***************************************************************** 12/19/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.294 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 AFP: Diplomats say Iran laying groundwork for uranium enrichment - 2 AFP: Iran offers new proposals, no compromise in nuclear talks - 3 IRNA: European troika's senior officials to attend nuclear talks 4 AFP: US backs EU-3 on eve of crucial nuclear talks with Iran - 5 AFP: NKorea vows to bolster nuclear deterrent 6 AFP: UN agency probes whether SKorea plans plutonium work 7 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Aims to Boost Nuclear Program 8 US: NRC: Mr. Lawrence T. Christian, et al.; Denial of Petition for 9 US: Las Vegas SUN: Reid calls GOP-led Congress `most corrupt' ever, 10 Bennington Banner: Wind could be part of Vermont's energy plan 11 IPS: RIGHTS: U.S. Vets Join Vietnamese Agent Orange Victims 12 Times of India: N-separation plan ready NUCLEAR REACTORS 13 US: NRC rebuffs N.J. DEP stand on Oyster Creek 14 [NukeNet] Rioactive Grozny, NPP Blast Kills One In Russia 15 US: AP Wire: University of Missouri gets grant for nuclear industry 16 US: Times Herald-Record: Indian Point: 10 miles more than enough 17 US: Las Vegas SUN: Damages in store for nuke utilities 18 REGNUM: Lithuanian prime minister: Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant is a 19 NewsFromRussia.Com: Czech nuclear reactor shut down for reparation 20 US: NRC: NRC Proposes $60,000 Fine Against Point Beach Nuclear Plant 21 Reuters: Canada urges India to open up nuclear reactor 22 Indian Express Regulators to fix tariff for atomic power stations 23 Prague Daily Monitor: Temelin shuts down 1st unit, blockades of bord 24 US: Globe and Mail: Fallout seen if Ontario shuns Candus 25 Reuters: Ankara unveils nuclear energy plant plans 26 US: Post and Courier: A prudent nuclear option 27 US: Times Herald-Record: Nuclear danger zone? 28 US: St. Petersburg Times Online: Progress delays nuclear site choice 29 AFP: India's nuclear facility separation plan ready - report 30 Guardian Unlimited: No single solution for Britain's energy problems NUCLEAR SECURITY 31 US: Business Journal: Nuclear fuel missing - NUCLEAR SAFETY 32 US: RGJ.com: Grant allows cancer screenings for Test Site workers, o NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 33 IPS-English ENVIRONMENT:France's Nuclear Waste Heads to Russia 34 US: [NukeNet] Utah Nuke Dump Site may be Protected as Wilderness 35 US: Moscow Times: Uranium Mine's Fate Hinges on Putin's Men 36 AU ABC: CLP up-beat about nuclear waste dump safety 37 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Nuclear Waste: Harry Reid's bill provides 38 Waste News: Nevada senators sponsor legislation combating Yucca Moun 39 AU ABC: SA Govt branded hypocritical over nuclear waste proposal 40 US: AU ABC: Uranium freight future unclear. 41 US: Laboratorytalk: One-step, 15-minute method to confirm perchlorat PEACE 42 Xinhua: Gulf Arab leaders call for nuclear-free region US DEPT. OF ENERGY 43 Santa Fe New Mexican: LANL Former employee: Firing is retaliation 44 ABQJOURNAL: Report: Cost of Security Shutdown at LANL Unknown 45 DOE: Office of Environmental Management; Record of Decision for the 46 lamonitor.com: LANL assessment group examines trails 47 lamonitor.com: Uncovered explosives slow cleanup ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 AFP: Diplomats say Iran laying groundwork for uranium enrichment - Mon Dec 19, 1:25 PM ET VIENNA (AFP) - On the eve of crucial nuclear talks with Iran" /> Iran, diplomats say Tehran is already laying the groundwork for uranium enrichment, and may even be secretly making parts for sophisticated P2 centrifuges. "The Iranian National Security Council is at this very time deliberating exactly when enrichment is to be resumed," a diplomat told AFP. Enriched uranium can fuel nuclear power plants or be used in atom bombs, and the ability to produce it is considered a "breakout capacity" for making nuclear weapons. The diplomat, who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the information, says Iran has not stopped making parts for centrifuges, which, arranged in cascades, spin uranium gas to distill out uranium that is highly enriched with the U-235 isotope. An Iranian diplomat said this assertion -- also voiced by Iranian opposition groups -- was "not true, not yet." He said however that "Iran has the capacity to make P2 centrifuges." A Western diplomat said that if Iran was "taking the incremental step" to make centrifuges it would be almost as significant as enrichment itself. Iran and the European Union" /> European Unionare to meet in Vienna on Wednesday to discuss re-starting formal negotiations on obtaining guarantees that Tehran will not make nuclear weapons. The Europeans demand that Iran maintain a suspension of "all enrichment-related" activities including making centrifuges, according to an agreement reached in Paris in 2004. The West sees uranium enrichment as a red flag issue that could prompt Iran's referral to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions, while the Islamic Republic insists on its right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to enrich uranium for what it says is a peaceful nuclear program to generate electricity. Diplomats said that even if talks go well, they expect Iran to say that work with centrifuges short of actually enriching uranium does not violate the freeze. "Iran serially produces and assembles centrifuge parts. Production has continued without interruption ever since this capability was acquired," the first diplomat said. The diplomat said Iran was making centrifuges in military workshops which "do not come under IAEA ( International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards, and Iran has not declared all these parts." Another diplomat from a member state of the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors said the agency, which has been investigating Iran for almost three years, does not "have a clue" what Iran is up to at its military workshops. "Iran has the machine tools to enable them to churn out many P2 centrifuges a day, and the IAEA would have no idea," the diplomat said. IAEA officials refused to comment. The diplomat said there was "suspicion and concern" about "lots of activity at military workshops like Mashhad, Moborakeh and Nobonyad." It is not clear how the EU would react if Iran resumed enrichment activities that stopped short of actually putting feedstock gas into centrifuges. The EU has apparently accepted that Iran is converting uranium ore into the feedstock gas, even though the conversion work forced the breakdown of EU-Iran talks last August. Research and development in enrichment "is indeed the key phrase, and conceivably Iran's strategy is to secure Europe's agreement to engage in R and D," the first diplomat said. The diplomat said the Iranians hoped to inch their way towards acceptance of their enrichment activities, as they did with conversion, and might initially propose running a small, pilot centrifuge cascade in Natanz "without feeding gas into the centrifuges." Non-proliferation expert David Albright, head of a think tank in Washington, said that running a cascade, even if only as a test using air, would help "see if vacuum seals hold and work out other major problems." "You don't want Iran to start running cascades because the question then is, once they've started, can you get them to back down?" Albright said. Recommend It: Not at All Somewhat Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 2 AFP: Iran offers new proposals, no compromise in nuclear talks - Mon Dec 19, 1:03 PM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranwill make new proposals during talks on its nuclear programme with Britain, France and Germany this week but will not compromise its demand to conduct sensitive fuel work, officials said. "We will make other proposals," Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, a vice president and head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, told Iranian news agencies. "The Iranian delegation will welcome all proposals, on the condition that they recognize the rights of Iran," Aghazadeh said ahead of a meeting with the so-called EU-3 in Vienna on Wednesday. The first formal talks between the two sides in months will examine the possibility of resuming long-term negotiations aimed at winning guarantees that Iran will not acquire the bomb. Failure could spark a push by the Europeans and United States for the issue to be sent to the UN Security Council. Iran insists it only wants to make reactor fuel and generate electricity, and that the uranium enrichment process is a "right" to any signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty -- even though the process can be extended to make weapons material. "The world has understood that the national will of Iran to enrich is serious," top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani was quoted as saying. The European Union" /> European Unionand the United States argue that Iran cannot be trusted with such technology, and the issue of enrichment is the cause of the current deadlock. Aghazadeh did not elaborate on the proposals Iran could present, but pointed to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's offer for foreign firms to be involved in enrichment on Iranian soil as a form of guarantee that the fuel cycle will not be diverted to weapons making. The Europeans have already rejected this idea, and are in turn pressing a proposal from Moscow whereby Iran could only enrich its uranium on Russian soil. Tehran has rejected that idea. According to Larijani, the negotiations will simply focus on Iran enriching and on ways to ensure that "Iran's enrichment is not diverted" to military purposes. To underline Iran's uncompromising stand, he asserted that "the atmosphere created by the United States increases the determination of Iran to reach its nuclear objectives as quickly as possible". Israel" /> Israeland the United States believe Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons. Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 3 IRNA: European troika's senior officials to attend nuclear talks Vienna, Dec 19, IRNA Iran-EU-Nuclear Senior officials of the European Union troika (Germany, France and Britain) will attend the nuclear negotiations with Iran slated to open here Wednesday. Representatives of the Islamic Republic and the EU troika are to resume nuclear talks in Vienna, Austria after a five-month suspension. A Western diplomat told IRNA here Monday that the scheduled talks between senior officials would be higher than the ministerial-level talks at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Talking on condition of anonymity, he said the agenda of the talks have not been decided but said participants are currently sorting out topics to be taken up in the talks. He further said that several developments could take place before the scheduled talks on Wednesday so nothing can currently be said on the outcome of such talks. Nuclear talks between Iran and Europe were suspended in August by the European side following Iran's announcement it was abandoning voluntary uranium enrichment at its uranium conversion facility (UCF) in Isfahan as a confidence-building measure. Europe's negotiators -- UK, France, Germany -- said they would only return to the negotiating table if activities at the UCF were suspended but withdrew its decision after facing Iran's firm determination not to give up uranium enrichment. Nuclear talks are to be resumed on Wednesday with no preconditions as demanded by the Iranian side. An Iranian diplomat, speaking to IRNA here Monday, said "Negotiations will be regarded as just a primary dialogue. The sides will strive to reach a clear agreement on an agenda for future talks between the two sides." He stressed that Iran would never give up its right to perfect the nuclear fuel cycle, saying "This position will be explicitly made known to the European side and the EU should continue talks with this clear assumption." The source, moreover, said that the deputy head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) for International Affairs and a senior member of the Iranian negotiation team, Javad Vaeedi, will head the Iranian delegation in the talks. Iranian Ambassador and Resident Representative to the IAEA Mohammad-Mehdi Akhoundzadeh and Deputy Head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO) Mohammad Saeedi will be the other members of the delegation. ***************************************************************** 4 AFP: US backs EU-3 on eve of crucial nuclear talks with Iran - Mon Dec 19, 3:58 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> met with German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung and reiterated her support to European efforts to resolve the standoff with Iran" /> over its nuclear ambitions. "She reiterated our support for the EU-3 (Germany, France and Britain) negotiations with Iran," Julie Reside, a state department spokeswoman, said. Officials from the EU-3 and Tehran are to meet in Vienna on Wednesday to discuss re-starting formal negotiations on obtaining guarantees that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons. Reside said Iran during the talks between Rice and Jung had also come in for criticism over recent remarks by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who said the Jewish Holocaust never took place and who questioned Israel" /> 's right to exist. "They agreed that the statements of the Iranian president regarding Israel are disturbing and need to be condemned," Reside said. Jung qualified his first meeting with Rice since taking office in November as "very positive". The two leaders also discussed the situation in Iraq" /> , in the Serb province of Kosovo" /> and in Afghanistan" /> , where Germany has deployed troops as part of NATO" /> peacekeeping forces. Germany is also training Iraqi security forces in the United Arab Emirates. Jung during his stay in Washington was also to meet with his US counterpart Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley" /> . Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 5 AFP: NKorea vows to bolster nuclear deterrent Monday December 19, 11:05 AM SEOUL (AFX) - North Korea said it will bolster its nuclear deterrent to counter a US bid to use the human rights issue as part of a drive to topple the communist regime. In a statement published by the North's official Korean Central News Agency, a North Korean foreign ministry spokesman denounced Washington for stepping up an anti-North Korea 'human rights offensive.' The offensive is part of Washington's 'sinister intention to realize a regime change' in North Korea at any cost, the spokesman said. North Korea will increase 'self-reliant national defence capacity including nuclear deterrent ... to cope with the US escalated policy to isolate and stifle it with the nuclear issue and the 'human rights issue' as pretexts,' he said. North Korea has stepped up its verbal attack on the United States since the United Nations adopted a resolution last month expressing serious concern about Pyongyang's human rights record. The resolution was sponsored by the European Union but North Korea has blamed the United States for its adoption. 'A lesson the Korean people have drawn from the US undisguised human rights campaign against the DPRK (North Korea) is that human rights precisely means the state sovereignty and defending human rights precisely means protecting this sovereignty,' the spokesman said. At six-party talks in September, North Korea agreed in principle to dismantle its nuclear weapons program in exchange for diplomatic and economic benefits and security guarantees. But at the last session in November it said US sanctions are blocking any progress. North Korea said last week that six-party talks will be suspended indefinitely unless the United States lifts the sanctions. Copyright © 2005 AFP AFX. All rights reserved. Republication or ***************************************************************** 6 AFP: UN agency probes whether SKorea plans plutonium work Tuesday December 20, 05:27 AM VIENNA (AFP) - The UN atomic agency has launched an investigation into whether South Korea plans to produce weapons-grade plutonium at a facility it is building, a diplomat told AFP. The pilot facility uses "pyrometallurgical processing" to make spent fuel into a compact and less radioactive form for storage, said the diplomat, who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the issue. "What's critical in all this is to make sure that when reducing spent fuel that the South Koreans don't separate out plutonium," said the diplomat, who is close to the watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA was concerned because the pyrometallurgical process, which uses high temperatures to transform metals and their ores, can produce large amounts of plutonium, the diplomat said. The investigation was confirmed by another source close to the IAEA. The advanced spent fuel conditioning process demonstration facility (ACPF) at the Korea Atomic Energy Research institute in Daejeon has been under construction since 2004 and is not expected to come online until 2007, the diplomat said. "The process is pyrometallurgical processing. It is a different kind of processing" than the plutonium separation for which the IAEA investigated South Korea last year, the diplomat said. If the suspicions are confirmed, Washington and its ally Seoul would be embarrassed in their efforts to pressure North Korea to end its nuclear weapons drive. "Revelations about South Korea's nuclear activities remind everyone of the high stakes" on the Korean peninsula, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists said in an article last February. Plutonium, like uranium, can fuel nuclear power plants or be used in atom bombs. South Korea, which has 19 nuclear power reactors, pledged in 1992 not to acquire plutonium or uranium enrichment facilities as part of a commitment to keeping the Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons. The IAEA's concern is "what could happen," the diplomat said, adding that South Korea has said that the facility is "ostensibly not for separation of plutonium." The IAEA in November 2004 chided South Korea for making small amounts of weapons-grade nuclear material but opted not to refer Seoul to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. South Korea had the previous August admitted to the IAEA that its scientists had conducted secret experiments in separating plutonium in the 1980s, producing 0.7 grams of weapons-grade, 98 percent pure PU-239 isotope. Seoul also reported enrichment of uranium in 2000 at the research institute in Daejeon that produced 200 milligrams of uranium, some of it to a level close to weapons-grade. Even though the amounts are tiny their production raised great concerns amid the efforts to de-nuclearize the Korean peninsula. Seoul said the tests were conducted without government authorization and had stopped. The planned ACPF facility would "take spent fuel rods, cut them up and then remove fuel pellets" for treatment, which would reduce both the "radiation levels and the volume, so it is easier to store the stuff," the diplomat said. IAEA inspectors have been monitoring the building of the facility, the diplomat said, without elaborating. The diplomat said the project of building the facility was originally conceived in 1997 and that "tests have been conducted (for this) at Daejeon" since 2000. Copyright © 2005 AFP. All rights reserved. All information ***************************************************************** 7 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Aims to Boost Nuclear Program From the Associated Press [UP] Monday December 19, 2005 7:31 PM AP Photo TOK805 By BURT HERMAN Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea said Monday it plans to boost its nuclear weapons program because of hostile U.S. policies toward the regime, and it called Washington's criticism of its human rights record hypocritical. The latest tirade cast fresh doubt on efforts to resume six-nation talks to resolve an international dispute over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions. The North ``will increase (its) self-reliant national defense capacity, including nuclear deterrent, pursuant to the Songun (military-first) policy, to cope with the U.S. escalated policy to isolate and stifle it with the nuclear issue and the 'human rights issue' as pretexts,'' the Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency. Since the crisis began in late 2002, the United States, South Korea, Russia, Japan and China have sought to persuade Pyongyang to disarm in exchange for diplomatic recognition and aid. In September, the North agreed in principle to do so, but implementation of the accord has stalled over new financial sanctions imposed by the United States to stem alleged illegal activities in North Korea, including counterfeiting and money laundering. The two Koreas agreed in high-level talks last week to work to implement the September agreement. South Korean Unification Minister Chung Dong-young traveled to Washington on Sunday seeking to restart negotiations. The North claimed in February that it had nuclear weapons, and experts believe it has enough radioactive material for at least a half dozen bombs. The claim has not been verified independently. The North's latest statement came in response to a U.N. resolution adopted Friday expressing serious concerns about reports of human rights abuses in North Korea. The U.S. envoy for human rights in North Korea also this month visited the South for a U.S.-supported conference on the issue, where he called on Seoul to take a stand on the issue. ``The U.S. is a typical criminal state which politicizes the human rights issue and applies selectivity and double standards concerning the issue,'' the North said Monday. North Korea has been accused of abuses ranging from an absence of basic civil liberties to public executions and life-threatening conditions in confinement. The U.S. State Department believes that the isolated communist nation holds 150,000-200,000 political prisoners in camps. The North denies the accusations. As it has in the past, the North on Monday turned the human rights accusations back against the United States, referring to the Iraq invasion as being ``in utter defiance of the U.N. and the system of international law'' and calling interrogation techniques used on terrorism suspects ``medieval torture which would make even brutes blush.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 8 NRC: Mr. Lawrence T. Christian, et al.; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking [Docket No. PRM-50-79] FR Doc E5-7518 [Federal Register: December 19, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 242)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 75085-75090] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr19de05-24] AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition for rulemaking submitted by Mr. Lawrence T. Christian and 3,000 co- signers on September 4, 2002. The petition was docketed by the NRC on September 23, 2002, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-50-79. The petition requests that the NRC amend its regulations regarding offsite state and local government emergency plans for nuclear power plants to ensure that all daycare centers and nursery schools in the vicinity of nuclear power facilities are properly protected in the event of a radiological emergency. ADDRESSES: Publicly available documents related to this petition, including the petition for rulemaking, public comments received, and the NRC's letter of denial to the petitioner, may be viewed electronically on public computers in the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), 01 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at . Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are also available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at . From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR reference staff at (800) 387-4209, (301) 415- 4737 or by e-mail to . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-3224, e-mail . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In December 1979, the President directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to lead state and local emergency planning and preparedness activities with respect to jurisdictions in proximity to nuclear reactors. FEMA has responsibilities under Executive Order 12148, issued on July 15, 1979, to establish federal policies and to coordinate civil emergency planning within emergency preparedness programs. Consequently, FEMA is the lead authority concerning the direction, recommendations, and determinations with regard to offsite state and local government radiological emergency planning efforts necessary for the public health and safety. FEMA sends its findings to the NRC for final determinations. FEMA implemented Executive Order 12148 in its regulations outlined in 44 CFR Part 350. Within the framework of authority created by Executive Order 12148, FEMA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (58 FR 47966, September 9, 1993) with the NRC to provide acceptance criteria for and determinations as to whether state and local government emergency plans are adequate and capable of being implemented to ensure public health and safety. FEMA's regulations were further amplified by FEMA Guidance Memorandum (GM) EV-2, ``Protective Actions for School Children'' and FEMA-REP-14, ``Radiological Emergency Preparedness Exercise Manual.'' The Commission's emergency planning regulations for nuclear power reactors are contained in 10 CFR Part 50, specifically Sec. 50.33(g), 50.47, 50.54 and Appendix E. As stated in 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1), in order to issue an initial operating license, the NRC must make a finding ``that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency'' to protect the public health and safety. An acceptable way of meeting the NRC's emergency planning requirements is contained in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.101, Rev. 4, ``Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Nuclear Power Reactors'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML032020276). This guidance document endorses NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, ``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants'' (ML040420012; Addenda: ML021050240), an NRC and FEMA joint guidance document intended to provide nuclear facility operators and federal, state, and local government agencies with acceptance criteria and guidance on the creation and review of radiological emergency plans. Together, RG 1.101, Rev. 4, and NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, provide guidance to licensees and applicants on methods acceptable to the NRC staff for complying with the Commission's regulations for emergency response plans and preparedness at nuclear power reactors. Emergency plans for all nuclear power reactors are required under Part 50, as amplified by NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1 and applicable FEMA guidance documents, to have specific provisions for all ``special facility populations,'' which refers not only to pre-schools, nursery schools, and daycare centers, but all kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) students, nursing homes, group homes for physically or mentally challenged individuals and those who are mobility challenged, as well as those in correctional facilities. FEMA GM 24, ``Radiological Emergency Preparedness for Handicapped Persons,'' dated April 5, 1984, and GM EV-2, ``Protective Actions for School Children,'' dated November 13, 1986, provide further guidance. These specific plans shall, at a minimum: Identify the population of such facilities; Determine and provide protective actions for these populations; Establish and maintain notification methods for these facilities; and [[Page 75086]] Determine and provide for transportation and relocation. All plans are finalized and submitted to FEMA for review. The plans are tested in a biennial emergency preparedness exercise conducted for each nuclear power station. If plans or procedures are found to be inadequate, they must be corrected. Availability of Documents The NRC is making the documents identified below available to interested persons through one or more of the following: Public Document Room (PDR) The NRC Public Document Room is located at 11555 Rockville Pike, Public File Area O-1 F21, Rockville, Maryland. Copies of publicly available NRC documents related to this petition can be viewed electronically on public computers in the PDR. The PDR reproduction contractor will make copies of documents for a fee. Rulemaking Web Site (Web) The NRC's interactive rulemaking Web site is located at . Selected documents may be viewed and downloaded electronically via this Web site. The NRC's public Electronic Reading Room (ADAMS) is located at . Through this site, the public can gain access to the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System, which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. NRC Staff Contact (NRC Staff) For single copies of documents not available in an electronic file format, contact Michael T. Jamgochian, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001, telephone (301) 415-3224, e-mail . ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- NRC Document PDR Web ADAMS staff ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Petition for Rulemaking (PRM-50-79)........... X X ML023110466 Federal Register Notice--Receipt of Petition X X ML023050008 for Rulemaking (67 FR 66588; Nov. 1, 2002). Federal Register Notice--Receipt of Petition X X ML040770516 for Rulemaking; Correction (67 FR 67800; Nov. 7, 2002). Public Comments, Part 1 of 2.................. X X ML040770480 Public Comments, Part 2 of 2.................. X X ML040770544 Additional Public Comments.................... ....... X ML041910013 Letter of Denial to the Petitioners........... X X ML053260004 RG 1.101, Rev. 4, Emergency Planning and X ....... ML032020276 Preparedness for Nuclear Power Reactors (July 2003). NUREG-0654/FEMA REP-1, Rev. 1 Criteria for X ....... ML040420012 Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants (November 1980). NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 Addenda (March X ....... ML021050240 2002). Executive Order 12148, Federal Emergency X Management (July 20, 1979). MOU Between FEMA and NRC Relating to X Radiological Emergency Planning and Preparedness (June 17, 1993). FEMA GM 24, Radiological Emergency X Preparedness for Handicapped Persons (April 5, 1984). FEMA-REP-14, Radiological Emergency X Preparedness Exercise Manual (September 1991). FEMA GM EV-2, Protective Actions for School X Children (November 13, 1986). ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- The Petitioners' Request This petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-79) generally requests that the NRC establish new rules requiring that emergency planning for daycare centers and nursery schools located in the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) be included in the state and local government offsite emergency plans of all NRC nuclear power facility licensees. More specifically, the petition requests that the NRC amend its regulations to ensure that all children attending daycare centers and nursery schools within the EPZ are: A. Assigned to designated relocation centers established safely outside of the EPZ. B. Provided with designated transportation to a relocation center in the event of an emergency evacuation. C. Transported in approved child-safety seats that meet state and federal laws as they pertain to the transportation of children and infants under 50 pounds in weight or 4 feet 9 inches in height. The petitioners also request that the following be mandated by NRC regulations: D. The creation and maintenance of working rosters of emergency bus drivers and back-up drivers for daycare center and nursery school evacuation vehicles, and the establishment of a system for notifying these individuals in the event of a radiological emergency. These rosters should be regularly checked and updated, with a designated back-up driver listed for each vehicle and route. E. Notification of emergency management officials by individual preschools as to the details of each institution's radiological emergency plan. F. Annual site inspections of daycare centers and nursery schools within the evacuation zone by emergency management officials. G. Participation of daycare centers and nursery schools within the EPZ in radiological emergency preparedness exercises designed to determine each institution's state of readiness. H. Creation of identification cards, school attendance lists, and fingerprint records for all children who are to be transported to a relocation center, to ensure no child is left behind or is unable, due to age, to communicate his or her contact information to emergency workers. I. Development by emergency management officials of educational materials for parents, informing them what will happen to their children in case of a radiological emergency, and where their children can be picked up after an emergency evacuation. J. Stocking of potassium iodide (KI) pills and appropriate educational materials at all daycare centers and nursery schools within the EPZ. K. Radiological emergency preparedness training for all daycare center and nursery school employees within the EPZ. L. Listing of designated relocation centers for daycare centers and nursery schools in area phone directories, so that parents can quickly and easily find where their children will be sent in case of a radiological emergency. [[Page 75087]] M. Establishment of toll-free or 911-type telephone lines to provide information about radiological emergency plans and procedures for daycare centers and nursery schools within the EPZ. N. Creation of written scripts for use by the local Emergency Alert System (EAS) that include information about evacuation plans and designated relocation centers for daycare centers and nursery schools. Public Comments The NRC received 55 public comment letters relating to this petition. Twenty-four letters supported granting the petition (mostly from citizens including three letters with 410 signatures), while 30 letters requested that the petition be denied. Those letters that supported denial of the petition were primarily from state and local governmental agencies, FEMA, and licensees. In addition, the NRC received one letter that discussed KI but did not take a position on the petition. More specifically; 24 Letters supporting the granting of the petition: 13 Comment letters from citizens supporting the granting of the petition. 1 Comment letter from a citizens group supporting the granting of the petition. 4 Comment letters from local governmental agencies or officials supporting the petition. 3 Comment letters with 410 signatures supporting the petition. 1 Letter from the petitioner supporting the petition. The petitioner also ``suggests a federal model that mirrors the Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, or Nebraska* * *'' emergency plans for daycare centers and nursery schools, even though those state plans only meet about 30 percent of the elements requested by the petitioner, while meeting FEMA guidance. 1 Letter from eight local governments that agreed with the concepts of the petition but had reservations about some of the specific requests of the petitioners. 1 Letter from the Governor of Pennsylvania withdrawing an earlier submitted letter, and supporting the granting of the petition. 30 Letters asking the Commission to deny the petition: 4 Letters from two local governments located near the petitioners, and from two citizens to deny the petition but suggested that the daycare centers and nursery schools should be responsible for developing their own emergency plans. 8 Letters from local governmental agencies to deny the petition for rulemaking because they felt that current regulations are adequate. 12 Letters from State governments including two letters from FEMA (Headquarters and Region 7) to deny the petition, based on the opinion that the petitioners' requests are adequately addressed in current regulations and guidance. 4 Letters from licensees or companies that own nuclear utilities, to deny the petition. 1 Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) letter to deny the petition. 1 Letter representing six licensees to deny the petition. 1 Letter that discusses KI, but does not take a position on the petition. NRC Evaluation The Commission has reviewed each of the petitioners' requests and provides the following analysis: 1. The petitioners' first and more general request is that daycare centers and nursery schools, located within the 10-mile EPZ, be included in state and local government offsite emergency planning. NRC Review: The current regulatory structure already requires that daycare centers and nursery schools be included in the offsite emergency planning for nuclear power plants. Consequently, no revision to 10 CFR Part 50 is necessary. The Commission's emergency planning regulations, in 10 CFR 50.47, require the NRC to make a finding, before issuing an initial operating license, that there is ``reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.'' Implicit in this regulation is the requirement that offsite emergency plans be protective of all members of the public, including children attending daycare centers and nursery schools, within the 10-mile EPZ. Joint NRC and FEMA implementing guidance, NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, states that emergency plans must provide specific means for ``protecting those persons whose mobility may be impaired due to such factors as institutional or other confinement.'' NUREG-0654, Section II.J. and Appendix 4, as well as, FEMA GM 24, ``Radiological Emergency Preparedness for Handicapped Persons,'' dated April 5, 1984, also provide guidance. Children in daycare centers and nursery schools are included in the category of persons needing special protection. FEMA GM EV-2, ``Protective Actions for School Children,'' was issued to provide guidance to assist federal officials in evaluating adequacy of state and local government offsite emergency plans and preparedness for protecting school children during a radiological emergency. It specifically addresses licensed and government supported pre-schools and daycare centers, but has been implemented to include all daycare centers and nursery schools with more than 10 children. FEMA is the federal agency responsible for making findings and determinations as to whether state and local emergency plans are adequate and whether there is reasonable assurance that they can be implemented. FEMA uses the guidance documents discussed above to make such findings. The NRC makes its finding as to whether the emergency plans provide a reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken under 10 CFR 50.47(a)(2). The NRC's findings are based upon FEMA findings and determinations in this area. The NRC would not grant an initial operating license if FEMA found that state and local government emergency plans did not adequately address daycare centers and nursery schools. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2)(ii), if significant deficiencies in a licensee's emergency plan were discovered after its operating license was issued, and those deficiencies were not corrected within four months of discovery (or a plan for correction was not in place), the Commission would determine whether the reactor should be shut down until the deficiencies are remedied or whether some other enforcement action would be appropriate. Based on this information and considering that the existing regulatory structure already has requirements addressing the facilities of concern to the petitioners, no revision to 10 CFR Part 50 is necessary in response to the petitioners' general request. The more specific elements of the petition follow: A. Require that children attending daycare centers and nursery schools be assigned to designated relocation centers established safely outside the EPZ. NRC Review: The petitioners' requested revision to 10 CFR Part 50 is not needed because the requested action is already covered by FEMA guidance documents. FEMA's GM EV-2 (pp. 2 and 4) specifies that state and local government offsite emergency plans should designate relocation centers outside of the 10-mile EPZ for all schools, including daycare centers and nursery schools. FEMA assesses offsite emergency plans using this guidance when making a finding that a plan adequately protects the public. Under [[Page 75088]] the MOU between FEMA and the NRC, the NRC defers to FEMA's expertise in offsite emergency plan requirements and assessments. B. Require that children attending daycare centers and nursery schools be provided with designated transportation to relocation centers in the event of an emergency evacuation. NRC Review: As previously discussed, FEMA is the federal agency responsible for making findings and determinations as to whether state and local emergency plans are adequate. FEMA's GM EV-2 (pp. 2 and 4) specifies that the state and local government offsite emergency plans should designate transportation to relocation centers outside of the 10-mile EPZ for all schools including daycare centers and nursery schools. FEMA reviews emergency plans to ensure that this provision is addressed. Consequently, a revision to 10 CFR Part 50 is not needed. C. Require that children attending daycare centers and nursery schools be transported in approved child-safety seats that meet state and federal laws as they pertain to the transportation of children and infants under 50 pounds in weight or 4 feet 9 inches in height. NRC Review: Requiring seat belts or child safety seats on school buses that may be used for evacuating schools is outside NRC statutory authority. Such a requirement would instead need to be promulgated by the Department of Transportation or appropriate state authorities. D. Require the creation and maintenance of working rosters of emergency bus drivers and back-up drivers for daycare center and nursery school evacuation vehicles, and the establishment of a system for notifying these individuals in the event of a radiological emergency. These rosters should be regularly checked and updated, with a designated back-up driver listed for each vehicle and route. NRC Review: The petitioners' requested revision to 10 CFR Part 50 is not needed because NRC considers the existing requirements and guidance for agreements between bus drivers and local authorities to be similar to the requested detailed driver lists and back-up driver requirements. FEMA's GM EV-2 (p. 10) specifies that bus drivers trained in basic radiological preparedness and dosimetry are to be provided for the evacuation of daycare centers and nursery schools. FEMA's GM EV-2 (p. 10) also specifies that agreements between bus drivers and local authorities are to be established for the drivers to provide their services in an emergency. These agreements eliminate the need for a roster. Under the MOU between FEMA and the NRC, the NRC defers to FEMA's expertise in state and local emergency plan requirements and assessments. NRC has made FEMA aware of the petitioners' concerns, and FEMA recently completed an emergency preparedness exercise at TMI that included issues related to transportation of students attending daycare centers and nursery schools. FEMA's final report on this exercise was issued on August 4, 2005. FEMA identified no deficiencies in this area. E. Require notification of emergency management officials by individual preschools as to the details of each institution's radiological emergency plan. NRC Review: NRC considers that current NRC and FEMA requirements and guidance are adequate. Although the petition requested that daycare centers and nursery schools have the responsibility for conveying their emergency planning information to government officials, under current requirements, this responsibility resides with state and local government officials. FEMA's GM EV-2 (p. 5) specifies that the state and local government officials should take the initiative to identify and contact all daycare centers and nursery schools within the designated 10-mile plume exposure pathway EPZ to assure that there exists appropriate planning for protecting the health and safety of their students from a commercial nuclear power plant accident. NRC and FEMA expect local governments to assume responsibility for the emergency planning and preparedness for all schools within their districted area, and to work closely with school officials to coordinate planning efforts. FEMA's GM EV-2 (pp. 5 and 6) specifies that local governments should also ensure that the emergency planning undertaken by schools is integrated within the larger state and local government offsite emergency management framework for the particular nuclear power plant site. FEMA's GM EV-2 ( pp. 5 and 6) specifies that evacuation planning is to include a separate evacuation plan for all of the schools in each school system. School officials, with the assistance of state and local government offsite authorities, should document in the plan the basis for determining the proper protective action (e.g., evacuation, early preparatory measures, early evacuation, sheltering, early dismissal or combination) including: Identification of offsite organization and state and local government officials responsible for both planning and effecting the protective action. Institution-specific information: --Name and location of school; --Type of school and age grouping (e.g., public elementary school, grades kindergarten through sixth); --Total population (students, faculty, and other employees); --Means for implementing protective actions; --Specific resources allocated for transportation, including supporting letters of agreement if resources are provided from external sources; and --Name and location of relocation center(s) and transport route(s), if applicable. If parts of the institution-specific information apply to many or all schools, then the information may be presented generically. Time frames for implementing the protective actions. Means for alerting and notifying appropriate persons and groups associated with the schools and the students including: --Identification of the organization responsible for providing emergency information to the schools; --The method (e.g., siren, tone-alert radios, and telephone calls) for contacting and activating designated dispatchers and school bus drivers; and --The method (e.g., Emergency Alert System (EAS) messages) for notifying parents and guardians of the status and location of their children. Based on the above, the petitioners' requested revision to 10 CFR Part 50 is not required. F. Require annual site inspections of daycare centers and nursery schools within the evacuation zone by emergency management officials. NRC Review: Inspections of daycare centers and nursery schools are the responsibility of the individual state and are outside NRC statutory authority. The Commission sees no safety reason within the scope of its statutory authority to require annual inspections of daycare centers and nursery schools. G. Require the participation of daycare centers and nursery schools within the EPZ in radiological emergency preparedness exercises designed to determine each institution's state of readiness. NRC Review: FEMA's GM EV-2 (pp. 6 and 7) specifies that offsite organizations, with assigned responsibilities for protecting daycare centers and nursery schools, are to demonstrate their ability to protect the [[Page 75089]] students in an exercise. This ensures that in a radiological emergency, plans for protecting daycare centers and nursery schools will be enacted successfully while preventing disruption to the children attending these schools. Current NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, reflect this FEMA guidance. Section F.2 of Appendix E permits exercises without public (including daycare centers and nursery schools) participation. The Commission has determined that exercises can be adequately evaluated without the participation of schools or members of the public. This eliminates safety concerns for students, as well as, the disruption of daycare center and nursery school activities that might arise during exercise participation. In addition, as mentioned in the response to request ``E,'' pursuant to FEMA guidance, state and local government officials should be contacting daycare centers and nursery schools regarding emergency plans for the facilities. The petition has presented no evidence that would cause the NRC to reconsider this determination. H. Require creation of identification cards, school attendance lists, and fingerprint records for all children who are to be transported to a relocation center, to ensure no child is left behind or is unable, due to age, to communicate his or her contact information to emergency workers. NRC Review: State and local governments have the responsibility for ensuring that licensed daycare centers and nursery schools have mechanisms in place for maintaining child accountability. FEMA, as the authority on offsite emergency planning, has determined that it is unnecessary to require that such detailed mechanisms be a component of emergency plans. The Commission finds no safety reason to justify requiring such detailed mechanisms in its regulations. I. Require development by emergency management officials of educational materials for parents, informing them what will happen to their children in case of a radiological emergency, and where their children can be picked up after an emergency evacuation. NRC Review: Current NRC and FEMA requirements and guidance adequately address this specific request. FEMA's GM EV-2 (p. 2) specifies that the Emergency Alert System (EAS) notify parents of the status and location of their children in the event of an emergency. The Commission believes that parental notification via the EAS is adequate to assure that parents will be informed of their childrens' location following an emergency evacuation. J. Require stocking of KI pills and appropriate educational materials at all daycare centers and nursery schools within the 10-mile EPZ. NRC Review: The Commission's regulations, specifically 10 CFR 50.47b.(10), require individual states to consider using KI in the event of an emergency. The regulations require that a range of protective actions be developed for the plume exposure pathway EPZ for emergency workers and the public. In developing this range of actions, consideration was to be given to evacuation, sheltering, and, as a supplement to these, the prophylactic use of KI, as appropriate. Under this regulation, each individual state must decide whether the stockpiling of KI is appropriate for the citizens within its jurisdiction. Once a state decides to stockpile KI, it is incumbent on that state to develop a program for distribution. This program is reviewed by FEMA under the 44 CFR 350 process. The petition did not provide information that would cause the NRC to reconsider this determination. K. Require radiological emergency preparedness training for all daycare center and nursery school employees within the 10-mile EPZ. NRC Review: The Commission believes that specialized training for daycare center and nursery school employees is unnecessary because they would be using already established and distributed procedures for evacuation. Absent compelling information that specialized training for daycare center and nursery school employees would result in significant safety benefits that justify the additional regulatory burden, the Commission finds no safety reason to justify the requested revision to 10 CFR Part 50. L. Require listing of designated relocation centers in area phone directories, so that parents can quickly and easily find where their children will be sent in case of a radiological emergency. NRC Review: FEMA's GM EV-2 (p. 4) specifies that state and local government offsite emergency plans are to designate relocation centers outside of the 10-mile EPZ for all schools, including daycare centers and nursery schools. Some states list the relocation centers in telephone directories, some states identify the relocation centers in the yearly public information packages, and some states identify the relocation centers in their offsite emergency plans.\1\ The Commission believes that the current publication practices are adequate. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ See March 23, 2005 letter from Roy Zimmerman to Eric J. Epstein and March 24, 2005 letter from Roy Zimmerman to Lawrence T. Christian (available on NRC's ADAMS document system under the accession numbers ML050590344 and ML050590357, respectively). ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- M. Require establishment of toll-free or 911-type telephone lines, to provide information about radiological emergency plans and procedures for daycare centers and nursery schools within the 10-mile EPZ. NRC Review: Although not required by NRC regulations or provided in FEMA guidance, all states provide a toll-free phone number in the yearly public information package where members of the public can acquire emergency preparedness information. The Commission sees no added safety benefits in revising its regulations to require something that all states are already doing. N. Creation of written scripts for use by the local Emergency Alert System that include information about evacuation plans and designated relocation centers for daycare centers and nursery schools. NRC Review: FEMA's GM EV-2 (p. 6) specifies that a method is to exist (e.g., EAS) for notifying daycare center and nursery school parents of the status and location of their children, in the event of an emergency. FEMA has decided that it is unnecessary to incorporate such a prescriptive requirement into its regulations and guidance, and the petition provided no evidence that the current method of notification is inadequate. As a result, the Commission sees no added safety benefit in requiring a written script. Commission Evaluation The evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the rulemaking requested by the petition with respect to the four strategic goals of the Commission follows: 1. Ensure Protection of Public Health and Safety and the Environment: The NRC staff believes that the requested rulemaking would not make a significant contribution to maintaining safety because current NRC and FEMA regulations and guidance already require inclusion of nursery schools and daycare centers in state and local government offsite emergency plans. This was verified by the state governments that submitted comment letters which stated that daycare centers and nursery schools are included in their offsite emergency planning and that this is not an issue requiring a change to the emergency planning regulations. As such, it is a potential [[Page 75090]] compliance issue that can be resolved using the current regulatory structure. 2. Ensure the Secure Use and Management of Radioactive Materials: The requested regulatory amendments would have no impact on the security provisions necessary for the secure use and management of radioactive materials. The petition for rulemaking deals with the taking of protective actions for nursery schools and day care centers by offsite authorities, which is currently required by NRC and FEMA regulations and guidance. 3. Ensure Openness in Our Regulatory Process: The requested rulemaking would not enhance openness or public confidence in our regulatory process because the petitioners' requests raise potential issues of compliance with the existing requirements and guidance. The NRC staff does not believe that the contentions identify deficiencies in regulatory requirements. Appendix 4 in NUREG-0654, discusses ``special facility populations.'' Daycare centers and nursery schools fall under the definition of ``special facility populations'' and as such, state and local governments are currently required to ensure that these populations are included in the offsite emergency response plans. It should be noted, however, that 3000 members of the public co-signed the original petition for rulemaking. Additionally, 410 members of the public signed letters supporting the petition. This amount of public support reinforces the importance of NRC and FEMA's continued commitment to providing protection for the public in the event of an emergency which has always included daycare centers and nursery schools. 4. Ensure that NRC Actions Are Effective, Efficient, Realistic and Timely: The proposed revisions would decrease efficiency and effectiveness because current NRC and FEMA regulations and guidance already adequately address the petition requests. Amending the regulations would require licensees and state and local governments to generate additional and more prescriptive information in their emergency plans, and the NRC and FEMA staffs would need to evaluate the additional information. The additional NRC staff and licensee effort would not improve efficiency or effectiveness. In addition, the NRC resources expended to promulgate the rule and supporting regulatory guidance would be significant with little return value. 5. Ensure Excellence in Agency Management: The requested rule would have no effect on the excellence in NRC management, but would increase licensee and state and local government burden by requiring the generation of additional, unnecessary, and burdensome information with little expected benefit because current NRC and FEMA regulations and guidance already adequately address the petition requests. This rulemaking would add significant burden on a national scale in order to address a potential local compliance issue. Reason For Denial The Commission is denying the petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-79) submitted by Mr. Lawrence T. Christian, et al. Current NRC requirements and NRC and FEMA guidance, provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of all members of the public, including children attending daycare centers and nursery schools, in the event of a nuclear power plant incident. Many of the specific requests of the petitioner are either already covered by regulations and/or guidance documents or are inappropriate for inclusion in NRC regulations due to their very prescriptive nature. The Commission does believe, however, that information obtained during the review of the petition does raise questions about local implementation of relevant requirements and guidelines. Accordingly, the NRC staff met with FEMA officials to assure an understanding of this issue for consideration by FEMA as reflected in separate letters to the petitioner and TMI-Alert Chairman, Eric Epstein dated respectively, March 23, 2005 and March 24, 2005.\2\ Copies of those letters are available through the NRC's ADAMS document system and can be located using accession numbers ML050590344 and ML050590357, respectively. The NRC staff will continue to work with FEMA to ensure emergency planning exercises are appropriately focused and provide adequate assurance regarding compliance with NRC and FEMA regulations and guidance. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \2\ FEMA did evaluate a May 3, 2005 Emergency Planning exercise at TMI. NRC understands that during this exercise FEMA reviewed aspects of emergency planning involving nurseries and daycare centers. No deficiencies were identified by FEMA during the exercise. FEMA's final report on the exercise was issued on August 4, 2005. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- For these reasons, the Commission denies PRM-50-79. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of December, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E5-7518 Filed 12-16-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 9 Las Vegas SUN: Reid calls GOP-led Congress `most corrupt' ever, criticizes Frist December 18, 2005 ASSOCIATED PRESS LAS VEGAS (AP) - Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid assailed the Republican-led Congress for what he called its ethical and institutional failings. "I believe this is the most corrupt Congress in the history of this country," Reid, D-Nev., said in an interview published in Sunday's Las Vegas Review-Journal. "Not only corrupt ethically, but corrupt in not having institutional respect for what our founding fathers established ... Whatever the White House wants, they try to deliver," Reid said. Reid also criticized Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, suggesting he's a rubber-stamp for the Bush administration. "I like Bill Frist as a person. The problem is you can't have the leader of the Senate chosen by the White House," Reid said. "When he got this job, he had had limited experience on the Senate floor. And he was leaving. He had term-limited himself. So he has no institutional integrity ... He doesn't feel as strongly about the Senate. He does whatever the White House wants him to do," Reid added. Frist spokeswoman Amy Call declined to comment. Ron Bonjean, communications director for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, cited sweeping budget and defense agreements announced Sunday by congressional leaders. "The Senate minority leader's lack of actual ideas and a positive agenda has caused him to go haywire with negative partisan statements to try to distract from the amazing accomplishments of this Congress," Bonjean said. Caught in a recent wave of ethics investigations and indictments are Frist, R-Tenn.; former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas; and Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Administration Committee. All have denied any wrongdoing. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., resigned after pleading guilty to taking $2.4 million in bribes in exchange for steering government work to defense contractors. But several Democrats figure prominently in Justice Department inquiries. The investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff could take down lawmakers from both parties as well as members of the administration. The only regret Reid acknowledged about his first year as minority leader was calling President Bush a loser in a May speech to a class of Las Vegas students. He later issued an apology. "I felt that I made a mistake, and I tried to rectify it as quickly as I could in calling the president a loser because it was to the wrong audience and it was just the wrong thing," Reid told the Review-Journal. "It was a bunch of high school kids and I felt real bad about that. That was not good," he added. Reid, who suffered a ministroke in August, said he's not worried about a relapse and the only lifestyle change he has made is that he goes to bed a half-hour earlier. --- Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal, http://www.lvrj.com All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 10 Bennington Banner: Wind could be part of Vermont's energy plan PATRICK G. RHEAUME, Staff Writer Monday, December 19 MANCHESTER — No one seems certain how much electricity generated by a locally planned wind farm will remain in the area but the potential "windfall" may tip the scales in favor of the turbines. Officials believe that the possibility of avoiding an energy crisis with wind generators, such as the five 390-foot turbines Endless Energy Corp. wants to build on the ridgeline of Little Equinox Mountain, remains an important selling point in the state Public Service Board's consideration of the project. Public hearing today Authorities on the potential economic and environmental benefits of wind power will speak today at the third in a series of public hearings hosted by the Planning Commission about the proposal. Members of the Public Service Board want the state to develop a range of energy sources, said Michael Dworkin, chairman of the board since 1999. He said that the state's contract with Hydro-Quebec, a hydroelectric company that supplies nearly one-third of the state's power, will expire in a decade. "We're trapped as a buyer in a seller's market," Dworkin said in an interview on Saturday. "Gas now costs what the owner of a liquefied natural gas tanker in the middle of the Atlantic says it's worth." He added that the wholesale price of energy has tripled during the past seven years, increasing from an average of less than 4 cents to more than 12 cents for each kilowatt hour. "These are the kinds of issues that the Public Service Board has looked at in the past," said Dworkin, also the director of the Energy Institute at Vermont Law School in South Royalton. Wind is 'small part' of answer He described wind turbines as "a really useful small part of the answer" to the state's energy deficiencies. Wind turbine projects need a certificate of public good from the Public Service Board, but don't require local permits. The board takes the town's wishes into consideration, however, and the Select Board might place nonbinding advisory questions about wind on the ballot at the upcoming town meeting, according to recent reports. David Lamont, a power planning engineer with the Department of Public Service, said that wind energy often provides more stable prices than fossil fuels or other power supplies. Once the contract with Hydro-Quebec expires, Lamont said, the state must return to a highly volatile energy market. Lamont said that residents need to evaluate their options soon. He added that the uncertainty surrounding the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon, which supplies one-third of the state's energy, makes renewable sources more attractive. Endless Energy has a contract to sell the power generated by the turbines to the Burlington Electric Company. But Harley Lee, the company's president, said that the turbines would light up local homes and businesses, through the New England power grid. By producing 30 million kilowatt hours each year, Lee said, the turbines would provide about half of Manchester's energy needs. Lee, Dworkin and Lamont will answer questions from the audience after their presentations. In addition, Lee will answer questions that were submitted in writing. The town will have another public hearing, on the aesthetics of wind turbines, at 7:30 p.m. on Jan 9, at the Israel Congregation, near town hall. berkshireeagle.com/NeBe/adsamples/vermonttiles » BenningtonBanner.com New England Newspapers, Inc. » (802) 447-2025 » 425 Main Street » Bennington, VT 05201 ***************************************************************** 11 IPS: RIGHTS: U.S. Vets Join Vietnamese Agent Orange Victims Inter Press Service News Agency Tuesday, December 20, 2005 07:09 GMT Elisabeth Schreinemacher UNITED NATIONS, Dec 19 (IPS) - Vietnamese victims of the defoliant known as Agent Orange wound up a month-long visit to the U.S. at the invitation of veterans, Vietnamese Americans and peace activists, to press their case for reparations from the U.S. government and the companies that made the deadly chemical. They say an estimated 50,000 deformed children have been born to parents who were directly sprayed with Agent Orange or exposed through contaminated food and water. During the Vietnam War, the U.S. scorched up to 25 percent of the country's forests with the deadly chemicals Agent Orange, and also Agent White, Blue, Pink, Green and Purple. Agent Orange, which contained trace amounts of dioxin, disabled and sickened both soldiers and civilians. The risk of death from cancer among men and women exposed to Agent Orange increased by 30 percent in Vietnam after the war, studies show. Today, three million Vietnamese and tens of thousands of U.S soldiers still suffer the health effects of these chemicals. To raise awareness here about their campaign, Vietnamese activists conducted a 10-city tour, with stops in New York, Washington, Chicago and San Francisco, among others, which ended last week. "I have just learned what the doctors think of my case," said Ha Thi Hai, an Agent Orange victim born in 1976 in Vietnam's Thai Binh province. "They say that Agent Orange has affected my marrow and atrophied my muscles. It is inoperable and incurable. I am going to lose little by little the use of my limbs and not be able to move." More than 30 years after the end of the war that killed more than 58,000 U.S. soldiers and three million Vietnamese, U.S veterans are demanding compensation for their Vietnamese counterparts. U.S. veterans received partial compensation for their injuries from the U.S. government and the chemical companies that manufactured the weapons, but Vietnamese victims have not received any compensation. >From 1961 trough 1971, 22 million gallons of highly toxic herbicides were sprayed over hundreds of thousands of hectares of land, mostly in Vietnam, but also in Laos and Cambodia. In addition to the human toll, Agent Orange devastated Vietnam's natural environment, including the wholesale destruction of mangrove forests and the long-term poisoning of soil and crops. In 1984, seven U.S. chemical companies agreed to pay 180 million dollars to 291,000 people over a period of 12 years. However, the companies refused to accept liability as part of the legal settlement of the cases, claiming the science still does not prove that Agent Orange was responsible for any of the medical horrors its name has long brought to mind. In 2004, Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange filed a new federal lawsuit against 36 U.S. chemical companies that manufactured and supplied the herbicide. The lawsuit was dismissed on Mar. 10 of this year, when a judge found the claims lacked a basis in national or international law. The Association of Agent Orange Victims, which represents more than three million Vietnamese affected by the toxic herbicide, announced in September that they planned to file an appeal of the ruling. The Vietnam Agent Orange Relief and Responsibility Campaign is supporting the lawsuit of Agent Orange victims against U.S. chemical manufacturers and is lobbying the U.S. government to provide compensation for Vietnamese Agent Orange survivors. "We have had a tremendous amount of support," Merle Ratner, a coordinator of the Campaign, told IPS. "We are trying to get legislation introduced within the next year or six months. We are calling on the U.S. to allocate money for Agent Orange victims in Vietnam." "From the discussions of the people from the tour, we have heard that they are living under difficult conditions. The Vietnamese government is trying to provide help for them and in fact is giving some kind of assistance to every Agent Orange victim in the country, but this is a poor country so they can not afford that much," she said, "We think there is a responsibility, both legally and ethically, to compensate the Agent Orange victims in Vietnam, as the U.S. has been forced to do with the U.S. veterans." Meanwhile, after initially denying allegations that U.S. forces had used chemical agents in Iraq, the Pentagon now says that it did in fact use white phosphorus as a weapon in Fallujah last year. However, it denies having used it against civilians. The U.S. initially said white phosphorus was used only to illuminate enemy positions, but now admits it was used as a weapon. The substance can cause burning of the flesh, but is not illegal and is not specifically classified as a chemical weapon. However, according to the U.S. government Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry, "Exposure to white phosphorus may cause burns and irritation, liver, kidney, heart, lung, or bone damage, and death." Marie Okabe, deputy spokesperson for U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, said recently, "We are aware of the reported use of white phosphorus in Fallujah last year, and are concerned about its effects on the local civilian population." "We welcome the decision of the government of Iraq to launch an immediate investigation into this matter," she added. The 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons bans the use of incendiary weapons against civilians, but the U.S. is one of several nations that are not signatories to the treaty. "In Vietnam, they poisoned us with Agent Orange, and now they are poisoning another generation with depleted uranium and other toxins," said Dave Curry of the U.S.-based Vietnam Veterans Against the War. "Out of the 360,000 discharged veterans from the current Iraq war, nearly one in four had already visited VA (the Veterans Administration) for physical injuries or mental health counseling by February 2005," Curry said. (END/2005) Copyright © 2005 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 Times of India: N-separation plan ready Indrani Bagchi [ Monday, December 19, 2005 01:23:01 amTIMES NEWS NETWORK ] NRI New Year Gift, FREE Calling Card NEW DELHI: India has readied its plan to separate civilian nuclear facilities from the military and it will be unveiled for the first time when foreign secretary Shyam Saran travels to the US on Tuesday to hold discussions in Washington. According to sources, the plan is substantive enough to send two important signals to the US. The list of civilian nuclear facilities that India will place under IAEA safeguards will be long enough to satisfy the Bush administration and Washington's more realistic non-proliferation 'ayatollahs'. This will be done so that US can implement its part of the deal. As far the anti-proliferation 'ayatollahs' are concerned, not many in India seriously expect that anything New Delhi will do can alter the opinion of the nuclear ideologues on Washington's Beltway. On December 22, Saran and US under-secretary of state, Nick Burns, will discuss the separation plan. Since India and the US want this deal to be on the fast track, the Indian plan is designed to cut down negotiations with the US to the bare minimum. By all accounts, India will not place its fast breeder reactor at Kalpakkam under safeguards. Despite scare scenarios being generated in India by homegrown nuclear pundits that India might be writing off its nuclear option, the plan shows that such fears are groundless. The plan is likely to exclude only the MAPS reactors and perhaps Dhruva in Trombay, all others could be placed voluntarily under IAEA safeguards, for which India will negotiate a safeguards agreement. The CIRUS reactor, which was given to India by Canada as a peaceful uses reactor, remains a question, but indications are that it too might stay in the civilian list. Saran, who arrives in Washington on Wednesday, will give a much awaited talk on the India-US strategic partnership at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. It's a signal event in Washington's non-proliferation calendar because, according to sources, the city's nuclear 'ayatollahs' have all booked their seats. Over the past few weeks, there has been hectic activity in the Indian nuclear establishment and the external affairs ministry to put the separation list together. India's high voltage ambassador to the US, Ronen Sen, has also been part of the deliberations during his "working vacation" here in the past few days. Sources, who have been part of the decision-making process, said India's separation plan is not of recent vintage, the first drafts of it were drawn up by Raja Ramanna. In fact, PM Manmohan Singh, who has been most bullish on the Indo-US nuclear deal, said in Indore on Sunday that India would soon join the nuclear mainstream. "I am confident that through constructive dialogue with other countries which have nuclear capabilities, we will soon be part of the mainstream of the nuclear powers with full civilian-nuclear cooperation between India and international partners," Singh said. The question that will be asked repeatedly over the next few weeks is whether India's reactors will be under safeguards "in perpetuity". The difference, say sources, lies in the language of the July 18 agreement, which says India would "place voluntarily its civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards". This is different from placing them under "voluntary safeguards". The difference is small but significant. Copyright © 2005 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 13 NRC rebuffs N.J. DEP stand on Oyster Creek Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:10:39 -0800 APP.COM - The Jersey Shore's Biggest and Best News Source Thursday, December 15, 2005 NRC rebuffs N.J. stand on Oyster Creek State seeks relicensing hearing Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 12/15/05 BY NICHOLAS CLUNN STAFF WRITER Federal regulators want to dismiss an attempt by the state to challenge the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant's application to renew its license. The state had submitted a petition for a hearing before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and had identified three concerns it had with the application. One dealt with the vulnerability of highly radioactive spent fuel to an aircraft attack. The state also raised concerns over the reliability of a backup power supply. But earlier this week in a formal answer to the petition, counsel representing agency staff called the contentions inadmissible. They also asked the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, an internal body, to deny New Jersey's request for a hearing. "It's outrageous that the NRC staff is keeping the public out of the process," said Bradley M. Campbell, commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Protection. AmerGen, the company that owns Oyster Creek, submitted an application for a 20-year renewal of its operating license in July. Without it, the plant will close in 2009. Activists who submitted a separate hearing petition have yet to hear from the NRC about their re-quest, said Paula Gotsch, a Brick resident speaking for Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety, one of the petitioners. She was upset by NRC's answer to the state's petition, calling it "atrocious." "The state had some good contentions as far as we're concerned," she said. The DEP expressed concerns about: Attack risks. Before the NRC decides on a license renewal, "the plant's vulnerability to aircraft attacks . . . must be analyzed," Campbell had said. Plant integrity. Oyster Creek, according to the DEP, should adhere to more stringent engineering codes than the ones used in the renewal application. Backup power. At issue are the long-term availability, maintenance and aging-management of two combustion turbines. The equipment is owned and operated by FirstEnergy Corp., but provides backup power to key safety systems at Oyster Creek. 2 sides to be weighed In its answer, NRC counsel said the state's petition lacked support and fell outside the license renewal process, which looks at how applicants plan to manage plant aging and how continued operations would affect the environment. The licensing board will consider the NRC's answer and AmerGen's point of view when making a decision, though it was unclear when that would occur. Rachelle Benson, a spokeswoman for Oyster Creek, said if AmerGen hadn't submitted its answer already, it will do so soon. During the kind of hearing being sought by the state, lawyers present positions before a panel of three administrative law judges. The proceedings provide those affected by a possible licensing to bring a quasi-legal case against the applicant. Campbell on Wednesday also reiterated his promise to hold public DEP hearings on the license renewal bid if the state's petition is denied. That way, the NRC would still have on record the concerns of New Jersey residents, he said. Diane Screnci, a spokeswoman for the NRC, said the agency looks at all the comments it receives. Nicholas Clunn: (609) 978-4597 or nclunn@app.com E-mail E-mail article Printer Print article Subscription Subscribe Newsletters Get e-mail alerts ***************************************************************** 14 [NukeNet] Rioactive Grozny, NPP Blast Kills One In Russia Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:12:04 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Greatest Threat To Life On Earth: http://www.heatisonline.org http://www.crisiscoalition.org http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/17/international/17briefs.html RUSSIA: NUCLEAR PLANT BLAST KILLS ONE A man died and two others were injured in an explosion at a nuclear power station near St. Petersburg. Nuclear officials said that no reactors were affected and that radiation levels were normal. ALEXANDER NURNBERG (NYT) http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-nuclear-russia-chechnya.html Nuclear Waste Found in Ruined Chechen Factory a.. E-Mail This b.. Printer-Friendly c.. Save Article By REUTERS Published: December 17, 2005 Filed at 4:18 a.m. ET Skip to next paragraph GROZNY, Russia (Reuters) - Investigators have found nuclear contamination tens of thousands of times above safe levels on the premises of a ruined factory in Russia's Chechnya, officials said on Saturday. It was not clear why the radioactive source had been kept in the factory, but prosecutors said it posed a severe threat to anyone who came near to it. ``This is above all now a threat to the population, because the leadership and officials of the firm did not take the necessary steps to isolate the isotope,'' said Chechen prosecutor Valery Kuznetsov on NTV television. Almost all of Grozny was destroyed by Russian bombing in 1999-2000 when Russian troops poured back into the region to reassert central control over separatist rebels, who still attack troops and police daily. Once a mighty industrial center, Grozny's factories are now a wasteland of twisted steel -- many of them dotted with machine gun nests. Other Chechen officials did not wish to comment on the presence of the radioactive material, which was named by the prosecutors as Cobalt-60 -- a variation of cobalt used as a source of radiation in food processing, hospitals and elsewhere. Prosecutors said it had raised radiation levels to 58,000 times above normal. ``This is not a one-day problem. This problem of radiation leaking into Grozny's air has been going on for a decade,'' said a member of Chechnya's emergencies committee who asked not to be named. He said looters had uncovered the materials. There was no suggestion the radioactive materials could fall into the hands of Chechen militants, although Cobalt-60 has been identified as one of the most likely elements to be used to make a so-called ``dirty bomb.'' _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 15 AP Wire: University of Missouri gets grant for nuclear industry training | 12/19/2005 | ALAN SCHER ZAGIER Associated Press COLUMBIA, Mo. - The nuclear power industry received a boost Monday with a $2.3 million federal job-training grant for the University of Missouri-Columbia, home to the nation's largest campus research reactor. The U.S. Department of Labor grant, announced by Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and Missouri Sens. Jim Talent and Kit Bond, follows a similar $7 million grant the University of Missouri received last year from the federal Department of Energy, said nuclear engineering professor William Miller. The Department of Energy grant enabled Miller and colleagues at Linn State Community College to create an Advanced Technology Center for nuclear industry job training in Mexico, Mo. - Bond's hometown. Linn, which is east of Jefferson City, is across the Missouri River and about 70 miles from Mexico. Miller described the Linn State effort as a pilot program in which 28 students are pursuing two-year associate degrees for eventual careers as radiation protection technicians. While most of those trained will eventually work in the nuclear power industry, the need also exists at hospitals, universities and in private industry, he said. The grant announced Monday will enable Missouri officials to develop a uniform curriculum and expand the program to link community colleges and energy companies in Arizona, California, Texas and Virginia, said Chao. The effort could lead to 200 new jobs, she predicted. "There are employers out there waiting for the graduates of these programs," she said. "There is a worker shortage in this industry." The industry too is poised to expand, which would mean a greater demand for new employees to replace a rapidly aging work force. After decades of dormancy fueled by public concern and critical fallout following accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, several utilities are in discussions with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Authority to build new nuclear power plants. "This couldn't be more timely," said Talent. "We're expecting to see ... a restarting of the nuclear energy industry." A spokesman for St. Louis-based Ameren Corp., which is considering building a second plant at its Callaway County nuclear facility, said the industry is poised to attract fresh recruits. "People were reluctant to get into these types of professions because no new nuclear plants were being built," said Ameren spokesman Mike Cleary. "Now there's a lot of attention being paid to building new plants. It's opened up the nuclear industry again as a viable career choice." The Missouri effort will be known as the Center for Excellence for Radiation Protection Technology, Education and Training. The training program will be offered at Central Virginia Community College in Lynchburg, Va.; MiraCosta Community College in San Diego, Calif.; Hill College in Hillsboro, Texas; and Estrella Mountain Community College near Phoenix, Ariz. More community colleges could join the program later, Miller said. ***************************************************************** 16 Times Herald-Record: Indian Point: 10 miles more than enough www.recordonline.com December 19, 2005 Indian Point: 10 miles more than enough Buchanan - Indian Point officials said today they are confident a 10-mile planning zone is more than sufficient to protect the public in event of a radiological emergency, despite efforts in Washington to expand the area of protection to 50 miles. Mike Slobodien, emergency programs director for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the plant in Westchester County, said studies following previous disasters - including meltdowns at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island - suggest 10 miles is plenty of planning room. "The most recent definitive health studies of the areas around Chernobyl concluded that there are no discernible long-term health effects from the Chernobyl accident 19 years after the accident," Slobodien said in an e-mailed statement. He added studies following Three Mile Island accident suggest 10 miles may even be too big. "On the basis of health effects the evidence points to a shrinking of the (Emergency Planning Zone), not an increase," Slobodien said. Nonetheless, some members of Congress aren't so sure. Rep. Nita Lowey, D-Harrison, and Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-Hurley, have introduced legislation that would expand the emergency planning zone around the nation's nuclear plants from 10 miles to 50 miles. Greg Bruno Contact THR Managing Editor Meg McGuire at mmcguire@th-record.comor call 346-3041 Record Online is brought to you by the Times Herald-Record, serving New York's Hudson Valley and the Catskills. 40 Mulberry Street * PO Box 2046 * Middletown, NY 10940 Telephone 845-341-1100 or 800-295-2181 outside the Middletown, N.Y., area. ***************************************************************** 17 Las Vegas SUN: Damages in store for nuke utilities Today: December 19, 2005 at 9:12:56 PST Industry sues over the government's failure to open Yucca By Benjamin Grove Sun Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- Next month marks another depressing anniversary for the nation's nuclear power plants: Eight years that the government has not lived up to its promise to construct Yucca Mountain by 1998. But lawyers for the nation's nuclear utilities say 2006 could be the year they begin reaping billions of dollars in lawsuit damages from the federal government -- spell that taxpayers -- over the broken contract. "In the majority, if not all, the cases I would expect that the utilities will get significant damages," said Jay Silberg, a Washington lawyer with Shaw Pittman, who is involved with 19 of the 60 lawsuits that utilities have filed against the government since 1998. Congress had promised a grand opening of a permanent high-level waste repository for the nation's nuclear plants at Yucca by Jan. 31, 1998. But the day came and went as delays continued to plague the proposed dump program. Energy Department officials now say Yucca could open by 2012, but critics contend Yucca is bogged down indefinitely in a legal, technical and regulatory morass. Meanwhile, nuclear utilities -- specifically, their electricity customers -- have continued to pay for Yucca. The industry paid for much of the $8 billion invested in Yucca so far, and much of the nearly $18 billion that currently sits in a national nuclear waste fund established to pay for the underground repository. The utilities say the government's failure to open Yucca forces them to pay to store their highly radioactive waste twice -- at their plants, and at Yucca -- with no return on the investment. And the radioactive garbage is still piling up. Nuclear power plants in the past five decades have accumulated roughly 62,000 tons of spent fuel from their reactors, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade industry group. Plants were designed with waste cooling pools to store the material until the government came for it. But many of the pools are full, and plants have had to construct outdoor, above-ground "dry cask" storage facilities for the overflow. So the industry sued -- 60 lawsuits filed by 57 utilities in 33 states that operate many of the nation's 103 operating nuclear reactors and some decommissioned ones. It has been a years-long slog through the federal courts, as judges waded through arcane legal issues and the technical specifics of each case. Three trials involving five utilities -- Yankee Atomic Electric Co., Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co., Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co., the Sacramento Municipal Utility District and Tennessee Valley Authority -- have concluded, but judges are not expected to rule until next year, lawyers said. Another big trial involving Southern Co. is near completion. And four other trials are set to begin in 2006. The combined "three Yankees" case was tried in the summer of 2004, but the utilities are still waiting for a judge's decision, said the utilities' attorney, Jerry Stouck. "I expect decisions in the next few months, and if we're right, we're going to see some big numbers coming out of these cases," Stouck said. The Yankee utilities sought roughly $100 million each for damages through 2002. The courts have effectively ruled that utilities can only collect damages up through the date of the case. So the utilities plan to continue going back to court seeking more money until Yucca is constructed, the lawyers said. "Look, the DOE is not performing," Stouck said. "The utilities had to build all these storage facilities -- to me it is a no-brainer. Of course there are going to be damages. At some point, the DOE is going to have to start paying. But until the courts rule, they aren't going to be rushing for the checkbook." So far, only one utility, Exelon Corp., has reached a settlement with the Justice Department. Exelon in August 2004 won $300 million for waste storage costs for its 17 nuclear reactors, for the period from 1998 to 2010. Settlement talks between other utilities and the Justice Department are under way, but government sources would not comment on their status. Nevada officials have suggested that there is a way out of holding taxpayers liable for waste storage, at least in future years -- by using the money from the waste fund to pay plants for on-site storage. In effect, Nevada lawmakers last week introduced a bill aimed at accomplishing that goal. The legislation directs the Energy Department to take ownership of the waste as it sits in dry-cask storage at the plants, paid for with money from the waste fund. But that legislation is a long way from being approved, and the Energy Department has reiterated its commitment to constructing Yucca Mountain. So the lawsuits steam ahead, with industry estimates of total liability to the government as high as $56 billion or more. (Yucca itself was estimated to cost $58 billion.) That figure is wildly exaggerated, Energy Department officials say. The department estimates damages at just $2 billion to $3 billion, a spokesman said. "Whatever it is," utility lawyer Silberg said, "it's not chump change." Benjamin Grove can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at grove@ lasvegassun.com. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 18 REGNUM: Lithuanian prime minister: Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant is a problem of not Lithuania but EU - Moscow ¤ 10:11 ¤ December 20, 2005 Subscribe During the discussion of the EU general budget on the night of December 17, the final compromise did not suit two states – Lithuania and Poland. As a REGNUMcorrespondent reports, unlike Latvia and Estonia, Lithuania failed to obtain from the EU extra expenditures on the lagging industries in the country. Instead, Prime Minister of the EU-chairing Great Britain Tony Blair proposed to increase expenditures for closing the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant. According to Lithuanian Prime Minister Algirdas Brazauskas, nobody asked him to do it. Lithuania, on the contrary, was seeking increase in structural funds financing by the EU. Brazauskas, the only one from the EU member-countries’ leadership discussing the budget, twice announced at the meeting on Saturday that increasing financing Ignalina Power Plant should not be associated with Lithuania. Brazauskas stressed that to close the power plant is not Lithuania’s task, but the EU obligation. Tony Blair answered to this by an obligation to find extra money for the plant later and proposed to add extra 120 million euro into the structural funds. Thus, Lithuania has obtained 220 million euro to structural funds, 50 million euro to close Ignalina Power Plant and extra 120 million euro. Overall, almost 400 million euro will be received by Lithuania. At 03:00 a.m. on December 17, EU leaders adopted the EU general budget for seven years. It amounts to 862 billion euro. It is 13 billion more than it was supposed earlier. The extra money will be divided between new and old member-countries. Permanent news address: www.regnum.ru/english/562290.html 13:56 12/19/2005 © 1999-2005 REGNUM News Agency Registration certificate No. El 77-6430 of the 6th August, 2002 All materials reprinted from the site must link to REGNUM News AgencyPrague Daily Monitorand ***************************************************************** 24 Globe and Mail: Fallout seen if Ontario shuns Candus By MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT Monday, December 19, 2005 TORONTO — Building a nuclear power plant in Canada has always meant one thing: buying a Candu, the Canadian atomic reactor with the patriotic-sounding name. But the Ontario government sent shock waves through the nuclear industry last week by suggesting it will consider foreign designs for new stations. It would be a dramatic change, as all of Canada's reactors are Candus, with plants in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. The technology, with a name suggestive of getting things done, has been a point of pride in the country's nuclear industry for more than four decades. Even a furtive glance at foreign reactor types up to now has been considered beyond the pale. "I think it would be a staggering blow to the Canadian nuclear industry if Ontario went with an alternate reactor technology, or even seriously considered a [non-Candu design]," observed David Martin, an energy analyst at Greenpeace Canada. He said a decision against Candus would have "huge reverberations." A provincial advisory panel recommended earlier this month that Ontario spend up to $40-billion to refurbish old reactors and build new ones. Unnamed government officials have said there is no guarantee Candus would be used in any new plants. Four major firms market new nuclear reactors: Areva SA, a Franco-German company; General Electric Co. in the United States, British Nuclear Fuels, and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the federal government company, makers of the Candus. Nuclear reactors are so expensive they provide a veritable industrial cornucopia for the country whose company gets to build them. That's why economic nationalism, up to now, normally trumps other considerations. Like Canada, France, the United States and Britain have stuck with their designs. A typical new plant, with a capacity of 1,600 megawatts, or enough power to support a large city, is estimated to cost about $3.2-billion (U.S.) "That's big money, and if you're going to build two of them at the same site, which is often the case, you're talking about $6.5-billion. That's money you don't like to give to those 'untrustworthy foreigners,' " said Ron Hagen, a nuclear energy analyst at the U.S. Department of Energy, in explaining the nationalist thinking. Ontario's industry is open to considering other designs. Duncan Hawthorne, president of Bruce Power, operator of two nuclear plants with eight Candus on the shores of Lake Huron near Kincardine, Ont., says all reactor types should be reviewed. "If I were advocating an approach right now, it would be an assessment of all the technologies," Mr. Hawthorne said. Companies are currently marketing what is known in the industry as "third generation" reactors. None is operating and the first is under construction in Finland. Reactors now running, the so-called second generation, were designed in the 1960s and 1970s with technology considered as antiquated as fins and chrome on a car. Mr. Hawthorne said reactor manufacturers are claiming new plants will be easier to construct because many components will be factory built and assembled on site. Plants are also expected to be less complicated to operate. They may also be long lasting. Candus currently need costly overhauls in their fuel channels about every 20 year to 25 years, or they have to be mothballed for safety reasons. "People who are offering new generation 3 reactors are talking about 60 years of operational life," Mr. Hawthorne said. Candus, an acronym for Canadian deuterium uranium, use heavy water, or deuterium oxide, to moderate the pace of nuclear activity within the reactors and to draw useful heat away from the reactor cores. Most of the rest of the world uses a design based on ordinary water, called light-water reactors. In recent years, U.S. light-water reactors have had far better performance than the Canadian design. In 2004, the International Atomic Energy Agency says U.S. reactors were able to operate at 90.8 per cent of capacity, compared with only 82.2 per cent for Canada's. Some observers call the Canadian approach a mistake. "In my opinion, there is no question that Candu technology is flawed and the problem is the fuel channel design," Greenpeace's Mr. Martin said. Canadian reactors are more complicated than some other designs because they are honeycombed with hundreds of fuel channels whose components, because of the harsh environment in reactors, sag, develop dangerous blisters, and "creep," or exhibit the tendency of metals bearing heavy loads to become thinner and longer over time. Mr. Hawthorne, who says there are pros and cons with all reactor designs, said the fuel channel problems are "a bit of an Achilles heel." The upside of Candus, compared with other designs, is that they can be refuelled without having to be turned off, and they use a less expensive form of uranium fuel. New nuclear plants would not be sprouting on the Ontario landscape any time soon. Ken Pereira, executive vice-president of the CNSC, estimates it would take "nine to 10 years" until power flows from a new reactor. 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.Aaron Atkinson from London, Canada writes: That's whats wrong with you people, you won't spend a couple extra dollars on a Canadian made product and then you wonder where all the good jobs have gone. I can't speak to the pros and cons of the Candu but if we have been using the Canadian made reactors in our Nuc plants for the last couple of decades, re-investing billions back into our Canadian economy,without any big problems then I think the Ontario goverment has lost its marbles (once again) to send that money out of our country. Go Canada Go! + © Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved. Globeandmail.com: ***************************************************************** 25 Reuters: Ankara unveils nuclear energy plant plans (19/12/2005) By Orhan Coskun - Reuters ANKARA - The Turkish government will announce by the end of January a decision to build between three and five nuclear power plants with a total 5,000 megawatts capacity, sources close to the government said yesterday. The government may ask the electricity distribution companies to buy 7-10 percent of the energy produced in nuclear power plants, the sources said. “There will be no Treasury guarantee in this model, but the energy sector itself will provide the guarantee,” an official said. Turkey hopes nuclear power will help cover a projected energy shortage in the future, but its efforts on two other occasions in the last 30 years to build a nuclear power station failed due to cost and opposition from environmentalists. The country has no nuclear power production plants at present. Oil and natural gas imports, along with coal and hydroelectric power account for most of Turkey’s current energy needs. Construction of the plants will be funded partly by the public sector but mostly by private financiers, the sources said. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan will announce the location, starting date, and financing and technology to be used in the plants in January, an official said. Turkey aims to put its nuclear power plants into service in 2012 under its Energy Ministry projections. Turkey’s Atomic Energy Institute (TAEK) has started talks with leading nuclear power producers such as the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China on technology transfer and the costs. An official said that Turkey did not have a plan to buy a nuclear power plant, but a plan to develop its nuclear energy production technology. Copyright © 2001-2004 Editcom Ltd ***************************************************************** 26 Post and Courier: A prudent nuclear option | Charleston.net | News | Charleston, SC Monday, December 19, 2005 - Last Updated: 5:57 AM Many Americans are understandably wary of nuclear power. After all, it first captured public attention as the source of the most devastating weapon ever used. Past accidents at nuclear-power facilities and legitimate concerns over the disposal of radioactive waste also contribute to that widespread apprehension. But more than half of the electricity generated in this state, and about one-fifth of the electricity generated in this nation, already comes from nuclear power. Increasing those percentages is a prudent response to the rising costs of fossil fuels, a trend re-confirmed last week by another rate increase for SCE's natural-gas customers, and to rising alarms over the detrimental effects of carbon-dioxide emissions from coal-powered electricity plants. As Kyle Stock reported in The Post and Courier, Scana Corp. and Santee Cooper are moving forward to increase their capacity to generate nuclear-powered electricity. Both enterprises, which together supply most of this state's electricity needs, clearly need to expand their ability to supply South Carolina's growing demand for electric power over the next few decades. Their joint Dec. 6 letter of intent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeks federal approval to build a nuclear plant slightly north of Columbia. Santee Cooper Chief Operations Officer Bill McCall told our reporter the new coal turbines it will put into operation in 2007 and 2009 won't preclude the company's need to buy power from other utilities in 2011 if the present rate of growth persists. Though Scana officials say their needs aren't as pressing, getting started in the long process of opening a new nuclear facility is also a common-sense course. Fortunately, the energy bill passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in August offers incentives for U.S. utility companies to expand nuclear-power options. And while no power source capable of high-volume electricity generation is free of ecological concerns, a growing number of environmentalists prefer the problems associated with nuclear-waste storage to the problems associated with carbon-dioxide emissions. Meanwhile, state education officials told The Greenville News last week that they are examining the feasibility of using leftover grease from deep fryers in school cafeterias to help run school buses with biodiesel fuel. Such attempts to utilize energy sources that don't rely on fossil fuels should be encouraged. That includes nuclear energy. ***************************************************************** 27 Times Herald-Record: Nuclear danger zone? December 19, 2005 Wider evacuation plans sought as lawmakers warn of peril By Greg Bruno gbruno@th-record.com Highland Falls would head north to Newburgh on 9W. West Point would go west to Central Valley on Route 293. But where would Cornwall drive if Indian Point blew its top? What about Walden? Or Middletown? Or, God forbid, Goshen? Emergency planners have long wondered about the region's response to a Chernobyl-like disaster. For communities within 10 miles of the Indian Point nuclear power plant across the Hudson River in Westchester County - one of the most densely populated parts of the country - that means detailed evacuation plans, shelter locations and instructions. But if you live outside the imaginary line in the sand, you're pretty much on your own. Now, some lawmakers in Washington say that's a bad place to be. Spurred by summer hurricanes and anti-nuclear activists, a pair of Hudson Valley lawmakers have introduced legislation that would expand the emergency planning zone around the nation's nuclear plants from 10 miles to 50 miles. Currently, Orange County is the western-most county included in Indian Point's emergency planning zone. Sixteen emergency sirens dot the eastern edge of the county along the Hudson. Under the proposed changes, emergency zones would push as far west as Pike County, Pa., north into Ulster County and south to Staten Island. Rep. Nita Lowey, D-Harrison, introduced the legislation in June, with co-sponsorship from Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-Hurley. The pair have since pushed to gain supporters, especially after Hurricane Katrina exposed weaknesses in the government's disaster response abilities. The new requirements would be aimed at helping local governments maintain order when people outside the established zone flee a nuclear emergency. The push is also based on a Federal Emergency Management Agency analysis that long-term exposure to a nuclear release can adversely affect health as far as 50 miles from ground zero, said Julie Edwards, a spokeswoman for Lowey. "There's still a cause for concern that people could be exposed to radiation" as far west as Pennsylvania, Edwards said. Hinchey added, "The danger zone is more than 10 miles." If passed, the law would require emergency plan upgrades when nuclear plants renew their operating license with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nonetheless, it's far from clear whether the legislation has support in Congress. Hinchey said he didn't expect action to be taken until next year, if ever. Some Orange County officials, including members of the Legislature's public safety and emergency services committee, which learned of the legislation earlier this month, said the cost question could be a deal breaker. "Fifty miles would create quite a situation where the evacuation plan would have to be dramatically revised," said Orange County Legislature Minority Leader Anthony Marino, D-Newburgh. "The impact area would have to be extensive, and that would make it a very dramatic change." the Times Herald-Record e-mailed to Have a tip about a news story? Contact THR Managing Editor Meg McGuire at or call 346-3041 Record Online is brought to you by the Times Herald-Record, serving New York's Hudson Valley and the Catskills. 40 Mulberry Street * PO Box 2046 * Middletown, NY 10940 Telephone 845-341-1100 or 800-295-2181 outside the Middletown, N.Y., area. ***************************************************************** 28 St. Petersburg Times Online: Progress delays nuclear site choice By LOUIS HAU, Times Staff Writer Published December 19, 2005 Progress Energy Florida now says it will take a little longer than expected to choose a site for a new nuclear power plant in Florida. The St. Petersburg utility had planned to choose a location by the end of the year, but it may not select a site until some time in March. Not that this is a typical event. Florida hasn't seen a new nuke in decades. Progress has yet to start compiling a list of potential sites and is still reviewing general areas of the state to consider, says company spokesman Rick Kimble. Eventually, Progress hopes to have about a dozen potential sites, including its Crystal River power complex where it already operates a nuclear reactor. Progress is considering building new nuclear plants in Florida and the Carolinas to meet the power needs of its growing customer base. The company's sister company, Progress Energy Carolinas, already operates three nuclear plants and has chosen a location for a new nuclear plant. It won't won't make its choice public until the second or third week of 2006. [Last modified December 19, 2005, 01:38:18] © 2005 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times 490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 ***************************************************************** 29 AFP: India's nuclear facility separation plan ready - report Monday December 19, 11:31 PM NEW DELHI (AFP) - India's plan to separate its civilian and military nuclear plants, key to a landmark nuclear deal with the United States, has been finalised ahead of a meeting of officials of the two countries, a report said. Under the plan, New Delhi has finalised the list of nuclear plants to be identified as civilian and subject to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), The Times of India newspaper reported on Monday. The deal, signed in July by US President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, would give India crucial access to civilian atomic technology if it separated its nuclear facilities. India has been long denied advanced civilian nuclear technology since it tested atomic weapons and refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). "The list of civilian nuclear facilities that India will place under IAEA safeguards will be long enough to satisfy the Bush administration," the report said quoting unnamed Indian officials. Under the deal, the US Congress has to amend anti-proliferation laws to allow India to buy advanced nuclear technology once the facilities are separated. Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran, who heads the Nuclear Working Group with US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, will discuss the separation plans Thursday in Washington, the Times of India said. Some Indian security experts were, however, opposed to the deal saying it could effectively cap the country's nuclear weapons program. "The Manmohan Singh regime is ready to sacrifice sovereignty over nuclear decisions and to undermine the indigenous nuclear weapons sector," Bharat Karnad, professor at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi wrote in the Asian Age newspaper. Karnad said new nuclear plants would contribute only six percent of all the energy produced in India, which imports 70 percent of its oil and gas needs. Nuclear power supplies around three percent of India's fuel needs. But the country intends to raise this to 25 percent by mid-century. Copyright © 2005 AFP. All rights reserved. All information ***************************************************************** 30 Guardian Unlimited: No single solution for Britain's energy problems, says minister Mark Milner Tuesday December 20, 2005 The Guardian Malcolm Wicks, the energy minister, said yesterday there would have to be some form of "relationship" between the government and the energy market if Britain opted to build a new generation of nuclear power stations. But he made it clear it was far too early to discuss what form such a link would take. "If we go down that path, and I underline 'if', there would have to be some particular relationship between the state and the market. What that would be I don't know; we are not there yet." In a speech to the Social Market Foundation Mr Wicks made it clear that the government's energy review, announced by the prime minister last month, would not be looking to find a single solution to Britain's energy problems. "No such solution exists, no silver bullet - or uranium bullet." He warned that Britain could not duck its energy challenges. Around 19% of the country's electricity is generated by nuclear plants and another 33% from coal-fired stations. Mr Wicks noted, however, decommissioning could see nuclear's share of UK generation fall to 7% by 2020 while European Union directives on emissions could cut coal's contribution to 16%. "Taken together we are likely to see around 30% of our generating capacity being decommissioned over the next 15 years. In addition to already being a net importer of gas we will be a net importer of oil by the end of the decade." Unless Britain changes its energy policy "we run a real risk of falling behind our energy goals". Mr Wicks said investment decisions taken over the next decade would determine Britain's energy mix for the next 20 to 30 years. He added that the government needs to give the industry some clarity in order to ensure that those decisions are in line with its aims of reducing carbon emissions and achieving reasonable security of supply. Mr Wicks said that energy from renewable sources would play a key role, but it could not provide the complete answer to either generation capacity or carbon targets. "Other renewables will emerge over time as significant players such as microgeneration, wave and tidal. But currently only wind can provide meaningful levels of low carbon capacity at a cost comparable to existing non-renewable technologies such as gas, coal and nuclear." While nuclear was already part of the mix, Mr Wicks said Britain needed to look at what will happen as its share of generating capacity falls. "While nuclear excites interest and controversy, it can never be the only answer." He said: "Electricity generation is only 30% of the carbon emissions picture. We need to look to energy efficiency; our homes account for 30% of emissions. And transport is obviously also key - every individual and sector has a role to play if we are to meet our goal." Useful link Green party of England and Wales Email us Email your comments for publication to politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 31 Business Journal: Nuclear fuel missing - 2005-12-19 Southern Co. can't find radioactive material Staff Writer One day last May, workers at Southern Co.'s nuclear power plant near Baxley, Ga., made a disturbing discovery: 68 inches of dangerous used nuclear fuel rods were missing. An "exhaustive search" during the seven months since has failed to find the missing parts of rods, tubes a little wider than a pencil and as long as 14 feet. Fuel rods are placed in "assemblies" and then placed in reactors to generate energy. Southern Co. (NYSE: SO) on Nov. 10 disclosed publicly that the nuclear material was missing from its Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant. Officials of Southern Co.'s nuclear power subsidiary, , had been scheduled to hold a public meeting with Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in Atlanta on Dec. 15 to discuss the issue. But that meeting was canceled and has been postponed indefinitely so the company can further search for the material. Officials at Southern Co. have said the possibility of theft is "not plausible" and that there is no threat to public health or safety. Nonetheless, the NRC is watching the matter closely. "We want to know what happened and see that it doesn't happen again," said NRC spokesman Ken Clark. Search continues Southern Nuclear officials say the missing material might be somewhere in the plant's used fuel-storage pools or it could have been inadvertently shipped to a storage facility for less dangerous nuclear waste in Barnwell, S.C. About 30 Plant Hatch employees are conducting a search of paper and computer records as well as video recorded by robotic cameras inside the plant's two 40-foot deep Olympic-sized pools, said Southern Nuclear spokesman Steve Higginbottom. The facility in Barnwell, however, is not being searched, he said. Southern Nuclear CEO Barnie Beasley has been "very involved" with the search, Higginbottom said, and Southern Co. CEO David Ratcliffe is aware of the search but has not had a "hands-on role." In addition to examining millions of inches of nuclear waste, the team also is interviewing current and former employees who have worked there since the 1980s, Higginbottom said. Plus, Southern Nuclear has commissioned Marietta-based to assist. (The plant is powered by two GE Energy boiling water reactors.) "You want to get another set of expert eyes, especially when you're dealing with small pieces," Higginbottom said. He added that the amount of missing inventory could go up or down during the process. The discrepancy is the fourth such reported incident in U.S. history and the second-largest, according to the NRC. However, the NRC stresses there is no threat of any lost materials falling into the wrong hands. "No one stole that fuel and walked out with it," Clark said. "You can't just take that fuel out and walk out with it in your pocket. It would be deadly -- the radiation from the material would kill you quickly. Nevertheless, we still want an accounting for where it is." Breaching security would be nearly impossible. On top of physical barriers at Hatch and other plants, a would-be thief would have to get past armed guards and radioactivity and intrusion sensors, experts say. However unlikely, if a terrorist acquired even a few inches of used fuel rod parts, he could create a "dirty bomb," said William Miller, a professor of nuclear science and engineering at the University of Missouri-Columbia. A dirty bomb combines conventional explosives, such as dynamite, with radioactive material. According to the NRC Web site, a dirty bomb could contaminate several city blocks, "creating fear and possibly panic and requiring a potentially costly cleanup." "It could be used in that fashion," Miller said. "But so could thousands of sources, such as medicine. There are sources everywhere." Miller emphasized that the nuclear industry is extremely safe -- much safer since the Three Mile Island meltdown in 1979 -- and for that reason was surprised by Southern Nuclear's announcement. "I'd be terribly embarrassed if I was working at that plant," Miller said. "It's certainly not something that should be happening." New reactors planned The nuclear material is missing at a time when Southern Nuclear wants to build two new reactors. Southern Nuclear hopes to have one operational by 2015 -- possibly at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro, Ga. Southern Co. and other nuclear power plant operators also are pushing the federal government to build a permanent nuclear waste storage facility in Yucca Mountain, Nev. The Yucca Mountain complex, which is facing intense opposition from Nevada residents and environmentalists, was supposed to be complete by 2010, but that now looks unlikely. Southern Co. is embroiled in a lawsuit against the Department of Energy to recover costs associated with the delay. As a result of the delay, Southern Nuclear is planning to expand its storage capacity at Hatch by 2009, said Stan Wise of the Georgia Public Service Commission. Wise said costs associated with storage since December 2004 total $77 million. During the week of Dec. 12, Wise met with U.S. House of Representatives energy leaders and Department of Energy officials to press them on the Yucca Mountain issue. Wise estimates that Georgia Power customers have paid at least $518 million into a fund to pay for Yucca Mountain. Currently, Southern Nuclear is storing 6,540 used fuel rod assemblies in the two pools at Plant Hatch. The fuel inventory in Plant Hatch's two reactor cores and the two pools totals more than 57 million inches. Not the first time Southern Nuclear is not the first company to lose fuel rods. In 2002, the Millstone plant in Waterford, Conn., operated by Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc., reported it had lost two irradiated fuel rods -- about 288 inches' worth, according to the NRC. The NRC fined the company $288,000, or about $1,000 per inch. David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental safety advocacy group, said the Millstone incident sparked stricter policies in tracking nuclear inventory. Prior to the reported discrepancy, plants were required only to track complete fuel assemblies -- which are made up of 60 or so rods of varying lengths -- but now must track even small pieces of rods. In February, new rules passed by the NRC prompted Southern Nuclear to conduct such an inventory. The company became aware something was awry in May. Lochbaum, who worked at Plant Hatch in the early 1980s, said plants used to track inventory with index cards before computerization. "The tracking system didn't really track rods," he said. "It did an even worse job at tracking segments." Another discrepancy was reported at the Humboldt Bay plant near Eureka, Calif. The plant, decommissioned in 1976, was operated by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. The company reported in 2004 it was unable to find three 18-inch sections of a rod, according to the NRC. And in June 2005, the Vermont Yankee plant, operated by Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc., reported it had "temporarily" lost but later found 26 inches of spent fuel rod pieces, according to the NRC. Higginbottom said Southern Nuclear believes the Hatch parts were lost sometime in the 1980s. During a lengthy replacement process then, many rods were moved from one assembly to another, he said, and some pieces might have fallen into one of the pools or into one of the assemblies themselves. The materials are so deadly, they have to be handled underwater in the concrete and stainless-steel-lined pools. Higginbottom said those pieces over the years could've been "vacuumed" up or could still be caught in pool filters. As a result of the lost inventory and the new NRC rules, Southern Nuclear has changed its procedures to account for such parts, Higginbottom said. Other operators, experts say, have likely done the same thing. Southern Nuclear is scheduled to present a report on its search to the NRC sometime during the first quarter. Reach Rubner at jrubner@bizjournals.com. © 2005 American City Business Journals Inc. Add RSS Headlines Atlanta Business Chronicle email: ©2005 American City Business Journals, Inc. and its licensors. ***************************************************************** 32 RGJ.com: Grant allows cancer screenings for Test Site workers, others LENITA POWERS RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL --> Posted: 12/19/2005 [Related Article] More people, fewer cars in Virginia Street's future [Related Article] Snowstorm causes travel troubles in Reno-Sparks [Related Article] Grant allows cancer screenings for Test Site workers, others [Related Article] Reaction to Bush speech [Related Article] Billinghurst students to give reports test site screenings Who's eligible + Nevada Test Site workers, uranium mine workers and people who lived downwind of the site for at least one year between January 1951 to October 1958. Downwind residents must have lived in one of the following counties at the time: Eureka, Lander, Lincoln, Nye, White Pine and the northeastern-most portion of Clark County. + Also eligible are test site workers and residents in the above downwind counties who were there in 1962 for the one-month period of June 30 to July 31, when numerous atomic tests were conducted. What's available + Free medical screening and diagnostic services for the early detection and treatment of cancer and other health hazards associated with radiation exposure. + Up to $75,000 compensation for past medical costs to treat certain types of cancers for those directly affected by exposure to the atomic tests or compensation for their survivors who are immediate relatives. + Visit rgj.com for a complete list of the cancers that qualify for compensation. If you think you're eligible Contact the Nevada Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program at (702) 992-6887 or e-mail nevadaresep@unr.edu The University of Nevada School of Medicine has received more than a half-million dollars to provide free medical screenings for Nevadans exposed to radiation from above-ground atomic testing during the 1950s and 1960s. The three-year grant provides $580,000 to fund a program to find former Nevada Test Site workers, uranium miners and residents who lived downwind when atomic weapons tests were conducted in Southern Nevada. Dr. Thomas Hunt, chairman of the medical school's Department of Family and Community Medicine in Las Vegas, said the program will provide Nevada residents affected by the nuclear weapons tests with free medical screenings to detect and treat any cancer cases early. "The fact is our state was the site for these atomic tests, but a program like this has never been done here before," Hunt said. "It's really long overdue." The Nevada Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program will be the first to provide such an outreach effort, he said. Similar programs have been conducted in other Western states that were downwind of the Nevada Test Site, including Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Arizona. "Now Nevada residents will have that same opportunity," said Hunt, who learned this year that grant money for such a program was available from the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration. "I was lucky to find out about the grant," he said. "A colleague of mine told me about it in February, three weeks before the grant application was due. So I dropped everything, put a proposal together and found out in September that we were going to be funded." In a press release, Elizabeth Duke, head of the Health Resources and Services Administration, said the grant will help Nevadans affected by the atomic tests by providing information about diseases caused by radiation exposure and the importance of early detection. Duke could not be reached to comment on why other Western states already received funding for similar programs while Nevada, which was ground zero for the nation's nuclear weapons tests during the Cold War, did not. "I'm sure when they saw us applying, they thought, 'Yes, by all means, this was an oversight," Hunt said. Eureka rancher LeRoy Etchegaray remembers the remote flashes in the sky on the days nuclear bombs were exploded at the test site. "You could sure see the flashes and the light," said Etchegaray, 76. "Later, I'd feel a burning sensation on my face and any skin that was exposed." Mary Jean Etchegaray, his wife, said a huge dark cloud -- the apparent remnant of the dissipating mushroom cloud from the atomic explosion -- would stretch across the sky. "We didn't worry about it too much because it was so totally new to everybody, but as the years have passed, you certainly wonder," she said. Etchegaray said he hasn't been diagnosed with any cancers, but his wife is awaiting the results of a recent skin cancer test. Skin cancer is not one of the cancers that qualify for compensation under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, Hunt said. He said the top cancers linked to radiation exposure also are the most common cancers found among the general population: leukemia, lymphoma, thyroid cancer, breast cancer in men and women, colon cancer, ovarian cancer and lung cancer. "Not a lot is known about when somebody will develop these types of cancers and how much radiation exposure it takes to cause them," he said. "But I think it's great that the federal government finally said, 'We did this and it's time we seek out the people who might have been negatively affected and help them any way we can.'" Because more than half a century has passed since the tests began, many of those people probably are dead, Hunt acknowledged. "But a lot of radiation-caused cancer presents itself later in life," he said. "There were a lot of kids living in those affected areas back then, so now the youngest one is going to be about 43. If they were born in 1962, those cancers may start presenting themselves now." Located 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, the Nevada Test Site covers 1,375 square miles. Of the 928 nuclear explosions detonated at the test site, 100 were atmospheric tests. Nuclear testing began at the site in January 1951 and hit its peak with 96 explosions in 1962, the year of the Cuban missile crisis. The testing ended in 1992 when the United States entered a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing under President George H. Bush. "(Atomic testing) has been a real integral part of our state's history," Hunt said. "A lot of people have been affected by it, but a lot of attention hasn't been paid to it. We're very excited to be part of something that will make a difference to the health of Nevada citizens." border="0" align="right">© Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Co. Inc.Newspaper. ***************************************************************** 33 IPS-English ENVIRONMENT:France's Nuclear Waste Heads to Russia Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:07:53 -0800 ROMAIPS EU DV EN KP=20 ENVIRONMENT:France's Nuclear Waste Heads to Russia Julio Godoy* - Tierram=E9rica PARIS, Dec 17 (IPS) - France sends thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste t= o Russia each year, but the details are shielded by a decree of =94nation= al security=94 in order to block debate on the issue, says the environmen= tal watchdog group Greenpeace. =94This kind of traffic of nuclear waste between Western Europe and Russi= a has gone on for more than three decades already, and allows the big nuc= lear energy companies, like Electricit=E9 de France, to store their radio= active waste at extremely contaminated sites in Siberia,=94 Greenpeace-Fr= ance spokesman Gr=E9gory Gendre told Tierram=E9rica. On Dec. 1, some 20 activists from the environmental group tried unsuccess= fully to block a 450-tonne shipment of depleted uranium from the port of = Le Havre, 360 km northwest of Paris, on the Atlantic coast, to a radioact= ive material enrichment plant in Russia. According to the study =94La France nucl=E9aire=94, published in 2002 by = the World Information Service on Energy (WISE), each year the French nucl= ear station Eurodif, situated on the banks of the Rhone River, 700 km sou= th of the French capital, produces 15,000 tonnes of depleted uranium. Most of that waste is of no further use, and is simply stored at the nucl= ear plant. Today there are an estimated 200,000 tonnes of this nuclear ma= terial being warehoused there. But 30 to 40 percent of Eurodif's depleted uranium -- 4,500 to 6,000 tonn= es annually -- is sent to Russia, where it undergoes =94enrichment=94 to = turn it back into fuel for nuclear power plants. Just one-tenth of that u= ranium returns to France, and the rest remains in Russia, stored in inade= quate conditions, say the environmental activists. Greenpeace also warns that the uranium shipments are made using conventio= nal Russian transportation, without appropriate safety and security measu= res, along a route that passes through major cities like St. Petersburg a= nd Tomsk, and along the coasts of Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany,= Sweden, Norway and Finland. An accident or a terrorist attack could be devastating, says the group, w= hich filed a complaint with a Moscow court against the state-run Russian = company Tecksnabexport, entrusted with overseeing the uranium imports. The promoters of nuclear energy consider this source as an alternative fo= r generating power in a cleaner way than is possible with fossil fuels (p= etroleum, natural gas and coal) -- seen as the main culprits behind clima= te change. According to Charles Hufnagel, spokesman for Arevan, the French governmen= t agency that manages the production and treatment of nuclear fuels, the = transport of depleted uranium to Russia is =94a routine task.=94 =94Depleted uranium has very low radioactivity, and its shipment does not= pose safety problems,=94 said Hufnagel. But Stephan Lhomme, of the Sortir du Nucleaire (stop nuclear energy) fede= ration, says that minimising the health risks of radioactive waste only d= emonstrates the irresponsible attitudes of Areva and the French governmen= t. =94While it is true that depleted uranium is low in radioactivity, it con= stitutes a carcinogenic element, highly dangerous to human health,=94 Lho= mme told Tierram=E9rica. =94If that weren't the case, the world's armies = wouldn't use it as material to manufacture lethal weapons.=94 Routine or not, Areva has obtained =94national security=94 classification= for the issue, making the transportation of nuclear waste a confidential= matter, and has reportedly used government intelligence services to inti= midate anti-nuclear activists. Last week three Greenpeace activists were called in by the DST, the Frenc= h secret service for domestic security, to be questioned in relation to a= plutonium shipment made in February 2003. On that occasion, the Greenpeace activists blocked a truck carrying 150 k= g of plutonium. According to the organisation, DST's intervention =94prov= es that the French state and Areva want to stop any transparent debate on= the environmental safety issues related to atomic energy.=94 An August 2003 government decree states that all nuclear matters are =94c= onfidential=94 and =94national security=94 issues. Measures like this do not mean that France -- like the rest of Europe tha= t has utilised atomic energy in the past -- is off the hook for dealing w= ith the problem of nuclear waste storage, including plutonium, which take= s 24,000 years to lose just half of its radioactivity. A 1990 law established that in 2006 at the latest, France has to identify= a geological site appropriate for building a radioactive waste deposit. = Despite hundreds of tests on numerous sites throughout the country, the N= ational Assembly is expected in January to extend the search deadline to = 2016. Meanwhile, according to the national radioactive waste agency, there are = more than a thousand sites in France being used for temporary nuclear was= te storage, and some lack any type of protection. The volume of all types= of radioactive waste in France grows by 1,200 tonnes a year. (* Julio Godoy is an IPS correspondent. Originally published Dec. 10 by L= atin American newspapers that are part of the Tierram=E9rica network. Tie= rram=E9rica is a specialised news service produced by IPS with the backin= gof the United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Envir= onment Programme.) ***** +Tierram=E9rica (http://www.tierramerica.org/english/) +Greenpeace-France (http://www.greenpeace.org/france/) +Sortir du Nucleaire (http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/) (END/IPS/EU/EN DV KP/TRASP-LD/JG/TA/05) =20 =3D 12171702 ORP004 NNNN ***************************************************************** 34 [NukeNet] Utah Nuke Dump Site may be Protected as Wilderness Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:10:51 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) |From: "Melissa Kemp, Public Citizen" December 19, 2005 Victory: Congress Set to Approve Provision That Would Slow Private Fuel Storage Proposal And Designate Wilderness! Today's a day to celebrate! Thanks to an outpouring of phone calls, emails, letters, and lobby visits, Congress is poised to pass a provision in the Defense Authorization Bill that would protect nearly 100,000 acres of public land as wilderness, and interfere with the dangerous and unnecessary Private Fuel Storage (PFS) proposal to build an "interim" radioactive waste dump in Utah. The overall bill was approved by the House this morning, and is expected to be passed by the Senate sometime later this week. Thanks to everyone that made phone calls last week to members of the House-Senate Conference Committee to get this provision included in the final bill! The PFS proposal is unnecessary and dangerous, and would not help solve the nation's nuclear waste problem. In fact, corroborating these concerns last week, three of the eight utilities involved in PFS - XCEL Energy (the majority-stockholder in PFS), Southern Company, and Florida Power & Light - withdrew their support for the project. Southern Company withdrew completely from the consortium, while XCEL and FP&L both placed moratoriums on funding. These are important victories for stopping the dumping of radioactive waste in Utah, and for bringing more attention to the problems with radioactive waste generally. Thank you for all your help! If you have questions, comments, or a response to this email, please contact Melissa Kemp at mkemp@citizen.org. Mike Ewall Energy Justice Network 215-743-4884 catalyst@actionpa.org http://www.energyjustice.net _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 35 Moscow Times: Uranium Mine's Fate Hinges on Putin's Men Tuesday, December 20, 2005. Issue 3320. Page 12. By Catherine Belton Staff Writer What happens at the Krasnokamensk uranium mine is likely to depend on decisions made by the new head of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency, Sergei Kiriyenko. President Vladimir Putin appointed the Western-leaning, pro-market former prime minister last month and assigned him the task of rebuilding Russia's flagging nuclear industry. So far, talk of Kiriyenko's plans for the agency, known as Rosatom, has centered on making it more commercial, by improving profits from sales of Russia's nuclear know-how and supplies abroad, and investing more in the modernization of Russia's aging nuclear power plants. But, without a decision on whether to invest more in extraction projects such as Krasnokamensk, other measures could end up as just short-term solutions. Without supplies of uranium ore, other nuclear projects could become increasingly irrelevant as the industry would become less and less self-sustaining. The head of Rosatom's information center, Maxim Shingaryov, said Kiriyenko was still in discussions with other agency officials on how to move forward. Some industry insiders expressed doubts that outsiders like Kiriyenko could help. "Unfortunately, more and more people are being hired from the outside. ... Many of them just don't understand the industry," said Gennady Pshakin, who heads an analytical center on nonproliferation in the nuclear reactor town of Obninsk, outside Moscow. "They don't know the history of these combines. It is very difficult for them to understand what the root of the problem is and how to solve it as quickly as possible." Putin has appointed people close to him to some of the most important posts in the nuclear industry, including as heads of the two state-owned nuclear fuel trading agencies, TVEL and Tekhsnabexport, or Tenex. Fuel originating in Krasnokamensk is sold through both agencies to foreign partners. Having the end product sold abroad via two middlemen muddies the picture even further for the Krasnokamensk combine and makes it even harder to work out where the profits go. TVEL is headed by Alexander Nyago. Before Putin appointed him in 2001, he was general director of Telekominvest, a St. Petersburg-based telecommunications holding company that Leonid Reiman, now the IT and communications minister, helped found, and which is now entangled in a money-laundering investigation in Europe and the United States. Vladimir Smirnov, the president of Tenex, is another Putin ally from St. Petersburg, who also was appointed in 2001. He had headed up the St. Petersburg office of the real estate firm SPAG, which has been investigated for suspected money laundering in Germany and which counted Putin as the head of its supervisory board when he was deputy mayor in St. Petersburg in the early 1990s. Both Telekominvest and SPAG deny any wrongdoing. The Krasnokamensk mine and processing plant are owned by TVEL, a joint stock company that is wholely owned by the state. Rosatom supervises TVEL and has its representatives on the company's board of directors. © Copyright 2005 The Moscow Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 36 AU ABC: CLP up-beat about nuclear waste dump safety Tuesday, 20 December 2005. 08:00 (AEDT)Tuesday, 20 December The Country Liberal Party (CLP) says it is confident the nuclear waste dump planned for the Northern Territory will be the safest in the world. The Member for Greatorex, Richard Lim, visited the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in Sydney last week to observe how waste is safely transported and stored. Dr Lim says he saw how low-level nuclear waste is put into concrete-filled drums and stacked on racks in a steel warehouse. He says the process is low risk and can be replicated easily in the Territory. "I believe that the safety levels will be the best in the world and I will want to be part of the discussions with the scientists and the Commonwealth Government to ensure that whatever facility comes to the Northern Territory would be best practice so that we will have none of those risk factors," he said. The CLP says the facility could generate lucrative opportunities for local people. Dr Lim says non-government groups like Aboriginal land councils could also reap the rewards by putting forward alternative sites. "Private enterprise, including private people or private enterprise such as the land councils, can now freely negotiate with the Federal Government for a location within their own land," he said. "If they can do that they can maximise the financial and social benefits for their own country or their own people." ***************************************************************** 37 Salt Lake Tribune: Nuclear Waste: Harry Reid's bill provides temporary storage Opinion Last Updated: 12/18/2005 11:32:54 PM For years, Utahns have argued that spent nuclear fuel rods should be stored in the back yards of reactors rather in our back yard. Now that Nevada's Sen. Harry Reid has written a bill that would change U.S. policy so that these wastes would be stored at reactor sites, the congressional delegations of Utah and Nevada need to round up support for the idea elsewhere in the West. Because, whether they know it or not, all westerners share the prospect of being neighbors of the nation's nuclear dump. True, Nevada and Utah are the ones on the hot seat now, Nevada because of the permanent disposal site under construction at Yucca Mountain and Utah because of the interim storage site proposed for the Skull Valley reservation of the Goshutes in Tooele County. But the geological problems that have surfaced at Yucca Mountain suggest that it may never be a suitable place for permanent disposal, and without it, the construction of the giant dry cask parking lot in Tooele County makes no sense, either. If Yucca Mountain fails to pass technical muster, and the nation's leaders begin to look for a new location for permanent disposal, you can bet your last sawbuck that they will cast their eyes somewhere else in the arid West. Suddenly that hot seat could become a whole lot more crowded. For that matter, the whole notion of permanent disposal, at least as it was envisioned nearly 25 years ago, should be re-examined. One virtue of Reid's bill is that it would provide for interim storage in dry casks on the reactor sites while that re-examination takes place. That debate centers on whether it would be better to reprocess the waste so that it could be used again as reactor fuel. That would vastly reduce the volume of waste, but reprocessing entails risks of its own, including the production of weapons-grade plutonium. The status quo avoids that. In any case, under Reid's bill, the federal government would take legal custody of the existing stored waste, relieving that burden from the public utilities which operate nuclear power plants. It was a consortium of those utilities that proposed the Private Fuel Storage project in Utah as a temporary parking lot for the waste - if 20 to 40 years can be called temporary - until it could be shipped at some future date to Yucca Mountain for permanent disposal. If that future never comes, Reid's bill provides on-site storage while the nation looks for a better solution. ***************************************************************** 38 Waste News: Nevada senators sponsor legislation combating Yucca Mountain [Wastenews.com headlines e-mailed daily] [Win a DVD player] Dec. 19 -- Nevada’s two senators have introduced legislation aimed at derailing construction of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in their state. Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John Ensign, R-Nev., introduced a measure Dec. 14 that would mandate nuclear waste be stored on-site where it is produced and require the federal government to take responsibility for maintaining and monitoring the waste. For more than two decades, the federal government has been planning to build a central storage site in the Nevada desert for spent fuel from the nation’s nuclear reactors. But the project has run into technical and budgetary problems, and opponents are expressing concerns about the safety of storing the waste in Nevada as well as shipping it across country. ``The Yucca Mountain project is never going to open,’’ said Sen. Reid, the Democratic leader of the Senate. ``It is time we put the safety of this country first and approach the storage of nuclear waste in a way that is productive and realistic.’’ Storing waste on site would be the safest means of dealing with the spent fuel, while allowing nuclear power plants to continue operating, he said. ``What we are proposing today represents the safest and most responsible course of action available for storing nuclear waste,’’ Sen. Ensign said. The legislation, if approved, would require nuclear power companies to store waste on-site in dry cask storage containers. The containers could hold the waste for at lease 100 years, according to proponents of the plan. Companion legislation was introduced in the House by Reps. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Jim Gibbons, R-Nev. The Bush administration argues that a permanent, central storage site that is easy to monitor is the safest means of storing high-level nuclear waste rather than having storage sites spread across the country. The nuclear industry also opposes on-site storage and favors a central storage site. Entire contents copyright 2005 by Crain Communications Inc. ***************************************************************** 39 AU ABC: SA Govt branded hypocritical over nuclear waste proposal PM - Monday, 19 December , 2005 17:34:00 Reporter: Nance Haxton TANYA NOLAN: The South Australian Government has been accused of hypocrisy by the Federal Government for proposing a new nuclear waste site in the state's far north. A year-long feasibility study has recommended that the Olympic Dam mine site would be an appropriate repository for low and intermediate level radioactive waste, as long as the mine's new owners BHP Billiton agree to the idea. The Government is now negotiating with the company over the plan. Conservation groups are worried the proposal could become part of a deal to expand the uranium mine. Federal Liberal MP Christopher Pyne says the plan reeks of hypocrisy because of the State Government's fight against housing a national radioactive waste dump. Nance Haxton reports from Adelaide. NANCE HAXTON: Around 22 cubic metres of radioactive waste is currently being stored at 134 sites across South Australia, including universities and hospitals. The state's Environment Minister, John Hill, says while that amount is only enough to fill an average household kitchen, centralising the state's nuclear waste in one location is a much safer alternative. JOHN HILL: When this was talked about a year or so ago, Olympic Dam was suggested because it just seemed logical. If you talked to most people in the streets they'd say, "why don't you store it there?" It's got a company and a population, which is used to dealing with radioactive matters. They know how to monitor and how to test and how to provide appropriate security. There's already radioactive waste there from the mine operations itself, so they're used to dealing with it. And we believed, and the company at that time was of a similar view, that it wouldn't be much burden to put the rest of South Australia's waste up there. Of course, the ownership of the company since then has changed, and we're now involved in conversations with BHP Billiton about the provision of that facility for the state. NANCE HAXTON: The South Australian Government fought for years to repel a Federal Government proposal for a national radioactive waste repository on federal land in the north of the state. Mr Hill says he sees the two issues as totally separate. JOHN HILL: Well, the Commonwealth wanted to put all of Australia's waste in South Australia. We were opposed to that, as was the population of South Australia. And I'm sure Olympic Dam and BHP Billiton would be opposed to the thousands of cubic metres of waste from around Australia coming to their facility. They're prepared to assist us with the small amount that we have and I think that'd be as far as they would be prepared to go. NANCE HAXTON: And so, would BHP still have the right of refusal over having that repository there? JOHN HILL: Of course. This is… we're not compelling BHP Billiton to do it. We've asked them to be good neighbours and they've said they're prepared to investigate it, and I'm optimistic that we'll be able to get to some accommodation. NANCE HAXTON: However Christopher Pyne, the Federal Member for Sturt in Adelaide's leafy eastern suburbs, says the proposal smacks of hypocrisy. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: The South Australian Government didn't want a national repository, so now there'll be eight different ones around the country and one national one in the Northern Territory, so there'll be nine different nuclear waste repositories. Whether that's better than having just one for all of them, I guess is up to the South Australian public to decide. But it is a double standard, of course, for the South Australian Government now to have found a nuclear waste repository site, which apparently before they couldn't find. NANCE HAXTON: BHP Billiton spokesman Richard Yeeles says while there is some logic to storing the waste at the Olympic Dam site near where uranium is mined, the company is yet to fully examine the plans. RICHARD YEELES: Well, we only just received the report of the Government's feasibility study. We'll have a look at that report and then respond to the Government in due course. NANCE HAXTON: The Australian Conservation Foundation says it has concerns with the proposal to centralise South Australia's radioactive waste. Nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney says there is a history of spills from the tailings dam at Olympic Dam, and the foundation believes it would be safer to store radioactive waste at the site where it is used. DAVE SWEENEY: We have a situation now where BHP Billiton has an active application to turn Olympic Dam into the world's largest uranium mine - massive environmental impacts, massive consumption of water, massive generation of radioactive waste. And it's very important now, vitally important now, that there be no sweetheart deals, favouritism or preferential treatment given from the South Australian Government to BHP Billiton over its consideration of storing this material at Olympic Dam. TANYA NOLAN: That's Dave Sweeney from the Australian Conservation Foundation. ***************************************************************** 40 AU ABC: Uranium freight future unclear. 20/12/2005. ABC News Online Last Update: Tuesday, December 20, 2005. 12:06pm (AEDT) The freight operator on the Adelaide-to-Darwin rail line says it is still unclear whether it will carry uranium oxide from the Olympic Dam mine in South Australia on a regular basis. Freightlink was involved in a three-month trial this year carrying uranium oxide on rail to Darwin. Freightlink chief executive officer John Fullerton says the company is still waiting for a decision from the mine's owner, BHP Billiton. But he says it would help boost rail freight volume. "It's an important part of our business but it still would only ever remain a very small part," Mr Fullerton said. "There aren't large numbers of boxes of uranium that are exported but it's still an important part of our business - it helps establish the international trade through the Port of Darwin." ***************************************************************** 41 Laboratorytalk: One-step, 15-minute method to confirm perchlorate : News from Waters for Scientists and Laboratory Personnel" Edited by the Laboratorytalk Editorial Team on 19 December 2005 One-step, 15-minute method to confirm perchlorate Waters has a complete LC/MS/MS system to confirm perchlorate in drinking and irrigation water at levels below the US Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) official reference dose 0.0007mg/kg/day Note: Readers of the Editors free email newsletter will have read this news the week it was announced. Send us a blank email now to join the circulation. Its free! Perchlorate interferes with thyroid iodine intake which causes hypothyroidism, a condition affecting the entire body's metabolism. Waters's method combines a simple chromatographic separation technique using an anion exchange column, ammonium bicarbonate/acetonitrile mobile phase, and MS/MS detection. From injection to injection, the entire process takes 15 minutes to confirm perchlorate at parts per trillion (ppt) levels. Due to careless usage and improper disposal, water-soluble perchlorate can migrate through aquifers and surface water, contaminating soil, drinking and irrigation water. Perchlorate is cumulative so daily consumption of food and water tainted by perchlorate creates in vitro concentrations above safe levels. 'As the toxic effects of perchlorate become better known, the need to confirm its presence at low ppt levels grows,' stated James Willis, director of the Chemical Analysismarket development group at Waters. 'Regulatory agencies and laboratories now have a one-step method to confirm the presence of perchlorate at levels lower than what the USEPA mandates,' he said. Perchlorate has been detected in higher-than-expected levels in 35 of the 50 US states. Just recently, this chemical was discovered in a well that supplies drinking water for a school in the town of Boxford, Massachusetts. The levels detected were higher than the state's threshold. Perchlorate is found in fertilisers and in applications such as tanning and leather finishing, rubber manufacturing, paint and enamel production, lubricant oil additives and in solid rocket propellant. Waters's LC/MS/MS perchlorate method. Waters chemists have designed a method that combines chromatographic selectivity and Mass Spectrometryspecificity and sensitivity without requiring sample prep. The method uses Waters IC-Pak anion/HR chemistry, Waters Alliance HPLC and Waters Quattro micro API mass spectrometer. The anion exchange column separates all the compounds in a water sample. The ammonium bicarbonate/acetonitrile mobile phase chromatographically positions trace perchlorate levels between macro levels of chloride and sulphate typically found in food and water. For more information, please refer to the application note, The Determination of Perchlorate in Water Using LC/MS/MS, PN 720000941EN in the company's technical literature library. This method is the basis of the US Food and Drug Administration CFSAN perchlorate method and was adapted by the National Food Processors Association. It is also equivalent with USEPA Method 331. Copyright © 2000-2005 Pro-Talk Ltd, UK. Based on news supplied by Waters ***************************************************************** 42 Xinhua: Gulf Arab leaders call for nuclear-free region www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-12-19 21:13:14 President of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahayan attends the 26th Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) annual summit opened in Abu Dhabi, Dec. 18, 2005. (Xinhua photo) ABU DHABI, Dec. 19 (Xinhuanet) -- Leaders of six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states called here Monday for a Gulf region free from nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction amid rising concerns on Iran's high-profile nuclear issue. The call was made at the end of a two-day annual summit of the GCC, a regional alliance grouping Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar,Oman, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). However, a final declaration, read out by GCC Secretary General Abdul Rahman al-Attiya, did not single out the Iranian nuclear case nor voiced the alliance's specific stance over the issue. The Gulf Arab alliance expressed "regret" over the lack of progress in talks between the group and Iran over regional stability and security, according to the declaration. Iran's nuclear issue, drawing great world attention and closely watched by Gulf Arab countries, has been a key topic during the GCC summit. The alliance has earlier urged Iran to stick to the peaceful nature of its nuclear program and tackle the issue logically with western countries and Gulf Arab countries to avoid escalating tensions that might spill over to the Gulf area and do harm to the oil-rich region. "We have confidence in Iran, but we don't want to see the Iranian nuclear reactor, which is closer to our coast than to (the Iranian capital) Tehran, as a cause of perils and damages to us,"Attiya said earlier. Delegates to the summit said although the GCC has been concerned over Iran's nuclear program, the alliance tries to avoid provoking Iran and espouses a peaceful settlement of the nuclear issue. Yousif bin Alawi, Oman's Minister in charge of Foreign Affairs,was quoted by UAE's official WAM news agency as saying that the GCC did not intend to impose any pressure on Iran and that the group wanted to maintain good relations with its Shiite-dominated neighbor. Meanwhile, the GCC has declared that it will not mediate between the United States, which accuses Tehran of developing nuclear weapons under a civilian front, and Iran over the nuclear issue, saying Washington has not asked for GCC mediation. Talks between Iran and the European Union designed to settle Tehran's nuclear case have been in deadlock and a new round of negotiations are expected to start later this month. Iran insists that its nuclear program is peaceful and devoted to meeting rising demand for electricity, categorically denying Washington's charge of nuclear weapons ambitions. Meanwhile, GCC leaders urged Israel to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and subject its nuclear facilities to international inspection. Officials of the GCC countries have termed Israel's nuclear weapons as a threat to regional stability and security. Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, the only nuclear power in the region, rousing great concerns in Arab countries, which have fought five wars with the Jewish state. Israel has never admitted or denied that it has nuclear weapons. Separately, the GCC calls for resolving a dispute over three islands between the UAE and Iran through peaceful means, urging Tehran to make positive response. The three islands of Greater and Lesser Tunbs and Abu Musa at the mouth of the strategic Hormuz strait have been both claimed by Iran and the UAE. The UAE has recently proposed to refer the issue to the International Court of Justice for settlement, but rejected by Iran. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 43 Santa Fe New Mexican: LANL Former employee: Firing is retaliation Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:10 pm By Andy Lenderman | The New Mexican A former Los Alamos National Laboratory group leader says he was fired for speaking out about fraud and waste in the lab's procurement division. Harry J. Rodas, 60, said he was fired Oct. 31 at the end of his probationary period. Rodas said the lab hired him in October 2004 to help turn around the division, which spends more than $1 billion a year. The lab's procurement division buys everything from ammunition to chemicals, Rodas said. Rodas has not filed a lawsuit but has hired a lawyer to send a letter demanding more than $263,000 for one year's salary, health-insurance premiums and damages. The letter was sent by attorney Lynne Bernabei of Washington, D.C., to the University of California, which manages the lab, on Nov. 17. The university is reviewing the matter and communicating with Rodas' lawyer, spokesman Chris Harrington said by e-mail Saturday. "We firmly believe that the laboratory has strong and effective business management and procurement practices and policies in place," Harrington said by e-mail. Harrington did not comment further. Rodas, a lawyer and former general-division manager with the U.S. Postal Service, said he was hired from outside the lab to bring "best business practices" there. He also spoke out about the lab's Enterprise Project, a $200 million program proposed in 2003 and "intended to integrate the lab's finance, accounting, human resources and procurement functions in one automated system," according to Bernabei's letter. "They have gone through $200 million developing a system that is a disaster, that has never worked completely," Rodas said in an interview. "It works today; it doesn't work tomorrow. They have deliberately and very, very methodically eliminated people who would rise and say this doesn't work." Rodas said he was hired to help improve the procurement division's image. "It was a big show," he said. In 2004, two former lab workers were indicted by a federal grand jury on theft, fraud and embezzlement charges. The indictment alleged that Peter Bussolini and Scott Alexander of the facilities-management division used lab purchase cards to buy thousands of dollars worth of personal items, like lawnmowers and remote-controlled airplanes. Bussolini and Alexander pleaded guilty in October 2004 to charges of conspiracy and mail fraud in a plea agreement with prosecutors. And two investigators, Glen Walp and Steve Doran, were looking into allegations of missing property and fraud when they were fired by the lab in 2002. They were rehired in 2003 to report directly to the university. Shortly before he was fired, Rodas received a "highly favorable" performance review on Oct. 6, according to his lawyer. "This success is a testament to his management and leadership abilities," the review states. But Rodas was fired Oct. 31 and was told he was not a suitable fit for the position, according to Bernabei's letter. Rodas said he was fired "because the politics changed. It was an issue of get rid of (me) or admit to the world and (Department of Energy) that we have gone through $200 million and gotten nowhere." Bernabei wrote that the lab "illegally terminated Mr. Rodas' employment because he reported fraud, gross mismanagement, and gross waste of public funds to his supervisors within the lab, and was perceived to have threatened to disclose them to the Department of Energy and the University of California." The lab illegally retaliated against Rodas under the California Whistleblower Protection Act, Bernabei wrote, and violated his First Amendment rights. Bernabei also discussed ways to settle the situation without her client filing a lawsuit. "It is clearly in LANL's interest to resolve this dispute at this time prior to the initiation of litigation, which will be costly and undoubtedly cause further public embarrassment to the laboratory," Bernabei wrote. Bernabei asked for one year's salary, which Rodas said is about $113,000; payment for health-insurance premiums to the university's health-care plan; and $150,000 in damages for loss of future income and pain and suffering. Rodas said he spoke publicly about his case because many people at the lab are treated badly and subjected to "management by intimidation." He also said during his interview that he has never worked for Lockheed Martin Corp., Bechtel National or any other companies competing to win a new contract to manage the lab. He also said he did not own stock in those companies. Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or alenderman@sfnewmexican.com. Privacy Policy | ©2005, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 44 ABQJOURNAL: Report: Cost of Security Shutdown at LANL Unknown Monday, December 19, 2005 Albuquerque Journal--> By Jennifer Talhelm/ Associated Press WASHINGTON — A temporary shutdown of the Los Alamos National Laboratory during a security flap last year might have cost as much as $370 million, but the exact amount can't be calculated because of the way the lab recorded its activities, congressional investigators said Monday. Officials in July 2004 ordered a halt to virtually all work at the Los Alamos, N.M., lab after reporting that two computer disks containing classified information had disappeared and that a student working at the lab was partially blinded in a laser accident. Officials later determined that the disks never existed, but some lab activities didn't resume until this spring. The report was done at the request of House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas, who wanted investigators to examine the cost of the shutdown and whether the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration should have reimbursed the lab for costs during that time. The lab, which is run by the University of California, estimates the shutdown cost about $121 million, while the NNSA estimates the cost was as high as $370 million. In its report Monday, the Government Accountability Office found that neither was accurate and that GAO investigators also couldn't determine the expense because of the way the lab tracked its activities. However, NNSA's decision to reimburse almost all the costs appears to be reasonable, investigators said. University of California officials said the shutdown allowed them to identify and reduce security risks at the lab. "We firmly believe that Los Alamos National Laboratory is a safer, stronger and more secure laboratory,'' university officials said in a statement Monday. But the GAO investigators said the number of safety and security problems at the lab, which maintains the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, still are reason for concern. In addition, employees have long felt that safety precautions during hazardous experiments are cumbersome and unnecessary, according to the report. "It is clear that safety and security approaches at the laboratory need improvement going forward,'' the report said, adding that an NNSA manager had said "the safety culture at the laboratory is not as rigorous'' as other Energy Department facilities. The Energy Department is preparing to issue a new seven-year contract to run the lab and is expected to announce the winner at any time. Officials decided to put up the contract for bid following a series of scandals. The University of California has managed the lab since it was created during World War II. Two teams want the up to $79 million-a-year contract — one headed by Lockheed Martin and the University of Texas and the other led by the University of California and Bechtel Corp. To improve management and accountability, the GAO report recommended that the Energy Department require a higher performance rating of contractors in order to be awarded extra years to their contract terms. NNSA spokesman Bryan Wilkes said the agency takes safety and security seriously. "We will take GAO's recommendations under consideration,'' he said. Copyright Albuquerque Journal ***************************************************************** 45 DOE: Office of Environmental Management; Record of Decision for the FR Doc E5-7497 [Federal Register: December 19, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 242)] [Notices] [Page 75165-75172] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr19de05-52] Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Record of Decision. SUMMARY: DOE is making decisions pursuant to the Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) (DOE/EIS-287), issued in October 2002. The Final EIS presents the analysis of a proposed action containing two sets of alternatives: (1) Waste processing alternatives for treating, storing and disposing of liquid mixed (radioactive and hazardous) transuranic (TRU) waste/sodium-bearing waste (SBW) \1\ and newly-generated liquid radioactive waste (NGLW) stored in below-grade tanks and solid high- level radioactive waste (HLW) calcine stored in bin sets at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) on the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Site, previously named the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL); and ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ The Final EIS refers to SBW as mixed transuranic waste/SBW. However a determination that SBW is transuranic waste has not been made. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- (2) Facility disposition alternatives for final disposition of facilities directly related to the HLW Program at INTEC after their missions are complete, including any new facilities necessary to implement the waste processing alternatives. DOE plans a phased decision making process. DOE considered the information in the Final EIS, a related Supplement Analysis (DOE/EIS- 0287-SA-01) (SA), and comments received on the Federal Register Notice (70 FR 44598; August 3, 2005) that announced DOE's preferred treatment technology for SBW when making the decisions in this ROD. This first ROD addresses SBW treatment, facilities disposition, excluding the INTEC Tank Farm Facility (Tank Farm) and bin sets closure, and DOE's strategy for HLW calcine. DOE has decided to treat SBW using the steam reforming technology. The Department's preferred disposal path for this waste is disposal as TRU waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico. Until such time as the regulatory approvals are obtained and a determination that the waste is TRU is made, the Department will manage the waste to allow disposal at WIPP or at a geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and HLW. For facilities disposition, DOE has decided to conduct performance- based closure (to contamination levels below those that would impact the human health and the environment as established by applicable regulations and DOE Orders as determined on a case-by-case basis depending on risk) of existing facilities directly related to the HLW Program at INTEC once their missions are complete. Newly constructed waste processing facilities needed to implement the decisions in this ROD, such as the steam reforming facility for SBW treatment, will be designed consistent with clean closure methods and planned to be clean closed when their missions are complete, regardless of the classification of the waste they treat. All INTEC facilities directly related to the HLW Program will be closed in accordance with applicable regulations and DOE Orders. Further, consistent with DOE's Environmental Management Performance Management Plan for Accelerating Cleanup at the INEEL (July 2002), DOE's strategy for HLW calcine is to retrieve the calcine for disposal outside the State of Idaho. Accordingly, DOE will develop calcine retrieval demonstration processes and conduct risk-based analyses, including disposal options, focused on the calcine stored at the INTEC. After the Final EIS was issued, the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (NDAA), Pub. L. 108-375, was enacted. Section 3116 of the NDAA provides that certain waste resulting from reprocessing of SNF is not high-level waste if the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), makes certain determinations. Therefore, DOE plans to issue an amended ROD in 2006 specifically addressing closure of the Tank Farm Facility, which stored certain wastes resulting from reprocessing, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy's determination, in consultation with the NRC, under Section 3116. In a future ROD, DOE will decide the final strategy for HLW calcine retrieval, including determining whether and how to further treat, if applicable, package, and store calcine pending disposal. DOE expects to issue the amended ROD for HLW calcine disposition and bin set closure in 2009. The State of Idaho participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Environmental Impact Statement. The State provided the following input to DOE's decisions for waste processing and facility disposition. Waste Processing: The State of Idaho concurs with DOE's selection of steam reforming as the technology for solidifying remaining INTEC Tank Farm liquids, provided DOE obtains required permits for its treatment facility and post-treatment storage, and produces a waste form acceptable for disposal at a repository outside Idaho. Facility Disposition: The State concurs with the performance-based closure of existing facilities directly related to the high-level waste program at INTEC, once their missions are complete, subject to the State's separate approval of individual closure plans under the Idaho Hazardous Waste Management Act and compliance with section 3116 of the NDAA. The State also concurs with DOE's decision to clean close newly constructed waste processing facilities. Remaining Decisions: The State will provide additional input on DOE's remaining decisions for HLW facility disposition and calcine treatment, which DOE must make by December 31, 2009, in accordance with our 1995 Settlement Agreement. The State will continue to coordinate with DOE and the NRC as appropriate regarding the classification of tank residuals under Section 3116 of the NDAA, as well as the classification of other wastes. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the ROD and the Idaho Cleanup Project, contact Joel Case, Team Lead, U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, 1955 Fremont Avenue, MS- 1222, Idaho Falls, ID 83415, Telephone: (208) 526-6795. For general information on DOE's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, please contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, Telephone: (202) 586- 4600 or leave a message at (800) 472-2756. [[Page 75166]] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background From 1952 to 1991, DOE and its predecessor agencies reprocessed SNF at INTEC, prior to 1998 known as the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, on the INL Site. Reprocessing operations used solvent extraction systems to remove mostly uranium-235 from SNF. The waste product from the first extraction cycle of the reprocessing operation was liquid HLW mixed with hazardous materials. Subsequent extraction cycles, treatment processes, and follow-on decontamination activities generated additional liquids that were combined to form liquid SBW, which is generally much less radioactive than HLW generated from the first extraction cycle. These liquid wastes were stored in eleven 300,000- gallon below-grade storage tanks. The last campaign of SNF reprocessing at INTEC was in 1991 and HLW is no longer generated at INTEC. From 1963 to 1998, DOE processed HLW and some SBW through calcination that converted the liquid waste into a dry powder calcine. Additional SBW was processed by calcination from 1998 to 2000. At present, approximately 4,400 cubic meters of HLW calcine remain stored in six bin sets (a series of reinforced concrete vaults, each containing three to seven stainless steel storage bins), and approximately one million gallons of SBW remain in three 300,000 gallon below-grade tanks. Liquid SBW and newly generated liquid waste (NGLW) has continued to accumulate in the tanks from the calcination process, decontamination, and other activities. NGLW continued to be collected in the tank farm tanks from a number of sources at INTEC (e.g., laboratory drains, snow melt, sumps, and evaporator operations) until September 2005 and is now being stored in other permitted storage tanks. As a result of litigation, DOE and the State of Idaho reached an agreement in 1995 referred to as the Idaho Settlement Agreement/Consent Order (Settlement Agreement) that, among other things, provides for DOE to complete calcination of SBW liquid wastes by a target date of December 31, 2012. Although the agreement requires treatment of SBW by calcination, it also provides for modifying this requirement if supported by analysis and decisions under NEPA. The agreement also sets a target date of December 31, 2035, for treating all HLW and SBW to be ``road-ready'' for shipment out of Idaho. In 1997, DOE issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS to evaluate the environmental impacts of the range of reasonable alternatives for treating Idaho HLW calcine, SBW, associated radioactive waste such as NGLW, and for the disposition of related HLW Program facilities at INTEC. The State of Idaho participated as a cooperating agency in the development of the EIS to support the Settlement Agreement and to facilitate the EIS review process. In January 2000, DOE issued the Draft Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) (DOE/ EIS-0287D) for public review and comment. Subsequently, DOE and the State of Idaho received approximately 1,000 comments on the Draft EIS and considered those comments while revising the EIS. DOE issued the Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) (DOE/EIS-0287) in October 2002. The Final EIS presents the analysis of a proposed action containing two sets of alternatives: (1) Waste processing alternatives for treating, storing and disposing of liquid SBW and NGLW stored in below-grade tanks and solid HLW calcine stored in bin sets at the INTEC on the INL Site; and (2) facility disposition alternatives for final disposition of facilities directly related to the HLW Program after their missions are complete, including any new facilities necessary to implement the waste processing alternatives. After the Final EIS was issued, DOE conducted four workshops to inform the public about the five technologies that the DOE was considering for treatment of the SBW with the preferred disposition at WIPP. The five technologies were Direct Vitrification, Cesium Ion Exchange with a grout waste form, Calcination with Maximum Achievable Control Technology upgrades, Direct Evaporation, and Steam Reforming. Workshops were held from March 13 to April 28, 2003, in Jackson, Wyoming, and Idaho Falls, Twin Falls, and Fort Hall, Idaho. In addition, briefings were held with individual stakeholders through June 2003. The public was given the opportunity to provide comments on all technologies presented through August 31, 2003, via e-mail or regular mail. During the workshops and briefings, DOE informed the public that the DOE strategy was to select one of the five technologies for treatment of the SBW. Subsequently, DOE modified this strategy by incorporating the requirement for a contractor to propose a treatment technology for SBW in a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Idaho Cleanup Project (ICP) contract. At public meetings of the Idaho Environmental Management Citizens Advisory Board (CAB), public meetings conducted by the National Academy of Sciences in Idaho, and other meetings with local stakeholders, DOE informed the public that the DOE would identify a preferred treatment technology for SBW after the contract was awarded. At these meetings, DOE also informed the public that they would have an opportunity to provide comments on the draft RFP. DOE issued the draft RFP for the ICP contract for comment in February 2004. The draft RFP required bidders to propose technologies for treating SBW for disposal at WIPP and an alternative technical approach to prepare this waste for disposal as HLW in a geologic repository for SNF/HLW if this waste could not be disposed of at WIPP. The RFP also included the DOE strategy to meet the settlement agreement milestones for HLW calcine, facilities disposition, and segregating the NGLW from the Tank Farm Facility to other storage by September 30, 2005. DOE responded to comments received on the draft RFP and issued the final RFP in July 2004. On October 28, 2004, the NDAA was enacted. Among other provisions of the Act, section 3116 of this NDAA provides that certain wastes from reprocessing is not HLW if the Secretary of Energy (the Secretary), in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), determines that the criteria in 3116 have been met. Section 3116 provides that with respect to materials stored at a DOE site in Idaho, which activities are regulated by Idaho pursuant to closure plans or permits issued by the State, the term ``high-level radioactive waste'' does not include radioactive waste resulting from the reprocessing of SNF if the Secretary, in consultation with the NRC, makes certain determinations. Section 3116 is related to the requirements for the INTEC Tank Farm closure; therefore, tank closure will be addressed in an amended ROD in coordination with the Secretary's determination. In July 2005, DOE issued a SA (DOE/EIS-0287-SA-01) that documented DOE's review of changes in the proposed action and new information obtained (e.g., updated waste inventory) since the 2002 Final EIS was issued. Based on the analysis in the SA, DOE determined that there were no substantial changes in the proposed action and no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns bearing on the proposed action or its impacts, and that a supplemental EIS was not required. [[Page 75167]] DOE then issued a Federal Register Notice (70 FR 44598, August 3, 2005) that announced steam reforming as DOE's preferred treatment technology for SBW. II. Waste Processing Alternatives Considered The Final EIS analyzed six waste processing alternatives for HLW calcine, SBW, and NGLW: No Action; Continued Current Operations; Separations with three treatment options; Non-Separations with four treatment options; Minimum INEEL Processing; and Direct Vitrification with two treatment options. These alternatives are briefly described as follows: No Action Alternative Under this alternative, the New Waste Calcining Facility (NWCF) calciner would remain in standby, the SBW would remain in the Tank Farm, and the calcine would remain in the bin sets indefinitely. Continued Current Operations Alternative This alternative involves calcining the SBW and adding it to the bin sets, where it would be stored indefinitely with calcined HLW. Under this alternative, the NWCF calciner would remain in standby pending receipt of a RCRA permit from the State of Idaho and upgrades to air emission controls required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Separations Alternative This alternative comprises three treatment options, each of which would use a chemical separations process, such as solvent extraction, to divide the SBW and calcine into fractions suitable for disposal in either a geologic repository or a low-level waste disposal facility, depending on waste characteristics. Separating the radionuclides in the waste into fractions would decrease the amount of waste that would have to be shipped to a geologic repository, saving repository space and reducing disposal costs. The three waste treatment options under the Separations Alternative are described below. 1. Full Separations Option This option would separate the radioisotopes in the SBW and the HLW calcine into high-level and low-level waste fractions. The HLW fraction would be vitrified in a new facility at INTEC, placed in stainless steel canisters, and stored onsite until shipped to a storage facility or geologic repository. DOE would dispose of the low-level waste fraction on site, or at an offsite DOE or commercial low-level waste disposal facility. 2. Planning Basis Option This option reflects previously announced DOE decisions and agreements with the State of Idaho regarding the management of HLW and SBW. The NWCF calciner would remain in standby, pending receipt of a RCRA permit from the State and upgrades to air emission controls required by EPA. It is similar to the Full Separations Option, except that, prior to separation, the SBW would be calcined and stored in the bin sets along with the HLW calcine. After separations, the HLW fraction would be vitrified in a new facility at INTEC, placed in stainless steel canisters, and stored onsite until shipped to a storage facility or geologic repository. DOE would dispose of the low-level waste fraction at an offsite DOE or commercial low-level waste disposal facility. 3. Transuranic Separations Option This option would consist of separating the HLW and SBW into two fractions. The resulting fractions would be managed as TRU and low- level waste. There would be no HLW after separations under this option. The TRU fraction would be solidified, packaged, and shipped to WIPP for disposal. DOE would dispose of the low-level waste fraction on site or at an offsite DOE or commercial low-level waste disposal facility. Non-Separations Alternative This alternative includes four treatment options for solidifying HLW calcine and SBW. In the Hot Isostatic Pressed Waste Option and Direct Cement Waste Option, SBW would be removed from the Tank Farm and, after receipt of a RCRA permit from the State and upgrades to air emission controls required by the EPA, treated in the NWCF calciner. In the Early Vitrification Option and Steam Reforming Option, SBW would be retrieved from the Tank Farm and sent directly to a treatment facility. The four treatment options are briefly described as follows: 1. Hot Isostatic Pressed Waste Option Under this option, SBW would be calcined and added to the 4,400 cubic meters of HLW calcine currently stored in the bin sets. HLW and SBW calcine would then be treated in a high pressure, high temperature process that would convert the calcine into a glass-ceramic waste form. The final product would be packaged for storage and subsequent disposal in a geologic repository. 2. Direct Cement Waste Option Under this option the remaining SBW would be calcined and placed in the bin sets. HLW and SBW calcine would then be retrieved, mixed with cement, poured into stainless-steel canisters, and cured at elevated temperature and pressure. The canisters would be placed in storage for subsequent disposal in a geologic repository. Some secondary waste (e.g., tank farm heels) would be treated and sent to WIPP. 3. Early Vitrification Option This option would involve vitrifying both the HLW calcine and the SBW into a glass-like solid. The vitrified SBW would be sent to WIPP for disposal and the vitrified HLW would be placed in interim storage pending disposal in a geologic repository. 4. Steam Reforming Option This option would involve treatment of SBW by steam reforming. The central feature of the steam reforming process is the reformer, a fluidized bed reactor in which steam is used as the fluidizing gas. A solid, remote-handled waste form consisting of primarily inorganic salts is produced that is similar in form to HLW calcine. This option also includes packaging of HLW calcine without additional treatment for shipment to a geologic repository. Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative This alternative would minimize the amount of waste treatment at the INEEL by using the vitrification facility planned for the DOE Hanford Site in the State of Washington. The HLW calcine would be placed into shipping containers and sent to the Hanford Site where it would be vitrified. The SBW would be treated at INTEC where it would be separated into fractions in an ion exchange column to remove cesium. The HLW fraction would be packaged and sent to the Hanford Site for treatment with the calcine. The remaining TRU fraction would be grouted and disposed of at WIPP. Direct Vitrification Alternative This alternative includes two treatment options: Vitrification without Calcine Separations and Vitrification with Calcine Separations. The option to vitrify SBW and calcine without separations would be similar to the Early Vitrification Option. The option to vitrify SBW and the HLW fraction from calcine separations would be similar to the Full Separations Option. Under either option, SBW would be retrieved [[Page 75168]] from the Tank Farm, vitrified, and disposed of in an appropriate disposal facility. Under the Vitrification with Calcine Separations Option, calcine would be retrieved from the bin sets, chemically separated into a HLW fraction to be vitrified and a low-level waste (LLW) fraction to be grouted. Under the Vitrification without Calcine Separations Option, calcine would be directly vitrified. Under either option, vitrified HLW would be stored pending disposal in a geologic repository. Under either option, DOE would segregate NGLW from the SBW. The post-2005 NGLW could be vitrified in the same facility as the SBW or DOE could construct a separate facility to grout the NGLW. The vitrified or grouted waste would be packaged and disposed of as low- level or TRU waste, depending on its characteristics. Preferred Waste Processing Alternatives From the range of waste processing alternatives/options analyzed, two Preferred Alternatives were identified in the Final EIS, one by DOE and one by the State of Idaho. The Preferred Alternatives were identified after consideration of public comment and the following factors: Technical maturity, environment, safety and health (ES), cost, schedule, and programmatic risk. The DOE Preferred Alternative identified in the Final EIS for waste processing was to implement the proposed action by selecting from among the action alternatives, options, and technologies analyzed in the Final EIS. The selection of any one of, or combination of, technologies or options used to implement the proposed action would be based on the performance criteria of technical maturity, ES, consideration of public comment, cost, schedule and programmatic risk. Options excluded from DOE's preferred alternative were storage of calcine in bin sets for an indefinite period of time (analyzed under the Continued Current Operations Alternative), shipment of calcine to the Hanford Site for treatment (analyzed under the Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative), and disposal of mixed-LLW at INEEL (analyzed under multiple alternatives). On August 3, 2005, after the Final EIS was issued, DOE published a Federal Register Notice (70 FR 44598) identifying steam reforming as its preferred treatment technology for SBW. Steam Reforming is one of the options under the Non-Separations Alternative in the Final EIS. The State of Idaho Preferred Alternative identified in the Final EIS for waste processing was the Direct Vitrification Alternative. The State of Idaho preferred vitrification based on the belief that it was the treatment alternative with the lowest technical and regulatory uncertainty for meeting waste removal goals and provided a clear baseline for fulfilling the objectives of removal of waste from Idaho within the timelines envisioned by the Settlement Agreement. The State of Idaho was willing to consider other waste treatment options, if they were comparable or better than the Direct Vitrification Alternative in terms of environmental impact, schedule and/or cost. III. Facility Disposition Alternatives Considered The Final EIS analyzed six facility disposition alternatives: No Action, Clean Closure, Performance-Based Closure, Closure to Landfill Standards, Performance-Based Closure with Class A Grout Disposal, and Performance-Based Closure with Class C Grout Disposal. These alternatives reflect different ways to address the final risk component of the proposed action and close facilities directly related to the HLW Program at INTEC after their missions are complete. These alternatives differ in the degree to which land is considered ``cleaned up'' and in the type of use that could be made of the land as a result. These alternatives are briefly described as follows: No Action Alternative Under this alternative, DOE would not close the facilities identified in the Final EIS. Nevertheless, over the period of analysis through 2035, many of the facilities could be placed in an industrially safe condition (deactivated). Surveillance and maintenance of facilities would be performed to ensure the safety and health of workers and the public until 2095. For purposes of analysis, DOE assumed that institutional controls to protect human health and the environment would not be in effect after 2095. Clean Closure Alternative Under this alternative, hazardous wastes and radiological contaminants, including contaminated equipment, would be removed from the site or treated so the hazardous and radiological contaminants are indistinguishable from background concentrations. Performance-Based Closure Alternative Under this alternative, contamination would remain that is below the levels that would impact human health and the environment as established by applicable regulations (e.g., RCRA, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)), and by DOE Orders. Once the performance-based levels are achieved, the unit/facility is considered closed according to RCRA and/or DOE requirements. The residual contaminants would no longer pose an unacceptable risk to workers, the public, or the environment. Closure methods would be determined on a case-by-case basis. Closure to Landfill Standards Alternative Under this alternative, the facilities would be closed as established by regulations such as RCRA or CERCLA, and by DOE Orders for closure of landfills. Once the wastes within tanks, vaults, and piping are removed to the extent practicable and the remaining residuals are stabilized, protection of the public, workers, and the environment would be ensured by installing an engineered cap, installing a groundwater monitoring system, and providing post-closure monitoring. Care of the waste containment system would be provided, appropriate for the type of contaminants. Also, a landfill closure would include post closure activities such as monitoring and plans for appropriate response/corrective actions to be taken in the event of migration of contaminants above health based action levels. Performance-Based Closure With Class A Grout Disposal Alternative This is one of two alternatives that would accommodate the potential use of the Tank Farm and bin sets for disposal of the low- level waste fraction. These facilities would be closed as described above for the Performance-Based Closure Alternative. Following completion of those activities, the Tank Farm or bin sets would be used to dispose of low-level waste Class A-type grout (suitable for near surface disposal and would have radioactive concentrations in the grout that are less than Class A concentration limits specified in NRC regulation 10 CFR 61.55). Performance-Based Closure With Class C Grout Disposal Alternative This alternative would also accommodate the potential use of the Tank Farm and bin sets for disposal of the low-level waste fraction. The facility would be closed as described above for the Performance- Based Closure Alternative. Following completion of those activities, the Tank Farm or bin sets would be used to dispose of low-level waste Class C-type grout (suitable [[Page 75169]] for near surface disposal but would have higher radioactive concentrations in the grout than Class A-type grout, but would not exceed Class C concentration limits specified in 10 CFR 61.55). Preferred Facility Disposition Alternative In the Final EIS, both DOE and the State of Idaho identified performance-based closure methods as the Preferred Alternative for disposition of existing facilities directly related to the HLW Program at INTEC. These methods encompass three of the six facility disposition alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS: Clean Closure, Performance- Based Closure, and Closure to Landfill Standards. Performance-based closure methods would be implemented in accordance with applicable regulations and DOE Orders. Also, as analyzed in the Final EIS, consistent with the objectives and requirements of DOE Order 430.1B, Real Property Asset Management (previously DOE Order 430.1A, Life Cycle Management), and DOE Order 435.1 and Manual 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management and its Manual, all newly constructed facilities necessary to implement the waste processing alternatives would be designed and constructed consistent with measures that facilitate clean closure. Therefore, the preferred alternative for disposition of new facilities is clean closure. DOE and the State of Idaho weighed several factors in selecting the Preferred Alternative for facility disposition, including size and complexity of facilities, volume of waste streams generated during facility disposition, residual waste/contaminant risk reduction, technical and economic feasibility, and protection of the workers, public and environment. IV. Environmentally Preferable Alternative The Final EIS presents the environmental impacts for 14 areas of interest for the waste processing alternatives and the facility disposition alternatives. DOE considered those impacts in its evaluation of the environmentally preferable alternatives as described below. Waste Processing In 9 of the 14 areas of interest, the Final EIS indicates little or no environmental impact would occur under all of the action alternatives. In the remaining 5 areas analyzed (air, traffic and transportation, health and safety, waste and materials, and facility accidents), the results indicate short-term impacts from routine exposures, but they are small and do not differ significantly among action alternatives. Under normal operations, none of the waste processing action alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS would result in large short-term or long-term impacts to human health or the environment. Also, none of the action alternatives would result in appreciably different impacts on historic, cultural and natural resources. Under normal operations, the risk to workers and the public in terms of anticipated latent cancer fatalities over the life cycle of any waste treatment alternative (including No Action) would be less than one. Under the No Action and Continued Current Operations waste treatment alternatives, however, waste would remain in storage at INTEC indefinitely and would result in continued long-term risks. Under the No Action Alternative liquid SBW and solid HLW calcine would remain in storage indefinitely, and under the Continued Current Operations Alternative liquid SBW would be calcined, but the calcine would remain stored in the bin sets indefinitely. Though much of the radioactivity in the liquid SBW and solid HLW calcine would decay during the first 500 years, the material would continue to present a long-term risk to human health and the environment from potential releases of both radiological and hazardous waste. Waste processing alternatives that result in indefinite waste storage exhibit the longest window of vulnerability to accidental releases and therefore the highest anticipated risk of environmental impact. The Final EIS shows that, although unlikely, the estimated probability of the maximum reasonably foreseeable accident for the No Action and Continued Current Operations Alternatives is a factor of nine more likely than the comparable accidents for the other waste treatment alternatives that place waste in a road-ready form over a 35- year period. For these reasons, any of the waste treatment alternatives that place SBW and calcine in a waste form suitable for disposal would be environmentally preferable compared to the No Action and Continued Current Operations Alternatives. Facilities Disposition The Final EIS also evaluates the impacts of the facilities disposition alternatives. Under normal operations, the risk to workers and the public in terms of anticipated latent cancer fatalities over the life cycle of any facility disposition alternative would be less than one. Clean closure of facilities would restore the land to a condition that ``presents no risk to workers or the public'' and would be environmentally preferable in the long-term, but such action also would pose the highest short-term risk to workers because clean closure would require the most activity and result in the most impacts. Performance-based closure of facilities would also be protective of the public and environment in the short- and long-term, but would balance the risk to workers by tailoring activity to risk reduction. Under the facilities disposition No Action alternative, it is assumed for analytical purposes that institutional control would be lost after 2095. After that date, access would be uncontrolled, natural processes would degrade the facilities, and they could also be breached and the contents dispersed by human and animal activity. The deteriorating facilities would present some risk to the environment and human health over a long, indefinite period of time. It is estimated that 270 latent cancer fatalities could result from seismic induced failure of a degraded calcine bin set after 500 years. Also, the likelihood of an external event resulting in a release would increase over time. The maximum reasonably foreseeable impact from accidents during implementation of the facility disposition action alternatives result in an estimated two fatalities from non-radiological hazards, such as trauma, fire, spills, or falls, during clean closure of the Tank Farm. For these reasons, any of the facility disposition alternatives that actively close facilities under environmentally based standards would be environmentally preferable to the No Action Alternative. V.A. Comments on the Final EIS DOE received two letters commenting on the Final EIS. By letter dated November 18, 2002, the EPA raised four issues: (1) Reclassification of HLW and the nature and extent of separations or decontamination necessary to meet the requirements of DOE Manual 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual, which poses programmatic risk due to ongoing litigation and regulatory uncertainty, (2) the viability of the Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative (option of treating waste at Hanford), (3) DOE identifying a broad scoped Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS, which the EPA said did not meet the objectives of NEPA, and (4) the viability of the calciner as an alternative, its cost, and use of the EIS to delay closure of the calciner. [[Page 75170]] DOE provides the following responses to the EPA comments: 1. The Final EIS presents the analysis of the potential environmental impacts of retrieving and treating HLW, SBW, NGLW, and facilities disposition using various technologies and managing the wastes as either HLW, TRU waste, or LLW. Moreover, the analysis is not based on particular waste classification but is based on the estimated volume and radioisotopic content of the HLW, SBW, NGLW, and waste from facilities disposition. By preparing the analysis in a manner that is not dependent on waste classification, DOE has mitigated the impact of litigation and reduced the programmatic risks. Specifically, for SBW some EIS alternatives included an evaluation of retrieved SBW as HLW to be treated for disposal at a geologic repository for SNF/HLW; some alternatives evaluate retrieved SBW as TRU to be treated and disposed of at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant; and some alternatives evaluate SBW to be separated into HLW, TRU waste and LLW fractions. Moreover, DOE will manage the SBW to permit disposal at either WIPP or at a geologic repository for SNF/HLW and will evaluate the waste form to determine its suitability for disposal. 2. The Final EIS presents an alternative that would treat INL Site waste at Hanford by taking advantage of a national investment in significant waste treatment capabilities and facilities in the State of Washington. Both the INL Site and Hanford are DOE facilities in the Northwest region of the U.S. and have wastes derived from similar sources. INL Site wastes could be treated using treatment processes being developed at Hanford prior to being transported to WIPP or a geologic repository for SNF/HLW for disposal. Therefore, DOE believes this alternative is reasonable and analyzed the alternative as required by NEPA. Further, DOE believes it is important to inform national and state decision makers of this alternative for treating INL Site wastes at Hanford, especially in view of the costs and risk involved in developing the same capabilities at two sites about 550 miles apart. The Final EIS presents associated risks, including transportation, and considers issues associated with meeting Hanford's schedule for waste treatment of Hanford waste. 3. Regarding EPA's concern with DOE's broad expression of its preferred alternative in the Final EIS, DOE believes that the phased decision making process under this EIS not only meets the objectives of NEPA, but also includes meaningful public participation opportunities that substantially exceed the applicable regulatory requirements. DOE identified its preferred alternative in the Final EIS as follows: ``DOE's preferred waste processing alternative is to implement the proposed action by selecting from among the action alternatives, options and technologies analyzed in this EIS. The selection of any one of, or combination of, technologies or options used to implement the proposed action would be based on performance criteria that include risk, cost, time, and compliance factors.'' DOE did not identify a preference for a specific SBW treatment technology in this expression of preferred alternative. Rather, DOE first provided additional opportunities for public participation as part of its evaluation of the alternative technologies analyzed in the EIS, which included steam reforming, the technology that DOE is selecting today. Under this phased decision making strategy, after issuing the Final EIS, DOE conducted four public workshops to inform the public about the five technologies that DOE was considering. Further, DOE provided additional public comment opportunities on the draft RFP for the Idaho Cleanup Project, which required bidders to propose technologies for SBW treatment. Finally, DOE announced its preference for a specific SBW treatment technology, steam reforming, in a Federal Register Notice (70 FR 44598; August 3, 2005), and again provided the opportunity for the public to comment. Section V.B. summarizes the comments received and DOE's responses. 4. DOE has determined that the alternative of reconfiguring the calciner in the New Waste Calcining Facility with Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) upgrades is reasonable because calcination is a proven process for reliably placing liquid HLW and SBW into a powder form. The Final EIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts of operating the calciner with MACT air emission upgrades. Compliance requirements and potential conflicts with state and Federal law are also considered. Prematurely taking irreversible closure actions on the calciner would limit the choice of reasonable alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS. In a November 21, 2002 letter, the INEEL CAB raised some of the same issues expressed by the EPA. In addition, the CAB recommended that DOE re-issue the Final EIS or issue a supplemental EIS and that DOE provide meaningful opportunities for the public to review and comment on the selection of technologies. DOE provides the following response to the INEEL CAB (Now the INL EM CAB) comments: As described in Section I of this ROD, DOE prepared a Supplement Analysis to examine whether a supplemental EIS is required. Based on the Supplement Analysis, DOE determined that there has been no change in the proposed action or significant new information or circumstances relevant to environmental concerns that would require DOE to re-issue the Final EIS or prepare a supplemental EIS. If DOE were to re-issue the Final EIS or prepare a supplemental EIS that identified a preferred alternative focusing on a single technology, it would not enhance the detail or precision of the environmental analysis. As part of continued public involvement, DOE held workshops in 2003 to obtain public input on the technologies being considered for treatment of the SBW. Further, as described above, DOE provided meaningful opportunities for the public to participate in identifying their concerns related to the proposed technologies for treatment of the SBW in the DOE technology selection process. The public also was provided an opportunity to comment on the draft RFP. DOE believes that these public participation opportunities, which exceed DOE's obligations under NEPA, were responsive to the CAB's comment. V.B. Comments in Response to the August 3, 2005, Federal Register Notice of Preferred Sodium Bearing Waste Treatment Technology (70 FR 44599), That Invited Public Comments on DOE's Preferred Treatment Technology DOE received comments from the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, INL EM Citizens Advisory Board, Coalition 21, Snake River Alliance, Mr. Barry O'Brian, Mr. G.V. Wieg, and Mr. D. Siemer in response to the August 3, 2005, Notice. The comments in these documents did not raise any new issues relevant to environmental concerns that were not addressed in the Final EIS. The commentors expressed five general areas of concern: (1) Several commentors expressed concerns regarding the disposition uncertainty for the treated SBW and recommended deferral of the SBW treatment decision until a waste determination is made for the SBW and a disposal facility is identified (i.e., WIPP or a geologic repository for SNF/HLW). Commentors also stated if the Department does make a SBW treatment technology selection, the selected treatment method should be neutral with regard to repository [[Page 75171]] requirements; (2) Several commentors questioned whether DOE adequately considered all the alternatives for the treatment of SBW and some suggested that vitrification is the best technology for the treatment of SBW; (3) There were several comments related to the type and availability of shipping containers and the mode of transportation; (4) Several commentors expressed concerns related to the design of the steam reformer facility and the type of product created, and whether that waste form can be properly disposed of; and (5) Some commentors recommended that facilities disposition decisions should be addressed in a future, separate, ROD. DOE provides the following responses to the comments received: 1. DOE believes that delaying the SBW treatment technology decision does not support both the Department's and the State of Idaho's priority to reduce potential risk to the Snake River Plain Aquifer. In addition, the product resulting from steam reforming is neutral regarding repository requirements and can be integrated with the calcine disposition path if it cannot be disposed of at WIPP. 2. During the NEPA process, DOE evaluated the environmental impacts of the range of reasonable alternatives, including vitrification, in the preparation of the Final EIS. DOE identified steam reforming as its preferred treatment technology for SBW after consideration of public comment and the following factors: Technical maturity, environment, safety and health (ES), schedule, and programmatic risk, as presented in the Final EIS. DOE also considered the cost of the various alternatives. This technology supports the Settlement Agreement milestone to treat SBW by December 31, 2012 (see Section VII of this ROD, Basis for Decision). 3. DOE evaluated the environmental impacts of transportation in the Final EIS, which shows that transportation risks would be small. It should be noted that the Department of Transportation regulates the shipment of the waste while the NRC regulates the packaging of the material for shipment. DOE will ship all wastes in accordance with applicable regulations regardless of the mode of shipment. There are no known regulatory issues associated with the packaging and shipping of the reformed product. 4. The steam reformer facility will be designed and constructed to meet all applicable regulatory and safety requirements (e.g., emission and radiological controls). DOE must also obtain the appropriate permits to construct and operate the facility. Presently, DOE is planning to create a carbonate waste product from the steam reformer which is similar in form to the HLW calcine. DOE anticipates the solid waste form will be acceptable for disposal at WIPP, or if not acceptable at WIPP, would be integrated into the strategy for management of HLW calcine. 5. The Department believes it is prudent to proceed with facilities disposition decisions at INTEC to reduce the overall risk to the Snake River Plain Aquifer and to support the cleanup at the INL Site. VI. Decision DOE plans a phased decision making process. This first ROD focuses on SBW treatment, NGLW, facilities disposition excluding the Tank Farm Facility and bin sets closure, and DOE's strategy for HLW calcine. SBW Treatment: The existing INTEC Evaporators will continue to operate to reduce SBW volume to enable DOE to cease use of the Tank Farm tanks by December 31, 2012, pursuant to the Notice of Noncompliance Consent Order between DOE and State of Idaho. DOE has decided that SBW will be treated using the steam reforming technology. The Department's preference for this treated waste is disposal as TRU waste at WIPP near Carlsbad, New Mexico. Until such time as the regulatory approvals are obtained and a determination the waste is TRU is made, the Department will manage the waste to allow disposal at WIPP or at a geologic repository for SNF and HLW. The State of Idaho concurs with DOE's selection of steam reforming as the technology for solidifying remaining INTEC Tank Farm liquids, provided DOE obtains required permits for its treatment facility and post-treatment storage, and produces a waste form acceptable for disposal at a repository outside Idaho. NGLW: NGLW is no longer being sent to the Tank Farm and is being stored in other permitted storage tanks. This NGLW may be treated in the same facility and with the same technology used to treat SBW, or grouted in a facility constructed for that purpose, and disposed of as either low-level or TRU waste, depending on its radioactive waste characteristics, at an offsite DOE or commercial facility. The State of Idaho concurs with DOE's decision to segregate newly generated liquid waste at INTEC and manage it in compliance with the Idaho Hazardous Waste Management Act and other legal requirements. Facilities Disposition: DOE has decided to conduct performance- based closure of existing facilities directly related to the HLW Program at INTEC, excluding the tank farm and bin sets, once their missions are complete. Performance based closure activities will be implemented in accordance with applicable regulations and DOE Orders. The method of closure for specific facilities will be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on risk, and may include closure to landfill standards. Newly constructed waste processing facilities, such as the steam reforming treatment facility, at INTEC necessary to implement the decisions in this ROD will be designed consistent with clean closure methods in accordance with the objectives and requirements of DOE Order 430.1B, Real Property Asset Management (previously DOE Order 430.1A, Life Cycle Management), and DOE Order 435.1 and Manual 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management and its Manual and closed when their missions are complete regardless of the characteristics of the waste they treat. These closure activities are analyzed in the Final EIS. The State concurs with the performance-based closure of existing facilities directly related to the high-level waste program at INTEC, once their missions are complete, subject to the State's separate approval of individual closure plans under the Idaho Hazardous Waste Management Act and compliance with section 3116 of the NDAA, where applicable. The State also concurs with DOE's decision to clean close newly constructed waste processing facilities. HLW Calcine: Consistent with DOE's Environmental Management Performance Management Plan for Accelerating Cleanup at INEEL, DOE's strategy for HLW calcine is to retrieve the calcine for disposal outside the State of Idaho. Accordingly, DOE will develop calcine retrieval demonstration processes and conduct risk-based analyses, including disposal options, focused on the calcine stored at the INTEC. This strategy will culminate in the issuance of a future ROD, as discussed below. The State of Idaho will provide additional input on DOE's remaining decisions for calcine treatment, which DOE must make by December 31, 2009 in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. Future RODs DOE will issue an amended ROD addressing closure of the Tank Farm in coordination with the Secretary's determination, in consultation with the NRC, as to whether or not the waste residuals in the tank system, the tanks, [[Page 75172]] vaults, piping and associated ancillary equipment are HLW in accordance with Section 3116 the NDAA. That determination and amended ROD are expected to be issued in calendar year 2006. The State of Idaho has stated that: The State will continue to coordinate with DOE and the NRC as appropriate regarding the classification of tank residuals under Section 3116 of the NDAA, as well as the classification of other wastes. DOE plans to issue another amended ROD in 2009 that will contain DOE's decision on the final strategy for HLW calcine retrieval and the technology for additional treatment, if necessary, packaging and safe storage based on transportation and disposal requirements. Following that amended ROD, DOE would begin to manage the HLW calcine so it is ready to be moved out of Idaho for disposal by a target date of 2035, in accordance with the 1995 Settlement Agreement. Additionally, it is DOE's goal to complete calcine retrieval, packaging, additional treatment (if required) and shipping to a geologic repository for SNF/ HLW by December 2035, as described in DOE's Environmental Management Performance Management Plan for Accelerating Cleanup at INEEL. In addition, the amended ROD will address closure of the bin sets and their associated facilities. VII. Basis for Decision Based on the analysis in the Final EIS, all of the waste processing alternatives that treat the SBW and remove the calcine would have small environmental impacts. The long-term impacts of the No Action and Continued Current Operations alternatives (i.e., the uncertainty of leaving the SBW and calcine in storage), however, are uncertain and could be high. Implementing any of the action alternatives through the technologies or options analyzed in the Final EIS and a related SA (DOE/EIS-0287-SA-01) would eliminate the element of uncertainty and provide the most certain long-term protection of the environment. DOE's decision to use the steam reforming technology for the treatment of SBW is based on DOE's consideration of environmental impacts, programmatic needs, safety and health risks, technical viability, ability to meet regulatory requirements and agreement milestones, public comments, and cost. DOE believes steam reforming provides the best value to the Government and meets its need for treatment flexibility, acceptable cost, and probability of success. DOE's decision to defer a final decision on calcine is based on the need to continue detailed evaluation of repository performance criteria, regulatory requirements, cost, schedule, and programmatic risk. DOE's decision to implement performance-based closure methods for disposition of existing facilities directly related to the HLW Program at INTEC and plan to clean close newly constructed facilities, such as the steam reforming facility for SBW treatment, was based on the analysis of the potential environmental impacts identified in the Final EIS as well as to meet regulatory requirements, such as RCRA, and because each method of closure is determined on a case-by-case basis. DOE's decision to defer a final decision for closure of the Tank Farm was based on DOE's intent to coordinate this decision with the Secretary's determination, in consultation with the NRC, under Section 3116 of the NDAA that will allow DOE to decide the appropriate performance-based closure method. No impact resulting from normal operations under any of the alternatives or options analyzed would require specifically designed mitigation measures. DOE will, however, adopt all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm when implementing the actions described in this ROD. Those measures include employing engineering design features to address flooding, emission controls to reduce or eliminate releases of pollutants and meet regulatory requirements, maintaining a rigorous health and safety program to protect workers from radiological and chemical contaminates, and continuing efforts to reduce the generation of wastes. These decisions are also consistent with the objectives of the DOE Environmental Management Performance Management Plan for Accelerating Cleanup at INEEL. Issued in Washington, DC, this 13th day of December 2005. James A. Rispoli, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. [FR Doc. E5-7497 Filed 12-16-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 46 lamonitor.com: LANL assessment group examines trails The Online News Source for Los Alamos CAROL A. CLARK, , Monitor Staff Writer More than a dozen trails on lab property are being inventoried, mapped and documented in historical reports by members of the LANL Trails Assessment Working Group. Group chair Dan Pava said Los Alamos County is predominantly federal land with only 12 percent private land for development. "In and around Los Alamos County there is a lot of land accessible to the public that is administered by agencies such as the forest services and Bandelier," he said. Pava explained that post 9-11 security and safety issues came up in addition to the rising need for an assessment of environmental resource issues. "DOE said our policy about trails is that we didn't have a trails policy," Pava said. "We need a policy but it's a big deal because of the National Environmental Policy Act, which states that when a federal agency wants to do something important, they need an Environmental Impact Statement." Pava, an environmental planner with the lab's ecology group said the group got busy and set up criteria for assessing the trails. Their decision analysis included looking at 13 trails, 11 existing and two proposed. They conducted a preliminary analysis on the trails and found three trails that stuck out: + A proposed trail to link White Rock and Los Alamos. + Mortandad Canyon. + Mortandad Cave Kiva Trail. The LANL Trails Assessment Working Group held 14 meetings between December 2003 and last month. "After all those meetings and lots of work in between meetings, we are now at a point where we can make recommendations," Pava said. "We found some trails needed work and that the Mortandad Cave Kiva Trail needed to be closed." The Ecology Group's Cultural Resources Team Leader Brad Vierra described some of the reasons for the trail's closure. "Most of us appreciate and respect the cultural aspects of the trails but not everyone does," Vierra said. "Somebody carved their initials into the cave kiva and somebody carved a peace sign on a cliff face. People are picking up artifacts like shard and taking all the black-and-white pottery away with them. And just the heavy use of people being out there has taken its toll." Because of the impact of severe overuse, looting, defacing of petroglyphs, environmental degradation, health and safety concerns, trail erosion, threats of cultural resource degradation and trespass onto Pueblo lands, Mortandad Cave Kiva Trail officially closed Monday. "Mortandad Cave Kiva at TA-5 is one of four properties at the lab to be considered for national landmark status, including Sandia Cave Kiva (TA-72), Tsirege Pueblo (TA-54), and Nake'muu Pueblo (TA-37)," Vierra said. "It's important to protect and preserve its rich history but this is not the end. The Mortandad Cave Kiva Trail will be opened up to the public for a weekend each May during New Mexico Preservation month." Reasons to protect the trails Vierra expressed three reasons for protecting trails: + Respect. + Scientific values. + Federal law. Vierra likened the action of some people removing artifacts from the trails to that of ripping pages out of a rare book. "Every time they take something away, they leave us with less knowledge of the story of the people who were living there," he said. LANL Archaeologist Bruce Masse also is a member of the LANL Trails Assessment Working Group. He said people in the county and at the lab have enjoyed hiking on the trails since the Manhattan Project and that's been one of the perks of living in the area but that over time things have change. "Mortandad Canyon is a habitat for endangered species," Masse said. "The working group collectively decided that Mortandad Cave Kiva had to be closed and the official recommendation to close Mortandad Canyon will likely follow in the near future." He said the working group has conducted numerous field inspections during the last two years. Masse and biologist Sherri Sherwood walked every trail in TA-71 south of Pajarito Acres - some 24 including trails and trail segments, he said. "Our analysis on TA-71 saw no reason not to leave that trail system open with the exception of a few segments because of erosion or conflicts with archaeological sites," Masse said. Pava said the LANL trails management program is an on-going program that over time will look at each trail on lab land and also will examine the possibility of forming a volunteer program to help manage the trails. Besides Masse, Pava and Vierra, the working group consists of some 20 members including representatives from Bandelier, the forest service, technical experts from the county, LANL and DOE, and the Accord Pueblos including San Ildefonso and Santa Clara. The lab's trails management program goals include: + Reducing the risk of damage and injury to property, human life and health, and sensitive natural and cultural resources from social trail use at LANL. + Facilitating the establishment of a safe, viable network of linked trails across the Pajarito Plateau without posing a threat to or disrupting laboratory operations. + Maintaining the security of laboratory operations. + Respecting the wishes of local pueblos to maintain access to traditional cultural properties by pueblo members while also preventing unauthorized public access to adjacent pueblo lands and other lands identified as both religious and culturally sensitive areas to Native American communities. + Adapting trail use at the laboratory to changing conditions and situations in a responsive manner. Trying to keep public informed The working group has made a concerted effort to apprise the public of their findings. Most recently they hosted a presentation at the White Rock Town Hall. The presentation addressed issues surrounding the closure of Mortandad Cave Kiva Trail and also addressed plans for maintaining trails south of White Rock. Masse added that it's important for the public to understand the historic values of the area. "The Antiquities Act of 1906 came about as a result of the value of the cultural resources that congress saw on the Pajarito Plateau," Masse said. "The Pajarito Plateau is one of the richest archaeological areas in the entire country and we sit in the middle of it. The entire Pajarito Plateau was originally under consideration for an archaeological park and as a compromise, Bandelier was established in 1916." The working group is continuing on They've identified priorities, addressed the most serious issues and are now considering adding volunteers to the group as they move forward in their efforts to create a good plan to manage all the trails involved in their assessment area. "People don't have to worry that we are closing trails forever," Masse said. "Some trails will be open at certain times and may be used as educational opportunities for the public. It's a quality of life thing for living in this area and we recognize that." © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 47 lamonitor.com: Uncovered explosives slow cleanup The Online News Source for Los Alamos , , Monitor Staff Writer Explosives found in the vicinity of the Los Alamos County Airport have caused a delay in an ash cleanup project led by the Department of Energy. An ash removal project, in which the DOE scheduled the clean up of a site that contained old incinerator operations, was temporarily halted after a Los Alamos National Laboratory bomb squad discovered a World War II Japanese rifle grenade at a work site Nov. 16, said project manager Bob Enz. A separate grenade pin also was found in the area. "The Los Alamos County Sheriff's office was called and they were asked to shut down the airport as well as road access there," he said. The airport shut down lasted six hours, as the bomb squad detonated the grenade at the site. Afterward, the ash removal project plan was altered and in four weeks, the DOE drafted a UXO - unexploded ordinance - that called for the project to be completed in cooperation with the Corps. of Engineers, who were subcontracted for the job, Enz said. "We all came together on how to go about with the cleanup process," he said. "We had a new situation and had to worry about the potential of finding more grenades." The discovery of the grenades, and having to spend additional time and resources in modifying the work plan, has not significantly offset the completion of the project, Enz said. "This change does not affect our deadline to the state," he said of the Sept. 12 completion date. "It will just lengthen the time it takes to clean up debris and clean up ash material. Having to have UXO experts at the site as they go to each work site and clear paths and double check material as it goes up to the top takes extra time. We have a lot of quality double checks to certify that no grenades are in the material." The DOE conducted a sampling of the ash on the site to identify its composition and determine the best method for its removal off the disposal site, which dates back to the 1940s. Analyses of the ash reveal that it contains low levels of radioactive constituents, including radium 226, plutonium 239, uranium 234, uranium 235 and uranium 238, Enz said. The site is located on the north-facing slope of Pueblo Canyon, several hundred feet northwest of the airport. The old ash pile is approximately 150 feet wide and another 150 feet below the mesa top. The DOE expects to move approximately 2,100 cubic yards of ash material and 450 cubic yards of tin cans and other debris. The old disposal site is the result of incinerator operations that were last active in 1947. The waste primarily consisted of office and municipal waste that was burned in the old incinerator building, located just northwest of the airport. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************