*****************************************************************
10/20/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.244
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 AFP: Iran refuses to confirm or deny trade retaliation - Yahoo! News
2 AFP: Iran 'has proof' of British role in bombings - Yahoo! News
3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Gives U.N. Nuclear Agency Documents
4 A Turning Point in the North Korean Nuclear Dispute
5 Guardian Unlimited: Richardson Meets N. Korea's No. 2 Leader
6 AFP: US, SKorea discuss wartime command of forces, nuclear guarantee
7 Guardian Unlimited: Rumsfeld warns China over military expansion
8 Xinhua: China, Russia to deepen strategic collaboration   
9 AFP: Rumsfeld voices concern over Chinese nuclear arsenal - Yahoo!
10 Mos News: Russia to Deliver Nuclear Fuel to Lybia - 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
11 Guardian Unlimited: There is nothing green about Blair's nuclear dre
12 MSN-Mainichi Daily: Residents' victory scrapped in nuclear power law
13 US: NRC: NRC to Meet with Nebraska Public Power District to Discuss 
14 US: APP.COM: Meeting today on nuclear plant's license renewal
15 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Entergy: Leak answers two months away
16 Brandon Sun: Ontario's nuclear future at risk if new project goes ov
17 US: Hingham Journal: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant should not be relic
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
18 ABC Pacific: Northern Marianas seek compensation
19 US: Boston Globe: nuclear campus 
20 US: Albany Democrat-Herald: Beryllium contamination troubles Albany 
21 US: Cambridge Chronicle: MIT nuke provokes nervous reaction
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
22 [NukeNet] Aomori accepts interim storage facility
23 US: [du-list] NRC says groups can raise waste disposal issue
24 US: Fontana Herald: Residents can help the city win the water war 
25 AU ABC: Public offered waste dump safety guarantee
26 Waste Basket Vol. X No. 35: Bechtel Bonanza
27 Las Vegas SUN: Reid argues to cut funds 
28 Las Vegas SUN: EPA values public opinion 
29 US: KRQE News 13: NRC says groups can raise waste disposal issue
30 US: DOE: Pilot Plant WIPP recert
31 asahi.com: Aomori accepts facility to store nuclear waste
32 asahi.com: A nuclear vision in the far north
33 NEWS.com.au: Scullion put on nuclear poll alert - 
34 US: Deseret News: Control board to hear appeal on Envirocare
35 US: Deseret News: Foes of nuclear waste win round on legal front
 
                           PEACE
 
36 US: toledoblade.com: A well deserved Nobel
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
37 LA Daily News: Rules change impacts field lab
38 csmonitor.com: Extreme makeover for a nuclear factory | 
39 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Rocky 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 AFP: Iran refuses to confirm or deny trade retaliation - Yahoo! News

 Thu Oct 20, 2:00 PM ET 
		 	 
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iranian officials refused to confirm or deny 
reports that imports from certain countries had been banned in 
retaliation for their backing of a tough UN nuclear agency 
resolution. 

Several reports have suggested that Iran has imposed a ban on 
products from countries, including Britain and South Korea, who 
backed an International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) resolution 
last month that paves the way for Iran to be referred to the UN 
Security Council over its disputed nuclear activities.
 
"Our government is trying to verify the reported move by the
Iranian government through diplomatic channels," South Korea's
Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon said Wednesday at a press briefing
in Seoul.
 
Hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would only assert that
trade and international relations were linked.
 
"The economic and political policies of Iran must be connected.
Political relations should not go in one direction and economic
relations go in another," he was quoted as saying by the
official news agency IRNA.
 
But when asked to comment on South Korea's concerns, Ahmadinejad
simply replied that he was unaware of the reports.
 
Earlier this week the intelligence ministry had denied sanctions
were being imposed, but Iran's commerce ministry and foreign
ministry have declined to comment on the reported import
blacklist.
 
Iran last month vowed to punish its trade partners if they voted
for the resolution, which chastised Iran for being in
"non-compliance" with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
and cemented concerns the country is using an atomic energy
drive as a cover for weapons development.
 
An Iranian importer of South Korean electrical goods, who asked
not to be named, said he had not experienced any problems.
 
And foreign diplomats from countries that could be affected by
such a blacklist said they had not been informed of any specific
sanctions, but added that customs problems have occurred in the
past during moments of tension with Iran.
 
"It could just be a case of customs problems for products from
certain countries. This is normal," a foreign diplomat said.
 
  Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 2 AFP: Iran 'has proof' of British role in bombings - Yahoo! News
 
 Thu Oct 20, 7:46 AM ET 
		 	 
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran said it has proof that Britain was involved 
in a double bomb attack last week that killed six people and 
injured more than 100 in the restive southwestern city of Ahvaz. 

"Information obtained by the concerned organs show that Britain
is the main accused in the recent events," Foreign Minister
Manouchehr Mottaki told state television on Thursday.
 
"The information shows that Britain is seeking to create
insecurity in our country by interfering in our internal
affairs," he added, warning that the consequences "could be
worrying for the British."
 
The British embassy in Tehran immediately denied the allegations.
 
"We reiterate our total rejection of these accusations, as well
as our condemnation of these terrorist attacks," a senior
british diplomat told AFP.
 
"We have made it clear to the Iranian authorities that the
British government and British forces in Iraq stand ready to 
assist in preventing attacks of this kind."
 
On Saturday, a double bomb attack killed six people and injured
more than 100 in Ahvaz, the capital of the oil-rich Khuzestan
province, and on Tuesday police said they had defused a large
bomb planted under a bridge in the city.
 
Several Iranian officials, including President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, have already said that Britain was a suspect -- but
had generally stopped short of claiming they possessed evidence
directly implicating Britain.
 
Ahvaz, dominated by ethnic minority Arabs, has been hit by a
wave of unrest this year, including riots in April and a series
of car bombings prior to Iran's presidential election in June.
 
The Iranian allegations come in the wake of similar allegations
made by Britain concerning Iran's alleged interference in Iraq.
 
British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other senior officials have 
said there is evidence of an Iranian connection to a series of 
deadly attacks on British troops in southern Iraq.
 
Britain is also playing a leading role in efforts to force the
Islamic republic to limit its nuclear fuel activities, seen by
the West as a cover for weapons development.
 
  Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Gives U.N. Nuclear Agency Documents
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday October 20, 2005 12:46 PM
 	
By GEORGE JAHN 
Associated Press Writer 

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran has given U.N. inspectors key
documents about activities that could be used to make a nuclear
weapon and allowed them to question a senior official suspected
of involvement in the program, diplomats and officials said
Thursday. 

The International Atomic Energy Agency hoped Iran's recent
decision to cooperate with it will shed light on whether the
country's military engaged in secret uranium enrichment
activities, the diplomats and officials told The Associated
Press. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the
sensitivity of the investigation. 

At issue is how much centrifuge and related technology the
country acquired on the black market starting in the 1980s and
the location of the equipment - which can enrich uranium to
low-grade fuel or the fissile core for nuclear warheads. There
are suspicions that some of the material has not been declared
to the IAEA and had been used by the military for a nuclear
weapons program. 

A U.S. official who is familiar with the Iran issue described
Tehran's decision to cooperate on the documents and permitting
questioning of the official after nearly two years of
foot-dragging as ``important concessions.'' 

The official said the decision helps chip away at some of the
issues. He emphasized, however, that Tehran still needed to meet
IAEA requests for access to military sites that Washington has
identified as possibly being used for nuclear arms-related
experiments and other demands. 

For the Americans, however, Iran's readiness to cooperate is a
mixed blessing. 

One of the diplomats said Iran's new willingness to cooperate on
the enrichment issue - agreed to last week during a visit to
Tehran by Olli Heinonen, an IAEA deputy secretary general -
seemed to be directly calculated to blunt the threat of Security
Council referral as early as next month by weakening the
argument that Iran was not cooperating with the IAEA probe of
its nuclear activities. 

The Americans are the key proponents of having Iran hauled
before the Security Council. They and their allies suspect
Tehran's nuclear program - undetected for nearly two decades
until three years ago - is a front for weapons ambitions. Iran
says it is interested only in generating electricity. 

Another diplomat close to the IAEA cautioned against early
optimism that Iran's decision would quickly clear up suspicions
of the existence of a military enrichment program so secret that
even parts of the civilian power structure did not know about
it. He said the concession was ``part of the process'' and that
there was still much to learn. 

Former agency officials also warned against setting expectations
too high. 

One who is familiar with the process said IAEA questioning of
Iranian officials was never one-on-one and the Iranian being
interviewed was probably carefully briefed on what to divulge. 

All of those speaking to the AP declined to go into details
about whom Heinonen was able to talk to and what documents he
was given, saying such exposure could result in Iran breaking
off its cooperation. 

Asked about the Iran inquiry, IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming
said ``the agency does not comment on ongoing investigations
until it's time to report to the (IAEA) board of governors.'' 

Underpinning suspicions about a secret military enrichment
program are previous declarations by Iran that members of the
black market network offered Iranian officials P-1 centrifuge
designs in 1987 - only to offer the same designs seven years
later to a different set of officials. 

The agency is also questioning claims by the Iranians that -
while it received designs for the more advanced P-2 centrifuge
in 1995 - it did not start development until 2002. That, say
experts with former links to the agency, may suggest secret work
by the military that has not been declared to IAEA inspectors. 

A report prepared for the September board report by IAEA head
Mohamed ElBaradei says as much, declaring the evidence provided
to explain the gap does ``not yet provide sufficient assurance
that no related activities were carried out during that
period.'' 

--- 
On the Net: www.iaea.org	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 4 A Turning Point in the North Korean Nuclear Dispute
 
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 21:41:27 -0500 (CDT)

X-Fingerprint: owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu-127.127

Centre for Research on Globalization
October 20, 2005

A TURNING POINT IN THE NORTH KOREAN NUCLEAR DISPUTE

by Gregory Elich

The signing of a statement of principles at the latest round of six-party
talks on the North Korean nuclear issue came as a surprise to many. Earlier
meetings had failed to bridge the differences between the U.S. and North
Korea, and the Bush Administration had put most of its energies into
isolating and pressuring the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea [DPRK 
the formal name for North Korea]. The diplomatic process had collapsed more
than a year before over the Bush Administrations one-sided demands for
North Korean disarmament without anything of substance being offered in
return, and U.S. efforts to persuade other nations to support sanctions. It
was all the more surprising then, that the parties were able to come to an
agreement on principles in Beijing in September. While the actual content of
the document appears unremarkable, the process that led to its signing has
broader implications for the future, having dealt a stunning setback for the
Bush Administrations objectives in the region.

Article at:
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ELI20051020&articleId=1118
*****************************************************************
 5 Guardian Unlimited: Richardson Meets N. Korea's No. 2 Leader
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 
 	 
Thursday October 20, 2005 2:46 PM
 	
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a
former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, met with North
Korea's No. 2 leader Thursday as he tried to press Pyongyang for
specifics on how it plans to dismantle its nuclear weapons
program, the communist nation's official media reported. 

The meeting came a day after Richardson toured North Korea's
main nuclear research facility at Yongbyon, where the communist
regime is known to have secretly processed plutonium for nuclear
weapons, U.S. officials said. 

Kim Yong Nam, the North's ceremonial head of state and No. 2
leader, had a ``conversation'' with Richardson, the Korean
Central News Agency reported Thursday, without elaborating. Also
at the meeting was Kim Gye Gwan, Pyongyang's chief negotiator to
nuclear talks, KCNA said. 

Richardson said before his trip to Pyongyang that he would push
the North Koreans for specifics on how they plan to dismantle
their weapons program, and a commitment to allow outside
verification of the process. 

The last nuclear talks ended with a landmark accord, in which
the North agreed to abandon its nuclear programs. Negotiators
from the two Koreas, United States, China, Japan and Russia, are
to meet again in Beijing early next month, but no date has been
set. 

Prospects for progress at the next round plunged after North
Korea announced less than a day after the agreement that it
would not disarm until the United States gives it a commercial
nuclear reactor for power generation, a demand Washington has
said is unacceptable. 

On Thursday, South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said the
North must disclose full details of its nuclear programs if the
agreement is to be implemented. 

Richardson, who arrived in Pyongyang on Monday, was scheduled to
stay in North Korea until Thursday, then travel to Japan and
South Korea to brief officials before returning to New Mexico on
Oct. 22. 

The governor, who has been to North Korea several times before,
was invited by the North Koreans in May but postponed his trip
when Washington asked him to wait until the completion of the
latest round of nuclear talks in Beijing. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 6 AFP: US, SKorea discuss wartime command of forces, nuclear guarantee
    
- Yahoo! News
 
 Thu Oct 20,10:37 AM ET 
		 	 
SEOUL (AFP) - The United States and South Korea discussed 
shifting roles for the US military here, including who should 
have operational command of forces in wartime and whether to 
soften a US pledge to provide a nuclear umbrella, a top US 
general said. 

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld arrived here from China for
annual defense consultations, which close Friday with a joint
communique that in past years has included the US guarantee to
extend its nuclear protection over South Korea.
 
General Leon Laporte, the commander of US forces in South Korea,
said the language on the nuclear pledge was the subject of last
minute talks between Rumsfeld's policy team and the South Korean
defense ministry.
 
"I think that's being discussed right now between OSD (Office of
the Secretary of Defense) policy and MND (Ministry of National
Defense) policy," he said.
 
"So that'll get worked out here I think in the next two hours,"
he told reporters traveling with Rumsfeld.
 
The issue has come up now because the United States said in
September it had no intention to invade or attack North Korea
" /> North Koreawith nuclear or conventional weapons as part of
a statement of principles under which North Korea agreed to
abandon its nuclear programs.
 
US and South Korean defense officials also were wrestling with a
recent suggestion by President Roh Moo-hyun that he intends to
assert operational control over South Korean forces in wartime.
 
Under the existing mutual defense pact, operational control over
South Korean forces would fall under a US general in wartime.
 
"It's natural to want to go back and review decisions and find
out are they appropriate for today, and are they appropriate for
the future. And that's the issue," Laporte said.
 
"The United States is willing to discuss those issues," he said.
 
He added however that the South Koreans have not said exactly
when they envision assuming wartime operational command, and
suggested that any change in the command relationships would
likely be further in the future.
 
The general said that as commander of the Combined Forces
Command Korea he already receives directives from a committee
consisting of the US and South Korean defense ministers.
 
"Right now we have a very strong force. But that force also can
evolve over time," he said. "I don't envision any changes in the
Combined Forces Command in the near future."
 
The 680,00-strong South Korean military has assumed
responsibility for numerous missions over the past two years
that previously were carried out exclusive by the 37,000 US
troops in South Korea.
 
The US force, meanwhile, has dropped in size by 8,000 troops and
will shrink to 25,000 by 2008, he said.
 
Laporte said the threat from North Korea remains unchanged.
 
But he acknowledged that incidents along the demilitarized zone
(DMZ) dividing the peninsula were down noticeably in the past 12
to 18 months, which he attributed in part to the fact that it is
reaping benefits from South Korea's "sunshine policy."
 
"It appears they are being less provocative. It doesn't mean the
disposition of forces has changed. But the incidents have been
reduced," he said. 

He said about 2,000 people a day now cross the border along two
new rail and highway corridors linking South Korea to a resort
where family reunions are held and to an industrial complex in
North Korea. 

"I think they have developed benefits from their engagement
policy. And I think that is good. It does reduce tension and it
provides tremendous interactions," he said. 

"I think perhaps the North Koreans have realized they need
assistance from South Korea. They do not want to cause problems
with the economic initiatives that are ongoing." 

"Perhaps they do not want incidents along the DMZ to be
disfunctional to the six-party talks," he said, referring to
talks on North Korea's nuclear programs that involve the United
States, China, Japan, Russia and the two Koreas.
 	 		 			
  Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 7 Guardian Unlimited: Rumsfeld warns China over military expansion
 
Jonathan Watts in Beijing
Thursday October 20, 2005
The Guardian 		
 		
The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, warned China
yesterday that the secretive nature of its military expansion
was raising global suspicions.

On his first visit to China since taking office, the Pentagon
chief expressed concerns about the "mixed signals" coming from
Beijing, as it opened up to the world yet manoeuvred to shut
Washington out of Asian regional forums. The comments come amid
an intense debate in the US about a possible "China threat".
 			 		 			 			 			Article continues 			
Hawks in Congress say Beijing's rising economic power, ballooning 
trade surplus, and increasing defence spending pose a challenge 
to the US. Mr Rumsfeld did not go so far, but he said suspicions 
were inevitable. "Many countries, for example, have questions 
about the pace and scope of China's military expansion," Mr 
Rumsfeld told an audience at the Central Party School, the school 
for top communist cadres. "A growth in China's power projection 
understandably leads other nations to question intentions and to 
adjust their behaviour in some fashion."

He urged China to be more transparent, echoing a Pentagon report
last summer that claimed China may be spending $90bn (£51bn) on
its military this year - three times its declared budget. China
has criticised the report, which said the People's Liberation
Army was modernising, aiming more missiles at Taiwan, and
building up its nuclear arsenal.

China's defence minister, Cao Gangchuan, denied Mr Rumsfeld's
claims. "It is simply impossible for us to massively increase
the investment in defence capabilities," he said, although he
acknowledged the budget of $30.2bn did not include projects such
as the recent Shenzhou manned space mission.

Despite the tussle, the fact the two chiefs held a joint press
conference was hailed as a positive sign. Mr Rumsfeld's visit -
only the third by a US defence secretary in 10 years - comes
amid a flurry of diplomatic activity between the two countries.

President George Bush will visit Beijing next month. Earlier
this week federal reserve chairman Alan Greenspan made his first
trip to China, along with US treasury secretary John Snow.

Wu Jianmin, the China Foreign Affairs University president, said
the US had still not made up its mind about Beijing: "There are
three strands of thought: those who see China as a threat; those
who see it as a friend and those - now the majority - who take a
wait-and-see approach. If we let extremists prevail, both sides
will suffer."
 	
[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 8 Xinhua: China, Russia to deepen strategic collaboration   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-10-20 19:09:13   

    BEIJING, Oct. 20 (Xinhuanet) -- Chinese State Councilor Tang
Jiaxuan said here Thursday that China and Russia should deepen
strategic collaboration in all fields so as to further
consolidate and expand the social basis for bilateral
friendship. 

    Addressing the second round of the Sino-Russian Strategic
Security Talks, Tang said that both sides should strengthen
coordination "in major strategic security issues", give stronger
support to each other in major issues involving state
sovereignty and national security. 

    Noting that Sino-Russian relations are facing an important
development opportunity, Tang said that the establishment of the
system of strategic security talks suits the need of development
of Sino-Russian strategic cooperative partnership. 

    Speaking positively of the results of the first round of
Sino-Russian Strategic Security Talks, Russian Security Council
Secretary Igor Ivanov said that the Russia-China relations have
developed to an unprecedented level amid the rapid change in
international situation. 

    He noted that China and Russia have established a complete
and multi-layer dialogue and interactive system and conducted
fruitful coordination and cooperation in face of common new
threats and challenges with attention given to each other's
interests and concerns. All this shows the "wide and in-depth"
Russia-China strategic cooperative partnership. 

    Ivanov said that the world has entered a new period of
development while complicated and unpredictable factors are
increasing, adding that the Russian side, together with China,
would make efforts to promote the establishment of a fair,
reasonable, secure and stable international order. 

    Both sides also held consultations on issues related to
anti-terrorism, anti-proliferation of nuclear weapons, the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the situation in Central
Asia as well. Enditem   

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 9 AFP: Rumsfeld voices concern over Chinese nuclear arsenal - Yahoo!

 Thu Oct 20, 6:35 AM ET 
		 	 
BEIJING (AFP) - China appears to be expanding its nuclear strike
capability with missiles able to reach beyond the Pacific, US
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, urging Beijing to shed
more light on its intentions. 

Rumsfeld raised the issue in a speech to the Academy of Military
Sciences here on the final day of a visit that has highlighted
US concerns about a rapid Chinese military buildup.
 
"China of course is expanding its missile forces and enabling
those forces to reach many areas of the world, well beyond the
Pacific region," Rumsfeld said.
 
"Those advances in China's strategic strike capability raise
questions, particularly when there is an imperfect understanding
about such developments," he said.
 
"As a result, countries with interests in the region are asking
questions about China's intentions."
 
He said that while it was up to the Chinese government to decide
how much information to provide on its plans and programs, "it
is also true that greater clarity would generate more certainty
in the region".
 
Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Kong Quan insisted the United
States had nothing to be concerned about.
 
"As we have already said many times, China's strengthening of
its own defense ability is completely appropriate. There is
nothing to be suspicious or worried about," he told a briefing.
 
"I believe that in the two countries' military leaders'
discussions, they completely had the opportunity to exchange
opinion on the worries and problems."
 
Rumsfeld said a recent Pentagon
" /> Pentagonreport found that China's military expenditure was
two to three time greater than publicly acknowledged.
 
The Pentagon report in July said China is replacing older
long-range ballistic missile systems with newer missiles.
 
It said that over the next several years it will bring into
service a new road-mobile intercontinental missile, an extended
range intercontinental missile and a new submarine-launched
ballistic missile.
 
Rumsfeld's comments on China's nuclear strike capability came a
day after he made an unprecedented visit to the headquarters of
the Strategic Rocket Forces here in a show of openness by the
Chinese government.
 
US concerns about China's nuclear forces were piqued in July
when General Zhu Chenghu, the dean of the National Defense
University, said that if the United States targeted China in a
crisis over Taiwan, "I think we will have to respond with
nuclear weapons".
 
But during Wednesday's visit to the strategic nuclear forces
headquarters, its commander, General Jing Zhiyan, assured
Rumsfeld that China is strictly adhering to a policy of "no
first use" of nuclear weapons, a senior US defense official said.
 
Suggestions that China is targeting other nations were
"completely groundless," Jing told Rumsfeld, according to a
senior US official who attended the meeting.
 
The US officials regarded the visit to the Strategic Rocket
Forces headquarters as something of a coup, saying the Chinese
for years had denied requests to go there.
 
Rumsfeld was told he was the first foreigner to set foot in the
building, they said. 

"I think it's a start," another senior US defense official said.
"There were some interesting things we may want to pursue," he
added. 

"We certainly took it as a willingness to engage, albeit
gingerly." 

Earlier, Rumsfeld and Defense Minister Cao Guangchuan agreed "in
principle" on the need for more educational exchanges and other
types of military-to-military activities. 

Rumsfeld said the contacts were needed "to demystify what we see
of them and what they see of us". 

In his talks with Cao and in an earlier seminar at a school that
grooms future Communist Party leaders, Rumsfeld warned that
China's rapid and secretive military buildup has raised
questions about its intentions. 

Cao denied that China has understated its military spending and
insisted that raising the living standards of the country's poor
made it "impossible to massively increase" military spending. 

He said Chinese military spending this year totals about 30
billion dollars. The Pentagon in July estimated the true size of
Chinese defense spending at 90 billion dollars a year. 

Rumsfeld has now left China and is holding annual security talks
in South Korea
" /> South Koreaon Friday with his South Korean counterpart Yoon
Kwang-Ung and is also schedueld to meet President Roh Moo-Hyun
" /> Roh Moo-Hyun, Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon and other senior
government officials
 	 		 			
  Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 10 Mos News: Russia to Deliver Nuclear Fuel to Lybia - 

NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM
 
 	Photo from www.esa.int 	 	
 	 	
Created: 20.10.2005 17:56 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 17:56 MSK 	
 	
MosNews
 	 	 	 	 
	 	 		 	
The Russian open joint-stock company, TVEL, has signed a
contract with the Libyan research centre, Tajoura, for the
delivery of low-enriched nuclear fuel (enriched by less than 20
percent) for an IRT-1 research reactor, a TVEL announcement
quoted by Interfax says.

The contract was signed by TVEL, the U.S. Department of Energy
and Libya’s Renewable Energy and Water Desalination Research
Centre. TVEL is to deliver fuel of this sort to Libya for the
first time — previous deliveries of highly-enriched nuclear fuel
were carried out by the Soviet Union, the announcement says.

The low-enriched nuclear fuel will allow the research reactor at
the Tajoura centre to be operated more safely and will lower the
threat of the proliferation of highly-enriched uranium material.

TVEL has already signed a similar contract with the Czech
Technical University in Prague and delivered low-enriched fuel.

The deliveries of nuclear fuel to Libya will be carried out in
the framework of a Russian-American program to switch research
reactors to fuel with a lower degree of enrichment. This project
is being implemented under the supervision of the International
Atomic Energy Agency. Under the program, Russian-manufactured
nuclear fuel assemblies are repatriated to the Russian
Federation from research reactors abroad, with fuel with a lower
degree of enrichment supplied in return. At the present time,
highly-enriched fresh nuclear fuel has already been imported
from Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Libya, Uzbekistan, the Czech
Republic and Latvia.

TVEL is one of the world’s biggest producers and suppliers of
nuclear fuel for energy and research reactors in Russia and
abroad. The corporation consists of 15 enterprises of the
nuclear fuel cycle and auxiliary infrastructure. TVEL keeps 17
percent of the world’s nuclear power station reactors in
operation.
 	 	 	 	 	 	     
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
 11 Guardian Unlimited: There is nothing green about Blair's nuclear dream
 
To assess the industry's environmental impact, we must
look at the whole fuel cycle, writes David Lowry 		
 		
Thursday October 20, 2005
The Guardian 		
 		
The Guardian leader (Pre-empting debate, October 1), on
why ministers should be cautious before again taking the nuclear
route to energy salvation, is sensible. But it contains an
erroneous, if common, statement: "The big advantage of nuclear
generation is that it does not produce environmentally degrading
emissions in the way that fossil fuel generation does." The
nuclear industry is fond of making this claim, unfortunately
compounded in James Meek's survey of our nuclear record (Back to
the future, G2, October 4), where Keith Parker, the chief
executive of the Nuclear Industries Association, described
nuclear energy as "non-carbon emitting".
 			 		 			 			 			Article continues 			
Production of nuclear electricity is not carbon
free, because the production of nuclear fuel for these reactors
is significantly energy intensive. While it is true that most
nuclear reactors do not emit CO2 at the point of generation,
reactors are a small part of the nuclear fuel cycle, which emits
large amounts of CO2. These arise from the so-called front end
of the fuel cycle - uranium mining, ore milling, uranium
hexafluoride conversion, fuel enrichment and, finally,
fabrication of the fuel rods. Moreover, nuclear waste management
at the "back end" is already energy hungry in treatment,
conditioning, transportation and final disposal in some future
repository (if ministers ever give the green light).

Thus life-cycle analyses are essential to assess the true impact
of the entire processes. A number of such studies have examined
CO2 emissions - commonly expressed as CO2 equivalents per kWh -
for different methods of producing electricity. The most
comprehensive model has been created by the Öko Institut, which
advises the German environment ministry, and by Professors Smith
and Van Leeuwen at the University of Groningen, in the
Netherlands.

Both studies conclude that the nuclear fuel cycle can emit
relatively large amounts of CO2. The lower the uranium
concentration in ore, the more CO2 generated; and as a means of
enrichment, gas diffusion was much more energy intensive - and
thus CO2 emitting - than centrifuge separation.

Using sensible assumptions, Professors Smith and Van Leeuwen
determined that nuclear generation produced about a third as
much CO2 per kWh as conventional mid-sized gas-fired electricity
generation.

As several papers made clear when presented to the World Nuclear
Association's annual symposium last month, the industry will
increasingly have to rely on poorer-quality uranium ores, and
thus CO2 emissions from the nuclear cycle will increase. Öko's
analysis shows that nuclear CO2 emissions are up to four or five
times greater than those from renewables.

Last week, the energy minister Malcolm Wicks conceded in a
written answer to Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat environment
spokesman, that the Department for Trade and Industry "has
undertaken no assessment of the life-cycle carbon emissions of a
nuclear fission plant".

Before starting down the nuclear route promoted by Tony Blair at
Labour's conference, ministers need a proper comparative
analysis of nuclear's hidden carbon emissions.

· David Lowry is nuclear issues coordinator for Labour's
environment campaign, Sera
dlowryrmb@compuserve.com

If you wish to respond, at greater length than in a letter, to
an article in which you featured directly or indirectly, email
response@guardian.co.ukor write to Response, The Guardian, 119
Farringdon Road, London EC1R 3ER; we cannot guarantee to publish
all responses, and reserve the right to edit for length and
content.
 	
[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 12 MSN-Mainichi Daily: Residents' victory scrapped in nuclear power lawsuit

October 21, 2005                                                                                                                                                        National                        

Defendants in the suit hold up a sign advertising their victory
at the Hiroshima High Court on Thursday. 

HIROSHIMA -- The Hiroshima High Court on Thursday scrapped a
lower court decision that had sided with four residents fighting
against Chugoku Electric Power Co. and other residents for
rights to use land where the power company plans to build a
nuclear plant.

The four residents in Kaminoseki, Yamaguchi Prefecture, had
sought acknowledgement of their right of common on the land,
along with annulment of the transfer of the land's ownership. A
local board of management had signed a contract with the power
firm to transfer the land.

In an earlier ruling in March 2003, the Iwakuni Branch of the
Yamaguchi District Court granted the plaintiffs the right of
common and prohibited Chugoku Electric Power Co. from activities
that would damage that right, such as felling trees or
reorganizing land.

Thursday's high court ruling, however, scrapped the district
court decision, saying that although it could be concluded that
a right of common once existed, the nature of that right was
tied to ownership of the land and had changed to become limited
to use of the land. It added that 40 years had passed since the
land came to be disused, and that the right of common was no
longer valid.

Accordingly, the high court rejected any claims based on the
right of common.

Transfer of ownership of the land was carried out following a
unanimous decision between the board of management of the area
and Chugoku Electric Power Co. In December 1998, the firm formed
a contract to exchange 9,500 square meters of common land in the
area. The power company has made plans to set up two reactors at
a cost of 800 billion yen. Plans have been drawn up for the
first to start operating in 2014 and the second in 2017, each
after five years of construction work.

The four residents filed their suit in February 1999, saying
consent from all residents is needed on decisions relating to
common land.

"The contract was based solely on a decision by the board of
management and it is invalid," they had claimed. They plan to
launch an appeal against the high court ruling. (Mainichi)

October 20, 2005
 				   
Copyright 2004-2005 THE MAINICHI NEWSPAPERS. All
*****************************************************************
 13 NRC: NRC to Meet with Nebraska Public Power District to Discuss Performance
Initiatives at Cooper Nuclear Station

News Release - Region IV - 2005-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza 
Drive, Suite 400, Arlington TX 76011 No. IV-05-037           
October 19, 2005 CONTACT:     Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 
E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov  

  The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with
representatives of Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) on Oct.
24 to discuss performance initiatives at the Cooper Nuclear
Station. The plant is located near Brownville, Neb. 
The meeting will be held at 4 p.m. at the Brownville Concert
Hall, located at Atlantic Avenue and Second Street. Topics to be
discussed include problem identification and resolution,
equipment reliability, and human performance initiatives. Before
the session is adjourned, members of the NRC staff will be
available for comments and questions from the public. 

Following performance problems, Cooper embarked on a
self-improvement program in early 2003. In January, NRC
concluded that improvements had been made in plant performance,
but said it would continue to monitor the effectiveness of
long-term improvement initiatives. This meeting is a part of
NRCs effort to monitor progress at Cooper Nuclear Station.
   



  


 	Last revised Thursday, October 20, 2005 	
*****************************************************************
 14 APP.COM: Meeting today on nuclear plant's license renewal

| Asbury Park Press Online
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
Posted by the Asbury Park Presson 10/20/05 

BY TODD BATES STAFF WRITER

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staffers are to meet with 
AmerGen Energy Co. officials today to discuss some NRC findings 
on the license renewal application for the Oyster Creek nuclear 
power plant in Lacey, according to an NRC memo.

As part of the license renewal process, NRC staff look over an 
application, plant drawings and other documents to determine if 
the applicant has identified the necessary structures and 
components for a review of plant aging management, according to 
the NRC Web site.

NRC officials want to ensure that AmerGen's application is as 
complete as it needs to be regarding key safety systems, 
structures and components, said Neil A. Sheehan, an NRC 
spokesman.

The meeting, which is open to the public, is scheduled to run
from 6 to 8 p.m. in the Lacey Township Municipal Building, 818
West Lacey Road, Lacey, according to the NRC memo, which was
e-mailed to the Press.

The public will be able to comment from 6:45 p.m. to 8 p.m., the 
notice says.

The Oyster Creek plant, which began operating in 1969, is seeking 
NRC approval to operate for 20 years beyond April 2009, when its 
current license is scheduled to expire.
 
This story includes material from previous Press stories.

Todd B. Bates: (732) 643-4237 or tbates@app.com [E-mail] E-mail 

  Copyright © 2005 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 15 JOURNAL NEWS: Entergy: Leak answers two months away

By GREG CLARY gclary@thejournalnews.com

  What's next 

Indian Point will drill eight new wells on-site, to show more
conclusively how water-borne radiation is moving underground.
Company officials plan to inspect the spent-fuel storage tank
with underwater cameras and possibly a diver to determine the
location of hairline leaks.

The radioactive element that has shown up in some wells is
tritium, a substance found in self-illuminating watches and in
smoke detectors, though levels found so far are almost
universally below federal standards for danger to drinking water.

More information on tritium and on the leak itself is available
at: 
• www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/tritium.htm
•
www.nrc.gov/reactors/plant-specific-items/indian-point-issues.htm
l
  
(Original publication: October 20, 2005)
 
BUCHANAN — Indian Point engineers and scientists say it will
take about two months to determine if a leak from the spent fuel
storage pool at Indian Point 2 is the cause of raised radiation
levels in five underground wells at the site.

"We take this very seriously, but it's a complex problem," said
Don Leach, the nuclear power plant's engineering director. "All
the known leakage is being contained now."

The five wells, at varying distances of up to 500 yards from the
nuclear reactor, showed trace elements of tritium during recent
samplings by Indian Point employees. The company said the wells
are not for drinking water, and there was no threat to the
public or workers at the site.

State Health Department officials yesterday said the agency had
conducted water tests near the site within the past month and
found no problems.

"We have analyzed the latest samples for drinking water near the
site, and there are no issues with the water quality," said
Jeffrey Hammond, a department spokesman.

Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the two functioning
nuclear reactors at Indian Point, has been working to stop the
leak since it was discovered in late August during excavation
work around Indian Point 2.

In the next two weeks, Entergy officials said they plan to bring
in underwater cameras and possibly a diver to check for cracks
in the 400,000-gallon storage tank.

The leak is relatively small, according to Nuclear Regulatory
Commission officials, amounting to between 1 and 2 liters of
water per day.

Company officials said the only radiological material that has
been found away from the leak site is tritium, an element that
is relatively weak in terms of hazards, compared with other
materials in the storage pool, such as cobalt and cesium.

"Tritium is a naturally occurring element in the environment,"
said Leach, adding that he's been exposed to higher levels of
tritium on the ski slopes of Vermont than at the nuclear plant.

Don Mayer, Indian Point's director of special projects, said the
cause of the higher tritium levels found during the recent
sampling "is very much up for discussion," though the
concentrations for the five wells were much lower than an
earlier sample taken close to the spent-fuel pool.

Three other samples, taken earlier between Indian Point 2 and a
steam-powered turbine, showed no evidence of tritium, company
officials said.

Mayer said the five recent well samples taken near the turbine
showed radiation levels similar to what is given off routinely
as part of the giant machine's operation, which indicates a
possibility that the tritium originated there.

The company plans to drill about eight wells, 4 inches in
diameter, in the vicinity of Indian Point 2 to gather samples
that should show more conclusively how the tritium may or may
not be moving underground.

David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer with the Union of
Concerned Scientists, said tritium's transportability in water
makes it somewhat dangerous because of the potential that it can
get into drinking water off-site.

"It can do a lot of damage on the inside if swallowed, but if
you just come in contact with it, your skin is a good
protector," Lochbaum said. "The good news is that it's still on
the Indian Point site and hasn't apparently moved to neighboring
land or water. They're doing the right thing now, having found
it."

As news of the sample results spread yesterday, elected
officials and opponents of Indian Point said residents deserve a
clear picture of possible pollution from the nuclear plant.

Lisa Rainwater, a spokeswoman for the environmental organization
Riverkeeper, said the area's water must be protected, whether
it's in the Hudson River or coming out of residents' faucets.

"We're becoming dizzy with all the bad news coming out of Indian
Point," Rainwater said, noting Tuesday's emergency siren
notification problems during a test of the 10-mile evacuation
zone. "I think enough is enough. We need to not only be looking
at the site for tritium, but the sediment in the Hudson River
and testing the water supply for the residents in the area. If
it comes out clean, fantastic. The point is to act now. Who
knows how long it's been leaking?"

New York's senators said they also were troubled by the tritium
levels.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., whose staff listened in on
a multi-agency telephone briefing about the leak Tuesday, vowed
to discuss the problem soon with top NRC officials.

"(The) briefing reinforces my serious concerns about the leak,
and I plan to communicate directly with NRC Chairman Nils Diaz
at our meeting next week," Clinton said.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., also wants more federal oversight.

"This leak needs to be fixed right now. Its effects must be
identified and mitigated, and thorough monitoring must be
instituted to prevent further incidents," Schumer said. "I will
demand that the NRC continue stringent oversight of the problem
as Entergy searches for the source of the problem and a
permanent solution. I also expect the NRC to keep the public and
elected officials fully and promptly informed as it discerns
additional information."

Entergy officials haven't been able to determine when the leak
started but said they're going to move as quickly as possible to
have it repaired.
 
Copyright 2005 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper
serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms 
*****************************************************************
 16 Brandon Sun: Ontario's nuclear future at risk if new project goes over budget 
- Bruce CEO

Thursday, October 20th 2005
																 TORONTO (CP) - The future of nuclear energy in
Ontario will be at risk if Bruce Power can't restart two
reactors on time and on budget, the company's CEO said Thursday. 

Duncan Hawthorne said the timely and efficient restoration of
two idle units at Bruce's plant on Lake Huron will be critical
in persuading the province to build new nuclear plants to
address Ontario's supply concerns. "If we can't do this, don't
talk nuclear again in this province," Hawthorne said in a
breakfast speech to the Ontario Energy Association. 

The province has indicated the Bruce project will be a "test
case" for future nuclear initiatives, Hawthorne said. 

That includes the possibility of building entirely new stations,
but also refurbishments at the Darlington, Pickering and Bruce B
nuclear stations, he said. 

Ontario has to fix or replace some 25,000 megawatts of power in
the province by 2020. But past nuclear projects went hundreds of
millions of dollars over budget - a cost picked up by taxpayers. 

The $2.13-billion deal to restart the Bruce units, plus another
$2 billion to refurbish two other units at the Bruce A station,
puts taxpayers on the hook for cost overruns over its
$4.25-billion budget. The province would have to cover 50 per
cent of cost overruns up to $618 million, and a 25 per cent
share beyond that mark. 

Similarly, the province can share in the reward if the project
is completed below budget. 

"We were not looking for a handout. We were looking for security
in the marketplace," Hawthorne said in his speech. 

But the conditions that put taxpayer money at risk have been
slammed by critics, including New Democrat Leader Howard
Hampton, who said history indicates nuclear projects always go
over budget. 

Hawthorne maintained that his investors, including Calgary-based
TransCanada (TSX:TRP) and OMERS, one of the country's largest
pension plans, are taking on the "bulk" of the investment risk. 

Critics should note that the deal includes penalties Bruce
investors must pay if the project underperforms, he said. 

"It's a complex deal and people have to kind of take time to go
over it," he said. 

"I've got to pay penalties if I'm late. I've got to pay
termination fees, which are major. And by the way, before I
actually terminate, I've got to have spent massive amounts of
our own shareholder dollars to do it." 

But critics say there aren't enough assurances that nuclear
power won't prove costly for taxpayers. 

In a report released Thursday, the Ontario Clean Air Alliance
urged the government to focus its efforts on energy
conservation, including offering rewards for efficient
electricity use. 


"Ontario can keep looking backward, by disguising the real cost
of power sources like coal and nuclear and throwing more public
dollars at dubious mega-projects like the Bruce restart," the
alliance said in a statement. 

"Or we can become world leaders in efficiency, productivity and
clean power generation." 

Observers also noted that if the government decides to build
more nuclear stations, such decisions would likely be made in
the next three years and the first refurbishment at Bruce won't
be completed until 2009. 

Hawthorne insists there would still be time for the government
to review the Bruce restoration work. Even if the province moved
in 2008 to build more nuclear stations, the next three years
would involve environmental assessments and licensing issues,
giving whatever government is in power time to change its mind,
he said. 

"So you could easily keep the option open over the next three
years without, I say, having decided to actually go ahead and
put a shovel in the ground." 

Premier Dalton McGuinty has said he will approve construction of
new nuclear stations if that's what's recommended in a report by
the Ontario Power Authority, which is reviewing the province's
future supply needs. 

The OPA report is due Dec. 1. 

© 2005 The Brandon Sun - All Rights Reserved   
*****************************************************************
 17 Hingham Journal: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant should not be relicensed

TownOnline.com - 

By Pat Granahan/ Commentary

Thursday, October 20, 2005

The recent disasters in Mississippi and Louisiana are acute
reminders that South Shore residents have an imminent threat of
a possible accident at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant in
Plymouth. The license for this G.E. Mark! Boiling Water Reactor
(already in operations since 1972) will expire in 2012; Pilgrim
hopes to renew its license for another 20 years to 2032.

Formerly owned by Boston Edison, Pilgrim is now owned by Entergy
Corp., an energy conglomerate based in New Orleans.

     It was 17 years ago that, along with 30 other protesters, I
was arrested for civil disobedience at the Pilgrim Plant due to
our concerns. Since that time, I have observed a complacent lull
by the public, possibly because a nuclear power plant disaster
is far too much to contemplate, much less try to deal with.

     Whatever the reason for the perceived complacency we should
oppose the re-licensing of Pilgrim, one of the oldest and most
vulnerable plants in the nation, for many reasons, among them:
     
+ A possible terrorist attack or nuclear accident. The National
Academy of Sciences in a study mandated by Congress stated
unequivocally in 2004 that nuclear power plants are on the
terrorists' short list. Those plants designed like Pilgrim are
extremely vulnerable. The most vulnerable target is the 1.2
million pounds of densely packed radioactive spent fuel rods
stored in the reactor building well above ground level.

+ The human element. Innumerable accidents have been documented
in the life of Pilgrim. Most recently, the Cape Cod Times, July
16, 2005, reported that the U.S. Regulatory Commission fined the
owners $60,000 only 13 months after a control room supervisor
fell asleep on the job and another worker failed to wake him up!

+ Inability to evacuate the public. The Hingham League of Women
Voters' study reported by Hilary McCarthy in the Hingham Journal
Sept. 8, 1983, reported that the town is unprepared for nuclear
evacuees. Hingham is only one of many towns in the Pilgrim area
with no clear evacuation plans. During the recent hurricanes we
witnessed the disastrous attempt to evacuate large numbers of
people. 

# Health Risks. The public has been exposed to planned and 
unplanned radiation releases from nuclear plants from day one; 
the harmful chemicals and radiation are cumulative. The Mass. 
Dept. of Public Health study of 22 towns near Pilgrim supported 
the hypothesis that the closer you work or live to Pilgrim the 
more likelihood of a four fold increase in adult leukemia. To 
permit even more exposure to dangerous radiation for the next 20 
years is unconscionable.
     
# Cost. You will hear the argument that nuclear power is cheap. 
Not so! The debt for Pilgrim is too exhaustive a study for this 
letter, however on a local level the Hingham Municipal Light 
Plant rate payers will pay the decommissioning costs for: 1. 
Seabrook Nuclear Power Plaint in N.H. which will ultimately cost 
$3 million by the end of the life of Seabrook, N.H. Plant. 
(Hingham will pay $1 million by the end of 2005). 2. Millstone 
Nuclear Power Plant in Ct., will cost us a total of $3,686,888 
($363,000 paid to date). These costs are due to ironclad 
agreements which were entered into over 25 years ago!


     It should be noted that the Price Anderson Act limits the 
monetary liability of companies for a nuclear accident,; 
therefore, the financial burden for this risk inappropriately 
transfers to citizens.

     If you would like to help please join the Campaign to Stop 
the Re-Licensing of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant. Call me (Pat 
Granahan) at 781-749-2542.

      Pat Granahan lives at 51 Croydon Road.
© Copyright of CNC and Herald Interactive Advertising Systems,
Inc.
*****************************************************************
 18 ABC Pacific: Northern Marianas seek compensation
   
abcasiapacific.com

  20/10/2005 14:59:43 AEST 

Northern Marianas seek compensation for US nuclear tests     

The Northern Marianas is petitioning the United States
Congress to include the islands among the areas entitled for
nuclear compensation. 

Gemma Casas reports, earlier this week senators passed a
resolution calling for the US to compensate the residents of the
Northern Marianas for their exposure to radiation from America's
nuclear testing in the atolls of the Marshall Islands between
the 1940s and 1960s.

The president of the Pacific Association for Radiation
Survivors, Robert Celestial, says the Northern Marianas' close
proximity to Guam, indicates a strong possibility for nuclear
fallout.

This year, the US National Research Council recommended Guam be
included in the nuclear compensation package mandated by the
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990. 

Mr Celestial says some residents in Guam suffer from certain
cancer and disabilities believed to have been caused by the
nuclear fallout.
 
ABC Asia Pacific TV / Radio Australia   

*****************************************************************
 19 Boston Globe: nuclear campus 
 
By Matthew Bunn  |  October 20, 2005
 
FOUR YEARS after 9/11, most nuclear research reactors at
universities across the United States are essentially
undefended, with no guards on site, no fences or security
cameras around the building, and few other security measures in
place. Some of these facilities are fueled with highly enriched
uranium, the easiest material in the world for terrorists to use
to make a nuclear bomb.

With terrorist warnings and attacks clogging the airwaves,
action is needed to get rid of the potential bomb uranium
wherever possible and provide effective security where highly
enriched uranium is still needed, both to reduce the dangers
posed by these US facilities and to help the United States
persuade other countries to do the same.

In 1986, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees these
facilities, recognized the danger posed by the stores of highly
enriched uranium and issued a rule requiring all the reactors it
regulates to convert to low-enriched uranium, which could not be
used as the core of a terrorist bomb. The reactors were directed
to convert the moment that usable low-enriched uranium fuels
were available, and the Department of Energy came up with the
money to pay for it.

Almost two decades later, the job is still not done. There are
still seven NRC-regulated reactors in the United States using
the highly enriched fuel that could use low-enriched uranium
already developed, and three more waiting on development of
higher-density fuels. Not a single reactor has converted since
9/11. Why? Because the Energy Department has failed to cough up
the money to pay for conversion (though it did help to convert
11 university reactors over the years).

At a price ranging from less than $1 million to a few million
dollars to convert each reactor, the cost of getting rid of bomb
uranium on campus is tiny when compared to the billions spent
each year on national security. But it is big when compared to
the pittance spent supporting nuclear research in the United
States, which is the checkbook that has typically been drawn on
for conversion.

Meanwhile, because the research reactors have so little money,
the NRC has exempted them from nearly all of its security
requirements. Under NRC rules, bomb uranium that would require
an impressive security system and a substantial armed guard
force if it were located anywhere else needs neither of those
things if it is at a research reactor. A recent ABC News
investigation documented the results -- reactors where no armed
guards were in place, doors were left open, and visitors with
large bags were allowed in without being searched.

Defenders of these lax security arrangements argue that most of
the highly enriched fuel at research reactors would be too
radioactively ''hot" for terrorists to steal and that chemically
processing the fuel to get the bomb uranium out would be beyond
terrorist capabilities. Unfortunately, neither of these
arguments holds water -- particularly in the post 9/11 world of
sophisticated and suicidal terrorists. One government study
concluded that thieves would not even get enough radiation to
make them seriously ill, and one of the leaders of nuclear
chemistry in the Manhattan Project warned that turning the
uranium into a usable terrorist tool is ''not beyond the ability
of most students in introductory chemistry classes at the
college level."

The Department of Energy should go beyond its recent decision to
fund conversion of two university research reactors and set
aside funds to convert all the remaining reactors, or simply
shut down those aging facilities whose remaining scientific
value does not justify the cost of conversion. Energy and other
agencies should do the same with the government's own highly
enriched uranium-fueled reactors not licensed by the NRC. At the
same time, the NRC should phase out the research reactor
exemption. Potential bomb uranium requires the same high
standards of security wherever it is located.

Setting a good example has never been more important. As Mohamed
ElBaradei, the latest Nobel Peace Prize winner, recently warned
President Bush, similar highly enriched uranium-fueled research
reactors exist in more than 40 countries. After that
Bush-ElBaradei conversation, the Energy Department established a
Global Threat Reduction Initiative designed to take on this
problem. Bush needs to lead a fast-paced global effort to remove
the potential bomb material from the world's most vulnerable
sites and make sure that every remaining cache has security
sufficient to defeat terrorist threats. To credibly lead that
effort, the United States has to get its own house in order.

 Matthew Bunn, a senior research associate in the Managing the
Atom project at Harvard University's Kennedy School of
Government, is co-author of ''Securing the Bomb 2005: The New
Global Imperatives." [ /] 

© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company. More: 

*****************************************************************
 20 Albany Democrat-Herald: Beryllium contamination troubles Albany center

[democratherald.com] 

Last modified Tuesday, October 18, 2005 2:12 PM PDT   
    
 
By Alex Paul Albany Democrat-Herald 

Testing has turned up traces of beryllium dust on some surfaces 
at the Albany Research Center.

But the sampling has found no sign of the dust in the air, which 
would be more serious, staff members say, 

The surface contamination has led to closure of certain buildings 
to visitors and the mandatory use of protective clothing and 
breathing apparatus by some employees. 

The Albany Research Center specializes in industrial processes
on metals, alloys and ceramics, and has been in the community
since the early 1940s.

Beryllium is a heat-resistant metal still widely used today in
manufacturing. Some 2 to 6 percent of workers exposed to
beryllium may develop beryllium disease, which can lead to
scarring of the lungs and in some cases cancer.

Traces of the substance have been found in about eight of the
centers 44 buildings, including one lab room in the
administration building. That room is now closed.

Cindy Powell, ARC associate research director and a materials
scientist, is the management representative overseeing the
beryllium testing program at the center.

Powell said that in February, the staff found a small sample of
beryllium oxide in a storage cabinet. That was surprising, since
research projects involving beryllium have not been conducted at
the center since the 1970s. The classified projects for the
Atomic Energy Commission involved developing trigger mechanisms
for weapons.

An outside laboratory conducted air and surface testing to
determine the extent of the contamination, Powell said.

Beryllium is most harmful as airborne dust. Powell said the
Department of Energy standards for employee contact with
beryllium is two-tenths of one-millionth of a gram per meter
cubed, in 8 hours.

It would be the amount of dust that could fit on the point of a
pencil, spread in the air over an entire football field during
an 8-hour period, Powell said. We havent found measurable
airborne contamination in the testing weve done so far,
although we have detected beryllium on some surfaces. We have
taken literally thousands of hours of airborne samples without
any indication of beryllium being present.

All center employees have had blood samples drawn to check for
beryllium susceptibility, Powell said. Nationally, 1 to 2
percent of all people show a reaction to the test.

There is no increased level within center staff, Powell said.

The Albany center is working with the National Jewish Research
and Medical Center in Denver, Colo., said George Dooley III,
director. They are guiding us each and every step of the way,
Dooley said. We are following the law to the letter. There is
no danger to the general public whatsoever.

The latest round of sampling began Oct. 3 and will run through
the end of the year, Dooley said. Nearly 2,000 samples will be
taken throughout all 44 ARC buildings.

Once the sampling is completed, a contract for cleanup will be
let. Dooley estimates cleanup costs could approach $2 million,
which would be paid by the Department of Energy.

Employees who work in areas where surface levels of beryllium
greater than two-tenths of one-millionth of a gram per 100
square centimeters have been found, must now wear protective
clothing, a respirator and in some cases, an air monitoring
unit, Powell said.

Staff must sign in and sign out of each area to monitor time of
possible exposure.

Numerous records have been examined to determine if former
employees have had symptoms of beryllium disease. To date, only
one employee is known to have developed complications due to
beryllium exposure, a diagnosis made in the 1940s that was not
caused by exposure at the Albany Research Center, Powell said.

Dooley said the centers current A-76 process, by which its
research projects may be contracted to private sources, will not
affect the beryllium study or its follow-up, since the property
will remain government-owned.

Reporter Alex Paul can be reached by calling 812-6076 or by
e-mailing alex.paul@lee.net.

Break out box...

• Industries in which beryllium may be found include
electronics, atomic energy, laboratory work, metal working,
ceramic manufacturing and dental work.

• Beryllium is considered a cancer causing substance.

• Acute beryllium disease can develop after a short, heavy
exposure to beryllium. Onset is quick and may resemble pneumonia
or bronchitis. Usually resolves itself within a few weeks.

• Chronic beryllium disease develops after months, or years, of
exposure. Symptoms can take up to 30 years to manifest. CBD
causes inflammation of body tissue and thickening of deep lung
tissues. It may also spread to other organs.

• Symptoms of Chronic Beryllium Disease include: shortness of
breath, chest pain, fatigue, weight loss and loss of appetite.

• Although CBD is not considered fatal today, it can lead to
disability. Most people with CBD can control it with
prescription medicine. 

Copyright © 2005 • Lee Enterprises
*****************************************************************
 21 Cambridge Chronicle: MIT nuke provokes nervous reaction

TownOnline.com - 


By Chris Helms/ CHRONICLE STAFF

Thursday, October 20, 2005

The director of MIT's nuclear reactor lab said that if the 
47-year-old research facility were built today, it wouldn't be 
near densely populated Area IV and Cambridgeport.

     "If you were starting from scratch, you'd certainly place
it farther from populations," said Dr. David Moncton.

     The professor of physics was responding to persistent
questions by City Councilor David Maher at a hastily assembled
Monday meeting. Mayor Michael Sullivan called the session in
response to a network news investigation of security at the
nation's 25 nuclear research reactor labs.

     An ABC report that aired on the news show "Prime Time" last
Thursday spotlighted the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's
small reactor at Albany and Cross streets. It's about the size
of a dorm refrigerator. And MIT officials said it's shielded by
so much concrete and steel that it would be nearly impossible to
breach.

     Researchers from around the country use the facility to
explore a variety of questions from materials science to physics
to medicine. Work done there has, for instance, resulted in
better ways of targeting cancer cells with radiation.

     The network report introduced some residents to the
unsettling reality that there's a nuclear reactor in the
neighborhood, said City Councilor Denise Simmons.

     "It gives people something else to worry about," she said.
"If you don't want people to be fearful, they have to be
informed."

     In that spirit, MIT agreed to host community meetings in
Area IV and Cambridgeport to discuss the reactor.

     MIT came off better than some universities. ABC sent
journalism graduate students to each of the reactors to see if
they could wheedle their way inside with backpacks. That didn't
work at MIT.

     Moncton's staff did background checks on the students using
tools ranging from federal terrorist watch lists to Google
searches. MIT checks the identity of everyone who visits the
facility. The checks tipped off MIT that these graduate students
weren't who they seemed to be. 

"They didn't tell us they were reporting for ABC News, but we 
knew that before they came," said Moncton.
     The ABC students had to leave their backpacks outside when 
they made their visit to the reactor. Moncton said the MIT 
reactor core isn't in an open pool as is the case at some 
schools, so a backpack containing a bomb couldn't be tossed into 
the pool. MIT has a steel lid 15 inches in diameter over the 
reactor core. It's so heavy it must be removed with a crane.


     ABC also made much of a "truck bomb scenario." An ABC 
producer rented a truck and parked it next to a fence between a 
railroad right-of-way and the chain-link fence around the reactor 
compound.

     Moncton said the shell surrounding the reactor has a 
3/8-inch steel sheathing with two feet of reinforced concrete. 
Then the core itself is further protected with 5 feet of concrete 
and layers of steel. A bomb four times the power of the one that 
destroyed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City might 
crack the shell but not breach the interior containment, Moncton 
said.

     A pedestrian walking down Albany Street is separated from 
the reactor shell by only the chain link fence. Moncton said that 
perimeter might seem close to a layperson, but that the reactor 
is well protected enough to withstand even an airplane being 
crashed into it.

     The reactor opened in 1958 and has been upgraded 
continually. The 5-megawatt facility is 1/600th the size of a 
typical nuclear power plant, according to MIT. Fresh nuclear fuel 
is not stored on site, and there is never enough on hand to 
create a nuclear weapon.

     Even so, Moncton said that for political reasons he did not 
believe a similar reactor would be built at the site if it were 
done today. He said there was no good scientific reason not to 
site a reactor in the same place.

     City Manager Bob Healy said places like Fenway Park probably 
wouldn't be built in their current locations, given the 
difficulty of siting anything new or controversial in an urban 
setting like Boston or Cambridge.
'
Contact Chris Helms at chelms@cnc.com.



© Copyright of CNC and Herald Interactive Advertising Systems,
Inc.
*****************************************************************
 22 [NukeNet] Aomori accepts interim storage facility
 
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 14:43:03 -0700

X-Temp-Fromphrase: YES Information 
X-Temp-Whitephrase: YES Nuclear 
X-Spamprobe: ham-extreme	*      	0.0001127	OK

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

Aomori accepts facility to store nuclear waste

10/20/2005
The Asahi Shimbun

AOMORI--Aomori Governor Shingo Mimura said Wednesday his prefecture
will allow construction of an interim storage facility for spent
nuclear fuel to ease the burden on existing pools that are filling up
fast....

Full article at following link

http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200510200110.html

Citizens' Nuclear Information Center
3F Kotobuki Bdg, 1-58-15, Higashi-Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003
Phone: 81-3-5330-9520
Fax: 81-3-5330-9530
http://cnic.jp/english/
cnic@nifty.com


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 23 [du-list] NRC says groups can raise waste disposal issue
 
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:34:48 -0700

X-Temp-Fromphrase: YES antenna 
X-Temp-Whitesubject: YES du-list 
X-Temp-Whitephrase: YES Nuclear 
X-Spamprobe: ham-super	*       	0.0000381	OK

<x-flowed>
Posted: 10/20/2005 8:37:00 AM
http://www.krqe.com/expanded.asp?ID=12494
NRC says groups can raise waste disposal issue
Source: AP

ALBUQUERQUE -- The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission says two environmental
groups can raise questions about plans for disposing of radioactive waste from
a proposed uranium enrichment plant in southeastern New Mexico.
The groups will be able to raise the issues Monday at a hearing in Maryland.

The NRC says the Washington, D.C.-based Nuclear Information Resource 
Service and
Public Citizen can raise issues about the disposal of depleted uranium from the
plant.

The $1.2 billion plant has been proposed near Eunice by Louisiana Energy
Services, a consortium of largely European backers.

The hearing will focus on radiation safety and funding for the plant's eventual
decommissioning.



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
*****************************************************************
 24 Fontana Herald: Residents can help the city win the water war 

Fontana, California
 
Opinion       

Phil's Findings: Fontana ESL teacher volunteers in Africa 

By FONTANA HERALD NEWS 

The Great Water War continues in Fontana.

The Fontana Water Company wants to keep raising rates, and the
City of Fontana, Fontana Unified School District, and thousands
of consumers justifiably want to lower them.

It's a struggle which is expected to drag on for a while, but
city officials are determined to ultimately prevail, and they
are pulling out all the stops to do it.

The Fontana Water Company, beset by problems from perchlorate
contamination in its wells, is seeking to implement constant
rate increases for water users. Last month, the city filed a
formal protest against the newest proposed increases by the
company, which include a 13.1 percent hike in 2006, 6.3 percent
in 2007, and 4.2 percent in 2008.

Then the city received a copy of an audit report by the
California Public Utilities Commission regarding the company's
handling of ratepayer funds. And lo and behold, the audit
determined that the company should give $27 million plus
interest to ratepayers in portions of Southern California. On
Sept. 22, Administrative Law Judge Robert Burnett of the CPUC
ruled in Fontana's favor, meaning that the tide could truly be
turning against the Fontana Water Company.

CITIZENS of Fontana can do their part to help win this fierce
battle, and city leaders have identified two ways they can help: 

€ First, they can fill out a survey on the city's website
(www.fontana.org) which details their feelings regarding the
Fontana Water Company and its policies.

€ Second, they can attend one of two public meetings on Nov. 17
to express their concern about the issue.

If enough Fontanans rally behind this cause, there is hope that
positive change will result. The Water War is a winnable one for
Fontana. 
        
  Copyright © 2005 Fontana Herald News 
    Top of Page     Tel: (909)822-2231   
*****************************************************************
 25 AU ABC: Public offered waste dump safety guarantee
 
07:16 (ACST)Friday, 21 October 2005. 08:16 (AEDT)Friday, 21

 The chief executive officer of the Australian Radiation
Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency says Northern Territorians
have nothing to fear from a nuclear waste dump. 

Dr John Loy says once the Federal Government chooses one of
three proposed sites, he will only grant a licence if it meets
stringent security tests. 

He says he can guarantee that if approved, the dump would be
safe. 

"I can't issue a licence unless I can be assured, and the
process is very much a public one, and I think people will be
able to see from the demonstrations the proponent will have to
make and from the analysis and the assessment that we do that
the result will be something that will be safe," he said.




*****************************************************************
 26 Waste Basket Vol. X No. 35: Bechtel Bonanza
 
The WasteBasket: A Weekly Bulletin on Government Waste 
SEARCH ARCHIVE BY ISSUE : ENVIRONMENT 

Vol. X No. 35
 October 19, 2005
 
BECHTEL BONANZA 

Sometimes, its very hard to tell who our government officials
are working for. With high-paid jobs in the private sector only
a phone call away, some of our federal bureaucrats seem less
fixated on public service than they are on giving huge payouts
to big contractors, so to as ensure a golden parachute when they
leave their government post. 

Last month, the Department of Energys (DOE) Inspector General
released an audit of the departments Yucca activities which
found that the DOE gave Bechtel SAIC, one of the nations
largest contractors, $4 million in bonuses that the company flat
out didnt deserve. Despite Bechtels sloppy work, which
included botched data, incomplete documents, and unacceptable
final products, the DOE went to great lengths to make sure
Bechtel got a fat paycheck. 

Maybe were old-fashioned, but were from the school of thought
that says you should only get a bonus when youve kicked butt
and gone above the call of duty for your employer. 

Bechtel was hired in 2001 by the DOEs Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management to manage the Yucca Mountain
project, a massive planned nuclear waste repository that has
been riddled with technical and financial problems from day one.
Bechtel was given a not-so-modest fee of $3.2 billion for this
five-year contract, which was loaded with performance
incentives. 

Bechtels work on the Yucca project has been shoddy at best,
according to the new audit. The company fell behind schedule on
a lot of its work, failed to consistently produce material that
was up to the DOEs standards, and provided data that was
inconsistent and sometimes just plain wrong. 

In the normal business world, poor performance means poor
compensation  no company in its right mind would give big
bonuses to an employee who didnt meet expectations. But in the
government, things run a bit differently: the DOE, which is
awash in a steady stream of hard-earned taxpayer cash, can spend
like a drunken sailor without fear of a fiscal hangover. So
instead of withholding bonuses from Bechtel for poor management,
the DOE bent the rules. When Bechtel failed to produce an
internet-based Licensing Support Network, which would have
earned them a $2 million bonus, the DOE found a way to
redistribute that bonus so that Bechtel got it anyway. This
sleight-of-hand was not only a wrong, it also violated the terms
of the contract. 

Bechtel, the company that brought you Boston's Big Dig, a
notoriously over-budget and severely delayed transportation
project, is an old pro at squeezing taxpayer dollars out of
government contracts. But the company wouldnt have been able to
score such big bonuses if it werent for the help of the DOE,
which seemed all too happy to oblige. Sometimes the relationship
between federal agencies and the companies whose contracts they
manage is too close for comfort. 

With the U.S. now engaged in a massive rebuilding effort  an
undertaking being carried out largely by big contractors with
some very high-powered lobbyists  we need to make sure that
this doesnt happen in the Gulf Coast. Our tax dollars arent
the only thing at stake. 

For more information, contact Keith Ashdown at (202)-546-8500
ext. 110 or   

  651 Pennsylvania Ave, SE | Washington, DC 20003 |
1-800-taxpayer | fax: 202-546-8511   
*****************************************************************
 27 Las Vegas SUN: Reid argues to cut funds 

Today: October 20, 2005 at 7:20:5 PDT 

Sun Washington Bureau

 WASHINGTON -- Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is quietly
arguing that this is another good year to slash Yucca Mountain
funding, given massive spending on Hurricane Katrina and the war
in Iraq.

 Yucca budget talks come as congressional leaders are looking
for cuts that could offset Katrina and Iraq spending. The Yucca
discussions may be coming to a head in back-room negotiations as
a House-Senate conference committee works to finalize the annual
energy and water appropriations bill by the end of the month.

 Details of the Yucca budget are being hammered out mostly by
Reid, D-Nev.; Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M.; Rep. David Hobson,
R-Ohio; and Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-Ind., the top Republicans and
Democrats on the energy and water subcommittees of the
Appropriations Committees.

 The House approved $661 million for Yucca in the 2006 fiscal
year, which began Oct. 1. The Senate approved $577 million.

 Reid works to slash the Yucca budget every year, but his aides
declined to say how much he was seeking to cut this year.
Domenici spokesman Chris Gallegos declined to comment.

 "Yucca Mountain is losing favor (in Congress)," Reid told
reporters on Tuesday. "It's a boondoggle, and there's no need
for it."
 
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 28 Las Vegas SUN: EPA values public opinion 

Today: October 20, 2005 at 7:20:5 PDT 

By Suzanne Struglinski <suzanne@lasvegassun.com>
 Sun Washington Bureau
 
  Comments welcome

 To comment on the EPA's proposed radiation standard for Yucca
Mountain, you can e-mail a-and-r-docket@epa.gov and specify "to
the attention of Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0083."

 Comments can be mailed to EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Air and
Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West,
Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C.
20460. Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0083.

 The agency does not have to consider comments received after
Nov. 21, but can do so at its discretion.
 
WASHINGTON -- When Environmental Protection Agency officials say
they listen to every comment raised in the public hearings about
the Yucca Mountain radiation standard, they mean it.

 The last time the agency proposed a radiation standard it took
two years to take public comment, respond and issue the final
rule.

 During the 90-day public comment period, the agency received 69
written comments and heard from 28 speakers at hearings in
Washington, Las Vegas, Amargosa Valley and Kansas City, Mo. The
EPA continued to accept comments after that, though.

 The agency released a 220-page report specifically outlining
the government responses to comments it received.

 However, that rule was overturned by a federal appeals court.

 Last week the EPA, which issued the revised rule Aug. 22,
finished its series of public hearings. People can still respond
in writing until Nov. 21.

 According to the EPA's "e-docket," a Web site that contain all
the documents related to the proposed radiation standard, about
90 public comments have been received so far.

 Suzanne Struglinski can be reached at (202) 662-7245 or by
e-mail at suzanne @ lasvegassun.com.
 
         All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 29 KRQE News 13: NRC says groups can raise waste disposal issue
              
Posted: 10/20/2005 8:37:00 AM 

NRC says groups can raise waste disposal issue 

Source: AP
 							
ALBUQUERQUE -- The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission says two 
environmental groups can raise questions about plans for 
disposing of radioactive waste from a proposed uranium enrichment 
plant in southeastern New Mexico.

The groups will be able to raise the issues Monday at a hearing
in Maryland.

The NRC says the Washington, D.C.-based Nuclear Information
Resource Service and Public Citizen can raise issues about the
disposal of depleted uranium from the plant.

The $1.2 billion plant has been proposed near Eunice by
Louisiana Energy Services, a consortium of largely European
backers.

The hearing will focus on radiation safety and funding for the
plant's eventual decommissioning.
 						 					   					     					  
KBIMtv.com| KREZtv.com						   						  -   					 				
*****************************************************************
 30 DOE: Pilot Plant WIPP recert
 
                        FR Doc 05-20987 
[Federal Register: October 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 202)] 
[Proposed Rules] [Page 61107-61111] From the Federal Register 
Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20oc05-24]                         
 
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
 
ACTION: Notice of completeness of the Department of Energy's 
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Compliance Recertification 
Application and announcement of end of public comment period.
 
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, ``we'' or 
``the Agency'') has determined that the Department of Energy's 
(DOE) Compliance Recertification Application (CRA, or 
``application'') for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is 
complete. EPA provided written notice of the completeness 
decision to the Secretary of Energy on September 29, 2005. The 
text of the letter is contained in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 
The Agency has determined that the Compliance Recertification 
Application is complete, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 194, 
``Criteria for the Certification and Recertification of the 
WIPP's Compliance with the 40 CFR part 191 Disposal Regulations'' 
(Compliance Certification Criteria). The completeness 
determination is an administrative step that is required by 
regulation, and it does not imply in any way that the Compliance 
Recertification Application demonstrates compliance with the 
Compliance Criteria and/or the disposal regulations. EPA is now 
engaged in the full technical review that will determine if WIPP 
remains in compliance with the disposal regulations. As required 
by the 1992 WIPP Land Withdrawal Act and our implementing 
regulations, EPA will make a final recertification decision 
within six months of issuing the completeness letter to the 
Secretary of Energy.
 
 
DATES: EPA opened the public comment period upon receipt of the 
Compliance Recertification Application (69 FR 29646-49, May 24, 
2004). Comments must be received by EPA's official Air Docket on 
or before December 5, 2005.
 
 
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail to: EPA Docket 
Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No. 
OAR-2004-0025. Comments may also be submitted electronically, by 
facsimile, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed 
instructions as provided in Unit I.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Sharp, telephone number: 
202-343- 9265 or Ray Lee, telephone number: (202) 343-9601, 
address: Radiation Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Mail Code 
6608J, Washington, DC 20460. You can also call EPA's toll-free 
WIPP Information Line, 1-800-331-WIPP or visit our Web site at .
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General A. How Can I Get Copies of 
This Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has 
established an official public docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0025. The official public docket consists 
of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any 
public comments received, and other information related to this 
action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket 
does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The 
official public docket is the collection of materials that is 
available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in 
the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number 
for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 
number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742. These 
documents are also available for review in paper form at the 
official EPA Air Docket in Washington, DC, Docket No. A-98-49, 
Category II-A2, and at the following three EPA WIPP informational 
docket locations in New Mexico: in Carlsbad at the Municipal 
Library, Hours: Monday-Thursday, 10 a.m.-9 p.m., Friday-Saturday, 
10 a.m.-6 p.m., and Sunday, 1 p.m.-5 p.m.; in Albuquerque at the 
Government Publications Department, Zimmerman Library, University 
of New Mexico, Hours: vary by semester; and in Santa Fe at the 
New Mexico State Library, Hours: Monday-Friday, 9 a.m.- 5 p.m. As 
provided in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR Part 2, and in accordance 
with normal EPA docket procedures, if copies of any docket 
materials are requested, a reasonable fee may be charged for 
photocopying.
 
2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register 
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the 
Federal Register listings at .
 
An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment
 
[[Page 61108]] system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at to 
submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the 
contents of the official public docket, and to access those 
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. 
Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the 
appropriate docket identification number.
 
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA 
Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the 
official public docket, will not be available for public viewing 
in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that 
copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic 
public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form 
in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly 
available docket materials will be made available in EPA's 
electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the 
index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the 
document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public 
docket. Although not all docket materials may be available 
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly 
available docket materials through the docket facility identified 
in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic 
access to all of the publicly available docket materials through 
EPA's electronic public docket.
 
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy 
is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in 
paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's 
electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, 
unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA 
identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will 
provide a reference to that material in the version of the 
comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The 
entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will 
be available in the public docket.
 
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or 
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic 
public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to 
the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public 
docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, 
and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public 
docket along with a brief description written by the docket 
staff.
 
For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket 
visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002.
 
B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments 
electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand 
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the 
appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on 
the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments 
are submitted within the specified comment period.
 
Comments received after the close of the comment period will be 
marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late 
comments. However, late comments may be considered if time 
permits.
 
1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as 
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, 
mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact 
information in the body of your comment. Also include this 
contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you 
submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. 
This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the 
comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read 
your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further 
information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is 
that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or 
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official 
public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public 
docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may 
not be able to consider your comment.
 
i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to 
submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method 
for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at , and 
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access 
EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, 
select ``Information Sources,'' ``Dockets,'' and ``EPA Dockets.'' 
Once in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in Docket ID 
No.
 
OAR- 2004-0025. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or 
other contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment.
 
ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to , 
Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0025. In contrast to EPA's 
electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an 
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment 
directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic 
public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your 
e-mail address.
 
E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail 
system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic 
public docket.
 
2. By Mail. Send your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 
Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 
West, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0025. 3. By Hand 
Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Air and Radiation 
Docket, EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. 
OAR- 2004-0025. Such deliveries are only accepted during the 
Docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.A.1. 
4. By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: (202) 566-1741, Attention 
Docket ID. No. OAR-2004-0025. C. What Should I Consider as I 
Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following 
suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your 
views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that 
you used. 3. Provide any technical information and/or data you 
used that support your views.
 
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate.
 
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. 
Offer alternatives. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the 
comment period deadline identified.
 
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate 
docket identification number in the subject line on the first 
page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided 
the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your 
comments.
 
 
[[Page 61109]] II. Background The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 
(WIPP) was authorized in 1980, under section 213 of the DOE 
National Security and Military Applications of Nuclear Energy 
Authorization Act of 1980 (Pub.
 
L. 96- 164, 93 Stat. 1259, 1265), ``for the express purpose of 
providing a research and development facility to demonstrate the 
safe disposal of radioactive wastes resulting from the defense 
activities and programs of the United States.'' WIPP is a 
disposal system for transuranic (TRU) radioactive waste. 
Developed by DOE, WIPP is located near Carlsbad in southeastern 
New Mexico. TRU waste is emplaced 2,150 feet underground in an 
ancient layer of salt that will eventually ``creep'' and 
encapsulate the waste containers. WIPP has a total capacity of 
6.2 million cubic feet of TRU waste.
 
The 1992 WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA; Pub. L. 102-579) \1\ 
limits radioactive waste disposal in WIPP to TRU radioactive 
wastes generated by defense-related activities. TRU waste is 
defined as waste containing more than 100 nano-curies per gram of 
alpha-emitting radioactive isotopes, with half-lives greater than 
twenty years and atomic numbers greater than 92. The WIPP Land 
Withdrawal Act further stipulates that radioactive waste shall 
not be TRU waste if such waste also meets the definition of 
high-level radioactive waste, has been specifically exempted from 
regulation with the concurrence of the Administrator, or has been 
approved for an alternate method of disposal by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission. The TRU radioactive waste proposed for 
disposal in WIPP consists of materials such as rags, equipment, 
tools, protective gear, and sludges that have become contaminated 
during atomic energy defense activities. The radioactive 
component of TRU waste consists of man-made elements created 
during the process of nuclear fission, chiefly isotopes of 
plutonium. Some TRU waste is contaminated with hazardous wastes 
regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA; 
42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k). The waste proposed for disposal at WIPP 
derives from Federal facilities across the United States, 
including locations in Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, 
South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \1\ The 1992 WIPP Land Withdrawal Act was amended by 
the ``Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act 
Amendments,'' which were part of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- WIPP must meet EPA's generic disposal standards at 40 
CFR part 191, subparts B and C, for high-level and TRU 
radioactive waste.
 
These standards limit releases of radioactive materials from 
disposal systems for radioactive waste, and require 
implementation of measures to provide confidence for compliance 
with the radiation release limits. Additionally, the regulations 
limit radiation doses to members of the public, and protect 
ground water resources by establishing maximum concentrations for 
radionuclides in ground water. To determine whether WIPP performs 
well enough to meet these disposal standards, EPA issued the WIPP 
Compliance Criteria (40 CFR Part 194) in 1996. The Compliance 
Criteria interpret and implement the disposal standards 
specifically for the WIPP site. They describe what information 
DOE must provide and how EPA evaluates the WIPP's performance and 
provides ongoing independent oversight. Thus, EPA implemented its 
environmental radiation protection standards, 40 CFR Part 191, by 
applying the WIPP Compliance Criteria, 40 CFR Part 194, to the 
disposal of TRU radioactive waste at the WIPP. For more 
information about 40 CFR part 191, refer to Federal Register 
notices published in 1985 (50 FR 38066- 38089, Sep. 19, 1985) and 
1993 (58 FR 66398-66416, Dec. 20, 1993). For more information 
about 40 CFR part 194, refer to Federal Register notices 
published in 1995 (60 FR 5766-5791, Jan. 30, 1995) and in 1996 
(61 FR 5224-5245, Feb. 9, 1996). Using the process outlined in 
the WIPP Compliance Criteria, EPA determined on May 18, 1998 (63 
FR 27354), that DOE had demonstrated that the WIPP will comply 
with EPA's radioactive waste disposal regulations at Subparts B 
and C of 40 CFR Part 191. EPA's certification determination 
permitted the WIPP to begin accepting transuranic waste for 
disposal, provided that other applicable conditions and 
environmental regulations were met. Disposal of TRU waste at WIPP 
began in March 1999.
 
Since the 1998 certification decision, EPA has conducted ongoing 
independent technical review and inspections of all WIPP 
activities related to compliance with the EPA's disposal 
regulations. The initial certification decision identified the 
starting (baseline) conditions for WIPP and established the waste 
and facility characteristics necessary to ensure proper disposal 
in accordance with the regulations. At that time, EPA and DOE 
understood that future information and knowledge gained from the 
actual operation of WIPP would result in changes to the best 
practices and procedures for the facility.
 
In recognition of this, section 8(f) of the amended WIPP Land 
Withdrawal Act requires EPA to evaluate all changes in conditions 
or activities at WIPP every five years to determine if WIPP 
continues to comply with EPA's disposal regulations for the 
facility. This determination is not subject to standard 
rulemaking procedures or judicial review, as stated in the 
aforementioned section of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act. This 
first recertification process includes a review of all of the 
changes made at the WIPP facility since the original 1998 EPA 
certification decision.
 
Recertification is not a reconsideration of the decision to open 
WIPP, but a process to reaffirm that WIPP meets all requirements 
of the disposal regulations. The recertification process will not 
be used to approve any new significant changes proposed by DOE; 
any such proposals will be addressed separately by EPA. 
Recertification will ensure that WIPP is operated using the most 
accurate and up-to-date information available and provides 
documentation requiring DOE to operate to these standards.
 
EPA received DOE's first Compliance Recertification Application 
on March 26, 2004. On May 24, 2004, EPA announced the 
availability of the Compliance Recertification Application and 
EPA's intent to evaluate compliance with the disposal regulations 
and compliance criteria in the Federal Register (69 FR 29646). At 
that time, EPA also began accepting public comments on the 
application.
 
In a letter dated September 29, 2005, from EPA's Director of the 
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, the Agency notified DOE that 
it had determined that the Compliance Recertification Application 
for WIPP is complete. This determination is solely an 
administrative measure and does not reflect any conclusion 
regarding WIPP's continued compliance with the disposal 
regulations.
 
This determination was made using a number of the Agency's WIPP- 
specific guidances; most notably, the ``Compliance Application 
Guidance'' (CAG; EPA Pub. 402-R-95-014) and ``Guidance to the 
U.S. Department of Energy on Preparation for Recertification of 
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant with 40 CFR Parts 191 and 194'' 
(Docket A-98-49, Item II-B3-14; December 12, 2000). Both guidance 
documents include guidelines regarding: (1) Content of 
certification/recertification applications; (2) documentation and 
format requirements; (3) time frame and evaluation process; and 
(4) change reporting and modification. The Agency
 
[[Page 61110]] developed these guidance documents to assist DOE 
with the preparation of any compliance application for the WIPP. 
They are also intended to assist in EPA's review of any 
application for completeness and to enhance the readability and 
accessibility of the application for EPA and public scrutiny.
 
EPA has been reviewing the Compliance Recertification Application 
for ``completeness'' since its receipt. EPA's review identified 
several areas of the application where additional information was 
necessary to perform a technical evaluation. EPA sent six letters 
to DOE requesting additional information, which are detailed 
below: May 20, 2004 (EPA Docket A-98-49, II-B3-72)--EPA requested 
additional information on the performance assessment and 
monitoring.
 
July 12, 2004 (EPA Docket A-98-49, II-B3-73)--EPA requested 
additional information on waste chemistry.
 
September 2, 2004 (EPA Docket A-98-49, II-B3-74)--EPA requested 
additional references, clarification of issues related to 
chemistry and actinide solubilities, waste inventory, hydrology, 
and documentation on computer codes and parameters.
 
December 17, 2004 (EPA Docket A-98-49, II-B3-78)--EPA requested 
additional information on the Hanford tank wastes that are 
included in the WIPP waste inventory.
 
February 3, 2005 (EPA Docket A-98-49, II-B3-79)--EPA requested 
additional information on DOE's proposed MgO emplacement plan.
 
March 4, 2005 (EPA Docket A-98-49, II-B3-80)--EPA requested 
additional information on performance assessment (PA) issues.
 
DOE submitted the requested information with a series of 11 
letters, which were sent on the following dates: July 15, 2004 
(EPA Docket A-98-49, II-B2-34).
 
August 16, 2004 (EPA Docket A-98-49, II-B2-34).
 
September 7, 2004 (EPA Docket A-98-49, II-B2-36).
 
September 29, 2004 (EPA Docket A-98-49, II-B2-37).
 
October 20, 2004 (EPA Docket A-98-49, II-B2-38).
 
November 1, 2004 (EPA Docket A-98-49, II-B2-39).
 
December 17, 2004 (EPA Docket A-98-49, II-B2-40).
 
January 19, 2005 (EPA Docket A-98-49, II-B2-41).
 
March 21, 2005 (EPA Docket A-98-49, II-B2-47).
 
May 11, 2005 (EPA Docket A-98-49, II-B2-50).
 
September 20, 2005 (EPA Docket A-98-49, II-B2-51).
 
All completeness related correspondence was placed in our dockets 
(A-98-49, EDOCKET No. OAR-2004-0025) and on our WIPP Web site ( 
).
 
Since receipt of the Compliance Recertification Application, EPA 
received two rounds of public comments from stakeholder groups 
regarding both the completeness and technical adequacy of the 
recertification application. In addition to soliciting written 
public comments, EPA held a series of public meetings in New 
Mexico during July 2004, and June 2005, to hear public comments 
and to discuss WIPP recertification. These comments were 
instrumental in developing EPA's requests for additional 
information from DOE, particularly regarding the Hanford tank 
waste and its inclusion in the WIPP waste inventory.
 
EPA will now evaluate the complete application in determining 
whether the WIPP continues to comply with the radiation 
protection standards for disposal. EPA will also consider any 
additional public comments and other information relevant to 
WIPP's compliance.
 
The Agency is most interested in whether new or changed 
information has been appropriately incorporated into performance 
assessment calculations for WIPP, and whether the potential 
effects of changes are properly characterized.
 
The Agency will review DOE's recertification application to 
ensure that WIPP will continue to safely contain TRU radioactive 
waste.
 
If EPA approves the Compliance Recertification Application, it 
will set the parameters for how WIPP will be operated by DOE over 
the following five years. The approved Compliance Recertification 
Application will then serve as the baseline for the next 
recertification. As required by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, EPA 
will make a final recertification decision within six months of 
issuing its completeness determination.
 
September 29, 2005.
 
Honorable Samuel W. Bodman, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy, 
1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585.
 
Dear Mr. Secretary: Pursuant to section 8(f) of the Waste 
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Land Withdrawal Act, as amended, and 
in accordance with the WIPP Compliance Criteria at 40 CFR 194.11, 
I hereby notify you that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA or ``the Agency'') has determined that the U.S. Department 
of Energy's (DOE) Compliance Recertification Application for WIPP 
is complete. This completeness determination is an administrative 
determination required under the WIPP Compliance Criteria, which 
implement the Agency's Final Radioactive Waste Disposal 
Regulations at subparts B and C of 40 CFR part 191. While the 
completeness determination initiates the six- month evaluation 
period provided for in section 8(f)(2) of the Land Withdrawal 
Act, it does not have any generally applicable legal effect. 
Further, this determination does not imply or indicate that DOE's 
Compliance Recertification Application demonstrates compliance 
with the Compliance Criteria and/or the Disposal Regulations.
 
Section 8(f) of the amended Land Withdrawal Act requires EPA to 
evaluate all changes in conditions or activities at WIPP every 
five years to determine if the facility continues to comply with 
EPA's disposal regulations. This first recertification process 
includes a review of all of the changes made at the WIPP facility 
since the original 1998 EPA certification decision.
 
Under the applicable regulations, EPA may recertify the WIPP only 
after DOE has submitted a ``full'' (or complete) application (see 
40 CFR 194.11). Upon receipt of the Compliance Recertification 
Application on March 26, 2004, EPA immediately began its review 
to determine whether the application was complete. Shortly 
thereafter, the Agency began to identify areas of the Compliance 
Recertification Application that required supplementary 
information and analyses. In addition, EPA received public 
comments and held public meetings on the application that 
identified areas where additional information was needed for 
EPA's review.
 
May 20, 2004--EPA requested additional information on the 
performance assessment and monitoring.
 
July 12, 2004--EPA requested additional information on waste 
chemistry.
 
September 2, 2004--EPA requested additional references, 
clarification of issues related to chemistry and actinide 
solubilities, waste inventory, hydrology, and documentation on 
computer codes and parameters.
 
December 17, 2004--EPA requested additional information on the 
Hanford tank wastes that are included in the WIPP waste 
inventory.
 
February 3, 2005--EPA requested additional information on DOE's 
proposed MgO emplacement plan.
 
March 4, 2005--EPA requested additional information on 
performance assessment (PA) issues.
 
DOE submitted the requested information with a series of 11 
letters, which were sent on the following dates: July 15, 2004.
 
August 16, 2004.
 
September 7, 2004.
 
September 29, 2004.
 
October 20, 2004.
 
November 1, 2004.
 
December 17, 2004.
 
January 19, 2005.
 
March 21, 2005.
 
May 11, 2005.
 
September 20, 2005.
 
All completeness-related correspondence was placed in our dockets 
(A-98-49, EDOCKET OAR-2004-0025) and on our Web site ( ).
 
 
[[Page 61111]] Based on the information provided by DOE, we 
conclude that the Compliance Recertification Application is now 
complete. Again, this is the initial, administrative step that 
indicates DOE has provided information relevant to each 
applicable provision of the WIPP Compliance Criteria and in 
sufficient detail for us to proceed with a full technical 
evaluation of the adequacy of the application.
 
In accordance with section 8(f)(2) of the amended Land Withdrawal 
Act, EPA will make its recertification decision within six months 
of this letter.
 
To the extent possible, the Agency began conducting a preliminary 
technical review of the application upon its submittal by DOE, 
and has provided the Department with relevant technical comments 
on an ongoing basis. EPA will continue to conduct its technical 
review of the Compliance Recertification Application as needed, 
and will convey further requests for additional information and 
analyses. The Agency will issue its compliance recertification 
decision, in accordance with 40 CFR part 194 and part 191, 
subparts B and C, after it has thoroughly evaluated the complete 
CRA and considered relevant public comments. The public comment 
period on our completeness determination will remain open for 45 
days following the publication of this letter in the Federal 
Register.
 
Thank you for your cooperation during our review process.
 
Should your staff have any questions regarding this request, they 
may contact Bonnie Gitlin at (202) 343-9290 or by e-mail at .
 
Sincerely, Elizabeth A. Cotsworth. Director, Office of Radiation 
and Indoor Air.
 
Dated: October 13, 2005.
 
William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation.
 
[FR Doc. 05-20987 Filed 10-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

 
*****************************************************************
 31 asahi.com: Aomori accepts facility to store nuclear waste

10/20/2005

 The Asahi Shimbun

AOMORI--Aomori Governor Shingo Mimura said Wednesday his
prefecture will allow construction of an interim storage
facility for spent nuclear fuel to ease the burden on existing
pools that are filling up fast. 

The envisioned facility will store spent nuclear fuel from
plants around the country for up to 50 years before it is
shipped to be recycled and reused in reactors. 

The facility, the first of its kind in Japan, is to be built by
Tokyo Electric Power Co. and Japan Atomic Power Co. in Mutsu,
Aomori Prefecture, and is scheduled to start operations by 2010. 
The planned two-wing facility will be capable of storing a total
of 5,000 tons. 

The village of Rokkasho in the prefecture already hosts a spent
fuel reprocessing plant and a center for managing high-level
radioactive waste. 

"I felt a strong responsibility in terms of energy security and
supply for Japan," Governor Mimura told a news conference
Wednesday. He added that the facility could generate jobs for
Mutsu residents. 

The facility will play an important role in the nation's nuclear
fuel recycling policy. 

The interim storage site is needed because of the steady
increase in spent fuel from Japan's 53 nuclear reactors. 

They produce about 1,000 tons of spent fuel a year, which is
stored mainly within the plants' premises. About 70 percent of
the total storage area is already filled. The storage facilities
at plants operated by Tokyo Electric and Kansai Electric Power
Co. are close to being filled to capacity. 

Mimura had been reluctant to accept the facility out of concerns
that the stored waste would become a permanent fixture. 

The governor, therefore, obtained a promise earlier this month
for a 50-year storage limit from government and industry
officials, including Shoichi Nakagawa, minister of economy,
trade and industry. 

The envisioned interim facility will keep the spent fuel until
the entire recycling program is fully operational. 

The government's long-term nuclear policy outlines a recycling
plan to extract plutonium and uranium from spent nuclear fuel
produced at commercial power plants and reuse them as fuel in
nuclear reactors. 

The plan for the time being is to burn a uranium-plutonium mixed
oxide (MOX) fuel in regular light-water reactors. 

The spent fuel reprocessing plant in Rokkasho is scheduled to
start operations in May 2007. But it will be able to process up
to only 800 tons annually. Also, the start of its operation has
been postponed from the initially scheduled 1997. 

The use of plutonium in power generation, the pillar of Japan's
nuclear recycling program, remains unclear. The Monju
fast-breeder prototype reactor that is expected to produce and
run on plutonium is considered the main pillar in the nation's
nuclear policy. But the program has been plagued by
malfunctions, and there is no date set for its operation. 

The plan to use MOX fuel has not started either because of
accidents and cover-ups involving power companies.(IHT/Asahi:

October 20,2005) 
  
  + The Asahi Shimbun Company  

[Copyright Asahi Shimbun. All rights reserved. No reproduction
*****************************************************************
 32 asahi.com: A nuclear vision in the far north

10/20/2005

 The Asahi Shimbun
  
AOMORI-Although it is remote and sparsely populated, the
Shimokita Peninsula at the tip of Honshu is anything but just
untamed wilderness: It is dotted with nuclear facilities that
draw billions of yen in subsidies to the region. 

On Wednesday, Aomori Governor Shingo Mimura gave the green light
for construction of yet another facility, an interim storage
site for spent nuclear fuel. 

The area already boasts a uranium enrichment plant. A storage
facility for radioactive waste went into operation in the
village of Rokkasho in 1992. Another one started in 1995. Plans
are also on the drawing board for nuclear power plants in
Higashidori and Oma. 

The No. 1 reactor at Tohoku Electric Power Co. is scheduled to
start operations at the Higashidori nuclear power plant by the
end of the year. 

A plant to manufacture uranium-plutonium mixed oxide (MOX) fuel
is to scheduled to start operations in 2012 in Rokkasho. And a
reprocessing plant to extract plutonium from spent nuclear fuel
is to start in the same area in 2007. 

The world's first reactor that runs solely on MOX fuel is also
planned for Oma. 

Instead of burying spent fuel or arranging for its disposal, the
central government is committed to a recycling policy, which it
says is indispensable since Japan lacks natural resources. 

For officials and residents, the influx of facilities dealing
with radioactive substances is a double-edged sword. Some people
hope it will help revitalize the local economy. 

Aomori is among the poorest prefectures and has little industry.
Outside of things nuclear, fishing and agricultural operations
are key sources of revenue. 

Commenting Wednesday after Governor Mimura's announcement, a
ruling Liberal Democratic Party member of the Aomori prefectural
assembly said: "Aomori is not a dumping ground for radioactive
waste. We want people of Tokyo, the center of mass consumption,
to know that we are supporting the future energy policy of the
nation." 

The industrialization of the Shimokita Peninsula was first
considered in the 1960s. The area has a lot going for it: It is
relatively flat, sparsely populated and a long way from urban
centers. 

In 1969, plans were drawn up to develop the Mutsu-Ogawara area
with a huge petroleum complex at its center. But that project
was eventually scuttled. 

However, interest in using the vast empty landscape for
nuclear-related facilities gained momentum with the arrival of
utility companies scouting for locations for nuclear facilities
that were being shunned elsewhere. 

Local governments and businesses had high hopes the nuclear
industry would kickstart the stagnant rural economy. 

From fiscal 1981 through the end of fiscal 2003, the central
government injected 271 billion yen in special subsidies to host
nuclear power-related facilities in the northern prefecture. 
The splurge in nuclear projects proved to be a boon to local
building companies. 

"The local economy cannot do with out the nuclear fuel
facilities," said a senior official with a local government that
received state subsidies. 

Still, there is a nagging feeling that Aomori Prefecture should
somehow be better off by now. 

Fukui Prefecture shares a similar experience. It hosts 13 of the
country's 53 nuclear reactors. The Fukui prefectural government,
along with city, town and village administrations, received a
total of 224.9 billion yen from fiscal 1974 through fiscal 2004
in subsidies from the central government for hosting nuclear
power plants. 

Local governments also rake in local taxes levied on nuclear
fuel used at the plants. 

The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry's Agency for Natural
Resources and Energy plans to upgrade the subsidies program from
next fiscal year. Officials explained that the ministry wants to
promote nuclear fuel recycling facilities in addition to nuclear
power plants. 

An agency official, implying that money smooths over most
problems, said, "The subsidies encourage local people's
understanding of the facilities."(IHT/Asahi: October 20,2005) 
  
[Copyright Asahi Shimbun. All rights reserved. No reproduction
*****************************************************************
 33 NEWS.com.au: Scullion put on nuclear poll alert - 

By Nigel Adlam
 October 20, 2005   		 		 		 

CLP Senator Nigel Scullion is in danger of losing his seat over
the nuclear waste facility dispute, an Independent MLA claimed
yesterday. Loraine Braham, who represents the Alice Springs seat
of Braitling in the Territory Parliament, said the Senator had
won by only 4000 votes last year. 

She said Labor could win both the NT's Senate seats in 2007. 

"Does he really think he has the confidence of the majority of
voters if he will not stand up for the Territory?" Ms Braham
asked. 

"A change of mind by just 2000 people showing their wrath at the
ballot box and his time in the Senate will come to an end." 

Mrs Braham said the Senator had gone back on a promise to vote
against the waste depository being sited in the NT to please
Prime Minister John Howard. 

She said it wasn't "a good way to preserve his seat". 

Senator Scullion yesterday said he didn't know if he would lose
his seat. "I haven't put my mind to that - people will consider
all this when they come to vote," he said.. 

But he added: "I'm in tune and in touch with the public." 

He said he would vote in favour of the waste depository as
otherwise Lucas Heights would not be allowed to commission a
reactor to produce medical isotopes. 

The Territory Government yesterday wrote an open letter to
Senator Scullion urging him to vote against the nuclear waste
facility. 

The letter, signed by Chief Minister Clare Martin, said: "The
Northern Territory Parliament calls on you to protect the rights
of our citizens and vote against Canberra's draconian
legislation. 

"The Prime Minister has already lied to us and said that our
rights would be respected. 

"This is obviously not the case. 

"Senator, you have guaranteed Territorians that you would cross
the floor and vote against a national nuclear dump. 

"Senator Scullion said, 'If there's legislation, I'll vote
against it. Were not having anybody else's waste in our back
yard'. 

"Territorians have trusted you to represent them in Canberra.
Stick to your word and protect our rights." 

Ms Martin urged Territorians to act and telephone, fax and email
Senator Scullion and Prime Minister John Howard. 		  		 		

*****************************************************************
 34 Deseret News: Control board to hear appeal on Envirocare
 
[deseretnews.com] 

Thursday, October 20, 2005                               

Associated Press

An environmental group's appeal to block the proposed expansion 
of a low-level radiation and hazardous waste site will move 
forward, the state Radiation Control Board decided Wednesday.

       The board met to determine if the Healthy Environment
Alliance of Utah had legal standing to challenge the Division of
Radiation Control's decision to allow Envirocare to double the
size of its waste site.

       "They voted for HEAL Utah to have standing before the
board," said Dane Finerfrock, director of the division.

       The board will meet again on Nov. 4 and a hearing will
likely be scheduled then, he said.

       Envirocare, located about 80 miles west of Salt Lake
City, received preliminary permission to increase its site from
543 acres to 1,079 from the division.

       The Legislature and Gov. Jon Huntsman must also give
their approval before construction of the expansion can begin.

       Envirocare spokesman Mark Walker said, "We appreciate the
board taking the time to hear both sides. We respect their
decision and look forward to the next in the process."

       Envirocare has said it has adequate capacity at the
landfill to accept low-level radioactive and hazardous waste for
up to 20 years.

       Envirocare is one of three U.S. sites licensed to take
commercial low-level radioactive waste. Envirocare handles much
of the commercial radioactive waste that comes from nuclear
power plants, as well as from medical and research facilities.
The Utah site also counts on federal cleanup waste for about
half of its revenue. 			  		 		   

	 	 		 	 
World & Nation + Utah + Sports + Business + Opinion + Front Page
 
© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company
 	 		 			 		 	 [ /] 
*****************************************************************
 35 Deseret News: Foes of nuclear waste win round on legal front
 
[deseretnews.com] 

Thursday, October 20, 2005                               

Associated Press

An environmental group's appeal to block the proposed expansion 
of a low-level radiation and hazardous waste site will move 
forward, the state Radiation Control Board decided Wednesday.

       The board met to determine if the Healthy Environment
Alliance of Utah had legal standing to challenge the Division of
Radiation Control's decision to allow Envirocare to double the
size of its waste site.

       "They voted for HEAL Utah to have standing before the
board," said Dane Finerfrock, director of the division.

       The board will meet again on Nov. 4 and a hearing will
likely be scheduled then, he said.

       Envirocare, located about 80 miles west of Salt Lake
City, received preliminary permission to increase its site from
543 acres to 1,079 from the division.

       The Legislature and Gov. Jon Huntsman must also give
their approval before construction of the expansion can begin.

       "This (decision) is an important victory for the citizens
of Utah because locking our state into 50 more years as the
nation's nuclear waste dump will have long-term impacts on
public health and the image of our state," said Jason
Groenewold, director of HEAL Utah.

       Envirocare spokesman Mark Walker said, "We appreciate the
board taking the time to hear both sides. We respect their
decision and look forward to the next in the process." 			  		
		   
© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
 36 toledoblade.com: A well deserved Nobel

Article published Thursday, October 20, 2005
 
 

THE award of this year's Nobel Peace Prize to the International
Atomic Energy Agency and its chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, chosen
from among 199 nominees, made some very important points.


 The first message by the Nobel awards committee was to
underline the vital importance of the role of the IAEA in
international affairs these days.

Basically, the agency applies itself to the difficult and
dangerous problem of countries developing peaceful nuclear
capacities, in the field of energy for example, but without
those abilities spilling over into the nuclear weapons area.

The IAEA, as the keeper of countries' obligations to respect
their commitments as possible signatories of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, carries a heavy responsibility. The
agency was very active in Iraq prior to the U.S. attack, and it
is active now in trying to see that problems involving Iran and
North Korea not degenerate into war.

The second point made by the committee's award of the peace
prize to the IAEA's chief, and the agency itself, was the
respect that the international community has for Mr. ElBaradei.

At 63, with eight years of experience as IAEA head during
difficult times, he is unique as an Arab scientist playing this
international role, particularly in the Middle East, which is
center stage for much of the world's nuclear drama.

Iran, as a signer of the non-proliferation treaty, is seeking to
move to production of peaceful nuclear energy against a backdrop
of U.S. suspicions that it has the related intention of
developing nuclear weapons.

The three treaty non-signatories with nuclear weapons, India,
Israel, and Pakistan, are important powers in the same region.
Mr. ElBaradei, as an Egyptian, avoids the stigma of being an
outsider preaching and prescribing to the leaders of the region.

A regional war that broke out would clearly risk bringing
casualties to his home country as well.

The third point, valid even though the Nobel committee
maintained that it was not, is that the awarding of the prize to
the IAEA and its chief was, to a degree, a rebuff to the United
States. The Bush Administration used a stated position of no
confidence in the IAEA's ability to police and keep under
surveillance Iraq's alleged, and ultimately nonexistent, nuclear
weapons program as one argument for starting the Iraq war.

When Mr. ElBaradei refused to yield his position and his
organization's reputation for integrity to White House
caterwauling, the Bush Administration under the leadership of
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice mounted an attack on him
inside the IAEA, designed to block a renewal of his mandate.

That effort failed, he remained director general, and now he
will pursue his organization's work with renewed authority as a
winner of the renowned peace prize.

Good for him, good for the IAEA, and good for the world for
having its nuclear problems tackled in a way that seeks to avoid
war, and to resolve nuclear issues through peaceful means.
 
 The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660
, (419) 724-6000 
*****************************************************************
 37 LA Daily News: Rules change impacts field lab

Launched: 10/20/2005 12:00:00 AM                                                        
		
Rejected claims can be refiled
               
Kerry Cavanaugh, Staff Writer   

  People who became ill while working at the Santa Susana Field
Laboratory or other nuclear research facilities in the San
Fernando Valley area may be eligible for workers' compensation
payments of up to $250,000 under new federal regulations,
officials said Wednesday. 

Two recent changes to the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program allows former employees or their survivors
to apply - or reapply - for payments if they were sickened by
their work with radiation or toxic chemicals as part of research
conducted for decades under contracts with the Department of
Energy.

 The announcement was made during meetings held Tuesday night
and Wednesday with former workers of the Energy Technology
Engineering Center, Atomics International and Rocketdyne - which
was later purchased by Rockwell and then the Boeing Co. Among
the facilities involved were the company's Canoga Park, De Soto,
Downey and Santa Susana Field Lab Area 4 operations.

 "This program is for real. We do pay out benefits - $1.2
billion has been paid to employees and families," said John
Vance, acting branch chief for policy, regulations and
procedures with the U.S. Department of Labor.

 The program, which was passed by Congress in 2000, uses federal
tax dollars to compensate workers and their families for
injuries and illness resulting from decades of nuclear research
and weapons development during the Cold War.

 The announcement was good news for former employees at
Rocketdyne's Santa Susana Field Lab, where some worked on
nuclear reactors to help provide reliable power for space
exploration and satellites for the Department of Energy. Others
handled toxic chemicals in their research.

 "There were a lot of bugs to be worked out, and the engineers
had to do it. I don't think they knew what they were getting
exposed to," said Helen Trueblood, whose husband, Floyd, a field
lab employee, died of lymphoma and a lung condition.

 Trueblood said she has a stack of paperwork documenting her
husband's illnesses, and she plans to apply for payments.

 "I expect to be compensated for sorrow and pain. My husband
gave his life, and he suffered so much," she said.

 A Labor Department decision last month overrules a policy
implemented by the Department of Energy and the Boeing Co.,
which limited who could qualify for compensation for
work-related illnesses or injuries.

 Previously, only a select group of workers assigned to atomic
operations were eligible for $150,000 payments under the
so-called Part B program, which meant that most Rocketdyne
workers were denied payments, Vance said.

 However, Rocketdyne workers said they, too, were exposed to 
radiation while working in Area 4, a central site for nuclear 
research.

 And after much legal wrangling, the Department of Labor decided
to consider compensation for any employees who worked in Area 4
at the Field Lab or at Rocketdyne's Canoga Park, De Soto Avenue
and Downey facilities.

 That could mean that Robert Perock - who suffers from acute
myeloid leukemia - and other workers who got rejection letters
from the compensation program could now be due up to $150,000
each.

 Perock, 75, of Woodland Hills formerly worked in rocket
operations - not atomics - at the field lab, so he was told in
2002 that he didn't qualify for compensation. Now the Department
of Labor is supposed to review his case again.

 The second change to the compensation program further expands
the number of workers who are eligible. The so-called Part E
program, which pays up to $250,000, now includes workers who
became sick as a result of exposure to any toxic substance - not
just radiation.

 "Virtually any type of illness that can be affiliated with a
toxic chemical used at the site can be considered," Vance said.
"I think there is going to be a significantly larger number of
people who are eligible under Part E than Part B."

 Workers must prove they worked at one of the four Department of
Energy subcontractor sites and developed an illness that can be
linked to chemicals used at the site, or their families must
provide the proof.

 Roughly 35,000 people nationwide have filed claims under the
new program. Officials could not immediately say how many people
locally would be eligible.

 Former employees can receive up to $250,000, and their spouses
or dependent children can receive up to $175,000.

 Kerry Cavanaugh, (818) 713-3746 
INFORMATION

 For more information or to file a claim, call the Department of
Labor's district office in Seattle at (888) 805-3401 or call the
Energy Employees Compensation Resource Center in Livermore,
Calif., at (866) 606-6302.   
                  
                  Los Angeles Newspaper Group 
*****************************************************************
 38 csmonitor.com: Extreme makeover for a nuclear factory | 
 
 Commentary > The Monitor's View 

from the October 21, 2005 edition       
 
 The Monitor's View 

Quick. Name a huge - and hugely important - federal government
project completed decades ahead of time and billions of dollars
under cost estimates. Stumped? Here's a hint. It involves the
first cleanup of an idled US nuclear weapons facility. 
In 1994, a study by the Department of Energy (DOE) estimated it
would take 60 years and $37 billion to clean up and demolish the
Denver area's Rocky Flats site, a veritable city of government
buildings that produced plutonium triggers for nuclear weapons.
	 	 	
Friday, 10/21/05

 
But last week, in a rare development that holds lessons for the
DOE's 38 nuclear weapons facilities, the contractor hired in
1995 to scrub Rocky Flats said the job was done. The 800
buildings had been demolished, the contaminated soil and
plutonium removed to guarded storage sites. Time: 10 years.
Cost: less than $7 billion.
 
The DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency, and state
officials still must verify that the site - which will be turned
into a wildlife refuge - meets their safety standards.
 
Because the stakeholders have been working closely together,
it's unlikely something major will turn up. Even if it did,
though, the project, run by Kaiser-Hill Co., still deserves high
praise for the innovations that brought it to an early and cost-
effective conclusion - and aided the world's nonproliferation
effort.
 
Initially, progress was excruciatingly slow, relations with the
various players contentious, and Kaiser-Hill received
enforcement actions for safety violations. But frustration
prompted changes in approach, and the project turned around.
 
When Kaiser-Hill renegotiated its contract in 2000, for
instance, the DOE agreed to an unusual incentive package -
eventually more than $500 million and well worth it - to finish
early (by December 2006) and under budget. Kaiser-Hill passed
the incentive all the way down to hourly workers. Penalties for
safety infractions discouraged shoddy work.
 
Congress, tired of inertia, also tried something new. It
guaranteed stable funding for the life of the contract. No more
waiting for dollars each year.
 
Kaiser-Hill opted for complete transparency. It made all of its
data available to state regulators and community groups, and it
talked regularly with them. That restored trust.
 
It also involved workers in planning, and encouraged technical
innovation. That resulted in a new way of handling huge
equipment - decontaminating it to low-level radioactive waste
standards, then spraying it with a hardening goop that became
its own shipping container. A month-long process of cutting up
equipment shrank to a day-long one.
 
It would be a relief if a "Rocky Flats" model could be repeated
in the nuclear power industry, stymied by waste-disposal issues.
That's unlikely, though. For one thing, commercial nuclear power
doesn't have the luxury of DOE facilities to accept its spent
fuel rods. Alas, the industry is still waiting for permanent
storage below Nevada's Yucca Mountain.
 
But those cleaning up other DOE nuclear weapons sites, such as
the difficult one in Hanford, Wa., can learn from Rocky Flats.
 
While much about Rocky Flats was unique, surely flexibility,
transparency, incentives, and innovation can cross state lines.
 	 
  www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science
Monitor. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 39 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Rocky 
 
                        FR Doc 05-20989 

[Federal Register: October 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 202)] 
[Notices] [Page 61123] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20oc05-39] [[Page 61123]]
 
Flats AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Rocky Flats.
 
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) 
requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the 
Federal Register.
 
 
DATES: Thursday, November 3, 2005, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.
 
ADDRESSES: College Hill Library, Room L-107, Front Range 
Community College, 3705 W. 112th Avenue, Westminster, Colorado. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Korkia, Executive Director, 
Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Board, 12101 Airport Way, Unit B, 
Broomfield, CO, 80021; telephone (303) 966-7855; fax (303) 
966-7856.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related 
activities.
 
Tentative Agenda: 1. Presentation and Discussion on the Rocky 
Flats Interim Surveillance and Maintenance Plan.
 
2. Consideration of Board Proposal to Hire an Outside Expert to 
Develop a Risk Communication Strategy for Rocky Flats.
 
3. Presentation and Discussion on the Post-Closure Environmental 
Monitoring Effort for Rocky Flats.
 
4. Other Board business may be conducted as necessary. Public 
Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
 
Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or 
after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to agenda items should contact Ken Korkia at the 
address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be 
received at least five days prior to the meeting and reasonable 
provisions will be made to include the presentation in the 
agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to 
conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly 
conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment 
will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their 
comments. This notice is being published less than 15 days before 
the date of the meeting due to programmatic issues.
 
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the office of the Rocky Flats Citizens 
Advisory Board, 12101 Airport Way, Unit B, Broomfield, CO, 80021; 
telephone (303) 966-7855. Hours of operations are 7:30 a.m. to 4 
p.m., Monday through Friday. Minutes will also be made available 
by writing or calling Ken Korkia at the address or telephone 
number listed above. Board meeting minutes are posted on RFCAB's 
Web site within one month following each meeting at: 
http://www.rfcab.org/Minutes.HTML. Issued at Washington, DC on 
October 14, 2005.
 
Carol Matthews, Acting Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. 05-20989 Filed 10-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************