***************************************************************** 12/14/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.290 ***************************************************************** 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 Xinhua: Iran condemns west accusation on its nuclear program 2 AFP: Failed Iran-EU nuclear talks could get Russian to back hardline 3 AFP: Pakistan opposes use for force against Iran over nuclear row - 4 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] Clouds over nuclear talks 5 Korea Herald: N.K. urged to return to nuke talks 6 Reuters: S.Korea calls on North to return to nuclear talks 7 Korea Times: Seoul Urges NK to Resume Nuclear Talks 8 Xinhua: Two Koreas hold ministerial meeting 9 Albuquerque Tribune: N.M. senators plug energy issues in Europe, at 10 [NukeNet] Nuclear Arms Race Between USA & Russia Revives 11 BBC: Newsnight: "Allies on Trial" NUCLEAR REACTORS 12 Public Support For New Nuclear Power Plants Low, According To UN Pol 13 US: AP Wire: Utilities file letter of intent for nuclear plant 14 Bellona: Rosatom head meets environmentalists 15 RIA Novosti: Short-circuit stalls nuclear power unit in northwestern 16 US: NRC: Sunshine Act: Meetings 17 US: Vermont Guardian: Federal experts give tentative OK to Vermont Y 18 US: Rutland Herald: Seven protesters arraigned 19 US: Rutland Herald: Time to get real on energy choices 20 Xinhua: INdonesia to build nuclear power plant in 2016¡¡¡¡ 21 Toronto Star: Nuclear expansion 'on the table,' McGuinty says 22 US: NRC: Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear 23 Indian Express: N-energy: Tokyo, Seoul ready to help Delhi 24 Japan Times: Reactors needed for Kyoto goals, expert says 25 AFP: World opinion against the building of new nuclear plants - IAEA 26 Kyiv Post: Don’t trust the IAEA on Chornobyl 27 Globe and Mail: Nuclear power if necessary, Ontario Premier says 28 US: Post and Courier: Nuclear power plant planned near Columbia 29 Reuters: Bruce Power shuts Ontario Bruce 6 nuke for work 30 Guardian Unlimited: Surge in price of power helps British Energy 31 ForUm: New Chornobyl shelter needs another $420 million NUCLEAR SECURITY 32 US: newsobserver.com: Group questions nuke plant security 33 CTK: Supreme Court lowers sentences for illegal sale of uranium NUCLEAR SAFETY 34 US: [du-list] Setting record straight - U and DU munitons history 35 US: NRC: Notice of Opportunity To Comment on Model Safety Evaluation 36 BBC: Town's forgotten 37 [du-list] Serbia removes depleted uranium left over from NATO 38 Toronto Star: Radiation detector scans Saint John containers 39 US: Las Vegas SUN: UNR gets federal grant for radiation sickness NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 40 US: AU ABC: Perth company begins uranium exploration 41 US: reviewjournal.com: BLM seeks more public comment on nuclear site 42 Las Vegas SUN: Senators offer Yucca alternative 43 US: DenverPost.com: GOP alters its tune on mining law 44 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Florida utility won't help build PFS site 45 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find 46 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find 47 US: Deseret News: 3rd investor abandons PFS project for nuclear wast 48 US: KUTV: Third Utility Abandons Proposed Nuclear Waste Dump 49 AU ABC: Opposition wants dump debate to focus on location, safety. 50 US: KVBC: New nuclear waste legislation 51 US: Bradenton Herald: Student planning Tallevast survey PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 52 [du-list] 1945 DU ws more precious than gold ... the LANL 53 NEW MEXICAN: LANL decision could come soon 54 New Mexican: LANL contract bid resource guide ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Xinhua: Iran condemns west accusation on its nuclear program www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-12-14 23:57:29 TEHRAN, Dec. 14 (Xinhuanet) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday condemned the accusation made by the Weston Iran's nuclear program, stressing that Iran would never give up the right of peacefully using nuclear technology. "Those who themselves produce nuclear arms should not raise hue and cry against those who only want to gain access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes," the official IRNA news agency quoted Ahmadinejad at a gathering in the southeastern city of Zahedan as saying. Referring to the United States and the European Union (EU),which have been pressing Tehran to give up its work on nuclear fuel cycle construction, the hardline president said that access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes was a natural and absolute right of the Iranian nation. He added that the government would guarantee the absolute right and complete the whole nuclear program. "The Iranian nation can no longer be deceived by Western countries," he said. Ahmadinejad's remarks were made just one week ahead of a new round of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the EU. During the upcoming nuclear talks, the EU is expected to press Iran on an alleged Russian proposal, which allows Iran to conduct uranium conversion activities in exchange for the country's transfer of enrichment process to Russia, a measure preventing Tehran from obtaining nuclear technology crucial to making atom bombs. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi Wednesday evening dismissed as untrue a recent report that Iranian Majlis (parliament) Speaker Gholamali Haddad Adel had said the proposal over enrichment abroad was negotiable. The United States accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons secretly, a charge rejected by Tehran as politically motivated. Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 2 AFP: Failed Iran-EU nuclear talks could get Russian to back hardline Wed Dec 14, 1:39 PM ET VIENNA (AFP) - European and Western diplomats fear that next week's planned nuclear meeting with Iran" /> is all but futile but could help in getting Russia to back a hardline against Iran's atomic ambitions. The European Union" /> and Iran are planning to meet next Wednesday in Vienna but diplomats told AFP there is little hope of progress in getting Tehran to abandon nuclear fuel work that raises concerns it seeks to make nuclear weapons. "I fear that we'll just be going through the motions when we meet with the Iranians," said a diplomat from one of the "EU-3" states negotiating with Iran -- Britain, Germany and France. "The real diplomatic work at the moment is trying to bring the Russians on board so we can take this to the Security Council," said the diplomat, who requested anonymity due to the highly sensitive nature of the issue. The Vienna-based UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency" /> (IAEA) has found Iran in non-compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) for almost two decades of hidden nuclear activities, a finding that requires eventual referral to the Security Council, which can impose sanctions. But the IAEA in November put off taking Iran to the Council after the EU-3 agreed to give more time for new Russian diplomacy to work. Moscow, which is building Iran's first nuclear power reactor, has proposed allowing the Islamic Republic to conduct uranium enrichment in Russia rather than on Iranian soil so that Tehran does not obtain the nuclear technology crucial to making atom bombs. Iran however insists its nuclear program is a peaceful effort to generate electricity and that it therefore has the right to enrich uranium on its territory. Enrichment makes what can be fuel for nuclear power reactors but also the raw material for atom bombs. The Iranian refusal on the nuclear front comes as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has launched a series of verbal attacks against Israel" /> , calling for it to be wiped off the map. A second EU diplomat said the EU-3 wanted to keep Iran's nuclear and political stance "separate" for next week's talks, which are about re-starting formal negotiations that broke off in August when Iran resumed uranium conversion, which makes the feedstock gas for enrichment. "It serves no good purpose if one went overboard with reaction and linked things," the diplomat said. The diplomat added that the Europeans in any case wanted to take diplomacy to the bitter end, at which point Russia might be convinced that harder measures such as Security Council action is necessary. A third diplomat said next week's talks would "be a chance for both sides to put their cards on the table" and for the Europeans to "make a final plea to the Iranians before going to the Security Council." The diplomat said the meeting would be followed by a "period of reflection," during which the West would undoubtedly lobby with Russia. Russia, which has a veto on the Security Council, backs Iran's right to civilian nuclear technology and says the issue should remain with the IAEA. A Western diplomat said the United States, which backs the EU's diplomatic initiative, was hoping that "if Russia's efforts are rejected by Iran, then Russia will recognize that only the additional pressure of the Security Council might compel Iran to take the necessary steps" to comply with the international community's nuclear demands. Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 3 AFP: Pakistan opposes use for force against Iran over nuclear row - Wed Dec 14, 7:57 AM ET ISLAMABAD (AFP) - Pakistan said it was against the use of force against Iran" /> Iranover its controversial nuclear programme and wanted to resolve the issue through dialogue. "Pakistani is against the use of force on Iran's nuclear issue," Pakistan's foreign minister said during talks with his Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki. Mottaki, who arrived in Pakistan on Wednesday, is making his first visit to the country since August when he was named to his post. Kasuri reiterated Pakitan's support for the Iran- European Union" /> European Uniondialogue and expressed hope it would lead towards an "amicable" solution, a Pakistani foreign ministry statement said. Mottaki's visit to Pakistan comes ahead of December 21 talks between Iran and the so-called European Union 3 -- Britain, France and Germany -- on its disputed nuclear programme. EU-Iran talks collapsed in August when Tehran ended its suspension of uranium conversion, a first step towards enrichment, and the planned talks are aimed at determining if negotiations can resume. "The issue should be settled within the framework of the IAEA," Kasuri said referring to International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency, the global nuclear watchdog. The two foreign ministers also agreed to raise the level of bilateral trade to one billion dollars and reviewed the progress of a multi-billion-dollar Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline, the statement said. Nuclear-armed Pakistan has figured in the IAEA's investigation of Iran's atomic fuel reactor programme. Pakistan in May sent parts from used nuclear centrifuges to the IAEA to allow the agency to compare microscopic traces of uranium on them with those found on devices in Iran. The IAEA confirmed in August that the particles found at a key nuclear site in Iran were from Pakistani centrifuges, which were passed to Tehran by the disgraced Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 4 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] Clouds over nuclear talks 2005.12.15 Editorial Clouds are gathering fast over the six-party talks aimed at resolving the North Korean nuclear problem. What's more worrisome this time is that clouds are forming not only over the usual chief antagonists - Washington and Pyongyang - but also between Seoul and Washington. The prospects for an early resumption of the talks, which went into a recess last month, have already dimmed to the point where South Korean officials publicly admit their efforts to call an informal meeting of the talks' chief delegates on Jeju Island this month have gone nowhere. Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon, now in Kuala Lumpur for the East Asia Summit, said he believes the six-party talks will resume next month, but the situation is such that it looks like little more than a wishful thinking. Seoul officials participating in the 17th round of the minister-level talks with North Korea on the same island may well try to persuade the northern side to return to the negotiating table with the other five countries. But with the nuclear issues outside the official agenda, the North is unlikely to heed the calls of the South. One knows well how hard it is to negotiate with the North, but it is truly regrettable that the six-party talks are encountering formidable obstacles less than three months after an agreement in which Pyongyang promised to dismantle its nuclear development programs in exchange for a security guarantee and economic assistance. The biggest obstacle is the tension between the United States and the North surrounding U.S. financial sanctions, aggravated by an ensuing war of words. Pyongyang has announced it would not return to the talks unless the sanctions are lifted. The U.S. ambassador in Seoul, Alexander Vershbow, called the North a "criminal regime," which Pyongyang said was tantamount to a declaration of war. A North Korean spokesman went on to say that the United States is overturning the basic principles of the joint statement adopted by the six nations in September and producing scenarios to keep the North from the talks and make them collapse. Adding to the rapidly heightening tension between Washington and Pyongyang, some ill-timed discord is emerging between Seoul and Washington. The first sign of the cracks appeared when Vershbow described the Pyongyang government as a criminal regime and called for improvement in the North's human rights conditions in concert with an international conference on the issue in Seoul. South Korean officials publicly countered that U.S. officials should exercise caution in characterizing the North and they turned a deaf ear to the U.S. demands on the human rights issue. Some could say Vershbow's remarks only reflect his personal views, but developments afterward reflect the contrary. It seems apparent that Washington is stiffening its stand against the North in the face of conflict with Seoul. The U.S. envoy on the North's human rights, Jay Lefkowitz, urged Seoul to link its human rights conditions with economic assistance. Vershbow followed by calling on Seoul to connect economic cooperation even to progress at the nuclear talks. It should also be noted that the ambassador said last week that the North could get a more "economical and achievable" energy source than light-water nuclear reactors, a key element of the September agreement. Taken together, the U.S. position and the North's intransigence are feared to make the agreement reached in the six-party talks in September a worthless sheet of paper. Seoul and Washington should find their own common ground while trying to get the North back to the dialogue table. Striking a deal with North Korea hardly is easy even if the two allies have one mind and one voice. ***************************************************************** 5 Korea Herald: N.K. urged to return to nuke talks 2005.12.15 Pyongyang delegation gives no immediate response By Annie I. Bang JEJU - South Korea yesterday urged North Korea to return to nuclear disarmament talks and stressed that it is the most effective way to improve inter-Korean relationships during the first full-day of inter-Korean ministerial talks on the southern resort island of Jeju. The remark was made by South Korean Unification Minister Chung Dong-young during his speech at the general meeting of the 17th ministerial talks. "We gave the North an impetus to return to the six-party talks as soon as possible, and that carrying out the Sept. 19 Joint Statement is the most valuable way for the South-North to jointly benefit," Kim Chun-sig, spokesman of the South's delegates, told the reporters. Kim said the North delegation had no immediate response to it. The North has declared it would abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs in return for security guarantees and aids during talks held in Beijing during September. The latest round of six-party talks, involving the United States, China, Russia, Japan and the two Koreas, went into recess last month with no date having been set for the next phase of the talks. The South emphasized the importance of resolving the nuclear crisis on the peninsula in order to build trust between two Koreas and to try and establish a peaceful regime on the peninsula. Chung, the South's chief delegate to the talks, also urged the North to cooperate with pending issues including setting up a date for inter-Korean general-level military talks. "During the talks, we will focus on the matter. For the South-North's peaceful relationship, there needs to be progress on the military area" Kim said. "I expect a positive response from the North since it has said that there has been improvement to ease tension between the two countries." Kwon Ho-ung, the North's delegation chief, proposed during his speech yesterday that the two countries need to upgrade their relationship further. "As I understand his remark, it may mean strengthening the political and military trust between two countries in order to bring in lasting peace on the peninsula," Kim said. Alongside tackling the sensitive issues of establishing permanent peace regime on the peninsula, the South Korean delegation also raised issues like South Korean prisoners of war and abductees believed to be held in the North. The North has proposed another round of reunions for separated families and relatives along with video reunions around the Lunar New Year. The ministerial talks, the highest-level dialogue between the two countries, are slated to last for three days beginning on Tuesday. (aibang@heraldm.com) ***************************************************************** 6 Reuters: S.Korea calls on North to return to nuclear talks Reuters.com Wed 14 Dec 2005 4:52 AM ET SOGWIPO, South Korea, Dec 14 (Reuters) - South Korea urged North Korea on Wednesday to return to negotiations on ending its nuclear programmes, in the first senior level meeting between the two since Pyongyang threatened to pull out of six-party talks. Ministers from the two Koreas are meeting on the South's resort island of Cheju for four days of talks aimed at bolstering inter-Korean cooperation. "We urged North Korea to return to the six-party talks and to implement an agreement reached by the parties," a South Korean Unification Ministry official said. In September, Pyongyang agreed at the six-party talks to scrap its nuclear weapons programmes in exchange for economic aid, security assurances and greater diplomatic recognition. The negotiations involve the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States. But analysts say a new round of talks, originally expected in January, may now be postponed after a deterioration in relations between Washington and Pyongyang. Washington, which accuses North Korea of funding its nuclear programmes partly through money obtained from counterfeiting, money laundering and the drug trade, has angered the Communist North by clamping down on its finances. In response, Pyongyang said this month the U.S. crackdown on its financial assets made it impossible to resume talks on dismantling its nuclear programmes. While North Korea's relations with the United States have soured, inter-Korean cooperation has remained broadly on track in recent months. South Korea said it would like to see progress during the talks in Cheju in obtaining information on South Korean prisoners of war in the North, as well as on citizens it suspects were abducted by the North. At a previous inter-Korean meeting in September, North Korea said it was willing to discuss the cases of abductees and the thousands of South Korean POWs from the 1950-1953 Korean War who were never repatriated. Other issues on the agenda in Cheju include measures to build confidence between two vast militaries on either side of the heavily fortified Demilitarised Zone that divides the peninsula, as well as putting the final touches on rail links. North Korea has proposed holding another round of reunions of families separated by the Korean War before February of next year, the Unification Ministry official said. (With additional reporting by Lee Jin-joo) © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. [ border=] ***************************************************************** 7 Korea Times: Seoul Urges NK to Resume Nuclear Talks Hankooki.com > The Korea Times By Seo Dong-shin Staff Reporter Unification Minister Chung Dong-young, right, front row, and Kwon Ho-ung, on his right, a senior Cabinet councilor who leads the North Korean delegation to the inter-Korean ministerial talks, look at a tree at a botanical garden on Cheju Island, Wednesday. / Yonhap CHEJU ISLAND _ South Korea Wednesday called on North Korea to return to the six-nation talks on the North¡¯s nuclear programs as early as possible. In a keynote speech at the first plenary session of inter-Korean Cabinet talks here, Unification Minister Chung Dong-young, the South¡¯s chief delegate, told his Northern counterpart Kwon Ho-ung that holding onto the agreements in the Sept. 19 joint statement would be the ``most effective method¡¯¡¯ to achieve common benefits for the two Koreas. But the North¡¯s keynote speech focused on inter-Korean relations, calling for more economic cooperation with the South, apparently determined not to tackle the nuclear issue, Kim Chun-sig, the South¡¯s spokesman for the inter-Korean talks, told reporters after the session. At the end of the fourth round of nuclear talks in Beijing on Sept. 19, the six countries signed a joint statement in which five other countries promised the North economic aid and a security guarantee for its abandonment of nuclear programs. The latest round of the multilateral nuclear talks recessed in Beijing last month, with participating nations _ the two Koreas, the U.S., China, Japan and Russia _ informally agreeing to resume the talks in January. The four-day inter-Korean Cabinet meeting, which started Tuesday, came as the prospects dimmed for the next round of the nuclear talks after friction developed between the United States and North Korea over allegations of the communist regime¡¯s ``illegal activities¡¯¡¯ such as counterfeiting U.S. dollars and money laundering. On a bilateral basis, South Korea called on the North to advance efforts to implement the agreements made during previous rounds of inter-Korean ministerial talks, according to Kim. The agreements include general-level military talks and opening of the Kyongui and Tonghae railway lines across the inter-Korean border. During the hour-long session, the South also put forward three goals for further development in inter-Korean relations, Kim said. They are establishing a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula; curing the remaining scars from the Cold War era by resolving humanitarian issues such as repatriation of South Korean prisoners of war (POWs) during the 1950-1953 Korean War and the postwar abduction of South Koreans to the North; and speeding up inter-Korean cooperation projects to build a joint economic community. North Korea also presented their goals for next year, while commenting positively on the development in inter-Korean relations made this year which marked the 60th anniversary of Korea¡¯s liberation from Japanese colonial rule and the fifth anniversary of the June 15 inter-Korean Joint Declaration. In addition to the usual demands to stop criticism against each other and to drop joint military exercises between South Korea and the U.S., the North also called on the South to allow Koreans visiting the other side of the border to go to places freely. ``The North seemed to express discontent at the South Koreans for not taking active steps on this, although the North Korean delegates visited the National Cemetery in the South,¡¯¡¯ Kim said. The North Korean delegates to the celebrations for the 60th Liberation Day paid an unprecedented tribute at the National Cemetery in Seoul, where South Korean war dead during the Korean War are buried, last August. The South Korean government has not yet made any return gesture, apparently fearing ideological backlash from the public. The two sides tentatively agreed to hold face-to-face reunion sessions of separated families in March next year. They also discussed ways to cooperate on the North¡¯s bid to register historic sites in Kaesong as UNESCO¡¯s World Heritage Sites. saltwall@koreatimes.co.kr 12-14-2005 17:06 ***************************************************************** 8 Xinhua: Two Koreas hold ministerial meeting www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-12-15 08:29:44 SEOUL, Dec. 14 (Xinhuanet) -- Delegations of South Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) held their first plenary session of the inter-Korean ministerial meeting Wednesday at a hotel in South Korean southern resort Delegations of South Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) hold their first plenary session of the inter-Korean ministerial meeting at a hotel in South Korean southern resort island of Jeju, Dec. 14, 2005. (Photo: Xinhua/AFP) island of Jeju. At the opening of the two-hour session, South Korea's chief delegate and Unification Minister Chung Dong-young stressed the need to improve inter-Korean relations. "The North-South relationship must enter an era that lacks confrontation, repeated stalls and agony of the people," Chung was quoted by South Korean Yonhap News Agency as saying in his opening remarks at the beginning of the session. In return, the DPRK's chief delegate and Cabinet Councilor Kwang Ho Ung said "We must work to produce good results (at the talks) with the common goal of national unity in mind." After the two chief delegates delivered opening remarks, the two teams held closed-door session. The meeting is the 17th round of its kind since year 2000. The talks are scheduled to be concluded on Friday. Agenda of the new round of the meeting is hoped to include South Korean prisoners of war (POWs) of the Korean War (1950-1953)and abduction victims in the DPRK, according to the South Korean Unification Ministry. South Korea claims dozens of its POWs and abductees are living in the DPRK, but the latter declines the existence of such crowd of South Koreans in its territory. Moreover, the two sides are expected to discuss the issue of resuming the inter-Korean general-level military talks. They held two rounds of military talks between their general-grade officials in 2004, but a third round has yet to be convened. The two sides are also expected to discuss the ways to increase and deepen inter-Korean exchanges. Previously, the South Korean Unification Ministry expressed its will to use the chance to state South Korea's stance over the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula and persuade the DPRK to return to the six-party nuclear talks as early as possible. The first stage of the fifth round of six-party nuclear talks concluded in November in Beijing. China, the DPRK, the United States, Russia, South Korea and Japan agreed to reopen the second phase of fifth round of the talks at an early date. However, up to now, the concerning parties did not set an exact date for the resumption of the talks due to escalating tension between the DPRK and the Us. The US froze the US-based assets of eight DPRK companies in late October, accusing them of proliferating weapons of mass destruction. Pyongyang said last week that it would boycott the nuclear talks until Washington lifts the financial sanctions, denying the companies have relations with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The two delegations are scheduled to visit historical sites on the southern resort island later in the day following a joint lunch. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 9 Albuquerque Tribune: N.M. senators plug energy issues in Europe, at home By TRIBUNE STAFF December 14, 2005 WASHINGTON - Even separated by an ocean, New Mexico's Sens. Pete Domenici and Jeff Bingaman seldom get away from the issue of energy. Domenici, the Albuquerque Republican who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is returning today from a quick trip to Europe where he became the first American to receive the "Grande Medaille" from the French Nuclear Energy Society for his contributions to furthering the use of nuclear energy. "I look forward to a global renaissance in the use of nuclear energy," said Domenici, noting that eight U.S. utilities announced plans to build 13 nuclear power plants after passage of the energy bill. Domenici also visited the site of a uranium enrichment plant at Amelo, Netherlands, operated by Urenco, the same company that is proposing to build a similar plant in Eunice in southeastern New Mexico. In three decades the Netherlands plant has never experienced any significant accidents, Domenici told reporters in a conference call. Meanwhile, Bingaman, the Silver City Democrat who is the ranking minority member on the energy committee, on Tuesday was helping a coalition of utilities, government agencies and trade associations kick off a campaign to encourage conservation. "The Power Is in Your Hands" campaign will include print ads and media events. "If we were to spend about a third as much on educating people on energy conservation as we do on Viagra, we'd probably get this problem fixed in a hurry," Bingaman cracked at a news conference in Washington, D.C. For more information go to www.powerisinyourhands.org. 2005 © The Albuquerque Tribune Privacy Policy| User Agreement| ***************************************************************** 10 [NukeNet] Nuclear Arms Race Between USA & Russia Revives Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:10:42 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 6:22 PM Subject: [abolition-caucus] BMD Focus: Russia's new super-missiles http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051201-115306-3062r BMD Focus: Russia's new super-missiles By MARTIN SIEFF UPI Senior News Analyst WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 (UPI) -- Almost ignored by the mainstream U.S. media, the strategic nuclear arms race between the United States and Russia has revived -- with spending and weapons development at an intensity unseen since the days of the SS-18 and Pershing II deployments a quarter of a century ago. On Nov. 17, as reported by United Press International, the U.S. Navy successfully carried out its most ambitious and successful test yet of an anti-ballistic missile interceptor launched from an Aegis class cruiser in the Pacific Ocean. The success of the test contrasted sharply with the enormous delays, cost over-runs and major test failures that have plagued the land-based anti-missile technology deployed by the Missile Defense Agency around Fort Greely, Alaska. But meanwhile, Russia continues to push ahead with its most massive intercontinental ballistic missile testing and upgrading program since the collapse of communism. Flush with oil export revenues, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been pouring resources into his Strategic Missile Forces to upgrade the land-mobile SS-27 Topol-M and submarine-launched Bulova ICBMs and make them maneuverable and impervious to America's still untried new anti-missile defense systems. "You would think the Cold War never ended," analyst James Hackett wrote in the Washington Times Nov. 14. This week, the Russian Space Troops Force announced that it and the Strategic Missile Forces had successfully test-launched another Topol missile (designated by the Russians as RS-12M) from the high security Plesetsk Cosmodrome in Russia's northern Arkhangelsk Region. "The missile was launched from an autonomous launch station. The purpose of the launch is to confirm the flight, technical and operation characteristics of the mobile ground-based Topol missile complex so that its service life can be extended to 20 years," Aleksey Kuznetsov, the head of the Space Troops' press service, told the Interfax news agency. He said that the launch went smoothly and proceeded as planned. The test was just the latest in a massive, ambitious and so far generally successfully series of tests previously reported by UPI. Hackett noted that the SS-27 Topol is the strategic centerpiece of the rapidly upgrading Russian strategic nuclear arsenal. "The mobile version, harder to find and target, will be deployed beginning next year," he wrote. "A rapid-acceleration, solid-fuel missile, it will be difficult to intercept in the boost phase and the maneuvering warhead will make it hard to stop thereafter." British analyst Duncan Lamont wrote in an executive overview to the new edition of Jane's Strategic Weapons Systems in November that the upgraded Topol-Ms and Bulavas now being tested are "armed with some sort of hypersonic payload which would be capable of maneuvering in its midcourse and terminal phase, and thereby evading the sort of ground-based, midcourse ballistic missile defenses currently being fielded in Alaska and California." "A new class of ballistic missiles is emerging, now being called 'quasi- or semi-' ballistic missiles. These are missiles that can maneuver during the boost, mid-course, and the terminal phases of flight," Lennox wrote. Submarine-launched missiles, like the Bulova SRBM "have very depressed trajectories, possibly as low as 24 miles altitude for a missile with a range of 180 to 240 miles. The trajectory shape is flat, but with the ability to change direction across track as well as to increase or decrease the range. This will make it more difficult for any defensive system to forecast the impact point," Lennox wrote. Russia already has 46 Topols deployed in silos but that is only the tip of its strategic nuclear missile iceberg. Hackett writes that the Kremlin plans to upgrade all of them with three maneuvering warheads each, and to replace all its existing, road-mobile SS-25s with road-mobile Topols. Money will not be a problem. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov announced last month a $1.8 billion increase in the Strategic Missile Forces budget to pay for the upgrades. Hackett notes correctly that the only currently feasible way, even theoretically, to develop missile defenses against the dramatically upgraded Bulavas and Topols would be to pre-position space-based anti-ballistic missile interceptors in orbit. Russian analysts agree with this conclusion. But of course, it would be much more expensive and technically demanding for the United States to add a space-based interceptor program to its current, vastly over-budget and behind schedule ABM programs at a time of unprecedented federal deficits. When the U.S. Missile Defense Agency has failed in two of its last three attempts to get even the basic engine of a ground-based ABM interceptor to ignite for take-off, the sheer engineering challenge of deploying a fleet of space-based interceptors that could intercept dozens of Topol Ms or Bulavas appears insurmountable. Therefore, for all the scores of billions of dollars that have already been poured into ABM defense, the physics and engineering advantages on the High Frontier still lie overwhelmingly with the offensive systems. A quarter century after Ronald Reagan unveiled his "Star Wars" vision of an effective anti-ballistic missile space defense, the world remains locked in the straitjacket of Mutually Assured Destruction theory as its only viable deterrent against nuclear war. © Copyright 2005 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved Want to email or reprint this story? Click here for options. _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 11 BBC: Newsnight: "Allies on Trial" Last Updated: Wednesday, 14 December 2005 [Iraqi detainees] Questions are being asked about the treatment of terror suspects With ongoing controversy surrounding the conduct of the war in Iraq and the treatment of terror suspects in the wider "War on Terror", Newsnight is to stage a special programme entitled: "Allies on Trial". Allegations about the allies' conduct of war in Iraq, counter-insurgency measures and claims of torture in the "War on Terror" - plus the use of "extraordinary rendition" by the US - continue to surface. VOTE ONE Do you believe the allies have breached the convention on the methods and means of warfare? Yes No Results are indicative and may not reflect public opinion Jeremy Paxman will chair a special programme exploring whether the allies are guilty of war crimes. The programme, to be broadcast on Wednesday, 14 December will take the form of a trial, with advocates arguing the case for the prosecution and defence with the help of witness and expert testimony. Clive Stafford Smith - the Legal Director of Reprieve; a charity that defends prisoners facing the death penalty - will lead the prosecution. VOTE TWO Do you believe the allies have breached the convention on torture and refugees? Yes No Results are indicative and may not reflect public opinion Barrister John Cooper will argue for the defence. A jury of specially chosen undecided members of the public will give their verdict. Over the coming days we are inviting viewers to submit their opinions and evidence to the programme. We should be prepared for t long-haul in making Iraq a secure and stable country for the Iraqi people M Jones It should be an interesting programme and these issues DO need to be addressed. People need to remember, just because our soldiers are there in Iraq, it doesn't make it right. It's not the armed forces fault at all, it's the politicians who sent them there. Sam B, Tubridge Wells I am sick and tired of people suggesting the US and UK troops pull out - they must stay until the end. Anthony Christian, Glasgow I don't ever remember the BBC putting on a mock trial when Saddam Hussein was in power. Why is that? Also, far too many people are being far too short sighted in claiming that Iraq is a disaster. This is a long-term project that needs full commitment to get it right. We should be prepared for the long-haul in making Iraq a secure and stable country for the Iraqi people. M Jones, St Andrews, Scotland I only hope that one day t ignorant, sniping, treacherous cowards at the BBC can respect the brave men and women of our armed forces Chris Davies Must we use George Bush's ill-chosen "War on Terror" phrase? It is inflammatory and inappropriate, since it is never a war that we will be able to declare we've won in some finite military fashion? I worry that this "trial" will simply confuse the issue, since the war in Iraq and all that has followed runs contrary to the much more subtle and longer term objective of "defeating" or at least combating terrorism. Are we looking at foreign policy, military strategy, the intelligence services or tactics on the ground? Bruce Acton, Winchester Many people leaving commen here seem to be confused - this isn't a trial of soldiers serving in Iraq, but of the policy-makers Anon I am so absolutely incensed at the BBC for airing this programme that I can barely type this message. I speak as a former Royal Marine who has served in various hostile places to protect innocent people who are the subject of regimes like this. I only hope that one day the ignorant, sniping, treacherous cowards at the BBC can respect the brave men and women of our armed forces and may one day be able to understand what it feels like to lie in a shallow hole thousands of miles away from one's wife and children and weep at the thought you may never see them again. BBC, I am utterly disgusted. Chris Davies, London This is not about bashing supporting troops, this is looking at the legality of the war Gregor Looking forward to the programme and the surrounding controversy. Sadly, the comments on this page show just how entrenched many people's opinions are on this subject - from the 9/11 conspiracy theorists to the "my country, right or wrong" brigade. Many people leaving comments here seem to be confused - this isn't a trial of soldiers serving in Iraq, but of the policy-makers. Anon Oh for Gawd's sake, can't you find something new to talk about? Alan Taylor, Newport, South Wales It's not up to the BBC, or 'selected jury' to decide, but the people by democratic process Andy Dicker I'm disillusioned to see people here saying that we should be supporting troops and be happy for allowing democracy in Iraq. This is not about bashing or supporting troops, this is looking at the legality of the war. If rendition and resulting torture has occurred because of our actions, then we are further creating an unjust and unstable world. There is no question about this having to be brought to light. Gregor, London This is disgusting, by even producing this programme it's clear the BBC thinks that the allies are guilty. It's not up to the BBC, or a "selected jury" to decide, but the people by democratic process. Which is what they did at the last election, with not much effect. If this isn't clear unbalanced, bad journalism, then I don't know what is. Andy Dicker, Wells, Somerset ***************************************************************** 12 Public Support For New Nuclear Power Plants Low, According To UN Poll Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:00:08 -0500 While majorities of citizens generally support the continued use of existing nuclear reactors, most people do not favour building new nuclear power plants, according to a new 18-country opinion survey sponsored by the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2005/prn200516.html">IAEA) and released today. At a time when the nuclear power option is being vigorously pursued in the fast developing countries of Asia and being reconsidered in some European nations and the United States, the findings raise questions as to whether the nuclear industry and politicians have sufficiently raised public confidence in the safety and efficiency of the nuclear power option, IAEA said. The survey, conducted by Globescan Inc. shows that six in ten citizens (62 per cent) overall believe that existing nuclear reactors should continue to be used, but nearly the same number (59 per cent) do not favour new plants. Support for nuclear power is highest in South Korea, the United States and India, where clear pluralities support the building of new nuclear plants. In Morocco, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Cameroon, pluralities prefer that all existing plants be shut down. The survey was conducted between May and August this year in 18 countries representing all regions - Argentina, Australia, Cameroon, Canada, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and the United States. Some 18,000 people were polled by telephone and in-person interviews. The poll fielded six distinct questions, ranging from awareness of the IAEA and the effectiveness of IAEA inspections to support for peaceful nuclear applications and views about the security of nuclear materials and facilities and the threat of nuclear terrorism. Findings included: 2005-12-14 00:00:00.000 ________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml ***************************************************************** 13 AP Wire: Utilities file letter of intent for nuclear plant on Wed, Dec. 14, 2005 Associated Press CHARLESTON, S.C. - Two South Carolina electric utilities - Scana Corp. and Santee Cooper - have filed a letter of intent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to seek a permit to build a new nuclear power plant. There has been no final decision on building a reactor or where it would be built. The V.C. Summer plant in Jenkinsville near Columbia and land at the Savannah River Site near Aiken are being considered. "We have not ruled out other options as well as far as generation is concerned," said Scana spokesman Robin Montgomery. "This just allows us to keep our place in line." Congress recently gave the industry new subsidies to promote new reactor construction including insurance against financial losses caused by regulatory delays. No new commercial nuclear power plant has been ordered in the United States in more than 30 years. Scana, the parent firm of South Carolina Electric & Gas, and Santee Cooper co-own the 23-year-old V.C. Summer plant. Last year the plan won a permit extension allowing it to operate until 2042. Santee Cooper, even though it will add new coal turbines in 2007 and 2009, will have to buy power from other utilities by 2011 if the pace of growth in the state continues. "We need a unit in 2012 and we need another in 2015," said Bill McCall, Santee Cooper's chief operations officer. "You don't need to look at the numbers long to realize that." "This is the most challenging generation plan I've ever looked at," said Santee Cooper Chief Executive Officer Lonnie Carter. "We're not going to get by just with nuclear." Carter said the Summer facility would be "the site to beat" in building a new reactor. The site already has security and room for another cooling tower. A consortium of other utilities, a group including Duke Energy, had also been considering the Savannah River Site as one of six sites to build a new nuclear reactor. But in September, the consortium Nustart Energy Development, narrowed the potential sites to a Tennessee Valley Authority site near Scottsboro, Ala., and a site in Mississippi operated by Entergy near Port Gibson, Miss. Information from: The Post and Courier, email this print this ***************************************************************** 14 Bellona: Rosatom head meets environmentalists You are here: www.bellona.no : Russia : Nuclear Industry : Reprocessing in Siberia : Mayak : News story | [This page is also available in Russian] [Currently version is English] ST. PETERSBURG - New Rosatom head Sergei Kirienko's meeting with the public in Ozersk on the evening of December 12th saw him rubbing elbows with members of independent environmental organizations for the first time. Kirienko supported a proposal by environmentalists to announce an open tender to solve technical problems related to radioactive pollution of the River Techa, as well as issues regarding limits public access to the radioactive river. Vera Ponomareva, 2005-12-14 08:52 The meeting was attended by the head of Ozersk, Sergei Chernyshev, the director of the Urals Centre for Radiation Medicine, Alexander Akleyev, the head of the Southern Urals Biophysics Institute, Sergei Romanov, city lawmakers, and representatives of environmental organization Planet of Hopes and the local branch of the Chernobyl Union. The UN says that the Chelyabinsk Region, and Ozersk in particular, which is home to the Mayak nuclear facility, is one of the most radioactive places on the planet as a result of a half-century of the facility's dumping of radioactive substances into the environment  something that is still going on. In my opinion, the Rosatom head's attitude towards organization of meetings is very different from previous practices, Nadezhda Kutepova of Planet of Hopes told Bellona Web. Kutepova was also representing the environmental group Ekozashchita! According to Kutepova, Kirienko displayed great interest in the steps proposed to solve Mayak's problems. The Rosatom boss asked detailed questions about each problem. It looks like a beautiful lake, but it isn't. This is two of the water reservoirs for liquid radioactive waste from Mayak. Thomas Nilsen/Bellona Kirienko agreed that the front-line measures taken to deal with radioactive pollution of the Techa River should include immediate cessation of dumping of radioactive materials into the river by Mayak, irrespective of the nature of the material dumped and its level of radioactivity. Other measures included an open tender to clean up the Techa reservoir system, a complete ban on public access to the river, provisions of clean water for local inhabitants, and installation of radioactivity warning signs along the length of the river. We would like to hope that the new Rosatom head's energy will be enough to change the situation, said Kutepova and Vladimir Slivyak, co-chariman of Moscow's Ekozashchita! Group. At the beginning of 2005, the Prosecutor's office opened a criminal case on dumping of radioactive waste into the Techa River from the Mayak facility. Recently, a court deprived facility director and regional Duma deputy Vitaly Sadovnikov of immunity from prosecution in the case. According to Urals Federal District prosecutors' office, Mayak pumps roughly 10 million cu. m. of radioactive material into the Techa River every year, although Ekozashchita! puts the figure as high as 15 million cu. m. Muslyumovo Issues discussed at the meeting with Kirienko also included resettlement of inhabitants of the village of Muslyumovo, which was hard hit by a 1957 disaster involving the explosion of a Mayk storage tank, a preview of Chernobyl. Currently some 4,000 people live in the village, most of whom do not want to leave. Radiation pollution trial against Mayak plant begins In an unprecedented legal step, the Mayak Chemical Combineknown as the most radioactively contaminated place in Russiawas brought to trial earlier this week on charges of radioactively contaminating the environment. We cannot decide for these people, Kutepova said. But experience shows that inhabitants keep their old homes when resettled and return during the summer. There is also no legal basis for moving them out. Therefore, the environmentalists say, for a start, access to the river must be completely banned, and capacity developed to guarantee supplies of drinking and non-drinking water. Kirienko noted that such measures were much cheaper and easier to implement than resettling the community. At present, the riverbanks are fenced off with barbed wire, which presents little obstacle to, for example, livestock seeking water. Radiation warning signs are mainly placed far apart, and are not sturdy enough, meaning they often have to be repaired. Environmentalists have been talking about this problem for years, but the Mayak side responds that the local population already knows that the river is polluted. The river was taken out of use for agricultural purposes a long ago, Mayak General Director Vitaly Sadovnikov said at the meeting. According to Kutepova, this phrase caused a minor misunderstanding among other Mayak representatives, who were hearing for the first time about the Council of Ministers resolution taken at the end of the 1950s. At the same time as the suggested front-line measures, environmentalists say, it is essential to start full-scale sociological research in the polluted areas. Open tender Kirienko agreed with the proposal for an open tender to clean up the Techa reservoirs, saying that the suggestion was very timely. The tender is likely to be divided up into several stages, including clogging leaks, dam strengthening, and cleansing of the reservoirs. The absence of definitive measures to clean up the reservoirs and the area as a whole is Mayak's biggest problem, Bellona researcher Igor Kudrik said. But not only Mayak of guilty of inaction, but also the Rosatom leadership. Applicants for the tender are as yet unknown. It would be good if foreign companies were allowed to take part, Kutepova said. However, this could lead to breaches of secrecy, as Ozersk is still officially one of Russia's 10 closed cities to foreigners. During the meeting Kirienko underlined that construction of the Southern Urals Nuclear power pant (NPP), which his prior Rosatom head, Alexander Rumyantsev, had insisted on, would not help solve the problem of overspills in the Techa system. The constructors of the NPP say that bringing the station online would help lower the water levels by using the proposed Soutnern Urals NPP as steam in the reactor blocks. No other alternatives for cleaning the polluted water of the Techa system have yet been considered. The visit continued Kirienko continued his visit with a tour of the Mayak plant, the facility's press service said. We think it is very important that Kirenko began work in his new post by familiarizing himself with our plant, which is one of the largest and most significant facilities of the Russian nuclear industry, and, of course, burdened with certain problems, press service head Yevgeny Ryzhkov told Bellona Web. A press conference was slated for the evening, when the Rosatom head and representatives of the local administration and Mayak were expected to talk about the results of the visit. 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 ***************************************************************** 15 RIA Novosti: Short-circuit stalls nuclear power unit in northwestern Ukraine 20:34 | 14/ 12/ 2005 KIEV, December 14 (RIA Novosti) - A short-circuit in a turbine unit has caused an emergency shutdown in the fourth power unit of the Rivne nuclear power plant (NPP) in northwestern Ukraine, an NPP source said Wednesday. The source said the incident had not affected the radiation situation at or around the NPP, and posed no threat to staff. The Rivne NPP, Ukraine's first power plant equipped with a VVER-440 water-cooled reactor, has generated about 11-12 billion kilowatts per hour during recent years, accounting for 16% of the country's nuclear power. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 16 NRC: Sunshine Act: Meetings FR Doc 05-24064 [Federal Register: December 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 239)] [Notices] [Page 74036-74037] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14de05-100] DATES: Weeks of December 12, 19, 26, 2005, January 2, 9, 16, 2006. PLACE: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. STATUS: Public and closed. [[Page 74037]] MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Week of December 12, 2005 Monday, December 12, 2005 8:50 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative). a. Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Early Site Permit for Clinton Site) (Tentative) 9:00 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues (closed--ex. 1) Wednesday, December 14, 2005 2:00 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (closed--ex. 1) Thursday, December 15, 2005 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Threat Environment Assessment (closed--ex. 1) Week of December 19, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of December 19, 2005. Week of December 26, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of December 26, 2005. Week of January 2, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 2, 2006. Week of January 9, 2006--Tentative Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:30 a.m. Briefing on International Research and Bilateral Agreements. (Contact: Roman Shaffer, 301-415-7606.) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address http://www.nrc.gov . Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:30 a.m. Meeting with Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW). (Contact: John Larkins, 301-415-7360.) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address http://www.nrc.gov . Thursday, January 12, 2006 9:30 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues (closed--ex. 1 & 2) Week of January 16, 2006--Tentative Thursday, January 19, 2006 1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (closed--ex. 1) *The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)--(301) 415- 1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415- 1662. * * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. * * * * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: By a vote of 4-1 on December 7, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and Sec. 9.107(a) of the Commission's rules that ``Discussion of International Issues (closed-- ex. 9)'' be held December 8, and on less than one week's notice to the public. * * * * * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, August Spector, at 301-415-7080, TDD: 301-415- 2100, or by e-mail at aks@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. * * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: December 8, 2005 R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 05-24064 Filed 12-12-05; 12:07 pm] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M ***************************************************************** 17 Vermont Guardian: Federal experts give tentative OK to Vermont Yankee uprate By Kathryn Casa | Vermont Guardian Posted December 14, 2005 BRATTLEBORO In a preliminary vote, a key panel of experts has unanimously endorsed a 20 percent power increase at Vermont Yankee, however, their final recommendation has been pushed back until the end of the year, a spokesman said Wednesday. The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, which advises the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on reactor safety, will likely issue their final report to the five commissioners by Dec. 31, said NRC Region I spokesman Neil Sheehan in an e-mail to the Vermont Guardian. They were hoping to have the report done by later this week. However, they have since determined they need more time, given the volume and complexity of the information involved, Sheehan said. The panels 9-0 tentative vote in favor of the uprate came on Dec. 10, the final day of four days of meetings in Rockville, MD, and a culmination of intensive ACRS hearings over the past month in Rockville and Brattleboro that had sparked hope among anti-nuclear activists that the panel had heard their concerns. Watchdogs say Vermont Yankee officials are dangerously narrowing safety systems at plant, and the NRC has failed to require adequate testing and inspections to ensure that the 33-year-old reactor can withstand the upgrade. It is mind boggling what these guys decided to ignore, said Ray Shadis, technical advisor to the New England Coalition, which opposes the uprate. There is no intellectual, technical or professional defense for their cherry-picking through these issues and approving this thing in the face of the evidence they got. A Vermont Yankee spokesman said the public had been well served by the process. I think everyone would agree that the uprate review has been a thoroughly open process and that it is being very closely scrutinized by the regulators, said VY spokesman Rob Williams. As we have said all along, we believe our plant is an excellent candidate for an uprate and we are looking forward to a decision. The ACRS recommendation is significant for a number of reasons. A positive recommendation would back the NRC staff position in favor of an uprate. In addition, the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) appears to be watching ACRS before making its final determination on whether an NRC inspection of the plant in 2004 meets conditions set forth by the state for a certificate of public good. The board has given its conditional approval of the plan, pending determination that the inspection met its criteria. According to Sheehan, It's not certain whether [the ACRS] will address in the report if they think the engineering inspection meets the terms set forth by the PSB. Sheehan said ACRS staff must now synthesize the various viewpoints of the panel's diverse membership into a single document. That will not be an easy task, which is among the reasons they need some additional time. The ACRS members will then comment on the draft version of the report. They will issue their final version when they agree on the language, he said. Vermont Guardian PO Box 335 Winooski, VT 05404 PO Box 335, Winooski, VT 05404 Southern Vermont: 139 Main Street, Suite 702, Brattleboro, VT 05301 Contact: 802.861.4880 (ph) | 802.861.6388 (fax) | 877.231.5382 (toll-free) ©2005 Vermont Guardian | Visit us: www.vermontguardian.com This document can be located online: www.vermontguardian.com/local/122005/ACRSVote.shtml ***************************************************************** 18 Rutland Herald: Seven protesters arraigned December 14, 2005 By DANIEL BARLOW Southern Vermont Bureau BRATTLEBORO — Seven women arrested last month for trespassing during a protest outside the corporate offices of Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant denied the charges in court Tuesday. Each of the seven women — most of whom are in their 50s — pleaded innocent to unlawful trespass in Brattleboro District Court and were released on personal recognizance bail. Bennington attorney Stephen Saltonstall said he plans to argue that the women were not breaking the law if the cases go to trial next year. Jury draw in the cases are scheduled for March 2. "I'm planning on filing motions to dismiss the charges on First Amendment grounds," Saltonstall said. "And I'll also be asking that the cases be consolidated so there could be a joint trial." Arraigned Tuesday were: Maureen Briggs-Carrington, 54, of 57 Market St. in Northampton, Mass.; Terry Carter, 55, of 36 Chapin St. in Brattleboro; Elizabeth Wood, 27, of 111 Dutton Farm Road in Dummerston; Sally Shaw, 49, of 100 River Road in Gill, Mass., Nina Keller, 59, of 28 Cold Brook Road in Wendell, Mass.; Sunny Miller, 56, of 103 Keets Road in Deerfield, Mass. and Lynn Crough, 44, of 29 Beach St. in Greenfield, Mass. The women were the first wave of several planned protests at the Brattleboro corporate offices of Entergy Nuclear, the owners of Vernon-based Vermont Yankee, as activists from Vermont and Massachusetts target the plant as it asks for state and federal approval for a 20 percent boost in its power production. The seven women were among about two dozen people who attended a protest at the corporate offices on Old Ferry Road on Nov. 7. After brief speeches on a lawn across the street from the building, the seven women crossed the road and were arrested by Brattleboro Police for trespassing. A similar protest Dec. 5 resulted in the arrest of five more women for a similar act. Keller said a coalition of citizens groups concerned over the alleged health consequences of the plant will continue protesting every month to revive the public debate over nuclear power. "Our goal is to shut down the plant," Keller said. "We are so upset over this invasion of environmental pollution from the plant." Windham County State's Attorney Dan Davis asked to add a condition to the women's release Tuesday that they not be arrested again as the trial is prepared. Judge Katherine Hayes ruled against that motion. Davis could not be reached for comment Tuesday night. The women face up to three months in prison or a fine of $500 if convicted of the misdemeanor charges. Contact Daniel Barlow at daniel.barlow@rutlandherald.com. © 2005 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 19 Rutland Herald: Time to get real on energy choices December 14, 2005 If we want reliable, affordable and clean power for our businesses and homes a decade from now, we Vermonters need to face up to very imperfect trade-offs of our energy choices. The already real price increases and uncertainty of the energy market pose a threat to our economy and our security. Let's consider a few of the challenges. Contracts for two thirds of the electric power in Vermont are up for renewal within a decade. These are long-term contracts at prices well below current or foreseeable market rates. The Hydro-Quebec contracts are at about 6.5 cents per kilowatt-hour; Vermont Yankee is at 4 cents per kilowatt-hour. Spot market prices fluctuate but are currently in the range of 12 cents per kilowatt hour and have periodically been much higher than that in recent months. We will be more vulnerable to dramatic price fluctuations once these long-term contracts expire. Hydro-Quebec offers no contracts today that are longer than three years in duration. Some Vermonters already have a taste of double-digit price increases because some of our utilities purchase more of their power mix on the open market. In Massachusetts one of the largest utilities increased prices 25 percent recently. One New Hampshire utility just raised rates 60 percent. The longer-term price outlook isn't good. Developing countries are now demanding just as much fossil fuel as First World countries. With demand rising and with world supplies on the decline prices will only go up. Even with Vermont's substantial commitment to energy conservation, we are not immune to the total demand on the regional electrical grid. That demand, in New England alone, is growing at the rate of an additional state of Vermont every year. Increased regional demand puts upward pressure on prices. And finally, in case those facts aren't enough to convince you that we have to face the reality of imperfect choices and do it now, spend just a few minutes with those responsible for delivering electricity to the pump on your well, your drill press, or your computer. You will learn that New England faces the potential for rolling brownouts this winter resulting from natural gas shortages. ISO New England Inc., operator of the region's bulk power system and wholesale electricity markets, has warned repeatedly this fall of tight energy supplies and higher electric rates caused by New England's dependence on natural gas for electricity generation and disruptions in supply resulting from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. They aren't just talking about this. They are planning how to implement rolling brownouts. There are steps Vermont can take to address this oncoming challenge in order to ensure a brighter, more affordable and reliable energy future than we are otherwise headed for in the coming decade. Investing in conservation has a payback that equates to about 3.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. We must continue to wring every possible unit of warmth and productivity from every cent we pay for energy. We must be smart about new construction. We have a new welcome center rest area to construct in Bennington largely with federal dollars provided in the recent transportation funding bill. Let's not walk away from that rest area with an annual operating cost of $700,000 as we did with the recently completed White River rest area. Let's NRG the Bennington rest area. In 2006 the Legislature will discuss this and many other options for NRGing our use of energy. (NRG used as a verb is defined as, to be completely attentive to every detail in building construction to ensure that the building operates efficiently, generates some of its own energy needs, and provides a comfortable place for productive work.) In addition Vermonters must become engaged in a discussion of the very real and very imperfect trade-offs as we choose between the options available to us. Currently the opportunity for the public to weigh in on different energy generation proposals is during the Public Service Board permitting process. But that opportunity occurs once a specific project is proposed for a specific location. We are stuck in a tower by tower discussion; a particular cooling tower on this riverbank, a particular set of wind towers on that ridgeline, a particular VELCO transmission tower along this shore line. And while the impacts and benefits of any proposed utility project must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, this should occur within the context of how that proposal might fit into a realistic picture for the state. No one is proposing wind towers for every ridgeline, as the Free Press has implied, nor would they require clear cutting our mountains as Governor Douglas recently claimed. But would wind energy be appropriate for 10 percent of our power mix — say a total of 100-150 turbines at a half-dozen locations? None of the alternatives is perfect. Installing wind turbines will sometimes require construction of roads where there aren't any now and will have a visual impact. Nuclear power requires the handling and storage of radioactive wastes that will be super-dangerous for millions of years. Hydropower disrupts habitat of fish and, in the case of Hydro-Quebec, of people. Oil and gas, beyond the price pressure concerns, add to greenhouse gas emissions that are threatening our planet in real ways. Solar energy deserves a place in the mix, but on a large scale it too may present aesthetic and development downsides. Vermonters must be actively engaged in identifying our values and priorities for sources of energy. How do Vermonters value the trade-offs between qualities such as independence, job creation, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and safety inherent in different energy mixes? We have to get real. And do it now. Vermont must come to terms with what mix of energy resources will lead us to a more affordable, safe, clean and reliable energy future. Rep. Gaye Symington, a Democrat from Jericho, is speaker of the Vermont House. © 2005 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 20 Xinhua: INdonesia to build nuclear power plant in 2016¡¡¡¡ www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-12-14 17:44:08 JAKARTA, Dec. 14 (Xinhuanet) -- The Indonesian government has been preparing to build a nuclear power plant within 11 years in an attempt to deal with the country's growing energy demand, a senior official said Wednesday. "We begin to prepare everything. The project will commence in 2016," Minister of Research and Technology Kusmayanto Kadiman said on the sidelines of a seminar here. He acknowledged the project meets opposition from some part of the society questioning the safety aspects. The power plant will be built in Muria district, Central Java province. The project will become a forward step in the country's nuclear technology, which now is limited to isotope development and food technology research, he said. Indonesia has three nuclear-related laboratories located in Banten, West Java and Yogyakarta on Java island. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 21 Toronto Star: Nuclear expansion 'on the table,' McGuinty says Wed. Dec. 14, 2005. | Updated at 10:16 PM prefer solar or wind power, but that it's not realisticDec. 14, 2005. 05:16 PMFROM CANADIAN PRESS New nuclear power plants will be built if that’s what the province needs to ensure it has enough electricity and the public will get more opportunity to weigh in on the controversy, Premier Dalton McGuinty said today. “Nuclear remains on the table for us,” McGuinty told reporters days after receiving a report that recommends Ontario expand its nuclear power base. The report by the Ontario Power Authority suggests the province construct or replace up to 12,400 megawatts of nuclear power — requiring 12 or more new nuclear reactor units. Since the report’s release, Ontario Energy Minister Donna Cansfield has refused to say whether the province would accept its recommendations. McGuinty didn’t confirm the province intends to build more nuclear reactors but strongly indicated he’s ready to move in that direction. “What they’re saying is if you want to ensure that you have a reliable supply of electricity in 2015, then you’d better make some difficult decisions today,” the premier said. “The reason we find ourselves in a bit of a bind today when it comes to the reliability of our electricity supply is because difficult decisions that should have been taken some eight or 10 years ago were not taken.” McGuinty also said there will be public consultation on the nuclear debate before the province proceeds with plans for any new plants. The public has been given 60 days to reply to the OPA’s report on the Ministry of Energy and Environmental Bill of Rights websites. Critics, including environmentalists and the New Democrats, say that’s not enough time. “We will go beyond that. This is too important a conversation to leave it just to a website,” McGuinty said, without elaborating. Later today, Cansfield said a decision on what kind of forum the public will get in order to have their say on nuclear will be made in January. “It will be a broader public consultation,” she said. New Democrat Leader Howard Hampton said any public consultation should examine what the Ontario Power Authority’s recommendations would mean to the environment — in particular, the storage of nuclear waste. “We need to have a full environmental assessment of the McGuinty nuclear plan before it goes anywhere,” Hampton said. McGuinty’s comments came on a frigid day when the price of electricity was surging with nearly 3,000 megawatts of nuclear power offline in Ontario for repairs and maintenance work. Three units were down at Bruce Power’s station in Kincardine, while a unit at Ontario Power Generation’s Pickering station was also offline. The shutdowns forced the province to import more power, and the hourly wholesale price of electricity climbed above 30 cents per kilowatt hour in the morning — well above the 8.47 cents average for December. Get great home delivery subscription deals here! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright Toronto Star ***************************************************************** 22 NRC: Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear FR Doc E5-7300 [Federal Register: December 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 239)] [Notices] [Page 74035] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14de05-97] [[Page 74035]] Operations, Inc.; Receipt of Request for Action Under 10 CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that by petition dated October 11, 2005, Mr. Jonathan M. Block requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) take action with regard to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee). The petitioner requested that the NRC require a temporary closure or de-rating of Vermont Yankee. As a basis for this request, the petitioner stated that evacuations would be impossible as a result of recent storm damage to the city of Keene, town of Hinsdale in New Hampshire, and other portions of New Hampshire that are part of existing evacuation routes for Vermont Yankee or within the effluent pathway in an emergency event. The petition is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. The petition has been referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. As provided by Section 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this petition within a reasonable time. Copies of the petition are available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1- 800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 7th day of December, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Cornelius F. Holden, Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-7300 Filed 12-13-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 23 Indian Express: N-energy: Tokyo, Seoul ready to help Delhi Wednesday, December 14, 2005 FTA Korea ready to work towards trade pact with India SUNIT ARORA KUALA LUMPUR, DEC 13: Japan and South Korea discussed cooperation with India on civilian nuclear energy during two separate bilateral meetings with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh today. Both countries agreed to have further discussions on this matter with India. In South Korea’s case, it was decided that both countries’ respective National Security Advisors will meet soon to take the issue forward. The PM first met his Japanese counterpart — Junichiro Koizumi — who had visited India earlier this year. Briefing the media, Rajiv Sikri, Secretary (East) in the Ministry of External Affairs, said the Joint Study Group on economic cooperation will be available in a few months. This would mark the road forward for a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Japan. India and Korea have also agreed to begin discussions on working towards an FTA. The proposed freight corridor project — in which the Japanese government has expressed its interest — was also discussed, as was cooperation with the Navy coast guard. All Sikri said on the UN Security Council issue was that India and Japan continue to be ‘‘engaged’’ on the issue. India is, on the whole, keen to ‘‘accelerate’’ the pace of cooperation with a resurgent Japan. In his meeting with Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, Singh stressed on recent Korean investments in steel via Posco’s mega plans for Orissa as well as Korean investments in the the oil and gas sector. According to Sikri, the Korean premier said its corporations were very happy to work in India and that there was a natural fit between the Korean culture and Indian ethos. The Korean PM also mentioned that India’s English-language skills would be of great help for the country. © 2005: Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd. ***************************************************************** 24 Japan Times: Reactors needed for Kyoto goals, expert says Thursday, December 15, 2005 By ERIKO ARITA Staff writer Japan should promote nuclear power and renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuels to fight global warming, a Canadian scientist said Wednesday. Although Japan has tried more sincerely than other developed countries to achieve its greenhouse gas emission cuts under the Kyoto Protocol, its efforts won't be effective enough to reach the goal, according to Patrick Moore, chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies, a Canadian environment consultancy. "The only solution I can see . . . is aggressive combination of renewable and nuclear energy," Moore told reporters Wednesday in Tokyo. Moore cofounded the environmental group Greenpeace, but has since left due to his advocacy of nuclear power. Under the protocol, Japan must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 6 percent from 1990 levels by 2012. But Japan is way behind. Emissions in fiscal 2004 were 7.4 percent higher than in the base year. Japan now has 54 nuclear plants since a reactor in Aomori Prefecture started up on Dec. 8. Atomic power accounted for 26 percent of the electricity Japan produced in fiscal 2003, while thermal power plants supplied 63 percent, according to the government. Moore was in Japan to give a lecture in Osaka at a symposium held by the Japan Productivity Center for Socio-Economic Development, a nonprofit foundation funded and supervised by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. He said Canada is having difficulty achieving its Kyoto target. Canadian emissions are 25 percent above its 1990 level and it is committed to a 6 percent reduction, he said. For resource-poor Japan, using nuclear power makes more sense than it does in many other countries -- at least from the standpoint of energy security -- he said. "Uranium is in Canada and Australia, which are very stable democracies, whereas much of fossil fuel is not in such stable locations," Moore said. While environmental activists criticize Japan's difficult but ambitious plan to reprocess nuclear waste and use the plutonium gained from the process to fuel its nuclear reactors, Moore said he does not see any fundamental problems because Japan has the technological ability to use plutonium. Moore quit Greenpeace in 1986 because he did not agree with other leaders' ideas on environmental issues, including their opposition to the use of nuclear power, he said. Moore said Greenpeace's ideas are not based on scientific knowledge and border on "religion." The Japan Times: Dec. 15, 2005 (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 25 AFP: World opinion against the building of new nuclear plants - IAEA - Wed Dec 14,12:45 PM ET VIENNA (AFP) - A majority of those surveyed in 18 countries around the world said they were opposed to the building of new nuclear plants, according to a poll published by the UN nuclear watchdog. "Six in ten citizens (62 percent) overall believe that existing nuclear reactors should continue to be used, yet six in ten (59 percent) do not favour new nuclear plants being built," the survey of about 18,000 people showed. These findings come "at a time when the nuclear power option is being vigorously pursued in the fast developing countries of Asia and being reconsidered in some European nations and the USA," said the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency. Only in South Korea" /> South Koreado a majority of people support the building of new nuclear plants, said the report from the Vienna-based organization. Moreover, only 29 percent of those surveyed found the IAEA inspections to be "effective," against 46 percent who said they were not. A majority of people (54 percent) also thought the risk of nuclear terrorism was "high," compared to 28 percent who said it was "low." The IAEA is currently carrying out inspections in Iran" /> Iranto determine whether the country's nuclear program is strictly peaceful or whether it has military purposes, as the United States and the European Union" /> European Unionfear. The poll was carried out from May to August by the American institute Globescan Inc., in Argentina, Australia, Britain, Cameroon, Canada, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and the United States. Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 26 Kyiv Post: Don’t trust the IAEA on Chornobyl Thu, Dec 15. 07:09 by Bigmirnet Opinion » Op-Ed Dec 15 2005, 00:20 The Kyiv Post’s recent article about author Mary Mycio (“U.S. author pens ‘natural history’ of Chornobyl,” Dec. 1) and her op-ed column about the Chornobyl aftermath (“Questions from the alienation zone,” Nov. 3), raise a number of important issues, and deserve elaboration. Ms. Mycio has good reason to question the latest pronouncements of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The UN report issued in September is not the first time the IAEA has tried to present itself as the ultimate authority on Chornobyl’s impact and to downplay the disaster’s health effects. The lead author of the IAEA report, Dr. Fred Mettler, testified in July 1992 before a U.S. Senate Subcommittee chaired by Sens. Joseph Lieberman and Alan Simpson. At that time, Mettler claimed that his agency had carried out the most extensive studies available, and found no discernible increase in thyroid cancer in children. Lieberman pressed Mettler on this issue because other witnesses reported alarming increases downwind from the disaster site, but Mettler held firm in his denials. Five weeks after that hearing, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the prestigious British scientific journal Nature shattered Mettler’s credibility with a detailed analysis that showed an 80-fold increase in thyroid cancer, especially in children living in or near contaminated villages in Belarus. By 1992 there was ample evidence of a major increase in thyroid cancer in Ukraine as well, especially in the regional children’s hospitals in Chernihiv and Zhytomyr, which served children from the most contaminated regions. If Mettler and his collaborators were in the least bit interested in comparing the incidence of thyroid cancer before and after Chornobyl, they could have easily reviewed the data from the central Institutes of Endocrinology in Minsk and Kyiv, where most thyroid operations were performed. Support mobilized The WHO report was crucial because it mobilized the international community and local activists in Ukraine and Belarus to conduct effective thyroid screenings and physician training programs to improve the treatment of this otherwise very rare form of cancer in children. Thanks to this effective international response, very few of these children died, but nearly all will have to take thyroid replacement hormone for the rest of their lives, and thousands now bear the so-called “Chornobyl necklace,” a prominent scar across their lower throat where their thyroid gland was extracted. The spike in thyroid cancers has resulted in many personal tragedies and smaller heartbreaks that are never reflected in the cold statistics of public health research. I’m reminded of a teenage girl from the Svyatoshyn district in Kyiv, an aspiring opera singer, whose thyroid surgery permanently damaged her vocal cords and bloated her once youthful figure. One would think that the IAEA and Dr. Mettler would have been humbled by the WHO findings. A reasonable scientist genuinely interested in public health and the advancement of knowledge concerning radiation effects would have considered the possibility, if not the likelihood, that other types of cancer might also have been caused by exposure to radioactive particles and that these cancers deserved a closer look. But as Ms. Mycio points out, there have been no serious studies of other forms of cancer and the IAEA completely ignored 400,000 nuclear cleanup workers who were among the highest risk groups when arriving at their rosy estimate that only 4,000 excess cancer deaths would ever be traced to the disaster. When they could no longer refute the many follow-up studies that corroborated an explosion in thyroid cancer, the IAEA pursued a policy of damage control and tried to limit the scope of further research by claiming that any other health effects were purely anecdotal and unrelated to the Chornobyl disaster. It was a strangely circular but distinctly unscientific approach: If not thyroid, then not Chornobyl. In a perversion of Christ’s adage “seek and ye shall find,” the IAEA adopted a policy of “seek not or ye may regret your findings.” What’s worse, the IAEA has consistently carried out a virtual smear campaign against Chornobyl victims and their health workers, accusing those who presented evidence of health effects of suffering from hysteria and “radiophobia.” It is a familiar slur. Environmental activists and independent scientists who raised public awareness of the effects of DDT and asbestos and coal dust faced the same sneers from industry apologists until research proved them dead right. Carrying the torch Today, the scope of Chornobyl research needs to expand to the next generation. A joint Israeli-Ukrainian study published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine in the United Kingdom found that children born to Chornobyl liquidators had suffered a seven-fold increase in chromosome damage as compared to their siblings born prior to the disaster. Not all this damage will manifest itself in birth defects in the first generation. But despite the nuclear lobby’s vehement denials that this has anything to do with Chornobyl, widespread evidence of an environmental tragedy is being gathered. I would invite Dr. Mettler and Ms. Mycio to visit the orphanages in the remote towns of Tsyuropinsk, Zaluchya and Znamyanka where children with severe birth defects are packed into crowded dormitories and kept out of sight and out of mind. Many of these birth defects have been documented in a Japanese study in Belarus in 1994 and in the Oscar-winning documentary “Chernobyl Heart.” In my last visit to one of our partner hospitals in Rivne, I learned that in the previous month there were nine children born in that facility with bizarre birth defects that should occur very rarely: Babies born without ears, with missing critical organs, with deformed arms, with multiple digits. Prior to Chornobyl, there might have been one isolated incident once every few years, but maternity hospitals and neonatal wards across Ukraine are reporting a noticeable increase in clusters of these defects. One can bend over backwards and insist that these deformities can happen naturally in the absence of some environmental insult, but at some point, this begins to strain credibility. The glowing media reports of the so-called “magisterial” report offered by the IAEA never reported on the fervent dissents and contradictory evidence offered by respected scientists from Ukraine, Belarus and Russia who are working most closely with the relevant patient population. We forget that for many years, physicians were prohibited from listing radiation-related illnesses as a cause of death, and public health researchers were intimidated and urged to eliminate references to Chornobyl fallout as a factor in the rapid decline of health of adults and children between 1991 and 2001. In Belarus, several researchers have been jailed for challenging the prevailing wisdom on Chornobyl’s negligible impact. Worst is yet to come The IAEA is fond of proclaiming that there has been no increase in leukemia incidence since Chornobyl. Perhaps, but studies by Swedish and Greek scientists have traced an increase in leukemia in children in their countries to radiation exposure from Chornobyl, and it is hard to imagine that more pronounced increases would not occur closer to the epicenter of the disaster. It is well known that the latency period for many forms of cancer can be 20 years or more, and the half-life of the most widespread cancer-causing isotope dispersed by Chornobyl, cesium 137, is 30 years. So the greatest increase in cancer and leukemia could still occur in the next 10 years, or beyond. The international community needs to stay vigilant, and continue to strengthen Ukraine’s capacity for combating a second wave of cancers. Just as the IAEA was caught off guard by an early emergence of thyroid cancers, it may again have to re-evaluate all of its models and calculations should leukemia rates start to climb later than expected. Beyond cancer, there are many other health effects that deserve closer study. Peer-reviewed studies by Dr. Anna Petrova from the Robert Wood Johnson Health Network and Dr. Olesya Hulchiy from the Kyiv Medical University have found a higher rate of pregnancy complications and stillbirths among women living in areas contaminated by fallout. Before the IAEA can close the book on Chornobyl, the world community would do well to demand some answers to the glaring omissions and errors that have riddled the Agency’s post-Chornobyl track record. Alexander B. Kuzma is executive director of the Children of Chornobyl Relief & Development Fund. www.bigmir.net © 2004 SputnikMedia.net. Kyiv Post ***************************************************************** 27 Globe and Mail: Nuclear power if necessary, Ontario Premier says 1. Globeandmail.com > By STEVE ERWIN Wednesday, December 14, 2005 Posted at 1:16 PM EST Canadian Press Toronto — New nuclear power plants will be built in Ontario if that is what the province needs to ensure it has enough electricity, Premier Dalton McGuinty said Wednesday. Nuclear remains on the table for us, Mr. McGuinty told reporters days after receiving a report recommending that Ontario expand its nuclear power base. The report by the Ontario Power Authority suggests the province construct or replace up to 12,400 megawatts of nuclear power requiring 12 or more new nuclear reactor units. Since the report's release, Ontario Energy Minister Donna Cansfield has rarely diverted from prepared statements when asked whether the province would accept its recommendations. Mr. McGuinty did not confirm that the province intends to build more nuclear reactors but strongly indicated that his readiness to move in that direction. What they're saying is: If you want to ensure that you have a reliable supply of electricity in 2015, then you'd better make some difficult decisions today, he said. The reason we find ourselves in a bit of a bind today when it comes to the reliability of our electricity supply is because difficult decisions that should have been taken some eight or 10 years ago were not taken. Mr. McGuinty also said there will be public consultation on the nuclear debate before the province proceeds with plans for any new plants. The public has been given 60 days to reply to the OPA's report on the Ministry of Energy and Environmental Bill of Rights websites. Critics, including environmentalists and the New Democrats, say that is not enough time. We will go beyond that. This is too important a conversation to leave it just to a website, Mr. McGuinty said, without elaborating. His comments came on a frigid day when the price of electricity was surging with nearly 3,000 megawatts of nuclear power offline in Ontario for repairs and maintenance work. That forced the province to import more power, and the hourly wholesale price of electricity hit 17.4 cents per kilowatt hour more than double the 8.47 cents average for December. Latest Comments in the Conversation Editor's Note: Globeandmail.com editors read and approve each comment. Comments are checked for content only, spelling and grammar errors are not corrected and comments that include vulgar language or libelous content are rejected. 1. Ron Tolmie from Kanata, Canada writes: The Premier says that if he could have his way, Ontario would be powered by wind and solar rather than nuclear power, but the government has chosen to ignore the fact that Ontario could very readily utilize solar energy on a scale that dwarfs nuclear power. Reports on how to do that, using the ground to store summer's heat and winter's cold, have been submitted to the government on numerous occasions (some of the reports can be found on kanata-forum.ca). They show that heat stored in the ground will not leak out before it can be used in the winter. Using the same process to store cold to be used for air conditioning could reduce the peak electric power demand by 9,000 megawatts at current demand rates. We have 60 days to respond to the OPA report on energy supply, but the OPA report has totally ignored the potential for seasonal storage of energy, even though the basic concept is widely used in other countries. Most Canadians are not familiar with the concept, so effectively the province is denying most of us the opportunity to even comment on what should be the primary solution to Ontario's energy problem. + Posted Dec. 14, 2005 at 2:44 PM EST + Link to Comment 2. Paul White from Toronto, Canada writes: Perhaps Premier Dalton McGuinty should not make a tough decision just yet. Maybe he should try making a few simple decisions first, such as does it make sense to turn off existing power supplies before a replacement supply is ready? Does it make sense to turn these existing power supplies off before the high power point of the summer occurs? Does it make sense to allow power companies to do routine maintenance during the summer peak so that energy has to be imported at a higher price which gets passed on to the consumer? Perhaps once the Premier understands the simple decisions and is able to ensure they no longer he will be better suited to answer the tough decisions. + Posted Dec. 14, 2005 at 2:51 PM EST + Link to Comment 3. Gaetan Rozon from North Lancaster Ontario, Canada writes: Weshould be warned that Ontario Hydro will again take the opportunity to fleece us all with cost overuns and union sweetheart deals, like they did with the Darlington Power Plant. Hands on to your wallets Ontarians, the HydroOne Hywaymenare coming again. + Posted Dec. 14, 2005 at 4:24 PM EST + Link to Comment 4. michael moore from Toronto, Canada writes: When the Ontario Liberals showed they were determined to close the coal-fired plants, it was a no-brainer that we would end up with more nuclear. Power demand might be encouraged to grow more slowly, but it is going to keep growing.Alternative power sources are nice -- and I speak as the owner of a lot of solar panels and batteries -- but it isn't going to run a significant amount of the chemical plants and metal refineries and air conditioners in the province. Coal has its downsides and so do gas and nuclear.It's a matter of which you like most or dislike least. Dalton is right: Governments a decade ago knew they would be crapped on for any decision so they took the easy route and did nothing. Ontario Hydro used to be criticized for overbuilding the system and was called things like a bloated empire.But they didn't give us brownouts every summer.Power shortages are the result of a decade of inaction, largely motivated by politicians' fears, that neither curbed consumption nor built production. If we have to go nuclear, it's a long slow process.Let's get on with it. + Posted Dec. 14, 2005 at 5:13 PM EST + Link to Comment 5.The Skipper from Edmonton, Canada writes: I have never observed a Nuclear Power Plant come in "on time or on budget!" Why don' they spend the billions of dollars that they are going to spend on Nuclear and offer thousands of citizens the opportunity in Ontario to retrofit their homes with solar power panels, battery banks, invertors etc., Take thousands of people off the grid and you would give birth to a massive "new" electrical industry in Ontario. But then again the civil service who advises the elected politicians are a bunch of dinasours and it will never happen and you wonder why youth are skeptical of politicians - the same old tired policies ! + Posted Dec. 14, 2005 at 7:27 PM EST on Globeandmail.com + © Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved. Globeandmail.com: ***************************************************************** 28 Post and Courier: Nuclear power plant planned near Columbia Charleston.net | News | Charleston, SC Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - Last Updated: 8:20 AM BY KYLE STOCK Scana Corp. and Santee Cooper, the electric utilities that serve the bulk of South Carolina, are rushing to get federal approval to build a nuclear power plant just north of Columbia. The utilities filed a letter of intent with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Dec. 6. And they expect to spend up to $8 million in the coming months to join a coalition of utilities pursuing nuclear power and hire a contractor to oversee the process of winning government approval. Scana and Santee Cooper agreed in August to consider a new plant, but the real estate boom and an influx of new residents pushed their timetable forward. "Look here now, we need a unit in 2012 and we need another in 2015," said Bill McCall, Santee Cooper's chief operations officer. "You don't need to look at the numbers long to realize that." Santee Cooper will crank up new coal turbines in 2007 and 2009, but it will have to buy power from other utilities in 2011 if growth continues at the current rate. "This is the most challenging generation plan I've ever looked at," said Santee Cooper Chief Executive Officer Lonnie Carter. "We're not going to get by just with nuclear." Scana, which boosted its generating capacity 17 percent with a new plant in May 2004, has a little more cushion. It does not need a sizable chunk of new electricity until 2015, according to spokesman Robin Montgomery. "We have not ruled out other options as well as far as generation is concerned," Montgomery said. "This just allows us to keep our place in line with (government regulators)." But both utilities acknowledge that a nuclear power plant looks like their best option, given the rising prices of coal and natural gas. Environmental concerns and tightened federal regulations have almost entirely blocked nuclear plant construction since the early 1980s. But criticism ebbed and regulators started taking a more tolerant view in recent years as energy prices surged and manufacturers developed safer machinery to handle radioactive material. In a sweeping energy bill signed into law in August, the Bush administration rolled out incentives for utilities that pursue nuclear power. The bill established provisions protecting them from lawsuits. The government, however, is still working on a plan to store the radioactive waste that the country's 103 active nuclear reactors have produced for decades. Since 1983, U.S. nuclear utilities have set aside about $26 billion to pay the government to pick up their spent nuclear fuel rods. But the government's plans to develop a storage site have been tied up in lawsuits. Now Scana, Santee Cooper and 62 other utilities are suing the Department of Energy for not making good on its promise. Most of the country's spent nuclear fuel is now sitting next to the reactors it came from. Scana and Santee Cooper co-own the 23-year-old V.C. Summer plant in Jenkinsville. Built at a cost of $1.3 billion, the Summer plant can generate 1,000 megawatts per hour, enough electricity to power about 650,000 homes. Last year, V.C. Summer won a 20-year permit extension, which allows the utilities to run it until 2042. Carter said the Summer facility would be "the site to beat" in deciding where to put a new reactor. Scana and Santee Cooper also are considering land on the Savannah River Site nuclear facility near Aiken, but they already have security in Jenkinsville plus room for another tower. The new plant would generate between 1,100 and 1,500 megawatts per hour, enough to power 715,000 to 975,000 homes. About 20 percent of United States electricity comes from nuclear reactors, compared with about 16 percent worldwide. Some European countries, such as France and Lithuania, get close to 80 percent of their electricity from nuclear plants. Others, including Canada and Mexico, have been more cautious. About 13 percent of Canadian power is nuclear and just 5 percent in Mexico. Contact Kyle Stock at kstock@postandcourier.comor 937-5763. ***************************************************************** 29 Reuters: Bruce Power shuts Ontario Bruce 6 nuke for work Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:02:39 AM ET NEW YORK (Reuters) - Bruce Power LP shut the 822-megawatt unit 6 at the Bruce B nuclear power station in Ontario on Tuesday to inspect and perform maintenance on equipment that loads and unloads fuel into the reactor, the company said in a release. The unit was available for service earlier Tuesday. The 6,192 MW Bruce station is located in Tiverton on the shores of Lake Huron, about 155 miles northwest of Toronto. There are four 750 MW units 1-4 at the A station, and three 790 MW units 5, 7-8 and one 822 MW unit 6 at the B station. Units 4, 7 and 8 continued to operate at high power. The company is preparing to return unit 3 to service after shutting it earlier this week to repair a supply cable to a main heat transport pump motor. Unit 5 shut for a planned inspection on October 8. The inspections usually take about two months. The Bruce units are on 24-month inspection cycles. Separately, Bruce Power and the province agreed in October to a C$4.25 billion project to fully restore the Bruce A station. The company will restart units 1 and 2, replace the fuel channels and steam generators on unit 3, and install new steam generators on unit 4. The first restarted unit will enter service in 2009 subject to the approval of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The former province-owned energy company Ontario Hydro shut units 1 and 2 in 1997 and 1995, respectively, because they needed extensive upgrades. The units entered service in 1977. The return of units 1 and 2 would replace about 20 percent of the province's 7,500 MW of coal-fired generation, which the government wants to shut between 2007 and 2009 for pollution and health-related reasons. One MW powers about 800 homes, according to North American averages. Bruce Power LP operates the entire Bruce complex and leases the Bruce B station from the province-owned generating company Ontario Power Generation. Bruce Power LP is a partnership between uranium miner Cameco Corp. (31.6 percent), energy company TransCanada Corp. (31.6 percent), BPC Generation Infrastructure Trust, an investment entity owned by Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (31.6 percent), the Power Workers' Union (4 percent) and the Society of Energy Professionals (1.2 percent). Bruce Power A LP, which leases the Bruce A station from OPG, was set up when Bruce Power and the government agreed to restore the A station to full service. It is a partnership between TransCanada (47.4 percent), BPC (47.4 percent), the Power Workers' Union (4 percent) and the Society of Energy Professionals (1.2 percent). (c) Reuters 2005. All rights reserved. Republication or ***************************************************************** 30 Guardian Unlimited: Surge in price of power helps British Energy Terry Macalister Wednesday December 14, 2005 The Guardian British Energy believes the government's review of energy offers "exciting" opportunities for a new generation of nuclear power stations and made it clear yesterday that it hopes to operate some of them. Britain's biggest nuclear generator believes it can help bridge the gap between old and new plants by extending the life of some, if not all, of its eight facilities. Bill Colby, chief executive, admitted that his firm's poor past record had not helped nuclear power's image but said he was confident that this was changing as investment raised operating performance. His comments came as British Energy, which returned to the stock market earlier this year after a financial restructuring, reported first-half profits of £227m on the back of soaring electricity prices. The operator of Britain's atomic plants plus one coal-fired power station said it had also increased its production due to fewer unplanned outages but warned that output this financial year was "unlikely" to exceed 61 terawatt-hours. The firm had set 61TWh as a minimum target, having achieved 33.1TWh in the six months to the start of October. The company's share price has doubled since relisting in January and they closed yesterday at 505.25p, up more than 3%. British Energy has three reactors out of action - Hartlepool 1, Dungeness and Heysham 2 - but said two of them would be back in action by March 2006. Mr Colby said he had asked his "team" to do all they could to keep plants operating this winter amid fears of power shortages. But asked whether the government had put any pressure on British Energy to bail them out, he replied "absolutely not". Mr Colby said that as an engineer he was excited by the idea of new atomic plants and was convinced that nuclear power had a role in a diversified energy portfolio. He insisted that British Energy was not considering new plants but was trying to ensure that its own operating performance was as good as possible. Useful links British Energy Department of Trade and Industry British Nuclear Fuels Ltd Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Greenpeace HSE nuclear glossary Come Clean WMD awareness programme UK atomic energy authority National Radiological Protection Board Friends of the Earth World Nuclear Association World Nuclear Transport Institute [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 31 ForUm: New Chornobyl shelter needs another $420 million [ForUm] Thursday, News / 14 December 2005 | 12:55 (AP) - Ukraine's top emergency official said Tuesday that $420 million is still needed to pay for a new protective shelter over Chernobyl's destroyed nuclear reactor. Emergency Situations Minister Viktor Baloga told lawmakers that a contractor to build the shelter would be chosen by the end of the year. The new shelter, which could cost $1 billion, is scheduled to be complete by 2010. Baloga was speaking at a special parliamentary session coinciding with the fifth anniversary of Chernobyl's complete shutdown. The 1986 explosion and fire at Chernobyl's Reactor No. 4 spewed radiation over much of northern Europe. Engineers hastily erected a shelter over the damaged reactor, while the rest of the plant continued to operate until 2000. Experts say the shelter over Reactor No. 4 is now crumbling, and needs to be replaced.The Group of Eight, the European Union, Ukraine and other countries have already pledged funding for the project. Officials say the proposed structure - a 100-meter-high steel arch spanning some 260 meters - could be the largest moveable structure ever built. The structure is designed to last 100 years. ***************************************************************** 32 newsobserver.com: Group questions nuke plant security Wednesday, December 14, 2005 John Murawski, Staff Writer A group opposed to nuclear power filed a complaint Tuesday with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission accusing Progress Energy of security breaches at its Shearon Harris nuclear plant. The N.C. Waste Awareness &Reduction Network alleged in its complaint that Shearon Harris guards, employed by an outside security firm, have been forced to cheat on recertification tests, forced to work with a broken bone, and allowed to sleep or watch television on their shift. N.C. WARN's complaint also claimed that a guard was shot at by an unknown gunman in August during patrol near Harris Lake. In addition, it stated that last month, a rail line was sabotaged outside the company's Brunswick Nuclear Plant south of Wilmington. At least four guards were dismissed for alerting the company of these and other alleged problems, the group said. N.C. WARN's source of information is an unidentified guard at the Shearon Harris plant who brought his complaints to Jim Warren, head of the Durham-based N.C. WARN. "If true, it's very disturbing," Warren said Tuesday. "These are people who are trying to get the word out to protect themselves and their families and the people in the region." N.C. WARN sent its complaint to the the FBI, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the N.C. Attorney General. A Progress Energy spokesman said the grievances have already been reviewed. "Most of these issues are not new and have already been addressed," said spokesman Rick Kimble. "Security and safety are our highest priority at our nuclear plants and we will investigate these allegations fully." All security-related issues pertaining to nuclear plants are sealed from public review. "The NRC does not comment on details of security at U.S. nuclear power plants," said NRC spokesman Scott Burnell. "We take all concerns about security seriously, and we will examine the information the groups provided." The state Attorney General's Office also will review the allegations, said spokeswoman Noelle Talley. N.C. WARN's complaint said that three of the four guards who lost their jobs had been reinstated after involvement by the state Department of Labor. Agency spokesman Juan Santos would not confirm that but said the department's Employment Discrimination Bureau is investigating the allegations. Because the case is still open, Santos said the details were not public. Staff writer John Murawski can be reached at 829-8932 or murawski@newsobserver.com. © Copyright 2005, The News & Observer Publishing Company A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company Patents: Armor Piercing Incendiary Projectile filed Dec 1966 referencing Uranium (not depleted uranium) Reference is to Uranium (not Depleted Uranium), Armor Piercing Projectile filed jan 27, 1977. No reference to the metal by name but "a hard metal" Penetrating Spear filed Jan 1973 leaves only DU and W. Composite Long Rod Penetrator using DU filed June 1988. There are dozens associated Patents with reference to U and DU in explosive and kinetic munitions, shaped and hollow charges, incendiary rounds, and even U-based thermites. Uranium heads the list and DU comes in later. Why the distinction? And why did it enter the lexicon when it did? Think about it. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. ***************************************************************** 35 NRC: Notice of Opportunity To Comment on Model Safety Evaluation on FR Doc 05-24021 [Federal Register: December 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 239)] [Notices] [Page 74037-74055] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14de05-101] Technical Specification Improvement for Boiling Water Reactor Plants; to Risk-Inform Requirements Regarding Selected Required Action End States Using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Request for comment. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared a model safety evaluation (SE) relating to changes to end state requirements for required actions in Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) plants' technical specifications (TS). The NRC staff has also prepared a model no-significant-hazards- consideration (NSHC) determination relating to this matter. The purpose of these models is to permit the NRC to efficiently process amendments that propose to adopt technical specifications changes, designated as TSTF-423, related to Topical Report GE NEDC-32988, Revision 2, ``Technical Justification to support Risk Informed Modification to Selected Required Action End States for BWR Plants,'' which was approved by an NRC SE dated September 27, 2002. Licensees of BWR nuclear power reactors to which the models apply could then request amendments, confirming the applicability of the SE and NSHC determination to their reactors. The NRC staff is requesting comment on the model SE and model NSHC determination prior to announcing their availability for referencing in license amendment applications. DATES: The comment period expires January 13, 2006. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted either electronically or via U.S. mail. Comments may be submitted by electronic mail to CLIIP@nrc.gov. Submit written comments to Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: T-6 D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hand deliver comments to: 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC's Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike (Room O-1F21), Rockville, Maryland. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T. R. Tjader, Mail Stop: O-12H2, Division of Inspection and Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001, telephone 301-415-1187. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Regulatory Issue Summary 2000-06, ``Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process for Adopting Standard Technical Specification Changes for Power Reactors,'' was issued on March [[Page 74038]] 20, 2000. The consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP) is intended to improve the efficiency of NRC licensing processes, by processing proposed changes to the standard technical specifications (STS) in a manner that supports subsequent license amendment applications. The CLIIP includes an opportunity for the public to comment on proposed changes to the STS after a preliminary assessment by the NRC staff and finding that the change will likely be offered for adoption by licensees. The CLIIP directs the NRC staff to evaluate any comments received for a proposed change to the STS and to either reconsider the change or announce the availability of the change for adoption by licensees. Licensees opting to apply for this TS change are responsible for reviewing the staff's evaluation, referencing the applicable technical justifications, and providing any necessary plant- specific information. Each amendment application made in response to the notice of availability will be processed and noticed in accordance with applicable NRC rules and procedures. This notice solicits comment on changes to end state requirements for required actions, if risk is assessed and managed, for the primary purpose of accomplishing short-duration repairs which necessitated exiting the original Mode of operation. The change was proposed in Topical Report GE NEDC-32988, Revision 2, ``Technical Justification to support Risk Informed Modification to Selected Required Action End States for BWR Plants,'' which was approved by an NRC SE dated September 27, 2002. This change was proposed for incorporation into the standard technical specifications by the owners groups participants in the Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) and is designated TSTF- 423. TSTF-423 can be viewed on the NRC's Web page at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/techspecs.html . Applicability This proposal to modify technical specification requirements by the adoption of TSTF-423 is applicable to all licensees of BWR plants who have adopted or will adopt, in conjunction with the proposed change, technical specification requirements for a Bases control program consistent with the TS Bases Control Program described in Section 5.5 of the applicable vendor's STS. To efficiently process the incoming license amendment applications, the staff requests that each licensee applying for the changes proposed in TSTF-423 include Bases for the proposed TS consistent with the Bases proposed in TSTF-423. In addition, licensees that have not adopted requirements for a Bases control program by converting to the improved STS or by other means, are requested to include the requirements for a Bases control program consistent with the STS in their application for the proposed change. The need for a Bases control program stems from the need for adequate regulatory control of some key elements of the proposal that are contained in the proposed Bases in TSTF-423. The staff is requesting that the Bases be included with the proposed license amendments in this case because the changes to the TS and the changes to the associated Bases form an integral change to a plant's licensing bases. To ensure that the overall change, including the Bases, includes appropriate regulatory controls, the staff plans to condition the issuance of each license amendment on the licensee's incorporation of the changes into the Bases document and on requiring the licensee to control the changes in accordance with the Bases Control Program. The CLIIP does not prevent licensees from requesting an alternative approach or proposing the changes without the requested Bases and Bases control program. However, deviations from the approach recommended in this notice may require additional review by the NRC staff and may increase the time and resources needed for the review. Public Notices This notice requests comments from interested members of the public within 30 days of the date of publication in the Federal Register. After evaluating the comments received as a result of this notice, the staff will either reconsider the proposed change or announce the availability of the change in a subsequent notice (perhaps with some changes to the safety evaluation or the proposed NSHC determination as a result of public comments). If the staff announces the availability of the change, licensees wishing to adopt the change must submit an application in accordance with applicable rules and other regulatory requirements. For each application, the staff will publish a notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating licenses, a proposed NSHC determination, and a notice of opportunity for a hearing. The staff will also publish a notice of issuance of an amendment to operating license to announce the modification of end state requirements for required actions in plant technical specifications. Proposed Model Plant Specific Safety Evaluation for Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Change TSTF-423, Risk Informed Modification to Selected Required Action End States, a Consolidated Line Item Improvement Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation; Related to Amendment No. [----] to Facility Operating License NFP-[----], [Utility Name], [Plant Name], [Unit----], Docket No.-[----] 1.0 Introduction By letter dated --------, 20 --, [Utility Name] (the licensee) proposed changes to the technical specifications (TS) for [plant name]. The requested changes are the adoption of TSTF-423, Revision 0, to the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Standard Technical Specifications (STS) (NUREG 1433 and NUREG 1434), which was proposed by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Risk Informed Technical Specifications Task Force (RITSTF) on August 12, 2003, on behalf of the industry. TSTF-423, Revision 0, incorporates the BWR Owners Group (BWROG) approved Topical Report NEDC-32988, Revision 2, ``Technical Justification to Support Risk Informed Modification to Selected Required Action End States for BWR Plants'' (Reference 1), into the BWR STS (Note: The changes are made with respect to Revision 2 of the STS NUREGs). TSTF-423 is one of the industry's initiatives developed under the Risk Management Technical Specifications (RMTS) program. These initiatives are intended to maintain or improve safety through the incorporation of risk assessment and management techniques in TS, while reducing unnecessary burden and making TS requirements consistent with the Commission's other risk-informed regulatory requirements, in particular the maintenance rule. The Code of Federal Regulations, 10 CFR 50.36, ``Technical Specifications,'' states: ``When a limiting condition for operation of a nuclear reactor is not met, the licensee shall shut down the reactor or follow the remedial action permitted by the technical specification until the condition can be met.'' The STS and many plant TS provide a completion time (CT) for the plant to meet the limiting condition for operation (LCO). If the LCO or the remedial action cannot be met, then the reactor is required to be shut down. When the STS and individual plant technical specifications were written, the shutdown condition or end state specified was usually cold shutdown. [[Page 74039]] Topical Report NEDC-32988, Revision 2, provides the technical basis to change certain required end states when the TS Actions for remaining in power operation cannot be met within the CTs. Most of the requested TS changes permit an end state of hot shutdown (Mode 3), if risk is assessed and managed, rather than an end state of cold shutdown (Mode 4) contained in the current TS. The request was limited to those end states where: (1) Entry into the shutdown mode is for a short interval, (2) entry is initiated by inoperability of a single train of equipment or a restriction on a plant operational parameter, unless otherwise stated in the applicable TS, and (3) the primary purpose is to correct the initiating condition and return to power operation as soon as is practical. The STS for BWR plants define five operational modes. In general, they are: Mode 1--Power Operation. The reactor mode switch is in run position. Mode 2--Reactor Startup. The reactor mode switch is in refuel position (with all reactor vessel head closure bolts fully tensioned) or in startup/hot standby position. Mode 3--Hot Shutdown. The reactor coolant system (RCS) temperature is above 200 degrees F (TS specific) and the reactor mode switch is in shutdown position (with all reactor vessel head closure bolts fully tensioned). Mode 4--Cold Shutdown. The RCS temperature is equal to or less than 200 degrees F and the reactor mode switch is in shutdown position (with all reactor vessel head closure bolts fully tensioned). Mode 5--Refueling. The reactor mode switch is in shutdown or refuel position, and one or more reactor vessel head closure bolts are less than fully tensioned. Criticality is not allowed in Modes 3 through 5. TSTF-423 generally allows a Mode 3 end state rather than a Mode 4 end state for selected initiating conditions in order to perform short- duration repairs which necessitate exiting the original Mode of operation. Short duration repairs are on the order of 2- to 3-days, but not more than a week. 2.0 Regulatory Evaluation In 10 CFR 50.36, the Commission established its regulatory requirements related to the content of TS. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.36(c), TS are required to include items in the following five specific categories related to station operation: (1) Safety limits, limiting safety system settings, and limiting control settings; (2) limiting conditions for operation (LCOs); (3) surveillance requirements (SRs); (4) design features; and (5) administrative controls. The rule does not specify the particular requirements to be included in a plant's TS. As stated in 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(i), the ``Limiting conditions for operation are the lowest functional capability or performance levels of equipment required for safe operation of the facility. When a limiting condition for operation of a nuclear reactor is not met, the licensee shall shut down the reactor or follow any remedial action permitted by the technical specifications * * *.'' Reference 1 states: ``Cold shutdown is normally required when an inoperable system or train cannot be restored to an operable status within the allowed time. Going to cold shutdown results in the loss of steam-driven systems, challenges the shutdown heat removal systems, and requires restarting the plant. A more preferred operational mode is one that maintains adequate risk levels while repairs are completed without causing unnecessary challenges to plant equipment during shutdown and startup transitions.'' In the end state changes under consideration here, a problem with a component or train has or will result in a failure to meet a TS, and a controlled shutdown has begun because a TS Action requirement cannot be met within the TS CT. Most of today's TS and the design basis analyses were developed under the perception that putting a plant in cold shutdown would result in the safest condition and the design basis analyses would bound credible shutdown accidents. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the NRC and licensees recognized that this perception was incorrect and took corrective actions to improve shutdown operation. At the same time, standard TS were developed and many licensees improved their TS. Since enactment of a shutdown rule was expected, almost all TS changes involving power operation, including a revised end state requirement, were postponed (see, for example the Final Policy Statement on TS Improvements, Reference 2). However, in the mid 1990s, the Commission decided a shutdown rule was not necessary in light of industry improvements. Controlling shutdown risk encompasses control of conditions that can cause potential initiating events and responses to those initiating events that do occur. Initiating events are a function of equipment malfunctions and human error. Responses to events are a function of plant sensitivity, ongoing activities, human error, defense-in-depth, and additional equipment malfunctions. In practice, the risk during shutdown operations is often addressed via voluntary actions and application of 10 CFR 50.65 (Reference 3), the maintenance rule. Section 50.65(a)(4) states: ``Before performing maintenance activities * * * the licensee shall assess and manage the increase in risk that may result from the proposed maintenance activities. The scope of the assessment may be limited to structures, systems, and components that a risk-informed evaluation process has shown to be significant to public health and safety.'' Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.182 (Reference 4) provides guidance on implementing the provisions of 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) by endorsing the revised Section 11 (published separately) to NUMARC 93-01, Revision 2. The revised Section 11 of NUMARC 93-01, Revision 2, was subsequently incorporated into Revision 3 of NUMARC 93-01 (Reference 5). However, Revision 3 has not yet been formally endorsed by the NRC. The changes in TSTF-423 are consistent with the rules, regulations and associated regulatory guidance, as noted above. 3.0 Technical Evaluation The changes proposed in TSTF-423 are consistent with the changes proposed and justified in Topical Report GE NEDC-32988-A, Revision 2, and approved by the associated NRC SE (Reference 6). The evaluation included in Reference 6, as appropriate and applicable to the changes of TSTF-423 (Reference 7), is reiterated here and differences from the SE are justified. In its application the licensee commits to TSTF-IG- 05-02, Implementation Guidance for TSTF-423, Revision 0, ``Technical Specifications End States, NEDC-32988-A,'' (Reference 8), which addresses a variety of issues such as considerations and compensatory actions for risk-significant plant configurations. An overview of the generic evaluation and associated risk assessment is provided below, along with a summary of the associated TS changes justified by Reference 1. 3.1 Risk Assessment The objective of the BWROG topical report (Reference 1) risk assessment was to show that any risk increases associated with the proposed changes in TS end states are either negligible or negative (i.e., a net decrease in risk). The BWROG topical report documents a risk-informed analysis of the proposed TS change. Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) results and insights are used, in combination with results of deterministic assessments, to [[Page 74040]] identify and propose changes in ``end states'' for all BWR plants. This is in accordance with guidance provided in RG 1.174 (Reference 9) and RG 1.177 (Reference 10). The three-tiered approach documented in RG 1.177, ``An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decision Making: Technical Specifications,'' was followed. The first tier of the three- tiered approach includes the assessment of the risk impact of the proposed change for comparison to acceptance guidelines consistent with the Commission's Safety Goal Policy Statement, as documented in RG 1.174 entitled ``An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis.'' In addition, the first tier aims at ensuring that there are no unacceptable temporary risk increases during the implementation of the proposed TS change, such as when equipment is taken out of service. The second tier addresses the need to preclude potentially high-risk configurations which could result if equipment is taken out of service concurrently with the implementation of the proposed TS change. The third tier addresses the application of 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) of the Maintenance Rule for identifying risk-significant configurations resulting from maintenance related activities and taking appropriate compensatory measures to avoid such configurations. Unless invoked, such as by this or another TS application, 50.65(a)(4) is applicable to maintenance related activities and does not cover other operational activities beyond the effect they may have on existing maintenance related risk. BWROG's risk assessment approach was found comprehensive and acceptable in the SE for the topical report. In addition, the analyses show that the three-tiered approach criteria for allowing TS changes are met as follows: Risk Impact of the Proposed Change (Tier 1). The risk changes associated with the TS changes in TSTF-423, in terms of mean yearly increases in core damage frequency (CDF) and large early release frequency (LERF), are risk neutral or risk beneficial. In addition, there are no significant temporary risk increases, as defined by RG 1.177 criteria, associated with the implementation of the TS end state changes. Avoidance of Risk-Significant Configurations (Tier 2). The performed risk analyses, which are based on single LCOs, shows that there are no high-risk configurations associated with the TS end state changes. The reliability of redundant trains is normally covered by a single LCO. When multiple LCOs occur, which affect trains in several systems, the plant's risk-informed configuration risk management program (CRMP), or the risk assessment and management program implemented in response to the Maintenance Rule 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4), shall ensure that high-risk configurations are avoided. As part of the implementation of TSTF-423, the licensee commits to follow Section 11 of NUMARC 93-01, Revision 3, and include guidance in appropriate plant procedures and/or administrative controls to preclude high-risk plant configurations when the plant is at the proposed end state. The staff finds that such guidance is adequate for preventing risk-significant plant configurations. Configuration Risk Management (Tier 3). The licensee has a program in place to comply with 10 CFR 50.65 (a)(4) to assess and manage the risk from proposed maintenance activities. This program can support a licensee decision in selecting the appropriate actions to control risk for most cases in which a risk-informed TS is entered. The generic risk impact of the proposed end state mode change was evaluated subject to the following assumptions: 1. The entry into the proposed end state is initiated by the inoperability of a single train of equipment or a restriction on a plant operational parameter, unless otherwise stated in the applicable technical specification. 2. The primary purpose of entering the end state is to correct the initiating condition and return to power as soon as is practical. 3. When Mode 3 is entered as the repair end state, the time the reactor coolant pressure is above 500 psig will be minimized. If reactor coolant pressure is above 500 psig for more than 12 hours, the associated plant risk will be assessed and managed. These assumptions are consistent with typical entries into Mode 3 for short duration repairs, which is the intended use of the TS end state changes. The staff concludes that, in general, going to Mode 3 (hot shutdown) instead of going to Mode 4 (cold shutdown) to carry out equipment repairs that are of short duration, does not have any adverse effect on plant risk. 3.2 Assessment of TS Changes The changes proposed by the licensee and in TSTF-423 are consistent with the changes proposed in topical report GE NEDC-32988, Revision 2, and approved by the NRC SE of September 27, 2002. [NOTE: Only those changes proposed in TSTF-423 are addressed in this SE. The SE and associated topical report address the entire fleet of BWR plants, and the plants adopting TSTF-423 must confirm the applicability of the changes to their plant.] Following are the proposed changes, including a synopsis of the STS LCO, the change, and a brief conclusion of acceptability. 3.2.1 TS 4.5.1.2 and LCO 3.4.3 (BWR/4); TS 4.5.2.2 and LCO 3.4.4 (BWR/ 6), Safety/Relief Valves (SRVs) The function of the SRVs is to protect the plant against severe overpressurization events. These TS provide the operability requirements for the SRVs as described below. The TS change allows the plant to remain in Mode 3 until the repairs are completed. [Note: Plant Applicability, BWR4/6] LCO: The safety function of 11 SRVs must be operable (BWR/4 plants). The safety function of seven SRVs must be operable and the relief function of seven additional SRVs must be operable (BWR/6 plants). Condition requiring entry into end state: If the LCO cannot be met with one or two SRVs inoperable, the inoperable valves must be returned to operability within 14 days. If the SRVs cannot be returned to operable status within that time, the plant must be placed in Mode 3 within 12 hours and in Mode 4 within 36 hours. Proposed modification for end state required actions: If the LCO cannot be met with one or two SRVs inoperable, the inoperable valves must be returned to operability within 14 days. If the one or two inoperable SRVs cannot be returned to operable status within 14 days, the plant must be placed in Mode 3 within 12 hours. If three or more SRVs become inoperable, the plant must be placed in Mode 4 within 36 hours. Assessment: The BWROG topical report did a comparative PRA evaluation of the core damage risks of operation in the current end state and in the proposed Mode 3 end state. The evaluation indicates that the core damage risks are lower in Mode 3 than in Mode 4. Going to Mode 4 for one inoperable SRV would cause loss of the high-pressure steam-driven injection system (reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC)/ high pressure coolant injection (HPCI)), and loss of the power conversion system (condenser/feedwater), and require activating the residual heat removal (RHR) system. In addition, emergency operating procedures (EOPs) direct the operator to take control of the depressurization function if low pressure injection/spray [[Page 74041]] systems are needed for reactor pressure vessel (RPV) water makeup and cooling. Based on the low probability of loss of the necessary overpressure protection function and the number of systems available in Mode 3, the staff concludes in the SE (reference 6) for the BWROG topical report that the risks of staying in Mode 3 are approximately the same as, and in some cases lower than, the risks of going to the Mode 4 end state. The change allows the inoperable SRV to be repaired in a plant operating mode with lower risks. After repairs are made, the plant can be brought to full-power operation with less potential for transients and errors. The plant is taken into cold shutdown only when three or more SRVs are inoperable. Since the time spent in Mode 3 to perform the repair is infrequent and limited, the proposed change is acceptable, particularly in light of defense-in-depth considerations. Finding: Based on the above assessment, the staff finds that the requested change to allow operation in Mode 3 with a minimum number of SRVs inoperable after plant risk has been assessed and managed, is acceptable. 3.2.2 TS 4.5.1.3 and LCO 3.5.1 (BWR/4); TS 4.5.2.3 and LCO 3.5.1 (BWR/ 6), Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) (Operating) The ECCS systems provide cooling water to the core in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). This set of ECCS TS provide the operability requirements for the various ECCS subsystems as described below. This TS change would delete the secondary actions. The plant can remain in Mode 3 until the required repair actions are completed. The reactor is not depressurized. [Note: Plant Applicability, BWR4/6] LCO: Each ECCS injection/spray subsystem and the automatic depressurization system (ADS) function of seven BWR/4, or eight BWR/6, SRVs must be operable. Conditions requiring entry into end state: If the LCO cannot be met, the following actions must be taken for the listed conditions: a. If one low-pressure ECCS injection/spray subsystem is inoperable, the subsystem must be restored to operable status in 7 days. b. If the inoperable ECCS injection/core spray cannot be restored to operable status, the plant must be placed in Mode 3 within 12 hours and Mode 4 within 36 hours (BWR/4 plants only). c. If two ECCS injection subsystems are inoperable or one ECCS injection subsystem and one ECCS spray system are inoperable, one ECCS injection/spray subsystem must be restored to operable status within 72 hours. If this required action cannot be met, the plant must be placed in Mode 3 within 12 hours and in Mode 4 within 36 hours (BWR/6 plants only). d. If the HPCI/High Pressure Core Spray (HPCS) system is inoperable, the RCIC system must be verified to be operable by administrative means within 1 hour and the HPCI/HPCS system restored to operable status within 14 days. e. If one ADS valve is inoperable, it must be restored to operable status within 14 days. f. If one ADS valve is inoperable and one low-pressure ECCS injection/spray subsystem is inoperable, the ADS valve must be restored to operable status within 72 hours or the low-pressure ECCS injection/ spray subsystem must be restored to operable status within 72 hours. g. If two or more ADS valves become inoperable, or the required actions described in items e and/or f cannot be met, the plant must be placed in Mode 3 within 12 hours and the reactor steam dome pressure reduced to less than 150 psig within 36 hours. Proposed modification for end state required actions: a. No change b. If the ECCS injection or spray system is inoperable, the plant must be restored to operable status within 12 hours. The plant is not taken into Mode 4 (cold shutdown). c. If two ECCS injection subsystems are inoperable or one ECCS injection subsystem and one ECCS spray system are inoperable, one ECCS injection/spray subsystem must be restored to operable status within 72 hours. If this required action cannot be met, the plant must be placed in Mode 3 within 12 hours. The plant is not taken into Mode 4 (BWR/6 plants only). d. No change e. No change f. No change g. If two or more ADS valves become inoperable or the required actions described in item e and/or f cannot be met, the plant must be placed in Mode 3 within 12 hours. The reactor is not depressurized and not taken to Mode 4. Assessment: The BWROG topical report did a comparative PRA evaluation of the core damage risks of operation in the current end state and the proposed Mode 3 end state. The evaluation indicates that the core damage risks are lower in Mode 3 than in the current end state Mode 4. Going to Mode 4 for one ECCS subsystem or one ADS valve would cause loss of the high-pressure steam-driven injection system (RCIC/ HPCI), and loss of the power conversion system (condenser/feedwater), and require activating the RHR system. In addition, Plant Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) direct the operator to take control of the depressurization function if low-pressure injection/spray systems are needed for RPV water makeup and cooling. Based on the low probability of loss of the reactor coolant inventory and the number of systems available in Mode 3, the staff concludes in the SE to the BWR topical report that the risks of staying in Mode 3 are approximately the same as, and in some cases lower than, the risks of going to the Mode 4 end state. Finding: Based on the above assessment, and because the time spent in Mode 3 to perform the repair is infrequent and limited, and in light of defense-in-depth considerations, the proposed change is acceptable. 3.2.3 TS 4.5.1.4 and LCO 3.5.3 (BWR/4 only), Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) System The function of the RCIC system is to provide reactor coolant makeup during loss of feedwater and other transient events. This TS provides the operability requirements for the RCIC system as described below. The TS change allows the plant to remain in Mode 3 until the repairs are completed. [Note: Plant Applicability, BWR/4] LCO: The RCIC system must be operable during Modes 1, 2 and 3 when the reactor steam dome pressure is greater than 150 psig. Condition requiring entry into end state: If the LCO cannot be met, the following actions must be taken: (a) verify by administrative means within 1 hour that the HPCI system is operable, (b) restore the RCIC system to operable status within 14 days. If either or both actions cannot be completed within the allotted time, the plant must be placed in Mode 3 within 12 hours and the reactor steam dome pressure reduced to less than 150 psig within 36 hours. Proposed modification for end state required actions: This TS change keeps the plant in Mode 3 (hot shutdown) until the required repairs are completed. The reactor steam dome pressure is not reduced to less than 150 psig. Assessment: This change would allow the inoperable RCIC system to be repaired in a plant operating mode with lower risk and without challenging the normal shutdown systems. The BWROG [[Page 74042]] topical report did a comparative PRA evaluation of the core damage risks of operation in the current end state and in the proposed Mode 3 end state. The evaluation indicates that the core damage risks are lower in Mode 3 than in Mode 4. Going to Mode 3 with reactor steam dome pressure less than 150 psig for inoperability of RCIC would also cause loss of the high-pressure steam-driven injection system HPCI and loss of the power conversion system (condenser/ feedwater), and would require activating the RHR system. In addition, Plant EOPs direct the operator to take control of the depressurization function if low pressure injection/spray systems are needed for RPV water makeup and cooling. Based on the low probability of loss of the necessary overpressure protection function and the number of systems available in Mode 3, the staff concludes in the SE to the BWR topical report that the risks of staying in Mode 3 are approximately the same as, and in some cases lower than, the risks of going to the Mode 4 end state. Finding: Based upon the above assessment, and because the time spent in Mode 3 to perform the repair is infrequent and limited, and in light of defense-in-depth considerations, the proposed change is acceptable. 3.2.4 TS 4.5.1.6 and LCO 3.6.1.6 (BWR/4); TS 5.5.2.5 and LCO 3.6.1.6 (BWR/6), Low-Low Set Logic (LLS) Valves The function of LLS logic is to prevent excessive short-duration SRV cycling during an overpressure event. This TS provides operability requirements for the four LLS SRVs as described below. The TS change allows the plant to remain in Mode 3 until the repairs are completed. [Note: Plant Applicability, BWR 4/6] Conditions requiring entry into end state: If one LLS valve is inoperable, it must be returned to operability within 14 days. If the LLS valve cannot be returned to operable status within the allotted time, the plant must be placed in Mode 3 within 12 hours and in Mode 4 within 36 hours. Proposed modification for end state required actions: The TS change would keep the plant in Mode 3 until the required repair actions are completed. The plant would not be taken into Mode 4 (cold shutdown). Assessment: The BWROG topical report did a comparative PRA evaluation of the core damage risks of operation in the current end state and the proposed Mode 3 end state. The evaluation indicates that the core damage risks are lower in Mode 3 than in Mode 4, the current end state. Going to Mode 4 for one LLS inoperable SRV would cause loss of the high-pressure steam-driven injection system (RCIC/HPCI), and loss of the power conversion system (condenser/feedwater), and would require activating the RHR system. With one LLS valve inoperable, the remaining valves are adequate to perform the required function. EOPs direct the operator to take control of the depressurization function if low pressure injection/spray systems are needed for RPV water makeup and cooling. Based on the low probability of loss of the necessary overpressure protection function during the infrequent and limited time in Mode 3 and the number of systems available in Mode 3, the staff concludes in the SE to the BWR topical report that the risks of staying in Mode 3 are approximately the same as and in some cases lower than the risks of going to the Mode 4 end state. The proposed change allows repairs of the inoperable SRV to be performed in a plant operating mode with lower risks. Finding: Based upon the above assessment, and because the time spent in Mode 3 to perform the repair is infrequent and limited, and in light of defense-in-depth considerations, the proposed change is acceptable. 3.2.5 TS 4.5.1.1, TS 4.5.2.1 and LCO 3.3.8.2, Reactor Protection System (RPS) Electric Power Monitoring RPS Electric Power Monitoring System is provided to isolate the RPS bus from the motor generator (MG) set or an alternate power supply in the event of over voltage, under voltage, or under frequency. This system protects the load connected to the RPS bus against unacceptable voltage and frequency conditions and forms an important part of the primary success path of the essential safety circuits. Some of the essential equipment powered from the RPS buses includes the RPS logic, scram solenoids, and various valve isolation logic. The TS change allows the plant to remain in Mode 3 until the repairs are completed. [Note: Plant Applicability, BWR 4/6] LCO: For Modes 1, 2, 3 and Modes 4 and 5 (with any control rod withdrawn from a core cell containing one or more fuel assemblies), two RPS electric power monitoring assemblies shall be operable for each in- service RPS motor generator set or alternate power supply. Condition Requiring Entry into End State: If the LCO cannot be met, the associated in-service power supply(s) must be removed from service within 72 hours for one Electric Power Assembly (EPA) inoperable or within one hour for both EPAs inoperable. In Modes 1, 2, and 3, if the in-service power supply(s) cannot be removed from service within the allotted time, the plant must be placed in Mode 3 within 12 hours and Mode 4 within 36 hours. Proposed Modification: The proposed change is to keep the plant in Mode 3 until the repair actions are completed. Delete required action in C.2 which required the plant to be in Mode 4. Assessment: To reach Mode 3 per the TS, there must be a functioning power supply with degraded protective circuitry in operation. However, the over voltage, under voltage, or under frequency condition must exist for an extended time period to cause damage. There is a low probability of this occurring in the short period of time that the plant would remain in Mode 3 without this protection. The specific failure condition of interest is not risk significant for BWR PRAs. If the required restoration actions cannot be completed within the specified time, going into Mode 4 would cause loss of the high-pressure steam-driven injection system (RCIC/HPCI) and loss of the power conversion system (condenser/feedwater), and would require activating the RHR system. In addition, EOPs direct the operator to take control of the depressurization function if low pressure injection/spray systems are needed for RPV water makeup and cooling. Based on the low probability of loss of the RPS power monitoring system during the infrequent and limited time in Mode 3 and the number of systems available in Mode 3, the staff concludes in the SE to the BWR topical report that the risks of staying in Mode 3 are approximately the same as and in some cases lower than the risks of going to the Mode 4 end state. Finding: Based upon the above assessment, and because the time spent in Mode 3 to perform the repair is infrequent and limited, and in light of defense-in-depth considerations, the proposed change is acceptable. 3.2.6 TS 4.5.1.19 and LCO 3.8.1(BWR/4); TS 4.5.2.17 and LCO 3.8.1(BWR/ 6), AC Sources (Operating) The purpose of the AC electrical system is to provide during all situations the power required to put and maintain the plant in a safe condition and prevent the release of radioactivity to the environment. The Class 1E electrical power distribution system AC sources consist of the offsite power source (preferred power sources, normal and alternate(s)), and the onsite standby power sources [[Page 74043]] (e.g., emergency diesel generators (EDGs)). In addition, many sites provide a crosstie capability between units. As required by General Design Criterion (GDC) 17 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, the design of the AC electrical system provides independence and redundancy. The onsite Class 1E AC distribution system is divided into redundant divisions so that the loss of any one division does not prevent the minimum safety functions from being performed. Each division has connections to two preferred offsite power sources and a single EDG or other Class 1E Standby AC power source. Offsite power is supplied to the unit switchyard(s) from the transmission network by two transmission lines. From the switchyard(s), two electrically and physically separated circuits provide AC power through a stepdown transformer(s) to the 4.16-kV emergency buses. In the event of a loss of offsite power, the emergency electrical loads are automatically connected to the EDGs in sufficient time to provide for a safe reactor shutdown and to mitigate the consequence of a design basis accident (DBA) such as a LOCA. [Note: Plant Applicability, BWR 4/6] LCO: The following AC electrical power sources shall be operable in Modes 1, 2, and 3: a. Two qualified circuits between the offsite transmission network and the onsite Class1E AC Electric Power Distribution System, b. Three EDGs, c. Automatic Load Sequencers. Condition requiring entry into end state: Plant operators must bring the plant to Mode 4 within 36 hours following the sustained inoperability of one required Automatic Load Sequencer; either or both required offsite circuits; either one, two or three required EDGs; or one required offsite circuit and one, two or three required EDGs. Proposed modification for end state require actions: Delete required action G.2 to go to Mode 4 (cold shutdown). The plant will remain in Mode 3 (hot shutdown). Assessment: Entry into any of the conditions for the AC power sources implies that the AC power sources have been degraded and the single failure protection for the safe shutdown equipment may be ineffective. Consequently, as specified in TS 3.8.1 at present, the plant operators must bring the plant to Mode 4 when the required action is not completed by the specified time for the associated action. The BWROG topical report did a comparative PRA evaluation of the core damage risks of operation in the current end state and in the proposed Mode 3 end state. Events initiated by the loss of offsite power are dominant contributors to core damage frequency in most BWR PRAs, and the steam-driven core cooling systems, RCIC and HPCI, play a major role in mitigating these events. The evaluation indicates that the core damage risks are lower in Mode 3 than in Mode 4 for one inoperable AC power source. Going to Mode 4 for one inoperable AC power source would cause loss of the high-pressure steam-driven injection system (RCIC/HPCI), and loss of the power conversion system (condenser/ feedwater), and require activating the RHR system. In addition, EOPs direct the operator to take control of the depressurization function if low pressure injection/spray systems are needed for RPV water makeup and cooling. Based on the low probability of loss of the AC power and the number of steam-driven systems available in Mode 3, the staff concludes in the SE to the BWR topical report that the risks of staying in Mode 3 are lower than going to the Mode 4 end state. Finding: Based upon the above assessment, and because the time spent in Mode 3 to perform the repair is infrequent and limited, and in light of defense-in-depth considerations, the proposed change is acceptable. 3.2.7 TS 4.5.1.20 and LCO 3.8.4 (BWR/4); TS 4.5.2.18 and LCO 3.8.4 DC Sources (Operating) The purpose of the DC power system is to provide a reliable source of DC power for both normal and abnormal conditions. It must supply power in an emergency for an adequate length of time until normal supplies can be restored. The DC electrical system: a. Provides the AC emergency power system with control power, b. Provides motive and control power to selected safety related equipment, and c. Provides power to preferred AC vital buses (via inverters). [Note: Plant Applicability, BWR 4/6] LCO: For Modes 1, 2 and 3, the following DC sources are required to be operable: BWR/4: The (Division 1 and Division 2 station service, and DG 1B, 2A, and 2C) DC electrical power systems shall be operable. BWR/6: The (Divisions 1, 2, and 3) DC electrical power subsystems shall be operable. Condition requiring entry into end state: The plant operators must bring the plant to Mode 3 within 12 hours and Mode 4 within 36 hours following the sustained inoperability of one DC electrical power subsystem for a period of 2 hours. Proposed modification for end state required actions: The proposed TS change is to remove the requirement to place the plant in Mode 4, Required Actions in D.2 (BWR/4) and E.2 (BWR/6) are deleted. Assessment: If one of the DC electrical power subsystems is inoperable, the remaining DC electrical power subsystems have the capacity to support a safe shutdown and to mitigate an accident condition. The BWROG topical report did a comparative PRA evaluation of the core damage risks of operation in the current end state and in the proposed Mode 3 end state, with one DC system inoperable. Events initiated by the loss of offsite power are dominant contributors to core damage frequency in most BWR PRAs, and the steam-driven core cooling systems, RCIC and HPCI, play a major role in mitigating these events. The evaluation indicates that the core damage risks are lower in Mode 3 than in Mode 4. Going to Mode 4 for one inoperable DC power source would cause loss of the high-pressure steam-driven injection system (RCIC/HPCI), and loss of the power conversion system (condenser/ feedwater), and require activating the RHR system. In addition, EOPs direct the operator to take control of the depressurization function if low pressure injection/spray systems are needed for RPV water makeup and cooling. Based on the low probability of loss of the DC power and the number of systems available in Mode 3, the staff concludes in the SE to the BWR topical report that the risks of staying in Mode 3 are approximately the same as and in some cases lower than the risks of going to the Mode 4 end state. Finding: Based upon the above assessment, and because the time spent in Mode 3 to perform the repair is infrequent and limited, and in light of defense-in-depth considerations, the proposed change is acceptable. 3.2.8 TS 4.5.1.21 and LCO 3.8.7 (BWR/4); TS 4.5.2.19 and 3.8.7 (BWR/6), Inverters (Operating) In Modes 1, 2, and 3, the inverters provide the preferred source of power for the 120-VAC vital buses which power the reactor protection system (RPS) and the Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) initiation. The inverter can be powered from an internal AC [[Page 74044]] source/rectifier or from the station battery. [Note: Plant Applicability, BWR 4/6] LCO: For Modes 1, 2, and 3 the following Inverters shall be operable: BWR/4: The (Division 1 and Division 2) shall be operable. BWR/6: The (Divisions 1, 2, and 3) shall be operable. Condition requiring entry into end state: The plant operators must bring the plant to Mode 3 within 12 hours and Mode 4 within 36 hours following the sustained inoperability of the required inverter for a period of 24 hours. Proposed modification for end state required actions: The proposed TS change is to remove the requirement to place the plant in Mode 4. Required Actions in B.2 (BWR/4) and C.2 (BWR/6) are deleted. Assessment: If one of the Inverters is inoperable, the remaining Inverters have the capacity to support a safe shutdown and to mitigate an accident condition. The BWROG topical report did a comparative PRA evaluation of the core damage risks of operation in the current end state and in the proposed Mode 3 end state, with an inoperable Inverter. Events initiated by the loss of offsite power are dominant contributors to core damage frequency in most BWR PRAs, and the steam- driven core cooling systems, RCIC and HPCI, play a major role in mitigating these events. The evaluation indicates that the core damage risks are lower in Mode 3 than in Mode 4. Going to Mode 4 for one inoperable Inverter power source would cause loss of the high-pressure steam-driven injection system (RCIC/HPCI), and loss of the power conversion system (condenser/feedwater), and require activating the RHR system. In addition, EOPs direct the operator to take control of the depressurization function if low pressure injection/spray systems are needed for RPV water makeup and cooling. Based on the low probability of loss of the Inverters during the infrequent and limited time in Mode 3 and the number of systems available in Mode 3, the staff concludes in the SE to the BWR topical report that the risks of staying in Mode 3 are approximately the same as and in some cases lower than the risks of going to the Mode 4 end state. Finding: Based upon the above assessment, and because the time spent in Mode 3 to perform the repair is infrequent and limited, and in light of defense-in-depth considerations, the proposed change is acceptable. 3.2.9 TS 4.5.1.22 and LCO 3.8.9 (BWR/4); TS 4.5.2.20 and LCO 3.8.9 (BWR/6), Distribution Systems (Operating) The onsite Class 1E AC and DC electrical power distribution system is divided into redundant and independent AC, DC, and AC vital bus electrical power distribution systems. The primary AC electrical power distribution subsystem for each division consists of a 4.16-kV Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) bus having an offsite source of power as well as a dedicated onsite EDG source. The secondary plant distribution subsystems include 600-VAC emergency buses and associated load centers, motor control centers, distribution panels and transformers. The 120-VAC vital buses are arranged in four load groups and normally powered from DC via the inverters. There are two independent 125/250-VDC station service electrical power distribution systems and three independent 125-VDC DG electrical power distribution subsystems that support the necessary power for ESF functions. Each subsystem consists of a 125-VDC and 250-VDC bus and associated distribution panels. [Note: Plant Applicability, BWR 4/6] LCO: For Modes 1, 2, and 3, the following electrical power distribution subsystems shall be operable: BWR/4: The Division 1 and Division 2 AC, DC, and AC vital buses shall be operable. BWR/6: The Divisions 1, 2, and 3 AC, DC, and AC vital buses shall be operable. Condition requiring entry into end state: The plant operators must bring the plant to Mode 3 within 12 hours and Mode 4 within 36 hours following the sustained inoperability of one AC or one DC or one AC vital bus electrical power subsystem for a period of 8 hours, 2 hours and 2 hours, respectively (with a maximum 16 hour Completion Time limit from initial discovery of failure to meet the LCO, to preclude being in the LCO indefinitely). Proposed modification for end state required actions: The proposed TS change is to remove the requirement to place the plant in Mode 4, Required Action in D.2 (BWR/4) and D.2 (BWR/6) are deleted. Assessment: If one of the AC/DC/AC vital subsystems is inoperable, the remaining AC/DC/AC vital subsystems have the capacity to support a safe shutdown and to mitigate an accident condition. The BWROG topical report did a comparative PRA evaluation of the core damage risks of operation in the current end state and in the proposed Mode 3 end state, with one of the AC/DC/AC vital subsystems inoperable. Events initiated by the loss of offsite power are dominant contributors to core damage frequency in most BWR PRAs, and the steam-driven core cooling systems, RCIC and HPCI, play a major role in mitigating these events. The evaluation indicates that the core damage risks are lower in Mode 3 than in Mode 4. Going to Mode 4 for one inoperable AC/DC/AC vital subsystem would cause loss of the high-pressure steam-driven injection system (RCIC/HPCI), and loss of the power conversion system (condenser/feedwater), and require activating the RHR system. In addition, EOPs direct the operator to take control of the depressurization function if low pressure injection/spray systems are needed for RPV water makeup and cooling. Based on the low probability of loss of the AC/DC/AC vital electrical subsystems during the infrequent and limited time in Mode 3 and the number of systems available in Mode 3, the staff concludes in the SE to the BWR topical report that the risks of staying in Mode 3 are approximately the same as and in some cases lower than the risks of going to the Mode 4 end state. Finding: Based upon the above assessment, and because the time spent in Mode 3 to perform the repair is infrequent and limited, and in light of defense-in-depth considerations, the proposed change is acceptable. 3.2.10 TS 4.5.1.5 and LCO 3.6.1.1, Primary Containment The function of the primary containment is to isolate and contain fission products released from the Reactor Primary System following a design basis LOCA and to confine the postulated release of radioactivity. The primary containment consists of a steel-lined, reinforced concrete vessel, which surrounds the Reactor Primary System and provides an essentially leak-tight barrier against an uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment. Additionally, this structure provides shielding from the fission products that may be present in the primary containment atmosphere following accident conditions. [Note: Plant Applicability, BWR 4/6] LCO: The primary containment shall be operable. Condition Requiring Entry into End State: If the LCO cannot be met, the primary containment must be returned to operability within one hour (Required Action A.1). If the primary containment cannot be returned to operable status within the allotted time, the plant must be placed in Mode 3 within 12 hours [[Page 74045]] (Required Action B.1) and in Mode 4 within 36 hours (Required Action B.2). Proposed Modification for End State Required Actions: Delete Required Action B.2. Assessment: The primary containment is one of the three primary boundaries to the release of radioactivity. (The other two are the fuel cladding and the Reactor Primary System pressure boundary.) Compliance with this LCO ensures that a primary containment configuration exists, including equipment hatches and penetrations, that is structurally sound and will limit leakage to those leakage rates assumed in the safety analyses. This LCO entry condition does not include leakage through an unisolated release path. The BWROG topical report has determined that previous generic PRA work related to Appendix J requirements has shown that containment leakage is not risk significant. Should a fission product release from the primary containment occur, the secondary containment and related functions would remain operable to contain the release, and the standby gas treatment system would remain available to filter fission products from being released to the environment. By remaining in Mode 3, HPCI, RCIC, and the power conversion system (condensate/feedwater) remain available for water makeup and decay heat removal. Additionally, the EOPs direct the operators to take control of the depressurization function if low pressure injection/spray are needed for reactor coolant makeup and cooling. Therefore, defense-in-depth is maintained with respect to water makeup and decay heat removal by remaining in Mode 3. Finding: The requested change is acceptable. Note that the staff's approval relies upon the secondary containment and the standby gas treatment system for maintaining defense-in-depth while in this reduced end state. 3.2.11 TS 4.5.1.7 and LCO 3.6.1.7, Reactor Building-to-Suppression Chamber Vacuum Breakers (BWR/4 only) The reactor building-to-suppression chamber vacuum breakers relieve vacuum when the primary containment depressurizes below the pressure of the reactor building, thereby serving to preserve the integrity of the primary containment. [Note: Plant Applicability, BWR/4] LCO: Each reactor building-to-suppression chamber vacuum breaker shall be operable. Condition Requiring Entry into End State: If one line has one or more reactor building-to-suppression chamber vacuum breakers inoperable for opening, the breaker(s) must be returned to operability within 72 hours (Required Action C.1). If the vacuum breaker(s) cannot be returned to operability within the allotted time, the plant must be placed in Mode 3 within 12 hours (Required Action E.1) and in Mode 4 within 36 hours (Required Action E.2). Proposed Modification for End State Required Actions: Modify the Required Actions so that if vacuum breaker(s) cannot be returned to operable status within the required Completion Times, the plant is placed in hot shutdown. That is, modify Condition E to relate only to Condition C, delete Required Action E.2, and add Condition F, with Required Actions F.1 and F.2, shutting down the plant to Mode 3 and then Mode 4 respectively, to address an inability to comply with the required actions related to the other Conditions (i.e., Conditions A, B, and D). Assessment: The BWROG topical report has determined that the specific failure condition of interest is not risk significant in BWR PRAs. The reduced end state would only be applicable to the situation where the vacuum breaker(s) in one line are inoperable for opening, with the remaining operable vacuum breakers capable of providing the necessary vacuum relief function. The existing end state remains unchanged, as established by new Condition F, for conditions involving more than one inoperable line or vacuum breaker since they are needed in Modes 1, 2, and 3. In Mode 3, for other accident considerations, HPCI, RCIC, and the power conversion system (condensate/feedwater) remain available for water makeup and decay heat removal. Additionally, the EOPs direct the operators to take control of the depressurization function if low pressure injection/spray are needed for reactor coolant makeup and cooling. Therefore, defense-in-depth is maintained with respect to water makeup and decay heat removal by remaining in Mode 3. Finding: Based upon the above assessment, and because the time spent in Mode 3 to perform the repair is infrequent and limited, and in light of defense-in-depth considerations, the proposed change is acceptable. 3.2.12 TS 4.5.1.8 and LCO 3.6.1.8, Suppression Chamber-to-Drywell Vacuum Breakers (BWR/4 only) The function of the suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum breakers is to relieve vacuum in the drywell, thereby preventing an excessive negative differential pressure across the wetwell/drywell boundary. [Note: Plant Applicability, BWR/4] LCO: Nine suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum breakers shall be operable for opening. Condition Requiring Entry into End State: If one suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum breaker is inoperable for opening, the breaker must be returned to operability within 72 hours (Required Action A.1). If the vacuum breaker cannot be returned to operability within the allotted time, the plant must be placed in Mode 3 within 12 hours (Required Action C.1) and in Mode 4 within 36 hours (Required Action C.2). Proposed Modification for End State Required Actions: Modify the Required Actions so that if vacuum breaker(s) cannot be returned to operable status within the required Completion Times, the plant is placed in hot shutdown. That is, modify Condition C to relate only to Condition A, and delete Required Action C.2, and add Condition D, with Required Actions D.1 and D.2, shutting down the plant to Mode 3 and then Mode 4 respectively, to address an inability to comply with the required actions related to Condition B, to close the vacuum breaker. Assessment: The BWROG topical report has determined that the specific failure of interest is not risk significant in BWR PRAs. The reduced end state would only be applicable to the situation where one suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum breaker is inoperable for opening, with the remaining operable vacuum breakers capable of providing the necessary vacuum relief function, since they are required in Modes 1, 2, and 3. By remaining in Mode 3, HPCI, RCIC, and the power conversion system (condensate/feedwater) remain available for water makeup and decay heat removal. Additionally, the EOPs direct the operators to take control of the depressurization function if low pressure injection/spray are needed for RCS makeup and cooling. Therefore, defense-in-depth is maintained with respect to water makeup and decay heat removal by remaining in Mode 3. The existing end state remains unchanged for conditions involving any suppression chamber-to- drywell vacuum breakers that are stuck open, as established by new Condition D. Finding: Based upon the above assessment, and because the time spent in Mode 3 to perform the repair is infrequent and limited, and in light of [[Page 74046]] defense-in-depth considerations, the proposed change is acceptable. 3.2.13 TS 4.5.1.9, TS 4.5.2.8, and LCO 3.6.1.9, Main Steam Isolation Valve (MSIV) Leakage Control System (LCS) The MSIV LCS supplements the isolation function of the MSIVs by processing the fission products that could leak through the closed MSIVs after core damage, assuming leakage rate limits which are based on a large LOCA. [Note: Plant Applicability, BWR 4/6] LCO: Two MSIV LCS subsystems shall be operable. Condition Requiring Entry Into End State: If one MSIV LCS subsystem is inoperable, it must be restored to operable status within 30 days (Required Action A.1). If both MSIV LCS subsystems are inoperable, one of the MSIV LCS subsystems must be restored to operable status within seven days (Required Action B.1). If the MSIV LCS subsystems cannot be restored to operable status within the allotted time, the plant must be placed in Mode 3 within 12 hours (Required Action C.1) and in Mode 4 within 36 hours (Required Action C.2). Proposed Modification for End State Required Actions: Delete Required Action C.2. Assessment: The BWROG topical report has determined that this system is not significant in BWR PRAs and, based on a BWROG program, many plants have eliminated the system altogether. The unavailability of one or both MSIV LCS subsystems has no impact on CDF or LERF, irrespective of the mode of operation at the time of the accident. Furthermore, the challenge frequency of the MSIV LCS system (i.e., the frequency with which the system is expected to be challenged to mitigate offsite radiation releases resulting from MSIV leaks above TS limits) is less than 1.0E-6/yr. Consequently, the conditional probability that this system will be challenged during the repair time interval while the plant is at either the current or the proposed end state (i.e., Mode 4 or Mode 3, respectively) is less than 1.0E-8. This probability is considerably smaller than probabilities considered ``negligible'' in Regulatory Guide 1.177 for much higher consequence risks, such as large early release. Section 6 of reference 6 summarizes the staff's risk argument for approval of TSs 4.5.1.9, 4.5.2.8, and LCO 3.6.1.9, ``Main Steam Isolation Valve (MSIV) Leakage Control System (LCS).'' The argument for staying in Mode 3 instead of going to Mode 4 to repair the MSIV LCS system (one or both trains) is also supported by defense-in-depth considerations. Section 6.2 makes a comparison between the current (Mode 3) and the proposed (Mode 4) end state, with respect to the means available to perform critical functions (i.e., functions contributing to the defense-in-depth philosophy) whose success is needed to prevent core damage and containment failure and mitigate radiation releases. The risk and defense-in-depth arguments, used according to the ``integrated decision-making'' process of Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177, support the conclusion that the plant in Mode 3 is as safe as Mode 4 (if not safer) for repairing an inoperable MSIV LCS system. Personnel safety must be considered separately. Finding: Based upon the above assessment, and because the time spent in Mode 3 to perform the repair is infrequent and limited, and in light of defense-in-depth considerations, the proposed change is acceptable. 3.2.14 TS 4.5.1.11 and LCO 3.6.2.4, Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Suppression Pool Spray(BWR/4 only) Following a DBA, the RHR suppression pool spray system removes heat from the suppression chamber airspace. A minimum of one RHR suppression pool spray subsystem is required to mitigate potential bypass leakage paths from drywell and maintain the primary containment peak pressure below the design limits. [Note: Plant Applicability, BWR/4] LCO: Two RHR suppression pool spray subsystems shall be operable. Condition Requiring Entry Into End State: If one RHR suppression pool spray subsystem is inoperable (Condition A), it must be restored to operable status within seven days (Required Action A.1). If both RHR suppression pool spray subsystems are inoperable (Condition B), one of them must be restored to operable status within eight hours (Required Action B.1). If the RHR suppression pool spray subsystem cannot be restored to operable status within the allotted time, the plant must be placed in Mode 3 within 12 hours (Required Action C.1), and in Mode 4 within 36 hours (Required Action C.2). Proposed Modification for End State Required Actions: Delete Required Action C.2. Assessment: The main function of the RHR suppression spray system is to remove heat from the suppression chamber so that the pressure and temperature inside primary containment remain within analyzed design limits. The RHR suppression spray system was designed to mitigate potential effects of a postulated DBA, that is, a large LOCA which is assumed to occur concurrently with the most limiting single failure and conservative inputs, such as for initial suppression pool water volume and temperature. Under the conditions assumed in the DBA, steam blown down from the break could bypass the suppression pool and end up in the suppression chamber air space and the RHR suppression spray system could be needed to condense such steam so that the pressure and temperature inside primary containment remain within analyzed design basis limits. However, the frequency of a DBA is very small and the containment has considerable margin to failure above the design limits. For these reasons, the unavailability of one or both RHR suppression spray subsystems has no significant impact on CDF or LERF, even for accidents initiated during operation at power. Therefore, it is very unlikely that the RHR suppression spray system will be challenged to mitigate an accident occurring during power operation. This probability becomes extremely unlikely for accidents that would occur during a small fraction of the year (less than three days) during which the plant would be in Mode 3 (associated with lower initial energy level and reduced decay heat load as compared to power operation) to repair the failed RHR suppression spray system. Section 6 of reference 6 summarizes the staff's risk argument for approval of TS 4.5.1.11 and LCO 3.6.2.4, ``Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Suppression Pool Spray.'' The argument for staying in Mode 3 instead of going to Mode 4 to repair the RHR Suppression Pool Spray system (one or both trains) is also supported by defense-in-depth considerations. Section 6.2 makes a comparison between the current (Mode 3) and the proposed (Mode 4) end state, with respect to the means available to perform critical functions (i.e., functions contributing to the defense-in-depth philosophy) whose success is needed to prevent core damage and containment failure and mitigate radiation releases, and precluding the need for RHR suppression spray subsystems. In addition, the probability of a DBA (large break) is much smaller during shutdown as compared to power operation. A DBA in Mode 3 would be considerably less severe than a DBA occurring during power operation since Mode 3 is associated with lower initial energy level and reduced decay heat load. Under these extremely unlikely conditions, an alternate method that can be used to remove heat from the primary [[Page 74047]] containment (in order to keep the pressure and temperature within the analyzed design basis limits) is containment venting. For more realistic accidents that could occur in Mode 3, several alternate means are available to remove heat from the primary containment, such as the RHR system in the suppression pool cooling mode and the containment spray mode. The risk and defense-in-depth arguments, used according to the ``integrated decision-making'' process of Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177, support the conclusion that Mode 3 is as safe as Mode 4 (if not safer) for repairing an inoperable RHR suppression spray system. Finding: Based upon the above assessment, and because the time spent in Mode 3 to perform the repair is infrequent and limited, and in light of defense-in-depth considerations, the proposed change is acceptable. 3.2.15 TS 4.5.1.12, TS 4.5.2.10, and LCO 3.6.4.1, Secondary Containment Following a DBA, the function of the secondary containment is to contain, dilute, and stop radioactivity (mostly fission products) that may leak from primary containment. Its leak tightness is required to ensure that the release of radioactivity from the primary containment is restricted to those leakage paths and associated leakage rates assumed in the accident analysis and that fission products entrapped within the secondary containment structure will be treated by the standby gas treatment system prior to discharge to the environment. [Note: Plant Applicability, BWR 4/6] LCO: The secondary containment shall be operable. Condition Requiring Entry Into End State: If the secondary containment is inoperable, it must be restored to operable status within four hours (Required Action A.1). If it cannot be restored to operable status within the allotted time, the plant must be placed in Mode 3 within 12 hours (Required Action B.1), and in Mode 4 within 36 hours (Required Action B.2). Proposed Modification for End State Required Actions: Delete Required Action B.2. Assessment: This LCO entry condition does not include gross leakage through an unisolable release path. The BWROG topical report has determined that previous generic PRA work related to Appendix J requirements has shown that containment leakage is not risk significant. The primary containment, and all other primary and secondary containment-related functions would still be operable, including the standby gas treatment system, thereby minimizing the likelihood of an unacceptable release. By remaining in Mode 3, HPCI, RCIC, and the power conversion system (condensate/feedwater) remain available for water makeup and decay heat removal. Additionally, the EOPs direct the operators to take control of the depressurization function if low pressure injection/spray are needed for RCS makeup and cooling. Therefore, defense-in-depth is improved with respect to water makeup and decay heat removal by remaining in Mode 3. Finding: The requested change is acceptable. Note that the staff's approval relies upon the primary containment, and all other primary and secondary containment-related functions, to still be operable, including the standby gas treatment system, for maintaining defense-in- depth while in this end state. 3.2.16 TS 4.5.1.13, TS 4.5.2.11, and LCO 3.6.4.3, Standby Gas Treatment (SGT) System The function of the SGT system is to ensure that radioactive materials that leak from the primary containment into the secondary containment following a DBA are filtered and adsorbed prior to exhausting to the environment. Applicability: BWR4/6 LCO: Two SGT subsystems shall be operable. Condition Requiring Entry Into End State: If one SGT subsystem is inoperable, it must be restored to operable status within seven days (Required Action A.1). If the SGT subsystem cannot be restored to operable status within the allotted time, the plant must be placed in Mode 3 within 12 hours (Required Action B.1) and in Mode 4 within 36 hours (Required Action B.2). In addition, if two SGT subsystems are inoperable in Mode 1, 2, or 3, LCO 3.0.3 must be entered immediately (Required Action D.1). Proposed Modification for End State Required Actions: Delete Required Action B.2. Change Required Action D.1 to ``Be in Mode 3'' with a Completion Time of ``12 hours.'' Assessment: The unavailability of one or both SGT subsystems has no impact on CDF or LERF, irrespective of the mode of operation at the time of the accident. Furthermore, the challenge frequency of the SGT system (i.e., the frequency with which the system is expected to be challenged to mitigate offsite radiation releases resulting from materials that leak from the primary to the secondary containment above TS limits) is less than 1.0E-6/yr. Consequently, the conditional probability that this system will be challenged during the repair time interval while the plant is at either the current or the proposed end state (i.e., Mode 4 or Mode 3, respectively) is less than 1.0E-8. This probability is considerably smaller than probabilities considered ``negligible'' in Regulatory Guide 1.177 for much higher consequence risks, such as large early release. Section 6 of reference 6 summarizes the staff's risk argument for approval of TSs 4.5.1.13, 4.5.2.11, and LCO 3.6.4.3, ``Standby Gas Treatment (SGT) System.'' The argument for staying in Mode 3 instead of going to Mode 4 to repair the SGT system (one or both trains) is also supported by defense-in-depth considerations. Section 6.2 makes a comparison between the current (Mode 3) and the proposed (Mode 4) end state, with respect to the means available to perform critical functions (i.e., functions contributing to the defense-in-depth philosophy) whose success is needed to prevent core damage and containment failure and mitigate radiation releases. The risk and defense-in-depth arguments, used according to the ``integrated decision-making'' process of Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177, support the conclusion that Mode 3 is as safe as Mode 4 (if not safer) for repairing an inoperable SGT system. Finding: Based upon the above assessment, and because the time spent in Mode 3 to perform the repair is infrequent and limited, and in light of defense-in-depth considerations, the proposed change is acceptable. 3.2.17 TS 4.5.1.14 and LCO 3.7.1, Residual Heat Removal Service Water (RHRSW) System (BWR/4 only) The RHRSW system is designed to provide cooling water for the RHR system heat exchangers, which are required for safe shutdown following a normal shutdown or DBA or transient. [Note: Plant Applicability, BWR/4] LCO: Two RHRSW subsystems shall be operable. Condition Requiring Entry Into End State: If the LCO cannot be met, the following actions must be taken for the listed conditions: a. If one RHRSW pump is inoperable (Condition A), it must be restored to operable status within 30 days (Required Action A.1). b. If one RHRSW pump in each subsystem is inoperable (Condition B), one RHRSW pump must be restored to operable status within seven days (Required Action B.1). [[Page 74048]] c. If one RHRSW subsystem is inoperable for reasons other than Condition A (Condition C), the RHRSW subsystem must be restored to operable status within seven days (Required Action C.1). d. If the required action and associated completion time cannot be met within the allotted time (Condition E), the plant must be placed in Mode 3 within 12 hours (Required Action E.1) and in Mode 4 within 36 hours (Required Action E.2). (Note: Condition D addresses both RHRSW subsystems inoperable for reason other than Condition B, and its Required Action D.1 is not affected by this change.) Proposed Modification for End State Required Actions: Renumber Conditions D (and Required Action D.1), and E (and Required Actions E.1 and E.2), to Conditions E (and Required Action E.1) and F (and Required Actions F.1 and F.2), respectively. Modify new Condition F to address new Condition E, which maintains the existing requirements with respect to both RHR subsystems being inoperable for reasons other than Condition B. Add a new Condition D, which establishes requirements for existing Conditions A, B, and C, that are similar to existing Condition E but without Required Action E.2. Assessment: The BWROG topical report performed a comparative PRA evaluation of the core damage risks when operating in the current end state versus the proposed Mode 3 end state. The results indicated that the core damage risks while operating in Mode 3 (assuming the individual failure conditions) are lower or comparable to the current end state. By remaining in Mode 3, HPCI, RCIC, and the power conversion system (condensate/feedwater) remain available for water makeup and decay heat removal. Additionally, the EOPs direct the operators to take control of the depressurization function if low pressure injection/ spray are needed for RCS makeup and cooling. Therefore, defense-in- depth is improved with respect to water makeup and decay heat removal by remaining in Mode 3, and the required safety function can still be performed with the RHRSW subsystem components that are still operable. Finding: Based upon the above assessment, and because the time spent in Mode 3 to perform the repair is infrequent and limited, and in light of defense-in-depth considerations, the proposed change is acceptable. 3.2.18 TS 4.5.1.15 and LCO 3.7.2, Plant Service Water (PSW) System and Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) (BWR/4 only) The PSW system (in conjunction with the UHS) is designed to provide cooling water for the removal of heat from certain safe shutdown- related equipment heat exchangers following a DBA or transient. [Note: Plant Applicability, BWR/4] LCO: Two PSW subsystems and UHS shall be operable. Condition Requiring Entry into End State: If the LCO cannot be met, the following actions must be taken for the listed conditions: a. If one PSW pump is inoperable (Condition A), it must be restored to operable status within 30 days (Required Action A.1). b. If one PSW pump in each subsystem is inoperable (Condition B), one PSW pump must be restored to operable status within seven days (Required Action B.1). c. If the required action and associated completion time cannot be met within the allotted time, the plant must be placed in Mode 3 within 12 hours (Required Action E.1) and in Mode 4 within 36 hours (Required Action E.2). Proposed Modification: Renumber unaffected Conditions C, D, E, and F to Conditions D, E, F, and G respectively, and renumber associated Required Actions accordingly. Add a new Condition C, for the Required Actions and associated Completion Time of Conditions A and B not met, with a Required Action C.1, to be in Mode 3 in a Completion Time of 12 hours. Change the new Condition G to read, ``Required Action and associated Completion Time of Condition E not met, OR Both [PSW] subsystems inoperable for reasons other than Condition(s) B [and D], [OR [UHS] inoperable for reasons other than Conditions D [or E].'' Assessment: The BWROG topical report performed a comparative PRA evaluation of the core damage risks associated with operating in the current end state versus the proposed Mode 3 end state. The results indicated that the core damage risks while operating in Mode 3 (assuming the individual failure conditions) are lower or comparable to the current end state. With one pump inoperable in one or more subsystems, the remaining pumps are adequate to perform the PSW heat removal function. By remaining in Mode 3, HPCI, RCIC, and the power conversion system (condensate/feedwater) remain available for water makeup and decay heat removal. Additionally, the EOPs direct the operators to take control of the depressurization function if low pressure injection/spray are needed for RCS makeup and cooling. Therefore, defense-in-depth is improved with respect to water makeup and decay heat removal by remaining in Mode 3. Finding: Based upon the above assessment, and because the time spent in Mode 3 to perform the repair is infrequent and limited, and in light of defense-in-depth considerations, the proposed change is acceptable. 3.2.19 TS 4.5.1.16 and LCO 3.7.4, Main Control Room Environmental Control (MCREC) System(BWR/4 only) The MCREC system provides a radiologically controlled environment from which the plant can be safely operated following a DBA. [Note: Plant Applicability, BWR/4] LCO: Two MCREC subsystems shall be operable. Condition Requiring Entry Into End State: If one MCREC subsystem is inoperable, it must be restored to operable status within seven days (Required Action A.1). If the MCREC subsystem cannot be restored to operable status within the allotted time, the plant must be placed in Mode 3 within 12 hours (Required Action B.1) and in Mode 4 within 36 hours (Required Action B.2). If two MCREC subsystems are inoperable in Mode 1, 2, or 3, LCO 3.0.3 must be entered immediately (Required Action D.1). Proposed Modification for End State Required Actions: Delete Required Action B.2, and change Required Action D.1 to ``Be in Mode 3'' with a Completion Time of ``12 hours.'' Assessment: The unavailability of one or both MCREC subsystems has no significant impact on CDF or LERF, irrespective of the mode of operation at the time of the accident. Furthermore, the challenge frequency of the MCREC system (i.e., the frequency with which the system is expected to be challenged to provide a radiologically controlled environment in the main control room following a DBA which leads to core damage and leaks of radiation from the containment that can reach the control room) is less than 1.0E-6/yr. Consequently, the conditional probability that this system will be challenged during the repair time interval while the plant is at either the current or the proposed end state (i.e., Mode 4 or Mode 3, respectively) is less than 1.0E-8. This probability is considerably smaller than probabilities considered ``negligible'' in Regulatory Guide 1.177 for much higher consequence risks, such as large early release. [[Page 74049]] Section 6 of reference 6 summarizes the staff's risk argument for approval of TS 4.5.1.16, and LCO 3.7.4, ``Main Control Room Environmental Control (MCREC) System.'' The argument for staying in Mode 3 instead of going to Mode 4 to repair the MCREC system (one or both trains) is also supported by defense-in-depth considerations. Section 6.2 makes a comparison between the current (Mode 3) and the proposed (Mode 4) end state, with respect to the means available to perform critical functions (i.e., functions contributing to the defense-in-depth philosophy) whose success is needed to prevent core damage and containment failure and mitigate radiation releases. The risk and defense-in-depth arguments, used according to the ``integrated decision-making'' process of Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177, support the conclusion that Mode 3 is as safe as Mode 4 (if not safer) for repairing an inoperable MCREC system. Finding: Based upon the above assessment, and because the time spent in Mode 3 to perform the repair is infrequent and limited, and in light of defense-in-depth considerations, the proposed change is acceptable. 3.2.20 TS 4.5.1.17 and LCO 3.7.5, Control Room Air Conditioning (AC) System (BWR/4 only) The Control Room AC system provides temperature control for the control room following control room isolation during accident conditions. [Note: Plant Applicability, BWR/4] LCO: Two control room AC subsystems shall be operable. Condition Requiring Entry Into End State: If one control room AC subsystem is inoperable, the subsystem must be restored to operable status within 30 days (Required Action A.1). If the required actions and associated completion times cannot be met, the plant must be placed in Mode 3 within 12 hours (Required Action B.1) and in Mode 4 within 36 hours (Required Action B.2). If two control room AC subsystems are inoperable, LCO 3.0.3 must be entered immediately (Required Action D.1) Proposed Modification for End State Required Actions: Delete Required Action B.2, and change Required Action D.1 to ``Be in Mode 3'' with a Completion Time of ``12 hours.'' Assessment: The unavailability of one or both AC subsystems has no significant impact on CDF or LERF, irrespective of the mode of operation at the time of the accident. Furthermore, the challenge frequency of the AC system (i.e., the frequency with which the system is expected to be challenged to provide temperature control for the control room following control room isolation following a DBA) is less than 1.0E-6/yr. Consequently, the conditional probability that this system will be challenged during the repair time interval while the plant is at either the current or the proposed end state (i.e., Mode 4 or Mode 3, respectively) is less than 1.0E-8. This probability is considerably smaller than probabilities considered ``negligible'' in Regulatory Guide 1.177 for much higher consequence risks, such as large early release. Section 6 of reference 6 summarizes the staff's risk argument for approval of TS 4.5.1.17, and LCO 3.7.5, ``Control Room Air Conditioning (AC) System.'' The argument for staying in Mode 3 instead of going to Mode 4 to repair the AC system (one or both trains) is also supported by defense-in-depth considerations. Section 6.2 makes a comparison between the current (Mode 3) and the proposed (Mode 4) end state, with respect to the means available to perform critical functions (i.e., functions contributing to the defense-in-depth philosophy) whose success is needed to prevent core damage and containment failure and mitigate radiation releases. The risk and defense-in-depth arguments, used according to the ``integrated decision-making'' process of Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177, support the conclusion that Mode 3 is as safe as Mode 4 (if not safer) for repairing an inoperable AC system. Finding: Based upon the above assessment, and because the time spent in Mode 3 to perform the repair is infrequent and limited, and in light of defense-in-depth considerations, the proposed change is acceptable. 3.2.21 TS 4.5.1.18 and LCO 3.7.6, Main Condenser Off gas (BWR/4 only) The Off gas from the main condenser normally includes radioactive gases. The gross gamma activity rate is controlled to ensure that accident analysis assumptions are satisfied and that offsite dose limits will not be exceeded during postulated accidents. The main condenser Off gas (MCOG) gross gamma activity rate is an initial condition of a DBA which assumes a gross failure of the MCOG system pressure boundary. [Note: Plant Applicability, BWR/4] LCO: The gross gamma activity rate of the noble gases measured at the main condenser evacuation system pretreatment monitor station shall be ***************************************************************** 36 BBC: Town's forgotten Last Updated: Wednesday, 14 December 2005 By Nick Parry BBC Wales news website [Bunker protest (Pic courtesy of Mike Reed)] Protesters occupied the building site during the winter of 1985 It is 20 years ago this winter that Carmarthen witnessed a bitter and sometimes violent confrontation as work began on a nuclear bunker. It led to peace protests, a long-running High Court battle and cost an estimated £400,000 to complete. Buried under a car park and used to store paperwork, visitors to the town today would not even know it exists. As the BBC Wales news website is given a rare look inside, we speak to one campaigner who recalls the controversy. For most of the 1980s the Cold War, a nuclear stand-off between the former Soviet block on one side and western Europe and the USA on the other, continued. With the on-going threat of nuclear war the then Conservative Government led by Margaret Thatcher was offering local councils grants of up to 75% to build nuclear shelters. Clicker here to take a look insi Carmarthen's nuclear bunker [ hspace=] [ align=] In pictures The decision by the now defunct Carmarthen District Council to build one just off Spilman Street in the town caused a big outcry. Solicitor Mike Reed was one of 17 peace activists made the subject of a High Court injunction banning them from the site after they tried to occupy it, but said he had no regrets over the protests. "There was so much opposition from prominent people and local people," he explained. "It was at the time when people were very concerned about nuclear proliferation. "It was at the time of the Cold War and these bunkers were being built around the country and there was a fear that it was going to increase the risk of a nuclear war. "Even Margaret Thatcher got to hear of it - that there was this protest going on 200 miles away that had to be stamped out. [Mike Reed] There must be use but clearly it is such an embarrassment that I don't even think they want to explore it Mike Reed "It started off with a protest and because they (the old Carmarthen district council) actually started work without planning permission local peace protesters occupied the site and stopped the work. "They built a 12ft high spiked steel fence around it and they got a security firm with Alsatian dogs. It was very serious stuff. "It was a fascinating campaign, albeit sad that we did not stop the thing being built." Events culminated in a demonstration that saw several thousand people form a human chain around the bunker off Spilman Street. But just after it was completed the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union broke up. "Shortly after, government policy changed and the Cold War came to an end," added Mr Reed. "I don't know what the ultimate cost was but the estimate was something like £400,000. "It's very sad that all that money was spent and it's never been used. "There must be a use but clearly it is such an embarrassment that I don't even think they (the current Carmarthenshire council) want to explore it because of course inevitably people would say why was it built?" ***************************************************************** 37 [du-list] Serbia removes depleted uranium left over from NATO Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:18:12 -0800 http://calibre.mworld.com/m/m.w?lp=GetStory=175478871 Serbia removes depleted uranium left over from NATO bombing Released : Dec 12, 2005 1:02 PM BELGRADE, Serbia-Montenegro-Serbia's authorities are completing the clean-up of depleted uranium left over from NATO's bombing campaign in 1999, the Environment Ministry said Monday. More than six years after the alliance used depleted uranium shells in its air war against government troops fighting Kosovo Albanian separatists, the clean-up of the radioactive pollutants has been completed at a major site in southern Serbia, the Environment Ministry said. Nuclear experts and clean-up teams removed 3,468 cubic (122,457 cubic feet) of contaminated soil from the Borovac site, 280 kilometers (175 miles) south of Belgrade, where 44 depleted uranium shells exploded. Depleted uranium, a byproduct of radioactive enriched uranium, is used by U.S. and British air forces in armor-piercing weapons. It was heavily used in the Gulf and, to a smaller extent, in the Balkans. Although less radioactive than enriched uranium, depleted uranium is a heavy metal suspected of causing birth defects and cancer if inhaled or ingested, particularly if it enters the food chain or contaminates water. Serbia's authorities have previously cleaned up two similar locations in southern Serbia following recommendations by United Nations experts who had analyzed samples of water and soil from the targeted areas. Two other sites in the area were previously decontaminated, the statement said, adding that one more remains to be cleaned up next year. stichting Laka Laka foundation documentatie en onderzoeks- documentation and research centrum kernenergie centre on nuclear energy Ketelhuisplein 43 Ketelhuisplein 43 1054 RD Amsterdam NL-1054 RD Amsterdam tel: 020-6168294 Netherlands fax: 020-6892179 tel: +31-20-6168294 fax: +31-20-6892179 www.laka.org laka@antenna.nl ***************************************************************** 38 Toronto Star: Radiation detector scans Saint John containers Wed. Dec. 14, 2005. | Updated at 03:42 PM 01:00 AM FREDERICTONFederal officials have installed Canada's first radiation detector at the port of Saint John in New Brunswick in a bid to protect this country against nuclear terrorism. Saint John is the first port to get the nuclear detection devices but all major Canadian ports are soon to be equipped with the anti-terrorism technology. "It is the first port in Canada to have the equipment up and running," Jennifer Morrison of the Canada Border Services Agency said yesterday. "It is designed to detect potential shipments of nuclear or radiological materials entering Canada." Morrison said details of the program would be released late next month. The radiation detection program is a key part of Ottawa's $172-million plan to beef up marine security, stemming from the terrorist attacks against America of Sept. 11, 2001. The devices, in use two weeks at Saint John, detect radiation inside containers. The detector sits on two large concrete columns. Containers are driven through the scanning portal after they have been loaded on trucks. "The port has to be kept up to the same standards as other ports around the world," said Terry Wilson, speaking for the port's unionized workers. "If we don't have these modern devices, we won't be able to compete." Critics warn it is still not enough protection in an increasingly dangerous world. Douglas Ross, a professor of political science at Simon Fraser University who studies the terrorist threat to North America, said radiation detectors are just a first step and could be outrun quickly by terrorists intent on creating nuclear havoc. "They're going for the first step," Ross said of Ottawa's port security system. "That's better than no step, but they may be one step behind anybody who is seriously interested in trying to smuggle nuclear materials into the United States or Canada." Ross said Canada needs to consider a more expensive, double-barrelled protection system, employing radiation detection equipment and X-rays to reveal mysterious dark spaces inside containers that could hide nuclear material shielded from radiation detectors. "If something is really shielded, there will be no radiation and the stuff will get through," Ross said. "You need to X-ray all of the containers as well. If they were doing it simultaneously, using X-rays as well as radiation detectors, then we would be much better shape. But they are not doing the full X-ray of each container as they go through." canadian press Copyright Toronto Star ***************************************************************** 39 Las Vegas SUN: UNR gets federal grant for radiation sickness outreach program Today: December 14, 2005 at 18:2:59 PST UNR gets federal grant for radiation sickness outreach program ASSOCIATED PRESS LAS VEGAS (AP) - A University of Nevada School of Medicine administrator vowed Wednesday to use a federal grant to reach every person in the state who can trace illnesses directly to Cold War nuclear weapons testing. "It's hard to believe that nobody had been conducting this outreach and screening," said Dr. Thomas Hunt, family and community medicine department chairman and the principal investigator under a $580,000 grant from the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration. Hunt said the Nevada Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program plans to reach every person in Nevada directly connected with nuclear testing during the 1950s and 1960s. "We will offer to screen them and make sure they know what options they have available," he said. Under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990, people who can prove they were affected by federal nuclear weapons testing may be eligible for up to $75,000 in compensation. The grant, awarded Sept. 1 but announced Wednesday, made UNR the first institution to offer medical outreach and education to Nevada residents affected by radioactive fallout generated by aboveground nuclear testing at the vast Nevada Test Site north of Las Vegas. The program aims to locate former Nevada Test Site workers and so-called "downwinders" living near the site and provide medical screenings to detect and treat cancer and other radiation health effects. The program is separate from the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, which offers former Nevada Test Site employees and their survivors up to $150,000 for work-related illnesses. The new grant also will pay for medical referrals, public education about radiation illnesses and provide help to people unsure how to sign up for Radiation Exposure Compensation Act benefits. "Other states where nuclear testing and uranium mining took place have programs reaching out to people who may have been affected by the fallout," Hunt said in a statement referring to programs in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Arizona. "Now Nevada residents will have that same opportunity," he said. The UNR School of Medicine plans to provide guides to help eligible people understand their rights and avoid red tape. The Area Health Education Center of Southern Nevada will handle outreach and education in rural areas. To be eligible people must have been an employed at a test site or uranium mining operation, or have lived in a nearby county. Eligible people can phone the Las Vegas office at (702) 992-6887 or e-mail nevadaresep@unr.edu, program spokesman Brandon Stewart said. The Nevada Test Site, based 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, covers 1,375 square miles. It was the location for 928 above- and below-ground nuclear detonations from 1950 to 1992. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 40 AU ABC: Perth company begins uranium exploration ABC Perth | Local News | Story 2005. 11:43 (ACST)Wednesday, 14 December 2005. 11:43 A Perth-based company has started looking for uranium in central Australia. Energy Metals began drilling at the Bigrlyi deposit, 400 kilometres north-west of Alice Springs, last weekend. Executive director Lindsay Dudfield says it is the first time the deposit has been tapped in more than two decades. He says this week's activity should iron out any teething problems ahead of a major drilling program next year. "Just to make sure that, you know, we've got all our procedures in place, all our radiation monitoring is working properly [and] our rehabilitation of the site is up to scratch," he said. ***************************************************************** 41 reviewjournal.com: BLM seeks more public comment on nuclear site Dec. 13, 2005 WASHINGTON -- A federal Bureau of Land Management official said Monday that Sen. Orrin Hatch's assessment that Private Fuel Storage was falling apart played a role in his decision to seek new public comments about the company's plans to build a temporary nuclear waste storage facility in Utah's Skull Valley. Private Fuel Storage, a coalition of eight utilities, plans to use the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation as a temporary way station for nuclear waste pending work at Yucca Mountain, the site of a proposed nuclear waste dump 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The BLM must sign off on rights of way to access the Skull Valley site. Hatch, R-Utah, who wants to kill the proposed storage facility, had argued that seven of the eight utilities had agreed to suspend their funding for the project, calling into question the company's future. "The viability of the PFS proposal is now seriously threatened," he wrote Interior Secretary Gale Norton last week. The Interior Department oversees the BLM. But the company may be more stable than Hatch suggested. Officials from two of the utilities that Hatch said had dropped out told The Associated Press last week that they are still funding PFS and have no immediate plans to stop. Two others have not responded to requests for comment. Three have said they decided to suspend their funding, largely because the storage facility no longer meets their needs. A Hatch representative said last week that the senator's staff must have misinterpreted the companies' intentions. In an interview Monday, Jim Hughes, BLM deputy director for programs and policy, said "a small portion" of his decision to reopen the comment period for proposed rights of way was based on Hatch's description of PFS's financial stability. But he said the comment period will be a chance for the utilities, as well as the public, to make a case for why the proposal should be blocked or go forward. People will have 90 days to comment. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2005 ***************************************************************** 42 Las Vegas SUN: Senators offer Yucca alternative Today: December 14, 2005 at 7:48:36 PST Reid, Ensign to introduce legislation on nuclear waste By Benjamin Grove Sun Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. John Ensign are expected today to unveil long-anticipated legislation that formally proposes their alternative to Yucca Mountain -- leaving waste at the nuclear power plants that produced it. With that, the Nevada senators will have fired an opening salvo in what is expected to be a war of wills next year with the Bush administration and key lawmakers over the nation's shifting nuclear waste policy. The Energy Department is still forging ahead with the planned nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, but reworking the plan to simplify it. One of the repository's strongest proponents, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., recently said Yucca was not "the final answer" but would play a role in the nation's nuclear waste plan. The senators spent the year drumming up support for their bill, but it is not expected to have more than three sponsors. Reid, Ensign and Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, who dropped his support for Yucca in September, publicly advocated on-site storage this year. It's possible Reid and Ensign will gather more support in the next year, Reid spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said. "The tide really is turning against Yucca Mountain," Hafen said. "There are a lot of alternatives being discussed, and this is one alternative." Hafen declined to discuss the bill in detail until it was officially introduced. Ensign, returning from a night on the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan docked off California, was unavailable Tuesday. "The purpose of the bill is to provide a viable alternative to transporting nuclear waste," Ensign spokesman Jack Finn said, previewing one argument for the legislation that the senators are likely to make repeatedly. The bill's introduction has an important broader context, as Congress and the Energy Department consider significant changes to the nation's nuclear waste policy. The current 18-year-old strategy for dealing with the highly radioactive waste -- produced by 103 operating U.S. commercial nuclear reactors, as well as Defense Department waste from nuclear submarines and other sources -- has been to bury it all in underground tunnels at Yucca Mountain. But Yucca has long been delayed. The bill by the two Nevada senators scraps that plan and directs the federal government to "take title" -- ownership -- of the waste and pay to store and secure it in the waste pools and above-ground containers at the plants where it is produced. Reid and Ensign wanted to introduce the bill in the final days of this year's congressional session because they wanted to give themselves a full year to press for it in 2006. They will have competition. The Energy Department is crafting its own nuclear waste policy changes. The department is committed to building Yucca Mountain, but other proposed policy shifts have been kept under wraps. There has been much speculation about what the department might propose. For instance, it's possible it will outline its plans on whether to pursue the controversial and costly technology used to recycle nuclear waste. The Energy Department this spring will have to account for how it plans to spend $50 million approved by Congress to research the recycling technology. Another policy change may involve storing some waste at an interim site or sites -- possibly, even, Yucca Mountain. Creating such a temporary waste site is part of an "ongoing dialogue" at the department, spokesman Craig Stevens said. Making Yucca that site is "not off the table." There are also rumors that the department could aim to take Yucca Mountain "off-budget," curbing the ability of Congress to set annual Yucca budgets and giving the department more direct access to an $18 billion national nuclear waste fund. That proposal has the support of a few key lawmakers, but it has been rejected by Congress in the past. Any of those kinds of major changes would take an act of Congress -- and would be strongly opposed by Democratic leader Reid and the rest of the Nevada delegation. Likewise, the Reid-Ensign legislation will meet with resistance in Congress and outright opposition by the nuclear power industry. The industry has not supported storing waste on-site indefinitely, even if the government takes responsibility for it, said Trish Conrad, spokeswoman for the Nuclear Energy Institute. Meanwhile investors and the nuclear industry, which has proposed an ambitious plan to begin constructing a new generation of nuclear power plants, will be watching the Energy Department and Congress closely next year to see how the government redefines its nuclear waste policy, analysts said. "The financial community is certainly worried about resolving this issue for existing plants, and so far, the Yucca Mountain plan has been the preferred option for the indus try,( said Caren Byrd, a nuclear analyst with Morgan Stanley. "It's something that as a nation we have to come to grips with. This is one of the things that has to be resolved before we can commit to new nuclear (plants). Benjamin Grove can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at grove@lasvegassun.com All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 43 DenverPost.com: GOP alters its tune on mining law Article Launched: 12/14/2005 01:00:00 AM By Mike Soraghan Denver Post Staff Writer Entry to an abandoned mine shaft near Silver Reef, Utah, is barred with a bat gate, which allows bats making their home in the mine to come and go freely while keeping people out. (AP / Jud Burkett) Washington - House Republicans late Tuesday dropped their plan to let companies buy mining sites on public land after critics said it could lead to a massive land rush across the rural and mountain West. The legislation had drawn fierce opposition from a broad assortment of environmentalists, hunting and fishing groups, and Western local government officials. They feared it could spur backcountry development, damage wildlife habitat and block access to hunting, fishing and other recreation sites. The author of the proposal, Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., a former mining lawyer, had dismissed concerns as "hysteria." But they continued to grow in recent weeks. Several Western Republican senators opposed the mining measure, including Colorado's Wayne Allard. And shortly before Gibbons withdrew the proposal Tuesday night, more than 750 hunting groups came out against it. Gibbons said he will renew his push next year to end the 11-year moratorium on public-land sales to mining companies. "We are treading down a dangerous path as we increase our dependence on foreign sources of not only energy but minerals," Gibbons said Tuesday. "This entire process has brought recognition to the critical need to update mining law." Gibbons' staunchest critics, however, said the congressman's plan had galvanized opposition to letting mining companies buy public land again. "This proposal has highlighted the need to keep public land public," said Roger Flynn, head of the Western Mining Action Project in Lyons. "We don't need privatization to spur the mining industry. They're making enough money as it is." Other opponents saw room for common ground in changing the 1872 Mining Law, which until 11 years ago allowed the sale of mining sites on government land. Chris Wood, vice president of the fishing group Trout Unlimited, said Gibbons will find "tremendous support" among sportsmen for "modernizing" the mining law. But he said that "the definition of modernization doesn't include selling off public lands." Allard said he is still willing to look at changes to the law. "The senator continues to think the 1872 Mining Law needs to be updated," said Allard spokeswoman Angela de Rocha. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., an early critic of Gibbons' plan, said he, too, is willing to work on law changes. "It is imperative that we seek input from the public and work in cooperation with all stakeholders, including mining companies, other public-land users, preservationists and local governments and communities," Salazar said Tuesday. One Denver mining executive, though, warned that Gibbons' legislation was the best chance to overhaul the law. "It's now or never," Steve Alfers, head of NewWest Gold Corp., said in an e-mail exchange with his lobbyist last week. Existing mining law has been sharply criticized for allowing miners to buy land for as little as $2.50 an acre. In 1994, Congress put a moratorium on such sales. Gibbons' plan would have lifted that moratorium in exchange for requiring companies to pay "fair-market value" for land. But critics said the legislation was worded so loosely that it would let people use the law to buy public land for nonmining purposes, such as condo development in the mountains. Gibbons insisted that his bill maintained all existing regulatory safeguards. In a statement, Gibbons attributed withdrawal of the measure not to the plan's growing opposition but to a procedural hurdle in the Senate. House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Calif., had tacked Gibbons' plan onto Congress' five-year budget plan, which also calls for opening drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as cuts to student loans and Medicaid. Gibbons said he learned Tuesday that his plan wouldn't fit in a budget bill under Senate rules. "The only reason this is being withdrawn is Senate rules and procedures," said Gibbons' chief of staff, Amy Maier. More online: Read past coverage of the proposed mining legislation on the Denver Post's D.C. Web log: denverpostbloghouse.com/washington. All contents Copyright 2005 The Denver Post or other copyright ***************************************************************** 44 Salt Lake Tribune: Florida utility won't help build PFS site Last Updated: 12/14/2005 02:48:24 AM By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune WASHINGTON - A third partner in a plan by Private Fuel Storage to store nuclear waste in Utah notified Sen. Orrin Hatch on Tuesday that it will join two other companies in withholding future support for the repository. Florida Power &Light, reiterating a 2002 commitment, said it would not help pay to build the site as long as progress is being made toward solving the nuclear waste problem. “After carefully evaluating our goals, FPL has concluded that at this time PFS is no longer in our strategic interest and that for the foreseeable future we will put no further effort into developing that project,” said Lew Hay, CEO and president for the FPL Group in a letter to Hatch that was released by his office. The Florida company's move could show a continue erosion of the PFS partnership. Last week, Southern Co. announced it was dropping out of PFS entirely and XCel Energy reaffirmed that it no longer needed the storage space and said it would not provide any money for construction. Hatch said last week that the desertions indicated that PFS coalition was crumbling and that it was “the first nail in the coffin” for the plan. PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said the plan was for the project to be developed in stages, and it is not a major setback if utilities that helped in licensing no longer want to be customers. “We do have to have enough customers in order to make the project viable and start construction but there are other nuclear utilities out there in addition to the eight that are members” of PFS, Martin said. Other PFS partners told The Tribune in September, after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted a license to the site, that licensing had taken too long and they no longer needed the storage space. In a 2002 letter, six of the partners, including Southern and FPL, said they would not pay for construction as long as progress is being made on a permanent site in Yucca Mountain, Nev. However, two of those companies that Hatch said have committed to stop backing PFS told The Associated Press this week they have no such plans. © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 45 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding FR Doc E5-7297 [Federal Register: December 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 239)] [Notices] [Page 74036] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14de05-99] of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for Department of the Army's Transonic Range Facility in Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Ullrich, Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406, telephone (610) 337-5040, fax (610) 337-5269; or by e-mail: exu@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuing a license amendment to the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, for Materials License No. SMB-141, to authorize release of its Transonic Range in Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, for unrestricted use. NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. II. EA Summary The purpose of the proposed action is to authorize the release of the licensee's Transonic Range located on Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, for unrestricted use. Department of the Army was authorized by AEC/NRC from April 12, 1961, to use radioactive materials for munitions testing and research and development purposes at the site. On January 13, 2005, the Department of the Army requested that NRC release the site for unrestricted use. The Department of the Army has conducted surveys of the site and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the site meets the license termination criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted use. The NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of the license amendment. The site was remediated and surveyed prior to the licensee requesting the license amendment. The NRC staff has reviewed the information and final status survey submitted by the Department of the Army. Based on its review, the staff has determined that there are no additional remediation activities necessary to complete the proposed action. Therefore, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the site and concluded that since the residual radioactivity meets the requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20, a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The staff has prepared the EA (summarized above) in support of the license amendment to release the Transonic Range for unrestricted use. The NRC staff has evaluated the Department of the Army's request and the results of the surveys and has concluded that the completed action complies with the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has found that the radiological environmental impacts from the action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by NUREG-1496, Volumes 1-3, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Facilities'' (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). Additionally, no non-radiological or cumulative impacts were identified. On the basis of the EA, the NRC has concluded that the environmental impacts from the action are expected to be insignificant and has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the action. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for the license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this Notice are: ``Environmental Assessment Related to Issuance of a License Amendment of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Materials License No. SMB-141, Department of the Army, Aberdeen, Maryland'' [ML053410278], ``Remediation and Final Status Survey, Transonic Range Depleted Uranium Study Area--Structures'' [ML050280349 and ML050280354], and ``Radiological Final Status Survey, Transonic Range-Land Areas, Depleted Uranium Study Area'' [ML050280341]. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at (800) 397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Documents related to operations conducted under this license not specifically referenced in this Notice may not be electronically available and/or may not be publicly available. Persons who have an interest in reviewing these documents should submit a request to NRC under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Instructions for submitting a FOIA request can be found on the NRC's web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/foia/foia-privacy.html . Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 7th day of December, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. [FR Doc. E5-7297 Filed 12-13-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 46 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding FR Doc E5-7298 [Federal Register: December 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 239)] [Notices] [Page 74035-74036] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14de05-98] of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for Department of the Army's Bomb Throwing Device (BTD) Area in Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Ullrich, Commerical and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406, telephone (610) 337-5040, fax (610) 337-5269; or by e-mail: exu@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuing a license amendment to the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center, for Materials License No. SUB-834, to authorize release of its Bomb Throwing Device (BTD) area in Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, for unrestricted use. NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. II. EA Summary The purpose of the proposed action is to authorize the release of the licensee's BTD area located at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, Maryland, for unrestricted use. The Department of the Army was authorized by AEC/NRC from June 4, 1965, to use radioactive materials for munitions testing and research and development purposes in the BTD area. On January 13, 2005, the Department of the Army requested that NRC release the facility for unrestricted use. The Department of the Army has conducted surveys of the facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the site meets the license termination criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted use. The NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of the license amendment. The BTD area was remediated and surveyed prior to the licensee requesting the license amendment. The NRC staff has reviewed the information and final status survey submitted by the Department of the Army. Based on its review, the staff has determined that there are no additional remediation activities necessary to complete the proposed action. Therefore, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity in the BTD area and concluded that since the residual radioactivity meets the requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20, a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The staff has prepared the EA (summarized above) in support of the license amendment to release the BTD area for unrestricted use. The NRC staff has evaluated the Department of the Army's request and the results of the surveys and has concluded that the completed action complies with the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has found that the radiological environmental impacts from the action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by NUREG-1496, Volumes 1-3, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Facilities'' (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). Additionally, no non-radiological or cumulative impacts were identified. On the basis of the EA, the NRC has concluded that the environmental impacts from the action are expected to be insignificant and has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the action. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for the license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this Notice are: ``Environmental Assessment Related to Issuance of a License Amendment of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Materials License No. SUB-834, Department of the Army, Aberdeen, Maryland'' [ML053410059], ``Radiological Final Status Survey Report, Bomb Throwing Device Site-- Soils'' [ML052770370], and Remediation and Final Status Survey, Bomb Throwing Device Site--Structures'' [ML052770376]. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, [[Page 74036]] should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at (800) 397- 4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Documents related to operations conducted under this license not specifically referenced in this Notice may not be electronically available and/or may not be publicly available. Persons who have an interest in reviewing these documents should submit a request to NRC under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Instructions for submitting a FOIA request can be found on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/foia/foia-privacy.html . Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 7th day of December, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. [FR Doc. E5-7298 Filed 12-13-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 47 Deseret News: 3rd investor abandons PFS project for nuclear waste [deseretnews.com] Wednesday, December 14, 2005 News is another nail in effort's coffin, Hatch says By Suzanne Struglinski Deseret Morning News WASHINGTON — Florida Power and Light Co. will no longer help Private Fuel Storage move forward, it announced Tuesday, marking the third financial hit for the proposed nuclear waste storage site in less than a week. ['Photo'] Deseret Morning News graphic Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said the financial shake-up last week was the "first nail in the coffin for PFS" and called Tuesday's announcement "another strong nail." He said 57 percent of the PFS consortium's investments are now on hold, and he believes the remaining companies will not be able to move to the construction phase. "It would be a tremendous costly burden for them to do this on their own," Hatch said. But PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said not to read too much into the companies' decisions. The site was always going to be done in phases, and there are a lot of other companies out there who have storage needs that could sign on in the future to move the project to its next stage, she said. "The future of the project is not in the hands of these eight," she said "We always knew they were either going to sign on as customers or not." She said like any big project, the market will ultimately decide when the right time would be for PFS to be built. Hatch approached three of Private Fuel Storage's eight investing companies in an effort to persuade them that storing 40,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel rods at the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation in Tooele County would be a bad idea. So far, all three have changed their status, according to Hatch's staff. He is pursuing others, but his office would not say which. Florida Power and Light, like Xcel Energy and Southern Co., used the Energy Department's Yucca Mountain project as their main catalyst for the change. The Energy Department intends to store 77,000 tons of used nuclear fuel at Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Congress approved the site in 2002, although it still faces numerous challenges, so it may be several years before it opens — if it opens at all. The government agreed to take used nuclear fuel from companies by 1998 but failed to do so. Utilities needing another option for a place to store their increasing inventory of nuclear waste spurred the formation of Private Fuel Storage more than a decade ago. "To provide further support to PFS at this point would require us to conclude either that the federal government will not fulfill its absolute obligation under law to receive and store used nuclear fuel or that it is appropriate for (Florida Power and Light) to assume responsibility for storing used fuel at away-from-reactor sites," wrote Lew Hay, chairman of the utility's holding company, FPL Group, in a letter expected at Hatch's office today. "Neither of these conclusions comports with our view of the law or of our proper role as an owner and operator of nuclear power plants," Hay wrote. "Therefore, after carefully evaluating our goals, (Florida Power and Light) has concluded that at this time PFS is no longer in our strategic interest and that for the foreseeable future we will put no further effort into developing that project." The Florida utility was one of six investors that promised Hatch and Utah Republican Sen. Bob Bennett three years ago it would not support PFS beyond the licensing phase. The July 8, 2002, letter said, "We will pledge to both of you that our companies will commit no funds to construction of the PFS facility past the licensing phase so long as the Yucca Mountain project is approved by Congress and repository development proceeds in a timely fashion." Southern Co., one of the six that signed the letter, said last Wednesday that it would no longer support PFS. Xcel Energy, which did not agree to the first letter, said it "will hold in abeyance future investments" into the construction phase of PFS as long as "there is apparent and continuing progress" toward a federal interim storage site, reprocessing or permanent disposal of nuclear waste. Xcel holds the largest portion of the consortium at about 37 percent. Genoa Fuel Tech, a subsidiary of Dairyland Power Cooperative, is the only original investor left that has not made any changes to its plans. It has a non-operating nuclear power plant along the Mississippi River that it wants to decommission, but it has no place to put the waste. Charles San Crainte, vice president of generation at Dairyland Power Cooperative, said the company has needed a storage solution since 1987 and right now it "judges PFS to be a better decision for us." He said over the 11 years the site has been in play, the storage needs of those involved have changed, but his company still has an immediate need for a storage option. "We wouldn't be in the position to fund that independently," San Crainte said. But Southern California Edison is in the opposite situation. Spokesman Ray Golden said the company has not made any financial contributions to PFS since 1999. It originally joined because it did not have dry storage for nuclear waste on site, but now it does, so the need for PFS is not as great. "We have no immediate plan to store at PFS," he said, adding that a decision on whether to move forward with investments in construction would have to be made at that point. Todd Schneider, spokesman for First Energy, based in Akron, Ohio, said the company's commitment through the licensing phase is still valid, and it would look at PFS's potential and Yucca's progress before making any other decisions. The project has not technically moved into the construction phase yet. Another investor, Entergy Nuclear, said it still stands behind the position it took in the July 8 letter, manager of nuclear communications Carl Crawford said. Entergy inherited interest in the project when it bought a nuclear power plant in New York. Crawford said the company is still with the project at this point. Managers at American Electric Power were not available Tuesday, so the public affairs office could not comment on its latest status with PFS. E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] ***************************************************************** 48 KUTV: Third Utility Abandons Proposed Nuclear Waste Dump [clock] Dec 14, 2005 6:18 am US/Mountain SALT LAKE CITY A third utility in the Private Fuel Storage consortium has announced it will withhold future support of the nuclear waste storage site proposed for western Utah. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said the announcement Tuesday by Florida Power &Light means 57 percent of the PFS investments are now on hold, and he believes the remaining companies will not be able to move to the construction phase. "It would be a tremendous costly burden for them to do this on their own,'' Hatch told the Deseret Morning News. PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said the repository proposed for the Goshutes' reservation in Skull Valley always was going to be done in phases, and there are a lot of other companies with storage needs that could sign on in the future to move the project to its next stage. "The future of the project is not in the hands of these eight (utilities making up PFS),'' she said "We always knew they were either going to sign on as customers or not.'' She said like any big project, the market will ultimately decide when the right time would be for PFS to be built. Florida Power &Light said it would not help pay to build the site as long as progress is being made toward solving the nuclear waste problem. "After carefully evaluating our goals, FPL has concluded that at this time PFS is no longer in our strategic interest and that for the foreseeable future we will put no further effort into developing that project,'' said Lew Hay, CEO and president for the FPL Group in a letter to Hatch that was released by his office. Last week, Southern Co. announced it was dropping out of PFS entirely and XCel Energy reaffirmed that it no longer needed the storage space and said it would not provide any money for construction. Some other PFS partners told The Salt Lake Tribune in September, after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted a license to the site, that licensing had taken too long and they no longer needed the storage space. In a 2002 letter, six of the partners, including Southern and FPL, said they would not pay for construction as long as progress is being made on a permanent site in Yucca Mountain, Nev. Southern California Edison spokesman Ray Golden said the company has not made any financial contributions to PFS since 1999. It originally joined because it did not have dry storage for nuclear waste on site, but now it does, so the need for PFS is not as great. "We have no immediate plan to store at PFS,'' he told the News, adding that a decision on whether to move forward with investments in construction would have to be made at that point. Todd Schneider, spokesman for First Energy, based in Akron, Ohio, said the company's commitment through the licensing phase is still valid, and it would look at PFS's potential and Yucca's progress before making any other decisions. Diane Park, a spokeswoman for Entergy Nuclear, told The Associated Press last week that her company is an active PFS partner and has not decided what its future relationship with PFS will be. Consortium member Genoa Fuel Tech, a subsidiary of Dairyland Power Cooperative, has a non-operating nuclear power plant along the Mississippi River that it wants to decommission, but it has no place to put the waste. Charles San Crainte, Dairyland Power vice president of generation, told the News that it "judges PFS to be a better decision for us.'' He said over the 11 years the site has been in play, the storage needs of those involved have changed, but his company still has an immediate need for a storage option. (© 2005 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material ***************************************************************** 49 AU ABC: Opposition wants dump debate to focus on location, safety. 15/12/2005. ABC News Online First Posted: Thursday, December 15, 2005 . 8:23am --> The Northern Territory Opposition says the nuclear waste dump debate should move on to where the facility will be built and what safety measures should be put in place. The Country Liberal Party's Richard Lim is today touring Sydney's Lucas Heights reactor to find out about the safest storage and transport options for nuclear waste, as well as any possible financial benefits from a waste facility. Dr Lim says the three Territory sites already nominated for the facility were just a starting point and it is now up to groups like Aboriginal land councils to put forward alternative locations. "It's not a done deal. It's something that's up for negotiation and let's be open about it and let's talk about it," he said. "Let's not say it's not going to happen when we know for sure that it will happen, so the more we are involved in it the better we have in controlling what happens in the Territory." Dr Lim says the public debate should now turn to where the facility will go and what safety measures will be put in place when it is built. "Territorians need to be pragmatic about it. The decision has been made and there's no point bleating about it," he said. "We need to ensure that whatever is done is done for the best interests of Territorians now that the threshold decision has been made." ***************************************************************** 50 KVBC: New nuclear waste legislation December 15, 2005 Keeping nuclear waste out of southern Nevada is the goal of new legislation introduced Wednesday by Senators Harry Reid and John Ensign. They want the government to take responsibility for possessing, maintaining and monitoring nuclear waste. They claim the new legislation would eliminate the need for creating a single repository such as Yucca Mountain. It would also, according to the senators, ensure that nuclear waste can be safely stored onsite as well as increase safety at all nuclear power plants by providing extra funding for additional security to protect against terrorists. The senators hope by introducing this new legislation, more attention will be drawn to the Yucca Mountain Project and drum up more support to keep nuclear waste out of Nevada. All content © Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and KVBC. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 51 Bradenton Herald: Student planning Tallevast survey | 12/14/2005 | DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer TALLEVAST - A Florida A University student has offered to help residents living on top of the Tallevast plume of underground pollution compile a record of health problems in the community Tallevast residents have been asking for such a survey for more than year, but no one has met their request - until now. Adrienne Williams, a FAMU graduate student working on her master's degree in public health, plans to meet with Tallevast leaders Friday to hear their concerns and learn what type of information they want collected. Williams will then design a survey model that would give Tallevast residents a profile of the community's health history, said her adviser Cynthia Warrick, FAMU associate professor of public health. Williams will then train a team of Tallevast residents to conduct the survey. Williams will analyze the data collected and issue a report. That report, said Warrick, will be an aggregate portrait of the overall community, citing percentages for the health conditions or diseases found. "With a community that small, we cannot report numbers because then people could identify who those are," said Warrick. Residents of Tallevast have long suspected that pollution from the former Loral American Beryllium Co. may be making them ill. They have collected anecdotal information on cancer, miscarriages and other health conditions among residents, but no one has done a scientific survey to document those health conditions, said Jeanne Zokovitch, a lawyer with the nonprofit organization WildLaw Inc. in Tallahassee. Zokovitch helped make the match between Florida A University and Tallevast residents. As director of WildLaw's Assisting Communities with Environmental Solutions, or ACES, program, Zokovitch is advising Tallevast leaders on how to get answers to the many questions residents have regarding the toxic plume stemming from the old beryllium plant at 1600 Tallevast Road. WildLaw's ACES program lends expertise and assistance to communities dealing with significant environmental problems. More frequently than not, the burden of dealing with environmental hazards and industrial waste falls on communities of color and sometimes low-income white communities as well, the WildLaw Web site says. Litigation often does not solve the environmental problems that waste leaves behind, said Zokovitch. Lockheed Martin Corp. has the responsibility of cleaning up the toxic plume because it owned the plant when the contamination was found in 2000. Although Lockheed reported the toxic spill from a broken sump to county and state authorities, Tallevast residents did not learn about the plume until late 2003. By then the pollution had contaminated some private drinking water and irrigation wells. One year ago, Lockheed said the plume measured covered an estimated five acres and was confined to the factory site. But tests over the past 12 months now indicate the plume covers more than 131 acres, and investigations are ongoing to determine how much farther the contamination may have spread. The primary contaminants are the breakdown products of toxic solvents and degreasers used at the plant, which produced parts for nuclear weapons and missile guidance systems for the U.S. government. While there are a variety of risk assessments under way in Tallevast, none address Tallevast's historical and current health status and what health problems have been found in the communities, Zokovitch said. "There is no common source of that information that looks at the community's health history from a common perspective," said Zokovitch. Both Zokovitch and Williams stressed the community health survey will not establish cause and effect between the pollution and what illnesses and conditions residents report. "Causation is beyond the scope of what public health can do," said Zokovitch. The survey will follow federal guidelines to protect privacy, Warrick said. "The vast majority of time, you cannot prove there is a relationship between exposure and other diseases," said Warrick. "We hope to allay some of their fears. If we find that there are diseases or conditions that are not being addressed, we can help them get health assistance from the appropriate authorities." Williams plans to meet with Laura Ward and Wanda Washington, leaders of Family Oriented Community United Strong, a Tallevast advocacy group, and other residents who will help conduct the survey early next year. Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be reached at 745-7049 or at dwright@HeraldToday.com. email this ***************************************************************** 52 [du-list] 1945 DU ws more precious than gold ... the LANL Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:28:50 -0800 Ten years ago Dr S.-H. Gunther (the Doctor, Depleted Uranium and the Dying Children), a WWII German officer, reported uranium penetrators in use by Nazi's in WWII. This has greatly embarrassed the German government. In fact, the Germans were the first to publish their decision to establish 50 ng of U per liter of urine as the cut off point below which no isotope analysis would be done on GWI vets to see if they are DU contaminated. They don't want domestically to be seen as contaminating their troops by sending them to battlefields where the UK and US use uranium. The Carter Hydrick story …. (is old news and carries several contradictory reports … http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html? http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/447/4440.html) ­ … The story from LANL should be taken with a grain of salt. It needs corroboration. In 1945 the available quantities of DU were extremely small. It's highly unlikely that other than experimenting with enrichment tails for fabricating nuke bomb metal components, that any viable processing of KEP"s using DU could or would be underway at that time. It's unlikely and consistent with the MED history (i.e. Eldorado Nuclear metal fabrication history in Ontario), that NatU based uranium metals were used in anything but MED applications. Groves arranged for US and Canadian U to be routed to the project and the small quantities of DU produced at the time were precious metals ­ not waste. DU is a neutron-accelerator and critical (literally and figuratively) component of the bomb. http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Chemistry/NuclearChemistr y/NuclearWeapons/FirstChainReaction/FirstNuclWeapons/AdditionalBombs.h tm http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/0207/msg00425.html http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/uranium.htm Contrary to public misunderstanding, DU is not simply and only a waste material. It is essential to the production of plutonium by transmutation of 238U in breeder reactors, to make the metal components of fission and neutron bombs, and in the moderation/acceleration-control of criticality of nuclear power reactors No 238U ­ no Pu. IN 1945, making DU (Tubealloy) was as highly prized a process and product as Oralloy (Oak Ridge Alloy ­ enriched U). In those days, U metal was made using a "thermite bomb" process. It was expensive, slow, difficult, unreliable and highly specialized ­ exclusive to two or three locations. For other applications of 238U and why it was as precious as enriched U, see: http://ccnr.org/myth_4.html http://ccdicb.toshare.info/en/default.aspx?Depleted_uranium http://jove.prohosting.com/marcosab/criticalmass/chap07.html An odd and even suspicious text in the posted article is this phrase: "or U-boat, U-234,…" Perhaps this is an error by the articles author. Same odd and uncorroborted reference is found on WISE. After Groves, there is nothing the US physics and national nuclear research labs' admin community (the retired masters of nuclear destruction) would like than shift the blame for introducing DU KEP's to the world to the Germans. It's likely the Nazi's were experimenting with and perhaps even produced small quantities and selectively deployed U penetrators against certain Allied targets. But NatU is more likely than DU. Pyrophoricity, shear banding and the mass (density and weight by volume) features of uranium are not exclusive to DU ­ NatU, LEU, DU all have the same features. We know the US openly admitted using DU in the 1960's. In fact DoD makes a point of pin-pointing the mid-60's as the time DU KEP's came into play. What they omit to tell you is that NatU metal was in full production for KEP's in the 50's and continues today. US budget appropriations show the use of NDU in ballistic tests and tank armor in the late 90's. Prior to the 60's, NatU, NDU and probably a whole series of dirty and complicated uranium isotope mixes were prevalent. Dirty stockpiles and uncontrolled mixing of NatU, Commercial U and enrichment tails shows up in isotope ratio variations in the DU and NDU weapons by-products of GWI, OEF and OIF. Commercial Natural Uranium is anything from DU through to 5% enriched. THe Mcalister Muniton Plant NCR licnece is the proof of this. Wave that NCR licence in front of the faces of those who claim only DU was ever used for KEP's. That licence shows what a soft and imperfect standard is in use by DoD. Engineers from U metal fabrication facilities report using what ever isotope ratio's of uranium they could find and selected the material based on price, not proportions of 238U, to supply extruded rods on US DoD contracts. I have interviewed workers whose job it was to grind the points onto U and DU rods before being shipped to DoD's assembly plants. More likely the 1945 reference to uranium and how it got to DU in KEP's is the author's or the 2ned or 3rd generation reporters' mental translation to fit a preconception that DU is the only thing used for KEP's. The fact is, historical and personal notes and documents interchange U and DU. The DU distinction did not come into play until the 90's. Otherwise (until it became expedient to use the "DU" term for managing public impressions) 238U, DU, NDU and NatU metals were not considered materially different in any of the relevant sectors involved in these processes in the fuel, refining, weapons, reactor, metallurgy cycles. Even the national nuclear research labs interchanged "U" and "DU". "Tubealloy" is used to refer to NatU, 238U and DU and several alloys of various isotopic rations of uranium metals. (Where precison was necesary - fissile, fusion, neutron weapons production - all info on metals, alloys and processing were then and still remain secret.) http://www.tnengineering.net/AICHE/eastman-oakridge-young.htm http://mediamayhem.blogspot.com/2004_03_28_mediamayhem_archive.html http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/otherbooks/rr_darksun.html ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. ***************************************************************** 53 NEW MEXICAN: LANL decision could come soon Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:24 pm New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N .M., said Tuesday that he has reason to believe a decision on the Los Alamos National Laboratory management contract will be made before Christmas. Asked by telephone whether Northern New Mexico would have an answer to the contract competition before the holiday, Domenici said, The bad thing about it is you dont want to give people a hopeful Christmas , and then they dont get it. But he said he would answer the question as best he could. I hope so, Domenici said from London, where he was traveling home from a European nuclear-power conference . And I have reason to believe that Christmas will not pass without there being a contractor selected for Los Alamos. Two teams are competing to manage Los Alamos, the countrys premier nuclear-weapons lab. Lockheed Martin Corp., the University of Texas and other institutions form one team. The University of California, Bechtel National and other companies form the other. Hot-water-device mandate possible New homes and businesses in Santa Fe County would have to install devices that deliver hot water to faucets faster, under a proposed rule scheduled for debate next year. The County Commission on Tuesday decided to consider an amendment to the countys water-conservation code that would require hot-water recirculators or other mechanisms to improve efficiency in all construction. The proposal requires two public hearings, but the dates havent been set. Commissioner Jack Sullivan, who introduced the resolution this summer, said staff revised the proposal to make it more broad. In addition to hot-water recirculators, builders could also comply by insulating pipes or using pipes of smaller diameter or installing centrally located hot-water heaters. Commissioners Harry Montoya and Michael Anaya said they disagree with the proposal and voted against holding hearings. Commissioner Paul Campos said he had concerns about the proposal but said the rule is needed to make the most of a finite water supply . Commissioners Virginia Vigil and Sullivan also voted in favor of the hearings. Privacy Policy | ©2005, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 54 New Mexican: LANL contract bid resource guide Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:24 pm freenewmexican.com Links and resources on the bid to run the lab: LANL Los Alamos National Laboratories The official site. freenewmexican.com/LANL_Decision Our special section with all our related coverage to the bid decision. freenewmexican.com/LANL http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/Courageo us root-level coverage fo LANL by current and former LANL employees. " The purpose of this blog is to provide an uncensored forum where those concerned about the future of LANL may express their views. The focus is now on damage control: identifying problems at LANL and providing solutions to those problems." The Bids Los Alamos National Laboratory Management and Operating Contract Competition The official contract oversight page, under the auspices of the National Nuclear Security Administration. The "Reading Room" has a good collection of documents such as the current contract, public comments and reports, appraisals, etc. Here are links to the bidding teams and their affiliated companies: UC/Bechtel: University of California Bechtel BWX Technologies Washington Group International UT/Lockheed: University of Texas UT main site; UT and National Labs Page Lockheed Martin 2005, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************