***************************************************************** 12/20/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.295 ***************************************************************** 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: Iran, EU to meet on resuming nuclear dialogue 2 Korea Times: NK to Intensify Graphite Moderated Reactor Activities 3 Korea Times: Seoul Denies Plutonium Production Allegation 4 Korea Times: Pyongyang's New Offensive 5 AFP: North Korea to develop light-water nuclear reactors 6 Xinhua: DPRK vows to pursue peaceful nuclear activities 7 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Aims to Boost Nuclear Program 8 US: Weekly Standard: Power Down 9 Times of India: Nuke wish-list fails to ruffle India's feathers 10 Guardian Unlimited: Use of Trident 'would be illegal' 11 Kommersant: UK Helps Russia Break Up Nuclear Submarines NUCLEAR REACTORS 12 US: MiamiHerald.com: FPL says Turkey Point nuclear power plant is se 13 US: Bradenton Herald: FPL, Constellation to merge 14 US: MiamiHerald.com: FPL merger creates energy giant 15 US: Seattle Times: Consumer groups wary of mergers in power industry 16 US: NRC: Organization of Agreement States; Petition for Rulemaking 17 Rediff India Abroad: Two more N-power plants likely in Kudankulam 18 US: Platts: With Constellation purchase, FPL adds to nuclear holding 19 NewsFromRussia.Com: No room for nuclear storage facilities in Cherno 20 US: Platts: Enthusiasm of ENC 2005 tempered by public acceptance, ab 21 US: APP.COM: Radiation barrier will get a checkup 22 US: NRC: Sunshine Act; Notice of Meetings 23 US: FCW.com: NRC to publish notice on e-submissions 24 US: Rutland Herald: Case dropped against Yankee activists 25 TheStar.com: Radioactive puzzle for premier 26 US: NRC: FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Seabrook Station Unit No. 1; 27 US: NRC: Documents Containing Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement 28 US: NRC: Entergy Operations, Inc.; Waterford Steam Electric Station, 29 US: NRC: Availability of and Solicitation of Public Comments on Repo 30 US: NRC: Virginia Electric and Power Company, Surry Power Station, U 31 US: NRC: Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; Revisions to Existing Syst 32 US: Times Herald-Record: Indian Point says 10 miles enough for safet 33 US: Joplin Globe: Feds give $2.3 million for reactor training 34 Telegraph: New mines on uranium map 35 Sofia Morning News: Bulgaria's Nuke Completes 2005 Production Plan 36 AFP: India to outline nuclear plans to US but expects no fast deal - NUCLEAR SECURITY 37 US: JS Online: Emergency drill report was altered at nuclear plant NUCLEAR SAFETY 38 [du-list] Karen Parkers radio interview 39 US: [du-list] Heads roll at Veterans Administration: Mushrooming 40 US: [du-list] Better Cleanup Needed at Ravenna Arsenal 41 [du-list] Megatons to megawatts - Russian U flooding world 42 US: Las Vegas SUN: Nagasaki Must Pay A-bomb Victim's Family 43 US: Rep. Matheson PR: Matheson Wins Effort to Preserve Radioactive F NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 44 US: AU ABC: Uranium freight future unclear 45 AU ABC: Radioactive waste dump plan doesn't faze council 46 US: Deseret News: Thanks for blocking PFS 47 Las Vegas SUN: Columnist Jack Anderson had close ties to the Sun 48 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Defense bill calls for saving of fallout data 49 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Plan passes to hinder Skull Valley N-storage 50 US: REID: REID, ENSIGN INTRODUCE NUCLEAR WASTE ON-SITE STORAGE LEGIS 51 Russia Newswire: OMZ Completes Shipment of 60 Spent Nuclear Fuel 52 US: Deseret News: Nuclear waste battle: a historic turn 53 US: Rocky Mountain News: Another 7,000 acres of old arsenal cleaned 54 The Australian: Minister misled veterans on toxic dust PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 55 Seattle Times: Hanford plant won't face $100 million more in cuts 56 ABQJOURNAL: DOE To Announce New LANL Managers on Wednesday 57 LA Daily News: Field lab regulations may ease 58 POGO Blog: The Los Alamos Petri Dish ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 AFP: Iran, EU to meet on resuming nuclear dialogue Tue Dec 20, 1:05 PM ET VIENNA (AFP) - Iran" /> and the European Union" /> are to meet to try to break a deadlock over Tehran's insistance on its right to make nuclear fuel, which the West says could be used to make atom bombs. European and Western diplomats fear the meeting in Vienna of foreign ministry political directors from Britain, France and Germany and Iranian National Security Council official Javad Vaidi will be all but futile because of Iran's increasingly hard line over its nuclear program. But an EU diplomat told AFP that the Europeans were ready to be "realistic and distinguish between what is desirable and what is possible," namely by accepting some fuel cycle work while drawing the line at enrichment -- a process that can be extended to make the explosive core of a nuclear bomb. Talks between Iran and the EU negotiating trio, the so-called EU-3, broke off in August when Iran resumed uranium conversion, the first step in enrichment. Iran now says it will not back away from its right under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to carry out enrichment, limiting chances for a compromise. The EU-3, backed by the United States, argue that Iran cannot be trusted to carry out enrichment since this gives nations a "break-out capacity" to make nuclear weapons. Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has raised concerns through a series of hardline statements against Israel" /> , notably his remark in October that the Jewish state should be wiped off the map. US President George W. Bush" /> said Monday that Ahmadinejad's incendiary statements showed why it was "universally" accepted that Tehran should not have nuclear weapons. "I fear that we'll just be going through the motions when we meet with the Iranians," said a diplomat from one of the EU-3 states. Wednesday's talks will aim to find a way to re-start formal negotiations on winning guarantees that Iran will not seek nuclear weapons. A total breakdown in Wednesday's meeting would likely spark a push by the Europeans and the United States to send the issue to the UN Security Council -- which could impose sanctions. Iran has already vowed to retaliate for such a step by resuming uranium enrichment -- suspended since October 2003 -- and limiting International Atomic Energy Agency" /> inspections of its nuclear facilities. Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, said in Tehran that his country would make new proposals in Vienna, which might be Ahmadinejad's standing offer for foreign firms to be involved in enrichment on Iranian soil as a form of supervision. The Europeans, however, have other ideas. They want to push a Russian proposal that would allow Iran to conduct much of the fuel cycle at home while enriching its uranium only on Russian soil -- thus keeping the most sensitive nuclear work out of the country. Iran has already rejected this proposal. "The real diplomatic work at the moment is trying to bring the Russians on board so we can take this to the Security Council," an EU-3 diplomat said. Russia, which has a veto on the Council, is almost certain to resist this pressure. Moscow is building Iran's first nuclear power reactor. Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service said Monday that it was unaware of any attempt by Iran to develop nuclear weapons, Interfax news agency reported in Moscow. Washington however charges that Iran's civilian nuclear program to generate electricity is a cover for developing atomic weapons. Recommend It: Not at All Somewhat Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 2 Korea Times: NK to Intensify Graphite Moderated Reactor Activities Hankooki.com > The Korea Times By Seo Dong-shin Staff Reporter North Korea, reaffirming its possession of nuclear weapons, said Tuesday that it would focus on further developing graphite moderated reactors. In a report released through the state-run (North) Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), the North cited the need for ``peaceful nuclear activities,'' blaming the United States for termination of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO). The energy-strapped North claimed that the termination caused huge direct and indirect economic damage, including the loss of a chance for the production of billions of kilowatts of electricity per year. The multilaterally funded KEDO project, aimed at building light water reactors in the North in return for its freeze on the graphite moderated reactors and related facilities, was the outcome of a bilateral agreement reached between Washington and Pyongyang in 1994, called the Agreed Framework. After two years of suspension due to the U.S. accusation of the North secretly enriching uranium in 2002, the project virtually ended last month following KEDO's executive board meeting in New York. But in the KCNA report, the North again denied the U.S. charges, claiming that the U.S.' failure to suggest any evidence during the last three years proved the falsity of the enrichment issue. ``Considering the U.S. conduct that systemically violated the basic agreement and avoided its implementation, it was truly a right decision for us not to dismantle the nuclear facilities,'' the report said. ``The U.S. has neither reason nor cause for us to take issue with our strengthening nuclear deterrent, while it continues to pursue this hostile policy against us.'' North Korea also said it feels proud to ``legally possess'' nuclear weapons, saying it is a common knowledge that without the nuclear deterrent, the North could not but face the same fate as Iraq from ``U.S. war maniacs.'' North Korea first declared possession of nuclear weapons on Feb. 10 this year, amid months of gridlock over the six-nation talks, where the two Koreas, U.S., China, Japan and Russia negotiate to resolve the North's nuclear programs. But the South Korean government does not officially recognize the North as a nuclear state yet. North Korea also urged the U.S. to immediately withdraw ``tricks such as financial sanctions'' against it, and come to the six-nation talks with a sincere attitude of mutual respect and hope for a peaceful co-existence. But it will also turn to tough measures if the U.S. continues its pressure, the Stalinist regime warned. The threatening words from Pyongyang follow escalating international pressure on the North to improve human rights situation as well as recent friction between the U.S. and North Korea over the former's allegations of the communist regime's illegal activities such as counterfeiting and money laundering. A South Korean government official was quoted by Yonhap News Agency as saying that Pyongyang seems to be attempting to deflect the attention of the international community away from its illegal activities and human rights problem by focusing on the nuclear issue. saltwall@koreatimes.co.kr 12-20-2005 17:11 ***************************************************************** 3 Korea Times: Seoul Denies Plutonium Production Allegation Hankooki.com > The Korea Times By Choi Kyong-ae Staff Reporter South Korea Tuesday denied a report that it plans to produce weapons-grade plutonium at a facility under construction. ``In cooperation with the United States, the state-run Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) in Taejon has studied ways to recycle spent fuel rods since 1997,'' said an official of the Ministry of Science &Technology. KAERI began to make a report on the progress made in the research of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in July 2004. IAEA inspectors looked into the process twice this year, in August and September, he said. ``Given all this, there are no grounds to believe that Seoul has a plan to produce weapons-grade plutonium,'' he said. ``If something is illegal with the process, the IAEA would have noticed it earlier.'' Quoting a diplomat close to IAEA, the Paris-based news wire AFP said ``the pilot facility uses `pyrometallurgical processing' to make spent fuel into a compact and less radioactive form for storage.'' The advanced spent fuel conditioning process demonstration facility (ACPF) at the Taejon-based research center is expected to come online in 2007. The AFP said the IAEA has launched an investigation into the possibility that the pyrometallurgical process, which uses high temperatures to transform metals and their ores, could produce large amounts of plutonium. Plutonum, like uranium, can fuel nuclear power plants or be used in atomic 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. godamon@koreatimes.co.kr 12-20-2005 17:14 ***************************************************************** 4 Korea Times: Pyongyang's New Offensive Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Opinion Nuclear Obligations Ought to Be Fulfilled With the six-party nuclear negotiations at a standstill, North Korea has come up with a new offensive, vowing to step up its nuclear activities. This time the unreliable North takes issue with the virtual dissolution of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO), an international consortium created in 1994 with the aim of building light water reactors (LWRs) in the communist country. The North said on Tuesday that it would spur operations of its graphite-moderated reactors to cope with the termination of the LWR project promised by the international community. In a statement issued by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), the North pledged to counteract more fiercely, should the United States stick to a hard line and oppressive policy against it. Vowing to strengthen its nuclear activities, the North said that it would build its own-style LWRs based on its own technology. The North's apparent threat to beef up its nuclear activities is further confounding the nuclear issue because Pyongyang can secure plutonium, the main ingredient of nuclear warheads, by running its reactors. Despite its denunciation of the Bush administration for the dissolution of KEDO, the North is most to blame because the demise was triggered by its pursuit of nuclear weapons program in violation of the 1994 agreement which the North and the U.S. signed to defuse their first nuclear confrontation. The LWR project in the North has been suspended since late 2002 when Washington accused Pyongyang of developing uranium-based nuclear warheads. In October 2002, the North admitted to developing nuclear arms, touching off the second nuclear standoff with the U.S. Last month, KEDO decided to scrap the LWR project in the North, thus putting an end to its existence. The decision is mainly attributed to the six-point agreement reached in September in the fourth round of the six-party talks, paving the way for a peaceful resolution to the nuclear crisis on the peninsula. The agreement guarantees that the five other participants in the dialogue will supply the North with LWRs when Pyongyang faithfully completes the nuclear obligations envisaged in it. Specifically, the North is required to abandon all nuclear activities, return to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and abide by the United Nations' nuclear safety regime. As the North is assured of LWRs when it fulfills the nuclear requirements, there is no reason to continue KEDO's project. What the North should do is to return to the negotiating table to substantiate its nuclear obligations. Against this backdrop, the North should stop its hackneyed offensives against Washington and show sincere efforts to help resume the six-party negotiations. 12-20-2005 19:32 ***************************************************************** 5 AFP: North Korea to develop light-water nuclear reactors Tue Dec 20, 2:53 AM ET SEOUL (AFP) - North Korea" /> North Koreaannounced it intended to build an unspecified number of light-water reactors, saying the United States had reduced a 1994 deal on mothballing nuclear power plants to a "dead document." Pyongyang's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said in a dispatch that the Stalinist regime would also resume the construction of two graphite moderated reactors (GMRs) frozen under the 1994 accord. North Korea will "start developing and building light-water reactors (LWRs) of Korean style in reliance upon its indigenous technology and potential when an appropriate time comes to put further spurs to its peaceful nuclear activities," it said. The power plants are at the centre of six-nation talks on the North's nuclear programme, amid fears that Pyongyang could reprocess spent fuel to arm nuclear weapons. Uranium from the light water reactors, however, cannot be used for weapons development. Chon Hyun-Joon of the state-financed Korea Institute for National Unification said experts here were skeptical about North Korea's ability to develop lightwater reactors, citing its lack of expertise and cash. The 1994 deal led North Korea to freeze a five megawatt reactor and a partially-built 50 megawatt reactor, both in Yongbyon, some 90 kilometers (56 miles) north of Pyongyang. In April 2003, North Korea said it had begun reprocessing more than 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods to make plutonium from its five-megawatt reactor. It also threatened to resume construction of other reactors in Yongbyon. And in June this year it said it had a stockpile of nuclear bombs. The five-megawatt reactor in Yongbyon alone is reportedly capable of producing enough uranium fuel to make about seven kilograms (15.4 pounds) of plutonium annually, enough to make a single atomic bomb. The two graphite moderated reactors that Pyongyang wants to develop, would, if completed, be capable of producing enough spent fuel annually for 200 kilograms of plutonium, sufficient to manufacture nearly 30 atomic bombs per year, US experts said. Frozen facilities also included another partially-built 200 megawatt nuclear power plant in Taechon County in the northwestern province of North Pyongan. The North also made a fresh demand for compensation for the "huge" losses it suffered by scrapping the project to build the light-water reactors (LWRs). "The US is now under a legal and moral obligation to compensate for the huge political and economic losses it has caused to the DPRK (North Korea) by totally stopping the construction of the LWRs and scrapping the AF (Agreed Framework)," it said in reference to the 1994 agreement. Construction of the reactors, started as part of a 1994 deal dubbed the Agreed Framework, has been in limbo ever since Washington accused Pyongyang in October 2002 of violating the accord by running a separate nuclear programme. The project was officially scrapped last month by the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO), the body formed to administer the light-water project and made up of the United States, South Korea" /> South Korea, Japan and the European Union" /> European Union. Under the Agreed Framework, North Korea promised to freeze its nuclear facilities in return for the construction of two light-water reactors at a cost of some five billion dollars. The reactors are about one-third completed and more than one billion dollars has been sunk in the project. At six-party talks in September aimed at resolving the rekindled nuclear confrontation, North Korea agreed in principle to dismantle its nuclear weapons program in exchange for diplomatic and economic gains and security guarantees. But at the last session in November it said US sanctions were blocking any progress at the talks involving the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia. A North Korean foreign ministry spokesman said Monday North Korea would 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. North Korea said last week that six-party talks would be suspended indefinitely unless the United States lifts the sanctions. Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 6 Xinhua: DPRK vows to pursue peaceful nuclear activities www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-12-20 14:40:19 PYONGYANG, Dec. 20 (Xinhuanet) -- The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) on Monday vowed to pursue, without let-up, its peaceful nuclear activities based on graphite-moderated reactors (GMRs). The decision was made after the United States scrapped a project to provide it with power-generating reactors in November. "The Bush administration's action compels the DPRK to develop in real earnest its independent nuclear power industry based on 50,000 kilowatt and 200,000 kilowatt GMRs and their related facilities," the official KCNA news agency said in a statement. "As long as the Bush group persistently pursues its hostile policy to stifle the DPRK, the DPRK will steadily bolster its nuclear deterrent as a powerful treasured sword for defending the sovereignty of the country," it said. Washington decided recently to terminate the light-water reactor (LWR) project after putting it on hold for two years amid the nuclear standoff. The statement urged the United States to compensate for the huge political and economic losses it has caused to the DPRK. It reiterated the DPRK position on the provision of LWRs and the abandonment of nuclear weapons based on the principle of simultaneous actions as agreed to during the six-party talks. "The DPRK will deal with the United States in the future, too, on the basis of simultaneous actions on the principle of 'action for action'," it stressed. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 7 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Aims to Boost Nuclear Program From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday December 20, 2005 3:31 AM 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. In a separate statement Tuesday, North Korea said it would bolster its nuclear power industry to meet energy demands after the United States scrapped a project to provide it with power-generating reactors - the latest tirade to 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 Monday 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. In its statement Tuesday, the North's official Korean Central News Agency said the U.S. decision to halt construction on light-water nuclear reactors ``compels (the North) to develop in real earnest its independent nuclear power industry.'' The facilities it mentioned - located at the North's main nuclear complex in Yongbyon, about 55 miles north of Pyongyang - have been a focus of international suspicions over the North's pursuit of nuclear bombs. 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 statement Monday 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 Weekly Standard: Power Down The costs of energy are rising and Congress isn't helping matters. by Irwin M. Stelzer 12/20/2005 12:00:00 AM IF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD'S monetary policy gurus have any doubt that "possible increases in resource utilization . . . have the potential to add to inflation pressures," as they said in last week's statement accompanying their 13th consecutive increase in interest rates, they need look no further than Shell Oil's announcement the following day. The new consensus that crude oil prices will stay at or above $50 per barrel has had several consequences. Like its oil-industry competitors, Shell has upped its exploration and development expenditures, in its case by 27 percent, to $19 billion. Kuwait has decided to draw on Western expertise to help it develop its untapped reserves, which look a lot more attractive at $50 than they did at $10. Other oil companies are scrambling for drilling rigs, labor, and supplies. The expectation that oil prices will remain high reflects the continued pressure that economic growth in America, India, and China is putting on oil supplies. Demand is also pressing on the supply of natural gas in many countries. In America, cold weather is driving demand and prices to levels unimagined when natural gas became the fuel of choice for power generators, many of whom are ruing that decision. In Britain, rising demand and monopoly constraints on supplies from the continent are having the same effect on prices. And Western Europe will face a difficult winter if a dispute between Russia and Ukraine, through which Russian natural gas passes en route to Germany and elsewhere, is not resolved. Electricity shortages also threaten--or at least are seen by policy makers and large users as likely to occur before the decade is out. So nuclear power is once again being considered as a solution to the problem of keeping factories running without increasing carbon emissions. And much of the political opposition to wind farms from all except the hard core NIMBY crowd seems to be dissipating, clearing the way for increased production of electricity from wind. But the willingness of investors to come up with the money needed to augment energy supplies cannot solve the supply problem, at least not soon. It seems that there is a shortage of many of the resources needed to find and to construct new sources of energy. DRILLING RIGS are in short supply, as are trained oil-field workers. Which is why fully one-fourth of the $4 billion increase in Shell's outlays will go to cover the higher prices of the labor and supplies it needs to punch holes in the deserts and ocean beds that contain the new reserves it so badly needs. That's just what the Fed has in mind when it worries that resource constraints might result in an inflation-inducing bidding war for supplies and labor. The situation in the wind business is no different. Promoters and operators of wind farms are finding that they simply cannot get the machines (windmills, to us lay folk) they need. In some instances, manufacturers are diverting supplies to the United States to take advantage of a new and attractive tax regime. In all instances, prices are rising and waiting times for delivery are lengthening. Nuclear advocates, too, have to confront a shortage of resources, most notably the skilled technicians needed to build and operate these capital-intensive facilities. With no new nuclear plants built in the United States for decades, the engineers and other highly trained staff who build these facilities have drifted into other jobs. It will be no easy thing to reconstruct a workforce capable of building safe plants, once plans to start construction get the multiple approvals they need. (If they ever do.) THE INABILITY TO EXPAND energy supplies creates a political problem. The political and economic cycles are out of joint. Higher prices for energy will, eventually, call forth additional supplies and curtail consumption. But "eventually" is not good enough for politicians, who must do, or at least be seen to be doing, something now. So we get counterproductive moves--such an attempt by Congress to appropriate "excess profits" from oil companies, with the inevitable adverse effect on incentives to find new reserves, while lavishing subsidies on uneconomic energy sources. And a new enthusiasm for nuclear power, but no interest in learning about its cost. Meanwhile, the American economy seems to survive the waste created by politicians' renewed interest in energy and their unwillingness to give markets the time needed to sort things out. Growth continues at an annual rate of something like 4 percent. The drop in gasoline prices to around $2 per gallon, from a high of $3, has increased both consumer confidence and the level of cheer in America's boardrooms. A survey by TEC International, the "world's largest organization of CEOs" of small and mid-sized companies, shows that "on average, a majority of CEOs expect to see increased sales revenues, profits, investments, and employee numbers" in the next twelve months. More significant, from the point of the Fed, is the fact that more than half of the CEOs plan to raise prices next year. Those pundits who are expecting the current cycle of rate increases to end when Alan Greenspan exits the stage in January, might want to think again. It is true that short-term rates are now 3.25 percent above their low in 2004, and that the housing market is showing signs of cooling. But in real, inflation-adjusted terms, rates are still only a bit above 2 percent, which is below the long-term average, and not deemed likely to stifle growth. As the Fed watches Shell, which is forced to pay more for labor and supplies, and hears that CEOs are once again thinking about raising product prices, it is not likely to abandon the Greenspan upward ratchet merely because it has a new chairman. Irwin M. Stelzer is director of economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute, a columnist for the Sunday Times (London), a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, and a contributing writer to The Daily Standard. He has served as consultant to many energy companies and currently consults for a leading developer of wind farms. © Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 9 Times of India: Nuke wish-list fails to ruffle India's feathers Chidanand Rajghatta [ Wednesday, December 21, 2005 01:58:05 amTIMES NEWS NETWORK ] WASHINGTON: An Amercan think-tank has produced a wish-list of Indian nuclear facilities which it wants placed under international safeguards. The Institute for Science and International Security's (ISIS) wish-list includes six major fuel fabrication plants, four reprocessing plants, two breeder reactors, four enrichment facilities, nine research reactors, and nine heavy water production plants, all of which the think-tank deems as civil nuclear facilities. The only units recognised as being associated with India's fissile material production for nuclear weapons - and therefore possibly outside the ambit of safeguards - are five facilities in Trombay and the Rare Materials Project outside Mysore. These facilities produce and process plutonium and uranium for possible use in nuclear weapons. Even in this limited list, the ISIS managers have a problem with a couple. The Cirus reactor, which was supplied by Canada and supported by the US under a peaceful nuclear pledge by India, should be safeguarded, the institute said, arguing that "if India declares this reactor as military, it would directly violate its commitment to Canada". The non-pro lobby is also pushing to wrap up India's super-secret Rare Materials Project in Mysore to the safeguards lists, suspecting it of producing a limited amount of highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons, including some which may have been used in two of the low yield tests at Pokhran in 1998. It is also possible, says ISIS, groping for answers, that the plant may be making enriched uranium for naval reactors and civil research reactors. In which case, it says, the prototype naval reactor too should be under safeguards. Indian officials declined to speak on record on issues pertaining to the so-called separation of civil and military nuclear facilities, but they ridiculed any wish-list that did not take into account India's unique status that was acknowledged in the July 18 agreement between US president George W Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and also the overarching political objectives stated by Washington. The unmistakable suggestion was that David Albright, president of ISIS and co-author of the wish-list, viewed the Indo-US nuclear deal from the limited prism of non-proliferation whereas the ongoing talks have a broader ambit. Albright is a familiar critic of India's N-programme and Washington's latest deal with New Delhi. In a testimony before Congress in October, he told lawmakers that the agreement "could pose serious risks to the security of the US", a statement that caused a great deal of mirth on the Indian side, considering how feckless the so-called non-pro lobby in Washington has been while the US security has been endangered by its frontline ally, Pakistan. Former officials associated with India's N-program say the non-pro lobby's wish-lists aimed at "emasculating" India's nuclear research and the developmental programme will simply not pass muster with the Department of Atomic Energy now. Copyright © 2005 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 Guardian Unlimited: Use of Trident 'would be illegal' Richard Norton-Taylor Tuesday December 20, 2005 The Guardian The use of a Trident nuclear missile, or its successor, would breach international law, the government is warned today. Even the threat to use nuclear weapons is unlawful, ministers are warned in a legal opinion by leading human rights lawyers. They say use of Trident would infringe what the international court of justice calls the "intransgressible" - or absolute - requirement that a distinction must be drawn between combatants and non-combatants. Nuclear weapons would also breach the requirement that use of force in self-defence must be proportionate. "A Trident warhead would be inherently indiscriminate," says Rabinder Singh, QC, and professor Christine Chinkin of the London School of Economics, in a legal opinion for the campaigning group, Peace Rights. "In light of the blast, heat, and radioactive effects of a detonation of a Trident warhead, it is impossible to envisage how the intransgressible requirement of the principle of distinction between combatants and non-combatants or the requirement of proportionality" could be met. "Even if aimed at a military target [a Trident warhead] cannot distinguish between that and civilians. Radioactive effects are not contained by time or space." They say the distinction between civilians and combatants is a key feature of the statute setting up the international criminal court which Britain has signed up to. Email your comments for publication to politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 11 Kommersant: UK Helps Russia Break Up Nuclear Submarines Dec. 20, 2005 Russia’s signed into law the Federal Act on Ratifying Supplementary Agreement to the Agreement of September 3, 1996. At that time, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom agreed to cooperate in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear energy, news service of the president announced. The bill that was passed by November 25, 2005 and upheld by the December 7, 2005, covers the issues of the UK assistance in dismantling nuclear submarines of Russia. The respective agreement was made in London on June 26, 2003. It sets up organizational and legal basis for the actual application of gratis financial and engineering assistance rendered by the United Kingdom in an effort to break up nuclear submarines, which were withdrawn from the combat operation of Russia’s North Navy. The document also covers a raft of nuclear and environmental issues related to implementing global partnership agreements against proliferation of mass destruction weapons. Pursuant to the RF laws, Russia grants tax and duties exemption for any and all funds, services, equipment or material provided as gratis aid. The Russia’s-UK project is financed under the G8 Global Partnership Program. Russia received $21.5 million from the UK past year to fund the disposal of two nuclear submarines. [ by www.kommersant.com © 1991-2005 ZAO "Kommersant. Publishing House". All rights ***************************************************************** 12 MiamiHerald.com: FPL says Turkey Point nuclear power plant is secure | 12/18/2005 | SAFETY In the post-9/11 era, FPL has turned Turkey Point into a heavily guarded encampment that managers are confident could repel a sneak attack. BY CURTIS MORGAN cmorgan@herald.com Terry Jones, the man in charge of Turkey Point, strides the nuclear power plant with the air of a captain walking the deck of a warship. That's fitting, because Jones is a former naval officer and Turkey Point is girded for battle. A small private army patrols the grounds. Each guard, clad in black body armor, totes an automatic weapon and is trained to drill holes in targets -- or torsos -- at long range through darkness, fog or smoke. Bulletproof towers, painted gray, occupy strategic positions to scan the perimeter or lay down crossfire. The plant, east of Florida City and along the mangrove shoreline of Biscayne Bay, is ringed with barricades to stop vehicles and fencing to snare invaders. ''Should the bad guys penetrate our outside perimeter, they're going to encounter considerable resistance,'' Jones said. ``We're kind of running them through a maze here where the security forces can pick them off.'' DIRE SCENARIOS Florida Power &Light executives insist that the likelihood of a terrorist assault, let alone a successful one, is almost nonexistent. The same holds for other dire scenarios, from accidents to equipment failures that critics warn could produce radioactive clouds from reactor meltdowns or spent-fuel pool leaks. They are confident that Turkey Point and FPL's St. Lucie County nuclear plant are prepared to prevent the unimaginable from happening. In June, for example, a transformer connected to reactor No. 4 burst into flames at 3:15 in the morning, the first big accident in years at Turkey Point, the state's oldest nuclear plant. Ironically, the fire wasn't caused by aging equipment that critics questioned in 2002 before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved extending Turkey Point's operating license until 2033. The fire was sparked by a design flaw in the new transformer that spewed mineral oil, an internal coolant. The blaze was snuffed in 28 minutes, and the reactor in a giant containment building was never threatened. While the accident was serious and costly -- shutting down the reactor for 21 days to replace and check equipment -- Jones sees it as a real-world test of the plant's safety and security systems. ''This is the first time we've ever had a transformer fire in 20 years,'' he said. Turkey Point has reported few operating problems since the late 1980s, when it was on the NRC's ''problem plant'' list for four years after a string of troubles -- from security lapses to equipment failures. In 1990, FPL spent nearly $240 million on upgrades, and until last summer's fire, the plant had a stellar record, even weathering the brunt of Category 5 Hurricane Andrew in 1992. In 1997, the NRC named it one of the two safest nuclear plants in the nation. SAFETY IS MAIN CONCERN Regulators are currently weighing a safety violation over the capacity of reactor cooling pumps at Turkey Point, but NRC spokesman Roger Hannah described it as a relatively minor technical issue, and FPL is disputing it. ''When it comes to nuclear energy, our primary concern is safety,'' said Jones, FPL's site vice president. He pointed to an array of reactor controls in a training room, all equipped with multiple backups. ''Our engineering basis is redundancy,'' he added. The record is less sterling at St. Lucie, which was issued seven NRC violations between 1996 and 1999 for a variety of equipment, operating and security problems. Given that reactors run on uranium, material used in weapons of mass destruction, security has always been heavy. It has clearly been strengthened since Sept. 11, 2001, but FPL won't say much. ''Not unlike the military, it's really on a need-to-know basis,'' Jones said. ``As much as we'd like to tell the public about all our gear, it's not appropriate.'' Beyond visible defenses, there are explosive, metal and motion detectors, along with undescribed and unseen sensing systems. To enter a zone where there is radioactive material requires handprint scans and passage through heavy stainless steel turnstiles monitored by armed guards. All of that doesn't reassure some groups that argue that nuclear plants will only become more attractive targets as spent-fuel stockpiles grow. Mark Oncavage, a member of the Sierra Club in Miami-Dade County and longtime foe of nuclear power, argued that FPL brushed aside many potential problems when Turkey Point was relicensed in 2002. He questioned the structural integrity of the aging steel and concrete reactor towers and whether security could repel an aerial or water assault by a large force. Jones is confident that Turkey Point can handle itself. Earlier this year, in a periodic test, the NRC staged a mock terrorist attack at the plant. ''The [raid] is a very robust and intense test,'' Jones said. ``We basically gave them our playbook, and our forces won easily.'' ***************************************************************** 13 Bradenton Herald: FPL, Constellation to merge | 12/20/2005 | NICHOLAS AZZARA Herald Staff Writer FPL Group Inc. stands to become the most powerful competitive energy supplier in the country, pending approval of a merger announced Monday. Confirming week-old rumors and news reports, FPL Group President and Chief Executive Officer Lewis Hay said his company will purchase Baltimore-based Constellation Energy Group Inc. for $11 billion in stock. The combined company would be named Constellation Energy, but FPL, based in Juno Beach, would retain its name in Florida. Together, the companies would own $57 billion in total assets, with combined annual revenues of more than $27 billion. Both Hay and Constellation Energy President and Chief Executive Officer Mayo Shattuck said the move will benefit both companies. During a teleconference with media Monday, Hay said the merger will not effect customers' rates, for better or worse. He did say that the merger adds a "fair amount of price stability to our customers." Shattuck said the merger "will bring out the best in each (company), in ways that will drive major gains in growth, productivity and efficiency . . ." The merger is subject to the approval of both companies' shareholders and the Maryland Public Service Commission. The companies estimated regulatory approval should take between nine months and a year. Hay said he will present the potential merger before the Florida Public Service Commission sometime next year. "Technically we don't need approval from the Florida Public Service Commission, but we will tell them about this and listen to their concerns," Hay said. "We've had a good relationship with the commission in terms of working out arrangements." FPL Group, the parent company of Florida Power & Light Co., serves customers in 26 states. The bulk of the company's revenue comes from Florida Power & Light accounts. FPL Group reported $10 billion in revenue in 2004. Constellation Energy Group's main asset is Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., which serves the Baltimore region. The company also owns 10 power plants around the country. Constellation reported $12.5 billion in revenue in 2004. The combined company would hold dual headquarters in Juno Beach and Baltimore. FPL Group shareholders would own approximately 60 percent of the company. Constellation Energy shareholders would own the rest. A 15-member Constellation Energy Board would include nine FPL Group representatives and six from Constellation Energy. The presidents say the merger will give the new company more leverage. In times of natural disaster or storm damage the company could send crews from one location to another to help restore power, they said. FPL spokesman Steve Stengel said his company would gain Constellation's insight on building a coal plant to provide even more energy to its 4.2 million customers. Constellation's power capacity is 55 percent nuclear and coal, and 41 percent oil and gas. "We think this transaction is in customers', shareholders' and employees' best interests," Stengel said. Hay added that tapping into Constellation's coal expertise can be a "big win" for Florida customers if coal plants are built and costs are lowered. "We think that we'll be able to leverage each other's best practices over time," Stengel said. "We think when you add it all up, it's a very positive, very exciting transaction. We think it will create the premiere competitive electric supplier in America." Hay said the companies expect annual savings of $250 million within three years. Neither Hay nor Shattuck would say whether employees' jobs are completely safe, but they expressed optimism that no one would be laid off. "There will be some redundancy in jobs, but those will be solved through retirements and attrition," Shattuck said. "We'll be growing in employment and assets and that means opportunities for people. Both of these communities should look at this move as a real home run." Shattuck said discussions of a potential merger began in late spring. "With the removal of constraints on mergers and the competitive dynamic, you'd expect more of this to happen," Shattuck said of the merger. When Congress adopted the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in August, it repealed the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, paving the way for huge utility mergers like the one announced Monday. Nicholas Azzara, business reporter, can be reached at nazzara@HeraldToday.comand 708-7908. ***************************************************************** 14 MiamiHerald.com: FPL merger creates energy giant 12/20/2005 | UTILITIES Florida Power &Light's parent is merging with a Baltimore company in a deal that will create an energy giant, but customers should see no changes. BY JOHN DORSCHNER jdorschner@MiamiHerald.com FPL Group is merging with Baltimore-based Constellation Energy in a stock swap valued at $11 billion, creating one of the nation's largest electric companies, stretching north to Maine and west to California, the companies announced Monday. The new company, called Constellation Energy, will have joint headquarters in Juno Beach and Baltimore. FPL Group Chief Executive Lewis Hay III will head the combined firm. Customers of Florida Power &Light, the utility unit, should see no immediate differences when they flick on their lights or open their bills, say experts, and the two companies said they don't expect the deal to result in any layoffs among the firms' 21,750 employees, including 12,000 at FPL. The deal, subject to shareholder and regulatory approvals, is expected to be completed in about a year. The combined entities will create an industry powerhouse -- the nation's largest competitive energy supplier and the second-largest electric utility. Analysts believe the deal will help the companies expand nationwide in nonregulated market as they aggressively increase their generation of all sorts of power, from nuclear to wind. Together, the companies will have a market capitalization of about $28 billion, annual revenue of $27 billion and $57 billion in total assets. Both Constellation and FPL Group have regulated utilities, whose profits are limited by quasi-government boards, and both are working hard to expand their unregulated businesses in markets where competition is allowed for them to sell power to other utilities or private customers. The merger means FPL Group will no longer be so dependent on its Florida operations, where hurricanes have caused almost $2 billion in repairs the past two years, but Hay said the recent surge in storms didn't enter in his thinking. ''We wanted to build a winning position in the competitive energy field,'' Hay told The Miami Herald in a telephone interview. He said he started discussions with Constellation Chief Executive Mayo A. Shattuck III last spring, long before Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma did $800 million to $900 million in damages to FPL's system in South Florida. Some FPL customers are still angry about their outages. Chris Fulmer, whose house in The Redland was without power for 11 days after Wilma, said Monday she hoped the deal might do her some good. ``It would be very kind if they were passing along some of the profit to their customers. I always know in Monopoly you made a lot of money off the public utilities, but I'm not sure where the public part comes in.'' Harold McLean, Florida's public counsel who represents consumers in utility regulatory matters, said, ''It's highly unlikely FPL customers will see any change. The regulatory process avoids passing any risk'' from the merger along to customers, but it also means any added profit firms obtain through the deal will also not get passed along. However, some consumer activists fear that a giant power company makes it harder for state regulators to understand what's happening. Tyson Slocum of the Washington-based consumer group Public Citizen, told the Associated Press that these large firms might be able to blur power-purchase agreements and other deals so that it might be difficult to determine accurately what costs regulators should include in setting rates. At present, Constellation gets about 25 percent of its revenue from Baltimore Gas &Electric, and the rest from unregulated enterprises, which include three nuclear plants and energy trading divisions. The company has operations in Canada and an energy-trading office in London, as well as the United States. FPL Group receives about 90 percent of its income from its regulated utility but has been working hard under Hay to expand its unregulated business. It is now the nation's largest supplier of wind-generated power, mostly in the West and Plains states. Analyst Dave Parker of Robert W. Baird said the deal ''made sense'' for both firms. ''Constellation is a great company, and FPL is a great company.'' The combined firm will benefit primarily in their competitive power business, because FPL has focused on developing generators and Constellation has concentrated on ``trying to find people to buy power.'' Much of their efforts have been in Texas and New England, areas with considerable deregulation. ''I think Constellation has something like 72 of the top Fortune 100 companies,'' Parker said. The new company is expected to be exceptionally aggressive in purchasing more nuclear plants, which have complex regulatory and operating expenses. ''They're extremely expensive for companies that have only one or two plants,'' said Parker. He pointed out that five of the seven last sales of nuclear generators has been to either Constellation or FPL Group. The merger agreement, approved unanimously by the boards of both companies over the weekend, involves no exchange of cash. Each shareholder will receive 1.444 shares of the new company. This means each present Constellation investor will get a premium of about 15 percent based on a 20-day average closing price through Dec. 13, the day before The New York Times reported that a deal was near. FPL closed Monday at $42.76, down $0.19. Constellation ended at $59.10, down $2.52. When the merger is complete, FPL's present shareholders will own about 60 percent of the new company, Constellation's 40 percent. Shattuck, Constellation's chief executive, will become chairman of the company and head its unregulated business. The agreement needs approval from state regulators in Maryland as well as federal energy, nuclear and antitrust regulators. Approval from the Florida Public Service Commission isn't required, Hay said. Note: The Miami Herald has a business relationship with FPL in a program to recruit subscribers. ***************************************************************** 15 Seattle Times: Consumer groups wary of mergers in power industry Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM By John Pain and Brad Foss The Associated Press FPL Group and Constellation Energy Group promised Monday that combining their companies would benefit customers, but consumer advocates fear the opposite will occur. FPL's $11 billion acquisition of Constellation is the latest example of consolidation within the power industry, a trend that is expected to continue as companies seek to cut costs and balance their portfolios of regulated and unregulated businesses, while diversifying the regions they serve and the fuels they burn. But as utilities expand, questions are being raised by consumer advocates about whether local regulators can effectively monitor interstate market activity and they worry that homeowners and businesses will take on greater risk without sufficient improvements in service. Executives with the two companies said the deal announced Monday would make both utilities more efficient and thereby help consumers by driving down costs. Any benefits to consumers wouldn't come until perhaps 2009, said Lewis Hay, who will be chief executive of the combined company named Constellation Energy. "We understand the importance of customers and treating them well and keeping rates as low as possible," he said during a conference call with reporters. Hay said the primary benefits of the transaction would be to the unregulated power-marketing subsidiaries of both companies, but that Florida customers would benefit from the more diverse mix of fuels the combined company would rely on to produce power, thanks to Constellation's base of nuclear and coal plants. Also, Constellation would be an important backup power source for FPL customers in the event of a hurricane, he said. Savings predicted The companies predicted the merger would generate $200 million to $250 million in annual savings. "Whether any of those savings get passed through to the customers, I can't really say," said Harold McLean, who as Florida's public counsel represents consumers. For example, FPL Group's main subsidiary, Florida Power &Light, is a regulated utility without competition, so it's highly unlikely that market pressures will drive rates down, he said. The utility is Florida's largest, with 4.2 million customers. FPL Group's strong finances were partly the result of Florida Power &Light being able to charge customers for the estimated $1.2 billion in hurricane repair costs incurred the past two years, said Mike Twomey, president and founder of Florida Utility Watch, a consumer group. Many Florida consumers have complained about having to pay for that, while FPL has raked in profits. FPL reported net income of $339 million in the third quarter, up from $320 million the year before. Law repealed Consumer advocates are watching for further consolidation in the utility market and its effect on the public after Congress' repeal this summer of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. The Depression-era reforms established rigid boundaries that confined utilities to regional markets and restricted investments by foreigners and companies from outside the power industry. Utility executives and the Bush administration pushed to repeal the law, depicting it as an antiquated measure that retarded the industry's growth. But consumer activists fought to save the restrictions, arguing that repeal would pave the way for utilities to be devoured by giant companies that would be more interested in boosting profits than improving service. By creating a company with reach in half the states of the country, FPL's acquisition of Constellation makes it harder for state regulators to understand the power-purchase agreements and other transactions of each company's regulated utility, and therefore makes it harder to determine the costs the utilities should legitimately be including when seeking rate increases, said Tyson Slocum, research director of energy programs at the consumer group Public Citizen. In other words, the combined company could try to use the steady cash flow from its regulated business to subsidize the riskier activities associated with its unregulated unit, Slocum said. "King Kongs" "From my point of view, the only way to better supervise these emerging King Kongs would be through regulatory agencies that are also strengthening," said Michael Shames, executive director of the San Diego-based Utility Consumers Action Network. Shames said he is not opposed to utility mergers. "What I'd like to see is small utilities merge with other small utilities and become medium sized" so that they can better compete with larger players, he said. The FPL-Constellation deal would be the first major utility combination since Congress repealed the utility act. Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 16 NRC: Organization of Agreement States; Petition for Rulemaking [PRM-31-5] FR Doc 05-24250 [Federal Register: December 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 243)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 75423-75426] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20de05-23] AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; request for comment. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a petition for rulemaking filed by the Organization of Agreement States (OAS). The petitioner is requesting that the NRC amend its regulations to require specific licensing for devices that are currently regulated by a combination of general licensing and registration, and to revise the compatibility category for 10 CFR 31.6 from ``B'' to ``C''. The petitioner believes that these actions are needed to establish a higher national standard of regulation for higher risk generally licensed (GL) devices, and to allow retention of a tool used by Agreement States to track the location and movement of device manufacturers and service providers in their State. This action also addresses a request filed by the Bureau of Radiation Control (BRC) of the Florida Department of Health for the NRC to change the compatibility category of 10 CFR 31.5(c)(13)(I) from category ``B'' to category ``C''. Florida BRC believes that NRC regulations are less stringent and that assigning a compatibility category ``B'' will require the State to reduce its current health, safety, and security regulatory control of GL devices. DATES: Submit comments by March 6, 2006. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include PRM-31-5 in the subject line of your comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available to the public for inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates in your submission. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply e- mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail cag@nrc.gov. Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. (Telephone (301) 415-1966). Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this petition may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O1 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 http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 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 NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800- 397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: 301 415-7163 or Toll Fee: 1-800-368-5642 or e-mail: mtl@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 18, 2000, (65 FR 79162), the NRC issued a final rule that amended the requirements applicable to certain generally licensed industrial devices containing byproduct material. The final rule, among other actions, included more explicit provisions for a registration and accounting program. The final rule also modified the quarterly transfer reporting requirements for manufacturers and initial distributors of these industrial devices. Section 274b of the Atomic Energy Act (Act) provides for agreements under which the NRC relinquishes and a State assumes regulatory responsibility for the use of byproduct, source and small quantities of special nuclear material within a State. The December 18, 2000, final rule was a matter of compatibility under the Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement Statements issued September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517). The provisions of 10 CFR 31.5 and 31.6 were designated as Category B because the provisions affected a program element with significant transboundary implications. Petitioner's Issue The petitioner believes that certain devices containing higher level of activity, which are currently regulated under a general license in 10 CFR 31.5, would be best regulated under a specific license in 10 CFR part 30. The petitioner states that multiple Agreement States have already established more stringent requirements for GL devices to address accountability problems, source melt incidents and other issues related to such devices in their States, and that the decision by the NRC to revise the compatibility category of 10 CFR 31.5 from ``D'' to ``B'' will require these Agreement States to reduce their current regulatory control of GL devices in order [[Page 75424]] to be compatible with less stringent NRC regulations. The petitioner states also that the NRC decision to revise the compatibility category of 10 CFR 31.6 from ``C'' to ``B'' removes the ability of Agreement States to directly track the movement of many individuals and companies servicing GL devices and thus indirectly verify the location of these devices. The petitioner asserts that regulation of GL devices containing higher levels of activity should be under more rather than less regulatory oversight to further enhance the accountability and security of these devices. Petitioner's Interest The petitioner is a non-profit, voluntary, scientific and professional society incorporated in the District of Columbia. The membership of the OAS consists of State radiation control program directors and staff from the 33 Agreement States who are responsible for implementation of their respective radioactive material programs. The purpose of the OAS is to provide a mechanism for the Agreement States to work with each other and with the NRC on regulatory issues associated with their respective agreements. The petitioner offers that Agreement States are those States that have entered into an Agreement with the NRC under section 274b. of the Act. The Agreement States regulate most types of radioactive material, including reactor fission byproducts, source material (uranium and thorium) and special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass, in accordance with the compatibility requirements of the Act. The petitioner notes that NRC periodically reviews the performance of each Agreement State to assure adequate protection of public health and safety and compatibility with its regulatory requirements. The petitioner further states that Agreement States issue radioactive material licenses, promulgate regulations and enforce these regulations under the authority of each individual state's laws. The Agreement States exercise their licensing and enforcement programs under direction of their governors in a manner that is compatible with the licensing programs of the NRC. The 33 existing Agreement States currently license and regulate approximately 16,800 radioactive material licenses, whereas the NRC regulates approximately 4,400 licenses. History of Issue In July 1996, the joint NRC-Agreement State Working Group, approved by the Commission to evaluate problems with licensees maintaining control over and accountability for devices containing radioactive material provided their recommendations to the NRC. One of the recommendations was that the NRC establish a registration program for GL devices containing specific isotopes above certain quantity limits that posed a comparatively higher risk of exposure to the public or property damage. The petitioner states that on December 18, 2000, the NRC issued a final rule, effective on February 16, 2001, that revised portions of 10 CFR parts 30, 31, and 32 to add new requirements for manufacturers, distributors and users of GL devices. The combined changes were called the ``Generally Licensed Device Rule,'' which included a revision that established a new registration program for certain GL devices in 10 CFR 31.5(c)(13) that was based on the earlier recommendations of the working group. In addition, the petitioner states the NRC changed the compatibility category for 10 CFR 31.5 from ``D'' to ``B'' and for 10 CFR 31.6 from ``C'' to ``B''. Agreement States were given until February 16, 2004 to adopt the new regulations. The petitioner states that in a letter dated July 28, 2004, the NRC presented the results of a survey of Agreement State compliance with adopting the new Generally Licensed Device Rule which showed that 12 of the 33 Agreement States had not adopted the new GL device requirements. The petitioner states further that during the May 2004 National Conference on Radiation Control and the September 2004 Organization of Agreement States annual meeting, the Agreement States discussed problem areas associated with the current system of regulating certain devices under a general license. These problem areas include: The compatibility change from ``D'' to ``B'' in 10 CFR 31.5 limits States that choose to be more restrictive in regulating GL devices. The compatibility change from ``C'' to ``B'' in 10 CFR 31.6 allows device manufacturers/service providers to service devices in Agreement States for less than 180 days without obtaining reciprocity or notifying State radiation control programs at a time when State programs believe enhanced tracking is required. New materials security requirements have not been factored into general license device regulations. Low awareness of regulatory requirements by some general licensees due to high turnover in the industrial sector and minimal interaction with regulator. Petitioner's Proposal The OAS proposes the following amendments to 10 CFR part 31, and changes in compatibility category. 1. Section 31.5 (a) would be revised to read as follows: (a) A general license is hereby issued to commercial and industrial firms and research, educational and medical institutions, individuals in the conduct of their business, and Federal, State or local government agencies to acquire, receive, possess, use or transfer, in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this section, byproduct material contained in devices designed and manufactured for the purpose of detecting, measuring, gauging or controlling thickness, density, level, interface location, radiation, leakage, or qualitative or quantitative chemical composition or for producing light or an ionized atmosphere, provided each device contains less than 370 MBq (10 mCi) of cesium-137, 3.7 MBq (0.1 mCi) of strontium-90, 37 MBq (1 mCi) of cobalt-60 or 37 MBq (1 mCi) of americium-241 or any other transuranic element (i.e., element with atomic number greater than uranium (92)), based on the activity indicated on the label. 2. In Sec. 31.5 paragraph (c)(13) would be deleted in its entirety. 3. Revise the compatibility category of Sec. 31.6 from ``B'' to ``C''. Petitioner's Justification OAS stated that the newly formed OAS Rulemaking and Compatibility Committee surveyed the 33 Agreement State radiation control programs to determine the reaction to the change in compatibility of 10 CFR 31.5 and 31.6 and the potential to specifically license devices currently regulated under a general license. Thirty-one States responded to the survey, as follows: Eighty-seven percent of the responding States disagree with the CY 2000 Commission decision to revise the compatibility category of 10 CFR 31.5 and 31.6 (27 of 31 States). Ninety percent of the responding States currently allow a specific license for devices that may be generally licensed (28 of 31 states). Ninety-seven percent of the responding States support the OAS taking action in this area (30 of 31 states). The OAS believes that requiring specific licensing of the higher risk gauging devices identified by the 1995 NRC-Agreement State joint working group can further enhance control and [[Page 75425]] accountability of GL devices. OAS states that while the GL device rule was an improvement over past regulation of these devices, there are still on-going problems with the regulation of GL gauging devices, including: Low awareness of regulatory requirements by general licensees. No routine inspection of GL devices for compliance with requirements. No regulatory review prior to purchase. Continued incidents involving loss of control of real or suspected GL devices. OAS believes that specific licensing of higher activity GL gauging devices would provide the following advantages: 1. Allow regulatory review (through the license application process) of higher-activity device purchases prior to receipt. 2. Increase security of the higher risk gauging devices to minimize the possibility of these devices being used in malicious acts. 3. Increase licensee awareness of regulatory requirements by virtue of the specific license application process and periodic inspections. 4. Improve licensee control of devices, which may reduce the number of potential orphan sources. Petitioner's Conclusion The OAS understands and agrees with the desire of the Commission and device manufacturers for more uniform regulation of devices within the NRC and Agreement States. At the same time, the Agreement States' desire to assure better accountability for sources and devices that are within the states' jurisdiction. The Agreement States believe that the manufacture and distribution of the devices is best addressed uniformly by the methods described in this petition. Therefore, the OAS is proposing that 10 CFR 31.5 be amended to require specific licensing for devices that are currently regulated by a combination of general licensing and registration. This action would establish a higher national standard of regulation for identified higher risk devices. In addition, the OAS is proposing that the compatibility category for 10 CFR 31.6 be revised from ``B'' to ``C'' to allow retention of a tool used by States to track the location and movement of device manufacturers and service providers in their State. This would allow Agreement States the opportunity to assess and monitor the radiation safety programs of device manufacturer representatives working within the State. The OAS believes the NRC and Agreement States can implement the proposed changes with limited impact on regulatory agencies and licensees, resulting in improved regulation and control of radioactive materials. Florida's Request In addition to requesting comment on the petition by the OAS, NRC is seeking comment on a request by the Florida BRC. The issues raised in Florida's request are closely related to those in the OAS petition, so NRC is seeking comment on both the OAS petition and the Florida request at the same time. Florida, an Agreement State, requested that the NRC change the compatibility category of 10 CFR 31.5(c)(13)(I) from category ``B'' to ``C''. Florida believes that the decision of whether and how to register additional types and quantities of generally (GL) devices beyond what the NRC requires should be a decision left to the State with the authority for regulating the devices. Florida states that it has had well-established requirements for the registration and regulation of GL devices for many years before the NRC adopted regulations to register certain GL devices. Florida states that NRC's decision to assign a compatibility category ``B'' for 10 CFR 31.5(c)(13)(I), will require it to reduce its current health, safety, and security regulatory control of GL devices in order to be compatible with the less stringent NRC regulations. Florida states that they issue and currently regulate over 1500 radioactive material licenses, promulgate regulations and enforce these regulations under the authority of Chapter 404, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 64 E-5, Florida Administrative Code. Florida notes that the NRC periodically reviews the performance of its programs, thereby assuring compatibility with the NRC's regulatory requirements. Florida requires registration of all GL devices with the exception of some tritium exit signs. Their program includes source registration, fees, annual inventories and inspections. Florida is concerned that the December 18, 2000, final rule, effective on February 16, 2001, revised portions of 10 CFR parts 30, 31, and 32 to add new requirements for manufacturers, distributors and users of GL devices, and that part of the revision established a new registration program for certain GL devices in 10 CFR 31.5 [sscopy])(13) and assigned a compatibility category of ``B''. According to Florida, it has instituted a number of changes required by the rule as legally binding license conditions and also is working on promulgating rules to address these issues, with the exception of the new registration requirements that would force it to adopt less stringent registration and accountability standards for certain GL devices containing radioactive material. Florida notes that NRC's procedures in Management Directive 5.9, for categorizing program elements or regulations, states that to be included in Category ``B'', an NRC program element is to be one that applies to activities that have direct and significant effects in multiple jurisdictions (emphasis added). Examples include: transportation requirements, approval of products that are distributed nationwide, and definitions of products. Florida believes the registration of additional GL devices would not have a direct and significant effect in multiple jurisdictions. Florida asserts that States and the NRC have had different GL requirements for years with little discussion of any transboundary problems, and that any actions concerning the registration of additional GL devices in Florida would be between the State and individuals in Florida. According to Florida, this registration process does not have any direct and significant effect on device manufacturers or distributors, the transportation of the devices, the requirements for approval, or the movement of devices into or out of Florida. In the request, Florida cites its ability to register, inventory, and inspect all GL devices, as providing many benefits for the safety and security of its citizens and visitors and therefore to move to NRC's registration scheme would require it to cease to be able to register and account for over 1,000 radioactive sources in GL devices currently being regulated. Florida believes that its ability to continue to register all GL devices clearly meets the essential objective of NRC's Generally Licensed Device Rule. Florida notes also that NRC's categorization criteria further states that for a program element to be included in Category ``C'', it should be one that the essential objective should be adopted by an Agreement State to avoid conflicts, duplications, or gaps in the regulation of agreement material on a nationwide basis and that, if not adopted, would result in an undesirable consequence. Florida believes that 10 CFR 31.5(c)(13)(I) meets the criteria for, and should be categorized as, compatibility category ``C'' in accordance with NRC Management Directive 5.9. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of December, 2005. [[Page 75426]] For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 05-24250 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 17 Rediff India Abroad: Two more N-power plants likely in Kudankulam > PTI December 20, 2005 18:56 IST Two more units of 1,000 megawatts each are likely to be put up at the Kudankulam Nuclear Power project near Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu, a top official said Tuesday. The two new units are in addition to the two plants of 1,000 MW each, one of which is nearing completion and is expected to be commissioned in 2006. The second unit is expected to be ready by 2008, Executive Director, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, S K Agrawal told newsmen in Chennai. The Centre has already given site clearance for the two new proposed plants and once the environmental clearance is obtained from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, the work will commence, he said. KNPP had enough land available with it to put up six plants of 1,000 MW each. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has already said he wanted all the nuclear power plants in the country to produce 40,000 MW within the next 10 years."It is a very big task. Tamil Nadu government has already told us it needs more power. However, when the two plants under construction get ready, major share of power will go to Tamil Nadu and the balance to other southern states," he said. Action is being taken for obtaining environmental clearance. "We are going to take the environmental clearance again even for the two units under construction. Application is getting ready for this and in a day or two, we will be sending it to TNPCB," he said. Agrawal said two 1,000 MW power plants each are already coming up at Jagadapur in Maharashtra, two more plants of 700 MW capacity are proposed to be set up in Gujarat. Two units of the same capacity were already in operation there. Besides these, two plants of 700 MW each were coming up at Kota, Rajasthan, he said. On the KNPP, which is a light water reactor using natural uranium as fuel, he said civil works on one of the plants were almost complete. The site was now filled with equipment to be used for generating power, and installation work had already begun. All the 15 plants in the country, which were cumulatively producing 3,371 MW power, were complying with IAEA safeguards. "All our nuclear power plants are opened to peer review by international experts and even the US has reviewed them. Every grain of fuel, from the sources to usage has been accounted for so that everybody knows where the fuel was used and what is its status," he said in answer to a question. To another question, Agrawal said many countries are now envincing keen interest in generating power using nuclear energy. "Finland is already looking at this, while China has chalked out a programme for the generation of 30,000 MW using nuclear energy." The mini port at Kudankulam has complied with international Ship safety regulation and is registered with Indian Director General of Shipping, he said. Earlier, Anna University Vice-Chancellor Dr D Viswanathan inaugurated a photo exhibition on the occasion of "Professional Day of Russian Energy Industry". © Copyright 2005 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or Copyright © 2005 Rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 18 Platts: With Constellation purchase, FPL adds to nuclear holdings Washington (Platts)--19Dec2005 FPL Group's purchase of Constellation Energy would create the third-largest nuclear portfolio in the U.S. in terms of megawatts owned, the companies said today in announcing their planned merger. FPL Group, through its subsidiaries, operates St. Lucie-1 and -2, Turkey Point-3 and -4, and Seabrook and has a purchase agreement for a majority interest in Duane Arnold. Constellation operates Calvert Cliffs-1 and -2, Nine Mile Point-1 and -2, and Ginna. FPL estimated the nuclear capacity it owns at 4,434 megawatts (including Duane Arnold), compared to Constellation's 3,794 MW. The leaders of the two companies also said they remained interested in adding to their nuclear operations through continued acquisitions of existing reactors or potential construction of new units. The combined company, also to be called Constellation Energy, will be the largest competitive energy supplier in the U.S., the companies said, and will have total assets of $57-billion. The new company will have the country's largest total generation portfolio, exceeding 45,000 megawatts, the companies said. Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 19 NewsFromRussia.Com: No room for nuclear storage facilities in Chernobyl 18:12 2005-12-20 Ukrainian parliament Speaker Vladimir Litvin has declared that no nuclear storage facilities would be built at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Litvin expressed regret, saying that Viktor Yushchenko's statement to this effect “had been misinterpreted,” the press service of the Ukrainian parliament said on Tuesday. "All I can say is that nothing of that kind will be built in Chernobyl,” the speaker underlined. " We should drop this subject and set the minds of those who suffered from the planetary catastrophe at rest," Litvin said. He said that all those who still cherished plans of turning Ukraine into a huge dumping site should "experiment in their own orchards first." President Viktor Yushchenko earlier declared that he was prepared to look into this problem and make a political decision on the problem of the storage of spent nuclear fuel brought from other countries to the alienation zone only if experts and scientists approved these plans and after public debates only. Such advantageous proposalsmight be considered after thorough studies of the nuclear storage projects, Yushchenko noted. His statement triggered a negative response from Ukrainian politicians, Itar-Tass reports. V.Y. Copyright ©1999 by "Pravda.RU". ***************************************************************** 20 Platts: Enthusiasm of ENC 2005 tempered by public acceptance, absences London (Platts)--19Dec2005 Buoyed by concrete signs of a nuclear renaissance on three continents, the European Nuclear Conference (ENC) 2005 convened last week in Versailles amid an atmosphere of euphoria that stood in sharp contrast to the gloom that has marked ENCs since the late 1970s. For the first time in well over a decade, ENC delegates heard of a new nuclear power plant under construction in Europe? Finland's Olkiluoto-3? and of plans for more, beginning in France but quite possibly spreading to the U.K. and beyond. Moreover, the revival of the U.S. nuclear market has also fueled hopes, expressed at the Versailles sessions, that the newly found enthusiasm for nuclear power will spread worldwide. ENC 2005 also drew a healthy attendance, with nearly 600 participants and 60 exhibitors from 10 countries. But although several speakers at the ENC opening session Dec. 12 stressed that public support remained the biggest obstacle to nuclear expansion in many countries, the opening session was marred by two major no-shows: French Industry Minister Francois Loos, and Anne Lauvergeon, chairman of Areva?the world's largest nuclear company?who is seen as the European industry's leader. Loos sent the director of his ministry's energy division, Dominique Maillard, to address the ENC participants. It was the second time Maillard had stood in for a French minister at an ENC meeting: the first was seven years ago in Nice, when the nuclear community was in deep doldrums and in need of high-level moral support from the host country, but Industry Minister Dominique Strauss-Kahn canceled his presentation. Lauvergeon, for her part, was supposed to receive the WIN Global Award from Women In Nuclear in Versailles, but officials said she was detained in Paris. The absence of the key political and the key industry leader from the host country, home to the world's biggest nuclear utility and its biggest nuclear vendor firm, was hard to understand for many ENC delegates. Who did come to Versailles was U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), who was awarded the Grand Medal of the French Nuclear Energy Society (SFEN), the first time the honor went to a non-Frenchman. Jacques Bouchard, former director of nuclear energy at France's Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique (CEA), also received the SFEN award. In accepting the award, Domenici said he "never would have believed" in 1997, when he made his "New Nuclear Paradigm" speech at Harvard University, that it would be possible to revive the nuclear option in only eight years. He noted "French nuclear leadership" during that period, but said that now, the process of bringing the U.S. back to new nuclear construction is under way. "The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is already bearing fruit," said Domenici, who led that legislation through the Senate. He noted that eight U.S. utilities are in various stages of planning 13 new nuclear power units, saying, "This is good news for the world. ... There can be no doubt that if the U.S. comes to life, the signal will go out far and wide that the cradle of nuclear power is once again aware of the immense benefits" of the technology. Domenici also said he would "never have believed" that legislation promoting nuclear power by extending the Price-Anderson Act ("without it, nuclear cannot exist in the U.S.") and putting in place nuclear licensing risk insurance and tax benefits for the first few reactors, as the 2005 energy act does, "could pass in the U.S. with such ease." He said, "The stars are lined up" for a U.S. nuclear revival. At the ENC session, James Reinsch, senior vice president, power of Bechtel Inc., and president-elect of the American Nuclear Society, said he expected that "in the early to mid-teens (2010s) we will have a robust plan in the U.S. and we will join the rest of the world" in deploying new nuclear. The head of the European utility that is building the world's first Generation III PWR, Finland's Teollisuuden Voima Oy (TVO), told the conference that "technology is not a major problem" in new nuclear, because suppliers have technology that meets all western standards and is "acceptable." Safety is also not a big issue, said TVO CEO Pertti Simola, nor is competitiveness, in his view. The issues to be resolved, he said, include financing?but TVO's success shows "there are financing models which are acceptable"?and management of spent fuel and waste. But Simola predicted that carbon dioxide emissions trading "will have a big impact including on money flows" between companies, and said that high fossil fuel prices will continue to make Gen III plants a "relevant way to generate nuclear energy in the coming decades." Tackling public acceptance Several speakers depicted public acceptance as the Achilles' heel of nuclear power. Larry Foulke, current ANS president, called on the nuclear community to become "engaged in telling the story" of nuclear's benefits to the public. "Facts will win over at the end of the debate," he said, and "eventually opposition to civilian nuclear energy will be revealed as among the greatest errors of our time." Pierre Gadonneix, chairman/CEO of Electricite de France (EDF), said the future of the nuclear industry "depends on our capacity to develop public acceptance" and demonstrate that nuclear power "is both safe and competitive." That, he said, requires "overcoming fears" in particular about long-term waste management, through "clear demonstration" that solutions exist with "a calendar on a human scale." But Bernard Bigot, high commissioner for nuclear energy at the CEA, said that while technical improvements like waste minimization can help overcome "fear and mistrust" among the public, "the answers cannot be only scientific and technical, but will surely need a new relationship between scientists and society." Maillard said responsibility for greater public acceptance rests not only on governments and administrations, but also on "companies and scientists" in the nuclear community. "We have concrete answers" to issues of nuclear plant competitiveness and financing, Maillard said, "but we must not neglect the strong emotional (issue) that nuclear represents for our fellow citizens." He said a "specific way of exchanging information" on nuclear with the public must be found. Loos and fellow ministers are determined to develop new methods of nuclear industry "governance," which could be part of the high-level waste management bill the government will submit to the parliament next spring, Maillard said. This story was originally published in Platts Nucleonics Week. Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 21 APP.COM: Radiation barrier will get a checkup | Asbury Park Press Online Tuesday, December 20, 2005 Oyster Creek critics: Test liner regularly Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 12/20/05 BY NICHOLAS CLUNN STAFF WRITER Workers at the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant will measure the thickness of a once-corroded radiation barrier that has worried plant critics for some time. Officials from plant owner AmerGen Energy intend to complete the one-time measurement on a portion of the barrier before 2009, when they hope to begin extended operations under a renewed operating license now being sought, AmerGen spokeswoman Rachelle Benson said Monday. A company application for a 20-year renewal is now pending before the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Without one, the Lacey plant, which opened in 1969, will close. Using ultrasound, workers will measure the thickness of a part of the barrier called the drywell liner. Results should confirm similar measurements taken in 1994 and 1996 and prove that a coating meant to halt corrosion is working, Benson said. But plant critics are disappointed with AmerGen's plans. They say the company should take ultrasonic measurements of this part of the plant on a regular basis. "We don't think it's sufficient that they go back and look at some of the old measurements and that they'll do it one time only," said Paul Gunter, director of the Reactor Watchdog Project at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. The drywell is shaped like an inverted light bulb and contains the reactor vessel, a container in which atoms are split to make heat. In the event of an accident, the drywell would help contain highly radioactive steam and gas. AmerGen officials will measure a part of the drywell that had corroded because of water leaks discovered in 1980. To fix the problem, workers stopped the leaks and coated corroded areas with an epoxy to halt decay. The corrosion has stopped and the drywell will not corrode to less than the minimum required thickness before 2029, according to an AmerGen document. But the last ultrasonic measurement of the area in question was in 1996, according to government documents. That worries plant critics, who contend that more corrosion may have taken place since then. Some anti-nuclear and environmental activists have filed a petition seeking an NRC hearing into the adequacy of the drywell liner. The hearing is part of the license renewal process and allows parties to bring quasi-legal cases against applicants. The state Department of Environmental Protection also has requested a hearing. A decision on whether the state and the activist coalition will appear before a three-person panel is expected in February. Nicholas Clunn: (609) 978-4597 or nclunn@app.com BEHIND THE NEWS Officials at the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant decided to measure a radiation barrier called the drywell after federal regulators suggested the idea, plant spokeswoman Rachelle Benson said. They made the suggestion after reviewing how the plant planned to maintain the drywell during a proposed 20-year renewal term, Benson said. The practice of performing measurements and tests before starting maintenance programs is common, she said. Copyright © 2005 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 22 NRC: Sunshine Act; Notice of Meetings FR Doc 05-24323 [Federal Register: December 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 243)] [Notices] [Page 75488-75489] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20de05-81] Agency Holding the Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dates: Weeks of December 19, 26, 2005, January 2, 9, 16, 23, 2006. Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Status: Public and Closed. Matters To Be Considered: Week of December 19, 2005 There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of December 19, 2005. Week of December 26, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of December 26, 2005. Week of January 2, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 2, 2006. Week of January 9, 2006--Tentative Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:30 a.m.--Briefing on International Research and Bilateral Agreements. (Contact: Roman Shaffer, 301-415-7606). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address: http://www.nrc.gov . Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:30 a.m.--Meeting with Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW). (Contact: John Larkins, 301-415-7360). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address: http://www.nrc.gov . Thursday, January 12, 2006 9:30 a.m.--Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1 & 2). Week of January 16, 2006--Tentative Thursday, January 19, 2006 1:30 p.m.--Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1 & 3). Week of January 23, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 23, 2006. * The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short [[Page 75489]] notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)--(301) 415- 1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415- 1662. * * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. * * * * * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, August Spector, at 301-415-7080, TDD: 301-415- 2100, or by e-mail at aks@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. * * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: December 15, 2005. R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 05-24323 Filed 12-16-05; 2:18 pm] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M ***************************************************************** 23 FCW.com: NRC to publish notice on e-submissions Web-based system proposed to track radioactive material [FCW.com, July 28, 2005] NRC to restore docs following security review [FCW.com, June 13, 2005] Safe from a cyberattack? [Federal Computer Week, Feb. 6, 2005] BY Dibya Sarkar Published on Dec. 16, 2005 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) wants to mandate electronic filings for all agency hearings to speed proceedings and reduce costs. NRC is seeking public comment on the proposed rule, which would require electronic submissions to all of the agencys adjudicatory boards and other parties in proceedings, according to an agency press release. The agency would make exceptions to allow paper filings in limited situations. Currently, electronic submissions are required only for applications for high-level radioactive waste repositories. Since 2001, the NRC has encouraged power reactor licensees to submit documents either through an electronic information exchange system or on CD-ROM, the release states. In 2003 the NRC issued a final rule that allowed licensees, vendors, applicants and members of the public to submit documents, including Freedom of Information Act requests, in an electronic format, the release states. Almost all parties in adjudicatory proceedings currently file by electronic mail, although they are not required to do so. The commission will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register soon. The public can comment on the rule and related draft guidance within 75 days after the notices publication. The NRC will hold a public meeting Jan. 10 to demonstrate electronic filings at the agencys headquarters. FCW.COM is a product of FCW Media Group. Copyright 2000-2005 ***************************************************************** 24 Rutland Herald: Case dropped against Yankee activists Rutland Vermont News & Information December 20, 2005 By DANIEL BARLOW Southern Vermont Bureau BRATTLEBORO — Trespassing charges against seven women arrested last month during a protest outside of Vermont Yankee's corporate offices have been dropped by Windham County State's Attorney Dan Davis. The women had pleaded innocent to the charges in Brattleboro District Court last week and were expecting to go to trial in March 2006. Davis, the prosecutor in the case, said the burden on the court system to try the women outweighed the alleged crimes. "Based on my review of the actions of the protesters, I deemed that it would be unwise to use the resources of my office and the court to prosecute," Davis said Monday. The women — many of whom are in their 50s and live in northern Massachusetts just outside of the 10-mile emergency zone around the nuclear power plant — were arrested Nov. 7 after allegedly trespassing on the front lawn of Entergy Nuclear in Brattleboro, the parent company of Vermont Yankee. On Friday, Davis issued the order dropping the charges against Maureen Briggs-Carrington, 54, of 57 Market St. in Northampton, Mass.; Terry Carter, 55, of 36 Chapin St. in Brattleboro; Elizabeth Wood, 27, of 111 Dutton Farm Road in Dummerston; Sally Shaw, 49, of 100 River Road in Gill, Mass.; Nina Keller, 59, of 28 Cold Brook Road in Wendell, Mass.; Sunny Miller, 56, of 103 Keets Road in Deerfield, Mass.; and Lynn Crough, 44, of 29 Beach St. in Greenfield, Mass. "I applaud what he has done," said Bennington attorney Stephen Saltonstall, who was representing the protesters and planned to ask that the charges be dropped on First Amendment grounds. "I want to personally thank him for this." Saltonstall said Davis invoked Vermont Rules of Criminal Procedure 48(a), which allows a prosecutor to dismiss charges "in the interest of justice." Davis used the same rule when he dropped charges against more than 20 people accused of blocking the main gate at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon in the late 1990s, said Saltonstall, who was representing the protesters in that case also. The State's Attorney's Office has prosecuted several protestors charged with crimes during his tenure, Davis said, but it is not uncommon to dismiss charges in certain cases. Davis said the protestors in this instance were using the media and the court system to get their anti-nuclear message out to the public. Wood, one of the women arrested last month, said she was pleased the charges were dropped and didn't believe it would affect the plan to stage at least one protest outside the corporate offices every month. She added that it was the goal of the protesters to "bring visibility" of nuclear issues to the public, not to get arrested. "I hope this encourages more people to come out and have their voices heard," Wood said. Five more women were arrested in a similar act of disobedience on Dec. 5, although it was not clear Monday if those charges will be dropped as well. Davis said he has not seen the court paperwork for those cases yet. A protest outside the offices on Saturday was peaceful and resulted in no arrests, according to several people who attended. ***************************************************************** 25 TheStar.com: Radioactive puzzle for premier Questions surround Ontario's nuclear option, says Andy Frame Dec. 20, 2005. 01:00 AM It is decision time in Ontario. The Ontario Power Authority (OPA) reported earlier this month that the province will need to count on nuclear power to supply 50 per cent of its electricity supply for the foreseeable future. But that was just a recommendation. The final decision is up to Premier Dalton McGuinty and his cabinet, who will have to answer several difficult questions. What kind of nuclear generation is acceptable? Does Ontario stay with CANDU, or go to the American-style light water reactor? What about the very successful French reactor system? Does the premier delay the decision further by calling for another report? And when you decide what to build, where do you build it? This is a hazardous political decision. Nobody wants a nuclear plant in their backyard. The anti-nuclear groups have already declared opposition, and will fight any new nuclear project. This is a government issue and not a question that can be referred to the OPA or to another consultant. Would the government list a number of nuclear sites and anger many areas by calling for a debate? Not a chance! The least difficult approach would be to build new nuclear reactors at existing generating sites. The switchyards and transmission facilities are established. There are two old coal plants in the Toronto area  the Hearn Plant in Toronto Harbour and the Lakeshore Plant in Mississauga. But nuclear plants in or near a major residential area are not acceptable. The second choice for new nuclear is where coal plants are being shut down. The coal plant at Nanticoke could be converted gradually to nuclear as the coal units wear out. The plant is located on a major body of water needed for cooling, and has a switchyard and transmission connection to the grid. The land would probably pass an environmental assessment with the argument that nuclear is cleaner than dirty coal. There would be major opposition from the anti-nuclear lobby, but much less than to a Toronto-area site. The third choice is the Darlington nuclear plant site, which has enough land to accommodate another station. There is environmental approval for the whole site, and some of the service facilities could be used for two stations. The land is not close to a major population centre, has a switchyard that can be expanded, and connection to an expanded transmission corridor. There would, of course, be opposition from environmental groups claiming that the investment should be made in wind and solar power and energy from waste. What about a nuclear site in the north? It could be done, but it would take time to find a site and opposition could be expected from the same groups that opposed dumping garbage in the north country. The series of decisions that follows the selection of nuclear as part of the energy-supply mix must fit into a time frame. The announcement "we are prepared to go ahead" is just the first of a series of decisions and choices with political consequences, and the process cannot be delegated to the Ontario Power Authority. The government's strategy could involve issuing a white paper, outlining the general policy and time frame, which would be reviewed by an existing legislative committee or a new select committee of the Legislature. Since the government has a majority, this approach could be successful. The financing of nuclear plants is just as important as the technical and environmental issues, because new nuclear stations will cost several billion dollars. Does the government have the money or the borrowing capacity to finance new plants? Probably not. Does it then become the role of government-owned Ontario Power Generation to build and finance new stations? It owns some of the possible sites and has experienced operating staff, and can borrow money without the debt load becoming part of the provincial debt structure. Is the government looking for a private partner to provide the financing and operate the facility in an arrangement similar to that at the Bruce Generating Station? Is a new nuclear station a high-risk project for a private investor looking to reap a big return on its investment? There isn't any time to debate these issues in public. It will take eight to 10 years to bring in a new nuclear station, even after the tough decisions about what kind and where are made. McGuinty must be asking what the public thinks. Will voters accept nuclear? Are they concerned about running out of power, or are they more influenced by the anti-nuclear and environmental groups saying we can live without nuclear, and solve our power requirement problems with clean energy sources and practise conservation and load management? Ontario and all of Canada will be watching to see if Premier McGuinty is ready to face the challenges of the long series of decisions that are needed to provide more power for a growing Ontario. Andy Frame is an engineer with 17 years experience as a senior adviser on electrical power utilities at the Ontario Ministry of Energy and a past municipal hydro chairman and chair of the Utility Association. Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All ***************************************************************** 26 NRC: FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Seabrook Station Unit No. 1; FR Doc E5-7515 [Federal Register: December 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 243)] [Notices] [Page 75487-75488] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20de05-80] Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, for Facility Operating License No. NPF-86 issued to FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC (the licensee), for operation of Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 (Seabrook), located in Rockingham County, New Hampshire. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action would extend the expiration date of the operating license for Seabrook from October 17, 2026, to March 15, 2030. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment dated March 28, 2005, as supplemented September 23, 2005. The Need for the Proposed Action The current operating licensed term for Seabrook ends on October 17, 2026. This is 40 years from the date of the zero-power operating license, which was issued on October 17, 1986. The amendment would extend the expiration date of the operating license from October 17, 2026, to March 15, 2030. The extended date for termination of the operating license would be 40 years after issuance of the full-power operating license which was issued on March 15, 1990. This would allow the licensee to recapture approximately 41 months of additional plant operation for the unit. This proposed amendment is not a request for license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that there are no significant environmental considerations involved with the proposed action. The extension of the operating licenses does not affect the design or operation of the plant, does not involve any modifications to the plant or any increase in the licensed power for the plant, and will not create any new or unreviewed environmental impacts that were not considered in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) related to the operation of Seabrook, NUREG-0895, dated December 1982. The evaluations presented in the FES were of the environmental impacts of generating power at Seabrook and the basis for granting a 40-year operating license for Seabrook. The environmental impacts of the proposed action are based on the evaluations in the FES. It should be noted that the Seabrook license was amended on February 28, 2005, to allow an increase in maximum core power by 5.2% (from 3411 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3587 MWt). The environmental assessment of the power uprate was published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2005 (70 FR 7525). The FES which, in general, assesses various impacts associated with operation of the facility in terms of annual impacts, and balances these against the anticipated annual energy production benefits. The offsite exposure from releases during postulated accidents has been previously evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for Seabrook. The results are acceptable when compared with the criteria defined in 10 CFR Part 100, as [[Page 75488]] documented in the Commission's Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-0896, dated March 1983, and its nine supplements. As a result of this action there is no change in the types, frequency, or consequences of design- basis accidents. The NRC staff has concluded that the impacts associated with the addition of approximately 41 months to the license expiration date are not significantly different from the operating license duration assessed in the Seabrook FES. Therefore, the staff concluded that the FES sufficiently addresses the environmental impacts associated with a full 40-year operating period for Seabrook. The annual occupational exposure of workers at the plant, station employees and contractors, is reported in the Annual Operating Report submitted by the licensee. The lowest exposure value is for a year without a refueling outage, and the highest value is for a year with a refueling outage. In Section 5.9.3.1.1 of the FES, the average occupational exposure for a pressurized water reactor was reported as 440 person-rems. Therefore, the expected annual occupational exposure for the proposed extended period of operation does not change previous conclusions presented in the FES on occupational exposure. The offsite exposure from releases during routine operations has been previously evaluated in Section 5.9.3 of the FES. During the low- power license, the plant was restricted to no more than five percent of rated power for no longer than 0.75 effective full power hours, and the generation of radioactivity at the plant was significantly smaller than would have occurred if the plant were at full-power operation. Therefore, the addition of approximately 41 months of operation that the licensee has requested does not change previous conclusions presented in the FES on annual public doses. The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off site, and there is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use of any different resource than those previously considered in the FES for Seabrook. Agencies and Persons Consulted On December 8, 2005, the staff consulted with the New Hampshire State official, Mr. Mike Nawoj, and the Massachusetts State official, Mr. James Muckerheid, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State officials had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated March 28, 2005 as supplemented September 23, 2005. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of December 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Darrell J. Roberts, Branch Chief, Plant Licensing Branch I-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-7515 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 27 NRC: Documents Containing Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirements: FR Doc E5-7517 [Federal Register: December 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 243)] [Notices] [Page 75484-75485] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20de05-77] Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). 1. Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: Revision. 2. The title of the information collection: 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, AP1000 Design Certification, Final Rule. 3. The form number if applicable: Not applicable. 4. How often the collection is required: Semi-annually. 5. Who will be required or asked to report: Applicant for a combined license. 6. An estimate of the number of annual responses: 2 (1 response plus 1 recordkeeper). 7. The estimated number of annual respondents: 1. 8. An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request: Approximately 39 additional burden hours (5 hours reporting plus 34 hours recordkeeping). 9. An indication of whether section 3507(d), Public Law 104-13 applies: It is applicable. 10. Abstract: The NRC is proposing to amend its regulations to certify the AP1000 standard plant design under subpart B of 10 CFR part 52. This action is necessary so that applicants or licensees intending to construct and operate an AP1000 design may do so by [[Page 75485]] referencing the AP1000 design certification rule (DCR). This proposed DCR, as set out in Appendix D, is nearly identical to the AP600 DCR in Appendix C of the 10 CFR part 52. The information collection requirements for part 52 were based largely on the requirements for licensing nuclear facilities under 10 CFR part 50. The applicant for certification of the AP1000 design is Westinghouse Electric Company LLC. A copy of the supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance packages are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html. The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer by February 21, 2006. John A. Asalone, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0151), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington DC 20503. Comments can also be e-mailed to John_A._Asalone@omb.eop.gov or submitted by telephone at (202) 395-4650. The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of December 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Office, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E5-7517 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 28 NRC: Entergy Operations, Inc.; Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit FR Doc E5-7544 [Federal Register: December 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 243)] [Notices] [Page 75485-75486] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20de05-78] 3; Exemption 1.0 Background Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License No. NPF-38 which authorizes operation of Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3). The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect. The facility consists of one pressurized-water reactor located in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. 2.0 Request/Action Sections IV.F.2.b and c of Appendix E, to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50 require the licensee at each site to conduct an exercise of its onsite emergency plan and of its offsite emergency plans biennially with full or partial participation by each offsite authority having a role under the offsite plan. During such biennial exercises, the NRC evaluates onsite and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) evaluates offsite emergency preparedness activities, including interaction with the various State and local emergency management agencies. The licensee successfully conducted a full-participation emergency preparedness exercise on May 21, 2003, and it was evaluated by the NRC and FEMA. The licensee had scheduled a plume exposure pathway exercise for December 7, 2005. However, due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the State of Louisiana was unable to support the exercise. Under the current regulations, the licensee would have had until December 31, 2005, to complete its next biennial full or partial-participation emergency preparedness exercises consisting of both onsite and offsite exercises. By letter dated October 24, 2005, the licensee requested an exemption from Section IV.F.2.c of Appendix E to 10 CFR part 50. Though not referenced in the licensee's request, the NRC staff has determined that an exemption from Section IV.F.2.b of Appendix E to 10 CFR part 50 is also necessary, since the last full participation onsite exercise was completed on May 21, 2003. The licensee commits to conduct the next biennial full participation emergency preparedness exercise on June 28, 2006. Future onsite and offsite exercises will be scheduled biennially from the year 2005. 3.0 Discussion The Commission, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1), may grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 that are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security. The Commission, however, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present. Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), special circumstances are present when application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v), special circumstances are present whenever the exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation. The underlying purposes for conducting a biennial exercise are to ensure that emergency organization personnel are familiar with their duties and to test the adequacy of emergency plans. In order to accommodate the scheduling of exercises, the NRC has allowed licensees to schedule the exercises at any time during the calendar biennium. Conducting the Waterford 3 exercise in calendar year 2006 places the exercise past the previously scheduled biennial calendar year of 2005. Since the last exercise conducted at Waterford 3 on May 21, 2003, Waterford 3 has conducted two emergency response team tabletops (site drills without state or parish participation) on August 8 and December 9, 2003, and Waterford 3 site-wide drills (which includes state and parish participation) on March 11, June 17, September 30, and December 2, 2004, and February 17, and August 4, 2005. The licensee also states: Emergency response team tabletops are conducted prior to each site-wide drill. The local parishes had limited participation (communication only) in each of the site-wide drills. The Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness also participated to a limited extent (communications only) in these drills. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality participated in all the site-wide drills by manning the Waterford 3 Emergency Operations Facility and the Emergency News Center. The NRC and FEMA did not participate in any of the tabletops or site-wide drills. Although these drills were not evaluated by NRC and FEMA, the results were critiqued by the drill participants, our emergency response organization, and the parish and state officials who participated in the drills. The drills were also evaluated by our Quality Assurance Department. An emergency preparedness medical drill at Ochsner Medical Center (Ochsner) took place on July 23, 2003, and FEMA evaluated a medical drill at Ochsner on August 6, 2003. Issues identified during all emergency preparedness drills and in the critiques that follow all the drills have been resolved or are being resolved under our corrective action program. The Waterford 3 emergency response, along with the parish and state emergency response, were further tested [[Page 75486]] as a result of Hurricane Katrina. Many of the elements of the Waterford 3 emergency response were implemented in the preparation, response, and restoration efforts for Hurricane Katrina. This includes activation of the Waterford 3, parish and state emergency response organizations, evacuation and re-entry of the population, environmental sampling, and assisting Waterford 3 in the plans for restart of the unit. The NRC staff considers the intent of the regulatory requirement is met by having conducted these series of drills and the emergency response to Hurricane Katrina. The NRC staff considers that these measures are adequate to maintain an acceptable level of emergency preparedness during this period, satisfying the underlying purposes of the rule. Therefore, the special circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) are satisfied. In addition, the staff has concluded that the above drills and exercises provide adequate protection of the public health and safety and are consistent with the common defense and security. Only temporary relief from the regulation is provided by the requested exemption, since Waterford 3 will resume their normal biennial exercise schedule in 2007. The licensee has made a good faith effort to comply with the regulation. The exemption is being sought by the licensee in response to a request by the State of Louisiana to postpone the exercise. Louisiana was unable to support the original schedule for the exercise due to a series of severe weather events. FEMA, in its letter dated October 14, 2005, to the State of Louisiana, stated, ``* * * we concur that the Waterford-3 Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) Exercise currently scheduled for December 7, 2005, * * * should be postponed due to the effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the local infrastructure * * *.'' The NRC staff, having considered the schedule and resource issues with those agencies that participate in and evaluate the offsite portion of the exercises, concludes that the licensee made a good faith effort to meet the requirements of the regulation. The NRC staff, therefore, concludes that the exemption request meets the special circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v) and should be granted. 4.0 Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Additionally, special circumstances are present, which make conducting the exercise impracticable in 2005, and which allow the underlying purposes of the regulation to be served with a postponement. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants Entergy Operations, Inc. an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Sections IV.F.2.b and c for Waterford 3. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (70 FR 73311). This exemption is effective upon issuance. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of December, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-7544 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 29 NRC: Availability of and Solicitation of Public Comments on Report on FR Doc E5-7545 [Federal Register: December 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 243)] [Notices] [Page 75501-75502] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20de05-84] Seismic Considerations for the Transition Break Size AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public comment. SUMMARY: On November 7, 2005, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published for public comment a proposed rule in the Federal Register (70 FR 67598) on Risk-Informed Changes to Loss-of-Coolant Accident Technical Requirements. Under the proposed Sec. 50.46a rule, nuclear power plant licensees would be allowed to implement a voluntary, risk- informed alternative to the current requirements for analyzing the performance of emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) during loss-of- coolant accidents (LOCAs). In addition, the proposed rule would establish procedures and criteria for requesting changes in plant design and procedures based upon the results of the new analyses of ECCS performance during LOCAs. In the Federal Register notice associated with the publication of the proposed alternative Sec. 50.46a rule, the Commission noted that the potential for seismically- induced pipe breaks was not considered in determining the area of the transition break sizes \1\ (TBSs). The Commission stated that work was ongoing to investigate the possible effect of seismically-induced pipe breaks on the TBS selections and committed to put a report on the NRC Web site to facilitate public comment on the technical aspects of the issue. The NRC staff has completed its report and has posted it on the Rulemaking Forum Web site, http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ Different values for TBS were specified for PWRs and BWRs. DATES: Comment period expires on February 6, 2006. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. [[Page 75502]] ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the seismic report and the proposed rule by any one of the following methods. Please include the following number, RIN 3150-AH29, in the subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including any information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply e- mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions about our rulemaking website to Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail cag@nrc.gov. Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. (Telephone (301) 415-1966). Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O1 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 http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 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 NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800- 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Dudley, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone (301) 415-1116; e-mail: rfd@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of December, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Eileen McKenna, Chief, Financial, Policy and Rulemaking Branch, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-7545 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 30 NRC: Virginia Electric and Power Company, Surry Power Station, Unit FR Doc E5-7546 [Federal Register: December 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 243)] [Notices] [Page 75486-75487] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20de05-79] Nos. 1 and 2; Exemption 1.0 Background The Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee) is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37 that authorizes operation of the Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (Surry). The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect. The facility consists of a two pressurized-water reactors located in Surry County, Virginia. 2.0 Request/Action Section IV.F.2.b of Appendix E, to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, requires the licensee at each site to conduct an exercise of its onsite emergency plan biennially. Section IV.F.2.c of Appendix E, to 10 CFR Part 50, states that the offsite plans for each site shall be exercised biennially with full participation by each offsite authority having a role under the plan. During such biennial full participation exercises, the NRC staff evaluates the onsite emergency preparedness activities, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) evaluates the offsite emergency preparedness activities, including interaction with its various State and local emergency management agencies. The licensee successfully conducted a full participation exercise at Surry on July 15, 2003. The licensee had scheduled a full participation Radiological Emergency Preparedness Exercise for December 6, 2005. Because the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (DEM) is currently constructing a new Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and this EOC is not scheduled to be fully operational until January 2, 2006, the Virginia DEM requested approval from FEMA to delay the emergency exercise until February 7, 2006, in order to allow the Virginia DEM to test its new EOC during the exercise at Surry. By letter dated May 20, 2005, FEMA approved Virginia DEM's request to delay this exercise until the first week of February 2006. Under the current regulations, the licensee would have until December 31, 2005, to complete its next full participation exercise. The licensee plans to conduct a Federally observed full participation emergency exercise on February 7, 2006. Future full participation exercises will be scheduled biennially from the year 2005. By letter dated September 15, 2005, the licensee requested an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.b and c regarding the biennial exercise and participation of the offsite response organizations during a biennial emergency exercise at Surry. Subsequently, the NRC staff has determined that the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.b and c are applicable to the circumstances of the licensee's request and that an exemption from those requirements is appropriate. 3.0 Discussion Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1), the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security. However, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), the Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present. Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), special circumstances are present when application of the regulation in the [[Page 75487]] particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v), special circumstances are present whenever the exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation. The underlying purpose for conducting a biennial exercise is to ensure that emergency response organization personnel are familiar with their duties and to test the adequacy of emergency plans. In order to accommodate the scheduling of full participation exercises, the NRC staff has allowed licensees to schedule the exercises at any time during the calendar biennium. Conducting the full participation exercise at Surry in calendar year 2006 places the exercise past the previously scheduled biennial calendar year of 2005. Since the last full participation exercise conducted at Surry on July 15, 2003, the licensee conducted Full Scale Plume exercises on April 13, 2004, and December 6, 2005, and also performed an unannounced plume phase exercise on August 25, 2004. In addition, four training exercises were conducted. The NRC staff considers the intent of this requirement met by having conducted these series of exercises and drills. The NRC staff considers these measures to be adequate to maintain an acceptable level of emergency preparedness during this period, satisfying the underlying purpose of the rule. Therefore, the special circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) are satisfied. Only temporary relief from the regulation is provided by the requested exemption since Surry will resume its normal biennial exercise schedule in 2007. The licensee has made a good faith effort to comply with the regulation. The exemption is being sought by the licensee in response to a request by the Virginia DEM to postpone the exercise. The Virginia DEM requested this delay to allow for the completion of the new EOC, which is not scheduled for completion until January 2, 2006. In its letter dated May 20, 2005, FEMA stated that it supports the schedule change from December 6, 2005, to the first week of February 2006. The NRC staff, having considered the schedule and resource issues with those agencies that participate in and evaluate the offsite portion of the full participation exercises, concludes that the licensee made a good faith effort to meet the requirements of the regulation. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the exemption request meets the special circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v) and should be granted. 4.0 Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants the licensee an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.b and c for Surry, Units 1 and 2. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (70 FR 72666). This exemption is effective upon issuance. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of December 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Edwin M. Hackett, Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-7546 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 31 NRC: Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; Revisions to Existing System of FR Doc E5-7547 [Federal Register: December 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 243)] [Notices] [Page 75500-75501] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20de05-83] Records AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed revisions to an existing system of records. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing public notice of its intent to modify an existing system of records, NRC-20, ``Official Travel Records--NRC,'' to incorporate the collection and use of travel charge card records, including credit data, to comply with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub. L. 108-447). DATES: The revised system of records will become effective without further notice on January 30, 2006 unless comments received on or before that date cause a contrary decision. If changes are made based on NRC's review of comments received, a new final notice will be published. ADDRESSES: Comments may be provided to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Written comments should also be transmitted to the Chief of the Rules and Directives Branch, either by means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-5144, or by e-mail to nrcrep@nrc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra S. Northern, Privacy Program Officer, FOIA/Privacy Act Team, Records and FOIA/Privacy Services Branch, Information and Records Services Division, Office of Information Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-6879; e-mail: ssn@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NRC is proposing to add new categories of records in the system to include charge card applications, terms and conditions for use of charge cards, charge card training documentation, monthly reports regarding accounts, credit data, and related documentation; update the authority for the system by adding Section 639 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub.L. 108-447); and incorporate three new routine uses which will allow disclosure of information to the charge card issuing bank, the Department of Interior, National Business Center, to collect severe travel card delinquencies by employee salary offset, and to a consumer reporting agency to obtain credit reports. A report on the proposed revisions is being sent to OMB, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the U.S. Senate, and the Committee on Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives as required by the Privacy Act and OMB Circular No. A- 130, Appendix I, ``Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals.'' NRC's actions are also consistent with OMB Circular A-123, ``Management's Responsibility for Internal Control.'' Accordingly, the NRC proposes to amend NRC-20 to read as follows: NRC-20 SYSTEM NAME: Official Travel Records--NRC. SYSTEM LOCATION: Primary system--Division of Financial Services, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, NRC, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Duplicate system--Duplicate systems may exist, in part, within the organization where the employee actually works for administrative purposes, at the locations listed in Addendum I, Parts 1 and 2, published on September 24, 2004 (69 FR 57579). CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: Current and former NRC employees, prospective NRC employees, consultants, and invitational travelers for NRC programs. CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: These records contain requests and authorizations for official travel, travel [[Page 75501]] vouchers, passports, and related documentation; charge card applications, terms and conditions for use of charge cards, charge card training documentation, monthly reports regarding accounts, credit data, and related documentation; all of which may include, but are not limited to, an individual's name, address, social security number, and telephone numbers. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: 5 U.S.C. 5701; 31 U.S.C. 716, 1104, 1108, 3511, 3512, 3701, 3711, 3717, 3718; Federal Travel Regulations, 41 CFR Parts 301-304; Federal Property Management Regulations, 41 CFR Part 101-41; Executive Order 9397; Section 639 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub. L. 108-447). ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: In addition to the disclosures permitted under subsection (b) of the Privacy Act, the NRC may disclose information contained in this system of records without the consent of the subject individual if the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the record was collected under the following routine uses: a. To the U.S. Treasury for payment; b. To the Department of State or an embassy for passports or visas; c. To the General Services Administration and the Office of Management and Budget for required periodic reporting; d. To the charge card issuing bank; e. To the Department of Interior, National Business Center, for collecting severe travel card delinquencies by employee salary offset; f. To a consumer reporting agency to obtain credit reports; and g. For any of the routine uses specified in the Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses. DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES: Disclosure Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12): Disclosures of information to a consumer reporting agency, other than to obtain credit reports, are not considered a routine use of records. Disclosures may be made from this system to ``consumer reporting agencies'' as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f) (1970)) or the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966, as amended (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3) (1996)). POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE: Maintained on paper in file folders, on computer media, and on magnetic tape. RETRIEVABILITY: Records are accessed by name, social security number, authorization number, and voucher payment schedule number. SAFEGUARDS: Maintained in key locked file cabinets and in conserver files in a passcode locked room. Passports and visas are maintained in a locked file cabinet. For electronic records, an identification number, a password, and assigned access to specific programs are required in order to retrieve information. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: Paper records are retained for 6 years and 3 months after period covered by account, then destroyed through disposal in a Classified and Sensitive Unclassified Waste container in accordance with GRS 9. Electronic records are deleted after the expiration of the retention period authorized for the disposable hard copy file or when no longer needed, whichever is later. SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: Chief, Payment Policy and Obligations Team, Division of Financial Services, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information pertaining to themselves should write to the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act (FOIA/PA) Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and comply with the procedures contained in NRC's Privacy Act regulations, 10 CFR Part 9. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE: Same as ``Notification procedure.'' CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURE: Same as ``Notification procedure.'' RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: Information is provided by the individual, NRC Agency staff, NRC contractors, the charge card issuing bank, the consumer reporting agency, and outside transportation agents. EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: None. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of December, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Edward T. Baker III, Director, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E5-7547 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 32 Times Herald-Record: Indian Point says 10 miles enough for safety zone www.recordonline.com December 20, 2005 Buchanan - Indian Point officials said yesterday that 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. 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 Have a tip about a news story? 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. CopyrightOrange County Publications. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 33 Joplin Globe: Feds give $2.3 million for reactor training The Associated Press The Joplin Globe • 117 E. Fourth St. • Joplin, MO 64801 • 417.623.3480 • 800.444.8514 • Fax 417.623.8450 12/20/05 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." www.joplinglobe.com ***************************************************************** 34 Telegraph: New mines on uranium map Calcutta : Jamshedpur Tuesday, December 20, 2005 OUR CORRESPONDENT Jamshedpur, Dec. 19: Two new uranium deposits, one in Karnataka and the other in Rajasthan, have come up on the national map. The sites have been identified by the Atomic Mineral Division (AMD), a wing of the department of atomic energy. Officials of Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL), Jadugoda, informed a couple of days back that AMD, which undertakes exploration and research activities for uranium mining, has recently identified the new sites at Gulbarga district in Karnataka and Shikar district in Rajasthan. The AMD will now undertake a feasibility study at both these places on the basis of which uranium mining at the respective places will be taken up. “If the feasibility report of the AMD is a positive one, uranium mining can be carried out in those areas. It shall, however, take quite some time for the AMD to prepare the feasibility report as several details have to be looked into before finalising the report,” UCIL officials informed. About the two new projects that the UCIL has taken up in Meghalaya and Andhra Pradesh, Diwakar Acharya, general manager (mines), UCIL, said: “In Andhra Pradesh, mining operation will be undertaken in two districts — Nalgonda and Cuddapah while West Khasi hills in Meghalaya has been identified for mining operations there.” UCIL secretary P.V. Dubey also spoke about their projects in Jadugoda in East Singhbhum, where the company has started two new mines at Banduhurang (open cast) and Bagjata (underground), while a new processing plant is under construction at Turamdih, about 12 km from the city. “Moreover, efforts are also being made to start underground uranium mining at Mahuldih in Seraikela-Kharsawan district for which a public hearing is slated on December 20,” the senior UCIL official added. The Mahuldih project will be the seventh such project of UCIL in Jharkhand, Dubey said. Acharya, who has been entrusted to look after the Mahuldih project, revealed that an environment impact assessment (EIA) report has already been prepared by Mecon, a Ranchi-based consultant firm. UCIL officials further informed that uranium extracted from different mines in Jharkhand is utilised in 14 nuclear power reactors for generating 2,700 MW of power. Copyright © 2005 The Telegraph. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 35 Sofia Morning News: Bulgaria's Nuke Completes 2005 Production Plan www.novinite.com Business: 20 December 2005, Tuesday. Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant in Bulgaria has completed its yearly production plan late Monday night, the plant reported. This year the facility has generated over 1.733 M megawatt hours of energy more than 2004. Since the beginning of the year, Kozloduy NPP has generated more than 17 B megawatt hours of energy in total. The production plant has been implemented earlier due to optimum task organization and the reduced deadlines for yearly reconstruction and modernization programs, the plant announced. Bulgaria, which aspires to join the European Union in 2007, accepted EU-safety requirements during its accession negotiations and agreed to close down four of its six nuclear reactors at Kozloduy. The oldest two - Units 1 and 2 - were shut down on December 31, 2002. All the four remaining units of the facility are currently working full-time. All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2005 - Copyright Bulgaria news Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) is unique with being a real time news provider in English that informs its readers about the latest Bulgarian news. The editorial staff also publishes a daily online newspaper "Sofia Morning News." Novinite.com (Sofia News ***************************************************************** 36 AFP: India to outline nuclear plans to US but expects no fast deal - Tuesday December 20, 09:04 PM NEW DELHI (AFP) - India will outline how it can split its civilian and nuclear facilities at a meeting this week in Washington as part of its bid to win access to US civilian nuclear technology, a report said. India is seeking to reassure the United States that any civilian nuclear help will not help its weapons programme. Congress must approve the deal signed by US President George Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in July. However, New Delhi does not expect the two-day meeting of the Nuclear Working Group starting Wednesday to finalise a plan, The Hindu newspaper said. Energy-hungry India has been denied advanced civilian nuclear technology since it tested atomic weapons over two decades ago and refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. India, which is highly secretive about its weapons programs, has given no details about the proposals it will present at the meeting of the group headed by Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran and US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns. As part of its commitment under the July deal, New Delhi must not only separate its military and civilian nuclear operations, it must agree to permit international inspections of its civilian nuclear program. On Monday, The Times of India quoted an unnamed official as saying that the list of civilian nuclear facilities India will place under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards will be long enough to satisfy the Bush administration. India, which imports 70 percent of its fuel oil needs, is seeking to broaden its fuel sources to sustain its booming economy. Right now, nuclear power supplies just three percent of its energy requirements. While the agreement would give India vital access to civilian atomic technology, some Indian security experts oppose the deal, saying it could cap its nuclear weapons program. The deal has also been the target of criticism from US lawmakers and weapons experts, who say it undermines nuclear non-proliferation efforts. Last week, a senior US official in New Delhi said the agreement "will not be finished" by the time Bush visits India. "This deal has a lot of moving parts, it takes time to be negotiated," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Bush is expected to visit in late February or early March. Copyright © 2005 AFP. All rights reserved. All information ***************************************************************** 37 JS Online: Emergency drill report was altered at nuclear plant Worker pleads guilty to crime; operator faces fine By THOMAS CONTENT tcontent@journalsentinel.com Posted: Dec. 19, 2005 The emergency preparedness manager at the Point Beach nuclear power plant altered a report to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission three years ago, an act that led to his pleading guilty to two crimes this year and has the plant operator facing a $60,000 fine. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Monday that it was proposing the fine for Nuclear Management Co. for failing to provide complete and accurate information concerning an emergency preparedness drill at the plant in Manitowoc County in August 2002. An investigation by the agency concluded that the plant's emergency preparedness manager and emergency preparedness coordinator deliberately provided NRC inspectors with inaccurate information about a problem identified during the drill. In the drill, which simulated a radiation leak, the plant staff failed to identify the emergency within 15 minutes, as required by federal rules during nuclear emergencies. The NRC determined that regulators - and not the plant operator Nuclear Management Co. - identified the problem during a critique of the drill. But two plant employees later falsified information on a drill performance evaluation submitted to the agency, showing incorrectly that the company, not the agency, identified the problem. For that falsification, both employees, William Yarosz and Dave Seebert, were disciplined and later dismissed by Nuclear Management, the company that operates Point Beach and several other nuclear power plants in the Upper Midwest. In addition, Yarosz, who was the Point Beach emergency preparedness manager, was prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice, which charged him with making false statements and possessing false papers to defraud the United States. Yarosz pleaded guilty in summer in federal court in Green Bay to the two misdemeanors and was sentenced to one year of probation and fined $500. Seebert, an emergency preparedness coordinator at the time of the incident, cooperated with the investigating authorities and faced no criminal charges. Evaluation changed, court records say According to a plea agreement filed in federal court, Yarosz and Seebert admitted to making changes to a drill evaluation form on Nov. 15, 2002, and backdated the document to Aug. 2. Those changes made it appear that the company had identified the tardy response time to the emergency. "If true, the 'self-identification' of the problem could have prevented the NRC from issuing" a violation against Point Beach, the plea agreement states. "Declaring and classifying a nuclear emergency in a timely manner is crucial for proper and timely response to a nuclear accident," said James Caldwell, NRC regional administrator. "We require emergency drills to find and correct weaknesses in plants' emergency preparedness programs so that the plant staff will be as ready as possible in case of a real event. If we are not provided with accurate information about the company's performance during a drill, neither the company nor the NRC will be able to address weaknesses in the plant's emergency preparedness program." The NRC violation came more than three years after the incident because a criminal case was also filed in the case, agency spokesman Jan Strasma said. Criminal case delays civil action The civil investigation didn't start until after the criminal case was concluded this summer, Strasma said. Nuclear Management spokeswoman Sara Cassidy said emergency preparedness improvements were a significant part of a stepped-up series of inspections by the NRC in recent years. Those more intense inspections came after Point Beach became the only nuclear power plant in the nation to be hit with two "red" findings by the NRC. Red findings are reserved for violations that have the highest safety significance. "We have made improvements in the emergency preparedness area," she said. "As a result of this event, disciplinary actions were taken immediately, and we've gone through coaching plant employees on the importance of accurate communications." The regulators said the case merits a "white" finding, which means the issue carries a "low to moderate" significance to plant safety, the agency said. Plant owned by Wisconsin Energy Nuclear Management Co. has until Jan. 17 to pay the fine or to protest it. The two-reactor plant near Two Rivers is owned by Milwaukee-based Wisconsin Energy Corp. "What's most important to us is the fact that we believe this isn't indicative of the current performance and, most of all, even the NRC acknowledges that NMC has take the appropriate corrective action," said Barry McNulty, a Wisconsin Energy spokesman. From the Dec. 20, 2005, editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 2005, Journal Sentinel Inc. All rights reserved. | Produced by Journal Sentinel Inc. is a subsidiary of Journal Communications. ***************************************************************** 38 [du-list] Karen Parkers radio interview Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:39:23 -0800 dear all, heres teh interview with karen parker for Medocino public radio over attaking medical facilities at fallujah. Please circulate Dear Readers, > >On Wednesday, on my program, Takes on the World, for KZYX, Mendocino >Public Radio, I interviewed long-time human rights and war crimes >expert, Karen Parker, regarding her campaign to have the US brought to >justice for the war crimes it committed by US troops against the medical >facilities in Fallujah during the attack on that city. You can listen to >the interview plus questions from listeners (37:33 min.) by clicking on >http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=15582 > --------------------------------- Play Santa's Celebrity Xmas Party, an exclusive game from Yahoo! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. ***************************************************************** 39 [du-list] Heads roll at Veterans Administration: Mushrooming Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:40:05 -0800 http://www.sfbayview.com/012605/headsroll012605.shtml Heads roll at Veterans Administration Mushrooming depleted uranium (DU) scandal blamed by Bob Nichols Project Censored Award Winner Considering the tons of depleted uranium used by the U.S., the Iraq war can truly be called a nuclear war. Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter charged Monday that the reason Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi stepped down earlier this month was the growing scandal surrounding the use of uranium munitions in the Iraq War. Writing in Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter No. 169, Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law in New York, stated, “The real reason for Mr. Principi’s departure was really never given, however a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of the ‘Gulf War Syndrome’ has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium munitions by the US Military.” Bernklau continued, “This malady (from uranium munitions), that thousands of our military have suffered and died from, has finally been identified as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. The terrible truth is now being revealed.” He added, “Out of the 580,400 soldiers who served in GW1 (the first Gulf War), of them, 11,000 are now dead! By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on Permanent Medical Disability. This astounding number of ‘Disabled Vets’ means that a decade later, 56% of those soldiers who served have some form of permanent medical problems!” The disability rate for the wars of the last century was 5 percent; it was higher, 10 percent, in Viet Nam. “The VA Secretary (Principi) was aware of this fact as far back as 2000,” wrote Bernklau. “He, and the Bush administration have been hiding these facts, but now, thanks to Moret’s report, (it) ... is far too big to hide or to cover up!” “Terry Jamison, Public Affairs Specialist, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs, at the VA Central Office, recently reported that ‘Gulf Era Veterans’ now on medical disability, since 1991, number 518,739 Veterans,” said Berklau. “The long-term effects have revealed that DU (uranium oxide) is a virtual death sentence,” stated Berklau. “Marion Fulk, a nuclear physical chemist, who retired from the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, and was also involved with the Manhattan Project, interprets the new and rapid malignancies in the soldiers (from the 2003 Iraq War) as ‘spectacular … and a matter of concern!’” When asked if the main purpose of using DU was for “destroying things and killing people,” Fulk was more specific: “I would say it is the perfect weapon for killing lots of people!” Principi could not be reached for comment prior to deadline. ----- References --------------------------------- Play Santa's Celebrity Xmas Party, an exclusive game from Yahoo! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. ***************************************************************** 40 [du-list] Better Cleanup Needed at Ravenna Arsenal Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:40:31 -0800 December 18, 2005 Better Cleanup Needed at Ravenna Arsenal The Ohio EPA and U.S. Army at Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant are seeking public comment on whether or not to clean up contaminated soils at an area known as the Winklepeck Burning Grounds. Obviously the proposed cleanup of the 200-acre site is necessary; the Army's own studies verify that contaminant levels constitute a significant risk to human health. The real question is ­ is this enough? You should know that proposed cleanup goals (the highest allowable contaminant concentration that can be left after soils are excavated) at Ravenna will not afford adequate protection of human health and the environment when compared to facilities elsewhere. This is due in part to the fact that Ravenna limits its evaluation of risk to soldiers to direct dermal contact with soils and fails to address other equally plausible routes of exposure such as inhalation of fugitive dust and emissions, incidental ingestion, and exposure through the human food chain (consumption of food crops, wild game, dairy products, fish, etc.). The principal contaminants of concern at the Winklepeck Burning Grounds are Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and the explosive RDX. PAHs are a group of more than 100 chemicals; some are suspected carcinogens. RDX is a suspected human carcinogen if inhaled or ingested, and is a relatively common contaminant at military facilities. For example, after World War II, the military turned over a 34,000- acres parcel in Illinois to the DOI for use as a National Wildlife Refuge. The cleanup goals for soils at the Crab Orchard Refuge were based on protecting refuge employees, site workers, hunters/hikers, and site trespassers. Like the soldiers at Ravenna, they are not present at the facility on a full-time basis. The recommended soil cleanup goal for RDX at the Crab Orchard Refuge is 6 mg/kg. The proposed goal at Ravenna, however, is more than 100 times higher or 617 mg/kg. In addition to RDX, levels of PAHs in soils at Ravenna are also elevated. One of the more prominent is benzo(a)pyrene, classified by the EPA as a known animal carcinogen and a suspected human carcinogen. In 1994, a soil removal was conducted at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida to "eliminate potential unacceptable human health risk to current and future site workers and to reduce potential risk to hypothetical future residents". The EPA-recommended remedial goal for benzo(a)pyrene was 0.1 mg/kg. By comparison, the proposed cleanup goal at Ravenna is 75 times higher or 7. 5 mg/kg. The same holds true at other military facilities. At the Joliet Arsenal in Illinois, a cleanup goal of 0.1 mg/kg was recommended for benzo(a)pyrene based on cancer risk. According to the Army, the most likely human receptors at Joliet (now the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie) include "recreational park users, industrial workers, and USDA prairie workers and volunteers". At the Badger Army Ammunition Plant, my neighbor here in Wisconsin, the U.S. EPA has approved a health-based goal for benzo(a)pyrene in both surface and subsurface soils of 0.4 mg/kg (compared to 7.5 mg/kg at Ravenna). The 7,400- acre base is closing and will be soon transferred to new owners for agriculture, conservation, and recreation. Clearly, not only are the citizens of Ohio getting the short end of the stick, so are its soldiers. According to Ravenna's proposal, the "Range Maintenance Soldier" is the population at highest risk from exposure to unsafe levels of site toxins. You can do your part to get a stronger and equitable cleanup by participating in the current public comment period. Written comments must be postmarked by January 8, 2006 and are to be submitted to the Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant Facility Manager, Building 1037, 8451 State Route 5, Ravenna, OH 44266. In order to make sure your comments receive the attention they deserve, copies should be sent to your federal representatives and the U.S. EPA. A public meeting is also scheduled for Tuesday December 20 at the Newton Falls Community Center beginning at 5 pm. -- Laura Olah, Executive Director Citizens for Safe Water Around Badger E12629 Weigands Bay S Merrimac, WI 53561 phone: (608)643-3124 email: info@cswab.org website: www.cswab.org ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. ***************************************************************** 41 [du-list] Megatons to megawatts - Russian U flooding world Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:43:16 -0800 I am not sure why the Greenpeace/Laka revelation is raising its head today. Please explain why the exporting of Euro DU to Russians is an issue. If your pro the UN/IAEA anti-proliferation strategy, the Russian program should be pleasing to your sensibilities. And its old news that WISE reported on almost 10 years ago. http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/050506.htm The agreement to allow Russians to dump U on world markets was ushered in by the White House. The deal -- US wants control of Russian recycled HEU and Pu (or at least they want it out of Russian hands; and not distributed in the Cacusus or Kara Kush) -- Russia agrees to supply Cameco's (Canada) SEU (slightly enriched uranium program and a new Canadian LEU program) with U originating from dismantled Russian warheads - provided it is allowed to sell its urnaium on the world market. This is rejected by IAEA (under pressure from WNA) because it would flood global U markets, depress U prices, imbalance trade and fuel cycle agreements and generally hurt private U industry. U.S. therefore commits to Russia to buy up for a decade or more, thousands of tons of UO3, U3O8 and UO2 (nonenriched) supplies from major private producers to off set the negative market impacts of Russian U. Russians have been given open channel in what is otherwise a managed marketplace with annually predetermined production and supply quotas. Russia, seeing a good thing, offers Europeans a win-win solution. Give Russia the Euro DU, Russia up-blends it with its decomissioned warhead HEU and produces Nat U and LEU,which can be sold without restrictions. Euro DU is harldy a "waste" in the great game of the market managed U fuel cycle. It is "legitimate" feedstock to the downblending program (i.e. proliferation control and neutralization of HEU stocks) and the upblending of the DU (i.e. finding a useful production stream for the Euro "waste"). Of course this is a false economy. There is glut of U world wide. But because it is being processed through so many stages and divided among so many companies, nations and shipping and storage companies, it doesn't have enough time to settle out as a visible surplus. Its called fungible -- check your economics dictionary. This trickery will catch up with us. The US DOE is having to buy and store massive quantities of processed U to stabalize markets and garner cooperation in its anti-Russian, proliferation management regime (U for our friends, not our enemies). ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. ***************************************************************** 42 Las Vegas SUN: Nagasaki Must Pay A-bomb Victim's Family Today: December 20, 2005 at 8:46:36 PST By KOZO MIZOGUCHI ASSOCIATED PRESS TOKYO (AP) - A court Tuesday ordered the city of Nagasaki to pay about $7,000 in back benefits to relatives of a South Korean man who survived the 1945 U.S. atomic bomb attack during World War II. The Nagasaki District Court granted the sum to Paeg Ag-im, wife of Choi Kye-Chul, a South Korean who survived the Aug. 9, 1945, bombing and later returned to South Korea, said court spokesman Michiharu Kawasaki. The ruling included the couple's six children. The decision upheld a lower court ruling that rejected the claim that overseas survivors of the U.S. atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be denied compensation payments. Choi died in July 2004, five months after filing a lawsuit seeking compensation. When Choi visited Japan in 1980, the government certified him as a bombing victim, making him eligible for state health care allowances. But the city canceled the payments later that year after Choi returned to South Korea. "It was remarkably difficult for atomic survivors living abroad who are not familiar with Japanese laws to lodge an objection," when the payments were halted, broadcaster NHK quoted Judge Naoyuki Tagawa as telling the court. According to Japanese law, officially recognized survivors living in Japan are eligible for monthly allowances of up to about $1,200, free medical checkups and funeral costs. There are more than 285,000 survivors of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima attacks, including about 5,000 living abroad - many of them Koreans who were brought as soldiers or slave laborers to Japan during Tokyo's colonization of the Korean Peninsula in 1910-1945. Tuesday's ruling comes three months after the Fukuoka High Court backed a lower court and ruled Choi should be entitled to the same medical benefits and funeral costs as survivors living in Japan. In that ruling, the court did not award any benefits. The Japanese government has accepted the High Court ruling, paving the way for atomic bomb survivors to receive benefits. Survivors have developed various illnesses from being exposed to nuclear radiation, including cancer and liver troubles. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 43 Rep. Matheson PR: Matheson Wins Effort to Preserve Radioactive Fallout Records [US House Seal] From the Office of Utah Congressman Jim Matheson Second Congressional District For Further Information Alyson Heyrend: (801) 455-5593 (cell) www.house.gov/matheson December 16, 2005 Halts Destruction by Defense Department Washington DC-Congressman Jim Matheson's legislation (HR 2633), which declares a Department of Defense moratorium on the destruction of military records that may hold important historical data on radioactive fallout is included in the final FY 2006 Defense Authorization bill. "Atmospheric testing was a dark period in our history for many Americans and questions about long-term cancer risks are unanswered," said Matheson. "This requirement to preserve the limited records from that time ensures they'll be available for scientific study." Matheson's bill-which was passed by the House last spring-adopts a recommendation by the National Academy of Sciences, urging Congress to better preserve historical data related to military personnel's exposure to radioactive fallout from past nuclear weapons tests. NAS-in its review of a Centers for Disease Control study into the health consequences to Americans from nuclear weapons testing-points out that DOD has not declared a moratorium on the destruction of records. Matheson's legislation-the Department of Defense Historical Radiation Records Preservation Act-- directs the Defense Department to "identify, preserve and publish" information contained in these records. The NAS study found that both the Navy and the Air Force have important documents that should be archived. Alyson Heyrend Communications Director 240 East Morris Ave. #235 South Salt Lake, UT 84115 (801) 486-1236 (phone) (801) 455-5593 (cell) (801) 486-1417 (fax) ***************************************************************** 44 AU ABC: Uranium freight future unclear Tuesday, 20 December 2005. 12:06 (AEDT)Tuesday, 20 December 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." ***************************************************************** 45 AU ABC: Radioactive waste dump plan doesn't faze council Tuesday, 20 December 2005. 14:27 (AEDT)Tuesday, 20 December Roxby Downs Council is yet to see details of the South Australian Government proposal to store radioactive waste at the Olympic Dam mine site, in the state's north, but says it is not concerned at this stage. The council first heard of the idea to store low level and intermediate level radioactive waste at the BHP Billiton-owned site yesterday, when it was reported in the media. The administrator at the Roxby Downs Council, Bill Boehm, says the notion of a waste site is not out of the norm for the community. "We haven't seen the proposal, nor has the community, but the facts of life are that Roxby Downs is still a server of a copper/uranium mine and we all understand that that's the operation we came to Roxby for, so we're used to some of the uranium issues in many cases," he said. ***************************************************************** 46 Deseret News: Thanks for blocking PFS [deseretnews.com] Tuesday, December 20, 2005 Kudos to the Utah delegation, especially Rob Bishop, and to Gov. Huntsman, who kept his word for designating wilderness in the Cedar Mountains and blocking a PFS rail spur into Skull Valley. They overcame their allergy to wilderness and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, made up with the Nevada delegation and persisted — despite the odds. By making common cause with Nevada's leaders on Yucca, we are also less likely to have nuclear rods shipped through our neighborhoods. And our grandchildren will get to experience the wilderness that we enjoy and appreciate. I am grateful for their hard work. Chip Ward Grantsville © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] ***************************************************************** 47 Las Vegas SUN: Columnist Jack Anderson had close ties to the Sun Today: December 20, 2005 at 9:47:27 PST By Ed Koch Las Vegas Sun Although he never attended a Las Vegas Sun board of directors meeting or reaped any profits from the newspaper, syndicated columnist Jack Anderson said he was nevertheless proud to have had a partial ownership of the publication. The five shares of stock that Anderson received in a single certificate in the late 1950s was a gift from then-Sun Publisher Hank Greenspun -- a thank you for introducing Greenspun to powerful Washington attorney Ed Morgan, who defended a crusading Greenspun in high-profile libel cases. Anderson often mused that his Sun stock probably was valued at about the cost of a door at the newspaper's offices. But he said he could not put a value on his close friendship with Greenspun or his ties to Las Vegas. Anderson, a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer whose investigative Washington-based column once appeared in more than 1,000 newspapers, died Saturday following a lengthy battle with Parkinson's disease. He was 83. "Dad kept a special eye on Las Vegas," said Las Vegas attorney Kevin Anderson, one of Anderson's nine children. "Utah was No. 1 and Nevada was No. 2 of the places that he would have considered a second home. "Dad loved to tell the story of when he debated (former Nevada Gov.) Paul Laxalt (in 1970). Laxalt called Dad an East Coast columnist. Dad responded that he grew up in Utah and that the people of the West 'are my people.' " In the 1980s and 1990s, Anderson visited Las Vegas several times a year for speaking engagements and to visit with his son and grandchildren. Anderson's association with Las Vegas goes back to the Sun's beginnings in the early 1950s, when Greenspun's often controversial front-page "Where I Stand" columns attracted the attention of Anderson, who at the time was doing research for then-"Washington Merry-Go-Round" muckraking columnist Drew Pearson. "When you think of my father in Las Vegas, you think of his relationship with Hank Greenspun," Kevin Anderson said. "The driving force of their friendship was the mutual respect they had for each other." In the mid-1950s, when Las Vegas attorney George Franklin was accused by the Sun of running a baby-selling business, Franklin sued the paper, prompting Anderson to introduce Greenspun to Morgan. Greenspun later wrote that Morgan provided a brilliant defense for the Sun, topped off with a moving summation. Although Franklin won the case, the Las Vegas jury awarded him just $80,000 -- a far cry from the millions of dollars he wanted. Franklin would go on to become a Las Vegas city councilman, Clark County commissioner, state assemblyman, North Las Vegas city attorney and, ironically, a Sun columnist. The Sun columns and stories that were the subject of Franklin's suit led to reforms in state adoption procedures. Morgan and Greenspun remained close until their deaths in the late 1980s. Anderson and Greenspun also teamed up to take on powerful Communist witch-hunter Sen. Joe McCarthy. Their critical writings helped discredit McCarthy and bring about his downfall. Anderson long kept a watchful eye on how national issues affected Las Vegas and how major news out of Southern Nevada influenced Washington politics. In a May 1, 1997, story, Anderson said he doubted that a high-level nuclear waste repository would ever be built at Yucca Mountain. "Given the (Energy Department's) record of mental constipation, there is no reason to fear that the project ever will reach the construction phase," Anderson said. "Based on my 50 years in Washington, when a project like this gets caught up in a whirlpool, it winds up going nowhere but in circles." Born Jackson Northman Anderson on Oct. 19, 1922, in Long Beach, Calif., he started in the newspaper business at the Murray (Utah) Eagle at age 12, earning $7 a week. At age 18, he became a reporter for the Salt Lake Tribune. Anderson studied at the University of Utah and Georgetown, but never earned a journalism degree. During World War II, he worked as a civilian correspondent for the Deseret News. In 1947 Pearson hired him. Anderson took over the column when Pearson died in 1969 and three years later won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting that the Nixon administration secretly favored Pakistan in its war with India. "I think my father would want to be remembered as an example, but not just in his field," Kevin Anderson said. "He would want to serve as an example of how anyone from nowhere could apply themselves and one day make a difference." In addition to his children, Anderson is survived by his wife, Olivia. Ed Koch can be reached at 259-4090 or at koch@lasvegassun.com. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 48 Salt Lake Tribune: Defense bill calls for saving of fallout data Article Last Updated: 12/20/2005 09:31:43 AM By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune The military would be required to preserve records that might hold clues about radioactive fallout under a provision of the Defense Authorization Bill that was sponsored by U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah. While the federal Energy Department has a moratorium on destroying atomic testing records, the Pentagon does not. Two years ago, a National Academies of Science panel noted "the Navy and the Air Force, for example, have extensive documents of potential importance if additional analyses are undertaken." The Board on Radiation Effects Research urged Congress to enact legislation to preserve the Defense Department documents. The House of Representatives passed Matheson's Department of Defense Historical Radiation Records Preservation Act last May and folded it into the larger, must-pass bill for military programs. The House passed the defense bill early Monday, and the Senate is expected to take it up later this week. The bill also includes a provision that establishes the Cedar Mountain Wilderness in the Skull Valley of Tooele County in a move intended to block a high-level nuclear waste storage site. "Atmospheric testing was a dark period in our history for many Americans and questions about long-term cancer risks are unanswered," said Matheson. "This requirement to preserve the limited records from that time ensures they'll be available for scientific study." Matheson's legislation directs the Defense Department to "identify, preserve and publish" information contained in these records. The National Academies of Science was reviewing a Centers for Disease Control study on how nuclear weapons tests have affected the health of Americans. The report noted that the federal government did not collect very much health data during three decades of atomic testing and all information available should be kept for historical purposes. Peter Rickards, an advocate for downwinders in Idaho Falls, called the legislation "a great achievement" and added that the federal government has doggedly excluded the Defense Department information from fallout studies. "Hopefully this archived data will eventually reveal the extent of the damage done by the weapons of mass destruction used against our own citizens," said Rickards. "Most important is that this unused fallout data shows our government has not come clean on atomic fallout yet, in their ongoing efforts to avoid liability for their actions." © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 49 Salt Lake Tribune: Plan passes to hinder Skull Valley N-storage Article Last Updated: 12/20/2005 01:16:56 AM By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune WASHINGTON - The House passed legislation Monday that includes the designation of the 100,000-acre Cedar Mountain Wilderness area, a plan pushed by Utah leaders to hinder a private company from storing nuclear waste in the state and to protect the Air Force's access to a key training range. The language, part of a broad defense bill, complicates plans by Private Fuel Storage to store 44,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation by preventing a rail line from being built to deliver the waste to the reservation. The 374-41 House vote on the defense bill came at 4 a.m., after an all-night session. The Senate is expected to pass the bill later this week. The Cedar Mountain designation would not kill the plan by PFS, a consortium of electric utilities, but it could create headaches and delays. A spokeswoman for the coalition has said the company could simply truck the waste to the reservation, rather than shipping it by rail. It is a legislative victory that Utah's delegation has been fighting for several years, and it might not have happened were it not for the intervention of House Speaker Dennis Hastert, according to Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah. The Cedar Mountain language was bottled up late last week, amid opposition from Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., who had the support of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., and the prospect for passage appeared bleak. But Hastert threatened to prevent the House from approving the bill unless Ensign sat down with Bishop and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch to explain Ensign's opposition to the Utah proposal. There was a series of discussions between Ensign, Hatch and Bishop, culminating in a meeting Thursday night in Hatch's Capitol office where Ensign agreed to a somewhat diluted version of Bishop's original bill. The original proposal would have created a ring of restricted areas around the reservation where the Bureau of Land Management would be prevented from approving a rail line. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission OK'd a license in September for PFS to build the facility, although the license has yet to be issued. Hatch has also been pressing the utility companies that make up PFS to drop out, and has commitments from three that they will not support construction of the facility. The BLM also is planning to solicit another round of public comments on whether it is in the public's interest to permit construction of a rail line to the Skull Valley reservation. The original assessment, completed in 2001, said rail shipment was the best alternative. The Cedar Mountain language is part of a much broader defense bill, that includes a prohibition on torturing detainees in U.S. custody, a military pay raise and a requirement that the president provide quarterly reports to Congress on military operations in Iraq. © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 50 REID: REID, ENSIGN INTRODUCE NUCLEAR WASTE ON-SITE STORAGE LEGISLATION Friday, December 16, 2005 http://reid.senate.gov/pdfs/Take_Title_2005.pdf Bill will eliminate need for central nuclear waste repository like proposed Yucca Mountain project WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Harry Reid and John Ensign introduced legislation today mandating that nuclear waste be stored on-site where it is produced and requiring the federal government to take responsibility for possession, stewardship, maintenance, and monitoring of the waste. For decades, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the government has focused only on the proposed Yucca Mountain site as a central repository for nuclear waste generated at plants around the country. However, conclusive evidence has shown that the Yucca Mountain project is fraught with safety, scientific and budgetary problems, making it a near certainty that the site will never be approved for use. Additionally, any plan that includes only one waste site would require transporting nuclear material from sites all over the country across thousands of miles, greatly increasing the chances of an accident or terrorist attack. The legislation introduced today would eliminate the need for a single repository, ensuring nuclear waste can be safely stored on-site and under control of the federal government. The legislation will also increase safety at all nuclear power plants by providing funding for additional security to guard against accidents or terrorist attack. “The Yucca Mountain project is never going to open,” Reid, the Senate Democratic Leader, said. “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. There cannot be any weak links in the chain of security of our nation’s nuclear power infrastructure. Storing nuclear waste on-site is the safest, most reasonable and most effective way of allowing nuclear power companies to continue operating while keeping the health and safety of Americans as our top priority.” “What we are proposing today represents the safest and most responsible course of action available for storing nuclear waste,” Ensign said. “The dry cask storage technology exists to provide a viable, on-site alternative to shipping waste across the country and it is time we make use of that technology for the health and safety of Americans everywhere. Yucca Mountain is not feasible and it is not acceptable. This is a safe and real solution for nuclear waste storage.” Reid and Ensign pointed to a long list of set backs for the Yucca Mountain project including a July, 2004 court decision that the radiation standard for the site was not stringent enough to protect the public from the significant risks associated with nuclear waste and a November 2004 announcement by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board that there is no plan for safely transporting nuclear waste to the proposed repository. The same board in February of this year called for hearings to review concerns over the corrosion of the titanium drip shields that are supposed to keep water from leaking into casks inside Yucca Mountain. On March 16, 2005, the Department of Energy announced the falsification of document and models about water infiltration, a key issue, at Yucca Mountain. On July 18, 2005, DOE announced that if Yucca Mountain were to open, high-level nuclear waste would be shipped by train ignoring the fact that about one-third of reactor sites are not capable of shipping fuel by rail. The legislation was cosponsored by Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). It would require nuclear power companies to store nuclear waste in what is known as dry cask storage containers. As approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dry cask containers can safely store waste for at least one-hundred years and are already used at thirty-three nuclear power site throughout the country. “I’ve always said that storage on site is the right scientific answer, but differing state laws have made it impossible. The Reid legislation resolves this problem, and buys us time to craft a sensible national policy on nuclear energy,” said Sen. Bob Bennett. Companion legislation was also introduced in the House of Representatives today by Representatives Jim Matheson (D-UT), Jim Gibbons (R-NV), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Jon Porter (R-NV) and Rob Bishop (R-UT). Summary of The Spent Nuclear Fuel On-Site Storage Security Act of 2005 Amends the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 as follows: · Requires commercial nuclear utilities to transfer nuclear waste from spent nuclear fuel pools into dry storage casks within 6 years after enactment or 6 years after the waste is produced, whichever comes first. · Requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to take title of all spent nuclear fuel currently in on-site dry cask storage within 30 days of enactment. · Requires the spent nuclear fuel on-site storage sites and storage casks to comply with NRC regulations. · Requires the DOE to take title to, and full responsibility for the waste at the reactor sites after it has been transferred to dry cask storage in compliance with regulations. · Expenditures from the Nuclear Waste Fund will compensate utilities for expenses associated with transferring, storing and securing the waste. ***************************************************************** 51 Russia Newswire: OMZ Completes Shipment of 60 Spent Nuclear Fuel Containers for Dukovany NPP December 19, 2005 MOSCOW (RNWire) - Skoda JS (Czech Republic), a part of OMZ NPPEQ division, has completed the delivery of 60 CASTOR® model 440/84 containers for spent nuclear fuel produced according to designs developed by GNS Essen (Germany). The containers are designed for temporary storage at the Dukovany Nuclear Power Plant (Czech Republic). Skoda JS and GNS Essen (formerly the GNB company) contracted for this work in 1994. The contract provided for the production of 60 containers. Currently Skoda JS is launching production of the first two of a planned 25 updated CASTOR® model 440/84 M containers which will be supplied to Dukovany NPP for a new storehouse of spent nuclear fuel. GNS Essen is one of the international leaders in the handling with spent nuclear fuel. OMZ NPPEQ division specializes in engineering, production, sales and servicing of equipment for the nuclear energy industry and the oil and gas sector. The production facilities of the division are located in St Petersburg (Izhora plants) and the Czech Republic (Skoda JS). Copyright © 2004-2005 Russia Newswire ***************************************************************** 52 Deseret News: Nuclear waste battle: a historic turn Tuesday, December 20, 2005 By Suzanne Struglinski Deseret Morning News WASHINGTON — The public has yet another opportunity to comment on Private Fuel Storage's desire to store nuclear waste in Utah — this time focusing on historic places — and the final outcome may dictate how quickly its investors will receive their license. After a long process, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recommended in September that PFS be granted a license to store nuclear waste on the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians' land in Tooele County. But it still has not been formally approved. The commission, along with several other federal agencies, had to finish a review of how PFS would protect recognized historic places before it could actually issue the license. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation worked with the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Surface Transportation Board, the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer and Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C., among other groups, to identify how moving and storing nuclear waste in Utah would affect historical places and what PFS would do to solve any problems. The proposed PFS site itself has no historic properties, according to the council. But it did find eight within the Bureau of Land Management property where the company plans to build a railroad to move waste through Utah to the site: • Part of the Emigrant Trail/Hastings Cutoff, a section of the California/Oregon National Historic Trail (1846); • A portion of the road bed and paved surface of historic U.S. 40 (1920s-1966); • Several segments of the New Victory Highway, later designated as U.S. 40 (1925-1940); • A portion of the Old Victory Highway (1916-1925); • Two segments of a telegraph line from the late 1800s, early 1900s (posts and cross beams); • The Western Pacific Railroad (1907-present), a modern rail bed and tracks, and a railroad bridge/road underpass; • Deep Creek Road (mid-1800s to early 1900s); • A road to Sulphur Spring/Eight-Mile Spring (mid-1800s to early 1900s). In 2001, the groups — except for the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer — created an agreement outlining how PFS would protect historic places, but the BLM and Utah State Historic Preservation Officer would not sign it. The agreement circulated again in May 2005, but the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer and BLM still would not sign it. The BLM said under current law it cannot change any land use plans and wanted to wait until it was closer to a decision on whether to grant PFS a right-of-way to build a rail line to Skull Valley. John Harja, the state historic preservation officer responsible for PFS, said the state did not refuse to sign anything. He just thinks it is "premature" to make a decision on how to protect historic places when a right-of-way has not even been issued yet. "I don't see how that can be interpreted as 'refusing,' " he said. "We are just waiting for the right time." But in November, the commission decided to stop consulting with the council and requested the council just send a formal comment on PFS instead. This allows them to get around having to wait for the BLM and the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer to sign the agreement before issuing the license. NRC argues that nothing on the site itself, which is the only thing it can regulate, can be considered for the National Register of Historic Places. Everything considered historic is on the transportation side and beyond what NRC needs to regulate. It "terminated" talks with the council, saying "further consultation is unnecessary and will not be productive." NRC spokesman Dave McIntyre said once the council forwards its comments, the commission will have fulfilled all its requirements and can issue the license. "I would not expect it to be immediate," he said. The BLM still would have to handle anything related to historic properties on its land. In a complicated, bureaucratic notice in the Federal Register on Monday, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation asked for the public's input on what it should tell the NRC. Carol Legard, of the council, explained that members of the public should send their views on the effects the PFS project may have on historic properties. Denise Chancellor, an assistant attorney general who works on the state's fight against PFS, wondered why the commission is leading the charge on this issue when all the historic areas in question are not its responsibility. "What dog does NRC have in this fight?" she asked. "Does NRC have the authority to do this off the reservation?" Harja said it is too early for this type of consideration, especially without a right-of-way approval from the BLM or the report by the Defense Department on the potential impacts PFS will have on Hill Air Force base. Federal law requires this to be done before BLM can make any land-use decisions. "What if they end up moving the rail line?" he said. Private Fuel Storage spokeswoman Sue Martin said anything that would allow the consortium to get the license in hand is a good thing. Monday's announcement marks the second new public comment period on Private Fuel Storage announced this month. The BLM sent a letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, on Dec. 9, saying it intended to receive public comment on the proposed right-of-way PFS would need to open its rail line to take waste to Skull Valley. The BLM has not announced a specific starting date or where to direct comments on the right-of-way issue. E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] ***************************************************************** 53 Rocky Mountain News: Another 7,000 acres of old arsenal cleaned December 20, 2005 The Army and the Shell oil company have completed cleanup of another 7,000 acres of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, the former chemical- weapons and pesticide plant northeast of Denver. Officials expect that by spring they will begin the process of removing this land from the Superfund list and adding it to the existing 5,000- acre wildlife refuge on the site. After the transfer, expected by autumn, the wildlife area will cover most of the Manhattan-size arsenal site, excluding 4,000 acres at the center that once contained more than 200 chemical-industrial buildings. This was the most contaminated section, and cleanup will take another five to six years, said Charley Scharmann, the Army's civilian project manager. Another 1,000 acres along Quebec Street was sold to Commerce City in 2003 for a commercial and soccer- stadium development. Cleanup of the latest 7,000 acres at the arsenal, located north of the former Stapleton Airport and west of Buckley Road, is a second enormous milestone for the Denver area environment this year. The demolition and cleanup of the 6,000-acre, 300-building Rocky Flats nuclear-weapons plant south of Boulder was certified complete this month. The arsenal contaminated groundwater on and off its site with components of sarin nerve gas, mustard gas, pesticides and solvents. Today, five treatment plants are gradually cleaning up that contaminated water, and all nearby homes on well water have switched to municipal water piped in from elsewhere. About 3,000 monitoring wells track the remaining contamination, he said. The arsenal, eight miles from downtown Denver, opened during World War II to make mustard gas. It produced sarin nerve gas in the 1950s and napalm in the 1960s, and was used to deactivate such weapons in the 1980s. And Shell made pesticides, some of them later banned. The first 5,000 acres became a wildlife refuge last year, but access is limited. Visitors are allowed in educational groups during the week, and on 10 miles of trails on weekends, supervising Ranger Sherry James said. Catch-and-release fishing is permitted in two lakes, but mercury levels are too high for the catch to be eaten. A herd of about 750 deer share the grasslands with coyotes. The new 7,000 acres will add the northern shores of three lakes to the official refuge, including groves of cottonwood trees that are home to 30 to 40 bald eagles, James said. A pesticide showed up in the brain of nearly every dead small bird tested 10 to 15 years ago, but that has dropped significantly, James said. Contamination still shows up sometimes in small birds and burrowing animals such as mice and prairie dogs, James said. She said she is thrilled to have such a large wildlife habitat in an urban area. "This is a great opportunity for kids from inner-city schools to see wildlife. We're 10 minutes from Denver," she said Monday, while pointing out numerous eagles and dozens of deer in shafts of fading winter sunlight. And if it didn't start out clean, "Hopefully, we can convert it into pristine land," she said. In the central section that is still being cleaned, trucks haul toxic waste to a double-lined landfill, and they will soon start filling a triple-lined landfill with even more dangerous poisons, Scharmann said. When they are full, they will be covered with 18 inches of concrete in 4- to 12-inch chunks, and 4 feet of soil, he said. Such covers were tested and found to keep rainwater from seeping through, he said. Other large sections of the industrial area where chemicals were dumped or spilled also will be given such caps, he said. Just to the south of the arsenal are hills of concrete and asphalt from ripped-up runways at the old airport. The arsenal plans to buy 2 million tons of it for use in capping its pollution. site mapSubscribe | E-mail alerts| Site Map| Photo Reprints| Corrections 2005 © The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 54 The Australian: Minister misled veterans on toxic dust [December 21, 2005] Michael McKenna VETERANS Affairs Minister De-Anne Kelly yesterday admitted she misled former defence servicemen by telling them the navy did not use equipment containing a heavy metal linked to terminal cancers. In an October letter to lawyers for former navy personnel, Ms Kelly contradicted her own department as well as an internal Defence report when she said that scouring guns used on Australian ships were not made of beryllium metal. More than 3000 sailors, and hundreds of civilian contractors, were exposed between 1950 and 1984 through the use of beryllium-tipped "jason pistols". Beryllium is a heavy metal that produces a dust that can cause serious illness and, in some cases, death. Earlier this year, the Defence Department said it had used jason pistols containing beryllium, and set up a hotline to provide information. But in the October letter to Brisbane lawyer Simon Harrison, who is preparing a mass negligence action on behalf of former sailors, Ms Kelly said she disagreed with his "premises" that his clients had been exposed to beryllium poisoning. "In particular, the jason pistols used by Defence have not used rods made of beryllium," she wrote. But Commodore Geoff Gerahty, who this year reported to Ms Kelly on beryllium exposure of former Defence personnel, said the guns were used on Australian ships. "The report found jason pistols, using a beryllium alloy, were used on three ships: HMAS Supply, Sydney and Melbourne," he told The Australian. Ms Kelly said yesterday that she was wrong to deny the beryllium guns were used. "It wasn't intentional, the letter was probably poorly worded. It should not have said that," she said. "It should have said the guns were made of an alloy containing beryllium. "(But) the scientific tests found the health risk to someone using the alloy needles in an open air environment is very low." When asked about the risk in an enclosed environment common on a ship, Ms Kelly said: "The health implications are uncertain." It is not known how many former personnel have become sick or have died as a result of beryllium exposure but it was reported last year that at least one veteran had received out-of-court compensation. Mr Harrison, partner of Nicol Robinson Halletts, said one of his navy veteran clients had been diagnosed with incurable berylliosis and many others were suffering from undiagnosed lung disorders. "I don't know what the minister's intent was in denying the use of beryllium, but it shows a lack of attention that veterans simply don't deserve," he said. Mr Harrison said the Howard Government was compounding veterans' woes by not giving them access to the best tests for beryllium exposure. "The problem is that the only conclusive test for beryllium is not available in Australia," he said. © The Australian ***************************************************************** 55 Seattle Times: Hanford plant won't face $100 million more in cuts Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM By SHANNON DININNY The Associated Press YAKIMA  Congress on Monday elected not to reduce funding by an additional $100 million for a waste-treatment plant at the Hanford nuclear reservation, according to U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, whose district includes the south-central Washington site. The funding reduction, proposed as part of cuts to help pay for Hurricane Katrina relief, was widely criticized by officials in Washington state. The Hanford site is the nation's most contaminated nuclear site, with cleanup managed by the U.S. Department of Energy. A vitrification plant under construction has long been considered the cornerstone of Hanford cleanup. The plant will convert millions of gallons of highly radioactive waste stored in underground tanks into glasslike logs for permanent disposal in a nuclear-waste repository. However, the project has been mired in delays and cost overruns for years. The Energy Department, which manages Hanford cleanup, halted construction on large portions of the plant earlier this year amid new seismic concerns and skyrocketing costs. The Bush administration cited those concerns in its $626 million budget request for the plant for 2006, down from $690 million in previous years. A House-Senate budget committee reduced that amount by $100 million more last month, to $526 million. In addition, the Bush administration had proposed tapping the 2005 budget for $100 million, money that was not spent but was intended to be banked for construction costs in later years. That proposal was part of a $2.3 billion package of cuts to help pay for hurricane relief. Gov. Christine Gregoire threatened to sue if the additional reductions were approved, calling them a clear violation of the federal government's obligations. Gregoire said she was pleased with the news but still disappointed with the direction the project has taken. Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 56 ABQJOURNAL: DOE To Announce New LANL Managers on Wednesday the Albuquerque Journal newspaper. Tuesday, December 20, 2005 Albuquerque Journal--> By Jennifer Talhelm/ Associated Press WASHINGTON — The Energy Department will announce the winner of the contract to manage Los Alamos National Laboratory on Wednesday. Two teams — one led by the University of California and Bechtel Corp. and the other by Lockheed Martin and the University of Texas — submitted bids in July. The seven-year management contract is worth up to $79 million a year to the winner. No matter which team is chosen, it will mark the first time a corporation will help manage the Los Alamos lab in its 63-year history. UC has managed the lab since the Manhattan Project began its mission to develop the world's first atomic bomb during World War II. Today, scientists are tasked, in part, with managing the nation's nuclear stockpile. Energy Department officials decided to put the contract up for bid after a series of safety and security problems at the lab. The contract announcement was initially expected by Dec. 1, but the federal decision-makers asked for more time. Copyright Albuquerque Journal ***************************************************************** 57 LA Daily News: Field lab regulations may ease Article Launched: 12/20/2005 12:00:00 AM By Kerry Cavanaugh, Staff Writer Shocking environmentalists, Los Angeles water regulators on Monday proposed loosening water-pollution regulations at the Santa Susana Field Lab while the Boeing Co. figures out how to prevent contamination from coming off the hilltop lab. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board proposal follows nearly 50 water-permit violations at the lab. Field lab watchdogs have pushed for tighter controls on the amount of pollution allowed to flow off the former rocket engine and nuclear research site into creeks and waterways. They said Boeing deserves major penalties to come into compliance with environmental laws, not a reprieve. "The message (being sent) is: Continue to pollute as much as you want," said Dan Hirsch of the Committee to Bridge the Gap. "If Boeing got a million-dollar fine or a several-hundred-thousand-dollar fine, Boeing would act immediately." But water board officials said Boeing is not off the hook for 49 violations from October 2004 through April 2005. "There will be some sort of further enforcement action," said Jonathan Bishop, executive officer for the water board. The temporary, relaxed limits come a few weeks after Boeing revealed that a federal grand jury last month subpoenaed the company's records monitoring storm water leaving the lab. With the new proposal, water officials are considering three years of so-called interim limits to allow Boeing to fix contamination problems and comply with the strict new water permit adopted in July 2004. The proposal would allow four times as much toxic contaminants, such as mercury and dioxins. "Our goal is to (give them time) to come into compliance, so they focus on coming into compliance rather than dealing with fines," Bishop explained. Boeing officials received the proposed order Monday and were not prepared to comment, said spokeswoman Inger Hodgson. The company had requested temporary, looser limits in July after receiving several violations, in order to figure out how to control polluted water leaving the site. But company officials have also said some of the violations are due to wildfires in the area and record rainfall that brought more erosion. The water board will consider the proposed pollution limits at its Jan. 19 meeting in downtown Los Angeles. Kerry Cavanaugh, (818) 713-3746 kerry.cavanaugh@dailynews.com Los Angeles Newspaper Group ***************************************************************** 58 POGO Blog: The Los Alamos Petri Dish The Project On Government Oversight [Petri] On the eve of the announcement of the new Los Alamos contract (it is going to be announced tomorrow at 2:00 by Energy Secretary Bodman – bets are on that Lockheed will get it), there is ANOTHER safety screw up there. POGO has learned that late Monday, there was another serious plutonium contamination of five workers at the TA-55 facility at Los Alamos. We have been told that the workers were opening a container of plutonium. When the cover came off, a puff of plutonium escaped. There were nine workers in the area, and five suffered a significant “nose count” (plutonium in their nostrils). Plutonium is one of the most carcinogenic substances known to man. In July of 2004, Los Alamos was shut down until February of 2005 to get their act together on both safety and security issues. This shut down cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Not surprisingly, Los Alamos lowballed it as $121 million, the government has estimated it cost about $370 million, and POGO has estimated it cost over $500 million, but the GAO came out this week saying no one knows how much it cost (pdf). Since the startup earlier this year, when new safety measures were allegedly in place, there has been a seriesof safety debacles (pdf). EVERYONE who has looked at Los Alamos says “the culture has to change.” But how do you do that? We were excited to see the contract go up for bid for the first time in 60 years, so at least there was SOME reason for management to worry about making mistakes. But the reality is that only a handful of people will change, even if the contract goes to the Lockheed/UT team. As we learn of new whistleblowers coming forward with concerns that Los Alamos regularly schedules meetings over lunch time so they could charge their (often very elegent) lunches to the government, with the auditors that wanted to look into it get fired – we also want to say that this aspect of Los Alamos' culture has to change too. December 20, 2005 in Nuclear Security| Permalink TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/3890992 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Los Alamos ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************