***************************************************************** 10/21/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.245 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Said Will Return to Nuclear Talks 2 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., S. Korea Hail North's Nuclear Pledge 3 AFP: Flexible N.Korea ready to engage, Richardson says 4 Plane Crashes, Terrorist Threats, Dirty Bombs - All Part Of UN Nucle 5 AFP: US official in India for nuclear talks - NUCLEAR REACTORS 6 MercoPress: Venezuela claims right to nuclear energy 7 RIA Novosti: Russian company delivers 20 nuclear cartridges to 8 BBC: Viewpoint: Finland's new reactor 9 BBC: Viewpoint: German nuclear phase-out 10 TheStar.com - Editorial: Valid questions over nuclear plant 11 US: DesMoinesRegister.com: Sale of Iowa nuke plant passes one hurdle 12 US: APP.COM: NRC asks AmerGen for data on plant 13 US: NRC: Solicitation of Public Comments on the Implementation of th 14 US: NRC: Fifth International MACCS Users' Group Meeting 15 US: NRC: Duke Energy Corporation; Notice of Withdrawal of Applicatio 16 Financial Express: N-energy co-operation on track - Burns 17 Japan Times: High court rejects attempt to block Yamaguchi reactor 18 US: Boston Globe: NRC issues report, but doesn't release it - 19 US: Hudson Valley News: Kelly says NRC should speed up leak investig 20 US: Hudson Valley News: Karben says the NRC should open New York off 21 Guardian Unlimited: Chief scientist backs nuclear power revival 22 US: The Sandspur: Tell Nuclear Power to Spilt - 23 ottawasun.com: Restarts key to nuclear future - CEO 24 Rediff: India's first indigenous reactor in 10 yrs NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 25 Brampton Guardian: Nuclear incinerator under attack NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 26 US: ICT: Skull Valley's nerve gas neighbors 27 edie news centre: Irish Environment Minister tells UK to end reproce 28 Interfax: Russia not importing foreign spent nuclear fuel - official 29 AU ABC: Govt to consider proposal for alternative dump site. 30 UPI: Security &Terrorism - Japan set for nuke fuel storage facility 31 Sydney Morning Herald: Desert wasteland - 32 AU ABC: Indigenous group votes on new site for waste dump 33 AU ABC: Govt to consider proposal for alternative dump site PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 34 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: H Reactor cocooning marks halfway point 35 LA Daily News: Field lab's big concern is mudslides ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Said Will Return to Nuclear Talks From the Associated Press [UP] Friday October 21, 2005 10:46 AM AP Photo SEL108 By JOSEPH COLEMAN Associated Press Writer TOKYO (AP) - North Korea is committed to unconditionally resuming talks on its atomic weapons program and returning to the international nuclear nonproliferation pact, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said Friday after days of talks in Pyongyang. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who was in the communist country this week at the invitation of the government, said the North had also pledged to allow outside oversight of its disarmament. However, Richardson also said North Korean was still running nuclear facilities believed to be at the center of their weapons program, and had reprocessed spent nuclear fuel this year into plutonium, a raw material for nuclear bombs. His trip came amid a new burst of diplomacy ahead of the next round of six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Chinese President Hu Jintao will visit North Korea next week, and the chief U.S. envoy to the talks planned to meet with Chinese and Japanese officials soon. Richardson, a Democrat who traveled to Pyongyang with the approval of the Republican-led government, said North Korean officials had a more positive attitude toward the United States and were more open about their nuclear activities than they have been in the past. He was in the country from Monday until Thursday. Pyongyang, for example, guaranteed that it would attend the next round of six-party talks - expected in early November in Beijing - without conditions, Richardson said. ``The six-party talks are crucial. They believe very strongly in resolving those issues because they recognize it's an opportunity for them to get out of international isolation,'' he told reporters in Tokyo before heading to Seoul, South Korea. ``I believe they're sending signals of wanting to engage, but there are some tough negotiations ahead,'' Richardson said. ``And I'm not saying that they're going to be easy.'' The most recent round ended last month with North Korea pledging to abandon its nuclear program, which it claims has already yielded weapons. The next talks, which involve China, Japan, the two Koreas, Russia and the United States, are scheduled for November but no date has been set. One sticking point is Pyongyang's demand that in exchange for giving up its nuclear program, it is provided with a light-water nuclear reactor to meet its dire energy needs. Light-water reactors are believed to be less easily diverted for weapons use. The United States, however, says this issue should be tackled only after Pyongyang has verifiably dismantled its weapons efforts. Richardson said the officials he spoke to - including Kim Yong Nam, the country's No. 2 leader after Kim Jong Il - suggested they would allow the United States and others to closely monitor the operation of the reactor to ensure none of the spent fuel was diverted to weapons production. Richardson said while he was in North Korea, he toured its Yongbyon nuclear facility and spoke with the plant's director, learning that the North Koreans had refueled the plant in April. Officials indicated they had reprocessed all the spent fuel into plutonium, his delegation said. A member of his delegation, Jeffry Sterba, chairman of PNM Resources, a New Mexico-based energy company, estimated that amount of spent fuel would yield between 11 and 13 pounds of plutonium. ``I urged them in the strongest possible terms to shut down the reactor during the six-party talks as a sign of good faith,'' Richardson said, adding that his suggestion was under consideration. Richardson said that he pressed his hosts about the number of nuclear weapons they had produced, but got no clear answer. ``They've stated that they have them in the past. My sense was two (bombs), perhaps, that's my sense,'' he said. ``I pressed, but that's the best I got - but I can't verify that.'' Richardson said that the North Koreans had backed off from demanding the departure of humanitarian aid workers in the impoverished country. Pyongyang is now only asking that the presence be reduced over time and that the humanitarian aid be redefined as economic development assistance. The trip is part of a series of diplomatic moves surrounding North Korea this month. Chinese President Hu will begin a three-day trip to North Korea next Friday at the invitation of Kim Jong Il, the official Xinhua News Agency said. China is North Korea's last major ally and a key supplier of food and energy aid. In addition, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill was to meet with China's deputy chief negotiator to the six-way talks, Li Bin, in Hawaii on Monday, and Japan's representative to the talks, Kenichiro Sasae, on Oct. 31, a U.S. Embassy spokesman in Tokyo said. Also Friday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his South Korean counterpart, Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung, issued a joint statement hailing a promise by North Korea to abandon its nuclear program, but stressing the need for verifiable progress. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 2 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., S. Korea Hail North's Nuclear Pledge From the Associated Press [UP] Friday October 21, 2005 11:16 AM AP Photo TOK209 By ROBERT BURNS AP Military Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his South Korean counterpart on Friday hailed a promise by North Korea to abandon its nuclear program, but they also cited ``causes of significant concern'' in the North's continued development of long-range missiles. Rumsfeld also affirmed the U.S. commitment to maintain a troop presence in South Korea, and he bristled at a suggestion that South Koreans increasingly believe they would be better off without the Americans. Later he received a raucous greeting from about 1,000 troops who gathered in a gymnasium at the Yongsan post that is headquarters for U.S. Forces Korea. He thanked the troops for their service and compared the difficulties the United States faces in its current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the darker days of the 1950-53 Korean War, in which more than 30,000 U.S. troops were killed. He noted that many had asked why the United States should sacrifice in battle on the Korean peninsula. ``Today the answer to the question is clear,'' he said, noting that South Korea has grown into an economic powerhouse and a stable democracy. His unspoken implication was that, given time, U.S. sacrifices in Iraq and Afghanistan will produce stability and prosperity in those countries, too. ``The Republic of Korea, an impoverished and devastated nation over a half-century ago, now has one of the world's most powerful economies and is an important democracy with a large and increasingly capable armed force,'' Rumsfeld told a Seoul news conference following 2 hours of annual defense talks. These changing circumstances make it important for South Korea to take on a greater share of the burden for its own defense, Rumsfeld said, but Koreans should not dismiss the value of U.S. support. ``The United States of America has invested the lives of a great many Americans in helping the Republic of Korea to be free,'' he said in a joint appearance with South Korean Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung. ``We are a part of this alliance at the request of the Republic of Korea's government,'' he added. In a joint statement issued after their talks, the U.S. and South Korean defense officials welcomed Pyongyang's promise in six-party talks to abandon its development of nuclear weapons, but added that concerns remain. ``Both sides noted that North Korea's continued development of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, along with the danger of proliferation of those weapons and technologies, are causes of significant concern,'' the communique said. It said they were hopeful it would ``facilitate the verifiable nuclear dismantlement in order to realize the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula at the earliest opportunity.'' During the talks, Rumsfeld and Yoon agreed to ``appropriately accelerate discussions on command relations and wartime operational control.'' Seoul has been seeking control of the joint command of U.S. as well as South Korean troops here during wartime, which traditionally has been in U.S. control. Rumsfeld said the U.S. welcomes efforts by Korea to ``take on more responsibility,'' but he reaffirmed on behalf of the United States its ``continued provision of a nuclear umbrella'' for Korea. That is a promise, also made to Japan, to use the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal as a deterrent force - or as an offensive weapon, if necessary - to preserve the South's independence. The Pentagon has begun pulling thousands of U.S. troops out of South Korea, where it has maintained a contingent of about 37,000 troops for decades amid concerns that communist North Korea might attempt to reunite the two Koreas by launching an attack. Gen. Leon J. LaPorte, commander of U.S. forces in Korea, told reporters Thursday evening that by the end of this year 8,000 of the 12,500 troops designated for withdrawal will have left South Korea. Rumsfeld was asked during Friday's news conference whether Washington wanted to make further cuts. ``I know of no plans to do that,'' he replied. Before the meeting Friday, Rumsfeld visited the cemetery where the Korean War dead are buried. He laid a wreath and paid respects in silence for a few minutes. The U.S.-South Korean defense alliance dates to the 1950-53 Korean War in which the United States and other U.N. member nations intervened on the South's side. Substantial numbers of American troops have remained in South Korea since the war ended in a cease-fire. In recent years they have handed to the South Korean military more of the key missions designed to deter the North from invading and for preparing defenses in the event that deterrence failed. LaPorte said that although the North is hampered by a weak economy and limited fuel resources, it remains capable of launching an attack that potentially could kill large numbers in the South. ``The North Korean threat has not changed,'' LaPorte said. --- On the Net: U.S. Forces Korea: http://www.korea.army.mil/ Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 3 AFP: Flexible N.Korea ready to engage, Richardson says Fri Oct 21, 6:17 AM ET TOKYO (AFP) - North Korea is ready to return to talks on its nuclear program and would accept a visit by the UN's atomic watchdog, US politician Bill Richardson said Friday after four days of talks in the Stalinist state. He said North Korea, which has sometimes made contradictory statements about its intentions, indicated it was willing to re-join the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and adhere to international standards for its nuclear program. Pyongyang is due to take part in resumed six-nation nuclear talks in Beijing in November, and Richardson said it was "sending signals of wanting to engage" -- even on the contentious issue of nuclear power reactors. "My sense is that they want more dialogue with the United States," said Richardson, a former US energy secretary and US ambassador to the United Nations " /> United Nationswho has now held three meetings with top North Korean officials. North Korea suspended its membership of the NPT in 1993 and placed limitations on International Atomic Energy Agency " /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) inspections. It withdrew from the treaty altogether in December 2002 and kicked out inspectors. Richardson, who met Pyongyang's number two official Kim Yong-Nam, said North Korea was ready to return "unconditionally" to the talks and that IAEA officials would be invited for a visit. "They ... indicated they would at an appropriate time invite IAEA officials, including (director) Mohamed ElBaradei, to North Korea," he said. The officials "reaffirmed their commitment to rejoining the Non-Proliferation Treaty (and) also adhering to IAEA safeguards," he said. At talks last month, North Korea pledged to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for promises of aid and security, the first major breakthrough in more than two years of deadlock over Pyongyang's atomic ambitions. In return, the United States said it would respect the North's sovereignty and would not attack, a fear Pyongyang had repeatedly said was a main reason for insisting on developing an atomic bomb program. But after the agreement was announced, North Korea, which is badly short of electricity, immediately said it would insist on having light-water nuclear reactors for civilian energy purposes before giving up its weapons. Richardson said North Korean officials "showed some flexibility" in their attempt to gain light-water reactors, an issue he said was not likely to be a "deal breaker." "They are prepared for oversight of the light-water reactors by the United States, the IAEA or other six-party countries, in terms of co-managing, in terms of having the Untied States participate in the fuel-cycle at the front end and the back end," he said. But Richardson said negotiators would have to establish a "very strong regime of verification" given Pyongyang's record of broken promises to international bodies. The standoff with North Korea erupted in October 2002 when the United States said North Korea was running a secret uranium enrichment program in violation of an earlier deal that had allowed construction to start on two reactors. Although he did not receive specific responses to his questions on nuclear weapons, the US politician believes the North's claim already to have atomic bombs was true. "The sense of the response I got was that they have a small number on the lower end of one to five," Richardson said. Meanwhile, North Korea also promised Richardson to allow 30 international workers of the World Food Program to stay in the Stalinist state, as well as staff from some 30 non-government organizations to provide humanitarian aid. Pyongyang has previously threatened to kick them out. Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 4 Plane Crashes, Terrorist Threats, Dirty Bombs - All Part Of UN Nuclear Exercise Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 18:01:18 -0400 Airplanes crashed, terrorist threats proliferated and dirty bombs were primed as 38 of the world's senior security officials wrestled with doomsday scenarios in a mock emergency exercise mounted by the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency. By the time "Operation Jumpstart" was over four hours later at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seminar on nuclear security for managers and decision-makers at the Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago, the officials from 17 countries breathed a collective sigh of relief. They had "survived" to live another day, but not without some bumps, bruises, and missed opportunities along the way in the exercise, which was an educational capstone of a multi-faceted two-week-long seminar. "The situations are very challenging and difficult to handle, even though you know they are not real," William Meehan, a senior <"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2005/nuclear_security.html">IAEA officer heading the nuclear security seminar, said. "People take the exercise very seriously. It's excellent training." Operation Jumpstart grouped the men and women into four fictitious countries, and each had an assigned leadership role, from Prime Minister down. As explained by Argonne's Diane Naples, their joint mission was to work their way through a wave of scenarios that tested their emergency response and readiness skills. The seminar, into its fourth consecutive year, covers a targeted range of topics related to nuclear and radiological security from a multi-disciplinary perspective. Participants include officials in such fields as law enforcement, nuclear regulation, radiological safety, and customs and border control. One important focus is on the international dimensions of nuclear security, the imperative of cooperation to identify and strengthen weak links, and the IAEA's role. Another point of emphasis is emergency response and preparedness, especially for terrorist-related events that once were unthinkable and for incidents or threats involving nuclear or radiological materials. Other seminar participants were from China, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Sri Lanka, Mexico, Ecuador, South Africa, Iraq, Republic of Korea, Brazil, Panama, Mongolia, and the United States. 2005-10-21 00:00:00.000 ________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml ***************************************************************** 5 AFP: US official in India for nuclear talks - Fri Oct 21, 4:13 AM ET NEW DELHI (AFP) - A senior US State Department official was to hold talks with India's foreign secretary on a nuclear deal between the two nations that breaks precedent on decades of non-proliferation policy. US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns will meet Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran on Friday to discuss the deal, which requires New Delhi to separate civilian and military nuclear programs in exchange for advanced civilian nuclear technology. The deal, agreed between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W. Bush " /> President George W. Bushin July, would give India access to technology normally reserved for nations that have signed the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). India would place its civilian nuclear reactors under International Atomic Energy Agency " /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) inspections while Washington would lobby the 44-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group to allow civilian nuclear sales to India. The group normally restricts cooperation with countries, like India, that are not NPT members. "I think by the time that President Bush " /> President Bushvisits New Delhi in early 2006, we will see that both of our countries would have met our commitment in this landmark agreement," Burns said in New York before leaving. He was instrumental in developing the partnership agreement, including civil nuclear energy cooperation, which he called the "high-water mark" of relations with India since its founding in 1947. India last month was accused by opposition political parties of caving in to US pressure in supporting an IAEA resolution that opens the door to reporting Iran " /> Iranto the UN Security Council for violating international nuclear safeguards. The move came after US legislators warned that the nuclear deal, which must be approved by the US Congress, could be jeopardized if India refused to back firm action against Iran, with which New Delhi has valuable energy ties. Burns said the vote was "a very important sign that India is a responsible nuclear power." "Since the Indian government's very decisive and clear vote in the IAEA, that issue has disappeared in the US Congress and we now find substantial support in Congress for the agreement reached in July," he said. Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 6 MercoPress: Venezuela claims right to nuclear energy Falklands-Malvinas & South Atlantic News [MercoPress - www.mercopress.com] - Thursday, 20 October As to recent reports that the government of President Hugo Chavez was holding talks with Argentina for the purchase of a nuclear reactor, Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel said: "We are exploring that possibility ... but there is no accord, we have signed no agreement with Argentina or any other country". Mr. Rangel said that when talking of Venezuela and nuclear energy there’s “no way can you think of bombs, of weapons of war or of mass destruction The vice president blasted as "hypocritical" unnamed nations "that want to condemn a good part of (the world's) countries so that they don’t develop nuclear energy". Last October 9, Buenos Aires daily Clarin reported that Caracas was negotiating the purchase from Argentina of a "medium-power nuclear-electric reactor", a claim denied the following day by Venezuelan Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez. He said that Venezuela was working with Argentina and Brazil "to broaden conventions on scientific and technological cooperation on nuclear matters ... and for the moment, we don't contemplate acquisition of any element for the generation of atomic energy”. Fin del Texto - Mercosur - Thursday, 20 October Volver a la página principal... MERCOPRESS is a news agency concentrating in Mercosur countries which operates from Montevideo, Uruguay, and includes in its area of influence the South Atlantic and insular territories. © 1997-2001 Mercopress - E-mail: admin@mercopress.com- Web technical help: webmaster@mercopress.com E-mail: merco@mercopress.com- Web technical help: webmaster@mercopress.com ***************************************************************** 7 RIA Novosti: Russian company delivers 20 nuclear cartridges to Prague reactor 21/ 10/ 2005 MOSCOW, October 21 (RIA Novosti) - Russian corporation TVEL delivered 20 cartridges of low-enriched nuclear fuel to the Vrabec research nuclear reactor in Prague, the company's press service said Friday. The fuel will enhance the safety of the reactor, which is used by Czech university students and scientific personnel. TVEL develops, produces, and sells nuclear fuel. It also runs sister affiliates, Russian nuclear cycle enterprises. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 8 BBC: Viewpoint: Finland's new reactor Last Updated: Friday, 21 October 2005 [Finnish MP Mikko Elo] Mr Elo: "Nuclear power brings significant economic benefits" Mikko Elo, an MP for Finland's Social Democrat Party, backed the country's decision in 2002 to build the first new nuclear reactor in Europe for more than a decade. He knows better than most what nuclear power entails. His constituency already has two reactors and it will also host the new one, to be completed in 2009. As the UK gears up for a debate on the future of its nuclear industry, Mr Elo tells the BBC News website why he thinks nuclear power is right for Finland. [Construction site of Finland's Olkiluoto 3 reactor] Finland's Olkiluoto 3 reactor is due to be finished in 2009 We need a lot of energy in Finland. We have a cold climate, long distances and an energy-intensive industry. We make good use of almost every form of energy production. Hydropower, coal, natural gas, wood, wind and turf all play a part. But if we are to help our economy as well as the environment, the answer has to be more nuclear power. At the moment, nuclear provides 28% of our electricity. Once the fifth reactor is up and running, that figure will rise to 34%. We simply could not honour our commitments to the Kyoto Protocol without it. Economic benefits The Kyoto Protocol is incredibly costly for Finland. We have cleaned up our factories and we use energy efficiently - but it is not enough. Germany currently plans to close all its nuclear reactors by 2020. Outgoing environment minister Jurgen Trittin explains why he pushed for the phase-out Viewpoint: Germany's nuclear phase-out We couldn't meet the costs of Kyoto without the help of nuclear power, which is an extremely clean form of energy. It also brings significant economic benefits to our country. Unlike other energy providers, the nuclear industry does not require state subsidies, which means the public doesn't have to pay for it through taxes. It is also a very big employer. In my constituency, where we already have two reactors, there is very little opposition to nuclear power - and that is partly because of the economic benefits it brings. FINLAND'S ELECTRICITY SUPPLY 25.1% nuclea 16.9% hydro 18.2% coal 11.7% biofuels 11.7% natural gas 7.5% peat 5.6% imports 2.1% oil 1.2% waste fuels Source: Statistics Finland 2004 New nuclear power stations take a lot of people to build them and once complete, they employ about 300 or 400 people each. Of course, there are problems with nuclear power that need to be understood. Waste disposal is an issue, and there is also a risk of accidents and terrorism. Terror fears We have decided to dispose of all our own waste, although we will not accept waste from other countries. Our experts tell us Finnish rock is very good for nuclear waste disposal - and I trust our engineers. As far as I understand it, there is very little risk involved. I believe fear will only gr if the issue isn't discussed in public All our reactors are guarded very carefully, but we don't regard terrorism as such a big risk in Finland. I know it is a big fear in London, but it isn't the same in Finland. That is not to say there isn't public concern. Although 90% of people in my own constituency are in favour of nuclear power, the same does not apply nationally. In the nationwide public polls, the opposition still has the majority. I think the best way to deal with public opposition is to be very open about the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power. No alternative I noticed that in Britain, politicians didn't want to discuss nuclear power before the election, but I don't think that is a good thing. In Finland, before the elections in 1999, when nuclear power was already topical, it was a question that was put to all candidates. I believe fear will only grow if the issue isn't discussed in public. It is not good to go behind the public's back. And I truly believe that the more people understand nuclear power, the less they will oppose it. Looking further afield, I think nuclear power is set to become more and more prominent around the world. If you worry about climate change then there is no other economically or environmentally stable alternative to nuclear power. ***************************************************************** 9 BBC: Viewpoint: German nuclear phase-out Last Updated: Friday, 21 October 2005 [Outgoing German environment minister Jurgen Trittin] Mr Trittin: "Renewable energies are essential" Outgoing German environment minister Jurgen Trittin played a key role in the country's decision to shut down all its nuclear reactors by 2020. Although the new Chancellor Angela Merkel's CDU party wanted to extend the closure deadline, outgoing Chancellor's Gerhard Schroeder's SPD party have retained the environment ministry in coalition negotiations and say they do not intend to review the policy. As Britain gears up for a debate on the future of its nuclear industry, Mr Trittin, a member of Germany's Green Party, explains to the BBC News website why he believes his country should consign atomic energy to the past. [Wind turbines in Germany] Germany has invested heavily in renewable energy We want to follow a path towards a sustainable energy supply, for the protection of the global climate, the conservation of finite resources and for the sake of future generations. We want to make even greater energy savings, increase energy efficiency even further and expand the use of renewable energies. In Germany this is known as the 'Energiewende' - the transformation of our energy system. 'No wiser' Nuclear power is not needed to achieve this. Quite the contrary: technically speaking, this base-load relic of the past is standing in the way of flexible and intelligent electricity production. In contrast to Germany, Finland has commissioned Europe's first new reactor in a decade. MP Mikko Elo supports the decision. Viewpoint: Finland's new reactor The safety risks associated with nuclear power have in no way decreased in recent years - in particular with regard to the threat of terrorism, they have in fact increased dramatically. And as far as the long-term management of radioactive wastes is concerned, we are fundamentally no wiser than we were 30 years ago. The use of nuclear power is and will remain a global risk, especially for future generations. Who can today presume to say, or even begin to imagine, what the world will be like in 24,000 years? This is the half-life period of plutonium-239, which is generated in huge volumes during nuclear fission. However, what we do know today is that 24,000 years ago Olkiluoto [where Finland is building a new reactor], for example, was buried under around 3,000m of ice. GERMANY'S ELECTRICITY GENERATION 48.9% - coa and lignite 27.5% - nuclear 10.2% - natural gas 4.5% hydro 4.1% - wind 1.6% - oil and diesel 3.2% - other (solar, biomass, waste) Source: Statistisches Bundesamt In contrast, renewable energies are essential to solving pressing issues for the future. With the further rapid expansion of wind and hydropower, solar power, the use of biomass and geothermal power - we can create an alternative to a nuclear and fossil fuel energy supply in a step-by-step process. Progress on renewables We have already made good progress. In 2004, 9.8% of electricity in Germany came from renewable sources. Ten years ago, the figure was not even half this. And this trend is set to continue. Our goal in Germany is to provide at least 20% of electricity from renewable energies in the year 2020. And by the middle of the century, we want to cover about 50% of our total energy consumption with renewable sources. [Biblis nuclear power station, Germany] The last nuclear power station is scheduled to close in 2020 The expansion of renewable energies is ecologically beneficial and economically viable. In Germany, a strong and rapidly growing sector has developed around renewables. Today, renewables contribute over 6% of the total energy consumption - a figure that will increase - while the 5.7% share of nuclear power lies below this and continues to decrease. Revenues totalled around 11.6 billion euros (£7.9bn) in 2004 - for both the setting up and the operation of installations. That is more than in the pharmaceutical industry, for example. This is creating jobs. There are already around 150,000 jobs in the renewables sector. New opportunities are opening up - not only for solar engineers and steel workers for the construction of wind power plants, but also indirectly in delivery companies, commercial agencies, advertising, planning offices, in the financial services sector and in research and development. And in contrast to jobs in the fossil fuels energy supply sector, jobs in the renewables sector have the great advantage of being based on innovation, supply security and ecological compatibility. Renewables energies create future-oriented jobs. Cleaner air Renewables protect the environment. The use of these energies enabled a saving of around 70 million tonnes of CO2 in Germany last year. This is much more than the Kyoto commitments of many countries. And they are also helping to keep the air in Germany clean. Less combustion of fossil fuels also means a reduction in the emission of air pollutants that contribute to acidification and eutrophication and that damage human health. Surveys show that both the increased use of renewable energies and the phase-out of nuclear power are supported by a broad majority of the population. All this shows that we are on the right track with the expansion of renewables. We will reach our Kyoto targets without having to become further entangled in the risks and burdens of nuclear power. We are convinced that Germany has chosen the right energy policy path. ***************************************************************** 10 TheStar.com - Editorial: Valid questions over nuclear plant Oct. 21, 2005. 01:00 AM The Ontario government announced earlier this week a major boost to the province's beleaguered power grid with a $4.25 billion plan to refurbish and restart two mothballed nuclear reactors and to upgrade two others at the privately owned Bruce Power plant near Lake Huron. On the face of it, this deal appears to be a godsend. When fully operational in 2012, the four reactors will supply about 6,200 megawatts of power, about one-quarter of Ontario's energy needs on an average day. It is part of an ambitious plan that will see most of the province's generating capacity replaced or upgraded over the next 15 years. This summer's heat wave demonstrated just how fragile Ontario's hydro system is as the province set records for power consumption while purchasing expensive electricity from neighbouring U.S. states. Officials have warned that brownouts and blackouts are probable over the next two years until new sources come online. At the same time, Premier Dalton McGuinty is still promising that Ontario will phase out all its coal-generated power plants by 2009. That is why the Bruce project is important. It will provide much-needed energy, helping to maintain Ontario's economic competitiveness as well as keeping the lights on for more than 12 million residents. But some legitimate concerns are being raised by environmentalists and critics about the deal in which Bruce Power, the province's largest independent electricity generator, will put up $4.25 billion to do the work at its nuclear generating complex near Kincardine. Among them: + The Ontario Power Authority, set up to advise the government on energy issues, has committed to buying all the power generated from the Bruce site at a guaranteed minimum price of 6.3 cents per kilowatt hour. That is far higher than the 5 to 5.8 cents a kilowatt hour most consumers now pay. It is also higher than the publicly owned Ontario Power Generation (OPG) gets for the electricity it produces. In seeking ways to depoliticize decision-making on this issue, has the government gone too far the other way by letting an unelected agency agreed to such a costly deal? + The deal also commits Ontario residents to pay cost overruns ranging from 25 to 75 per cent if the price tag for upgrades exceeds the $4.25 billion private sector investment. History has shown that cost overruns have been the norm, not the exception, in Ontario's nuclear industry. + McGuinty said recently he supports a decision not to refurbish two reactors at the Pickering nuclear plant, stating plainly he did not believe "in pouring billions of dollars into uneconomical, old nuclear." Why, then, did he agree to refurbish the Bruce reactors, but not those at Pickering? Does he not trust OPG, which operates Pickering, to do the job properly? Ontario's Auditor General Jim McCarter will undertake a review of the Bruce deal. That is a welcome move. Ontario taxpayers deserve firm answers and a clear opinion on the merits and pitfalls of this arrangement. Is the deal too lucrative for the operator, Bruce Power? Does it provide the necessary safeguards for taxpayers and what are the long-term risks? McGuinty has made some positive moves on conservation. But conservation and alternative energy sources won't solve Ontario's power shortage. Indeed, nuclear power will remain a crucial component of the province's generating mix for decades to come. Still, McGuinty has said publicly many times he is committed to "clean reasonably priced power." The new Bruce deal is not cheap, nor will the power it produces be cheap. That's why we await McCarter's review with interest, to determine whether taxpayers really did get a reasonable deal. Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of ***************************************************************** 11 DesMoinesRegister.com: Sale of Iowa nuke plant passes one hurdle By REGISTER STAFF WRITER October 21, 2005 Federal regulators today approved the proposed purchase of Iowa’s only nuclear power plant by a Florida company. But the $380 million sale of the Duane Arnold Energy Center near Palo still needs approval from the Iowa Utilities Board and regulators in neighboring states. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s approval is the first regulatory hurdle cleared for the sale of Duane Arnold to Juno Beach, Fla.-based FPL Energy. Alliant Energy currently is the majority owner of Duane Arnold. The Iowa Utilities Board has scheduled a Nov. 1 public hearing on the proposed purchase. The board plans to issue a decision by Nov. 30. Copyright © 2005, The Des Moines Register. ***************************************************************** 12 APP.COM: NRC asks AmerGen for data on plant Asbury Park Press Online Audit uncovers no major issues 10/21/05 BY BRIAN PRINCE MANAHAWKIN BUREAU LACEY — An audit by a Nuclear Regulatory Commission team evaluating the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant's renewal application found four areas where more information is needed before the review can be completed. Stephen Tingen, who led the audit team, said that it uncovered no major issues and that if the plant responds effectively to the requests, it will have met all necessary regulations in this aspect of the renewal application review. "Once they answer those satisfactorily, we can complete our safety evaluation," Tingen explained Thursday evening at an informational meeting held by the NRC. The audit assessed the process used by plant owner AmerGen to identify the structures, systems and components that should be included in its aging-management program at Oyster Creek during the period of extended operations. Members of the audit team are requesting more information about the design basis for 11 grouted pipes, backup systems, underground piping and the quality-assurance program for the combustion turbine. Project safety manager Donnie J. Ashley said that he will send the request for more information to the plant in a letter, and that the plant has 30 days to respond or the application process could be held up. A divided audience Though only a few people spoke during the public portion of the meeting, passions ran high as speakers both criticized and defended the power plant. Manchester resident Edward Frydendahl, who said he lived in Lacey 32 years before moving, raised several safety concerns ranging from difficulties in evacuating area schools in the event of a disaster to the airspace around the plant, which he said was not restricted. Officials, he said, continually tell the public everything is fine, "(but) in the meantime we can't evacuate the school system here in Lacey." Ashley suggested Frydendahl contact state legislators about the issue of airspace. "You are talking to the wrong people on that," Ashley said. And Terry Matthews, who has lived in Lacey 14 years, countered that Frydendahl's view is out of step with township residents. "The bulk of Lacey Township supports that nuclear power plant down there," Matthews said. Deputy Mayor Mark Dykoff asked whether four requests for more information were common, to which audit team member Gregory Galletti replied yes. "They were not unusual questions for us," Galletti said. Tingen told the audience that his audit team's portion of the review process dealt only with the methodology and that there would be other parts of the process. "We didn't get involved in the actual screening and scoping results," he said. "We are just one of many audits." The plant began operating in 1969 and is seeking NRC approval to operate for 20 years beyond April 2009, when its current license expires. Brian Prince: (609) 978-4537 or bprince@app.com WHAT'S NEXT The state Department of Environmental Protection will hold another public hearing on its draft permit for the water intake and discharge system at the Oyster Creek nuclear plant in Lacey. The hearing is scheduled for 6 to 9 p.m. Monday in the Ocean County Administration Building, 101 Hooper Ave., Toms River. The DEP prefers that the plant build a closed-cycle cooling system to slash water use and protect marine life, but a top plant official has said he doesn't think major changes to the current once-through system are justified. ***************************************************************** 13 NRC: Solicitation of Public Comments on the Implementation of the FR Doc E5-5796 [Federal Register: October 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 203)] [Notices] [Page 61318-61320] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21oc05-124] Reactor Oversight Process AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Request for public comment. SUMMARY: Over 5 years have elapsed since the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) implemented its revised Reactor Oversight Process (ROP). The NRC is currently soliciting comments from members of the public, licensees, and interest groups related to the implementation of the ROP. An electronic version of the survey questions may be obtained from http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/rop2005survey.pdf. This solicitation will provide insights into the self-assessment process and a summary of the feedback will be included in the annual ROP self- assessment report to the Commission. DATES: The comment period expires on December 1, 2005. The NRC will consider comments received after this date if it is practical to do so, but is only able to ensure consideration of comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Completed questionnaires and/or comments may be e-mailed to nrcrep@nrc.gov or sent to Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration (Mail Stop T-6D59), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Comments may also be hand-delivered to Mr. Lesar at 11554 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. From this site, the public can access the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. For more information, contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 301-415-4737 or 800-397-4209, or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Serita Sanders, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (Mail Stop: OWFN 7A15), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001. Ms. Sanders can also be reached by telephone at 301-415-2956 or by e-mail at SXS5@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Program Overview The mission of the NRC is to license and regulate the Nation's civilian use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect the environment. This mission is accomplished through the following activities: License nuclear facilities and the possession, use, and disposal of nuclear materials. Develop and implement requirements governing licensed activities. [[Page 61319]] Inspect and enforce licensee activities to ensure compliance with these requirements and the law. While the NRC's responsibility is to monitor and regulate licensees' performance, the primary responsibility for safe operation and handling of nuclear materials rests with each licensee. As the nuclear industry in the United States has matured, the NRC and its licensees have learned much about how to safely operate nuclear facilities and handle nuclear materials. In April 2000, the NRC began to implement more effective and efficient inspection, assessment, and enforcement approaches, which apply insights from these years of regulatory oversight and nuclear facility operation. Key elements of the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) include NRC inspection procedures, plant performance indicators, a significance determination process, and an assessment program that incorporates various risk-informed thresholds to help determine the level of NRC oversight and enforcement. Since ROP development began in 1998, the NRC has frequently communicated with the public by various initiatives: conducted public meetings in the vicinity of each licensed commercial nuclear power plant, issued FRNs to solicit feedback on the ROP, published press releases about the new process, conducted multiple public workshops, placed pertinent background information in the NRC's Public Document Room, and established an NRC Web site containing easily accessible information about the ROP and licensee performance. NRC Public Stakeholder Comments The NRC continues to be interested in receiving feedback from members of the public, various public stakeholders, and industry groups on their insights regarding the CY 2005 implementation of the ROP. In particular, the NRC is seeking responses to the questions listed below, which will provide important information that the NRC can use in ongoing program improvement. A summary of the feedback obtained will be provided to the Commission and included in the annual ROP self- assessment report. This solicitation of public comments has been issued each year since ROP implementation in 2000. In previous years, the questions had been free-form in nature requesting written responses. Although written responses are still encouraged, there are specific choices to best describe your experience to enable us to more objectively determine your level of satisfaction. Questions In responding to these questions, please consider your experiences using the NRC oversight process. Shade in the circle that most applies to your experiences as follows: (1) Very much (2) somewhat (3) neutral (4) somewhat less than needed (5) far less than needed. If there are experiences that are rated as unsatisfactory, or if you have specific thoughts or concerns, please elaborate in the ``Comments'' section that follows the question and offer your opinion for possible improvements. If there are experiences or opinions that you would like to express that cannot be directly captured by the questions, document that in the last question of the survey. Questions Related to Specific Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) Program Areas (As appropriate, please provide specific examples and suggestions for improvement.) (1) Does the Performance Indicator Program provide useful insights to help ensure plant safety? 1 2 3 4 5 [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] Comments: (2) Does appropriate overlap exist between the Performance Indicator Program and the Inspection Program? 1 2 3 4 5 [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] Comments: (3) Does NEI 99-02, ``Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline'' provide clear guidance regarding Performance Indicators? 1 2 3 4 5 [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] Comments: (4) Does the Inspection Program adequately cover areas important to safety and is it effective in identifying and ensuring the prompt correction of performance deficiencies? 1 2 3 4 5 [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] Comments: (5) Is the information contained in inspection reports relevant, useful, and written in plain English? 1 2 3 4 5 [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] Comments: (6) Does the Significance Determination Process yield an appropriate and consistent regulatory response across all ROP cornerstones? 1 2 3 4 5 [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] Comments: (7) Does the NRC take appropriate actions to address performance issues for those plants outside of the Licensee Response Column of the Action Matrix? 1 2 3 4 5 [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] Comments: (8) Is the information contained in assessment reports relevant, useful, and written in plain English? 1 2 3 4 5 [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] Comments: Questions Related to the Efficacy of the Overall ROP (As appropriate, please provide specific examples and suggestions for improvement.) (9) Are the ROP oversight activities predictable (i.e., controlled by the process) and reasonably objective (i.e., based on supported facts, rather than relying on subjective judgement)? 1 2 3 4 5 [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] Comments: (10) Is the ROP risk-informed, in that the NRC's actions and outcomes are appropriately graduated on the basis of increased significance? 1 2 3 4 5 [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] Comments: (11) Is the ROP understandable and are the processes, procedures and products clear and written in plain English? 1 2 3 4 5 [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] Comments: (12) Does the ROP provide adequate regulatory assurance when combined with other NRC regulatory processes that plants are being operated and maintained safely? 1 2 3 4 5 [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] [[Page 61320]] Comments: (13) Is the ROP effective, efficient, realistic, and timely? 1 2 3 4 5 [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] Comments: (14) Does the ROP ensure openness in the regulatory process? 1 2 3 4 5 [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] Comments: (15) Has the public been afforded adequate opportunity to participate in the ROP and to provide inputs and comments? 1 2 3 4 5 [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] Comments: (16) Has the NRC been responsive to public inputs and comments on the ROP? 1 2 3 4 5 [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] Comments: (17) Has the NRC implemented the ROP as defined by program documents? 1 2 3 4 5 [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] Comments: (18) Does the ROP minimize unintended consequences? 1 2 3 4 5 [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] [cir] Comments: (19) Please provide any additional information or comments related to the Reactor Oversight Process. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of October, 2005. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Stuart A. Richards, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Inspection Program Management, Inspection Program Branch. [FR Doc. E5-5796 Filed 10-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 14 NRC: Fifth International MACCS Users' Group Meeting FR Doc E5-5797 [Federal Register: October 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 203)] [Notices] [Page 61318] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21oc05-123] AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: 5th International MACCS Users' Group Meeting. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will conduct the 5th International MACCS Users' Group (IMUG) Meeting, on March 10, 2006, at a location near the NRC's Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and will be open to public observation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jocelyn Mitchell; e-mail: jam@nrc.gov; telephone: (301) 415-5289; Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Mail Stop T-9C34, USNRC, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Additional information and a registration form can be found at the NRC's Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/publicinvolve/conferences.html. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the meeting is for users of MACCS (MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System) to exchange information about the use of MACCS and about recent code developments. There will be no charge for registration for the conference, but, for planning purposes, registration is required. Anyone wishing to present information relevant to MACCS or its use in consequence estimation should contact Jocelyn Mitchell to be included in the agenda. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of October, 2005. William R. Ott, Acting Chief, Radiation Protection, Environmental Risk and Waste Management Branch, Division of Risk Analysis and Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. [FR Doc. E5-5797 Filed 10-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 15 NRC: Duke Energy Corporation; Notice of Withdrawal of Application for FR Doc E5-5798 [Federal Register: October 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 203)] [Notices] [Page 61317-61318] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21oc05-122] Amendment to Facility Operating License The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) has granted the request of Duke Energy [[Page 61318]] Corporation (the licensee) to withdraw its August 26, 2004, application for proposed amendments to Facility Operating License No. DPR-38, DPR- 47, and DPR-55, for the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, located in Seneca County, SC. The proposed amendment would have revised the Technical Specification 3.3.29 and its associated Bases to accommodate new circuitry that isolates nonsafety portions of the low pressure service water system piping inside containment that supplies the reactor building auxiliary coolers. The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on September 28, 2004 (69 FR 57983). However, by letter dated September 29, 2005, the licensee withdrew the proposed change. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated August 26, 2004, and the licensee's letter dated September 29, 2005, which withdrew the application for license amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of October 2005. Leonard N. Olshan, Sr. Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-5798 Filed 10-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 16 Financial Express: N-energy co-operation on track - Burns Saturday, October 22, 2005 NEW DELHI, OCT 21: The US today expressed its strong commitment to implementing the July 18 nuclear agreement with India saying “something workable’’ leading to its implementation would be worked out before President George Bush’s visit here early next year. Addressing a press conference jointly with foreign secretary Shyam Saran, US under secretary of state Nicholas Burns said the Bush administration was working “very hard” and looking forward to the Congress passing the historic resolution. The statement comes barely two days after the 44-nation nuclear suppliers group (NSG) decided to put off action on the US proposal to lift restraints on transferring nuclear technology to India. “We have been talking to the Congress,” he said, and added that whle some members supported, some opposed. “We are a democratic country and hope some progress on this ageement can be put in place,’’ Mr Burns said. He rejected reports that the nuclear agreement was in any way linked with the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, and this had been made clear at various levels in the US administration. “No other issue is associated with it. The US administration has been very clear on our part,’’ he said. Foreign secretary Shyam Saran, while admitting that it was difficult, echoed Mr Burns’ statement saying both countries were committed to it and India had already delivered some of the obligations on issues like WMD and is already conforming to the non-proliferation regime. He expressed hope that by the time President Bush visits India early next year, the two sides would have an “implementable agreement.” Reiterating Washington’s serious concern over Iran’s nuclear programe, the US under secretary said Iran had been isolated and was now standing alone. It should come to the negotiating table, seek a diplomatic solution to the issue and try to seek a resolution by peaceful means. Mr Burns pointed out, “We are concerned about the behaviour of the government of Iran. No single country wants to see Iran nuclear. The only country standing with it is Venezuela. Iran should come back to negotiations, seek a diplomatic solution and resolve the issue by peaceful means. The best thing is move forward through negotiations,” he added. Describing India as a “great power” with which the US could work for peace and confront future challenges, Mr Burns said both countries now had joint ventures in education, agriculture, science and technology, space etc. He said the US would very much like an Indian to fly in a US spaceship, describing the relationship as historic like never before during the past 60 years. Both countries were involved in energy dialogue, trade dialogue, and security relationship. © 2005: Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd. All ***************************************************************** 17 Japan Times: High court rejects attempt to block Yamaguchi reactor Friday, October 21, 2005 HIROSHIMA (Kyodo) The Hiroshima High Court on Thursday dismissed an attempt by four local residents to block Chugoku Electric Power Co.'s plan to build a nuclear power plant in the town of Kaminoseki, Yamaguchi Prefecture. [News photo] Morizo Takehiro (center), a plaintiff in a lawsuit over the proposed construction of a nuclear power plant, faces reporters Thursday in Hiroshima after the Hiroshima High Court dismissed an attempt to block Chugoku Electric Power Co. from building the reactor in his community. The high court rejected the residents' claim of a right to harvest firewood at the site where reactors are to be built, overruling a March 2003 district court ruling that recognized the plaintiffs' claim and banned Chugoku Electric from building the plant in the area. "There still is the Supreme Court," Morizo Takehiro, a 78-year-old plaintiff, said after the ruling, suggesting the possibility of an appeal. But Chugoku Electric said it may begin leveling the ground or doing other work at the site before a final court decision is made. The land in question -- 9,500 sq. meters of forested land in the Shidai district of Kaminoseki -- traditionally had been the common property of residents and was registered as land for firewood around 1890. In December 1998, Chugoku Electric acquired the land in exchange for another plot owned by the utility company. [News photo] An aerial photo taken in June shows the site of Chugoku Electric Power Co.'s planned nuclear power plant in Kaminoseki, Yamaguchi Prefecture. In March 2003, the Yamaguchi District Court's Iwakuni branch said the residents' right to harvest firewood would be impaired if Chugoku Electric began construction on the site, although the court recognized the company's ownership of the land. On Thursday, however, presiding Judge Yoshiro Kusano said in handing down the decision that the residents' traditional right to common use has "already been extinguished over the course of time" because they have not exercised that right for more than 30 years. The Shidai district has a population of about 180 people. The number of residents who support the nuclear power plant and see it as a means of stimulating the local economy has gradually increased, leaving the four plaintiffs as the main opponents of the project. One of the four, Shizuko Ohashi, 89, has a 1-hectare plot near the construction site. She has refused to sell the plot to Chugoku Electric, which wants to add her land to the site. "Many people died in Hiroshima due to a bomb using nuclear power," she had said before court ruling. "How you can say a nuclear power plant is safe?" Chugoku Electric plans to build two 1.37-million-kilowatt advanced boiling-water reactors at the proposed plant. It wants begin construction of the first reactor in fiscal 2009 and the second in fiscal 2012, bringing them on line in 2014 and 2017, respectively. Nuclear power accounted for 11 percent of the electricity generated by Chugoku Electric as of fiscal 2004, less than the 29 percent average for other electric companies. It has been 23 years since the town announced a plan to host a nuclear power plant to boost the local economy, but construction has been delayed by difficulties with land acquisition and lawsuits. The Japan Times: Oct. 21, 2005 (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 18 Boston Globe: NRC issues report, but doesn't release it - Boston.com By David Gram, Associated Press Writer | October 21, 2005 MONTPELIER, Vt. --The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Friday it had completed its draft review of Vermont Yankee's plan to increase its power output, but would not make it public yet. NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the agency would first send the report to Vermont Yankee owner Entergy Nuclear to allow the company to request which parts of the report it wants kept from public view. "We'll look at their suggested changes, redactions and then we'll release it to the public," Sheehan said. Sheehan and Vermont Yankee spokesman Rob Williams said the safety evaluation contained proprietary information, mainly having to do with the engineering that went into various analyses supporting the position that the plant could safely increase its power output by 20 percent. But the process of redaction could leave little time for members of the public and a nuclear watchdog group that has opposed the power boost to review the report before an NRC panel comes to Vermont for meetings on Nov. 15 and 16. "Those of us who are intervenors need to pass this (NRC report) before our experts," said Raymond Shadis of the New England Coalition. "This is bound to include highly technical information that will take time to review. The NRC has had two years to put this together. Certainly this is short notice." Sheehan said there is no deadline for Entergy to complete its review of the report and make requests for redactions and for the NRC to agree or disagree with those requests. "We'd obviously like them to move as quickly as possible," he said. "We're interested in making the document available before those meetings in Brattleboro." Shadis agreed that there likely will be material in the report that it will be reasonable for Entergy to want to keep secret. "There is a lot of competition when it comes to doing engineering on flow-induced vibration and other phenomena relating to the steam dryer," Shadis said. The plant's steam dryer removes moisture from steam because too-wet steam could damage a reactor's turbines. The steam dryer has received a lot of attention during the NRC review of the power increase request, because two other plants that have instituted similar power increases have developed cracks in their steam dryers. But Shadis said he worried that Entergy and the NRC would agree to keep more secrets than necessary. "The problem for the general public is that the NRC hands out proprietary protection pretty much willy-nilly," he said. "The burden should be on the licensee or applicant to show some material needs protection. Instead the burden is on the general public to show why it should be released." Sheehan disagreed. "We set the bar kind of high," he said. "We do not allow them to casually redact information. There has to be a real basis for information that would be removed." The mid-November meetings of the NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards will take place at the Quality Inn on Putney Road in Brattleboro, Sheehan said. He said there will be an opportunity for public comment at the end of each day. Also upcoming is a meeting of the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel, or V-SNAP. That session at 9 a.m. Oct. 27 in Room 11 of the Vermont Statehouse will focus on a special engineering assessment the NRC did at Vermont Yankee as part of its review of the power increase request. Such a special assessment was requested by the Public Service Board, which made it a condition of the approval it gave in March of last year for the power boost. The board still has not said whether it believed the NRC review that resulted satisfied its condition.[ /] © Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 19 Hudson Valley News: Kelly says NRC should speed up leak investigation at Indian Point Friday, October 21, 2005 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must show more urgency in its investigation of a radioactive leak from one of the spent fuel pools at Indian Point, Congresswoman Sue Kelly wrote yesterday in a letter to Nils Diaz, the director of the agency. "Many of us in the communities surrounding Indian Point have serious reservations about the NRC's response to this leak," Kelly wrote. "From the outset, the Commission has failed to provide the prompt and definitive answers that local officials expect it to provide ... the NRC is not deeming this investigation as the urgent priority that the rest of us living around Indian Point recognize it to be." Kelly and other Hudson Valley area members of Congress have been expressing their disapproval of the NRC's handling of the safety issue and its lax communications with local officials. Kelly said the problems began from the outset when the NRC waited until Sept. 20 to announce it was investigating a leak at Indian Point after discovering it back on Sept. 2. "This lax response indicates a serious disconnect between the NRC and those in the surrounding communities, and it raises questions about the effectiveness of the NRC's response to this leak," Kelly wrote to Diaz. Kelly urged Diaz to directly brief members of New York's Congressional delegation that represent the areas around Indian Point, asking him to "provide us a more definitive timeline of your investigation." HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only Internet radio news report. ***************************************************************** 20 Hudson Valley News: Karben says the NRC should open New York office to monitor Indian Point Friday, October 21, 2005 Assemblyman Ryan Karben of Rockland County yesterday said that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should open an office in Westchester or Rockland County to oversee the trouble-plagued Indian Point II Nuclear Power plant. Karben criticized the federal agencys monitoring of the facilities from hundreds of miles away. Karben said it was outrageous that local officials and citizens needed to get information from the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions headquarters in Rockville, Maryland or its regional office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania every time something went wrong at Indian Point. Karben said last month, local officials from the Hudson Valley needed to travel to Maryland for a meeting on the plant. The owners run this plant on autopilot and the regulators monitor it by remote control, Karben said. You dont put the cop a few hundred miles from the crowded intersection. HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only Internet radio news report. ***************************************************************** 21 Guardian Unlimited: Chief scientist backs nuclear power revival · PM's adviser calls for new generation of reactors · Relying on renewable energy 'tough challenge' David Adam, environment correspondent Friday October 21, 2005 The government's chief scientific adviser has sent his clearest signal that Britain will need to revive its nuclear power industry in the face of a looming energy crisis and the threat of global warming. In an interview with the Guardian, Sir David King said there were economic as well as environmental reasons for a new generation of reactors. He said nuclear power had "the safest record of all the power industries in the world". Professor King, who has previously said more nuclear power stations "may be necessary" to meet carbon dioxide emission targets, said the decline of North Sea oil and gas could tip the balance. "We need indigenous energy sources so we don't rely on imported gas from Russia. We're the last in the pipeline across Europe, so a second requirement is that we have a secure energy supply. Indigenous supplies include all renewables and nuclear." Article continues Relying on renewable sources including wind, solar and wave power to replace lost capacity when existing nuclear power stations close would be a "remarkably tough challenge," he said. "At the moment 24% of energy on the grid comes from nuclear power; by 2020 that will be down to 4%. That gap of 20% is going to be very difficult to cover over the period 2010 to 2020 without new nuclear build." More power stations burning coal and gas would give Britain little chance of meeting ambitious targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to global warming. Generating electricity using the heat of nuclear reactors to turn water into steam to drive turbines does not produce carbon dioxide directly, though building and dismantling the plants and mining uranium fuel all do. Prof King, one of Tony Blair's most trusted advisers, said the public debate on nuclear power needed to focus on the environmental benefits. "It's important we do take the public with us on the environmental debate. That is why I'm trying to sell it - it's precisely because of the emissions." He added that the possible introduction of carbon taxes would make nuclear power a cheaper option than coal. "People are concerned about nuclear energy in terms of its expense, but if we had just 23 [£15.50p] per tonne on carbon dioxide then you already switch the economic argument in favour of nuclear." His remarks come in the build-up to international talks in Montreal on how to address the threat of climate change when the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012. He denied suggestions - sparked by comments from Mr Blair that he was changing his mind on whether international treaties were the best way to tackle global warming - that Britain was moving closer to the stance of the US, which has refused to back Kyoto-style emission reductions. "The British government's position is that we believe emissions trading is absolutely vital. We believe that capping processes are vital and we believe that declared objectives for 2010, 2020 etc are necessary," said Prof King. He criticised a partnership between the US, Australia and several Asian countries that relies on developing new technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 22 The Sandspur: Tell Nuclear Power to Spilt - Opinions By Scott Bianconi Published: Friday, October 21, 2005 For those of you who haven't heard, Progress Energy, in an effort to keep up with the expected demand for power in the Central Florida region, is in the process of obtaining approval to build a nuclear power plant somewhere in Central Florida.  The proposed counties include Polk, Seminole, Highlands, and yes, even Osceola.   I applaud Progress Energy for recognizing the future need for power in the Central Florida region and for proposing to build a power plant in the area that would produce many construction and plant operation jobs.   However, I am appalled at the fact that Progress Energy is even considering to build a nuclear power plant in Central Florida.  Proponents of nuclear power seem to focus on one key issue; that nuclear power produces no emissions.  This is true in a sense.  Nuclear power generates electricity by surrounding radioactive rods of uranium pellets in contained pools of water.  This water turns into steam which turns turbines to produce electricity.  The excess steam is the only immediate byproduct which is then released into the atmosphere.  Sounds great right?  Wrong.  What many proponents of nuclear power fail to mention is the obvious dangers that nuclear power poses to both humans and the environment.   Few can forget the tragedy of Chernobyl in which over fifty civilians died, and we cannot forget the near tragedy of the partial melt down of Three-Mile Island.  A nuclear core melt down could easily make all of central Florida uninhabitable for several thousand years, not to mention burn a hole to the core of the earth.  Of course, proponents of nuclear power claim that current safety measures make a Three-Mile Island incident (caused by a faulty pressure valve) or the Chernobyl incident (caused by human error) impossible to re-occur.   Boy, I wish these proponents could enlighten the world as to how we can prevent all forms of human and mechanical error.  But let us give these proponents the benefit of the doubt and agree that mechanical failure and human error can somehow be completely weeded out.  Sept. 11 reminded us all of the unexpected threat of terrorism within our boarders.  Thankfully, no attack has ever been attempted against a nuclear power plant in U.S. borders.   However, I wonder how attractive attacking a nuclear power plant located a stone's throw away from the nation's largest tourist destination might be?  But let's again give proponents the benefit of the doubt that no terrorist will ever attempt to attack a nuclear power plant in Central Florida.   We must not forget the largest threat of nuclear contamination, which is from transporting new and spent nuclear fuel from the plants reactors.  Remember those nuclear rods of uranium pellets that power the nuclear reactor?  Well, they need to be shipped into and out of the state though either rail, boat, or truck.    Though heavily guarded, I still don't like the idea of driving down 1-4 next to an armored truck loaded with nuclear fuel.  Even if the proponents of nuclear power can weed out human and mechanical error from their drivers and trucks, I doubt they are able to prevent human error from the countless aggressive drivers or lost tourists that patrol our roads. Progress Energy needs to stop trying to solve our regions energy needs by building reactors of death.  Progress Energy needs to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.  Heck, with a name like Progress Energy, you would think they would look into building some sort of new and progressive wind or solar power plant that would not only provide jobs to boost our local economy, provide for our regions growing energy demands, and be a positive symbol to the rest of the nation that we in Central Florida are able to provide both clean and safe energy for our future generations. ***************************************************************** 23 ottawasun.com: Restarts key to nuclear future - CEO Fri, October 21, 2005 Restarts key to nuclear future: CEO TORONTO -- 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 says. Duncan Hawthorne said yesterday the timely and efficient restoration of two idle units on Lake Huron will be critical in persuading the province to build new nuclear plants to address 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 new stations, but also refurbishments at the Darlington, Pickering and Bruce B nuclear stations, he said. Published by Sun Media Corporation, a Quebecor Media company at 6 Antares Dr., Phase 3, Ottawa, Ont., Canada, K1G 5H7 Publisher Rick Gibbons; Editor-in-chief Mike Therien CANOE home | We welcome your feedback. Copyright © 2005, Canoe Inc.All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 24 Rediff: India's first indigenous reactor in 10 yrs > PTI India's first indigenous reactor in 10 years: BARC Lalitha Vaidyanathan in Mumbai | October 21, 2005 11:21 IST India's first indigenous experimental Accelerator Driven Systems will be ready in a decade and may be intended for thorium fuel utilisation schemes, according to scientists at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre. The core group of scientists in BARC, Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Kolkata, and Centre for Advanced Technology are working on stage-wise development of critical new technologies for all three systems of ADS in 10th plan projects, aggregating about Rs 50 crore, S Banerjee, BARC director, said. ADS is a subcritical reactor operated for fission power by a source of external neutron. These neutrons are produced by reaction of high energy proton beams on a heavy metal target. The technology development of target using molten lead-bismuth alloy and sub-critical reactor is taking shape in BARC, K Nema, senior scientist, Nuclear Physics Division, said. The three subsystems of ADS will be accelerator, neutron generating target and sub-critical reactor. While BARC is working on low-energy segment of accelerator, Centre for Advanced Research, Indore, and VECC will work on the high-energy part. BARC, CAT and VECC are working on various types of particle accelerators. There is also a coordinated plan of actions among them on developing specific technologies, including proton accelerator for ADS applications, Banerjee added. Human resource development in many new areas is also planned to initiate more elaborate development projects in the next five-year plan, Banerjee said. Asked whether India has any internaional collaboration on these technologies, Nema said the scientists have some form of informal exchange of information on discrete subsystems like accelerators, as the free access of information was restricted under the technology control regime. The scientific community of BARC says that, now, Indian scientists may be allowed free access to information on ADS. With the recent recognition of India by the US as a responsible nuclear power country, it may waive the technology control regime in these areas of research to ease the free exchange of information, which will be beneficial to both the countries, scientists said. The technology of high power proton accelerators and ADS are covered under technology control regime of Nuclear Suppliers Group. As such, India finds few collaborators or partners in this area, Nema said. He added that although India participates in projects like CERN's LHC and is negotiating with GSI, Germany in FAIR and Fermi Lab, USA NLC, these collaborations do not make much contribution to ADS technologies. Asked whether India has any plans to collaborate with other countries, the BARC director said, "Yes, it a good suggestion. The Indian scientists have already made an informal suggestion to International Atomic Energy Agency for initiating an international collaborative programme on ADS, to get rid of radiotoxic waste lodged in almost 2,00,000 metric tonnes of spent fuel that increases every year by 10,000 MT." "This has to be argued more forcefully in future and at formal meetings," Banerjee added. Meanwhile, a few Indian universities are pursuing international collaboration on different aspects of ADS. Two type of ADS driver accelerator systems are possible, of which BARC and CAT plan high power proton linac and VECC team is working on cyclotron, Nema said. If India has to be a leader in ADS technology, it is imperative to take this effort to a national level by encourging collaboration with more universities, IITs and other capable research centres in order to bring many scientists into the fold as is done in Europe, BARC scientists said. This would also help in reducing the time scale in developing and accelerate the scope of ADS in the country. The number of people working on ADS in India, compared to the number of people working in Europe, Russia, China and Australia is extremely small. © Copyright 2005 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or ***************************************************************** 25 Brampton Guardian: Nuclear incinerator under attack Friday, October 21st, 2005 PAM DOUGLAS A proposal to build an incinerator for "low level" nuclear waste in Brampton will be a federal election issue, a group of local residents has vowed. Canadian Environment Minister Stephane Dion was all ears recently as a delegation of Brampton residents with the Coalition for a Nuclear Free Peel met with him in his Ottawa office. They outlined their concerns about the proposal and the process, and asked for the plan to be diverted to a stringent review panel instead of the approval path it is currently on. The meeting was arranged by Bramalea-Gore-Malton MP Gurbax Malhi, who has registered his concern over the proposal by Mississauga Metals &Alloys on Sun Pac Boulevard. Coalition founder Dora Jeffries said a representative from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC) was also at the meeting with the minister. He told the group that after the environmental assessment report is filed, there are two ways a full review panel of the project can be trigged: by a large public outcry, or by scientific evidence that there are major environmental impacts. "We plan to meet both (criteria)," Jeffries said. There has already been major public opposition to the plan, including businesses, local politicians and residents. "We need scientific fact sheets," Jeffries said. That's not all, though. The group needs more volunteers to follow-up and offer to help, she said. "A lot of people are concerned and they'll sign a petition, but we need to get little groups together to follow up. There's no shortage of ideas." The group is holding a public meeting Wednesday, 7 to 9 p.m. in the Chinguacousy Public Library Branch in the Civic Centre. Jeffries said Dion told the group he will "honour the process". Fresh from a successful fight in Port Hope, the Euro Legal Defence Fund has approached the local group and offered to help, armed with much of the same research and information used in the Port Hope fight. In Port Hope, Cameco Corporation withdrew its proposal for a slightly enriched uranium dioxide blending project at its existing facility. The proposal was dropped because of delays caused by a large public outcry, according to the company, which procures the fuel for the Bruce nuclear reactors. Mississauga Metals &Alloys on Sun Pac Boulevard has applied for a license to operate a gas-powered incinerator that would burn "low level" nuclear waste. The CNSC regulates nuclear waste and the proposal must undergo an environmental assessment. The parameters for that assessment have yet to be set, but are under review by the CNSC. © Copyright 1996-2005 of any material from www.NorthPeel.com and its associated ***************************************************************** 26 ICT: Skull Valley's nerve gas neighbors Posted: October 21, 2005 by: Brenda Norrell / Indian Country Today Proposed nuclear dump site is area of U.S. biological and chemical weapons testing SKULL VALLEY GOSHUTE NATION, Utah - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a license for a nuclear storage facility on Skull Valley Goshute tribal land, prompting new questions about the federal government's use of the area as a U.S. Army test site for biological and chemical weapons, including nerve gas and anthrax. Margene Bullcreek, Skull Valley Goshute tribal member and among those protesting nuclear and toxic dumping on Indian lands, said it is time for the government to stop dumping its nuclear waste on Indian people and stop treating them ai if they are expendable. ''There is no gain to our prosperity when there is poison spilled. The radioactive waste would bring harm to our medicine wheel in four areas: physical, mental, emotional and spiritual,'' said Bullcreek, founder of the community group Ohngo Gaudadeh Devia Awareness. The Goshute group, along with the state of Utah, is opposing the Private Fuel Storage Limited Liability Consortium's current plan to store more than half of the nation's high-level nuclear waste on 17,444 acres of tribal land. Goshutes, whose native language is Shoshone, are protesting the proposed nuclear dump now referred to as ''Utah's Yucca Mountain,'' after the proposed high-level nuclear waste repository in southern Nevada. Meanwhile, Western Shoshone in Nevada continue to oppose the Yucca Mountain nuclear dump on ancestral lands. ''Indigenous people within this nation have always been victimized to provide national security,'' said Bullcreek, criticizing the BIA's approval of the nuclear waste dump of Goshute land. Already, Goshutes have been unwilling neighbors of the U.S. Army's biological and chemical weapon open-air testing at the Dugway Proving Ground in western Utah. The Federal Emergency Management Agency recognizes the risks those weapons pose to Dugway's neighbors, the Skull Valley Goshute. On its Web site, FEMA quotes from Jicarilla Apache researcher Veronica Tiller's ''Guide to Indian Country'': ''South of the reservation is the Dugway Proving Grounds, where chemical and biological weapons have been developed and tested by the government. In 1968, chemical agents escaped from Dugway, killing approximately 6,000 sheep and other animals on the reservation; the government buried at least 1,600 of the contaminated sheep on the reservation. ... ''East of Skull Valley, in the Rush Valley area, is a government nerve-gas storage facility. Northwest is the Envirocare Low-Level Radioactive disposal site. North of the reservation is a large magnesium production plant, which has been identified by the Environment Protection Agency as the most polluting plant of its kind in the U.S.'' Referring to the proposed nuclear dump, the FEMA site states that flash flooding and earthquakes along the Wasatch fault pose additional risks. The operations at Dugway Proving Ground were classified for most of the 20th century. In March 1968, following a VX nerve agent experiment, 6,000 sheep died in Skull Valley and Rush Valley. ''Agent VX was found to be present in snow and grass samples that were received approximately three weeks after the sheep incident,'' said the 1970 report by researchers at the Army's Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland, as revealed by the Salt Lake Tribune in 1998. The document was declassified in 1978, but not until 30 years after the deaths of the sheep did it become public. Still, the commander of Dugway said the Army does not accept responsibility for the death of the sheep or admit negligence. VX, which was found in the bodies of the dead sheep, is a nerve agent so powerful that a single drop on the skin can result in death within about 15 minutes. It disrupts the nervous system and causes breathing to stop. GB, another common form of nerve agent known also as sarin, vaporizes quickly when exposed to air and forms a deadly gas. International publicity about the incident contributed to President Nixon's decision to ban all open-air testing of chemical weapons in 1969. Meanwhile, Goshute tribal leaders often question whether the deaths of several tribal elders, who died shortly after the sheep, were the result of the nerve gas accident. At the time, in 1968, Dugway conducted aerial nerve gas testing. In one of its experiments, VX was sprayed from a jet to a ground target 27 miles west of Skull Valley. At the time of the accident, when the nerve agent escaped the target area, any animals or people who ate the grass or snow would have become contaminated. Besides the sheep deaths in 1968, there were at least 1,174 other tests of chemical agents at Dugway, which spread nearly a half million pounds of nerve agent to the winds, according to documents revealed by Deseret News in Utah. There were 328 open-air germ warfare tests; 74 radiological ''dirty bomb'' tests and the equivalent of eight intentional meltdowns of small nuclear reactors. Along with biological and chemical testing at Dugway, open-air nuclear weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site in the 1950s and 1960s sent radioactive fallout drifting into Utah. Currently, Dugway is in the market for mass quantities of anthrax, according to contract requests discovered by the Sunshine Project, a U.S.-German organization that opposes the use of biological and chemical weapons. New Scientist magazine reported that the controversial move is likely to raise questions over the United States' commitment to treaties designed to limit the spread of biological weapons, pointing out that even though the nation renounced biological weapons in 1969, Dugway was still producing quantities of lethal anthrax as recently as 1998. The Dugway contract request is for companies to bid for the production of bulk quantities of a non-virulent strain of anthrax and equipment to produce significant volumes of other biological agents. Besides contracts for anthrax, other contracts are for equipment to produce an unspecified biological agent and sheep carcasses to test the efficiency of an incinerator for the disposal of infected livestock. © 1998 - 2005 Indian Country Today. All Rights Reserved  ***************************************************************** 27 edie news centre: Irish Environment Minister tells UK to end reprocessing at Thorp (published on 19-October-2005) Dick Roche, Irish Minister for the Environment has called on the UK government to end reprocessing at its Thorp nuclear facility following a huge leak last April. Irish Environment Minister Dick Roche has called on the UK Government to stop reprocessing at its THORP plant Mr Roche was speaking after a meeting with UK Secretary of State for DTI Alan Johnson, which focused on the Thorp plant and the Irish government's concerns over its safety. The leak of 83,000 litres of highly radioactive liquid in April was contained in the secondary containment facility at the site, and there was no release to the environment. Despite this, the plant itself remains closed and looks set to stay that way until March next year. "The fact remains that the incident occurred, was classed as a Category 3 incident on the INES scale and the internal report on the incident compiled by the operator identified serious shortcomings in safety culture and practices at the Thorp plant," Minister Roche said. "The Thorp leak represents another chapter in the ongoing Sellafield Cycle of failure. A serious incident occurs, the investigation reveals serious safety failures and weaknesses, recommendations are drawn up and implemented, and further assurances given that the plant is safe. This pattern is untenable," he added. "This serious incident provides further overwhelming evidence that it is time the UK took the hard decisions necessary to secure the safety and security of populations on both sides of the Irish Sea by bringing an end to reprocessing." Mr Roche welcomed the fact that the UK government was undertaking a review of Thorp operations, but said any review should encompass not only economic, but safety, security and environmental concerns as well. In addition, Mr Roche has raised the matter with European Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs to encourage European action to close the plant. "The bottom line is that a leak of thisnature should motivate the Commission to respond appropriately. The Euratom Treaty is not solely concerned with promotion of the nuclear industry, it deals with obligations and responsibilities relating to safeguards. I would urge the Commission to be committed to all elements of the Treaty with equal passion," he said. The future of the reprocessing plant also casts doubt over Government plans to privatise the British Nuclear Group as the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and safety regulators are understood to have told the government that the sale cannot go ahead until the issues at Thorp have been resolved. By David Hopkins © Faversham House Group Ltd 2005. edie news articles may be ***************************************************************** 28 Interfax: Russia not importing foreign spent nuclear fuel - official [www.interfax.ru] 08:23 GMT, Oct 21, 2005 Latest Headlines... MOSCOW. Oct 21 (Interfax) - Foreign spent nuclear fuel is not beingimported into Russia now, acting head of the Federal Service forEnvironmental and Atomic Oversight Andrei Malyshev told the Duma onFriday. He was answering a question from Communist deputy Albert Makashov during a debate on ratification of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. "All the fuel that is being handled is Russian-made. This is ourfuel and our elements," Malyshev said. Federal Atomic Energy Agency chief Alexander Rumyantsev confirmedthe information for the Duma. "There has not been a single case ofimporting foreign spent fuel," he said. ml tl © 1991 - 2005 Interfax Information Service. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 29 AU ABC: Govt to consider proposal for alternative dump site. 21/10/2005. ABC News Online The Federal Government says it will consider a proposal that would allow Aboriginal land councils to nominate an alternative site for a national nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory. The Northern Land Council (NLC) is calling for an amendment to proposed federal legislation which is before Parliament. The council says there should be an opportunity for traditional owners to come forward with a proposal for a site, provided their rights are respected. The position flies in the face of the Territory Government's robust campaign opposing the facility. The NLC has also slammed that campaign, and the Federal Government says the council has taken the right approach, "They've met with their constituents, they haven't frightened anybody and they've all come up with a consensus decision," CLP Senator Nigel Scullion said. The Territory Government has issued a statement saying the NLC should not have rolled over to Canberra. ***************************************************************** 30 UPI: Security &Terrorism - Japan set for nuke fuel storage facility United Press International - 10/21/2005 12:05:00 PM -0400 MUTSU, , Japan, Oct. 21 (UPI) -- Shingo Mimura, governor of Japan's Aomori prefecture, officially announced that Aomori would allow facilities to be built for the temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel. The containment units are to be built in Mutsu city. Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper reported that the decision follows the Aomori prefectural government and the Mutsu city government signing an accord with Tokyo Electric Power Co. and Japan Atomic Power Co. Under the terms of the agreement, the two companies will build and operate the facilities by 2010, the first of their kind in Japan. The agreement stipulates that Tokyo Electric Power Co. and Japan Atomic Power Co. will remove spent nuclear fuel from the storage facilities before the term for storage, up to 50 years, expires. Mimura said, "(The prefecture) will accept (the planned construction of storage facilities), and we believe safety should be given top priority." Two storage buildings capable of holding up to 5,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel will be built in an area near Sekinehama Port in Mutsu. The construction cost for the facilities is estimated at about $865 million. © Copyright 2005 United Press International, Inc. All Rights ***************************************************************** 31 Sydney Morning Herald: Desert wasteland - smh.com.au 10-22-05 The remote Northern Territory has been chosen to take Australia's nuclear waste, but some argue it would be safer in Sydney, writes Wendy Frew. The United States Government's 18-year battle to store 77,000 tonnes of highly radioactive nuclear waste deep inside Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert has been a public relations nightmare. The Nevada state government challenge to the plan uncovered a real danger of spontaneous nuclear chain reactions inside the waste dump. There have been accusations of doctored statistics and a fierce debate about for how many thousands of years the material will remain dangerous. The prospect of an accident involving even one of the giant trucks full of radioactive waste that would wind their way through hundreds of major cities to the dump has unnerved many Americans. But it's Nevada that feels most hard done by, singled out because its scattered population of 2 million doesn't carry the clout of more heavily populated neighbouring states. None of the nuclear waste is generated in the state, so why should it be dumped on them, Nevadans ask. It's a sentiment residents of the Northern Territory would understand. The Australian Government announced in July that low- and medium-level radioactive waste - most of it generated in Sydney - would be stored at one of three Commonwealth sites in the Territory. The Territory vowed to fight the plan, but the Federal Government introduced a bill last week that will override any legislative or legal challenge to the proposal from the Northern Territory Government, indigenous owners or green groups. The decision follows years of planning by the Howard Government and its Labor predecessor to build a national dump on the grounds the waste would be safer and more secure than leaving it at the more than 100 sites around the country where it is now stored. That ambition failed spectacularly last year when the Federal Court overturned a federal plan to build a low-level waste dump in a remote part of South Australia, against the wishes of that state's government. The Federal Government's Territory plan comes as the Liberals and Labor are pushing for more uranium exports (China could be Australia's next customer), and not long after the former prime minister Bob Hawke suggested Australia make money from accepting high-level radioactive waste that the rest of the world doesn't want. There's also a controversial debate about replacing coal with nuclear power to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, a suggestion the environment movement says is a front for selling more uranium. In the meantime, Territorians face a proposal to bury low-level waste not much deeper than the average grave, or possibly store it with much more dangerous intermediate waste in what's called a dry storage facility - essentially a factory-like building housing steel drums holding the waste. The Federal Government will choose between three possible sites: Harts Range, about 100 kilometres north-east of Alice Springs; Mount Everard, 27 kilometres north-west of Alice Springs; and Fishers Ridge, about 40 kilometres south of Katherine. The facility could be operating by late 2011. Australia doesn't have high-level nuclear waste generated from nuclear power stations, the kind of material that will be buried at Yucca. But concerns remain about the safety and security of moving the waste from where it is generated - mostly at Sydney's Lucas Heights research reactor - thousands of kilometres by road or sea. It might not only be the people of the Northern Territory who are worried when it becomes clear trucks carrying the waste would have to travel over the Blue Mountains via the Great Western Highway or up Australia's east coast, where the Great Barrier Reef is already vulnerable to shipping accidents. The Government says the low-level waste would include contaminated laboratory gloves, clothing and glassware, and contaminated soil. Intermediate level waste would include disused radiotherapy and industrial material. Under an agreement with France, about 50 cubic metres of waste that is due to return after reprocessing of spent fuel rods from Lucas Heights would also be included. Some waste would come from therapeutic or diagnostic drugs that contain radioactive material and are used in the diagnosis of diseases and conditions, including cancer. A Friends of the Earth campaigner, Dr Jim Green, says the waste to be dumped in the Northern Territory is far more radioactive and hazardous than the lower-level waste the Federal Government tried to dump in South Australia. He also rejects the claim there is no high-level waste in Australia. "Spent nuclear fuel from Lucas Heights meets the radiological and heat criteria for classification as high-level waste, as the NSW Environment Protection Authority has acknowledged, but [the Lucas Heights reactor operator] ANSTO and the Federal Government persist with the fiction that spent fuel is not waste," says Green, who has a doctorate in nuclear science. He says much of the Government's information about the dangers of nuclear waste is misleading, such as a claim by the Science Minister, Brendan Nelson, that uranium in the ground in the Northern Territory was more radioactive than the waste that will be taken to the dump. "Wrong. The spent fuel reprocessing waste and some other waste to be dumped in the NT is far more radioactive and hazardous than uranium," Green says. A Macquarie University geologist, Professor John Veevers, believes the Federal Government has painted itself into a corner by arguing the material is safe but then choosing extremely remote locations for the waste facility, thousands of kilometres from where the material is generated. "If it is OK to store it in the Northern Territory where they don't generate any of it, it is good enough to be put at Lucas Heights or North Shore Hospital," Veevers says. He scoffs at Hawke's suggestion Australia should become an international nuclear waste dump. He says highly contaminated material should be stored where it is generated rather than moved elsewhere, because it is so dangerous. He says there is some merit in building centralised facilities in each of Australia's major cities for less dangerous material instead of multiple storage sites at universities and hospitals. But, while he argues there is no logic to transporting this kind of material all the way to the Northern Territory, he says the dangers are sometimes exaggerated. "If a semi-trailer crashed and the drums holding low-level material burst open (which is unlikely) it would not be the end of the world. You can handle that material relatively easily," he says. A nuclear engineer, Alan Parkinson, is worried that what he describes as the Government's poor record on handling nuclear waste will jeopardise the safety of the proposed facility in the Territory. Parkinson is an experienced nuclear engineer who oversaw the bulk of the clean-up at the nuclear test site at Maralinga in the 1990s but was removed from that position in 1998 after questioning some parts of the clean-up. At Maralinga, he says, plutonium waste with a half-life of 24,000 years was buried only a couple of metres below the surface compared with the current plan to transport relatively safe, low-level material thousands of kilometres to house it in a dry storage facility. (Half-life is the time it takes for half of the radioactive element to decay.) Parkinson also says that it would be easier to guard waste if it was stored in more populous areas. "The public perception is that it is dangerous so the Government thinks if it puts it in a remote area it will be OK," he says. "But no one wants the waste and that is the problem." Copyright © 2005. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 32 AU ABC: Indigenous group votes on new site for waste dump 15:24 (ACST)Friday, 21 October 2005. 16:24 (AEDT)Friday, 21 The Northern Territory Government's fight against a national nuclear waste facility in its jurisdiction has taken a massive blow with a peak Indigenous group describing the Government's position as irrelevant. The organisation representing traditional landowners in the Top End says it wants to suggest a new site for a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. The announcement flies in the face of the Territory Government's commitment to oppose the facility at all costs. Legislation currently before Federal Parliament paves the way for the facility to be built at one of three sites identified by the Commonwealth. But the Northern Land Council (NLC) says its 78 members have unanimously voted in favour of an amendment to the legislation so it can nominate a fourth site outside the existing three already ear-marked. The NLC says it wants to suggest a new location, as long as traditional owners agree and sacred sites are protected. The council has also slammed the Territory Government's handling of recent debate about the waste dump. The council's chief executive Norman Fry says the NLC recognises the facility is of national significance and says it seems inevitable that it will be put in the Territory. He says the NLC represents 23 per cent of the Territory's land mass and wants to be pro-active in getting the best deal for traditional owners. ***************************************************************** 33 AU ABC: Govt to consider proposal for alternative dump site 20:16 (ACST)Friday, 21 October 2005. 21:16 (AEDT)Friday, 21 The Federal Government says it will consider a proposal that would allow Aboriginal land councils to nominate an alternative site for a national nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory. The Northern Land Council (NLC) is calling for an amendment to proposed federal legislation which is before Parliament. The council says there should be an opportunity for traditional owners to come forward with a proposal for a site, provided their rights are respected. The position flies in the face of the Territory Government's robust campaign opposing the facility. The NLC has also slammed that campaign, and the Federal Government says the council has taken the right approach, "They've met with their constituents, they haven't frightened anybody and they've all come up with a consensus decision," CLP Senator Nigel Scullion said. The Territory Government has issued a statement saying the NLC should not have rolled over to Canberra. ***************************************************************** 34 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: H Reactor cocooning marks halfway point of project [seattlepi.com] Thursday, October 20, 2005 · Last updated 7:31 p.m. PT THE ASSOCIATED PRESS RICHLAND, Wash. -- A decades-long project to decrease risks at nine nuclear reactors along the Columbia River by "cocooning" them has passed the halfway point, officials said Thursday. Hanford's H Reactor, which operated from 1949-1965, is the fifth former Hanford nuclear reservation plutonium-making reactor to be cocooned. The Reactor Interim Safe Storage Closure project - called cocooning - involves demolishing nonradioactive portions of the reactor buildings down to the four-foot-thick concrete shield walls around the reactor cores. All openings in the core building are sealed and a new roof is constructed. Temperature and moisture sensors remotely monitor conditions inside the "cocoon." Demolition of the H Reactor's auxiliary buildings began in December 2001. The nine plutonium reactors operated along the Columbia River from 1945-1986. The 586-square-mile nuclear reservation created as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. Today it is the nation's most contaminated nuclear site, with cleanup expected to continue until 2035. C Reactor was the first to be cocooned in 1998. The DR, F and D reactors came next. K West and K East reactors are scheduled to be demolished by 2011 and the N Reactor is scheduled to be cocooned in 2012. A decision on whether to cocoon the B Reactor, the first operating reactor at Hanford, is pending while authorities consider whether to preserve it as an interpretive center. [Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com ©1996-2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer ***************************************************************** 35 LA Daily News: Field lab's big concern is mudslides Article Launched: 10/21/2005 12:00:00 AM By Kerry Cavanaugh, Staff Writer Mudslides and erosion are the biggest risks from the Santa Susana Field Lab after last month's Topanga Fire, which scorched 2,000 of the 2,800 acres at the hilltop facility, Boeing officials said Thursday. Neighbors and lab watchdogs had expressed concern that the fire may have spread contamination off site in smoke or ash, but Boeing and a number of environmental regulators have said they don't believe that occurred. "It's not contamination, it's mud we're concerned about," said Paul Costa, Boeing's manager of environmental protection at the lab. During the blaze, some firefighters worried that they may have been exposed to contamination and that prompted the Ventura County Fire and Environmental Health Services departments to investigate risks on the property. The agencies decided the burning brush at the lab didn't pose a threat. "I think there are other things up there that could pose a risk to firefighters, but we were lucky," Fire Department Hazardous Materials Officer Steve Baker said. "Some of the areas that might be a concern were spared from the fire." On a tour of the rocket testing and former nuclear research facility Thursday, officials pointed out hazardous and radioactive material storage buildings that came through the fire unscathed. Ten other buildings, all vacant or no longer in use, were destroyed. Soil, trees and vegetation burned throughout the lab area, and workers have laid down new plastic tarps over contaminated sections to prevent rain from washing tainted soil off site. Boeing officials do expect to see higher levels of certain contaminants in runoff from the site of the fire but said there's a larger risk of slides. The storm earlier this week dropped about an inch of rain on the lab but caused little damage. "If we had another couple more inches, we could have had problems," Costa said. Lab officials are spreading hay, rock and plastic tarps to prevent mud movement. Some lab watchdogs were disappointed that no agency tested the air for chemical or radioactive elements during the fire. "No agencies were able to answer what kinds of airborne contaminants may have been produced. The lingering questions were what measurements were made," said Dan Hirsch with the Committee to Bridge the Gap. Boeing tested the air for radioactive materials during part of the fire and sampled ash after the blaze but picked up no contaminants. The South Coast Air Quality Management District conducted one-time tests for chemicals in the air in Chatsworth, Porter Ranch and West Hills several hours after the field lab burned. They compared the results to recent samples taken in Sun Valley, said Rudy Eden, with the district. "There was nothing we consider unusual at all in these results." Kerry Cavanaugh, (818) 713-3746 kerry.cavanaugh@dailynews.com Los Angeles Newspaper Group ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************