***************************************************************** 11/23/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.273 ***************************************************************** 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 [NYTr] EU to Resume Talks with Iran 2 RIA Novosti: Nuclear talks with Europe to resume after IAEA meeting 3 RIA Novosti: Iran denies receiving Russian uranium enrichment propos 4 AFP: Iran referral to Security Council seen unlikely 5 AFP: Iran 'not ready' for nuclear fuel - Russia 6 IRNA: NAM urges normalization of Iran's nuclear case 7 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Korean, UAE Prime Ministers Discuss Bilat 8 Korea Times: Seoul Keeps KEDO Alive 9 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., Partners End N. Korea Nuke Project 10 US: KTUU.com: Bill attempts to ban nuclear particle accelerators 11 Herald: Energy efficiency is best way to cut carbon 12 Japan Times: Next carrier's reactor to be off in port NUCLEAR REACTORS 13 Guardian Unlimited: At last Blair seems to see that our future is nu 14 Helsingin Sanomat: Need for sixth nuclear reactor divades Presidenti 15 US: SLO Trib: Feds to hear locals’ safety concerns for Diablo Canyon 16 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: KEDO Puts Final Nail in N.Korea Reactor P 17 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: KEDO agrees to end nuclear project in North 18 Bellona: Underground nuclear power plant back on-line in Siberia 19 US: Sioux City Journal: Regulators approve sale of Iowa's only nucle 20 US: NRC: NRC Proposes $3,250 Civil Penalty for Virginia Firm Over Te 21 Herald: Nuclear energy? Perhaps. But no nuclear arms 22 US: Green Bay Press-Gazette: Moisture in generator puts power plant 23 US: Rutland Herald: What would Entergy do? 24 US: Rutland Herald: Time to OK Yankee power boost 25 US: NRC: NRC Forms Task Force to Look for Lessons Learned from 2005 26 US: Rutland Herald: Panel: Reject Yankee power boost 27 US: NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Notice of Consideration of 28 US: NRC: Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1; FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC; Not 29 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find 30 US: NRC: State of Minnesota: NRC Draft Staff Assessment of a Propose 31 US: Vermont Guardian: Nuclear advisory panel turns thumbs down on up NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 32 [du-list] Example of MilNet doc showing meaning of kinetic is 33 [du-list] Shameless BBC: When Misinformation Means War Crimes 34 [du-list] Usuk attack - Uranium forgery leak ongoing update 35 US: NRC: NRC Issues Confirmatory Order to Sabia, Inc. Following Alte 36 US: NRC: In the Matter of: Williams Industrial Services Group, LLC, 37 Ottawa Citizen: Prophetic words about nuclear spills 38 US: PittsburghLIVE.com: Research on radiation - 39 US: Guardian Unlimited: Jury Rejects Claim Facility Caused Cancer NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 40 US: Bradenton Herald: Lockheed releases schedule in Tallevast work 41 US: Dispatch: Olin Looks to Cork Water Delivery to Some Residents 42 US: Salt Lake City Weekly: Waste and Words 43 US: AU ABC: NT stands firm on anti-uranium mining stance. 44 US: AU ABC: Gallop insists uranium mining ban to stay. PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 45 Casper Star-Tribune: Lab halts cleanup after explosion, small fire 46 ABQJOURNAL: DOE Won't Announce LANL Contract Winner on Dec. 1 47 lamonitor.com: LANL contract delayed 48 lamonitor.com: Survey: Lab workers feel vulnerable ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [NYTr] EU to Resume Talks with Iran Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:56:46 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com EU to Resume Talks with Iran Vienna, Nov 22 (PL) The EU Troika, France, Germany and the UK, said it will resume talks on Iran's nuclear program, halted with Iran's resumed production of enriched uranium following suspension after signing the November 2004 Paris accord. Sources cited by media revealed the talks will recommence on December 6 in Vienna, Paris or Moscow. Two weeks ago Iran called to resume talks with the Troika, which asked the International Atomic Energy Organization Board of Governors to bring Iran before the UN Security Council based on US allegations. Iran denies US claims of an alleged effort to develop weapons of mass destruction, declaring its productions do not violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The IAEO Board of Governors will meet Thursday to decide whether to bring the case to the Security Council, however a UN source said it is not yet on the agenda, to leave the door open for a solution. The Iranian Parliament called for the government to end the 2004 Paris protocol, allowing surprise inspections of domestic nuclear plants, if the case reaches the Security Council. hr/ccs/emw/to * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 2 RIA Novosti: Nuclear talks with Europe to resume after IAEA meeting - Iran 23/ 11/ 2005 TEHRAN, November 23 (RIA Novosti) - Negotiations with the European Troika on Iran's "nuclear file" will resume after the next meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's Board of Governors Thursday, the Iranian foreign minister said Wednesday. "Negotiations with the Europeans will resume after the IAEA's Board of Governors meets in Vienna," Manouchehr Mottaki said, adding the meeting had been scheduled for November 24. Iran's nuclear program has long been an issue for debate, with Iran saying it enriches uranium to generate energy and not to develop nuclear weapons, a position echoed by Russia. Mottaki said he had discussed "general aspects of the upcoming talks" with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw over the phone Tuesday night. "We agreed that the details, the time and place of the talks would be determined through diplomatic channels," he said. Earlier reports from Europe suggested that the talks would resume December 6, but British officials denied that any date had been set for further talks between Iran and the troika, also called the Big Three and featuring Britain, France and Germany. Europe and the United States have been mounting pressure on Tehran to reveal the details of its nuclear program, saying that otherwise it will be referred to the UN Security Council. Iran agreed to negotiate the issue with the IAEA, but was said to show little enthusiasm. Russia and Iran are currently cooperating in the construction of an $800-million nuclear reactor in the Iranian city of Bushehr, which is scheduled to be operational by the end of 2006. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 3 RIA Novosti: Iran denies receiving Russian uranium enrichment proposals 23/ 11/ 2005 TEHRAN, November 23 (RIA Novosti) - The Iranian Foreign Minister said Wednesday that Tehran had not received any proposals from Moscow on joint uranium enrichment in Russia. Commenting on media reports about alleged proposals from Russia, Manuchehr Motaki said that under international agreements, Iran could conduct nuclear activities in its own territory. "The use of peaceful nuclear technologies and the creation of a nuclear fuel cycle in Iran is a legal right of the Islamic Republic guaranteed by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," the minister said. He also denied rumors of the suspension of operations at the Isfahan nuclear facility. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 4 AFP: Iran referral to Security Council seen unlikely Wed Nov 23, 6:32 AM ET VIENNA (AFP) - The UN nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is expected to hold off on bringing Iran before the UN Security Council over its atomic program when its board meets on Thursday. Diplomats said the United States and Europe want to give Russia time to persuade Tehran to agree to a compromise on its atomic program. The 35-nation board of governors was to meet in Vienna to review progress after calling on Iran in September to cease all nuclear fuel work. The IAEA urged Iran to cooperate fully with an IAEA investigation and to return to talks with the European Union on guaranteeing it will not make atomic weapons. Iran has done none of these three things. It has, however, increased cooperation with the IAEA, allowing access to a key military site and handing over sensitive documents, one from a black market network that contained plans for making the explosive core of an atom bomb. The IAEA is still being blocked from another military site. It seeks more documents and says full Iranian cooperation is "overdue," according to an IAEA report released ahead of the board meeting. The United States and the European Union fear that Iran is using a civilian nuclear power program to hide weapons development. But Iran says its program is a peaceful effort to generate electricity. It has threatened to limit cooperation with the IAEA, and even break a suspension of uranium enrichment, if the matter is taken to the Security Council. Referring Iran to the council, which could impose sanctions, "will not happen at this week's meeting," said a Western diplomat, who asked not to be identified due to the sensitivity of the issue. Diplomats said the IAEA board, which in September had opened the door to hauling Iran before the world body by finding the Islamic Republic in non-compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), would not even pass a resolution on Iran. There would only be a summary of the debate by the board chairman, diplomats said. "The action is elsewhere," a diplomat said, referring to plans by Russia and the EU negotiators -- Britain, France and Germany -- to meet with Iran on December 6 to break the deadlock over Tehran's disputed nuclear program. A European diplomat said the idea for the December meeting would be to "talk about (resuming) talks" between Iran and the EU negotiators on guaranteeing Tehran will not make nuclear weapons. He said there would be "no strings attached", to the December 6 meeting, other than that Iran must be "prepared to discuss seriously" a Russian compromise proposal to enrich uranium on behalf of Tehran to avoid proliferation risks. Gregory Schulte, US ambassador to the IAEA earlier told reporters he hoped that Russian involvement would get Tehran "off the dangerous course it's on." A European diplomat said there was "no guarantee of a meeting on December 6," as it depended on how things went at the IAEA board and how Iran reacted. But another diplomat said the meeting would occur, possibly in Moscow, Vienna or Geneva, unless Iran escalated the crisis by starting uranium enrichment. The talks between the EU and Iran broke off in August when Tehran ended a nine-month moratorium and resumed the conversion of uranium into gas, a possible precursor to making enriched fuel that could either fuel nuclear power reactors or be used to make bombs. Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 5 AFP: Iran 'not ready' for nuclear fuel - Russia Tue Nov 22, 1:04 PM ET MOSCOW (AFP) - A nuclear plant being built by Russian engineers in Iran is not yet ready to receive its first shipment of nuclear fuel, a senior Russian official said. Moscow has previously said that first deliveries of fuel to the controversial nuclear station would take place around the end of this year or start of 2006. "The Bushehr plant is not at present technically ready to receive nuclear fuel," Alexander Shmygin, the newly-appointed chief of Russia's atomic energy agency, was quoted by the state RIA-Novosti news agency as saying. He said it would be "very difficult" to store the fuel in the Gulf region until the Bushehr plant was ready to receive it, but did not elaborate. "We will ensure the fuel remains secure in a Russian facility," he said. Shmygin's predecessor, Alexander Rumyantsev, has stated on a number of occasions since signing an agreement in Tehran, under which Iran agreed to send spent nuclear fuel rods back to Russia, that the first fuel deliveries for the plant would start at the end of this year or early in 2006. There has been no suggestion since then from either Tehran or Moscow that construction of the controversial power plant was falling behind schedule or that its startup, planned for mid-2006, could be delayed. Shygin's announcement however came after the United States and western European countries voiced support for a Russian proposal to complete the final step of enriching uranium for use in the plant on Russian soil in order to ease international concerns over Iran's nuclear intentions. The United States suspects Iran intends to use a civilian nuclear energy program as cover to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran adamantly denies. Iran however has rejected the latest Russian proposal on uranium enrichment, insisting it has the right to control all aspects of producing nuclear energy itself. Russia has supported Tehran's position, and has not until Tuesday suggested the planned fuel deliveries could be delayed. A senior Iranian nuclear energy official, Assadollah Sabouri, said last June that Tehran was expecting the first delivery of nuclear fuel for the Bushehr plant from Russia within months. [An Iranian technician works at a Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) in Isfahan. A nuclear plant being built by Russian engineers in Iran is not yet ready to receive its first shipment of nuclear fuel, a senior Russian official said.(AFP/File)] AFP/File Photo: An Iranian technician works at a Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) in Isfahan. A nuclear plant... Add headlines to your personalized Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 6 IRNA: NAM urges normalization of Iran's nuclear case Vienna, Nov 23, IRNA NAM-Iran-Nuclear The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) has called for urgent normalization of Iran's nuclear case, a senior NAM diplomat said here Wednesday. The diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, made the remark after the NAM working session at the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) headquarters in Vienna, Austria. The call has also been included in the NAM statement which will be read during the IAEA Board of Governors' meeting on Thursday, he said. Based on pertinent documents of a report of IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei released last week, Iran has had good and broad cooperation with the agency to remove ambiguities in its nuclear activities, he said, adding that the Board of Governors would have no reason not to immediately normalize the case. He said the NAM statement also made it clear that Iran's nuclear case should not be on the board's agenda. The NAM member states, in their statement, upheld Iran's cooperation with the IAEA, he added. The statement praised Iran's move of allowing IAEA inspectors to visit its military sites. The 35-nation IAEA Board of Governors will open discussions on Iran's nuclear case in Vienna on Thursday. A spokesman of the agency told IRNA here Wednesday that based on the IAEA work schedule the board's seasonal meeting will kick off its work with a speech by ElBaradei. ***************************************************************** 7 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Korean, UAE Prime Ministers Discuss Bilateral Ties Home> National/Politics Updated Nov.23,2005 18:32 KST Prime Minister Lee Hae-chan met with United Arab Emirates Premier Sheikh Hamdan al-Nahyan on Tuesday as part of a four-day visit to the oil-rich Gulf state. The two discussed ways to enhance bilateral cooperation in the fields of oil, gas and construction while seeking joint efforts in other areas as well, such as politics. They reaffirmed their support for peaceful settlement of the ongoing dispute over North Korea's nuclear program and tensions in the Middle East. Korea and the UAE established diplomatic ties in 1980, and the UAE is Korea's second-largest crude oil supplier next to Saudi Arabia. LeeˇŻs five-nation Middle East tour will also take him to Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Oman. Arirang News ***************************************************************** 8 Korea Times: Seoul Keeps KEDO Alive Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation SEOUL (Yonhap) _ South Korea, the United States and other nations involved in an international energy consortium formed to provide nuclear power plants to communist North Korea have decided to postpone making a decision on scraping the stalled project, a Seoul official said Wednesday. The remarks followed reports that the members of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) have agreed to end the project. KEDOˇŻs board of governors, which also includes Japan and the European Union, held a two-day meeting in New York to decide the fate of the $4.6 billion project that has been suspended since the eruption of the North Korean nuclear dispute in late 2002. ``The countries agreed to postpone the final decision until further discussion with their governments,ˇŻˇŻ Seol Dong-keun, a Unification Ministry official told Yonhap News Agency. Seol is currently working with a special task force in charge of the project to provide two light-water reactors to the North. He said the countries, including South Korea, share a general understanding that the project needs to be scrapped, but said there are still a number of issues that have to be considered before a final decision can be made. The international project came as part of the 1994 Agreed Framework to end the first North Korean nuclear dispute. The project, however, has been suspended since Washington accused Pyongyang of secretly running a uranium enrichment program for military purposes in violation of the 1994 agreement. Seoul, which shoulders 70 percent of the costs, was the last to acknowledge the need to scrap the now-defunct project, citing possibilities that it might lead to soured relations between the Koreas. More than $1.5 billion has already been spent on the project with additional expenses expected to occur for its clearance. The South Korean official said the cost of clearance was one of main items for future discussion as Seoul believes its original commitment to 70 percent of costs for the completion of the project does not automatically oblige it to shoulder the same ratio of costs to scrap the project. 11-23-2005 21:49 ***************************************************************** 9 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., Partners End N. Korea Nuke Project From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday November 23, 2005 11:16 AM AP Photo NY126 By PETER JAMES SPIELMANN Associated Press Writer NEW YORK (AP) - The United States and its partners in an energy consortium have terminated a project to build two light-water atomic reactors for North Korea as an incentive to convince Pyongyang to dismantle its nuclear weapons program, officials said. The decision was a sharp rebuff to the North's demand that it be given light-water reactors before it would open its nuclear program up to international inspection. It took almost two years for Washington to wear down the resistance of its partners in the New York-based Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, also known as KEDO. South Korea finally gave up the partly built light-water reactors last summer. Japan and the European Union had already sided with the U.S. ``no carrot'' policy. On Tuesday, the executive board of KEDO concluded a two-day private meeting without issuing a formal statement. But the U.S. delegate, Ambassador Joseph DiTrani, said after the meeting that the board members - the United States, South Korea, Japan and European Union - had agreed on the ``termination'' of the light-water reactor project, KEDO spokesman Brian Kremer confirmed. The decade-old reactor project had been mothballed for the last two years, kept barely alive in case North Korea showed signs of resuming International Atomic Energy Agency inspections and liquidating its ambitious self-proclaimed nuclear weapons program. But with a Nov. 30 deadline looming on major contracts underlying the $4.6 billion project - notably to the prime South Korean contractor, Korean Electric Power Co. (KEPCO) - time, money and political will had all evaporated. The decision to kill the project comes at a particularly delicate moment in the fitful series of six-nation talks aimed at disarming North Korea. The fifth round of talks among the two Koreas, the United States, Russian, China and Japan ended Nov. 11 without signs of major progress. Charles Kartman, the American who was executive director of KEDO from 2001 until this August, said the North must have anticipated KEDO's demise. ``There's no surprise here for North Korea. They've been setting up their obstacles'' for weeks and in September had revived their demand for the reactors, Kartman said. At the end of the fourth round of six-way talks in September, North Korea pledged in principle to disarm but maintained that it would need light-water reactors to provide electricity beforehand. Fulfilling that demand would postpone effective disarmament for several years. At a summit of Asian and Pacific leaders last week, President Bush said no reactors would be considered before the North gives up its nuclear weapons program. Bush named North Korea, along with Iraq and Iran, as part of an ``axis of evil'' in his State of the Union speech in 2002. Meanwhile, North Korea says it is escalating its nuclear weapons development program. A shutdown of the Yongbyon research reactor in 1989 and reactor slowdowns in 1990-1991 are believed to have yielded enough plutonium to build two or three bombs, a situation that the Clinton administration considered so threatening that it brought the United States and North Korea close to war in 1994. A bilateral nuclear inspection accord and deal to build two monitored light-water reactors cooled tensions and led to the KEDO project. Last May, North Korea's Foreign Ministry said the country had the ability to harvest still more weapons-grade plutonium and bolster its nuclear arsenal. ``You have to assume the North Koreans have weaponized the plutonium,'' Kartman said. Under the agreement that formed the KEDO project, North Korea was to abandon nuclear weapons development and allow access by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, in exchange for 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil annually from the United States to meet its energy shortage until it got the two light-water atomic power plants, built and paid for primarily by South Korea and Japan, with some EU funding. The program was frozen in 2002 after the United States claimed North Korea had embarked on a second, secret weapons-development program. Evidence to back the claim has never been publicly disclosed. --- On the Net: Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization: http://www.kedo.org Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 10 KTUU.com: Bill attempts to ban nuclear particle accelerators Channel 2 Broadcasting Studios 701 East Tudor Road, Suite #200 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7488 Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - by Dan Fiorucci Anchorage, Alaska - At the Assembly tonight, a bill was introduced specifically prohibiting anyone from operating a nuclear particle accelerator in their home. You wouldn't really think that would be a burning issue in Anchorage, but it's apparently become one. The ordinance was introduced by Assemblyman Allan Tesche. It’s aimed at preventing a nuclear particle accelerator about the size of an SUV from being installed in a garage in Anchorage. When neighbors heard that a small accelerator might be installed on private property along the Parks Strip, some of them got pretty upset. Tonight Tesche introduced the ordinance before the full Assembly. “The use of a dwelling unit for the operation of particle accelerator systems, including Cyclotrons, is prohibited in home occupations,” said Tesche. The ordinance would prevent cyclotrons from being installed in residential neighborhoods on the basis that they would expose surrounding homes to radiation. “The Cyclotron poses no threat to any individual,” said Albert Swank, Jr., proposes particle accelerator (right). Albert Swank, the technician who proposes operating the accelerator, says it would be no more dangerous in a neighborhood than a dental X-ray machine. “It poses less of a threat than many X-ray machines that are located within the community,” said Swank. The accelerator would go in a garage on the 300 block of 10th Avenue, right off the park strip, less than a mile from the skyscrapers of downtown. Despite the controversy at least one of Swank's neighbors stands firmly behind him. “Albert is a brilliant man and I don't think he gonna be blowing up the damn neighborhood,” said Veronica Martinson, Swank's neighbor (right). The accelerator would produce slightly radioactive fluorine, which is injected into patients taking pet scans, a sort of sophisticated X-ray capable of detecting things such as pre-cancerous tissue in the human body. Swank says his accelerator could save pet-scan patients thousands of dollars by helping them stay in-state for virtually all pet scans. “My hope is very simply to improve the quality of medical care within the state of Alaska,” said Swank. At least 25 pet scans are performed in the Anchorage area each week. Swank says 25 scans would require about four small drops of radioactive fluorine. Swank says an accelerator produces no radioactive waste products and no off-site radiation. He says we all have particle accelerators in our homes. Your television set accelerates a beam of electrons and smashes them into a phosphorescent picture tube, exposing you to minute amounts of x-rays, or radiation, in your home. ***************************************************************** 11 Herald: Energy efficiency is best way to cut carbon Web Issue 2405 November 23 2005 Your Letters November 23 2005 Tony Blair's unseemly rush to condemn current and future generations to a nuclear legacy is misguided. The best way to cut carbon emissions is not to pour taxpayers' money down a radioactive drain. Every pound spent on energy efficiency saves seven times as much carbon as every pound spent on nuclear. One of the most successful carbon-saving programmes of recent years has cost the taxpayer nothing: the energy efficiency commitment, which forces utility companies to invest in energy-saving measures, has saved 40% more carbon than anticipated in its three years of operation, paid for by the same utilities. Energy efficiency is more cost-effective than nuclear; it also creates more jobs: 81,000 jobs could be created in Scotland by a comprehensive programme of energy efficiency and training. The sums do not add up for nuclear. Mr Blair must think again. Chas Booth, parliamentary officer, Association for the Conservation of Energy, Lamb's House, Burgess Street, Edinburgh. THE idea of nuclear power is marvellous; it provides almost limitless power with little consequence in the way of greenhouse gases. I suspect the reason it has come up now is our impending failure to meet the international targets for reduction in CO2 emissions. The rosy nuclear future comes, however, with a terrible price. Despite the best efforts of scientists and politicians, we have no solution to the problem of waste. The main users of electricity in the UK are based in the south and midlands of England. They will need the power and who are we to deny them? What chances are there of any arising nuclear waste from the decommissioning of existing and future power stations remaining anywhere within 100 miles of London? First build a national nuclear waste deposit facility south of Birmingham then build the new stations. It will be a cold day in Hell before that ever happens. In the meantime our Scottish Parliament should frustrate, by use of planning permission or transport regulations, any attempt to create either waste dumps or nuclear power stations anywhere in Scotland. D S Blackwood, 39 Abercromby Crescent, Helensburgh. WE NOW see the start of the much-needed debate on the UK's future energy strategy; already there is a danger of it being polarised into Nuclear vs Renewables. While I am convinced of the contribution that wind power can make, I have to ask: "During the past week of low temperatures and high heating demand, how many wind turbines in the UK were actually turning?" Until more reliable and continuous renewable generation sources are available, it is hard to see how nuclear can be excluded from the range of viable sources. Brian Jamieson, Manorcroft, Blairlogie, Stirling. Next week the UN Climate Change Conference will be held in Montreal to discuss solutions to the global challenge of climate change. For many people this is the greatest challenge the world faces today and 189 countries will be represented in Montreal to contribute their distinct message. Scotland will not be one of them. Scotland has a long and distinguished record in academic and scientific achievement, yet today we are led by political leaders who seem content to sit mute on the sidelines of international affairs and see Scotland's voice marginalised when the great issues facing our world are discussed at the highest levels. Why is this? Is it only in Scotland that the (British) State's power of patronage can so easily supplant the sense of national pride you see in every other country? Nick Dekker, 1 Nairn Way, Cumbernauld. Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights ***************************************************************** 12 Japan Times: Next carrier's reactor to be off in port Thursday, November 24, 2005 WASHINGTON (Kyodo) The U.S. Navy will shut down the reactor of the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to be forward-deployed at the U.S. naval base in Yokosuka, Kanagawa Prefecture, navy and Japanese government sources said Wednesday. A nuclear powered aircraft carrier, believed to be the USS George Washington, is to replace the aging, conventionally powered carrier USS Kitty Hawk when it is decommissioned in 2008. The suspension plan has already been submitted to the government, the sources said. The expected deployment of a nuclear-powered carrier has stirred opposition from local residents, who are concerned about the safety of such vessels. The Japan Times: Nov. 24, 2005 (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 13 Guardian Unlimited: At last Blair seems to see that our future is nuclear Comment The energy debate must move on now to give us any hope of getting near the government's target for emissions reduction Simon Jenkins Wednesday November 23, 2005 The Guardian Tony Blair seems to be on the brink of making a really good decision. The energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, has spent days denying it, so it must be true. The prime minister intends to invest in nuclear power as part of Britain's future energy mix. Praise be. The following sets of words do not sit happily together: on the one hand, global warming, carbon emissions, Kyoto, renewables, nuclear power and ministerial soundbite; on the other, fact, certainty, impartiality and "I know the answer". Energy policy is like income tax. We think we have it sorted for another year when it returns suddenly and hits us in the face. My energy file is like Bleak House's Mr Krook. It keeps internally combusting and spattering statistics all over the floor. Article continues So far I am persuaded of one thing, that icebergs are melting. I am also just about persuaded that there is something that mankind, collectively, can do about it. But I am not convinced that we have even the remotest idea how to allocate resources sensibly to that end. Almost nothing that is said on the subject seems uncorrupted by self-interest, profit or subsidy. That certainly applies to the most obvious long-term hope of salvation, nuclear power. Nobody agrees about figures. This past week I have read as "fact" that nuclear power generates 20% of Britain's energy, or perhaps 8%. I have read that wind power is the world's most subsidised form of energy, and its cheapest. "Experts" can be found to declare that nuclear power is clean, cheap and efficient, and that it is dirty, expensive and inefficient. I have read that all man-made greenhouse-gas emissions could be saved just by cleaning existing coal-fired power stations; that Britain's energy needs could be met by capturing the heat escaping from conventional power generation; that natural methane is far more damaging to the ecosphere than man-made pollution, and is anyway unstoppable. I have also read that the government wants a cut of 20% in carbon emissions by 2010, with renewables covering 10% of "needs" (apparently unrelated to price). I have also read that this is inconceivable. I have read that soon we shall all be living off waves, tides, hydrogen, fusion, micro-generators and energy buried in the earth. Energy policy is like Victorian medicine, at the mercy of quack remedies and snake-oil salesmen. All we need do, said Shaw's physician, is "stimulate the phagocytes". We might as well give ourselves over to prayer. One thing at least is new. The prime minister, in close conversation with his chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, wants urgently to revise perhaps his worst-ever white paper, on energy policy in 2003 (a vintage year for dodgy dossiers). It was a monument to the doctrine of unripe time, concluding that nuclear power was messy, renewables glamorous and the whole business problematic. It was not a white paper but a fudge paper. Since then the great god of legacy has been gnawing at Blair's vitals. He finds himself trapped by a syllogism. His target is that Britain must make a 20% emissions cut by 2010. There is no way of coming close to such a cut except by recourse to nuclear power. Therefore meeting the target means building new nuclear stations immediately. Don't build the stations and you will not get near the target. QED. This conclusion is met by a thundering stampede of wild-eyed ones. They raise reasonable questions about the costs and risks of nuclear power, while others do likewise about the costs and unreliability of renewables. What none can do is smash the syllogism. They can forget all about targets (and presumably about global warming), buying oil, coal and gas where they may. Or they must go nuclear. Even if every beauty spot in Britain were coated in windmills their contribution to the Kyoto target would be minuscule. For Blair to get a new nuclear programme under way before he departs need not involve the delays beloved of his fellow planning lawyers. If John Prescott can give himself permission to build executive houses in green belts, turbines in the Cotswolds and 50-storey flats opposite parliament, Blair can permit a new power station on the site of an old one. Nor is it sensible to attribute to the next generation of power plants the costs, and the risks, of earlier ones. To shout Chernobyl at any nuclear project is like pitting the dangers of Stephenson's Rocket against a TGV. The argument is not between nuclear and wind. It is between an undeniably controversial investment and heads buried in the sand. The new Finnish EPR reactor on Olkiluoto island will alone meet 10% of that country's energy needs, reliably and emission-free. It is part of a programme of five agreed by the Finnish parliament. Its underground waste-disposal system is supported even by the Greens. America's new Westinghouse reactors boast a construction cycle of just three years. The nuclear company EDF Energy claims not to need subsidy for such stations. The claim is at least worth testing. Fighting our way through the vested interests dogging this debate is near impossible. The rub is that if Britain can only overcome the nuclear taboo, as have Sweden, Finland, France and other countries, there is no point in wasting subsidy on the relatively small relief to global warming offered by most renewables. Nuclear can do it all, as France shows. Spend money instead on energy-saving - with money raised by taxing energy-greed. Last week's cold weather sent Britain's power demand soaring. The spot price for imported gas doubled from 36p to 82p. Choked by Britain's chaotic gas deals with European producers, chemical firms have already begun closing plant for want of gas supplies. Now there is talk of domestic power cuts this winter. Meanwhile the lack of wind over the week has reportedly left most of Britain's 1,000 wind turbines as motionless and expensive irrelevances. As Blair seems at last to have realised, if global warming is important then nuclear power is no less so. For years this debate has been dominated by the admirably intentioned but fantasist renewable-energy lobby, subsidised by ministers eager to postpone reality. It has deftly exploited anti-science alarmism at the expense of nuclear energy. The message from the government is that the debate must now move on. It is urgent, beyond the realm of not-in-my-back-yard and not-in-my-back-brain. simon.jenkins@guardian.co.uk Useful links British Energy Department of Trade and Industry British Nuclear Fuels Ltd Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Greenpeace HSE nuclear glossary Come Clean WMD awareness programme UK atomic energy authority National Radiological Protection Board Friends of the Earth World Nuclear Association World Nuclear Transport Institute [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 14 Helsingin Sanomat: Need for sixth nuclear reactor divades Presidential candidates Presidential candidates Matti Vanhanen (Centre) and Sauli Niinistö (Nat. Coalition) disagree on the need for more nuclear energy in Finland. In his response prepared for the candidate selection engine on the Helsingin Sanomat website, Vanhanen says that Finland does not need a sixth commercial nuclear reactor. Niinistö says that a sixth reactor is necessary in the fight against climate change. Finland currently has four commercial reactors in use, and a fifth is being built. Incumbent President Tarja Halonen, the candidate of the Social Democratic Party, did not want to take a stand on the issue, emphasising that the decision rests with Parliament. However, as she was compelled to give an answer, she chose the option, "Five nuclear reactors is an appropriate number, and a sixth one is not needed". She also emphasised that Finland needs to have as diverse an energy production as possible, which suggests that she is not ruling out the expansion of nuclear power. The governments report on energy and climate, which comes out this week, leaves the nuclear issue open. Other candidates running for President include Bjarne Kallis (Christ. Dem.) and Henrik Lax (Swed. Peoples Party), both of whom support the construction of a sixth nuclear plant. The Greens Heidi Hautala wants Finland to reduce its dependency on nuclear-generated electricity and to close down ageing units of nuclear power. The True Finns Timo Soini sees five reactors as a sufficient number, and emphasises that the issue is a matter for the Parliament. In other issues, Vanhanen and Niinistö are willing to deprive the President of the authority of naming the members of the Board of the Bank of Finland. Halonen disagrees. She wants the president to keep this right, and she has actually used the authority on a couple of occasions. The candidates tend to agree on what they see as the most important tasks of the President. However, on global issues, Vanhanen sets himself apart from President Halonen and the other candidates. Vanhanen is the only candidate to disagree with the statement, according to which one of the main tasks of the Finnish President is to work actively to eliminate inequality and poverty from the world. "The task is an important one, but the primary task is to promote the interests of Finland and the Finnish people", Vanhanen writes in his answer. Niinistö writes in his response: "The President of Finland takes care of Finland, and not the world. But in international fora it is also important to work on behalf of global justice", Niinistö says. As expected, Halonen "largely agreed" with the statement that eliminating inequality and poverty is one of the most important tasks of the Finnish President. 23.11.2005 - TODAY ***************************************************************** 15 SLO Trib: Feds to hear locals’ safety concerns for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Posted on Wed, Nov. 23, 2005 David Sneed The Tribune Federal nuclear regulators will meet with San Luis Obispo County residents at a town hall-style meeting Wednesday, Dec. 14, from 6 to 9 p.m. at the Embassy Suites Hotel in San Luis Obispo. The meeting is intended to be an opportunity for the public to ask questions of and make comments to officials with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about operations and safety issues at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. Plant managers with Pacific Gas and Electric Co. will also be available. This is the second town hall style meeting held by the agency in San Luis Obispo. The first was in June 2004. The meeting will begin with a presentation by NRC officials about inspections they plan to conduct of an above-ground storage facility for highly radioactive, used reactor fuel currently under construction at the plant. “Our hope is to make that part of the meeting brief and give the public ample opportunity to interact with us,” said Victor Dricks, NRC spokesman. The NRC maintains two fulltime resident inspectors at Diablo Canyon. The agency also regularly conducts specialized inspections of the plant using staff experts from its regional office in Arlington, Texas. The results of these inspections are presented to PG officials at public meetings. The agency began holding the town hall-style meetings to give the public an opportunity to discuss safety concerns in an informal setting. The NRC has jurisdiction over security and radiological safety at the nation’s 103 commercial nuclear reactors. --David Sneed, dsneed@thetribunenews.com ***************************************************************** 16 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: KEDO Puts Final Nail in N.Korea Reactor Project Home> National/Politics Updated Nov.23,2005 19:47 KST The Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization will end a project to build two light-water reactors in North KoreaˇŻs Kumho, an executive board meeting in New York decided Tuesday. KEDO spokesman Brian Kremer said the four board members ? South Korea, the U.S, Japan and the EU ?made the decision to end the project, on ice since 2002, in two days of board meetings. There was no official statement. After the meeting, the U.S. special envoy for North Korea, Joseph DeTrani, also said participants agreed to scrap the project and would meet again this month to discuss financial and legal matters. But KEDOˇŻs deputy executive director Kim Young-mok said although members discussed terminating the project, they would discuss the issue again and make a final decision at another meeting late this month. It remains to be seen whether KEDOˇŻs decision will affect six-nation talks on North KoreaˇŻs nuclear program, which broke without tangible progress on Nov. 11. North Korea has been demanding a light-water reactor from the U.S. before it starts dismantling its nuclear program, but the U.S. insists things must happen the other way round. (englishnews@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 17 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: KEDO agrees to end nuclear project in North November 24, 2005 KST 14:44 (GMT+9) November 24, 2005 ¤Ń The board of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, meeting in New York on Monday and Tuesday, reportedly agreed to terminate its construction work in North Korea on two nuclear power reactors. The project, on which work started in 1997, has been idle for the past two years because of North Korea's renewed nuclear weapons development work. A caretaker force of about 120 people still works at the site. The details of the board action, however, are not entirely clear. The U.S. board member, Joseph DiTrani, told the Associated Press after the meeting that his Korean, Japanese and European colleagues on the board had agreed to the "termination of the reactor project in the North," but Kim Young-mok, the Korean deputy executive director of the organization, said that no final decision had been reached. Other comments from both men suggested that there were legal and financial matters that had to be untangled; Mr. DiTrani said the board would meet again before the end of the month to address them. Seoul has provided most of the funding for the project, and reportedly has already poured more than $1.1 billion into the work. The decision apparently did not include the closing of the organization itself; some proponents of the organization have argued that its experience in working with North Korean officials could prove valuable in other ways, perhaps in implementing any decisions reached at the six-party talks on North Korean nuclear matters. by Ser Myo-ja myoja@joongang.co.kr> Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use | ***************************************************************** 18 Bellona: Underground nuclear power plant back on-line in Siberia Electricity generation for Zheleznogorsk, Krasnoyarsk region, is transfered back from the boiler houses of the Mining and Chemical Combine to the underground nuclear power plant. 2005-11-23 16:02 The Combine’s specialists refuelled the 40 years old reactor ADE-2 and improved the operation safety, ITAR-TASS reported. Underground nuclear reactor AD-2 was put in operation in 1964 and became the main source of the heat and electricity for Zheleznogorsk. The three weapons grade plutonium producing reactors — two in the closed Siberian city of Seversk and the one mentioned above in Zheleznogorsk — will, according to the agreement, be decommissioned within the next six years, effectively ending Russia's capability to produce weapons grade plutonium. These reactors represent the last of Russia's 13 plutonium-producing reactors that were slated for dismantlement under the DOE and US Department of Defence's Cooperative Threat Reduction, or CTR programmes. The United States has already shut down all of its 14 plutonium production reactors. Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 19 Sioux City Journal: Regulators approve sale of Iowa's only nuclear power plant Wednesday, November 23, 2005 DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- In a 2-1 split decision, the Iowa Utilities Board reluctantly approved on Tuesday the sale of the state's only nuclear power plant to a Florida company. Alliant Energy Corp., the majority owner of the Duane Arnold Energy Center near Palo, plans to sell its 70 percent interest in the nuclear power plant to FPL Group, a Juno Beach, Fla., company that owns and operates six nuclear plants. Alliant had decided not to renew the power plant's license after it expires in 2014 and said it would close the plant if the sale had not been approved, spokesman Ryan Stensland said. The utilities board, the state's utility regulatory agency, expressed concern that Alliant had not offered a detailed analysis of costs to keep the plant open. "They expressed an uneasiness in the company's forthright statement that they would not relicense and would like to have seen more analysis as to why and more analysis of the alternative of keeping it and relicensing it," said board spokesman Rob Hillesland. Board members John Norris and Curt Stamp voted to allow the sale to proceed. Diane Munns voted against it. FPL Group offered $383 million earlier this year and has promised to relicense the plant. Under the purchase agreement, Alliant would continue to buy power from FPL until 2014, which Stensland said guarantees customers the power and the rates they now receive. John Perkins, who heads the Office of Consumer Advocate, has said the sale would be bad for Alliant customers. "We were disappointed. We think that it's ultimately going to mean higher taxes for Alliant rate payers than if Alliant would have kept the plant and relicensed it as a prudent utility would have done," he said. Perkins said Alliant's decision to sell or close the 31-year-old nuclear power plant was based more on a return for the company's shareholders than the customers who buy their power. The Iowa Consumers Coalition, which represents large business electric customers, said the agreement leaves FPL free to seek buyers willing to pay more for electricity than Alliant. FPL would have to refund Alliant's payments, leaving the utility to find power at more costly market rates, the coalition said. The coalition recommended restructuring the sale agreement to protect consumer rates and said the contract should be extended to 2034 -- the plant's expected shutdown date. Alliant has insisted that customer rates will be protected under the agreement. Stensland projects $23 million in customer savings from the agreement and $33 million in net proceeds from the sale of the plant. That money would go into a fund that could mean customer refunds or credits, or it could be used to offset construction costs of a new power plant. Perkins said the board could penalize Alliant for "imprudent management." If Alliant builds a plant or buys power on the market, the utility will have to appear before the utilities board for a rate case. If new power costs more than it would have cost to run Duane Arnold, the board could prevent Alliant from seeking to recover those costs from consumers. Stensland said Alliant has plans for new power generation, but they are independent of Duane Arnold. "By 2014, we'll be in the position to determine what's in the best interest of our customers," he said. Perkins said he would review the ruling for legal errors, which would justify an appeal to district court. The Central Iowa Power Cooperative will continue to own 20 percent of the plant and Corn Belt Power Cooperative will keep its 10 percent share. Alliant shares closed 3 cents lower at $27.85 on the New York Stock Exchange. Copyright © 2005 Sioux City Journal Tel: (712) 293-4250 ***************************************************************** 20 NRC: NRC Proposes $3,250 Civil Penalty for Virginia Firm Over Temporary Loss of Gauge Holding Radioactive Material News Release - Region I - 2005-06 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 No. I-05-063 November 23, 2005 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $3,250 fine for a Virginia company over the temporary loss of a portable nuclear gauge last year. The device, which contains radioactive material and is used for industrial purposes such as measuring the density of soil at construction sites, is owned by Foundation Engineering Science, Inc., of Newport News, Va. Based on the results of an NRC staff inspection and an investigation by the Office of Investigations, the NRC has determined that two violations of agency requirements occurred when a gauge owned by the company was stolen from one of its vehicles on Oct. 18, 2004, in Newport News. The device was not recovered until Oct. 29, 2004. The NRC requires that nuclear gauges be secured against unauthorized removal or access. However, a company employee left the vehicle holding the gauge unlocked and unattended in a public parking lot, which is an unrestricted area. In addition, the company failed to report the theft of the device until Oct. 25, 2004, even though NRC regulations require the immediate reporting of such losses. Although you determined that the source material remained in its shielded position during the time the gauge was in the public domain and, therefore, it was unlikely that any member of the public received measurable radiation exposure, these violations are of concern to the NRC because (1) the failure to control radioactive material resulted in the gauge being in the public domain for approximately eleven days; and (2) such sources can result in unintended radiation dose to an individual if the source is removed from the shielded position, NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins wrote in a letter to the company regarding the enforcement action. Foundation Engineering Science representatives discussed the violations with NRC staff during a predecisional enforcement conference on Oct. 4, 2005. During that session, the company acknowledged the facts surrounding the loss of the gauge and its failure to immediately report the event to the NRC, and stated its regret that the event had occurred. The firm also discussed immediate and long-term corrective actions to ensure there is no recurrence of such violations. These include taking disciplinary action against the gauge user responsible for failing to maintain control of the gauge; briefing all staff members on the event; and increasing field audits of gauge users to ensure proper control of NRC-licensed material. Besides the enforcement action against Foundation Engineering Science, the NRC has issued a Severity Level III Violation to the company employee who was responsible for the gauge at the time it was removed from the vehicle. The violation issued to the employee is based on a finding by the NRC Office of Investigations that he engaged in deliberate misconduct by leaving the device unsecured in the back of the vehicle in a public parking lot and by not immediately notifying his employer of the theft. Both the company and the individual, who no longer works for the company, are required to provide the NRC with written replies to the violations within 30 days. Last revised Wednesday, November 23, 2005 ***************************************************************** 21 Herald: Nuclear energy? Perhaps. But no nuclear arms Web Issue 2405 November 23 2005 Your Letters November 23 2005 Nuclear energy may be part of the answer, but first we must ask what are the questions (Blair goes for the nuclear option, November 22). What would happen to energy demand if we separated need from greed, and heavily taxed the latter? What contribution could be made from renewables, especially maritime ones rather than massive land-based schemes that are possibly entertained only to frighten the horses into the nuclear stable? What of a massive shift to ecological architecture and retro-fitting (given that buildings use one-third of our energy, usually wastefully  see www.rmi.org)? What of taxing aviation fuel, and socially stigmatising fast cars? Non-nuclear alternatives require a patchwork of solutions. But above all, they require addressing our shrivelled and shrunken sense of what it means to find fulfilment as a human being, so that we can start replacing quantity of consumption with quality of relationships. The nuclear option, by contrast, is a centralised industrial approach that coddles lazy energy addiction but defers costs to unborn generations. The bottom line is that if Hunterston, Torness or Faslane [pictured] were hit by a terrorist attack, we could perhaps say goodbye to central Scotland for Kingdom come. No insurer will carry such a risk. If the criterion of unacceptable risk is uninsurable risk, where, precisely, does that leave us? Nevertheless, it may be that our politicians conclude that nuclear fission is the implicit choice of their highly materialistic electorate who fear the lights going out. If so, let us hope it is but a stopgap until dirty atomic fission is replaced by relatively clean atomic fusion. But ever since I was a boy, fusion has been a technical challenge kicked "30 years away" into the long grass. If society does go back down the nuclear road, let it be on a basis of using up existing military nuclear material rather than mining yet more. According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, there are currently some 4000 tons of plutonium or highly enriched uranium spread across 60 countries of the world. This, they say, is enough "for hundreds of thousands of nuclear weapons". Whatever our energy choices, that is a legacy of twentieth-century warmongering that must be tackled. Meanwhile, Tony Blair holds on to and is exploring the replacement of Britain's Trident missile "deterrent". In the course of guest lecturing at staff college I have discussed this with large numbers of senior military. Privately, many say that Trident wastes resources because its use would be militarily impractical and ethically unconscionable. They say its main value is political. It secures Britain a seat at the UN Security Council. But such, surely, is only the game of politicians whose wisdom is dwarfed by their egos. This country does need a debate and decisions about future energy security. But the price of even considering the nuclear option has got to be foreclosure on Britain's chosen weapon of mass destruction. As a nation faced with the threat of asymmetric warfare, we must reclaim the moral high ground. To replace Trident would only be to glorify terror. Alastair McIntosh, 26 Luss Road, Glasgow. Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights ***************************************************************** 22 Green Bay Press-Gazette: Moisture in generator puts power plant off-line Kewaunee Power Station + Location: Carlton, 9 miles south of Kewaunee + Generation: One reactor unit — 545 megawatts + Reactor type: Pressurized water + Employees: About 550 + Date of commercial operation: June 16, 1974 + License expires: 2013 + Ownership: Dominion Energy Kewaunee, a subsidiary of Dominion Resources Inc. Posted November 23, 2005 Kewaunee Power Station was taken off line Monday night, but Wisconsin Public Service Corp. customers probably won't notice a difference. The supply of electricity is adequate, and the cost of replacing electricity from Kewaunee will be borne by Dominion Resources Inc., the plant's owner. Joe Reed, a spokesman for Kewaunee, said the plant was shut down when moisture was discovered in its electric generator. He said the problem is not related to nuclear operations. Plant operators discovered the problem and took the plant off line manually at 10:26 p.m. Monday. Reed said the problem is being investigated. Dominion Resources acquired the plant in the town of Carlton in Kewaunee County from Wisconsin Public Service Corp. in July 2005. As part of the deal, Kewaunee continues to supply Wisconsin Public Service with electricity. Kewaunee supplies up to 20 percent of the Green Bay-based utility's electricity. "Dominion is responsible for the cost of any replacement power," said Charlie Severance, manager of supply and wholesale services for Wisconsin Public Service. "Dominion has indicated they will be replacing power and it will have minimal impact, if any, on WPS customers." Severance said temperatures aren't cold enough to create supply problems. "If this was extreme weather, it could put the system in Northeastern Wisconsin at risk," he said. "This is relatively moderate temperatures." Kerry Spees, a spokesman for Wisconsin Public Service, said most heat in the company's territory is fueled by natural gas. "The loss of some electric generation doesn't affect it in terms of heating," he said. greenbaypressgazette.com is a website. ***************************************************************** 23 Rutland Herald: What would Entergy do? Rutland Vermont News & Information November 23, 2005 I wonder how many Vermonters are aware that Entergy, the owner-operators of Vermont Yankee, also owns, through a subsidiary corporation, Entergy New Orleans, the electric distribution utility serving New Orleans. Within days after that city was struck by Hurricane Katrina, Entergy New Orleans put itself into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, creating uncertainty and delay in the restoration of electric service necessary for that city's return to normalcy. Utility bankruptcies are rare and unusual. Even General Public Utilities, the owner operator of Three Mile Island, site of the nation's worst commercial nuclear reactor accident over 25 years ago, never resorted to the bankruptcy courts in their hour of peril. It makes one wonder how Entergy would respond to an unplanned event at Vermont Yankee that was financially stressful and perilous to the public. Would it unequivocally send in teams of engineers, technicians and contractors necessary to secure the situation, spending whatever was necessary to provide maximum protection to the public? Or, alternatively, would it send its legal team off to federal court with a bankruptcy petition? I think it's a fair question to ask. RAYMOND MAKUL Andover © 2005 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 24 Rutland Herald: Time to OK Yankee power boost Rutland Vermont News & Information November 23, 2005 Commentary While it is no secret that consumers and businesses are bracing for high-priced fuel this winter, an even more distressing question is arising: Will we have enough and will the lights stay on? Vermont utilities have warned of possible rolling blackouts this winter. Going forward, prospects are even more distressing. Joseph Kelliher, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently said, "I am concerned that the situation in New England bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the situation facing California in the late 1990s." Gordon van Welie, president and CEO of ISO New England, the nonprofit operator of the regional electrical grid, is similarly blunt: "Without new investment, New England could face an energy future much like California's recent past, including frequent power emergencies." One factor driving concern is a feared disruption of natural gas supplies, as occurred after Hurricane Katrina. With New England at the end of the natural gas pipeline, we are the ones most vulnerable to a shortage or supply disruption. Drastic measures are now being contemplated. On Oct. 19, The Boston Globe reported that Massachusetts Governor Romney was considering "easing air-pollution restrictions on oil-fueled power plants to allow them to produce more electricity to stave off potential catastrophic blackouts and natural gas shortages this winter." Some of that pollution, undoubtedly, will make its way to Vermont. Fortunately, Vermont is not yet a place where blackouts, and the disruptions they create for businesses, homeowners — and even life threatening situations for the frail and elderly — are inevitable. What can be done to make sure we do not go down this path? First and foremost, federal and state officials should approve the proposed power increase, or uprate, at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, which supplies one-third of Vermont's electricity. The uprate will provide 100 additional megawatts of electricity, enough to power more than 100,000 homes. This will provide an important margin of safety and stability to the New England power grid. For three years Entergy, the owner of Vermont Yankee, has been providing officials with information about the safety and viability of the project, and subjecting itself to rigorous scrutiny from all levels of government and the general public through the regulatory process. That's how it should be. But the time for a final decision is at hand. To be sure, an "uprate" is not a novel concept at a nuclear plant. More than 20 uprates have been approved across the country. Entergy, one of the largest nuclear plant operators in the United States, made it clear when it purchased Vermont Yankee in 2002 that it intended to seek a power increase, having assessed the plant as an excellent candidate for this expansion. Since then, the company has invested millions of dollars into the plant to improve and upgrade the facility, on the expectation the uprate would be approved. Given the company's expertise, resources, and thorough discussions with regulators, and the process by which the government has considered the proposal, the safety issues should certainly be able to be addressed. In fact, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has given conditional approval to the uprate, as has the Vermont Public Service Board. The uprate power will help to strengthen our regional economy, by ensuring that we have reliable electricity, and low-cost nuclear electricity at that, which businesses and consumers need. In addition, while the power is initially expected to be used outside Vermont, many jobs and a lot of additional business activity will be created in Windham County and the state as the plant continues its expansion. Furthermore, the availability of this additional generation in the grid will put some downward pressure on electricity prices. On the environmental front the emission-free nuclear power reduces the need for Massachusetts to burn high-polluting oil-based fuels. It also helps Vermont to maintain its track record of having low-polluting power sources, which are an important factor in maintaining the pristine character of the state. Longer term, the expanded power at Vermont Yankee provides an important, additional power source that the state's utilities can bid on, assuming the plant is re-licensed in 2012. Locally generated base load power is important for the state's energy infrastructure. Considering that a major new power plant has not been built in the state in 20 years, and that our electrical needs continue to rise every year, the uprate power will no doubt be a vital resource for Vermont in the years ahead. It's time to approve the uprate. Doug Griswold is president of S.T. Griswold &Co. Inc. and the representative of the Vermont Business Roundtable to the Vermont Energy Partnership. ***************************************************************** 25 NRC: NRC Forms Task Force to Look for Lessons Learned from 2005 Hurricane Season Incident Response News Release - 2005-15 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-159 November 22, 2005 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has created a task force to continue assessing the preparations for and response to the 2005 hurricane season by the NRC, affected states and licensees. The task force will focus especially on agency actions related to hurricanes Katrina and Rita and their effects on nuclear power plants in Louisiana and Florida. The task force will review the agencys actions to monitor the storms, interact with state officials and work with nuclear facility operators licensed by the NRC. Based on the review, the task force will make recommendations for improvements. The task force will also review actions related to radioactive material licensees in areas that could have been, or were, affected by the severe weather. Our response to this years hurricane season was very good. We are pleased with how our staff handled the storms and interacted with affected states and licensees, said Melvyn Leach, the task force team leader and an official in the NRCs Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response. We are always looking for ways to do better. We want to apply lessons learned here to incidents other than those involving hurricanes. As part of its mission, the task force will pay particular attention to the adequacy of primary and back-up communication systems linking the NRC, other government organizations and the licensees. The task force will also compare lessons learned from the 2005 hurricanes to observations related to 1992's Hurricane Andrew to see if issues have recurred. Officials from numerous states will be asked to provide input to the task force, which is comprised of 10 staff members from headquarters and region offices. The task force first met in early November and is expected to deliver a report with recommendations for improvements to the Executive Director for Operations in February 2006. Depending on the conclusions of the task force and direction from the Commission, regulatory changes or other actions could be proposed. The final report will be made public in the future. Last revised Wednesday, November 23, 2005 ***************************************************************** 26 Rutland Herald: Panel: Reject Yankee power boost Rutland Vermont News & Information November 23, 2005 By DAVID GRAM The Associated Press MONTPELIER — A sharply divided state advisory group recommended Tuesday that the Public Service Board reject or order changes in Vermont Yankee's plan to boost its power output by 20 percent. The Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel's 4-3 vote came after members heard testimony that Entergy Nuclear, owner of the nuclear reactor in Vernon, would make a projected $357 million between now and the end of its current license in 2012 if it is allowed to increase power from 510 to 612 megawatts a year. The panel, which operates only in an advisory capacity, also was told that Vermont ratepayers could be faced with more than $450 million in higher electric costs if extracting 20 percent more power from the 33-year-old reactor caused a problem that forced the plant to shut down early. Both Entergy's potential profits and Vermont ratepayers' potential risks are much higher than projected when the Public Service Board gave the power increase conditional approval in March 2004. Energy prices are up sharply, which means Entergy can make more money selling the extra electricity on the New England market. And it would be much costlier for Central Vermont Public Service Corp. and Green Mountain Power Corp. to replace the relatively cheap power they now get under a contract with Vermont Yankee if the plant were forced to close. Panel members supporting Tuesday's resolution said there was not enough balance between Entergy's $357 million in potential profits and the $20 million in benefits to the state that the Department of Public Service negotiated for in 2003 in exchange for supporting the company before the Public Service Board. The state negotiated an additional $18 million in exchange for allowing Vermont Yankee to store highly radioactive wastes in concrete and steel casks at the reactor site. "Vermont does not get anything like rewards commensurate with the risks it will take" if the power boost is allowed, said board member Timothy Nulty, a panel member representing the public who drafted and offered the resolution. The other public member, Russell Kulas, was joined by the two legislative members, Sen. Mark MacDonald and Rep. Steve Darrow, in supporting the resolution. It was opposed by the three Douglas administration appointees to the board: Department of Public Service Commissioner David O'Brien, who chairs the board; John Sayles, representing the Agency of Natural Resources, and Razelle Hoffman-Contois, representing the Agency of Human Services. A clearly exasperated O'Brien, who at one point in Tuesday's meeting offered to give up his position as chairman of the panel, argued that the advisory group was not in a position to second-guess the PSB. "This panel in my opinion is not in a position to reach the conclusions in the resolution," O'Brien said. One of the "Whereas" clauses in the resolution said the state would be harmed if the power boost caused a long-term outage at Vermont Yankee. But O'Brien said other panel members were exaggerating that risk. He referred to the independent engineering assessment that the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission did at Vermont Yankee, saying, "There was no indication whatsoever anywhere in that report that the plant won't operate for the next six years," until its license expires. The board made the results of the NRC's review a condition that had to be met before it gave final approval. The NRC review was completed earlier this year, but the board still has not said whether its condition had been met. Critics of the power increase contend the NRC inspection did not meet the board's terms, and that the board has an opening to deny the power boost request if it wishes to. Later Tuesday, O'Brien said he believed the panel's resolution would have "very little effect" on the PSB, which has only approved the uprate conditionally. "I hope it doesn't," he said. "I don't think the resolution is sound." Rutland Herald reporter Susan Smallheer contributed to this story. © 2005 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 27 NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Notice of Consideration of FR Doc E5-6451 [Federal Register: November 23, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 225)] [Notices] [Page 70889-70892] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr23no05-140] Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-22 issued to the Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC or the licensee) for operation of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (Monticello) located in Wright County, Minnesota. The proposed amendment, requested by NMC in its application dated June 29, 2005, represents a full conversion from the Current Technical Specifications (CTS) to a set of Improved Technical Specifications (ITS) based on NUREG-1433, ``Standard Technical Specifications General Electric Plants BWR/4,'' Revision 3, dated April 2001. NUREG-1433 has been developed by the Commission's staff through working groups composed of NRC staff and industry representatives, and has been endorsed by the NRC staff as part of an industry-wide initiative to standardize and improve the Technical Specifications (TSs) for nuclear power plants. As part of this submittal, the licensee has applied the criteria contained in the Commission's ``Final Policy Statement on Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors (Final Policy Statement),'' published in the Federal Register on July 22,1993 (58 FR 39132), to the CTS and using NUREG-1433 as a basis, proposed ITS for Monticello. The criteria in the Final Policy Statement was subsequently added to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), part 50.36, ``Technical Specifications,'' in a rule change that was published in the Federal Register on July 19, 1995 (60 FR 36953) and became effective on August 18, 1995. This notice is based on the application dated June 29, 2005, and any information provided to the NRC through the Monticello ITS Conversion Web page. To expedite its application review, the NRC staff will issue requests for additional information (RAIs) through the Monticello ITS Conversion web page and the licensee will address the RAIs by providing responses on the Web page. Entry into the database is protected so that only designated licensee and NRC reviewers can enter information; however, the public can access the database to read the questions asked and the responses provided. To be in compliance with the regulations for written communications for license amendment requests and to have the database on the Monticello docket before the amendment would be issued, the licensee will provide a copy of the database in a submittal to the NRC after there are no further RAIs and before the amendment is to be issued. The public can access the database through the NRC Internet home page at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/techspecs.html. Click on the link located near the bottom of the page titled ``Improved Technical Specifications Data Base'' to access the Excel Services Corporation ITS Licensing Databases. Click on ``Monticello Nuclear Power Plant Licensing Database'' to view comments and responses. The RAIs and responses are organized by ITS sections 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1 through 3.9, 4.0, and 5.0, and include beyond scope issues (BSIs) which are discussed later in this notice. For every ITS section or BSI, RAIs can be read by clicking on the applicable ITS Section. Licensee responses are indicated by a solid blue triangle below the ITS Number or, if accessing from the ITS Section, at the bottom of the page. To read a response, click on the triangle. To page down through the ITS sections, click on ``Next'' along the top or bottom of the page. Click on ``Previous'' to return to the previous page. The licensee has categorized the proposed changes to the CTS into five general groupings within the description of changes (DOC) section of the application. These groupings are characterized as administrative changes (i.e., ITS x.x, DOC A.xx); more restrictive changes (i.e., ITS x.x, DOC M.xx); relocated specifications (i.e., ITS x.x, DOC R.xx); removed detail changes (i.e., ITS x.x, DOC LA.xx); and less restrictive changes (i.e., ITS x.x, DOC L.xx). The DOCs are numbered sequentially within each letter designator for each ITS Chapter, Section, or Specification, and the designations are A.xx for administrative changes, M.xx for more restrictive changes, R.xx for relocated specifications, LA.xx for removed detail changes, and L.xx for less restrictive changes. Administrative changes involve restructuring, renumbering, rewording, interpretation and complex rearranging of requirements, and other changes not affecting technical content or substantially revising an operating requirement. The reformatting, renumbering and rewording process reflects the attributes of NUREG-1433 and does not involve technical changes to the CTS. The proposed changes include: (a) Poviding the appropriate numbers, etc., for NUREG-1433 bracketed information (information that must be supplied on a plant-specific basis, and which may change from plant to plant), (b) identifying plant-specific wording for system names, etc., and (c) changing NUREG- 1433 section wording to conform to existing licensee practices. Such changes are administrative in nature and do not impact initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events. More restrictive changes invoke more stringent requirements compared to the CTS for facility operation. These more stringent requirements do not result in operation that will alter assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient event. The more restrictive requirements will not alter the operation of process variables, structures, systems, and components described in the safety analyses. For each requirement in the standard technical specification (STS) that is more restrictive than the CTS which the licensee proposes to adopt in the ITS, the licensee has provided an explanation as to why it concluded that [[Page 70890]] adopting the more restrictive requirement is desirable to ensure safe operation of the facility because of specific plant design features. Relocated changes involve relocating requirements and surveillances for structures, systems, components, or variables that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in TSs. Relocated changes are those CTS requirements that do not satisfy or fall within any of the four criteria specified in the 10 CFR 50.36(c) and, therefore, may be relocated to appropriate licensee-controlled documents. The licensee's application of the screening criteria is described in Enclosure 1 to the June 29, 2005, application. The affected structures, systems, components or variables are not assumed to be initiators of analyzed events and are not assumed to mitigate accident or transient events. The requirements and surveillances for these affected structures, systems, components, or variables will be relocated from the TSs to administratively-controlled documents such as the quality assurance program, the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR), the ITS Bases, the Technical Requirements Manual that is incorporated by reference in the UFSAR, the core operating limits report, the offsite dose calculation manual, the inservice testing program, the inservice inspection program, or other licensee-controlled documents. Changes made to these documents will be made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 or other appropriate control mechanisms, and may be made without prior NRC review and approval. In addition, the affected structures, systems, components, or variables are addressed in existing surveillance procedures that are also subject to 10 CFR 50.59. Removed detail changes to the CTSs eliminate detail and relocate the detail to a licensee-controlled document. Typically, this involves details of system design and function, or procedural detail on methods of conducting a surveillance requirement (SR). These changes are supported, in aggregate, by a single generic no significant hazard consideration. The generic type of removed detail change is identified in italics at the beginning of the DOC. Less restrictive changes are those where CTS requirements are relaxed or eliminated, or new plant operational flexibility is provided. The ``more significant'' less restrictive requirements are justified on a case-by-case basis. When requirements have been shown to provide little or no safety benefit, their removal from the TSs may be appropriate. Relaxations previously granted to individual plants on a plant-specific basis were, in most cases, the result of (a) generic NRC actions, (b) new NRC staff positions that evolved from technological advancements and operating experience, or (c) resolution of the Owners Groups' comments on the Improved STSs. Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-1433 were reviewed by the NRC staff and found to be acceptable because they are consistent with current licensing practices and NRC regulations. The licensee's design is being reviewed to determine if the specific design-basis and licensing basis are consistent with the technical basis for the model requirements in NUREG-1433, thus providing a basis for the ITS, or if relaxation of the requirements in the CTS is warranted based on the justification provided by the licensee. These administrative, relocated, more restrictive, and less restrictive changes to the requirements of the CTS do not result in operations that will alter assumptions relative to mitigation of an analyzed accident or transient event. There are also changes proposed that are different from the requirements in both the CTSs and the STSs of NUREG-1433. These are designated as BSIs and are discussed below. The first 15 BSIs were identified by the licensee and described in Enclosure 2 of their application. In some cases, a BSI may be addressed as a justification for deviation (JFD) from the STS, and identified as ITS x.x, JFD x. The BSIs to the conversion, listed in the order of the applicable ITS specification or section, are as follows: 1. CTS 3.1.A refers to the ``Setpoints'' of the Reactor Protection System (RPS) Instrumentation Functions in CTS Table 3.1.1 and CTS Table 3.1.1, and specifies the ``Limiting Trip Settings'' for the RPS Instrumentation Functions. The Limiting Trip Settings of CTS Table 3.1.1 Trip Functions 3.a, 4.a, and 4.c have been modified to reflect new ``Allowable Values'' as indicated for ITS Table 3.3.1.1-1 Functions 1.a and 2.a. This changes the CTS by requiring RPS Instrumentation to be set consistent with the new Allowable Values. (ITS 3.3.1.1, DOC L.12) 2. CTS Table 4.1.1 requires a weekly functional test of the Manual Scram Function. ITS Table 3.3.1.1-1 Function 11 and ITS SR 3.3.1.1.5 require the performance of the same test at a 31-day frequency. This changes the CTS by extending the Manual Scram functional test frequency from 7 days to 31 days. (ITS 3.3.1.1, DOC L.14) 3. CTS Table 3.2.5 specifies the ``Trip Setting'' for the Anticipated Transient Without Scram-Recirculation Pump Trip High Reactor Dome Pressure Function. The Trip Setting of CTS Table 3.2.5 Function 1 has been modified to reflect the new less restrictive Allowable Value as indicated in ITS SR 3.3.4.1.5.b (ITS 3.3.4.1, DOC L.4) 4. CTS Table 3.2.2 specifies the ``Trip Setting'' for Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Instrumentation Functions. The Trip Setting of CTS 3.2.2 Function C.3 has been modified to reflect new more restrictive Allowable Values as indicated for ITS Table 3.3.5.1-1 Functions 4.c, 4.d, 5.c and 5.d. (ITS 3.3.5.1, DOC M.8) 5. CTS Table 3.2.2 and Table 3.2.8 specify the ``Trip Setting'' for ECCS Instrumentation Functions. The Trip Settings of CTS Table 3.2.2 Functions A.1.b.i and A.2, and Table 3.2.8 Function C.1 have been modified to reflect new less restrictive Allowable Values as indicated for ITS Table 3.3.5.1-1 Functions 1.c, 1.d, 2.c, 2.d, and 3.d. In addition, the Allowable Value for ITS Table 3.3.5.1-1 Function 3.d only specifies a single Allowable value, which is applicable for both one- and two-tank operation. (ITS 3.3.5.1, DOC L.5) 6. CTS Table 3.2.8 specifies the ``Trip Setting'' for the Condensate Storage Tank Level--Low for two tank and one tank operation. The Trip Settings of CTS Table 3.2.8 Function C.1 have been modified to reflect a new less restrictive Allowable Value as indicated for ITS Table 3.3.5.2-1 Function 3. In addition, the Allowable Value for this Function only specifies a single Allowable Value, which is applicable for both one- and two-tank operation. (ITS 3.3.5.2, DOC L.3) 7. CTS Table 3.2.1 specifies the ``Trip Settings'' for the Primary Containment Isolation Instrumentation. The Trip Settings of CTS Table 3.2.1 Functions 3.d, 4.a, 4.b, 4.c, and 5.b have been modified to reflect more restrictive Allowable Values as indicated in ITS Table 3.3.6.1-1 Function 3.a, 3.b, 3.c, 4.c, and 5.a. (ITS 3.3.6.1, DOC M.9) 8. CTS Table 3.2.1 specifies the ``Trip Settings'' for the Primary Containment Isolation Instrumentation. The Trip Settings of CTS Table 3.2.1 Functions 1.b, 1.d, 5.a, 5.c, and 6.a have been modified to reflect new less restrictive Allowable Values as indicated in ITS Table 3.3.6.1-1 Functions 1.b, 1.c, 4.a, 4.b, and 6.a. (ITS 3.3.6.1, DOC L.9) 9. CTS Table 3.2.6 specifies the ``Trip Settings'' for the Loss of Power Instrumentation. The Trip Setting of CTS Table 3.2.6 Function 1 has been modified to reflect new more restrictive Allowable Values as indicated for ITS Table 3.3.8.1-1 Functions 2.a and 2.b. (ITS 3.3.8.1, DOC M.3) [[Page 70891]] 10. CTS 3.2.C.2.b states that the Rod Block Monitor (RBM) bypass time delay must be less than or equal to 2.0 seconds. ITS 3.3.2.1 does not require the RBM bypass time delay to be OPERABLE. This changes the CTS by deleting the RBM bypass time delay requirements. (ITS 3.3.2.1, DOC L.5) 11. CTS 4.14 does not provide a delayed entry into associated Conditions and Required Actions if a Post-Accident Monitoring (PAM) channel is inoperable solely for performance of required surveillances. ITS SR Note 2 has been added to allow delayed entry into associated Conditions and Required Actions for up to 6 hours if a PAM channel is placed in an inoperable status solely for performance of required surveillances, provided the associated function remains capable. This changes the CTS by providing a delay time to enter Conditions and Required Actions for a PAM channel placed in an inoperable status solely for performance of required surveillances. (ITS 3.3.3.1, DOC L.2) 12. CTS 4.1.C.2 requires an instrument calibration of each RPS power monitoring channel every ``Operating Cycle.'' ITS SR 3.3.8.2.2 requires the performance of a CHANNEL CALIBRATION of the overvoltage, undervoltage, and underfrequency setpoints every 184 days. This changes the CTS by increasing the frequency of performing a CHANNEL CALIBRATION of the overvoltage, undervoltage, and underfrequency setpoints. (ITS 3.3.8.2, DOC M.3) 13. CTS 4.5.F.1 provides a cross-reference to the SRs in CTS 4.6.G. However, these are jet pump surveillances and reflect stability monitoring issues. ITS SR 3.4.1.2 requires verification of operation in the Normal Region of the power-to-flow map every 24 hours or in the Stability Buffer Region of the power-to-flow map, with power distribution controls as specified in the Core Operating Limits Report, every 24 hours. This changes the CTS by deleting the cross references to the SRs in CTS 4.6.G and adds a new SR. (ITS 3.4.1, DOC M.1) 14. CTS 6.8.B includes the Primary Coolant Sources Outside Containment program requirements. The Combustible Gas Control System (CGCS) is included in this program. ITS 5.5.2 includes the same program requirements for the Primary Coolant Sources Outside Containment program, except the CGCS will not be included. This changes the CTS by deleting the program requirement for the CGCS in the Primary Coolant Sources Outside Containment program. (ITS 5.5, DOC L.4) 15. CTS 6.8.B.2 specifies that the integrated leak test requirements for each system outside containment that could contain highly radioactive fluids during a serious transient or accident must be performed at a refueling cycle or less. CTS 6.8.B also states that CTS 4.0.B (i.e. a 25 percent allowable grace period) is applicable. ITS 5.5.2.b specifies that the same test must be performed at least once per 24 months and that the provisions of ITS SR 3.0.2 (25 percent allowable grace period) are applicable. This changes the CTS by extending the frequency of the surveillance from 18 months to 24 months, with a maximum of 30 months accounting for the allowable grace period. (ITS 5.5, DOC L.5) Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the commission's regulations. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner/ requestor in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/ petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/ requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on [[Page 70892]] a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent Jonathan Rogoff, Esq., 700 First Street, Hudson, WI 54016, attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the licensee's application for amendment dated June 29, 2005, and the Monticello ITS Conversion Web page (as discussed above). Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee at the Commission's 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's (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, 301-415-4737, or by e- mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of November, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. John F. Stang, Sr. Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-6451 Filed 11-22-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 28 NRC: Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1; FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC; Notice FR Doc E5-6454 [Federal Register: November 23, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 225)] [Notices] [Page 70888-70889] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr23no05-139] of Withdrawal of Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) has granted the request of FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC (FPLE or the licensee) to withdraw its March 28, 2005, application for an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-86 for the Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 (Seabrook), located in Rockingham County, New Hampshire. The proposed amendment would have revised the Seabrook Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.9.13, ``Spent Fuel Assembly Storage,'' to reflect a revised criticality safety analysis. This analysis was intended to support a two-zone spent fuel pool (SFP) consisting of BORAFLEX[reg] and BORAL[reg] fuel assembly storage racks. Additionally, the proposed change would have created TS 3/4.9.15, ``Spent Fuel Pool Boron Concentration,'' to support the planned SFP changes. The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on May 10, 2005 (70 FR 24653). However, by letter dated October 24, 2005, FPLE withdrew the proposed change. [[Page 70889]] For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated March 28, 2005, and the licensee's letter dated October 24, 2005, which withdrew the application for license amendment. 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 Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, . 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 . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of November, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. G. Edward Miller, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-6454 Filed 11-22-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 29 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding FR Doc E5-6459 [Federal Register: November 23, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 225)] [Notices] [Page 70897-70898] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr23no05-143] of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for Parker Hughes Institute, Roseville, MN AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Peter J. Lee, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532- 4352. Telephone: 630-829-9870; fax number: 630-515-1259; e-mail: pjl2@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuing a license amendment of Material License No. 22-26786-01 issued to Parker Hughes Institute (the licensee), to authorize release of its Bays 12 and 13 at 2657 Patton Road facility for unrestricted use. The NRC staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this amendment in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the publication of this Notice. II. EA Summary The purpose of the proposed action is to amend the licensee's byproduct material license and release its Bays 12 and 13 at 2657 Patton Road facility for unrestricted use. On April 18, 1997, the Atomic Energy Commission authorized the licensee to conduct the radiological operations. The primary radioactive materials used at 2657 Patton Road facility were hydrogen-3, carbon-14, phosphorus-32, phosphorus-33, sulfur-35, and iodine-125. On September 27, 2005, the licensee submitted a license amendment request to amend its license to release its Bays 12 and 13 at 2657 Patton Road facility for unrestricted use. The licensee has conducted surveys of the facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the site meets the license termination criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402, ``Radiological Criteria for Unrestricted Use.'' The staff has examined the licensee's request and the information provided in support of its request, including the surveys performed to demonstrate compliance with the release criteria. The staff has found that the radiological environmental impacts from the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated in the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Facilities'' (NUREG-1496). Additionally, no non-radiological or cumulative impacts were identified. Based on its review, the staff has determined that there are no additional remediation activities necessary to complete the proposed action and a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. III. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the EA, the NRC concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed amendment and determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are: ML052800438 for the September 27, 2005, amendment request, ML053110124 for the October 28, 2005, additional information to the amendment request, and ML053180555 for the EA summarized above. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville [[Page 70898]] Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Lisle, Illinois, this 14th day of November 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jamnes L. Cameron, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Region III. [FR Doc. E5-6459 Filed 11-22-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 30 NRC: State of Minnesota: NRC Draft Staff Assessment of a Proposed FR Doc 05-22581 [Federal Register: November 23, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 225)] [Notices] [Page 70894-70897] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr23no05-142] [[Page 70894]] Agreement Between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the State of Minnesota AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of a Proposed Agreement with the State of Minnesota. SUMMARY: By letter dated July 6, 2004, Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota requested that the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) enter into an Agreement with the State as authorized by section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act). Under the proposed Agreement, the Commission would discontinue, and Minnesota would assume, portions of the Commission's regulatory authority exercised within the State. As required by the Act, NRC is publishing the proposed Agreement for public comment. NRC is also publishing the summary of a Draft Staff Assessment of the Minnesota Program. Comments are requested on the proposed Agreement and the NRC Draft Staff Assessment which finds the Program adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC's program for regulation of agreement material. The proposed Agreement would release (exempt) persons who possess or use certain radioactive materials in Minnesota from portions of the Commission's regulatory authority. The Act requires that NRC publish those exemptions. Notice is hereby given that the pertinent exemptions have been previously published in the Federal Register and are codified in the Commission's regulations as 10 CFR part 150. DATES: The comment period expires December 9, 2005. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission cannot assure consideration of comments received after the expiration date. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted to Mr. Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Comments may be submitted electronically at . The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents may be accessed through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at . 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 (800) 397-4209, or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to . Copies of comments received by NRC may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Public File Area O-1-F21, Rockville, Maryland. Copies of the request for an Agreement by the Governor of Minnesota including all information and documentation submitted in support of the request, and copies of the full text of the NRC Draft Staff Assessment are also available for public inspection in the NRC's Public Document Room--ADAMS Accession Numbers: ML041960496, ML041960499, ML052440344, ML050130375, ML050140452, ML051330043, ML051740384, ML051650073, ML052200424, and ML053060372. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cardelia Maupin, Office of State and Tribal Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone (301) 415-3340 or e-mail . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since section 274 of the Act was added in 1959, the Commission has entered into Agreements with 33 States. The Agreement States currently regulate approximately 17,200 agreement material licenses, while NRC regulates approximately 4,700 licenses. Under the proposed Agreement, approximately 167 NRC licenses will transfer to Minnesota. NRC periodically reviews the performance of the Agreement States to assure compliance with the provisions of section 274. Section 274e requires that the terms of the proposed Agreement be published in the Federal Register for public comment once each week for four consecutive weeks. This Notice is being published in fulfillment of the requirement. I. Background (a) Section 274d of the Act provides the mechanism for a State to assume regulatory authority, from the NRC, over certain radioactive materials \1\ and activities that involve use of the materials. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ The radioactive materials are: (a) Byproduct materials as defined in section 11e.(1) of the Act; (b) byproduct materials as defined in section 11e.(2) of the Act; (c) source materials as defined in section 11z. of the Act; and (d) special nuclear materials as defined in section 11aa. of the Act, restricted to quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- In a letter dated July 6, 2004, Governor Pawlenty certified that the State of Minnesota has a program for the control of radiation hazards that is adequate to protect public health and safety within Minnesota for the materials and activities specified in the proposed Agreement, and that the State desires to assume regulatory responsibility for these materials and activities. Included with the letter was the text of the proposed Agreement, which is shown in Appendix A to this Notice. The radioactive materials and activities (which together are usually referred to as the ``categories of materials'') which the State of Minnesota requests authority over are: (1) The possession and use of byproduct materials as defined in section 11e.(1) of the Act; (2) the possession and use of source materials; and (3) the possession and use of special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass, as provided for in regulations or orders of the Commission. (b) The proposed Agreement contains articles that: --Specify the materials and activities over which NRC's authority is discontinued and transferred; --Specify the activities over which the Commission will retain regulatory authority; --Continue the authority of the Commission to safeguard nuclear materials and restricted data; --Commit the State of Minnesota and NRC to exchange information as necessary to maintain coordinated and compatible programs; --Provide for the reciprocal recognition of licenses; --Provide for the amendment, suspension or termination of the Agreement; and --Specify the effective date of the proposed Agreement. The Commission reserves the option to modify the terms of the proposed Agreement in response to comments, to correct errors, and to make editorial changes. The final text of the Agreement, with the effective date, will be published after the Agreement is approved by the Commission, and signed by the Chairman of the Commission and the Governor of Minnesota. (c) Minnesota currently registers users of naturally-occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive materials. Authority for Minnesota's radiation control unit and proposed Agreement State activities is primarily found in [[Page 70895]] Minnesota Statutes, sections 144.12-144.121, and in the Minnesota Rules Chapter 4731. Section 144.1202 provides the authority for the Governor to enter into an Agreement with the Commission and contains provisions for the orderly transfer of regulatory authority over affected licensees from NRC to the State. After the effective date of the Agreement, licenses issued by NRC would continue in effect as Minnesota licenses until the licenses expire or are replaced by State-issued licenses. (d) The NRC Draft Staff Assessment finds that the Minnesota Program is adequate to protect public health and safety, and is compatible with the NRC program for the regulation of agreement materials. II. Summary of the NRC Draft Staff Assessment of the Minnesota Program for the Control of Agreement Materials NRC staff has examined the Minnesota request for an Agreement with respect to the ability of the Minnesota radiation control program to regulate agreement materials. The examination was based on the Commission's policy statement ``Criteria for Guidance of States and NRC in Discontinuance of NRC Regulatory Authority and Assumption Thereof by States Through Agreement'' (referred to herein as the ``NRC criteria''), published on January 23, 1981 (46 FR 7540), as amended by policy statements published on July 16, 1981 (46 FR 36969), and on July 21, 1983 (48 FR 33376). (a) Organization and Personnel. The agreement materials program will be located within the existing Environmental Health Division (Program) of the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). The Program will be responsible for implementation of all regulatory activities related to the proposed Agreement. The educational requirements for the Program staff members are specified in the Minnesota State personnel position descriptions, and meet the NRC criteria with respect to formal education or combined education and experience requirements. All current staff members hold at least bachelor's degrees in physical or life sciences, or have a combination of education and experience at least equivalent to a bachelor's degree. Several staff members hold advanced degrees, and all staff members have had additional training plus working experience in radiation protection. The Program supervisor has more than 20 years work experience in radiation protection. The Program performed, and NRC staff reviewed, an analysis of the expected Program workload under the proposed Agreement. Based on the NRC staff review of the State's staff analysis, Minnesota has an adequate number of staff to regulate radioactive materials under the terms of the Agreement. The Program will employ a staff of 3.5 full- time professional/technical and administrative employees for the agreement materials program. The distribution of the qualifications of the individual staff members will be balanced to the distribution of categories of licensees transferred from NRC. (b) Legislation and Regulations. The MDH is designated by law in section 144.1202 of the Minnesota Statutes to be the radiation control agency. The law provides the MDH the authority to issue licenses, issue orders, conduct inspections, and to enforce compliance with regulations, license conditions, and orders. Licensees are required to provide access to inspectors. The MDH is authorized to promulgate regulations. The State's regulations are found in Minnesota Rules Chapter 4731 effective June 2004. The NRC staff reviewed and forwarded comments on these regulations to the Minnesota staff. The NRC staff review verified that, with the comments incorporated, the Minnesota rules, and with the addition of legally binding requirements to incorporate recent changes to 10 CFR part 35 and 71 contain all of the provisions that are necessary in order to be compatible with the regulations of the NRC on the effective date of the Agreement between the State and the Commission. The MDH has extended the effect of the rules, where appropriate, to apply to naturally-occurring or accelerator-produced radioactive materials (NARM), in addition to agreement materials. The NRC staff is satisfied that the Minnesota Program, will not regulate in areas reserved to the NRC in matters concerning or affecting the proposed Agreement. (c) Storage and Disposal. Minnesota has also adopted NRC compatible requirements for the handling and storage of radioactive material. Minnesota will not seek authority to regulate the land disposal of radioactive material as waste. The Minnesota waste disposal requirements cover the preparation, classification and manifesting of radioactive waste, generated by Minnesota licensees, for transfer for disposal to an authorized waste disposal site or broker. (d) Transportation of Radioactive Material. Minnesota has adopted regulations compatible with NRC regulations in 10 CFR part 71. Part 71 contains the requirements that licensees must follow when preparing packages containing radioactive material for transport. Part 71 also contains requirements related to the licensing of packaging for use in transporting radioactive materials. (e) Recordkeeping and Incident Reporting. Minnesota has adopted the sections compatible with the NRC regulations which specify requirements for licensees to keep records, and to report incidents, accidents, or events involving materials. (f) Evaluation of License Applications. Minnesota has adopted regulations compatible with the NRC regulations that specify the requirements which a person must meet in order to get a license to possess or use radioactive materials. Minnesota has also developed a licensing procedures manual, along with the accompanying regulatory guides, which are adapted from similar NRC documents and contain guidance for the Program staff when evaluating license applications. (g) Inspections and Enforcement. The Minnesota radiation control program has adopted a schedule providing for the inspection of licensees as frequently as the inspection schedule used by NRC. The Program has adopted procedures for the conduct of inspections, the reporting of inspection findings, and the reporting of inspection results to the licensees. The Program has also adopted, by rule based on the Minnesota Statutes, procedures for the enforcement of regulatory requirements. (h) Regulatory Administration. The MDH is bound by requirements specified in State law for rulemaking, issuing licenses, and taking enforcement actions. The Program has also adopted administrative procedures to assure fair and impartial treatment of license applicants. Minnesota law prescribes standards of ethical conduct for State employees. (i) Cooperation with Other Agencies. Minnesota law deems the holder of an NRC license on the effective date of the proposed Agreement to possess a like license issued by Minnesota. The law provides that these former NRC licenses will expire on the date of expiration specified in the NRC license. Minnesota also provides for ``timely renewal.'' This provision affords the continuance of licenses for which an application for renewal has been filed more than 30 days prior to the date of expiration of the license. NRC licenses transferred while in timely renewal are included under the continuation provision. Minnesota Rules Chapter 4731 provides exemptions from the [[Page 70896]] State's requirements for licensing of sources of radiation for NRC and U.S. Department of Energy contractors or subcontractors. The proposed Agreement commits Minnesota to use its best efforts to cooperate with the NRC and the other Agreement States in the formulation of standards and regulatory programs for the protection against hazards of radiation and to assure that the Minnesota Program will continue to be compatible with the NRC's program for the regulation of agreement materials. The proposed Agreement stipulates the desirability of reciprocal recognition of licenses, and commits the Commission and Minnesota to use their best efforts to accord such reciprocity. III. Staff Conclusion Subsection 274d of the Act provides that the Commission shall enter into an agreement under subsection 274b with any State if: (a) The Governor of the State certifies that the State has a program for the control of radiation hazards adequate to protect public health and safety with respect to the agreement materials within the State, and that the State desires to assume regulatory responsibility for the agreement materials; and (b) The Commission finds that the State program is in accordance with the requirements of subsection 274o, and in all other respects compatible with the NRC's program for the regulation of materials, and that the State program is adequate to protect public health and safety with respect to the materials covered by the proposed Agreement. On the basis of its Draft Staff Assessment, the NRC staff concludes that the State of Minnesota meets the requirements of the Act. The State's program, as defined by its statutes, regulations, personnel, licensing, inspection, and administrative procedures, is compatible with the program of the NRC and adequate to protect public health and safety with respect to the materials covered by the proposed Agreement. NRC will continue the formal processing of the proposed Agreement which includes publication of this Notice once a week for four consecutive weeks for public review and comment. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of November, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. Appendix A--An Agreement Between the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the State of Minnesota for the Discontinuance of Certain Commission Regulatory Authority and Responsibility within the State Pursuant to Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended Whereas, The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) is authorized under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to enter into agreements with the Governor of any State providing for discontinuance of the regulatory authority of the Commission within the State under Chapters 6, 7, and 8, and section 161 of the Act with respect to byproduct materials as defined in sections 11e.(1) and (2) of the Act, source materials, and special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass; and, Whereas, The Governor of the State of Minnesota is authorized under Sec. 144.1202, Subdivision 1, Minnesota Statutes, to enter into this Agreement with the Commission; and, Whereas, The Governor of the State of Minnesota certified on July 6, 2004, that the State of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as the State) has a program for the control of radiation hazards adequate to protect public health and safety with respect to the materials within the State covered by this Agreement, and that the State desires to assume regulatory responsibility for such materials; and, Whereas, The Commission found on [date] that the program of the State for the regulation of the materials covered by this Agreement is compatible with the Commission's program for the regulation of such materials and is adequate to protect public health and safety; and, Whereas, The State and the Commission recognize the desirability and importance of cooperation between the Commission and the State in the formulation of standards for protection against hazards of radiation and in assuring that State and Commission programs for protection against hazards of radiation will be coordinated and compatible; and, Whereas, The Commission and the State recognize the desirability of the reciprocal recognition of licenses, and of the granting of limited exemptions from licensing of those materials subject to this Agreement; and, Whereas, This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; Now, therefore, It is hereby agreed between the Commission and the Governor of the State acting in behalf of the State as follows: Article I Subject to the exceptions provided in Articles II, IV, and V, the Commission shall discontinue, as of the effective date of this Agreement, the regulatory authority of the Commission in the State under Chapters 6, 7, and 8, and section 161 of the Act with respect to the following materials: A. Byproduct materials as defined in section 11e.(1) of the Act; B. Source materials; C. Special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass. Article II This Agreement does not provide for discontinuance of any authority and the Commission shall retain authority and responsibility with respect to: A. The regulation of the construction and operation of any production or utilization facility or any uranium enrichment facility; B. The regulation of the export from or import into the United States of byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials, or of any production or utilization facility; C. The regulation of the disposal into the ocean or sea of byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials waste as defined in the regulations or orders of the Commission; D. The regulation of the disposal of such other byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials as the Commission from time to time determines by regulation or order should, because of the hazards or potential hazards thereof, not be so disposed without a license from the Commission; E. The evaluation of radiation safety information on sealed sources or devices containing byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials and the registration of the sealed sources or devices for distribution, as provided for in regulations or orders of the Commission. F. The regulation of the land disposal of by-product, source, or special nuclear materials waste received from other persons; G. The extraction or concentration of source material from source material ore and the management and disposal of the resulting byproduct material. Article III With the exception of those activities identified in Article II, paragraphs A through D, this Agreement may be amended, upon application by the State and approval by the Commission, to include one or more of the additional activities specified in Article II, paragraphs E, F, and G, whereby the State may then exert regulatory authority and responsibility with respect to those activities. Article IV Notwithstanding this Agreement, the Commission may from time to time by rule, regulation, or order, require that the manufacturer, processor, or producer of any equipment, device, commodity, or other product containing source, byproduct, or special nuclear materials shall not transfer possession or control of such product except pursuant to a license or an exemption from licensing issued by the Commission. Article V This Agreement shall not affect the authority of the Commission under subsection 161b or 161i of the Act to issue rules, regulations, or orders to protect the common defense and security, to protect restricted data, or to guard against the loss or diversion of special nuclear materials. [[Page 70897]] Article VI The Commission will cooperate with the State and other Agreement States in the formulation of standards and regulatory programs of the State and the Commission for protection against hazards of radiation and to assure that Commission and State programs for protection against hazards of radiation will be coordinated and compatible. The State agrees to cooperate with the Commission and other Agreement States in the formulation of standards and regulatory programs of the State and the Commission for protection against hazards of radiation and to assure that the State's program will continue to be compatible with the program of the Commission for the regulation of materials covered by this Agreement. The State and the Commission agree to keep each other informed of proposed changes in their respective rules and regulations, and to provide each other the opportunity for early and substantive contribution to the proposed changes. The State and the Commission agree to keep each other informed of events, accidents, and licensee performance that may have generic implication or otherwise be of regulatory interest. Article VII The Commission and the State agree that it is desirable to provide reciprocal recognition of licenses for the materials listed in Article I licensed by the other party or by any other Agreement State. Accordingly, the Commission and the State agree to develop appropriate rules, regulations, and procedures by which such reciprocity will be accorded. Article VIII The Commission, upon its own initiative after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the State, or upon request of the Governor of the State, may terminate or suspend all or part of this Agreement and reassert the licensing and regulatory authority vested in it under the Act if the Commission finds that (1) such termination or suspension is required to protect public health and safety, or (2) the State has not complied with one or more of the requirements of Section 274 of the Act. The Commission may also, pursuant to section 274j of the Act, temporarily suspend all or part of this Agreement if, in the judgment of the Commission, an emergency situation exists requiring immediate action to protect public health and safety and the State has failed to take necessary steps. The Commission shall periodically review actions taken by the State under this Agreement to ensure compliance with section 274 of the Act which requires a State program to be adequate to protect public health and safety with respect to the materials covered by this Agreement and to be compatible with the Commission's program. Article IX This Agreement shall become effective on [date], and shall remain in effect unless and until such time as it is terminated pursuant to Article VIII. Done at [City, State] this [date] day of [month], [year]. For the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nils J. Diaz, Chairman. For the State of Minnesota. Tim Pawlenty, Governor. [FR Doc. 05-22581 Filed 11-22-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 31 Vermont Guardian: Nuclear advisory panel turns thumbs down on uprate By Mary Fratini | Special to the Vermont Guardian posted November 22, 2005 MONTPELIER In a half-day meeting punctuated by sharp and sometimes personal disagreements, the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel passed a resolution Tuesday recommending that the Public Service Board and Legislature deny Entergys request for a power uprate at Vermont Yankee altogether, or approve it only under certain financial protections. In simple words, Vermont gets a disproportionate share of the risks of uprate, said Tim Nulty, of Burlington, the VSNAP member who introduced the resolution. This is not anti-nuclear in any way, but about protecting Vermonts vital interest in the continuing reliable operation of this nuclear plant. Under the current contract with Vermont Yankee through 2012, the state anticipates an economic benefit of $492 million, primarily through energy cost savings, according to David Lamont of the state Department of Public Service (DPS). In 2006, every kilowatt hour that Vermont Yankee generates is worth 6.78 cents and we pay only 3.9 cents for it, he said. The net present value of the contract is $311 million and thats a major benefit to ratepayers. Under questioning from Rep. Steve Darrow, D-Putney, however, Lamont agreed that if Vermont Yankee were to go offline after the expiration of the ratepayer protection plan in 2007, these numbers go from positive to negative and we have to pay full price of the market alternative. VY spokesman Rob Williams said the reliability question has been adequately addressed in two years of public hearings before the Public Service Board. The Public Service Board took the time to address the question of reliability, and the decision that the PSB came to was in the best interest of the state of Vermont. While VSNAP members agreed that the threat of that economic reversal should Vermont Yankee go offline was important to consider, they disagreed over the potential impact of uprate on reliability and the merits of the independent engineering assessment. Both Darrow and Russell Kulas cited the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions 2004 inspection of the plant as insufficient to support claims of safety or reliability. The most important risk is that uprate equals relicensing, which equals the production of more high-level nuclear waste, Darrow said. What I got from the assessment is that we really need what we asked for, which is a complete top to bottom physical before they soup it up an additional 20 percent. Williams said the uprate is getting a full review before the NRC, which is expected to make a decision in February. Public Service Commissioner David OBrien, who chairs VSNAP, voted against the resolution, saying, This to me dismisses the assessment as if it had not value and did not contribute to reliability. All the testimony today is for worst-case scenarios and yet we have a record of operational integrity [at Vermont Yankee] with no indication that it wont operate for the next six years. If the PSB approves the uprate, the resolution recommends that it do so only with a contract protecting Vermont ratepayers against any loss of power production beyond what would have been the case in the absence of the extended power uprate and any safety risks that occur from the uprate, even if they fall within the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions safe ruling. I was surprised to hear today from an investor-owned utility that if Vermont Yankee breaks down they will essentially pass through the extra energy costs, said Sen. Mark MacDonald, D-Orange, before voting for the resolution. I would be satisfied with saying the numbers dont add up and they should deny the uprate, but if this board found an option to mitigate the risks by getting this company to bond or indemnify ratepayers, then we will have solved the problem of financial consequences to Vermonters. Razelle Hoffman-Contois voted against the resolution, representing Larry Crist from the Vermont Department of Health, as did John Sayles, representing Secretary Tom Torti of the Agency of Natural Resources. Send us your news tips, a letter to the editor or general comments. Vermont Guardian PO Box 335 Winooski, VT 05404 | | Northern Vermont: PO Box 335, Winooski, VT 05404 Southern Vermont: 139 Main Street, Suite 702, Brattleboro, VT 05301 Contact: 802.861.4880 (ph) | 802.861.6388 (fax) | 877.231.5382 (toll-free) ©2005 Vermont Guardian | Visit us: www.vermontguardian.com This document can be located online: www.vermontguardian.com/local/112005/VSNAPMeeting.shtml ***************************************************************** 32 [du-list] Example of MilNet doc showing meaning of kinetic is Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:19:26 -0800 Title Army P/M research and development overview. Final report Creator/Author Dowding, R.J. ; Wells, M.G. ; Crowson, A. Publication Date 1993 May 01 OSTI Identifier OSTI ID: 6035905 Report Number(s) AD-A-266921/6/XAB;ARL-TR--140 Resource Type Technical Report Research Org Army Research Lab., Watertown, MA (United States) Subject 360101 -- Metals & Alloys-- Preparation & Abstract The Army uses of powder metallurgy (P/M) extend from the conventional press and sinter to the more exotic processes of liquid phase sintering of tungsten heavy alloys (WHA) and powder injection molding (PIM).^Many of the more advanced high performance applications require extensive research and development (R and D) prior to fielding of the application.^Examples arc the intense research into WHA in the last ten years.^This research has led to great understanding of these heavy alloys and application into some kinetic energy systems.^The Navy has taken great advantage of WHA by employing them iii the phalanx close-in weapon system (CIWS).^The Army intends that research will lead to an alloy or composite of tungsten that, when used as a long rod penetrator, will perform as well as, or better than, current depleted uranium (DU) penetrators.^This will allow possible replacement of the controversial DU.^Powder injection molding of WHA is an area receiving attention because of the potential for producing small and medium caliber projectiles.^The drawbacks at this time include the need to develop an alloy that does not require post sinter cold working to develop the strength required for these demanding applications.^Other possible problems include producing slender long rod projectiles with desired product straightness.^In addition to the work on tungsten alloys, a discussion is underway of other powder metallurgy R and D and is under active investigation within the Army.^These topics include aluminum and titanium alloys, intermetallics, and ultrahigh strength steels for structural and propulsion applications, as well as nonequilibrium P/M produced structures....^Powder metallurgy, Tungsten alloys, Aluminum alloys, Titanium alloys, Intermetallic. TW/DF ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 1.2 million kids a year are victims of human trafficking. Stop slavery. http://us.click.yahoo.com/WpTY2A/izNLAA/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. ***************************************************************** 33 [du-list] Shameless BBC: When Misinformation Means War Crimes Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:16:38 -0800 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00284.htm Item ends Scoop Blogwatch Blogwatch - Shameless BBC: When Misinformation Means War Crimes http://www.thecatsdream.com/ Thursday, November 17, 2005 By Gabriele Zamparini Read the post at the Cat's Blog SHAMELESS BBC: WHEN MISINFORMATION MEANS WAR CRIMES Exclusive interview with Karen Parker, Chief Counsel of the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers By Gabriele Zamparini (*) The BBC News website, in a special page "Q&A: White phosphorus " and under the title "The BBC News website looks at the facts behind the row." reads: ds.... Most specific weapons treaties have provisions that provide for "similar, but unnamed weapons" that are "analogous" to the names ones. For example, the 1925 Protocol on Gases has such clauses. WP weapons fit this rule as either "chemical" or "gases" by analogy. Q. The US government has just admitted to have used WP in Fallujah as a weapon. What's your comment on this? A. It is very disturbing that the US lied for a number of months about the use of WP in Falluja, and only came forward with an admission of use after clear evidence. While combatant forces are allowed to withhold certain information from the general public at certain times, the US apparently lied to US Members of Congress and other officials. This is especially disturbing because the use of WP in urban areas is prohibited by operation of law. In this sense, the US was covering up war crimes. Q. Which other WMD - if any - have been used by the US in Iraq? A. The US has used weapons containing depleted uranium (DU) in both the first and second Gulf Wars. DU weapons also fail the test set out above, as attested by the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in its resolutions and reports on this issue. Both the UN Secretary General and a Sub-Commission expert, Chief Justice Sik Yuen (Supreme Court, Mauritius) addressed this issue in their reports, that concurred with my prior assessment, submitted to the UN Commission on Human Rights and its expert body, that DU weapons are illegal. I also understand that napalm may have been used in Iraq. At present, I have not been able to verify this conclusively. Q. What should the international community do now and what you and your organization are doing? A. My organization, the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers, has filed a legal action against the US at the Organization of American States for attacking hospitals and medical facilities in Falluja and for using illegal weapons in those attacks. For details, please see www.humanlaw.org. Obviously, this lawsuit needs to be fully supported, and I welcome help in that regard. In addition, however, we at AHL are trying to set up a "conclave" of attorneys to look at both this and a number of other legal challenges to the way that the US has conducted military actions in Iraq. I would hope to look at illegal weapons, illegal military operations and a wider variety of humanitarian law violations than just torture. I would also hope to look at the "anticipatory" agreements that the US pushed with a number of European and other governments in which the signatory States agreed to NOT bring the US to either the International Criminal Court (not possible anyway, as the US has not ratified the treaty) or to its own domestic Courts as mandated by the Geneva Conventions. These "anticipatory" treaties are "void" as they violate the Geneva Conventions and basic principles of international law, but they need to be judicially challenged. Such challenges are very expensive and economically beyond the reach of human rights organizations such as ours. One reason to force these agreements is that there are no funds to challenge them. So "they" win by default. This is tragic. Q. How the antiwar movement may help? A. The anti-war movement can help by making certain that they understand the gravity of the breaches of international law. This is not a "rogue elephant" situation -- this is a herd of rogue elephants. The US, and to a lesser extent the UK, are decimating the Geneva Conventions and all other rules of the laws and customs of war. It is shocking that most MP and Members of US Congress do not even know the rules: they are willing to send their citizens to die, but don't know the rules. It doesn't get any worse than this. The anti-war movement could also help to raise funds for legal actions. Yes, we must be in the streets, but we must also be in the courthouse. There simply must be legal challenges to these egregious violations. For those interested in helping in my Association of Humanitarian Lawyers action against the US at the OAS, please feel free to contact me at ied@igc.org or reb@xcaretresearch.com. And as stated, we are interested in holding a conference for attorneys who are ready, willing and able to take on the US in national and regional and UN forums. To know more: Association of Humanitarian Law 154 Fifth Avenue San Francisco, CA 94118 USA Telephone: + 1 (415) 465-9900 http://www.humanlaw.org/ (*) Gabriele Zamparini is an independent filmmaker and freelance writer living in London. He's the producer and director of the documentaries XXI CENTURY and The Peace! DVD and author of American Voices of Dissent (Paradigm Publishers). He can be reached at info@thecatsdream.com ENDS ---------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.5/177 - Release Date: 11/21/05 [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. ***************************************************************** 34 [du-list] Usuk attack - Uranium forgery leak ongoing update Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:16:41 -0800 Plame's Husband Urges 'Washington Post' Probe of Woodward By Joe Strupp http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001526314 Published: November 22, 2005 12:00 PM ET NEW YORK Joseph Wilson, the husband of former CIA agent Valerie Plame, urged The Washington Post on Monday night to investigate the conduct of Bob Woodward and his role in the leaking of Plame's name to the news media, according to The Boston Globe. Speaking at Northeastern University, Wilson called on the Post to conduct an inquiry similar to the one The New York Times recently undertook related to its reporter, Judith Miller, the Globe reported today. "I think it would be useful for The Washington Post to do an inquiry, like The New York Times," Wilson said during the event at Northeastern's Blackman Auditorium, according to the Globe. Woodward revealed last week that a White House official had disclosed Plame's identity to him in 2003, just weeks before columnist Robert Novak revealed the name in print. The Post also has revealed that Woodward failed to tell his editors of the information until last month. The Globe said Wilson, a former ambassador and diplomat, spoke in front of several hundred Northeastern students and later signed copies of his book about the leaking of his wife's identity. Wilson also told the Boston paper that he and his wife had different reactions to the leak when it occurred. "Initially, he cursed and ranted privately about the disclosure," the Globe reported. "Valerie, on the other hand, said she felt like she had been kicked in the stomach," Wilson told the paper. But, it reported, "She moved quickly to salvage what operations and relationships she could." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Strupp (jstrupp@editorandpublisher.com) is a senior editor at E&P. ---------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.5/177 - Release Date: 11/21/05 [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. ***************************************************************** 35 NRC: NRC Issues Confirmatory Order to Sabia, Inc. Following Alternative Dispute Resolution News Release - Region IV - 2005-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington TX 76011 No. IV-05-038 November 23, 2005 CONTACT: Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a confirmatory order to Sabia, Inc., of San Diego, Calif., requiring additional training for employees and comprehensive audits of its radiation safety program by an outside party. The order is effective immediately. The company holds NRC licenses authorizing it to manufacture and distribute fixed gauges containing sealed radioactive sources that are used in the coal mining process. An NRC inspection conducted from January to July 2004 identified two apparent violations of NRC requirements; failing to assign trained personnel designated in its license to oversee the use of gauges the company installed at coal mines; and transferring gauges containing radioactive material to users who were not authorized to receive them. In response to a July 14 NRC inspection report, the company requested the use of NRCs Alternative Dispute Resolution process to resolve differences it had with NRCs inspection findings. As a result of that process, the company acknowledged that it had committed violations of NRC requirements, but does not agree that willfulness was involved. In order to prevent recurrence, however, Sabia agreed to improve its employee training program for ensuring compliance with NRC regulations and hire an outside contractor to perform a comprehensive audit of its radiation safety program before the end of 2006. Any other person adversely affected by the order has 20 days to request a hearing. Last revised Wednesday, November 23, 2005 ***************************************************************** 36 NRC: In the Matter of: Williams Industrial Services Group, LLC, 2076 FR Doc E5-6450 [Federal Register: November 23, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 225)] [Notices] [Page 70892-70893] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr23no05-141] West Park Place, Stone Mountain, GA 30087; Confirmatory Order (Effective Immediately) Williams Industrial Services Group, LLC, (Williams) and its subsidiaries (collectively known as Williams Group) perform services for multiple reactor facilities regulated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission). Williams assumed the contractual obligations of Williams Service Group, LLC, formerly known as Williams Power Corporation (WPC), relating to services performed for NRC licensees. Williams' headquarters are located in Stone Mountain, Georgia. On May 22, 2000, the NRC's Office of Investigations (OI) began an investigation into alleged employment discrimination, during March 2000, by WPC at FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company's (FENOC) Perry and Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plants. A predecisional enforcement conference (PEC) was held with FENOC and WPC at the NRC Region III office on September 26, 2001. Subsequent to the PEC, a supplemental investigation was conducted by OI Report No. 3-2000-025S and an apparent violation concerning the completeness and accuracy of information was identified during that investigation. On February 24, 2005, the NRC staff issued Notices of Violation (Notices) to FENOC and to WPC. The NRC also issued an order on February 25, 2005, to the supervisor prohibiting involvement in NRC-licensed activities for three years for deliberately providing materially inaccurate information to the NRC in violation of 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2). The Notice to WPC described violations of 10 CFR 50.7, ``Employee protection,'' for discrimination and of 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2), ``Deliberate misconduct,'' for deliberate inaccurate statements to the NRC. The NRC also informed WPC that FENOC had been offered an opportunity to pursue resolution of the 10 CFR 50.7 violation with alternative dispute resolution (ADR). In ADR, a neutral mediator with no decision-making authority facilitates discussions between concerned parties to assist them in reaching an agreement on resolving concerns. If FENOC had elected to enter into ADR, the NRC would have offered WPC an opportunity to participate. FENOC did not elect to enter into ADR, and on March 28, 2005, FENOC admitted to the 10 CFR 50.7 violation. In a letter dated March 25, 2005, Williams Service Group, LLC (WSG) disputed the violations cited against WPC. On April 15, 2005, WSG requested an opportunity to enter into ADR with the NRC in order to resolve the violations cited in the Notice. The NRC granted the request, and on July 26, 2005, the NRC and WSG met at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland, at which time a settlement was reached. Based upon the corrective actions taken as documented in the WSG letter dated March 25, 2005, and the commitments noted in Section IV below, the NRC hereby withdraws the 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2) violation cited against WPC on February 24, 2005. In addition, the 10 CFR 50.7 violation, originally issued as severity level III, is hereby re- characterized as a violation without severity level specified. By letter dated March 25, 2005, and as further discussed during the July 26, 2005, ADR meeting, Williams stated that it already had taken steps to enhance awareness of and compliance with its safety conscious work environment (SCWE) program at NRC-license facilities. These completed actions include: (1) Enacting a new SCWE policy approved by the Williams Board of Directors in August 2002, (2) ensuring that new employees receive site-specific information on Williams' SCWE policy as well as ways to raise safety concerns to Williams supervision, licensees and the NRC, and (3) conducting more-detailed SCWE training sessions to employees facilitated by Williams' senior management. Furthermore, by letter dated September 2, 2005, Williams stated that, in addition to the actions already taken to enhance awareness of and compliance with its SCWE program, Williams agrees to take certain additional corrective measures as noted in Section IV of this Confirmatory Order. On October 25, 2005, Williams consented to the NRC issuing this Confirmatory Order with the commitments, as described in Section IV below. Williams further agreed in its October 28, 2005, letter that this Order is to be effective upon issuance and that it has waived its right to a hearing. The NRC has concluded that its concerns can be resolved through NRC's [[Page 70893]] confirmation of the commitments as outlined in this Order. I find that Williams' commitments as set forth in Section IV are acceptable and necessary and conclude that with these commitments the public health and safety are reasonably assured. In view of the foregoing, I have determined that the public health and safety require that the Williams' commitments be confirmed by this Order. Based on the above and the Williams' consent, this Order is immediately effective upon issuance. Williams is required to provide the NRC with a letter summarizing its actions by no later than eight months from the date of the Confirmatory Order. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 103, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Part 50, It is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that: By no later than six months from the date of issuance of the Confirmatory Order, unless otherwise stated, Williams Industrial Services Group, LLC, will: 1. Broadly communicate throughout Williams Group the false statement issue and its consequences, including the consequences to the involved WPC Site Supervisor. 2. Modify its existing ``Ethics Policy'' to include an explicit reference to the necessity for complete and candid communications with government agencies. 3. Incorporate the revised Ethics Policy into all future SCWE training by Williams Group. 4. Require its General Counsel to conduct a comprehensive review of industry SCWE ``best practices'' and compare these practices with the existing Williams Group program in order to ensure that the Williams Group program incorporates industry trends and developments. 5. Continue its existing SCWE training program and train all Williams Group supervisory and management level employees involved in nuclear work. The training program will incorporate both 10 CFR 50.5 and 10 CFR 50.7 awareness. Additionally, Williams will ensure that on- site employees are provided SCWE training either from the licensee or from the Williams Group site project manager upon badging at a licensed facility. 6. Engage an independent auditor to perform an audit of Williams Group's SCWE training, within 12 months of issuance of the Confirmatory Order and every year thereafter for a total of three years, in order to ensure the effectiveness of the SCWE program. At the conclusion of the three years independent audit cycle, Williams Group will institute internal audits, as described in item 7 below. 7. Require that Williams internal auditing function conduct annual audits of the SCWE training program in order to ensure and verify that all Williams Group managers, supervisors and contractor employees receive and acknowledge SCWE, 10 CFR 50.5, and 10 CFR 50.7 training. 8. Ensure that the results of each audit are provided to senior Williams Group management for appropriate action, and that the results of both the independent audit and subsequent Williams' analysis and/or actions are made available to the Commission for review upon request. Towards this end, Williams will notify the Commission when the audits and management responses are complete and documented. 9. Designate a manager whose responsibilities include overall administration of the SCWE program. This manager will be responsible for ensuring that the program is being communicated to all Williams Group site and contract employees, the program is up-to-date and incorporates best practices, the audits described above take place as scheduled, results of audits are communicated to senior management, and appropriate followup is performed and corrective actions are taken based upon the audit findings. This manager will report directly to the Williams president for these SCWE activities. 10. Require its General Counsel to review employment practices as they relate to SCWE policy, in order to ensure that all Williams Group employment practices are consistent with 10 CFR 50.7. 11. Modify its performance appraisal system to ensure that performance appraisals for Williams Group site supervisors/project managers at NRC-licensed facilities include a rating factor that addresses implementation of the SCWE program. The Director, Office of Enforcement, may relax or rescind, in writing, any of the above conditions upon a showing by Williams Industrial Services Group, LLC, of good cause. Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other than Williams Industrial Services Group, LLC, may request a hearing within 20 days of its issuance. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. Any request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, Suite 210, Lisle, IL 60532-4351, and to Williams Group. Because of potential disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government Offices, it is requested that requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415- 1101 or by e-mail to and also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301- 415-3725 or by e-mail to . If a person requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f). If a hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order should be sustained. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated this 15th day of November, 2005. Michael R. Johnson, Director, Office of Enforcement. [FR Doc. E5-6450 Filed 11-22-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 37 Ottawa Citizen: Prophetic words about nuclear spills canada.com network Tom Spears Ottawa Citizen Tuesday, November 22, 2005 CREDIT: File Photo Nuclear bosses, 1945 Citizen reporter Doug Fischer found the following on page one of the September 27, 1945, Ottawa Evening Citizen. Promises Nothing From Atomic Plant Ever Going To Get Into Ottawa River. No by-product of the Chalk River atomic plant is going to get into the Ottawa River, and there’s no use discussing it any further, Dr. C.J. MacKenzie, head of the National Research Council said yesterday. He was asked what would be the effect, supposing that some radioactive elements got into the Ottawa River from the Chalk River plant. "They just are not ever going to get in," he replied. Suppose, asked The Evening Citizen, there was a river somewhere in the world where atomic byproducts might get in. "Nothing serious would happen," said Dr. MacKenzie. "It would be like any pollution. Sewage gets into the Ottawa River, but never enough to kill anybody. Acids from pulp and paper plants enter the river, but not in sufficient quantities to kill anybody. "Pollution of any river is a matter of proportion. You put enough rain water, off the muddy streets of Ottawa into the Ottawa, and you will have pollution. "All rivers are polluted, and it would be a matter of degree. "Assuming some of the byproducts you mention did get into a river, I don’t suppose they would hurt very much unless they were there in very large quantities. But if you ask me about the Chalk River plant, and the Ottawa River, the answer is that there just isn’t ever going to be anything from that plant get into the Ottawa River." Oops. Never say 'never,' doc. Little dribs and drabs of strontium and stuff are indeed leaching through soil and into the Ottawa from the Chalk River plant today. His incredibly cavalier dismissal ignores local history, too. Sewage in the Ottawa River DID kill people, nearly 200 of them, in two typhoid epidemics some 30 years before this interview. © Ottawa Citizen 2005 Tom Spears reports on science, space, the environment and medical matters for the Ottawa Citizen, where he has worked since 1989. Tom has covered two space shuttle launches for the newspaper, the announcement of the Human Genome project and most recently graduated from "mini-medical school" at McGill University. He can be reached at darkmatter@canada.com ***************************************************************** 38 PittsburghLIVE.com: Research on radiation - [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review] Back to headlines Pitt research to focus on radiation exposure By Jennifer Bails TRIBUNE-REVIEW Wednesday, November 23, 2005 The University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine announced Tuesday that it has received a $10 million grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to establish a new center where researchers will develop ways to protect people from radiation exposure. Scientists at Pitt's Center for Medical Countermeasures Against Radiation will create and test small molecules and mechanisms that might help to shield the body from the lethal effects of ionizing radiation in the event of a large-scale terrorist attack or a nuclear reactor accident. "Ionizing radiation can be extremely damaging to cells, tissues, organs and organ systems," Dr. Joel Greenberger, grant recipient and Pitt radiation oncologist, said in a statement. "By developing methods to protect and mitigate the effects of radiation exposure, we can potentially offer wide-reaching protection to the population at large." Greenberger's research team is investigating the protective capabilities of a gene therapy agent already shown to safeguard the esophagus and lungs in mice treated with radiation for certain kinds of lung cancer. Other projects at the center will focus on the damage caused by radiation to the body's energy-producing machinery. The Pitt center is one of eight that will be launched nationwide by the institute in the next five years to focus on drug discovery, radiation research, biostatistics, training and education. Jennifer Bails can be reached at jbails@tribweb.comor (412) 320-7991. copyright © 2005 by The Tribune-Review Publishing Co. PittsburghLIVE. ***************************************************************** 39 Guardian Unlimited: Jury Rejects Claim Facility Caused Cancer From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday November 23, 2005 10:46 PM By JOHN K. WILEY Associated Press Writer SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) - A federal jury Wednesday rejected an Idaho woman's claim that Cold War emissions from the Hanford nuclear weapons complex caused her thyroid cancer. The case was one of the first to go to trial out of thousands of such claims against the contractors that once operated Hanford. Hanford produced plutonium for nuclear weapons, starting with the Manhattan Project that built the atomic bomb during World War II. Shannon Rhodes' lawyer, Richard Eymann, said she was ``devastated'' by the verdict, which came six months after another jury deadlocked in her case. Rhodes, 64, of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, was one of six ``bellwether'' cases thought to be representative of more than 2,000 people who claimed their health was damaged by Hanford releases. In May, a federal jury ruled in favor of two of the plaintiffs and awarded them a total of about $545,000, far less than it cost to bring the case to trial. It rejected three plaintiffs' claims and split in Rhodes' case. Kevin Van Wart, a lawyer for former Hanford contractors General Electric Co., the DuPont Co. and UNC Nuclear Inc., said the verdict shows that claims of health damage from small doses of radioactive iodine are unfounded. ``We continue to extend our sympathies to Mrs. Rhodes. We congratulate the jury for being able to separate a very natural sympathy ... from the question of causation,'' Van Wart said. Eymann said the contractors' lawyers at the retrial were able to sow doubt in jurors' minds about how she got cancer. ``They were able to take her own medical history ... and raise all kinds of things that may have happened - radiation from X-rays and X-rays in tonsillectomies,'' Eymann said. The plaintiffs are known as Hanford ``downwinders'' because many lived in areas downwind from radioactive and chemical releases. Downwinders did not find out about the releases until the government declassified the information in 1986. Most of the releases involved radioactive iodine-131, which has been linked to diseases of the thyroid. Rhodes drank milk from her family's cows during the mid-1940s, when Hanford's iodine-131 emissions were highest. Rhodes' form of cancer is untreatable and she is expected to live only one to three years, Eymann said. The federal government, which would have been responsible for paying an award had Rhodes won, already has spent $100 million on legal costs for the defense and $40 million on a pair of radiation studies, Eymann said. Those studies reached different conclusions on whether emissions affected residents' health. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 40 Bradenton Herald: Lockheed releases schedule in Tallevast work | 11/23/2005 | DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer MANATEE - Lockheed Martin Corp. announced today its upcoming work schedule for the next round of tests to determine the size and depth of the plume of underground contamination beneath Tallevast. The current plume estimate stretches over 131 acres, spreading out from a former beryllium company Lockheed once owned. Upcoming projects include: Installation of 17 new groundwater monitoring wells, including one new Floridan well near U.S. 301 and another near the intersection of Tallevast Road and 15th Street East. Evaluation of existing offsite soil data. Residential soil sampling at multiple properties. Development of an Interim Remedial Action Plan. Proper closure of residential and irrigation wells. Completion of a human health risk assessment. Lockheed hopes to have the above list completed by the end of January 2006 and its next report delivered to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection by March 13, 2006. Tallevast residents have filed two lawsuits against Lockheed and others, claiming the plume has damaged their property values and their health. ***************************************************************** 41 Dispatch: Olin Looks to Cork Water Delivery to Some Residents Tuesday, November 22, 2005 By Matt King The Editor Morgan Hill - The Olin Corp. has applied to stop bottled water delivery to the users of 78 perchlorate-contaminated wells in San Martin. The application follows a finding made earlier this year by the State Water Resources Control Board that the company need not provide water to residents whose wells test at or below 6 parts per billion, the state?s public health goal for the contaminant. Perchlorate is a by-product of rocket fuel and road flares shown in some tests to disrupt thyroid function. Since 2002, Olin has been providing water to residents whose wells test as low as 2 to 4 parts per billion, at the direction of the Central Coast Regional Water Control Board. Earlier this year, the state water board said that the regional board ?abused its discretion? by forcing Olin to replace water testing below the public health goal. The application is expected to be the first of several Olin makes to cease water deliveries. Under the state ruling, the company does not have to replace the water of any well that tests at or below the health goal for four consecutive quarters. All water deliveries will continue through February. Olin says it has spent close to $1 million since March 12, 2004 providing water to the users of 566 wells that test below 6 parts per billion. Providing water only for those wells that test above 6 parts per billion and monitoring wells as low as 2 parts per billion, Olin has said, will ?fully protect the public.? It?s not clear how many residents get their water from the 78 wells. San Martin resident Bob Cerruti, whose well has tested at 6 and 5.6 in two recent quarters, said he fears his family will lose bottled water next year, and he doesn?t believe the public health goal is low enough. ?I think we?re going to be next,? Cerruti said. South County?s perchlorate contamination was revealed in February 2003, when Olin tried to sell its former road flare factory on Railroad Avenue in Morgan Hill. The plume has spread about 9.5 miles to the south and east of the site, contaminating more than 1,000 wells in the area. The most recent set of tests showed contamination levels decreasing. Of the 850 wells tested over the summer, 642 wells tested below 4 parts per billion, 34 wells above 6 and 7 wells above 10. Olin is now developing the final cleanup plan for the aquifer, which it must submit to the regional board by June 30, 2006. Matt King covers Santa Clara County for The Dispatch. He can be reached at 847-7240 or mking@gilroydispatch.com. ***************************************************************** 42 Salt Lake City Weekly: Waste and Words Politics - November 24, 2005 Before the governor’s surprise announcement regarding Envirocare, a war of words ensued. by Katharine Biele Maybe it’s just a matter of semantics, but Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr. wants to make it perfectly clear. He doesn’t like all that radioactive s—t. And Utah has plenty of it, potentially and politically. The potentialities surround efforts to import high-level nuclear waste “temporarily” to the aptly named Skull Valley area and on a messier note, to store more radioactive wastes in the state. It’s the Envirocare issue that has caused the latest troublesome political fallout for Huntsman as he stumbles his way into the mosh pit of public life. This is not to say that other people haven’t been stumbling around the mosh pit, too. You have the quintessentially careful Dianne Nielson, head of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ); and Jason Groenewold, the spitfire director of HEAL (the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah), both gasping for airtime and grasping for a little respect. It all started with news of Envirocare seeking to double the size of its facility. Envirocare’s new owner, Steve Creamer, vowed earlier this year not to accept materials that are more radioactive than now allowed but apparently still had other wastes in mind. Suddenly legislators were calling hearings and DEQ was taking testimony on the company’s expansion request. HEAL sought and was granted standing to testify before DEQ but only after Nielson voted against them. Groenewold shot out an e-mail alert in which he said, “Governor Huntsman’s top executive at the Department of Environmental Quality, Dianne Nielson, voted to deny HEAL Utah standing in our legal appeal of the Envirocare expansion because she said doubling nuclear waste disposal capacity in Utah is not an issue of significant public importance.” Then he added: “For anyone who wondered what kind of influence the Governor’s brother-in-law would have as one of the new financial investors in Envirocare, you now have the answer.” So, maybe you’re wondering, too. The fact is that Huntsman does indeed have a brother-in-law, Richard Durham, and Durham is part of a partnership that helped fund Creamer. And Huntsman solicited from Creamer a $40,000 donation, which he later returned after the gubernatorial election because it looked all too cozy. Yes, it was an appearance of conflict, which Groenewold outlined. Publicly. Huntsman went ballistic, or righteously indignant, depending on who you talk to. He called his counsel, Mike Lee, and told him to handle it. Lee railed on Groenewold for “libelous” statements and “reckless disregard for the truth,” and this apparently was a little semantics, too, since Huntsman is a public figure. But Groenewold got the message, especially when he was asked to “retract” his statement or risk losing access to the governor. Instead, Groenewold offered what Lee sees as a “blanket apology,” which apparently wasn’t heartfelt enough for Huntsman. “The governor opened his arms to him and let him in,” says Lee. “Jason Groenewold’s arguments resonated well and they see eye-to-eye on a lot of areas; he’s had a lot of access.” And no, the governor doesn’t think Groenewold has retracted anything, Lee says. This led to the uncomfortable reality that appearances may be deceiving, but they are appearances. Nielson understands the implications. “I am quite aware of the governor’s positions and quite aware that I am an appointed member of his cabinet,” says Nielson, a deft bureaucrat who’s navigated DEQ since former Gov. Mike Leavitt appointed her in 1993 and who headed the state’s Oil, Gas and Mining Division before that. “I think I am pretty well informed on radioactive material and waste issues and because of my reading and position, I try to use the knowledge I have to make the best decisions for citizens of Utah.” Was she influenced by the Huntsman relationship? Nielson shot off a memo to members of the Radiation Control Board saying, “I affirm to you that my decision was based on information presented on the record at the Board hearing and was not influenced or directed by external issues or ex parte communications.” You are now entering the area of deep governmental semantics. “We prevailed in 6-4 decision,” Groenewold says. “One of the votes to deny us standing was Gov. Huntsman’s top executive Dianne Nielson, whose sole purpose is to represent the governor’s interest and she said it was not an issue of great public importance.” DEQ looked at three criteria to rule on standing for HEAL and approving any one would grant standing, Nielson says. She voted against only one which the board actually OK’d, and they never got to the others. Then she pretty much calls Groenewold a liar for saying she said the issue wasn’t significant. “It was stated by HEAL that I had said it wasn’t an important issue,” Nielson says. “I in fact do believe that expansion of facility is an important issue.” But Nielson won’t say why, unless the board asks her. Then, while Nielson works her board and Groenewold works the media, Huntsman just up and grabs all the balls. He tells the media that, no, he’s not going to approve any Envirocare expansion. This took Envirocare by surprise and had even their critics feeling sorry for them. In a way. “I don’t know what’s happened,” says Envirocare’s Tim Barney. “He [Huntsman] had consistently told us he was noncommittal and would make up his mind at the appropriate time in the process. … We are completely surprised and disappointed in his decision and timing.” Go figure, says Mike Mower, Huntsman spokesman, post-Tammy Kikuchi. “He was reiterating what he campaigned on … that he was opposed to Utah being even perceived as a dumping ground for the nation’s waste.” Ah, perceptions. “The governor is very sensitive to the issue of possible or perceived conflicts of interest,” says Mower, “and does everything possible to avoid or mitigate them.” No word on the governor’s timing, though. Meanwhile, Envirocare just sighs and starts the clock ticking again. Nothing’s likely to happen this legislative session, but they still want to expand. “We’ll just have to evaluate that,” says Barney. slweekly.com ©1996-2005 Copperfield Publishing, Inc.. All rights reserved. offices: 248 S. Main Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 801-575-7003 ***************************************************************** 43 AU ABC: NT stands firm on anti-uranium mining stance. 23/11/2005. ABC News Online Northern Territory Chief Minister Clare Martin says her Government remains cautious about uranium mining but recognises its importance to the economy. At the Government's Economic Forum in Darwin today, Ms Martin said she remained a supporter of the Territory's only uranium mine at Ranger. But she is standing by Labor's policy of no new uranium mines because of transport and storage concerns. "We will be very cautious about uranium but very strong about our other resource base," she said. "It's not the same as gold, it's not the same as bauxite or manganese." Cameco Australia is exploring for uranium in Arnhem Land. Company spokesman Ron Matthews says the industry's importance to the economy will continue to grow. "There's been a significant increase in applications in the Northern Territory for uranium," he said. Mr Matthews says Cameco alone will spend $6 million in the Territory next year. He says there has been renewed interest in uranium since the Commonwealth took over control of approving new uranium mines from the Territory Government. "It's acknowledged as a good area to look so I think that people are willing to take a risk," he said. ***************************************************************** 44 AU ABC: Gallop insists uranium mining ban to stay. 22/11/2005. ABC News Online First Posted: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 . 1:04pm Gallop insists uranium mining ban to stay Western Australia's Premier Geoff Gallop has rejected calls by the Opposition to lift a ban on uranium mining and export the resource to countries like Britain. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has reportedly backed plans to build a number of domestic nuclear power stations in the country. The Opposition's spokesman for mines and resources Norman Moore says Britain meets international standards for using uranium, and is a safe choice for any exports from Western Australia. But Dr Gallop says if Western Australia starts selling uranium, the state will be pressured to accept nuclear waste in return. "We're talking here about the nuclear fuel cycle, we've made a decision here in Western Australia that we won't be part of that nuclear fuel cycle and should we start exporting uranium, the pressure to establish a nuclear waste dump here in Western Australia will become massive and we don't want either," he said. ***************************************************************** 45 Casper Star-Tribune: Lab halts cleanup after explosion, small fire Casper, Wyoming - Wednesday, November 23, 2005 IDAHO FALLS, Idaho (AP) -- Work has been halted in an excavation pit at the Idaho National Laboratory in eastern Idaho after a 55-gallon drum of hazardous waste exploded and started a small fire. No one was hurt in the explosion and no contamination spread outside a containment structure where drums of recently excavated waste were being stored, officials said. The explosion occurred on the highly secure compound northwest of Idaho Falls on Monday morning, but CH2M-WG Idaho, the U.S. Department of Energy contractor responsible for the Idaho Cleanup Project, did not announce the accident until Tuesday. Officials said some of the material being excavated from the waste burial site known as "Pit 4" may catch fire when it's exposed to air. "We don't quite yet know what the cause of this incident was, but we suspect it had something to do with the waste that was in the drum," said Amy Lientz of CH2M-WG Idaho. "We are taking this very seriously because there are a lot of drums in the retrieval area." A preliminary investigation found that the explosion occurred in one drum and spread fire to an adjacent drum that had been placed in a "cold area" of the Accelerated Retrieval Project, where buried hazardous waste from Cold War-era nuclear weapons production and other defense programs is being dug up and placed inside drums for disposal. The fire was extinguished quickly because equipment operators in the storage area had been trained to deal with "pyrophoric" chemicals, which can ignite spontaneously in air when they reach a certain temperature. "Our inventory records do indicate there are materials buried that may have a tendency to ignite when exposed to air, so we knew it was there, we planned for it and the operator took action immediately," said Lientz. Less than a dozen workers were in the containment structure when the explosion occurred and Lientz said all were evacuated. The operation has been halted until an investigation into the cause of the fire is determined, she said. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency were also notified. This is the second accident this month that has required evacuation at the 177-acre Radioactive Waste Management Complex on the INL site. Early on Nov. 9, approximately 650 people in the complex were evacuated and later sent home after a leaky propane line was discovered and could not quickly be fixed. Crews eventually managed to stop the leak of flammable gas in the building's space heating system and the facility resumed normal operations the next day. On the Net: Idaho Cleanup Project: www.idahocleanupproject.com Copyright © 19952005 Lee Enterprises a subsidiary of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated ***************************************************************** 46 ABQJOURNAL: DOE Won't Announce LANL Contract Winner on Dec. 1 Wednesday, November 23, 2005 Albuquerque Journal--> By Jennifer Talhelm/ Associated Press WASHINGTON — The Energy Department said Wednesday that it won't meet its Dec. 1 deadline to announce a winner of the contract to manage Los Alamos National Laboratory. According to a posting on the National Nuclear Security Administration's Web site, the leader of the contract selection board asked for more time to complete its report. The official "does not anticipate a significant delay in the selection decision,'' according to the NNSA, a semi-autonomous agency of the Energy Department. No new deadline was announced. Vying for the Los Alamos contract are two teams, one headed by Lockheed Martin and the University of Texas and the other led by the University of California and Bechtel Corp. UC has managed the lab since it was created during World War II to develop the atomic bomb. Al Stotts, an NNSA spokesman in Albuquerque, said the Source Evaluation Board members analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the bids "just need more time.'' The delay came as a surprise to officials from the teams bidding on the contract. Michael Anastasio, who leads the University of California group, said he thought the government should do what it feels is necessary. "We look forward to that decision whenever they will make it,'' he said. "So we wait.'' Rod Geer, a spokesman for the Lockheed/Texas group, said the team is anxious for the decision. "But we also know that DOE and NNSA want to do this right,'' he said. Agency officials notified Washington lawmakers before the delay was made public. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said he doesn't expect the delay to affect operations at the lab. "I'm confident that no matter what the outcome, the lab will have an excellent management team and the employees will be well treated,'' Domenici said in a statement. The new contract will mark be the first time a corporation will help manage the lab in its 62-year history. The lab has been plagued in recent years by a series of security, financial and safety scandals. Many lab employees are anxiously awaiting the decision, which they fear could significantly change operations there. ___ Associated Press Writer Heather Clark contributed to this article from Albuquerque. Copyright Albuquerque Journal Steve@abqjournal.com ***************************************************************** 47 lamonitor.com: LANL contract delayed The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor The agency heading the competition for the management contract at Los Alamos National Laboratory announced today that it would not reach a decision on the contract by the target date. "A decision on the selection of a contractor to manage and operate Los Alamos National Laboratory will not be announced on Dec. 1 as previously projected," said the brief notice on the competition website. A spokesperson for the National Nuclear Security Administration said Tyler Przybylek, the Source Evaluation Board chair in charge of the contract competition, needs a little more time for the board to complete its report. "He doesn't anticipate a significant delay," said Al Stotts, a public affairs officer in Albuquerque. Before the award can be made, the Source Evaluation Board must file its evaluation report with the Selection Official. In this case that's Tom D'Agostino, acting deputy administrator for defense programs at NNSA headquarters and a career federal official. No new date has been announced, but Stotts said the delay should not affect the starting date of the new contract, scheduled for June 1, 2006. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 48 lamonitor.com: Survey: Lab workers feel vulnerable The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS, , Monitor Assistant Editor Employees at Los Alamos National Laboratory are pessimistic about future job-related issues, according to a recent survey by the Coalition for LANL Excellence, an ad hoc community organization. A week before the anticipated announcement about the fate of the contract to manage Los Alamos National Laboratory, CLE members said their survey reflected a skeptical view by workers at all levels of the laboratory. "There is a critical time from now to one year from now to influence how many people go out the door," said Joe Ladish of the coalition. The study, developed by coalition members with professional consultation, was conducted between June and September. It maps a sample of employees' perceptions about the coming changes. Janie Enter, who works in LANL's Chemistry Division and is the League of Women Voters liaison with CLE, said the survey is an important starting point, a baseline, against which future employee responses can be compared. The group intends to encourage the new managers to continue to sample the opinions of workers and retirees who are affected by their decisions. Charles Mansfield, a retired laboratory physicist and chairman of the Laboratory Retiree Group said the survey is demographically representative in terms of gender, ethnography, age, occupational status and time in service at the lab. The National Nuclear Security Administration that manages the nuclear weapons program for the Department of Energy is scheduled to award a new contract on or before Dec. 1. The competition is between a partnership led by the University of California and Bechtel and one led by Lockheed Martin with the University of Texas. Major findings of the survey painted a pessimistic view of the likelihood that employees would continue to work at the laboratory beyond the transition. Of the respondents, 18 percent were actively looking and 4 percent had already found new jobs. Overall, employees rated their confidence level about staying at LANL at 5.5 on a 10-point scale. Only 17 percent of technical staff members, the scientists at the lab, said they planned to stay at LANL, regardless of the changes, compared to 37 percent who said they would not and 46 percent who were undecided. While LANL employees and retirees felt that community factors that might attract employees have fallen only somewhat (10 percent) since they started working at the laboratory, they believe institutional factors have deteriorated (26 percent) since they were hired. Institutional factors included challenges, facilities, intellectual environment, peer respect, etc. LANL employees are about 70 percent confident that another of those factors - pay - will be decline in the future, according to the poll. A strong sense of vulnerability was apparent from answers to two questions at the end of the group's questionnaire - 79 percent of respondents said there should be an independent legal review of the RFP, and 86 percent said an organization should be created to protect the interest of employees and retirees. Employees and retirees, skeptical about future pay and benefit levels, had somewhat more confidence in a purely academic manager or an academic-industrial partnership and less in an industrial-academic partnership, and least of all in an industrial partnership. "The more industrial influence," as Ladish interpreted the results, "the worse you get." Because filing retirement papers takes about three months, NNSA and the new contractor will only have about three months of transition to make its case, rather than the six months until the new contract is supposed to begin. Roger Johnston, a CLE member who works in LANL's Chemistry Division, said the survey suggests that if there is still confusion about what the benefits are in February, those who show up undecided on the survey will be "out of here." He said, "Most of my colleagues have their CV's (curriculum vitae) out and are actually going on job interviews." The survey was based on 296 responses from 185 LANL employees and 111 LANL retirees. The survey team said that the statistical significance of their sample, compared to the roughly 10,000 LANL employees was 95 percent, which would imply an error of plus or minus five percent. The coalition focused public attention last year on what they considered inappropriate language about pension and benefits in NNSA's draft request for proposal. CLE has organized public meetings, lobbied the congressional delegation and current lab managers. They have won some changes in the health and retirement provisions sketched in the draft RFP, but realize that a great deal could change during the actual contract negotiations. CLE members involved in the survey said it was revealing and representative, if not as definitive as it might have been with the full cooperation of the laboratory, which they had tried to arrange. They consider the effort a wake-up call for the new managers, whichever side should win, to take employee concerns more seriously and to engage them in transition discussions immediately. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************