***************************************************************** 10/05/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.231 ***************************************************************** 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 RIA Novosti: Iran can still avoid UN sanctions, talks to be 2 AFP: UN nuclear chief hopeful of Iran nuclear talks - 3 Guardian Unlimited: IAEA Optimistic of Iran Nuclear Talks 4 [NYTr] US, N.Korea Hold Direct Nuclear Talks 5 Guardian Unlimited: Diplomacy Expected Ahead of Nuke Talks 6 US: Scripps Howard: Consolidate nuclear-bomb-making plants, panel sa 7 Asia Times: India woos West for nuclear energy 8 US: Guardian Unlimited: As the US lowers the nuclear threshold, 9 Guardian Unlimited: U.K., France, U.S.: No Central Asia Nukes 10 Bellona: Kyoto agreement implementation in Russia will cost 2m euros 11 Khaleej Times: UAE urges countries to reconsider N-options 12 Scotsman.com News: Pakistan and UK in nuclear talks NUCLEAR REACTORS 13 US: Plant concerns voiced at NRC meeting 14 NO to new reactors, YES to energy conservation, say Ukrainians 15 US: NRC: PSEG Nuclear, LLC, EXELON Generation Company, LLC, Salem Nu 16 Platts: Debate on Spain's nuclear power future faces delay 17 Bellona: Russian nuclear industry waiting for private investors 18 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for th 19 US: Newstimeslive.com: Blumenthal seeks review of Indian Point evacu 20 China Daily: Super-efficient nuke reactor set for trial 21 Xinhua: Lithuania should build new nuclear power plant: President 22 US: NRC: Pilot Program on the Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution 23 US: Lincoln County News: Okay Public Use of Maine Yankee Site 24 US: OrlandoSentinel.com: Florida could lose in battle over nuclear r 25 US: OrlandoSentinel.com: Nuclear plant may be built - 26 US: MaineToday.com: CMP applauds Maine Yankee decommissioning NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 27 US: IEER: Letter to EPA re: draft Environmental Justice Strategic Pl 28 US: IEER: Readiness to Harm, article in ACT NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 29 [NukeNet] Stop EPA's Carcinogenic Yucca Radiation Rule! 30 Guardian Unlimited: British Gas produces most nuclear waste, 31 Platts: DOE appeals NRC panel's decision on Yucca Mt. draft document 32 Santa Fe New Mexican: Next uranium-plant hearing set for East Coast 33 reviewjournal.com: EPA's Yucca Mountain standard criticized 34 Las Vegas SUN: Trying to make sense out government's plans for Yucca 35 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Japan sending trainloads of toxins to Utah 36 Japan Times: Soil contaminated with uranium shipped to U.S. 37 US: Hudson Valley News: NRC establishes Indian Point spent fuel pool 38 DOE: develop a repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. 39 KLAS: Public Hearing on Yucca Mountain 40 Letter: Rep. Urquhart letter to Senator Hatch (Yucca) 41 US: The Signal: State: SCV Waterways Polluted PEACE 42 AFP: Japanese anti-nuclear activists favorites for Nobel Peace Prize US DEPT. OF ENERGY 43 Albuquerque Tribune: Secure nukes at 1 site 44 Tri-Valley Herald: Panel: Without tests, bombs risky 45 lamonitor.com: Lab cleanup faces hurdles 46 Guardian Unlimited: Agencies Agree on Hanford Canyon Cleanup ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 RIA Novosti: Iran can still avoid UN sanctions, talks to be resumed - IAEA head 05/ 10/ 2005 MOSCOW, October 5 (RIA Novosti) - Iran still has a chance to avoid its "nuclear file" being sent to the UN Security Council, and talks with the European troika of nations could be resumed in a month, the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog said Wednesday. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said Iran's could avoid UN sanctions if it cooperated with the agency on the remaining issues and attempted to find a mutually acceptable solution for its nuclear fuel cycle problem. He also said he was certain that negotiations with the European troika - Germany, Britain and France - would resume within a month. According to ElBaradei, Iran should make every possible effort to reassure the global community that its atomic program was exclusively peaceful. He added that Russia was attempting to help Iran rebuild the lost trust. Russia, which is constructing a $1 billion nuclear reactor at Bushehr in Iran and has much to gain from Iran's plans to develop atomic energy, has long been an opponent of UN sanctions against the country. On October 3, the Russian Foreign Ministry called on Tehran to adhere to an additional protocol to an IAEA Safeguards Agreement. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 2 AFP: UN nuclear chief hopeful of Iran nuclear talks - Yahoo! News UK MOSCOW (AFP) - The head of the UN atomic energy agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, said Wednesday he was hopeful talks between the European Union and Tehran on the Iranian nuclear crisis would resume in the coming months. "We have a hiccup right now," ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said at a forum on nuclear safety issues in Moscow. "I am optimistic that in the coming months we will see a resumption of these negotiations." "We need to find a face-saving solution," ElBaradei continued. EU talks with Tehran -- spearheaded by the so-called EU-3 of Britain, France and Germany, as well as EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana -- broke down in August after Tehran resumed uranium conversion activities. The United States claims these activities are a cover for developing nuclear weapons. Last month the IAEA threatened to refer Tehran to the UN Security Council over its nuclear program, but not before a November IAEA meeting. The European bloc has so far resisted calls for Iran to be referred to the UN, hoping to win pledges from Tehran on its nuclear plans, in exchange for trade and other benefits. At Wednesday's forum in Moscow, organized by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a US pressure group, ElBaradei said that Russia shared the same broad goals as other leading members of the international community as regards Iran's nuclear program. Washington has voiced worries about Moscow's building of the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran, suspecting that this could help Tehran develop an offensive nuclear capacity. "I think everybody, Russia included, agrees that nobody wants to see Iran develop nuclear weapons. On the strategic goal there is consensus," ElBaradei said. "Russia, like all other members, has been trying to see what is the best tactics to achieve that objective ... You have differences on the best tactics to be pursued, but that is democracy." Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved. AFP ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited: IAEA Optimistic of Iran Nuclear Talks From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday October 5, 2005 5:46 PM AP Photo VAH101 By JUDITH INGRAM Associated Press Writer MOSCOW (AP) - The head of the U.N. atomic watchdog said Wednesday he is optimistic that talks between European mediators and Iran on its nuclear program would resume within a month. A day after Iran reiterated it was ready to reopen talks with the Europeans, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei voiced his belief that a third party was needed to provide a ``face-saving'' way out of the impasse. Among other countries, he said, ``Russia is heavily engaged in trying to make sure the negotiations will be resumed.'' Washington says Iran's nuclear program is aimed at producing a nuclear bomb. Tehran denies that, saying its program is for producing electrical power. ``Everyone is chipping in their five cents because everyone wants to avoid a major international crisis,'' he said at a luncheon at a board meeting of the Washington-based Nuclear Threat Initiative nonproliferation organization. At a news conference later, ElBaradei said the IAEA had gone a good way toward understanding the Iranian nuclear program but that ``the jury is still out'' on whether Tehran has a weapons program. ``There are still outstanding issues that we have not resolved, and before we resolve these issues, we cannot say that the Iran nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes,'' ElBaradei said. ``The faster Iran cooperates with us ... the earlier we will be able to reach a conclusion on the nature of Iran's nuclear program.'' On Monday, the United States urged governments to end nuclear projects with Iran in light of a recent IAEA finding that Tehran is not complying with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Russia has been at the center of the controversy because it is building a nuclear plant in Iran that the United States says could be used to make nuclear weapons. Moscow has stressed that it shares the goal of ensuring Iran does not develop weapons, but Russian officials have said repeatedly they oppose the Western tactic of pressuring Tehran. On the issue of whether he supported the U.S. initiative, ElBaradei said diplomatically, ``I yield to the wisdom of the member states.'' He and his hosts in the Nuclear Threat Initiative, co-founded by former Sen. Sam Nunn and media mogul Ted Turner, said that much progress had been made in securing Russia's nuclear facilities. Nunn said that the U.S.-funded Cooperative Threat Reduction program that he co-authored with Sen. Richard Lugar was increasingly transforming its focus from U.S. financial and other aid to Russian leadership in global nonproliferation efforts. ElBaradei said the chief of Russia's Atomic Energy Agency, Alexander Rumyantsev, had expressed support for the creation of a nuclear fuel bank that would help countries benefit from nuclear energy. The bank would also help avoid weapons proliferation dangers that would arise from having an independent, full fuel cycle. In order to draw from such a bank, ElBaradei said, countries would have to declare a moratorium on building their own enrichment facilities for up to 10 years. The United States last week announced its willingness to reprocess tons of weapons-grade uranium from its stockpiles to harmless fuel levels for use in such a bank. In recent years, nonproliferation concerns have focused on uranium enrichment. North Korea is widely believed to have enriched enough uranium for several bombs, and Iran's enrichment plans are also causing concern among dozens of countries because of fears it could be used to make weapons. Enrichment at low levels generates nuclear fuel. But uranium enriched to levels above 90 percent can form the fissile core of nuclear weapons. The technologies leading to making low or highly enriched uranium are generally the same, and concerns over North Korea and Iran have increased recent calls for a way to internationalize the process so that countries do not enrich domestically. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 4 [NYTr] US, N.Korea Hold Direct Nuclear Talks Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 14:33:26 -0500 (CDT) X-Fingerprint: owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu-127.127 Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit AFP via Al Jazeera - Oct 5, 2005 http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E8695D29-9ADE-4440-AB21-13482556FD45.htm US, N Korea hold direct nuclear talks The United States and North Korea have begun direct talks for the first time since Pyongyang pledged two weeks ago to abandon its nuclear weapons programme, a top US envoy says. Christopher Hill, the chief US negotiator at the Beijing-hosted multilateral meeting aimed at dismantling North Korea's nuclear weapons network, said on Tuesday that the bilateral talks were held between his staff and officials from North Korea's UN mission in New York. The talks come ahead of Hill's much-speculated trip to North Korea to push through with international efforts prodding North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons programme in return for security guarantees, energy aid and normalisation of relations. "We have had contacts through the New York channel," Hill, who is also the chief US diplomat for East Asia, said, without specifying when or how many rounds of talks were held. Direct talks This is the first time the US has announced it had held direct meetings with North Korea since Pyongyang agreed to give up its nuclear programme at the end of the fourth round of the six-party talks in Beijing on 19 September. The two countries do not have diplomatic relations. On his trip to Pyongyang, which Hill has hinted at since his return from Beijing, the senior diplomat said he had "not finalised travel plans yet". He had indicated earlier that the trip to the North Korean capital, the first in three years by a top US official, would take place before the fifth round of nuclear talks in early November. Ahead of the next round of talks: "I would look forward to an intensified diplomatic calendar and hope to have US-DPRK contacts," Hill said. The last time a US official visited Pyongyang was in October 2002 when Hill's predecessor, the then -assistant secretary of state James Kelly, accused the North of hiding a programme for enriching uranium, triggering the current nuclear crisis. Disagreement Although North Korea agreed to give up its nuclear arms in return for a range of incentives under the six-party accord, it insisted that any dismantlement would only begin after it received light-water reactors from the US to allow it to generate power under a civilian atomic scheme. The United States maintains, however, that any discussions on a peaceful nuclear programme for North Korea can take place only after Pyongyang disbands its nuclear weapons arsenal. As for other benefits, such as normalisation of relations with the US and energy aid, Hill indicated that North Korea would simultaneously receive them while dismantling its nuclear programme. The "sequencing of various obligations" of North Korea and the other parties under the accord reached two weeks ago would be discussed in Beijing next month, Hill said, adding that the talks were going to be "tough". "The urgent issue, the number one issue is de-nuclearisation and so, we certainly need the DPRK to be de-nuclearising. "We understand we also have undertakings as well and in the course of the implementation and as we negotiate through the timing of the sequencing and time flow of this, we will fulfil our obligations," he said. AFP * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 5 Guardian Unlimited: Diplomacy Expected Ahead of Nuke Talks From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday October 5, 2005 7:01 AM SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - South Korea's foreign minister said Wednesday his chief nuclear negotiator would visit the United States and China later this month to lay the groundwork for a new round of international disarmament talks on North Korea. Ban Ki-moon also said China and the United States have similar plans to send envoys to other countries ahead of a new round of six-nation nuclear negotiations scheduled for early next month. The minister did not provide any further specifics. ``We're going to dispatch our chief nuclear negotiator to the United States and China for advance consultations,'' Ban told a weekly press briefing. ``There will be discussions on ... proactive steps each party can take'' to implement last month's accord of goals and principles, he said without elaborating. Last month's nuclear talks in Beijing produced a landmark accord where North Korea agreed to abandon its nuclear program in exchange for economic aid, security assurances and improved ties with the United States. Implementation of the agreement - the first concrete outcome since the negotiating process began in 2003 - remains unclear because North Korea shortly thereafter attached conditions to its commitment to abandon nuclear its programs. After the talks, chief U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill said he was willing to visit North Korea to keep channels of communication open, but many factors would determine whether such a visit could be made. ``I understand the United States is also drawing up various travel plans,'' Ban said. He added that he has no knowledge of whether Hill plans to visit Pyongyang. North Korea has long tried to engage the United States in bilateral talks, believing such meetings would boost its international status and help it win bigger concessions at the nuclear talks also involving China, Japan, Russia and South Korea. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 6 Scripps Howard: Consolidate nuclear-bomb-making plants, panel says - By JAMES W. BROSNAN Scripps Howard News Service October 05, 2005 WASHINGTON - An advisory panel is telling the Department of Energy to consolidate its nuclear-bomb-making facilities into one isolated, secure site to make a new generation of warheads. The recommendation from the Energy Advisory Board, if adopted by the administration and Congress, would mean a loss of jobs from some of the nation's historic weapons laboratories, including Oak Ridge, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore. The report also questions why the department needs three expensive supercomputers, Red Storm at Sandia, Q at Los Alamos and Blue Gene at Livermore. The nuclear-weapons complex is now spread among five different facilities, including the three design labs, Sandia and Los Alamos in New Mexico, Livermore in California, and two production facilities, the Y-12 plant at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee and the Pantex plant near Amarillo, Texas. "All of the production elements are quite old and antiquated and we propose that all should be replaced," said David Overskei, chairman of the board's Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure Task Force and president of Decision Factors Inc. of San Diego. Overskei said the threat of espionage dictated that the complex be spread out in the 1940s and '50s, but now the threat is terrorism. Destroy any of the "five single points of failure" and "you have lost the ability to produce a nuclear weapon," said Overskei. Even a "partially successful" terrorist attack on Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, the Y-12 plant or the Pantex site "may cause collateral damage" to the surrounding civilian populations, the report said. The cost of physical security now consumes 11 percent of the weapons complex's budget and is expected to rise to 15 percent by 2010, an "unsustainable trend," the report said. The report acknowledged the "tremendous science and engineering competence" at Los Alamos, Livermore and Sandia, but said, "Nonetheless, the weapons laboratories of the future will likely have smaller nuclear weapons program staff than they have today." When one public commenter asked Overskei how they would move all the expertise from the existing sites to one location, he responded, "A lot of the skills and expertise that exists in the current complex is not the expertise you would apply to the complex of the future." The report drew a cautious response from Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. Many of its recommendations "are consistent with DOE initiatives already under way to modernize the nuclear weapons complex and consolidate special nuclear material," said Bodman in a statement. But, he added, "Some of the more sweeping proposals could have significant budget impacts that will have to be assessed very carefully." Bodman directed Linton Brooks, administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, to make that assessment. Overskei said the single weapons-production facility could be built by canceling projects at some of the labs or by adding $1 billion to $2 billion a year to the Energy Department's budget for the next five to six years. The report did not recommend a location for the production facility, but mentioned the existing Nevada Test Site as a possibility. The full report can be accessed at http://www.seab.energy.gov. (Contact James W. Brosnan at BrosnanJ(at)shns.com) ***************************************************************** 7 Asia Times: India woos West for nuclear energy Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan By Indrajit Basu KOLKATA - The US Congress may still be undecided on whether to ratify the recent India-US agreement between President George W Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for enabling transfer of nuclear technology and fuel to India, but Delhi seems to be already moving ahead to entice foreign investors to invest in the country's ambitious nuclear-power plans. The Indian government is working on a policy to allow foreign direct investment (FDI) in the country's nuclear-power sector, which if finalized, would be a new area for FDI. As with the much-debated retail sector, nuclear power too is currently out of bounds for foreign investors. In a controversial policy shift, the US president entered into an agreement on July 18 with the Indian prime minister, which, subject to congressional approval, promised to change US laws so that nuclear-armed India gets from US - and willing other countries - help and cooperation for developing its civilian nuclear-power program. Beside the fact this sweeping new agreement is considered a diplomatic coup for India, it is also "a big step ahead" for the country's nuclear energy plans, and could open up the country's nuclear-power sector to foreign investments. But there is still a big hurdle in the way. "It is contingent on whether Mr Bush can push it through the US Congress because even if the US president supports it, this is an issue of high-powered politics and there are other countries' views that could influence it," said Shebonti Ray Dadwal of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), a New Delhi-based strategic and security studies think tank. Indeed this agreement is not going to be easy for the US Congress to push through. Even as the agreement is under "a hard look", a Congressional Research Service - the public policy research arm of the United States Congress - report published in August said that if implemented, the agreement will contravene the control guidelines laid down by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). It fears that such a move would open the floodgates to nuclear proliferation and allow rogue counties outside the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (that aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology and achieve complete nuclear disarmament) to build nuclear weapons with imported civilian nuclear technology. "And then there still is the problem of the NSG -The Nuclear Suppliers Group," Dadwal said. "Until now just a few of the 44-country NSG supports the thought, whereas many others are undecided." Nevertheless, the agreement is also crucial for energy-starved India's nuclear-power plan, which it has been pursuing for the past 50 years but with little success. And this is why perhaps the country is even willing to dilute, at least for the time being, the importance of oil and gas in favor of nuclear technology and fuel for energy security. For instance on September 24 in Vienna, India voted on a resolution by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that requires Iran to subject its nuclear program to the scrutiny of the UN Security Council. Although Iran has officially announced that India's vote does not jeopardize the mutual diplomatic relationship, and more importantly the $21 billion Iran-India liquefied natural gas deal, critics say India's stance has "wrinkled" Indo-Iranian relations and could hamper India's access to Iran's oil and gas in future. India of course is refuting that its Iran volte-face was a "sellout" to the US, which has allegedly been requesting India to vote against Iran with the carrot of the Bush-Singh nuclear agreement. But according to Walter Andersen, a former State Department official, the decision will certainly help in pushing the Bush-Singh agreement in the US Congress. And Ronen Sen, Indian ambassador to the US and a former Atomic Energy Commission member, feels that geopolitics aside: "Oil and gas are finite resources. Nuclear energy is not. Cutting-edge research in nuclear sciences and non-conventional energy like fuel cell and bio-fuels is not taking place in Iran or Saudi Arabia." Sen added that "Every major hydrocarbon resource is some distance from India and poses great challenges and difficulties in bringing it home." In other words, Sen suggests that between oil and gas and nuclear energy, the later should be the country's priority. Admittedly, given the current state of its nuclear-power capabilities, Western help in terms of technology and fuel has become imperative for India. Despite attaining nuclear capabilities since the mid-1950s, when India built its first nuclear reactor to develop nuclear energy for peaceful activities, the country has not been able to achieve much in terms of nuclear-power generation. For instance, of the total 116,000 megawatts (MW) of installed thermal, hydro and a bit of unconventional power generation capacity, nuclear power accounts for only about 3,300 MW (2.8%). One of the main reasons for the slow growth of nuclear power is that between 1974 and 1998 India changed tracks several times to utilize its nuclear capabilities to develop nuclear arms and emerge as one of the world's six nuclear powers, which attracted world ire resulting in a ban in transfer of technology and help. Critics say that although India did manage to develop indigenous nuclear-power generation capability, much of that generation capacity is "technologically weak" and thus, "commercially unviable". "But more than the technological problems, India's indigenous nuclear-power program faces a bigger problem of limited availability of nuclear fuel," IDSA's Dadwal said. "Therefore, assuming that it passes the US Congress, the Bush-Singh agreement would enable India the crucial access to cutting-edge technology and fuel. In fact prior to this agreement India's plan of generating 20,000 MW of nuclear power in 20 years looked like a dream. But suddenly this agreement not only makes that target achievable, India can also look forward to be more ambitious." According to experts, such as the World Nuclear Association, China and India offer the largest potential for nuclear power globally. China currently has a combined capacity of 6,500 MW, and like India, China's nuclear-power generation is just a fraction (about 2%) of its total power generation. But China has reportedly already invited international tenders for 4,000 MW this year that could cost US$1.5 billion and plans to pump in more than $50 billion investment in its nuclear-power sector over the next 30 years. India's prime minister has suggested that following the Bush agreement, India could add 30,000 to 40,000 MW of nuclear capacity over the next 20 to 30 years, and that would still be a fraction of its projected requirements 30 years hence. Small wonder then that global nuclear-power companies are already setting their sights on India. Reports say that nuclear power giants such as Westinghouse of the US, French companies Areva and EdF, Russia's AtomStroyExpor and US-based Exelon Corp and GE Energy (a part of General Electric) have started pitching for Indian power projects. Moreover some of the NSG countries, such as Germany and Canada, that were unable to make their presence felt in India - mainly because the US insisted that nuclear cooperation with non-NPT countries should be discouraged - have now started looking at India too. The Canadian government announced last week that it has "agreed to allow the supply of nuclear-related, dual-use items to Indian civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards, with appropriate assurances consistent with the requirements of the Nuclear Suppliers Group Dual Use Guidelines". Indrajit Basu is a Kolkata-based equity-analyst-turned-journalist with more than 12 years of experience in business/finance and technology journalism. Besides writing for Asia Times Online, he also writes for US-based publications, as well as IT companies. (Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110 ***************************************************************** 8 Guardian Unlimited: As the US lowers the nuclear threshold, debate is stifled Comment MPs must follow the lead of the US Senate and demand the information we need to question the replacement of Trident Richard Norton-Taylor Wednesday October 5, 2005 The Guardian The circumstances in which the most powerful country in the world and its closest ally would use nuclear weapons is clearly of vital importance - not only to the potential targets, but also to the people whose leaders would take the decision. Now, just at the time when the use of such weapons appears more, not less, likely, both the Bush administration and the Labour government seem determined to stifle all debate. The Pentagon has just removed from its website a document outlining a new doctrine for joint nuclear operations for the US chiefs of staff. For the first time it sets out specific guidance for US commanders reflecting the Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. It envisages the use of nuclear weapons to pre-empt a possible attack by a country, terrorist or criminal group with "weapons of mass destruction". It states: "To maximise deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use." The document lists examples of when nuclear weapons could be used. The first is against an enemy using or "intending to use" WMD against the US or its allies. American military commanders could ask the president to use nuclear weapons when there is the threat of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy", to attack "deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons", or to attack the command-and-control "infrastructure" an enemy would use to attack the US or its allies with WMD. The proposed new doctrine significantly lowers the threshold for triggering the use of nuclear weapons, notably America's 480 tactical nuclear bombs in Europe, including the 110 at the US base at Lakenheath in East Anglia. According to Hans Kristensen, a consultant to the US Natural Resources Defence Council, who first noticed the document on the Pentagon website, the doctrine envisages the use of US nuclear weapons in conflicts where they would previously have been considered illegal. "Instead of drastically reducing the role of nuclear weapons, as the Bush administration told the public it would do," he says, "the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism seem to have spooked the administration into continuing and deepening a commitment to some of the most troubling aspects of the nuclear-war-fighting mentality that symbolised the cold war." Dominick Jenkins, a Greenpeace disarmament campaigner who has also analysed the Pentagon document, observes that "where US nuclear policy leads, the UK generally follows". It is crucial, he says, that MPs and the public seriously examine them. Unsurprisingly, Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, and General Richard Myers, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, play down the significance of the document. At a Pentagon press conference on September 20, Myers denied the doctrine lowered the nuclear threshold, though neither he nor Rumsfeld had yet read it, they said. The Senate armed services committee is not fooled and has asked the Pentagon for a briefing on the new doctrine. In Britain the document has barely been noticed, and the Ministry of Defence is refusing to release any information on the government's plans to maintain a nuclear deterrent and replace the existing Trident missile system. Last week it dismissed requests for MoD documents under the Freedom of Information Act, refusing to say what studies have been made about the costs involved. It refuses even to say what nuclear weapons are for, arguing that it is not in the public interest to publish its assessments about what threats such weapons could deter. The MoD was asked to release studies it has made assessing the threats that might be deterred by a Trident replacement. It replied that though there was a "strong public interest" in the UK having a "credible nuclear deterrent", "it is felt that releasing information about the potential value of a deterrent capability ... could damage national security, and we do not believe there would be any public interest in doing so". The ministry also refuses to disclose the nature of discussions with the US on nuclear-weapons policy on the grounds that "there is a public interest in the UK maintaining strong relations with the US". That would be prejudiced, the MoD argues, if any information about talks with American officials was released. In an interview with the Guardian last month, John Reid, the defence secretary, promised an open debate on any decision to replace Trident. There should be a debate in the country as well as in parliament, he suggested. In light of the blanket refusal to release any papers relating to the matter, a defence official told the Guardian: "There is no need for a debate now. When the time comes there will be a debate." That, presumably, will be when it is too late to make any difference to what the government has already decided, in private with Washington. · Richard Norton-Taylor is the Guardian's security affairs editor richard.norton-taylor@guardian.co.uk What do you think? Email comments for publication to: politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 9 Guardian Unlimited: U.K., France, U.S.: No Central Asia Nukes From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday October 5, 2005 1:46 AM By NICK WADHAMS Associated Press Writer UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The U.N. ambassadors of Britain, France and the United States have sent a letter emphasizing their continued opposition to a proposal to create a nuclear-weapons free zone in Central Asia, according to a copy obtained Tuesday. The letter, dated Monday and sent to the U.N. ambassadors of the five Central Asian nations, says that a draft treaty to create the zone still does not address their biggest concerns and that further discussions are needed. It calls for consultations ``very soon.'' The five nations agreed to the draft text for a Central Asian nuclear-free zone in February. Such nuclear-weapon free zones can be signed internally but gain an enormous boost with the support of the five official nuclear-weapon states - Russia, China, Britain, France, and the United States. Russia and China have already said they support the treaty proposal. While the letter does not state the objections, the text of the draft contains language that Britain, France and the United States have long opposed. In particular, they object to ambiguous language that could give previous security agreements precedence over the treaty. One concern, for example is a 1992 treaty that Russia signed with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan which Moscow claims could allow missiles to be deployed in the region. ``A nuclear weapons free zone treaty must ban from the territory of its parties the deployment of nuclear weapons by anyone, no exceptions whatsoever,'' U.S. mission spokesman Richard Grenell said. Central Asia includes five nations: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. They had originally put forward a proposal for a nuclear-weapon free zone in 1997, but divisions both internal and external over the text have stalled progress. The United States previously expressed concern that the treaty could ban transit by ``nuclear powered or nuclear-capable ships and aircraft.'' The apparent fear is that the United States does not want to limit military movement through the region, which lies along key routes to Afghanistan and Iran, which the United States claims is developing nuclear weapons. The United States also has forces stationed in Kyrgyzstan. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 10 Bellona: Kyoto agreement implementation in Russia will cost 2m euros Russia will present 2m euros project for Kyoto agreement implementation to the European Commission on October 6th. 2005-10-05 15:38 Russian Ministry of Economical Development and Trade is the main Russian partner in this project. The main task of the project is to assist Russian government in Kyoto agreement implementation, RusEnergy reported. According to a press release of the European Commission, the goal of the project is implementation of particular tasks, such us methodological recommendations development for better monitoring of greenhouse gases emissions, national greenhouse gasses accounting, legal base development of monitoring and reporting about greenhouse gases emissions in Russia and working out recommendations for system of projects implementation in frames of Kyoto agreement. British ICF Consulting Ltd is heading a Consortium, which signed a contract with the European Commission for the project implementation. The Consortium also consists of Russian Institute of Global Energy safety and Ecological Problems, and British Hogan. 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 ***************************************************************** 11 Khaleej Times: UAE urges countries to reconsider N-options Online >> News >> THE U.A.E (Wam) 5 October 2005 NEW YORK - The United Arab Emirates has called on non-nuclear states attempting to produce or acquire nuclear weapons particularly in areas of conflict such as the Middle East, the Arabian Gulf region and South Asia, to reconsider their position and resort to self-control and peaceful means in order to settle their regional conflicts. In a statement made by ambassador Abdulaziz Nasser Al Shamsi, UAE's permanent representative of the to the United Nations before the general debate of the First Committee on "Disarmament and International Security' at the 60th session of the United Nations' General Assembly, the UAE maintained that such attempts pose a serious threat to the regional and international peace and security. © 2005 Khaleej Times All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 Scotsman.com News: Pakistan and UK in nuclear talks Wed 5 Oct 2005 Pakistan and Britain will hold talks this week on co-operation in nuclear power and improved military and political ties. Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said a high-level British delegation will begin two days of "strategic" talks in Islamabad on Friday. "A range of issues, including possibility starting civilian nuclear co-operation between Pakistan and Britain, will be discussed," she said. The announcement comes a day after Defence Secretary John Reid praised Pakistan for its efforts in fighting terrorism and drug trafficking following talks with Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf . Aslam said Pakistan and Britain agreed to initiate a strategic dialogue last year when Musharraf travelled to London and met with Prime Minister Tony Blair. Pakistan is a key ally of the US-led coalition in Afghanistan. Pakistan became a nuclear power in 1998, and has recently started work on its third nuclear power plant. © Copyright Press Association Ltd 2005, All Rights Reserved. 2005 Scotsman.com ***************************************************************** 13 Plant concerns voiced at NRC meeting Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 18:07:37 -0700 X-Temp-Whitephrase: YES Nuclear X-Spamprobe: ham-super * 0.0000708 OK Pike County News Watchman Sunday, Oct. 2, 2005 Plant concerns voiced at NRC meeting VAN ROSE Staff Writer The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission took the next step in the potential licensing of an American centrifuge plant in Piketon by hosting a public meeting Thursday evening. NRC officials held the forum at the Vern Riffe Career and Technology Center in Piketon to document comments and questions from community members concerning Bethesda, Md.-based USEC Inc.'s next-generation uranium enrichment facility to be built on the site of the shuttered Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The commission, last month, released its draft environmental impact statement, predicting that construction and operation of the plant could have several small and moderate impacts on the community. A final report will determine whether USEC receives a 30-year license to operate its centrifuge plant. NRC meeting facilitator Chip Cameron made it clear that the draft document is not complete and that statements from concerned public members will be considered and some added to the report at a later date. "I stress 'draft,'" he said. "It will not be finalized until we evaluate all the comments we hear tonight." One local woman, like others at the meeting, used her comments to strongly discourage NRC from granting the USEC license. "If you give this company a license to kill more people, I want to know who'll be liable," said Vina Colley, a long-time naysayer against continued plant operations, in a statement at the meeting. A former electrician at Portsmouth and self-proclaimed whistleblower, Colley claims she was made sick by poor worker health and safety practices at the plant. Workers have died due to direct exposure to radiation and volatile chemicals, and residents near the plant are being poisoned by toxic discharges into local waterways, she says. Colley currently heads up Piketon/Portsmouth Residents for Environmental Safety and Security, an environmental group looking out for the health of the community and National Nuclear Workers for Justice. Scott Flanders, deputy director for the Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection in the NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, responded to Colley's statement. He said if the NRC, during announced or surprise inspections of the Portsmouth plant, discovered that USEC had broken environmental or safety regulations after being granted a license, "an enforcement action would be taken, and the licensee would be held accountable." USEC Inc. American Centrifuge Public Affairs Manager Angie Duduit doesn't believe NRC violations will be an issue of concern, given the company's prior performance. "In November 2004, a license performance review was held, and NRC gave a two-year report of performance at the plant," Duduit said. "They said we were operating the plant safely, according to their regulations." Local resident Geoffrey Sea spoke before an audience of community members, stressing the importance of minimizing impact to the Barnes home, a house he owns that was built in 1804 near the current plant site, as well as other historical buildings in the area. He was also quick to point out that a well field that could supply water to the new centrifuge plant is located on property also containing Native American earthworks. The NRC did not consider his input regarding the cultural impact of the centrifuge plant when drafting its EIS, he said, despite repeated requests on his part to be involved. "You never consulted the people you asked to consult you," Sea told NRC officials. A final statement by Sea dealt with USEC and its supposed inability to convert its own depleted uranium hexafluoride - a waste by-product of the enrichment - to a less hazardous form using a DOE facility being built at the Portsmouth site. Depleted uranium from centrifuge operations might accumulate since the conversion facility can only be used for legacy waste produced by DOE before privatizing the Portsmouth plant in 1992, he said. "It's not available to treat USEC's private waste," Sea said. "It's not capable and not designed to treat USEC waste." Sea's statement, however, was later discredited by Pete Miner, director of regulatory and quality assurance for USEC Inc., in an interview following the public meeting. Miner said that, while the mechanism is not set up at this time, his company could acquire the authorization to convert its waste using Energy Department facilities. "Statutes clearly specify that DOE would take our tails (waste), or anyone else's, contrary to what Mr. Sea said," he said. David Manuta, Ph.D., a local chemist and former research staff member at the plant, praised the NRC for work performed on its draft EIS, pointing out only two errors in the document. He also spoke directly to those opposing construction of the American centrifuge plant, encouraging them to provide more support for the effort since safety and health standards have improved considerably over the five decades the Portsmouth plant has been in operation. "There should be fewer problems with centrifuge than with gaseous diffusion," Manuta said. "When the gaseous diffusion plant came about in the '50s, the NRC didn't exist. "That era has come and gone, fortunately." The NRC expects to have its EIS finalized with public comments by April 2006. USEC's commercial centrifuge license could then be granted by February 2007. ***************************************************************** 14 NO to new reactors, YES to energy conservation, say Ukrainians Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:32:23 -0400 X-Fingerprint: nirsnet@nirs.org-127.127 Ukrainians say NO to new reactors, YES to energy conservation

NO to new nuclear reactors, YES to energy conservation, say Ukrainians

Press release

 

Kyiv, Ukraine, 5 October 2005 -- Today environmental activists held an action “NO to new reactors, YES to energy conservation!” near the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine in Kiev. Representatives of the Ukrainian NGOs Bakhmat, Ecoclub, Green World, MAMA-86, National Ecological Centre of Ukraine and Voice of Nature were protesting against the Ukrainian government’s plans to build another 11 nuclear reactors in Ukraine by 2030. The plans were announced in May 2005 and later confirmed at parliamentary hearings on the development of Ukraine’s energy sector.

 

Environmentalists believe that energy conservation has enormous potential to improve the energy situation in Ukraine. Huge energy losses in industrial and municipal enterprises lead to the over-consumption of natural gas, oil, coal and electricity. The energy intensity of Ukrainian GDP is 2 to 4 times higher than in other European countries. Losses of water in the water supply and district heating equate to 30 to 60 percent.

 

“We are not calling for the immediate closure of nuclear power plants in Ukraine but we do oppose new construction and life extensions,” said Yevgeny Kolishevsky, executive director of the Voice of Nature NGO. “We strongly demand that the new Government of Ukraine includes a set of concrete measures aimed at increasing energy efficiency in all sectors of the Ukrainian economy into the Program of Energy Sector Development of Ukraine for the period running to 2030.”

 

Yury Urbansky, from the National Ecological Centre of Ukraine and CEE Bankwatch Network, said, “We have serious concerns about the safety of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants. The implementation of the state program of a safety upgrade for existing reactors has failed, the Parliament ratified loans provided by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and Euroatom for the modernisation of the Khmelnitsky-2 and Rivne-4 reactors commissioned in 2004 with a one year delay, problems connected with radioactive waste management continue to go unsolved and there are no signs for progress in the near future. A government ignorant of the issues of nuclear safety has no right to even think about plans for nuclear expansion!” “

 

At today’s Kiev demo, environmental activists hanged a large banner saying “NO new reactors!” The action was accompanied by a drum-roll on barrels resembling containers with radioactive waste, aimed at reminding officials of the need to listen to public opinion. The participants held posters with slogans: “Nuclear energy? No, thanks!”, “New reactors – threat to the economy and the environment!”, “Dniprodzerzhynsk – 42 million tons of liquid nuclear waste in 100 metres near Dnepr river!”, “Finance energy efficiency instead of nuclear absurdity!”, “Energy conservation is the source of energy!”

 

The NGOs challenged the newly appointed government with questions such as:

·        Why is the government deciding to build new reactors without proper public discussion?

·        When will a thorough assessment of energy losses in Ukraine’s industrial and municipal sectors be conducted, followed up by measures for decreasing the huge losses of heat, water and electricity?

·        When will the people of Ukraine stop paying for bad management in the municipal sector?

·        When will the development of renewable sources of energy get real backing from the state?

·        When will the government cease using public money to subsidise nuclear energy?

 

For more information and photos from action, contact:

 

Natasha Vyshnevska, the Voice of Nature, +380 50 5455928, nvishnevskaya@ukr.net

Yury Urbansky, National Ecological Centre of Ukraine and CEE Bankwatch Network, +380 50 5123222, urbik@bankwatch.org

 

http://www.bankwatch.org/images/nuclear_protest/index.htm

 ***************************************************************** 15 NRC: PSEG Nuclear, LLC, EXELON Generation Company, LLC, Salem Nuclear FR Doc 05-19922 [Federal Register: October 5, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 192)] [Notices] [Page 58245] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05oc05-107] Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Notice of Withdrawal of Applicaton for Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) has granted the request of PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG), on behalf of PSEG and Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the licensees), to withdraw its April 15, 2004, application for proposed amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, located in Salem County, New Jersey. The proposed change to the fire protection program would have decreased the carbon dioxide concentration, hold time, and number of discharges for the fire suppression systems in the 4160-volt switchgear rooms, 460-volt switchgear rooms, and lower electrical penetration area rooms. The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments published in the Federal Register November 23, 2004 (69 FR 68184). However, by letter dated September 26, 2005, PSEG withdrew the above-referenced proposed change. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendments dated April 15, 2004, and the request for withdrawal dated September 26, 2005. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly-available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of September 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Stewart N. Bailey, Sr. Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 05-19922 Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 16 Platts: Debate on Spain's nuclear power future faces delay + The debate on the future of nuclear power in Spain faces delay because of the distraction of Gas Natural's surprise Sep 5 takeover bid for Endesa, a spokesman for the industry ministry said Tuesday. Industry minister Jose Montilla had planned to open a round table debate with energy sector companies, environmentalists and political parties this week. "The minister had wanted to call the round table meeting this week," the spokesman said. "But its going to be delayed." Spain's socialist government committed itself in June to reducing the role of nuclear power in the national generation mix to 16.8% by 2011. Nuclear power plants contributed 26.47% of total production from Jan 1 to Jun 15, 2005, and 31.55% of the electricity generated in Spain in the same period of last year, according to power producer group Unesa. Socialist president Jose Luis Zapatero pledged to phase out nuclear power in his March 2004 election campaign. But the issue seemed forgotten until Montilla said in June the government would open a public consultation on the "real possibilities" for getting rid of nuclear power. But that debate faces further delay and the industry ministry spokesman could not say Tuesday when the debate on Spain's nuclear future would begin. Although the industry ministry is not actively working on the Eur22.5-bil ($27.2-bil) Gas Natural bid for Endesa, the magnitude of the takeover attempt has shaken both the energy sector and the government. The industry ministry is awaiting two reports, one from the national energy commission and one from Spanish competition authorities, before it studies the proposal in detail. It will only do that if the two regulators approve the bid, the spokesman said. ---daniel_fineren@platts.com--- For more nuclear news request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/ London (Platts)--4Oct2005 Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 17 Bellona: Russian nuclear industry waiting for private investors The Russian nuclear industry believes it is realistic to attract private investments into nuclear industry. 2005-10-05 19:52 In September the Federal Nuclear Agency (Rosatom) hosted a seminar on perspectives of the state-private partnership in the field of nuclear energy, daily Kommersant reported. The participants decided that it is quite realistic to attract private investors into nuclear industry. According to the Rosatom’s chief academic secretary Alexander Putilov, the state has not enough financing for the Russian nuclear industry, and Rosenergoatom can only support simple production. The existing conditions do not attract the private investors as the nuclear reactors may only belong to the state. If the legislation is changed then the private investors could finance the nearly completed nuclear plants and then they could profit from the electricity sales. Besides, the private investments could be used for construction of floating nuclear power plants, and upgrade of the existing nuclear power plants. Rosenergoatom’s executive director Sergey Ivanov said to Kommersant, that private companies could be also engaged in spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste handling and even reactor decommissioning. ”Of course, we should become a stock company first” he added. The potential investors, representatives of three banks, also took part in the seminar and they were about to believe in the bright future of such cooperation. “But it should be always taken into consideration that nuclear industry will be always dominated by the state, therefore special conditions for the investors are needed here”, the head of the analytical department of Gazprombank Sergey Suverov said to Kommersant daily. Publisher: , President: Information: , Technical contact: Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 18 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the FR Doc 05-19923 [Federal Register: October 5, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 192)] [Notices] [Page 58244-58245] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05oc05-106] Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. 1. Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: Revision. 2. The title of the information collection: NRC Form 483, ``Registration Certificate--in vitro Testing with Byproduct Material Under General License''. 3. The form number if applicable: NRC Form 483. 4. How often the collection is required: There is a one-time submittal of information to receive a validated copy of NRC Form 483 with an assigned registration number. In addition, any changes in the information reported on NRC Form 483 must be reported in writing to the Commission within 30 days after the effective date of such change. 5. Who will be required or asked to report: Any physician, veterinarian in the practice of veterinary medicine, clinical laboratory or hospital which desires a general license to receive, acquire, possess, transfer, or use specified units of byproduct material in certain in vitro clinical or laboratory tests. 6. An estimate of the number of responses: 364. 7. The estimated number of annual respondents: 364 (104 NRC licensees and 260 Agreement State licensees). 8. An estimate of the number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request: 42 hours (12 [[Page 58245]] hours NRC licensees and 30 hours Agreement State licensees). 9. An indication of whether Section 3507(d), Public Law 104-13 applies: Not applicable. 10. Abstract: Section 31.11 of 10 CFR establishes a general license authorizing any physician, clinical laboratory, veterinarian in the practice of veterinary medicine, or hospital to possess certain small quantities of byproduct material for in vitro clinical or laboratory tests not involving the internal or external administration of the byproduct material or the radiation therefrom to human beings or animals. Possession of byproduct material under 10 CFR 31.11 is not authorized until the physician, clinical laboratory, veterinarian in the practice of veterinary medicine, or hospital has filed NRC Form 483 and received from the Commission a validated copy of NRC Form 483 with a registration number. A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F23, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html. The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by November 4, 2005. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. John Asalone, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150- 0038), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be submitted by telephone at (202) 395-3087. The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, (301) 415-7233. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of September, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. 05-19923 Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 19 Newstimeslive.com: Blumenthal seeks review of Indian Point evacuation plans 2005-10-05 By Fred Lucas THE NEWS-TIMES If there's ever an accident at the Indian Point nuclear generating facility in Westchester County, the Danbury area might feel the effects. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has a grim forecast of what would happen if nuclear gas was in the air and people here had to evacuate. "The clogged corridors of interstates 95 and 84 — already incapable of accommodating normal rush hour traffic — would be completely gridlocked in mass evacuation resulting from a nuclear plant incident," Blumenthal said. Blumenthal sent a letter Monday to the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency — an agency heavily criticized for its hurricane response in the South — demanding a review and revision of the evacuation plans for the plant. DANBURY HYUNDAI 100 FEDERAL RD DANBURY CT 06810 PHONE: 2038255940 James Steets, spokesman for the Indian Point Energy Center in Buchanan, N.Y., doesn't think such a review is needed. The plant is safe, and if a leak did happen it would not travel more than five to 10 miles, he said. "There would not be a widespread disaster like what we witnessed in New Orleans or Mississippi," Steets said. "We are prepared for the extremely slim possibility of a radioactive release accident that would be big enough to make us want to evacuate." People would have to evacuate at least 10 miles from the plant, Steets said. The radiation, if it got loose, would not reach more than five miles and would disintegrate in the air after that, he said. The radiation would not likely escape the thick containers, he said, but if it did it would be in a gaseous form. Indian Point Energy Center is a nuclear power plant near the Hudson River that generates electrical power. It was built in 1974 and has been the target of environmental groups that say the plant poses a danger to surrounding areas. The plant includes two nuclear reactors in one of the most populated areas in the country, about 11 million people within a 50-mile radius. Hundreds of thousands of those are in Connecticut, Blumenthal said. Blumenthal said the Radiological Emergency Preparedness plans "are false and dangerous." "Repeated exercises conducted at Indian Point have demonstrated the failure of even the minimal efforts taken to date to protect the public," he said. Specifically, Blumenthal was referring to a September safety test that showed that some emergency sirens did not work properly on three occasion. Only two of the 156 warning sirens did not work, Steets said, and those sirens were repaired. Meanwhile, he said, the plant's emergency response drill was observed and approved by FEMA and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Blumenthal, a potential Democratic candidate for governor in 2006, made his request about one week after Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell issued an executive order requiring all major cities and towns in Connecticut to review their emergency response plans. The federal agencies observe every nuclear plant every two years, said FEMA spokeswoman Barbara J. Ellis. "Indian Point participated in this exercise just last year in June 2004 and proved their ability to provide for the health and safety of the surrounding community," she said. Still, Ellis said, the agency would consider any request made by the state. Steets maintains that such requests are unnecessary. "When we hear people talk about traffic jams in Connecticut, we know there is no reason to move people that far away," he said. "I don't know what the attorney general is talking about. I don't think he does either." A radiological release at the plant might be unlikely, Blumenthal said, but the consequences if it does happen are catastrophic. "If the federal emergency planners have learned nothing else from Katrina and Rita, it should be to do the planning before the disaster, not after," Blumenthal said. Contact Fred Lucas at flucas@newstimes.com or at (203) 731-3358. Division of Ottaway Newspapers,Inc. The News-Times 333 Main Street Danbury CT 06810 All items copyright © 2005 by The News-Times unless otherwise ***************************************************************** 20 China Daily: Super-efficient nuke reactor set for trial By Fu Jing Updated: 2005-10-05 07:16 Chinese scientists are planning super-efficient nuclear reactors that can maximize uranium burn-up and minimize waste in the generation of electricity. If the first experimental reactor, set to be in operation by 2010, is successfl, the technology could help relieve China's uranium supply problems as the country accelerates nuclear power plant construction. China Academy of Atomic Science President Zhao Zhixiang said a team of scientists has already mapped a detailed plan to speed up research and utilization of the so-called next-generation fast reactors. The new reactors are expected to burn 60-70 per cent of their uranium fuel - a conventional reactor consumes only 0.7 per cent of the uranium it is fed. "This kind of reactor can greatly improve the efficiency of fuel burn-up, and we are trying our best to put the experimental reactor into use over the next five years," Zhao said. Current reactors are only able to harness the power of 0.7 per cent of the radioactive isotopes found in natural uranium. In the fast reactor, the process is optimized so that more of the previously untapped isotopes can be used to generate electricity, burning-up fuel at least 60 times more efficiently than in a normal reactor. "We will have no concerns over fuel supply if such reactors are used to generate electricity commercially," Zhao said. China started research into fast nuclear reactor technology in 1995 and invested 1.38 billion yuan (US$170.2 million) into the construction of the experimental reactor. "I hope an experimental reactor with a capacity of 200,000 kilowatts can be put into use by 2010," Zhao said. He added that construction of the reactor is close to completion but did not identify the site of the project under the High and New Technology Research and Development Programme of the Chinese Government. He also said plans for a fast-reactor prototype are expected to be included in the country's medium- and long-term science and technology development blueprints. The prototype reactor, with a capacity of 600,000 kilowatts, will be constructed and put into operation by 2020, Zhao said, adding: "After that, we will consider commercial operation of the reactor." As China's economy keeps developing rapidly, demand for power also keeps increasing. To meet its growing energy demands, China has mapped out a national plan to increase nuclear generating capacity to 36,000 megawatts by 2020, up from 8,700 megawatts today. The proportion of national power output supplied by nuclear energy is expected to rise from 2.3 per cent now to 4 per cent. A senior official from the National Development and Reform Commission told China Daily that the country will have an even more ambitious plan to generate nuclear power after 2020. "All the plans urged our researchers to develop our own core technologies for the reactors," said the official, who declined to be named. "And I personally believe the fast reactor will play a leading role during the 2040-50 period in China's nuclear plant construction." Apart from fast reactor research, China has also made a breakthrough in gas-cooled nuclear reactors, which can generate considerably higher temperatures than conventional nuclear reactors, leading to a high power generating capacity. Using helium as a coolant, the reactor, mainly developed by researchers from Tsinghua University, is also able to shut down and cool automatically in an emergency. Senior State Council officials have called for early commercial application of China's first gas-cooled nuclear reactor to help restructure China's energy supply strategy. Most of the nuclear reactors currently in operation in China rely on technology imported from France and Russia. (China Daily 10/05/2005 page1) ***************************************************************** 21 Xinhua: Lithuania should build new nuclear power plant: President www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-10-05 12:44:13 RIGA, Oct. 4 (Xinhuanet) -- Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus said Tuesday that his country should remain a country with nuclear energy and build a new nuclear power plant as soon as possible, said reports from Vilnius , capital of Lithuania. Wrangling over the shutdown of the Ignalina nuclear power plant,located 130 km northeast of Vilnius, should come to an end, Adamkus said in an interview with local media. He said Lithuania has never signed documents on giving up its status as a country with nuclear energy, adding that his country should consider the construction of a third nuclear reactor to retain independent power supply. A report released by the Lithuanian parliament said the closureof Ignalina nuclear power plant will cost 41.5 billion litas (14.6billion US dollars). Experts feared that due to the huge cost, the Baltic country may be unable to meet its commitment to shutting down the plant completely. Earlier, the parliament ruled against a draft on postponing theclosure of the No.2 reactor at the Ignalina nuclear plant. The Ignalina plant, which provides 80 percent of Lithuania's electricity, was designed and built by the former Soviet Union and is the Baltic nation's only nuclear plant. The first reactor started to operate on Dec. 31, 1983, and the second was launched in May 1987. In June 2002, Lithuania and the European Union (EU) reached an agreement in Luxembourg on the closure of the plant. Under the agreement, Lithuania had to shut down the first reactor before 2005 and the second before 2009. The EU will provide some funding for the closure, while the Lithuanian government has also raised about 814 million dollars. On Dec. 31, 2004, the first reactor was closed completely after 21 years of operation. The closure of the Ignalina nuclear power plant will have a huge impact on the power supply of Lithuania and its neighboring countries. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 22 NRC: Pilot Program on the Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in FR Doc 05-19931 [Federal Register: October 5, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 192)] [Notices] [Page 58245-58246] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05oc05-108] the Enforcement Program; Request for Comments and Announcement of Public Meeting AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Request for comments and announcement of public meeting. SUMMARY: The Commission approved a pilot program to evaluate the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in cases involving the NRC's enforcement activities concerning allegations or findings of discrimination and other wrongdoing. See SECY-04-0044, available at http://www.nrc.gov. The pilot program was developed to evaluate whether the use of ADR could produce more timely and economical resolution of issues, more effective outcomes, and improved relationships. The NRC staff is now proceeding to evaluate the pilot program after approximately 1 year of operation. As an initial step in the evaluation, the NRC will be holding a public workshop on October 11, 2005, from 1-5 p.m., in room T2-B3 (ACRS Conference Room), Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville, Maryland, to discuss proposed evaluation criteria and receive comments regarding the pilot program. DATES: The comment period expires October 31, 2005. ADDRESSES: Submit written responses to the topics addressed in the ``ADR Pilot Program: Proposed Evaluation Criteria'' document included on the ADR Web page, as well as other comments pertaining to the ADR pilot program, to Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mail Stop T6-D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays. Comments may be submitted by e-mail to nrcrep@nrc.gov. Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North [[Page 58246]] (O1-F21), Rockville, Maryland, 20852-2738. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nick Hilton, Senior Enforcement Specialist, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, (301) 415-3055, e-mail ndh@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ``ADR'' is a term that refers to a number of processes that can be used in assisting parties in resolving disputes and potential conflicts. Most of these processes are voluntary, where the parties to the dispute are in control of the decision on whether to participate in the process and whether to agree to any resolution of the dispute. The parties are assisted in their efforts to reach agreement by a neutral third party. Proposed evaluation criteria for the pilot program include: (1) Program effectiveness, including success of the program in helping ensure safety is maintained and settlement rate; (2) program efficiency in terms of both timeliness and cost efficiency; and (3) program satisfaction, including perceptions of fairness, usefulness, parties' satisfaction with outcomes, public perception of the program, and interest in using the program after initial program use. In addition, the NRC is interested in general comments regarding the pilot program and recommendations for a potential future program. The evaluation criteria are addressed in a document for comment on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov, select What We Do, Enforcement, then Alternative Dispute Resolution. This document is also available in ADAMS at ML052640603. After a brief presentation regarding the status of the pilot program, the meeting on October 11, 2005, will be conducted as a roundtable discussion among participants who have been invited to represent the broad spectrum of interests in the areas of allegations and enforcement. The participants include representatives from whistleblower counsels, the public, and the nuclear industry. The meeting is open to the public and all attendees will have an opportunity to offer comments and ask questions at selected points throughout the meeting. Any questions regarding the roundtable discussion should be directed to the meeting facilitator, Francis ``Chip'' Cameron by phone at 301-415-1642 or e-mail fxc@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of September, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Michael R. Johnson, Director, Office of Enforcement. [FR Doc. 05-19931 Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 23 Lincoln County News: Okay Public Use of Maine Yankee Site October 06, 2005 By Greg Foster The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) notified Maine Yankee on Monday that it has amended the company’s operating license to release about 167 acres of Bailey Point land in Wiscasset for unrestricted public use. The news signals the official federal recognition of the site’s being decommissioned in accordance with NRC procedures, according to company spokesman Eric Howes. Since it began operation in 1972 until it ceased in 1996, Maine Yankee produced 119 billion kilowatt hours of electricity for its New England customers. “Today’s milestone marks the first time a commercial nuclear power plant in the United States has been fully decommissioned with all plant buildings removed,” he said. “The nearly eight-year project was performed safely to a significantly higher radiological cleanup standard than federal regulations require and within the $500 million cost estimate to Maine Yankee’s electric customers.” However, nothing significant is expected to happen with the land as far as sale or use of it, Howes said. That fact tends to dampen any immediate hopes for use in the foreseeable future. “The NRC has released the land for unrestricted use, but we still have spent fuel there so Maine Yankee will restrict access to the peninsula,” he said. Maine Yankee completed transfer of the spent fuel from the spent fuel pool to the dry cask storage facility in February 2003. Meanwhile, there have been efforts from nuclear power companies to hasten the construction of a federal repository for high-level nuclear waste from decommissioning and operating plants throughout the United States. It is uncertain when that will happen, however. “The future of the property is uncertain unless the fuel is removed,” Howes said. Now, with the amended license, Maine Yankee’s operating property is the remaining 12 acres including the spent nuclear fuel storage installation and surroundings. There are 64 concrete canisters located there containing highly contaminated spent fuel rods as well as other high level nuclear waste. “We have security requirements regarding that,” Howes said. That fact precludes any immediate sale of the property for public use. Speculation has run high for potential uses such as expansion of Wiscasset’s current technology park on former Maine Yankee land, but is tempered by the reality. The NRC reported it has released the land, since it meets its requirements of a maximum radiation dose of 25 millirems per year, as well as the state’s cleanup standards of 10 millirems per year from all pathways and four millirems per year from groundwater sources of drinking water. The Environmental Protection Agency standard is 15 millirems per year. “At the end of the day, the remaining dose is more like one millirem,” Howes said. According to the NRC, the average person in the United States receives about 300 millirems from background radiation each year. “Release of this land for unrestricted use poses no threat to public health and safety,” the NRC report states. Besides the federal repository proposed at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, a consortium of nuclear power companies have been pushing for the removal of their nuclear waste to Private Fuel Storage in Utah, which likely will soon receive an NRC license, according to Howes. Maine Yankee’s license in the meantime will still apply to the 12 acres related to the storage facility where spent fuel from the plant’s 23 years of operation still sits plus a small parcel of land adjacent to the installation. Maine Yankee actually completed the work of decommissioning this June. The company used that parcel as a loading area for excavated soil awaiting offsite shipment and disposal during the decommissioning of the plant that began in 2003 subsequent to its closure in 1996. “Congratulations to the dedicated Maine Yankee project team for safely restoring the plant site to an outstanding condition while overcoming many challenges along the way,” said Gerald Poulin, president and board chairman. “Maine Yankee’s decommissioning broke new ground in many areas and will be studied as a success story for years to come.” Poulin praised the efforts of the NRC, the State of Maine, the company’s Community Advisory Panel and other stakeholders who worked on the project. The company listed several accomplishments in the decommissioning including the low level cleanup, zero time lost for injuries in over three years, first ever use of explosives to safely demolish a containment building, 450 million pounds of waste safely removed from the site, largest single campaign to move spent nuclear fuel from wet to dry storage, creation of an upland marsh area, donation of 200 acres of land for conservation and environmental education, and sale of 400 acres for economic development. Maine Yankee is required to maintain a radiation monitoring program, according to the NRC. Recently Maine Yankee completed the last thing it had to do for cleanup, which was the removal of soil containing low levels of contamination. Howes said that Maine Yankee will be doing the monitoring where the company piled the soil for transportation to a low level nuclear waste dump site. The monitoring will be done on the model of subsistence farming on the land there and its safety for that purpose for humans and animals. Thus inspection of the soil for planting, drinking water, and feeding of animals from the land are part of the all inclusive pathways inspection, Howes explained. From now until the nuclear waste is transported elsewhere, Maine Yankee’s primary purpose will be the safe storage of the plant’s spent nuclear fuel and greater than Class C waste at the storage installation on Bailey Point while pursuing options for its removal. Maine Yankee will continue to hold its public Community Advisory Panel meeting periodically as a vehicle for public input and information. The next session is scheduled for Oct. 20 from 6-8 p.m. at the Chewonki Foundation. Vol. 130 - No. 40 This site is owned by Lincoln County News © 2002 ***************************************************************** 24 OrlandoSentinel.com: Florida could lose in battle over nuclear rules - Opinion 7:04 PM EDT, Oct 5, 2005 Joel O. Lubenau and Charles D. Ferguson | As Hurricane Katrina reminded Americans, federal responses to emergencies can be slow and insufficient. More alarmingly, federal decisions can sometimes make matters worse. Florida may have to weaken strong controls on radioactive materials because of a recent decision by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As in all states, radioactive materials are widely used in Florida for a variety of useful purposes. But, falling into the hands of terrorists, these materials could fuel harmful "dirty bombs," which are designed to spread radioactivity by using explosives or other dispersal mechanisms. The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks heightened concerns about radioactive material controls. While this concern was not new, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission acted slowly. In 1981, states commented to the NRC about the need to tighten these controls. In 1986, an NRC blue-ribbon committee charged with reviewing the NRC's materials safety program reached similar conclusions. In 1991, the NRC proposed rules to tighten controls, but in 1994 scrapped them, claiming insufficient resources. Instead, the commission tasked yet another committee to develop an alternative. In 1996, the commissioners directed their staff to expeditiously implement that committee's recommendations. Even so, it was not until 2000 when those new rules were finally issued -- 19 years after the states had first identified the problem to the NRC. The current issue facing the states is whether they can impose more restrictive controls when they judge that the NRC's rules provide an insufficient margin of safety and security. Thirty-three states, including Florida, belong to the NRC Agreement States regulatory system. Each of these states is the frontline authority, with oversight provided by the NRC, for controlling radioactive materials within its territory. Some of these states -- Florida is one -- chose not to wait for the NRC and upgraded its rules to improve accountability and security control of radioactive sources. Initially, the NRC did not object to the states' rules, which were applied locally, did not impede legitimate use of radioactive sources, and did not interfere with interstate commerce. The states' action was welcomed by safety experts, and especially by the steel industry that has been hit hard by lost and stolen radioactive sources showing up in recycled scrap metal and contaminating mills that accidentally melt a source. This has happened 23 times in the United States including in three Florida mills, the last occurring in 2001. The economic damage can be huge -- typically costing a mill operator $12 million to clean up and dispose of the radioactive waste. Unfortunately, in 2000, when the NRC finally upgraded its rules, it determined that state rules that were more restrictive than the NRC's were not acceptable. In other words, Florida would have to loosen its controls. On July 22, Florida filed a petition with the NRC challenging this decision. The Agreement States collectively filed a similar petition. On Sept. 15, the NRC postponed implementing the requirement on the states' rules pending resolution of the petitions. But the NRC then chastised the states for not having stated their concerns more promptly. Given that the NRC needed 19 years to fix a problem the states identified in 1986, the admonishment on timeliness is astonishing. Further, since Sept. 11, 2001, the states have joined the NRC to further improve radioactive source security, often shifting resources to do so. Federal actions can mitigate the risks of emergencies by strengthening levees in New Orleans or, in the case of the NRC, strengthening control and security of radioactive sources. But these actions can be slow and inadequate. State and local governments bear the ultimate burden for responding to emergencies. Accordingly, they should have a say in how to reduce the risks and improve public safety and security. Joel O. Lubenau, a certified health physicist, has served as a consultant to the International Atomic Energy Agency and senior adviser to the Monterey Institute Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Charles D. Ferguson is a science and technology fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and co-author of 'The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism.' © 2005 Orlando Sentinel Communications ***************************************************************** 25 OrlandoSentinel.com: Nuclear plant may be built - Christopher Boyd | Sentinel Staff Writer Posted October 5, 2005 Progress Energy Florida is considering doing what no power company has done for a generation -- building a nuclear power plant. The St. Petersburg utility says it might pick a site for its second Florida nuclear plant by the end of the year, and it could be brought online as early as 2015. It would be Florida's first new reactor since 1983, when Florida Power & Light Co. added one to its plant near Fort Pierce. Progress Energy Florida chief executive Bill Habermeyer said the company would likely propose a site and a design to federal regulators this year, but said construction wouldn't begin for years. He said sites in Central or North Florida were possible, as well as a location next to the company's other reactor in Crystal River. "The site would have to have sufficient water for cooling purposes, it would have to have transportation available to bring materials in, we would need access to a work force and, finally, we would need public acceptance," Habermeyer said. Nuclear plants, like flights to the moon, were once an emblem of American technological prowess. But high costs, stringent regulations and the national trauma that accompanied the March 28, 1979 partial meltdown of a reactor at Three Mile Island near Middletown, Pa. nearly brought the nation's Atoms for Peace initiative to a halt. But rapidly rising energy costs and the Bush administration's support of nuclear power development have revived interest. Last month, a consortium of power companies called NuStart Energy Development announced plans to seek approval for new reactors in Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana. Like Progress Energy, the group faces a long review and permitting process. Nuclear power has received support from key Florida politicians. "I do believe we need to look at our permitting process for nuclear power," Republican Gov. Jeb Bush said Tuesday, adding that he has asked the state Department of Environmental Protection to review requirements the state now places on utilities. "It is the safest, cheapest form of energy and provides the most stability as it exists with the current technology. The problem is the permitting process is so long." U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, a Democrat, on Tuesday also talked up the idea of nuclear energy playing a larger role in the nation's push to develop alternative fuels to reduce dependency on foreign oil. "I've always been one who thinks we ought to explore additional power generation by nuclear, simply because we now have the safeguards in place," Nelson said Tuesday. "The old days of Three Mile Island are taken care of with the safeguards." Progress Energy's Habermeyer said that by the middle of the next decade, Florida's rising demand for electricity would force his company to build a major generating plant. Given the rapid increase in the price of oil and natural gas, and the potential for volatility in the future, he said coal and nuclear power are the best alternatives. Whether fueled by atoms or coal, a big power plant would likely face stiff opposition. Holly Binns, field director for the Florida Public Interest Research Group, a consumer advocacy group, said power companies should explore conservation alternatives before building more plants. "Until we have done everything possible to promote energy efficiency and conservation, we shouldn't even consider a new nuclear plant in Florida," Binns said. Money is also an issue. Nuclear plants can cost billions of dollars, and consumers would ultimately pay the bill. Habermeyer said the cost of a new plant would be spread over many years. Allan Pulsipher, director of the Center for Energy Studies at Louisiana State University, said plants built since Three Mile Island faced tough regulation and took longer to build than expected. Cost overruns resulted, and Pulsipher said money remains a bugaboo. "The main source of skepticism about nuclear power is that no investor-owned utility is willing to say this is a great deal for ratepayers," Pulsipher said. Arthur O'Donnell, a California energy analyst and commentator, said cost overruns have tainted nuclear power's public image. "We have a long history of power companies saying nuclear power is inexpensive," O'Donnell said. "But when the real costs came in, it turned out to be more expensive than anyone anticipated." O'Donnell said there are other considerations. New plants would likely have to be built to withstand terrorist attacks, and the reactors would use new designs that thus far haven't been tested, he said. But he said a new generation of plants is possible if the investment community decides the time has come. "It's really a matter of getting the financing," O'Donnell said. "People can make this happen if the financial community and the government are behind it. Five years ago, I would have said no way, but realities are changing." John Kennedy of the Sentinel staff contributed to this report. Christopher Boyd can be reached at 407-420-5723 or cboyd@orlandosentinel.com. Copyright © 2005, Orlando Sentinel| © 2005 Orlando Sentinel Communications ***************************************************************** 26 MaineToday.com: CMP applauds Maine Yankee decommissioning Released 10/5/05 First complete decommissioning in the U.S. AUGUSTA, Maine, Oct. 5, 2005 — The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s approval of changes to the Maine Yankee license signals the success of the first complete nuclear power plant decommissioning in the United States. For Central Maine Power Co. (CMP) and the other owners of the plant, it also capped a long-held commitment to meet the public’s highest standards for environmental responsibility, safety, and financial discipline. “As the largest shareholder in the plant, Central Maine Power is proud of what Maine Yankee has accomplished,” said Sara Burns, a member of the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. Board of Directors and president of CMP. “By working collaboratively with the community and regulators, we surpassed the radiological standards for environmental restoration and met our responsibilities to ratepayers to keep the decommissioning within budget.” The recent NRC approval reduced the area of the licensed facility from 179 acres to only 12 acres, although Maine Yankee will retain control over the balance of the land for the foreseeable future. Previously in the decommissioning, Maine Yankee transferred 400 acres of land to the Town of Wiscasset for re-development and 200 acres to the Chewonki Foundation for land conservation and environmental education. CMP was a 38 percent owner in Maine Yankee, and Burns and other CMP senior officers have taken an active role in overseeing the plant demolition and site restoration. “It has taken a long eight years to reach this point,” said Burns, “but through it all, we’ve tried to keep our eye on what’s best for Maine’s environment, our ratepayers, and the community.” About CMP: Central Maine Power, a subsidiary of Energy East Corporation, operates more than 20,000 miles of power lines and other facilities that deliver electricity to 80 percent of Maine’s population. Web site: www.cmpco.com. About Energy East: Energy East Corporation [NYSE: EAS] is a respected super-regional energy services and delivery company that our customers can depend on every day. We are a motivated and skilled team of professionals dedicated to creating shareholder value through our focus on profitable growth, operational excellence and strong customer partnerships. We serve about 3 million customers throughout upstate New York and New England. Contact John Carroll at Central Maine Power (207) 629-1023 Copyright © 2005, Blethen Maine Newspapers, Inc. ***************************************************************** 27 IEER: Letter to EPA re: draft Environmental Justice Strategic Plan IEER| What's New September 27, 2005 Stephen L. Johnson Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460-0001 Dear Administrator Johnson, This letter is in regard to the EPA's draft Environmental Justice Strategic Plan, specifically the new language in it that defines environmental justice as "the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies." [emphasis added] The term "regardless," while appearing to promote equality, would actually institutionalize inequality. The statement "fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people" is meaningless unless the EJ policy explicitly provides for the allocation of resources, personnel, funds, and priorities in the proportion of the harm suffered by people of different race, class, color, national origin, income level, and gender. It is obvious and well documented that certain people - specifically, racial minorities and poor people - are more affected by environmental problems than others. Institutionally, race and class are still major factors in determining whose neighborhood gets polluted and how communities are protected from contaminated air, soil, and water. For instance, Native Americans have been very disproportionately impacted by uranium mining, as have African Americans in the South by toxic waste dumps. Polluting facilities are more likely to be located in poor neighborhoods, disproportionately affecting some ethnic minorities. The use of the concept of "Reference Man" provides another instance of how inequality is institutionalized and why fairness demands protection of the most vulnerable, whether that is defined by race, class, gender, age - or even pregnancy status. According to 40 CFR Part 61, Subparts B, H, and I, §61.21, 61.91, and 61.101, the EPA bases its calculations of effective dose equivalent on the body of Reference Man (also called Standard Man). Reference Man is defined in Publication No. 23 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (1975): Reference Man is defined as being between 20-30 years of age, weighing 70 kg, is 170 cm in height, and lives in a climate with an average temperature of from 10o to 20oC. He is a Caucasian and is Western European or North American in habitat and custom. The concept of Standard Man is incorporated into official, government-approved models used for environmental remediation of contaminated sites, making it the basis for federal decisions regarding protecting people from the hazards of radioactive pollution. However, because women, children, infants, and the embryo/fetus are generally more sensitive to the harmful effects of radiation, the EPA and other agencies, by relying on standard man, have built in a regime that is systematically discriminatory against some groups and against future generations. Systematic protection of those most at risk of health problems from exposure to radiation and toxic chemicals should form the basis of public health and environmental protection. Unless the EPA actually makes an effort to determine how different communities and groups are affected by toxic chemicals and radiation, it cannot have a basis for creating a policy that is fair. In view of the above, we request that: (1) the EPA remove the word "regardless" from its draft plan and explicitly recognize that "fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people" means that the disproportionate harm done to poor and minority groups, and in some cases, women and children, must be addressed in government environmental and health protection policy. The EPA should develop a plan that complies with the 1994 Executive Order on Environmental Justice and U.S. civil rights laws; (2) the EPA extend the public comment period on the draft plan for at least 3 additional months and hold public hearings, particularly in areas around the country most affected by environmental injustice; (3) the EPA review its rules and regulations that are based on "Reference Man" and other definitions of "reference" persons and modify them as necessary to ensure that they are oriented so as to protect those most at risk from exposure to radiation and toxic chemicals, be they pregnant women, the embryo/fetus, infants, children, or ethnic minorities. EPA rules and regulations (such as maximum contaminant levels in drinking water standards, residual contaminant levels in soil, levels of contaminants in food and cosmetics) should be revised and updated accordingly. This would include changing computer or other dose and risk estimation models used by EPA for regulatory purposes. Lastly, we must comment on the poor timing of EPA's proposed EJ plan. Using the phrase "people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income" in the context of demonstrable disproportionate harm and vulnerability is much like ordering the evacuation of everyone from New Orleans equally, without regard to the additional needs of those without cars, money, or the physical ability to get themselves to safety. We urge you not to pursue the present course suggested by the language in your proposal. The very publicly visible tragedies in Hurricane Katrina's wake are creating a renewed recognition that inequality of opportunity and inequality of suffering have a racial component. President Bush recognized that explicitly when he made his speech from Jackson Square in New Orleans. The problem of inequality of harm to health from environmental pollution is equally compelling from a practical and moral standpoint. The EPA has had the clarity of vision and purpose to have recognized the problem of environmental injustice in the past. Rather than the course implied by your proposal, we urge you to maintain and enhance that tradition by adopting more vigorous programs to redress the widespread injustices that exist. Sincerely, Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D. President Cc: Barry E. Hill, Director, EPA Office of Environmental Justice, Mail Code: 2201A Members of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (via email) Institute for Energy and Environmental ResearchComments to ieer at ieer.org Takoma Park, Maryland, USA Posted October 4, 2005 ***************************************************************** 28 IEER: Readiness to Harm, article in ACT A Readiness to Harm: The Health Effects of Nuclear Weapons Complexes Written by Arjun Makhijani for Arms Control Today, July/August 2005 On September 29, 1957, at 4:20 p.m., an enormous explosion in a tank containing highly radioactive waste occurred in the Mayak nuclear weapons plant in the southern Ural mountains of the Soviet Union. The fallout plume spread strontium-90 and other dangerous radionuclides over more than 15,000 square kilometers, which remain contaminated to this day. ... Read the full article at http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_07-08/Makhijani.asp Also on this web site: + A Global Truth Commission on Health and Environmental Damage from Nuclear Weapons Production + The Savannah River at Grievous Risk: Analysis of the proposal to leave high-level radioactive waste in the Savannah river watershed + Atomic Vets(radio commentary) + Fallout from Nuclear Testing Caused Cancers, U.S. Government Study Shows + Government should bear the burden of proof in compensation cases + Human Radiation Experiments Institute for Energy and Environmental ResearchComments to ieer at ieer.org Takoma Park, Maryland, USA Posted October 4, 2005 ***************************************************************** 29 [NukeNet] Stop EPA's Carcinogenic Yucca Radiation Rule! Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 14:37:53 -0700 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) NIRS Action Alert Tell EPA its cancer-causing proposed Yucca Mountain radiation regulations are outrageous! No one deserves cancer, especially not children! Take Action: Send comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) blasting its proposal to allow a 1 in 36 cancer rate for persons exposed to the radioactive wastes that would leak from Yucca Mountain, Nevada if they are ever buried there. Forward this alert to your friends and family to do the same. Sample comments, instructions on how/where to submit comments, background information, and talking points follow below. Sample Comments: (feel free to copy and submit verbatim, or to use to write you own comments; also see talking points below for additional ideas to add) Re: EPAs proposal for revised radiation release regulations for the proposed national high-level radioactive waste dump at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (Docket Identification Number OAR-2005-0083) EPAs proposed double standard must be withdrawn. The proposal would protect people for the first 10,000 years to currently applied standards of protection, but would then doom future generations after that time to a 1 in 36 cancer rate (or even worse, up to a 100% cancer rate, due to EPA mathematical manipulation), and a 1 in 72 fatal cancer rate (or even worse). Such proposed cancer rates and fatal cancer rates are horrifying, and EPA must withdraw such an unacceptable proposal. This is a complete violation of principles of inter-generational equity, as well as public health and environmental protection. EPAs proposal to allow 350 millirem per year radiation doses to people living downstream from the leaking dump the equivalent of 58 full chest x-rays per year would not only cause cancer, but also birth defects, genetic damage, and other maladies, and at alarming rates, and must be withdrawn. Current standards of 15 millirem per year from all pathways, and 4 millirem per year from drinking water, must be applied for the full regulatory period at Yucca Mountain, extending to the period of peak radiation doses (hundreds of thousands of years into the future) and beyond. These proposed regulations allowing 350 millirem per year radiation doses are completely unacceptable and must not be allowed to set a precedent to be applied at other radioactively contaminated sites across the country because they represent a large-scale weakening of environmental and public health protection standards, the worst such standards, by far, in the Western world, in violation of international norms. This inter-generational immorality must also not be applied to other EPA jurisdictions, such as non-radioactive, toxic and hazardous chemical contaminated sites. Sincerely, Name Street Address City, State, Zip Phone Email How/Where to Submit Comments: Submit comments by EPAs November 21st deadline in any of the following ways. Be sure to include the Docket Identification Number OAR-2005-0083: * Email comments to a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket No. OAR-2005-0083. Be sure to include your name, organizational affiliation if any, snail mail address, email address, or other contact info. with your comments. * Via EPAs EDOCKET website. Go to http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Then click on Quick Searchin the left hand column. In the search window, type in the docket identification number OAR-2005-0083. The search could take 30 seconds. This will bring you to the Docket Search Resultspage. At that point, click on OAR-2005-0083. At the resulting page, you can submit a comment by clicking on the Submit Commentbutton and following the subsequent instructions. * Snail mail, via: EPA Docket Center, Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. Attn. Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0083. * Fax: fax comments to 202.566.1741, Attn. Docket No. OAR-2005-0083. Background: First the good news. On July 9, 2004, the State of Nevada and a coalition of environmental organizations, including NIRS, won a major legal victory. The federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that EPA must re-write portions of its 2001 Yucca radiation release regulations, because EPAs cut off of regulations at 10,000 years was not based upon and consistent withrecommendations of the National Academy of Sciences, as required by federal law. NAS had explicitly rejected a 10,000 year cut off as arbitrary, and recommended [t]hat compliance with the standard be measured at the time of peak risk, whenever it occurs,and that peak risks might occur tens to hundreds of thousands of years or even farther into the future.The court ruling was a major blow to the schedule and prospects of the dangerous proposal to bury 77,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste on geologicially unsuitable, sacred Western Shoshone Indian land at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Now the bad news. On August 22, 2005 EPA published its proposed revisions to the Yucca radiation release regulations and they are HORRENDOUS. Dr. Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research who served on EPAs advisory panel regarding high-level radioactive waste repository regulations in the 1980s -- has said of the recent Yucca regulatory revisions: I consider this the worst single action that the EPA has taken on radiation issues ever since I began analyzing them almost 25 years ago. Nevada grassroots groups such as Citizen Alert, Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, Sierra Club, Public Interest Research Group, and National Environmental Trust kicked off the resistance to this outlandish EPA proposal on September 30th, marking the 8th annual Nevada is Not a Wasteland!Day. Members of these groups and other concerned citizens spoke out against EPAs proposal at official hearings in Amargosa Valley near Yucca as well as in Las Vegas this week. Next week, national environmental groups will hold a press conference and speak out at the EPA hearing in Washington, D.C. Both the State of Nevada and a coalition of environmental groups are making preparations to challenge the EPA in court once again. You can help bolster this groundswell of outraged resistance by submitting comments to EPA and forwarding this alert. Talking Points: " Disregarding all applicable, long-establisihed laws, regulations, and inter-generational morality, the EPA has proposed as Dr. Makhijani of IEER dubs it a double-standard standard.EPAs proposal would, for the first 10,000 years post-burial of the wastes, retain its original Yucca regulations permitting a lifetime cancer rate of 1 in 835 people exposed to Yuccas leaking radioactivity (in other words, a 15 millirem per year permitted radiation dose). But after 10,000 years, EPA now proposes allowing a 1 in 36 lifetime cancer rate (this figure calculated using the recent findings presented in the National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report NAS BEIR VII) for persons downstream (a 23-fold increase in allowableradiation to 350 mrem/yr, equivalent to 58 chest x-rays per year!). About half of those cancers would be fatal. " To make matters worse, EPAs 350 mrem/yr figure is not a maximum permitted dose to the public, but rather an average dose, so large numbers of people would, under the rule, get doses far higher, with proportionately higher risks. EPA even changed the kind of average from the mean (add all the individual doses and divide by the number of doses, thus including very high doses in the average) dose in the original rule to a median dose (the middle dose value, with an equal number of dose values above and below it meaning that very high doses are simply disregarded). In the U.S. Department of Energys Yucca Mountain Total System Performance Assessment for Site Recommendation, at the time of peak dose (after the waste packages corrode and fail), the mean dose of the many computer simulations is about 600 mrem/yr whereas the median dose is about 200 mrem/yr. So Yucca wouldn't meet a standard that required the mean to be less than 350 mrem/yr, but would if the median were used, instead of the mean. DOE calculations reveal the median results in doses of about 1,000 mrem/year, enough to produce cancer in 1 of every 10 people exposed. But that is just the average dose. Under EPAs proposed rule, half of the radiation scenarios would result in doses higher than that -- indeed, there is no upper limit for the half of the exposures that would be above the median. Incredibly, EPA proposes no upper limit to dose at all. So dozens of the 300 or so computer-simulated radiation exposure scenarios that DOE would run would result in doses above the 350 mrem/yr or 1,000 mrem/yr doses. In other words, under the proposed EPA standards, significant numbers of people could be exposed to radiation doses that would produce a statistical 100% chance of inducing cancer in the exposed persons. " EPAs proposal would set a very dangerous precedent that could be applied across the U.S., not just at Yucca Mountain. EPA has for decades declared any radiation dose above 15 to 25 mrem/yr to be "non-protective of public health." Its general policy has been to regulate exposures to limit cancer rates to1 in 10,000 persons exposed, or even to 1 in 1 million persons exposed. For example, EPA limits radioactivity in drinking water to 4 mrem/yr, air emissions at 10 mrem/yr, and Superfund cleanups to the equivalent of roughly 0.03 to 3 mrem/yr. EPA has gone on record, again and again, that radiation doses of 100 mrem/yr produce unacceptable levels of risk. But EPAs 350 mrem/yr proposed standard for Yucca would be a 23-fold increase in allowableradiation over the 15 mrem/yr standard, and would more than triple the amount of radiation exposure EPA has repeatedly stated produces unacceptable levels of risk. If EPA gets away with this, it could set a precedent to rollback cleanup efforts at other radioactively contaminated sites across the country, including other radioactive waste dumps, nuclear power plant sites, and nuclear fuel chain facilities. There is the added danger that EPA could attempt to apply such inter-generational double standards to other polluted sites suffering non-radioactive, toxic and hazardous material contamination, allowing for much higher cancer rates (and other disease rates) to future generations. " EPAs proposal is a shoehorn designed to weaken the standards so that the geologically unsuitable site can still be licensed, rather than requiring the site to meet public health and environmental protection standards. If the Yucca Mountain site cannot meet public health and environmental protection standards, as it clearly cannot, then the dump should never be opened. DOE has publicly predicted doses of 200 to 300 mrem/year at 200,000 to 300,000 years after burial of the waste, so now EPA proposes weakening the standards just enough so that Yucca could still be licensed. EPAs proposal represents raw politics, is antithetical to science-based public health and environmental protection, and would doom residents near Yucca to cancer and death at horribly high rates. All this, just so the nuclear establishment can maintain the illusion of a solution for the high-level radioactive waste dilemma, so that building new reactors and keeping the old ones running can be justified. " EPAs proposed 350 mrem/yr dose would not just occur for a brief time and then decrease to far lower levels. Under EPAs proposed rule, these large doses would be permitted to occur year after year, generation after generation, forevermore into the future (well, out to a million years, after which time regulations would end). It is hard to conceive of a proposed environmental regulation or action that raises such serious questions of inter-generational immorality. EPA is in essence proposing to permit an action that will kill significant numbers of people in an ongoing fashion for hundreds of thousands of years on end, people who had no say in the decision nor received any supposed benefit from it, or from the nuclear reactors that generated the high-level radioactive wastes in the first place. Those future generations would bear only the cost, a large human cost. EPA explicitly admits to such deadly double standards, advocating a Strong Principle of Justicefor the first 5 or 6 generations (roughly 150 years), a Weak Principle of Justicefor a further 5 or 6 generations after that, and then a Minimal Principle of Justicebeyond that. EPAs proposal certainly would represent a horrible injustice for future generations. It is quite ironic, for the U.S. Dept. of Energy has explained its rush to open the Yucca dump as a matter of inter-generational responsibility, in that current generations created the high-level radioactive waste and thus should solve the problem so that future generations need not worry about it. Future generations would have much to worry about if EPAs proposal stands. " EPAs use of Colorados higher level of background radiationin an attempt to justify allowing added doses of 350 mrem/yr to persons living downstream from Yuccas leaking radioactive wastes is twisted and unacceptable. EPA cites the national average for background radiation as 350 mrem/yr. But even this is wrong and misleading. About two-thirds of that figure is due to radon exposures within houses and buildings. Only natural radiation, such as from cosmic rays and other natural sources that people are exposed to outdoors, which is difficult to avoid or control, should be considered natural background.EPAs proposed 350 mrem/yr dose from Yuccas leaking radioactive wastes would be in addition to the background radiation (including indoor radon) that people would already be exposed to. It should be noted that residents near Yucca are also exposed to additional radioactive contamination from the nearby Nevada Test Sites nuclear weapons explosions and lowlevel radioactive waste shipments and dumping. In NASs recent BEIR VII study, it reported that about 1 in 100 Americans will contract cancer just from the non-radon component of background radiation. A full three percent of the American public can already be expected to contract cancer from their exposure to outdoor natural radiation plus indoor radon, so that background350 mrem/yr is far from safe. Thus, EPA is proposing that a full 6% of the public living downstream from Yucca be allowed to contract cancer, half of that from background(including radon), and half from the leaking dumps radioactive wastes. EPA has deceptively tried to blur the distinction between background radiationand Yuccas leaking wastes, both of which are harmful to human beings. " Another casualty of EPAs proposed rule is the Safe Drinking Water Act standard limiting radiation in drinking water to 4 mrem/yr, which EPA would only enforce for the first10,000 years, but would then replace with the 350 mrem/yr all pathway exposure limit. Water is a precious resource, especially in arid areas such as Nevada and southeast California Yuccas watershed -- which will require more, not less, protection as time goes on. Yuccas radioactive wastes will leak into the underlying drinking water aquifer, which will become the primary pathway for harmful doses to people downstream. The Safe Drinking Water Act standard should be applied to protect Yuccas aquifer and the people downstream for as long as the high-level radioactive wastes remain hazardous, hundreds of thousands of years into the future. " Incredibly, EPA has claimed that the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.EPA also states This proposed rule does not have tribal implications&[and] does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, [or] on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes&. This is preposterous. Yucca Mountain is sacred and still used as a ceremonial site by the Western Shoshone Indians, who retain rights to the land under the Treaty of Ruby Valley signed by the US government in 1863. The Western Shoshone traditional lifestyle, lived at and near Yucca since time immemorial, may again return to that area someday. And its been known for decades that children are much more vulnerable than adults to radiations harmful impacts. Tell EPA that indigenous peoples and children are not expendable! " EPAs proposed standards would be, by far, the worst in the Western world. The French repository program, for instance, would limit maximum doses, estimated to occur hundreds of thousands of years in the future, to 25 mrem/yr. This proposed EPA limit beyond 10,000 years would allow more than ten times higher radiation doses than the French limit. The Canadian program limits doses to about 10 mrem/yr for 10,000 years but does not allow a sudden increase after that. The EPA proposal would allow a sudden jump from 15 mrem/yr to 350 mrem/yr after 10,000 years, a 23-fold increase! For updates and more background information, please go to http://www.nirs.org, or contact: Kevin Kamps Nuclear Waste Specialist Nuclear Information and Resource Service kevin@nirs.org 202.328.0002 ext. 14 Thank you to Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Citizen Alert of Nevada, Committee to Bridge the Gap, Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes, and Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force for their contributions to this action alert. _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 30 Guardian Unlimited: British Gas produces most nuclear waste, Powergen most CO2 Terry Macalister Wednesday October 5, 2005 The Guardian British Gas is responsible for creating more nuclear waste than any other energy supplier while Powergen is the worst for climate-changing CO2 emissions, new figures show. Centrica-owned British Gas comes out as the biggest producer of radioactive waste because it relies on British Energy's nuclear plants to generate 16% of its electricity - more than any other firm. The statistics are released this week to coincide with new European rules demanding that power companies tell their customers how they generate their electricity. The companies have 12 months to publish the information on their bills or their corporate websites, but the new numbers were compiled immediately by energy information service Green Electricity Marketplace from data provided by the firms themselves. Friends of the Earth is urging consumers to "start pulling the plug" on those companies that rely most heavily on nuclear or fossil fuel sources. "Consumers wanting clean energy should stop propping up polluting power companies, vote with their purses and switch suppliers. Telling power companies why you are switching will stimulate demand for less polluting alternatives," said FoE chief executive Duncan McLaren. But the green group is also sceptical about some of the figures. "Despite the fact that half of Scotland's and 21% of Britain's electricity is generated by nuclear, none of the companies admits to using anywhere near these amounts." British Gas, a market leader with 17 million gas and electricity customers, produces 1,870 micrograms of nuclear waste per kilowatt hour (a microgram is a millionth of a gram). EDF Energy produces 1,700. Npower, owned by the German group RWE, produces only 1,000 micrograms, as does Powergen, owned by E.ON. British Gas has a much better record on greenhouse gas emissions, with 368g of CO2 per kilowatt hour - less than any of its main rivals, such as Powergen with 642g and npower with 558g. British Gas confirmed the figures but said the energy mix constantly changed. "We recently made a commitment to invest £750m in renewables. We have just completed our first wind farm in Scotland and have plans for six more," said a spokeswoman. An E.ON spokeswoman also confirmed the statistics: "It's not surprising our carbon figures are high given we are the largest user of non-nuclear generation. We are investing heavily in green power, with 20 operational wind farms." The figures also show how hugely reliant British power companies are on coal, which is used to generate about half of the electricity used by ScottishPower, EDF, npower and Powergen. Scottish &Southern Power derives 7.5% of its energy from renewable sources. The relatively tiny firm Good Energy derives 100% of its power from green sources. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 31 Platts: DOE appeals NRC panel's decision on Yucca Mt. draft document + DOE is appealing an NRC licensing board decision granting Nevada's request for a copy of DOE's draft license application (LA) for a spent fuel repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. In an appeal filed yesterday with the Pre-License Application Presiding Officer (PAPO) Board, DOE asserted that the ruling opens "the floodgate to the production of virtually all preliminary drafts" on the licensing support network (LSN) because the board had not provided any "meaningful standard or principled basis to bound the participants' obligation to produce drafts. " Nevada had requested the draft LA so it could begin work on contentions that the state will file during a repository licensing proceeding. In a related move, DOE told the PAPO Board that it likely would have been ready to certify its LSN document collection this month but now won't issue the certification until its appeal has been decided. Washington (Platts)--4Oct2005 Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 32 Santa Fe New Mexican: Next uranium-plant hearing set for East Coast Wed Oct 5, 2005 5:59 pm The Associated Press EUNICE  The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission plans an Oct. 24 hearing in the Washington, D.C., area on a uranium-enrichment plant proposed to be built in rural southeastern New Mexico near Eunice. The hearing, at the NRCs headquarters in Rockville, Md., will focus on radiation safety and funding for the plants eventual decommissioning. It could last several days. Louisiana Energy Services has applied for an NRC license to operate the $1.24 billion plant, which would make fuel for commercial nuclear-power plants. LES, a consortium of largely European backers, wants to begin construction in August 2006. Eunice resident Rose Gardner said she was disappointed the hearing is so far away. A February hearing was held in nearby Hobbs. Even if no one went to the initial hearings, at least you had the opportunity to go, Gardner said. Nuclear projects are all being treated this way. The public is being kept out more and more. People are barely starting to act and the (licensing) deadline is here. The NRC tried to reserve time at Lea Countys event center for a hearing, but it was not available, and the three members of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board could not coordinate another time, said the NRCs manager for the project, Tim Johnson. The plants backers would have preferred hearings in Lea County, said Marshall Cohen, vice president of communications for LES. Its always been our belief that all the hearings and activities should be held in Lea County, he said. Environmentalists oppose the proposed factory, contending it would pollute the environment, guzzle scarce water and leave the area with tons of radioactive waste. LES and a Washington-based group protesting the plant, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, estimated 75 percent of the hearing will involve proprietary information that will be discussed behind closed doors. The hearing will address the plausibility and estimated cost of converting depleted uranium to a stable form; the cost of transporting depleted uranium; the plausibility and cost of disposing of the depleted uranium; and the cost of decommissioning the plant. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ruled in June the application adequately takes into account any impact on ground and surface water and adequately addresses the areas water supply and long-term availability. The board also said LES has demonstrated it can make the plant economically viable. The plant would be the first privately operated uranium-enrichment plant in the United States and the first U.S. installation to use centrifuge technology, rather than the gaseous-diffusion process that has been around since World War II. The plant is expected to produce 217,000 tons of depleted uranium over its life. Uranium processing generates a type of waste that currently cannot be dumped anywhere in the United States. With processing, it could be sent to a low-level nuclear-waste dump. Currently, no U.S. processing facility can do that. A French company has proposed building such a plant in this country, but it will be years before the company applies for a license. ***************************************************************** 33 reviewjournal.com: EPA's Yucca Mountain standard criticized Oct. 05, 2005 Speakers say proposal for protecting public contradicts intent of court ruling By KEITH ROGERS
REVIEW-JOURNAL In stark contrast to the previous night, more than a dozen speakers Tuesday castigated the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal for protecting the public from radioactive releases at the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. One critic, Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency chief Bob Loux, said the EPA's proposal is an absurd attempt at "morally bankrupt standard-setting," that fails to protect future generations of Nevadans. He said the proposal for a more lenient standard between 10,000 years and 1 million years after the repository opens, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, contradicts the intent of last year's court ruling. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found the EPA's first attempt at setting a radiation safety standard in 2001 didn't cover the time when peak doses will occur in hundreds of thousands of years. Loux said EPA representatives told Nevada officials that the reason for proposing a less protective standard over 1 million years than for the first 10,000 years is because a tougher standard "would disqualify Yucca Mountain, and EPA has been directed to assure that doesn't happen." "EPA has manufactured a standard tailored to fit the site, not to protect public health and safety," he told a panel that included Elizabeth Cotsworth, director of the EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. "If adopted the proposed Yucca Mountain standard will permit countless generations of Nevadans to be intentionally exposed to levels of radiation that would never be tolerated elsewhere either in the United States or internationally," Loux said. Before Monday night's hearing, Cotsworth acknowledged that the EPA's attempt to set a standard to cover 1 million years "is unique. ... We don't intend that the approach we have used at Yucca Mountain would apply in other regulatory programs." Loux's comments were echoed by 14 others who called for the EPA to strike its proposal and produce a standard that at least extends protections for the first 10,000 years out to 1 million years, including the part that limits radioactivity in groundwater. The only two speakers at Monday night's hearing in Amargosa Valley, the community closest to Yucca Mountain, said the EPA's proposed dose limits of 15 millirem and 350 millirem per year for 10,000 and 1 million years, respectively, are more than adequate. The EPA notes that a chest X-ray exposes a patient to 10 millirem and a mammogram results in a 30 millirem exposure. But at Tuesday's hearing and roundtable discussion at the Cashman Center, industrial hygienist Jacob Paz said that comparison is misleading because radiation from 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel destined for Yucca Mountain is more penetrating and doesn't just pass through the body like X-rays, but is deposited in bone matter at higher energy levels. About 75 people attended the discussion and hearing, including 30 from Culinary Local 226 who carried signs that read, "No Nuke Dump in Nevada." Shannon Raborn, who called the EPA's work "voodoo science," delivered a statement from Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., that said, "EPA's standard is wholly inadequate, does not meet the law's requirements and does not protect public health. It is another example of this administration's myopic pursuit of Yucca Mountain in the face of scientific uncertainty, falsification of information and massive public opposition." In written testimony, Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., stated that "the EPA has an obligation to protect public safety today, tomorrow and in a million years. It should not speculate that a standard which is not deemed safe today could miraculously become a safe standard in the future." Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2005 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement ***************************************************************** 34 Las Vegas SUN: Trying to make sense out government's plans for Yucca Mountain Columnist Tom Gorman: Today: October 05, 2005 at 8:7:32 PDT Tom Gorman can be reached at 259-2310 or tom.gorman@ lasvegassun.com. •• For years I waffled on whether to support the government's campaign to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. But after sitting in on an Environmental Protection Agency hearing this week up in Amargosa Valley, I'm now a real cynic. The only optimistic news to come out of the hearing is the government's technical assumption that, a million years from now, there will be something around here to protect. I was struck that the EPA has proposed holding its cousins at the Energy Department to two different levels of safety when it comes to tolerating radiation leakage. For the short term (meaning, for the first 10,000 years), the EPA doesn't want more than 15 millirems of radiation to be released, on average, any given year. That's about the same as a chest X-ray. The EPA came up with that standard a few years ago. It is unclear to me what the EPA will do if the Energy Department fails us. Take away the keys to Yucca Mountain? Throw more sand over it? Rush over to Home Depot and buy better caulking? But because the worst leakage isn't expected to occur for 200,000 or 300,000 years, give or take, a judge ordered the EPA to set some safety standards for the folks living here at that time. The EPA proposal would allow up to 350 millirems of radiation to be accidentally released annually, during the time span of 10,000 years to 1 million years from now. In other words, it is relaxing its safety standards. This won't personally affect me. I'll be dead. But if we're going to assume there will be future generations -- and we have to make that assumption, don't we? -- then to tell them they don't deserve the same level of safety as we deserve, creates a troublesome ethics problem. We should squirm in our pews. I'm not a rocket surgeon, but it looks suspiciously that the EPA is loosening its safety standards to accommodate the expected increase in radiation leakage. Not so, according to the EPA folks. "We are accepting a greater level of risk over the long time period," said Elizabeth Cotsworth, director of the EPA's office of radiation and indoor air. "But we believe both (standards) are protective." Maybe. But remember that the levees in New Orleans were supposed to hold up better against hurricanes. The Army Corps of Engineers will be reviewing its previous assumptions about levee construction and the Louisiana geology, and I wonder what that says about government work. The EPA people never explained to my satisfaction why it is loosening its safety standards over time. It's an unprecedented policy decision, as far as I can tell. If you attend the EPA's hearings today and Thursday in Las Vegas, maybe you'll be more successful in wringing an answer out of them. The EPA says it came up with the 350-millirem standard this way: Nevadans already are exposed to about 350 millirems of natural background radiation a year -- and Colorado residents are exposed to about 700 millirems. The EPA logic says that if Yucca Mountain leaks about 350 millirems a year, we'd still be no worse off than our brethren in Colorado. Here's my suggestion. Coloradans obviously have acclimated to radiation, and there must be an available mountain somewhere in the Rockies. Let's store the used fuel rods there. It'll save transportation costs, too, what with the price of gasoline, since Colorado is closer to most of the nuclear waste producers. What do we do, then, with Yucca Mountain? The feds so far have spent about $8 billion on it. That's probably the cost of Steve Wynn's next casino. The government should sell the place before it drops any more into the money pit. Maybe Donald Trump or his ex-wife could develop it as a subterranean condomonium complex, to mitigate the high rises going up along the Strip. Or, given suburban sprawl, Station Casinos could begin working on its next themed casino, Yucca Station. Because the place would always be dark and cool, it would be the perfect wine cellar for the sommeliers from Mandalay Bay. And I'm sure the folks at Drai's could turn it into the ultimate nightclub. If it were up to me, I'd call it Glow in the Dark. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 35 Salt Lake Tribune: Japan sending trainloads of toxins to Utah Article Last Updated: 10/05/2005 01:49:14 AM Radioactive soil: The material has been ruled 'ore' for processing, instead of waste By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune Five-hundred tons of uranium-contaminated soil from Japan is headed to Utah's southeastern desert. That's good news for International Uranium Corp.'s White Mesa mill, which has not processed ore for six years. But, for environmental activists, the shipment signals that the state has opened a Pandora's box, making Utah not just a national destination for radioactive discards but now a global one. "It's the precedent," said Claire Geddes, pointing out that the state already has the nation's largest privately owned and operated low-level radioactive waste site and that a high-level storage facility also is planned. "This [Japanese waste] is a scenario for a nightmare to me." Whether it is "ore" or "waste" is critical from the government's perspective. The state won't allow White Mesa to accept radioactive waste. And the federal government would have to approve a special permit for it. But the 319 cubic yards of material from Japan is coming from an old mining site, said Harold Roberts, development vice president for Canadian-based International Uranium. That it is ore - and not contaminated tailings - has been confirmed by the company and by the Japan Atomic Agency, which is shipping it. "People need to understand this is natural ore," he said. Roberts explained the ore is being shipped to Everett, Wash., trucked to the White Mesa Mill south of Blanding and chemically processed to produce "yellowcake" uranium for commercial nuclear plants. Unusable material will go into disposal ponds behind the plant. But reports from Japan often describe the contaminated soil as waste headed to Utah for disposal. A Japanese anti-nuclear group issued a news release last week suggesting the contaminated soil was waste from a defunct uranium mill in Yurihama. In August, The Japan Times reported that 319 cubic yards of radioactive soil, the leftovers of test drilling, was headed to the United States for processing and disposal under a $5.8 million contract. The local community had been pushing since 1988 for removal of the dirt because of its "relatively high surface radiation level," the newspaper said. Janice Owens, an import-export licensing agent for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, noted that if the material was waste instead of ore, International Uranium would have needed a special license from her office. But, since it's ore, International Uranium's general license will cover the shipment and her agency will not monitor the process. Radioactive ore from Australia and Canada often comes into the United States without special permits, Owens said. Dianne Nielson, director of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, said the state did not require any additional review either, since the company has a blanket state license for processing uranium ore. "We're just as committed as before that this [White Mesa] facility is used as a uranium mill and not as a disposal site," she said. Years ago, when the state was petitioning federal regulators to assume oversight of the mill, Nielson referred to the mill's recycling operations as "sham disposal." At that time, and anytime the mill has been in operation since 1999, International Uranium relied on contaminated cleanup waste from around the United States and Canada as the feed for the mill. With the price of uranium at $7 per pound, that was the only way the mill could afford to operate. Now, with prices over $31 a pound and headed up, the company can profitably process ore once more. Roberts said the company has not decided when to begin another ore run. International Uranium may soon be extracting ore from its own holdings in Utah, Colorado and Arizona, he said. None of this calms the company's opponents in Utah. After the mill removes the uranium concentrate, contaminated tailings remain. They are moved to ponds, where they are subject to mining waste laws rather than the stricter radioactive waste disposal laws. Another mill, in Canon City, Colo., is the only other working uranium plant in the United States. The Canon City facility is a federal Superfund hazardous waste cleanup site. Opponents insist the tailings are "waste" no matter what the regulatory definitions might be. The Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, an anti-nuke group, said the shipment "goes against the principle of not dumping radioactive waste in another country." Geddes said international trade laws will make it tough to impossible for Utahns to get control of the radioactive material coming into the state - at the White Mesa plant, at the mile-square Envirocare of Utah facility in Tooele County and at the proposed high-level storage site planned for Skull Valley, also in Tooele County. "There are plenty of people who want to use Utah as a dump," she said. "Once you have set up a facility [in your state] there's nothing you can do to stop it." Envirocare of Utah says it has never imported radioactive waste from outside the United States. Steve Erickson, a longtime critic of the White Mesa mill, called the Japanese shipment "rather disturbing." He complained that there has been no public notification about it. "Where are the Utah regulators on this? That's a good question," he said. "Were they just looking the other way?" fahys@sltrib.com © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 36 Japan Times: Soil contaminated with uranium shipped to U.S. Wednesday, October 5, 2005 The Associated Press The nuclear research and development agency has shipped uranium-contaminated soil to an undisclosed location in the United States for disposal, officials said. The Japan Atomic Energy Agency on Monday sent 290 cu. meters of radioactive soil from the port of Kobe, part of 3,000 cu. meters of contaminated soil from a uranium ore plant in Tottori Prefecture, said Atsushi Oku, an official of the Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Ministry, which oversees the agency. He declined to disclose the destination of the ship, but Kyodo News said it was headed for Everett, Wash. The soil will be sent to a company that will extract the uranium, Oku said, declining to name the company. However, the watchdog group Citizen's Nuclear Information Center said the soil would be sent to a firm in Utah. In 1988, abnormally high levels of radioactivity were found in soil in Yurihama, Tottori Prefecture, where the agency's predecessor had a plant that extracted uranium from uranium ore for enrichment, according to CNIC. In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that the contaminated soil must be removed. Officials had been looking for a place inside Japan for disposal of the soil but could not find a suitable location, Oku said. Japan currently does not have facilities to dispose of radioactive byproducts from uranium enrichment. CNIC criticized the move, saying that "countries which are unable to handle their own radioactive waste are not qualified to produce such waste." The Japan Times: Oct. 5, 2005 (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 37 Hudson Valley News: NRC establishes Indian Point spent fuel pool web page Wednesday, October 5, 2005 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has established a page on its website to consolidate information on the recently discovered leakage from the spent nuclear fuel pool at Indian Point Unit 2 nuclear power plant. The leakage at the Buchanan facility is very small, is being monitored and does not pose any health or safety concern for members of the public or plant workers, the NRC said. The page includes updates on the NRCs special inspection at the site, which among other things will review the companys evaluation of the pool structure, evaluate remedial actions on the part of the company, assess any potential environmental impact of the leakage. The inspection team will issue a report documenting its findings within 45 days of the completion of the inspection. The page also provides general information concerning the Indian Point spent fuel leak, and will be updated with additional information, such as public meeting details, correspondence and news announces as needed. The address is www.nrc.gov/reactors/plant-specific-items/indian-point-issues.htm l. HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only Internet radio news report. ***************************************************************** 38 DOE: develop a repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. FR Doc 05-20015 [Federal Register: October 5, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 192)] [Notices] [Page 58246] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05oc05-109] Pursuant to its authority under section 5051 of Public Law 100-203, Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987, the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board will meet in Las Vegas, Nevada, on Tuesday, November 8, and for a half-day on Wednesday, November 9, 2005. The Board will discuss a range of technical and scientific issues pertinent to the Department of Energy's (DOE) efforts to develop a repository for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The Board was established by Congress in the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 and charged with reviewing the technical and scientific validity of activities undertaken by the Secretary of Energy related to disposal, transportation, and packaging of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The meeting will be held at the Renaissance Las Vegas Hotel; 3400 Paradise Road, Las Vegas, Nevada; (tel) (702) 733-6533; (fax) (702) 735-3130. The meeting sessions will begin on both days at 8 a.m. and will continue until approximately 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday and 12:30 p.m. on Wednesday. Topics that will be discussed at the meeting include corrosion of the repository waste package and drip shield, investigations undertaken in the saturated zone below the proposed repository, and models used to represent how waste will move through the proposed repository's surface facilities. A final meeting agenda will be available on the Board's Web site, http: //http://www.nwtrb.gov, approximately one week before the date of the meeting. The agenda also may be obtained by telephone request at that time. Time will be set aside at the end of the sessions on both days for public comments. Those wanting to speak are encouraged to sign the ``Public Comment Register'' at the check-in table. A time limit may have to be set on individual remarks, but written comments of any length may be submitted for the record. Interested parties also may submit questions in writing. As time permits, written questions that are relevant to the discussion may be raised by Board members during the meeting. Transcripts of the meetings will be available on the Board's Web site, by e-mail, on computer disk, or on library-loan basis in paper format beginning December 5, 2005. For assistance in obtaining meeting transcripts, contact Davonya Barnes, NWTRB staff. A block of rooms has been set aside at the Renaissance Las Vegas Hotel for meeting participants. When making a reservation, please state that you are attending the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board meeting. Reservations should be made by October 15, 2005, to ensure receiving the meeting rate. For more information, contact Karyn Severson, NWTRB External Affairs; 2300 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 1300; Arlington, VA 22201- 3367; (tel) (703) 235-4473; (fax) (703) 235-4495. Dated: September 30, 2005. William D. Barnard, Executive Director, Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. [FR Doc. 05-20015 Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-AM-M ***************************************************************** 39 KLAS: Public Hearing on Yucca Mountain October 06, 2005 Hearings on Radiation Standards for Yucca Mountain Hearings are underway on the radiation levels that will be allowed at the proposed nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain. Edward Lawrence, Reporter The Environmental Protection Agency held the second of three public hearings concerning the Yucca Mountain Waste Repository. The federal agency is developing a safe radiation level standard for storing nuclear waste at the site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Las Vegas resident, J.T. Smith says, "I am looking for the protocol on how they selected Yucca Mountain. Also concerned about the directive that was issued by the nuclear waste policy in 1982 in terms of what other sites were suited." Smith took notes and fashioned questions about the decision to store nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain Repository. "To me I smell a rat here. So I just wanted to come down and investigate what's going on and why is it going on here in the state of Nevada," he said. He wanted to quiz Environmental Protection Agency scientists about the safety of storing nuclear waste. Wednesday's hearing will help develop an acceptable nuclear waste radiation level and put some people familiar with the project in one room. Smith says he is a researcher. He did not want to get the questions he had answered through the news. That is why he showed up at the meeting to talk face to face with the EPA Director of the Office of Radiation Elizabeth Cotsworth. Cotsworth says her agency is comfortable with the level it proposed. "Yes. We would not have proposed it if we had not felt it was protective." It sets the limit at 15 millirem for 10,000 years. Then ups the level 2,233% to 350 millirem from 10,000 years to one million years. Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn remains skeptical. "As you know we have made substantial progress in the court system. It's too bad you have to go there, but in this case it's very important to the state of Nevada and it's people." Smith adds, "This is a city that appeals globally. So it has tremendous ramifications for generations to come." The next 25,000 generations to be exact. That is how long the EPA will look into the future when setting an acceptable radiation level. Governor Guinn hopes all Nevada residents voice their concern for the Yucca Mountain project. Click here to learn how you can comment. The governor was signed up to speak during the first hearing day. He says it's important to comment because he feels the EPA will listen. "I think they will listen because for them to make progress they have to bring the American people along with them especially the people in Nevada." Cotsworth says every comment will be important. She pledged that each would be read and looked over. "We very seriously analyze all public comments and will be sharing those with our senior decision makers." The radiation level standard deemed safe for the project will be finalized in the next couple of months. The public hearings became necessary because a Federal Court of Appeals set aside the original radiation level standard in the summer of 2004. The EPA then raised the acceptable level from 10,000 years to one million years of storage to meet Yucca Mountain requirements. The last Las Vegas hearing is Thursday from 10 a.m. to noon at the Cashman Center All content © Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and KLAS. ***************************************************************** 40 Letter: Rep. Urquhart letter to Senator Hatch (Yucca) Rep. Stephen H. Urquhart, House Majority Whip 37 W. 1070 S. Ste. 102, St. George, Utah 84770 Honorable Orrin Hatch VIA FACSIMILE 104 Hart Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Fax No. (202) 224-6331 Senator Hatch: I write to encourage you to quickly change your position on Yucca Mountain and to legitimately address the issue of nuclear waste storage, in order to protect Utah. By supporting the storage site at Yucca Mountain, you currently are (1) working to promote transportation of nuclear waste through Utah, (2) working to promote the temporary storage facility in Skull Valley, and (3) wasting critical time and alienating valuable allies. I will address each of these points below. One, likely transportation routes to Yucca Mountain will funnel the nuclear waste directly through Utah. This, of course, raises concerns of accidents occurring in Utah during transportation. While it is right to oppose Skull Valley, you should be aware that transportation to Yucca Mountain would involve even more road and rail miles through Utah. Thus, your support of Yucca Mountain makes little sense. It is like trying to save someone from a bus by throwing him in front of a train. Two, the basic premise behind the Skull Valley site is that it would store the waste temporarily, until Yucca Mountain is completed. Though none of us believes the storage truly would be temporary, Skull Valleys purported reason for being is that the Yucca Mountain facility will be built. If Yucca Mountain is scuttled, that ruse goes away and Skull Valley goes away with it. That is why your deciding vote to authorize Yucca Mountain and the importation of nuclear waste to the West was such a devastating blow to Utah, and why your continuing support of the site, despite the better reasoning of all your Congressional colleagues from Utah, makes so little sense. Three, lets not kid the people of Utah. The legislation you propose is a political reaction to Senator Bennetts changed position on Yucca Mountain, and it does not have a prayer of passing. Instead of offering up such a sham, I encourage you to seriously involve yourself in this important issue. Though I understand you are hoping for favors from the current administration, I remind you that this administration only has 3 years remaining. Whatever it might do on this issue, a subsequent administration could reverse. In any event, the deal you currently seek help with Skull Valley in exchange for your invitation of nuclear waste to and through Utah for permanent storage upwind of Southern Utah is a bad deal. Thus, Utahs hope should rest with Congress. The minority leader of the Senate is poised to help. Unless you doubt your ability to muster support on your side of the aisle, the best strategy would be to join with the rest of Utahs delegation and Senator Reid in opposing importation of nuclear waste to the West. Nuclear waste should stay where it currently is located, until a better, permanent solution is reached. Congress should shift funding away from short-sighted solutions like Yucca Mountain toward technology that can more effectively address the problems and opportunities presented by the spent rods. If you are not willing to join in this fight to protect Utah, I am. Sincerely, Steve Urquhart ***************************************************************** 41 The Signal: State: SCV Waterways Polluted 10/4/2005 Brian Franks City Editor The state is proposing to declare three local waterways unsafe because they contain high concentrations of chemicals that, if left untreated, could prove harmful. Depending on the outcome of workshops in December, portions of the Santa Clara River, the Piru Creek and Aliso Creek in Acton will be red-flagged for failing to meet water quality standards, the state Water Resources Control Board announced Monday. When contacted, Dan Masnada, general manager of the Castaic Lake Water Agency, said he was unaware of the list, but he added that he was not surprised that the Santa Clara River was on it. Officials already know to be on the lookout for perchlorate and chlorides in the Santa Clara River. Now they would additionally need to be wary of the amount of ammonia, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, nitrogen, nitrite and general toxicity in the Santa Clara River from Castaic Junction east to Bouquet Junction, and aluminum, ammonia, diazinon and polychlorinated biphenyls from Castaic Junction west to Piru. West of Piru, the levels of boron and sulfates have raised eyebrows. In addition, unacceptable levels of bacteria and copper have been identified in the Aliso Canyon Wash in Acton. Chloride remains a concern throughout the region. Diazinon is a pesticide used in garden insecticide products. The chemical can be toxic to birds, according the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA banned its use on golf courses and sod farms in 1986. Chlorpyrifos is a insecticide used to kill insects. It can be toxic to fish and birds, according to the EPA. Ammonia is colorless gaseous compound that is soluble in water. It can be toxic to plants, fish and animals, according to the EPA. Polychlorinated biphenyls are a group of known cancer-causing chemicals used for a variety of purposes including electrical applications. The sale of new polychlorinated biphenyls were banned in 1979 because chemicals do not breakdown easily. The federal Clean Water Act requires that states periodically identify water bodies that do not meet quality standards. States are required to provide lists to the EPA and to develop total maximum daily loads for those water bodies. Total maximum daily loads are the maximum load of a pollutant that can be discharged into the water body without exceeding water quality standards. The state water board is scheduled to hear public comments on proposed revisions to the list on Dec. 1, at 10 a.m., at the Pasadena Hilton and on Dec. 6, at 10 a.m., at the state water board’s office in Sacramento. Signal Multimedia Editor Leon Worden contributed to this report. ©2005 The-Signal.com - Site powered with DynamicBase by ActiveQuest, Inc. ***************************************************************** 42 AFP: Japanese anti-nuclear activists favorites for Nobel Peace Prize Wednesday October 5, 01:05 PM TOKYO, (AFP) - With this year marking 60 years since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, anti-nuclear activists are tipped as leading candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize as global momentum to abolish nuclear weapons fades. Senji Yamaguchi, who suffered horrific scars from the Nagasaki attack and went on to become a campaigner against nuclear weapons, and a survivors' organization he helped found have been nominated for the prize to be announced Friday. Yamaguchi, who turned 75 on Monday and has lived in a Nagasaki nursing home for the past two years, said the prestigious award would boost the entire nuclear disarmament movement. "This is a problem that we can't solve as individuals," Yamaguchi told AFP by telephone. "I want to say that the US needs to make more efforts to abolish nuclear arms," he said. Yamaguchi said the Nobel Peace Prize would also be a tribute to all victims of nuclear attacks, known in Japanese as "hibakusha," whose ranks are getting smaller each year. "Many people say this year is special because it's the 60th anniversary, but hibakusha have struggled throughout the years and we'll continue struggling," he said. "Last year alone, as many as 7,300 hibakusha died," added Yamaguchi, who doubts he would be physically able to travel abroad again, even to collect the Nobel prize. Yamaguchi was a 14-year-old schoolboy forced to work at a Mitsubishi arms factory in Nagasaki when a US plane dropped a plutonium bomb on the city on August 9, 1945, killing 70,000 people, most of whom melted or burned to death instantly. The attack came just three days after the world's first nuclear bombing on Hiroshima in which another 140,000 people died. Yamaguchi, who had been digging with his shirt off, suffered massive radiation burns over the right side of his chest, back and face, a gruesome sight captured in a photograph. With his face permanently disfigured from the radiation, Yamaguchi became an emblematic leader of the hibakusha community. He has toured across the world since 1961 lecturing against nuclear weapons and testified at a UN conference on arms reduction in 1982. In 1956, Yamaguchi helped form Nihon Hidankyo, or the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations, which was formed by survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks. The group has sent Yamaguchi and other members abroad to lobby to abolish nuclear weapons and share atomic-bomb experiences and has demanded the Japanese government provide compensation for nuclear bomb victims. The group was part of the driving force that brought about the world's nuclear-weapons free zones, in which governments declare themselves out of bounds for atomic arsenals. "It's been 60 years, and we're getting old. We won't be able to stay active in this movement as much as we have," said Nihon Hidankyo's secretary general Terumi Tanaka, who suffered the Nagasaki attack. "There're still many hibakusha who hesitate to talk about their experiences. Talking about such experiences is painful itself. The peace prize would encourage them to speak up," he added. The organization was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize three times previously. In addition to this year being the 60th anniversary of the attacks, Nobel watchers say the anti-nuclear movement may be chosen due to sagging global efforts to abolish atomic weapons. The once-in-five-year conference to review the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was snagged by problems this year, with the United States pushing for a focus on the new era of terrorism and "rogue" states, and some non-aligned nations stressing the need for progress on disarmament. The conference members in the end failed to reach an agreement. A record 199 individuals and organizations were nominated for the prize this year. The list of possible laureates is said to include Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the UN nuclear watchdog, along with Irish U2 rock star Bono, the late pope John Paul II and former US secretary of state Colin Powell. Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Australia &NZ Pty Limited. All rights Copyright © 2005 AFP. All rights reserved. All information ***************************************************************** 43 Albuquerque Tribune: Secure nukes at 1 site By James W. Brosnan Scripps Howard News Service October 5, 2005 WASHINGTON - An advisory panel is telling the Department of Energy it should consolidate its nuclear bomb-making facilities, including units at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories, into one isolated, secure site to make a new generation of warheads. The recommendation made Tuesday by the Secretary's Energy Advisory Board, if adopted by the administration and Congress, could mean Los Alamos would no longer make the plutonium "pits" for bombs, that Sandia would no longer test components with a highly radioactive pulse generator, and that neither lab would test high explosives or store large amounts of nuclear material. The report also questions why the department needs three expensive supercomputers - Red Storm at Sandia, Q at Los Alamos and Blue Gene at Livermore. The nuclear weapons complex is now spread among five facilities: the three design labs - Sandia, Los Alamos and Livermore - and two production facilities - the Y-12 plant at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee and the Pantex plant near Amarillo. "All of the production elements are quite old and antiquated, and we propose that all should be replaced," said David Overskei, chairman of the board's Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure Task Force and president of Decision Factors Inc. of San Diego. Overskei said the threat of espionage dictated that the complex be spread out in the 1940s and '50s, but now the threat is terrorism. Even a "partially successful" terrorist attack on Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore in California, the Y-12 plant in Tennessee and the Pantex site in Texas "may cause collateral damage to the surrounding civilian populations," the report said. The cost of physical security consumes 11 percent of the weapons complex budget and is expected to rise to 15 percent by 2010, an "unsustainable trend," the report said. The report acknowledges the "tremendous science and engineering competence" at Los Alamos, Livermore and Sandia. But, it adds, "Nonetheless, the weapons laboratories of the future will likely have smaller nuclear weapons program staff than they have today." The report drew a cautious response from Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. Many of its recommendations "are consistent with DOE initiatives already under way to modernize the nuclear weapons complex and consolidate special nuclear material," Bodman said in a statement. "Some of the more sweeping proposals could have significant budget impacts that will have to be assessed very carefully." Bodman directed Linton Brooks, administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, to make that assessment. Overskei said the weapons production facility could be built by canceling projects at some labs or by adding $1 billion to $2 billion a year to the Energy Department's budget for the next five to six years. The report could add fuel to the disagreements between Sen. Pete Domenici, the Albuquerque Republican who heads the Senate Appropriations energy and water subcommittee, and his House counterpart, Rep. Dave Hobson of Ohio, over weapons complex funding. Domenici, who was briefed by Overskei on the report in July, said it would be "premature" to make such sweeping changes until they are thoroughly evaluated by the Department of Defense and the Congress for their impact on national security. ' "Those who support broad complexwide reforms must be realistic in their expectations in reinventing the complex. Such a task will take time to ensure that improvements are realized while providing required capabilities," Domenici said. Domenici last week complained that a stopgap spending bill passed by Congress to fund agencies through Nov. 18 shorted the weapons complex by $449 million because the House insisted on using its budget number. "It's not good, but we can live with this for a short period of time," Domenici said. He said he doesn't expect the funding restrictions to cause layoffs at Los Alamos or Sandia. It was Hobson who asked the Energy Department to initiate the study of the weapons complex. Hobson also questioned the need for the Reliable Replacement Warhead. 2005 © The Albuquerque Tribune Privacy Policy| User Agreement| ***************************************************************** 44 Tri-Valley Herald: Panel: Without tests, bombs risky Article Last Updated: 10/05/2005 06:09:34 AM Livermore's Superblock may be super-bust By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER Led by two Nobel laureate physicists, advisers to the Bush Administration criticized a proposal Tuesday to design replacements for the U.S. nuclear arsenal but backed a companion plan to shrink the number of factories and labs working with nuclear materials to a single, state-of-the-art bunker underground. The decrepitude of existing nuclear-weapons facilities and rising costs to defend them against terrorist attack — a 400 percent increase since 2001 — persuaded the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board to support a leaner, more modern weapons plant, full of robotics and computer-guided machinery. That collection of labs and factories probably built under remote desert land held by the Energy Department in Nevada or Idaho, places with long lines of sight and defensive fire. By 2030 the new plant would take over work with bomb quantities of nuclear-weapons materials at Lawrence Livermore lab's plutonium facility, known as Superblock, as well as facilities at Los Alamos lab, the Y-12 site in Oak Ridge, Tenn., and others. Besides being "archaic," those places are surrounded by homes,putting civilians at risk from a terrorist nuclear detonation or the scattering of plutonium, said David Overskei, chairman of a committee that studied the future of the nuclear-weapons complex. "The current locations for our special nuclear materials in the complex are no longer remote," he told the secretary's advisory board Tuesday. The new plant "will reduce the threat to civilian communities." But several members of the board resisted a proposal for revamping U.S. nuclear-weapons work for the post-Cold War period: designing an entirely new, smaller arsenal of hardier warheads and bombs. Two scientists and two business executives said that's a huge decision with implications for international security beyond upgrading the U.S. weapons complex. "If we do this, it has worldwide consequences, and it's going to stir up some kind of a hornets' nest and it's beyond the scope of a committee such as this one," said former Stanford Linear Accelerator Center director Burton Richter, a 1976 Nobel prize winner. "The infrastructure is decaying. It is in bad shape, everybody knows that," Richter said. But "it can be modernized without changing existing weapons." Leon Lederman, former director of Fermilab and a 1988 Nobelist, said he backed the idea of exchanging a large nuclear arsenal for a smaller one. But new designs complicate the issue, he said. "What is the effect on non-nuclear nations or on our allies. What is the effect in China or Russia?" he asked. "What will the influence be on the true security of the nation?" Overskei's committee had urged immediate design of what has been called the "reliable replacement warhead," with secret, new safety and security features, more resistance to aging and lower manufacturing costs. The current U.S. nuclear arsenal is made up of bombs and warheads designed from the late 1960s to the 1980s, in a three-way competition between two U.S. laboratories, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore, and their counterparts in the former Soviet Union. What resulted are thousands of highly miniaturized, slimmed down warheads that allowed the military to pack as many as a dozen on missiles capable of wreaking horrendous destruction anywhere on the globe. Rebuilding those weapons has proven expensive, however, and executives of the nuclear-weapons labs have chaffed at caretaking bombs that are eating more of their budgets then they had planned. One scientist caught the ear of an influential appropriations chairman in Congress, Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, who convinced the Bush administration to press ahead with the reliable replacement warhead program. But many weapons scientists said the current arsenal was well tested and seems to be aging well. Every year for the last decade, directors of the nation's three weapons labs have certified that each bomb and warhead is reliable enough not to require a return to testing. The plutonium cores inside appear to last at least 50 years, with some scientists speculating that they could last longer still. Many scientists warn that it is risky to introduce any new bomb design during a moratorium on testing, that is, without ever exploding one. Overskei said weapons designers assured his panel that they could prove the weapons would work reliably without testing and that Defense Department officials seemed to accept those assurances. "They were willing to accept the weapons laboratories' confidence that they can certify without testing," he said. Tri-Valley Herald All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 45 lamonitor.com: Lab cleanup faces hurdles The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS, , Delays in processing environmental cleanup documents for Los Alamos National Laboratory may have found some relief, but new complications are on the horizon. The Department of Energy has advanced $500,000 to the New Mexico Environment Department to help enforce a court-ordered consent agreement at Los Alamos National Laboratory that went into effect earlier this year. The money, transferred on Sept. 27, came out of end of the fiscal year funds. Under an agreement between the two departments, about $420,000 will go to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to help prepare the administrative record for hazardous waste permits the state has promised to draft by February. Another $60,000 will go to pay for fees already assessed. The Memorandum of Understanding signed by DOE and NMED allots $1.8 million for "timely regulatory services during the state's 2006 fiscal year." That leaves about $840,000 to underwrite state supervision of the comprehensive cleanup through June, when the state's fiscal year ends. Documents and deliverables include investigative reports, work plans, risk assessment reports, corrective measures, evaluation reports, remedy completion reports and other documents. The Northern New Mexico Citizens Advisory Board recently recommended that DOE provide the financial assistance to the state. In their formal recommendation, the board noted that the compliance schedule requires about 10-15 major reports each year, each of which may include hundreds of pages of technical data, analysis and recommendations. NNMCAB is chartered by DOE to give advice on environmental issues at the laboratory. J.D. Campbell, the group's chairman, said the board has been following the issue closely. "While the Department of Energy and the laboratory were gearing up to do the work, NMED didn't have the resources to keep up," he said. During a board meeting at the end of July, NNMCAB approved a recommendation to DOE calling for additional staff support at NMED. "When we signed the consent order, we quickly realized that when we submitted documents to the state, they didn't have the manpower to process them," said John Ordaz, DOE's environmental stewardship manager at LANL. He said the funds are based on a work plan developed by NMED's Hazardous Waste Bureau and would be charged against invoices from NMED. The cleanup is supposed to be completed by 2015. The laboratory would be penalized for failure to meet the deadlines of the consent order, but not if NMED fails to respond in a timely way. Any long-term delay that would extend the overall schedule would be costly. The cost of labor goes up more every year, Ordaz said, and delays could add millions to the contract. "It will take some time for the state to go out and hire the folks to get up to full speed," he said. "We don't expect significant improvement for six to nine months." State Environment Secretary Ron Curry said today that he expected to be able to fill a few vacancies and make sure that nobody would have to be cut and that deadlines could be met. Ordaz said some delays had become apparent in processing documentation related to the waste disposal areas, some of which entail complex activities and have been slowed by discussions. "Right now Area G is a bottleneck. There are others on a critical path, but nothing we can't recover, unless the problem increases," he said. Area G is LANL's largest radioactive landfill area, now taking up 66 acres. It is slated to be cleaned up and closed down by 2015. NNSA has decided to expand landfill operations into an unused part of Area G, 30 acres known as Zone 4. But, in a complicating new development, NNMCAB made a new recommendation last week, calling on DOE not to expand and, moreover, asking that the department cease burying low-level radioactive waste at the facility, pending a comprehensive long-term performance assessment. Cambell, discussing the board's concerns this morning said, "LANL is the only DOE lab that still buries radioactive waste on site." Monitor Assistant Editor © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 46 Guardian Unlimited: Agencies Agree on Hanford Canyon Cleanup From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday October 5, 2005 2:01 AM By SHANNON DININNY Associated Press Writer YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) - State and federal officials announced Tuesday a plan to clean up a highly contaminated World War II-era chemical plant at Washington's Hanford nuclear reservation. The U-Plant Canyon, one of five massive processing facilities at Hanford, will be razed to ground level and the highly radioactive waste will be shipped to a repository in New Mexico, officials said Tuesday. The rest of the building will be left underground, which reduces the risk of exposing workers to radiological and chemical contamination, said Keith Klein, manager of the Energy Department's Richland Operations Office. The contaminated equipment will be sealed with grout and the underground area will be capped with soil and vegetation. U Plant was one of the original processing canyons built during World War II. The building is 800 feet long, 70 feet wide and 80 feet high, with more than 30 feet underground. Its reinforced concrete floor is four feet thick. ``This is a commonsense approach that is strongly protective of human health and the environment,'' said Klein, who believes the plant's construction provides an excellent shield for the environment. Cleanup is set to start in 2008. The U.S. Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency and the state Department of Ecology considered five cleanup proposals for the canyon, and agreed on this remedy after public hearings and reviewing multiple technical studies. It is the first cleanup agreement at the Hanford site that will leave some waste in place. The 586-square-mile Hanford site was created in the 1940s as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. The site produced the plutonium for the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, during World War II, and for the nation's nuclear weapons program. Today, Hanford is the most contaminated nuclear site in the country, with cleanup costs estimated between $50 billion and $60 billion. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************