***************************************************************** 11/29/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.277 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 Guardian Unlimited: We must cut demand to have any hope of 2 BBC NEWS: Science faces 'dangerous times' 3 [NYTr] Worried about Iran's Nukes? Tell Israel to Disarm 4 AFP: Iran, EU agree future nuclear talks 5 MNA: EU3 responds positively to Iran’s proposal 6 Japan Times: Talks with N. Korea expected soon NUCLEAR REACTORS 7 As Industry Wide Coverup Proceeds, Australia, UK To Consider Nuclear 8 US: NRC: NRC Restart Panel to Meet with TVA Officials in Athens to D 9 Guardian Unlimited: Blair Says Britain Considering Nuke Power 10 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Studies differ on radiation levels found n 11 Guardian Unlimited: Blair opens debate on the nuclear option 12 Guardian Unlimited: Greenpeace disrupts Blair nuclear speech 13 London Times: Finding the energy - Comment - 14 US: NRC: NRC Proposes $60,000 Fine Against D.C. Cook for Failure to 15 RIA Novosti: NPP turbo generator closed down in Central Russia 16 BBC: Energy policy sparks opposition 17 BBC: Nuclear protest hits Blair speech 18 BBC: Nuclear plans could generate rift 19 BBC: Blair opens new nuclear options 20 BBC: Head-to-head: Nuclear power 21 BBC: Business cheers for Blair energy review 22 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to Meet Dec. 7 23 FT.com: Blair seeks to avoid nuclear plants vote 24 US: Portsmouth Herald Local News: Seabrook Station given dirty disti 25 Independent: Greenpeace protest on nuclear energy forces Blair to sw 26 US: Green Bay Press-Gazette: Nuclear plant back in service 27 AFP: British PM announces nuclear-focused energy review 28 AFP: Anti-nuclear protests stall Blair energy speech 29 US: NRC: NRC Renews Millstone Nuclear Power Station Operating Licens 30 CTK: Environment Ministry approves storing spent fuel in Temelin 31 Telegraph: The key questions on energy 32 Telegraph: Nuclear power is good - in Finland 33 Telegraph: Nuclear must be part of Britain's energy mix 34 Sunday Times: Earthlife tests nuclear workers 35 AU ABC: Australia reconsiders nuclear future - 36 AFP: Swedes in no rush for nuclear phase-out 37 US: Vermont Guardian: Cracked steam dryer continues to cloud VY upra 38 Telegraph: Nuclear protester disrupts Blair speech NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 39 Bellona: Cesium-137 found in Petrozavodsk NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 40 AU ABC: Govt process criticised after NT dump decision 41 ABC News Online: Senate committee backs NT nuclear waste dump. 42 ABC News Online: Scullion to vote for NT nuclear waste dump. 43 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca standard 'inadequate' PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 44 CONTRA COSTA TIMES: Plan would allow Lawrence Livermore to double pl 45 SF Chronicle: BAY AREA / UC probed over Los Alamos reimbursements / 46 DAILY BRUIN: Decision delayed for Los Alamos lab 47 DOE: Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 48 DOE: Record of Decision: Final Site-wide Environmental Impact (LLNL) ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Guardian Unlimited: We must cut demand to have any hope of solving the energy crisis [George Monbiot] [George Monbiot] Comment Neither the nuclear evangelists nor the renewables enthusiasts can take comfort from my calculations Tuesday November 29, 2005 In one respect, Simon Jenkins is right. "Nobody," he complained in the Guardian last week, while laying out his case for nuclear power, "agrees about figures." As a result, "energy policy is like Victorian medicine, at the mercy of quack remedies and snake-oil salesmen". There is a reason for this. As far as I can discover, reliable figures for the total volume of electricity that renewable power could supply do not yet exist. So anyone can claim anything, and anyone does. The enthusiasts for renewables insist that the entire economy - lights, heating, cars and planes - can be powered from hydrogen produced by wind. The nuclear evangelists maintain, in Jenkins' words, that "even if every beauty spot in Britain were coated in windmills, their contribution to the Kyoto target would be minuscule". All of us are groping around in the dark. So, though this is not a scientific journal and though I am not qualified to do it, I am going to attempt a rough first draft, which I hope will be challenged and refined by people with better credentials. Some of my assumptions are generous, others are conservative. This will be far from definitive and, I am afraid, quite complex, but at least, on the day the government's energy review is announced, we will have something to argue about. The UK has an installed electricity-generating capacity of 77 gigawatts (GW). Demand for electricity peaks on winter evenings between 5pm and 7pm, when we use some 61.7GW. A recent report by Oxford University's Environmental Change Institute estimates that if we do everything possible to improve energy efficiency in the home and install mini wind turbines and small "combined heat and power" boilers, we could reduce our demand from big power plants by 25GW, or 40%, by 2050. I haven't been able to find a comparable study for offices and industry, so my first leap of faith is to assume that the same cut can be applied across the economy. This is likely to be generous. It is now clear that 2050 is too late: drastic cuts - 80% to 90% - in greenhouse gases need to be made by 2030. So my second assumption is that the 40% cut can be spread evenly across time: that we can, in other words, reduce peak electricity demand by 22% by 2030. This means that it falls by 13.6GW, to 48.1GW. Because wind doesn't blow consistently, wind power cannot replace fossil fuels watt for watt. A paper published in the journal Energy Policy estimates that 26GW of installed wind capacity (which could meet about 20% of current electricity demand) would replace 5GW of fossil fuel plant. Graham Sinden at Oxford University has shown that a more reliable mixture - 43% wind, 52% wave and 5% tidal stream power - could, at the same volume, replace 8GW of coal or gas. The National Grid company tells me that wind power could directly deliver "at least 20%" of our electricity and remain "economically feasible". Assuming that the same can be said of Sinden's mixture, 20GW of installed renewable capacity will mop up 20% of our reduced demand (48.1GW), displacing 6.2GW of conventional power plant. This leaves us with 41.9GW to find. Figures from the Energy Technology Support Unit at Harwell suggest that if you build only in places with an average wind speed of at least 7 metres per second, and keep out of national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, nature reserves and towns and villages, you could produce a maximum of 58,000 gigawatt-hours (GWh) per year of electricity from onshore wind (a gigawatt-hour is an hour of electricity delivered at a rate of 1GW). If you build only in shallow water with a firm seabed, out of the path of migrating birds and military exercises, and where grid connections are available, you could generate 100,000GWh from offshore wind. These estimates are probably conservative, as wind turbines are already bigger than the researchers envisaged. The same study estimated that 53,000GWh could be produced from wave power and 36,000GWh from tidal stream machines. A House of Lords committee reports that it might be possible to generate 24,000GWh from tidal lagoons. I won't count electricity from sunlight, because it's expensive and isn't produced when we need it most. This means that if we used all the available sources of variable renewable power in the UK, we could produce 271,000GWh of electricity per year. We have already used up 20GW of installed renewable capacity. Assuming that renewable power is 30% efficient, we can multiply 20 by 8760 (the number of hours in the year) and 0.3, to make 52,600GWh. Subtract this from 271,000 and we are left with 218,400. Now here comes the biggest leap of faith. I am going to assume that by 2030 a cost-effective energy storage technology has been developed which has a 50% efficiency. The most likely technologies are hydrogen (which can be burnt in gas turbine engines) or a battery system such as the one envisaged in the UK's Regenesys project, which was scrapped last year. Either one would add considerably to the costs of power generation, so investors are likely to become interested only if gas prices keep rising (which is likely) and nuclear operators are forced to carry their own insurance costs (which is unlikely). But if either the market or the government swung behind energy storage then something like half the output from our variable power sources could be turned into a reliable supply of electricity. That means 109,000GWh. To this we could add 17,000GWh from willow plantations grown on the farmland currently under set-aside, 6,000GWh from farm and forestry waste, 6,000 from hydro power and 5,000 from landfill gas, to give a total for reliable electricity generation from renewables of 143,000GWh. Assuming very conservatively that this is evenly distributed across the year (in reality much of it can be held over to meet peak demand), and that at any one time 85% of it is available, this gives us 19GW of installed capacity. We needed 41.9GW, so our shortfall is some 23GW at peak demand and 34.8GW of total capacity. (The need for spare capacity could be greatly reduced if we managed demand rather than supply, as the great free thinker on energy systems Walt Patterson has suggested.) This is more than the apostles of renewable energy were hoping to see, but much less than the nuclear proselytes have predicted. It suggests that we could cut our demand for fossil fuel without building new nuclear power stations. But it is still too much: even 23GW will help to cook the planet. So the choice then comes down to this: we make up the shortfall either with nuclear power, as Jenkins suggests, or with gas or coal accompanied by carbon burial (pumping the carbon dioxide into salt aquifers or old gas fields). The first option means uranium mining, nuclear waste and the threat of proliferation and terrorism. The second means insecurity (gas) or opencast mining and air pollution (coal) and a risk (though probably quite small) of carbon seepage. Neither option looks pretty. I fear I have succeeded not only in writing the densest column the Guardian has ever published, but also in demonstrating that this problem is harder to solve than I had hoped. Is there someone out there who can prove me wrong? George Monbiot will be speaking at the Climate March on Saturday. For details see [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 2 BBC NEWS: Science faces 'dangerous times' | Science/Nature | Wednesday, 30 November 2005, 00:05 GMT [ By Helen Briggs BBC News science reporter Lord May (Royal Society)] Sadly, for many, the response is to retreat from complexity and difficulty by embracing the darkness of fundamentalist unreason Lord May of Oxford Fundamentalism is hampering global efforts to tackle climate change, according to Britain's top scientist. In his final speech as president of the Royal Society, Lord May of Oxford is to warn that core scientific values are "under serious threat from resurgent fundamentalism, West and East". Scientists must speak out against the climate change "denial lobby", he says. Lord May completes his five-year term as president of the UK's academy of science on Wednesday. "Ahead of us lie dangerous times," he will say in his fifth and final anniversary address. "There are serious problems that derive from the realities of the external world: climate change, loss of biological diversity, new and re-emerging diseases, and more. "Many of these threats are not yet immediate, yet their non-linear character is such that we need to be acting today. "And we have no evolutionary experience of acting on behalf of a distant future; we even lack basic understanding of important aspects of our own institutions and societies. "Sadly, for many, the response is to retreat from complexity and difficulty by embracing the darkness of fundamentalist unreason." 'Denial lobby' Lord May will say that fundamentalism applies not only to organised religions but to lobby groups on both sides of the climate change debate. The climate change "denial lobby" and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) opposed to nuclear power are not exempt from a denial or misrepresentation of scientific facts, he told reporters in London. Speaking in a week that saw the opening of climate talks in Montreal, and the re-opening of the nuclear power debate in the UK, he said there had to be open questioning and inquiry of such issues. The huge problems with nuclear power had to be weighed against the problem of putting more carbon into the atmosphere and the future potential of land and sea turbines, he said; "rather than ruled out of discussion on what you might call some fundamentalist belief system". 'No easy recipe' Another danger to the enlightenment of science came from the growing network of fundamentalist and lobby groups in the US that campaigned for creationism to be taught in science classes, he added. "By their own writings, this group has a much wider agenda which is to replace scientific materialism by something more based on faith," he said. He called on scientists to take a more active role in speaking out against so-called "intelligent design" and other threats to modern scientific values. "The only thing I can see scientists doing is being more energetic as citizens - getting out there and trying to convince people that that's not a very wise way to behave," he explained. "That's no easy recipe." ***************************************************************** 3 [NYTr] Worried about Iran's Nukes? Tell Israel to Disarm Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:48:20 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Arab News via Info Clearing House - Nov 27, 2005 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info//article11164.htm Report says Israel should dismantle nuclear weapons By Barbara Ferguson 11/27/05 "Arab News"--In order to contain Irans nuclear development and prevent a nuclear arms race in the region, Israel must begin nuclear disarmament. This, according to a recent report, entitled Getting Ready for a Nuclear Ready Iran, published by the US Army War College, [http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB629.pdf ] commissioned and partially funded by the Pentagon, argues that Irans nuclear weapon development cannot be stopped by any current military or diplomatic options. The report instead recommends that the United States convince Israel to mothball its Dimona nuclear reactor and agree to international monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, something it has refused to do. Israel, to date, has never officially confirmed that it does not have nuclear weapons, nor denied it. Credible reports of Israels sizable arsenal of nuclear bombs are well-documented, as well as their stable of missiles and aircrafts to deliver them any where in the Middle East. Israel has long-said its nuclear program has prevented conventional attacks from hostile neighbors, but some experts believe Israels position may have motivated other countries to develop their own nuclear options. The study also argues that Israels action would persuade other Middle East countries, Egypt or Algeria, to follow suit and mothball their own nuclear facilities, which would lead to a regional halt to the production of fissile material that would be the most effective method to successfully isolate Iran. It should be made clear, however, that Israel will take the additional step of handing over control of its weapons-usable fissile material to the IAEA only when all states in the Middle East dismantle their fissile producing facilities (large research and power reactors, hexafluoride, enrichment plants, and all reprocessing capabilities) and all nuclear weapons states (including Pakistan) formally agree not to redeploy nuclear weapons onto any Middle Eastern nations soil in time of peace, said the report. Nuclear nonproliferation expert Henry Sokolski, Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, and Iran specialist Patrick Clawson, Deputy Director for Research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, edited the report, based on research and meetings with the nations leading experts on Iran, the Middle East, and nuclear proliferation. India and Pakistan have already proved their nuclear capabilities, and the Middle East is close to a nuclear weapons arms race, Sokolski told reporters: You have a whole neighborhood of folks poised, at any time, to go nuclear. He said the call for Israel to suspend its nuclear development activity is controversial, but said: A Middle East with yet more nuclear powers could turn into a big, big death bath. An Iran with advanced nuclear capabilities that put it close to having a bomb would likely be a more assertive Iran. Iran might well want to throw its weight around, co-author Patrick Clawson said during a recent discussion of the study at the Washington Institute. For example, it could claim that the fate of Jerusalem is a matter that concerns all Muslims and therefore Iran should have a say in any settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Iran might become active in the many disputes in the Caucasus region, such as in Chechnya; after all, this is territory Iran lost to Russia less than two hundred years ago. Washingtons involvement in Mideast nuclear negotiations are essential, Clawson argued because the US and Iran may well become involved in a Cold War, which he said would only end as the regime evolves. Copyright ) 1998-2003 Big News Network.com * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 4 AFP: Iran, EU agree future nuclear talks Mon Nov 28, 3:10 PM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranand Britain, France and Germany have agreed to resume talks on Tehran's disputed nuclear programme but no time or venue for the discussions has yet been set, student news agency ISNA reported. "The agenda, time and venue of the talks are not set yet, but both sides will first hold talks at the experts' level, then at the higher level," the spokesman for Iran's supreme national security council, Hossein Entezami, told the news agency. He was responding to an offer by the EU-3 to resume direct talks with the Islamic republic on its nuclear programme. Washington accuses Iran of using it as a cover for nuclear weapons development, a charge vehemently rejected by Tehran. "It does not make any difference whether the talks are official or unofficial, the important thing is to talk. However the talks should have a timeframe," he added. An EU diplomatic source in Berlin said that Europe was ready to begin "exploratory talks on a possible entry into a negotiating phase," provided Iran refrained from "unilateral measures". The source said the objective "remains obtaining objective guarantees" that Iran's nuclear programme "has exclusively peaceful ends". On Sunday, a diplomat told AFP that the foreign ministers of the EU-3 had written to Iran's top national security official Ali Larijani with an offer of new direct talks. According to the semi-official Mehr news agency on Sunday, the letter was handed to Javad Vaidi -- one of Iran's negotiating team -- in response to a letter from Larijani which called for a resumption of negotiations. Entezami reaffirmed Tehran's insistence that it would enrich uranium on Iranian soil, saying it had not received any proposals from Russia on moving its enrichment work abroad. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said at a press conference during a visit to Azerbaijan on Monday that Tehran had a right to enrich uranium as part of its nuclear energy programme, adding "no force" could stop it from doing so. "The enrichment of uranium is Iran's internal affair. It is the right of any state and no force can prevent the state from exercising this right," he said. [Two Iranians work at the zirconium production plant, part of the nuclear facilities (UCF) in Isfahan, 295 km from Tehran. Iran and Britain, France and Germany have agreed to resume talks on Tehran's disputed nuclear programme but no time or venue for the discussions has yet been set, student news agency ISNA reported.(AFP/File/Henghameh Fahimi)] AFP/File Photo: Two Iranians work at the zirconium production plant, part of the nuclear facilities (UCF) in... Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 5 MNA: EU3 responds positively to Iran’s proposal TEHRAN, Nov. 28 (MNA) -- The European Union trio has accepted Iran's offer to resume nuclear negotiations from the point where they were cut off in August, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council announced on Sunday. A letter signed by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and his French and German counterparts Philippe Douste-Blazy and Frank-Walter Steinmeier was delivered by the EU3 ambassadors in Tehran to SNSC Deputy Secretary General Javad Vaeedi here on Sunday, announcing the bloc's readiness to resume nuclear talks. In a letter dated November 6, Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, SNSC Secretary Ali Larijani, had invited the Europeans to resume “logical and constructive talks without any preconditions based on international law” while stressing Iran’s legitimate nuclear rights. The Europeans' positive response to the invitation comes even as they had previously conditioned the resumption of talks on Iran's renewed suspension of uranium enrichment and conversion activities. Earlier on Sunday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi stressed that the focal point of any future negotiations would have to provide 'concrete guarantees for realizing the production of nuclear fuel in Iran’. Iran welcomes negotiations with Europe that are “held within the framework of the Safeguards Agreement and the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), are clear, and focused on providing an objective guarantee for materializing the production of nuclear fuel,” Asefi told reporters at his weekly press briefing. He said the EU’s attitude toward Iran should not be discriminatory because Iran is only seeking its legal rights and nothing more. The exact time of negotiations should also be specified, and, moreover, the EU should avoid wasting time, Asefi added. "We will only review those proposals which include mastering the nuclear fuel cycle inside Iran," he said. The Foreign Ministry spokesman also played down press reports about a proposal to transfer uranium enrichment to Russia under a joint venture with Iran as 'media speculation'. "This is a fabrication of news to determine the fate of negotiations through the media. However, the fate of negotiations must be decided at the negotiating table," he asserted. He noted that Iran had not received a formal proposal from Russia but would study it if one arrived. Asefi said that the path pursued by Iran's nuclear diplomacy is balanced and broad-based, encompassing European and non-European states, Russia, China, and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Such diplomacy existed before the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors session on Iran's nuclear dossier and would be continued in the future, he pointed out. The IAEA's 35-nation board decided on Thursday not to refer Iran to the UN Security Council to give time to try to broker a compromise. Asked about Iran's diplomatic measures to resume negotiations with the Europeans, he said, "Diplomatic measures and channels are always on the Foreign Ministry's agenda. To this end, the foreign minister (Manuchehr Mottaki) has held talks with his British, French, Belgian, and Australian counterparts." Asefi rejected the report by the German weekly magazine Der Spiegel claiming that Iran offered North Korea oil and natural gas as payment for assistance in developing nuclear missiles, saying, "Such an issue has not been raised, and the news report is fundamentally incorrect.” Asked about Russian participation in Iran's negotiations with the EU3, he stated, "The issue of Russia's direct participation in Iran's negotiations with the three European states is not the question. "We hold talks and negotiations with Russia, as with other countries, but the level of talks will be determined after receiving the proposal (on the resumption of) talks." Later, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana confirmed the news of the EU3’s agreement to restart talks with Iran. "A letter has been conveyed to Iran this afternoon… from the three countries and myself. We offered Iran to have conversations, dialogue to see if we have enough common basis to start negotiations," he told reporters at a Euro-Mediterranean summit in Barcelona, according to Reuters. Solana said the letter set no date for a resumption of the negotiations. "We have to see what is the response that the Iranians give us," he added. EU diplomats have already cited December 6 as a possible date for a meeting between the two sides, although the time and venue appear not to have yet been finalized. An EU diplomat said the EU3 letter said talks could cover the Russian proposal, backed by Washington and the European Union. "We believe these could provide important elements of a comprehensive solution," the letter said, according to sections seen by Reuters. "We would therefore welcome concrete signals by Iran of its willingness to meet the expectations of the international community and hope Iran will create conditions that will enable a resumption of our discussions," it said. A European diplomat who asked not to be identified told AFP in Tehran earlier that the letter offered "an exploratory meeting" with Larijani to consider resuming the talks. "The Europeans do not question the rights of Iran (to have a nuclear program), but want to have guarantees concerning its objectives," said the diplomat. The British government also confirmed on Monday that the EU had delivered a letter to Iran over the weekend offering to renew nuclear talks. "We support ideas such as the Russian proposal," a Foreign Office spokesman told IRNA. "Such ideas could implement elements in any solution" to the dispute over the nature of Iran's nuclear program, he suggested. Meanwhile, SNSC spokesman Hossein Entezami said on Monday "The agenda, time, and venue of the talks are not set yet, but both sides will first hold the talks on the expert level then on the higher level. "It does not make any difference whether the talks are official or unofficial, the important thing is to talk. However the talks should have a time frame," he told the Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA) as carried by AFP. Entezami reaffirmed Tehran's insistence that it would enrich uranium on Iranian soil, saying no proposals had been received from Russia on moving its enrichment facilities abroad. West willing to negotiate with Iran: German FM The new German foreign minister has said the West is willing to negotiate with Iran on its nuclear program, AFP reported. Steinmeier, who took office last week, told Sunday's Bild am Sonntag newspaper that the EU negotiators and the United States were united in their approach to the talks. "The cooperation between the United States and Europe on Iran is very strong," said Steinmeier, who was scheduled to depart Monday on a two-day U.S. trip. “Iran may and should use nuclear power plants for peaceful aims but must dispel the great concerns of the international community that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. "No one is rushing to go to the UN Security Council but if Iran does not relent, it may be unavoidable." Steinmeier said he "could not imagine" a war with Iran over the issue. "I am sure the government of Iran also recognizes that it is reliant on the international community. In addition, no one in the world wants to aggravate the conflict in the Middle East," he said. "Iran could have the potential to develop into an anchor of stability in the region. I wish Iran would recognize this chance." HL/SA/HG End MNA © 2003-2005 Mehr News Agency ***************************************************************** 6 Japan Times: Talks with N. Korea expected soon Tuesday, November 29, 2005 Japan and North Korea are highly likely to meet before the expected January resumption of six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear issue, Vice Foreign Minister Shotaro Yachi said Monday. "There is a high possibility the talks will happen before the six-party talks," Yachi said in a news conference. He stopped short of giving an exact time frame for when the meeting over abductions and other issues will reconvene, given that the date of the six-party talks is still being arranged by host China. Yachi said he hopes the bilateral talks will be held "as soon as possible," perhaps in December. Tokyo and Pyongyang last held governmental meetings Nov. 3 and 4 in Beijing without progress on substantive issues, such as North Korea's abductions of Japanese nationals. The two parties agreed only to meet again soon. The Japan Times: Nov. 29, 2005 (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 7 As Industry Wide Coverup Proceeds, Australia, UK To Consider Nuclear Power As India, China To Quadruple Their Capacity By 2020 Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:40:05 -0500 X-Fingerprint: smirnowb@ix.netcom.com-127.127 Insanity. Are these people ignorant of or lying about the massive fossile fuel use is the nuclear fuel cycle? CRAC-2 Report On Early Fatalities, Deaths, Cancers, Injuries [Greatly Watered Down]: http://www.mothersalert.org/crac.html Ongoing Coverup Of 3 Mile Island And Entire Commercial Nuclear Power Industry: http://www.mothersalert.org/rickover.html http://www.mothersalert.org/bertell.html http://www.mothersalert.org/blanche.html China and India are quadrupling nuclear capacity by 2020, and established players such as Japan and South Korea could follow Britain's lead in reviewing their aging infrastructure. 1. http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-energy-australia-nuclear.html Australia Urged to Reconsider Nuclear Alternative a.. E-Mail This b.. Printer-Friendly c.. Save Article By REUTERS Published: November 29, 2005 Filed at 2:48 a.m. ET SYDNEY (Reuters) - Senior members of Australia's government are pushing for a debate on a home-grown nuclear power industry in a country that digs up and exports a sizeable chunk of the world's uranium but has long shunned nuclear energy. Skip to next paragraph A push to replace aging coal-fired power plants with nuclear facilities to secure long-term electricity supply and meet ambitious carbon emissions targets has gathered momentum with two ministers putting forward a formal proposal for a study into the sector. Australia relies on vast reserves of cheap coal to generate 80 percent of its energy, but also has high levels of greenhouse gas emissions and risked international condemnation by refusing to sign the Kyoto agreement on global warming. Fossil fuel generation is still forecast at 70 percent by 2020. But having already overturned the 1980s ``three mines'' policy which limited the number of uranium pits -- Australia is home to over one third of global reserves -- there are signs a former pariah is moving up the list of potential energy alternatives. ``The coal lobby remains powerful but it could be that Australia has too many eggs in a single basket,'' said Ian van Altena of the University of Newcastle. ``Arguments about carbon emissions are making all kinds of people consider nuclear who said no in the past. I'd say the mood is slowly changing.'' Two Federal government ministers this week asked the Prime Minister to consider home-grown nuclear power in light of environmental concerns and a booming uranium industry that saw the value of exports rise 30 percent in fiscal 2005. ``We can't responsibly dig 30 percent of the world's uranium out of the ground, export it overseas, and allow some 440 reactors to operate and expand in other parts of the world and not seriously consider this as an option for ourselves,'' Education Minister Brendan Nelson told the Nine Network. Prime Minister John Howard recently said nuclear should be included in the debate on energy options, while the Treasurer has led a group of cabinet ministers in saying such decisions should be left to market forces, provided safeguards are in place. It represents a big shift since a series of decisions in the 1970s which shelved plans for nuclear reactors in Australia. Victoria and New South Wales states still have 1980s legislation which outlaws the construction or operation of nuclear reactors. GLOBAL GROWTH ``If we're considering what generating plant is suitable to be operating in 30-40 years in a greenhouse-constrained world, there's a strong argument for diversifying and including nuclear in the mix for every country with concentrated electricity demand,'' said Ian Hore-Lacy of the Uranium Information Center. Nuclear energy was enjoying a global renaissance, with 25 new reactors under construction to supplement those on-line in 30 nations, producing 16 percent of world electricity, he said. Britain is reviewing plans for a new generation of nuclear plants to improve declining self-sufficiency and avoid the embarrassment of missing self-imposed greenhouse gas targets. China and India are quadrupling nuclear capacity by 2020, and established players such as Japan and South Korea could follow Britain's lead in reviewing their aging infrastructure. But environmentalists still loudly oppose nuclear power, while recognising the need to reduce emissions in the face of Australian energy growth of 2 percent annually until 2030. ``It's too slow, too costly, too dirty and too risky,'' said Dave Sweeney of the Australian Conservation Foundation. ``We reject it as a credible or sustainable solution for climate change when real renewable alternatives already exist.'' Sweeney pointed to the decades required to establish costly nuclear facilities at a time when quick emissions cuts are needed, and noted the emissions-intensive uranium mining process and the problems of dealing with radioactive waste materials. Hore-Lacy said nuclear power was operationally cheaper than coal and gas and required no more capital investment than new coal plants. Australia exports uranium -- now selling at over $30 per pound -- to 36 countries holding bilateral safeguard agreements for use of material. Formal talks are expected shortly on allowing uranium exports to China. 2. http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-nuclear-britain.html Britain Puts Nuclear Power Back on Agenda a.. E-Mail This b.. Printer-Friendly c.. Save Article By REUTERS Published: November 29, 2005 Filed at 11:04 a.m. ET LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair put nuclear power back on the agenda on Tuesday when he launched a review of energy policy, pledging to decide by the middle of next year on how to fill a looming energy gap. Skip to next paragraph A review concluded two years ago that nuclear costs were unclear and that renewable sources such as wind or solar power, along with less wasteful use of fossil fuels, could suffice. But booming oil and gas prices, global warming, an increased emphasis on energy security and the need to decide soon on whether to replace aging nuclear plants is putting pressure on the government to take another look. ``(The review) will include specifically the issue of whether we facilitate the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations,'' Blair told business leaders, adding that there would be a firm policy announcement in early summer 2006. Anti-nuclear demonstrators, concerned about risks to the environment from dangerous nuclear waste, staged a protest ahead of Blair's speech, mingling in suits and ties with delegates before clambering up into the rafters of the conference center. The prime minister was forced to deliver his speech in a cramped sideroom as the Greenpeace protesters unfurled a banner and dropped leaflets, saying: ``Nuclear: Wrong Answer.'' Whatever the outcome of the review, the nuclear lobby and environmentalists agreed it would give a signal to the rest of the world on whether to build more nuclear plants or close them. ``At the very least the nuclear plants need to be replaced, and we suggest that they should be increased,'' said Nigel Withey, managing director of Inenco, UK-based energy consultants. ``Renewables have a part to play, but only a part. We don't see a huge alternative to nuclear power.'' MIND MADE UP? Speculation is rife that Blair has already made up his mind to invest in nuclear power but a significant number of lawmakers in his centre-left Labor party are against the idea. Blair told the annual conference of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) employers' group that in 15 years, the mothballing of old coal and nuclear stations would leave a big hole in Britain's energy supply. ``Some of this will be replaced by renewables but not all of it can,'' he said. Business leaders favor nuclear power but environmental groups want more efficient use of fossil fuels, less electricity waste and more renewable power. Britain has become a net importer of gas as its North Sea supplies dwindle and the government is concerned about the security of supply, which will increasingly come from abroad. Rocketing gas prices have highlighted possible problems. Only one of the UK's nuclear power stations is due to be open in 2023. Without new investment, nuclear power will meet 4 percent of Britain's energy needs by 2010, down from 21 percent. But Blair faces opposition from Labor lawmakers, some 40 of whom have signed a motion rejecting new nuclear power stations. Since a May election slashed his majority, that number siding with opposition parties can defeat the government in parliament, although Blair can probably count on opposition Conservative support for nuclear energy. ***************************************************************** 8 NRC: NRC Restart Panel to Meet with TVA Officials in Athens to Discuss Browns Ferry Unit 1 News Release - Region II - 2005-04 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II No. II-05-044 November 28, 2005 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: with Tennessee Valley Authority officials at 9:00 a.m. (CST) on Wednesday, Dec. 7 to discuss the status of TVAs restart efforts for the Unit 1 reactor at the Browns Ferry nuclear plant in Alabama. The meeting, which is open to the public, will be held at the Browns Ferry Site Training Center Auditorium in Athens, Ala. NRC officials will be available after the business portion of the meeting to answer questions from interested observers. The agenda for the meeting will cover completed work activities, schedules for future milestones, challenges and other activities important to NRC oversight and inspection of Unit 1. This is the fifth in a series of status meetings on Unit 1 restart, and the first since a restart panel was formed. Those meetings have been rotated between the Browns Ferry site, NRC headquarters in Rockville, Md., and the NRC Region II office in Atlanta. The last meeting was held in July in the Region II office in July. All three units of the Browns Ferry plant were shut down in 1985 but retained NRC operating licenses. Unit 2 was restarted in 1991 and Unit 3 was restarted in 1995. TVA has been doing extensive work on Unit 1 and said it expects to have that unit ready to begin operating again by 2007. Last revised Tuesday, November 29, 2005 ***************************************************************** 9 Guardian Unlimited: Blair Says Britain Considering Nuke Power From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday November 30, 2005 12:01 AM AP Photo LON110 By JENN WIANT Associated Press Writer LONDON (AP) - Prime Minister Tony Blair opened a fierce debate on energy and the environment Tuesday, saying the British government will consider building a new generation of nuclear power plants. In a speech briefly delayed by anti-nuclear activists, Blair said an energy study due to be finished next summer would look specifically at nuclear power. He acknowledged that reconsideration of a longstanding move away from the use of atomic reactors to generate electricity is a ``difficult and challenging'' issue. ``What we need is a serious debate, not one conducted by protest or demonstration to stop people expressing their views,'' he said, referring to two Greenpeace activists who climbed into the rafters of a London conference hall, forcing Blair's speech to be moved to a nearby site. Many Europeans have strongly opposed nuclear power plants since the 1986 Chernobyl reactor disaster increased fears about its safety, but Britain is not alone in beginning to rethink that aversion. Finland this year became the first western European country to begin construction of a reactor since 1991. France, which already generates much of its electricity with nuclear plants, plans to start building a new-generation reactor in 2007. The conservatives in Germany's new coalition government want to keep some nuclear plants going, although the Social Democrats in the power-sharing Cabinet insist on sticking with a plan to shutter all those facilities by 2021. Italy's industry minister said earlier this year that the public's negative feelings about atomic power were weakening. Opponents, including many in Blair's governing Labour Party, worry about accidents or terrorist attacks at nuclear plants and the need to dispose of radioactive waste safely. Advocates say nuclear power, which does not generate greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, is environmentally beneficial. They also believe it will become increasingly necessary as world oil supplies tighten. ``The issue back on the agenda with a vengeance is energy policy,'' Blair said. ``Energy prices have risen. Energy supply is under threat. Climate change is producing a sense of urgency.'' For Britain, the problem is getting worse as oil and natural gas production in its own North Sea fields declines. Blair said that by 2020, coal and nuclear plants that now generate more than 30 percent of the country's electricity supply will be decommissioned. ``Some of this will be replaced by renewables, but not all of it can,'' he argued. ``In Britain, on any basis, we also have the issue of our transition from being self-sufficient in gas supply to being an importer.'' A government policy paper on energy resources will be issued early in the summer of 2006 and will address the possibility of a new generation of nuclear reactors that could help provide enough energy for Britain, Blair said. Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks, who is leading the review, said it will also look at coal, gas, renewable energy sources and other new technologies. It will also examine energy efficiency and the energy used for transportation. Nuclear power now provides a fifth of Britain's electricity, but the country's 12 nuclear power plants are aging and unless replaced will provide only 4 percent of electricity by 2010. David Willetts, trade and industry spokesman for the opposition Conservative Party, said the energy review was crucial. ``People want to know that when they flick the switch the light will come on, that their fuel bills are affordable; and that we meeting our targets to cut (carbon dioxide) emissions,'' he said. Greenpeace rejected the idea of building new nuclear plants. ``Nuclear power is not the answer to climate change - it's costly, dangerous and a terrorist target,'' said Stephen Tindale, director of the group's British branch. the two Greenpeace protesters delayed Blair's speech when they got up in the rafters of the conference hall and unfurled a banner reading: ``Nuclear: wrong answer.'' Police said they were detained on suspicion of aggravated trespassing. Security staff cleared the hall of delegates and Blair instead spoke in a cramped room where participants and the press had to stand. ``This is going to be a surreal occasion,'' he quipped as he started his speech. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 10 Brattleboro Reformer: Studies differ on radiation levels found near VY November 29, 2005 Brattleboro, VT By ANDY ROSEN Reformer Staff BRATTLEBORO -- There has been no local increase in background radiation for over 30 years, according to the Vermont Department of Public Health. However, other researchers believe radiation might be entering the bodies of children in greater concentrations near the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant in Vernon than other places. Larry Crist, head of the Division of Health Protection, said the Department's environmental monitoring hasn't turned up any increase in radioactive elements from sources in the area since the 1970s. The Department of Public Health has been collecting more than 550 samples of air, water, soil, plants, fish and milk per year from over 50 stations in the area over that time. But this data runs counter to preliminary findings announced earlier this year by the Radiation and Public Health Project, a New York based nonprofit. The project found that a radioactive element, called Strontium-90, was more highly concentrated in the baby teeth of children born in the area than other places. They tested 26 teeth, nine of which came from within 50 miles of Vermont Yankee. Joseph Mangano, who runs the project, said the average concentration of Strontium-90 was 61 percent higher within the 50-mile radius. Strontium-90 is a radioactive byproduct of nuclear fission. It enters the body through contaminated food and cows' milk, then acts like calcium and is stored in bones and teeth. Though these findings appear to be at odds, the discrepancies are most likely produced by different research methods. The primary difference, said Crist, has to do with sample size. "We have thousands of data points that don't show a real increase in radiation," he said. Mangano said the current sample size for this area is small, but the findings are consistent with nationwide research. The project tested 4,500 teeth in the areas around seven other nuclear plants, he said, and found they were 30 to 50 percent more likely to contain Strontium-90. Mangano said the primary objective of the project is to look for radioactive contamination within human bodies. "We do know there are a number of programs to monitor environmental radiation," he said, "but no way to measure radiation in bodies." The project began testing baby teeth because it's not invasive, and the teeth hold Strontium-90, which has a half-life of 28 years. But Crist said it was unlikely that there would be more radiation in the bodies of people who live here than there is in the environment. These results could be skewed by the small sample size. For instance, someone who lives near a natural source of radiation could have a high concentration of Strontium-90 in their teeth, and throw the whole regional figure off. The Radiation and Public Health Project uses testing methods that look for very low doses, said Mangano, and tests each tooth for seven hours to make sure they get an accurate reading. He said he couldn't comment on the detection methods used by the Department of Public Health. The Department tests the environment for many radioactive elements, said Crist, not just one. However, they do not look for Strontium-90. Instead, they measure Cesium-137, which he called a "marker." "[Cesium-137] indicates Strontium," said Crist. "You don't get Strontium without Cesium-137." Rob Williams, a spokesman for Entergy Vermont Yankee, deferred questions about radiation emissions to the Department of Public Health, but mentioned that the plant itself tests for Strontium-90. "We have not found it above background levels," he said. Carla White, a senior Radiological Health Specialist at the public health department, said they test 48 milk samples for radioactive elements each year. "That's what children who are not breast feeding are going to be drinking," she said. White said the department has not seen Cesium-137 in milk that's above background levels. Crist said the project's findings were very interesting and brought up interesting points. "We'd like to know more about their data," he said. "But ours isn't bearing out their results." Mangano said he sees the project as a cooperative effort, and is happy to publish its findings. The project is currently working on increasing its sample size to 100 teeth from the area. Mangano said he hoped to have more findings by the end of next year. Andy Rosen can be reached at arosen@reformer.comor (802) 254-2311, ext. 275. Copyright ©1999-2005 New England Newspapers, Inc., ***************************************************************** 11 Guardian Unlimited: Blair opens debate on the nuclear option Mark Milner, Terry Macalister and Patrick Wintour Wednesday November 30, 2005 The Guardian Tony Blair yesterday put nuclear power at the heart of a national debate on how to solve Britain's looming energy crisis, promising a decision on whether the government would give the green light to a new generation of nuclear plants by early next summer. The prime minister warned that the closure of ageing coal and nuclear power plants over the next 15 years would cut Britain's electricity generating capacity by almost a third, with renewable sources able to make up only part of the shortfall. In response, the government is commissioning a review of energy policy to look at how to plug the gap. Mr Blair said it would include "the issue of whether we facilitate the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations". Yesterday's decision to take a hard look at nuclear energy marks a shift in the government's position from that outlined in a white paper on energy policy two years ago. Though it did not then rule out building new nuclear capacity it said: "Current economics make it [nuclear power] an unattractive option for new, carbon-free generating capacity and there are also important issues of nuclear waste to be resolved." However, the government has since come under pressure to rethink its energy policy amid concerns about global warming, security of the UK's energy supply as North Sea output declines and rising oil and gas prices. As Britain increasingly imports more of its energy supplies, the country will have to compete for supplies on world markets already having to cope with growing demand from fast-growing economies such as China and India. Mr Blair told delegates at the CBI's annual conference that the energy issue was back on the global agenda "with a vengeance". He added: "Round the world you can sense a feverish rethinking. Energy prices have risen. Climate change is producing a sense of urgency." Malcolm Wicks, the energy minister, who will head the review, said the aim was to ensure "clean, reliable, affordable energy supplies for the long term". Circumstances had changed since 2003, he said, which made this the right moment to assess where Britain was in relation to the goals set by the white paper touching on issues such as progress on ensuring that 10% of electricity came from renewables by 2010. He dismissed any suggestion that decisions had already been taken on the critical issue of new atomic power stations. "It is not a nuclear review. There is no foregone conclusion on nuclear or anything else. It certainly is not a case of nuclear versus renewables," he said. Mr Wicks admitted that the current gas price spike, which has triggered fears that there could be power shortages if not blackouts for manufacturing in a bad winter, had affected government thinking. In a hint that there could be greater government involvement in the future, he said: "We are going to draw on lessons because of this difficult period we have been through. In terms of an energy review it makes sense to see if we are in the right place as regards the role of the state." Mr Blair was given a foretaste of the opposition the government can expect to a nuclear new-build programme when two Greenpeace protesters climbed into the iron framework holding up the roof of the main hall in the Business Design Centre in Islington, north London, where he was due to announce the review. They dropped small paper slips bearing the message "Nuclear: Wrong answer" and unfurled banners carrying the same words as they perched precariously high above the conference floor for two hours. The CBI director general, Sir Digby Jones, said he had been told that the two men, Nyls Verhauelt and Huw Williams, would come down only if Greenpeace was allowed a 10-minute address to the conference ahead of the prime minister. A compromise offering them the chance to make a statement after Mr Blair had spoken was refused, so the CBI switched the venue of the speech to another hall in the centre and promised a review of its security measures. Greenpeace said the two men had later been arrested on suspicion of aggravated trespass. Most of the cabinet are said to be open-minded about the nuclear option, although a group including Patricia Hewitt and Peter Hain remain to be convinced. A number of Labour backbenchers remain opposed to expanding nuclear power. The Tory industry spokesman, David Willetts, criticised the government for taking so long to set up a review. 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 ***************************************************************** 12 Guardian Unlimited: Greenpeace disrupts Blair nuclear speech Matthew Tempest, political correspondent Tuesday November 29, 2005 [A Greenpeace protester at the CBI ] A Greenpeace protester at the CBI. Photograph: John Stillwell/WPA/PA The prime minister today put a new generation of domestic nuclear power stations at the centre of the government's energy review, saying there was now "feverish rethinking" of energy policy around the world. In a speech to business leaders which was delayed for nearly an hour by Greenpeace protesters climbing to the roof of the CBI conference and unfurling a "Nuclear: Wrong Answer" banner, Tony Blair declared energy policy was now "back on the agenda with a vengeance". But his talk was delivered in a small adjoining hall after the protest, which saw two activists climb into the rafters of the Business Design Centre in Islington, north London, and drop stickers with anti-nuclear slogans. A Scotland Yard spokesman later confirmed that two men had been arrested. Mr Blair finally delivered his address to delegates 48 minutes late as they crowded into a nearby room, joking "this is going to be a surreal occasion". He told his audience of standing business leaders: "The issue back on the agenda with a vengeance is energy policy. Round the world you can sense feverish rethinking. "Energy prices have risen. Energy supply is under threat. Climate change is producing a sense of urgency." Mr Blair went on: "I can today announce that we have established a review of the UK's progress against the medium and long-term energy white paper goals. The energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, will lead the review, with a policy statement on energy expected in the early summer of 2006. The prime minister added: "It will include specifically the issue of whether we facilitate the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations. "In Britain, on any basis, we also have the issue of our transition from being self-sufficient in gas supply to being an importer." Mr Blair made brief mention of this coming winter's gas crunch, saying if it is as cold as the Met Office suggests, "our gas market will be tight", but that domestic users and most business would not be affected. But he added: "But for big gas users, Ofgem, the National Grid, energy suppliers and the DTI have all been and will be working to make sure business is aware and ready." The prime minister also sounded confident that ongoing talks in Montreal on a successor agreement to the Kyoto protocol would produce tangible results, saying he "really believed there will be binding protocol to replace Kyoto". He indicated some of the countries currently not signed up to Kyoto, which include America and Australia as well as developing nations such as India, China and Brazil, could be persuaded to sign up to such a deal, although he did not give details. Speaking about the protest that delayed Mr Blair's speech, Greenpeace director Stephen Tinday said: "Today Blair is trying to launch a new nuclear age and we are here to stop him. Nuclear power is not the answer to climate change - it's costly, dangerous and a terrorist target. Today's new review is simply a smokescreen for pushing his newfound enthusiasm for nuclear power." But Mr Blair's official spokesman said: "What we want is a serious debate, not stunts." John Cridland, deputy director general of the CBI, said the protest was a "disgrace", but added that security would now have to be reviewed. "The business community is prepared to engage in real debate and I think this has been a disgraceful display by Greenpeace," he said. Friends of the Earth today called for the review to focus on "clean and safe alternatives to fossil fuels". But there are also voices within the green movement who see nuclear power - free of emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide - as a key weapon in the battle against global warming. And there is support for nuclear among businesses concerned about the UK's reliance on imports of gas from abroad, amid fears of power shortages if the coming winter is as cold as forecast. Speculation that the prime minister personally backs the nuclear option was heightened earlier this month when his chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, publicly urged him to "give the green light" to the sector. Sir David has provided Mr Blair with studies of the UK's future energy needs which are certain to have been influential on his thinking. He has warned that the decline in nuclear power was contributing to the failure to meet government targets on reducing CO2 emissions by 2010. Until recently, nuclear power met almost a quarter of the UK's energy needs, but that figure is set to drop to 4% by 2010 unless new reactors are built. FoE today said a comprehensive programme of energy efficiency, renewable energy and cleaner use of fossil fuels could allow the UK to meet targets for cutting greenhouse gases, while maintaining fuel security. Its director, Tony Juniper, said: "The UK can meet its targets for tackling climate change and maintain fuel security by using clean, safe alternatives that are already available. "But these have so far been underplayed by the prime minister, who has fallen for the nuclear industry's slick PR campaign. "The government's energy review must cut through this spin, promote the clean, safe measures we know will meet our energy needs, and show that nuclear power is unnecessary - as well as unsafe and uneconomic." Shadow trade and industry secretary David Willetts said: "To launch an energy review only now is testament to Labour's failure to tackle the problem a long time ago. "A leak from the DTI in May showed that civil servants were calling on the government to start an energy review, but it has taken them seven months and an energy crisis to get things rolling. "After the shambles of the Turner report, what are the chances of Gordon Brown agreeing anyway?" Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Norman Baker said: "The suspicion must be that Tony Blair has already decided to advocate an increase in the use of nuclear power. This review will serve little purpose if the prime minister has already made up his mind. "What is needed is to rule out an extension of nuclear power now. This will provide the certainty that the industry so desperately needs, and will allow us to focus on cleaner renewable energy." [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 13 London Times: Finding the energy - Comment - Times Online 11-29-05 Blair will need all the help he can get on nuclear power The Prime Minister has called for a "mature debate" on energy policy. If the antics of two Greenpeace activists yesterday are any indication, he may struggle to achieve that. This is, as he admitted, a "difficult and challenging" matter. Yet it is precisely because it is difficult and will be challenged in emotive terms, that the question must not be avoided. The "review" of Britain's energy requirements, which should be completed by the summer, is likely to recommend the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations. The Prime Minister needs to start preparing now for the discussion and the distortions that will surely follow. The case for nuclear power, when assessed coolly, is an impressive one. By 2020 coal and nuclear resources that are today responsible for more than 30 per cent of Britain's energy needs will have been decommissioned. The country is committed to its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol and nuclear power constitutes cleaner technology. Wind power can only provide a very modest proportion of UK electricity. The nation is about to cease being broadly self-sufficient in its gas supply and will soon become a net importer. The strategic importance of this last aspect has not been awarded enough consideration. Russia would, understandably from its position, be willing to supply much of Britain’s natural gas as it is seeking to do for several other European nations. But it would be naive to think that becoming so reliant on any one country for energy might not come at a political price at some point in the future. Britain must aspire to a balanced energy policy. A dash for Russian gas would not be balanced. Technocratic reasoning will not, unfortunately, be enough for the Prime Minister. Opponents of nuclear power will cast their objections in apocalyptical language. Opinion poll results suggest that the public, if not doggedly hostile to nuclear power, is instinctively nervous. The same surveys show, ironically, that nuclear power is most popular in areas immediately surrounding the existing stations (which would also be the probable sites for new facilities) because the industry is viewed there as a source of employment. And nuclear power is less trusted further from the reactor, where nuclear power is often treated as an abstract “threat”. Mr Blair would doubtless like to win this argument from within the Labour Party. This is optimistic. The combination of the section of the party that is habitually hostile to him, together with nervous MPs inclined to run a mile should their articulate middle-class constituents start crusading on this issue, will be more than enough to ensure that Labour is deeply divided. A forceful endorsement of the policy by Gordon Brown would help, but even this is unlikely to be decisive. The Prime Minister should be willing to look and ask for support from other quarters. In his address at the Conservative Party conference, David Willetts, the Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary, explicitly endorsed civil nuclear power. David Cameron, the odds-on favourite to become the new Leader of the Opposition next week, has made much in his campaign of his willingness to cheer ministers “when they are right”, even if that is not always electorally expedient for him. Mr Blair has, if belatedly, arrived at the right place on nuclear energy. The Tories, and others concerned with the vital economic interests of the country, should welcome this shift in policy. [Print this article] [Send to a friend] [Back to top of page] [''] ALSO IN THIS SECTION Finding the energy Taken for a ride Hold that twinkle [''] [''] [''] RELATED STORIES November 21 2005 The nuclear nettle November 21 2005 How a pledge on greenhouse gases made Blair go nuclear November 21 2005 Are we right to fast-track new nuclear age? November 22 2005 Blair says time has come to go nuclear November 22 2005 Plans to go nuclear cut no ice with old enemies November 22 2005 If Britain goes nuclear, the greens will go ballistic November 23 2005 Who says nuclear power is clean? November 25 2005 UK's power policy goes critical November 27 2005 Warm to the rising price of gas November 27 2005 Scotland must face its nuclear destiny November 27 2005 Now for Blair's dodgy nuclear dossier November 28 2005 It's clean, it's cheap - warming to the appeal of nuclear power November 29 2005 Greenpeace disrupts Blair nuclear speech November 29 2005 The issue explained: Nuclear Energy November 29 2005 Blair launches energy policy review [''] [''] [''] [''] [''] ADVERTISEMENT [''] [''] [''] Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy . To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from The Times, visit the Syndication website. ***************************************************************** 14 NRC: NRC Proposes $60,000 Fine Against D.C. Cook for Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Information News Release - Region III - 2005-04 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III No. III-05-044 November 28, 2005 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $60,000 fine against Indiana Michigan Power Company for failing to provide complete and accurate information and meet reporting requirements for NRC-licensed operators at Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant. The plant is located near Bridgman, Mich. The violations were identified during an NRC inspection (NRC Inspection Report No. 05000315/2005006) conducted at D.C. Cook in spring and summer 2005 to review the plants reactor operator licensing program. The inspection also reviewed corrective actions undertaken to address a previous violation (EA-04-109 issued Sept. 29, 2004) in the same area. NRC inspectors identified three violations: (1) the utility had provided the NRC with incomplete and inaccurate information. The utility stated that a complete review of all operator medical records had been conducted and that no records that would require restrictions to operator licenses for medical reasons had been found. However, NRC inspectors identified three licensed operators who had medical conditions that would require their licenses to be restricted; (2) the utility had failed to notify the NRC about licensed operators experiencing a permanent illness within 30 days. Two NRC-licensed operators at the plant were diagnosed with potentially disqualifying medical conditions in 1998 and 2003. However, the NRC was not notified of these facts until 2005; (3) the utility also failed to provide the NRC with complete and accurate information on NRC reactor license applications. Applications submitted to the NRC for new, renewed and amended NRC licenses did not describe the individuals recently diagnosed medical conditions that would affect the conditions of these licenses. Reactor operators licensed by the NRC are entrusted with safe operation of nuclear reactors and must be capable of performing their assigned duties. For that reason, their physical condition and general health are significant concerns of the NRC and are closely monitored, said NRC Regional Administrator James Caldwell. Providing the NRC with accurate and timely information on changes in reactor operators health that may affect their ability to perform their duties is key to the agencys ability to fulfill its mission of protecting public health and safety. Indiana Michigan Power Company has taken such corrective actions as developing guidance for the submission of reactor operator application forms; revising administrative procedures to discuss regulatory requirements with the medical review officer prior to performing the annual medical records review; training operators on the requirements to report a change in medical condition. The notice to the utility on the enforcement action will be available online at http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/enforcement/current.html and from the NRC Region III Office of Public Affairs. D.C. Cook inspections reports are available through the NRCs online document collection, known as ADAMS, at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html by entering docket number 50-315 and 50-316. The utility has until December 18 to pay the fine or to protest it. If the fine is protested and subsequently imposed by the NRC staff, the utility may request a hearing. Last revised Tuesday, November 29, 2005 ***************************************************************** 15 RIA Novosti: NPP turbo generator closed down in Central Russia 29/ 11/ 2005 MOSCOW, November 29 (RIA Novosti) - A turbo generator from the fourth energy unit of the Novovoronezh Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) in Voronezh was shut down Tuesday by an automated protection system, Rosenergoatom, a state-owned nuclear power generating company, said in a statement Tuesday. The company said there were no safety violations in operating the NPP's energy units and the cause of the turbo generator's shut down is being studied. The Novovoronezh NPP, 550 km south of Moscow, was the first nuclear power plant in Russia to use water-cooled power reactors. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 16 BBC: Energy policy sparks opposition Last Updated: Tuesday, 29 November 2005 Analysis By Nick Assinder Political Correspondent, BBC News website Tony Blair already has a list of contentious policies on his pre-retirement agenda, yet he has now added one of the most controversial going - a possible revival of nuclear power. [Dounreay power station] Energy review will look at new nuclear stations As the Greenpeace demonstration so dramatically showed, if the prime minister opts to go down this route to bridging the energy gap, as many expect, he will have a serious fight on his hands. And it will not just be Greenpeace and other environmental groups who will lead the opposition to any proposal to start building new nuclear power stations. There are plenty of Labour backbenchers, led by former environment minister Michael Meacher, the Liberal Democrats and a significant number of ministers deeply opposed to any return to a nuclear energy programme. Indeed, the whole issue was once a core part of Labour policy. Current Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett is remembered as an old opponent although she insists she has an open mind on the issue, albeit with major reservations over cost and waste disposal. Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt and Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain are also believed to be opposed or at least have serious doubts. Only way On the prime minister's side, however, are Chancellor Gordon Brown - as long as he doesn't have to pay for any of it - Trade Secretary Alan Johnson and Defence Secretary John Reid. [Tony Blair at a Commons Liaison committee] Blair has prepared the ground for change But this is early days and, while it is believed the majority of the cabinet are prepared to back a return to nuclear, it would be rash to be too positive about how individual ministers might finally vote. Yet the prime minister is said to believe this is the only way to fill the looming energy gap and he has been preparing the ground for a debate on the issue for many months. The election manifesto included the pledge to review the role of nuclear, the prime minister highlighted it in his party conference speech in October and has returned to the subject on a number of occasions since, including at the Commons Liaison committee. Tuesday was supposed to be the day when he would formally unveil that review and kick off this most heated of debates. Well he got the second bit before he even managed to deliver his speech and as he said himself when he finally got to speak: "It is a difficult and challenging issue, but that is like most tough issues." It certainly is. And the demonstration is probably only the start. ***************************************************************** 17 BBC: Nuclear protest hits Blair speech Last Updated: Tuesday, 29 November 2005 [A Greenpeace protester in the roofing abov the CBI stage where Mr Blair was due to speak ] See demonstration Greenpeace protesters have disrupted a speech used by Tony Blair to launch an energy review which could lead to new nuclear power stations in the UK. Two protesters climbed up into the roof of the hall where Mr Blair was due to address the Confederation of British Industry conference. After a 48-minute delay, Mr Blair made his speech in a smaller side-hall. He said renewable sources could meet some but not all energy gaps and the review would examine nuclear options. At the end of the day I don give in to ultimatums Digby Jones CBI director general Blair starts nuclear debate In pictures: Opening his speech in a packed room in the Business Design Centre in Islington, London, Mr Blair said: "Nuclear power is of course a difficult and a challenging issue. "Like most tough issues what we actually need is an open and democratic debate, not one conducted by protests and demonstrations to stop people having the freedom to express their views." Amid the noise from clattering microphones and mobile phones ringing, Mr Blair joked: "This is going to be a surreal occasion... I'm going to give this speech if it's the last thing I do." Offer refused Greenpeace wanted to be allowed to make a 10-minute speech in return for ending the protest. But CBI director general Digby Jones decided to move the PM's speech instead, saying: "At the end of the day I don't give in to ultimatums." He said he had offered two "legitimate" Greenpeace delegates the chance to ask the prime minister the first question after his speech in return for ending their protest, but they had refused. [A protester balances on a roof girder ] A protester balances on a girder in the hall's roof The two protesters, wearing yellow jackets over their suits and with conference delegates' badges, appeared on girders in the roof about 20 minutes before Mr Blair was due to begin at 0930 GMT. One unfurled a banner saying: "Nuclear: Wrong Answer." They also dropped stickers onto the delegates below them. The men, both believed to be trained climbers, were attached by loops of rope to the roof girders. 'Disgrace' Greenpeace named the protesters as Huw Williams and Nyls Verhauelt. They have now been arrested and taken to a London police station. Mr Verhauelt said: "We should have a democratic right to have a voice here as well. This was the only way we could say what we wanted to say." Nuclear debate CBI deputy director general John Cridland condemned the protest as "quite disgraceful". He said the two men had posed as employees of a fictitious company, E-Lingo and had booked for the conference as delegates last week. Mr Cridland said "it would be a sad day" if every company had to be checked out before being granted access but the CBI would be holding a full review of security. Metal detectors and x-ray machines were used at the conference, and delegates' bags were searched on entry. The CBI says initial investigations show the men entered the building wearing climbing harnesses, concealed beneath their clothes. These would not be detected by the security equipment. Nuclear focus The prime minister is believed to view nuclear power as a way to improve the security of the UK's energy supply and also help to meet UK greenhouse gas targets. Business chiefs want a quick decision. Green groups say there are cleaner and safer alternatives to fossil fuels. Mr Blair said the energy review would be headed by the Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks and report by the middle of next year. The review would "include specifically the issue of whether we facilitate the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations", he said. ***************************************************************** 18 BBC: Nuclear plans could generate rift Last Updated: Tuesday, 29 November 2005 [Dounreay Nuclear Power Plant] The issue of waste could delay new nuclear power stations in Scotland A new generation of nuclear power stations could cause political tensions between Scotland and Westminster - and within the Scottish cabinet. More atomic stations are expected following Tony Blair's announcement on Britain's future energy needs. However, the Scottish Executive has made it clear that it would not accept new stations until the issue of waste disposal was solved. According to experts, this could take about 20 years. The prime minister is believed to view nuclear power as a way to improve the security of the UK's energy supply and also help to meet greenhouse gas targets. He announced a major review of energy policy in an address to business leaders in London on Tuesday that would "include specifically the issue of whether we facilitate the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations". On cost and waste ground nuclear power is not the answer for Scotland Sir Robert Smith Lib Dem energy spokesman However, First Minister Jack McConnell has repeatedly said: "We are not prepared to consider a new nuclear power station in Scotland until the issue of waste is successfully resolved". Those opposing views look set to create political tensions between Westminster and Scotland's devolved parliament over the future of energy provision north of the border. Energy policy is reserved to Westminster, but land use planning is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. If the UK Government decides to press ahead with nuclear plans following the review, the Scottish Executive would have the final say over where and when any new power stations could be built. Tension is also predicted between Scotland's Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition partners. The Lib Dems have hardened their position over nuclear power while many analysts feel Scotland's Labour members could be persuaded to fall into line with Westminster plans. 'Dangerous and expensive' Sir Robert Smith, Lib Dem energy spokesman, said: "It is clear that Tony Blair has already decided to support more nuclear power stations. "But the final decision about new nuclear power stations in Scotland is devolved to the Scottish Executive. He said that the Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Executive coalition government opposed the development of new nuclear power stations. The Scottish National Party's leader Alex Salmond said Scotland had vast resources for renewable energy and that there was no need to take part in "Blair's nuclear gamble". He added: "It is a dangerous and expensive source of energy." [Wind farm in Lanarkshire] Green groups want more renewable energy initiatives Green groups are also unhappy with the plan for more nuclear power and have said there should be moves towards cleaner and safer energy methods. Friends of the Earth Scotland said any fair review of energy policy would rule out nuclear power. Duncan McLaren, chief executive, said: "Nuclear power cannot save the world from climate change. Returning to nuclear will simply hamper real action to reduce energy demand, develop better alternatives and tackle climate chaos." His stance was backed by Dr Richard Dixon, director of WWF Scotland. Dr Dixon said: "Nuclear power is too little, too late, too dangerous and too expensive. "Wasting money on more nuclear reactors would distract from the real task of investing in improved energy efficiency and clean renewable technologies. "Scotland has more potential for renewable energy than anywhere else in Europe, we would have to be insane to ignore that and go back to nuclear power." Green MSP Chris Ballance added: "The arguments for nuclear power still don't stand up to scrutiny, and rely on the use of grossly misleading distortions to cover up the gaping holes in the argument. "On the grounds of cost, nuclear power is a financial quagmire which will hold back proper investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency - and it will bleed the taxpayer again as it has done for decades." ***************************************************************** 19 BBC: Blair opens new nuclear options Last Updated: Tuesday, 29 November 2005 [Dungeness nuclear power station] Mr Blair says there is "feverish rethinking" over energy policy Prime Minister Tony Blair has launched a review of UK energy needs which could pave the way for a new generation of nuclear power stations. He told the Confederation of British Industry renewable sources could fill some but not all energy gaps. The prime minister is believed to be convinced of the case for nuclear. Business groups want a quick decision but green campaigners oppose the move. His speech was delayed by Greenpeace protesters in the conference hall. Mr Blair had to make his speech in a different hall after the protesters climbed into the roof at the Business Design Centre in Islington, London. Agenda change Mr Blair said nuclear power was a difficult issue but should be settled by open debate, not protests to stop free speech. The energy review would be headed by the Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks and report by the middle of next year, he announced. It would measure the UK's progress against a review carried out two years ago. QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW Security and supply o energy Carbon dioxide emissions Affordability Plugging the energy gap And it would "include specifically the issue of whether we facilitate the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations", he said. Mr Blair said energy policy was "back on the agenda with a vengeance". "Round the world you can hear the heavy sound of feverish rethinking," he said. "Energy prices have risen. Energy supply is under threat. Climate change is producing a sense of urgency." Gas gaps? Mr Blair warned that "by around 2020 the UK is likely to have seen decommissioning of coal and nuclear plants that together generate over 30% of today's electricity supply". "Some of this will be replaced by renewables, but not all of it can," he argued. The last energy review was in 2003 but since then ministers say Britain has moved from being self-sufficient in gas to being a gas importer. Mr Blair said the gas market would be "tight" if this winter was as cold as forecasters predicted. Domestic gas customers and most businesses would not be affected but work was under way to help big gas users face possible problems, he added. Decision time BBC political editor Nick Robinson says the prime minister has been convinced that building more nuclear power stations is the only way to meet energy needs and stick to the targets on climate change. The UK could be a world lead in developing a low-carbon nuclear-free economy Tony Juniper Friends of the Earth But Mr Wicks said neither he nor the prime minister had made up their minds. The minister said his review would look at nuclear power along with renewables, coal, gas and new technologies. It will also cover energy efficiency and cutting carbon emissions from transport. Unlike the 2003 review, Mr Wicks said there would be firm proposals on the balance of energy - in other words, a firm yes or no about nuclear. 'Overdue' Last week Mr Blair's chief scientific adviser Sir David King publicly called for the government to give the green light for new nuclear power stations. Any moves to do so would provoke strong opposition from some Labour MPs. Ex-Environment Minister Michael Meacher has argued nuclear power is expensive, a terrorist target and produced hazardous waste. Conservative shadow energy minister Bernard Jenkin said the review was long overdue. If nuclear was efficient, it should be provided by the private sector. If it was not, the new plants would not be built, said Mr Jenkin. Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy warned that it had cost Ł56bn to clean up existing UK nuclear plants. "The case for revisiting civil nuclear power has not been made by what the prime minister has said and I am very sceptical about this review," he said. Environmentalists Friends of the Earth are pushing for a programme to reduce electricity waste, be more efficient with fossil fuels and increase renewable energy use. ***************************************************************** 20 BBC: Head-to-head: Nuclear power Last Updated: Tuesday, 29 November 2005 Full transcript of the debate on nuclear power on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, featuring Andrew Simms of the New Economics Foundation and former Downing Street press secretary and nuclear power supporter Sir Bernard Ingham. Andrew Simms The nuclear resurrection is a gravity-defying trick worthy of the illusionist, David Blaine. Promoted as the answer to climate change and energy security, it is neither. As a response to global warming, it is too slow, too expensive and too limited. And, in an age of terrorist threats and creeping proliferation, think Iran, it is more of a risk than a solution. The voodoo economics used to justify nuclear power underestimates its real costs by at least a factor of three. Consider this: pound for pound of investment, new nuclear would generate less energy, create fewer jobs and reduce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a wide range of renewable energy technologies, combined heat and power generators and, effectively, energy-efficiency too. Nuclear also has a dirty little secret: startlingly there's only a few decades left of the proven high-grade uranium ore it needs for fuel. It's also far less climate-friendly than claimed. Once low-grade ore is used, costs go up and all the energy used from mining to decommissioning means it can lead to more carbon emissions than fossil fuel-powered gas generators. Perversely, nuclear could even hasten global warming. The government's own Performance and Innovation Unit warned that subsidising nuclear could set back better, smaller-scale alternatives which could turn every home and business into a climate-friendly power station. Finland, the only western country with a new nuclear programme, was officially criticised last year by the International Energy Agency for failing its renewable energy plan. Their carbon emissions are also rising. Nuclear's last great hope, the Thorp reprocessing facility, designed to help the industry pay, is already closed and costing millions. If Tony Blair writes the blank cheque needed to resurrect nuclear power, it will be the biggest financial scam since Enron, but far more deadly. Sir Bernard Ingham Nuclear power is economically unattractive, th government has parroted up to now. It is of course nonsense. According to the Royal Academy of Engineering, supported by other studies, nuclear was only marginally dearer than gas-generated electricity before the recent huge increases in gas prices. Now it is the cheapest option, especially when the environmental costs of other fuels are taken into account. It is the cheapest, even though the climate change levy is irrationally imposed upon it, since it is the cleanest of all methods of electricity generation. And it is the cheapest, even though uniquely it reflects its estimated environmental costs in its current price. About 4% of the price you pay for nuclear electricity is set aside for dealing with decommissioning of plants and waste disposal. Ministers have had a monstrous cheek in dismissing nuclear on economic grounds when they are pouring billions of good money after bad in subsidies into unreliable, intermittent and therefore basically mucky wind power. Nuclear doesn't want subsidies but it does need government help with such things as licensing reactors, identifying sites for new power stations, clarifying the market regime within which it must operate and of course identifying the site for the disposal of long-term waste. If they have their way, anti-nukes will not merely bankrupt Britain through grossly expensive wind and gas-generated electricity, they will also wreck our economy and prosperity by closing half the generating capacity that uses coal and nuclear. That will leave a huge gap in our supplies in 10 to 20 years' time and then we shall discover what is the dearest electricity in the world - power that is not there at the touch of a switch. We need nuclear for a secure, competitive, cleaner future. ***************************************************************** 21 BBC: Business cheers for Blair energy review Last Updated: Tuesday, 29 November 2005 By Jorn Madslien BBC News business reporter at the CBI conference in London [Greenpeace protester in gas mask outside CBI conference] Greenpeace staged a military-style protest outside the conference It came as no surprise when CBI director general Sir Digby Jones took a tough stance against the Greenpeace protesters who had disrupted Prime Minster Tony Blair's speech on energy policy and other issues. "I don't give in to ultimatums," Sir Digby declared. "I'm not gonna have this." But his next manoeuvre proved wily. By shifting the entire convention away from the main hall, where two Greenpeace climbers were refusing to come down from the ceiling, he achieved two things. One, he shifted everyone's attention away from the Greenpeace protest. Two, he provided Mr Blair with a perfect opportunity to charm some of the nation's foremost business leaders. Charm offensive Addressing the scrum of besuited executives in a large, narrow hall adjacent to the main conference area, Mr Blair took full advantage of the very British sense of camaraderie, similar to that experienced by commuters stranded in a train trapped by a blizzard. [CBI director general Sir Digby Jones] Sir Digby Jones moved swiftly to reschedule proceedings "That's one way to get his ratings up," said one businessman. "It is testimony to the prime minister's flexibility, his ability to just rejig like that," added a businesswoman. Mr Blair was positively beaming as Sir Digby led him onto a makeshift podium, before a hastily-organised broadcast camera. "This is going to be a surreal occasion, but I'm going to give this speech if it's the last thing I do," he quipped into the crackling microphones, before turning to his fellow CBI guests, Estonian Prime Minister Andrus Ansip and Czech Prime Minister Jiri Paroubek. "I just wanted to tell you, it's not always like this." New energy sources Mr Blair talked on a range of issues, ranging from globalisation and free trade issues ahead of next month's World Trade Organization meeting in Hong Kong to the performance of the UK economy, the Turner report on pension policy and transport. [Tony Blair at the CBI conference] Tony Blair gave a wide-ranging speech And last, but not least, the prime minister turned to the contentious issue of energy policy that had sparked the Greenpeace protest in the first place. "I have no doubt where policy is heading, here, in the US, across the emerging economies of the world," Mr Blair declared. "The future is clean energy." In the next 15 years, coal and nuclear plants that generate nearly a third of Britain's electricity supply will be decommissioned, so new energy sources must be found, Mr Blair explained. "Some of this will be replaced by renewables, but not all of it can," he said, before announcing the terms of a review of the UK's progress against previously set goals. "It will include specifically the issue of whether we facilitate the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations," Mr Blair said. Energy shortage Greenpeace and other sceptics, including several members of parliament, believe Mr Blair has already decided to go for the nuclear option to replace the 14 power stations that are due to be shut down by 2020. "You cannot do that without expecting a fight," observed Greenpeace's Jim Footner speaking outside the conference hall in Islington, North London, where protesters dressed in military-style combat boots and gas masks continued a quiet demonstration. Greenpeace also accused the CBI of exaggerating this winter's anticipated energy shortage in order to build support for the nuclear option. [Greenpeace protester at the CBI conference] Greenpeace protesters took to the rafters in the main hall "The CBI... has been exploiting the gas shortage issue to get nuclear power," Mr Footner insisted, an accusation fervently denied by Sir Digby. "I am very pleased [Mr Blair] has started a debate on nuclear energy. That's all he's done," Sir Digby said. But he also acknowledged that "business is worried" about a future energy shortage, and it is no secret that many executives would welcome the certainty of supplies offered by 24/7 nuclear power stations. Others appeared to be dismayed at the way the government is prepared to consider further investment into the nuclear industry, where almost certainly a massive subsidy commitment would be required. Following Mr Blair's speech, one businessman asked whether he would consider helping UK oil companies extract more of the nation's own reserves from the North Sea. "It is difficult for us to create artificial support for our own oil industry if we are importing cheaper [oil and gas] from elsewhere," Mr Blair said. ***************************************************************** 22 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to Meet Dec. 7-10 in Rockville, Maryland News Release - 2005-16 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-160 November 28, 2005 Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a public meeting Dec. 7-10 in Rockville, Md., to discuss, among other items, the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant request to increase power output by 20 percent. The committee will also discuss the early site permit application and safety evaluation report for the Grand Gulf nuclear power plant. The meeting will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agencys Two White Flint North building, at 11545 Rockville Pike. On Wednesday, the session will run from 1 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. The Thursday session will run from 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. The Friday session will run from 8:30 a.m. to 6:45 p.m and the Saturday session will run from 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. A complete agenda will be available on the NRCs Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/agenda/2005/. Requests for videoteleconferencing should be directed to Theron Brown, at 301-415-8066. Anyone with questions or those wanting to make public statements during the meeting should contact Sam Duraiswamy at 301-415-7364. The ACRS, as mandated by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, advises the Commission on licensing, the operation of nuclear power plants and related safety issues. Last revised Monday, November 28, 2005 ***************************************************************** 23 FT.com: Blair seeks to avoid nuclear plants vote By Christopher Adams and Jean Eaglesham Published: November 29 2005 22:05 | [nuclear] Tony Blair has been told he can rush through plans for a new generation of nuclear power plants without fresh legislation, a step that would head off a clash in parliament and greatly speed up private investment. Downing Street is believed to favour at least a limited programme of investment in nuclear power, if only to maintain its share of the overall energy mix. Senior Whitehall officials told the Financial Times that a bill authorising new nuclear plants would not be necessary were the cabinet to give its backing. “If you wanted to build a new nuclear plant, you would need planning consent, you would have to get design approval and you would need consent from shareholders. But there’s no legislative block on doing it,” said one of the officials. The prime minister yesterday launched a wide-ranging review of Britain’s energy needs. The review is due to be completed in just over six months and is expected to lead to new nuclear power stations coming onstream within 20 years. Mr Blair – who was forced by a dramatic Greenpeace protest to make his speech to the CBI conference in a side room – promised “a policy statement” on energy by early next summer. He insisted that the new review would be an open, public debate. But he also gave a strong hint of the government’s intentions, telling business leaders that Malcolm Wicks, the energy minister leading the study, would look specifically at whether to encourage private investment in new nuclear plants. Rising energy prices, dwindling supplies of oil and gas and the urgent need to tackle climate change had spurred a “feverish rethinking” of energy policy worldwide, Mr Blair said. On its own, renewable power would not be able to plug the gap. Without the need for legislation, the new nuclear plants could be built much more quickly. A government spokesman said there had been no need for a parliamentary bill authorising plants at Dungeness, Sizewell and Morecambe Bay. Although the prime minister will leave a decision on this until the summer, the assumption among MPs is that a bill would follow any endorsement of new plants. Rushing through regulatory reform would cut the construction timetable by a year or more and remove at a single stroke any lingering uncertainty for the private sector about the government’s intentions. However, the prospect of being denied a vote will anger many Labour MPs. Some 41 of the party’s backbenchers have signed a Commons motion opposing new power stations on the grounds that the “massive public subsidies” involved would be better spent on developing alternative renewable energy sources. © Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2005. "FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times. ***************************************************************** 24 Portsmouth Herald Local News: Seabrook Station given dirty distinction Tue. November 29, 2005 By Susan Morse smorse@seacoastonline.com SEABROOK - The Seabrook Station nuclear power plant today was expected to receive one of the 2005 Dirty Dozen Awards from a Boston environmental advocacy group. A presentation was scheduled to be made today at 1 p.m. at the Route 1A parking lot just south of the Hampton Harbor bridge. Toxics Action Center’s Web site says it helps neighborhood groups fight toxic pollution in their communities. Seabrook Station was notified it was on the list of the Dirty Dozen on Monday, according to Toxics Action Center spokesman Paul Schramski. "Our feeling here, the people of New Hampshire see this for exactly what it is, it’s a publicity stunt," said plant spokesman Al Griffith. "There’s no credibility to any of this." The Toxics Action Center says a Centers for Disease Control study has found for residents within 30 miles of Seabrook, childhood cancer rates rose by almost 20 percent in the last decade. "I’m not aware of any report like that," said Griffith. They use words like ‘initial report’ and ‘appears to confirm.’ It’s a trust issue. There’s feeling in some sectors, people at Seabrook Station are not capable of doing the right thing. For anybody to think for a moment we would overlook something is preposterous." This is the ninth year the center has spotlighted 12 of what it and a center-selected panel of environmental and public health professionals consider "egregious polluters," according to Schramski. Seabrook was chosen because it releases low-level radioactive emissions, he said. The Toxics Action Center wants Seabrook Station to invest in radiological monitoring devices for nearby communities to measure the amount of radiation the plant releases. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts pays for monitoring devices in areas just across the border from the plant. Seabrook Station already has 100 real-time radiation monitors in place at the plant site, said Griffith. "The reason why the state voted against monitoring over and above what is in place ... the federally mandated radiation program that is in place now is extremely comprehensive. To have a redundant system over and above that is a waste of time and resources." In addition, environmental sampling of water, milk, crops, clams and mussels within a 20-mile radius of the plant is done regularly, he said. Twelve sites chosen in New England this year include the Peirce Island Sewage Treatment Plant in Portsmouth, the Wheelabrator dump in Concord and the Concord Regional Solid Waste Resource Recovery Cooperative. Seacoast Online is owned and operated by Seacoast Media Group. Copyright © 2005 Seacoast Online. All rights reserved. Please ***************************************************************** 25 Independent: Greenpeace protest on nuclear energy forces Blair to switch venue By Colin Brown and Michael Harrison Published: 30 November 2005 [Greenpeace protest on nuclear energy forces Blair to switch venue] Greenpeace UK: 'Nuclear power is costly, dangerous and a terrorist target In a speech delayed and disrupted by Greenpeace protesters, Tony Blair told the CBI that the prospect of building a new generation of nuclear power stations in Britain was "back on the agenda with a vengeance". Planning controls will be streamlined to speed up the construction of nuclear power stations if a fresh review of energy announced by Mr Blair gives the green light to a new generation of nuclear plants. Cutting short established planning protocol will bring further protests from environmental lobby groups which are determined to fight the expansion of nuclear power. Yesterday, just after 9am, two protesters from Greenpeace scaled the steel rafters of the Business Design Centre in Islington, north London, where the CBI conference was being held, and began showering the delegates below with anti-nuclear confetti ­ small squares of paper bearing the message " Nuclear Wrong Answer". The demonstrators, both seasoned climbers, then attached themselves to the rafters, unfurled an anti-nuclear banner and sat there, preventing Mr Blair from taking to the podium to announce his long-awaited review of nuclear power. The delegates eventually moved to a smaller room. Speaking from a hastily erected podium, Mr Blair confirmed details of the energy review, saying: "Round the world, you can sense feverish rethinking. Energy prices have risen. Energy supply is under threat. Climate change is producing a sense of urgency." The review will be led by the Energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, and will aim to publish a statement on future policy in the early summer of 2006. " It will include specifically the issue of whether we facilitate the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations," Mr Blair said. He acknowledged that nuclear power was a "difficult and challenging" issue, adding: "What we need is a serious debate, not one conducted by protest or demonstration to stop people expressing their views." The Government will look at nuclear power along with renewables and coal, gas and new technologies as part of the review, Mr Wicks said. The move, which comes nearly three years after the last landmark investigation into the country's power supplies, would also include transport and the role of energy efficiency. The aim of the review was to ensure "clean, reliable, affordable energy supplies for the long term" , said Mr Wicks. Stephen Tindale, director of Greenpeace UK, said: "Nuclear power is not the answer to climate change ­ it's costly, dangerous and a terrorist target. Just three years ago, Blair conducted the biggest energy review in 60 years, which concluded renewable energy and energy efficiency, not nuclear, is the way forward. Today's new review is a smokescreen for pushing his new-found enthusiasm for nuclear power." Sir Digby Jones, CBI director general, said: "This country urgently needs a revamped and coherent energy policy which includes a clear decision on nuclear power. What matters to businesses is secure and affordable energy supplies for the long term, so that they can compete." Mr Wicks gave a strong hint that the Government would try to structure the energy market to make nuclear power appear more competitive on economic grounds with alternative technologies, such as wind and wave power or gas. "If we go down the nuclear road, then the economics of it will need to be considered very carefully. What is clear is the Treasury are not going to write the cheques. There will have to be private investment coming forward, but of course there will need to be some special relation between the market and the state in this area," Mr Wicks said. A separate review has been ordered by the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, on the economics of climate change by Sir Nicholas Stern, head of the Government Economic Service, which may challenge the Wicks inquiry findings. © 2005 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 26 Green Bay Press-Gazette: Nuclear plant back in service Posted November 29, 2005 TWO CREEKS — Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 1 returned to full service Saturday after completion of scheduled maintenance, refueling and replacement of the reactor vessel head. Employees and contractors performed more than 1,500 preventive maintenance and modification activities and replaced one-third of the plant's fuel assemblies. The two-unit Point Beach site generates 1,036 megawatts of electricity. It is one of five nuclear plants operated by Nuclear Management Co. of Hudson. Point Beach is owned by We Energies, Milwaukee. — Richard Ryman/Press-Gazette greenbaypressgazette.com is a Gannett Companywebsite. Service and Privacy Policy, updated June 7, 2005. Appleton Post-Crescent| Fond du Lac Reporter| Green Bay ***************************************************************** 27 AFP: British PM announces nuclear-focused energy review Tue Nov 29, 8:58 AM ET LONDON (AFP) - Prime Minister Tony Blair" /> Tony Blairannounced a sweeping review of Britain's energy needs that will specifically look into the option of building new nuclear power stations. Blair -- who is reportedly in favour of resurrecting Britain's nuclear energy programme -- gave his strongest hint yet that nuclear combined with renewable sources like wind power could be the way forward. His speech, however, was delayed for about an hour after two protesters from the environmental campaign group Greenpeace scaled the roof of the auditorium at the central London conference venue. In a widely-trailed announcement, he told the Confederation of British Industry (CBI)'s annual conference that the review would look into Britain's progress against the medium- and long-term energy goals and report by mid-2006. "It will include specifically the issue of whether we facilitate the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations," Blair stated. Greenpeace protesters, holding banners and dropping tickertape stating "Nuclear: wrong answer", refused to come down from their perch in the rafters ahead of Blair's speech. Digby Jones, the CBI's director general, told delegates the pair -- whose supporters stood outside dressed in radiation suits and gas masks -- said they would come down if they were allowed to make a 10-minute speech. "I'm not prepared to accept that," he said. "I don't give in to ultimatums. No-one has a right that's special (compared) to anyone else." The venue for Blair's speech was hastily switched to a cramped antechamber after the protesters also refused an opportunity to ask Blair questions. Undeterred, but calling for his opponents to engage in a "serious, open and democratic debate", Blair said action on energy supply was needed because of rising prices, dwindling supplies and climate change. "The future is clean energy and nations will look to diversify out of energy dependence on one source," he told delegates, who were forced to stand to hear. "By around 2020 the UK is likely to have seen decommissioning of coal and nuclear plants that together generate over 30 percent of Britain's current electricity supply. "Some of this will be replaced by renewables but not all of it can." A switch to nuclear would be a major policy shift for Blair, who is said to have been influenced on the need for new nuclear reactors and power stations by his chief scientific adviser Sir David King. Britain has about a dozen nuclear power stations, most of them built in the 1960s and 1970s, providing about 25 percent of the country's energy needs compared with natural gas which provides about 40 percent. Among the arguments for new reactors -- which emit virtually no carbon dioxide -- is that they would help in the British government's pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent of 1990 levels by 2010. But any new nuclear build is likely to spark strong protests, notably from environmentalists and even within Blair's governing Labour Party, particularly over the issue of nuclear waste. ***************************************************************** 28 AFP: Anti-nuclear protests stall Blair energy speech Tue Nov 29, 5:04 AM ET LONDON (AFP) - Anti-nuclear protesters scaled the roof of a conference centre in London where Prime Minister Tony Blair" /> Tony Blairwas to launch a sweeping review of Britain's energy policy. One of the two protesters was seen unfurling a Greenpeace banner reading "Nuclear: Wrong answer" during the protest at the Confederation of British Industry conference in Islington, north London. The demonstration delayed the start of Blair's speech, in which he was expected to say that the much-anticipated energy review must look at all possible options, including the building of new nuclear power stations. Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 29 NRC: NRC Renews Millstone Nuclear Power Station Operating Licenses for an Additional 20 Years News Release - 2005-16 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-161 November 28, 2005 licenses of the Millstone Power Station, Units 2 and 3, for an additional 20 years. The Millstone plant is located about 3 miles southwest of New London, Conn. The licensee, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., submitted its license renewal applications on Jan. 20, 2004. With the renewal, the license for Unit 2 is extended to July 31, 2035, and the license for Unit 3 is extended to Nov. 25, 2045. The NRCs environmental review for this license renewal is described in a site-specific supplement to the NRCs Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-1437, Supplement 22), issued in July. The review concluded there were no environmental impacts that would preclude renewal of the licenses for environmental reasons. A public meeting to discuss the environmental review was held near the plant on Jan. 11. After carefully reviewing the plants safety systems and specifications, the staff concluded that there were no safety concerns that would preclude license renewal, because the licensee had demonstrated the capability to manage the effects of plant aging. The Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of the Millstone Power Station, Units 2 and 3 (NUREG-1838), was published in October. In addition, NRC conducted inspections of the plants to verify information submitted by the licensee. The reports relating to the Millstone renewal are available on the NRC Web site at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati ons/millstone.html. On Sept. 22, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards an independent body of technical experts which advises the Commission issued its recommendation that the operating license for Millstone be renewed. That recommendation is contained in Report on the Safety Aspects of the License Renewal Applications for the Millstone Power Station, Units 2 and 3. This document is available on the NRC Web site at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/letters/2005/. The Millstone renewals bring the total number of renewals to 37 reactor units. A complete listing of renewal applications can be found on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati ons.html. Last revised Monday, November 28, 2005 ***************************************************************** 30 CTK: Environment Ministry approves storing spent fuel in Temelin CTK council 18:03 - 29.11.2005 CESKE BUDEJOVICE- The Czech Environment Ministry on Monday agreed with the construction of an intermediate storage facility for spent fuel on the premises of the Temelin nuclear power plant by 2014, the ministry spokeswoman Karolina Sulova said. The Environment Ministry gave its approval in a finding issued as part of the proposed construction's official Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. The construction's opponents from among environmental and civic activists disapprove of the ministry's finding and have not ruled out challenging further steps taken in preparation of the construction in court. "The Environment Ministry issued its approval on Monday, attaching a number of comments to its finding," Sulova said. The finding states that, in its planned form, the facility sufficiently protects against ionising radiation, does not negatively affect the health of the local population and does not harm the surrounding natural habitat. The document goes on to describe the proposed form of spent fuel storage as optimal and appropriate. However, anti-Temelin activists refuse these findings, pointing out that the Environment Ministry did not accept most of their critical remarks regarding the facility's safety and its negative impact on the social and economic atmosphere of the area. The activists argue that, based on their remarks, the ministry should have blocked the EIA process. "It evokes 'jolly good nuclear optimism'. The ministry accepted the pro-nuclear stance of those preparing the proposed construction's documentation and its expert appraisal. This is so even though Environment Minister Libor Ambrozek says it is necessary to respect the opinions of people in the region. They disregarded the people that were actively opposed to the construction. This approach is far from our idea of democracy," Dana Kuchtova from Jihoceske matky (south-Bohemian mothers), an environmentalist association, said. She added that the association will do all it can to overturn the planned construction. Several residents of the village of Temelin have earlier requested that citizens be given the opportunity to voice their opinion about the proposed construction in a local referendum. However, representatives of the Temelin nuclear power plant have refused to hold a referendum and their stance has been upheld by the regional court in Ceske Budejovice, south Bohemia. The referendum's preparatory committee challenged the regional court's ruling in the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court has not yet decided about the case. "A final solution to the storage of spent nuclear fuel is still not in sight, despite optimistic statements made by representatives of the nuclear energy industry. The storage facility in Temelin is likely to be in use for longer than is currently planned. Its impact on the environment should therefore now be assessed even more thoroughly, which did not happen," stated Edvard Sequens from the Calla association. Temelin power plant spokesman Milan Nebesar said that the CEZ energy company, the power plant's operator, has obtained the Environment Ministry's finding and is now awaiting an assessment by the European Commission (EC). Once CEZ receives a statement from the EC, it will approach the State Office for Nuclear Safety with a request that it approve the storage facility's location. "I expect that to happen by the end of the year. Only then can we officially request that the responsible construction office begin the necessary administrative proceedings regarding the area, which could probably take place in the spring," said Nebesar. He described the fact that the ministry's finding expects the storage facility to cause no environmental damage as positive. "It can therefore be ruled out that the proposed facility's environmental impact could transcend the country's border," added the spokesman. The Temelin intermediate storage facility should begin operation in 2014. The facility should be able to store 1,370 tonnes of spent fuel. The two blocs of the Temelin nuclear power plant are expected to produce that amount together over the next 30 years. Temelin technicians currently store the power plant's spent uranium fuel elements in a pool inside the reactor, where the heat output of the complied elements is decreased and where the fuel's activity is also lowered. The longevity of Temelin's planned intermediate storage facility is roughly 60 years. An intermediate storage facility similar to the one CEZ plans to construct in Temelin, albeit smaller, has been in operation on the premises of the nuclear power plant in Dukovany, south Moravia, since 1995. latest news [Ceskenoviny.cz - Czech Happennings] Selection of CTK news stories can be found at www.ceskenoviny.cz. If you are interested in the full agency service, please contact CTK sales department. reklama site map | copyright 2005 CTK ***************************************************************** 31 Telegraph: The key questions on energy Gas prices are rising, North Sea gas production has declined quicker than expected and Britain is now a net importer of gas. Within a few years, it will become an importer of oil, too. Gas supplies are already tight for this winter - Malcolm Wicks, the energy minister, is expected to be banging the table at a meeting of EU energy ministers soon because of anti-competitive practices in the continental gas market. So energy security is back on the agenda. Why can't we just buy gas or oil on the world market? Much of the gas we will need in future comes from unstable regions of the world, principally Russia, or is transported across them. This can lead to price rises in times of political instability. Climate change agreements, such as the successor to Kyoto being negotiated in Montreal this week, are likely to mean we need to emit less carbon from fossil fuels, meaning we cannot burn more coal. Why did we ever stop building nuclear power stations then? Nuclear power never lived up to early promises that it would be too cheap to meter. The last nuclear power station built in Britain, Sizewell B, took 10 years to get through the planning system and its costs rose from Ł1.3 billion to Ł3 billion in the process. The cost of disposing of the civil nuclear industry's legacy of waste is estimated to be Ł56 billion - far too much for anyone but the Government to pay for. Fear of future public liabilities, and concern about nuclear power facilities being a target for terrorists, have put nuclear programmes worldwide on hold until now. So what is the big advantage of nuclear power? Total predictability and the total absence of carbon dioxide emissions. The nuclear "baseload" - now about 30 per cent of all power generation - gives the market stability. Why didn't we start thinking about renewing these stations a bit earlier? You may well ask. Britain's ageing Magnox nuclear power stations are going to be decommissioned by 2010 for reasons of age and international environmental commitments. The rest will follow. Yet the 2003 White Paper ducked building more, even though a realistic lead time for this was 10-15 years. The Government has been accused of ducking the crucial waste issue, too, kicking it into its third term after the Tories turned down an experimental shaft at Sellafield in 1997. A Government committee, given the remit of examining all sorts of impractical options for disposing of nuclear waste, including firing it into space, will report in 2006. Few believe it will recommend anything other than a secure hole in the rock, which is where we were before. How do we know whether we should have nuclear rather than new, clean technologies? That is what this review will supposedly help us decide. Tidal, solar, wind and biomass energy are either carbon free or carbon neutral and might genuinely be as economic, or cheaper, than nuclear. zMinisters insisted yesterday that they would be evaluating tidal technology, one of the most promising, with a timescale for development similar to nuclear power stations, as well as nuclear technology. © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005. Terms &Conditions ***************************************************************** 32 Telegraph: Nuclear power is good - in Finland Opinion | The Finns no longer want to rely on gas from neighbouring Russia to heat their 1.5 million saunas, and are laying the foundations for the world's most powerful plant. They have a neat and well-thought-out plan. Local paper makers and chemical manufacturers, which are desperate for a constant stream of electricity, will pick up the Ł2 billion bill. They will then take all the juice the plant produces when it is finished in four years' time. The nuclear waste will be kept on the island, where there is a 100m-deep repository. The locals are delighted by the idea, and underbid another town for the contract to bury the bright yellow barrels. By contrast, our nuclear policy is a mess. Tony Blair has finally warmed to an atomic future, but nowadays there are no electricity companies that want those glowing green sticks anywhere near them. It is not the waste they are worried about - there are lots of snazzy new reactors that produce only a tenth of the radioactive gunk that comes out of the present generation. The experts say they will cost far less to clean up than the Ł50 billion bill the Government is faced with. Their fear is that building nuclear power stations could be severely hazardous to their financial health. On Olkiluoto, the numbers are easy to crunch. The buyers have paid for their electricity up front. Over here, the sums are impossible to work out. Since we have a free market for electricity, the price wobbles precariously. In the past year, the price has gone up a third, but there is no guarantee it will not fall back. It is true that the cost of building a nuclear plant has fallen substantially. A typical station now costs Ł1.5 billion, but, as the pro-nuclear lobby points out, there are efficiencies of scale. Discounts can be haggled for a bulk purchase. Using the existing sites for the new stations will bring savings on the wires connecting them up. However, only a foolhardy investor would borrow that much money up front, with no possibility of a return while the station is being built. Construction can take up to 15 years. Planning applications have to be made even if current sites are used, and there is every chance of a problem with the builders. No one, after all, has built a nuclear power station since Sizewell B was finished 10 years ago, and British contractors are very good at delivering large projects late and over-budget. Then there is the rather large risk that the station will not be profitable. Even the nuke-fanciers admit there are only certain situations in which nuclear power is more economical than gas. We are in the middle of one right now. The gas price has spiked during the current cold snap to an all-time record. At the moment, Britain's 14 nuclear power stations are coining it, and British Energy, their operator, has come back from the brink of collapse to turn a profit. Things change, however, and there is every likelihood that today's shortage of gas will turn into tomorrow's glut. Two years of high gas prices is not a sufficient signal for a 50-year investment in a new nuclear fleet. Indeed, the high gas prices have prompted a wave of investment to fill the gap. There is an imminent pipeline from Norway that will deliver six billion cubic feet of gas every year - or roughly the same volume that Norway burns each year. That will drive the price down. So will the enormous tankers that have started to arrive at the mouth of the Thames to disgorge more gas from Algeria, Qatar and Egypt. The argument that nuclear power is more secure than gas is also overstated. The unstable parts of the world that contain our gas supply are usually not all unstable at the same time. Besides which, they need our money as much as we need their gas. The market has made up its mind. Several companies are building new gas plants. These are a third of the price of a nuclear station, and take only two years to build. Wind farms are also sprouting up. The whole of Scotland is scheduled for blanket coverage. These windmills are cheap to erect, and win staggering incentives from poorly designed government initiatives. Those incentives filled the sails (and pockets) of the wind-power industry, and it may be that Mr Blair decides to do the same for nuclear power. After all, atomic energy represents a genuine way of reducing our emissions of carbon dioxide. Wind power will never produce enough energy to allow us to shut down the gas stations and hit the Government's target of a 60 per cent drop in greenhouse gases by 2050. Tackling transport emissions could do the trick, but ministers might decide that building nuclear power stations in faraway bits of Scotland is more politically amenable. One quick way of fiddling the market to attract investment in new plants would be to reward nuclear operators with the same incentives that renewables attract. This would double the price they can get for their electricity. A warning, though: power companies fear nothing more than meddling MPs. Ever since the market was liberalised, it has been poked and prodded by the dead hand of the DTI. Each meddling served only to create more uncertainty and risk. Some power companies are still smarting that Stephen Byers rescinded the ban on new gas stations, just two years after Peter Mandelson put it in place. They had made plans for other stations and saw their competitors given an unfair break. Building nuclear power stations is a long-term investment, and if the Government really believes we need them, the first step is to make a clear and well-articulated policy. The next step is to leave the market alone to solve the problems by itself. It might well come to love nuclear as much as the islanders of Olkiluoto. © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005. Terms &Conditions ***************************************************************** 33 Telegraph: Nuclear must be part of Britain's energy mix | Opinion | Yesterday, he announced that the Government would undertake an energy review under Malcolm Wicks, the minister responsible, with the aim of publishing a statement on future policy early next summer. We are still far from a decision on Britain's new energy mix but at least the Prime Minister has at last set the ball rolling. More important, he has indicated that nuclear will have to be part of that mix. For too long, Labour has been paralysed by an irrational fear of civil nuclear power. In the meantime, the dates for the decommissioning of coal and nuclear plants, which account for about 30 per cent of generating capacity, draw nearer. Britain has become a net importer of natural gas and within a few years is expected to be in the same position with regard to oil. The prices of both those fuels have risen sharply. Accelerating demand from industrialising nations such as China and India means they are unlikely to fall back to old levels. And renewable sources - wind, tide, solar and biomass - as yet show no sign of reaching the Government's target of supplying 10 per cent of Britain's electricity by 2010, let alone its "aspiration" to see that proportion doubled by 2020. All these factors indicate the need to commission a new generation of nuclear reactors if Britain is to meet its energy requirements. Apart from the explosion in Chernobyl in 1986, the industry has an excellent safety record. Its opponents raise the spectre of a terrorist attack on a nuclear plant, but that possibility should not preclude a hard-headed look at the contribution such a source of power can make to the economy and at the best ways of defending it from extremists. Compared with fossil fuels, nuclear power offers clean energy whose provision is not over-dependent on volatile foreign suppliers. Compared with renewables, it has a proven record of substantial electricity production. Building new reactors will be expensive, will require a long lead time and, as indicated by the Greenpeace demonstration yesterday, will be fiercely opposed by some environmentalists. During that period, new sources of energy such as tidal generation, which avoids the environmental blot of windmills, may come to promise more than they do at present. That is why the energy review must be comprehensive. It is the least to be demanded from a prime minister who has spent more than two terms in Downing Street before facing up to Britain's long-term energy needs. [Related links] © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005. Terms &Conditions ***************************************************************** 34 Sunday Times: Earthlife tests nuclear workers Tuesday November 29, 2005 06:37 - (SA) More than 300 former workers of the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) plant in Pelindaba in the North West province will undergo medical tests at the Health Gap Services, an occupational health consultancy in Centurion, environmental group Earthlife Africa says. The tests would take place before the end of the year, campaign co-ordinator of Earthlife Africa's Nuclear Energy Costs the Earth Campaign (Nectec) Mashile Phalane stated. One of the ill workers, Oupa Lebakeng, would visit a medical specialist at the Little Company of Mary hospital in Pretoria. The screening of another 30 ex-workers at the Health Gap today and Wednesday would follow. They are suspected of suffering from occupational diseases and would provide oral medical histories. Nectec has been waiting for the health records of more than 280 workers since December last year. "The industry-led health investigation proposed by NECSA in July this year is just a cover-up," said Phalane. Spokesperson for the Pelindaba commission of inquiry Simpiwe Msibi said she had no comment to make about Earthlife Africa's statement. The company was forced to undertake a study after employees took their grievances to Earthlife. The Necsa health study was initiated only after Earthlife created awareness through its own health study supported by the South African History Archive (Saha). Necsa has been withholding previous medical records because the filing system was "a mess" and not in line with international standards, Earthlife said. "Ex-workers don't want to take part in the Necsa study. They allege they are either bribed or intimidated," said Phalane. "I have testicular cancer," said Joseph Malatji. "I lost my family, my children and all my happiness after being burned by radioactive chemicals," he added. The Earthlife health investigation was launched after several workers told the organisation of occupational diseases they believe they contracted while working at Necsa's Pelindaba plant. Initially Earthlife Africa identified 29 workers and former workers at Pelindaba who had become ill, and obtained medical records for 23 of them. Five of these people have already died. Thirteen have undergone medical examinations, and 10 have been found with diseases linked to radiation exposure, including skin cancers and eye diseases, said Phalane. "We will continue our own health study under the auspices of Dr Murray Coombs of the Health Gap," he added. I-Net Bridge All material copyright Sunday Times © Johnnic Media Investments Limited 1996-2005. All Rights ***************************************************************** 35 AU ABC: Australia reconsiders nuclear future - 30/11/2005 NEWS ANALYSIS Paul Marriott Reuters [Nuclear power] Concerns about greenhouse gas emissions are making some Australians reconsider a nuclear future. But not everyone agrees this is the answer (Image: iStockphoto) Senior members of Australia's government are pushing for a debate on a home-grown nuclear power industry in a country that digs up and exports a sizeable chunk of the world's uranium but has long shunned nuclear energy. A push to replace ageing coal-fired power plants with nuclear facilities to secure long-term electricity supply and meet carbon emissions targets has gathered momentum with two ministers putting forward a formal proposal for a study into the sector. Australia relies on vast reserves of cheap coal to generate 80% of its energy, but also has high levels of greenhouse gas emissions and risked international condemnation by refusing to sign the Kyoto agreement on global warming. Fossil fuel generation is still forecast at 70% by 2020. Australia has already overturned the 1980s "three mines" policy that limited the number of uranium pits and is now home to over one third of global reserves. And there are signs a former pariah is moving up the list of potential energy alternatives. "The coal lobby remains powerful but it could be that Australia has too many eggs in a single basket," says Dr Ian van Altena of the . "Arguments about carbon emissions are making all kinds of people consider nuclear who said 'no' in the past. I'd say the mood is slowly changing." Speaking to the Prime Minister Two federal government ministers this week asked the Prime Minister to consider home-grown nuclear power in light of environmental concerns and a booming uranium industry that saw the value of exports rise 30% in the 2005 fiscal year. "We can't responsibly dig 30% of the world's uranium out of the ground, export it overseas, and allow some 440 reactors to operate and expand in other parts of the world and not seriously consider this as an option for ourselves," education minister Brendan Nelson told the Nine Network. Prime Minister John Howard recently said nuclear should be included in the debate on energy options, while the Treasurer has led a group of cabinet ministers in saying such decisions should be left to market forces, provided safeguards are in place. [Coal power] Some 70% of Australia's energy is expected to come from fossil fuels, such as coal, by 2020 (Image: iStockphoto) It represents a big shift since a series of decisions in the 1970s that shelved plans for nuclear reactors in Australia. Victoria and New South Wales states still have 1980s legislation that outlaws the construction or operation of nuclear reactors. "If we're considering what generating plant is suitable to be operating in 30-40 years in a greenhouse-constrained world, there's a strong argument for diversifying and including nuclear in the mix for every country with concentrated electricity demand," says Ian Hore-Lacy of the . Nuclear energy is enjoying a global renaissance, with 25 new reactors under construction to supplement those on-line in 30 nations, producing 16% of world electricity, he says. The UK is reviewing plans for a new generation of nuclear plants to improve declining self-sufficiency and avoid the embarrassment of missing self-imposed greenhouse gas targets. China and India are quadrupling nuclear capacity by 2020, and established players such as Japan and South Korea could follow Britain's lead in reviewing their ageing infrastructure. But environmentalists still loudly oppose nuclear power, while recognising the need to reduce emissions in the face of Australian energy growth of 2% annually until 2030. The alternatives "It's too slow, too costly, too dirty and too risky," says Dave Sweeney of the . "We reject it as a credible or sustainable solution for climate change when real renewable alternatives already exist." Sweeney points to the decades required to establish costly nuclear facilities at a time when quick emissions cuts are needed, and notes the emissions-intensive uranium mining process and the problems of dealing with radioactive waste materials. Hore-Lacy says nuclear power is operationally cheaper than coal and gas and requires no more capital investment than new coal plants. Australia exports uranium to 36 countries holding bilateral safeguard agreements for use of material. Formal talks are expected shortly on allowing uranium exports to China. ***************************************************************** 36 AFP: Swedes in no rush for nuclear phase-out Tue Nov 29, 8:44 AM ET STOCKHOLM (AFP) - A majority of Swedes want their nuclear power stations to produce energy until their operational lifespan ends, and not be shut down early. Sweden shut its Barsebaeck 2 reactor on June 1, the second reactor to be taken out of service in the country since 1999 as part of a plan to phase out nuclear power over the next 30 or so years. The poll, conducted by Temo on behalf of the Swedish nuclear industry's research and training centre KSU, found that 65 percent of those questioned did not agree with the decision to shut down reactors while they could still produce energy. Some 26 percent of those polled said, however, that stations should be shut down in coming years, whether they are still operational of not. Asked about their opinion on the future of nuclear power, some 20 percent said it should be wound up altogether. Some 38 percent said nuclear power should be used until currently functioning stations stop producing, 24 percent said they wanted new stations to be built to maintain current nuclear power production levels, while 15 percent said they wanted more nuclear power in the future than now. Nuclear power accounts for nearly half of Sweden's energy supply. Temo questioned 2,000 Swedes over 18 years old over a period of two weeks in November. Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 37 Vermont Guardian: Cracked steam dryer continues to cloud VY uprate plan By Kathryn Casa | Vermont Yankee posted November 29, 2005 ROCKVILLE, MD Entergy officials told a panel of nuclear experts Tuesday that they still dont know exactly how Vermont Yankee will react to increased stress from a 20 percent power increase. However, a cracked part of the reactor has been repaired and a system of monitors was over-designed in anticipation of the additional stress from the proposed uprate, they said. We are not here to tell you that we are perfectly exact in our measurements and predictions, Entergy Engineering Analysis Supervisor Brian Hobbs said of the Vermont Yankee steam dryer, which developed more than 60 surface cracks discovered in 2004 and 2005. Hobbs was testifying before a subcommittee of the Advisory Committee of Reactor Safeguards, a panel of independent experts who are expected to make a recommendation to NRC commissioners in mid-December about whether the VY uprate should be approved. Although the ACRS recommendation is not binding, it carries significant weight, given the broad academic and technical expertise of the advisors. VY inspectors found 20 cracks in the steam dryer in 2004. Hobbs said Tuesday that 18 of them were not considered serious, but two were different, possibly the result of metal fatigue related to the original manufacturing and installation of the dryer when the plant was built. Both were repaired, he said. He said the welds were checked last month during a routine refueling outage and found to be sound. However, at the same time inspectors using state-of-the-art magnification equipment discovered more than 40 other superficial cracks that plant officials believe occurred long ago and are do not affect the structural integrity of the dryer. The NRC agreed, and allowed VY to go back online, but demanded that Entergy produce a more rigorous analysis of the cracking under uprated conditions before the end of the month. It was that information that Hobbs presented Tuesday during the first of two days of hearings on the proposed uprate We couldnt tell you what our load definition will be at [extended power uprate] conditions. Thats why we have a careful monitoring plan, Hobbs said. The Vermont Guardian listened to parts of the hearing by telephone. However, much of it was closed to the public as Entergy presented the ACRS with proprietary information about the Vernon reactor. A spokeswoman said Sen. James Jeffords (I-VT) had sent a representative to monitor the meeting. When the latest cracks were revealed last month, Jeffords signed a letter from Vermonts three-member congressional delegation to the NRC demanding a rigorous review of the dryer. Experts are worried that increased vibration and acoustical stress caused by steam pushing faster through the lines could further destabilize the cracked steam dryer once the plant increases power output. At ACRS subcommittee hearings in Brattleboro on Nov. 16, Joe Hopenfeld, a former NRC staff member, said Entergys computer model analysis was insufficient to predict what would happen to the steam dryer when the plant output increased. The recently discovered cracks and those that were discovered a year ago are significant, Hopenfeld told the panel, if they are the result of stresses that exceed the steam dryers design capacity. Nine other boiling water reactors like Vermont Yankee have undergone extended power uprates, which have not resulted in any known steam dryer problems, Hobbs told the panel Tuesday. At 20 percent, Entergy is seeking the largest uprate allowed by the NRC. Steam currently moves through the Vermont Yankee steam lines at approximately 139 feet per second. That will increase to about 168 feet per second if the plant is uprated, Hobbs said. The latter rate is the same as the steam flow rate at the larger reactors prior to uprate. Industry experience shows increased feed water flow induced vibration vulnerability, Hobbs acknowledged. But he said Entergys analysis also has indicated that steam line velocity is not as important as acoustic excitation. Hobbs said sound waves caused by additional steam flow could cause problems even if the steam flow rate is not increased significantly. We dont know if you have an issue with high frequency, bit if you had, we dont know whether the strengthening you did would protect the steam dryer, commented one ACRS consultant. NRC staff members have raised repeated questions about Vermont Yankees problematic steam dryer, the stainless steel apparatus that removes water droplets from the steam before it enters the turbines. Entergy had made a significant effort over the past 30 months to analyze, modify, inspect and monitor the VY steam dryer to ensure it can withstand an uprate, Hobbs said Tuesday. Part of their analysis led VY officials to determine that higher steam flows can exacerbate flow-induced vibrations, which are believed to have led to cracking and, in one case, breakage at four sister reactors in Illinois, at Quad Cities and Dresden. Although the dryer is not considered a safety component, experts believe a malfunction could threaten safety systems. In addition, post-uprate steam dryer breakage at two other reactors has resulted in temporary shutdowns and reductions in power output to the pre-uprate levels at both plants. Vermont Yankees uprate application remains open at the state level, where regulators are required to look at power production reliability before they grant a required certificate of public good. The state Public Service Board has issued conditional approval of the uprate, pending determination that a 2004 NRC inspection of Vermont Yankee meets state requirements. The Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel (VSNAP) last week recommended the board deny the uprate application unless Entergy agrees to cover the cost of replacement power if uprate-related changes result in a plant shutdown. The NRC has never denied an uprate application, nor has the ACRS ever recommended against one, although the committee has suggested conditions that were accepted by the commission. However, the Vermont Yankee application is the first in the country in which outside parties have been allowed to intervene to question Entergys safety calculations. Interested parties may submit comments about the VY uprate application to the ACRS at rxc@nrc.gov, or mail them to: Ralph Caruso, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Mail Stop T2E26, Washington DC 20555. The comments will be considered at a meeting of the full ACRS on Dec. 7 in Rockville. The committee is expected to issue its recommendation to the NRC by Dec. 16. Vermont Guardian PO Box 335 Winooski, VT 05404 PO Box 335, Winooski, VT 05404 Southern Vermont: 139 Main Street, Suite 702, Brattleboro, VT 05301 Contact: 802.861.4880 (ph) | 802.861.6388 (fax) | 877.231.5382 (toll-free) ©2005 Vermont Guardian | ***************************************************************** 38 Telegraph: Nuclear protester disrupts Blair speech By Charles Clover, Environment Editor and George Jones (Filed: 30/11/2005) Your View: Is nuclear power the answer? Tony Blair received a foretaste of the fierce public controversy aroused by nuclear power when he announced yesterday that a long-awaited energy review would consider whether Britain should develop a new generation of nuclear reactors. A Greenpeace protester disrupts Tony Blair's speech His speech was delayed for almost an hour after Greenpeace protesters climbed inside the roof of the Business Design Centre in Islington, north London, where he was about to address business leaders. The energy review will look at renewables, such as wind power, coal, gas, energy efficiency and cleaner transport fuels. But Mr Blair is increasingly convinced that Britain will need new nuclear power stations if it is to tackle climate change and guarantee electricity supplies. Greenpeace said yesterday's attempt to disrupt Mr Blair's speech to the CBI conference marked the start of a "fightback" against a new nuclear era in Britain. The two protesters, who were arrested by police, unfurled a banner that read: "Nuclear: Wrong Answer". They sprinkled hundreds of yellow stickers bearing the same message on the businessmen and women below. The CBI said the demonstration was a "disgrace" and an attempt to stifle debate. Delegates moved to a smaller room and crowded round Mr Blair as he delivered his planned speech accompanied by the prime ministers of Estonia and the Czech Republic. The Prime Minister acknowledged that nuclear power was a "difficult and challenging" issue. "What we need is a serious, open debate, not one conducted by protest or demonstration to stop people expressing their views," he said. At Westminster, more than 50 Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs - led by a former environment minister, Michael Meacher - and a significant number of ministers are deeply opposed to any return to a nuclear energy programme. But Mr Blair made clear that nuclear power was no longer an issue that could be ducked by the Government. Energy policy was "back on the agenda with a vengeance". Round the world, there was "feverish re-thinking", as energy prices had risen, supplies were under threat and climate change was producing a sense of urgency - though he said there would be no problem this winter for domestic gas supplies in Britain. The future, Mr Blair said, was "clean energy". The review, to be headed by Malcolm Wicks, the energy minister, would report early next summer. Although Mr Wicks said he and the Government had an open mind, there were strong indications that the review was intended to lead to a new generation of nuclear power stations to replace those that would come to the end of their useful lives by about 2020. It would examine new ways of giving incentives to private companies that had fought shy of applying to build nuclear power stations in Britain for 20 years. Mr Wicks said it would also need to look at ways of "speeding up issues around planning" for nuclear power stations, which have previously taken a decade or more to progress through the planning system. The review would look at technologies that captured carbon and stored it in disused oil wells and aquifers as a way of tackling climate change. Mr Wicks insisted: "It is a wide-ranging energy review. It is not a nuclear review." It has been convened only three years after a White Paper that refused to rule out the nuclear option. It will review progress against the four goals set by that White Paper: to put the country on a path to cutting carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2060, with real progress by 2020; to maintain the reliability of energy supplies; to promote competitive markets; and to ensure every home is adequately and affordably heated. Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said Britain could meet targets for tackling climate change and maintain fuel security by using "clean, safe alternatives". Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, said there would need to be an additional "nuclear tax" to meet the costs of constructing new nuclear power stations. Publishers wishing to reproduce photographs on this page should phone 44 (0) 207 538 7505 or e-mail syndication@telegraph.co.uk c Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005. Terms & Conditions ***************************************************************** 39 Bellona: Cesium-137 found in Petrozavodsk On November 17, a source of radiation containing cesium-137 was found in Petrozavodsk, Karelia. 2005-11-28 17:23 The container with the radiation source was transferred to the temporary storage facility for radioactive sources. The discovered radiation source with cesium-137 belonged to the RMGZ-01 device produced in 1976. It was used to control radiation levels in food. The device can be hazardous when placed closed to the people. Cesium-137, which was found, creates radiation level equal to 6 milliRoentgen per hour. Beside the container where it is placed at the facility the radiation level is 231 microroentgen per hour. It is quite safe at the distance of 3m from the container – the level is normal. The management of the Khlebprodservice Baker Company failed to deliver the device to the appropriate place after closing the food storage facilities and cesium-137 was simply abandoned, Interfax reported. 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 ***************************************************************** 40 AU ABC: Govt process criticised after NT dump decision Wednesday, 30 November 2005. 07:14 (AEDT)Wednesday, 30 November A Senate committee majority has questioned the Federal Government's decision-making process for locating a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory. The committee's majority concluded the Government's process for selecting sites for a waste dump in the Northern Territory was "not usual" but it was left with no other option because of continued opposition from state and territory leaders. Debate on the Government's radioactive waste management bill, which overrides the Northern Territory's opposition to a dump, was delayed by three weeks while the committee heard submissions. Northern Territory Labor Senator Trish Crossin says the Government is now admitting it rode roughshod over the rights of Territorians. "The Commonwealth Government has got itself into a situation now where they can't get on with the states any more so they have to dump their waste in the Northern Territory," she said. The committee's report also found that the Federal Department of Education, Science and Technology should have been more proactive in informing the community about its plans to build the waste dump in the Northern Territory. Senator Crossin says there is still the opportunity for Senator Nigel Scullion to cross the floor and stop the dump being forced on Territorians. "This is Senator Scullion's one shot in the locker to actually draw a line in the sand and send a message clearly to his mates in Canberra that they ought to start this process again and do it with the community, and do it with the states and territories, and do it properly," she said. The legislation that overrides any Territory opposition to the dump is expected to be debated and passed next week. ***************************************************************** 41 ABC News Online: Senate committee backs NT nuclear waste dump. 29/11/2005. A Senate committee report has recommended legislation be passed allowing a national nuclear waste dump to be built in the Northern Territory. The report on the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill was tabled in the Senate today. The Bill removes the ability of the Northern Territory Government to oppose a Commonwealth plan to build a national nuclear waste facility in its jurisdiction. Senate committee chair Liberal Senator Judith Troeth says the states and territories need to reconsider their opposition to the building to a single, secure repository for national nuclear waste. "After continued lack of cooperation by state and territory government they will now, and assuming the Commonwealth goes ahead to build this facility, those governments will need to make their own arrangements to dispose of their own waste," she said. NT Labor Senator Trish Crossin is opposed to the dump, but supports the report's recommendation that the Commonwealth work harder to inform community groups about the proposal. "There isn't broad public acceptance in the Northern Territory, not anywhere I've been - not in Darwin, not in Katherine and not in Alice Springs, and the Minister and his Government stand condemned really for not actually having a better consultative mechanism and a better way in which the broad community can understand exactly what's involved here," she said. ***************************************************************** 42 ABC News Online: Scullion to vote for NT nuclear waste dump. 30/11/2005. The Northern Territory's CLP Senator Nigel Scullion says he will not be crossing the floor to vote against the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill. A Senate committee yesterday table a report on the bill which recommended it be passed after a number of amendments. Senator Scullion says the amendments should allay the community's concerns about a nuclear waste facility being built in the Northern Territory. He says it is now up to the Northern Territory Government to accept the report's conclusions and recommendations. "I will be supporting these bills principally because these bills contain absolutely essential amendments that reflect the wishes of the land owners of 26 per cent of the Northern Territory, which is the Northern Land Council," he said. "It also puts to rest many of the concerns Territorians have about high-level waste being stored here, about waste from other states being stored here." But Mr Scullion says he still thinks the Woomera area in South Australia is the best place for a national nuclear waste facility. He accepts that the Commonwealth had to turn its sights to the Northern Territory due to intense opposition from the South Australian Government. Senator Scullion says he shares the community's concerns but is convinced the facility will be safe. "Like all Territorians, I don't like having legislation shoved down our throats," he said. "There's no doubt about that right from the start, in terms of information, the very first thing I said to Territorians is that I'd undertake to ensure that as much information would be given to Territorians as was humanly possible." ***************************************************************** 43 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca standard 'inadequate' Sun Washington Bureau Among the last to submit public comments on the new draft proposal for a Yucca Mountain radiation protection standard were two die-hard nuclear critics: the consumer group Public Citizen and Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. The Environmental Protection Agency unveiled its new standard in August, essentially proposing two standards: the first one required that the proposed nuclear waste repository would not be allowed to emit more than 15 millirem of radiation for the next 10,000 years. After that, it could release up to 350 millirem. Yucca proponents say the repository is safe. EPA officials said setting a Yucca standard so far into the future was unlike anything they had done before. But Yucca critics fear the repository will leak deadly radiation and say the EPA standard is too lax. Public Citizen called the proposed standard "completely inadequate." Markey wrote that he was concerned "the proposed rule fails to comply with the clear requirements of the law." The EPA, which closed its public comment period last week, collected more than 120 comments both for and against the new standard from official groups to private citizens, some well-articulated, a few rambling and a few profane. It is not known when the agency will issue the final version of the rule. Read more about the standard and access the comments through the EPA's Web site: www.epa.gov/radiation/yucca/about.htm. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 44 CONTRA COSTA TIMES: Plan would allow Lawrence Livermore to double plutonium Tuesday, Nov 29, 2005 By Chris Metinko The branch of the Energy Department that oversees the nuclear weapons complex has signed off on a 10-year environmental plan that will allow Lawrence Livermore Laboratory to house twice the plutonium it now handles. Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, signed off Tuesday on a plan issued in April by his agency that concluded the lab should be allowed to increase its plutonium storage from the 1,540-pound standard that has been in place for years to more than 3,080 pounds -- doubling the allowable plutonium storage at the lab. The plan also allows an increase in the amount of tritium to be used, from 30 grams to 35 grams and an increase in experiments conducted at the National Ignition Facility using fissile and fissionable materials. Lab spokeswoman Lynda Seaver said the plan does not mean the lab will immediately double the amount of plutonium on site, but it gives the facility the ability to do so if it is necessary for development and research. The official approval of the plan -- which has been the subject of public meetings and review -- comes about a month after the lab's Plutonium Facility began slowly resuming operations after more than nine months of inactivity. Concerns about safety at the facility, part of the lab's Superblock, surfaced in October 2004 during a routine visit by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. Inspectors found problems with the ventilation system and glove boxes used to handle plutonium without exposure -- taped-up cracks in the ventilation system and "hot boxes" without adequate seismic restraints. The board also expressed concern about the lack of an adequate "configuration management program" to oversee the 16 safety systems designed to protect workers and the public from exposure to plutonium. In January, the NNSA agreed that the configuration management program for Superblock was inadequate and ineffective and that vulnerabilities existed. These concerns prompted the lab to order a stand down at the Plutonium Facility on Jan. 15. Marylia Kelley, of the lab watchdog group Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment, said the lab plan is "unconscionable" and believes there is no chance the lab will not increase its amount of plutonium. "They're doubling the plutonium limit to expand their nuclear weapon activity," Kelley said. "It's obvious they are going to be expanding the amount of plutonium on site." Kelley said Tri-Valley CAREs, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other organizations are undertaking a detailed legal analysis of the final plan and may enter a lawsuit to attempt to overturn it. Tri-Valley CAREs is also launching a petition campaign, calling upon the Energy Department to not double the plutonium storage and use at Livermore Lab and asking Congress to not fund DOE's planned increases. Reach Chris Metinko at 925-847-2125 or cmetinko@cctimes.com. ***************************************************************** 45 SF Chronicle: BAY AREA / UC probed over Los Alamos reimbursements / Contributions to lab's foundation come under fire Tuesday, November 29, 2005 The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Inspector General is investigating whether the University of California improperly charged the federal government $6 million to support a New Mexico foundation that provides scholarships and other aid to teachers and students. UC spokesman Chris Harrington said Monday that the university was guilty of no wrongdoing -- "none whatsoever, absolutely not." The accusations are contained in a draft audit by George Collard, an assistant inspector general. The report says the Energy Department approved UC's proposal in 1997 to establish the nonprofit Los Alamos National Laboratory Foundation, which works with schools and community groups in northern New Mexico. The nonprofit foundation is technically independent of the Los Alamos nuclear weapons lab, which UC has run under contract with the Energy Department since World War II. However, as part of the department's outreach programs in northern New Mexico -- which benefit Los Alamos lab in ways that include attracting technically skilled employees -- the department has been willing to reimburse UC for some of its contributions to the foundation. However, the audit says, the university charged an excessive share of its annual contributions to the foundation to the government instead of marking it as a university expense. As a result, since 1998 the Energy Department has reimbursed $6 million to UC for contributions to the foundation that were "unallowable," the report said. "Such funds could have been used for other Los Alamos mission priorities," Collard wrote. The report remains in the draft stage and hasn't been officially released. A copy of the draft was posted Monday on a blog site for current and former staffers at the nuclear weapons lab. Politically speaking, the news comes at a terrible moment for UC. The university has joined Bechtel National and other industrial partners to retain its contract to run Los Alamos, in a competition against a consortium consisting of Lockheed-Martin, the University of Texas, several New Mexico universities and various industrial partners. The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, a quasi-independent branch of the Energy Department that oversees the nation's nuclear weapons complex, was originally scheduled to announce the winner of the competition this Thursday. It postponed the announcement indefinitely last week, saying only that the selection team needed more time to decide. In response to the draft report, Harrington said in a statement that UC had "provided information to the Department of Energy to address issues raised (by the audit), and the university fully expects that the final report will reflect the accurate information as provided." He said UC's contributions to the foundation had "always been agreed to as being an allowable cost of the contract between the DOE and the University of California." Harrington declined to make any more extended comments but stressed that the university had done nothing wrong. Officials at the foundation, which is based in Espańola, N.M., could not be reached for comment. E-mail Keay Davidson at . Page B - 1 The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 46 DAILY BRUIN: Decision delayed for Los Alamos lab Tuesday, November 29, 2005 By Richard Clough SENIOR STAFF rclough@media.ucla.edu The competition to win the management contract for Los Alamos National Laboratory will last a bit longer than expected, as the Department of Energy announced last week it would not reach a decision by its Dec. 1 deadline. The competitors for the contract include two teams – one a partnership between the University of California and Bechtel Corp. and the other headed by the University of Texas and Lockheed Martin. The UC has managed the lab since World War II, but the Department of Energy put the management contract up for bid after the lab incurred a series of scandals – including safety problems and the loss of potentially sensitive data – last year. A statement released by the National Nuclear Security Administration, which is heading the contract selection board, said the board's chairman "does not anticipate a significant delay in the selection decision," though no new deadline was announced. A posting by former lab employee Doug Roberts on a Web log he started for Los Alamos employees called "LANL: The Real Story," said the contract decision would likely come by Dec. 9. The winner of the contract will manage the lab for at least the next seven years, with a possible six-year extension. The contract will be worth $79 million next year, which is a large increase over the previous annual reimbursement rate of about $9 million. The delay came as a surprise to officials from both teams bidding on the contract. Michael Anastasio, who leads the UC group, said he thought the government should do what it feels is necessary to ensure the lab is in good hands. "We look forward to that decision whenever they will make it," he said. "So we wait." The UC team is keeping relatively quiet in the days leading up to the contract announcement, but losing Los Alamos would be a big blow to the university, as the lab has historically been a significant draw for Nobel laureates. 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. 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 alter operations there. Both bid teams have set up offices in Los Alamos to answer questions and address concerns about the lab's future. With reports from Bruin wire services. Copyright 2005 ***************************************************************** 47 DOE: Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement FR Doc 05-23455 [Federal Register: November 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 228)] [Notices] [Page 71490-71491] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29no05-49] [[Page 71490]] for the Operation of a Biosafety Level 3 Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM AGENCY: Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), an agency within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the operation of a Biosafety Level 3 Facility (BSL-3 Facility) at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in Los Alamos, New Mexico. This EIS is being prepared and considered in accordance with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, regulations of the President's Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508), and DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021). DATES: The public scoping period starts with the publication of this Notice in the Federal Register and will continue until December 29, 2005. DOE will consider all comments received or postmarked by that date in defining the scope of this EIS. Comments received or postmarked after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. Public scoping meetings will provide the public with an opportunity to present comments, ask questions, and discuss concerns regarding the EIS with NNSA officials. The locations, dates, and times for the public scoping meetings are as follows: Tuesday, December 13, 2005, from 4 to 8 p.m., Fuller Lodge, 2132 Central Avenue, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544. Wednesday, December 14, 2005, from 4 to 8 p.m., Genoveva Chavez Community Center, 3221 Rodeo Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505. Thursday, December 15, 2005, from 4 to 8 p.m., Senior Stroke Center, 735 Vietnam Veterans Memorial Road, Espa[ntilde]ola, New Mexico 87532. NNSA will publish additional notices regarding the dates, times, and locations of the scoping meetings in local newspapers in advance of the scheduled meetings. Any necessary changes will be announced in the local media. ADDRESSES: Written comments or suggestions concerning the scope of the BSL-3 Facility EIS or requests for more information on the EIS and public scoping process should be directed to: Lisa Cummings, EIS Document Manager, U.S. DOE, NNSA, Los Alamos Site Office, 528 35th Street, Los Alamos, New Mexico, 87544; facsimile at (505) 665-4873; or e-mail at LANL_BSL-3_EIS@doeal.gov. Ms. Cummings may also be reached by telephone at 1-866-506-2862. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information on the DOE NEPA process, please contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, EH-42, USDOE, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-4600, or leave a message at 1-800- 472-2756. Additional information regarding DOE NEPA activities and access to many NEPA documents, including the 1999 LANL Site-wide EIS, are available on the Internet through the NEPA Web site at http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States has identified an emerging threat to homeland security posed by the possible use of biological weapons. As a result, research and development activities involving biological select agents have increased. Biological select agents are viruses, bacteria, rickettsia, fungi, and toxins whose possession, transfer, and use are controlled by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) due to their capability to cause substantial harm to human health. ``Biosafety Levels'' is a system devised by the CDC of well-defined facilities, equipment, and procedures designed to minimize risk of exposure to potentially hazardous agents for laboratory workers and the outside environment. Several entities are interested in conducting such work at LANL, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Additionally, other Federal agencies in the intelligence and security communities, as well as military organizations, have expressed interest in working with LANL in this regard. Other research for these organizations is conducted at LANL. This research seeks to reduce the threat from terrorism using biological weapons and to enhance the Nation's public health capabilities. Future work in this field would seek to develop scientific tools to address national health security issues and global concerns for emerging diseases. The research conducted at the BSL-3 Facility would be solely defensive in nature, serving to identify and mitigate the threats that may be used against the United States in a biological attack. In response to the needs discussed above, NNSA decided to construct a BSL-3 Facility at LANL. Prior to constructing the facility, NNSA analyzed the project pursuant to NEPA and in early 2002 issued an environmental assessment (EA) and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the construction and operation of the facility. These documents can be found at http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ea/ea1364/tocindex.html and http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/newsbulletin/2002/03/05/ ov/orgs/pa/newsbulletin/2002/03/05/ After completion of the NEPA process and facility construction, NNSA identified new information concerning the BSL-3 Facility. NNSA determined that it was necessary to conduct additional seismic analysis of the location of the building on fill material on the sloping side of a canyon. Therefore, in early 2004, NNSA withdrew the portion of the FONSI that dealt with the operation of the BSL-3 Facility, and announced that it would prepare a supplemental environmental assessment on its proposal to operate the facility. In January 2005, NNSA published a Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplemental Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement (S-SWEIS) for the continued operation of LANL. The notice stated that if a FONSI for operation of the BSL-3 Facility could not be issued, the analyses of the potential impacts of operating this facility would be included in the S-SWEIS. NNSA has since decided to prepare a new Site-wide EIS for LANL (SWEIS) rather than to supplement the 1999 SWEIS. The release of the draft SWEIS is now planned for 2006. NNSA has decided that preparation of an EIS is the appropriate level of NEPA analysis for operation of the BSL-3 Facility and that this analysis should be conducted separately from the new SWEIS. The global situation with regard to bioterrorism continues to evolve. The ability to provide cutting-edge technology and resources to address the situation grows more important, and increases the urgency to decide whether to operate this BSL-3 Facility. The Federal government, and in particular the intelligence community, is concerned that any delays in the schedule for the SWEIS could further delay a decision on whether to operate this critical homeland security facility. During the scoping process for the S-SWEIS conducted in January 2005, NNSA received comments from several members of the public stating that [[Page 71491]] NNSA should prepare an EIS for the operation of the BSL-3 Facility. For these reasons, NNSA has decided to prepare a separate EIS for operation of the BSL-3 Facility. The SWEIS will evaluate all activities at LANL and will incorporate the results of related environmental impact analyses from other NEPA documents. The impacts identified in other NEPA documents will be combined with impact analyses performed specifically for the SWEIS. The impacts of the alternative selected by any decision regarding operation of the BSL-3 Facility would be included in the analysis of cumulative impacts prepared for the SWEIS. The facility is a single-story, 3,200-square foot stucco building with a metal roof, housing a BSL-2 laboratory and two BSL-3 laboratories. Biosafety Level 2 is suitable for work involving agents of moderate potential hazard to personnel and the environment. BSL Level 3 is required for clinical, diagnostic, teaching, research, or production facilities in which work is done with indigenous or exotic agents that may cause serious or potentially lethal disease as a result of exposure by inhalation. Laboratory personnel have specific training in handling pathogenic and potentially lethal agents, and are supervised by competent scientists who are experienced in working with these agents. The facility is located on a site adjacent to Sigma Road and the paved parking area southwest of the Sigma Building north of the intersection of Pajarito Road and Diamond Drive. No operations of any type have been conducted in the facility. Issues to be analyzed in the EIS include: Additional seismic analysis; safety of laboratory operations; public health and safety; handling, collection, treatment, and disposal of research wastes; other risks; pollution prevention; and potential impacts on air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, water resources, land use, and socioeconomic resources. The EIS will evaluate several alternatives: a ``Proposed Action Alternative'' analyzing operation of the BSL-3 Facility at LANL at the level permitted by CDC guidelines for a BSL-3 Facility; a ``BSL-2 Alternative'' analyzing operation of the facility at the level permitted for a BSL-2 Facility; and a ``No-Action Alternative,'' under which the constructed facility would not be operated. Additional alternatives, including potential facility modifications, may be identified during the scoping process. Public Scoping Process: The scoping process is an opportunity for the public to assist NNSA in determining, among other things, reasonable alternatives and issues for analysis. The purpose of the scoping meetings is to receive oral and written comments from the public. The meetings will use a format to facilitate dialogue between NNSA and the public. NNSA welcomes specific comments or suggestions on the content of these alternatives, or on other alternatives that the public wishes NNSA to consider. The list of issues discussed above for consideration in the BSL-3 Facility EIS is tentative and intended to facilitate public comment on the scope of this EIS. It is not intended to be all-inclusive, nor does it imply any predetermination of potential impacts. The BSL-3 Facility EIS will analyze and describe the potential environmental impacts of the alternatives, using available data where possible and obtaining additional data where necessary. NNSA has invited the Department of Homeland Security to participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of this EIS. Copies of written comments and transcripts of oral comments will be made available at the following locations: the Los Alamos Outreach Center, 1350 Central Avenue, Suite 101, Los Alamos, New Mexico, 87544; and the Zimmerman Library, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87131. EIS Preparation Process: The process for preparing the BSL-3 Facility EIS begins with the publication of this Notice of Intent in the Federal Register. After the close of the public scoping comment period, NNSA will begin preparing the draft EIS. NNSA expects to issue a draft BSL-3 EIS for public review in the spring of 2006. Public comments on the draft will be accepted during a comment period of at least 45 days following publication of the Notice of Availability, by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register will provide the deadline for comments on the draft document. Other notices placed in local newspapers also identify dates and locations for public hearings on the draft BSL-3 Facility EIS. Issuance of the final BSL-3 Facility EIS is scheduled for late 2006. Issued in Washington, DC, this 22 day of November, 2005. Linton F. Brooks, Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration. [FR Doc. 05-23455 Filed 11-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 48 DOE: Record of Decision: Final Site-wide Environmental Impact (LLNL) FR Doc 05-23457 [Federal Register: November 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 228)] [Notices] [Page 71491-71500] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29no05-50] Statement for Continued Operation of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Supplemental Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy. ACTION: Record of decision. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), is issuing this Record of Decision (ROD) regarding its plan for continued operation of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory located approximately 40 miles east of San Francisco in Alameda and San Joaquin Counties; and for use of plutonium, other fissile materials, fissionable materials and lithium hydride in experiments to be conducted at the National Ignition Facility (NIF). In making its decisions NNSA considered the ``Final Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Operation of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (DOE/EIS-0348) and Supplemental Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0236-S3) (LLNL SW/SPEIS)'' and other information, including programmatic mission needs and cost. NNSA has decided to implement the Proposed Action Alternative as described in the LLNL SW/ SPEIS with the exception of the Energetic Materials Processing Center Replacement and High Explosives Development Center Project. This alternative includes the continued operation of LLNL; an increase in administrative and material-at-risk limits for plutonium and tritium; and the use of plutonium, other fissile materials, fissionable materials, and lithium hydride in experiments conducted at the NIF. NNSA's implementation of the individual components of the Proposed Action Alternative during the next decade is subject to its continuing assessment of its mission needs and of LLNL's role in meeting those needs. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the LLNL SW/SPEIS or the ROD, or to receive a copy of the LLNL SW/SPEIS or ROD, contact: Thomas Grim, Document Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, Livermore Site [[Page 71492]] Office NNSA, 7000 East Avenue, Livermore, CA 94550-9234, (925) 422- 0704. For information on the DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-4600, or leave a message at (800) 472-2756. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background NNSA prepared this ROD pursuant to the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021). In making its decisions NNSA considered the Final LLNL SW/SPEIS dated March 2005 and other information, including programmatic mission needs and cost. LLNL consists of two sites: an 821-acre site in Livermore, California (Livermore Site), and a 7,000-acre experimental test site near Tracy, California (Site 300). Most LLNL operations are located at the Livermore Site, which is situated about 40 miles east of San Francisco in southeastern Alameda County. Site 300 is primarily a test site for explosives and non-nuclear weapons components; it is located about 15 miles southeast of Livermore in the hills of the Diablo Range. Most of Site 300 is located in San Joaquin County; the western edge of the site is in Alameda County. The continued operation of LLNL is critical to NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and to preventing the spread and use of nuclear weapons worldwide. LLNL maintains core competencies in activities associated with research, development, design, and surveillance of nuclear weapons, and with the assessment and certification of their safety and reliability. In response to the end of the Cold War and changes in the world's political regimes, the emphasis of the United States' nuclear weapons program has shifted from developing and producing new weapons designs to dismantling obsolete weapons and sustaining a smaller weapons stockpile. Programs at LLNL support a number of DOE and NNSA missions. These missions include nuclear weapons stewardship, nonproliferation, preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, energy security and meeting long-term energy needs, environmental assessment and management, bioscience, fundamental sciences, and developing applications for new technology. LLNL also supports other Federal agencies such as the Department of Defense, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Homeland Security. The LLNL SW/SPEIS evaluates the use of plutonium, other fissile materials, fissionable materials, and lithium hydride in experiments at the NIF and updates the analysis of the environmental impacts of operation of the NIF as described in the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Stockpile Stewardship and Management (SSM PEIS) (DOE/EIS-0236). NNSA expects to continue its support of new projects and facilities at LLNL subject to its continuing assessment of its mission and LLNL's role in that mission. Any new projects or facilities would be considered in programmatic or project-specific NEPA reviews as appropriate. Subsequent NEPA reviews for projects or activities at LLNL would make reference to, and be based on, the LLNL SW/SPEIS. Alternatives Considered The alternatives evaluated in the Final LLNL SW/SPEIS represent a range of operation from minimum levels that maintain core capabilities (Reduced Operation Alternative) to the highest reasonable activity levels that could be supported by current facilities, as well as the expansion and construction of new facilities for specifically identified future actions (Proposed Action). The No Action Alternative would continue operation of current LLNL programs in support of assigned missions, and includes approved interim actions and facility construction, expansion or modification, and decontamination and decommissioning for which NEPA analysis and documentation already exist. The Proposed Action includes operations evaluated in the No Action Alternative as well as construction of new facilities and expanded operations in support of future NNSA mission requirements. The Reduced Operation Alternative represents a 30 percent reduction of the Stockpile Stewardship Program as analyzed in the No Action Alternative. The Reduced Operation Alternative maintains full operational readiness for NNSA facilities and operations, but does not include the level of operation needed to perform tasks assigned to the Stockpile Stewardship Program at LLNL. NNSA identified the Proposed Action as the preferred alternative in the Final LLNL SW/SPEIS. A discussion of the alternatives is provided in the following sections. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative was analyzed as required by CEQ's NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) to provide a baseline against which the impacts of the Proposed Action and Reduced Operation Alternatives could be compared. Under the No Action Alternative, LLNL would continue to support major DOE and NNSA programs such as defense programs, environmental management, nuclear nonproliferation, and energy research. The No Action Alternative represents the level of operations that would occur in the absence of new decisions regarding activities at LLNL. The changes in facilities and operations, including those that are currently under construction or planned in the near future, are completion of NIF; the BioSafety Level 3 Facility; the Terascale Simulation Facility; the Container Security Testing Facility; facility modifications, upgrades and decontamination and decommissioning; and full implementation of Stockpile Stewardship Programs in the LLNL Plutonium and Tritium facilities. As noted in the Final LLNL SW/SPEIS, NNSA decided to remove the Advanced Materials Program from this and other alternatives in response to public comments and a reassessment of program needs. Proposed Action Alternative The Proposed Action would result in an increase in LLNL operations to support reasonably foreseeable mission requirements. This includes the expansion or modification of current facilities and construction of new facilities, as well as those projects, activities, and facilities described in the No Action Alternative. The proposed changes in facilities and operations are: (1) Conduct experiments at the NIF using plutonium, other fissile materials (such as uranium 235), fissionable materials (such as thorium 232), and lithium hydride. (2) Construct and operate a neutron spectrometer as part of the NIF core facility diagnostics capability. (3) Increase the administrative limit for plutonium to 1,400 kilograms from the existing 700 kilograms. The limit for enriched uranium would remain unchanged at 500 kilograms. (4) Increase the plutonium material-at-risk limit from 20 to 40 kilograms of fuel-grade equivalent plutonium in each of two rooms of the Plutonium Facility. (5) Increase the Tritium Facility administrative limit for tritium from 30 [[Page 71493]] to 35 grams and the material-at-risk at a single workstation from 3.5 to 30 grams. (6) Upgrade existing materials fabrication, characterization, and testing facilities supporting NNSA's national security mission as part of the Materials Science Modernization Project. (7) Perform research and development activities on a variety of biodetector technologies in the Physics Facility and the Microfabrication Laboratory at the Livermore Site as part of the Chemical and Biological Nonproliferation Program Expansion. (8) Install and operate a petawatt laser prototype in the Inertial Confinement Fusion Laser Facility. (9) Physically consolidate security services to improve functionality, efficiency, and effectiveness of security operations as part of the Consolidated Security Facility. (10) Change waste management activities to accommodate increased waste generation and improve overall operational methods. (11) Accept 5 drums of mixed transuranic waste from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. (12) Upgrade LLNL facilities to meet current seismic and utilities standards, and decontaminate and decommission other facilities at LLNL. (13) Increase the highly enriched uranium administrative limit for the Radiography Facility from 25 to 50 kilograms to support Stockpile Stewardship Program activities. As noted in the Final SW/SPEIS, NNSA decided to remove the Integrated Technology Program from this alternative in response to public comments and a reassessment of program need. Reduced Operation Alternative The Reduced Operation Alternative includes reductions in LLNL operations supporting the NNSA Stockpile Stewardship Program. This alternative represents a 30 percent reduction in operations for the Stockpile Stewardship Program as compared to the No Action Alternative. Under this alternative, NNSA would maintain full operational readiness of NNSA facilities and operations, but would not conduct operations at the level needed to fulfill all of the Stockpile Stewardship Program tasks assigned to LLNL. However, LLNL operations would not be reduced beyond those required to maintain safety and security activities, such as managing nuclear materials, explosives, and other hazardous materials safely. This alternative considers and analyzes reasonable proposals for the reduction or cessation of specific operations to reduce potential adverse impacts. For this LLNL SW/SPEIS, NNSA did not analyze in detail the complete closure, decontamination, and decommissioning of the Livermore Site or Site 300 because the continued operation of these sites is critical to NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and to prevention of the spread and use of nuclear weapons. Reductions include a decrease in the annual yield from NIF ignition experiments, fabrication of 50 percent fewer engineering demonstration units during pit surveillance activities, and fabrication of nearly 50 percent fewer subcritical assemblies. Other reductions include operation of the Terascale Simulation Facility computer at 60 percent capacity and conducting fewer experiments using tritium at Site 300. Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative is the alternative that NNSA believes would fulfill its statutory missions and responsibilities giving consideration to economic, budget, environmental, schedule, technical and other factors. In the Final LLNL SW/SPEIS, NNSA identified the Proposed Action as the preferred alternative for continued operations of LLNL. Environmentally Preferable Alternative After considering impacts to each resource area by alternative, NNSA has identified the Reduced Operation Alternative as the environmentally preferable alternative, which is the alternative with the lowest level of operations. The Reduced Operations Alternative has lower socioeconomic impacts because of the reduced number of workers, reduced hazardous and radioactive waste, and reduced radiological exposure to workers and the public. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives The following section compares the potential impacts to environmental resources associated with the continued operation of LLNL under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action, and the Reduced Operation Alternative. The resource areas discussed below are listed in two sections: those with potentially major environmental impacts and those with minor impacts. Resource Areas With Major Environmental Impacts The major impacts occur in three areas; materials and waste management, human health and safety, and radiological accidents. Materials and Waste Management Waste generation for both routine and nonroutine wastes would be higher under the Proposed Action than under the No Action Alternative or Reduced Operation Alternative. Differences in the amount of waste generated include routine low- level waste, which would increase from 170 cubic meters per year under current (2002) conditions to 200 cubic meters per year under the No Action Alternative. It would increase to 330 cubic meters per year under the Proposed Action Alternative, primarily due to differences in the operation of the NIF, and increase slightly to 180 cubic meters per year under the Reduced Operation Alternative. Routine transuranic waste would increase from 35 cubic meters per year to 50 cubic meters per year under the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action, and increase to 45 cubic meters per year under the Reduced Operation Alternative. Differences in nonroutine waste generation cover all major waste categories across the alternatives, with the highest waste generation under the Proposed Action and lowest under the Reduced Operation Alternative. Levels of waste generation are within the capacities for treatment, transportation, or storage either onsite or at waste repositories such as the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). In addition, LLNL is implementing cost effective pollution prevention techniques to reduce waste generation. Human Health and Safety Under the No Action Alternative, the occupational (involved) worker ionizing radiation dose would increase from 28 person-rem per year to 89 person-rem per year due to the increase in operations. These operations include increases in NIF and stockpile stewardship activities and the packaging of excess plutonium in the Plutonium Facility. The dose under the Proposed Action Alternative would increase to 93 person-rem per year, mostly from the use of proposed materials in experiments at the NIF. Under the Reduced Operation Alternative, worker dose would increase to 38 person-rem per year. Latent cancer fatalities (LCFs) calculated from these exposures would be 5.3 x 10-\2\, 5.6 x 10-\2\, and 2.3 x 10-\2\ per year of exposure under the No Action Alternative, Proposed Action, and Reduced Operation Alternative, respectively. Worker exposure will be maintained as low as reasonably achievable. [[Page 71494]] The ionizing radiation dose to the general public under all three alternatives would increase from 0.5 person-rem per year to 1.8 person- rem per year at the Livermore Site, and would increase from 2.5 person- rem per year to 9.8 person-rem per year at Site 300. The corresponding LCFs for all three alternatives would be 1.1 x 10-\3\ at the Livermore site, and 5.9 x 10-\3\ at Site 300. The projected dose at both sites is within the ranges of doses observed within the past 5 years. The maximally exposed individual (MEI) dose at the Livermore Site from ionizing radiation would increase from 0.023 millirem per year (which yields 1.4 x 10-\8\ LCFs) to 0.30 millirem per year (which yields 1.8 x 10-\7\ LCFs) under the No Action Alternative. The MEI dose for the Proposed Action and the Reduced Operations Alternatives would be 0.33 millirem per year (which yields 2.0 x 10-\7\ LCFs) and 0.22 millirem per year (which yields 1.3 x 10-\7\ LCFs) respectively. The MEI dose at the Site 300 from ionizing radiation would increase from 0.021 millirem per year (which yields 1.3 x 10-\8\ LCFs), to 0.055 millirem per year (which yields 3.3 x 10-\8\ LCFs) for the No Action and the Proposed Action Alternatives. The dose under the Reduced Operations Alternative would be 0.054 millirem per year (which yields 3.3 x 10-\8\ LCFs). Accidents The LLNL SW/SPEIS analyzed potential accidents at all major facilities. Potential LCFs in the offsite population for median meteorological conditions were used to identify bounding radiological accidents for nuclear material handling and waste management operations. In making thee decisions announced in this ROD, NNSA considered the accidents analyzed in the Final LLNL SW/SPEIS and reviewed the data and methodology used to identify bounding site accidents. This review found that all bounding site accidents were accurately identified; however, minor discrepancies were found in a few analyses of non-bounding site scenarios. Information concerning these discrepancies is available from Thomas Grim, the NNSA Document Manager for the LLNL SW/SPEIS, at the address and phone number included at the beginning of this ROD. These discrepancies are negligible and the LLNL SW/SPEIS adequately evaluates the potential impacts of the alternatives. The bounding radiological accident for nuclear material handling under the Proposed Action is a fire involving radioactive material in the Plutonium Facility in which emissions are released without high- efficiency particulate air filtration. Such an accident would result in 0.112 LCFs in the offsite population. The exposure to noninvolved workers would result in 0.372 LCFs from this accident. The calculated annual frequency for this accident is 3.9 x 10-\7\, which is less frequent than once in a million years. Under the No Action and the Reduced Operation Alternatives, the bounding accident for nuclear material handling in the Plutonium Facility is a small aircraft crashing into the building, which would result in 0.058 LCFs in the offsite population, and with a probability of 6.1 x 10-\7\ per year, which is also less than once in a million years. The bounding radiological accident for waste management operations is a small aircraft crashing into the Radiological and Hazardous Waste Storage Facility, which would result in 1.21 LCFs in the offsite population under the Proposed Action. The exposure to noninvolved workers from such an accident would result in 0.055 LCFs. The estimate of LCFs for the same accident under the No Action and the Reduced Operation Alternatives is 0.397 LCF. The calculated annual frequency of an aircraft crashing into the building with subsequent gasoline pool fire is 6.1 x 10-\7\, which is less frequent than once in a million years. The aircraft accident scenario evaluated at the Radiological and Hazardous Waste Storage Facility is very conservative in that it assumes the facility is loaded to its physical limit with containers of transuranic waste, each container holding its maximum allowable curie limit. Therefore, the consequences discussed above are calculated using what would be considered the maximum allowable inventory in the Radiological and Hazardous Waste Storage Facility under the facility's operational procedures. It is unlikely that the facility would ever contain this large of an inventory. Bounding accident scenarios for chemical, explosive, and biological accidents are the same among all three alternatives and are unlikely to result in fatalities to the general public or workers except for the bounding explosives accident, which could result in 20 worker fatalities. Resource Areas With Minor Environmental Impacts The following resource areas have some small environmental impact differences among the alternatives or are of a particular concern to the public based on comments. Socioeconomic Characteristics and Environmental Justice The socioeconomic impacts from continued operations at LLNL would vary under the three alternatives, and would primarily affect Alameda and San Joaquin counties. For the No Action Alternative, LLNL employment would increase by 300 workers to 10,650 at the Livermore Site and increase by 10 workers to 250 at Site 300 compared to the 2002 employment levels. For the Proposed Action, the worker population would increase, over the No Action Alternative, by 500 workers to 11,150 at the Livermore Site and would remain at 250 workers at Site 300. For the Reduced Operation Alternative, worker population would decrease from the No Action Alternative by 880 workers to 9,770 at the Livermore Site and decrease by 20 workers to 230 at Site 300. The number of housing units affected would be proportional to the changes in worker population in both counties. Community Services The only notable impact for community services would be the generation and disposal of nonhazardous solid waste. For the No Action Alternative, it is estimated that 4,600 metric tons per year of nonhazardous solid waste would be generated at the Livermore Site. Under the Proposed Action, the Livermore Site would generate 4,900 metric tons per year of nonhazardous solid waste. Under the Reduced Operation Alternative, nonhazardous solid waste generation at the Livermore Site would be reduced to 4,200 metric tons per year. Nonhazardous waste generation at Site 300 would be 208 metric tons per year under both the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives and reduced to 191 metric tons per year for the Reduced Operation Alternative. The local Altamont Landfill is estimated to have sufficient capacity to receive waste until the year 2038. The current total daily permitted throughput is 11,150 tons per day. Aesthetics and Scenic Resources Changes to the offsite views of the Livermore Site would be similar under all alternatives. At Site 300, the Proposed Action would have little or no impact on aesthetics and scenic resources. The existing character of LLNL would not change at either site under any of the alternatives. Biological Resources NNSA completed a biological assessment (included as Appendix E of the LLNL SW/SPEIS) and has requested formal consultation with the U.S. Fish [[Page 71495]] and Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. NNSA will implement any new or additional mitigation measures, and will carefully consider implementation of conservation recommendations contained in the Fish and Wildlife Service's Biological Opinion when it is issued. The effects of the Proposed Action at the Livermore Site were considered on the California red-legged frog, a federally listed threatened species. The biological assessment concludes that construction related projects, facility maintenance, landscaping, grounds maintenance, herbicide application, and vehicular traffic may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, this species. The frogs may be adversely affected during the Arroyo Las Positas Maintenance Project; however, the overall Proposed Action would have a near-term positive effect on the frog population and habitat. The demolition of facilities at the Livermore Site would result in a long-term indirect benefit to the California red-legged frog. Although six federally listed threatened or endangered species occur or potentially occur at Site 300, based on habitat assessments, field studies, and distribution data, the California red-legged frog, Alameda whipsnake, and California tiger salamander were identified in the biological assessment as either having the potential to occur or as occurring at the project areas at Site 300 that would be affected by the Proposed Action. These areas include formerly designated critical habitat for the Alameda whipsnake and proposed critical habitat for the California red-legged frog. Appendix E concludes that the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the California red-legged frog, Alameda whipsnake, and California tiger salamander. Radiological Air Quality There are differences among the alternatives regarding the potential radiological air quality impacts, all of which would be low both in relative and absolute terms. Once the NIF is operating, the MEI would be located due east of the NIF. The MEI doses for the Livermore Site would be 0.1, 0.13, and 0.09 millirem per year under the No Action, Proposed Action, and Reduced Operation Alternative, respectively. These doses are approximately two orders of magnitude below the EPA standard (40 CFR part 61.92), which requires that the maximally exposed member of the public not receive a dose exceeding 10 millirem per year. The population dose for the Livermore Site would be 1.8 person-rem per year under all three alternatives. At Site 300, the MEI would be west-southwest of Firing Table 851, the only outdoor firing facility that would use tritium. The MEI dose at Site 300 would be 0.055 millirem per year under the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action, and 0.054 under the Reduced Operation Alternative, which are over two orders of magnitude under the EPA standard. The population dose for Site 300 would be 9.8 person-rem per year under all three alternatives. The potential impacts of these exposures are included in the results discussed in Human Health and Safety for each of the alternatives. Traffic and Transportation Traffic at the Livermore Site would be directly affected by changes in worker population under each alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, traffic would increase slightly as a result of the increase in worker population by 300 workers (22,600 total vehicle trips per day) compared to current (2002) conditions. Traffic volume would increase further under the Proposed Action due to the addition of 500 workers (23,700 total vehicle trips per day). Traffic volume would decrease under the Reduced Operation Alternative due to the loss of 880 workers (as compared to the No Action Alternative) at the Livermore Site (21,000 total vehicle trips per day). At Site 300, the impact to traffic due to changes in the number of workers would be negligible under any of the alternatives. Construction projects would result in temporary increases in commuter traffic and deliveries. Transportation of radioactive materials offsite would increase under the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action. Under the No Action Alternative, offsite shipments would result in a collective dose of 7.4 person-rem per year. Under the Proposed Action, offsite shipments would result in a collective dose of 9.0 person-rem per year. This dose would decrease under the Reduced Operation Alternative to 1.7 person-rem per year. The potential cancer risk from shipments of radioactive materials from the Livermore Site would be low under all alternatives. The calculated potential LCFs under the No Action and the Proposed Action Alternatives would be 4 x 10-\3\ and 5 x 10-\3\, respectively. Under the Reduced Operation Alternative, the LCF would fall to 1 x 10-\3\. Under the Proposed Action, the amount of explosive materials transported to Site 300 would increase slightly from the No Action Alternative. Under the Reduced Operation Alternative, transportation of these materials would decrease. Utilities and Energy Under the No Action Alternative, the projected peak electrical demand at LLNL would be 82 megawatts and the annual total use would be 446 million kilowatt-hours. In 2004, the State of California projected the statewide peak demand to be 53,464 megawatts and projected a growth in peak demand of about 2.4 percent per year. LLNL's projected peak demand in 2004 was 0.1 percent of total demand in California. There would be virtually no change in the peak demand under the Proposed Action and the Reduced Operation Alternative. Annual electric use among the No Action, Proposed Action, and Reduced Operation Alternatives would be 446, 442, and 371 million kilowatt-hours, respectively. The decrease in electricity usage from the No Action Alternative to the Proposed Action is due to a cumulative reduction of LLNL floor space under the Proposed Action. For the same reason the Livermore Site would experience a decrease in water consumption and sewage discharges under the Proposed Action. Site Contamination Areas of soil and groundwater contamination exist at the Livermore Site and Site 300. These are primarily the result of past waste management practices, some of which took place during the 1940s when the Livermore Site was a naval air station. Although there is no immediate or long-term threat to human health from this contamination, there is localized degradation of groundwater. Remediation systems are currently operating to reduce the concentrations and extent of contamination. Appropriate cleanup measures implemented with the concurrence of regulators would continue regardless of the alternative selected. Increased site activities under the No Action Alternative or Proposed Action could increase the likelihood of soil contamination with corresponding increases in the potential for accidental releases. However, minimal deposition of contaminants is expected because of spill prevention and control procedures. Under the Reduced Operation Alternative a lower likelihood of soil contamination would be expected. Comments on the Final LLNL SW/SPEIS NNSA received three letters concerning the Final LLNL SW/SPEIS after distributing approximately 500 copies of it to Congressional members and committees, the state of California, [[Page 71496]] other Federal agencies, American Indian tribal governments, local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and interested individuals. Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment) submitted two letters and the EPA submitted one. The EPA indicated that it was pleased that the issues identified in its review of the Draft LLNL SW/SPEIS had been addressed in the final version of the document. In an August 3, 2005 letter to NNSA, Tri-Valley CAREs asked why the Final LLNL SW/SPEIS does not contain any of the 36 attachments that Tri-Valley CAREs submitted with its 63-page letter of comments on May 27, 2004. It asserted that its ``attachments provided supporting material for many of the substantive comments that were included in our May 27, 2004 Comment Letter'', and that the omission of these attachments might violate NEPA. Volume IV of the Final LLNL SW/SPEIS includes all of the 63 pages of substantive comments in Tri-Valley CAREs' Comment Letter, as well as comment summaries, responses, and a detailed cross-reference between comments and summaries. NNSA did not include copies of the 36 attachments because NNSA included the entirety of the 63-page Comment Letter itself, which includes Tri-Valley CAREs' substantive comments. Although not included in the Final LLNL SW/SPEIS, NNSA reviewed the attachments and considered the relevant material in them during its preparation of the Final LLNL SW/SPEIS. The attachments are included in the administrative record for the LLNL SW/SPEIS as part of the comment letter. A May 31, 2005, letter from Tri-Valley CAREs reiterated its comments on the Draft LLNL SW/SPEIS and provided additional information, including comments on the recent stand-down at the LLNL Plutonium Facility. The comments provided by Tri-Valley CAREs on the Final LLNL SW/SPEIS did not lead NNSA to conclude that it should change any of the analyses of the alternatives. NNSA responded to comments from Tri-Valley CAREs on the Draft LLNL SW/SPEIS in Volume IV, Chapter 3 of the Final LLNL SW/SPEIS. The following is a brief summary of the Tri-Valley CAREs' comments from the May 31, 2005, letter including the stand-down of the Plutonium Facility. (1) The LLNL SW/SPEIS did not address comments from Tri-Valley CAREs and others that the purpose and need is critical to identifying the range of alternatives. Therefore, the range of alternatives analyzed in the LLNL SW/SPEIS is too narrow. NNSA should have analyzed a broader range of alternatives that included the reduction of nuclear weapons activities, many of which are duplications of programs at Los Alamos National Laboratory or limit nuclear weapons modernization programs. Response: The range of reasonable alternatives is provided in Volume I, Chapter 3 of the LLNL SW/SPEIS. As described in Section 3.4, the range of alternatives analyzed in the LLNL SW/SPEIS is reasonable and appropriately responds to the programmatic purpose and need. Additional information is provided in Comment Responses 7.01, 8.01, 8.02 and 8.03. Comment Response 8.01 states that significant reductions or consolidations of the weapons laboratories beyond those analyzed in the Reduced Operations Alternative are unlikely and therefore not reasonable alternatives because they would not allow NNSA to maintain core competencies or to develop new technologies necessary to ensure continued high confidence in a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile. Alternatives that would cease work involving the use of nuclear materials and the eventual removal of all nuclear materials were considered. However, none of these alternatives would meet Presidential Decision Directives or comply with Congressional guidance, or national security policy, all of which require the continued viability of all three NNSA nuclear weapons laboratories. (2) Adequate purpose and need were not provided for many program activities at LLNL such as producing tritium targets at the Tritium Facility and developing plutonium production technologies that will be used in a proposed modern pit facility. Response: The purpose and need are provided in Volume I, Chapter 1 of the LLNL SW/SPEIS for the major programs and projects at LLNL. Chapter 3 provides additional information on specific projects at LLNL that support the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) including the Tritium Facility Modernization Project and support for pit manufacturing. Chapter 3 of Volume IV, Comment Response 37.01, addresses comments on plutonium production technologies for pit manufacturing and Comment Response 34.01 addresses comments on tritium operations. Increased limits on the use of tritium will make it possible to fill targets for high-energy density physics experiments and to provide diagnostic systems for test readiness, which are required to fulfill the requirements of the Enhanced Test Readiness Program. (3) DOE should not increase the plutonium limit in the Plutonium Facility because the facility is currently in a ``stand down'' mode due to safety problems. Response: LLNL initiated a programmatic stand down of operations in the Plutonium Facility in order to resolve issues and findings from a January 6, 2005, report issued by the DOE Office of Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance. NNSA will verify the adequacy of corrective actions taken to resolve the issues prior to any increase of Plutonium Facility operations. Once the Plutonium Facility is fully operational, NNSA and DOE will continue to oversee and inspect its operations to ensure they are performed according to requirements. To support SSP missions, NNSA has determined that it will need to increase the plutonium administrative limit from 700 kg to 1400 kg for the Plutonium Facility and increase the plutonium material-at-risk limit from 20 to 40 kilograms of fuel-grade equivalent plutonium in each of two rooms of the Plutonium Facility. Under the Proposed Action, NNSA will review and approve the appropriate documentation and procedures required to implement these new limits. (4) The increase in the plutonium administrative limits in the Plutonium Facility creates storage, transportation, management, accident, and security concerns that were not adequately analyzed. Rather than analyzing an increase in the administrative limits the LLNL SW/SPEIS should have analyzed the removal of all special nuclear material from LLNL. Response: Comment Response 33.01 provides information on the purpose and need for increasing the plutonium limits. NNSA continues to rely on LLNL to meet its SSP mission objectives, which require increasing the quantity of plutonium. NNSA continues to work on a solution for disposal of plutonium, but no pathway for LLNL to dispose of excess plutonium currently exists. The increase in plutonium administrative limits is analyzed in Volume I, Chapter 5. The impacts of transportation of radioactive materials, specifically plutonium, are analyzed in Section 5.3.11. Additional specific information on transportation of these materials is provided in Appendix J. Section 5.3.13 analyzes waste generated from plutonium operations and Section 5.3.14 analyzes exposure to workers and the public from these operations. Accidents involving the storage and use of plutonium are analyzed in Section 5.5. The impacts of security concerns are analyzed as part of the accident analysis in Section 5.5. Comment Response 25.01 provides specific [[Page 71497]] responses to many of the question raised concerning accidents involving the use of plutonium at LLNL. (5) The former Secretary of Energy announced in 2004 that DOE would study removal of special nuclear material from LLNL. The omission of this and other information provided in attachments to the comments on the draft LLNL SW/SPEIS undermines the legal sufficiency of the EIS. Response: As indicated in Comment Response 08.02, the removal and relocation of nuclear materials to another DOE/NNSA laboratory is not considered a reasonable alternative as it would not respond to the programmatic purpose and need for stockpile stewardship missions at LLNL. Section 3.5 of the LLNL SW/SPEIS explains why this alternative is unreasonable and was eliminated from detailed analysis. NNSA considers the storage and use of this material at LLNL to be safe and secure. The Secretary of Energy did agree to conduct a comprehensive review of the nuclear weapons complex during testimony on March 11, 2004, to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water. The Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure Task Force was asked to conduct this review and submitted its draft report titled Recommendations for the Nuclear Weapons Complex of the Future on July 13, 2005, to the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB). The draft final report is currently undergoing public review. The full SEAB will meet in the fall of 2005 to review the comments and the draft final report; it will thereafter submit its recommendations, which may differ from those of the task force, to the Secretary of Energy. (6) Accident analysis for the increase in the use and storage of plutonium is not given an adequate level of study. The accident scenarios did not evaluate the impacts of a commercial airliner hitting the laboratory; the document only considered impacts of planes originating from the Livermore Municipal Airport. The accident analysis did not use the correct leak path factor or consider other concerns for releases during an accident in the Plutonium Facility. Additionally, the unfiltered fire scenario does not address concerns such as alarms, security doors, emergency equipment and supply pressure for water. Response: A discussion of Plutonium Facility accidents is provided in Chapter 5, Section 5.5 and in Appendix D, Section D.2.3. In addition, Comment Response 25.08 provides information on potential aircraft crash scenarios for LLNL facilities for all types of aircraft, including commercial aircraft. The methodology in DOE Standard 3014 ``Accident Analysis for Aircraft Crash into Hazardous Facilities'' was used for this evaluation. The calculated frequency of a commercial aircraft crashing into the LLNL Plutonium Facility is 1 x 10-8 per year. NNSA does not consider this accident to be reasonably foreseeable and thus it is not evaluated in detail in the LLNL SW/SPEIS. As indicated in Comment Response 25.07, the values used in the accident analysis, such as the leak path factors, are based on careful consideration of the material present in the facility, potential initiating events and their probabilities, and potential pathways through which material could escape to the environment. The unfiltered fire scenario assumed that all of the radioactive material in the room was involved in the fire and the material was released using a leak path factor of 0.05 for this accident. Alarms, doors, emergency equipment and water pressure were not considered in the unfiltered fire scenario because the analysis assumes that the fire is of sufficient magnitude that all the radioactive material is engulfed in the fire, and that the fire burns long enough to release the material from storage containers to the glovebox, room, and the environment. Therefore, there are no reasonably foreseeable accidents with greater consequences. (7) It is improper for NNSA to not fully incorporate the City of Livermore's General Plan into the LLNL SW/SPEIS. The city's plan rezones the land around LLNL as high density residential and this information was not considered in all sections of the LLNL SW/SPEIS. As a result DOE is not in full compliance with the NEPA directive to include written and actively pursued plans in an EIS. Additionally, the LLNL SW/SPEIS states that LLNL and much of the surrounding area is designated for industrial uses which is in direct conflict with figures in the other sections of the LLNL SW/SPEIS. Response: Chapter 4, Section 4.2 of the LLNL SW/SPEIS, was changed to reflect the City of Livermore's General Plan. The city also submitted comments on the Draft LLNL SW/SPEIS. NNSA evaluated these comments and made appropriate changes in the Final LLNL SW/SPEIS as indicated in Comment Response 9.02. Based on comments from the City of Livermore, which reflect its current planning, Figures 4.2.1.1-1 and 4.2.2.1-1 were revised to indicate residential use consistent with the city's General Plan. The City of Livermore comments are addressed in Comment Responses 8.03, 9.01, 9.02, 9.03, 12.01, 17.02, 17.03, 20.03, 26.03, and 33.01. (8) The radiation dose to involved workers does not account for releases due to minor accidents, decaying facilities, and workers encountering unexpected radiation sources in areas that were not properly recorded. Response: Chapter 5, Section 5.3.14, analyzes the radiation dose to workers for the Proposed Action. Comment Response 23.05 provides information on the health impacts to workers and the public. Health impact analysis is performed using a broad range of available information and models developed by regulatory agencies and data drawn from experience. In the case of existing operations, worker doses are based on exposure records, which take into account all exposure pathways. In the case of new operations, worker doses are based on models that simulate exposure for the operations to be performed. Exposure from all accidents at LLNL is taken into consideration when developing worker exposure estimates. These exposures are bounded by the accident analysis provided in Chapter 5, Section 5.5 and Appendix D. Information on past accidents is also provided in Appendix C, Section 3.2. (9) Information was not provided in the LLNL SW/SPEIS about what activities or programs are contained in facilities that are identified to have unacceptable seismic risks. Information was not provided to indicate what facilities were undergoing renovation or what facilities would remain operational after an earthquake. Updated information on California seismic risk provided by Tri-Valley CAREs was not considered. Response: Chapter 4, Section 4.8, and Appendix H provide detailed analysis of the seismic faults in the Livermore Valley and their potential effect on LLNL facilities and operations. Comment Response 14.03 explains that all facilities at LLNL have been evaluated against modern seismic criteria, current and planned use, and building population and inventory. These evaluations allowed for ranking of the facilities by the amount of retrofit that could be required. This evaluation is used as part of the overall planning for LLNL to determine if buildings should be replaced, their use changed, or their structural integrity improved. Based on comments received, updated information was added in Appendix H on the seismic upgrades of Buildings 141, 151, 298, 321, and 511. It is not possible to determine what specific facilities would remain operational after an earthquake. This would depend on a [[Page 71498]] wide range of variables at the time of the earthquake. A seismic event at LLNL was analyzed in Appendix D of the LLNL SW/SPEIS and the impacts for all potentially affected buildings are included. Information provided by individuals was considered. However, as indicated in Comment Response 14.01, information from the U.S. Geological Survey on seismic risk for the San Andreas, Calaveras, and Greenville faults was used because its analyses represent the best knowledge currently available for the seismic risk associated with these faults. (10) A declassified security analysis should be provided that includes a summation of the efforts that went into the security study and the account of how the conclusions drawn from the study were integrated into the LLNL SW/SPEIS analysis. Response: Chapter 5, Section 5.5, and Appendix D provide detailed analysis on potential accidents that could occur at LLNL. Comment Response 30.01 provides information on security concerns and indicates that it is not possible to predict whether intentional attacks would occur at LLNL or at other critical facilities, or the nature of the types of attacks that might be made. Nevertheless, NNSA reevaluated scenarios involving malevolent, terrorist, or intentionally destructive acts at LLNL in an effort to assess potential vulnerabilities and identify improvements to security procedures and response measures in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Security at NNSA and DOE facilities is a critical priority for the Department, and it continues to identify and implement measures designed to defend against and deter attacks at its facilities. Substantive details of terrorist attack scenarios and security countermeasures cannot be released to the public, as disclosure of this information could be exploited by terrorists to plan attacks. (11) The use of fissile and fissionable materials in NIF experiments would take NIF in a new direction that would give it increased applicability for weapons design, and this work was not analyzed. The 1995 NIF Non-Proliferation Study does not address the use of these materials and therefore is not adequate for determining if the use of these materials is in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Response: A review of the treaty obligations and proliferation aspects of NIF was conducted and new information provided in Chapter 1, Section 1.3.1. of the Final LLNL SW/SPEIS. As Comment Response 01.01 states, NIF is an integral part of the SSP and as such was considered during NNSA's review of compliance with treaty and proliferation aspects of the SSP. Appendix I of the SSM PEIS provided an evaluation of the construction and operation of the NIF. As indicated in Chapter 1 of Appendix I, one of the objectives of the SSP is ``Ensurance that the activities needed to maintain the Nation's nuclear deterrent are consistent with the Nation's arms control and nonproliferation objectives.'' Nonproliferation issues regarding NIF were evaluated in a December 19, 1995, study, The National Ignition Facility and the Issue of Nonproliferation. The study, prepared by the DOE Office of Nonproliferation and National Security and coordinated with the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, the Departments of Defense and State, concluded that (1) the technical proliferation concerns regarding NIF are manageable and therefore are acceptable, and (2) NIF can contribute positively to U.S. arms control and nonproliferation policy goals. As stated in Comment Response 01.01, NNSA has determined that the use of fissile material, fissionable material, and lithium hydride in NIF experiments is consistent with treaty obligations and the proliferation aspects of conducting these experiments are manageable. (12) It is inappropriate to use a bounding accident scenario study for the BioSafety Level-3 (BSL-3) Facility that is out-of-date and based on a facility not at LLNL. Response: Chapter 5, Section 5.5.4, and Appendix D, discuss the analysis of a biological accident. As indicated in Comment Response 25.04, for purposes of the LLNL SW/SPEIS, NNSA selected a representative facility accident that was previously analyzed by the U.S. Army in the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Biological Defense Research Program (April 1989). NNSA believes that this accident scenario is comparable to and bounds potential accident scenarios associated with the BSL-3 Facility at LLNL. NNSA reviewed more recent environmental impact statements, including the U. S. Army's Chemical and Biological Defense Program Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (May 2004) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Final Environmental Impact Statement for Construction and Operation of the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) Facility (December 2004) and concluded that these EISs incorporate the same bounding accidents and identify the same environmental impacts as the U.S. Army's earlier EIS issued in 1989 (i.e., the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Biological Defense Research Program [April 1989]). (13) The impact analysis focused on LCFs in general rather than the population that is immune-suppressed as a result of LLNL operations. Additionally, radiological dispersal could result in measurable increases in cancer mortality for decades following an accident. Information was not provided on economic loss of farmland, loss of vineyards, and impacts on the local economy and property values. Response: The human health effects on the general population around LLNL from radiation exposure in the Proposed Action are analyzed in Chapter 5, Section 5.4.14. As indicated in Comment Response 25.05, health effects other than LCFs could result from environmental and occupational exposures to radiation. These include nonfatal cancers among the exposed population and genetic effects in subsequent generations. Previous studies have concluded that these effects are less probable than fatal cancers as consequences of radiation exposure. Dose-to-risk conversion factors for nonfatal cancers and hereditary genetic effects (0.0001 per person-rem and 0.00013 per person-rem, respectively) are substantially lower than those for fatal cancers. The LLNL SW/SPEIS presents estimated effects of radiation in terms of LCFs because that is the major potential health effect from exposure to radiation. Any additional increases in cancer mortality or morbidity from exposure to residual environmental contamination from an accident would be minor considering that the increase in LCFs for the population exposed to the accident (highest concentrations) would only be 1.21 LCF under the bounding analysis. In addition, there is no evidence that the population surrounding LLNL is ``immune suppressed'' as a result of LLNL operations. As indicated in Comment Response 25.06, NNSA focused the accident analysis on human health impacts among LLNL workers and the general public near LLNL. Secondary impacts could also result from the postulated facility accidents, such as loss of farm production, contamination, land usage, and ecological harm; however, they would not be significant within the 50-mile radius, which was analyzed in the LLNL SW/SPEIS. These secondary impacts were determined not to be a major discriminator among alternatives; therefore, they were not assessed in detail. [[Page 71499]] (14) The LLNL SW/SPEIS analysis does not address whether programs to modernize U.S. nuclear weapons are in compliance with international law. The LLNL SW/SPEIS should analyze all of the current and proposed activities at LLNL and their relationship to the NPT. The LLNL SW/SPEIS should analyze foreseeable plans for new nuclear weapons development including the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, the Modern Pit Facility, and Enhanced Test Readiness. Response: A review of the treaty and nonproliferation aspects of LLNL operations was added to Chapter 1, Section 1.3.1. As indicated in Comment Response 02.01, it is the United States policy for DOE to develop and produce the nation's nuclear weapons and to ensure their safety and reliability. With the end of the Cold War, DOE has been developing strategies for appropriate adjustments to its missions and activities consistent with current national security policies that reflect post-Cold War realities and threats. Some of these adjustments reflect a smaller weapons stockpile. However, even after the--Cold War, threats remain and nuclear deterrence will continue to be a cornerstone of U.S. national security policy for the foreseeable future. The Proposed Action is consistent with the NNSA mission assigned to LLNL and does not adversely affect the United States' compliance with any international law. (15) A nonproliferation study should be conducted to determine if biodefense work at LLNL could undermine the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). Collocating bio-defense work at top-secret military labs could complicate negotiations of verification and enforcement protocols for the BWC. The LLNL SW/SPEIS does not respond to concerns that the BSL-3 Facility will be used to aerosolize and genetically modify biological agents and also have a large-capacity fermentor nearby. Response: As stated in Comment Response 35.01, the United States is a signatory to the BWC, which prohibits the development and production of bioweapons. The BWC does not prohibit activities using biological agents that are for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes. The operation of the BSL-3 facility would be consistent with the BWC as its activities will conform to treaty obligations. The facility is designed to accommodate work on detection and counterterrorism technologies, and will provide for environmentally safe and physically secure manipulation and storage of infectious microorganisms. Operations at this facility will not combine biological research and nuclear weapons activities. Verification requirements established by the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention will be met with. The BSL-3 facility will be used for many operations with biological infectious agents; however, all biological agents would be managed in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention BioSafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories Guidelines. (16) An environmental analysis should be done on the manufacturing of tritium targets and on the Tritium Facility Modernization Project. Response: The manufacture of tritium targets and the Tritium Facility Modernization Project were analyzed in preparation of the LLNL SW/SPEIS. Chapter 3, Section 3.3.5, provides information on the new activities that are considered under the Proposed Action such as the high-energy density physics target fill and the Test Readiness Program. Chapter 5, Section 5.3.8, provides an analysis of the increased use of tritium to support SSP activities in the Tritium Facility. Comment Response 34.01 provides information on the environmental analysis of proposed programs in the Tritium Facility including filling of tritium targets, the Test Readiness Program and the Tritium Facility Modernization Project. Comment Response 26.04 also provides information on high-energy density physics target fabrication at the Tritium Facility and includes the resulting environmental impacts. Comment Response 31.09 provides additional information on the Tritium Facility Modernization Project. (17) Additional information should be provided on the likelihood and consequences of shifting from TRUPACT II to TRUPACT III containers for shipping transuranic waste. Analysis should be conducted on the increased rate of public exposure to transuranic waste, the heightened risk of transportation accidents, and the TRUPACT III Containers greater susceptibility to terrorist attacks. Response: Chapter 3, Section 3.3.15 discusses the use of TRUPACT II containers for shipment of transuranic waste. As indicated in Comment Response 20.05, the proposed TRUPACT-III shipping package would be a Type B container as defined by Department of Transportation and the NRC. Accordingly, it will be required to meet the same stringent safety and performance standards as the TRUPACT-II. Should NRC certify this package and should DOE propose to use it for waste shipments from LLNL, the package would be used in compliance with its certification and safety analysis report. NNSA has not evaluated its use, and prior to the certification of the package, cannot state whether any LLNL transuranic waste would be shipped in a TRUPACT-III. The transuranic waste transportation accident analysis in the LLNL SW/SPEIS was performed under the assumption that a TRUPACT-II would be used. Given that the TRUPACT-III would also be required to meet all requirements for a Type B container, it is unlikely that results would change if NNSA were to use a TRUPACT-III container. Should DOE adopt the TRUPACT- III, DOE will ensure that its use remains within the safety envelope of previous analyses for the TRUPACT-II. Mitigation Measures CEQ's NEPA regulations require that an EIS include a discussion of means to mitigate adverse effects. As described in the LLNL SW/SPEIS, NNSA and LLNL operate under existing laws, programs, and controls, including regulations, policies, and contractual requirements; many of these requirements mandate actions that would mitigate potential adverse affects. Examples include the Environment, Safety and Health Manual, emergency plans, Integrated Safety Management System, pollution prevention/waste minimization program, several protected species programs, and energy and water conservation programs. To date, NNSA has not identified additional mitigation measures for resource areas evaluated in the LLNL SW/SPEIS. It will continue to implement existing procedures and controls, or appropriately updated ones, during implementation of the Proposed Action. For biological resources, NNSA will implement the reasonable and prudent measures necessary to avoid or minimize incidental taking of listed species and will carefully consider implementation of conservation recommendations determined as a result of consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. For cultural resources, NNSA will implement agreed-upon treatment strategies to preserve historic properties determined through consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Office. Decisions The impacts identified in the LLNL SW/SPEIS were based on conservative estimates and assumptions. In this regard, the analyses bound the impacts of the alternatives evaluated in the LLNL SW/SPEIS. The Proposed Action would result in an increase in LLNL [[Page 71500]] operations to support reasonably foreseeable mission requirements. This includes the expansion or modification of current facilities and construction of new facilities, as well as those projects, activities, and facilities described in the No Action Alternative. The LLNL SW/ SPEIS and the analyses it contains may support additional programmatic or project decisions in the future. The implementation of these decisions and the schedules for implementation depend on funding levels and allocation of the DOE/NNSA budget. NNSA's review of the data and methodologies used in accident analyses verified that the LLNL SW/SPEIS correctly identifies bounding site accidents and estimates their potential consequences. This review found a small number of minor discrepancies on non-bounding site accident scenarios. Information concerning these discrepancies is available from Thomas Grim, the NNSA Document Manager for the LLNL SW/ SPEIS, at the address and phone number included at the beginning of this ROD. These discrepancies are negligible and the LLNL SW/SPEIS adequately evaluates the potential impacts of the alternatives. NNSA has decided to implement the preferred alternative, the Proposed Action with the exception of the Energetic Materials Processing Center Replacement and High Explosives Development Center Project. With the issuance of this ROD, NNSA will begin to expand operations at LLNL critical to NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program. The major decisions are increasing the administrative and material-at- risk limits for plutonium in the Plutonium Facility and increasing the administrative and material-at-risk limits for tritium in the Tritium Facility. NNSA will review and approve the appropriate documentation and procedures required to implement the increase to a 1,400 kilogram administrative limit for plutonium and the 40 kilograms of fuel-grade equivalent plutonium material-at-risk limit for two rooms for the Plutonium Facility. NNSA will conduct experiments at the NIF using plutonium, other fissile materials, fissionable materials, and lithium hydride. These decisions are discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs. NNSA continues to rely on LLNL to meet its Stockpile Stewardship Program objectives. These objectives include campaigns relating to pit manufacturing and certification, advanced radiography, dynamic materials properties, materials shelf life experiments, and enhanced surveillance research, which contribute to the need for long-term storage of plutonium. These campaigns and programs require increasing use of plutonium. NNSA continues to work on a solution for disposal of plutonium, but no pathway for disposal of the excess plutonium at LLNL currently exists, requiring an increase in the plutonium administrative limits. A July 2005 report issued by the Government Accountability Office, Securing U.S. Nuclear Materials, discusses some of the problems that need to be solved in order to develop a disposal path for excess plutonium. These problems have not yet been resolved and the amount of plutonium stored at LLNL will increase as NNSA continues to operate the Plutonium Facility. Therefore, NNSA has decided to increase the administrative limit for plutonium to 1,400 kilograms. The inventory will continue to be stored in robust vaults in the facility. NNSA has decided to increase the plutonium material-at-risk limit from 20 to 40 kilograms of fuel-grade equivalent plutonium in each of two rooms of the Plutonium Facility. The material-at-risk limit for all other rooms would remain at 20 kilograms fuel grade equivalent plutonium. The increases are needed to meet future Stockpile Stewardship Program objectives such as the casting of plutonium parts. These activities support campaigns for advanced radiography, pit manufacturing, and certification. NNSA has decided to increase the tritium administrative limit for the Tritium Facility from 30 to 35 grams and the material-at-risk at a single workstation from 3.5 to 30 grams. These increases are needed to support future planned Stockpile Stewardship Program activities such as the high-energy density physics target fill and the Test Readiness Program. NNSA has decided to use plutonium, other fissile materials, fissionable materials, and lithium hydride in experiments at the NIF as evaluated in the LLNL SW/SPEIS. This decision is based on the need for a variety of experiments using fissionable and fissile material at the NIF. NIF will perform experiments with plutonium or highly enriched uranium without ignition to study the equation of state of these materials. Experiments will be conducted to measure fundamental nuclear physics properties using plutonium or highly enriched uranium that require ignition. Experiments will be conducted with lithium hydride, which is not a special nuclear material, with and without ignition. These are materials physics and equation of state experiments designed to address fundamental physical behavior of this material and to allow benchmarking of physical models of the material. Experiments will be performed with depleted uranium with ignition. These experiments require materials with high atomic numbers collocated on the ignition target to enhance the conversion of laser light to x-rays for inertial confinement fusion experiments. In accordance with the provisions of NEPA, its implementing procedures and regulations, and DOE's NEPA regulations, I have considered the information contained in the LLNL SW/SPEIS and public comments received in response to the both the Draft and Final LLNL SW/ SPEIS. Being fully apprised of the environmental consequences of the alternatives and other information relevant to these decisions, I have decided to continue operations at LLNL as described in the Proposed Action with the exception of the Energetic Materials Processing Center Replacement and High Explosives Development Center Project. This decision will help enable the Department to maintain the core intellectual and technical competencies of the United States in nuclear weapons, and maintain a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile. In making this decision, all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from implementation of the Proposed Action will be adopted. NNSA will consider changes in its programmatic needs prior to implementing Proposed Action projects. The implementation of these decisions and the schedules for their implementation depend on funding levels and allocation of the DOE/NNSA budget. Their implementation also depends on the results of NNSA's continuing assessment of its mission needs and of LLNL's role in meeting those needs. Issued in Washington, DC, on November 22, 2005. Linton F. Brooks, Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration. [FR Doc. 05-23457 Filed 11-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************