*****************************************************************
10/06/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.232
*****************************************************************
   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: Lavrov sees IAEA activities in Iran as only way to 
2 IRNA: Tehran expects IAEA to act upon law: President Ahmadinejad 
3 Xinhua: Tehran ready to continue talks   
4 Japan Times: Iran must heed the call
5 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Wont' Join Iran Nuclear Talks
6 AFP: Iran says nuclear fuel cycle not up for negotiation - 
7 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Seeks Ways to Pressure Iran on Nukes
8 HindustanTimes.com: We've made progress in N-fuel programme - Iran  
9 UN Watchdog Agency Assists Safe Removal Of Nuclear Weapons-grade Ura
10 RIA Novosti: Russian Foreign Ministry demands Adamov's extradition t
11 Xinhua: Russia firm on extradition of ex-atomic energy minister   
12 Japan Times: A lesson from Pakistan on proliferation
13 ITAR-TASS: Russia makes valuable contribution to IAEA work – El Bara
14 Arms Control Association: Arms Control Today: Brazil's Nuclear Histo
15 Sydney Morning Herald: Thorium touted as new source of energy - 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
16 US: [epa-impact] Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC; Nine Mile Poi
17 US: [epa-impact] Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Humboldt Bay Inde
18 RIA Novosti: Minister: State should maintain involvement in nuclear,
19 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point 3 preparing to go back online
20 Trinidad News: Dubious value of a nuclear club
21 US: NRC: Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC; Nine Mile Point Nucle
22 US: NRC: Draft Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability
23 US: NRC: PSEG Nuclear, LLC; Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Salem Nu
24 US: The Boston Globe: Nuclear fears debated at forum - 
25 ITAR-TASS: Newest reactor at Kalininskaya plant shut down
26 US: Suffolk Life: Legislature Opposes Nuclear Power Plant Re-Licensi
27 US: Pike County News Watchman: Plant concerns voiced at NRC meeting 
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
28 US: SignOnSanDiego.com: Federal lawmaker raises concern about Nevada
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
29 US: IEER update: health effects of nuclear weapons production; EPA
30 US: adn.com alaska: Extra radiation tests find no threat
31 US: Honolulu Advertiser: Safety of airport irradiator questioned - 
32 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Downwinders want Hatch to help with compensat
33 US: NRC: Kansas State University; Notice of Acceptance for Docketing
34 US: Hawk Eye: Defense bill earmarks money for health screening 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
35 reviewjournal.com: EPA's Yucca Mountain standard criticized
36 reviewjournal.com: EPA Yucca Mountain radiation standard receives so
37 reviewjournal.com: Yucca backers seek comfort
38 Las Vegas SUN: Caliente Mayor a Yucca advocate 
39 US: San Bernardino County Sun: Filtering down Perchlorate funds will
40 US: Guardian Unlimited: Nevada Mine Whistleblower Plans Appeal
41 US: Concord Journal: Barrels on the way out
42 Whitehaven News: Thorp â€˜shut till Marchâ€™
43 Las Vegas SUN: Energy Department inspector general criticizes Yucca 
44 US: AP Wire: Leak found in old SRS radioactive waste tank
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
45 [epa-impact] Issued October 3, 2005.
46 lamonitor.com: Lockheed-UT group opens office 
47 lamonitor.com: Council discusses evacuation plan, county incident sy
48 lamonitor.com: Sandia taped talk 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 RIA Novosti: Lavrov sees IAEA activities in Iran as only way to 
maintain non-proliferation
 
06/ 10/ 2005                                  

MOSCOW, October 6 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian foreign minister
said Thursday that the presence of the International Atomic
Energy Agency in Iran is the only way to maintain a nuclear
non-proliferation regime in the country. 

"Russia is interested in the strongest consolidation of the
regime of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
above all nuclear weapons, and is convinced that further IAEA
activities in Iran will help achieve this goal," Sergei Lavrov
said after a meeting with IAEA Director General Mohamed
ElBaradei. 

The minister also said the United States had no reason to decry
construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran. 

"The U.S. side can have no claims against the Russian-Iranian
cooperation on the construction of the nuclear power plant in
Bushehr that fully complies with Russia's and Iran's
international obligations and is being controlled by the IAEA,"
Lavrov said, adding that the plant poses no threats to the
nuclear non-proliferation regime. 

The first power-generating unit of the plant in Bushehr is to be
commissioned by the end of 2006. Russia will supply nuclear fuel
to Bushehr and take back the nuclear waste. 

© 2005 "RIA Novosti"   
*****************************************************************
 2 IRNA: Tehran expects IAEA to act upon law: President Ahmadinejad 

Tehran, Oct 6, IRNA                                                                                                              

Iran-President-Interview 

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday evening that
Tehran honors commitments to Non-Proliferation Treaty and
expects UN nuclear watchdog to act upon law concerning Iran's
nuclear dossier.

 Speaking in an interview with the Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting (IRIB), the president regretted that "some members
of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were doing
under influence of the big powers.

 "They gave up to big powers pressures but we expect the IAEA to
act upon the law," stressed the president.

 He reiterated that Tehran has always been ready to negotiate
with any country on its nuclear activities, but, at the same
time, "we will never accept any negotiations which aims at
depriving Iranian nation of its rights enshrined by NPT.

 "There are other countries besides the three European states
(Britain, Germany and France) which offered to enter into talks
with Tehran," President Ahmadinejad said adding, without naming
specific country, that "Tehran is reviewing the offer."
 "However, the door is open for any states to enter into Tehran
nuclear talks," Ahmadinejad stressed.

 Criticizing approval of an anti-Iran resolution during the
latest meeting of the IAEA's governing board, the president
called it an "unprecedented act" without consensus of all
members of the Board of Governors and being adopted through
voting.

 The resolution which was approved at the IAEA's governing board
with 22 votes in favor, 12 abstention and one negative vote,
calls for referral to the UN Security Council of Iranian program.

 As for the votes of abstention, President Ahmadinejad said
"abstention means negative vote which is eventually in Tehran's
favor."
 Defending his proposal during the UN General Assembly in New
York calling for partnership of public or private sectors of
other countries in setting up power plants in Iran, the
president called it "a very progressive proposal which indicated
transparency of Iranian nuclear program."
 "Tehran's proposal was indicative that we completely believe in
the peaceful nature of our nuclear program," said the president.

 As for the Palestine, President Ahmadinejad called on all
Islamic governments and nations to stay on full alert to thwart
Israel's efforts to sew discord among Muslim nations."

 He reassured that Palestinian nation could, by its own,
liberate all occupied territories from Israeli grip.

*****************************************************************
 3 Xinhua: Tehran ready to continue talks   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-10-06 16:17:16   

    BEIJING, Oct. 6 -- Iran reiterated on Tuesday that it was
ready to reopen talks with Europeans over its nuclear programme,
which Washington says is aimed at producing nuclear weapons. 

    But IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei, speaking during a forum
on nuclear safety issues in Moscow, added a note of caution. 

    "The jury is still out. The faster Iran cooperates with us,
the faster Iran cooperates with the International community to
build confidence," he said. "The earlier we will be able to
reach a conclusion on the nature of Iran's programme." 

    Earlier this week, the United States urged governments to
end nuclear projects with Iran in light of a recent finding by
the U.N. nuclear watchdog that Tehran is not complying with the
nuclear nonproliferation treaty. 

    Russia is building a nuclear plant in Iran that the United
States says could be used by Iran to make nuclear weapons. 

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reiterated on
Wednesday that it was ready to reopen unconditional negotiations
with Europeans over its nuclear program. 

    "We are ready for negotiations with different countries and
individuals. Negotiation is not limited to the few, but we will
never accept humiliating talks aimed at compromising the
country's rights," said Ahmadinejad. 

    He also repeated his offer to international companies to
participate in Iranian nuclear program. 
 

    (Source: CRIENGLISH.com) 

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 4 Japan Times: Iran must heed the call

  Thursday, October 6, 2005   
  
EDITORIAL

The 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) late last month adopted a resolution that criticized
Iran's response over its nuclear development problem and,
although postponing referral to the United Nations Security
Council, warned that the issue might be referred in the future.
The situation gives cause for concern because Iran's immediate
rejection of the resolution underlines the possibility that it
might start full-scale uranium-enrichment activities any time.

 The resolution recognized that Iran has violated the safeguards
agreement and called into question the Iranian position that its
nuclear development program is purely for peaceful purposes.
Iran should seriously pay heed to this resolution and again
search for a way to a diplomatic solution so that a decision to
refer the issue to the Security Council can be avoided at the
next IAEA board of governors meeting in November. Iran should
refrain from raising tensions in the international community by
spreading suspicions that its ultimate aim is to develop nuclear
weapons.

 Because of the breakdown of negotiations with Britain, France,
and Germany that had continued since last year, the Iranian
government in August resumed its uranium-enrichment program. In
response, the IAEA unanimously adopted a resolution calling on
Tehran to immediately stop its conversion work and continue its
cessation of uranium-enrichment activities. The problem is that
the vicious circle of agreement violation, censure resolution
and temporary compromise has simply gone on for far too long.

 The question of Iran's secret promotion of nuclear development
in the past and repeated violation of the safeguards agreement
was brought up at the IAEA board meeting again this time.
Because Iran has been suspected in the past of concealing its
operations, its response is always met with mistrust and arouses
further suspicions about its nuclear-weapons development. In
order to prove that its nuclear development is for peaceful
purposes only, Tehran has to ensure transparency and implement
confidence-building measures.

 Underlying the nuclear debate is the problem of how far the
right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, which is stipulated
in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), should be
recognized. Against the background of nuclear development by
Iran and North Korea, and bearing in mind the breakdown of the
NPT review conference in May, the problem of the rebuilding of
the nuclear nonproliferation regime was also a major theme at
the IAEA general conference held after the board meeting.

 Since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took power, Iran has
assumed a hardline stance, insisting that its establishment of a
nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium enrichment, is an
indigenous right of the state. The three European countries
(Britain, France and Germany) proposed assistance for the
construction of a light-water reactor and the provision of
nuclear fuel in return for Iran's abandoning its development of
a nuclear fuel cycle, but Tehran rejected the offer.

 There is a deep-rooted mistrust among the nonaligned countries
that the nuclear states are restricting nonnuclear nations'
right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Also at the board
meeting, some nations voiced support for Iran's position. It was
unusual that the resolution was adopted by majority vote when
China, Russia and nonaligned countries abstained. However, there
is widespread concern that if Iran were to possess its own
nuclear fuel cycle, it could initiate the development of nuclear
weapons at any time. In the past the IAEA has repeatedly pointed
out Iran's violation of the safeguards agreement. If Tehran is
going to talk about its rights, it must first dispel these
suspicions by taking convincing action.

 Secretary Ali Larijani of the Iranian Supreme National Security
Council has hinted that if the matter were referred to the U.N.
Security Council, Iran would retaliate by withdrawing from the
NPT and reviewing oil-field development contracts that it has
concluded with foreign countries, including Japan. Furthermore,
Iran is reported to be considering the suspension of its
cooperation with the additional protocol, which permits
compulsory inspections by the IAEA.

 It is still possible, however, for Iran's nuclear problem to be
solved within the framework of the IAEA. There is also time
before the next board meeting for negotiations with the three
European countries. To avoid a worsening of the situation
through Iran's isolation in the international community, Tehran
should exercise self-restraint and refrain from engaging in
uranium-enrichment activities. 

The Japan Times: Oct. 6, 2005
(C) All rights reserved 
*****************************************************************
 5 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Wont' Join Iran Nuclear Talks
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 
 	 
	Thursday October 6, 2005 1:01 PM
 	
AP Photo MOSB105 
By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV 
Associated Press Writer 

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's foreign minister on Thursday dismissed
speculation that Moscow might join talks between Iran and
European negotiators on Tehran's disputed nuclear program. 

``As for relations between the European trio and Russia, we are
not expecting any change in these relations. There is no need
for that,'' Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters. 

``From the very beginning of the trio's work in its talks with
Iran, Russia has closely interacted in this process and this
cooperation is continuing now.'' 

``We are ready to make our contribution to this process, working
in parallel, to achieve a result that is in everyone's
interest,'' Lavrov said. 

His comments followed a meeting earlier in the day with
International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei.
Their talks apparently addressed ways of resuming the talks
between Britain, Germany and France, negotiating on behalf of
the European Union, and Iran, which collapsed in August after
Iran resumed uranium reprocessing work. 

Lavrov had strongly praised ElBaradei, Russian news agencies
reported. 

``You have recommended yourself as a thoughtful worker who is
guided by the IAEA charter documents, in that way guaranteeing
maximum efforts so that the agency's activities would not be
politicized,'' Lavrov was quoted as saying by the RIA-Novosti
news agency. 

ElBaradei said he wanted to discuss creation of a system to
ensure the peaceful uses of atomic energy and lower the risks of
its improper use, RIA-Novosti reported. 

ElBaradei said Wednesday he was optimistic the talks between
Iran and the EU negotiators would resume within a month, but he
voiced his belief that a third party was needed to provide a
``face-saving'' way out of the impasse. That comment, and the
fact he made it in Moscow, had increased speculation that Russia
might be used as an intermediary. 

Washington says Iran's nuclear program is aimed at producing a
nuclear bomb, but Tehran insists its program is intended to
produce electrical power. 

Russia has said it shares the goal of preventing Iran from
achieving a nuclear arms capability but differs on the tactics.

Moscow has been at the center of the dispute since it is
building a $800 million nuclear reactor in the Iranian city of
Bushehr that is scheduled for launch by the end of 2006. 

U.S. officials fear Iran could use technology provided for that
plant for a weapons program.	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 6 AFP: Iran says nuclear fuel cycle not up for negotiation - 

 TEHRAN (AFP) - The top Iranian nuclear negotiator reiterated
that Tehran's controversial nuclear facilities were not up for
negotiation and insisted it would not talk with countries
demanding they be dismantled.

"If the objective is to conduct negotiations aimed at making us
forget our right to the nuclear fuel cycle, the Iranian people
will not accept such a thing," Ali Larijani was quoted as saying
by the official news agency IRNA.

Iran has for the past two years been engaged in talks with 
Britain, France and Germany, which want "objective guarantees" 
the clerical regime is not using an atomic energy drive as a 
means to acquire nuclear weapons.

At the heart of the problem is Iran's fuel cycle work. The
so-called EU-3, backed by the United States, want Iran to give
up such technology -- which can be diverted to military purposes
-- and are offering incentives in exchange.

The talks broke down in August, when Iran slammed the door on
such a deal and partially ended a freeze on fuel cycle work.
Iran says such activities are for peaceful purposes and
therefore authorised by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

"I heard that the Europeans are ready to resume negotiations,"
Larijani said. "From our viewpoint, there is no obstacle for
such talks within the framework of the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA)."

But he added: "What is important is that Iran possesses the
nuclear fuel cycle and that this is not diverted to atomic
weapons, and within this framework we can give the necessary
guarantees."

Despite the Iranian assurances, the EU-3 regard a full cessation
of fuel cycle work as the only credible guarantee that Iran will
not acquire the bomb.

Speaking in Moscow on Wednesday, IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei
said he was "optimistic" Iran would resume talks but said it
must still answer questions to allay widespread fears it wants
to build nuclear weapons.

Larijani, the hardline secretary of Iran's Supreme National
Security Council, said talks "have been going on with different
countries", but gave no further details.
 
                                
    Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 7 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Seeks Ways to Pressure Iran on Nukes
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

	Thursday October 6, 2005 8:16 PM
 	
AP Photo DCSA105 
By BARRY SCHWEID 
AP Diplomatic Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration, searching for ways to
induce Iran to resume negotiations to end its nuclear programs,
is exploring a wide range of options. But expanded diplomatic
contact is not among them. 

``If we need to get a message across there are numerous ways to
do that,'' State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said
Thursday. 

He denounced Iran as ``a regime that is seeking nuclear weapons,
that supports terrrorism and that oppresses its people'' and
said existing channels, including U.N. offices in New York, were
available, if needed. 

Diplomatic contacts with Iran have been extremely limited since
its fundamentalist revolution in 1979. By contrast, the European
allies that have been negotiating with Iran have diplomatic
relations with Tehran. 

``There is no change in our policy with respect to Iran,''
McCormack said. 

``If anything, over the past weeks and months, you have seen an
ever tougher-minded U.S. policy as well as a tougher-minded
policy from the international community,'' he said. 

A briefing paper circulated within the State Department suggests
direct diplomatic contact with Iran to try to reopen
negotiations with the European Union. But McCormack flatly ruled
that out as an option. 

``Secretary of State (Condoleezza) Rice is not contemplating any
such change in U.S. policy,'' McCormack said. 

``Secretary Rice, senior policy-makers in the U.S. government,
are not broadening U.S. diplomatic engagement with Iran,'' he
said. ``There are already existing diplomatic channels,''
including an ``interest section'' in Tehran through which Swiss
diplomats look after American interests, he said. 
The White House last month warned Iran of the prospect that
Tehran's nuclear activities could be brought before the U.N.
Security Council where Iran would run the risk of censure or
economic sanctions, if the United States and its allies achieved
a majority and averted a veto by Russia or China. 

On another front, the administration considers Iran to be the
most avid supporter of terrorism in the world. In Iraq, however,
where infiltration of militant fighters is a tough obstacle to
postwar reconstruction, Syria is considered a far more active
channel. 

Still, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Thursday that new
explosive devices used against coalition forces in Iraq ``lead
us either to Iranian elements or to Hezbollah.'' 

While stressing that ``we cannot be sure'' about Iran's possible
role, the British leader linked the issue to the diplomatic
confrontation between Tehran and Western nations over Iran's
nuclear program. 

Responding, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said
``certainly that would be of concern to us.'' 

``I think you have heard us talk about how it's important for
Iran to have a good, constructive relationship with their
neighbors, including Iraq,'' McClellan said. 

The White House and State Department spokesman, while expressing
concern about Iranian activities, did not directly endorse a
senior British official's assertion on Wednesday that Iran's
Revolutionary Guard is believed to have supplied explosive
technology that has killed eight British soldiers in incidents
over the summer. 

``We stand with the British government as they investigate this
matter,'' McCormack said. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 8 HindustanTimes.com: We've made progress in N-fuel programme - Iran    
 
Ali Akbar Dareini (AP)

Tehran (Iran), October 6, 2005
    
Iran has made progress in its nuclear fuel cycle programme, a
technology that can be used to produce nuclear fuel or atomic
weapons, the president said in a television interview late on
Wednesday. 

Ultraconservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also said Iran
was studying offers by several European countries for
negotiations over its nuclear programme but warned that Tehran
won't accept talks that seek to deny it of its right to enrich
uranium. "In the sphere of nuclear fuel cycle activities, today
we are one step ahead of two months ago," Ahmadinejad told
state-run television.

The president was apparently referring to the several tons of
uranium gas that Iran has produced since it resumed uranium
reprocessing activities at its Uranium Conversion Facility in
Isfahan, central Iran, in early August.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi suggested on Tuesday
that tons of uranium gas Iran has produced since August was
low-quality and unusable as feedstock for enrichment but said it
was natural for an indigenous program like the one pursued by
Iran. He explained that Iran needs to encourage its scientists
and complete its uranium enrichment programme.

Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, said last month that Tehran has
produced about seven tons of the gas needed to enrich uranium --
a possible pathway to a nuclear weapon -- since restarting
uranium conversion in Isfahan.

Ahmadinejad reiterated that Iran was open to dialogue with
Europe but said Tehran won't accept negotiations that do not
recognise its right to enrich uranium.

Uranium enrichment does not violate the terms of the Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory. Talks
between Britain, Germany and France -- which negotiated on
behalf of the 25-nation European Union -- and Iran collapsed in
August after Iran resumed uranium reprocessing work. "We are
ready for negotiations with different countries. There are other
countries in Europe except those three (France, Britain and
Germany) who have sent requests for negotiations with Iran. We
are now examining it," Ahmadinejad said, without naming the
countries.

"But negotiations that seek to deny the Iranian nation of its
right (to enrich uranium) can't be on our agenda," he said.
Ahmadinejad insisted that his offer during a speech at the UN
General Assembly in New York last month to foreign countries and
companies to play a role in Iran's nuclear programme was a
"revolution" that the world need to take seriously. "Our
proposal was a nuclear revolution. We allow other countries and
companies to participate in our nuclear projects because we are
100 per cent sure that we have had no diversion (from a civilian
to a military programme). They can learn every detail about
Iran's nuclear activities," he said.

The president said the US and Europeans did not welcome his
proposal because "it disarmed all the countries who were saying
that Iran has had diversion from its nuclear activities which
were in fact untrue claims."

The United States and some European nations believe Iran's
nuclear programme is meant to develop weapons, though Tehran
insists it is for peaceful energy purposes.

Last month, the IAEA passed a resolution warning Iran that it
would be referred to the UN Security Council unless it allayed
fears about its nuclear programme. In response, Iran has
threatened that unless the IAEA backs down, it will block short
notice intrusive inspections of its nuclear facilities and cut
trade with countries that supported the resolution.   
    
© HT Media Ltd. 2005. 
*****************************************************************
 9 UN Watchdog Agency Assists Safe Removal Of Nuclear Weapons-grade Uranium
 
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:06:16 -0400

 
As part of the ongoing battle to prevent nuclear proliferation and terrorism, the United Nations atomic watchdog agency has assisted the return from the Czech Republic to Russia of 14 kilogrammes of highly enriched uranium (HEU) that could be used to assemble a nuclear weapon. 
 

The mission, completed last week, was a joint effort between the 
UN International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2005/czech_material.html">IAEA), 
the United States, the 
Czech Republic and Russia, as part of the Global Threat Reduction 
Initiative (GTRI), which seeks to identify, secure and recover 
high-risk vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials around 
the world.

The nuclear fuel was originally supplied to the Czech Republic by 
the former Soviet Union for use in a Russian designed multi-purpose 
research reactor operated at the Czech Technical University for 
education and training of physics and engineering students.

IAEA safeguard inspectors monitored and verified the packing of the 
HEU for transport from the reactor and arranged the shipment and 
all related logistics as part of its technical cooperation activities. 
The fuel removal was funded by the US Department of Energy.

The fuel was airlifted under guard from an airport near Prague, the 
Czech capital, to a secure facility in Dimitrovgrad, Russia, where 
it will be down-blended to low enriched uranium that cannot 
be used for an atomic bomb.

Over the past two years the IAEA has supported similar operations 
in other countries including Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Bulgaria, 
Uzbekistan and Latvia. 

More than 100 research reactors around the world still run on weapons-grade 
HEU and the Agency is working with Member States to convert 
their research reactors from HEU to using proliferation-resistant 
lower enriched fuel.
 2005-10-06 00:00:00.000 


________________

For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news

To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml
*****************************************************************
 10 RIA Novosti: Russian Foreign Ministry demands Adamov's extradition to Russia
 
06/ 10/ 2005                                  


MOSCOW, October 6 (RIA Novosti) - A delegation from the U.S.
Justice Department met with Russian officials in Moscow
Wednesday to discuss the extradition from Switzerland of a
former nuclear power minister wanted in the U.S. on embezzlement
charges, the Russian Foreign Ministry said Thursday.

 The U.S. delegation, led by U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan,
who filed a criminal case against Yevgeny Adamov, was presented
with Russia's reasons for demanding Adamov's extradition to
Russia, where he is wanted on charges of fraud and abuse of
office, the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

 U.S. authorities have accused Adamov and his business partner
Mark Kaushansky, a U.S. citizen, of embezzling $9 million
allocated by the U.S. government for nuclear security projects
in Russia.

		© 2005 "RIA Novosti"   

*****************************************************************
 11 Xinhua: Russia firm on extradition of ex-atomic energy minister   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-10-07 04:07:38   

    MOSCOW, Oct. 6 (Xinhuanet) -- Russia insisted on its demand
that former atomic energy minister Yevgeny Adamov be extradited
to his homeland as US and Russian investigators met Thursday in
Moscow to discuss his case. 

    Moscow insists on the earliest possible extradition of
Adamov to Russia, Foreign Ministry officials said after a
meeting with representatives of the Russian Prosecutor General's
Office and the US Department of Justice, according to the
Itar-Tass news agency. 

    "Russian officials presented to the US delegation, led by
Pennsylvanian Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, a well-substantiated
position that Adamov must be extradited to Russia without
delay," the officials said. 

    During meetings in Moscow, US investigators and Russian
prosecutors focused on investigation of Adamov's case and
discussed the possible exchange of information on his case. 

    Adamov was arrested on May 2 in Switzerland on US warrant.
The United States accused him of embezzling up to 9 million US
dollars of US aid to Russia, money that was intended for beefing
up security at Russia's nuclear facilities. Both Russia and the
United States requested his extradition. 

    Swiss authorities decided Monday to extradite Adamov to the
United States. A Swiss official said Thursday Adamov's lawyers
had informed the authorities that they would appeal the ruling. 

    The Foreign Ministry summoned a Swiss diplomat Wednesday,
saying Switzerland's decision on Adamov's extradition would harm
Russian-Swiss relations. Enditem    

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 12 Japan Times: A lesson from Pakistan on proliferation

  Thursday, October 6, 2005   
  
 By FARHAN BOKHARI


ISLAMABAD -- The controversy surrounding North Korea's nuclear
program is a reminder of past miscues in Pakistan, whose
disgraced nuclear scientist, Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, was accused
last year of selling nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North
Korea.

 Khan lives under what amounts to house arrest in Islamabad.
Most of his accomplices who were rounded up for questioning by
Pakistani authorities have been released but likely remain under
surveillance. 

Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf often speaks of his
determination to keep the country's nuclear program under tight
control to prevent a repeat of the Khan fiasco. The United
States, which backs the Pakistani ruler, has said it is
satisfied with Islamabad's investigation of Khan's actions,
although it reportedly would like to question the nuclear
scientist directly.

 It is impossible to say exactly what transactions took place
between Pakistan and North Korea under Khan's supervision.
Anonymous Western diplomats have been quoted in newspapers
claiming that Pakistan helped North Korea to develop its
nuclear-weapons program and in return received components for
nuclear-capable missiles.

 In spite of such allegations, the international community can
do little to penalize Islamabad. Pakistan's close relationship
with the U.S. in the so-called war on terror means that
Washington is willing to ignore some of Islamabad's less
desirable actions.

 It's of little use to apply too much pressure to a nuclear
power as such a move could lead to its becoming defiant and
refusing to cooperate with international measures aimed at
curbing nuclear-weapons proliferation.

 In addition, Pakistan lives in a tough neighborhood. Since
Pakistan's decision to conduct its first nuclear tests in 1998,
just three weeks after similar tests were carried out by India,
the two countries have edged dangerously close to military
conflict several times. But on each occasion tensions gave way
to diplomacy and a tacit agreement to seek peaceful resolutions
to their disputes.

 Many analysts believe the reason why Indo-Pakistani tensions
did not lead to war on these occasions was the presence of a
nuclear deterrence. 

In any case, Pakistan's nuclear program is here to stay,
irrespective of how loudly nonproliferation advocates argue
their case against Islamabad. But the lessons from the
controversy surrounding Khan cannot be ignored.

 Considering that Israel, Pakistan and India are not signatories
to any of the international treaties aimed at safeguarding
nuclear technology and halting the proliferation of nuclear
weapons, the international community must try to implement a new
security regime. Measures that specifically target any one of
these three countries' nuclear programs -- which they view as
vital to their national security -- are likely to be rejected.
But there may be less resistance to initiatives aimed at all
three states.

 Of the three states, Pakistan is the only one whose
conventional weapon capability was weakened in the 1990s by U.S.
sanctions implemented as punishment for its nuclear program.
Although the sanctions undermined Pakistan's confidence in its
conventional ability, they only strengthened its determination
to develop a nuclear deterrent.

 It is partly in recognition of this unexpected result that the
U.S. is now prepared to sell Pakistan sophisticated F-16
fighters planes, the delivery of which was suspended in 1990
under the nuclear-related sanctions. Given what has taken place
in the past 15 years, the U.S. decision to resume conventional
arms sales could actually improve South Asia's security
environment at a time when the international community is trying
to come to terms with new nuclear powers bursting through the
gates of its carefully crafted global nuclear regime.

 Farhan Bokhari is a freelance journalist who reports from the
Pakistani capital for The Japan Times and leading European
papers. 

The Japan Times: Oct. 6, 2005
(C) All rights reserved 
*****************************************************************
 13 ITAR-TASS: Russia makes valuable contribution to IAEA work – El Baradei

06.10.2005, 10.44
 

MOSCOW, October 6 (Itar-Tass) - Russia makes a very valuable
contribution to the work of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) and approaches all activities of the agency in the
atomic sphere in a weighed way, IAEA director general Mohammed
El Baradei said at his talks with Russian Foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov on Thursday. 

He said he was going to raise at the meeting the question of the
broader use of atomic energy, the need for reduction of risk of
the wrong use of nuclear energy and an idea for such use. 

Russia’s opinion is very important for the IAEA, El Baradei
said. 

Lavrov in turn said that “Russia confirms the consistent support
to the activity of Mohammed ElBaradei as the head of the IAEA”. 

“El Baradei has acquitted himself as a professional who guides
himself by documents in a weighed way, which ensures a lack of
politicisation of his work,” Lavrov said. 

El Baradei said in Moscow on Wednesday that the situation with
nuclear safety in Russia had become much more favourable. 

Not all issues have been lifted, El Baradie said, adding that
there are problems that kill his night sleep, but Russia is not
among them. 

Questions about nuclear programmes of North Korea, Libya and
Iran remain, but the UN Security Council can be addressed about
them only in case the international community is unable to
persuade some or another country to stop enrichment of nuclear
materials, he said. 

El Baradei said the organisation proposes a 5-10 year ban on the
construction of new nuclear facilities. 

This can be done after certain countries are given guarantees of
fuel and technology deliveries, securing in exchange their
refusal to reprocess nuclear materials. 

This would solve 80 percent of problems in the nuclear sphere.
It would be difficult for the countries to dispute with the
international community if such deliveries were guaranteed to
them, the IAEA chief said. 

Besides, about 50 percent of states already have spent nuclear
fuel and do not know what to do with it. 

The IAEA, the US and Russia are discussing a possibility of
making a so-called fuel bank. 

Russia shows significant interest in what could become an
international depositary, El Baradei said. 

© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
 14 Arms Control Association: Arms Control Today: Brazil's Nuclear History 

Brazil as Litmus Test: Resende and Restrictions on Uranium
Enrichment
 
Sharon Squassoni and David Fite 
  + Brazil's Nuclear History 

Seven years ago, Brazil joined the nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty (NPT). Standing in the gilded treaty room on the top
floor of the U.S. Department of State, then-Foreign Minister
Luiz Felipe Lampreia formally deposited the instrument of
ratification before Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and a
small group of nonproliferation experts. 

Calling Lampreia the Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire of
international diplomacy for ratifying both the NPT and the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Albright noted that Brazils NPT
accession would have been unthinkable 15 years earlier. 

For Lampreia, his appearance in Foggy Bottom symbolized a
30-year odyssey since serving on Brazils 1968 NPT negotiating
delegation. To him, Brazils ratification of the NPT was a
natural consequence of its leadership in the area of disarmament
and nonproliferation. In fact, Brazils diplomatic offensive was
truly noteworthy: in three short years, Brazil joined the
Missile Technology Control Regime, the Nuclear Suppliers Group
(NSG), and the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which establishes a Latin
American nuclear-weapon-free zone. Weeks before its ratification
of the NPT, Brazil and six other states formed the New Agenda
Coalition, which has pushed for concrete steps toward nuclear
disarmament. 

The choice of Brazilian Ambassador Sérgio de Queiroz Duarte to
chair the 2005 NPT Review Conference indicates how far Brazil
has come in terms of its nonproliferation credentials. Yet,
despite its vastly improved record, Brazils commissioning of its
new uranium-enrichment centrifuge plant in 2004 prompted
international concern. 

Brazils Resende plant is the first centrifuge facility to have
become operational since Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan
admitted last year that he had provided sensitive enrichment
technology and equipment to Iran, Libya, and North Korea.
Likewise, the Resende facility came online as Irans formerly
secret centrifuge enrichment program was unmasked. With these
revelations prompting calls for new global restrictions on new
enrichment, the plants commissioning struck a dissonant chord. 

Now, the Resende facility could be a litmus test for how far
such restrictions should go. Should Brazil be pushed to abandon
the plant, to advance efforts to restrict or even roll back
enrichment technology, or should the world welcome Brazils
status as a significant producer of enriched uranium? 
Controversy Over Resende 

The Resende site, located about 100 kilometers from Rio de
Janeiro, contains an operational fuel-fabrication facility, a
uranium-conversion plant under construction, and the
uranium-enrichment plant. In 2000, state-owned Industrias
Nucleares Brasil (INB) signed a contract with the Brazilian navy
to construct a commercial-scale uranium-enrichment facility
using navy-designed centrifuges.[1] The first module, which will
contain four cascades, is now considered operational. However,
the plant is not expected to be operating at full capacity (four
modules) until 2015.[2] International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) safeguards, in the absence of an additional protocol,
will not be applied until nuclear material is introduced into
the plant. 

Negotiations with the IAEA on the safeguards approach for the
plant were reportedly tense. Differences centered on whether
IAEA inspectors would be allowed full visual access within the
cascade hall or if Brazil would be allowed to shroud the
equipment. Brazils concern reportedly was that it would not have
enough time (two hours) to shield the proprietary aspects of the
centrifuges from foreign inspectors. Brazil maintains that its
unique centrifuge design, based on two magnetic bearings rather
than one, offers a significant commercial advantage that must be
protected.[3] 

A compromise apparently was reached in late 2004 allowing Brazil
to shroud access to the bearings in the first module, which
includes four cascades, but requiring redesign of the casings
for subsequent modules.[4] In the meantime, however, the public
controversy gained steam. Rarely does the negotiation of
safeguards generate Greenpeace protests, official diplomatic
protestations, and mainstream press articles.[5] Yet, by the end
of 2004, the international community had become increasingly
concerned about the proliferation of centrifuge enrichment
technology from the Khan network, particularly in the case of
Iran. Brazilian officials were reported to have denied IAEA
officials access to the Resende facility on two occasions early
in 2004, and the comparisons to Iranian inspection difficulties
may have been inevitable. 

Brazils secrecy raised eyebrows for other reasons as well.[6]
Despite assertions by Brazils minister of science and technology
that the Resende enrichment plant is built from technology that
is 100 percent Brazilian,[7] there were persistent rumors that
Brazil was attempting to hide technology it had gained covertly
in the past, possibly the Urenco G-2 design from Germany or
another design from Pakistan. Brazils reluctance to permit IAEA
inspectors visual access to the centrifuge cascade hall also
seemed a throwback to pre-NPT days when Argentina and Brazil
disparaged IAEA inspections for their intrusiveness. At the
time, the countries were trying to hide militarily applicable
activities from each other and from the world. As such, Brazils
hedging seemed to undercut the spirit of its NPT/IAEA
commitments, parsing its adherence to the letter of its
commitments. 

For those already skeptical of the ability of safeguards to
protect against diversion of material or against a breakout
capability at a centrifuge enrichment plant, Brazils secrecy
suggested negative intent.[8] During negotiations with the IAEA,
some observers estimated that Resende could produce enough
highly enriched uranium (HEU) for six bombs per year, a charge
Brazil has vigorously denied.[9] 

The central role of the Brazilian military in the enrichment
program also may have inspired doubts about Brazilian
motivations. A significant question is whether Resende will ever
produce enriched uranium for the Brazilian navys troubled
nuclear submarine reactor. Although Brazilian naval officials
have noted that advanced ceramic technologies no longer require
submarines to use 93 percent or more enriched (i.e.,
weapons-grade) uranium in their fuel, a facility that produced
even 20 percent enriched uranium would require significantly
more intrusive inspections, containment, and surveillance.
Should the Brazilian navys reactor program ever reach fruition,
the question of how nuclear material could be withdrawn from
safeguards for military, non-explosive purposes would be
difficult to resolve. 

A related concern is that Brazil, Argentina, and the
Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear
Materials (ABACC) have not signed an additional protocol
agreement to their safeguards agreement. Brazilian comments to
the effect that any such additional protocol would contain a
national security exclusion and managed-access provision similar
to those of the United States additional protocol may further
erode confidence.[10] One Brazilian diplomat told Nuclear Fuel
in May 2004 that the expanded measures under the Additional
Protocol were not necessary in the case of a country, such as
Brazil, with an open democratic society and a strong record of
compliance with its nonproliferation commitments.[11] 
Safeguarding the Future 

Khans sale of uranium centrifuge-enrichment technology and
equipment to Iran, Libya, and North Korea has sparked a
wide-ranging debate about the health of the nuclear
nonproliferation regime. At the existential level, some
observers believe that the NPT is inherently flawed and
unworkable because it allows non-nuclear-weapon states to
acquire nuclear technology that can be used to produce fissile
material for nuclear weapons. In their view, this paves the way
for states to develop a breakout capability: a quick path to the
bomb after leaving the NPT. 

Thus far, two solutions have been proposed, and both seek to
restrict the circle of technology holders to the few and
trusted. President George W. Bush suggested in February 2004
that states could voluntarily renounce enrichment and
reprocessing and proposed that the NSG make enrichment and
reprocessing exports available only to those states that already
possessed a fully operational capability. [12] For the time
being, the Group of Eight (G-8) nationsCanada, France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United
Statesagreed in 2004 to a moratorium on enrichment and
reprocessing sales, although the NSG has not yet been able to
implement a similar decision. The June 2005 NSG plenary merely
noted that it would continue to discuss the issue. Nonetheless,
the NSG has implemented a de facto ban for several years. Many
observers are not optimistic that this approach will
succeed.[13] For one, it deepens the divide between NPT haves
and have-nots and transgresses on what some states see as their
inalienable right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology. For
example, Japan has spent more than a decade and $20 billion
building a plutonium reprocessing plant at Rokkasho, scheduled
to open at the end of this year. Is Tokyo expected simply to
abandon this sizable investment without compensation or return?
Some have noted that the policy creates a third set of states:
those that do not have nuclear weapons but are trusted to have
sensitive technology. 

A second solution is to promote multilateral arrangements for
the front and back ends of the fuel cycle: fuel production and
fuel disposal. As noted above, IAEA Director-General Mohamed
ElBaradei appointed an experts group in June 2004 to consider
issues and options for multilateral approaches, and that group
reported its findings in February 2005. [14] The experts
identified five basic options ranging from reinforcing existing
commercial market mechanisms through commercial fuel banks and
fuel leasing to multinational or regional fuel-cycle
facilities.[15] The IAEA has not yet endorsed or recommended a
particular option. 

At the practical level, some doubt whether safeguards developed
for gas-centrifuge uranium-enrichment plants are adequate to
provide assurances of the absence of undeclared activities. The
IAEA, which has 20 years experience safeguarding gas centrifuge
plants, is considering updating the safeguards approach agreed
on in the Hexapartite Safeguards Project.[16] Much of that
experience comes from IAEA and European Atomic Energy Community
(EURATOM) safeguards on gas centrifuge plants in Germany, the
Netherlands, and the United Kingdom; safeguarding the
Rokkasho-mura and Ningyo-toge enrichment plants in Japan; and,
more recently, safeguarding one plant in China. Experiences in
applying new technologies and approaches in EURATOM centrifuge
plants have not been particularly smooth.[17] Nonetheless, IAEA
officials reportedly are confident that the approach devised for
Resende is adequate. The plan calls for additional containment
and surveillance measures at key points where uranium gas is fed
into and withdrawn from the cascades. 
Future of Brazilian Enrichment 

Still, Resendes commissioning comes at a time when the broader
future of Brazils nuclear energy complex is in doubt, raising
questions about its economic viability. Last year, President
Lula da Silva commissioned the National Energy Policy Council to
make recommendations on Brazils nuclear program. Although a
decision was expected in April 2005, there is apparently no
consensus among the six ministries involved in the decision. The
Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Mines and Energy
oppose new nuclear power plants, while the Ministry of Science
and Technology supports them. This could spell trouble for the
Resende enrichment plant because it is widely believed that
Resende is not commercially viable without completion of a new
power reactor (Angra-3) or without sales of enriched uranium
abroad at a time that future global demand for
uranium-enrichment services is not certain. INB reported in 2000
that its profitability hinged on completion of Angra-3 and
foreign fuel sales.[18] The Angra-3 plant will need about $1.6
billion funding for completion. Some estimates suggest that
Brazil will save $10 million to $12 million annually by
providing its own fuel for the existing Angra-1 and -2 plants,
but this hardly pays for the new reactor. 

Brazils science and technology minister Eduardo Campos has
called the nuclear program a strategic issue for Brazil.[19]
Last year, he stated that we now command the uranium-enrichment
cycle. We know that over the coming 20 years, 25 percent of all
the electricity generated worldwide will come from a nuclear
source, and Brazil could be one of the few countries supplying
the fuel. 

Campos appears to be banking on assessments that Brazils
centrifuge technology is more efficient than Russian
centrifuges, which provide 30 percent of the world demand for
enriched uranium, and U.S. and French gaseous-diffusion
enrichment, which provide 55 percent of world demand. However,
the actual efficiency of the Brazilian plant is unknown given
the secrecy surrounding its centrifuge technology. Another
complicating factor is how the blend-down of supplies of former
Russian weapons HEU affects the market. 

Twenty years ago, Brazil had planned to sell low-enriched
uranium to Argentina and China. The plan for exports fell
through for many reasons, and at present, the uranium Brazil
mines and mills is sent abroad for conversion (from raw uranium
into uranium hexafluoride) and enrichment and then returned to
Brazil for fabrication into fuel for nuclear plants. A
pilot-scale uranium hexafluoride conversion plant is under
construction in Ipero, but reportedly there are no plans for a
commercial-scale plant. By 2010, Resende is estimated to be able
to produce about 60 percent of the fuel needs of Angra-1 and -2.
Brazil reportedly does not plan to export LEU until 2015, which
fits with the IAEA projections that worldwide enrichment
capacity will exceed demand for the next 10 years, but that the
next two decades may witness rebuilding and expansion of
enrichment capabilities in response to higher world demand for
enrichment. Secondary market prices for enrichment services are
between 10 percent and 30 percent higher now than they were in
the late 1980s.[20] 
Recommendations 

Brazil and Argentina made remarkable political decisions 15
years ago to stand down from nuclear weapons programs,
facilitated by the return of civilian rule to both countries.
Nonetheless, prestige still appears to be a prime motivation for
continued development of their nuclear fuel cycles. Recently,
Argentine officials stated they would not allow proposals to
restrict enrichment and reprocessing to technology holders to go
forward, presumably because they may not want to be left in
Brazils shadow without their own enrichment capability. 

Brazil has been a vocal proponent of disarmament for many years,
but its rhetoric rang hollow until the last decade when it
finally embraced the nonproliferation system. Hastily conceived
proposals to limit fuel cycle capabilities have breathed fresh
life into Brazils old criticisms that the international
nonproliferation regime is designed to protect the civil and
military nuclear advantages of the developed nations rather than
to achieve true nonproliferation and disarmament. The North made
the game; it cannot change the rules after the South finally
decides to play. 

Brazils insistence on the right to a peaceful nuclear
infrastructure is entirely consistent with its historic belief
that advanced developed nations are recognized by their
advanced, civil nuclear capabilities. Indeed, Brazils accession
to the NPT was predicated on three assumptions. First, Brazil
would not assume any more safeguards obligations or restrictions
than it had already agreed to under the Treaty of Tlatelolco and
the Quadripartite Safeguards Agreement. Second, Brazil would be
guaranteed the right under the NPT to develop peaceful nuclear
energy. Finally, Brazil would therefore be able to retain and
expand its nuclear infrastructure, which has consumed so much
financial and political capital over the years. Abandoning
Resende now is not the nonproliferation bargain Brazil struck. 

Although Brazilian officials acknowledge that new approaches may
be needed to provide greater confidence in the nuclear
nonproliferation regime, particularly where centrifuge
enrichment is concerned, they see no reason they should be
singled out as a test case. According to Brazilian Ambassador
José Maurício Bustani, it is unacceptable to compare Brazil with
countries which have recently admitted to secret or undeclared
nuclear activities.[21] In other words, Brazil is not Iran.
Brazil, despite its admission of secret or undeclared activities
15 years ago, was not then a member of the NPT, nor had it
ratified the Treaty of Tlatelolco. Although some early
statements by the president and by his science and technology
minister raised questions about the depth of Brazils commitment
to the NPT, there is today no evidence or reason, especially
given the end of the military competition with Buenos Aires, to
question Brazils basic commitment to remaining a
non-nuclear-weapon state. 

Persuading Brazil to abandon the Resende enrichment plant would
require significant incentives by the United States and others.
These could include cooperation with the Brazilian navy on naval
reactors (perhaps provision of HEU for fuel or HEU fuel or fuel
development technology for lower enrichment levels), fuel
contracts for INB, and possibly further aid to help complete
Angra-3. Brazilian leadership in a new regional, multinational
fuel-cycle center (front or back end) could be necessary, or
Resende could be put under international control, perhaps as an
expansion of Brazilian-Argentine cooperation. On the political
level, support for Brazilian permanent membership on the UN
Security Council could sweeten the deal. Creation of a national
strategic partnership between the United States and Brazil,
along the lines of the global partnership technology cooperation
agreement with India, announced in July 2005, could address the
need for prestige. 

However, it may also take more than additional inducements to
persuade Brasilia to abandon Resende, especially because the
latter is increasingly perceived as Brazils bid to play on a
global technological stage as a supplier of nuclear fuel,
competitive with the technologically most-advanced nations. If
Brazil, as a member of the NPT in good standing, is going to be
asked to sacrifice prestige and investment in a new enrichment
plant, then so too, perhaps, should others. The United States
could offer to cancel its two planned enrichment facilities and
enter into a joint ownership arrangement with Brazil at the
Resende plant. This presumes that Brazils technology is
efficient, although likely not on par with U.S. or Urenco
centrifuge technology. Regional solutions would need to consider
the role of Argentina. 

U.S. official statements support Brazils enrichment capability,
based on Brazils record both in nonproliferation and democracy.
These two criteria were also used to justify a July 18 U.S.
proposal to engage in nuclear cooperation with India. This
proposal, which overturns 30 years of U.S. nonproliferation
policy requiring a state to have full-scope safeguards to
receive significant nuclear supply, could dampen international
enthusiasm for restricting the fuel cycle. The United States is
unlikely to provide assistance in either enrichment or
reprocessing to India, but the offer, which must be approved by
Congress, threatens to undermine the basic NPT bargain: forswear
nuclear weapons in exchange for peaceful nuclear cooperation. 

Will NSG states, which have required full-scope safeguards as a
condition of nuclear supply since 1995, now support U.S.
proposals to restrict technology even among NSG members, while
the U.S. extends its cooperation to a state outside the NPT and
the NSG? 

Weakened international resolve to further restrict technologies
like enrichment and reprocessing could very well be a by-product
of a target nonproliferation policy that attempts to ban the
possession of fissile material in certain states such as Iran,
Iraq, and North Korea. And while Brazil and U.S.-Brazilian
relations may benefit from such a development, so too might Iran
and North Korea. Further retreat from global nonproliferation
norms runs the risk of creating loopholes that other states
might all too readily exploit. 

Brazil's Nuclear History 

Sharon Squassoni and David Fite 

Over the last 60 years, political and military rivalry with
Argentina colored Brazilian politics and national identity. In
the nuclear arena, mastery of all applications of the atom was
equated with political mastery of the Southern Cone and beyond. 

In August 2005, former Brazilian President José Sarney confirmed
that more than two decades ago the Brazilian military had sought
to develop nuclear weapons to counter political and military
competition from Argentina. More surprisingly, a former
president of the Brazilian atomic energy agency recently claimed
that the military allegedly continued to develop a nuclear bomb
after the program had been terminated by Brazilian President
Fernando Collor de Mello. He said the military had even obtained
sufficient enriched uranium from an unspecified source, a claim
vehemently denied by the current Brazilian government.[1] 

Brazilian scientists began experimenting with nuclear fission in
the 1930s, but efforts began in earnest after Argentinas
president, Juan Perón, made the stunning and false claim in 1951
that his countrys scientists had mastered thermonuclear fusion
in the laboratory.[2] In response, Brazil created a nuclear
research program under Conselho Nacional de Pesquisas (CNP), its
national research council. 

Two years later, a CNP agent secretly persuaded several West
German scientists to manufacture several centrifuge machines
clandestinely, an operation reminiscent of the Abdul Qadeer Khan
nuclear black-market network. Delivery of those centrifuges was
thwarted by British occupation authorities acting in concert
with the United States.[3] However, some sources report that
Brazil acquired three German centrifuges in the 1950s.[4] 

Brazil also reportedly sought but did not obtain uranium
gaseous-diffusion assistance from the French. 

Like Iran today, Brazil had an ambitious vision for developing
nuclear energy. A 1955 nuclear cooperation agreement with the
United States under the Atoms for Peace Program facilitated the
purchase of several research reactors. In 1971, Brazil obtained
its first power reactor, the 626-megawatt Angra-1, from
Westinghouse, which began commercial operation in 1985.[5] 

It was a 1975 agreement with West Germany for a complete nuclear
fuel cycle, however, that stunned the world. The West German
deal included two power reactors and plans for six more, as well
as plants for uranium processing, conversion, enrichment, and
reprocessing. Brazils determination to obtain a complete nuclear
fuel cycle quickly can be traced to the oil shocks of 1973,
military and technological competition for prestige with
Argentina, and the Nixon administrations announcement that it
would soon shut the order books for future supply contracts for
enriched fuel. 

The West German deal, however, provoked a strong negative U.S.
reaction, particularly in the wake of Indias 1974 peaceful
nuclear test. Although the United States was unable to prevent
the deal entirely, it persuaded West Germany to require
bilateral safeguards on the technology it transferred. By 1978
the U.S. Congress passed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act, which
made full-scope safeguards a prerequisite for significant
nuclear transfers, thus closing off U.S. supply.[6] 

In the end, the Brazilian-West German deal produced modest
results compared to its original scope. Construction of Angra-2
and -3 fell monstrously behind schedule and overbudget. The
German Becker jet-nozzle enrichment technology, experimental at
best, proved unworkable in practice; and a pilot cascade at
Resende was ultimately shut down before uranium was enriched.
Only Angra-2 was completed, which began operating in 2000. By
2002, nuclear power provided just 4 percent of Brazils total
electricity production.[7] 
Brazils Parallel Program 

Brazils increasing dependence on foreign equipment and material
and the restrictions of international safeguards attached to the
German transfers, as well as the suspicion that the jet-nozzle
process would enrich little but German pockets, worried and
frustrated the military leadership.[8] 

In 1979 the military government created a secret and autonomous
parallel program to develop the nuclear fuel cycle outside of
international safeguards. Under the stewardship of Coordenadoria
de Projetos Especiais (COPESP), the Brazilian navys special
projects commission, the program initially focused on developing
a small light-water reactor for submarine propulsion and an
indigenous uranium-enrichment capability using centrifuges. 

Soon, however, all three services had active nuclear research
programs, including the Brazilian armys large graphite-moderate
reactor, which would have been well suited for production of
weapons-grade plutonium, while the Brazilian air force
investigated laser enrichment and breeder reactors. By 1982,
Brazil had managed lab-scale enrichment. COPESP began
construction of a pilot enrichment plant at Aramar in Ipero in
1987. At the inauguration of the plant, authorities said the
facility would produce low-enriched uranium (5 percent
enrichment) for existing power and research reactors and for
nuclear submarine reactors.[9] 

In 1989 they announced that the first module of the plant had
produced small amounts of 20 percent U-235. 
In From the Cold 

With the return of civilian government in 1985, Brazil took
significant steps to increase transparency in the activities of
the parallel program and ultimately to terminate it. In 1988 the
Brazilian Congress approved a new constitution, which mandated
that all nuclear activities were to be conducted for peaceful
purposes only. For example, in 1988 the Sarney government
arranged for Argentine President Raúl Alfonsín to tour the
sensitive Aramar pilot-scale enrichment facility, building on
earlier efforts with Argentina to foster mutual nuclear
cooperation and transparency. In September 1990, Collor
dramatically exposed and closed a secretly prepared nuclear test
site at an air force base in the Cachimbo Province in
north-central Brazil, shoveling dirt into the test shaft. Under
Collor, the parallel program lost its privileged funding status.
The air force laser enrichment and the armys graphite reactor
programs became quick casualties of the governments new spending
priorities and then were terminated altogether. In 1991, Brazil
and Argentina signed a bilateral agreement in Guadalajara to use
nuclear energy for peaceful uses only. Since then, full-scope
safeguards have been applied in both countries by the
Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear
Materials (ABACC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) under the Quadripartite Safeguards Agreement.[10] Brazil
and Argentina sought to model ABACC after the European Atomic
Energy Community, particularly with respect to its relationship
with IAEA inspections. A key question was how to trade off the
desire to avoid unnecessary duplication with the IAEAs need to
retain its ability to draw independent conclusions based on
independent measurements and observations. The tension in this
trade-off is evident in discussions of safeguards approaches for
the Resende plant. 

Sharon Squassoni is a specialist in national defense with the
Congressional Research Service and David Fite is a member of the
Democratic professional staff for the House International
Relations Committee. The views expressed in this article are the
personal opinions of the authors only and do not necessarily
reflect the positions of the Congressional Research Service or
the House International Relations Committee.
 

ENDNOTES 

1. Ex-Leader Says Brazil Pursued A-Bomb, Associated Press,
August 8, 2005; Brazil Nearly Built Bomb in 1990s, Scientist
Says, Associated Press, August 30, 2005. 

2. John R. Redick, Nuclear Illusions: Argentina and Brazil,
Henry L. Stimson Center Occasional Paper, no. 25, December 1995. 

3. Ibid. Three years later, several centrifuges were shipped to
a research facility in Sao Paulo to be reverse-engineered. Jean
Krasno, Non-Proliferation: Brazils Secret Nuclear Program ORBIS,
Summer 1994. 

4. Mark Hibbs, Germans Say Brazil Developing Two Production
Reactors, Nucleonics Week, July 27, 1989, p. 4. 

5. Angra-1 has been, at best, an inconsistent producer of
electricity, so much so it was dubbed the Firefly by
environmentalists for its propensity to go offline. 

6. Argentine officials stated that the 1978 Nuclear
Nonproliferation Act (NNPA) contributed to Argentinas decision
to build the Pilcaniyeu gaseous-diffusion uranium-enrichment
plant, which was completed in 1983. The NNPA (See Sec. 128 of
the Atomic Energy Act) prevents the United States from exporting
source or special nuclear material, production or utilization
facilities, or any sensitive nuclear technology to states
without International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards on
all nuclear material used in peaceful nuclear activities. 

7. Most of Brazils electricity is provided by hydropower. A
drought in 2000 and 2001 caused shortages of electricity,
leading some to urge the development of more nuclear power. 

8. Michael Barletta, The Military Nuclear Program in Brazil,
CISAC, August 1997. 

9. David Albright, Frans Berkhout, and William Walker, World
Inventory of Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium 1992 (London:
SIPRI, Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 182. 

10. Argentina and Brazil signed a bilateral agreement in
Guadalajara in July 1991 that established the
Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear
Materials (ABACC). Argentina, Brazil, ABACC, and the IAEA then
signed the Quadripartite Safeguards Agreement later that year,
which entered into force in March 1994. See IAEA, INFCIRC/435,
March 1994. 



ENDNOTES 

1. INB is the state-owned company that provides all fuel
services to Brazils nuclear power reactors. 

2. The plant began introducing uranium hexafluoride for testing
in February 2005; the testing phase was expected to last six
months. Only the first cascade of the first module has been
commissioned; the second cascade is under construction. Resende
will produce enough low-enriched uranium (LEU) for one
1,000-megawatt reactor annually. Thus, its annual production is
about half the fuel loads of Angra-1 and -2. 

3. Some critics dispute this, stating that Urenco experimented
with such an approach and discarded it because it was not
efficient. Mark Hibbs, Bearing Design Prompted Brazil to
Withhold Centrifuge Data From IAEA, Nuclear Fuel, December 6,
2004, p. 1. The IAEA director-generals experts group on
multinational approaches noted the sensitivity of technology in
centrifuge enrichment plants. Ibid., p. 53. 

4. Daniel Horner, IAEA, Brazil Break Deadlock on Safeguards at
Enrichment Plant, Nuclear Fuel, November 8, 2004, p. 5. 

5. Protesters Weld Shut Entrance to Brazil Nuclear HQ, Reuters,
October 26, 2004. See Brazil Attacks Nuclear Black Market
Reports, Associated Press, September 30, 2004. 

6. See Elias Palacios, Preserving Technological Secrets vs.
Proliferation Risk, ABACC News, no. 3, June-October, 2004. 

7. Larry Rohter, If Brazil Wants to Scare the World, Its
Succeeding, The New York Times, October 31, 2004. 

8. Critics of the safeguards system devised by the Hexapartite
Safeguards Project note that the IAEA does not verify the
individual separation capability of centrifuges, enabling
operators to understate the throughput of the plant and use
excess capacity to produce undeclared LEU. 

9. This provoked an angry response by the president of Brazils
National Nuclear Energy Commission. Brazil Reacts Angrily to
Report on Nukes, Associated Press, October 22, 2004. See Liz
Palmer and Gary Milhollin, Brazils Nuclear Puzzle, Science,
October 22, 2004, p. 617. 

10. Daniel Horner, Brazil Defends Limits on SWU Plant
Inspections, Nuclear Fuel, May 24, 2004, pp. 1, 13, 14. 

11. Ibid. 

12. President George W. Bush, text of speech to National Defense
University, February 11, 2004. 

13. See Bruno Pellaud, Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Which Way Forward for
Multilateral Approaches? IAEA Bulletin 46/2, March 2005. 

14. Tackling the Nuclear Dilemma: An Interview With IAEA
Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei, Arms Control Today, March
2005, pp. 6-11. 

15. Pellaud, Nuclear Fuel Cycle. 

16. The Hexapartite Safeguards Project was initiated to
establish a system of safeguards for centrifuge enrichment
plants. Participants included Australia, Germany, Japan, the
Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, the European
Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM), and the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA). Under the system, enrichment facilities
with a stated enrichment of 5 percent or less require
inspections inside and outside the cascade. Inside the cascade,
the Limited Frequency Unannounced Access inspections are
designed to detect enrichment levels higher than stated amounts.
See IAEA, INFCIRC/640, February 22, 2005, p. 53. 

17. Bruno Pellaud, A Look at Nuclear Diplomatic Hardball,
Nuclear Fuel, May 19, 1997. European legislators leaked a copy
of a memorandum Pellaud prepared when he was the deputy
director-general for safeguards at the IAEA on his negotiations
with the EURATOM safeguards directorate. It details, among other
things, difficulties encountered by the IAEA in attempting to
use new kinds of verification technologies at Urenco enrichment
facilities. 

18. Mark Hibbs, INB Wont Be Profitable Unless Angra-3 Finished,
Nucleonics Week, July 13, 2000, p. 14. 

19. New Fronts Open in Tussle Over Nuclear Plans, Latin American
Brazil and Southern Cone Report, October 26, 2004. 

20. IAEA, INFCIRC/640, p. 49. 

21. Ambassador José Mauricio Bustani, The Times, October 6, 2004
(letter to the editor in response to an article by Bronwen
Maddox, published on September 30, 2004). 

The Arms Control Association is a non-profit, membership-based
organization.
 If you find our resources useful, please consider joining or
making a contribution.
 Arms Control Today encourages reprint of its articles with
permission of the Editor.
 
© 2005 Arms Control Association,
 1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 620
 Washington, DC 20036
 Tel: (202) 463-8270 | Fax: (202) 463-8273
*****************************************************************
 15 Sydney Morning Herald: Thorium touted as new source of energy - 

 October 6, 2005 - 11:39AM
 
Australia should consider using its abundant reserves of the
radioactive metal thorium to provide the nation with a vital
alternative source of energy, a strategic thinktank says.
 
Australia's centre for strategic analysis, Future Directions
International, made the recommendation in a new study on the
country's future energy options released.
 
The study, Australia's Energy Options, says new safer and
cleaner nuclear energy technologies could replace the country's
reliance on oil, gas and coal for electricity.
 
It suggested Australia could use thorium instead of uranium to
generate a new source of electricity.
 
"Australia holds the world's largest reserves of thorium, which
could possibly fuel low-risk/low waste reactors which did not
generate weapons-grade fissionable material, and which also
could substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Future
Directions said.
 
The study said Australia has much to gain from looking at the
nuclear issue and urged the government to carry out a review of
new nuclear technologies.
 
"A debate is required before a clear strategic policy and
framework can be established, including that for waste generated
from Australian sourced uranium," it said.
 
The 135-page study said while Australia was not running out of
energy, it must decide how to achieve secure supplies in the
coming decades.
 
It suggested the government draw up a framework covering
Australia's energy, strategic and security policies.
 
"Australia, and the world, faces a decline in significant new
reserves of oil," the study said.
 
"And while Australia enjoys considerable reserves of natural
gas, imported oil is increasingly critical for Australia,
particularly for transportation requirements."
 
The study said making motor vehicles more fuel efficient and
able to convert to natural gas would help.
 
It urged the government to encourage more natural gas
exploration and ensure its existing supplies were protected.
 
"It must also, for the sake of security of supply in avoiding
single-source dependence, ensure a variety of providers of oil
imports in the future," the study said.
 
© 2005 AAP
 Brought to you by [aap] 

Copyright © 2005. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
 16 [epa-impact] Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC; Nine Mile Point
 
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 11:51:06 -0400 (EDT)

 
X-Fingerprint: bounce-382705-46782@lists.epa.gov-127.127

http://epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2005/October/Day-06/  
=======================================================================


[Federal Register: October 6, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 58489-58490]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc05-165]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410]
 
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC; Nine Mile Point Nuclear 
Station, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplement 
24 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 
Nuclear Plants, and Public Meeting for the License Renewal of Nine Mile 
Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC, Commission) has published a draft plant-specific supplement to 
the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 
Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, regarding the renewal of operating 
licenses DPR-63 and NPF-69 for an additional 20 years of operation for 
the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (Nine Mile Point). 
Nine Mile Point is located in northern New York on the shore of Lake 
Ontario, approximately 5 miles northeast of Oswego, New York, 36 miles 
north-northeast of Syracuse, New York, and 65 miles east of Rochester, 
New York. Possible alternatives to the proposed action (license 
renewal) include no action and reasonable alternative energy sources.
    The draft Supplement 24 to the GEIS is publicly available at the 
NRC Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, or from the NRC's 
Agencywide Documents

[[Page 58490]]

Access and Management System (ADAMS). The ADAMS Public Electronic 
Reading Room is accessible at <A HREF="http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html">http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/
web-based.html</A>. The accession number for the draft Supplement 24 
to the GEIS is ML052720075. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or 
who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should 
contact the NRC's Public Document Room Reference staff by telephone at 
1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at <A HREF="mailto:pdr@nrc.gov">pdr@nrc.gov</A>. In 
addition, the Penfield Library, located at State University of New 
York, Oswego, New York 13126, has agreed to make the draft supplement 
to the GEIS available for public inspection.
    Any interested party may submit comments on the draft supplement to 
the GEIS for consideration by the NRC staff. To be certain of 
consideration, comments on the draft supplement to the GEIS and the 
proposed action must be received by December 22, 2005. Comments 
received after the due date will be considered if it is practical to do 
so, but the NRC staff is able to assure consideration only for comments 
received on or before this date. Written comments on the draft 
supplement to the GEIS should be sent to: Chief, Rules and Directives 
Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, 
Mailstop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001.
    Comments may be hand-delivered to the NRC at 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Room T-6D59, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on 
Federal workdays. Electronic comments may be submitted to the NRC by e-
mail at <A HREF="mailto:NineMilePointEIS@nrc.gov">NineMilePointEIS@nrc.gov</A>. All comments received by the 
Commission, including those made by Federal, State, local agencies, 
Native American Tribes, or other interested persons, will be made 
available electronically at the Commission's PDR in Rockville, 
Maryland, and through ADAMS.
    The NRC staff will hold a public meeting to present an overview of 
the draft plant-specific supplement to the GEIS and to accept public 
comments on the document. The public meeting will be held on November 
17, 2005, at the Town of Scriba Conference Room, 42 Creamery Road, 
Oswego, New York 13126. There will be two sessions to accommodate 
interested parties. The first session will commence at 1:30 p.m. and 
will continue until 4:30 p.m. The second session will commence at 7 
p.m. and will continue until 10 p.m. Both meetings will be transcribed 
and will include: (1) A presentation of the contents of the draft 
plant-specific supplement to the GEIS, and (2) the opportunity for 
interested government agencies, organizations, and individuals to 
provide comments on the draft report. Additionally, the NRC staff will 
host informal discussions one hour prior to the start of each session 
at the same location. No comments on the draft supplement to the GEIS 
will be accepted during the informal discussions. To be considered, 
comments must be provided either at the transcribed public meeting or 
in writing. Persons may pre-register to attend or present oral comments 
at the meeting by contacting Ms. Leslie C. Fields, the NRC 
Environmental Project Manager at 1-800-368-5642, extension 1186, or by 
e-mail at <A HREF="mailto:NineMilePointEIS@nrc.gov">NineMilePointEIS@nrc.gov</A> no later than November 8, 2005. 
Members of the public may also register to provide oral comments within 
15 minutes of the start of each session. Individual, oral comments may 
be limited by the time available, depending on the number of persons 
who register. If special equipment or accommodations are needed to 
attend or present information at the public meeting, the need should be 
brought to Ms. Fields's attention no later than November 8, 2005, to 
provide the NRC staff adequate notice to determine whether the request 
can be accommodated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Ms. Leslie C. Fields, License Renewal 
and Environmental Impacts Program, Division of Regulatory Improvement 
Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Mail Stop O-11F1, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Ms. Fields may 
be contacted at the aforementioned telephone number or e-mail address.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of September, 2005.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jacob I. Zimmerman,
Acting Program Director, License Renewal and Environmental Impacts 
Program, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-5471 Filed 10-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

------------------------------------------

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/index.html
Comments: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/comments.htm
Search: http://epa.gov/fedreg/search.htm
EPA's Federal Register: http://epa.gov/fedreg/

------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to epa-impact as: NEWS@energy-net.org

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to leave-epa-impact-46782Y@lists.epa.gov
OR:
Use the listserver's web interface at https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_forums/ to manage your subscription.

For problems with this list, contact epa-impact-Owner@lists.epa.gov
------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
 17 [epa-impact] Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Humboldt Bay Independent
 
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 11:58:46 -0400 (EDT)

 
X-Fingerprint: bounce-383375-46782@lists.epa.gov-127.127

http://epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2005/October/Day-07/  
=======================================================================


[Federal Register: October 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 194)]
[Notices]
[Page 58758-58760]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07oc05-141]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 72-27]
 
Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Humboldt Bay Independent Spent 
Fuel Storage Installation; Issuance of Environmental Assessment and 
Finding of No Significant Impact Regarding a Proposed Exemption

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an exemption, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from the 
provisions of 10 CFR 72.72(d) to Pacific

[[Page 58759]]

Gas and Electric Company (PG&E or applicant). The requested exemption 
would allow PG&E to maintain a single set of spent fuel, high-level 
radioactive waste, and reactor-related Greater than Class C (GTCC) 
waste records in accordance with the requirements of its NRC-approved 
Quality Assurance program, which satisfies the criteria of 10 CFR part 
50, Appendix B, for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation 
(ISFSI) at the Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP) in Humboldt County, 
California.

Environmental Assessment (EA)

Identification of Proposed Action

    In its application for an ISFSI license, submitted on December 15, 
2003, PG&E requested an exemption from the requirement in 10 CFR 
72.72(d); which states in part that, ``Records of spent fuel, high-
level radioactive waste, and reactor-related GTCC waste containing 
special nuclear material meeting the requirements in paragraph (a) of 
this section must be kept in duplicate. The duplicate set of records 
must be kept at a separate location sufficiently remote from the original 
records that a single event would not destroy both sets of records.''
    The proposed action before the Commission is whether to grant this 
exemption pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7.

Need for the Proposed Action

    The applicant stated that ISFSI spent-fuel, high-level radioactive 
waste, and reactor-related GTCC waste records will be maintained in a 
manner consistent with the records of the HBPP, which are stored in 
accordance with the NRC-approved Quality Assurance (QA) program. The 
approved QA program for the HBPP complies with the requirements 
established in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, which incorporates by 
reference the specific recordkeeping requirements in 10 CFR 
50.71(d)(1). PG&E did not request exemption from the records retention 
period requirements of 10 CFR 72.72(d). The applicant seeks to provide 
consistency in recordkeeping practices for the records related to the 
proposed Humboldt Bay ISFSI and those records currently maintained 
under the HBPP QA program. The exemption would also preclude the need 
for PG&E to construct and operate a separate, second records storage 
facility to store a duplicate set of spent fuel, high-level radioactive 
waste, and reactor-related GTCC waste records.
    In its application, PG&E indicated that the NRC-approved QA program 
for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant will be applied to all Humboldt Bay 
ISFSI activities, and that program meets the provisions of ANSI 
N45.2.9-1974. The requirements in ANSI N45.2.9-1974 have been endorsed 
by the NRC as an acceptable method of satisfying the recordkeeping 
requirements of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, which states, in part, that 
``[c]onsistent with applicable regulatory requirements [including 10 
CFR 50.71(d)(1)], the applicant shall establish requirements concerning 
record retention, such as duration, location, and assigned 
responsibility.'' Further requirements for the maintenance of nuclear 
power plant records are provided in 10 CFR 50.71(d)(1), which states, 
in part, that, ``The licensee shall maintain adequate safeguards 
against tampering with and loss of records.'' ANSI N.45.2.9-1974 also 
satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR 72.72 by providing for adequate 
maintenance of records regarding the identity and history of the spent 
fuel in storage. Such records would be subject to, and need to be 
protected from, the same types of degradation mechanisms or loss as 
nuclear power plant Quality Assurance records.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    An exemption from the requirement to store a duplicate set of ISFSI 
records at a separate location has no impact on the environment. 
Storage of records does not change the methods by which spent fuel will 
be handled and stored at the HBPP ISFSI and does not affect the 
potential for radiological or non-radiological effluents associated 
with the ISFSI.

Alternative to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). 
Denial of the application would result in no change in current 
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action 
and the alternative action are similar.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    On August 30, 2005, the NRC staff discussed the environmental 
assessment for the proposed action with Ms. Barbara Byron, Senior 
Nuclear Policy Advisor for the California Energy Commission (CEC). On 
September 14, 16, and 27, 2005, the staff provided additional details 
regarding the proposed storage of the Humboldt Bay ISFSI records, in 
response to Ms. Byron's requests for clarification. The CEC had no 
further comments on the EA. The NRC staff has determined that a 
consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not 
required because the proposed action is administrative or procedural in 
nature and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. The NRC 
staff has also determined that the proposed action is not a type of 
activity having the potential to cause effects on historic properties 
because it is an administrative or procedural action. Therefore, no 
further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National 
Historic Preservation Act.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed 
in accordance with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 51. Based 
upon the foregoing EA, the Commission finds that the proposed action of 
granting the exemption from 10 CFR 72.72(d), so that PG&E may store 
spent fuel records for the proposed ISFSI in a single records storage 
facility, in accordance with its NRC-approved Quality Assurance program 
(which satisfies the criteria of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, and 10 CFR 
50.71(d)(1)), will not significantly impact the quality of the human 
environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that a Finding 
of No Significant Impact is appropriate, and that an environmental 
impact statement for the proposed exemption is not necessary.
    For further details with respect to this exemption request, see the 
PG&E ISFSI license application, and the accompanying Safety Analysis 
Report, dated December 15, 2003. The request for exemption was docketed 
under 10 CFR 72, Docket No. 72-27. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of 
NRC's ``Rules of Practice,'' final NRC records and documents regarding 
this proposed action are publicly available in the records component of 
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). These 
documents may be inspected at NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at 
<A HREF="http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html">http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html</A>. These documents may 
also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the 
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor 
will copy documents for a fee. 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 <A HREF="mailto:pdr@nrc.gov">pdr@nrc.gov</A>.

[[Page 58760]]

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of September, 2005.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James R. Hall,
Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E5-5530 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

------------------------------------------

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/index.html
Comments: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/comments.htm
Search: http://epa.gov/fedreg/search.htm
EPA's Federal Register: http://epa.gov/fedreg/

------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to epa-impact as: NEWS@energy-net.org

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to leave-epa-impact-46782Y@lists.epa.gov
OR:
Use the listserver's web interface at https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_forums/ to manage your subscription.

For problems with this list, contact epa-impact-Owner@lists.epa.gov
------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
 18 RIA Novosti: Minister: State should maintain involvement in nuclear, 
hydropower industries
 
06/ 10/ 2005                                  

MOSCOW, October 6 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian industry and
energy minister said Thursday that the state should maintain its
involvement in the nuclear and hydropower industries, up for
possible privatization. 

Viktor Khristenko said the two industries, which account for 30%
of the country's energy, possessed enormous capital intensity
and were designed for a long payback and duration period. 

"Internationally, these are areas of direct state involvement,"
Khristenko said.


		© 2005 "RIA Novosti"   





*****************************************************************
 19 JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point 3 preparing to go back online

By GREG CLARY

(Original publication: October 6, 2005)
 
BUCHANAN — Indian Point 3 engineers have determined the cause of
last week's malfunction of a fuel assembly control rod, and
company officials hope to have the plant back online in the next
few days.

"The work is moving ahead of schedule," Jim Steets, a spokes-man
for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, said yesterday. "We found that a
splice on the wire that electrifies the control rod mechanism
had to be respliced, so we did that one and are replacing about
35 other cable splices, just to be sure."

Indian Point 3 was shut down Saturday after workers had to
reduce the nuclear reactor's power by 35 percent the morning of
Sept. 29 when one of 53 control rods that regulate the nuclear
reaction fell into place on its own and started its braking
function.

Federal regulators and Entergy officials said the incident posed
no danger to the public or Indian Point workers.

Steets also said the company has hired an underwater contractor
to look for the cause of a radioactive water leak from a spent
fuel storage tank at Indian Point 2. The leak began in late
August.

"They'll be looking at the welded joints mostly," Steets said.

"The liner itself is probably not what's leaking."

Company officials have started sampling in three of 12 wells
around the plant. Two were clean, Steets said, but a third,
located a couple hundred feet away, contained trace elements of
tritium, a hydrogen isotype most commonly found in
self-illuminating watches or exit signs.

Steets said the presence of tritium wasn't a cause for concern
on its own because it wasn't a harmful substance, but the
company still was collecting data.

"We're reluctant to draw any conclusions yet," he said.

Meanwhile, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal this
week submitted a formal petition urging the Federal Emergency
Management Agency to immediately review and revise its emergency
response plans for Indian Point because of problems that arose
with evacuations for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the Gulf
Coast.

"If the federal emergency planners have learned nothing else
from Katrina and Rita, it should be to do the planning before
disaster, not after," Blumenthal said in a prepared statement.

In it, he cited congestion on Interstates 95 and 84. "This
nuclear plant potentially threatens much of Connecticut, located
in one of the most densely populated regions in the nation."

Steets said the emergency plans for Indian Point were updated
continually, and lessons from the hurricanes would be
incorporated in future planning.
 
Copyright 2005 The Journal News,. Inc. newspaper serving
Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. Use of
this site signifies your agreement to the and , updated June 7,
*****************************************************************
 20 Trinidad News: Dubious value of a nuclear club
               
  Franklin Knight
 	 Thursday, October 6th 2005
 	   	 	
A club is a group of individuals associating for a specific
purpose. There should be nothing inherently wrong with that.
Just as "birds of a feather flock together", affinities ought to
be able to congregate. Not surprisingly nowadays, establishing a
club represents a major marketing tool of international
enterprises such as Wal-Mart and Toyota Motors. 

Some clubs are useful. Others are worthless. Cricket clubs,
football clubs, rugby clubs, swimming clubs and badminton clubs
have all, like drinking clubs, achieved a sort of democratic
catholicism based on merit or common zeal. On the other hand,
polo clubs, golf clubs and tennis clubs have acquired a
seemingly indelible reputation for exclusivity and
discrimination. 

One club that appears to be both anachronous and manifestly
unfair is the so-called "nuclear club", the group of five states
that had tested and/or used nuclear weapons before 1968.
Sanctioned by the United Nations, the United States, Great
Britain, France, the Soviet Union (now Russia) and China agreed
to limit the possession of nuclear weapons to themselves for
eternity. 

Since 1968 an attempt has been made to get the broadest
international agreement on the non-proliferation of nuclear
weapons by a combination of incentives and threats. States
willing to forego nuclear weapons would be assisted in
developing peaceful nuclear devices. States unwilling to do so
would be penalised. In return, those states already having
nuclear weapons should undertake to dismantle them. 

The rationale for this invidious exclusivity clearly defies
reason. In the first place, the so-called nuclear club does not
hold a monopoly on nuclear weapons. In addition to the five
principal countries, it is suspected that Israel, Iran, North
Korea and the Ukraine possess nuclear weapons technology. India
and Pakistan have admitted to testing nuclear weapons. 
	 	 
At least 20 countries have nuclear power plants that could,
without difficulty, convert their nuclear technology from
peaceful to warlike purposes. At least 18 countries possessed
the capability to produce nuclear weapons in the past. Most of
those states on signing the nuclear non-proliferation pact
abandoned their research and closed their facilities. 

In July 2005 President George W Bush described India as a
"responsible nuclear state" (whatever that means), overtly
supporting its acceptance into the formerly exclusive club. He
avoided mention of Pakistan. 

President Bush's words seem to suggest that states rather than
individuals control nuclear force. Given his present
predicament, no one should understand better that wars and
violence are committed by individuals, even when those
individuals pretend to act on behalf of states. 

Even if states could be responsible, how is responsibility to be
determined? At present, the United States represents the chief
police for nuclear weapons technology. It is also a principal
determinant in who may or may not enter the club. 

Its ongoing war in Iraq, ostensibly initiated to eliminate
weapons of mass destruction, failed to find the proof. So how
responsible was that decision? 

Pragmatically powerful states can assert and to a certain extent
defend their version of reality as they have always done. Greeks
considered non-Greeks uncivilised. Romans considered non-Romans
barbarians. After the later nineteenth century, Europeans and
the United States considered people in the rest of the world
congenitally inferior, or in the phrase of Rudyard Kipling's
paean to US imperialism in 1899, "half-devil and half-child". 


No state has ever been able to defend its hegemony indefinitely.
As Percy Bysshe Shelley reminds us: 

"The flower that smiles today 

Tomorrow dies. 

All that we wish to stay 

Tempts and then flies." 

History is full of empires that declared universal laws that
expired rapidly with their demise. The Spanish and the
Portuguese divided the world between them in 1492. By 1604 Spain
(then also the ruler of Portugal), reluctantly accepted in the
Treaty of Madrid that Iberia had no inherent right to dominate
the world. 

By the same logic an exclusive nuclear club defies reality. It
assumes that only five countries can be responsible enough to
develop and use nuclear weapons on the simple pseudo-fact that
in 1968 those five countries were in a position to deploy such
weapons. As long as any country has nuclear weapons, the
possibility of an accidental deployment exists. 



Today nuclear technology is within the technical reach of dozens
of countries. Some of these countries genuinely feel that
nuclear weapons provide the only realistic measure of
self-protection. As long as they hold that view, nothing will
deter their development of such weapons. 

Freezing scientific nuclear development also means restricting
the technology. Given the decline in engineering technology
among the five members of the so-called nuclear club, why should
the rest of the world support their continued monopoly of
nuclear weapons technology? A recent report indicated that 58
per cent of engineering degrees awarded by universities in the
US were received by non-citizens. More important, unlike
previous years, many of those degree recipients no longer
believe that the United States offers the most conducive
atmosphere for practising their skills. They will take their
degrees and go back home or to some third world country. Any
nuclear club is an anachronism. 

-Courtesy Jamaica Observer

*****************************************************************
 21 NRC: Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC; Nine Mile Point Nuclear 
 
                         FR Doc E5-5471 
[Federal Register: October 6, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 193)] 
[Notices] [Page 58489-58490] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06oc05-165]                         
 
Station, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Availability of the Draft 
Supplement 24 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, and Public Meeting for the 
License Renewal of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC, Commission) has published a draft plant-specific 
supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, regarding 
the renewal of operating licenses DPR-63 and NPF-69 for an 
additional 20 years of operation for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear 
Station, Units 1 and 2 (Nine Mile Point). Nine Mile Point is 
located in northern New York on the shore of Lake Ontario, 
approximately 5 miles northeast of Oswego, New York, 36 miles 
north-northeast of Syracuse, New York, and 65 miles east of 
Rochester, New York. Possible alternatives to the proposed action 
(license renewal) include no action and reasonable alternative 
energy sources.
 
The draft Supplement 24 to the GEIS is publicly available at the 
NRC Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, or from the 
NRC's Agencywide Documents
 
[[Page 58490]] Access and Management System (ADAMS). The ADAMS 
Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible at .
 
The accession number for the draft Supplement 24 to the GEIS is 
ML052720075. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who 
encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
should contact the NRC's Public Document Room Reference staff by 
telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at . 
In addition, the Penfield Library, located at State University of 
New York, Oswego, New York 13126, has agreed to make the draft 
supplement to the GEIS available for public inspection.
 
Any interested party may submit comments on the draft supplement 
to the GEIS for consideration by the NRC staff. To be certain of 
consideration, comments on the draft supplement to the GEIS and 
the proposed action must be received by December 22, 2005. 
Comments received after the due date will be considered if it is 
practical to do so, but the NRC staff is able to assure 
consideration only for comments received on or before this date. 
Written comments on the draft supplement to the GEIS should be 
sent to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of 
Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mailstop 
T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001.
 
Comments may be hand-delivered to the NRC at 11545 Rockville 
Pike, Room T-6D59, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 
4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Electronic comments may be 
submitted to the NRC by e- mail at . All comments received by the 
Commission, including those made by Federal, State, local 
agencies, Native American Tribes, or other interested persons, 
will be made available electronically at the Commission's PDR in 
Rockville, Maryland, and through ADAMS.
 
The NRC staff will hold a public meeting to present an overview 
of the draft plant-specific supplement to the GEIS and to accept 
public comments on the document. The public meeting will be held 
on November 17, 2005, at the Town of Scriba Conference Room, 42 
Creamery Road, Oswego, New York 13126. There will be two sessions 
to accommodate interested parties. The first session will 
commence at 1:30 p.m. and will continue until 4:30 p.m. The 
second session will commence at 7 p.m. and will continue until 10 
p.m. Both meetings will be transcribed and will include: (1) A 
presentation of the contents of the draft plant-specific 
supplement to the GEIS, and (2) the opportunity for interested 
government agencies, organizations, and individuals to provide 
comments on the draft report. Additionally, the NRC staff will 
host informal discussions one hour prior to the start of each 
session at the same location. No comments on the draft supplement 
to the GEIS will be accepted during the informal discussions. To 
be considered, comments must be provided either at the 
transcribed public meeting or in writing. Persons may 
pre-register to attend or present oral comments at the meeting by 
contacting Ms. Leslie C. Fields, the NRC Environmental Project 
Manager at 1-800-368-5642, extension 1186, or by e-mail at  no 
later than November 8, 2005. Members of the public may also 
register to provide oral comments within 15 minutes of the start 
of each session. Individual, oral comments may be limited by the 
time available, depending on the number of persons who register. 
If special equipment or accommodations are needed to attend or 
present information at the public meeting, the need should be 
brought to Ms. Fields's attention no later than November 8, 2005, 
to provide the NRC staff adequate notice to determine whether the 
request can be accommodated.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Ms. Leslie C. Fields, License 
Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program, Division of Regulatory 
Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop O-11F1, Washington, DC 
20555-0001. Ms. Fields may be contacted at the aforementioned 
telephone number or e-mail address.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of September, 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Jacob I. Zimmerman, Acting Program Director, License Renewal and 
Environmental Impacts Program, Division of Regulatory Improvement 
Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E5-5471 Filed 10-5-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 22 NRC: Draft Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability
 
                         FR Doc E5-5472 
[Federal Register: October 6, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 193)] 
[Notices] [Page 58490-58491] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06oc05-166]                         
 
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued for 
public comment a draft revision of an existing guide in the 
agency's Regulatory Guide Series. This series has been developed 
to describe and make available to the public such information as 
methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing 
specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the 
staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated 
accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of 
applications for permits and licenses.
 
The draft Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 8.38, entitled ``Control 
of Access to High and Very High Radiation Areas in Nuclear Power 
Plants,'' is temporarily identified by its task number, DG-8028, 
which should be mentioned in all related correspondence. Like its 
predecessors, this proposed revision describes an acceptable 
program for implementing the requirements of Title 10, Part 20, 
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 20), ``Standards 
for Protection Against Radiation.'' In particular, 10 CFR 
20.1101, ``Radiation Protection Programs,'' requires licensees to 
develop and implement a radiation protection program appropriate 
to the scope of licensed activities and potential hazards. To 
augment that requirement, 10 CFR 20.2102, ``Records of Radiation 
Protection Programs,'' requires licensees to document those 
radiation protection programs. An important aspect of such 
programs at nuclear power plants is the institution of a system 
of controls that includes procedures, training, audits, and 
physical barriers to protect workers against unplanned exposures 
in high and very high radiation areas. Toward that end, 10 CFR 
20.1601 provides specific requirements applicable to controlling 
access to high radiation areas, while 10 CFR 20.1602 provides 
additional requirements to prevent unauthorized or inadvertent 
entry into very high radiation areas. Appendix A to the proposed 
revised guide augments this guidance with recommended procedures 
for good operating practices for underwater diving operations in 
high and very high radiation areas. In addition, Appendix B 
summarizes past experience with very high and potentially very 
high radiation areas, so that pertinent historical information is 
readily accessible.
 
Dose rates in areas of nuclear power plants that are accessible 
to individuals can vary over several orders of magnitude. High 
radiation areas, where personnel can receive doses in excess of 
the regulatory limits in a relatively short time, require special 
controls.
 
Very high radiation areas require much stricter monitoring and 
controls, because failure to adequately implement effective 
radiological controls can result in radiation doses that result 
in a significant health risk. Thus, it is important that 
licensees have effective
 
[[Page 58491]] programs for controlling access to high and very 
high radiation areas because of the potential for overexposure.
 
The primary purpose of this proposed revision is to clarify the 
terminology related to the physical barriers that licensees could 
use to prevent unauthorized personnel access to high and very 
high radiation areas. The current version of Regulatory Guide 
8.38 uses the term ``inadvertent entry'' with two different 
connotations. As used in Section 1.5, ``Physical Controls,'' the 
term was intended to connote ``not a willful violation.'' In 
several other sections, however, ``inadvertent entry'' was used 
to mean ``an accidental, or unintended, entry.'' This disparity 
has led to inconsistent readings of the staff's regulatory 
position by licensees and other stakeholders.
 
Consequently, in preparing this revision, the NRC staff rewrote 
Section 1.5 to eliminate the use of the term ``inadvertent 
entry,'' and provide additional guidance on the acceptability of 
physical barriers used to control access to high radiation areas.
 
The staff also revised two additional sections of the guide to 
explicitly state regulatory positions that are implied in the 
current version. Section 1.6, ``Shielding,'' is revised to 
clarify that monitors with local alarms are not necessary where 
the removal of shielding does not result in dose rates greater 
than 1,000 mrem/hr (10 mSv/hr) at 30 cm from the source. Also, 
Section 4.2, ``Materials,'' is revised to clarify that 
appropriate controls are required when diving operations allow 
access to high and/or very high radiation areas in the spent fuel 
pool. In addition, the staff updated Appendix B to include recent 
references that discuss industry experiences with high and very 
high radiation areas.
 
The proposed revision to Regulatory Guide 8.38 does not change 
previous staff positions. Therefore, this revision does not 
constitute a backfit, as defined in 10 CFR 50.109. The NRC staff 
is soliciting comments on Draft Regulatory Guide DG- 8028, and 
comments may be accompanied by relevant information or supporting 
data. Please mention DG-8028 in the subject line of your 
comments. Comments on this draft regulatory guide submitted in 
writing or in electronic form will be made available to the 
public in their entirety through the NRC's Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management System (ADAMS). Personal information will 
not be removed from your comments. You may submit comments by any 
of the following methods.
 
Mail comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
 
Email comments to: NRCREP@nrc.gov. You may also submit comments 
via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. 
Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol A. 
Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail CAG@nrc.gov. Hand-deliver 
comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 
4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
 
Fax comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 
415-5144.
 
Requests for technical information about Draft Regulatory Guide 
DG- 8028 may be directed to Harriet Karagiannis at (301) 415-6377 
or by e- mail to HXK@nrc.gov. Comments would be most helpful if 
received by December 5, 2005. Comments received after that date 
will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is 
able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or 
before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and 
suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides 
currently being developed or improvements in all published guides 
are encouraged at any time.
 
Electronic copies of the draft regulatory guide are available 
through the NRC's public Web site under Draft Regulatory Guides 
in the Regulatory Guides document collection of the NRC's 
Electronic Reading Room at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/. Electronic copies 
are also available in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, under Accession 
ML052590173. Note, however, that the NRC has temporarily limited 
public access to ADAMS so that the agency can complete security 
reviews of publicly available documents and remove potentially 
sensitive information. Please check the NRC's Web site for 
updates concerning the resumption of public access to ADAMS.
 
In addition, regulatory guides are available for inspection at 
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), which is located at 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland; the PDR's mailing address is 
USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The PDR can also be reached 
by telephone at (301) 415-4737 or (800) 397-4205, by fax at (301) 
415-3548, and by e- mail to PDR@nrc.gov. Requests for single 
copies of draft or final guides (which may be reproduced) or for 
placement on an automatic distribution list for single copies of 
future draft guides in specific divisions should be made in 
writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, Attention: Reproduction and Distribution Services 
Section; by e-mail to DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov; or by fax to (301) 
415-2289. Telephone requests cannot be accommodated. Regulatory 
guides are not copyrighted, and Commission approval is not 
required to reproduce them. (5 U.S.C. 552(a)) Dated at Rockville, 
Maryland, this 28th day of September, 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Farouk Eltawila, Director, 
Division of Systems Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness, Office 
of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
 
[FR Doc. E5-5472 Filed 10-5-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 23 NRC: PSEG Nuclear, LLC; Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Salem Nuclear 
 
                         FR Doc E5-5473 
[Federal Register: October 6, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 193)] 
[Notices] [Page 58489] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06oc05-164]                         
 
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Notice of Partial 
Withdrawal of Application for Amendment to Facility Operating 
License The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the 
Commission) has granted the request of PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG), 
on behalf or PSEG and Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the 
licensees) to withdraw a portion of its April 15, 2004, 
application and the August 11, 2004, and August 11, 2005, 
supplements for proposed amendments to Facility Operating License 
Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, 
Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in Salem County, New Jersey. One of 
the proposed changes would have permitted a modification to the 
Salem, Unit No. 1, containment cooling system. Specifically, PSEG 
proposed to install a new closed-loop chilled water system to 
supply cooling water to the containment fan cooling units during 
normal operation. The emergency containment cooling water system 
would remain the safety-related source of cooling water for 
postulated accidents. The request involved changes to the system 
configuration, revisions to the analysis of containment 
temperature and pressure following a design-basis event, and 
associated changes to the Technical Specifications. The 
Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on 
October 12, 2004 (69 FR 60684). However, by letter dated August 
11, 2005, PSEG withdrew the above-referenced proposed change.
 
For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated April 15, 2004, as supplemented 
by letters dated August 11, 2004, and August 11, 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, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/html. Persons who do 
not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing 
the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR 
reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, 
or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 
30th 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. E5-5473 Filed 10-5-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 24 The Boston Globe: Nuclear fears debated at forum - 
 
Energy, safety issues weighed in Plymouth
 
By Robert Knox, Globe Correspondent  |  October 6, 2005
 
PLYMOUTH -- It will be at least two years and probably longer
before federal regulators decide whether to grant a 20-year
extension of the operating license for the Pilgrim nuclear power
plant. But the question is already prompting debate.

More than 100 people attended a forum last week held by the
Plymouth Area League of Women Voters to stimulate public
dialogue on Entergy's plan to relicense Pilgrim Station to run
until 2032. The current license expires in 2012, and the company
says it is planning to apply for the 20-year extension in
January.

The plant is one of the town's largest employers and taxpayers,
but also the source of some of its residents' biggest fears. The
forum centered on the issues of nuclear waste, which continues
to be stored at the 33-year-old plant, and Pilgrim's security
from terrorist attack. As such, it was a preview of the debate
to come.

Specialists on both sides of the nuclear issue were invited to
address the forum.

Gordon Thompson -- executive director of the Institute for
Resource and Security Studies, an independent think tank based
in Cambridge -- said that used nuclear fuel stored inside the
power plant in Plymouth's Manomet section has a radioactive
emission potential greater than the bombs that destroyed
Japanese cities in World War II and the deadly 1986 Chernobyl
nuclear disaster.

Chernobyl released 20 million curies of radiation, he said,
while Pilgrim holds 5 million curies in use in its reactor and
25 million to 30 million more in the spent fuel pool, where used
fuel rods are cooled in water. ''All it takes to trigger that
release is to eliminate the water," Thompson said.

But Gilbert Brown, coordinator of the nuclear engineering
program at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell, said that
no energy source is risk free and that the chance of a terrorist
attack could succeed in destroying the spent fuel pool and
causing a meltdown of the plant's core is minuscule. ''If we
worry about everything, we will never get out of bed in the
morning," Brown said.

That view was shared by Richard Sheirer, a security specialist
whose company, Giuliani Partners, consults with nuclear power
plant operators. Following his own skeptical examination of the
plants' security plans resources, Sheirer said, he is convinced
that nuclear power plants are ''safe, secure, and vital."

Edward Lyman, a senior staff scientist for the Union of
Concerned Scientists, said his organization is agnostic on
nuclear power, but lacks confidence in some policies and
practices of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Lyman said that in considering license renewal for a plant, it
is short-sighted to decide that security issues are off the
table, because conditions such as population density, traffic
patterns and terrorist behavior have changed since the original
license was granted.
 
Lyman said that a terrorist attack could cause core meltdown and
a Chernobyl-style release of radiation at a nuclear plant. For
example, a meltdown at the Indian Point plant, near the New York
City metropolitan area, would cause 44,000 immediate deaths from
radiation exposure and a half-million long-term deaths from
cancer, he said.

Thompson called for engineering changes in the storage of
nuclear waste at Pilgrim to reduce the odds of a meltdown. An
increasing number of spent fuel rods results in tighter racking
in their watery container. Thompson said a large percentage of
the rods could be securely stored in dry casks and buried,
allowing the others to be racked loosely and reducing the
changes of ignition in case of a nuclear accident.

But Brown said that dry cask storage is unnecessary, because the
current storage system is safe.

The pronuclear specialists asked the forum attendees to see the
big picture on energy use, in which, they said, nuclear power is
a less dangerous alternative than fossil fuels. The question of
relicensing plants involves ''the quality of our lives, the way
we live, and particularly energy," Brown said. ''We want
electricity. How should it be made?"

The dangers of nuclear power are less than those of relying ever
more heavily on fossil fuels, he said. Worldwide demand for
energy may double in a decade, Brown said, while nuclear power
produces energy in a ''safe, environmentally sound way." It
produces 20 percent of America's energy.

But some members of the audience were skeptical. Richard Neely
of Plymouth pointed out that the NRC has hired Wackenhut, the
company that provides security at many nuclear plants, to
conduct mock attacks to test the plants' response. ''Should the
system be tested by the same company that provides the forces?"
Neely asked.

Lyman said the NRC should have avoided the appearance of a
conflict of interest by hiring someone else to do the tests. He
also questioned the NRC's commitment to a security standard that
is high enough, saying that the NRC has not asked that plants be
protected from an attack on the order of the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks.

Brian Sullivan of Plymouth, a retired Federal Aviation
Administration security agent, said security at general aviation
airports is ''extremely weak."

Thompson said after the forum that the use of a commercial or
corporate jet, similar to the Sept. 11 attacks, to deliver a
pinpoint assault on a nuclear reactor was unlikely. The use of a
small plane armed with a missile does pose a risk, he said. He
said the odds could not be calculated, but since the cost would
be catastrophic, extraordinary protective measures were called
for.

Other residents who attended the forum but did not speak said
they had questions about the effectiveness of the Plymouth
area's emergency evacuation plans and the potential economic
benefits to Plymouth from relicensing. The League of Women
Voters plans to make those subjects the themes of future forums.

 Robert Knox can be reached at rc.knox@gmail.com. [ /] 
© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company. 12More: 
*****************************************************************
 25 ITAR-TASS: Newest reactor at Kalininskaya plant shut down

06.10.2005, 12.38

 MOSCOW, October 6 (Itar-Tass) - Russia's Kalininskaya nuclear
power plant shut down one of its reactors after specialists
found a number of defects in it, an official said on Thursday. 

"Reactor # 3 of the Kaliniskaya nuclear power plant was shut
down on Wednesday in order to eliminate the defects that had
been found," an official from the Rosenergoatom concern said. It
is expected to go back on line before October 12. 

The concern which runs ten Russian nuclear power plants,
underlined that that there had been "no breaches of the limits
or safe operation conditions of the plant's reactors." 

The radiation level at the plant and the adjacent territory does
not exceed the natural background level, it said. 

Reactor #3 was commissioned last December, bringing the number
of on-line Russian reactors to 31. 

The 1,000-mW unit is the newest development in Russia's nuclear
power engineering, packing more than 600 unique design
solutions, according to Rosenergoatom. 

Its construction lasted 20 years, as the physical launch was
repeatedly postponed: first after the so-called Chernobyl
syndrome, and later because of the shortage of funds. 

The project to build the reactor costs about one billion
dollars. 

Earlier, Kalininskaya plant officials said the signing of the
document by a state commission on clearing the reactor for
operation was due to take place later this month. 

© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
 26 Suffolk Life: Legislature Opposes Nuclear Power Plant Re-Licensing

  Rachel O’Brien     October 05, 2005   

Last week the Suffolk County Legislature agreed on a sense 
resolution that opposes the re-licensing of nuclear power plants 
Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3, located in Westchester County.                                                                                                     

Legislator Vivian Viloria-Fisher (D-Setauket) sponsored the
resolution in opposition to the plants, saying that Indian Point
2 and Indian Point 3 are not up to current standards and
regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Both plants
are aging and the equipment is not up-to-date, making for a
possible problem. Also, the resolution stated that the power
plants are sites that are constant targets of possible terrorist
attacks.

The county Legislature is teaming up with municipalities
throughout New York and New Jersey in their opposition to the
re-licensing of the plants when their licenses expire in 2013
for Indian Point 2 and 2015 for Indian Point 3. The Legislature
is calling on the NRC to dismiss future applications from power
plants and not granting renewals of licenses, based on the
detriment to public safety that the plants hold. 

©Suffolk Life Newspapers 2005                                    
*****************************************************************
 27 Pike County News Watchman: Plant concerns voiced at NRC meeting - 

Sunday, Oct. 2, 2005 

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. 
*****************************************************************
 28 SignOnSanDiego.com: Federal lawmaker raises concern about Nevada Test Site security
 
ASSOCIATED PRESS
 1:59 p.m. October 6, 2005

 LAS VEGAS  The chairman of a congressional panel that oversees
threats to federal installations has raised concerns about
security at the Nevada Test Site. 

Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., cited "continued and
deep-seated security problems" at National Nuclear Security
Administration facilities, including the test site, in a letter
sent to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. Shays chairs the House
Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging
Threats and International Relations. 

The letter comes as the Energy Department is preparing to
announce whether it will renew a five-year contract with
Wackenhut Services Inc. for security at the vast test site, 65
miles northwest of Las Vegas. The current contract, worth about
$35 million a year, expires Dec. 31. 

Wackenhut chief executive Jim Long said that Thursday that
security at the test site was "among the best in the world and
among the best in government." He said he was confident his
company's test site contract will be renewed. 

Shays' letter sent Tuesday pointed to a May 2 report by U.S.
Navy Adm. Richard Mies that found security problems, including a
lack of accountability, a bias against training, a lack of trust
in the security organization and absence of a team approach. 

Energy Department officials reported that Wackenhut guards
performed poorly during an anti-terrorism drill at the test site
in August 2004, In February, the DOE inspector general reported
a Wackenhut guard and another federal employee took unauthorized
guns to the test site in 2003. 

Shays' letter and the Mies report did not cite specific security
lapses by Wackenhut at the test site. 

But Shays told Bodman that reforms suggested in the admiral's
121-page report "should not be encumbered by lengthy contracts
with companies that are not performing as needed." 

Long, at Wackenhut headquarters in West Palm Beach, Fla., and
Brian Wilkes, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security
Administration which runs the test site, said issues raised by
Shays and the Mies report had been addressed. 

Wackenhut has provided security at the vast federal reservation
north of Las Vegas since 1965. The site hosted above- and
below-ground nuclear detonations from 1951 to 1992. Parts of the
site have in recent years been used for underground experiments
to test the nation's nuclear arsenal, for hazardous materials
spill training and Department of Homeland Security
counterterrorism exercises. 

 On the Net: 
National Nuclear Security Administration: 
Wackenhut Services Inc.: 

| | | © Copyright 2005 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.   
*****************************************************************
 29 IEER update: health effects of nuclear weapons production; EPA
 
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 14:54:25 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
Here are the latest posts to the web site of the Institute for Energy and 
Environmental Research www.ieer.org. We hope they are useful to 
you!  Please let us know what you think. Lisa Ledwidge, IEER

Apologies if you have received this message more than once.


A Readiness to Harm: The Health Effects of Nuclear Weapons Complexes
By Arjun Makhijani for the July/August 2005 issue of Arms Control Today
http://www.ieer.org/latest/readinesstoharm.html


Letter to EPA regarding its draft Environmental Justice Strategic Plan, 
September 27, 2005
http://www.ieer.org/comments/ej/epaltrsep05.html


Bad to the Bone: Plutonium Drinking Water Standards
Sign-on letter to the EPA 
http://www.ieer.org/reports/badtothebone/endorsements.php -- Consider 
signing on yourself.
Newsletter, September 2005 http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/13-3.pdf [PDF, 370 kB]
IEER Report, August 2005 http://www.ieer.org/reports/badtothebone/index.html
Press release http://www.ieer.org/reports/badtothebone/pressrel.html


IEER Comments on the Draft EIS for the Proposed Consolidation of Nuclear 
Operations Related to Production of Radioisotope Power Systems, 29 August 2005
http://www.ieer.org/comments/pu/pu238deis.html


Update to Costs and Risks of Management and Disposal of Depleted Uranium 
from the National Enrichment Facility Proposed to be Built in Lea County 
New Mexico by LES, July 5, 2005
http://www.ieer.org/reports/du/LESrptupdate.pdf [PDF, 861 kB]


Atomic Myths, Radioactive Realities: Why Nuclear Power Is a Poor Way to 
Meet Energy Needs
Article by Arjun Makhijani in Journal of Land, Resources, & Environmental 
Law, Vol. 24 No. 1, 2004
http://www.ieer.org/pubs/atomicmyths.html


EPA Proposed Rule on High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository Would 
Seriously Undermine Public Health; Would Be the Worst in the Western World
IEER press release, August 9, 2005
http://www.ieer.org/latest/yuccaepapr0805.html


Cancer Risks for Women and Children Due to Radiation Exposure Far Higher 
Than for Men
New National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII Report Raises Major Issues for 
Radiation Protection
July 7, 2005 press 
release  http://www.ieer.org/comments/beir/beir7pressrel.html
July 19, 2005 slide presentation 
http://www.ieer.org/comments/beir/beir7presentation.ppt [requires Power 
Point software]


Risks of Depleted Uranium Waste / Uranium Health Risks
Science for Democratic Action, Volume 13 Number 2, June 2005
http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/13-2.pdf [PDF, 749kB]


Kashmir, Nuclear Weapons and Peace
March 22, 2005 paper by Admiral L. Ramdas
http://www.ieer.org/latest/ramukashmir.html


Advocates Welcome NAS Study Recommending Expanded Compensation for Those 
Hurt by U.S. Nuclear Tests; Groups Call on Congress to Move Quickly to Help 
Victims
April 28, 2005 press release with Snake River Alliance, HEAL-Utah, PSR, and ANA
http://www.ieer.org/latest/nasrecapr.html



To unsubscribe, reply to this email with Remove in the subject line.
dist

Lisa Ledwidge
Outreach Director, United States, and Editor of Science for Democratic Action
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER)
PO Box 6674  |  Minneapolis, MN 55406  USA
tel. 1-612-722-9700  | fax: please call 
first  |  ieer@ieer.org  |  http://www.ieer.org

IEER's main office:   6935 Laurel Ave. Suite 201 |  Takoma Park, 
MD  20912  USA  |  tel. 1-301-270-5500  |  fax 1-301-270-3029  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 30 adn.com alaska: Extra radiation tests find no threat
 
Anchorage Daily News: Alaska's Newspaper
	 
Last Update: October 6, 2005 7:07 PM 

KOTZEBUE: Health experts examined 39 containers this week. 

By DON HUNTER
Anchorage Daily News 

Radiation testing of 39 empty lead containers found in the crawl
space of a Kotzebue house last week turned up nothing more than
normal background levels, state and federal officials said
Wednesday. 


"There's nothing to worry about, radiation-wise, in this house,"
said Clyde Pearce, a state radiation health expert who traveled
to Kotzebue to check out the report.
 
The house, owned since 1986 by the National Park Service, is set
for demolition next summer, said George Helfrich, superintendent
of the Western Arctic National Parklands. The containers were
discovered by a hazardous materials inspection team looking for
asbestos, old fluorescent tubes and other types of household and
building materials that require special handling and disposal. 

Two or three of the lead cylinders bore markings indicating they
had once held the radioisotopes iodine-131 and gold-198, so the
workers retrieved a radiation detector from the Kotzebue Fire
Department. When the instrument indicated the presence of
radiation, the house was sealed and the park service called for
help. 

Pearce, chief of the state Department of Health and Social
Service's radiological health program, arrived Tuesday and
conducted more sophisticated tests, which showed nothing
dangerous.
 
Pearce and several others "triple tested" the house, using
sensitive radiation-detecting meters at different locations in
the house and on the containers, he and Helfrich said. 

"What we found was absolute agreement," Pearce said. "We're very
confident that what we found (shows) no radioactive material in
that building below ground or above ground."
 
The containers have been packaged and will be shipped to Pearce
for disposal -- most likely some kind of recycling, used in
college work or perhaps even by someone who might melt them down
for fishing sinkers, Pearce said.
 
Pearce and Helfrich said there has been some speculation in
Kotzebue that someone's plan to reform the containers into
fishing weights was exactly how they got into the house in the
first place.
 
"We haven't been able to confirm that, but it wouldn't be
unusual. In places along fishing areas, Louisiana, Florida,
(it's not unusual) for somebody with an interest in fishing to
do that exact thing," Pearce said.
 
The iodine and gold isotopes indicated on the containers are
typically used for medical diagnostic tests and are most often
found in hospitals, Pearce said. The labels also bore the brand
name of a laboratory that has been out of business more than two
decades.
 
Helfrich said that the house was built sometime in the 1960s and
that the second owner, a dentist, added on to it at least nine
times in the 17 years he owned it. A succession of National Park
Service employees have lived in the building since the agency
bought it in 1986.
 
Pearce says he knows of no use for iodine-131 or gold-198
isotopes in a dental practice, and Helfrich said the dentist,
who still lives in Kotzebue, has denied putting the lead
containers in the crawl space.
 
Thirty-two containers had been found by the time the park
service sealed the house last week. When Pearce and others
re-entered the building this week they found seven more, for a
total of 39. 

The Fire Department's detector is a more basic device than the
instruments Pearce and his team used this week. And the person
doing the testing last week wasn't experienced with it, Pearce
and Helfrich said. 

Background radiation comes from a variety of sources --
naturally occurring radioactive substances such as uranium,
fallout from nuclear testing and other sources, and cosmic
radiation that arrives daily, Pearce said.
 

Daily News reporter Don Hunter can be reached at .
 
© Copyright 2005, The Anchorage Daily News, a subsidiary of 
*****************************************************************
 31 Honolulu Advertiser: Safety of airport irradiator questioned - 

Thursday, October 6, 2005

By Mike Leidemann
Advertiser Transportation Writer
 
HOW IT WORKS

High-energy gamma rays are used elsewhere in the country to
eliminate harmful microorganisms from a variety of products —
everything from surgical and medical supplies to cosmetics, raw
materials, spices, poultry and red meat. In Hawai'i, officials
are proposing that fresh produce would be loaded into a
stainless-steel chamber, lowered into a water-filled pool and
exposed to radiation, a process that would destroy harmful
microorganisms, parasites and fruit flies. This process also is
referred to as "cold pasteurization," since bacteria and insects
are killed without the use of heat.
   				 			
Putting a planned produce irradiator at Honolulu International
Airport could cause significant releases of radioactive material
and threaten public health and safety in the area, according to
a Hawai'i environmental group.
 				 			 			 			 				 					
The group, Concerned Citizens of Honolulu, this week petitioned
the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission to hold a public
hearing in Honolulu before proceeding with the irradiator plans.
 				 			 			 			 				 					
"Putting a facility packed with radioactive material at
Hawai'i's main airport ... is almost asking for a natural
disaster, air crash or terrorist attack," said David Pulson, a
Concerned Citizens member.
 				 			 			 			 				 					
Pa'ina Hawai'i, a private company with the support of the state
Agriculture Department, has proposed building the irradiator in
Honolulu to kill fruit flies and other insects in export
products, including farm produce. The irradiators would allow
local farmers more opportunity to market their produce on the
Mainland, officials said.
 				 			 			 			 				 					
Plans call for the Cobalt-60 type irradiator to be built near
the end of the reef runway on Lagoon Drive, close to air cargo
shipping companies
 				 			 			 			 				 					
The environmental group demanded this week, however, that the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission conduct a comprehensive
environmental review of the project, including consideration of
alternative locations and technologies.
 				 			 			 			 				 					
"We're outraged that there has been no environmental review of
this proposal, either by federal or state officials," said David
Henkin, an attorney for Earthjustice, which is representing the
Honolulu group in the case.
 				 			 			 			 				 					
Although similar irradiators have generally been approved for
use through the country, the specific type and location of the
one planned for Honolulu raise new concerns, Henkin said.
 				 			 			 			 				 					
The petition claims the plan has inadequate measures to prevent
mechanical failures, power outages, airplane accidents, acts of
sabotage or terrorism, hurricanes or tsunamis from causing
significant release of radioactive material from the irradiator.
 				 			 			 			 				 					
"We're talking about putting a large amount of radioactive
material right next to the reef runway, which is vulnerable to
natural disasters and could be a very attractive target for
terrorists," Henkin said. "And there's been very little public
input into the project."
 				 			 			 			 				 					
In August the NRC held an information meeting on the proposal,
inviting public comments and questions, a state Agriculture
Department spokesman said. Several more meetings are planned in
coming months, she said.
 				 			 			 			 				 					
A spokesman for Pa'ina Hawaii could not be reached for comment
yesterday.
 				 			 			 			 				 					
In 2003, the Agriculture Department began encouraging private
operators to build a commercial-scale irradiator near the
airport. The only other irradiator used for food in Hawai'i
produce is in Kea'au on the Big Island, where a private firm
uses X-ray technology to process 4 million to 5 million pounds
of papaya and other fruit for export. A proposal to build a
cobalt irradiator on the Big Island stirred intense debate and a
ballot initiative in 1998 when voters narrowly defeated a
proposal to amend the county code to prohibit radioactive
material in commercial irradiation facilities.
 				 			 			 			 				 					
A similar facility in Honolulu would open up many more markets
for local produce, officials said.
 				 			 			 			 				 					
The process proposed by Pa'ina Hawaii involves loading materials
to be irradiated into a stainless-steel chamber, then lowering
it into a water-filled pool where they are exposed to radiation,
according to the NRC.
 				 			 			 			 				 					
The NRC has several months to respond to the petition and decide
whether to hold a hearing on the project in Honolulu, Henkin
said.
 				 			 			 			 				 					
"We hope all the potential dangers we raised in our petition
will open up the process and encourage both federal and local
officials to conduct an environmental review instead of just
rubber stamping this project," he said.
 				 			 			 	 	 	 	 	 	
Reach Mike Leidemann at mleidemann@honoluluadvertiser.com.
 	 	 	 	 	   						   							
© COPYRIGHT 2005 The Honolulu Advertiser, a division of
*****************************************************************
 32 Salt Lake Tribune: Downwinders want Hatch to help with compensation

Article Last Updated: 10/06/2005 01:48:53 AM 

By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune 

WASHINGTON - Western Downwinders want to know what happened to 
Sen. Orrin Hatch. 

They say the Utah Republican has yet to join an effort to 
expand a compensation program for individuals suffering from 
various cancers as a result of their exposure to radioactive 
fallout from Cold War nuclear weapons tests. 

Hatch said he supports the concept but realizes expanding the 
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) could be tough to get 
through Congress. 

“What everybody is afraid of is getting so there's a 
never-ending entitlement here, and I think you have to show some 
pretty good reasons why we should expand RECA. And I'm not 
saying we shouldn't, but we've got to be able to make the case.” 

Currently there are 22 counties in Utah, Nevada and Arizona 
where residents qualify for compensation as Downwinders, 
entitling them to a $50,000 payment should they become ill with 
certain cancers. 

To date, the Justice Department, which administers the RECA 
program, has paid out $464 million to 9,285 Downwinders. 

But the Downwinders are seeking to expand the act to include 
all of Utah, Idaho, Montana and Mohave County, Ariz., and want 
Hatch, who authored the original RECA legislation, to join the 
fight. 

“I think you have to have equal compensation for equal 
exposure,” said J. Preston Truman, president of the group 
Downwinders. “[The fallout] wasn't only in St. George. It got 
all over. And it's time we address that this is what we did to 
our own people and, if we don't, we're likely to do it again.” 

Montana Sen. Conrad Burns and Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo have both 
introduced legislation to expand RECA to cover sickened residents
in their states. They have asked the Senate Judiciary Committee 
to hold hearings on the legislation, but none has been scheduled.

“I'd love to be able to know exactly who should be covered 
that isn't covered,” Hatch said. “I am looking at it, but I 
don't know if I can make the case.” 

A National Academies of Science (NAS) report released in 
April stated that only covering certain counties is an arbitrary 
criteria for determining compensation. Instead, the NAS report 
recommended a series of medical criteria that would need to be 
met. 

But the report stated that, if the recommended criteria were 
adopted, very few RECA claims would be approved in the future. 

Truman said that those who were exposed are at least entitled 
to a hearing in Congress. 

“It may be in the end that nothing can be done," he said, 
"but it is imperative that at least some effort is made to dish 
out justice, not 'just us.' ” 

Â© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 33 NRC: Kansas State University; Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of 
 
                         FR Doc E5-5474 
[Federal Register: October 6, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 193)] 
[Notices] [Page 58487-58489] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06oc05-163]                         
 
the Application and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing Regarding 
Renewal of Kansas State University Nuclear Reactor Facility; 
Facility License No. R-88 for an Additional 20-Year Period The 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is 
considering an application for the renewal of Facility License 
No. R- 88, which authorizes the Kansas State University (KSU) 
(the licensee) to operate the TRIGA Mark II Nuclear Reactor 
Facility at 1,250 kilowatts thermal power. The renewed license 
would authorize the applicant to operate the KSU Research Reactor 
for an additional 20- years beyond the period specified in the 
current license. The current license for the KSU Research Reactor 
expired on October 16, 2002.
 
On September 12, 2002, and supplemented on December 22, 2004 and 
July 6, 2005, the Commission's staff received an application from 
KSU filed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.51(a), to renew Facility License 
No. R-88 for the KSU Research Reactor. A Notice of Receipt and 
Availability of the license renewal application, ``Notice of 
License Renewal
 
[[Page 58488]] Application for Facility Operating License; Kansas 
State University,'' was published in the Federal Register on 
October 11, 2002 (67 FR 63457). Because the license renewal 
application was timely filed under 10 CFR 2.109, the license will 
not be deemed to have expired until the license renewal 
application has been finally determined.
 
The Commission's staff has determined that KSU has submitted 
sufficient information in accordance with 10 CFR 50.33 and 50.34 
that the application is acceptable for docketing. The current 
Docket No. 50- 188 for Facility License No. R-88, will be 
retained. The docketing of the renewal application does not 
preclude requesting additional information as the review 
proceeds, nor does it predict whether the Commission will grant 
or deny the application. Prior to a decision to renew the 
license, the Commission will have made findings required by the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the 
Commission's rules and regulations.
 
Within thirty (30) days after the date of publication of this 
Federal Register Notice, the applicant may file a request for a 
hearing, and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the 
proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene with respect to the renewal of 
the license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's 
``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 
CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 
10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852 and is 
accessible from the Agency Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
Internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr. Persons who do 
not have access to the NRC web site or who encounter problems in 
accessing the documents located in the Electronic Reading Room 
should contact the NRC's PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 
or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov. If a request for a hearing or a 
petition for leave to intervene is filed within the 30-day 
period, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the 
Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board Panel will rule on the request and/or 
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a 
hearing or an appropriate order.
 
In the event that no request for a hearing or petition for leave 
to intervene is filed within the 30-day period, the NRC may, upon 
completion of its evaluations and upon making the findings 
required under 10 CFR parts 50 and 51, renew the license without 
further notice.
 
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with the particular interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the 
results of the proceeding. The petition must specifically explain 
the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular 
reference to the following factors: (1) The nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Atomic Energy Act to be 
made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the 
requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest 
in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any decision or 
order which may be entered in the proceeding on the 
requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set 
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
 
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the 
bases of each contention and a concise statement of the alleged 
facts or the expert opinion that supports the contention on which 
the requestor/ petitioner intends to rely in proving the 
contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also 
provide references to those specific sources and documents of 
which the requestor/petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or 
expert opinion. The requestor/petitioner must provide sufficient 
information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the 
applicant on a material issue of law or fact.\1\ Contentions 
shall be limited to matters within the scope of the action under 
consideration. The contention must be one that, if proven, would 
entitle the requestor/ petitioner to relief. A 
requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with 
respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to 
participate as a party.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \1\ To the extent that the applications contain 
attachments and supporting documents that are not publicly 
available because they are asserted to contain safeguards or 
proprietary information, petitioners desiring access to this 
information should contact the applicant or applicants's counsel 
and discuss the need for a protective order.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or 
alpha designation within one of the following groups: 1. 
Technical--primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/ 
or health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the 
applicant's safety analysis for the KSU Research Reactor license 
renewal application.
 
2. Environmental--primarily concerns issues relating to matters 
discussed or referenced in the Environmental Report for the 
license renewal application.
 
3. Miscellaneous--does not fall into one of the categories 
outlined above.
 
As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more 
requestors/petitioners seek to co-sponsor a contention, the 
requestors/petitioners shall jointly designate a representative 
who shall have the authority to act for the 
requestors/petitioners with respect to that contention.
 
If a requestor/petitioner seeks to adopt the contention of 
another sponsoring requestor/petitioner, the requestor/petitioner 
who seeks to adopt the contention must either agree that the 
sponsoring requestor/ petitioner shall act as the representative 
with respect to that contention, or jointly designate with the 
sponsoring requestor/ petitioner a representative who shall have 
the authority to act for the requestors/petitioners with respect 
to that contention.
 
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to 
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the 
conduct of the hearing. A request for a hearing or a petition for 
leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, 
express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the 
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 
and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to 
the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at 
301-415-1101, verification number is 301-415-1966. A copy of the 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene must also 
be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear
 
[[Page 58489]] Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of 
facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to 
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the 
licensee. The licensee's contact for this is Mr. P. Michael 
Whaley, Nuclear Reactor Manager, Kansas State University, 112 
Ward Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506-2506.
 
Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the 
presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that 
the petition, request and/or contentions should be granted based 
on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). Detailed guidance which the NRC uses to 
review applications for the renewal of non-power reactor licenses 
can be found in the document NUREG-1537, entitled ``Guidelines 
for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of 
Non-Power Reactors,'' can be obtained from the Commission?s PDR. 
The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's 
public documents. The detailed review guidance (NUREG- 1537) may 
be accessed through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on 
the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html under 
ADAMS accession number ML042430055 for part one and ML042430048 
for part two. Copies of the application to renew the facility 
license for the KSU Research Reactor are available for public 
inspection at the Commission?s PDR, located at One White Flint 
North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 
20855-2738. The initial application also may be accessed through 
the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room, at the address 
mentioned above, under ADAMS accession number ML022630083. The 
revised application may be accessed under ADAMS accession number 
ML052620181. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or if there 
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, may 
contact the NRC Public Document Room Reference staff at 
1-800-397- 4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated 
at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of September 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Brian E. Thomas, Section Chief, Research and Test Reactors 
Section, New, Research and Test Reactors Program, Division of 
Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E5-5474 Filed 10-5-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 34 Hawk Eye: Defense bill earmarks money for health screening 

Thursday, October 6, 2005 Site updated daily at 11 a.m. CST   
      
The Hawk Eye 

MIDDLETOWN — A defense spending bill cleared by the Senate
Appropriations Committee last week includes $750,000 for
continued health screening of former Iowa Army Ammunition Plant
workers. 

The money would go to the University of Iowa to further
investigate radiation and beryllium exposure among past
employees at the 19,000–acre weapons facility west of
Burlington. 

Results from earlier screenings were used as evidence to compel
the Department of Energy to compensate workers in the defunct
nuclear weapons program suffering from cancer. 

"I'm proud that this bill reflects the important role that the
Burlington area has played in our nation's defenses since World
War II," Sen. Tom Harkin, D–Iowa, said in a press release last
week announcing passage of the bill in the Senate committee.
"The health study will go a long way toward getting more help
for those who have suffered as result of exposure to dangerous
materials at the plant." 

Laurence Fuortes, the U of I professor heading the screening
program, was unavailable for comment Tuesday. 

The appropriations committee bill provides $440.2 billion for
defense speeding over the next year. 

The bill still has to make its way through the full Senate and a
joint House and Senate conference committee before reaching the
president. 

Iowa and western Illinois fared well in the committee version
overall, with the Rock Island Arsenal raking in $26 million, the
Iowa National Guard $31.6 million, and Iowa's three state
universities a combined $20.25 million.   
  
The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 
· 1-800-397-1708 · FAX 319-754-6824 · webmaster@thehawkeye.com
*****************************************************************
 35 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 <br/>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
*****************************************************************
 36 reviewjournal.com: EPA Yucca Mountain radiation standard receives some backing
 
Oct. 06, 2005

By KEITH ROGERS <br/>REVIEW-JOURNAL

For the second time in three public hearings, the Environmental
Protection Agency's staff of eight outnumbered the speakers
Wednesday who testified on the agency's proposed radiation
protection standard for the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste
repository.
 
Bill Vasconi, a longtime supporter of the project to dispose
77,000 tons of spent radioactive fuel in the mountain, 100 miles
northwest of Las Vegas, capped off the seven who spoke before
the EPA panel.
 
He said more people will be killed in vehicle accidents and by
lightning than will die from "those things nuclear" including
radiation allowed under the EPA's two-tiered standard. 

The proposed standard will cover radioactive releases for 10,000
years under a more stringent guideline than the one for 1
million years.
 
In either case, Vasconi said afterward, "We can live with those."
 
His viewpoint was more in line with the two who testified at
Monday's hearing in Amargosa Valley than the 14 speakers who
criticized the EPA's proposal Tuesday night at the Cashman
Center.
 
Representatives for Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Rep. Jim
Gibbons, R-Nev., delivered statements at Tuesday's hearing.
 
At that hearing, Ian Zabarte, speaking for Western Shoshones,
said the EPA's proposed protections do not take into account the
lifestyles and diets of American Indians who thrive off the land
and regard Yucca Mountain as sacred .
 
"Right now, a particular class of people are being
disenfranchised," he said.
 
At a Tuesday discussion, Calvin Meyers of the Moapa Band of
Paiutes said that his people have not been consulted in the
EPA's process and that the Yucca Mountain Project is driven by
the Department of Energy with ratepayers money to benefit the
nuclear power industry.
 
"Money can't buy your way out of a coffin, and that's where
you're putting my people," Meyers said.
 
Environmentalists Jane Feldman of the local Sierra Club and
Peggy Maze Johnson of Citizen Alert said Tuesday night the plan
is unacceptable because it allows one cancer case for every 36
people.
 	   
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2005
 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
 37 reviewjournal.com: Yucca backers seek comfort
 
Oct. 06, 2005

Nevadans who support project press DOE for some sign of progress         


WASHINGTON -- Intense politicking in Nevada, coupled with
government stumbling in regard to Yucca Mountain, are affecting
the nuclear waste project's supporters in the state, Caliente
Mayor Kevin Phillips warned the Energy Department on Wednesday.
 
Phillips and a Nye County consultant attending a Yucca Mountain
conference pressed a DOE speaker for signs of progress in the
repository program that might buoy backers in Nevada.
 
Phillips said Nevadans' perceptions have been affected by last
year's presidential campaign in which Yucca Mountain was an
issue, along with licensing delays and the disclosure this
spring of controversial e-mails that mention possible document
falsification.
 
He said it is harder for supporters to argue that Yucca
Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is a certainty and
would bring jobs and economic benefits.
 
"Those factors together (have) caused the 'inevitability
concept' that many of us keep promoting to our friends to go
down a little," Phillips said.
 
"Everybody has to understand this impacts the supportive
Nevadan's ability to bring others into the fold with a
constructive approach," Phillips said.
 
"Every time there is a slip, believability gets challenged,"
said Cash Jaszczak, a Las Vegas-based consultant to Nye County.
 
The Nevadans and industry advocates of the proposed nuclear
waste repository sought clues from Eric Knox, associate director
of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. But Knox
said he could not offer new timelines for the delayed project as
DOE works through licensing and technical issues.
 
"It's quality over quickness," Knox said. "But if we get to the
right quality, the quickness will follow."
 
Any progress on the proposed repository continues to be slow and
uncertain, Yucca advocates were told at the conference.
 
About 30 executives representing nuclear utilities and waste
transportation companies, and several rural Nevada repository
proponents met to assess the project.
 
They were told:
 
jIt could be next summer or fall before the Energy Department
sends the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a repository license
application to move the program forward, according to William
Reamer, NRC director of the high-level waste division.
 
Reamer said appeals at the NRC over whether the Energy
Department should post draft applications to a licensing
database might extend to the end of the year, effectively
delaying the project.
 
DOE officials have said they would not file a final application
until six months after the database is certified.
 
jCongress is unlikely to add Yucca Mountain provisions to energy
bills being passed to help Hurricane Katrina recovery, said
Clint Williamson, a professional staff member on the Senate
Energy Committee.
 
With lawmakers wanting to speed passage of Katrina bills,
legislation to help Yucca Mountain "would prove to be very
difficult to get through the Senate," Williamson said. Not the
least of the opposition would come from Democratic Leader Harry
Reid of Nevada.
 
"We all share the same concern. The program seems to be
stalled," said Charles Pray, a nuclear waste adviser to the
state of Maine and co-chairman of a Yucca Mountain advocacy
group.
 
Some officials said there is an added aura of uncertainty over
how Yucca Mountain might be affected by an Energy Department
nuclear waste reprocessing initiative said to be in the works.
 
The Energy Daily newsletter reported in July that the office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, which manages Yucca
Mountain, was among DOE branches participating in the initiative.
 
DOE spokesman Craig Stevens said Wednesday that he could not
confirm the participation. but he added, "Individuals throughout
this department are working on ways to expand the use of nuclear
energy throughout the country and the implications of that."
 
Paul Golan, Yucca Mountain acting director, also is conducting a
comprehensive review of the project that could result in other
changes.
 	   

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2005
 Privacy Statement
 		 
*****************************************************************
 38 Las Vegas SUN: Caliente Mayor a Yucca advocate 

Today: October 06, 2005 at 8:9:21 PDT 

Phillips sees dump as economic tool

 By Suzanne Struglinski <>
 Sun Washington Bureau

 WASHINGTON -- In a roomful of Yucca Mountain's top supporters
gathered Wednesday on Capitol Hill, a Nevadan led the chorus.

 "We hear all the bad stuff about 'yucky mountain' but that site
has great attributes," Caliente Mayor Kevin Phillips said. "I
disagree with the idea that we can scare this thing away."

 Phillips spoke at a meeting billed as "Yucca Mountain Summit
III," which included several pro-nuclear, pro-Yucca groups,
including the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's lobbying
arm.

 The meeting was set to lay out a "blueprint for success" for
the project that has been beset by problems. Phillips said the
Energy Department needs to get its "ducks in a row" so Nevadans
can see that once Yucca opens, it will be safe.

 Phillips is a rarity among public officials in Nevada, where
the bulk of elected leaders oppose the project.

 The state is officially against Yucca Mountain and has spent
millions of dollars to fight it. Polls have shown Nevadans
consistently against the repository and the idea of 77,000 tons
of high-level nuclear waste coming into the state.

 But Phillips sees Yucca Mountain as an economic development
tool for his town, population 1,014. Under the proposal, a rail
line would take waste to Yucca Mountain and it would run through
Caliente.

 Phillips, though, made a point to come to the conference so
federal officials and industry executives would not think that
all Nevadans oppose the site such as "Mr. Loux and his crew,"
referring to Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear
Projects, the state office fighting Yucca.

 "Nevada's approach in today's world is counterproductive to
Nevada," Phillips said.

 Loux, reached by phone, dismissed Phillips and said he didn't
have the scientific or technical knowledge to declare Yucca a
good site.
 "Kevin is only a small-town mayor in Nevada and does not
represent Nevada," Loux said.

 Phillips encouraged the group to press forward and solve Yucca
Mountain's problems. He called the repository at Yucca
"inevitable," saying the need for more nuclear power, and a
place to put the waste, is not going to go away.

 "It's bigger than all of us," Phillips said. "It's not a
Caliente issue, or a Nevada issue or even a national issue, it's
an international issue."

 Just don't tell that to a Nevada crowd.

 Sun reporter Cy Ryan contributed to this story.
 
 
         All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 39 San Bernardino County Sun: Filtering down Perchlorate funds will come in handy

Opinions                   
           
  Two senators win one for the people in holding Defense
Department accountable.

 A $13 million windfall in the 2006 Department of Defense
spending bill for perchlorate cleanup is a double blessing for
local communities.

 Not only will it mean safe drinking water in the region, but it
also should prevent higher utility bills.

 That alone should get twice the thanks from customers in
Rialto, Colton, Fontana and surrounding unincorporated areas.

 Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both California
Democrats, are to be congratulated for successfully holding the
Defense Department accountable for water pollution it caused.

 The federal money will be split evenly by Rialto, Colton, the
Fontana Water Co. and the West Valley Water District.

 Perchlorate, used in manufacturing rocket fuel, munitions and
fireworks, was stored in Defense Department bunkers during the
1950 and 1960s at what is now the West Valley Sanitary Landfill.

The chemical, which is believed to cause thyroid problems,
particularly in infants, forced the shutdown of numerous wells.
Some are being treated, but many are 	 	 	 	 	 		 		 		 		 		 		
out of service.

 And though it takes $1 million per well to install filtration
equipment, and $350,000 to $500,000 a year to maintain the resin
filters, the $13 million coming from the feds is a good start to
cleaning up area contamination.

 Especially when the water agencies had asked for $10 million.

 It's been an ongoing battle to get responsible parties to even
ackowledge their role, let alone clean up and pay for the mess.

 The senator's efforts in this regard are to be appreciated,
especially if it keeps water bills lower.

 Fontana customers can be especially grateful, since perchlorate
cleanup had been used as the basis for two exorbitant rate hikes
proposed by the Fontana Water Co.

 Thanks to the senators, that argument has been erased.   
                  
Los Angeles Newspaper Group 
*****************************************************************
 40 Guardian Unlimited: Nevada Mine Whistleblower Plans Appeal
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday October 6, 2005 4:31 AM
 	
AP Photo NVDR802 
By SCOTT SONNER 
Associated Press Writer 

RENO, Nev. (AP) - The Labor Department has rejected a complaint
from a former federal official who said he was fired because he
was outspoken about dangers at a contaminated Nevada mine site. 
Lawyers for Earle Dixon said Wednesday they would appeal,
presenting evidence they think will expose a cover-up of public
health threats at the former Anaconda copper mine about 60 miles
southeast of Reno. 

``Through the course of discovery, we will be going through
their underwear drawer,'' Jeff Ruch, executive director of
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, told The
Associated Press. The Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group
filed the whistleblower complaint on Dixon's behalf. 

Dixon worked as a project manager for the Bureau of Land
Management. The bureau denies any effort to hide health threats
at the mine, which is polluted with uranium and other chemical
byproducts from decades of copper mining. 

In its response to the complaint, the Labor Department said
Dixon failed to ``maintain effective working relationships with
partner agencies as exhibited by poor communication and hostile
interactions.'' 
The agency also presented evidence that Dixon ``had
inappropriate interactions with members of the media'' and that
his job based in Carson City was being eliminated because the
cleanup assignment was being moved to the bureau's state
headquarters in Reno to be ``more closely monitored by
high-level management.'' 

The agency ``met its burden of showing legitimate business
reasons'' for firing Dixon, said Christopher Lee, a Labor
Department deputy regional administrator. 

Ruch said the ruling ``basically found that BLM had some grounds
to get rid of him because Earle was difficult.'' 
Dixon's complaint seeks up to $1 million in damages. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 41 Concord Journal: Barrels on the way out
 
TownOnline.com - 

By Casey Lyons/ Staff Writer
Thursday, October 6, 2005

Yesterday, the sound of trucks engine braking on state Route 2
was comforting to those who knew what they were hearing.

     With those trucks heading west and out of town, the first
phase of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection's push to remove barrels of radioactive materials was
officially underway.

     For a reported $8 million, MassDEP contracted Envirocare of
Utah, a nuclear material removal and storage company, to load up
trucks and remove the contaminants from the town and the state.

     At two truck loads per day, contaminant removal is slated
to take between four and six months, according to MassDEP.
During that time, 3,800 barrels of low level radioactive
material, and 317 tons of depleted uranium will be removed and
shipped via truck to a nuclear repository in Clive, Utah.

     The cleanup effort will cost about $8 million to complete,
according to CREW.

     The materials first came into Concord from Starmet's
Barnwell, SC facility in 2000 and 2001 before the Board of
Selectmen and federal government officials put a stop to
shipments and ordered the cleanup.

     Starmet was added to the National Priority List in June,
2001 making it a Superfund site.

     Before the Superfund cleanup can continue, the barrels had
to be removed by de maximis, the private company contracted to
evaluate the site. To complete the cleanup, de maximis needs
unfettered access to the building and its infrastructure to
search for radioactive residues. The extent of contamination at
Starmet will remain unknown until all barrels are removed and de
maximis workers can complete the evaluation.

     While efforts to hold Starmet accountable have been long
and protracted, citizen groups such as the Citizens Research and
Environmental Watch, a Concord-based watchdog for nuclear
contaminant removal, expressed relief that things are moving
forward.

     "It took four years, but through the cooperation of the
local, state and federal official agencies this unlicensed
storage of tons of uranium was resolved in favor of public
safety," said Rick Oleson, president of CREW. "Now we can move
on to clean up the entire place, keeping in mind that the
radioactive uranium in the ground and water will remain
radioactive and toxic for thousands of years, if not removed."


  1 | 2 | Next »  

© Copyright of CNC and Herald Interactive Advertising Systems,
*****************************************************************
 42 Whitehaven News: Thorp â€˜shut till Marchâ€™
 						
Published on 06/10/2005                                                                                                                                              
                                                        
By Alan Irving
 
SELLAFIELDâ€™S Thorp plant has no chance of re-opening before
next March at least â€“ adding up to a virtual 12-month
shutdown. 

The news comes hard on the heels of the shock proposed sale of
Sellafieldâ€™s main operators, British Nuclear Group.
 
Thorp has already been shut for six months after one of
Sellafieldâ€™s most serious leaks, a spillage of 22 tonnes of
radioactive liquor into a contained cell. But BNG and the
workers who have had to be transferred to other jobs had hoped
the reprocessing plant would be running again by Christmas.
 
Under the Freedom of Information Act, Cumbrian anti-nuclear
group CORE discovered from BNG documents that Thorp was likely
to stay shut until March and even then government approval will
be needed before any re-start.
 
CORE spokesman Martin Forwood said: â€œThis is several months
later than suggested by the siteâ€™s managing director Barry
Snelson in June this year when he touted that the plant could
re-open around Christmas.â€
 
Mr Forwood claimed that even the suggested March date â€œshould
be viewed with some scepticism as there are still many hurdles
â€“ identified as critical milestones in the BNG document â€“ to
clear before Thorp can re-open. The plant has effectively lost a
whole yearâ€™s business and, with it, the revenues expected by
the NDAâ€.
 
â€œFurther information (from BNG) shows that the leaked liquor
is still behind held in buffer storage tanks and will remain
there until Thorp re-opens next year. This is a surprising
decision given the Nuclear Installations Inspectorateâ€™s
concerns that the material will have contamination.â€
 
Sellafield spokeswoman Ali McKibbin said: â€œGood progress
continues to be made on the Thorp re-start plan. The current
assumption is that all areas of the plant will be operational by
March 2006. This date remains under review and may be subject to
change.â€
 
She added: â€œThe liquor recovered from the contained cell
continues to be held in a safe and stable condition in the
buffer storage tanks prior to processing through the chemical
separation process. We remain confident that we will have the
capability to return Thorp to service.â€ 

BNG sell-off latest: P2
 
*****************************************************************
 43 Las Vegas SUN: Energy Department inspector general criticizes Yucca spending 

Today: October 06, 2005 at 22:12:3 PDT 

By ERICA WERNER

 ASSOCIATED PRESS 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Energy Department paid incentive money to
its managing contractor on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste
dump, Bechtel SAIC, even though Bechtel turned in late and
low-quality work, an Energy Department inspector general report
said Thursday. 

The inspector general questioned $4 million in incentives paid
to Bechtel for work on the planned Nevada dump from 2001-2004 -
nearly 10 percent of the total $43.4 million in incentives
Bechtel received during that period. 

"While the total cost of inappropriate incentive fee payments
cannot be determined, we estimate that (the Energy Department's
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management) paid
approximately $4 million even though Bechtel delivered poor
quality work and missed deadlines," said the report. 

The criticism comes as Yucca Mountain, approved by Congress in
2002 as the nation's repository for nuclear waste, has suffered
a series of setbacks. The government was forced by an appeals
court to rewrite its radiation safety standard for the dump, and
internal e-mails surfaced last spring suggesting government
workers on the dump had falsified data. The dump's opening date
has been repeatedly delayed and is now expected in 2012 or
later. 

Paul Golan, director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management, said in a letter to the inspector general that he
agreed with the report's findings and would take corrective
action. A DOE spokesman on Thursday declined comment beyond
Golan's letter. 

"We stand by the work we've performed under our contract. We
take the report seriously and we're going to review it
carefully," said Jason Bohne, spokesman for Bechtel in Las
Vegas. 

In one example, the report said Bechtel was paid the full fee to
develop a system for tracking management issues and corrective
actions, even though the system was determined to be
unacceptable because it was not user-friendly. 

In another example, Bechtel was offered a $2 million incentive
for on-time completion of a "Licensing Support Network" that
would post documents related to the development of Yucca
Mountain on the Internet. The Energy Department determined
Bechtel would not meet the March 2003 deadline, but instead of
eliminating the incentive it used the money to create new and
different incentives for Bechtel. 

The total value of Bechtel's contract was $3.2 billion; it was
eligible for $50 million in incentives and received $43.4
million of which the inspector general questioned $4 million. 
Yucca Mountain is meant to hold 77,000 tons of nuclear waste for
10,000 years and beyond. 

 
         All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
                                 

*****************************************************************
 44 AP Wire: Leak found in old SRS radioactive waste tank

10/05/2005

JACOB JORDAN

 Associated Press

COLUMBIA, S.C. - A small leak in one of the oldest radioactive
waste tanks at the Savannah River Site has been found, but an
official said Wednesday there was no immediate health or
environmental concerns. 

The leak on the nearly 50-year-old tank dried up and plugged
itself, Westinghouse Savannah River Co. spokesman Dean Campbell
said. It was found Monday, but it's unclear exactly when the
liquid escaped. 

"Any leakage never traveled beyond a few inches from the leak
site before it dried on the outside of the tank wall," said
Campbell, whose company operates the site for the Department of
Energy. 

The underground tank, one of 51 at SRS, the former nuclear
weapons complex near Aiken, holds about 191,000 gallons of
sludge from Cold War bomb-making and was scheduled to be emptied
next year. The first step in that removal process, which was
adding water to the tank, began in November. 

"The water that we added to it to help soften up the sludge
apparently was a factor," Campbell said. 

The tank had three previous leaks but none were active. The new
leak is similar in size, location and makeup as the others. 

Environmental attorney Geoffrey Fettus of the Natural Resources
Defense Council said he looked forward to seeing the incident
report on the leak. "It's always cause for great concern and
we'll be looking for all the information," Fettus said. 

The process of removing the waste from the tanks and closing
them has come under scrutiny from environmentalists concerned
about the DOE's plan to leave about 1 percent of the sludge
behind. The process has been challenged in courts, but Congress
agreed last year to allow the sludge to be left in tanks at SRS
and a federal facility in Idaho instead of being shipped to a
central repository. 

The measure approved by Congress reclassifies the sludge from
high level to incidental, a category that means it can be left
in the tanks and combined with concrete grout. 

The tank was put in service in 1956. 

SRS has about 36 million gallons of nuclear waste in 49 tanks.
Two tanks have been closed. The waste in the tank is scheduled
to be sent to the Defense Waste Processing Facility to be
vitrified. 

"We continue to investigate the condition and determine the best
course of action. There is no danger to workers, the public or
the environment," Campbell said. "Since the tank is already
scheduled for waste removal activities, those activities will
continue." 

Tank closure is not expected for several years.   

TheState.com 
*****************************************************************
 45 [epa-impact] Issued October 3, 2005.
 
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 11:58:42 -0400 (EDT)

 
X-Fingerprint: bounce-383379-46782@lists.epa.gov-127.127

http://epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2005/October/Day-07/  
=======================================================================


[Federal Register: October 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 194)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 58636-58646]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07oc05-19]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Parts 2 and 33
[Docket No. RM05-34-000]
 
Transactions Subject to FPA Section 203

Issued October 3, 2005.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Subtitle G (Market Transparency, Enforcement, and 
Consumer Protection), section 1289 (Merger Review Reform), of Title XII 
(Electricity Modernization Act of 2005), of the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 (EPAct 2005), Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005), the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is proposing rules and 
amendments to the Commission's regulations to implement amended section 
203 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). The Commission seeks public comment 
on the rules and amended regulations proposed herein.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Comments are due November 7, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be filed electronically via the eFiling link on 
the Commission's Web site at <A HREF="http://www.ferc.gov">http://www.ferc.gov</A>. Commenters unable to 
file comments electronically must send an original and 14 copies of 
their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the 
Secretary, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Refer to the 
Comment Procedures section of the preamble for additional information 
on how to file comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah McWane (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8372.
Phillip Nicholson (Technical Information), Office of Markets, Tariffs 
and Rates--West, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8240.
Jan Macpherson (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8921.
James Akers (Technical Information), Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates--West, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, 
NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8101.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction

    1. On August 8, 2005, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) 
\1\ was signed into law. Section 1289 (Merger Review Reform) of Title 
XII, Subtitle G (Market Transparency, Enforcement, and Consumer 
Protection),\2\ of EPAct 2005 amends section 203 of the Federal Power 
Act (FPA) \3\ and directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) to adopt, by rule, procedures for the expeditious 
consideration of applications for the approval of dispositions, 
consolidations, or acquisitions under section 203 of the FPA. Amended 
section 203 also: (1) Increases (from $50,000 to $10 million) the value 
threshold for certain transactions subject to section 203; (2) extends 
the scope of section 203 to include transactions involving certain 
transfers of generation facilities and certain holding companies' 
acquisitions with a value in excess of $10 million; (3) limits the 
Commission's review of a public utility's acquisition of securities of 
another public utility to transactions greater than $10 million; and 
(4) requires that the Commission, when reviewing a proposed section 203 
transaction, examine cross-subsidization and pledges or encumbrances of 
utility assets. The Commission proposes rules and amendments to the 
Commission's regulations to implement amended section 203.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005).
    \2\ EPAct 2005 Sec. Sec.  1281 et seq.
    \3\ 16 U.S.C. 824b (2000).
    \4\ As noted below, EPAct 2005's amendments to FPA section 203 
will not take effect until February 3, 2006. We will generally refer 
to EPAct 2005's amended section 203 of the FPA as ``amended section 
203.'' All other references to FPA section 203 are as it currently exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Commission intends to issue a final rule within six months 
after EPAct 2005's enactment to coincide with the date on which amended 
section 203 of the FPA takes effect, February 8, 2006. The Commission 
seeks public comment on the rules proposed herein.

II. Background

A. Commission Merger Policy Before Effective Date of Amended FPA 
Section 203

1. Section 203 of the FPA
    3. Section 203 of the FPA currently provides that Commission 
authorization is required for various types of dispositions and 
acquisitions of jurisdictional facilities, such as public utility mergers 
and consolidations. Specifically, section 203(a) of the FPA states:

    No public utility shall sell, lease or otherwise dispose of the 
whole of its facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the 
Commission, or any part thereof of a value in excess of $50,000, or 
by any means whatsoever, directly or indirectly, merge or 
consolidate such facilities or any part thereof with those of any 
other person, or purchase, acquire, or take any security of any 
other public utility, without first having secured an order of the 
Commission authorizing it to do so.

    The Commission shall approve such transactions if they are 
consistent with the public interest.
2. The Commission's Merger Policy Statement
    4. In 1996, the Commission issued the Merger Policy Statement \5\ 
updating and clarifying the Commission's procedures, criteria, and 
policies concerning public utility mergers in light of dramatic and 
continuing changes in the electric power industry and the regulation of 
that industry. The purpose of the Merger Policy Statement was to ensure 
that mergers are consistent with the public interest and to provide 
greater certainty and expedition in the Commission's analysis of merger 
applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Inquiry Concerning the Commission's Merger Policy Under the 
Federal Power Act: Policy Statement, Order No. 592, 61 FR 68,595 
(Dec. 30, 1996), FERC Stats. and Regs. ] 31,044 (1996), 
reconsideration denied, Order No. 592-A, 62 FR 33,340 (June 19, 
1997), 79 FERC ] 61,321 (1997) (Merger Policy Statement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The Merger Policy Statement sets out three factors the 
Commission generally considers when analyzing whether a proposed 
section 203 transaction is consistent with the public interest: effect 
on competition; effect on rates; and effect on regulation.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Although the Commission applies these factors to all section 
203 transactions, not just mergers, the filing requirements and the 
level of detail required may differ. Id. at ] 30,113 n.7. See also 
18 CFR 2.26 (2005) (which codifies the Merger Policy Statement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. With respect to the effect on competition, the Merger Policy 
Statement adopts the Department of Justice (DOJ)/Federal Trade 
Commission (FTC) 1992 Horizontal Merger Guidelines (Guidelines) \7\ as 
the analytical framework for examining horizontal market power 
concerns. The Merger Policy Statement also uses an analytical screen 
(Appendix A analysis) that is intended to allow early identification of 
transactions that clearly do not raise competitive concerns. As

[[Page 58637]]

part of the screen analysis, applicants must define the relevant 
products sold by the merging entities, identify the customers and 
potential suppliers in the geographic markets that are likely to be 
affected by the proposed transaction, and measure the concentration in 
those markets.\8\ Using the delivered price test to identify 
alternative competing suppliers, the concentration of potential 
suppliers included in the defined market is then measured by the 
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) and used as a screen to determine 
which transactions may raise market power concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, 
Horizontal Merger Guidelines, 57 FR 41,552 (1992), revised, 4 Trade 
Reg. Rep. (CCH) ] 13,104 (Apr. 8, 1997).
    \8\ Merger Policy Statement at ] 30,119-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. The Commission stated in the Merger Policy Statement that it 
will examine the second factor, the effect on rates, by focusing on 
customer protections designed to insulate consumers from any harm 
resulting from the transaction. We directed applicants to attempt to 
negotiate such measures with their customers before filing their 
applications.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See id. at ] 30,121-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. The Merger Policy Statement set forth a third factor for 
examination, the effect on regulation. This includes both state 
regulation and the Commission's regulation, including any potential 
shift in regulation from the Commission to the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (SEC) due to a transaction creating a registered public 
utility holding company under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 
1935 (PUHCA 1935).\10\ The Merger Policy Statement explained that, 
unless applicants commit themselves to abide by this Commission's 
policies with regard to affiliate transactions involving non-power 
goods and services, we will set the issue of the effect on regulation 
for hearing.\11\ With respect to a transaction's effect on state 
regulation, where the state commissions have authority to act on the 
transaction, the Commission stated that it intends to rely on them to 
exercise their authority to protect state interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 79a et seq. (2000).
    \11\ Merger Policy Statement at ] 30,125; see also Atlantic City 
Electric Company and Delmarva Power & Light Company, 80 FERC ]
61,126 at 61,412, order denying reh'g, 81 FERC ] 61,173 (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The Filing Requirements Rule and Revised Filing Requirements Under 
18 CFR Part 33 of the Commission's Regulations
    9. The Commission later issued the Filing Requirements Rule,\12\ a 
final rule updating the filing requirements under 18 CFR Part 33 of the 
Commission's regulations for section 203 applications. The Filing 
Requirements Rule implements the Merger Policy Statement and provides 
detailed guidance to applicants for preparing applications. The revised 
filing requirements were also designed to assist the Commission in 
determining whether section 203 transactions are consistent with the 
public interest, to provide more certainty, and to expedite the 
Commission's handling of such applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Revised Filing Requirements Under Part 33 of the 
Commission's Regulations, Order No. 642, 65 FR 70,983 (Nov. 28, 
2000), FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles July 1996-Dec. 
2000 ] 31,111 (2000), order on reh'g, Order No. 642-A, 66 FR 16,121 
(Mar. 23, 2001), 94 FERC ] 61,289 (2001) (codified at 18 CFR Part 33 
(2005) (Filing Requirements Rule)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. The Filing Requirements Rule codifies the Commission's 
screening approach, provides specific filing requirements consistent 
with Appendix A of the Commission's Merger Policy Statement, 
establishes guidelines for vertical competitive analysis, and sets 
forth filing requirements for mergers that may raise vertical market 
power concerns. It also streamlined the rules, eliminated unnecessary 
Part 33 filing requirements, and reduced the information burden for 
transactions that raise no competitive concerns.
    11. In the Filing Requirements Rule, the Commission explained that 
for certain transactions, abbreviated filing requirements are 
appropriate because it is relatively easy to determine that they will 
not harm competition and, thus, a full-fledged screen or vertical 
competitive analysis is not required. The Commission does not require 
the full Appendix A analysis screen if: (1) The applicant demonstrates 
that the merging entities do not operate in the same geographic 
markets, or if they do, that the extent of such overlapping operation 
is de minimis; and (2) no intervenor has alleged that one of the 
merging entities is a perceived potential competitor in the same 
geographic market as the other.\13\ Furthermore, the Commission stated 
that it will not require section 203 applicants to provide an Appendix 
A analysis if: (1) The application is a regional transmission 
organization (RTO) filing that directly responds to the Commission's 
RTO rule; \14\ (2) the transaction is simply an internal corporate 
reorganization; or (3) the transaction only involves a disposition of 
transmission facilities.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Filing Requirements Rule at ] 31,902 and ] 31,907. It also 
provides that an applicant will not be required to file additional 
information regarding the vertical aspects of a proposed merger if 
it shows that the merger does not impair competition in 
``downstream'' electricity markets and involves an input supplier 
(the ``upstream'' merging firm) that sells: (1) An input that is 
used to produce a de minimis amount of the relevant product; or (2) 
no product into the downstream electricity geographic market. Id. At 
] 31,903.
    \14\ Regional Transmission Organizations, Order No. 2000, 65 FR 
809 (Jan. 6, 2000), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,089 at 31,108 (1999), 
order on reh'g, Order No. 2000-A, 65 FR 12,088 (Mar. 8, 2000), FERC 
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,092 (2000), aff'd sub nom. Public Utility 
District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington v. FERC, 272 F.3d 607 
(D.C. Cir. 2001).
    \15\ Filing Requirements Rule at ] 31,902. The Commission 
clarified that, if it later determined that a filing raised 
competitive issues, the Commission would evaluate those issues and 
direct the applicant to submit any data needed to satisfy the 
Commission's concerns. Id. at n.79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. The Commission also stated in the Filing Requirements Rule 
that, as announced in the Merger Policy Statement, it intended to 
continue processing section 203 applications expeditiously, with a goal 
of issuing an initial order for most mergers within 150 days of a 
completed application.\16\ Further, the Commission stated that it 
intended to continue processing uncontested non-merger applications 
within 60 days of filing and protested non-merger applications within 
90 days of filing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id. at ] 31,873.
    \17\ Id. at ] 31,876.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Section 203 as Amended by EPAct 2005

    13. EPAct 2005 revises section 203(a) of the FPA as follows:
    14. Amended section 203(a)(1) states that no public utility shall, 
without first having secured an order of the Commission authorizing it 
to do so: (A) Sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of the whole of its 
facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, or any part 
thereof of a value in excess of $10 million; (B) merge or consolidate, 
directly or indirectly, such facilities or any part thereof with those 
of any other person, by any means whatsoever; (C) purchase, acquire, or 
take any security with a value in excess of $10 million of any other 
public utility; or (D) purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire an 
existing generation facility: (i) that has a value in excess of $10 
million; and (ii) that is used for interstate wholesale sales and over 
which the Commission has jurisdiction for ratemaking purposes.
    15. Section 203(a)(2) adds the entirely new requirement that no 
holding company in a holding company system that includes a 
transmitting utility or an electric utility shall purchase, acquire, or 
take any security with a value in excess of $10 million of, or, by any 
means whatsoever, directly or indirectly, merge or consolidate with, a 
transmitting utility, an electric utility

[[Page 58638]]

company, or a holding company in a holding company system that includes 
a transmitting utility, or an electric utility company, with a value in 
excess of $10 million without Commission authorization.
    16. Like the existing section 203(a), amended section 203(a)(3) 
provides that upon receipt of an application for such approval, the 
Commission shall give reasonable notice in writing to the Governor and 
state commission of each of the states in which the physical property 
affected is situated, and to such other persons as it may deem advisable.
    17. Amended section 203(a)(4) states that after notice and 
opportunity for hearing the Commission shall approve the proposed 
disposition, consolidation, acquisition, or change in control if it 
finds that the transaction will be consistent with the public interest, 
but also adds the entirely new requirement that the Commission must 
find that the transaction will not result in cross-subsidization of a 
non-utility associate company or pledge or encumbrance of utility 
assets for the benefit of an associate company, unless that cross-
subsidization, pledge, or encumbrance will be consistent with the 
public interest.
    18. Section 203(a)(5) adds the entirely new requirement that the 
Commission shall:

    By rule, adopt procedures for the expeditious consideration of 
applications for the approval of dispositions, consolidations, or 
acquisitions, under this section. Such rules shall identify classes 
of transactions, or specify criteria for transactions, that normally 
meet the standards established in paragraph (4). The Commission 
shall provide expedited review for such transactions. The Commission 
shall grant or deny any other application for approval of a 
transaction not later than 180 days after the application is filed. 
If the Commission does not act within 180 days, such application 
shall be deemed granted unless the Commission finds, based on good 
cause, that further consideration is required to determine whether 
the proposed transaction meets the standards of paragraph (4) and 
issues an order tolling the time for acting on the application for 
not more than 180 days, at the end of which additional period the 
Commission shall grant or deny the application.

    19. Section 203(a)(6), which is also new, provides that for 
purposes of this subsection, the terms ``associate company,'' ``holding 
company,'' and ``holding company system'' have the meaning given those 
terms in the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005 (PUHCA 2005).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ EPAct 2005 Sec.  1261 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Section 1289(b) provides that the amendments made by this 
section shall take effect six months after the date of enactment of 
EPAct 2005.
    21. Section 1289(c) provides that the amendments made by subsection 
(a) shall not apply to any section 203 application that was filed on or 
before the date of enactment of EPAct 2005.
    22. Section 203(b) of the FPA remains unchanged.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Section 203(b) states:
    The Commission may grant any application for an order under this 
section in whole or in part and upon such terms and conditions as it 
finds necessary or appropriate to secure the maintenance of adequate 
service and the coordination in the public interest of facilities 
subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. The Commission may 
from time to time for good cause shown make such orders supplemental 
to any order made under this section as it may find necessary or 
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    23. The Commission proposes to revise 18 CFR Part 33 (Application 
for Acquisition, Sale, Lease, or Other Disposition, Merger or 
Consolidation of Facilities, or for Purchase or Acquisition of 
Securities of a Public Utility) and 18 CFR 2.26 (Policies concerning 
review of applications under section 203) to implement amended section 
203 of the FPA.

A. Proposal To Amend 18 CFR Part 33

1. Part 33--Title
    24. Currently, 18 CFR Part 33 is titled ``Application for 
Acquisition, Sale, Lease, or Other Disposition, Merger or Consolidation 
of Facilities, or for Purchase or Acquisition of Securities of a Public 
Utility.'' The Commission proposes to revise the title of 18 CFR part 
33 to read as follows: ``Applications Under Federal Power Act Section 
203.''
2. Applicability and Definitions--18 CFR 33.1
    25. Proposed section 33.1(a) is intended to clarify what 
transactions are subject to amended section 203 of the FPA and Part 33 
as a result of amended sections 203(a)(1)(A)-(D) and (a)(2) of the 
FPA.\20\ Proposed new subsection 33.1(b) would define certain new terms 
in amended section 203 that are not defined in EPAct 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Because proposed section 33.1(a) is almost identical to 
amended sections 203(a)(1)(A)-(D) and (a)(2), which are summarized 
in section II.B. above and set forth in the proposed regulatory 
text, we will not recite that text here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. ``Value''

    26. Proposed subsection 33.1(b) would define ``value.'' Currently, 
subsection 33.1(b) defines ``[v]alue in excess of $50,000'' as ``the 
original cost undepreciated as defined in the Commission's Uniform 
System of Accounts prescribed for public utilities and licensees in 
part 101 of this chapter.''
    27. Before EPAct 2005, the question of what ``value'' means was not 
particularly significant for determining section 203 applicability, 
since most transactions involving the transfer of jurisdictional 
facilities clearly met the relatively low $50,000 threshold regardless 
of how ``value'' was defined. Most transactions involving the transfer 
of physical jurisdictional facilities (usually transmission) were 
clearly subject to section 203 simply because the ``original cost 
undepreciated'' of almost any transmission facility exceeded the 
relatively low $50,000 threshold set forth in FPA section 203(a). 
However, with the higher $10 million threshold, the question of how to 
define ``value'' may become significant for determining whether section 
203 applies to certain transactions involving jurisdictional facilities 
(either physical or paper),\21\ generation facilities, securities, 
individual companies or holding companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ We note that the $10 million value threshold that is to be 
applied to the transfer of jurisdictional facilities under amended 
section 203(a)(1)(A), similar to the prior $50,000 threshold under 
section 203(a), is important for determining whether the transfer of 
part of a public utility's jurisdictional facilities is subject to 
section 203. The transfer of all of a public utility's 
jurisdictional facilities, regardless of value, is subject to 
amended section 203, as it was with section 203.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. As relevant here, we believe that ``value'' can be viewed in 
two broad ways: Original/accounting cost value and market value. 
Original cost undepreciated is the amount actually paid for installing 
an original plant and equipment and additions thereto. A market value 
approach, on the other hand, bases value on the probable or expected 
future earnings or profits over the life of the asset. Different 
potential buyers of the asset will, of course, place different 
valuations on an asset, depending on their estimates of future expected 
profitability and their cost of capital.
    29. As discussed below, the Commission proposes to generally rely 
on a ``market value'' approach for determining whether asset transfers 
are jurisdictional under section 203, with the exception of transfers 
of wholesale contracts. We invite comment on whether the ``market 
value'' concept or other alternative concepts are appropriate. We also 
invite comment and suggestions on measures of market value or other 
measures of value.
    30. With respect to transactions involving the transfer of physical 
facilities, such as an existing generation facility or a transmission 
facility, which

[[Page 58639]]

is addressed by amended subsections 203(a)(1)(A) and (D), the use of 
``original cost undepreciated'' could lead to a different 
jurisdictional determination for facilities of equal size. For example, 
two generation units of the same size and type, but of substantially 
different ages, would likely have different values based on ``original 
cost undepreciated.'' The transfer of the newer generation unit could 
be deemed jurisdictional because its original construction cost 
exceeded $10 million, while the transfer of the older unit might not be 
jurisdictional because its original construction cost was less than $10 
million. Thus, although the effects on markets of the transfer of both 
generation units could be the same, under the existing regulations the 
Commission would be prevented from evaluating the public interest 
implications of the transfer of the older unit.\22\ Therefore, the 
Commission proposes that ``value,'' as applied to transmission 
facilities and existing generation facilities, be defined as the market 
value of such facilities. We recognize, however, that the determination 
of the market value for transmission facilities can be difficult in 
some instances and thus propose that, in the absence of a readily 
ascertainable market value, original cost undepreciated would be used. 
We seek comment on whether this measure of ``value'' of transmission 
and generation facilities, or some other measure, should be used, for 
transactions between non-affiliates and between affiliates. For 
transactions involving transfers of facilities between non-affiliates, 
the Commission believes that market value will, in most circumstances, 
be reflected in the transaction price. However, for a transaction 
between affiliates, it cannot be readily assumed that the market value 
will be reflected in the transaction price, since the buyer and seller 
do not bargain at arms' length. A possible alternative measure is 
original cost undepreciated. Therefore, the Commission seeks comments 
on these or other possible alternatives for defining value for 
transactions between affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Admittedly, this example addresses transfers of relatively 
small generation or transmission facilities. Even at a historical 
cost of $101 per kilowatt, the original cost of a 100 megawatt plant 
would exceed $10 million and thus the transfer would be jurisdictional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. With respect to paper jurisdictional facilities (usually 
wholesale contracts), Commission precedent does not address how the 
value of a wholesale contract should be determined for purposes of 
determining whether section 203 applies.\23\ Rather, it appears to have 
been assumed, by applicants and the Commission alike, that the value of 
a wholesale contract, however measured, would exceed $50,000. However, 
with the increase in the value threshold to $10 million in amended 
section 203, the ``value'' of a wholesale contract may become significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In Enron Power Marketing, Inc., 65 FERC ] 61,305 at 62,405 
(1993), the Commission merely noted, without discussion, that the 
value of the wholesale contract must exceed $50,000 for the transfer 
to be subject to section 203 of the FPA. See also Ocean State Power, 
38 FERC ] 61,140 (1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. For example, a wholesale contract may have a total revenue 
stream that exceeds $10 million, but with profits of much less than $10 
million. A market value approach would involve basing ``value'' on the 
price or consideration paid for the contract, which, as with any other 
asset, would depend on the valuation of expected profits over the 
remaining life of the contract. Alternatively, the significance of a 
wholesale contract in terms of its effect on the market may be better 
reflected by defining ``value'' as total expected contract revenues 
over the remaining life of the contract. Total revenues are directly 
related to the quantity of power and energy delivered under the 
contract, which contributes to total market supply.\24\ It may also be 
appropriate to factor into this determination the value of options that 
might affect the price and any rights to extend the contract or change 
the quantities sold. At this juncture, however, we propose that for 
purposes of determining the applicability of amended section 203 and 
Part 33 to a given transaction, the value of any wholesale contract 
included in the transaction would be based on total expected contract 
revenues over the remaining life of the contract. We seek comment on 
whether this measure of ``value'' of wholesale power sales contracts, a 
market value measure, or some other measure, should be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ We note that for purposes of determining destination 
markets to be used in the Appendix A analysis, Part 33 requires 
applicants to identify individual wholesale customers based on 
sales. 18 CFR 33.3(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. In addition, existing section 203 requires prior Commission 
approval for a public utility to acquire any security of another public 
utility, regardless of the value of the security. Thus, up to this 
point there was no need to define ``value'' for security acquisitions 
in Part 33. Amended sections 203(a)(1)(C) and (a)(2), however, state 
that the securities must have a value in excess of $10 million. The 
Commission proposes to define ``value'' of a security as the market 
price at the time the security is acquired. For transactions between 
non-affiliated companies, we will rebuttably presume that the market 
value is the agreed-upon transaction price. We seek comment on whether 
this measure of ``value'' of securities, or some other measure, should 
be used. We also seek comment on how to determine value for security 
transactions involving affiliates if the securities are not widely 
traded. For example, should the Commission consider using the Edgar 
standard \25\ of review when determining value in affiliate 
transactions? While this valuation method would not require a direct 
solicitation, the Commission seeks comments as to whether we should 
give particular weight to evidence of non-affiliate transactions 
involving either non-affiliated buyers or sellers of securities of 
similarly situated utilities or assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Boston Edison Company Re: Edgar Electric Energy Company, 55 
FERC ]
61,382 (1991) (Edgar). The Edgar standard of review is 
designed to prevent affiliate abuse and to ensure prices that are 
consistent with competitive outcomes. The Edgar decision outlined 
three methods by which a buyer could demonstrate that the 
transaction was free from potential affiliate abuse. First, the 
buyer can present evidence of direct head-to-head competition either 
through a formal solicitation or an informal negotiation process. 
Second, the buyer can present evidence of the prices that non-
affiliated buyers were willing to pay for similar services to the 
proposed affiliate sale. Third, the buyer can present benchmark 
evidence showing the terms, prices and conditions of sales of 
similar services made by non-affiliated sellers in the relevant 
market. Id. at 62,168-69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. The Commission proposes to define ``value'' with respect to a 
merger or consolidation with a transmitting utility, an electric 
utility company, or a holding company in a holding company system that 
includes a transmitting utility, or an electric utility company, with a 
value in excess of $10 million, as used in amended section 203(a)(2), 
as ``market value.'' As noted above, we would expect that in most 
circumstances ``market value'' will be reflected in the transaction 
price for transactions between non-affiliates. We seek comment on 
whether this measure of ``value'' or some other measure should be used 
in these circumstances.
    35. Further, given the increased significance of valuation of a 
transaction under amended section 203, we solicit comment on whether 
the Commission's existing record keeping and reporting requirements, 
outside the section 203 context, provide an adequate basis for 
monitoring jurisdictional entities' determinations of when a section 
203 application is required.\26\ For example,

[[Page 58640]]

do FERC Form 1s or Order No. 652 \27\ market-based rate change in 
status reports provide sufficient information to monitor compliance 
with section 203?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ However, we note that EPAct 2005 Sec. Sec.  1284(d) and (e) 
expand the Commission's criminal and civil penalty authority, which 
will discourage noncompliance with the requirements of FPA section 203.
    \27\ Reporting Requirement for Changes in Status for Public 
Utilities with Market-Based Rate Authority, Order No. 652, 70 FR 
8,253 (Feb. 18, 2005), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,175, order on reh'g, 
111 FERC ] 61,413 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. ``Existing Generation Facility''

    36. Proposed subsection 33.1(b) also defines the term ``existing 
generation facility.'' Amended section 203(a)(1)(D) provides that the 
acquisition of ``an existing generation facility'' with a value in 
excess of $10 million ``that is used for interstate wholesale sales and 
over which the Commission has jurisdiction for ratemaking purposes'' is 
now subject to section 203 of the FPA.
    37. The Commission proposes to define ``existing generation 
facility'' for section 203 purposes as a generation facility that is 
operational at the time the transaction is consummated. If such a 
generation facility is intended to be used in whole or in part for 
wholesale sales in interstate commerce by a public utility, it is 
subject to our jurisdiction for ratemaking purposes and thus covered 
under amended section 203(a)(1)(D). Although the statutory provision 
refers to a facility that ``is'' used for wholesale sales (and over 
which the Commission has jurisdiction for ratemaking purposes), we 
believe a reasonable interpretation is that the provision would apply 
to newly constructed facilities that have already been energized at the 
time the transaction is consummated and are intended to be used in 
whole or in part for wholesale sales in interstate commerce by public 
utilities. We also note that if it can be demonstrated that a facility 
is used exclusively for retail sales, then amended section 203(a)(1)(D) 
is not triggered. We seek comment on the definition of the term 
``existing generation facility.'' We seek comment on whether ``at the 
time the section 203 transaction is consummated'' is the correct point 
in time for determining whether a facility is an ``existing'' facility.

c. ``Associate Company,'' ``Holding Company,'' ``Holding Company 
System,'' ``Transmitting Utility,'' and ``Electric Utility Company''

    38. The term ``transmitting utility'' is already defined in amended 
section 3 of the FPA \28\ as ``an entity (including an entity described 
in section 201(f)) that owns, operates, or controls facilities used for 
the transmission of electric energy--(A) in interstate commerce; (B) 
for the sale of electric energy at wholesale.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 16 U.S.C. 796 (2000).
    \29\ EPAct 2005 Sec.  1291.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. Amended section 203(a)(6) states that the terms ``associate 
company,'' ``holding company,'' and ``holding company system'' shall 
have the meaning given those terms in PUHCA 2005.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id. at Sec.  1262.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. We note that amended section 203(a)(2) refers to the term 
``electric utility company,'' but provides no definition of that term. 
However, ``electric utility company'' is a PUHCA term and we believe 
that the most reasonable interpretation, especially in light of amended 
section 203(a)(6), is that it has the same meaning as used in PUHCA 
2005, which is any company that owns or operates facilities used for 
the generation, transmission, or distribution of electric energy for 
sale.\31\ We seek comments on this proposed definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id. at Sec.  1262(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. ``Non-Utility Associate Company''

    41. Amended section 203(a)(4) adds the new requirement that before 
we can approve a proposed section 203 transaction, the Commission must 
find that the transaction will not result in cross-subsidization of a 
non-utility associate company or a pledge or encumbrance of utility 
assets for the benefit of an associate company, unless that cross-
subsidization, pledge, or encumbrance will be consistent with the 
public interest. However, because EPAct 2005 provides no definition of 
the term ``non-utility associate company,'' proposed subsection 33.1(b) 
would define this term.
    42. PUHCA 2005, Subtitle F of EPAct 2005, defines an ``associate 
company'' of a company as any company in the same holding company 
system with such company, but does not define ``non-utility associate 
company.'' \32\ A reasonable interpretation, as explained below, is 
that Congress was concerned about the potential that customers of 
``regulated'' public utilities (persons that own or operate facilities 
used for wholesale sales or transmission in interstate commerce) would 
inappropriately subsidize ``unregulated'' associate companies \33\ in 
the same holding company system, whether the associate companies were 
in energy or non-energy businesses. Such cross-subsidization can harm 
not only customers of the regulated public utility but it can also harm 
competition by giving ``unregulated'' sellers a competitive advantage. 
Similarly, Congress was concerned that regulated public utility assets 
not be inappropriately pledged or used to support non-regulated 
associate companies, to the harm of customers of the regulated public 
utility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Id. at Sec.  1262.
    \33\ ``Unregulated'' companies, as the term is used herein, 
would include those that have no rate regulation oversight (e.g., 
real estate businesses) as well as those that are regulated on a 
market rate basis (e.g., wholesale sellers granted market-based rate 
authority by the Commission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    43. Historically, the Commission has used the term ``non-utility'' 
in more than one context and with more than one meaning. In the context 
of considering cross-subsidization concerns arising from the formation 
of holding companies, ``non-utility operations'' has been used to refer 
to the operation of businesses completely uninvolved in any aspect of 
the generation, transmission, distribution, or sale of electricity.\34\ 
An example would be an associate company that engages in real estate 
development or residential construction. In the context of considering 
cross-subsidization or affiliate abuse concerns associated with power 
transactions between public utility affiliates, the Commission has 
differentiated between utility activities and non-utility activities 
according to whether they were being conducted by a public utility with 
captive wholesale or retail customers served under cost-based rates 
(sometimes described as a ``traditional public utility''). In this 
context, the Commission has sometimes referred to a power marketer (a 
public utility authorized to charge market-based rates but without 
captive customers) affiliate of a traditional public utility as a non-
utility affiliate.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Central Illinois Public Service Company, 42 FERC ]
61,073 at 61,328 (1988); Boston Edison Company and BEC Energy, 80 
FERC ] 61,274 at 61,994 (1997).
    \35\ See Sierra Pacific Power Company, 95 FERC ] 61,193 at 
61,678-79 (2001) (Sierra Pacific).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    44. To provide the broadest cross-subsidization protection, the 
Commission proposes to interpret the term ``non-utility associate 
company'' to mean any associate company in a holding company system 
other than a public utility or electric utility company that has 
wholesale or retail customers served under cost-based regulation. 
Therefore, a non-utility associate company would include, for example, 
a power marketer, a generator that does not have captive customers, a 
gas marketer, a fuel supply company or a company that provides inputs 
to power production, or a company that is involved in business 
activities not related to the generation, transmission,

[[Page 58641]]

distribution, or sale of electricity.\36\ We seek comment on whether 
this definition is appropriate or whether the Commission should use a 
narrower definition, e.g., one which defines a ``non-utility associate 
company'' as a company that is in a business not related to generation, 
transmission, distribution, or sale of electricity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ These are examples only. This list is not intended to be 
exhaustive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Contents of Application--General Information Requirements Regarding 
Cross-Subsidization--18 CFR 33.2(j)
    45. Proposed new subsection 33.2(j) would implement section 
203(a)(4) by requiring applicants to include in their section 203 
applications an explanation of how applicants are providing assurance 
that the proposed transaction will not result in cross-subsidization of 
a non-utility associate company or pledge or encumbrance of utility 
assets for the benefit of an associate company, with appropriate 
evidentiary support for such explanation; or, if no such assurance can 
be provided, an explanation of how such cross-subsidization, pledge, or 
encumbrance will be consistent with the public interest. This 
explanation will be Exhibit M to the applicant's application. The 
Commission seeks comment on what evidence parties should be required to 
submit to support any explanation offered under this subsection.
    46. EPAct 2005 provides no guidance on how the Commission, when 
reviewing section 203 applications, should determine whether or not a 
proposed transaction will result in cross-subsidization or a pledge or 
encumbrance of utility assets for the benefit of an associate company. 
The Commission has sought to guard against potential cross-
subsidization and affiliate abuse when it reviews applications for 
cost-based or market-based rate authority under section 205 of the FPA 
\37\ or dispositions of jurisdictional facilities under section 203 
involving public utilities with captive customers or their 
affiliates.\38\ The Commission also has in place cash management rules 
to monitor proprietary capital ratios and money lending or other 
financial arrangements that can harm regulated companies.\39\ In light 
of the Congress' clear directive in EPAct 2005 that the Commission make 
findings regarding cross-subsidization and the pledge or encumbrance of 
utility assets in the context of a section 203 application, we seek 
comment, as discussed below, on what additional safeguards or 
conditions may need to be placed on section 203 transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 16 U.S.C. 824d (2000).
    \38\ See e.g., Sierra Pacific, 95 FERC ] 61,193; Boston Edison 
Company, 80 FERC ] 61,274 (1997).
    \39\ Regulation of Cash Management Practices, Order No. 634, 68 
FR 40,500 (Jul. 8, 2003), III FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,145 (June 26, 
2003), Order No. 634-A, 68 FR 61,993 (Oct. 31, 2003), III FERC 
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,152 (2003) (Cash Management Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    47. The Commission's primary focus has been to prevent a transfer 
of benefits from a traditional public utility's captive customers to 
shareholders of the public utility's holding company due to an intra-
system transaction that involves power or energy, generation 
facilities, or non-power goods and services. Concerns arise both in the 
circumstance in which an ``unregulated'' affiliate (e.g., a power 
marketer or non-utility affiliate) provides power or goods and services 
to a public utility with captive customers, as well as the circumstance 
in which the public utility with captive customers provides power or 
goods and services to the ``unregulated'' affiliate. For instance, a 
traditional public utility with captive customers served at cost-based 
rates may purchase power from its marketing affiliate at a price above 
market or sell power to its marketing affiliate at below-market prices, 
thus transferring benefits from customers to shareholders of the 
holding company. Customers served at cost-based rates by a traditional 
public utility may also be harmed if the traditional public utility 
buys a generation facility from an affiliate at a price greater than 
market or sells a generation plant to an affiliate at less than cost or 
market value, whichever is higher. Further, customers may be harmed if 
the traditional public utility purchases non-power goods and services 
from an affiliate at above market prices or sells non-power goods and 
services to an affiliate at less than the higher of cost or market 
value.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ We note, however, that in our recently issued notice of 
proposed rulemaking to implement PUHCA 2005, we have sought comment 
on whether the Commission should apply the lower of cost or market 
standard for the provision of non-power goods and services or if we 
should instead adopt the SEC ``at cost'' standard. Repeal of the 
Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and Enactment of the 
Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, 112 FERC ] 61,300 at P 
15 (2005) (PUHCA NOPR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    48. The Commission's regulatory tool for protecting against 
inappropriate cross-subsidization, on an on-going basis, has primarily 
been its FPA sections 205 and 206 \41\ rate authority. This includes: 
review of just and reasonable rates and prudently incurred costs (e.g., 
costs of purchasing power or non-power goods and services from an 
affiliate) for public utilities that sell at cost-based rates; imposing 
conditions and codes of conduct on market-based rate authorizations for 
sellers that have, or are affiliated with companies that have, captive 
customers; and auditing the accounts, books, and records of public 
utilities to ensure that inappropriate cross-subsidization does not occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 16 U.S.C. 824e (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    49. As noted above, the Commission, through its FPA sections 205 
and 206 ratemaking authority, already protects in several ways against 
affiliate abuse in connection with power and energy transactions and 
non-power transactions between traditional public utilities and their 
affiliates. The latter affiliates may be affiliated generators or 
marketers with market-based rates, affiliate companies that provide 
goods such as fuel or supplies, or service company affiliates that 
provide services such as accounting or legal services. When we grant 
market-based rate authority under section 205 of the FPA, the 
Commission requires that a power marketer not sell power to, or 
purchase power from, any utility affiliate without prior Commission 
approval. Another requirement is that sales of non-power goods and 
services from the traditional public utility to a marketing affiliate 
occur at the higher of cost or market value and that the traditional 
public utility's purchases of non-power goods and services from an 
affiliate (e.g., an affiliate fuel company) occur at market value or 
less. Under section 205 of the FPA, the Commission also applies the 
Edgar standard to ensure that a traditional public utility's power 
purchases from an affiliate occur at a just and reasonable rate.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Additionally, issues can arise regarding costs that are 
allocated among holding company affiliates that all have captive 
customers. This does not raise the same concerns discussed above 
regarding the transfer of benefits from captive customers to 
shareholders. Rather, it raises the issue of one set of captive 
customers unfairly subsidizing another set of captive customers. The 
Commission addresses these types of issues in the context of setting 
cost-based rates under FPA sections 205 and 206. Historically, a 
related problem occurred when regulated companies traded an asset at 
inflated prices to the detriment of customers. Modern accounting 
rules generally prevent this problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    50. In the section 203 context, the Commission currently requires 
that to gain section 203 approval without a hearing, if the transaction 
would create a registered holding company under PUHCA 1935, applicants 
must agree to abide by the Commission's policy on intra-system 
transactions for non-power goods and services.\43\ Further, when a

[[Page 58642]]

public utility disposes of its jurisdictional facilities to another 
company, whether domestic or foreign, the Commission protects public 
utility customers against inappropriate cross-subsidization by 
conditioning its authorization on the applicants' acceptance of the 
Commission's authority, under section 301(c) of the FPA,\44\ to review 
the parent company's books and records as they relate to transactions 
with or the business of the public utility.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Public Service Company of Colorado and Southwestern Public 
Service Company, 75 FERC ] 61,325 at 62,046 (1996); Merger Policy 
Statement at ] 30,124-25; 18 CFR 2.26(e). However, as is discussed 
below, with the repeal of the PUHCA 1935 registered holding 
companies will no longer exist and there will be no SEC review of 
non-power goods and services transactions; thus, all intra-system 
affiliate transactions will be subject to this Commission's review 
and conditioning if relevant to jurisdictional rates.
    \44\ 16 U.S.C. 825 (2000).
    \45\ New England Power Company, 87 FERC ] 61,287 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    51. Finally, with respect to potential encumbrances or pledges of 
utility assets, the Commission requires Commission-regulated entities 
that have not been granted waivers of our accounting and reporting 
rules to file copies of all cash management arrangements and changes to 
these arrangements. We also require jurisdictional entities that 
participate in such programs to calculate their proprietary capital 
ratios quarterly and to notify the Commission if they fall below 30 
percent of total capitalization and provide other detailed information.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Cash Management Rule at P 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    52. All of these policies seek to safeguard the interests of 
captive customers served at cost-based rates and protect regulated 
public utility assets. However, any merger transaction that creates 
another affiliate opens the door to possible affiliate abuse or cross-
subsidization concerns or pledges or encumbrances of assets. There are 
various ways we could address these concerns. We note that some state 
commissions, when reviewing a merger transaction, impose specific 
conditions designed to protect customers against unfair competitive 
practices, cross-subsidization, and affiliate abuse.\47\ Examples of 
these conditions include, among other things: Reporting and information 
access requirements; restrictions on intra-corporate transactions that 
result in direct charges or cost allocations; a prohibition on the 
local utility bearing any of the merger acquisition premium, 
transaction costs, or merger transition costs; measures to protect the 
utility's financial position; a service quality program, under which 
the local utility would be subject to revenue requirement reductions if 
it did not meet certain performance targets established annually; and 
restrictions on a holding company's access to the local utility's 
power, natural gas assets, and its individual and aggregated customer 
information. Given Congress' amendment of section 203, the Commission 
solicits comments on the adequacy of its present policies preventing 
affiliate abuse and cross-subsidization, and whether conditions such as 
those imposed by state commissions may need to be placed on section 203 
transactions.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See, e.g., In the Matter of the Application of Enron Corp 
for an Order Authorizing the Exercise of Influence Over Portland 
General Electric Company, Public Utility Commission of Oregon, Order 
No. 97-196, UM-814 (June 4, 1997); Joint Petition of Long Island 
Lighting Company and The Brooklyn Union Gas Company for 
Authorization under Section 70 of the Public Service Law to Transfer 
Ownership to an Unregulated Holding Company and Other Related 
Approvals, New York Public Service Commission, Case 97-M-0567 (April 
14, 1998); Joint Application of Pacific Enterprises, Enova 
Corporation, Mineral Energy Company, B Mineral Energy Sub and G 
Mineral Energy Sub for Approval of a Plan of Merger of Pacific 
Enterprises and Enova Corporation With and Into B Mineral Energy Sub 
and G Mineral Energy Sub, the Wholly Owned Subsidiaries of A Newly 
Created Holding Company, Mineral Energy Company, 79 CPUC2d 343, 
D.98-03-073 (March 26, 1998); Standards of Conduct for Distribution 
Companies and Their Competitive Affiliates, 220 Mass. Code Regs. 12 (2005).
    \48\ In addition to these types of conditions, the Commission 
could, depending upon the specific facts presented, consider as a 
condition of approval of a proposed section 203 transaction that the 
transaction be structured a different way to avoid inappropriate 
cross-subsidization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    53. We also seek comment on whether additional conditions should be 
placed on section 203 approvals to ensure that there is no pledge or 
encumbrance that harms utility customers.\49\ Specifically, we seek 
comment on the types of activities that would typically result in a 
pledge or encumbrance and the types of pledges and encumbrances that 
would be consistent with the public interest. We also seek comment on 
whether the Commission should require that all existing pledges and 
encumbrances be disclosed in any section 203 application proposing any 
sort of corporate reorganization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ We note that in our recently issued notice of proposed 
rulemaking to implement PUHCA 2005, we sought comment on whether the 
Commission should amend its rules or policies to provide additional 
protection against inappropriate cross-subsidization or pledges or 
encumbrances of utility assets, particularly pursuant to our FPA 
section 205 and 206 ratemaking authority. PUHCA NOPR at P 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    54. The Commission notes that section 203(a)(4) refers to a pledge 
or encumbrance of utility assets for the benefit of an ``associate'' 
company, as opposed to a ``non-utility associate'' company. Since an 
associate company may either be a utility or non-utility, we interpret 
this provision to require the Commission to determine whether the 
transaction will result in the use of utility assets to finance, or 
serve as collateral for, activities engaged in by an associate company, 
whether it is a non-utility or a utility.
4. Commission Procedures for Consideration of Applications Under 
Section 203 of the FPA--18 CFR 33.11
    55. Amended section 203(a)(5) of the FPA directs the Commission to 
adopt procedures for the expeditious consideration of applications for 
the approval of dispositions, consolidations, or acquisitions under 
section 203 of the FPA. Section 203(a)(5) also requires the Commission 
to ``identify classes of transactions, or specify criteria for 
transactions, that normally meet the standards established in [section 
203(a)(4)].''
    56. Proposed New sections 33.11(a) and (b) would implement amended 
section 203(a)(5). Specifically, proposed subsection 33.11(a) provides 
that the Commission will act on completed applications for approval of 
a transaction (i.e., one that is consistent with the requirements of 
Part 33), not later than 180 days after the completed application is 
filed.\50\ If the Commission does not act within 180 days, such 
application shall be deemed granted unless the Commission finds, based 
on good cause, that further consideration is required and issues an 
order tolling the time for acting on the application for not more than 
180 days, at the end of which additional period the Commission shall 
grant or deny the application, as required by amended section 203 of 
the FPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ As set forth in the Merger Policy Statement, a complete 
application is one that adequately and accurately describes the 
merger being proposed and that contains all the information 
necessary to explain how the merger is consistent with the public 
interest, including an evaluation of the merger's effect on 
competition, rates, and regulation. Merger Policy Statement at ]
30,127. The Commission's review process will begin when the 
application is deemed to be complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    57. Proposed subsection 33.11(b) would provide for the expeditious 
consideration of completed section 203 applications that are not 
contested, are not mergers, and are consistent with Commission 
precedent, because they should typically meet the standards established 
in section 203(a)(4).
    58. We note that, generally, the most critical period of the 
Commission's review of a particular section 203 application is the time 
between the end of the notice period and the issuance of a Commission 
decision (i.e., the review period). The length of the review period 
needed depends on the complexity of the application, issues raised by any

[[Page 58643]]

protests, Commission staff's analysis, and the need to hold an 
evidentiary hearing. In the Filing Requirements Rule, we stated that we 
typically process uncontested non-merger applications within 60 days of 
the date of filing and protested non-merger applications within 90 days 
of filing. Since the issuance of that rule, the Commission has met 
these goals in almost all instances.
    59. The Commission cannot provide a comprehensive description of 
all the classes or types of transactions that will be encompassed in 
the expedited review category. However, the Commission proposes that 
the transactions that would generally warrant expedited review include: 
(1) A disposition of only transmission facilities, particularly those 
that both before and after the transaction remain under the functional 
control of a Commission-approved RTO or independent system operator; 
(2) transfers involving generation facilities of a size that do not 
require an Appendix A analysis; (3) internal corporate reorganizations 
that do not present cross-subsidization issues; and (4) the acquisition 
of a foreign utility company by a holding company with no captive 
customers in the United States.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ We note that PUHCA 1935 exempted from its requirements 
certain acquisitions of foreign utility companies by a holding 
company with operations in the United States. 15 U.S.C. 33 (2000); 
17 CFR 250.57 (2005). However, amended section 203 appears to 
provide no such exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    60. With respect to the latter category, the acquisition of a 
foreign utility company by a holding company with no captive customers 
in the United States, we recognize that amended section 203's 
requirement for regulatory approval could have the potential to impede 
or have a chilling effect on investment--particularly if the 
transaction were subjected to a lengthy regulatory review. Such a 
transaction would not cause competitive concerns in the United States 
and, further, there would be no concerns about cross-subsidization that 
harms captive customers in the United States. In addition, even with 
respect to the acquisition of a foreign utility company by a holding 
company with captive customers in the United States, there may be 
safeguards or conditions that could be adequate in order to expedite 
approval of such transactions. The Commission does not want to impede 
investment in the U.S. or abroad and we seek comment on procedures the 
Commission might adopt, or safeguards it might require, to pre-approve 
or expedite such transactions while at the same time protecting U.S. 
captive customers.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See Senate Floor Statements by Senators Bingaman (D-NM) and 
Domenici (R-NM), H.R. 6, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congressional 
Record at S9359 (July 29, 2005) (discussing concerns regarding 
Commission approval of certain foreign transactions outside of the 
United States).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    61. For the section 203 applications that involve a competitive 
analysis per the guidelines of the revised filing requirements,\53\ or 
that may raise cross-subsidization issues or other issues, the amount 
of time needed for review will depend on the complexity of the issues 
involved. In cases where the Commission decides that a hearing should 
be held, establishing a specific review period could also be 
problematic. However, as provided in amended section 203(a)(5), the 
Commission must grant or deny the application within 360 days of filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See 18 CFR 33.3 and 33.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    62. The Commission also proposes to indicate the length of the 
notice period for various types of filings. In the Filing Requirements 
Rule, the Commission stated that we will notice section 203 filings 
that contain either a competitive analysis screen or a vertical 
competitive analysis (per the requirements of part 33) for 60 days and 
that we will notice all other section 203 filings, including mergers 
that do not require a competitive analysis, for less than 60 days.\54\ 
Since the issuance of the Filing Requirements Rule, the Commission has, 
in almost all instances, met these goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Filing Requirements Rule at ] 31,877-78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    63. Occasionally, applicants have sought shortened notice periods, 
to achieve certain financial or tax objectives or to serve certain 
business purposes. Most of these applications, particularly those that 
do not involve a competitive analysis and do not raise other 
competitive concerns from affiliate transactions, do not require a 
complex analysis and, thus, they warrant a shortened notice period.
    64. Thus, we have continued to apply our notice policy in a way 
that has allowed us to continue processing section 203 applications 
quickly and that is consistent with reasonable business goals and 
purposes. Accordingly, we expect to have a 60-day notice period for 
section 203 applications that involve, contain, or require a 
competitive analysis per the revised filing requirements and a 21-day 
notice period for all other section 203 applications, except, as 
explained below, certain applications that may raise cross-
subsidization concerns. However, we do not propose to formalize this 
policy by rule, so that we can maintain the flexibility needed to deal 
with varying circumstances.
    65. In determining the length of the notice period, as a matter of 
policy, the Commission expects to have, in most instances, a notice 
period between 21 days and 60 days for applications that seek 
authorization to transfer ownership of a generation plant from one 
affiliate or associate company to another company within the same 
corporate structure and for other applications that may raise cross-
subsidization or pledge or encumbrance issues. Not included in this 
category are transactions that merely change upstream ownership 
interests held by parent companies of public utilities or transactions 
that do not alter the terms of power supply or power supply costs for 
captive customers.

B. Summary of the Commission's Proposal To Amend 18 CFR 2.26, the 
Merger Policy Statement

1. Effect on Regulation--18 CFR 2.26(1)
    66. Section 2.26(b) lists the three factors that the Commission 
will generally consider in determining whether a proposed transaction 
subject to section 203 is consistent with the public interest. When 
considering the third factor, a proposed transaction's effect on 
federal regulation, section 2.26(e)(1) states that ``[w]here the merged 
entity would be part of a registered public utility holding company, if 
applicants do not commit in their application to abide by this 
Commission's policies with regard to affiliate transactions, the 
Commission will set the issue for a trial-type hearing.''
    67. However, because EPAct 2005 repeals PUHCA 1935,\55\ activities 
of registered holding companies that were previously subject to SEC 
regulation, including intercompany transactions, will no longer be 
exempt from this Commission's regulation once PUHCA 1935 repeal takes 
effect on February 8, 2006.\56\ In particular, the Commission's 
conditions and policies under FPA sections 205 and 206 with respect to 
non-power goods and services transactions between holding company 
affiliates, discussed previously, can be applied to all public 
utilities that are members of holding companies.\57\ In addition, the 
Commission will have authority to review allocations of service company 
costs among members of holding companies that have public utilities 
with captive customers. There

[[Page 58644]]

is thus no longer a concern about any potential shift in regulation 
from this Commission to the SEC under the effect of regulation factor, 
and we propose to delete section 2.26(e)(1) from our consideration of 
whether a proposed 203 transaction is consistent with the public 
interest. However, applicants are still required to address whether the 
transaction will have any other effect on the Commission's regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ EPAct 2005 Sec.  1263.
    \56\ See 17 CFR part 250 (2005).
    \57\ Ohio Power Company v. FERC, 954 F.2d 779 (D.C. Cir. 1992), 
cert. denied, 498 U.S. 73 (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Proposed New 18 CFR 2.26(f)
    68. Proposed new subsection 2.26(f) would be added to the 
Commission's policies and would state that the Commission will also not 
approve a transaction that will result in cross-subsidization of a non-
utility associate company or pledge or encumbrance of utility assets 
for the benefit of an associate company unless that cross-
subsidization, pledge, or encumbrance will be consistent with the 
public interest.

IV. Information Collection Statement

    69. The following collection of information contained in this 
proposed rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995.\58\ OMB's regulations require OMB to approve certain 
information collection requirements imposed by agency rule.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2000).
    \59\ 5 CFR 1320.11 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    70. Comments are solicited on the need for this information, 
whether the information will have practical utility, ways to enhance 
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, 
and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden. The 
Commission notes that in proposing to modify its current part 33 filing 
requirements it is carrying out an express statutory mandate set forth 
in EPAct 2005. The regulations that the Commission proposes should have 
a minimal impact on the current reporting burden associated with an 
individual application, as they do not substantially change the filing 
requirements with which section 203 applicants must currently comply. 
Further, the Commission does not expect the total number of section 203 
applications under amended section 203 to increase substantially. While 
the proposed rulemaking implements the expanded scope of section 203 to 
include certain transactions involving existing generation facilities 
and certain holding company acquisitions, amended section 203 also 
substantially raises the value threshold to be used in determining 
whether certain classes of transactions involving the transfer of 
jurisdictional facilities and acquisition of securities (both of which 
are already subject to the Commission's section 203 jurisdiction) are 
subject to section 203. As a result, applications in these latter two 
classes should decline somewhat.
    Title: FERC-519, Applications Under Federal Power Act Section 203.
    Action: Proposed Information Collection.
    OMB Control No: 1902-0082.
    The applicant will not be penalized for failure to respond to this 
information collection unless the information collection displays a 
valid OMB control number or the Commission has provided justification 
as to why the control number should not be displayed.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for profit.
    Necessity of the Information: The information collected under the 
requirements of FERC-519 is used by the Commission to implement section 
203 of the Federal Power Act and the Code of Federal Regulations under 
18 CFR Part 33 and 18 CFR 2.26. This notice of proposed rulemaking is 
limited to implementing amended section 203 of the FPA, which directs 
the Commission to adopt a rule to do so. Further, the proposed rule 
does not substantially change the current filing requirements or 
regulations that applicants must comply with for transactions subject 
to FPA section 203.
    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed these requirements 
pertaining to the implementation of amended section 203 of the FPA and 
has determined that the proposed requirements are necessary for the 
Commission to meet the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 
These requirements conform to the Commission's plan for efficient 
information collection, communication, and management within the bulk 
power system.
    71. Please send your comments concerning the collection of 
information and the associated burden estimates to: (1) Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 
[Attention: Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director, Phone 
(202) 502-8415, fax (202) 273-0873, e-mail: <A HREF="mailto:michael.miller@ferc.gov">michael.miller@ferc.gov</A>]
and (2) the Office of Management and Budget [Attention: Desk Officer 
for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, fax (202) 395-7285, e-
mail <A HREF="mailto:oira_submission@omb.eop.gov">oira_submission@omb.eop.gov</A>].

V. Environmental Analysis

    72. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental 
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may 
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\60\ The 
Commission concludes that neither an Environmental Assessment or an 
Environmental Impact Statement is required for this notice of proposed 
rulemaking under section 380.4(a)(2)(ii) of the Commission regulations, 
which provides a ``categorical exclusion for rules that do not 
substantively change the effect of legislation.'' \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National 
Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47,897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. 
& Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \61\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii) (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    73. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \62\ requires that 
a rulemaking contain either a description and analysis of the effect 
that the proposed rule will have on small entities or a certification 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. However, the RFA does not define 
``significant'' or ``substantial,'' instead leaving it up to an agency 
to determine the effect of its regulations on small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    74. In drafting this rule, the Commission has followed the 
provisions of both the RFA and the Paperwork Reduction Act to consider 
the potential effect of the regulations on small businesses and other 
small entities. Specifically, the RFA directs agencies to consider four 
regulatory alternatives to be considered in a rulemaking to lessen the 
effect on small entities: tiering or establishment of different 
compliance or reporting requirements for small entities; 
classification, consolidation, clarification or simplification of 
compliance and reporting requirements; performance rather than design 
standards; and exemptions.
    75. The Commission does not believe that this proposed rule would 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. As noted above, EPAct 2005 directs the Commission to issue a 
rule adopting procedures for the expeditious consideration of 
applications for the approval of dispositions, consolidations, or 
acquisition, under this section. In accordance with this directive, 
this proposed rule is intended to implement section 203 of the FPA. In 
particular, the

[[Page 58645]]

proposed rule increases the value threshold for filing a section 203 
application with the Commission from transactions in excess of $50,000 
to transactions in excess of $10 million (under amended section 203 of 
the FPA). Further, the proposed rule does not substantially change the 
current requirements and regulations that applicants must comply with 
for transactions subject to FPA section 203. Accordingly, the 
Commission certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

VII. Comment Procedures

    76. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on 
this notice, or alternative proposals addressing the issues raised by 
the changes in amended section 203. Comments are due November 7, 2005. 
Comments must refer to Docket No. RM05-34-000, and must include the 
commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and 
their address. Comments may be filed either in electronic or paper format.
    77. Comments may be filed electronically via the eFiling link on 
the Commission's web site at <A HREF="http://www.ferc.gov">http://www.ferc.gov</A>. The Commission 
accepts most standard word processing formats and commenters may attach 
additional files with supporting information in certain other file 
formats. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper 
filing. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically 
must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    78. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files 
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the 
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are 
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

VIII. Document Availability

    79. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the 
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an 
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the 
Internet through FERC's Home Page (<A HREF="http://www.ferc.gov">http://www.ferc.gov</A>) and in FERC's 
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
    80. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this 
information is available in the Commission's document management 
system, eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on 
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or 
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type ``RM05-34'' in 
the docket number field.
    81. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web 
site during normal business hours. For assistance, please contact FERC 
Online Support at 1-866-208-3676 (toll free) or 202-502-6652 (e-mail at <A HREF="mailto:FERCOnlineSupport@FERC.gov">
FERCOnlineSupport@FERC.gov</A>), or the Public Reference Room at 202-502-
8371, TTY 202-502-8659 (e-mail at <A HREF="mailto:public.referenceroom@ferc.gov">public.referenceroom@ferc.gov</A>).

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Parts 2 and 33

    Electric utilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    By direction of the Commission.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend 
Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 2--GENERAL POLICY AND INTERPRETATIONS

    1. The authority citation for Part 2 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 601; 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 16 
U.S.C. 792-825y, 2601-2645; 42 U.S.C. 4321-4361, 7101-7352; Pub. L. 
109-58, 119 Stat. 594.

    2. Section 2.26 is amended by revising paragraphs (e) and (f) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  2.26.  Policies concerning review of applications under section 203.

* * * * *
    (e) Effect on regulation. (1) Where the affected state commissions 
have authority to act on the transaction, the Commission will not set 
for hearing whether the transaction would impair effective regulation 
by the state commissions. The application should state whether the 
state commissions have this authority.
    (2) Where the affected state commissions do not have authority to 
act on the transaction, the Commission may set for hearing the issue of 
whether the transaction would impair effective state regulation.
    (f) Under section 203(a)(4) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 
824b), in reviewing a proposed transaction subject to section 203, the 
Commission will also consider whether the proposed transaction will 
result in cross-subsidization of a non-utility associate company or 
pledge or encumbrance of utility assets for the benefit of an associate 
company, unless that cross-subsidization, pledge, or encumbrance will 
be consistent with the public interest.

PART 33--APPLICATIONS UNDER FEDERAL POWER ACT SECTION 203

    3. The authority citation for Part 33 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 
U.S.C. 7101-7352; Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594.

    4. The heading of Part 33 is revised to read as set forth above.
    5. Section 33.1 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  33.1  Applicability and definitions.

    (a) Applicability. (1) The requirements of this part will apply to 
any public utility seeking authorization under section 203 of the 
Federal Power Act to:
    (i) Dispose by sale, lease, or otherwise dispose of the whole of 
its facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, or any 
part thereof of a value in excess of $10 million;
    (ii) Merge or consolidate, directly or indirectly, such facilities 
or any part thereof with those of any other person, by any means 
whatsoever;
    (iii) Purchase, acquire, or take any security with a value in 
excess of $10 million of any other public utility; or
    (iv) Purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire an existing generation 
facility:
    (A) That has a value in excess of $10 million; and
    (B) That is intended to be used in whole or in part for wholesale 
sales in interstate commerce by a public utility.
    (2) The requirements of this part shall also apply to any holding 
company in a holding company system that includes a transmitting 
utility or an electric utility if such holding company seeks to 
purchase, acquire, or take any security with a value in excess of $10 
million, or, by any means whatsoever, directly or indirectly, merge or 
consolidate with, a transmitting utility, an electric utility company, 
or a holding company in a holding company system that includes a 
transmitting utility, or an electric utility company, with a value in 
excess of $10 million.
    (b) Definitions. For the purposes of this part, as used in section 
203 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824b)--
    (1) Existing generation facility means a generation facility that 
is operational at the time the section 203 transaction is consummated.
    (2) Non-utility associate company means any associate company in a 
holding company system other than a public utility or electric utility 
company

[[Page 58646]]

that has wholesale or retail customers served under cost-based regulation.
    (3) Value when applied to:
    (i) Transmission facilities, generation facilities, transmitting 
utilities, electric utility companies, and holding companies, means the 
market value of the facilities or companies. For transmission 
facilities, in the absence of a readily ascertainable market value, 
value means original cost undepreciated;
    (ii) Wholesale contracts, means the total expected contract 
revenues over the remaining life of the contract; and
    (iii) Securities, means the market price at the time the security 
is acquired. For transactions between non-affiliated companies, the 
Commission will rebuttably presume that the market value is the agreed-
upon transaction price.
    (4) The terms associate company, electric utility company, holding 
company, and holding company system have the meaning given those terms 
in the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005.
    6. Section 33.2 is amended to add paragraph (j) to read as follows:

Sec.  33.2.  Contents of application--general information requirements.

* * * * *
    (j) An explanation (to be identified as Exhibit M to this application):
    (1) Of how applicants are providing assurance that the proposed 
transaction will not result in cross-subsidization of a non-utility 
associate company or pledge or encumbrance of utility assets for the 
benefit of an associate company, with appropriate evidentiary support 
for such explanation; or
    (2) If no such assurance can be provided, an explanation of how 
such cross-subsidization, pledge, or encumbrance will be consistent 
with the public interest.
    7. Section 33.11 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  33.11  Commission procedures for the consideration of 
applications under section 203 of the FPA.

    (a) The Commission will act on a completed application for approval 
of a transaction (i.e., one that is consistent with the requirements of 
this part) not later than 180 days after the completed application is 
filed. If the Commission does not act within 180 days, such application 
shall be deemed granted unless the Commission finds, based on good 
cause, that further consideration is required to determine whether the 
proposed transaction meets the standards of section 203(a)(4) of the 
FPA and issues, by the 180th day, an order tolling the time for acting 
on the application for not more than 180 days, at the end of which 
additional period the Commission shall grant or deny the application.
    (b) The Commission will provide for the expeditious consideration 
of completed applications for the approval of transactions that are not 
contested, do not involve mergers, and are consistent with Commission 
precedent. The transactions that would generally warrant expedited 
review include:
    (1) A disposition of only transmission facilities, particularly 
those that both before and after the transaction remain under the 
functional control of a Commission-approved regional transmission 
organization or independent system operator;
    (2) Transfers involving generation facilities of a size that do not 
require an Appendix A analysis;
    (3) Internal corporate reorganizations that do not present cross-
subsidization issues; and
    (4) The acquisition of a foreign utility company by a holding 
company with no captive customers in the United States.

[FR Doc. 05-20311 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

------------------------------------------

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/index.html
Comments: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/comments.htm
Search: http://epa.gov/fedreg/search.htm
EPA's Federal Register: http://epa.gov/fedreg/

------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to epa-impact as: NEWS@energy-net.org

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to leave-epa-impact-46782Y@lists.epa.gov
OR:
Use the listserver's web interface at https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_forums/ to manage your subscription.

For problems with this list, contact epa-impact-Owner@lists.epa.gov
------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
 46 lamonitor.com: Lockheed-UT group opens office 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 

ROGER SNODGRASS, , Monitor Assistant Editor

Those with questions about the coming change in management at
Los Alamos National Laboratory are about to find some new
resources in town. 
On Wednesday, the Los Alamos Alliance opened a storefront in a
small business center on Central Avenue, across from the post
office.

C. Paul Robinson was on hand to talk about plans and answer
questions. The former director of Sandia National Laboratories
is the designated director of LANL, should LAA be chosen to
manage Los Alamos. 

"We as managers don't have to have the best ideas, but we are
obligated to harvest the best ideas and organize the great
programs to fulfill them," he said, touching on central themes
of the partnership.

A new network of academic relationships, known as the Alliance
Academic Network and organized by the University of Texas, is
meant to provide expanded opportunities for recruitment and
employed strategically to attract new talent. 
Robinson said that collaborations have been formalized with top
institutions in eight major scientific, engineering and
mathematical fields related to LANL's mission.

Officials of the National Nuclear Security Administration are
scheduled to decide by Dec. 1, whether to award the contract to
LAA, or to a partnership made up of the University of California
and a corporate partnership led by Bechtel and known as Los
Alamos National Security LLC (LANS). 
Robinson also addressed the issue of benefit plans, which raised
a number of concerns among current LANL employees while the
ground rules for the competition were drafted.

"I think we have to fight harder for strong benefits," he said.

He said there are advantages to each of the two main kinds of
plans, one known as "defined contribution," and the other known
as "defined benefit."

He said defined contribution has the advantage of portability,
because the employee owns it and can control it. But the defined
benefit plan has more stability.

"We think we need both ownership and control and a backbone of
stable pensions," he said, because a manager wants employees to
succeed and stay.

He said it has been 23 years since employees had to make
contributions to SNL's pension plan, compared to 15 years since
employees had to contribute to the UC plan.

Changes in health benefits, Robinson pointed out, may be
minimal, as both laboratories are currently enrolled with United
Health Care.

Health, pension and other benefits are supposed to meet the test
of "substantial equivalence." The winning contractor will submit
plans for meeting that standard by Jan. 31, 2006, for approval
by the contracting officer.

Organizationally, LAA will be a part of Lockheed Martin's
Information &Technology Services, based in Cherry Hill, N.J. The
structure corresponds to the way Sandia Corporation, which
manages SNL, figures into the Lockheed Martin system.

A letter to Robinson in 1998, available at the office, addressed
concerns expressed by LANL employees and UC officials, about a
profit-making corporation managing a laboratory that has always
been managed on a nonprofit basis.

"Lockheed Martin recognizes that at no time should corporate
interests be placed above the national interest," the letter
from Lockheed Martin's top officials stated. "Even the
appearance of this circumstance would be unacceptable."

The letter instructed Robinson, if ever confronted with a
potential compromise, to contact the chief executives
immediately.

The limited liability corporation represents a partnership with
the University of Texas System, along with CH2M HILL, prime
contractor for cleaning up the former plutonium pit
manufacturing facility at Rocky Flats and Flour Corp.

LAA spokesman Rod Geer said an Espanola office will be opening
in about two weeks.

"We learn by talking to people," he said. "We want to answer as
many questions as we can."

Many frequently asked questions are answered by a fact sheet
available at the office.

The office at 1789 Central Ave., Suite 3, will be open during
the week from 7 a.m.-7 p.m. and 9 a.m.-noon Saturday.   

  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   

*****************************************************************
 47 lamonitor.com: Council discusses evacuation plan, county incident system 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 
, Monitor Staff Writer

How would an immediate evacuation of Los Alamos County be
handled in the event of another emergency or major incident like
the Cerro Grande Fire of 2000? 
That's the question the county council weighed as staff
presented an emergency evacuation plan and National Incident
Management System (NIMS) as part of the Tuesday night meeting.

Speakers at the council-requested briefing included Police Chief
Wayne Torpy, Deputy Fire Chief Doug Tucker and Emergency
Management Coordinator Philmont Taylor. 


"The NIMS concept is probably the most comprehensive and
intelligent thing that we've come up with in this country,"
Torpy said. "Since Sept. 11, 2001, one of the lessons learned
was that we could pull together a multitude of resources so that
none are wasted. This is the beginning of getting everyone
together on the same page and having the NIMS protocol work for
us."

Torpy, Taylor and Tucker have trained county management staff in
the NIMS process and assured council that by signing on to the
system local governments do not lose control in responding to
and regulating incidents. 
NIMS is an all-hazard response plan to a local emergency that
can expand to a national emergency, Tucker said.

"As a firefighter, I've been using this since 1972 and so it's
kind of natural for us," he said. " The NNSA (National Nuclear
Security Administration) was trying to get it adopted by
September of this year but had to push it back. NIMS helps
communications across all jurisdictions - we live right next to
a federal reservation, we're surrounded by pueblos and we work
with the state a lot and other counties." 
The county and the volunteers who aided in relief recovery
during the 2000 Cerro Grande Fire utilized the NIMS format, he
said.

The county and Los Alamos National Laboratory, Tucker said, are
currently working to develop a joint emergency-operating center
(EOC) that would allow officials from each entity to integrate
communications and strategies.

Making use of available technology, such as a web-based EOC,
significantly aids in communications and overall response to
emergencies, Tucker said.

"Right now all of our main fire trucks, our first trucks on the
line, make use of a computer system and once the computer-aided
dispatch system is up, all that information will be just a
keystroke away," he said. "We'll have the Internet right on our
trucks, so as we're coordinating events, we can electronically
track our trucks using GPS (global positioning satellite.)"

In regard to any aid that the county may receive during an
incident, Tucker said it is important for Los Alamos to know who
is helping, what their capabilities are, what their credibility
is and what resources they can offer.

Taylor said it was prudent for his department to update their
emergency operations plan to reflect the NIMS. Taylor read a
list of common questions that the public may ask in regard to an
emergency evacuation plan.

"People ask us how the hospitals and nursing homes will be
evacuated," he said. "These establishments present challenge
because it takes a lot of time and resources in order to
evacuate them, so you'd want to evacuate them early on in the
process."

Taylor said most people would leave Los Alamos in their personal
vehicles during a general evacuation and there are several buses
available from the school district and from L.A. Bus Systems.
Getting everyone off the Hill in an adequate amount of time,
however, presents a problem.

"There are two egress points off the Hill," he said. "One is NM
502 and the other is State Road 4 west and there are choke
points along the way," he said.

As a family, residents can be proactive in preparing for an
evacuation by not allowing the fuel in their vehicles to drop
below half a tank, keeping medication nearby and agreeing on a
rendezvous point in case of separation.

After the briefing, Councilor Nona Bowman expressed the need for
an alternate route out of Los Alamos.

"Transportation out of here has been a real concern for this
council and for many citizens," she said. "Is there any way now,
since 9/11, that they will pay attention to us a little more
about getting another road?"

Taylor said an alternative road accessing Los Alamos was
discussed at the state level back in 1985. In a worst case
scenario, with only one road lane out of the county, Taylor said
the results of his research indicate that it would take more
than 20 hours to evacuate everyone off the Hill.

"This is a problem," Bowman said. "We live in a real dangerous
time and we have to prepare a way to get out of the community if
we need to."

Councilor Mike Wismer asked what the roles of the council and
the county administrator are in the event of an emergency.
Another question touched on ensuring emergency responders, such
as police and rescue crews, do not leave their jobs during a
major incident in Los Alamos.

"In training we repeat to responders that they need to have
evacuation training with their families and have a plan," Torpy
said. "They explain to their families that they may not see them
for several days."

Councilor Mike Wheeler complimented Torpy on the opening of the
new dispatch center and questioned whether the county and the
public would be notified if there were an emergency at LANL.

"Is there a formal, signed agreement that both parties will know
when and if an incident occurs?" he asked. "How do we assure
that there will be communication?"

Torpy said there is not a formal document in place that would
guarantee such a notification.

"We work hard to build upon relationships," he said. "I feel
confident as your police chief. I have my ear to the ground and
we have a relationship established rather than a protocol."

On the web:

www.fema.gov/nims   


  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 48 lamonitor.com: Sandia taped talk 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos


ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor

Sandia National Laboratories' security managers regularly and
inappropriately recorded private conversations related to
administrative and disciplinary matters since March 2003,
according to a report from the IG. 
While inspecting security-related matters, auditors for the
Inspector General of the Department of Energy discovered the
practice of unauthorized telephone and radio eavesdropping.

SNL issued a statement saying the recordings were handled
routinely, "much like 911 calls are recorded" and "as authorized
by DOE orders, and in accordance with federal and state laws." 


The IG report distributed Wednesday said similar issues were
found at Los Alamos National Laboratory that would be the
subject of a separate review.

A LANL spokesperson said today that the IG never physically
visited LANL in connection with this issue. 
"They conducted interviews over the phone," said Kathy DeLucas,
adding that LANL has not yet seen a draft report, and was unable
to comment on it.

SNL's protective force managers were found to have recorded
conversations that should have been formally accepted by all the
parties. They routinely recorded all incoming and outgoing calls
on shift captains and scheduling lieutenants telephone lines,
for example. They taped conversations with individuals outside
the protective force, including members of the public, in the
process. 
The beep tones that are used as a convention to warn the parties
in a taped conversation were disabled on the tapped phones,
according to the report. All the recordings were saved in an
archive, some filed under the names of individuals, and some
were used, without complying with DOE records-keeping
requirements.

Sandia's press announcement said there were no procedures to
ensure that audible beeps operated on recorded calls, but that
procedures were now in place. The practice of recording
scheduling calls was stopped in July.

Managers told the IG auditors that they didn't know the
beep-tones were inoperative. They said recorded conversations
were sometimes used "to defend one's self" in litigation.

The IG said SNL's contract did not specifically include the DOE
directive concerning such recordings, although it was
referenced. The contract has since been formally amended to
include the omission.   

  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************