates to people making homes energy efficient. The chancellor is delivering his pre-Budget report on Monday. Philip Sellwood, chief executive of the Energy Saving Trust (EST), said he was hopeful as the Treasury was much more positive than last year about the council tax idea. He estimates the rebates proposal would cost £100m, but with the government looking set to meet some of its carbon emissions targets there was a "real desire" among ministers to find new ways of making progress. Missing targets? The trust wants council tax rebates of between £50 and £90 for people who install efficiency measures in existing homes, such as insulating cavity walls. It is also calling for stamp duty rebates or bonuses for developers who build energy efficient new homes, although the Treasury appears less keen on that idea. The government agreed at Kyoto to try to cut UK greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% by 2010 from 1990 levels. We want to make sure th government and the review do not lose sight of the importance of energy efficiency Philip Sellwood Energy Saving Trust But it has admitted it is unlikely to meet its own extra target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20%. Mr Sellwood's best guess is that there will be a 15% cut in emissions by 2010. He said this year was particularly critical for getting action on tax incentives - "price signals" - for energy efficiency measures. Energy prices are rising, the government is soon to publish a review of its climate change programme and this week it began its energy review. Mr Sellwood said: "We want to see government taking action on the things which we can affect now, rather than those things that may have a part to play in years to come." Households are responsible for about 30% of total UK energy use. Action now Energy efficiency was at the heart of the government's energy white paper in 2003 but the new energy review appears to be focused on nuclear power and renewable sources. Mr Sellwood said he would be disappointed if people looked only at the long-term options rather than immediate measures. "The only sensible course of action is to re-emphasise the fundamental importance of energy efficiencies because that's what's going to deliver carbon emissions today or tomorrow rather than five, 10 or 15 years time," he said. [Dungeness nuclear power station] The energy review will specifically look at new nuclear options "We want to make sure that government and the review do not lose sight of the importance of both energy efficiency and mass market renewables (home energy generation)." His concerns apply not only to the prospect of a new generation of nuclear plants but to large scale hydro plants or offshore wind farms which could take years to build. Sir Digby Jones, director-general of the Confederation of British Industry this week warned: "It is no good saying we are all going to use less energy because people aren't like that." Home energy production? Mr Sellwood said he fundamentally rejected that proposal but admitted his campaign could be a "hard slog" unless measures were made easy for people. He admitted the public, politicians and government officials can see energy efficiency as marginal in the battle against climate change. But he argued that since 1970 efficiency measures have contributed almost as much to cuts in carbon dioxide emissions as the entire coal programme and three times as much as nuclear power. The trust says it is difficult to persuade people to take up energy efficiency measures if they cannot see their impact. Mr Sellwood said he was pleased some energy companies were now providing bills which gave a more detailed breakdown of how customers were using their energy. But there still needed to be "two way metering" where people are rewarded for putting energy produced on a small scale in their homes, for example by sonar panels or small hydro generators, into the national grid. ***************************************************************** 10 Guardian Unlimited: Chinese River Town Shuts Down Water Supply From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday December 1, 2005 10:31 am AP Photo XGB102 By JOE McDONALD Associated Press Writer DALIANHE, China (AP) - Residents of a town along a poisoned river in northern China lined up with jugs and buckets to get water from trucks Thursday after officials shut down running water to 26,000 people. On the Russian side, residents were stocking up on bottled water ahead of a water shutdown as the stream of cancer-causing benzene approached. There were fears that heating systems in Russia's frigid Far East could be affected, since they use networks of hot water pipes. China was preparing to send water filters and anti-pollution technicians to Russia. The spill caused by a Nov. 13 chemical plant explosion in China was testing friendly ties between the two sides. Just last month, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said Beijing and Moscow were enjoying their ``best period in history,'' amid soaring Chinese purchases of Russian crude oil and stepped up anti-terror cooperation in Central Asia. ``The Chinese side has decided to provide the Russian side with monitoring devices to rapidly monitor the pollution and is willing to send people to install them,'' said Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang at a briefing in Beijing. China also plans to send 150 tons of activated charcoal, which can absorb pollutants, he said. China has already apologized to Russia He said he had no information on whether compensation has been discussed. The Nov. 13 blast dumped about 100 tons of benzene into the Songhua River, which flows into the larger Heilong River - known as the Amur in Russia. The 50-mile-long chemical slick was expected to reach the border city of Khabarovsk in days. Local authorities said the shutdown in Dalianhe would last three days and Communist Party members went door-to-door giving out bottled water in an effort to show that China's leaders can protect the public. ``When one person has trouble, eight will lend a hand,'' read a banner attached to the side of one water truck. Workers stood by to help residents fill up their containers in frigid cold. The chemical spill has embarrassed President Hu Jintao's government, which has promised to clean up the environment and do more to help ordinary Chinese people. Experts say the damage is likely to be long-lasting, but the full effects won't be known until at least early next year. Oleg Mitvol, the deputy chief of Russia's Federal Natural Resources Service, told reporters in Moscow that after the toxic slick passes Khabarovsk, authorities will have to keep cleaning water at least until next June as ice containing benzene will melt in the spring. Mitvol said while the spill could not be compared to the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster that contaminated a large territory with radioactive fallout, ``the situation is extremely problematic from the point of view of ecology.'' ``We will be able to calculate it only in several years,'' he said after traveling to Khabarovsk, a city of about 580,000. Residents there have scooped up bottled water in stores, leaving many shops with only carbonated water. Some were filling bathtubs and any container they could find at home. City officials plan to send inspectors to halt profiteering on water, Khabarovsk's DTV channel reported. Prices for bottled water have doubled in some markets. In Harbin, where the slick has already passed through and where authorities have said the water is again safe to drink, sales of fish from the Songhua River were still banned. Yet, fish sellers at the city's Poseidon Seafood Market said the water shut-off posed a bigger problem than the ban. ``We don't normally sell many fish from the Songhua River to begin with. ... The big problem was the lack of water to store fish in,'' said a stall owner who gave his name only as Mr. Gong. ``Business has been pretty bad.'' --- Associated Press writers Burt Herman in Khabarovsk, Russia, Christopher Bodeen in Harbin, China, and Stephanie Hoo in Beijing contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 11 Japan Times: Host communities blast U.S. realignment plan Thursday, December 1, 2005 Foreign Minister Taro Aso and Defense Agency chief Fukushiro Nukaga have been visiting communities with military bases to gain their approval of an interim report on the realignment of U.S. forces in Japan, but strong local opposition persists. [News photo] Demonstrators on Sunday protest the planned deployment of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to the U.S. Navy's Yokosuka base, which together with the proposed realignment of the U.S. military in Japan, has angered local host governments. "The Japan-U.S. security setup might be shaken unless Okinawa is level-headed. I feel a sense of considerable incongruity to the interim report," Okinawa Gov. Keiichi Inamine told Aso, who visited the prefecture Friday for the first time since he assumed the post Oct. 31. Inamine thus reiterated his opposition to plans to relocate the helicopter operations of the U.S. Futenma Air Station in Ginowan to the coastal area at the U.S. Marine Corps Camp Schwab in Nago envisaged in the interim report. Japan and the United States agreed Oct. 29 on a set of realignment plans that include relocating the air station and cutting the number of U.S. Marines stationed in Okinawa by 7,000. They are to work out a final report on the realignment by the end of March. "It is a reality that Okinawa is shouldering the burden of 75 percent of the U.S. bases (in Japan)." Aso said. "At the same time, it is important to keep the presence of the U.S. military. Getting that balance is difficult." The meeting, which lasted 20 minutes, wasn't exactly warm. Aso then met Nago Mayor Tateo Kishimoto, who told him, "It is regrettable the process totally ignores the citizens' wishes." Minoru Miyagi, head of the city's Toyohara Ward, said, "The risks of noise and accidents are apparently high. I wonder whether the government is considering us, living here." Commenting on the opposition from Okinawa and other local governments around Japan involved in the military realignment, a Defense Agency executive said, "Opposition at this time is natural because the number of U.S. forces to be transferred and the kinds of training to be done have yet to be fixed." The agency has sent officials to the United States to work out the details of the realignment plans and then convey them to local governments by the end of this year. "Even if you forcibly lead a horse to water, you cannot make it drink," a government source said, indicating the government will hold Cabinet meetings and consultations with the ruling parties to study measures to help out the communities that will be affected by the realignment plans. At the same time, the central government is hinting at drastic measures, including a special law, to strengthen its authority to carry out the plans without consent from local governments. Taking in the situation, Katsuji Hoshino, mayor of Zama, Kanagawa Prefecture, told Nukaga during a visit to the city on Nov. 16, "I sense the appearance of a strong foe." Hoshino is opposed to the transfer of a U.S. Army headquarters to the city. An executive of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party described the government's measures, both drastic and soft, as "armor under a cloth." But the government's foothold cannot be described as firm. Discord persists between the Defense Agency and the Defense Facilities Administration Agency, which is currently under suspicion of playing an active role in bid-rigging for public works projects it oversaw. The facilities agency, which had been promoting plans to fill in a sea area off Nago's Henoko district for the U.S. air station based on an agreement reached at the Japan-U.S. Special Action Committee on Okinawa in 1996, clashed with Yoshinori Ono, a former Defense Agency chief, and others who wanted to review the plans. As a result, the plans were killed and its executives were excluded from consultations. An official at the agency in charge of the realignment complained about the situation by saying, "We have not been fully informed of the consultations." The agency also holds a grudge against the Defense Agency for continuing secret talks with the United States. It was revealed last month that officials at the facility administration agency were questioned by prosecutors for suspected involvement in rigging bids for electrical work. A Defense Agency executive expressed his concern about the problem by saying, "If the issue persists, the trust in the government will be shaken and affect the consultations with local governments about the realignment plans." The Japan Times: Dec. 1, 2005 (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 12 theage.com.au: Iron prices 'could hurt uranium deals' - www.theage.com.au Barry Fitzgerald December 2, 2005 CHINA has warned leading iron ore producers BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto to ease back on their demands for another increase in the contract price, saying the bumper 72 per cent rise last year had caused serious damage to its steel industry. The world's "factory" also warned that Australia's hopes of becoming a preferred supplier of uranium to China — again BHP Billiton from Olympic Dam and Rio Tinto from Ranger/Jabiluka — could be threatened by a backlash in China to the iron ore price shock. China's ambassador to Australia, Madame Fu Ying, told 570 mining types at a Melbourne Mining Club luncheon yesterday that the scale of last year's iron ore price rise was painful for the Chinese steel industry, now the world's biggest. Many small steel companies could not withstand the margin squeeze caused by the price increase and had gone bankrupt. Madame Fu said that as the steel price had been falling for some time, China hoped the iron ore producers would "ease the upwards pressure for higher iron ore prices". "From my conversation with the Chinese and Australian trading partners, they certainly both want to see the trend moving in their own favour, but they also realise that a good way to sustain the business is to let both sides take benefit," she said. A local analyst pointed out during question time that as the world's leading steel producer, China had the benefits of a threefold increase in steel prices to offset the iron ore price increase. She confirmed China's plan to increase nuclear power in the nation's energy mix from 2 per cent to 4 per cent by 2020. China is a uranium producer itself but the production is consumed by the military. "There is certainly going to be the need to import uranium," she said. Australia was but one of the supply options. She noted that after the 72 per cent iron ore price increase, both the Chinese Government and the population had become "very anxious" about the nation's reliance on imports to fuel its booming market economy. "Australia is one of the options for China to import uranium, for which we would need to first negotiate an agreement on peaceful use of nuclear energy," she said. "For realising such a deal, we also need to have reliable supply and favourable political environment." Madame Fu said China would continue to explore opportunities to acquire overseas resources by way of equity positions, joint ventures and long-term contract support as well as spot purchases. "China already has quite a few successful projects here in Australia. I hope there will be more in the future as I could see that the interest is high." Agreement| Copyright © 2005. The Age Company Ltd. And even under the existing regulations based on outdated science, 12 people are expected to die as >a direct result of the normal operation of each commercial nuclear reactor during each 20-year license >period. Furthermore, that calculation assumes the exposed person is a healthy adult male, even though >the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has estimated radiation's effects on children and fetuses are >about three and 10 times as severe, respectively, than the same dose to an adult. >"Our government makes standards that are supposedly to protect people, but in fact the standards >enable industry to kill a certain number of people," says biologist Mary Olson of the Asheville, N.C. office >of the nonprofit Nuclear Information and Resource Service. "They're basically bag limits on the >population." From: The Independent, a weekly newspaper in Raleigh-Durham. Also, the Nov. 29 issue of the Brattleboro Reformer (Vermont) has a lead article on Strontium-90 in baby teeth near Vermont Yankee. Its easily accessible on the web page. Nuclear power's dirty secret New federal research shows that there's no safe level of exposure to routine radiation coming out of nuclear power plants. Why aren't regulators taking that into account as utilities begin a campaign to restart the industry? B Y S U E S T U R G I S We the people of North Carolina and other states across the nation face a decision that will affect not only our own well-being and that of our children, but the well-being of countless future generations. Our choice is whether to allow utilities to meet our energy needs by building new nuclear power plants that routinely emit long-lived radioactive pollution to our already-contaminated environment. November 30, 2005 C O V E R F E A T U R E The decision comes as a federal science panel has found that there is no safe level of radiation exposure--a fact not accounted for in current nuclear plant regulations. Courtesy Of Progress Energy Progress Energy's Shearon Harris nuclear power plant in southwestern Wake County, alongside Harris Lake -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ Companies around the United States are pushing to expand nuclear capacity for the first time in more than 30 years, since the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor disaster in 1979. In one of the more ambitious plans, Progress Energy of Raleigh said earlier this year that it would apply for licenses from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build as many as four new reactors at two sites, one in the Carolinas and another in Florida. The company, which is also seeking more coal-fired plants, expects to pick its nuclear locations by early next year, according to spokesperson Julie Hans. Progress now operates five reactor units in three states: one at the Shearon Harris plant 16 miles southwest of Raleigh; two at the Brunswick plant near Southport, N.C.; one at the H.B. Robinson plant outside Hartsville, S.C.; and another at its plant in Crystal River, Fla. Duke Energy of Charlotte also wants more nukes. The company recently confirmed that it's readying paperwork to build two reactors at a site still to be announced. Duke currently operates three nuclear facilities: the McGuire plant 14 miles north of Charlotte on Lake Norman; Oconee in Seneca, S.C.; and Catawba on Lake Wylie in York, S.C. In addition, Richmond, Va.-based Dominion Corp., which serves northeastern North Carolina, has requested a permit for new construction at its nuke plant in Mineral, Va. Duke is interested in more coal plants as well. Elsewhere, Entergy Corp. wants to expand its nuclear operations in Port Gibson, Miss.; the Tennessee Valley Authority plans to enlarge a plant near Scottsboro, Ala.; and Exelon Corp. of Chicago wants to grow its nuclear facility near Clinton, Ill. The companies are positioning themselves to take advantage of the energy bill President Bush signed into law in August that gives nuclear operators tax credits, loan guarantees, insurance against regulatory delays, and liability protections in case of disaster--a total of about $13 billion in taxpayer subsidies, according to an estimate by Public Citizen, a nonprofit watchdog group. To that end, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's major trade association, recently launched an $8 million public-relations campaign to remove "all major legislative and regulatory impediments to a nuclear renaissance," PR Week reports. In its drive to expand, however, the industry is not talking about the risks of nuclear power--including mounting evidence for health problems from even low levels of radiation such as those emitted by normally operating reactors. Even some nuclear watchdogs shy away from talking about routine emissions. Jim Warren of the Durham-based N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network calls the issue a "hard sell" that doesn't "score very big" with the public. His group focuses instead on the risks of catastrophic radiation releases from system failures, noting that Shearon Harris has experienced at least 12 cooling system failures and leaks since 2003 as well as numerous fire safety violations. In addition, the facility stores highly radioactive spent fuel in cooling pools located near the plant; a loss of water to the pools could spark a nuclear fire that would render a large swath of the state uninhabitable. But even if potential disasters don't come to pass, nuclear plants are still polluting our environment with radiation through routine releases--and building more would only increase emissions. And there's more evidence than ever before that even very small amounts of radiation are harmful to human health. The National Academy of Sciences--a federal advisory body made up of the nation's most distinguished scholars--released a report earlier this year that found no safe threshold for radiation exposure, with even the smallest dose increasing cancer risk. But the federal government has not revamped nuclear plant regulations to reflect the NAS findings. And even under the existing regulations based on outdated science, 12 people are expected to die as a direct result of the normal operation of each commercial nuclear reactor during each 20-year license period. Furthermore, that calculation assumes the exposed person is a healthy adult male, even though the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has estimated radiation's effects on children and fetuses are about three and 10 times as severe, respectively, than the same dose to an adult. Photo By Derek Anderson UNC-CH epidemiologist Dr. Steven Wing: "One of the first things I learned was sometimes officials say things that turn out not to be true." -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ "Our government makes standards that are supposedly to protect people, but in fact the standards enable industry to kill a certain number of people," says biologist Mary Olson of the Asheville, N.C. office of the nonprofit Nuclear Information and Resource Service. "They're basically bag limits on the population." *** The nuclear industry likes to promote itself as a clean source of energy, and that message is a key theme in its current PR offensive. Announcing Progress Energy's expansion plans earlier this month, for example, Chairman and CEO Bob McGehee said nuclear power might be the best option to provide "emissions-free energy." And industry leaders like McGehee have successfully persuaded not only the public but also political leaders of nuclear energy's inherent cleanliness. "Of all our nation's energy sources, only nuclear power plants can generate massive amounts of electricity without emitting an ounce of air pollution or greenhouse gases," President Bush said in an August speech at Sandia National Laboratories, a government-owned nuclear facility in Albuquerque, N.M. It's true that reactors don't emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide as do facilities burning fossil fuels (although that doesn't make them a good solution to climate change, since they're about the slowest option to deploy and cost far more than other alternatives such as wind power and cogeneration, as Rocky Mountain Institute Director Amory Lovins detailed in a talk last month in Chapel Hill). But it's not true that nuclear plants are emissions-free. In fact, they routinely release radioactivity through leaks in the fuel rods, pipes, tanks and valves, according to NIRS. They also routinely release contaminated water in order to limit the presence of radioactive and corrosive chemicals that damage reactor parts. Entering the outside environment through plants' stacks and water discharge pipes, the radioactive pollution includes more than 100 different chemicals produced only in reactors and atomic bombs--substances including cesium-137, iodine-131, strontium-90 and tritium, an isotope of helium. By breathing radiation-contaminated air, drinking contaminated water or eating contaminated food, humans ingest these chemicals. They in turn release fast-moving subatomic particles into our bodies that smash into and break molecules, leading to cancer, birth defects and genetic mutations. Some of these substances seek out specific targets. Radioactive iodine, for example, aims for the thyroid. Strontium mimics calcium and goes for the bones. Tritium behaves like water, dispersing throughout the body and entering cells where it can disrupt DNA. "The thing about radiation is that you can't see it and you can't smell it, so when the nuclear industry says they do not pollute, people can't provide evidence through their senses to challenge that," says Olson, who suffered health problems after being accidentally exposed to radiation while working in a medical school laboratory. "Yet all nuclear power reactors release radioactivity to the air and to the water." Illustration By V.C. Rogers *** The Shearon Harris plant in southwestern Wake County is no exception. The reactor is located on and cooled by water from Harris Lake, a popular fishing and boating spot and part of Harris Lake County Park. Created by damming a tributary of the Cape Fear River, a drinking source for downstream communities, the lake's water is contaminated with tritium from the plant, and its sediment and aquatic vegetation are contaminated with gamma radiation from the facility, according to the plant's 2004 Radiological Environmental Operating Amended Report recently submitted to the NRC. Tritium and gamma radiation can cause cancer and genetic mutations. Under NRC regulations companies monitor their own releases, and Progress last year found average Harris Lake tritium levels at 4,200 picocuries per liter, with a high concentration of 6,820 picocuries per liter. While that's below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's limit for drinking water of 20,000 picocuries per liter and 30,000 picocuries per liter for surface water, it's hundreds of times greater than average global tritium background levels in surface water, which the U.S. Department of Energy estimates at about 25 picocuries per liter. (Progress maintains that local background levels are much higher--about 300 picocuries per liter--based on its testing upstream of the Harris plant.) Tritium, which has a half-life of 12.3 years, can build up over time and seep into groundwater; indeed, one of the company's groundwater monitoring sites near the plant has registered tritium levels as high as 613 picocuries per liter. The company tries to minimize the lake's tritium levels by releasing liquid waste during periods of high rainfall, but its efforts are complicated by the fact that the region is currently suffering from an extended drought. Fortunately, Progress detected no tritium 17 miles downstream in Lillington, the first public drinking water location below the plant's discharge spillway. And it minimizes the threat to public health posed by the gamma-contaminated sediment and aquatic vegetation, noting that the sediment "is not easily accessible" and the vegetation "is not an ingestion pathway." However, the lake is stocked with fish, including bottom feeders such as catfish. Self-monitoring found no reactor-related gamma activity in the fish sampled, but fish tritium levels are assumed equal to the lake's levels. Progress calculated the total annual body dose of tritium to the maximum exposed individual--an adult eating 21 kilograms of the lake's fish--at .009 millirems, which is far lower than the allowable limit of 100 millirems. "All of our generating plants are well within limits determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the state of North Carolina," says Progress spokesperson Hans. And it's true that when we talk about routine emissions, we're talking about relatively small amounts of radiation. The average annual effective radiation dose to people living within 31 miles of a nuclear reactor from all radionuclides released is .5 millirems for pressurized water reactors like Harris and McGuire and 1 millirem for boiling water reactors like Brunswick, according to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. But these emissions are coming from three nuclear facilities across North Carolina and another 19 throughout the Southeast, 104 reactors in the United States and 441 others around the world. And that comes on top of the lingering radiation from atomic bomb fallout as well as the 240 millirems of natural background radiation each of us typically receives each year. "We know the level of radiation that is naturally occurring causes cancer," Olson says. "And so every single addition to it causes even more cancer." Courtesy Of Progress Energy The view from a remote camera looking down into the nuclear reactor core at the Shearon Harris plant. -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ *** Meanwhile, a growing body of research suggests that exposure to any amount of radiation--even at levels far below the U.S. government's allowable limits--can make us sick. In June, the National Academy of Science's National Research Council released the latest in a series of reports on health risks from radiation exposure, titled Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation-VII (BEIR-VII). It found that the preponderance of scientific evidence shows that exposure to radiation at even barely detectable doses can cause DNA damage that leads to cancers. "The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," says Richard Monson, a Harvard epidemiologist and chair of the research committee. "The health risks--particularly the development of solid cancers in organs--rise proportionally with exposure." The findings were a vindication for Joseph Mangano, a controversial researcher who's long sounded the alarm about the hazards of low-level radiation. An N.C. State grad with a master's in public health from UNC-Chapel Hill, Mangano works with the New York-based nonprofit Radiation and Public Health Project, which documents evidence for a connection between low-level radiation and health problems such as infant mortality and cancer. Over the years the group has focused a great deal of attention on routine emissions from nuclear power plants, and the current push to build more reactors worries Mangano and his colleagues. "We're very concerned that these efforts are taking place without a thorough consideration of the health effects," he says. "These harmful chemicals are getting out of reactors and getting into our bodies. What are the health risks?" Mangano's work leads him to suspect those risks could include higher rates of childhood cancer and infant mortality. In a study published in the February 2003 issue of the journal Archives of Environmental Health, he and his colleagues used Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics to examine childhood cancer incidence and mortality in 49 counties situated mostly or completely within 30 miles of nuclear facilities in the eastern United States from 1988 to 1997. They found a pattern of increased childhood cancer incidence in the nuclear zones, with a cancer incidence for children under 10 that was 12.4 percent greater in nuclear counties than the United States as a whole. In another study published in the same journal a year earlier, Mangano and colleagues documented a drop in infant deaths and childhood cancers in areas downwind of eight nuclear plants that closed. Infant mortality rates fell during the first two years after closing in each of the eight areas 30 miles downwind of the plants, for a total decline of 17.4 percent. That compares to a decline for other counties in the same states of just 6.7 percent. And in the states that operated comprehensive cancer registries at the time the reactors closed, the incidence of newly diagnosed cancers in children under age 5 fell by 25 percent, differing significantly from the overall U.S. rate, which remained steady. Courtesy Of Progress Energy One of four waste-storage pools at Shearon Harris. -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ Mangano points to similar patterns near Shearon Harris, where sharp rises in infant mortality and childhood cancer occurred downwind following the reactor's start-up on Jan. 3, 1987. (Nuclear plant emissions tend to follow what's been described as a "bathtub curve": high as the reactor starts up, dropping and leveling off, then rising as the reactor ages.) From 1986 to 1987, the infant mortality rate jumped 19.5 percent in Wake County and 22.9 percent in Durham County at the same time it fell 1.1 percent in other North Carolina counties (excluding Wake and Durham) and 2.6 percent nationwide. He also compared childhood cancer death rates for the 1979-1987 period to the 1988-2002 period in Wake and Durham, finding rates rose 47.8 percent and 97.8 percent respectively while declining 31.4 percent in other North Carolina counties and 28 percent nationwide. Mangano and his colleagues are not the only researchers to raise red flags about the health impacts of normally operating nuclear plants. While some studies have found no connection between nuclear operations and health problems, others have documented elevated childhood cancer rates near nuclear facilities in Canada, France, Germany and the former Soviet Union. Researchers found a rise in multiple myeloma mortality near a nuclear power plant in Spain. And a study by Massachusetts Department of Public Health officials published in the Archives of Environmental Health in 1996 found an increase in leukemia among adults living near that state's Pilgrim nuclear plant, with the relative risk increasing 400 percent among those with the greatest exposure to the plant's emissions. Progress, however, does not put any stock in Mangano's findings. "In terms of this specific study, it would be impossible to form an informed opinion based on the fact that no statistical or meaningful data is documented to support any conclusion," says spokesperson Hans, who accuses Mangano of harboring an agenda to incite fear in the public. Indeed, the nuclear industry has been highly critical of the RPHP's work. The NEI devotes a section of its Web site ( www.nei.org ) to rebutting the findings of project founders Ernest Sternglass, a professor emeritus of radiological physics at the University of Pittsburgh, and Jay Gould, a statistician and former EPA science advisor who died recently. Ignoring the National Academy findings that there are no safe levels, the NEI claims that allegations linking low-level radiation to health effects have been discredited. But mainstream epidemiologists have also faulted Mangano's work for failing to include exposure information. And even some nuclear foes are critical of the RPHP. Olson, for example, says the group's researchers too often have confused correlation with causation. Nevertheless, she believes their findings deserve further investigation, since statistical and temporal correlations point to areas where more research and regulatory action could be needed. "People call me a troublemaker and junk scientist," Mangano acknowledges. "But I ask, What proof do they have that these permissible levels of radiation are in fact harmless?" *** Photo By Derek Anderson A fisherman from New Hill pulls a crappie from Harris Lake within sight of the cooling tower of the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant, which uses water from the lake to cool the reactor. -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ Even members of the scientific establishment can find themselves tarred as purveyors of "junk" for producing research that sullies the nuclear industry's clean image, as UNC-Chapel Hill epidemiologist Dr. Steven Wing has discovered. In the early 1990s, Wing was asked to provide epidemiological evidence for the 2,000 plaintiffs who sued the operator of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pa. after the facility's partial meltdown in March 1979. He had previously studied cancer mortality at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, finding that workers exposed to on-the-job radiation at levels far less than Department of Energy standards were dying from leukemia at higher rates than their counterparts in the general public. Wing was wary of becoming involved in the TMI case because he knew mainstream scientists considered allegations of high radiation doses there "a product of radiation phobia or efforts to extort money from a blameless industry," as he wrote in a 2003 monograph published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. But, touched by the plaintiffs' humanity and having experienced official attempts to suppress damning evidence firsthand, he agreed to examine data for the case. "One of the things I learned was sometimes officials say things that turn out not to be true," Wing says of his work at Oak Ridge, where radiation records he sought were withheld for two years. "It's not necessarily because people are trying to make up a story, but sometimes it's because they don't want to know." Wing and his colleagues subsequently documented among people living near TMI symptoms consistent with acutely high levels of radiation exposure--skin rashes, hair loss, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, even pet deaths. Those symptoms indicate exposures of 50 rems or higher, far more than the 100 millirems the NRC estimates was the maximum dose at the site's edge. The researchers also found lung cancer and leukemia rates two to 10 times higher downwind of TMI. But the presiding judge in the case dismissed the research on a technicality and then ruled there wasn't enough evidence to proceed. To this day, the nuclear industry refuses to acknowledge Wing's findings or the experiences of injured residents. The NRC's official TMI fact sheet released last year says the incident "led to no deaths or injuries to plants workers or members of the nearby community." It does not mention that TMI's owners and builders have paid at least $14 million in out-of-court settlements, with one of the largest to the family of a child born with the genetic disorder Down's syndrome, as documented by the Harrisburg-based watchdog group Three Mile Island Alert. Meanwhile, Wing has become the target of ridicule and derision by nuclear power's defenders. They include Steven Milloy, a conservative Cato Institute scholar and former corporate lobbyist whose JunkScience.com Web site accuses Wing of seeking fame over truth. Wing's experiences have led him to take a broader look at nuclear power's health effects, transcending a narrow focus on whether this level of radiation can be tied to that disease or death. Nuclear power, Wing observes, places control of energy supplies in the hands of a very small group of people--a technological elite. Furthermore, it breeds secrecy because of the need to keep the technology from falling into the wrong hands and being used to make nuclear or radiological weapons. As Wing sees it, nuclear power is simply incompatible with democracy. "People don't think of democracy in terms of health, but it has a lot of health implications," he says. "Historically health has come about not by having access to doctors so much as by having good nutrition and good housing and safe jobs and adequate education and clean water and clean air. And those things come about when people have control over their lives." Indeed, nuclear regulators recently limited citizens' opportunity to participate in the reactor licensing process. Under the old system, a nuclear utility had to apply for a construction license and then seek a separate operating license after completing the plant, giving the public two chances to weigh in with concerns. But now the NRC grants a single license prior to construction. Nevertheless, as the licensing process moves forward, people in North Carolina and elsewhere across the country will still get a chance to weigh in on utilities' choice to build more nuclear reactors. And make no mistake about it--nuclear power is a choice, not a necessity. The choice is between spending $13 billion for more polluting nuclear power plants or aggressively pursuing energy conservation along with cleaner, more economically efficient sources of power such as solar, wind and biomass. "The question is what additional exposures do we want to live with by choosing to produce electricity in nuclear reactors?" Wing asks. "What additional risks do we want to leave for literally hundreds of generations in the future?" More Cover Features in This Issue: a.. Atomic alternatives RECENTLY: a.. Indy Citizen Awards 2005 - They make the Triangle a better place to live (November 23, 2005) b.. Bernice Wade & Barbara Stiles - 90-year-old twin sisters brighten their neighborhood - Jennifer Strom (November 23, 2005) c.. Band Together - Concerts for a cause - Grayson Currin (November 23, 2005) ***************************************************************** 14 NRC: NRC to Hold Public Meeting on Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant News Release - Region IV - 2005-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV No. IV-05-039 November 30, 2005 CONTACT: Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: public meeting on December 14 to discuss issues regarding the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant and construction of an independent spent fuel storage installation on site. The plant is located near San Luis Obispo, Calif. The meeting will be held between 6 and 9 p.m. at the Embassy Suites Hotel, 333 Madonna Road, in San Luis Obispo. The meeting will begin with brief presentations by the NRC staff and representatives from Pacific Gas & Electric Co., on planned construction and inspection activities for the independent spent fuel storage installation. The NRC staff will then be available for questions and comments from the public on issues regarding the plant. We thought it would be very worthwhile to hold a public meeting in San Luis Obispo prior to construction of the storage facility at Diablo Canyon, said NRCs Region IV Administrator Bruce S. Mallett. We have found the comments and questions we receive from the public at these meetings to be very worthwhile and we encourage people to attend. The NRC plans to make video broadcasts of the meeting available on SLO-Span, the San Luis Obispo County government cable access channel. Last revised Thursday, December 01, 2005 ***************************************************************** 15 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] End of KEDO project 2005.12.02 The KEDO project to build two 1,000 megawatt light-water nuclear reactors in North Korea is now officially dead as the one-year extension of life for the consortium expired on Wednesday. The end came 10 years after the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization was launched by South Korea, the United States and Japan and eight years after ground was broken at Geumho on the east coast of North Korea. By the time construction was stalled in 2003 amidst a second nuclear crisis on the peninsula due to North Korea's suspected uranium enrichment program, the reactor project was 30 percent complete after South Korea spent over $1 billion on a commitment to shoulder 70 percent of the total construction cost of $4.6 billion. One of the two reactor towers now stands about 20 meters and the other is slightly above the ground. Some 150 South Korean workers will withdraw from the construction site without knowing if they will ever be able to return. KEDO's executive board will meet again soon to discuss the liquidation process for the consortium, which will cost Seoul much more money as legal bills are to be split among the partners in the same ratio as financing the construction. Japan, which has so far spent some $400 million in the project, lost no time in demanding that North Korea repay the money, citing Pyongyang's breach of nonproliferation promise. The North also quickly made a demand for "compensation" for the collapse of the project, for which it provided the landsite and substantial manpower. Who should Seoul turn to ask for compensation for its part? But, never mind. Our government has already made clear it is ready to use the rest of the funds originally intended for KEDO's light-water reactors in yet another program to help resolve the North Korean nuclear problem and improve inter-Korean relations. Seoul has already proposed directly to Pyongyang and in the six-party talks in Beijing to transmit 2 million kilowatts of electricity to the North, the same amount of power the two aborted light-water reactors would have produced if they were built at the Geumho site. The Korea Electric Power Corp. estimated the cost for preparing facilities for the power transmission to the North at some 3 trillion won, roughly equivalent to the money to be saved from the KEDO undertaking. The Seoul authorities' generous financial projection does not much relieve a sense of futility in many people here over the demise of a project that had once offered hope of improved relations with the North. It had even given South Koreans pride as the main provider of money and technology. After 10 years, KEDO symbolizes a failed compromise in miscalculation and mistrust. It also is a casualty of American party politics as the Republicans from the time of the signing of the Agreed Framwork vehemently opposed the idea of building nuclear reactors for a rogue state like North Korea. The "killing" of the light-water reactor deal may be a gambit of the United States and its allies to stack pressure on North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program as expeditiously as possible. But it will be everyone's guess whether the closure of KEDO will advance "the appropriate time" when serious discussions on the North's peaceful use of nuclear energy will start, as mentioned in the joint statement issued by the six-way talks. Now, it is just hoped that the sight of the vast infrastructure in the Geumho field and the two unfinished reactor towers will remind North Koreans what they have lost with their risky survival strategy and what they can gain if and when they make a different choice. ***************************************************************** 16 Herald: Blair’s choice of nuclear power Web Issue 2411 December 01 2005 Your Letters December 01 2005 Our prime minister has an uncanny knack in being "right" about so many things: the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and on the need to invade and bomb Islamic countries in the Middle East to bring freedom and democracy to their people, leaving the world to contemplate the resultant anarchy. He has then moved to arm the police, and tried to allow the police to imprison people for up to 90 days without charge or trial. Furthermore, he intends to pursue a policy in which education is seen not as a valuable public service, but, in Thatcherite terms, as a commodity purchased by parents  essentially a relationship between customers and contractors. Now, having squandered much of Scotland's heritage of energy resources in the North Sea, Mr Blair has perceived that nuclear power is the right answer to the looming energy crisis. He has evidently no regard for the fact that this long-foreseen catastrophe is an inevitable consequence of a global ecological crisis which has, as its basic cause, a population explosion associated with never-ending economic expansion geared to constantly increasing consumption of manufactured goods. This situation is aggravated by wars which provide a market for the arms industry, motivated by industrial aggression to control dwindling non-renewable energy resources. Dr David Purves, 8 Strathalmond Road, Edinburgh. Nuclear power holds the same attraction to the unprincipled opportunists who run this country as do their PFI or PPP schemes. They will get the benefits of them now while the next generation of taxpayers will be faced with the massive bills and the next unfortunate generation of politicians will get the blame for collecting the taxes to pay for them. David McEwan Hill, 1 Tom Nan Ragh, Dalinlongart Farm, Sandbank, Argyll. I must correct an inaccurate reference about the work of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management in Iain Macwhirter's article, We need all our energy to face the greatest task ever (November 30). The article states that CoRWM is "expected to recommend soon the long-term storage of future nuclear waste at the existing Sellafield site in Cumbria". This is wrong on three counts. First, CoRWM will not be suggesting locations for where waste might be stored or disposed. Its job is to suggest how waste should be managed, not where. Secondly, storage of waste is only one of the options we are looking at. For example, we are also examining the concept of disposing of radioactive waste deep underground. Thirdly, it suggests that a decision will be imminent. In fact, we will not be making our recommendations to government until July 2006. We are now going through a rigorous assessment of the scientific, ethical, social and other issues around each option. Professor Gordon MacKerron, chair, CoRWM, 4/F8 Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street, London. Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights ***************************************************************** 17 New Statesman: - Ministers insist new nuclear power stations would not require public subsidy The business column - Patrick Hosking Saturday 3rd December 2005 Ministers insist new nuclear power stations would not require public subsidy, but the private sector will not bankroll this long-term investment without some kind of guarantee. By Patrick Hosking Gordon Brown didn't get quite the reaction he'd hoped for when he scrapped plans to force listed companies to publish operating and financial reviews (OFRs). The U-turn was billed as a pro-business move, cutting the burden on companies, slashing red tape, and so on. Sure enough, the Confederation of British Industry dutifully applauded the Chancellor's decision, which was deftly leaked to coincide with its annual conference. But business is not just the CBI, and a backlash has come from many other parts of the business community. Investors, accountants and even the companies themselves are not all happy. Partly this was due to the manner of Brown's abrupt change of heart. Over several years, officials had built a sensible consensus on OFRs. Many of the more onerous aspects had already been dropped. What remained was regarded as useful, affordable and doable, with everyone from the Association of British Insurers to the National Association of Pension Funds and the Financial Reporting Council signed up. Even the CBI seemed happy at the time. After all that consultation, Brown's on-the-hoof policy-dumping looked like a cheap gesture designed to win easy brownie points. Even his claim that it would save business £33m was suspect, as the Department of Trade and Industry had previously estimated the cost to business at between £6.5 and £19m. A lot of the preparatory work has been done. Most blue chips have produced dummy OFRs in readiness for next April, when the new regime was due to start. Moreover, most investors believe OFRs could have added to their understanding of companies. Financial accounts have become so opaque, so prone to manipulation. Some investors nowadays look only at the cash-flow statement - the one bit of the accounts that can't be polished up: either you have the cash or you don't. OFRs would have contained a statement of the company's position and prospects, and assessment of the risks it might face. Naturally, there was a danger that management would fill the OFRs with flannel, fearful that any specific plans and targets could be used as the basis of investor litigation if things went wrong. But they were worth a try. For the sake of a ten-second soundbite, Brown has scored an own-goal. Not before time, the government has agreed to inject some independence into the gathering and presentation of its statistics. The impartiality of the Office for National Statistics has been called into question because of its tendency to crunch and categorise numbers in a way seen as favourable to ministers. For example, the £20bn of borrowing by Network Rail has been kept off the public sector books. Voters, business people and journalists distrust official statistics. Only 17 per cent think that official data is produced without political interference, according to a recent survey by the ONS itself. But now, Gordon Brown has announced, legislation will be introduced making the ONS a wholly separate body, at arm's length from the government and fully independent of it. Currently it reports to the Financial Secretary at the Treasury. As the nuclear power debate surfaces once more, the ONS needs to be on its toes. Ministers are already insisting that a new generation of nuclear power stations would not require subsidy from the taxpayer. There are ways of making the stations financially viable - by forcing power distributors to buy a proportion of their needs from nukes, say, or introducing a carbon tax. But the upfront costs are large. Each station would cost £1.7bn or more, and ten are being mooted. The lead times are lengthy - ten years at least. There is no way the private sector will bankroll this long-term investment without guarantees of some kind from the government. It would be a great test of the freshly liberated ONS whether those potential liabilities appear on the balance sheet. There is a trend in full swing that has barely been noted by the people it ultimately affects. Occupational pension funds are piling into hedge funds. No fewer than one in five of Britain's larger pension funds has now started allocating money to hedge funds, according to unpublished figures from the National Association of Pension Funds. Now, this may or may not be a good thing. Hedge funds can spread risk and the good ones can boost investment returns. On the other hand, they are expensive, unregulated and prone to the occasional fraudster. Moreover, the strong returns of the past are probably unsustainable. Many investors are going to be disappointed. But the lack of disclosure is unsettling. Apparently scores of pension funds are investing, typically placing 5 per cent of their assets with hedge funds. Yet I know of only a handful to have admitted as much. One is BT; another is Railpen, the railway workers' scheme. Pension-fund members and the shareholders of sponsoring companies should be told. Patrick Hosking is investment editor of the Times © New Statesman 1913 - 2005 - Terms ***************************************************************** 18 JOURNAL NEWS: Faulty Yorktown siren prompts Indian Point fears By MICHAEL G. MEANEY AND MERYL HYMAN HARRIS mmeaney@thejournalnews.com (Original publication: December 1, 2005) YORKTOWN  A long-unused fire department siren started wailing shortly after 1 a.m. yesterday, prompting about 100 calls to police by residents concerned about an emergency at the Indian Point nuclear power plants or a natural disaster. "My son was scared half to death," said Helen Free, who lives on Flagg Place, around the corner from where the siren sounded. "He thought there was going to be a tornado or something." The siren blared for 45 minutes before fire officials were able to turn it off, Yorktown police Lt. Donald Schuck said. "Some people were concerned that it was an activation of Indian Point," he said. But there was no problem at the Buchanan power plants. Officials did not know why the siren went off at the Yorktown Heights Fire Department's Locksley Firehouse at routes 132 and 202. Yorktown Heights Fire Chief Martin McGannon deactivated the alarm, Schuck said. "It has not been used for 15 to 20 years, and he (McGannon) was surprised that it was able to (work)," Schuck said. McGannon could not be reached for comment. The department received 42 calls on its 911 emergency line and about 60 on its non-emergency numbers, the lieutenant said. The Associated Press reported erroneously that the department fielded about 750 calls in a half hour. "It did inundate our communications center. However, we were able to not only field the calls, but to identify the source of the problem and help get it corrected," Schuck said. Some callers were just disturbed by the noise, while others feared an Indian Point alert. "I called the Yorktown Police Department, and it was busy all the time," said John Parker, who lives on Belle Court. "Then I went to look online for the Entergy site, and there is no phone number you can call. It's very disturbing." Parker and his wife were up for the duration, though their 3-week-old daughter, Penelope, slept through it. Desmond Lawe, who lives on Locksley Road, said his wife was "just about in hysterics," figuring that an emergency siren on for that long could only spell trouble for Indian Point. He said anything that serious would bring out many emergency workers, and when that didn't happen, he chalked it up to being a mistake. The fire department generally alerts firefighters with beepers or radios but still tests its sirens, Schuck said. Copyright 2005 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. ***************************************************************** 19 Rutland Herald: Entergy to formalize nuclear plant relicensing applications Rutland Vermont News & Information December 1, 2005 By DAVID GRAM The Associated Press MONTPELIER — A company that owns nuclear plants in Vermont and Massachusetts will formally ask federal regulators in January to extend their licenses for 20 years past their current 2012 expiration dates, and wants the applications reviewed together. In a presentation to Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials on Wednesday, Entergy Nuclear argued that the two plants are of similar design and age, and that the same team from the Louisiana-based company has prepared relicensing applications for both. "Entergy requests that NRC utilize one review team for both the (Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee) reviews with the goal of achieving greater review efficiency for both NRC and Entergy personnel," the company said in its presentation to NRC staff at the agency's headquarters in Rockville, Md. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation was provided by the NRC. Carl Crawford, spokesman for Mississippi-based Entergy Nuclear, a subsidiary of New Orleans-based Entergy Corp., said the company hoped to achieve a 20 percent to 25 percent saving from the cost of the application and review — possibly up to $10 million — by having the two plants reviewed together. He said the NRC bills its licensees for its regulatory activities. "By doing both license reviews at the same time, there would be less staff and less time than doing the license application reviews totally separately." Crawford said the NRC had processed applications from two reactors on the same site together; if the agency agrees with Entergy's request, it would be the first time applications from reactors at different sites would be reviewed together. An NRC spokesman, Neil Sheehan, called the filings expected from Entergy in late January "solo applications. What they would like to do is use the same review team, and look at some of the consistencies on the applications so that we're not duplicating efforts." He added that during a two-hour meeting Wednesday agency staff "responded that a determination on our approach to reviewing the applications won't be made until after they are submitted and can be assessed for consistency." Wednesday's meeting came while, in a separate proceeding, a key NRC advisory panel held its final round of hearings on Vermont Yankee's request to increase its power output by 20 percent. Hearings Wednesday and Thursday at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Md., followed two days of hearings earlier this month in Brattleboro. A decision on whether Vermont Yankee will be allowed to increase its output from 510 to 612 megawatts is expected by late February, Sheehan said. Both Vermont Yankee, located in Vernon in the state's southeast corner, and Pilgrim, a 670-megawatt plant located in Plymouth, Mass., are General Electric Mark I boiling water reactors. They are nearly twins. Vermont Yankee began operations on Nov. 30, 1972 and Pilgrim a day later, on Dec. 1, 1972. Both plants' current licenses are set to expire in 2012 — Vermont Yankee on March 21 and Pilgrim on June 8 — a few months shy of their 40th birthdays. Sheehan said the review process takes 22 months — 30 if a state or some other party requests a hearing and gains standing before the NRC by raising issues it deems worth of study. Sheehan said the NRC had approved license extensions for 37 of the nation's 104 commercial reactors and denied none. He said 12 are currently under review and that "several dozen more" plants — including Pilgrim and Yankee — had indicated their intention to file. Of the industry's perfect score in winning approvals for license extensions Sheehan said it should not be taken as a sign that the applications are approved easily. "There's a tremendous amount of up-front work before they ever submit the application," the NRC spokesman said. "It costs on the order of several million dollars to prepare and submit an application. They (reactor owners) do their homework before they submit it." He added that there are "a lot of exchanges" between the NRC and plant owners during the process. "By the time you get to the end of the review process, some issues that might otherwise have led to unfavorable (action on) the applications have been resolved." © 2005 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 20 DenverPost.com: Bill to shut nuclear plant now paid off Article Launched: 12/01/2005 01:00:00 AM By Beth Potter Denver Post Staff Writer The Fort St. Vrain plant, closed as a nuclear facility in 1989 because of operational problems, was reopened in 2001 as a natural-gas-fired power plant. (Denver Post file) Colorado residents have finished paying off the bill to decommission the former Fort St. Vrain nuclear power plant northeast of Denver near Platteville. In 1989, Public Service Co. closed Fort St. Vrain because of ongoing operational problems. The plant had opened 13 years earlier as the country's first gas-cooled nuclear power plant. The state Public Utilities Commission allowed Public Service in 1993 to charge customers $1 per month to cover the $125 million cost of decommissioning the plant. The payoff was complete in August. Xcel Energy, which now owns Public Service, reopened Fort St. Vrain in 2001 after spending $283 million to convert it to a natural-gas-fired power plant. Mark Stutz, an Xcel Energy spokesman, said the conversion was a good use of existing assets. "All in all, it's a very reliable facility and the cornerstone of our fleet of plants," he said. The plant generates enough power to serve 750,000 families and is the biggest power plant in Colorado. As natural-gas prices have risen, proponents of alternative energy, including President Bush, are talking again about nuclear energy as a viable power source. But when it comes to building any new power plant, much less a nuclear one, Americans say "no way," said Frank Barnes, head of a new utility engineering and management master's degree program at the University of Colorado at Boulder. "Nobody wants a power plant next to them - that's a major problem," he said. Stutz said Xcel is seeking bids to add another 750 megawatts of renewable energy to its daily power generation to meet peak customer demand, which has risen 60 percent in the last decade. The number of Xcel customers is up 20 percent over the same time. Staff writer Beth Potter can be reached at 303-820-1503 or bpotter@denverpost.com. All contents Copyright 2005 The Denver Post or other copyright ***************************************************************** 21 TheStar.com: Ontario nuclear expansion imminent - Sources : SourcesDec. 1, 2005. 05:13 PMCANADIAN PRESS Initial groundwork for a multibillion-dollar expansion of Ontario’s Darlington nuclear site could start “within a month” of the release next week of a key report on the province’s energy future, sources said today. The Ontario government is to announce shortly after receiving the report that it is seeking environmental assessments to increase the capacity at the nuclear station by 50 per cent, sources told The Canadian Press. The report from the Ontario Power Authority, originally scheduled to be delivered to the government on Thursday, is now expected to be received Dec. 9. The report is widely expected to support expanding Ontario’s nuclear generating capacity to ensure the province has enough power in coming decades. Ontario needs to refurbish, rebuild or replace 25,000 megawatts of supply over the next 15 years. While the report won’t specify where nuclear expansion projects should take place, sources say it will act as a catalyst for the government to announce an expansion at Darlington, located 80 kilometres east of Toronto in the town of Clarington. “There is going to be some action, very quickly after” receiving the report, a source said. Environmental assessments over several years need to be completed before the project can proceed. “There’s great urgency to do the environmental assessments,” the source said. The province is said to be considering construction of two 900-megawatt Candu reactor units at Darlington, which would generate enough power for more than one million homes. It would take up to a decade to complete the project. The province recently approved a deal allowing Bruce Power to refurbish four units at its nuclear generating station on the shore of Lake Huron. Energy Minister Donna Cansfield maintains no further decisions on nuclear expansion have been made. But public support increased last night when the council of Durham Region, a broader jurisdiction that includes Clarington, unanimously endorsed support for a nuclear expansion at Darlington. “Obviously, it’s nice to have the community make their commitments,” Cansfield said today. “But for us, we’re going to wait until the Ontario Power Authority brings out its report.” But there’s plenty of activity regarding a Darlington expansion already taking place. Sources say Jim Hankinson, president of Ontario Power Generation, which operates the Darlington facility, is privately urging Premier Dalton McGuinty to move ahead on an expansion project soon. Clarington Mayor John Mutton also met last month with Ontario’s deputy minister of energy, James Gillis, to discuss plans for Darlington. “There’s just such a silent campaign going on — everyone is gearing up for the environmental assessments,” a source said. Ontario hasn’t built a new nuclear unit since the early 1990s, when construction on the last of Darlington’s four units was completed. Governments soured on new nuclear projects after overruns nearly tripled construction costs at Darlington to some $14 billion. Expanding Darlington makes sense to the province since it was originally designed to accommodate eight reactors but currently has only four, meaning there’s room on-site for expansion. Also, transmission lines to carry a greater load of nuclear-generated electricity are already in place. The local community is also supportive of the project because it would create thousands of construction jobs, sources say. Get great home delivery subscription deals here! Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from www.thestar.comis strictly prohibited without ***************************************************************** 22 NRC: In the Matter of All Licensees Authorized To Possess Radioactive FR Doc E5-6718 [Federal Register: December 1, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 230)] [Notices] [Page 72128-72132] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01de05-53] Material Quantities of Concern, Order Imposing Increased Controls (Effective Immediately) I The Licensees identified in Attachment A \1\ to this Order hold licenses issued in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) authorizing them to possess certain quantities of radioactive material of concern. Commission regulations at 10 CFR 20.1801 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 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ Attachment A contains sensitive information and will not be released to the public. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- II Prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), several national and international efforts were underway to address the potentially significant health and safety hazards posed by uncontrolled sources. These efforts recognized the need for increased control of high-risk radioactive materials to prevent inadvertent and intentional unauthorized access, primarily due to the potential health and safety hazards posed by the uncontrolled material. Following 9/11, it was recognized that these efforts should also include a heightened awareness and focus on the need to prevent intentional unauthorized access due to potential malicious acts. These efforts, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Code of Conduct [[Page 72129]] on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources (Code of Conduct) concerning Category 1 and 2 sources, seek to increase the control over sources to prevent unintended radiation exposure and to prevent malicious acts. A Licensee's loss of control of high-risk radioactive sources, whether it be inadvertent or through a deliberate act, has a potential to result in significant adverse health impacts and could reasonably constitute a threat to the public health and safety. In this regard, the Commission has determined that certain additional controls are required to be implemented by Licensees to supplement existing regulatory requirements in 10 CFR 20.1801 and 10 CFR 20.1802, in order to ensure adequate protection of, and minimize danger to, the public health and safety. Therefore, the Commission is imposing the requirements set forth in Attachment B on radioactive materials Licensees who possess, or have near term plans to possess, radionuclides of concern at or above threshold limits, identified in Table 1. These requirements, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the public health and safety continues to be adequately protected. These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission modifies its regulations to reflect increased controls. To effect nationwide implementation, these measures have been determined by the Commission to be an immediate mandatory Category ``B'' matter of compatibility for Agreement States. In parallel with the Commission's issuance of this Order, each Agreement State is required to issue legally binding requirements to put essentially identical measures in place for Licensees under their regulatory jurisdiction. The Commission recognizes that Licensees may have already initiated many controls set forth in Attachment B to this Order in response to previously issued advisories or on their own. It is also recognized that some controls 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 adverse effect on the safe use and storage of the sealed sources. Although the additional controls 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 additional controls must be imposed by an Order, consistent with the established regulatory framework. To provide assurance that the Licensees are implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of control, all Licensees who hold licenses issued by the NRC authorizing possession of radioactive material quantities of concern and as listed in Table 1, ``Radionuclides of Concern,'' (Attachment B, Table 1), shall implement the requirements identified in Attachment B to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, because of the potentially significant adverse health impacts associated with failure to control high risk radioactive sources, I find that 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 33, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that all Licensees identified in attachment A to this order shall comply with the requirements of this order as follows: A. The Licensee shall comply with the requirements described in Attachment B to this Order. The Licensee shall complete implementation by May 13, 2006, or the first day that radionuclides of concern at or above threshold limits, identified in Table 1, are possessed, whichever occurs later. B.1. The Licensee shall in writing, 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 B, (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 regulation or its license. The notification shall provide the Licensee's justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement. B.2. If the Licensee considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment B to this Order would adversely impact safe operation of the facility, the Licensee must notify the Commission, in writing, 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 B 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 B. C.2. The Licensee shall report to the Commission when they have achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment B. D. Notwithstanding any provisions of the Commission's regulations to the contrary, all measures implemented or actions taken in response to this Order shall be maintained until the Commission modifies its regulations to reflect increased controls. Licensee responses 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's responses shall be marked as ``Withhold From Public Disclosure Under 10 CFR 2.390.'' 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, [[Page 72130]] 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) and (f). 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 14th day of November 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jack R. Strosnider, Jr., Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. Attachment A--Redacted Attachment B--Increased Controls for Licensees That Possess Sources Containing Radioactive Material Quantities of Concern The purpose of the increased controls (IC) for radioactive sources is to enhance control of radioactive material in quantities greater than or equal to values described in Table 1, to reduce the risk of unauthorized use of radioactive materials, through access controls to aid prevention, and prompt detection, assessment, and response to mitigate potentially high consequences that would be detrimental to public health and safety. These increased controls for radioactive sources are established to delineate licensee responsibility to maintain control of licensed material and secure it from unauthorized removal or access. The following increased controls apply to licensees which, at any given time, possess radioactive sources greater than or equal to the quantities of concern of radioactive material defined in Table 1. IC1. In order to ensure the safe handling, use, and control of licensed material in use and in storage each licensee shall control access at all times to radioactive material quantities of concern and devices containing such radioactive material (devices), and limit access to such radioactive material and devices to only approved individuals who require access to perform their duties. a. The licensee shall allow only trustworthy and reliable individuals, approved in writing by the licensee, to have unescorted access to radioactive material quantities of concern and devices. The licensee shall approve for unescorted access only those individuals with job duties that require access to such radioactive material and devices. Personnel who require access to such radioactive material and devices to perform a job duty, but who are not approved by the licensee for unescorted access, must be escorted by an approved individual. b. For individuals employed by the licensee for 3 years or less, and for non-licensee personnel, such as physicians, physicists, house- keeping personnel, and security personnel under contract, trustworthiness and reliability shall be determined, at a minimum, by verifying employment history, education, and personal references. The licensee shall also, to the extent possible, obtain independent information to corroborate that provided by the employee (i.e., seeking references not supplied by the individual). For individuals employed by the licensee for longer than 3 years, trustworthiness and reliability shall be determined, at a minimum, by a review of the employees' employment history with the licensee. c. Service providers shall be escorted unless determined to be trustworthy and reliable by an NRC-required background investigation as an employee of a manufacturing and distribution (M) licensee. Written verification attesting to or certifying the person's trustworthiness and reliability shall be obtained from the manufacturing and distribution licensee providing the service. d. The licensee shall document the basis for concluding that there is reasonable assurance that an individual granted unescorted access is trustworthy and reliable, and does not constitute an unreasonable risk for unauthorized use of radioactive material quantities of concern. The licensee shall maintain a list of persons approved for unescorted access to such radioactive material and devices by the licensee. IC2. In order to ensure the safe handling, use, and control of licensed material in use and in storage, each licensee shall have a documented program to monitor and immediately detect, assess, and respond to unauthorized access to radioactive material quantities of concern and devices. Enhanced monitoring shall be provided during periods of source delivery or shipment, where the delivery or shipment exceeds 100 times the Table 1 values. a. The licensee shall respond immediately to any actual or attempted theft, sabotage, or diversion of such radioactive material or of the devices. The response shall include requesting assistance from a Local Law Enforcement Agency (LLEA). b. The licensee shall have a pre-arranged plan with LLEA for assistance in response to an actual or attempted theft, sabotage, or diversion of such radioactive material or of the devices which is consistent in scope and timing with a realistic potential vulnerability of the sources containing such radioactive material. The pre-arranged plan shall be updated when changes to the facility design or operation affect the potential vulnerability of the sources. Pre-arranged LLEA coordination is not required for temporary job sites. c. The licensee shall have a dependable means to transmit information between, and among, the various components used to detect and [[Page 72131]] identify an unauthorized intrusion, to inform the assessor, and to summon the appropriate responder. d. After initiating appropriate response to any actual or attempted theft, sabotage, or diversion of radioactive material or of the devices, the licensee shall, as promptly as possible, notify NRC Operations Center at (301) 816-5100. e. The licensee shall maintain documentation describing each instance of unauthorized access and any necessary corrective actions to prevent future instances of unauthorized access. IC3.a. In order to ensure the safe handling, use, and control of licensed material in transportation for domestic highway and rail shipments by a carrier other than the licensee, for quantities that equal or exceed those in Table 1 but are less than 100 times Table 1 quantities, per consignment, the licensee shall: 1. Use carriers which: A. Use package tracking systems, B. Implement methods to assure trustworthiness and reliability of drivers, C. Maintain constant control and/or surveillance during transit, and D. Have the capability for immediate communication to summon appropriate response or assistance. The licensee shall verify and document that the carrier employs the measures listed above. 2. Contact the recipient to coordinate the expected arrival time of the shipment; 3. Confirm receipt of the shipment; and 4. Initiate an investigation to determine the location of the licensed material if the shipment does not arrive on or about the expected arrival time. When, through the course of the investigation, it is determined the shipment has become lost, stolen, or missing, the licensee shall immediately notify the NRC Operations Center at (301) 816-5100. If, after 24 hours of investigating, the location of the material still cannot be determined, the radioactive material shall be deemed missing and the licensee shall immediately notify the NRC Operations Center at (301) 816-5100. b. For domestic highway and rail shipments, prior to shipping licensed radioactive material that exceeds 100 times the quantities in Table 1 per consignment, the licensee shall: 1. Notify the NRC,\1\ in writing, at least 90 days prior to the anticipated date of shipment. The NRC will issue the Order to implement the Additional Security Measures (ASMs) for the transportation of Radioactive Material Quantities of Concern (RAM QC). The licensee shall not ship this material until the ASMs for the transportation of RAM QC are implemented or the licensee is notified otherwise, in writing, by NRC. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- 2. Once the licensee has implemented the ASMs for the transportation of RAM QC, the notification requirements of 3.b.1 shall not apply to future shipments of licensed radioactive material that exceeds 100 times the Table 1 quantities. The licensee shall implement the ASMs for the transportation of RAM QC. c. If a licensee employs an M licensee to take possession at the licensee's location of the licensed radioactive material and ship it under its M license, the requirements of 3.a. and 3.b above shall not apply. d. If the licensee is to receive radioactive material greater than or equal to the Table 1 quantities, per consignment, the licensee shall coordinate with the originator to: 1. Establish an expected time of delivery; and 2. Confirm receipt of transferred radioactive material. If the material is not received at the expected time of delivery, notify the originator and assist in any investigation. IC4. In order to ensure the safe handling, use, and control of licensed material in use and in storage each licensee that possesses mobile or portable devices containing radioactive material in quantities greater than or equal to Table 1 values, shall: a. For portable devices, have two independent physical controls that form tangible barriers to secure the material from unauthorized removal when the device is not under direct control and constant surveillance by the licensee. b. For mobile devices: 1. That are only moved outside of the facility (e.g., on a trailer), have two independent physical controls that form tangible barriers to secure the material from unauthorized removal when the device is not under direct control and constant surveillance by the licensee. 2. That are only moved inside a facility, have a physical control that forms a tangible barrier to secure the material from unauthorized movement or removal when the device is not under direct control and constant surveillance by the licensee. c. For devices in or on a vehicle or trailer, licensees shall also utilize a method to disable the vehicle or trailer when not under direct control and constant surveillance by the licensee. IC5. The licensee shall retain documentation required by these increased controls for 3 years after they are no longer effective: a. The licensee shall retain documentation regarding the trustworthiness and reliability of individual employees for 3 years after the individual's employment ends. b. Each time the licensee revises the list of approved persons required by 1.d., or the documented program required by 2, the licensee shall retain the previous documentation for 3 years after the revision. c. The licensee shall retain documentation on each radioactive material carrier for 3 years after the licensee discontinues use of that particular carrier. d. The licensee shall retain documentation on shipment coordination, notifications, and investigations for 3 years after the shipment or investigation is completed. e. After the license is terminated or amended to reduce possession limits below the quantities of concern, the licensee shall retain all documentation required by these increased controls for 3 years. IC6. Detailed information generated by the licensee that describes the physical protection of radioactive material quantities of concern, is sensitive information and shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure. a. The licensee shall control access to its physical protection information to those persons who have an established need to know the information, and are considered to be trustworthy and reliable. b. The licensee shall develop, maintain and implement policies and procedures for controlling access to, and for proper handling and protection against unauthorized disclosure of, its physical protection information for radioactive material covered by these requirements. The policies and procedures shall include the following: 1. General performance requirement that each person who produces, receives, or acquires the licensee's sensitive information, protect the information from unauthorized disclosure, 2. Protection of sensitive information during use, storage, and transit, 3. Preparation, identification or marking, and transmission, 4. Access controls, 5. Destruction of documents, 6. Use of automatic data processing systems, and 7. Removal from the licensee's sensitive information category. [[Page 72132]] Table 1.--Radionuclides of Concern ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Quantity of Quantity of Radionuclide concern concern \1\ (TBq) \2\ (Ci) ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Am-241........................................ 0.6 16 Am-241/Be..................................... 0.6 16 Cf-252........................................ 0.2 5.4 Cm-244........................................ 0.5 14 Co-60......................................... 0.3 8.1 Cs-137........................................ 1 27 Gd-153........................................ 10 270 Ir-192........................................ 0.8 22 Pm-147........................................ 400 11,000 Pu-238........................................ 0.6 16 Pu-239/Be..................................... 0.6 16 Se-75......................................... 2 54 Sr-90 (Y-90).................................. 10 270 Tm-170........................................ 200 5,400 Yb-169........................................ 3 81 Combinations of radioactive materials listed (\4\) ........... above \3\.................................... ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------- \1\ The aggregate activity of multiple, collocated sources of the same radionuclide should be included when the total activity equals or exceeds the quantity of concern. \2\ The primary values used for compliance with this Order are TBq. The curie (Ci) values are rounded to two significant figures for informational purposes only. \3\ Radioactive materials are to be considered aggregated or collocated if breaching a common physical security barrier (e.g., a locked door at the entrance to a storage room) would allow access to the radioactive material or devices containing the radioactive material. \4\ If several radionuclides are aggregated, the sum of the ratios of the activity of each source, I of radionuclide, n, A(i,n), to the quantity of concern for radionuclide n, Q(n), listed for that radionuclide equals or exceeds one. [(aggregated source activity for radionuclide A) (quantity of concern for radionuclide A)] + [(aggregated source activity for radionuclide B) (quantity of concern for radionuclide B)] + etc. ...... >1. Use the following method to determine which sources of radioactive material require increased controls (ICs): Include any single source equal to or greater than the quantity of concern in Table 1. Include multiple collocated sources of the same radionuclide when the combined quantity equals or exceeds the quantity of concern. For combinations of radionuclides, include multiple collocated sources of different radionuclides when the aggregate quantities satisfy the following unity rule: [(amount of radionuclide A) (quantity of concern of radionuclide A)] + [(amount of radionuclide B) (quantity of concern of radionuclide B)] + etc. ......>1. Guidance for Aggregation of Sources NRC supports the use of the IAEA's source categorization methodology as defined in TECDOC-1344, ``Categorization of Radioactive Sources,'' (July 2003) (see ) and as endorsed by the agency's Code of Conduct for the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources, January 2004 (see ). The Code defines a three-tiered source categorization scheme. Category 1 corresponds to the largest source strength (equal to or greater than 100 times the quantity of concern values listed in Table 1.) and Category 3, the smallest (equal or exceeding one-tenth the quantity of concern values listed in Table 1.). Increased controls apply to sources that are equal to or greater than the quantity of concern values listed in Table 1, plus aggregations of smaller sources that are equal to or greater than the quantities in Table 1. Aggregation only applies to sources that are collocated. Licensees who possess individual sources in total quantities that equal or exceed the Table 1 quantities are required to implement increased controls. Where there are many small (less than the quantity of concern values) collocated sources whose total aggregate activity equals or exceeds the Table 1 values, licensees are to implement increased controls. Some source handling or storage activities may cover several buildings, or several locations within specific buildings. The question then becomes: When are sources considered collocated for purposes of aggregation? For purposes of the additional controls, sources are considered collocated if breaching a single barrier (e.g., a locked door at the entrance to a storage room) would allow access to the sources. Sources behind an outer barrier should be aggregated separately from those behind an inner barrier (e.g., a locked source safe inside the locked storage room). However, if both barriers are simultaneously open, then all sources within these two barriers are considered to be collocated. This logic should be continued for other barriers within or behind the inner barrier. The following example illustrates the point: A lockable room has sources stored in it. Inside the lockable room, there are two shielded safes with additional sources in them. Inventories are as follows: The room has the following sources outside the safes: Cf-252, 0.12 TBq (3.2 Ci); Co-60, 0.18 TBq (4.9 Ci), and Pu-238, 0.3 TBq (8.1 Ci). Application of the unity rule yields: (0.12 0.2) + (0.18 0.3) + (0.3 0.6) = 0.6 + 0.6 + 0.5 = 1.7. Therefore, the sources would require increased controls. Shielded safe 1 has a 1.9 TBq (51 Ci) Cs-137 source and a 0.8 TBq (22 Ci) Am-241 source. In this case, the sources would require increased controls, regardless of location, because they each exceed the quantities in Table 1. Shielded safe 2 has two Ir-192 sources, each having an activity of 0.3 TBq (8.1 Ci). In this case, the sources would not require increased controls while locked in the safe. The combined activity does not exceed the threshold quantity 0.8 TBq (22 Ci). Because certain barriers may cease to exist during source handling operations (e.g., a storage location may be unlocked during periods of active source usage), licensees should, to the extent practicable, consider two modes of source usage--``operations'' (active source usage) and ``shutdown'' (source storage mode). Whichever mode results in the greatest inventory (considering barrier status) would require increased controls for each location. [FR Doc. E5-6718 Filed 11-30-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P b ***************************************************************** 23 UPI: Nuke plant may be near upgrade OK United Press International - NewsTrack - 11/30/2005 11:17:00 PM -0500 Newstrack: The U.N. refugee agency says a new WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 (UPI) -- Federal officials are close to a decision on increasing the output of one of New England's oldest nuclear power plants, the Boston Globe reported. However, some specialists concerned about safety implications are urging regulators to wait until an independent review is completed before they decide whether to "uprate" the wattage at the 33-year-old Vermont Yankee. A panel of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission began hearing testimony Tuesday on a proposal by Entergy Corp. to increase wattage at the plant by 20 percent -- the largest increase allowed under federal rules. The panel is expected to issue a recommendation to the full NRC Dec. 8, the newspaper said. Federal and company officials say the Vermont Yankee -- located in Vernon, Vt., near the New Hampshire and Massachusetts borders -- meets industry safeguards and can safely generate more wattage. The NRC concluded after a preliminary evaluation recently that "Vermont Yankee can safely operate at the uprated level, with certain conditions," the Globe reported. Some nuclear power specialists and local officials said the plant has experienced problems recently, including cracks in key equipment and a June 2004 fire attributed to overdue maintenance. © Copyright 2005 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 24 Whitehaven News: Last-minute protests fail to deter PM choosing nuclear Published on 01/12/2005 By David Siddall PRIME Minister Tony Blair on Tuesday gave a big boost to Sellafield’s prospects with his decision to press for an energy review to look at the option of new nuclear power stations for Britain. Up to 20 new reactors have been suggested by government experts as a possible option if the government bites the bullet of opposition to nuclear power. His speech to the CBI conference in London was delayed and moved to a smaller room after Greenpeace protesters climbed up inside the roof of the hall he had been due to use. The Prime Minister finally confirmed details of the energy review. He said: “The issue back on the agenda with a vengeance is energy policy. Round the world you can sense feverish re-thinking. Energy prices have risen. Energy supply is under threat. Climate change is producing a sense of urgency.†Mr Blair went on: “I can today announce that we have established a review of the UK’s progress against the medium and long-term Energy White Paper goals. “The Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks will be in the lead, with the aim of publishing a policy statement on energy in the early summer of 2006. “It will include specifically the issue of whether we facilitate the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations. In Britain, on any basis, we also have the issue of our transition from being self-sufficient in gas supply to being an importer.†The Prime Minister's scientific adviser Sir David King - who has urged him to press ahead with nuclear energy - is said to have proposed a levy on consumers of £150 a year. According to reports at the weekend, the charge would encourage private nuclear operators to build plants by giving them a premium on every unit of electricity generated. Malcolm Wicks, the Energy Minister, who will head the Government’s review, said that it would consider ways of speeding up any planning inquiries should new nuclear power stations be proposed. These would require private investment but would need "some special relationship between the market and the state in this area". But the strength of opposition was shown as 41 Labour MPs have signed a motion against nuclear power. ***************************************************************** 25 Brattleboro Reformer: NRC asked to combine VY, Pilgrim relicensing reviews Brattleboro, VT Article Published: Thursday, December 01, 2005 - By DAVID GRAM Associated Press MONTPELIER -- A company that owns nuclear plants in Vermont and Massachusetts will formally ask federal regulators in January to extend their licenses for 20 years past their current 2012 expiration dates, and wants the applications reviewed together. In a presentation to Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials on Wednesday, Entergy Nuclear argued that the two plants are of similar design and age, and that the same team from the Louisiana-based company has prepared relicensing applications for both. "Entergy requests that NRC utilize one review team for both the (Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee) reviews with the goal of achieving greater review efficiency for both NRC and Entergy personnel," the company said in its presentation to NRC staff at the agency's headquarters in Rockville, Md. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation was provided by the NRC. Carl Crawford, spokesman for Mississippi-based Entergy Nuclear, a subsidiary of New Orleans-based Entergy Corp., said the company hoped to achieve a 20 percent to 25 percent saving from the cost of the application and review -- possibly up to $10 million -- by having the two plants reviewed together. He said the NRC bills its licensees for its regulatory activiities. "By doing both license reviews at the same time, there would be less staff and less time than doing the license application reviews totally separately." Crawford said the NRC had processed applications from two reactors on the same site together; if the agency agrees with Entergy's request, it would be the first time applications from reactors at different sites would be reviewed together. An NRC spokesman, Neil Sheehan, called the filings expected from Entergy in late January "solo applications. What they would like to do is use the same review team, and look at some of the consistencies on the applications so that we're not duplicating efforts." He added that during a two-hour meeting Wednesday agency staff "responded that a determination on our approach to reviewing the applications won't be made until after they are submitted and can be assessed for consistency." Wednesday's meeting came while, in a separate proceeding, a key NRC advisory panel held its final round of hearings on Vermont Yankee's request to increase its power output by 20 percent. Hearings Wednesday and Thursday at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Md., followed two days of hearings earlier this month in Brattleboro. A decision on whether Vermont Yankee will be allowed to increase its output from 510 to 612 megawatts is expected by late February, Sheehan said. Both Vermont Yankee, located in Vernon in the state's southeast corner, and Pilgrim, a 670-megawatt plant located in Plymouth, Mass., are General Electric Mark I boiling water reactors. They are nearly twins. Vermont Yankee began operations on Nov. 30, 1972 and Pilgrim a day later, on Dec. 1, 1972. Both plants' current licenses are set to expire in 2012 -- Vermont Yankee on March 21 and Pilgrim on June 8 -- a few months shy of their 40th birthdays. Sheehan said the review process takes 22 months -- 30 if a state or some other party requests a hearing and gains standing before the NRC by raising issues it deems worth of study. Sheehan said the NRC had approved license extensions for 37 of the nation's 104 commercial reactors and denied none. He said 12 are currently under review and that "several dozen more" plants -- including Pilgrim and Yankee -- had indicated their intention to file. Of the industry's perfect score in winning approvals for license extensions Sheehan said it should not be taken as a sign that the applications are approved easily. "There's a tremendous amount of up-front work before they ever submit the application," the NRC spokesman said. "It costs on the order of several million dollars to prepare and submit an application. They (reactor owners) do their homework before they submit it." He added that there are "a lot of exchanges" between the NRC and plant owners during the process. "By the time you get to the end of the review process, some issues that might otherwise have led to unfavorable (action on) the applications have been resolved." Copyright © 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 26 Brattleboro Reformer: Marlboro, VY at odds over evacuation plan Brattleboro, VT Article Published: Thursday, December 01, 2005 - By DARRY MADDEN Reformer Staff MARLBORO -- The town is seeking inclusion in an emergency evacuation plan in the case of a nuclear disaster at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, but the road there is proving to be foggier than expected. In a Nov. 21 meeting, Vermont Emergency Management Director Barbara Farr said her agency sent a letter to FEMA requesting the inclusion. At that time, she said the process of approval went first through FEMA, and then to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Acting Regional Director of FEMA Kenneth Horak, in his response to this request, wrote, "We have been in contact with our FEMA Headquarters and with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding the proper procedure for modifying an EPZ (emergency planning zone). FEMA has no authority to modify an existing EPZ." "Since neither FEMA nor the NRC can change Vermont Yankee's plans, the State of Vermont must make its proposal to the Licensee and they, in turn, would need to submit their request to change the EPZ to the NRC for approval..." Farr said that Vermont Emergency Management has drafted another letter to Vermont Yankee, which will go out late this week or early next week, requesting the change in their emergency plan. "[FEMA] threw it back at us," said Farr. "I don't know why it's so difficult to find the answer about who's in charge here," she said. "But in talking to people from the NRC and the emergency management teams from New Hampshire and Massachusetts, apparently it's just not normal for a town to want back in to an [emergency planning zone]." Rob Williams, a spokesman for Vermont Yankee, said, "We are still evaluating the regulatory requirements." Dan MacArthur, Marlboro's emergency management director, has written a letter in response to Horak. "I reject two of the premises on which your letter to the Commissioner is based," he wrote. MacArthur contends that, as a matter of "simple geography," part of Marlboro falls within the 10-mile radius of the power plant, and this 10-mile mile radius exists as the criterion for inclusion. In addition, Vermont uses the whole-town evacuation model. "Marlboro is physically within the EPZ. We are unsure as to why Marlboro is not being encouraged, at this point, to integrate in the planning process." MacArthur also rejects the premise that the utility should be in a position of authority. "[Horak's letter] implies that the utility, which causes the need for the emergency planning in the first place, decides which towns it wants to include or exclude, and that the governmental agency which oversees this dangerous industry has no say in the matter." In a telephone interview, MacArthur said that "Marlboro and the state of Vermont should be at the top of the heap in this decision, not the utility and really not even the NRC. We are a state, and the utility needs to accommodate the state and the people in it." Both Dummerston and Halifax have only part of their towns within the 10-mile radius, but have "whole-town" planning. According to MacArthur, Marlboro was expected to do the same, but the town opted not to in the early 1980s, because the plan called for Marlboro residents to evacuate to Bellows Falls, which would require residents to drive toward the nuclear disaster before accessing a northbound roadway. In 2003, the possibility of a "western reception center" emerged on the horizon, and Marlboro decided to pursue "whole-town" status at its annual town meeting. Copyright ©1999-2005 New England Newspapers, Inc., ***************************************************************** 27 Guardian Unlimited: Beckett crushes hopes of new carbon deal Matthew Tempest, political correspondent Thursday December 1, 2005 Environmentalists hoping for a compulsory set of post-Kyoto carbon emissions targets are "living in cloud cuckoo land", the environment secretary, Margaret Beckett, said today. A fortnight of talks are already under way in Montreal to find a successor treaty to the landmark Kyoto agreement, but there is little sign that even a voluntary programme of cuts will emerge. Ms Beckett, who will represent both the EU and the UK at the talks as part of Britain's presidency of the EU, this morning played down hopes that anything more than a "working party" would emerge from the negotiations. The minister, who flies out to the talks on Saturday, warned activists and environmentalists - such as those demonstrating this London this weekend - that they could be aiding the cause of those countries seeking to destroy the Kyoto agreement. She told a pre-summit press briefing in London: "There are people around who don't want this [a post Kyoto-settlement] to work. If we set targets and fail we are playing into their hands." Ms Beckett did not specify who the rejectionist countries were, beyond "a variety of players - individuals and countries". She added that there was "enormous sensitivity" to targets in developing nations which had "millions of mouths to feed". Saying the UK still wanted some form of targets - compulsory or voluntary - to continue the agenda set by Kyoto, she added: "We want a global framework and within that we see a real role for targets and within that we want flexibility." But putting the emphasis back on something the developing nations - the so called G77 group - could sign up to, she added: "You cannot have a global agreement without the 'global'." Kyoto committed most of the world's most developed nations to a cut in 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions, but the protocol expires 2012 and has already been drastically undermined by president Bush's decision to withdraw the US from its provisions. Another problem facing the Montreal talks is engaging developing nations such as China and India, which were not signatories to Kyoto. However, Ms Beckett told the BBC the talks be a success even if no new agreement to continue Kyoto was agreed. She said: "We never had the idea that this meeting was going to sign up to a whole new lot of compulsory targets. The people who think that are living in cloud cuckoo land. This is arrant nonsense. "It took five years to negotiate the Kyoto agreement with only 39 countries involved. Then two of them promptly walked away." Some countries might adopt new compulsory targets while others opted for voluntary agreements, she suggested. "Let's see how we can move forward instead of setting some arbitrary goal that can't possibly be achieved in Montreal," she said. Environmental campaigners have regarded Ms Beckett as one of the greener voices in the cabinet, and she is thought to harbour reservations about the government's renewed interest in nuclear power stations. However, her advocacy of voluntary targets will dismay activists who have been hoping for something more concrete to emerge from Montreal. Stephen Tindale, the head of Greenpeace UK, has already warned that voluntary targets are "not worth the paper they are written on. Without mandatory targets [the Kyoto protocol] is effectively dead." On Saturday what is expected to be the UK's largest demonstration against climate change will take place as part of global day of action. A march will leave Lincoln's Inn fields for the US embassy on Grosvenor Square, going via Downing Street and various oil firm HQs, protesting at the US for exempting itself from the Kyoto protocol. Simultaneous protests are taking place around the world, including in Montreal. The Liberal Democrat environment spokesman, Norman Baker, who is speaking at the rally, said: "Only a system of mandatory national targets on carbon emissions will deliver the results we need. The government needs to show it is serious about action, not just public relations." Useful link Green party of England and Wales Email your comments for publication to politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 28 RIA Novosti: Russia to re-enrich France's depleted uranium 01/ 12/ 2005 MOSCOW, December 1 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian Federal Agency for Nuclear Power said Thursday that it would re-enrich 450 tons of France's depleted uranium. The agency denied Greenpeace reports that the Russian vessel Kapitan Kuroptev would illegally transport spent nuclear fuel or radioactive wastes to Russia. The agency said only Russian technologies could ensure proper re-enrichment of depleted uranium. On Thursday, French police detained some 20 Greenpeace activists from France, Austria and Russia attempting to prevent the loading of the French cargo onto the Kapitan Kuroptev, a French radio station reported. French company Areva, which owns the cargo, confirmed that depleted uranium would be returned to France after re-enrichment. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 29 reviewjournal.com: NEVADA TEST SITE: Senator lobbies Bush Dec. 01, 2005 Reid urges special status helping ill workers to get compensation By ERIN NEFF REVIEW-JOURNAL Sen. Harry Reid holds a photo of a nuclear test at the Nevada Test Site. Reid sent a letter Wednesday that asked President Bush to ease the compensation process for test site workers who have illnesses from their employment. With Reid is Ray Slaughter, who worked at the test site and has been diagnosed with several types of cancer. Photo by John Gurzinski. Sen. Harry Reid is asking the Bush administration to ease the process for Nevada Test Site workers seeking compensation for illnesses from their employment. On Wednesday, Reid wrote to President Bush and urged him to add the employees who worked at the test site during the nuclear tests to a special exposure list that would enable the workers and their surviving dependents to receive automatic compensation without the paperwork and testing required to prove their illnesses are from radiation. "These are the men who helped America win the Cold War," Reid said at a news conference in Las Vegas. "Sadly, a lot of them are suffering for having done that." Those who worked at the test site through 1992 and who suffer from radiation-induced cancers are eligible for up to $150,000 in medical costs if they prove 50 percent of the diseases stem from their employment. John Funk, who worked at the test site in the 1970s, has been diagnosed with three types of cancer. But he was rejected for compensation when medical tests showed 46 percent of his illnesses resulted from his work. After Funk pursued another evaluation, a report showed 11 percent of his illnesses was work-related. "The only way we're ever going to get paid is to get special exposure cohort status," Funk said. Such status eliminates the need for dose reconstruction. Instead, petitioners are awarded compensation based on their presence under certain time periods at facilities in the nuclear weapons complex where radioactive or toxic materials might have caused specific illnesses. Ray Slaughter, 71, worked off and on at the test site for five years as a miner in the underground test tunnels. He is undergoing treatment for lymphoma and is struggling to receive compensation from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. "I'm told my application for compensation could take two years to complete," Slaughter said. "According to my doctor, I don't have two years." The Department of Labor took over compensation oversight from the Department of Energy after complaints about the length of processing time. Last year, the Labor Department reported it had processed 2,961 claims from Nevada Test Site workers or their spouses. Of those, 204 were approved, 1,001 were denied, and the rest were referred to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. That agency has recommended compensation for 25 percent of cases nationwide and for 11 percent of Nevada cases. "Nevada Test Site employees believe that NIOSH's analyses are biased against the employees, resulting in claims being denied for largely arbitrary reasons," Reid wrote to Bush. "Some are asked to provide information that they never received from their employers for national security reasons." Reid said Bush can establish the special cohort status for the test site workers. He said Wednesday he is hopeful Bush will act by mid-February. The senator said he thought plenty of money existed in the budget to cover full compensation for the test site workers. White House officials Wednesday referred calls to the Department of Energy. DOE spokesman Craig Stevens said Secretary Samuel Bodman had not yet received the letter but would "thoroughly consider" Reid's recommendation "once he has a chance to look at it." Reid said if he does not receive any response from the administration, he will pursue the special designation through legislation. The Nevada Test Site served as the nation's nuclear proving grounds from 1951 to 1992, holding 100 above-ground and 828 underground tests. In 2000, Congress passed the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act to provide timely compensation to nuclear defense facility workers suffering from cancer, beryllium diseases or silicosis. At the news conference, Slaughter said he witnessed several accidents at the test site that he thinks left workers exposed to radiation. After one such incident on a cold February night, he said, workers were ordered to strip and shower outside and then were told to drink all the beer they could "to flush their systems." "Even the Mormons drank beer that night," Slaughter said. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2005 ***************************************************************** 30 Crain's Cleveland Business: Brush to design new beryllium metal products plant Brush Engineered Materials Inc. By BRANDON GLENN 4:36 pm, December 1, 2005 Brush Engineered Materials Inc. (NYSE: BW) has received a $9 million contract from the Department of Defense to design a plant that would produce beryllium metal products. The plant would be the nation’s only primary beryllium-producing factory, according to a statement from Cleveland-based Brush. The new plant would be located either at an existing Brush site in Elmore, Ohio, or Delta, Utah, and would cost between $40 million and $60 million. Beryllium, a high-melting, rigid, corrosion-resistant metal, is used in the production of items such as weapons systems, surveillance satellites and X-ray imaging systems, according to the statement. About 25 jobs with Brush would be created to operate and maintain the plant, while the project would create a “significant number” of non-Brush construction and support jobs, according to the statement. Brush operated a beryllium production plant in Elmore, but stopped producing the material there in 2000. Brush closed the plant because much of the equipment had become obsolete and the government had built up a stockpile of beryllium, according to the statement. The design and engineering phase of the project will take about two years and construction would take another two to three years, according to the statement. Site selection will happen during the design phase. Under the terms of the agreement, Brush would provide technology, land, buildings and an ongoing operation for the factory, while the government would fund engineering, design and equipment. Designed by DigiKnow Inc. ***************************************************************** 31 Yggdrasil: Social Security Recognizes Work-Related Illnesses of Nuclear Test Veterans A project of Earth Island Institute Nuclear Issues Press Release from AVEN November 30, 2005; Lyon, France After similar actions for military veterans for whom the Military Pension Tribunals (TPA) have granted pensions for disabilities caused by their service, Social Security has now recognized, one after the other, as work-related the illnesses from which two civilian veterans have died. One was an employee of a sub-contractor, the other was an engineer in the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA). Both participated in the nuclear tests in the Sahara and in Polynesia. These favorable results run counter to the official position that tests were “clean” and therefore without health consequences. In the absence of all official scientific reports on the harmlessness or the danger of nuclear tests for health, AVEN (the Alliance of Veterans of Nuclear Tests) has undertaken an investigation among its members. The results, based on the first 1500 responses, indicate that their ratio of cancers is double that of the French population of the same age. These cancers occur early, two-thirds of them before the age of 60. We are convinced that, gradually, the link between nuclear tests and the illnesses suffered by many veterans will be recognized. At present, each veteran must furnish proof that his illness was caused by nuclear tests. AVEN calls upon Parliament to pass a law recognizing a presumptive link between illness and presence on the test sites, as is the case in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Great Britain. The health of veterans should be the object of a political consensus in France. Already in Polynesia, an investigative commission, established by the French Polynesian Assembly, is charged with evaluating the consequences of aerial nuclear tests on the health of the Polynesian population, the environment, and the economy. The only reaction of the Ministry of Defense has been to send to the Tureia atoll and to the island of Mangareva, which are seriously contaminated, military personnel with the mission to destroy anti-nuclear shelters, the last remaining proof of the effects of aerial nuclear tests, without informing the Polynesian government. Dr. J.L. Valatx, President of AVEN Yggdrasil is a project of P.O. Box 910476, Lexington, KY 40591-0476 ***************************************************************** 32 KLASTV.com: Nevada Test Site Workers Compensation Matt Adams, Chief Photojournalist Flanked by former test site workers Ray Slaughter and John Funk, Senator Harry Reid unveiled his idea for slicing through the red tape that has denied compensation to hundreds of workers and their families. George Knapp, Investigative Reporter Help may be on the way for hundreds of former Nevada Test Site workers who are suffering from cancer because of radiation exposure. Nevada Senator Harry Reid is asking President Bush to brush aside bureaucratic red tape and make it easier for workers, or their survivors to get compensation. George Knapp of the I-Team broke the story about these problems and has the latest Senator Harry Reid, (D) Nevada, said, "I've known Ray for 30 years and I see him dying before my eyes." Flanked by former test site workers Ray Slaughter and John Funk, Senator Reid unveiled his idea for slicing through the red tape that has denied compensation to hundreds of workers and their families. Reid says it would be a simple administrative matter for President Bush to declare the Nevada Test Site to be a special exposure cohort, meaning, anyone who worked there before 1992 and who comes down with cancer, would be presumed to have caught the cancer because of radiation exposure and thus would be eligible for the compensation authorized by Congress 5 years ago. Sen. Reid said, "I think we have an obligation to these veterans of the Cold War, just as we have an obligation to veterans of Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf." Thousands of test site workers were exposed to intense radiation during the Cold War. Hundreds have already died. Hundreds more are deathly ill. Eyewitness News viewers have heard the story of Ray Slaughter who now has leukemia and lymphoma and has less than two years to live. The government told him it will take two years just to process his case by reconstructing the dose of radiation he received. Slaughter says there's no way to do it since records weren't even kept much of the time. He remembers many incidents when workers were awash in radioactive fallout. "They took all our clothes away from us, made us take a shower in the middle of the highway in cold weather, gave us a pair of coveralls, took us down to camp and told us to drink all the beer we could to flush out our system. Never once were we called in to see what happened," Ray Slaughter explained. John Funk, who has four different kinds of cancer, says it's even tougher for the survivors because there's no way they can accurately reconstruct radiaition exposures for employees in classified programs. "There's lots of women who were homemakers who did not work. They lost their husbands and they're having a very bad time." Reid says the money is already there to pay for compensation but that the government simply isn't making it available. If the White House doesn't make the change Reid is requesting, he vows to take congressional action to make it happen and hopes the help will arrive before Ray Slaughter and John Funk are gone. Only 6-percent of the Nevada Test Site workers who have applied for compensation have been deemed eligible by the U.S. Department of Labor. All content © Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and KLAS. ***************************************************************** 33 Bellona: Tender for Radon radwaste facility reconstruction to be announced in December The European Commission in the frames of TACIS program will announce a tender for the operator company to carry out the reconstruction of the radwaste storage facility Radon in Murmansk region. 2005-11-30 18:06 The agreement has been reached during the talks in Svanhovd, Norway, in the middle of November. The specialists from VNIPIET (the All-Russia Planning and Research Institute for Complex Power Technology), which developed the Radon reconstruction project, representatives of Murmansk administration and Sweden took part in the meeting, Interfax reported with the reference to the Murmansk administration economics department. The Radon director Kudrat Mahmudov, however, said to Interfax, that after the operator is chosen and the contract is signed, the preliminary financing would start and cover the project analyses, discussions and priorities selection. The reconstruction itself will start earliest in 2007, the director said. The financial problems did not allow beginning the construction of the facility checkpoint. The European Bank of Reconstruction and Development finances the project. It is expected that the operating company will sign the direct contracts with the contractors who will carry out the work on site. The Radon storage facility in Murmansk county is one of 16 national storage facilities for low and medium level waste generated by Russian industry and medical activities. More than 70 local businesses and institutions have delivered waste to the facility. The storage facility can accommodate 800 m3 of solid and 200 m3 of liquid radioactive waste. The facility was taken into use in 1965. Due to violations of Russian guidelines for the storage of radioactive waste, on June 18, 1993, the Russian radiation protection authority (GAN) ruled that the facility would no longer be permitted to accept radioactive waste. Consequently, the waste that was formerly delivered to the Radon storage facility was henceforth stored at the site of its creation. At the beginning of 1995, 350 m3 of waste with an activity of 531 TBq were stored at various user facilities. Furthermore, an additional 370 TBq is stored in 10 containers holding radioactive waste from the nuclear icebreaker Lenin. Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 34 NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Meeting on Planning and FR Doc E5-6715 [Federal Register: December 1, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 230)] [Notices] [Page 72127] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01de05-51] Procedures; Notice of Meeting The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) will hold a Planning and Procedures meeting on December 15, 2005, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of ACNW, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Thursday, December 15, 2005--8:30 a.m.-9:45 a.m. The Committee will discuss proposed ACNW activities and related matters. The purpose of this meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Ms. Sharon A. Steele (Telephone: 301/415-6805) between 8 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. (ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 8:30 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda. Dated: November 23, 2005. Michael L. Scott, Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW. [FR Doc. E5-6715 Filed 11-30-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 35 NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Notice of Meeting FR Doc E5-6716 [Federal Register: December 1, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 230)] [Notices] [Page 72127-72128] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01de05-52] The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) will hold its 166th meeting on December 13-15, 2005, Room T-2B3, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The schedule for this meeting is as follows: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 8:30 a.m.-8:45 a.m.: Opening Statement (Open)--The ACNW Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of today's sessions. 8:45 a.m.-9:45 a.m.: Combined Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) and Division Directors Briefing (Open)--The NMSS Office and Division Directors will brief the Committee on recent activities of interest within their respective programs. 9:45 a.m.-11:15 a.m.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC's) Plans for the Implementation of a Dose Standard After 10,000 Years (Open)--NRC is proposing to amend its regulations at 10 CFR part 63 that govern the disposal of high-level radioactive wastes in a proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. The proposed rule would implement EPA's proposed standards for doses that could occur after 10,000 years but within the period of geologic stability. The Committee will continue its discussions with representatives from NRC's Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards on those proposed revisions. The NRC staff briefing will include the topics of radionuclide inventory, effects of climate change, and dosimetry. 11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.: Reasonableness of NRC Infiltration Assumption in the Proposed Part 63 (Open)--NRC's proposed rule change at Part 63 specifies a value to be used to represent climate change after 10,000 years, as called for by EPA. The Committee will hear presentations from and hold discussions with knowledgeable subject matter experts on the reasonableness of NRC's proposed infiltration assumption. 1:30 p.m.-4:15 p.m.: White Paper on Low-Level Radioactive Waste (Open)--The Committee will discuss a proposed white paper on low-level radioactive waste (LLW). NRC staff and stakeholders will provide perspectives on the subject. 4:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m.: Preparation of ACNW Reports/Letters (Open)-- The Committee will discuss proposed ACNW reports on matters considered during this and/or previous meetings. [[Page 72128]] Wednesday, December 14, 2005 8:30 a.m.-8:45 a.m.: Opening Statement (Open)--The ACNW Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of today's sessions. 8:45 a.m.-10:45 a.m.: Preparation of ACNW Reports/Letters (Open)-- The Committee will discuss proposed ACNW reports on matters considered during this and/or previous meetings. 11 a.m.-12 noon.: Generalized Composite Modeling (Open)--The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the United States Geological Survey and the NRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research regarding demonstrations of the generalized composite approach to the modeling of reactive transport phenomena. 1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.: Preparation for Commission Briefing (Open)-- The Committee will review the final presentations in preparation for the Commission briefing on January 11, 2006. 3:45 p.m.-5:30 p.m.: Preparation of ACNW Reports/Letters, Continued (Open). Thursday, December 15, 2005 10 a.m.-10:15 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACNW Chairman (Open)-- The ACNW Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of today's sessions. 10:15 a.m.-11:45 a.m.: Discussion of ACNW Reports/Letters (Open)-- The Committee will discuss prepared draft letters and determine whether letters would be written on topics discussed during the meeting. 11:45 a.m.-12:45 p.m.: Miscellaneous (Open)--The Committee will discuss matters related to the conduct of ACNW activities, and specific issues that were not completed during previous meetings, as time and availability of information permit. Discussions may include future committee meetings. Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACNW meetings were published in the Federal Register on October 11, 2005 (70 FR 59081). In accordance with these procedures, oral or written statements may be presented by members of the public. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify Ms. Sharon A. Steele, (Telephone 301-415-6805), between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. e.t., as far in advance as practicable so that appropriate arrangements can be made to schedule the necessary time during the meeting for such statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during this meeting will be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the ACNW Chairman. Information regarding the time to be set aside for taking pictures may be obtained by contacting the ACNW office prior to the meeting. In view of the possibility that the schedule for ACNW meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should notify Ms. Steele as to their particular needs. Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted, therefore can be obtained by contacting Ms. Steele. ACNW meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) at , or by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from the Publicly Available Records System component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web site at or (ACRS & collections/ (ACRS & ACNW Mtg schedules/agendas). Video Teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACNW meetings. Those wishing to use this service for observing ACNW meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACNW Audiovisual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. e.t., at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed. The ACNW meeting dates for Calendar Year 2006 are provided below: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ACNW meeting No. Date ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------- 167....................................... January 10-12, 2006. February (No Meeting). 168....................................... March 22-24, 2006. 169....................................... April 18-20, 2006. 170....................................... May 23-25, 2006. June (No Meeting). 171....................................... July 17-20, 2006. August 2005 (No Meeting). 172....................................... September 19-21, 2006. October (No Meeting). 173....................................... November 15-17, 2006. 174....................................... December 12-14, 2006. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Dated: November 23, 2005. Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E5-6716 Filed 11-30-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P b ***************************************************************** 36 AFP: Greenpeace activists arrested for blocking French nuclear shipment - Thu Dec 1,11:48 AM ET LE HAVRE, France (AFP) - French special forces arrested more than 20 Greenpeace environmental activists as they tried to prevent a Russian ship from loading nuclear waste bound for Siberia. In a two-hour operation, police rounded up 19 activists one by one after they spread across the port site, several of them scaling a crane overhanging the Captain Kuroptev to prevent the cargo from being taken on board. Greenpeace said that three other activists were arrested early Thursday near the train transporting the 450 tonnes of uranium waste, but were released shortly afterwards. The waste from an Electricite de France plant in Pierralatte was to leave by ship for St Petersburg before being transferred by train for Tomsk in Siberia, according to Greenpeace spokesman Gregory Gendre. "We denounce the export of nuclear waste by EDF and we condemn the fact that Tomsk has become the world's dustbin for hazardous materials," Gendre told AFP. The French nuclear group Areva denounced the Greenpeace action as a media stunt, saying the shipment was of depleted uranium, destined to be enriched in Russia and then returned to France -- not to be dumped in the country. Areva spokesman Charles Hufnagel said the radioactive charge of the cargo was "very low, the same as natural radioactivity." Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 37 Globe and Mail: Lights out for glow-in-the-dark sign factory Pembroke facility shuts down operations temporarily amid radioactivity concerns By MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT Thursday, December 1, 2005 A company that contaminated groundwater around its plant in Pembroke, Ont., with radioactive tritium says it has halted operations and will not resume manufacturing until it puts in place better pollution controls. SRB Technologies (Canada) Inc. announced its temporary shutdown in an e-mail sent late Tuesday night to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the country's nuclear watchdog agency. The letter was sent just before the company was scheduled to appear at a CNSC hearing yesterday into the future of the plant. The company is a manufacturer of glow-in-the-dark signs, such as emergency-exit markers, which run without electricity. It makes the signs using tritium, a waste product taken from Ontario's nuclear-power plants. Last month, staff at the commission recommended the plant be closed after they discovered the company was not able to provide reliable estimates on the amount of radioactivity being released into Pembroke, an Ottawa River community of 15,000. + © Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Globeandmail.com: ***************************************************************** 38 Reuters: Protesters block nuclear waste ship in French port 01 Dec 2005 11:06:19 GMT Source: Reuters PARIS, Dec 1 (Reuters) - Anti-nuclear protesters climbed on to a dockyard crane on Thursday to try to prevent a Russian ship loading at the northwestern French port of Le Havre, saying its cargo contained dangerous nuclear waste. The environmental group Greenpeace said five of its supporters were still on the crane about 11 hours after climbing it around midnight (2300 GMT), but police were gradually removing other protesters from the port. "The export of uranium waste is an immense scandal. Thousands of tonnes leave every year by sea and across Russia, to be abandoned in Russia in sites which are among the most polluted in the planet," Greenpeace said. Three protesters were arrested, the organisation said. French nuclear energy firm Areva, responsible for the nuclear site from which the material came, dismissed Greenpeace's concerns that the cargo was unsafe for transport. "It's a normal operation," said Areva spokesman Charles Hufnagel. He said the cargo contained depleted uranium which was being sent to Russia for enrichment to make nuclear fuel. Depleted uranium was not highly radioactive and posed no risks, he said. The vessel Kapitan Kuroptev is due to take the cargo to the Russian port of St Petersburg. Le Havre port authorities declined comment. { '0' => 1 } }; --> [ border=] Belarus passes tough law to curb upheaval (3 hours ago) Source: Reuters MORE[ border=] + Newsdesk + NGO Latest + Reuters Pictures { '0' => 1 } }; --> [ border=] UN council backs US bid for first Myanmar meeting (7 minutes ago) Source: Reuters { '0' => 1 } }; --> [ border=] Rice to warn Europe to back off over detainees (1 hour ago) Source: Reuters { '0' => 1 } }; --> [ border=] UN council approves US bid for Myanmar discussion (2 hours ago) Source: Reuters { '0' => 1 } }; --> [ border=] Over 1,500 birds found dead in Ukraine - minister (2 hours ago) Source: Reuters { '0' => 1 } }; --> [ border=] Belarus passes tough law to curb upheaval (3 hours ago) Source: Reuters MORE[ border=] + Newsdesk + NGO Latest + Reuters Pictures { '0' => 1 } }; --> [ border=] CrisisWatch N°28, 1 December 2005 (12 hours ago) Crisis Group - Belgium { '0' => 1 } }; --> [ border=] The Fund to fight the HIV pandemic is facing financial meltdown, says Christian Aid (1 day ago) Christian Aid - UK { '0' => 1 } }; --> [ border=] Europe's Forgotten Children (21 days ago) EveryChild - UK { '0' => 1 } }; --> [ border=] Europe’s Forgotten Children (21 days ago) EveryChild - UK { '0' => 1 } }; --> [ border=] The currency of humanitarian reform (25 days ago) HPG - UK MORE[ border=] + Newsdesk + NGO Latest + Reuters Pictures { '0' => 1 } }; --> ['thumb for Emergency ministry workers take water samples for tests from the River Amur' width=] Emergency ministry workers take water samples for tests from the River Amur Source: Reuters { '0' => 1 } }; --> ['left' border='1' vspace='5' hspace='7' alt='thumb for A Kenyan VCT worker explains to men how to use condoms during World AIDS Day in Nairobi' width=] A Kenyan VCT worker explains to men how to use condoms during World AIDS Day in Nairobi Source: Reuters { '0' => 1 } }; --> ['left' border='1' vspace='5' hspace='7' alt='thumb for A Kenyan woman listens to a VCT worker during World AIDS Day in the capital Nairobi' width=] A Kenyan woman listens to a VCT worker during World AIDS Day in the capital Nairobi Source: Reuters { '0' => 1 } }; --> ['left' border='1' vspace='5' hspace='7' alt='thumb for Kenyan men listen to a VCT worker after they made an AIDS test in the capital Nairobi' width=] Kenyan men listen to a VCT worker after they made an AIDS test in the capital Nairobi Source: Reuters { '0' => 1 } }; --> ['thumb for Kenyan Muslim children mark World AIDS Day in Mombasa' width=] Kenyan Muslim children mark World AIDS Day in Mombasa Source: Reuters MORE[ border=] Printable view | Email this article | Send comments Emergencies and topics MORE[ border=] Countries [Small country map © 2004 Europa Technologies Ltd.] [ border=] Reset Full-size map[ border=] { '0' => 1 } }; --> [ border=] France profile · View map { '0' => 1 } }; --> [ border=] Russia profile · View map MORE[ border=] Disclaimers | Copyright | Privacy | Contact us | Feedback | About us Fri Dec 2 21:29:51 2005 ***************************************************************** 39 Yucca News: New EPA Rules Regarding Nuclear Waste Vol. 3, No. 3 December 1, 2005 CRIMINAL DEFENSE JOHN E. OAKES, ATTORNEY AT LAW 1188 California Ave., Reno, 775-324-6257 FREE CONSULTATION "Just Say No" COPYWRITING PROFESSIONAL FREELANCE COPYWRITER AVAILABLE. OVER 40 YEARS EXPERIENCE PUBLICITY, PROMOTIONS, ADVERTISING D.M.LOCKE SERVICES 775-786-3525 8 A.M. - 4 P.M. Challenged By Major Scientific Concern Possibly More Fraudulent Yucca E-Mails Being Uncovered By Washington Probe by Johnny Gunn The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) has issued a paper in opposition to the recent nuclear safety standards issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). "It is our conclusion that the proposed rule should be rejected as insufficiently protective of the public health," it says. Written by two of the nation's leading nuclear energy scientists, Dr. Arjun Makhijani and Dr. Brice Smith, the paper calls the EPA standards "The worst radiation protection rule that has ever been proposed." In a summary of findings the two conclude the proposed rules are "contrary to basic ethics, cost-benefit analysis principles, and internationally accepted radiation protection guidelines, including for radioactive waste." Makhijani and Smith say the accepted guidelines are those issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the International Commission on Radiological Protection and radiation protection authorities in other countries. Although nuclear energy is expanding in this country, European and Asian nuclear energy surpasses the U.S. The U.S. National Academy of Science has already condemned the EPA standards as proposed. Even the EPA once followed the international guidelines according to Makhijani and Smith. "No country has proposed a standard as lax as that proposed by the EPA," according to the IEER report. The two scientists go on to say, "No other standard that has been proposed for times beyond 10,000 years would allow such lax long term rules." The two believe also that the proposed peak dose limit would pose a lifetime cancer incidence risk of one in 36 for the general population and one in 30 for women. They say, "EPA has previously stated that even one in 250 lifetime risk is unacceptable from a single facility." The IEER recommended several changes in the EPA proposed standards among them a reduction in annual dose limits, drinking water standards to be at least as strong as internationally accepted standards, and radiological impacts on children should be explicitly considered. One point Makhijani and Smith made in their report says, "The standard should recognize that the uncertainties in the estimated doses will increase with time and that the uncertainties beyond 10,000 years will become very significant." The IEER is calling for the EPA to "adopt the French approach to waste repository stands2 in which the doses beyond 10,000 years are calculated using scientifically reasonable, but highly conservative choices for parameter values." In the meantime there are more calls in Congress to maintain nuclear energy production waste at the site of the energy plants and to continue research into reprocessing the waste. The latest convert to recycling and dumping the Yucca Mountain project is New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici (R). Domenici has been one of the strongest supporters of nuclear energy projects but has recently joined with others to say the Yucca project is a bad one. According to at least one report out of Washington, Nevada Senator Harry Reid (D) is working on legislation to demand recycling of the waste. The Congress has already set aside some $50 million for continued research. Yucca Mountain is designed to hold less high level nuclear waste than is already on the ground. There are no reasonable plans in the works for waste that will come about from continued nuclear energy production or the waste from new nuclear energy plants coming on line. Following the breakup of the old Soviet Union this country has been working to recycle some of the weapons grade nuclear material from Soviet Union missiles and bombs. Many in Congress are saying that the same technology should be used for the high level nuclear waste generated by power plants around the country. There is one argument against recycling. According to some the recycling process creates weapons grade plutonium which if stolen by terrorists could be used to build weapons of mass destruction. Those arguing for recycling say that high level waste is just as vulnerable and that the recycling actually reduces the threat. Many fear that just the transportation problem of bringing train and truckloads of the waste across the country would jeopardize more of our population that any terrorist attack. At this time the Department of Energy (DOE) does not have a license application in the works, the project is reportedly years behind schedule, and billions of dollars have been squandered on a project that may never come about. There had been a date of 2012 for having the Yucca repository on line, but most feel that date will be impossible to meet. The Department's own inspector general released a report during the third week of November indicating that even more intra-departmental e-mails may contain fraudulent information, may contain more information of falsification of work on the Yucca project. Criminal investigations, Congressional investigations, and departmental investigations are underway at this time dealing with previously disclosed alleged fraudulent e-mails coming from the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Whether this latest probe by the DOE itself will lead to even more criminal investigations or charges isn't known just yet. ***************************************************************** 40 Brattleboro Reformer: Watershed group weighs in on plant's water discharge Brattleboro, VT Article Published: Thursday, December 01, 2005 - By KRISTI CECCAROSSI Reformer Staff BRATTLEBORO -- When state officials were deciding whether it was a good idea to let Vermont Yankee discharge more and slightly warmer water into the Connecticut River, they didn't invite any environmental advocates or any local representatives to the table. So when members of the Agency of Natural Resources held a public hearing Wednesday in Brattleboro on their tentative approval of Vermont Yankee's request, they heard an earful from people who felt they should have been part of the decision-making process. Entergy Nuclear, the Louisiana-based owners of the Vernon reactor, want to discharge water into the river that would be one Fahrenheit warmer that what it's currently allowed to release from the plant's cooling system. It amounts to a small amendment to the permit they have with the state. A change in discharge levels isn't necessary, Entergy says, but if approved, they'd be able to use the plant's cooling towers less frequently. That translates into savings for Entergy in cost and energy. The cooling towers need about 10,000 kilowatts of power to run. The Agency of Natural Resources has issued Entergy a preliminary OK; their final word is pending a review of public comment. The agency is sole authority on Entergy's application. Carol Carpenter and Brian Kooiker represented the agency at the meeting on Wednesday. Only about 30 people turned out, but nearly all of them were part of the Connecticut River Watershed Council, the primary non-profit group monitoring the river. Some traveled from Connecticut and Massachusetts to weigh in. The Watershed Council was not party to any of the discussions about Entergy's request among state officials from Vermont and New Hampshire and the federal Environmental Protection Agency. One degree Fahrenheit may not seem like a major difference in terms of water discharge, but environmental advocates said Entergy's request could hurt fish and wildlife and, moreover, could be in violation of federal laws. Attorney Patrick Parenteau, a professor from the Vermont Law School and associate of the Watersehd Council, said Entergy is legally bound to limit its impact on the river as much as it is able. "The [federal] Clean Water Act presumes if there's technology available [to protect the river], it ought to be used," Parenteau said. The Clean Water Act was passed by Congress in the 1970s, establishing a basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into waters throughout the country. An opportunity to generate more electricity and increase profitability might be a reason for Entergy to seek the discharge amendment but, Parenteau said, "that's not relevant to the Clean Water Act." Parenteau cautioned Entergy's defense for increased discharge wouldn't pass muster in a judicial review. Water discharge comes from the plant's condenser, which cools the reactor core. The discharge can go through the plant's cooling towers, or go directly to the river. The discharge water is heated up and, when released, it raises the temperature of the Connecticut. Plant officials measure upstream and downstream to make sure the temperature stays within certain limits. The permit that exists now says that if the river is 78 degrees Fahrenheit or hotter, discharge cannot raise its temperature -- be it 78 degrees, 88 degrees or so on -- more than two degrees. Entergy applied for this change with the Agency of Natural Resources in January 2003. Within a month, owners also applied to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Agency for permission to increase power at the plant to 120 percent; that request is still pending. At the start of Wednesday's meeting, one of the first things agency representative Carpenter told people was "this request is not related to the uprate. They two aren't connected. They just happen to be going on at the same time." But the issue of water discharge temperatures and the uprate were raised together before: last year, when the state's Public Service Board was reviewing Entergy's request for the uprate. David Deen, river steward with the Watershed Council, testified before the Public Service Board that an uprate could mean more water would be dumped into the river and, consequently, water temperatures could rise. But that board deferred all questions about the environmental impact of an uprate to the Agency of Natural Resources. The agency was invited to participate in the Public Service Board hearings, but declined. So at Wednesday's meeting, Deen criticized agency representatives for not inviting the Watershed Council into their current review. John Bennett, senior planner at the Windham Regional Commission, also asked why non-governmental groups or local officials from towns along the river were not more directly involved in this issue. And, Bennett said, when the Regional Commission tried to get information from the agency regarding its analysis of the river, "we were told agency personnel couldn't answer our technical questions." "We were surprised," he said. "Not terribly happy." The Agency of Natural Resources is collecting public comment until Dec. 7 on this issue. Residents can send letters to the Department of Environmental Conservation, Wastewater Management Division, Sewing Building, 103 South Main St., Waterbury, VT 05671. Copyright ©1999-2005 New England Newspapers, Inc., ***************************************************************** 41 WebWire: Europe’s secret nuclear waste dumping in Russia revealed Greenpeace International 12/1/2005 8:10:48 AM 01 December 2005, Le Havre, France — Since 02.00 hours this morning, 20 Greenpeace activists have occupied loading cranes at the French port of Le Havre to prevent 450 tonnes of radioactive uranium waste being loaded onto the Russian freighter the Kapitan Kuroptchev. The activists are occupying cranes on both the dock side and the ship. The waste comes from the Pierrelatte uranium enrichment plant in the Rhone valley and is scheduled to be transported to Russia. Greenpeace has launched the protest to expose the thirty year old practice of illegally transporting and dumping nuclear wastes produced in Europe and shipped to Russia. A new report from Greenpeace, “Europe’s Radioactive Secret”, details the illegal nuclear waste trade between Europe’s nuclear industry and the Russian Federation. “The nuclear power industry has a dirty secret, for decades it has illegally and immorally dumped over 100,000 tonnes of nuclear waste in Russia. This scandalous activity must stop. At every step in the process regulations are being breached and laws broken threatening peoples lives and their environment,” said Shaun Burnie of Greenpeace International. The nuclear wastes dumped in Russia are of two types: contaminated uranium resulting from reprocessing at the Cogema/Areva facilities at la Hague, Normandy; and depleted uranium (DU) from nuclear fuel enrichment at facilities in France (Eurodif/Areva de Pierrelatte), and the Urenco facilities in Germany (Gronau), the Netherlands (Almelo) and the UK (Capenhurst). These facilities support the day to day operation of 135 nuclear reactors in Europe. The containers used to transport the uranium waste do not meet current International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) standards and pose a serious risk during the thousands of kilometres journey to the Russian dumpsites, where they are illegally dumped. A large percentage of the waste is in the form of hexafluoride crystals which can react violently to water leading to dispersal of toxic gas, inhalation of which can be fatal. “The nuclear industry is opting for the cheapest, dirtiest and most dangerous option – dumping in Russia,” said Vladimir Tchuprov of Greenpeace Russia in la Havre. “Russia already has a nuclear waste crisis, and yet EDF, EoN, and all other European nuclear utilities are making the situation worse. Disposal and even storage of foreign nuclear waste in Russia is illegal,” said Tchuprov. In Russia, Greenpeace has filed a case in the Moscow district court against the Russian government nuclear export company, Tecksnabexport.(3). According to paragraph 3 of article 48 of the federal law of 2001 “On Environmental Protection”, import of nuclear waste and foreign nuclear materials to the Russian Federation for the purpose of its storage or disposal is prohibited. The next hearing of the case will be held on December 8th in Moscow. Notes to Editor 1 – European utilities dumping uranium wastes in Russia include: OKG – Finland, Vattenfall – Sweden/Europe, EoN and RWE - Germany, Electrabel - Belgium, EPZ - the Netherlands, British Energy - the UK, EDF - France, Iberdola - Spain, and NOK/Swissnuclear - Switzerland, 2 - A contract between Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy (Minatom) from 1992 and the French company Cogema (#54-02/60006) and letter of the RF Nuclear Energy Minister #01-5328 from 29.09.2003. 3 - Greenpeace Russia has filed a complaint against JSC “Tekhsnabexport” for concluding contracts with Eurodif, Urenco, Internexco and GKN which are breaching the Russian Federal law of 2001 ’On Environmental Protection’, one of which dates from 1975. 4 -- Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel creates significant volumes of radioactive uranium. For every 850 tonnes of spent fuel processed at the Areva/Cogema la Hague plant, around 805 tonnes of uranium is produced. For each ton of uranium that is enriched (by concentrating the fissile natural isotope uranium 235) specifically at the three Urenco plants in the Netherlands, Germany, and the UK and the Eurodif/Cogema plant in France, a further seven tonnes of depleted uranium is discarded as waste – either for storage in Europe, or export to Russia. Further contact information for reporters to get video, photos or report details: A background briefing is available at www.stop-plutonium.org Video available from Michael Nagasaka, Greenpeace Video Desk, + 31646166309 Photos available from John Novis, Greenpeace Photo Desk + 31653819121 Greenpeace International Contact Information: Mike Townsley Greenpeace International +31 6 2129 6918 ***************************************************************** 42 Seattle Times: Cleanup attempts at Hanford Thursday, December 1, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM The U.S. government is making its fourth attempt to clean up radioactive waste at the Hanford nuclear reservation in Eastern Washington. The three previous attempts were mired in missteps. First attempt: 1989-1991 1989: The Department of Energy (DOE) decides to clean up 54 million gallons of radioactive waste stored in 177 underground tanks  some of them leaking  by solidifying waste in some of the tanks, but postponing a decision on the rest until 2003. 1991: DOE abandons the plan because it won't meet environmental standards. Spent: $23 million. Second attempt: 1991-1993 1991: DOE decides to use a process called vitrification to turn waste in the tanks into glass. 1993: The department abandons the plan, concluding the vitrification plant is too small to treat the waste fast enough. Spent: $418 million. Third attempt: 1995-2000 1995: DOE tries to revive cleanup by privatizing it, turning over the project to British Nuclear Fuels in an arrangement to buy the final, processed waste from the company. 2000: The department cancels the contract when the estimated price tag rises from $3.2 billion to more than $15 billion. Spent: $300 million. Fourth attempt: 2000-present 2000: DOE signs a $4.3 billion contract with Bechtel National to finish the vitrification plant. 2002: The department accelerates the construction schedule to complete the project by 2011 and agrees to increase the contract to $5.8 billion. 2005: Cost could actually reach $9.65 billion and not be finished until 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers warns. DOE halts part of the construction amid concerns about earthquake safety and cost overruns. Spent: $3 billion so far. Total spent 1989-present: $3.74 billion. Sources: U.S. Government Accountability Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Energy Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 43 Seattle Times: Secretive study paints dire picture at Hanford Thursday, December 1, 2005 - Page updated at 11:30 AM By Warren Cornwall Seattle Times staff reporter JACKIE JOHNSTON / AP Estimated costs of a Hanford treatment plant to seal radioactive waste in glass could soar $4 billion, from $5.8 billion to $9.65 billion, according to a closely guarded report by the Army Corps of Engineers. STEVE RINGMAN / THE SEATTLE TIMES, 2004 Tank farms hold radioactive and chemical waste within the 586-square-mile Hanford site. JEFF T. GREEN / GETTY IMAGES The historic B Reactor is seen on the Hanford nuclear reservation near Richland. Plutonium for the atom bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, during World War II was produced at the reactor as part of the Manhattan Project. Mismanagement and other problems with cleanup of radioactive pollution at Hanford nuclear weapons factories means the effort could cost as much as 67 percent more than first estimated and take four years longer than promised, according to a closely-guarded federal report. The study, completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in May, focused on construction of a plant to seal radioactive waste in glass, considered a key step in cleaning up one of the world's most polluted sites. The report estimated costs could soar $4 billion, from $5.8 billion to $9.65 billion, making it among the most costly construction projects in the country. It also might not be completed until 2015, instead of the 2011 deadline promised to Washington state officials, according to the Corps report. The U.S. Department of Energy, which runs Hanford and commissioned the report, has refused to release it to state officials, a citizen oversight panel, the media, and even some members of Congress, including U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. The report was leaked to The Seattle Times after months of unsuccessful efforts to get the department to release it under open-records laws. Critics of the cleanup efforts say the new information contained in the report is but the latest example of serious blunders at Hanford, a 586-square-mile site north of Richland where plutonium production for nuclear weapons left tons of radioactive and toxic waste. The project has already been delayed for years and dogged by missteps, huge cost increases and technical glitches. State officials are considering whether they will need to go to court to enforce cleanup deadlines. "We're not interested in suing the federal government, we're not interested in having a federal judge control the cleanup budget, but we don't have a lot of other options," said Jay Manning, director of the state Department of Ecology. Energy secretary review The Department of Energy, headed by Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, is already taking steps to address problems with the project, including some of those detailed in the report, department spokesman Mike Waldron said Wednesday. "When the issues related to the waste treatment plant came to the secretary's attention, he immediately began to personally review the project," Waldron said. "And he has been engaged in formulating a path forward." The Corps also cannot confirm the estimates of cost and schedule overruns, so the department did not want to release unproven information, Waldron said. "Our intention is not to add to any speculation but rather to make commitments that we can keep based on verifiable facts," Waldron said. But the chairman of a congressional committee that controls the Department of Energy's budget said the report raises legitimate concerns. "It ought to raise a lot more red flags than just from us," said U.S. Rep. Dave Hobson, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water. Hobson had seen the report earlier this year because of his leadership position. "It ought to send real messages that either somebody doesn't know what they're doing, or somebody's not watching the door. We've got to clean it up, but somebody has got to watch out for the taxpayer." And Sen. Cantwell, who had unsuccessfully sought a copy of the report, Wednesday called on the Bush administration not to withhold information about Hanford. "If the administration knows more than it is sharing, it has an obligation to the public and certainly its workers, to make known the realities of cleaning up toxic waste," Cantwell said. Vitrification plant The cleanup plant is supposed to use a process called vitrification  sealing waste in glass  to treat 53 million gallons of waste held in underground tanks that are vulnerable to corrosion, earthquakes or other damage. Some have already leaked. Rising costs at the cleanup plant stem partly from the technical difficulties of handling huge volumes of potentially lethal chemicals and radioactive material. But Corps inspectors found the situation has been compounded by management difficulties within the Department of Energy (DOE) and Bechtel National, the company hired to build the plant. According to the report, there was little evidence that Bechtel was trying to control costs. In addition, DOE appeared to need more people to oversee the massive and complex project. It also reported that both Bechtel and DOE management were overly optimistic in some assumptions, and reluctant to recognize the potential for higher costs. "It would appear that a much higher level of DOE oversight is warranted," the report said. A Bechtel spokeswoman, Carrie Meyer, said she couldn't respond to details in the report because her company also had not been provided a copy of it. But she defended the company's work at Hanford. "I can say that Bechtel does try to control our costs," Meyer said. "We are trying to do what's right for our customer." The Corps report was requested by the DOE to get an independent analysis of new cost estimates from Bechtel. Detailed costs sought In June, Energy Secretary Bodman ordered an internal review of problems at the project, and formed a team of department officials to help manage work there. The department has sought a more detailed projection of future costs from Bechtel, and has asked the Corps to again scrutinize it. That review should be finished next year, Waldron said. But as cost estimates rise, a budget proposal before Congress would cut next year's spending from a target of $690 million to $526 million. That could delay completion of the plant by several years and drive up the overall cost, said Manning, of the state Ecology Department, which serves as the state's watchdog of Hanford cleanup. Much of the cost increase is driven by problems designing the one-of-a-kind vitrification factory. Engineers have struggled to figure out how to keep potentially explosive levels of hydrogen gas from building up in pipes, how to mix waste into a form that can be processed, and how to protect against fires. Most recently, construction was delayed when DOE discovered that its computer models had underestimated the risks posed by earthquakes. Bechtel is now reviewing ways to strengthen the plant. All told, the project could take 4.6 million more hours of engineering work than projections made in early 2004, according to Bechtel estimates cited by the Corps report. That's the equivalent of 2,300 engineers working full time for a year. And with such a complex project, the Department of Energy was warned by the federal Government Accountability Office last year that its "fast-track" strategy of simultaneously designing and constructing the treatment plant raised the risk of technical dead-ends and cost overruns. "History of arrogance" "We've got a history of arrogance and mismanagement that are leading to cost increases," said Tom Carpenter, a director of nuclear oversight for the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit watchdog group that is not affiliated with the public Government Accountability Office. "At what point does Congress lose patience and pull the plug on this thing, which is not a desirable outcome from anyone's viewpoint?" In the report obtained by The Times, the Corps held out the possibility that costs could be reduced by more aggressive management, and possibly rewriting the contract with Bechtel. In the meantime, while work has slowed on cleanup of the underground tanks, the DOE has made progress in other parts of Hanford. For example, it has removed spent nuclear fuel rods from water-filled basins, and now is working to clean-up radioactive sludge there. But earlier this week, the DOE announced that the work will take another two years  rather than a couple of months as initially planned. Warren Cornwall: 206-464-2311 or Staff reporter Hal Bernton contributed to this report. Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 44 New Mexican: Group faults lab on plutonium records By Andy Lenderman December 1, 2005 A Maryland nuclear-watchdog group says Los Alamos National Laboratory should do a better job of keeping track of plutonium. Various organizations involved in monitoring the weapons lab say they believe much of the highly radioactive atomic-bomb ingredient referred to in a new report is buried as waste at Los Alamos. But authors of a report released Wednesday by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research want managers of the federal lab to explain what it says are major discrepancies in accounts of plutonium at LANL. One of the reports authors said theres no evidence the plutonium has left Los Alamos. An official with the National Nuclear Security Administrations Los Alamos office was studying the report Wednesday. But spokesman Bernie Pleau said his office wouldnt be able to respond until today. The report states: An analysis of official data indicates that the unaccounted for plutonium amounts to at least 300 kilograms , and could be over 1,000 kilograms, though the higher figure appears unlikely. Authors Brice Smith and Arjun Makhijani speculate about where the plutonium could be. However, Greg Mello, the head of a separate nuclearwatchdog group in New Mexico called Los Alamos Study Group, said activists have known since the 1970s that most of the plutonium in question is buried in waste at the lab. Jay Coghlan of Nuclear Watch New Mexico agreed thats likely. Nevertheless, were talking about a very serious discrepancy , Coghlan said. The report details discrepancies between documents at the federal Department of Energy headquarters and other DOE offices, Smith and Makhijani wrote. A summary offers possibilities to explain the discrepancy, including that the plutonium is buried in waste or has been shipped to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad. And if part of the plutonium is missing, they wrote, it would have major national security implications. If much or most of the plutonium was disposed of as buried low-level waste and buried transuranic waste, the long-term radiation doses would exceed any allowable limits, the report reads. The report recommends a detailed explanation of the discrepancy and says appeals to the department and the lab have failed to elicit a serious response or investigation. ***************************************************************** 45 SF Chronicle: LIVERMORE / Nuclear lab gets OK to double plutonium / U.S. Energy Dept. approves storage of 300 bombs' worth Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer Thursday, December 1, 2005 The U.S. Department of Energy has decided to double the amount of radioactive plutonium that can be stored at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, enough for as many as 300 nuclear bombs, agency representatives said Wednesday. Energy Department officials approved the increase less than five months after a scientific panel for the agency urged that virtually all the plutonium now stored at Livermore be removed from the growing city to a safer, more remote site, probably in a desert in a different state. The change will allow plutonium from other nuclear sites, including Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, to be shipped to Livermore for the lab's program of studying long-term decay of nuclear bomb parts and finding ways to maintain the bombs. The government also decided to authorize Livermore scientists to use a superlaser to blast small quantities of plutonium and other nuclear bomb material to simulate nuclear explosions, something lab critics fear could release traces of the radioactive poison into the atmosphere. When the Energy Department sought congressional funding for the superlaser project a decade ago, it issued a report saying it had no plans to simulate such mini-nuclear bomb blasts. The laser, called the National Ignition Facility, is under construction. The decisions infuriated Bay Area anti-nuclear activists, who fear that increased plutonium storage and bomb-component transport over busy roads to Livermore could increase the chances of a nuclear accident or terrorist attack that, in a worst-case scenario, could leave areas uninhabitable. "If people in the Bay Area knew that they were being involuntarily drafted as human radiation experiments, they wouldn't like it," said Jackie Cabasso of the Western States Legal Foundation in Oakland. "The research, development and testing of nuclear weapons is intrinsically the dirtiest business on Earth. Every facility which has historically been involved in those (nuclear) activities has created enormous environmental damage and hazards to public health." The Energy Department decision "puts the entire San Francisco Bay Area at risk," said Loulena Miles, staff attorney at the Livermore-based Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment. A spokeswoman for the lab said officials declined to comment and referred questions to the Energy Department. Over the years, hundreds of pounds of plutonium have been stored and analyzed inside a storage building on the lab grounds, known as Building 332. The federal changes -- made public Tuesday by a quasi-independent Energy Department subsidiary, the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration -- allow shipments to be greatly increased, but don't specify whether the new limits are short-term or permanent. The lab is now authorized to store as much as 1,540 pounds of plutonium. An Energy Department official, John Belluardo, said the exact amount now at Livermore "is classified due to 9/11 security concerns." Tuesday's decision doubles the maximum permissible storage of plutonium to more than 3,080 pounds. If extra plutonium is shipped to Livermore from Los Alamos and other weapons sites around the United States, it will be closely watched en route, Belluardo said. "Plutonium shipments are closely monitored and transported by truck under very tight security protection," he said. "The nuclear material at the (Livermore) plutonium facility has always been stored in a safe and secure manner." However, federal investigators issued a report in April 2004 criticizing safety standards at Livermore's Building 332. The inspectors from the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board warned of the possibility of a plutonium fire -- in pulverized form, the substance is highly flammable -- that "could continue for days." In reply, lab officials have insisted they handle plutonium safely. Exchanges between the lab and federal monitors have continued since the report. An Oct. 7 memo posted on the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's Web site said that over the last year, inspections indicated that safety-related procedures inside Building 332 "were less than adequate." Although Livermore employees have been taking "corrective actions" to meet the board's demands, "the effectiveness of the corrective actions remains uncertain," the memo said. In a July 13 draft report, the Energy Department's six-member Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure Task Force recommended moving virtually all plutonium and other nuclear bomb materials such as highly enriched uranium out of Livermore to a remote lab. The panel said the idea was to "substantially increase (nuclear weapons) complex efficiency, and reduce complex transportation, security and other operating costs, while limiting the number of complex sites and civilian communities contiguous to the complex sites that could be targets of terrorist attacks." David Overskei, a plasma physicist who chaired the panel, said Wednesday that Los Alamos, which also does maintenance work on nuclear weapons, can't manage its workload. As a result, he said, he can understand why the Energy Department needs to ship extra plutonium to Livermore -- as long as the increased limits are temporary. However, Overskei said that in the long run, nearly all nuclear bomb material including plutonium should be removed from Livermore and other labs near densely inhabited areas. Besides the practical value of centering all plutonium work at a central lab, removing such material from inhabited areas "removes a collateral civilian threat to the community," he said. The Energy Department's announcement of plans for the laser-blasting of plutonium reverses its original position. Livermore began building the National Ignition Facility in the late 1990s. Christopher Paine, a longtime critic of the Energy Department who works at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said Wednesday that a December 1995 document from the agency included a passage stating that laser experiments "will not make use of any fissile material" such as plutonium. Paine said the main danger from vaporized plutonium is that it could be inhaled and lodged in people's lungs; its radioactive decay could trigger cancers. The laser-blasting will require construction of a special containment chamber, Paine predicted, adding, "It's going to be very expensive." E-mail Keay Davidson at kdavidson@sfchronicle.com. Page B - 1 The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 46 UPI: ORNL scientists look at nature in new way United Press International 11/30/2005 8:16:00 PM -0500 Newstrack: The U.N. refugee agency says a new OAK RIDGE, Tenn., Nov. 30 (UPI) -- Increasingly sophisticated methods are leading scientists to a better understanding of how organisms respond to and interact with their environment. Oak Ridge National Laboratory scientists say they are taking advantage of advances in genomics, sensor technology, applied mathematics, analytical technologies and computational sciences to tackle complex questions in ecology that were previously thought to be unanswerable. "These advances are providing unprecedented new resources for exploring in ever-increasing detail the mechanisms that enable organisms to develop, survive, carry out normal functions and reproduce under changing environmental conditions," said Oak Ridge's Stan Wullschleger. Where climate change and ecosystems are concerned, the problem is researchers can only detect change with broad-scale measurements after the change has occurred. "We need to see change coming," Wullschleger said. "Just like weather forecasting, we need to forecast change in other ecosystems. Hindsight is 20-20, but hindsight is not a substitution for prediction." Oak Ridge is operated by the U.S. Department of Energy. © Copyright 2005 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 47 BoiseWeekly: Jury Sides with Hanford Nuke Contractors NOVEMBER 30, 2005 BY NICHOLAS COLLIAS A District Court in Spokane, Washington, decided this week that a Coeur d'Alene woman did not prove that her thyroid cancer was caused my nuclear emissions from the Hanford Nuclear site. Shannon Rhodes, 64, was one of six "bellwether plaintiffs" who sued E.I. du Pont de Nemours and General Electric, the corporations that operated the Hanford site during the mid-20th Century. During that period, the site produced plutonium for nuclear weapons, but also released radioactive emissions into the surrounding countryside. In the 1990s, over 2,000 former neighbors of the site sued the contractors for illnesses they say resulted from the emissions, but defense attorneys chose six particular cases to represent the large group. Earlier this year, two of Rhodes' fellow plaintiffs won their cases. Three others had their claims denied. Rhodes' original trial ended in a hung jury, setting the stage for this emotional re-trial. According to coverage in the Spokane Spokesman Review, many in the courtroom were brought to tears by Rhodes' testimony--in particular her account of several new, aggressive tumors that doctors say will end her live within a few years. Copyright 2005, BoiseWeekly ***************************************************************** 48 Guardian Unlimited: Report Finds Hanford Costs May Skyrocket From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday December 1, 2005 7:46 PM SEATTLE (AP) - A plant that is being constructed to turn radioactive waste from the Hanford nuclear weapons installation into glasslike logs could costs billions of dollars more than first estimated and take an additional four years, a newspaper reported Thursday. An Army Corps of Engineers report, completed in May, estimated the cost could soar from $5.8 billion to $9.65 billion, and the project might not be completed until 2015, The Seattle Times said. The plant, which will convert waste into a safer form that can be disposed of, has been plagued by delays over the past decade, in part because of fears that the Energy Department underestimated the effect a severe earthquake could have on it. The Energy Department has refused to release the report or a new cost estimate or schedule. The Times said a copy was leaked to the newspaper. The department is already taking steps to address problems with the project, spokesman Mike Waldron said. Hanford was created to produce plutonium in the 1940s as part of the Manhattan Project that built the atomic bomb. Today, it is the nation's most contaminated nuclear site. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 49 UPI: Hanford clean up to take longer, cost more United Press International - NewsTrack - 12/1/2005 2:15:00 PM -0500 Newstrack: The U.N. refugee agency says a new RICHLAND, Wash., Dec. 1 (UPI) -- A secret government study says soaring costs are among the latest problems plaguing clean up of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, north of Richland, Wash. The Seattle Times said the report was leaked to it after months of unsuccessful efforts to get the U.S. Energy Department to release it under the open-records laws. The study, completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in May, focused on construction of a plan to seal radioactive waste in glass, considered a key step in the clean up effort, the Times reported. The report estimates costs could soar to $9.65 billion, making it among the most costly construction projects in the nation. And, the report said, it may not be completed until 2015. The U.S. Department of Energy, which runs Hanford, had refused to release the report to state officials, a citizen oversight panel, the news media or even some members of Congress. The Hanford Nuclear Reservation is a 586-square-mile site where plutonium production for nuclear weapons left tons of radioactive and toxic waste. It is considered one of the world's most polluted sites. © Copyright 2005 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************