***************************************************************** 10/27/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.250 ***************************************************************** 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: Iran Leader Calls for Israel's Destruction 2 Guardian Unlimited: Israel Wants Iran Expelled From U.N. 3 RIA Novosti: Iranian president's Israel comments another reason 4 Guardian Unlimited: Europe Condemns Iranian Leader's Remarks 5 Japan Times: Japan, North Korea to hold bilateral talks starting Nov 6 US: Nuclear "Bunker Buster" Has Been Busted! - FCNL 7 US: SF Chronicle: Indictments would rock White House / NUCLEAR REACTORS 8 US: NRC: NRC Schedules Regulatory Conference to Discuss Turkey Point 9 BBC: France in nuclear sell-off U-turn 10 US: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Utility to build nuclear plants 11 US: NRC: Price-Anderson Act Financial Protection Regulations and 12 US: NRC: Power Uprates; Notice of Meeting 13 Reuters: German parties deadlocked on nuclear power -CDU 14 US: Good 5 Cent Cigar: Nuclear reactor not a threat, URI officials s 15 US: PittsburghLIVE.com: A positive nuclear reaction - 16 NEWS.com.au: Economy 'could grow with energy' 17 Guardian Unlimited: Lawmakers Seek Info on India Nuclear Deal NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 18 Las Vegas SUN: Critics: Changes doom Yucca Mountain nuclear dump pla 19 US: Bradenton Herald: Resist this bargain 20 US: Bradenton Herald: Tallevast: Bush dismays FOCUS leaders 21 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: A 'clean' load of rubbish 22 US: Seven Oaks Magazine: Native communities refuse nuclear waste 23 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Foreign N-waste arrives in Utah 24 US: PE.com: Chemical cleanup sought by gathering 25 US: AU ABC: Ranger operations extended on high uranium prices. 26 Whitehaven News: New fears on nuclear sale 27 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Funds to develop bunker buster N-bomb scrappe PEACE 28 US: Physicists Oppose U.S. Policy on Nuclear Attack 29 US: New Scientist: US drops nuclear bunker buster from budget US DEPT. OF ENERGY 30 komo news: Murray: Hanford Cleanup Budget Slashed 31 The Olympian: Hanford faces slashed budget, Murray says 32 PRN: Steelworkers Union Says DOE Would be Courting Disaster in ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Leader Calls for Israel's Destruction From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday October 27, 2005 2:46 AM AP Photo NY127 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared Wednesday that Israel is a ``disgraceful blot'' that should be ``wiped off the map'' - fiery words that Washington said underscores its concern over Iran's nuclear program. Ahmadinejad's speech to thousands of students at a ``World without Zionism'' conference set a hard-line foreign policy course sharply at odds with that of his moderate predecessor, echoing the sentiments of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution. The United States said Ahmadinejad's remarks show that Washington's fears about Iran's nuclear program are accurate. ``I think it reconfirms what we have been saying about the regime in Iran,'' White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters in Washington. ``It underscores the concerns we have about Iran's nuclear intentions.'' Ahmadinejad also condemned Iran's neighbors which seek to break new ground in their relations with Israel. ``Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury,'' state-run television quoted him as saying. Relations between Israel and several Persian Gulf states have been thawing amid Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in September. Bahrain announced in September it was ending a decades-old law banning trade ties with Israel. In October, Qatar said it was donating $6 million to help build a soccer stadium for a mixed Arab-Jewish team, the first such financial assistance by an Arab state for any town inside Israel. Israel has been at the forefront of nations calling for an end to Iran's nuclear program, which the United States and many others in the West say is aimed at acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Iran insists the program is for generating electricity. Referring to Palestinian suicide bomb attacks in Israel, Ahmadinejad said: ``there is no doubt that the new wave in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world.'' Ahmadinejad's speech came hours before a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up in the Israeli town of Hadera, killing five people. Iran aids several militant Palestinian groups, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, with support and training through proxies among Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas. ``Ahmadinejad has clearly declared the doctrine of his government,'' said Mohammad Sadeq Hosseini, an expert on Middle Eastern affairs. ``He is returning Iran to the revolutionary goals it was pursuing in the 1980s.'' Reacting to the Iranian president's speech, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said Ahmadinejad and Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar ``speak openly about destroying the Jewish state ... and it appears the problem with these extremists is that they followed through on their violent declarations with violent actions.'' Ebrahim Yazdi, a former Iranian foreign minister, said Ahmadinejad's remarks harmed Iran. ``Such comments provoke the international community against us. It's not to Iran's interests at all. It's harmful to Iran to make such a statement,'' he said. Several world governments issued statements criticizing the Iranian's remarks, including Britain, Canada and Germany. In Madrid, Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos summoned Iran's ambassador to protest Ahmadinejad's comments. Moratinos said he rejected the remarks in the strongest possible terms. French Foreign Minister Jean-Baptiste Mattei also condemned the remarks ``with the utmost firmness.'' Ahmadinejad became president in August after winning elections two months earlier. He replaced Mohammad Khatami, a reformist who advocated international dialogue and tried to improve relations with the West. Iran announced earlier this year that it had fully developed solid fuel technology for missiles, a major breakthrough that increases their accuracy. The Shahab-3, with a range of 810 miles to more than 1,200 miles, is capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 2 Guardian Unlimited: Israel Wants Iran Expelled From U.N. From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday October 27, 2005 12:46 PM AP Photo XHS102 JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel's vice prime minister said Iran should be expelled from the United Nations after its new president said Israel should be ``wiped off the map,'' and Britain summoned an Iranian diplomat Thursday to protest the remarks. Italy on Thursday also condemned the words of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, telling the Iranian ambassador the comments were ``unacceptable'' and that they confirm worries over the political positions - and nuclear intentions - of Iran's new leadership. Shimon Peres, Israel's vice prime minister and a Nobel peace laureate, said it was ``impossible to ignore'' Ahmadinejad's comments. ``Since the United Nations was established in 1945, there has never been a head of state that is a U.N. member state that publicly called for the elimination of another U.N. member state,'' Shimon Peres told Israel Radio. In a speech Wednesday in Tehran, Ahmadinejad said ``there is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world.'' Ahmadinejad spoke during a conference called ``The World without Zionism.'' His comments drew widespread international condemnations. Britain's Foreign Office said Thursday it intended to summon Iran's charge d'affaires to protest Ahmadinejad's remarks, calling them ``deeply disturbing and sickening.'' Other world governments on Wednesday issued statements criticizing the Iranian's remarks, including Britain, Canada and Germany. In Madrid, Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos summoned Iran's ambassador to protest Ahmadinejad's comments. French Foreign Minister Jean-Baptiste Mattei also condemned the remarks ``with the utmost firmness.'' Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said Israel protested Iran's comments Wednesday at the United Nations but has not decided whether to ask officially for Iran's removal. Peres said he would discuss the Iranian threat with Russia's visiting foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, on Thursday. Israel accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons and wants the U.N. Security Council to consider sanctions against the Tehran government. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful. Lavrov on Wednesday brushed off Israel's calls for Security Council action, saying the matter is ``too serious to be guided by politics.'' Lavrov said that Russia will follow the lead of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is investigating the Iranian nuclear program, and believes that talk of sanctions is premature. Russia is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, with veto power over all resolutions considered by the body. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 3 RIA Novosti: Iranian president's Israel comments another reason to send nuclear file to UN - Lavrov 27/ 10/ 2005 AMMAN, October 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Thursday that Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments that Israel should be "wiped off the map" were unacceptable and would provide more arguments for those countries that wanted to refer the Iranian nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council. "What I saw on TV is inadmissible. We will make this clear to the Iranian side," Lavrov said upon his arrival in Jordan. Speaking at a conference, World Without Zionism, in Tehran Wednesday, Ahmadinejad said: ""There is no doubt that the new wave in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot [Israel] from the face of the Islamic world." He also referred to the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution Ayatollah Khomeini who said that Israel's existence was illegal, and long talked about a world without Israel and the United States. 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 4 Guardian Unlimited: Europe Condemns Iranian Leader's Remarks From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday October 27, 2005 12:31 PM By JILL LAWLESS Associated Press Writer LONDON (AP) - European governments on Thursday condemned the Iranian president's call for Israel to be ``wiped off the map,'' and Britain summoned a senior Iranian diplomat to the Foreign Office for a reprimand. But the European Union stopped short of backing Israel's call for Iran to be suspended from the United Nations over the remarks. In a speech Wednesday, Iran's conservative president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, denounced Israel and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks ``will wipe this stigma from the face of the Islamic world.'' Citing the words of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Ahmadinejad said: ``Israel must be wiped off the map.'' Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres called for Iran to be expelled from the United Nations. Israel's deputy ambassador to Britain, Zvi Rav-Ner, said it was ``unheard-of'' for a U.N. member state to call ``for genocide and wiping off of another member state of the U.N.'' ``This is a clear contravention and breach of the U.N. charter and it should be dealt with by the international community,'' he told British Broadcasting Corp. radio. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said he condemned the Iranian statement ``absolutely.'' Asked whether he believed Iran should be expelled from the U.N., Barroso said: ``I will not make any concrete proposal now.'' ``It is a completely unacceptable statement, of course,'' Barroso told BBC radio. ``We should respect borders and respect the integrity of Israel, and we want Israel to live in peace with its neighbors.'' Britain's Foreign Office called Ahmadinejad's comments ``deeply disturbing and sickening,'' and said Iran's charge d'affaires would be summoned later Thursday. Spain also summoned the Iranian ambassador in Madrid to protest the comments, and French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy called for a meeting with Iran's envoy to Paris to ``obtain some explanations.'' Italy said the remarks confirmed concerns over Tehran's nuclear program. The Italian Foreign Ministry said it had expressed ``discomfort and concern to the Iranian ambassador in Rome.'' ``The contents and tone of such unacceptable statements confirm worries over the political positions pursued by the new Iranian leadership, especially concerning the nuclear dossier,'' the statement said. Israel and the United States accuse Iran of developing nuclear weapons and want the U.N. Security Council to consider sanctions against the Tehran government. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful. On Wednesday, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Ahmadinejad's remarks ``serve to underscore our concern as well as the international community's concern about Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.'' Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 5 Japan Times: Japan, North Korea to hold bilateral talks starting Nov. 3 Thursday, October 27, 2005 Japan and North Korea agreed Wednesday to hold bilateral talks starting Nov. 3 in Beijing, Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura said. Machimura unveiled the agreement at a news conference. Sources familiar with the issue said earlier the talks will last until Nov. 5. The two sides are expected to discuss a variety of issues, including the country's abduction of Japanese nationals during the 1970s and 1980s. The last time the two discussed the abductions was last November in Pyongyang. North Korea's development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to deliver them is also likely to be on the agenda. The two countries have failed to resume discussions due mainly to a dispute over whether the remains that North Korea gave Japan during the last meeting are those of abductee Megumi Yokota. North Korea says the ashes were Yokota's, but Japan says DNA tests conducted here suggest they came from two people other than Yokota. Visit by envoy sought WASHINGTON (Kyodo) Relatives of two Japanese abducted to North Korea decades ago and a senior U.S. official agreed Tuesday to work to bring President George W. Bush's special envoy on human rights on North Korea to Japan at an early date, one of the relatives said. Teruaki Masumoto, 50, whose sister is abductee Rumiko Masumoto, told reporters the relatives met with Michael Green, senior director for Asia on the National Security Council, and talked about a possible visit to Japan by presidential envoy Jay Lefkowitz. The Japan Times: Oct. 27, 2005 (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 6 Nuclear "Bunker Buster" Has Been Busted! - FCNL Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:00:52 -0500 (CDT) X-Fingerprint: owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu-127.127 Your lobbying played a key role in persuading Congress this week to agree to eliminate all funding for the nuclear "bunker buster,' effectively rejecting for the second year in a row the president's request to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons. The thousands lobby visits, letters, emails, faxes, and phone calls that you helped organized helped persuade members of Congress to eliminate this dangerous nuclear bomb that could have killed over one million people. FCNL learned last evening that Congress has agreed to eliminate funding for the nuclear "bunker buster" in the energy and water appropriations bill conference committee. Defeating the bunker buster two years in a row shows how little support new nuclear weapons have in Congress. Please email your members of Congress at http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/HJDUFDSUXB/HSZXFDTABR/ or call them at one of their offices to thank them for not funding the bunker buster. For more information on the nuclear "bunker buster" and nuclear weapons issues, please see: http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/HJDUFDSUXB/JTERFDTABS/ ---- Coming soon: A new look for FCNL's web site. The site will be unavailable intermittently throughout the day on Friday 10/28. Find out more: http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/HJDUFDSUXB/IQOMFDTABT/ Contact Congress and the Administration: http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/HJDUFDSUXB/FPVZFDTABU/ Order FCNL publications and "War is Not the Answer" campaign bumper stickers and yard signs: http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/HJDUFDSUXB/ALXOFDTABV/ http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/HJDUFDSUXB/GAYRFDTABW/ Contribute to FCNL: http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/HJDUFDSUXB/GSKWFDTABX/ Subscribe or update your information to this list: http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/HJDUFDSUXB/IJYBFDTABY/ To unsubscribe from this list, please see the end of this message. Subscribe to other FCNL legislative, policy, and action alert lists: http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/HJDUFDSUXB/GEPKFDTABZ/ ________________________________________ Friends Committee on National Legislation 245 Second St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-5795 fcnl@fcnl.org * www.fcnl.org phone: (202)547-6000 * toll-free: (800)630-1330 We seek a world free of war and the threat of war We seek a society with equity and justice for all We seek a community where every person's potential may be fulfilled We seek an earth restored. --- If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please visit http://capwiz.com/fconl/lmx/u/?jobid=61108295. ***************************************************************** 7 SF Chronicle: Indictments would rock White House / ANALYSIS: Counsel's decision may bring new debate on war Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief Wednesday, October 26, 2005 CIA Leak Case D.O.J.: Web site of Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald. FindLaw:: Legal documents, reports. NYTimes: Coverage of Miller. Key questions Profile of Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald(10/23) GOP on defense(7/13) Time line(10/26) Readers' Rep on unnamed sources(7/24) Bad Reporter: Slide to neoconism(10/26) Washington -- Many elements of the investigation threatening to tear apart the White House are familiar to anyone who follows Washington: ruthless leaks, character assassination, a cozy relationship between journalists and government officials. What distinguishes the CIA leak case from ordinary Washington business is the substance of the leak and the standing of the leakers. The leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name involved classified information, making its disclosure potentially a criminal offense. The underlying policy was a decision to go to war, a decision in which thousands of lives were at stake. And the players include officials at the highest levels of government and the upper echelon of U.S. journalism. The result is a potential tempest that could profoundly shake Washington and could raise questions much broader than the legal status of those who might be charged. A report Tuesday by the New York Times that Vice President Dick Cheney discussed Plame's identity in June 2003 raises questions about the truthfulness of his public statements and speculation that the criminal investigation could reach the all the way to the top. The decisions to be made this week by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald could touch off a national debate over the lengths to which members of the Bush administration were willing to go to advance their war plans, the credibility of Washington press corps and the ability of the White House to persevere in the midst of a scandal. Coming amid "so many other negatives for the president,'' indictments would have an "explosive impact because they involve men who were closest to the president and because (they would involve) the lead-up to the Iraq war,'' said David Gergen, director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. The scope of the political hurricane about to hit the nation's capital is less predictable than that of the storms that have ravaged the Gulf Coast. Fitzgerald is expected to announce indictments, if any are coming, as early as this morning and no later than Friday, when the grand jury hearing evidence in the matter is scheduled to disband. Much of what is known about the case at this point is the result of leaks, an irony that points to the pervasiveness of secretly divulging information to the media in Washington. Officials often reveal unflattering information about their opponents on the condition that they not be identified in order to avoid the consequences of any negative reactions. "It's standard fare in Washington. It's hardball politics, which most of the time is played out right in front of people's noses on television during campaigns,'' said Gergen, who served under four presidents and as editor of the magazine U.S. News &World Report. So it surprises few Washington veterans that White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove or Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter'' Libby held off-the-record conversations with journalists in which they tried to disparage Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson. Wilson, a former ambassador, had been dispatched to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking to purchase nuclear materials; then he publicly questioned the White House's motives for going to war and ignoring his advice. "Part of the role of being in the White House is to obviously try to counter many of the attacks that are coming at you that can undermine your initiatives,'' said Leon Panetta, the former Democratic representative from Monterey who served as President Bill Clinton's chief of staff. Yet the information this time included divulging Wilson's wife's status as an employee at the CIA, arousing the interest of reporters as well as law-enforcement officials. "Any leak that deals with national security or the CIA is always exciting. In Washington it's like showing pictures of people with no clothes on,'' said Bill Frenzel, who represented Minnesota in the House as a Republican for 20 years and is now a fellow at the Brookings Institution. Frenzel said he is not convinced any laws were broken, but he acknowledged that "when you have a president whose popularity is way down, even very small matters can become very important.'' Panetta said a "red flag should go up when you are dealing with information involving national security issues, particularly someone involved with the CIA.'' Whether they broke national security laws by intentionally divulging a secret agent's identity, or merely confirmed something that reporters found out elsewhere, Panetta said disclosing such information steps over a line that any White House official, certainly at the level of Libby or Rove, should understand well. "Sometimes what happens in the White House is that arrogance begins to take over, and you begin to exert an influence in ways that take you down the wrong road. There becomes an attitude that you can get away with anything you want to do. There seems to be an attitude that they could probably say anything, do anything, and not have it come back to bite them,'' Panetta said. At the heart of the investigation is how the Bush administration handled intelligence information regarding Iraq's pursuit of nuclear weapons, the underpinning for the war that claimed its 2,000th U.S. military death on Tuesday. Critics are certain to seize on any indictments as evidence that the Bush administration was manipulating intelligence to justify the invasion. That is the charge that Wilson made after President Bush, during his 2003 State of the Union address, asserted that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy nuclear materials from Niger. The assertion came after Wilson had returned from his CIA-sponsored fact-finding trip to Niger and reported that such allegations were baseless. As Wilson began to go public with his accusations, the details of his wife's employment at the CIA were leaked. Though the Bush White House is remarkably disciplined, and often sparing, in its distribution of information, it has provided strategic leaks to advance its agenda in the past. Rove has long been linked to damaging information emerging about Bush's political rivals, ranging from charges that Texas Gov. Ann Richards appointed "avowed activists and homosexuals'' to high offices, as a Bush ally once charged, to rumors that Sen. John McCain had abandoned the plight of veterans and fathered an illegitimate black child and that Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam War honors were undeserved. Though Rove never was directly linked to the leaks, his candidate benefited greatly from the whisper campaigns. Cheney's involvement adds a potentially explosive wrinkle to the controversy, which threatens to distract Bush from his already foundering second-term agenda. The New York Times reported that Libby had learned of Plame's identity during a conversation with Cheney on June 12, 2003. The report is at odds with Cheney's comments on NBC a few months later that he didn't know who sent Wilson to Niger. "He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back," Cheney said at the time. "I don't know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn't judge him. I have no idea who hired him." The report also contradicts an account by reporter Judith Miller in the Times, which said Libby told her in an off-the-record meeting less than two weeks after his conversation with Cheney that "Mr. Cheney did not know of Mr. Wilson, much less know that Mr. Wilson had traveled to Niger.'' E-mail Marc Sandalow at msandalow@sfchronicle.com. Page A - 1 The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 8 NRC: NRC Schedules Regulatory Conference to Discuss Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Concern News Release - 2005-04 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II No. II-05-041 October 26, 2005 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has scheduled a regulatory conference with officials of Florida Power & Light Company on Nov. 8 in Atlanta to discuss the risk significance of inspection findings at the companys Turkey Point nuclear power plant, located near Homestead, Fla, about 30 miles south of Miami. NRC and FP&L officials will discuss the significance of NRC inspection findings related to unprotected post-fire safe shutdown cables and related compensatory, non-feasible local manual operator action. The meeting was requested by FP&L. The NRC evaluates regulatory performance at commercial nuclear power plants with a color-coded system which classifies findings as either green, white, yellow or red, in increasing order of safety significance. The NRCs preliminary evaluation determined that this issue at Turkey Point appears to be a white finding, which would be considered to be of low to moderate safety significance. The meeting is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. in the NRCs Region II office, located on the 24th floor of the Atlanta Federal Center at 61 Forsyth Street SW in Atlanta. The public is invited to attend to observe and will have one or more opportunities to communicate with the NRC after the business portion, but before the meeting is adjourned. No decisions on the final safety significance, apparent violations or possible enforcement action will be made during the conference. Those decisions will be made by NRC officials at a later time. AUDIO TELECONFERENCE: Interested members of the public can participate in this meeting via a toll-free audio teleconference. Please contact Mr. Charles Payne at (404) 562-4669 by Nov. 4 indicating your intent and to obtain a teleconferencing number. Last revised Thursday, October 27, 2005 ***************************************************************** 9 BBC: France in nuclear sell-off U-turn Last Updated: Thursday, 27 October 2005 [Dominique de Villepin] Mr Villepin says other privatisations will continue The French government has cancelled plans to part-privatise nuclear power group Areva, claiming strategic and safety concerns for its U-turn. The announcement by Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin comes as privatisation plans continue for other state firms. He said ongoing state control of Areva would ensure the necessary assurances. Shares in Areva were due to be issued next year, with the sale set to raise up to 3.6bn euros ($4.4bn; 2.4bn). State guarantees Areva is the world's largest maker of nuclear power stations, operating all France's plants and other facilities around the globe. Plans to part-privatise the business were first announced back in February. "In a sector as strategic as the supply of fissile matter, enrichment and the treatment of nuclear waste, state control must supply the guarantees which are necessary to our citizens and our foreign clients," said Mr Villepin. "You will understand that under these conditions, the opening of Areva's capital is not part of my government's agenda." The French government is continuing with other part-privatisation plans, despite strong opposition from unions and workers. On Friday a 15% stake is being sold in Electricite de France, and 22% of stock in Gaz de France was floated back in the summer. Mr Villepin has also repeated plans to sell a majority stake in France's toll-road motorway operators. "There still is a willingness by the government to go ahead with privatisations, but the issue has proved to be politically difficult, with trade union opposition," said Christian Parisot, an economist at Paris financial brokerage Aurel Leven. ***************************************************************** 10 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Utility to build nuclear plants Westinghouse units would be first ordered in U.S. since '78 Thursday, October 27, 2005 By Jim McKay, In a move that could end a long drought in the domestic construction of nuclear power plants, Duke Power yesterday said it was making plans to build two reactors designed by Monroeville-based Westinghouse Electric. Online Graphic: Nuclear Energy Facts The news that Duke has chosen Westinghouse's newest reactor design, the AP1000, for possible construction in its service territory of North and South Carolina was greeted with excitement at the company's headquarters campus. "This is very good news. It's a significant step,'' said Westinghouse spokesman Vaughn Gilbert, who noted that it was too early to speculate on local jobs. "It's hard to quantify [employment], but the people who developed and designed the AP1000 and who will continue to engineer it are all here in Monroeville." Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke has not yet placed an order or signed a contract for the reactors, but said it was preparing an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that it will submit within 24 to 30 months. That application process alone can cost approximately $30 million to do. If the regulatory process stays on schedule and Duke agrees to proceed with the project, construction could begin by 2010, Westinghouse President and Chief Executive Officer Steve Tritch said. Duke cited 2015 as a potential completion date. Construction of the last new reactor in the United States was completed in 1996, and there have been no new nuclear plants ordered since 1978, a year before the accident at the Three Mile Island plant near Harrisburg dealt a disastrous blow to the industry. Three Mile Island, the most serious accident in U.S. commercial nuclear history, led to heightened regulatory oversight and sweeping changes in nuclear power plant operations. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, there are now 105 commercial nuclear power plants producing electricity in the United States, located at 65 sites in 31 states. Together they supply about 20 percent of the nation's electricity. Orders for Westinghouse-designed plants would have economic benefit for Pittsburgh since the company uses local vendors including Emerson Process Management Power & Water Solutions, which designs and builds sophisticated Ovation-brand control and software systems for power plants. "It would be really good news for us,'' said Robert L. Yeager, president of the Emerson control unit at the RIDC park in O'Hara. "We have been working with Westinghouse for quite a while on the plant computer design for the AP1000. Obviously, the more AP1000s they sell, the more Ovation technology we deliver. The bottom line is it's great for us." The AP1000 technology, which is capable of generating about 1,100 megawatts of electricity, is the first of the latest generation of advanced light water nuclear reactors to receive design approval from the NRC. None of Westinghouse's competitors are that far along in the licensing process. The previous generation, dubbed Generation III by the NRC, was developed in the 1990s Brew Barron, Duke Power's chief nuclear officer, said the advanced stage of the Westinghouse licensing process gave it an edge over competing designs from General Electric and France's Areva Group, the two main competitors to Westinghouse around the world. GE's latest design is a 1,500 megawatt Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR). It also helped Westinghouse that two existing Duke-operated nuclear stations, the McGuire and Catawba plants, already use the pressurized water reactor technology that is the basis of the AP1000, which is described as passive gravity-aided technology that cuts down on the quantity of pumps, valves, wiring and piping used by existing nuclear plants. "All three of the designs are good reactors. They would run faithfully and reliably,'' Mr. Barron said. "Because of our extensive experience with Westinghouse ... we are very comfortable with being able to fold a new facility using the same technology into the operations of our current nuclear fleet." Jay Apt, executive director of Carnegie Mellon University's Electricity Industry Center and a distinguished professor in engineering and public policy, said the Duke announcement could give Westinghouse a boost in its bid to sell reactors to China. China is reviewing bids for four nuclear plants, which would likely be built in twos and could cost $2.2 billion to $2.7 billion a pair to build. Westinghouse is among the leading bidders, and China anticipates building several more after the first four are under way. "For Westinghouse, they must regard [this] as a very good vote of confidence in their new design," Mr. Apt, a former astronaut, said. "This is a chance of bolstering their opportunity." The Shaw Group, based in Baton Rouge, said its nuclear services unit will join with Westinghouse to provide engineering support for Duke's licensing application to the NRC. Shaw and Westinghouse are already working together, along with Mitsuibishi Heavy Industries of Japan, on the proposals to build four of the AP1000 reactors in China. Duke, which provides electricity to more than 2 million customers in the Carolinas, said it must build new capacity to serve the 40,000 to 60,000 new customers it adds every year. "We project strong growth in our base load demand over the next 10 to 15 years,'' Mr. Barron said. Duke, which already operates three nuclear generating stations, eight coal-fired plants, 31 hydroelectric stations and numerous combustion turbine units, has yet to select a site for the new nuclear plants, but expects to do that by the end of the year. It is looking at some 14 locations in the Carolinas, some of which it already owns. Mr. Barron said the company is also looking at other types of facilities including coal and combined-cycle facilities that could be used to meet its growing load demand between now and the construction of new nuclear facilities The recently passed federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 includes numerous incentives intended to encourage the development of new nuclear plant capacity. Mr. Barron, of Duke, said the incentives act did not drive the decision announced yesterday. He said the evaluation for the projects began a year ago before the Energy Policy Act was finalized . "It's a good option for our customers. It's not dependant on the various aspects of the energy act," he said. A consortium of eight U.S. utilities, under the banner of NuStart Energy Development, in September announced potential sites where one or more of its corporate members might put a new reactor. The potential projects involve both GE and Westinghouse designs. One of those applications involves a site adjacent to NuStart member utility Entergy's Grand Gulf Nuclear Station in Port Gibson, Miss. The GE reactor is the preferred technology for that project. The Westinghouse design was picked for a second NuStart project, which is proposed for the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) unfinished Bellefonte plant in Scottsboro, Ala. The NuStart industry group plans to submit license applications to the NRC for review in late 2007 and early 2008. The licenses could be issued as soon as 2010 following a two-to-three years review process. "With NuStart's announcement of the two sites, a U.S. nuclear renaissance is clearly within reach," Andy White, president and CEO of GE Energy's nuclear business, said at the time. Separately from that NuStart project, Entergy said it will simultaneously develop an application to potentially build and operate a second GE designed reactor, this one adjacent to tis River Bend nuclear power plant near St. Francisville, La. (Jim McKay can be reached at jmckay@post-gazette.comor 412-263-1322.) Copyright 1997-2005 PG Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights ***************************************************************** 11 NRC: Price-Anderson Act Financial Protection Regulations and Elimination of Antitrust Reviews FR Doc 05-21342 [Federal Register: October 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 207)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 61885-61888] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27oc05-1] Rules and Regulations Federal Register This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each week. [[Page 61885]] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 2, 50, 52, and 140 RIN 3150-AH78 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations to conform with the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The revised regulations include Congress's prescribed increase in the amount of the required annual financial contributions required from commercial reactors in the event of a nuclear accident to pay for third party liability under the Price-Anderson Act. Another revision provides Congress's accommodation for modular reactors, which permits a defined combination of these reactors to be considered a single reactor for the determination of financial obligations under the Price-Anderson Act. Additional revisions, essentially deletions, result from Congress's terminating NRC's authority and responsibility to conduct antitrust reviews of future applications to construct or operate a nuclear reactor. DATES: This rule is effective on November 28, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marjorie Nordlinger, Senior Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-1616, e-mail MSN@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. Discussion of Final Rule III. Voluntary Consensus Standards IV. Finding of No Significant Impact: Environmental Assessment V. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement VI. Regulatory Analysis VII. Backfit Analysis VIII. Congressional Review Act I. Background The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations to conform with recently enacted provisions contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58. In that act, Congress amended Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act (the Price-Anderson Act) to increase the amount reactor licensees must contribute annually to compensate the public for damages if a nuclear accident occurs. Congress also provided special treatment for potential licensees of modular reactors by defining what combination of reactors is entitled to be considered a single reactor under the Price-Anderson Act for determining the applicable financial requirements. In the same legislation, Congress eliminated NRC's authority and responsibility to conduct antitrust reviews of future applications for a license to construct or operate a nuclear reactor. This rule revises the Commission's regulations solely to comply with the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The changes simply incorporate mandatory statutory requirements or eliminate authorities and actions under a Congressional mandate, which by its terms applies only to future nuclear reactor construction permits and operating license applications and has no effect on the Commissions' authority relative to existing nuclear reactor operating license antitrust conditions. Accordingly, good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to publish this final rule without soliciting public comment because the Commission has no discretion in these matters and public comment would serve no useful purpose. The revisions are being published as a final rule that will become effective 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. II. Discussion of the Final Rule A. Antitrust Amendments The Atomic Energy Commission and its successor the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have had the authority and obligation to conduct antitrust reviews of applicants for licenses to construct and operate nuclear reactors. In determining whether to grant such a license, the Commission was required to make a finding whether the activities under the license would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the Nation's antitrust laws. Sometimes the Commission has needed to conduct a lengthy hearing on antitrust issues before issuing its decision. In recent years, other Government agencies more specialized in financial matters have demonstrated oversight and authority sufficient to discern and address potential anticompetitive behavior of nuclear energy producers. In light of the redundant antitrust responsibilities of the Commission and those agencies, Congress enacted section 625 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which eliminated the Commission's antitrust authority with respect to future license applications. The final rule's changes in the regulations remove all antitrust review requirements and references to the discontinued antitrust review. B. Price-Anderson Act Amendments In the event of a serious nuclear accident with substantial offsite damages, the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988 required each licensee of a commercial reactor (one with a rated capacity of 100,000 electrical kilowatts or more) to pay into a retrospective premium pool, as needed, $10 million annually per reactor up to the sum of $63 million as adjusted for inflation to pay for harm to person or property caused by the accident. By August 2003, that sum, as adjusted for inflation, had reached the amount of $95,800,000. In section 603 of The Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress replaced the $63 million limit with the $95,800,000 current limit, already incorporated in the Commission's rules as the new base for inflation adjustment. Congress also decided that the $10 million annual payment which had remained unchanged since 1988 should be increased to $15 million and should be adjusted for inflation in the future. Accordingly, the Commission is changing the regulation to reflect the current $15 million amount the nuclear reactor licensees would pay annually if public liability damages exceeded the insurance required to be carried by the licensee. In section 608 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress recognized that new designs of reactors known as modular reactors could result in [[Page 61886]] groupings of a smaller capacity reactor than the typical commercial reactor currently in use, but where each single modular reactor still exceeds the 100,000 electrical kilowatts that would trigger the financial obligations currently required of a large reactor. To make the small modular reactors economically feasible while maintaining for them an equitable obligation to assure available funds for the public, the Energy Policy Act provided that a prescribed combination of facilities should be considered as a single facility for the sole purpose of assessing financial obligations under the Price-Anderson Act. The Commission is amending its rules to include the description of the combination of modular reactors which is to be treated as a single reactor for assessing obligations to contribute to the pool that will pay for public harm if a serious nuclear accident occurs. III. Voluntary Consensus Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this rule, the NRC is revising its regulations to reflect statutory mandates contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements. IV. Finding of No Significant Impact: Environmental Assessment The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The basis for this determination is that the rule relates to liability under the Price-Anderson Act and the elimination of NRC's antitrust reviews. In addition, the changes to the regulations in Parts 2, 50, 52 and 140 are actions that fall within the categorical exclusions set out in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1) and (3). V. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule does not contain new or amended information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval numbers 3150-0011, 3150-0151, and 3150-0039. Public Protection Notification The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number. VI. Regulatory Analysis A regulatory analysis has not been prepared for this regulation. This rule amends NRC regulations to be consistent with provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This rule does not involve an exercise of Commission discretion and, therefore, does not necessitate preparation of a regulatory analysis. VII. Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule does not apply to this final rule; and therefore, a backfit analysis is not required for this final rule because these amendments are mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. VIII. Congressional Review Act In accordance with the Congressional Review Act, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB. List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 2 Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct material, Classified information, Environmental protection, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Sex discrimination, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste treatment and disposal. 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 10 CFR Part 52 Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Backfitting, Combined license, Early site permit, Emergency planning, Fees, Inspection, Limited work authorization, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Probabilistic risk assessment, Prototype, Reactor siting criteria, Redress of site, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Standard design, Standard design certification. 10 CFR Part 140 Criminal penalties, Extraordinary nuclear occurrence, Insurance, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 0 For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR parts 2, 50, 52, and 140. PART 2--RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS AND ISSUANCE OF ORDERS 0 1. The authority citation for part 2 is revised to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 161, 181, 68 Stat. 948, 953, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2231); sec. 191, as amended, Pub. L. 87-615, 76 Stat. 409 (42 U.S.C. 2241); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); 5 U.S.C. 552; sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 62, 63, 81, 103, 104, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2135); sec. 114(f), Pub. L. 97- 425, 96 Stat. 2213, as amended (42 U.S.C. 10143(f)), sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301, 88 Stat. 1248 (42 U.S.C. 5871). Sections 2.102, 2.103, 2.104, 2.105, 2.721 also issued under secs. 102, 103, 104, 183i, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 954, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2233, 2239). Sections 2.105 also issued under Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200-2.206 also issued under secs. 161b, I, o, 182, 186, 234, 68 Stat. 948-951, 955, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b), (I), (o), 2236, 2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5846). Section 2.205(j) also issued under Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 90, as amended by section 3100(s), Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321- 373 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note). Sections 2.600-2.606 also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 2.700a, 2.719 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 554. Sections 2.754, 2.760, 2.770, 2.780 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 557. Section 2.764 also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section 2.790 also issued under sec. 103, 68 Stat. 936, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133), and 5 U.S.C. 552. Sections 2.800 and 2.808 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 2.809 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, and sec. 29, Pub. L. 85-256, 71 Stat. 579, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2039). Subpart K also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). [[Page 61887]] Subpart L also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Subpart M also issued under sec. 184 (42 U.S.C. 2234) and sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Appendix A also issued under sec. 6, Pub. L. 91-560, 84 Stat. 1473 (42 U.S.C. 2135). 0 2. In Sec. 2.101 paragraphs (a-1)(5) and (e) are removed, paragraphs (f) and (g) are redesignated as paragraphs (e) and (f) respectively, and paragraphs (a)(5), (a-1) introductory text, and (c) are revised to read as follows: Sec. 2.101 Filing of application. (a) * * * (5) An applicant for a construction permit for a production or utilization facility which is subject to Sec. 51.20(b) of this chapter, and is of the type specified in Sec. 50.21(b)(2) or (3) or Sec. 50.22 of this chapter or is a testing facility may submit the information required of applicants by part 50 of the chapter in two parts. One part shall be accompanied by the information required by Sec. 50.30(f) of this chapter, another part shall include any information required by Sec. 50.34(a) and, if applicable, Sec. 50.34a of this chapter. One part may precede or follow other parts by no longer than six (6) months. If it is determined that either of the parts as described above is incomplete and not acceptable for processing, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate, will inform the applicant of this determination and the respects in which the document is deficient. Such a determination of completeness will generally be made within a period of thirty (30) days. Whichever part is filed first shall also include the fee required by Sec. Sec. 50.30(e) and 170.21 of this chapter and the information required by Sec. Sec. 50.33, 50.34(a)(1) and 50.37 of this chapter. The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate, will accept for docketing an application for a construction permit for a production or utilization facility which is subject to Sec. 51.20(b) of this chapter, and is of the type specified in Sec. 50.21(b)(2) or (3) or Sec. 50.22 of this chapter or is a testing facility where one part of the application as described above is complete and conforms to the requirements of part 50 of this chapter. The additional parts will be docketed upon a determination by the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate, that it is complete. (a-1) Early consideration of site suitability issues. An applicant for a construction permit for a utilization facility which is subject to Sec. 51.20(b) of this chapter and is of the type specified in Sec. 50.21(b)(2) or (3) or Sec. 50.22 of this chapter or is a testing facility, may request that the Commission conduct an early review and hearing and render an early partial decision in accordance with subpart F on issues of site suitability within the purview of the applicable provisions of parts 50, 51 and 100 of this chapter. In such cases, the applicant for the construction permit may submit the information required of applicants by the provisions of this chapter in three parts: * * * * * (c) Upon receipt and acceptance for docketing of the required portions of the application dealing with radiological health and safety and environmental matters, notice of receipt will be published in the Federal Register including an appropriate notice of hearing. * * * * * Sec. 2.102 [Amended] 0 3. In Sec. 2.102, paragraph (d) is removed. 0 4. In Sec. 2.104, footnote 4 and paragraph (d)(3) are removed, paragraph (d)(4) is redesignated as paragraph (d)(3), the introductory text of paragraph (d) and paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) are revised to read as follows: Sec. 2.104 Notice of hearing. * * * * * (d) In an application for a construction permit or an operating license for a facility on which a hearing is required by the Act or this chapter, the notice of hearing will, unless the Commission determines otherwise, state: (1) A time of the hearing which will be as soon as practicable after compliance with section 189a of the Act and this part; (2) The presiding officer for the hearing who shall be either an administrative law judge or an atomic safety and licensing board established by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel; and * * * * * 0 5. In Sec. 2.105, paragraph (f) is removed and paragraph (e)(2) is revised to read as follows: Sec. 2.105 Notice of proposed action. * * * * * (e) * * * (2) If a request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene is filed within the time prescribed in the notice, the presiding officer who shall be an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board established by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition, and the Secretary or the presiding officer will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order. 0 6. In Sec. 2.402, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows: Sec. 2.402 Separate hearings on separate issues; consolidation of proceedings. (a) In the case of applications under appendix N of part 52 of this chapter for construction permits for nuclear power reactors of a type described in Sec. 50.22 of this chapter, the Commission or the presiding officer may order separate hearings on particular phases of the proceeding, such as matters related to the acceptability of the design of the reactor, in the context of the site parameters postulated for the design or environmental matters. * * * * * PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 0 7. The authority citation for part 50 is revised to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5841). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80--50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237). 0 8. Section 50.8 paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows: Sec. 50.8 Information collection requirements: OMB approval. * * * * * [[Page 61888]] (b) The approved information collection requirements contained in this part appear in Sec. Sec. 50.30, 50.33, 50.34, 50.34a, 50.35, 50.36, 50.36a, 50.36b, 50.44, 50.46, 50.47, 50.48, 50.49, 50.54, 50.55, 50.55a, 50.59, 50.60, 50.61, 50.62, 50.63, 50.64, 50.65, 50.66, 50.68, 50.69, 50.70, 50.71, 50.72, 50.74, 50.75, 50.80, 50.82, 50.90, 50.91, 50.120, and appendices A, B, E, G, H, I, J, K, M, N,O, Q, R, and S to this part. * * * * * Sec. 50.33a [Removed] 0 9. Section 50.33a is removed. 0 10. Section 50.80 paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows: Sec. 50.80 Transfer of licenses. * * * * * (b) An application for transfer of a license shall include as much of the information described in Sec. Sec. 50.33 and 50.34 of this part with respect to the identity and technical and financial qualifications of the proposed transferee as would be required by those sections if the application were for an initial license. The Commission may require additional information such as data respecting proposed safeguards against hazards from radioactive materials and the applicant's qualifications to protect against such hazards. The application shall include also a statement of the purposes for which the transfer of the license is requested, the nature of the transaction necessitating or making desirable the transfer of the license, and an agreement to limit access to Restricted Data pursuant to Sec. 50.37. The Commission may require any person who submits an application for license pursuant to the provisions of this section to file a written consent from the existing licensee or a certified copy of an order or judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction attesting to the person's right (subject to the licensing requirements of the Act and these regulations) to possession of the facility involved. * * * * * Appendix L to Part 50--[Removed and Reserved] 0 11. Appendix L to part 50 is removed and reserved. 0 12. In Appendix N to part 50, paragraph 2, is revised to read as follows: Appendix N to Part 50--Standardization of Nuclear Power Plant Designs; Licenses To Construct and Operate Nuclear Power Reactors of Duplicate Design at Multiple Sites * * * * * 2. Applications for construction permits submitted pursuant to this appendix must include the information required by Sec. Sec. 50.33, 50.34(a) and 50.34a(a) and (b) and be submitted as specified in Sec. 50.4. The applicant shall also submit the information required by Sec. 51.50 of this chapter. * * * * * PART 52--EARLY SITE PERMITS; STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATIONS; AND COMBINED LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 0 13. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended, sec. 274, 73 Stat. 688 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2021); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Sections 150.3, 150.15, 150.15a, 150.31, 150.32 also issued under secs. 11e(2), 81, 68 Stat. 923, 935, as amended, secs. 83, 84, 92 Stat. 3033, 3039 (42 U.S.C. 2014e(2), 2111, 2113, 2114). Section 150.14 also issued under sec. 53, 68 Stat. 930, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073). Section 150.15 also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section 150.17a also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 150.30 also issued under sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444 (42 U.S.C. 2282). 0 14. Section 52.77 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 52.77 Contents of applications; general information. The application must contain all of the information required by 10 CFR 50.33, as that section would apply to applicants for construction permits and operating licenses. PART 140--FINANCIAL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS 0 15. The authority citation for part 140 is revised to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 161, 170, 68 Stat. 948, 71 Stat. 576 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2210); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Pub. L. 109-58. 0 16. In Sec. 140.11, paragraph (a)(4) is revised to read as follows: Sec. 140.11 Amounts of financial protection for certain reactors. (a) * * * (4) In an amount equal to the sum of $300,000,000 and the amount available as secondary financial protection (in the form of private liability insurance available under an industry retrospective rating plan providing for deferred premium charges equal to the pro rata share of the aggregate public liability claims and costs, excluding costs payment of which is not authorized by section 170o.(1)(D) of the Act, in excess of that covered by primary financial protection) for each nuclear reactor which is licensed to operate and which is designed for the production of electrical energy and has a rated capacity of 100,000 electrical kilowatts or more: Provided, however, that under such a plan for deferred premium charges for each nuclear reactor which is licensed to operate, no more than $95,800,000 with respect to any nuclear incident (plus any surcharge assessed under subsection 170o.(1)(E) of the Act) and no more than $15,000,000 per incident within one calendar year shall be charged. Except that, where a person is authorized to operate a combination of 2 or more nuclear reactors located at a single site, each of which has a rated capacity of 100,000 or more electrical kilowatts but not more than 300,000 electrical kilowatts with a combined rated capacity of not more than 1,300,000 electrical kilowatts, each such combination of reactors shall be considered to be a single nuclear reactor for the sole purpose of assessing the applicable financial protection required under this section. * * * * * Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 11th day of October, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. 05-21342 Filed 10-26-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 12 NRC: Power Uprates; Notice of Meeting FR Doc E5-5961 [Federal Register: October 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 207)] [Notices] [Page 62007-62008] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27oc05-68] The ACRS Subcommittee on Power Uprates will hold a meeting on November 15-16, 2005, Grand Ballroom at the Quality Inn and Suites, 1380 Putney Road, Brattleboro, Vermont. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Tuesday, November 15, 2005--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business. Wednesday, November 16, 2005--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business. The Subcommittee will review the application by Entergy Nuclear Northeast (Entergy) for an extended power uprate for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, their contractors, Entergy and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Ralph Caruso (Telephone: 301-415-8065) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted. Signs will not be permitted in the meeting room. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are [[Page 62008]] urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda. Dated: October 21, 2005. Michael R. Snodderly, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW. [FR Doc. E5-5961 Filed 10-26-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 13 Reuters: German parties deadlocked on nuclear power -CDU -CDU 27 Oct 2005 12:32:52 GMT Source: Reuters BERLIN, Oct 27 (Reuters) - Germany's potential ruling coalition parties are deadlocked over whether to extend the life of German nuclear power stations beyond an existing deadline in 2020, a conservative environmental expert said on Thursday. Peter Paziorek, a senior Christian Democrat (CDU) official on the working group for reactor safety and environment, said talks between conservative parties and the Social Democrats (SPD) on the nuclear issue had ground to a halt. "We haven't moved forward one bit," Paziorek told Reuters. "Our positions lie very, very far apart from each other." He said working group talks would resume next week. The conservative CDU and centre-left SPD are attempting to build a "grand coalition" after neither party won enough support in a Sept. 18 general election to form a government with their preferred partners. The CDU and their Christian Social Union (CSU) allies pledged during campaigning for the election to extend the life of Germany's 17 nuclear power plants for as long as possible. But the SPD promised to adhere to a law of June 2000 -- pushed through with the help of their then-coalition partners the Greens -- and phase out atomic energy by 2020. Officials have said neither party wants the nuclear issue to be a stumbling block in the coalition talks, expected to last until next month, and their negotiators have already discussed a plan to extend the power plants' life by nearly a decade. But a number of Social Democrats have publicly attacked the idea of prolonging the life of nuclear power in Germany. Michael Mueller, leader of the SPD's left wing in parliament, said there was no room for flexibility when it came to scrapping the energy source. "It's incomprehensible that the SPD has needlessly complicated the negotiations with its public statements," Paziorek said. While nuclear energy is a tricky issue, the parties have agreed to maintain the outgoing government's policy of pursuing renewable energy from sources like wind, party sources said. "There is unity on this issue among the partners," a party source familiar with the negotiations told Reuters. Nuclear power, which became extremely unpopular in Europe after the 1986 Chernobyl accident, has been making a comeback in recent years. One of the reasons for its return to favour is the fact that nuclear reactors emit virtually no greenhouse gases. ***************************************************************** 14 Good 5 Cent Cigar: Nuclear reactor not a threat, URI officials say - By Annie-Laurie Hogan Published: Thursday, October 27, 2005 10/27/05 - The University of Rhode Island Narragansett Bay Campus is home to a nuclear research reactor, but officials say it is not a likely terrorist target. Questions were raised about URI's reactor after an ABC news investigation found that most reactors on other college campuses lack security. Director of the Rhode Island Nuclear Center Terry Tehan said that because of the investigation and the effects of Sept. 11, the URI reactor is off limits for public tours. Earlier this month, ABC aired a special that showed security gaps at nuclear reactors operating on 25 different college campuses, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Florida. Tehan said ABC investigators tried to get into the URI reactor, but were turned away. "[The investigators] did play some tricks," he said. "The research guys were just trying to accommodate them. If people want to know about it, I'd rather take them through." According to ABC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is opening an investigation in at least five of the schools because of ABC's report. "You're not going to walk in off the street," Tehan said. "[ABC] tried to ask for a tour, but we said 'Sorry.'" Tehan said that the small size of the Bay Campus also makes security tighter. "The Bay Campus is a pretty small campus," he said. "We know most of the people around here." URI was not featured on the ABC special. There are about 30 university research reactors in the country. Tehan said that individuals seeking a private tour must have an educational reason and must go through security checks. "Now it's very hard to get in here," Tehan said. "We'd love to have more people down here, but security is really tight." No backpacks, cell phones or cameras are allowed in the reactor. The Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission owns the reactor. "It's a state reactor," Tehan said. "It supports all the universities in the state." The reactor is being used for biological, medical and engineering research. MIT and Brown University are using it to research brain cancer treatments. The University of New Hampshire uses it for environmental studies, such as the ozone depletion process. "We're very good at identifying trace materials," Tehan said. URI researchers are using the reactor to research the detection of weapons of mass destruction. "The censors that they're building are for underwater applications," he said. The RINSC is a 43-year-old two-megawatt reactor that uses low enriched uranium. Most nuclear power plants generate 800 to 1,000 megawatts. Tehan said that the reactor does not pose a likely terrorist threat. "It's a low grade uranium that you can't make bombs out of," Tehan said. "[The fuel] was actually funded by the government because it is safe. [The reactor] is only good for research." 2005 Good Five Cent Cigar Editor-in-Chief: Steve Greenwell Advertising Info: cigarads@etal.uri.edu Web Support: support@cigar.uri.edu ***************************************************************** 15 PittsburghLIVE.com: A positive nuclear reaction - By Thomas Olson TRIBUNE-REVIEW Thursday, October 27, 2005 After toiling for a decade at the drawing board, Westinghouse Electric Co. has landed a utility customer who wants to build its advanced AP1000 nuclear rector, designed to be safer and simpler than previous units. Duke Power said Wednesday it will apply for a government license around the end of 2007 to build and operate two of the innovative reactors, probably in North or South Carolina. The utility needs more generating capacity -- from either nuclear or clean-burning coal -- because it's adding more than 40,000 new customers a year. The Westinghouse business could lead to hundreds of new, high-paying jobs in Western Pennsylvania in about five years -- if Duke proceeds to build the reactors, said a Westinghouse official. "We've been working on this for years and years," said Jim Fici, senior vice president of customer relations and sales for Westinghouse, Monroeville. "We would hope to have similar arrangements with a couple other power companies within the next year," he said, without naming potential customers. Fici said Westinghouse over the years has invested about $100 million in the development of the AP1000. That stands for "Advanced Passive" and for the power-generating capacity, although the reactor eventually wound up rated at 1,100 megawatts. One megawatt of generating capacity provides enough power for about 700 homes. "We are certainly pleased to see this because it's an indication the possibility of new nuclear plants is getting clearer and clearer," said Mitch Singer, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute. Westinghouse expects to receive final design certification of the AP1000 from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in December. Construction of the two reactors could begin as early as 2010, said the company. The commission would probably take 33 months to evaluate Duke's license application, said the utility's chief nuclear officer, Brew Barron in a conference call yesterday. He and Westinghouse officials declined to put a value on potential agreements between the two companies. The AP1000 is a modular design, which is less expensive to build and operate than previous nuclear reactors, said Westinghouse. With fewer components and less concrete and steel, the design shortens construction time and makes the design cost-competitive with fossil-fuel plants. A passive safety system reduces the need for human action in the event of an accident. Various types of highly skilled positions would be filled at Westinghouse locally, said spokesman Vaughn Gilbert. Design and engineering jobs would be created in Monroeville, along with reactor instrumentation and controls jobs. The reactors' nuclear-fuel rods would be produced at Westinghouse's plant in Blairsville, Indiana County. Duke Power is a subsidiary of Charlotte-based Duke Energy, which serves more than 2 million customers in a service area that stretches across North and South Carolina. The company expects to select a site by year-end for the reactors, either at one of its three existing nuclear plants in those states or some new location, said Barron. "We'd like to get them running as soon as possible," said Barron. "Our (electricity) demand looks for them to come on-line in the 2015 timeframe," said Barron. "This has not been an overnight thing. It's taken the industry 20 years to get to this point," said David Modeen, chief nuclear officer for the Electric Power Research Institute, Charlotte. "It's not just Duke, it's those who have a need for new generation in 2013 to 2015. Especially in the South, there's a real need for (power-generating ) growth," said Modeen. Westinghouse will partner with the Shaw Group Inc. to provide engineering work connected with Duke Power's license application. Meantime, Westinghouse awaits China's design selection for four giant nuclear reactors. Its decision to go with bids from Westinghouse, or Russian or French groups, should come by year-end, said Fici. Thomas Olson can be reached at or (412) 320-7854. Images and text copyright 2005 by The Tribune-Review Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 16 NEWS.com.au: Economy 'could grow with energy' (27-10-2005) From: AAP October 27, 2005 ECONOMIC development could be accelerated if states and territories overhauled their energy sectors, Treasurer Peter Costello said today. In a speech to the Business Council of Australia, Mr Costello said the fractured nature of the nation's energy systems was holding back the general economy. "Australia needs to move to fully integrated national infrastructure markets in gas, electricity and water," he said. "Benefits from simple nationally consistent regulation could lead to better investment, lower prices and a lift in economic development in Australia. "The reform of regulation covering infrastructure and utilities is critical to future economic development in Australia." Mr Costello said Australia enjoyed an abundance of low cost energy in the way of coal, LNG (liquified natural gas) and uranium. He said the state-based regulatory system was making work more difficult for private companies to develop energy industries. Competition was also restricted by state governments which often had their own electricity generating enterprises. "In some market segments, private companies are prevented from competing against government instrumentalities. "Inappropriate government intervention and regulation can damage the operation of markets and impede appropriate investment signals. "Our complex regulatory arrangements have held back the development of a truly national market for the provision of energy and full contestability for all energy users." ***************************************************************** 17 Guardian Unlimited: Lawmakers Seek Info on India Nuclear Deal From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday October 27, 2005 2:16 AM By FOSTER KLUG Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Congressional support of a landmark proposal to share civilian nuclear technology with India is not guaranteed, lawmakers are telling the Bush administration. Members of the House International Relations Committee chided the State Department on Wednesday for providing sparse information about the July 18 agreement between President Bush and Indian Prime Minster Manmohan Singh. Major lawmakers also have sent a letter asking Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to begin consultations quickly with Congress. Congress must amend U.S. law before the deal can be completed, and some lawmakers' comments reflected frustration that their support was being taken for granted. Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois, the committee's Republican chairman, said, ``The situation is both strange and unusual in that the Indian authorities know more about this important proposal than we in Congress.'' Hyde said he was troubled by statements from Bush officials, referring in part to Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, who told Indian officials this month that he was convinced the pact would be approved in Congress. ``I do not know how these statements could be made with Congress having yet to be fully consulted,'' Hyde said. At the State Department, spokesman Sean McCormack said he expects there will be intense consultations with India in coming months. Before any agreement can be presented to Congress, he said, India needs to take several steps, including separating its civilian and military nuclear programs. ``We are convinced that this is a good agreement for the United States and a good agreement for India and the world if India does take certain steps,'' McCormack said. Lawmakers and analysts have expressed worry that the Bush plan might undermine the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and allow rogue nations to build nuclear weapons programs with imported civilian nuclear technology. India has never signed the treaty. Supporters say the deal is crucial to energy-starved India, a U.S. ally that wants more nuclear plants to meet the needs of its more than 1 billion people but lacks the technology to build reactors and the fuel to run them. California Rep. Tom Lantos, top Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, said Congress should be better informed. At the same time, he praised the nuclear proposal, which would allow the United States to supply India with nuclear fuel, technology and equipment in return for India's strengthening nuclear safeguards and allowing international inspections. ``India has, in effect, agreed to an international commitment not to test (nuclear weapons) again,'' Lantos said. Such a precedent also could lead to a broader regional nuclear nonproliferation agreement, with Pakistan also stopping nuclear testing. ``This is a very important development,'' he said. India and Pakistan are nuclear rivals who have fought three wars since the subcontinent's partition at independence from Britain in 1947. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 18 Las Vegas SUN: Critics: Changes doom Yucca Mountain nuclear dump plan Today: October 27, 2005 at 15:53:38 PDT By BRENDAN RILEY ASSOCIATED PRESS CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - State lawmakers were told Thursday that the federal Energy Department's latest changes in plans for storing nuclear waste at Nevada's Yucca Mountain are "ludicrous and preposterous." "Things really are going our way in the entire Yucca Mountain arena," Marta Adams, a senior deputy state attorney general, also told the lawmakers' Committee on High-Level Radioactive Waste. "The federal government is in total disarray. There is no reason to believe this repository will ever be constructed." Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, told the committee the Energy Department's Yucca Mountain dump project "is hopelessly mired in a briar pit" of problems. He labeled Tuesday's announcement of a change in the way that waste would be packaged a "diversionary tactic" to shift attention away from those problems. The Energy Department said high-level wastes would be sealed in canisters that could be put directly into the ground, eliminating the need to repackage the radioactive material at the proposed dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. "That eliminates much of the potential radiation exposure to workers in Nevada," project official Russ Dyer told legislators, adding, "The burden would be placed on the generators of the material" to ensure the canisters are secure. Dyer also said the change would do away with the need for large handling facilities where spent nuclear reactor fuel would be transferred from transportation canisters into different containers for underground storage. While it's not known what the change will do to the project's timetable, Dyer said the end result would be a "simpler, safer and cleaner" way of handling radioactive wastes. The opening date already has slipped from 2010 to 2012 at earliest. Adams said she didn't think that the dump, if it survives various challenges, could be ready by 2025. Both Loux and Adams also said the proposed packaging change would add to the cost of the $58 billion project - and Loux said the canisters still would be breached in as little as a few hundred years because of the highly corrosive minerals in the soil where they'd be entombed. The dump would hold 77,000 tons of highly radioactive used reactor fuel from commercial nuclear power plants and military installations. The change comes amid project delays, budget shortages and calls by some in Congress for the administration to supplement the dump with interim waste storage or to reprocess spent fuel. The government was forced to rewrite its radiation safety standards after a federal court threw out the first version, and the Energy Department is redoing some scientific models after e-mails surfaced last spring indicating government workers on the project might have falsified data. --- On the Net: Yucca Mountain project: http://www.ymp.gov All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 19 Bradenton Herald: Resist this bargain | 10/27/2005 | Piney Point's liabilities outweigh benefits It is tempting: Six hundred acres of prime industrial land, just across the highway from a port in need of expansion room, and in the path of a proposed new cross-state tollway connecting west and east coast ports. All for just $4 million. Four million dollars might get you a half-dozen building lots at the new Concession country club in East Manatee. Or roughly two acres on the edge of downtown Bradenton to replace an aging shuffleboard court with townhouse condominiums. But $4 million for this particular 600-acre site is anything but a bargain. The County Commission should pass. That's because the land is dominated by huge phosphogypsum stacks filled with potentially contaminated water and who knows what below-ground in a plant that handled chemicals and radioactive ore for decades. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection's $4 million offer for the former Piney Point Phosphate Co. plant across from Port Manatee has to be tempting to county commissioners. There are many uses that would serve the county's needs. The stacks could store reclaimed water in the rainy season for use in the dry season. Some of the land could store port dredge spoil, and some could be a depot for trucks using the port. And the highway linking the port to I-275 and eventually to the cross-Florida tollway could run through the property. But the site has long-term liability written all over it - unknown, open-ended liability for 50 years. As much as the port could use the land, the Piney Point plant site would not be a good deal for county taxpayers. Unless the state guarantees it will accept liability for any known or unknown pollution sources - and we can't see that happening - the county should turn down this offer. The DEP has already spent at least $81 million draining the stacks and lining them with heavy plastic to prevent potential leaching of acid-laced wastewater into the aquifer. And it will spend at least another $40 million to $50 million to complete that phase of the cleanup. That cleanup is helpful, but it doesn't guarantee the plastic liner won't crack and allow some water to seep out in the future. Nor does it do anything to stabilize the earthen dams that hold the water. If one were to give way, millions of gallons of potentially contaminated water and gypsum-tainted soil would wash into streams and Tampa Bay, doing untold damage for which the property's owner presumably would be held liable. And, the DEP's cleanup thus far does not address what could be serious leaching of chemicals into the groundwater at other points on the site, including around the plant itself where phosphate ore was processed into fertilizer in a chemical process involving acids and ore that had a high concentration of natural radiation. If county commissioners need further inspiration on this decision, they need look no farther than Tallevast. There the Lockheed Martin Corp. faces untold expenses to clean up a chemical plume that it had no hand in creating, a leak from the former American Beryllium Co. plant it acquired in 2000. Without a dispensation from the DEP of responsibility for future environmental issues, Piney Point is no bargain. It's a liability the county would eventually regret. Commissioners should just say no. ***************************************************************** 20 Bradenton Herald: Tallevast: Bush dismays FOCUS leaders | 10/27/2005 | DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer TALLEVAST - Gov. Jeb Bush brushed off Tallevast residents' concerns for their health and safety, community leaders said Wednesday. Laura Ward and Wanda Washington, officers of the advocacy group Family Oriented Community United and Strong, sought Bush's personal intervention in August to move residents in the community out of harm's way. The FOCUS leaders' lengthy letter, which Bush received Aug. 24, detailed how Tallevast residents fear their health has been compromised and their property values damaged by an underground plume of toxic waste stemming from an old beryllium plant. Instead of a direct reply, Bush asked Deborah Getzoff, director of the Department of Environmental Protection's Southwest District Office in Tampa, to respond for him. Getzoff's letter, dated Oct. 20, sought to assure Ward and Washington that an ongoing risk assessment would answer their health and environmental questions by year's end. But Ward and Washington dismissed Getzoff's response as reflective of policymakers' long-established pattern of minimizing the danger facing Tallevast. That pattern of neglect was among the issues Ward and Washington raised with Bush. "Our small, predominantly black community has been encroached upon by various contaminants within the water and the soil (all of which are known carcinogens)," Ward and Washington wrote in their letter to the governor. "Unfortunately, our community has been overlooked and seemingly disregarded as a vital part of the county in which we live. Over the years, property zoning/rezoning has been completed, and implemented without regards to the Tallevast community." That oversight, the letter states, "is a classic case of industrial racism; an obstacle not expected in the year 2005." FOCUS leaders expected Bush to directly intervene in efforts to relocate the community. They were surprised and disappointed, they said, when no personal answer came. Calls to the governor's office for comment were not returned late Wednesday. Pamala Vazquez, DEP spokeswoman, said it's not unusual for the district director to answer on behalf of the governor. "We will be meeting with FOCUS leaders on Friday and we would love to hear from them if we have not adequately addressed their concerns," said Vazquez, who stressed DEP has an open door policy. "As always, we are here to listen to their concerns," she said. "I think we have made it extremely obvious that we take their concerns seriously. If they feel we have not, we will have to listen to them." FOCUS leaders and their technical consultant Tim Varney plan to meet with DEP officials Friday to share data from independent testing of their private wells. Ward and Washington predicted those test results will challenge Lockheed Martin Corp.'s conclusion that the underground plume poses no health risk to Tallevast residents. Lockheed Martin Corp. owned the beryllium plant in 2000 when the contamination from a leaking underground sump was discovered. Although Lockheed sold the facility to Wire Pro Inc., the defense giant has assumed the responsibility for cleaning up the toxic mess. DEP is the regulatory agency overseeing that clean-up process. Getzoff did address Ward and Washington's concerns over the nature of the manufacturing operation within the Wire Pro plant and what chemicals might be used that could pose a risk to residents. FOCUS leaders have long suspected that discharges from the Wire Pro plant could be contributing to the underground plume. But a DEP hazardous waste inspection performed on Oct. 5 confirmed that WPI is properly managing what little hazardous waste it generates, Getzoff said. Doug Koenig, general manager of Wire Pro, said his company is simply a tenant to a problem it inherited. "Our position is and continues to be that we are a benign operation and that we run a very clean operation as evidenced by the DEP report, Koenig said. Wire Pro, which employs 120 people, manufactures and assembles electrical wiring harnesses primarily for defense subcontractors. Inspectors found one minor code violation, said Bill Kutash, the DEP hazardous waste manager in charge of overseeing the clean up of Tallevast plume. Workers who do blemish control on the final products produced at Wire Pro wear a finger cot or small protective cap or swab, on their fingers to apply a solvent called methyl ethyl ketone, or MEK. Exposure to MEK can cause irritation to the eyes, nose and throat, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Chronic inhalation studies in animals have reported slight neurological, liver, kidney and respiratory effects. Developmental effects, including decreased fetal weight and fetal malformations, have been reported in mice and rats. "We told WPI that they either had to run tests to show that the amount on the swabs wasn't hazardous or to handle disposal of the finger caps as if they were hazardous," Kutash said. But the amount used at WPI is very minimal, Kutash added. DEP also asked Wire Pro to inventory standard chemicals and solvents in a maintenance shed and dispose of those not being currently used. Getzoff's letter details the Florida statues that would govern how the toxic waste in Tallevast would be remediated. She also addressed the issue of future land use, reassuring Tallevast residents that Lockheed's draft proposal for restricting future land use of the beryllium plant site to industrial use only would apply just to the Wire Pro property. Any deed restriction on private property limiting future use would require the consent of the property owner, Getzoff said. Kutash explained that exposure to the toxic waste can be controlled by either removing the pollutants or by limiting future land use through deed restrictions. Lockheed spokeswoman Gail Rymer confirmed that the defense giant has no interest in pursuing deed restrictions on private property, but intends to remediate the groundwater contamination through a pump and treat method. The proposed deed restriction limiting future land use of the old beryllium plant site applies to just soil contamination, Rymer said. "The site is now industrial property," Rymer said, "and the soil samples meet current industrial standards. We say as long as it is an industrial site, keep in industrial. If in the future it becomes residential, then clean the site to residential standards." The contaminated soil at the plant site is buried so deep it does not present an exposure risk, Rymer said. "These soils are not going to impact residents or employees," Rymer said. "If you dug a hole for swimming pool, you still wouldn't reach the contamination." Rymer said she believes the cleanup process is on schedule. "I feel that the process is working well," Rymer said. "We continue to have open dialogue with the community as we move quickly to a resolution. We hope to have a remediation plan implemented by spring of 2006." But Washington fears by then it will be too late for Tallevast residents to have any say in their future. Tallevast is being hemmed in by industrial development without regard for that fact that the residents were there first, Washington said. And with each new industry comes, she warned, the threat of more pollution. "If people here had money, if we were not black, this would not be happening," said Washington. "Why aren't they coming to us and telling us what their big plan is? Why aren't they trying to partner with us? Instead they are trying to run us out." Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be reached at 745-7049 or at dwright@HeraldToday.com. HeraldToday.com Read the letter from the director of the Department of Environmental Protection's Southwest District Office in Tampa to the Tallevast community leaders. HERALD WATCHDOG ***************************************************************** 21 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: A 'clean' load of rubbish Today: October 27, 2005 at 8:46:35 PDT Despite the Energy Department's touting of a new plan for a 'clean' way of loading high-level nuclear waste into Yucca Mountain, the proposed project is as dangerous as ever Las Vegas Sun The Energy Department as much as admitted Tuesday that an aspect of its Yucca Mountain plan long criticized by Nevada was flawed. Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is where the federal government is planning to bury high-level nuclear waste from the nation's power plants and military bases. The department's acting director announced a new plan -- a "clean" plan -- for actually loading the waste in burial vaults beneath the mountain. In the past the department has talked of building a multibillion-dollar facility near the mountain for repackaging the deadly waste once it was off-loaded either from trucks or trains. Under that plan, containers for permanent burial would have replaced the containers used to enclose the waste during transport. During this process, the waste would have been exposed, creating the potential for contaminating workers and the site. Paul Golan, acting director of the Energy Department's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, the agency charged with building and licensing Yucca Mountain, publicly introduced the new plan in a conference call to reporters. He said the department now intends to have the waste permanently sealed in standardized containers at its point of origin, then loaded into transport containers. This way, he said, when the waste is repackaged into permanent burial casks at Yucca Mountain, it will not be directly exposed. The Energy Department maintains this new plan will leave the Yucca Mountain site "primarily clean or uncontaminated." What this tells us is that the old plan did indeed carry risks for contamination. Can there be any doubt now about the legitimacy of Nevada's 20-year-old fight against this dangerous project? In announcing the plan, Energy Department officials said it would make the project "simple, safer and more cost-effective," and that it would simplify the waste repository's "design, licensing and construction." In our view, the plan changes nothing. It doesn't address the safety issues involved with transporting the waste. And it doesn't for a minute make the mountain a safer place to store the waste for hundreds of thousands of years. No matter how knowledgeable they think they are, there are no scientists on Earth who can say with certainty what chemical reactions will take place deep inside the mountain's watery, man-made caverns once they are filled with corrodible canisters loaded with super-hot nuclear waste. We believe the correct course is to continue storing the waste in water-cooled ponds, dry storage casks or underground tanks at nuclear power plants and specialized facilities. These methods have proven to be safe. They will be sufficient until technology advances beyond the nightmarish notion of transporting the waste all over the country, burying it under a mountain and taking the chance that it will seep into ground water and eventually work its way into the food chain. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 22 Seven Oaks Magazine: Native communities refuse nuclear waste October 27, 2005 Stephen Salaff Many Aboriginal communities in Canada refuse explicitly to endorse the consultation procedures and political directionchartedthus far by the highly controversial Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). NWMO’s failure to win an audience with Aboriginal peoples clashes with the intent of recent legislation that established NWMO, and therefore jeopardizes the efforts of successive Canadian governments to contrive socially acceptable nuclear waste solutions under the political leadership of the nuclear-electric industry. This consideration may distress the Canadian Nuclear Society, whose March 2000 CNS Bulletin review of the major Canadian book on nuclear fuel waste estimated that the likely disposal sites for this waste “are expected to lie within lands occupied by Aboriginal communities.” In Canada, “nuclear fuel waste” usually means irradiated uranium fuel discharged from the reactors of three nuclear utilities and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. The 2002 Nuclear Fuel Waste Act requires NWMO to notify the Canadian Government within its impending triennial report, expected by 15 November 2005, the comments received during NWMO “consultations” with Canadians including Aboriginal communities. In its May 2005 draft version of the anticipated recommendation, NWMO revealed: “The Assembly of First Nations, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, Ontario Aboriginal Métis Association, the East Coast First People’s Alliance, the Western Indian Treaty Alliance, and the Atlantic Policy Conference of First Nation Chiefs all argue that our Aboriginal Dialogues do not consist of ‘consultation’ as required by their interpretation of the law.” On 9 June, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami () reinforced earlier Inuit public positions by resolving “complete opposition to the storage/ disposal and transport of nuclear fuel waste in the Canadian Arctic [including] marine areas and aerospace.” The ITK resolution resonates with Inuit Circumpolar Conference Resolution 77-11 demanding rigorous prohibition of nuclear, chemical and biological wastes, weapons and weapon testing in the Arctic Circumpolar Zone. Assembly of First Nations chief Phil Fontaine warned the 1989-1999 Nuclear Fuel Waste Management and Disposal Concept Environmental Assessment Panel that Aboriginal communities may contest burial of nuclear fuel waste: “Our people are not opposed to developments in our traditional lands. But if the process fails to address our vital concerns and our fundamental rights in a full and fair way, then First Nations will oppose it.” Another chief told the Panel that he represented fifty First Nation communities including two-thirds of Ontario’s total land area, and none was prepared to accept nuclear waste. Chief Peter Kelly of the Saugkeeng First Nation of southeastern Manitoba predicted militantly to the Panel on 16 January 1997: “You have taken our land, trees, water and pelts, and now you want to take our rocks. But we will not let you take our rocks.” Panel member Lois Wilson, feminist theologian and past president of the Canadian Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches deplored in Nuclear Waste: Exploring the Ethical Dilemmas (Toronto: United Church of Canada, 2000) that “Health Canada does not have much data on the effects of radiation specifically on Aboriginal people nor on breast cancer in women of the north. Some of this is planned for future research!” (page 60) In rejecting the nuclear industry’s deep geological repository concept, the Panel concluded that a nuclear fuel waste disposal concept that lacks the support of Aboriginal peoples is unacceptable for Canada. This finding and the chilly reception evidently extended to NWMO emissaries thus far by Aboriginal communities will probably prevent NWMO from fulfilling the tasks reiterated in its advance draft. These undertakings include recruitment of “willing communities” to host away- from- reactor waste storage and disposal facilities; and “implementing” a NWMO scenario for nuclear fuel waste acceptance by those communities and for the hazardous transportation of fuel waste convoys by road, rail, ship or barge. The Nuclear Fuel Waste Act does not mandate NWMO to examine Canada’s energy and nuclear policies. The same exclusion fettered the blue- ribbon Panel, whose chair Blair Seaborn petitioned successive Canadian energy ministers for such a broad review mandate (Wilson, page 108). Mistrustful of Ottawa’s intent thus far to exclude policy concerns from environmental mandates,NuclearWaste Watch, a sharply adversarial coalition of leading environmental non governmental organizations nonetheless insists that waste reduction at source is the ideal nuclear fuel waste management option, requiring the orderly phase out of Canada’s nuclear power reactors, as already legislated in Sweden, Belgium and Germany. Watch representative Brennain Lloyd, who intervened decisively at the Seaborn Panel (Wilson page 17) termed the “Adaptive Phased Management” approach to nuclear fuel waste proposed in NWMO’s draft “the worst of all worlds it combines all the serious problems of at-reactor site storage of the waste, ‘centralized’ storage and deep rock disposal of the waste” Lloyd’s coalition seeks a radically new federal-provincial environmental assessment panel on the full range of nuclear waste options following the anticipated NWMO recommendation. “The federal government should guarantee a full parliamentary debate and free vote on the recommendations of the NWMO and of the federal-provincial panel we are urging,” argue the environmentalists. Parliamentary parties must soon decide whether and how to detach from the nuclear industry-NWMO approach to nuclear waste, and at last start respecting Canada’s Aboriginal communities who live on lands earmarked for nuclear waste disposal, and their allies in Canada’s nuclear concern coalition. Gilles Duceppe, Stephen Harper and Jack Layton: This is your chance to oppose unpopular policies for nuclear waste management. Stephen Salaff is a Toronto-based freelance energy and environment writer. Salaff publishes regularly on intractable nuclear waste problems with industry and popular periodicals in Canada and internationally. ***************************************************************** 23 Salt Lake Tribune: Foreign N-waste arrives in Utah Article Last Updated: 10/27/2005 01:14:56 AM Ore from Japan: Some worry Utah's limited authority to regulate the material may make it an international repository By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune Truckloads of radioactive ore from Japan began arriving this week at International Uranium Corp.'s mill in San Juan County, stirring up questions about Utah's future as a worldwide repository for waste. It turns out that the state of Utah has no ban on radioactive material from foreign sources, nor any special oversight of it. And even the federal government appears limited in its authority to stop waste at the nation's borders. The lack of controls concerns many Utahns, given that the state has one uranium mill, the nation's only privately owned and operated landfill for low-level radioactive waste and a proposed storage site for high-level nuclear waste. State Rep. Steve Urquhart, R-St. George, and Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, said the question of foreign waste never came up during their two-year study of the industry as co-chairmen of the legislative Waste Task Force. Urquhart said the Japanese shipments may have caught the attention of policy makers. "It raises a lot of questions," he said. And one is, "Do we want to be the dumping ground for the world?" Said Bramble: "We probably ought to have that discussion" about accepting foreign waste. Utah's concerns aren't unique. Five years ago Washington state tried unsuccessfully to call for more state and federal control of foreign shipments to its Hanford landfill. Then-Gov. Gary Locke appealed to the Clinton White House. The Democratic governor said foreign waste should be carefully monitored and regulated and, "at the very least . . . should require the consent of a competent authority within our country. "Yet, in reviewing this particular situation, the state of Washington became aware that neither we nor the federal government has the authority to ban the importation of this type of nuclear waste," Locke wrote in his Aug. 2, 2000 letter. "The state of Washington or any other state for that matter, should not be vulnerable to the importation of foreign radioactive waste." No federal action resulted. In Utah, how regulators deal with nuclear material - domestic or foreign - depends on technical standards written into each operating license, said Dane Finerfrock, director of the Utah Division of Radiation Control. As long as companies meet the conditions of the license, such as packaging and radioactivity levels, the state would sign off on any shipment regardless of its origin, Finerfrock said. He added that the state has no authority over the proposed Private Fuel Storage high-level waste site in Tooele County. Sue Martin, spokeswoman for Private Fuel Storage LLC, said the federal license granted last month by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not cover waste from outside U.S. borders. "That's what we stated in our license, that the purpose of our facility is for commercial spent fuel from our power plants in the U.S.," she said. "It's never been our purpose to take foreign fuel or nuclear material from the military." Envirocare did not respond to requests for comment about the foreign waste. The site has accepted more than 166 million cubic feet of radioactive and hazardous waste in 17 years. Company officials have said Envirocare has not taken foreign contracts, and, according to Finerfrock, the company told the state it won't take foreign waste. The federal government would have to license any waste that might come into the country. Its main concerns also would be technical, such as whether the disposal site is licensed to take such waste and whether the waste could be used for a nuclear bomb. Janice Owens, who reviews import and export licenses for the NRC, said her agency would consult with state regulators and seek public comment on import requests. "I don't know if we would be able to approve a license if there were strong [philosophical] objections," she said. Ron Hochstein, president of International Uranium, noted that the waste from Japan is ore that is allowed under a general license that used to be administered by the NRC but is now overseen by the state. "There was always communication between us and the state with this," he said. Earlier this month, shortly after reports surfaced in Japan and Washington state about the shipment, state regulators asked Hochstein's company to send more details, such as IUC's technical assessment that confirmed the Japanese material was ore and not recyclable waste for which IUC would have to get special permissions from the state and the federal government. "It's very low radioactivity," he said. "It's no different than the stuff that people used to bring to us in their pickups" or that used to roll through downtown Salt Lake City on the way to the defunct Vitro mill in South Salt Lake. Activist Steve Erickson, who obtained e-mails and other paperwork on the Japanese shipment from state regulators, said the state showed interest only after press reports. Those records also show that a state consultant had contacted the NRC about "possible importation of [low-level radioactive waste] from the State of South Australia," presumably to Envirocare, which is the only facility in the state licensed to take such material. "The state of Utah needs to flex its regulatory muscles because they seem a tad flabby at this point," Erickson said. "IUC has been for a decade the invisible dump in this state," he added, "and that has got to end." fahys@sltrib.com © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 24 PE.com: Chemical cleanup sought by gathering | Inland Southern California | San Bernardino Metro RIALTO: Environmental groups and residents decry contamination of groundwater wells. 01:24 AM PDT on Thursday, October 27, 2005 By MEGHAN LEWIT / The Press-Enterprise RIALTO - Environmental groups and residents gathered at Rialto City Hall on Wednesday to demand cleanup of the perchlorate contamination that has tainted groundwater wells in the area. Residents have signed more than 1,000 petitions calling for the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board to require that polluters provide replacement drinking water to affected areas, said Penny Newman, executive director of the Glen Avon-based Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. More than 20 wells in Rialto, Fontana and Colton are contaminated by an underground plume of perchlorate, a water-soluble chemical used in fireworks, rocket fuel and ammunition. The contamination is believed to come from a north Rialto site that has been used for military and industrial purposes over the past 50 years. "I'm really outraged," said Jan Misquez, a member of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice and one of about 15 residents who attended a news conference. "For 17 years my children were exposed to this. I'm scared for all the children." In sufficient amounts, perchlorate can block the absorption of iodide by the thyroid gland and interfere with production of hormones that guide brain and nerve development in fetuses and babies. Newman targeted B.F. Goodrich Corp. and Black & Decker Inc., and said the two corporations should provide replacement water until cleanup of the contamination is completed. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board is negotiating an agreement for B.F. Goodrich to install groundwater-monitoring wells, said Kurt Berchtold, the board's assistant executive officer. The proposed agreement would not require Goodrich to provide replacement water, he said. The board has issued an order that will require Black & Decker to provide replacement water at some point, he said. Rialto has raised its water rates to help pay for treatment while the city pursues a lawsuit against the county, the Defense Department, Black & Decker and nearly 40 other agencies believed to be responsible for the contamination. Officials have said the intent is to refund ratepayers once the lawsuit is settled. Newman said low-income, predominantly Latino areas are most affected by the pollution. "These corporations are preying on the poor," she said. Reach Meghan Lewit at (909) 806-3065 or mlewit@pe.comMore 2005, The Press-Enterprise Company ***************************************************************** 25 AU ABC: Ranger operations extended on high uranium prices. 27/10/2005. ABC News Online The Ranger uranium mine operators say the rising price of uranium will allow them to keep processing lower grade ore for another three years. The Ranger mine in the Northern Territory is due to close in 2008 and the processing facility was meant to shut down in 2011. Changes in the world uranium price have led ERA to reduce the grade of ore they will process. In the past, the economic cut-off grade for uranium oxide was 0.12 per cent, but ERA says ore with a grade of just 0.08 per cent is now worth processing. That has increased reserves at the mine by more than 6,000 tonnes, or just over 10 per cent. ERA managing director Harry Kenyon-Slaney says that will keep the processing plant open until 2014, and up to 200 Jabiru residents in a job. "What it will do is extend the life of the operation by a few years," he said. "It will mean royalty payments will continue, albeit at a reduced rate, to traditional owners and it will ensure employment for quite a number of people in the town." © 2005 ABC| Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 26 Whitehaven News: New fears on nuclear sale Published on 27/10/2005 By David Siddall UNIONS have told BNFL management of serious concerns at “the sudden change of direction” by the BNFL board of directors. Unions held talks at Transport House in London on October 19, at which they learned more of how the Sellafield site might be sold off. This week Peter Kane, who represented GMB at the talks, said: “At the end of the day there may not be a British Nuclear Group any more, but we in the trade unions must ensure that the 8,000 industrial workforce is secure, as is stated clearly in the Government’s energy white paper.” The unions were first updated on the NDA’s draft strategy by David Hayes. Afterwards they agreed to put their view on the strategy, which completes its task on November 11. Mr Kane said there was a second meeting, organised by the T&G, and Prospect, the white collar union, was invited to join with the industrial unions. BNG representatives at these talks were Lawrie Haynes, chief executive; Barry Snelson – managing director, Sellafield; Mark Morant, managing director, reactor sites; Paul Hamer, managing director, project services; Rob Meakin, HR director; and John Edwards, BNFL group finance director. Prospect’s Peter Clements said: “The meeting was the start of a consultative process with the unions on the proposed sale of BNG. Further consultative meetings will be arranged through the existing negotiating groups. “The meeting focussed on the business case and rationale behind the proposed sale. Prospect representatives challenged the proposal and expressed concern over the “sudden change of direction” from the BNFL board, which had previously expressed confidence in being successful in the competition bidding process. “Prospect also raised questions about the impact of the sale on other businesses, such as Nexia Solutions and Project Services. We further stressed the need for pensions uncertainty to be resolved without further delay. “We were asked if we would support the strategy to sell BNG and responded that our policy of support or opposition would be agreed at a special meeting of all our representatives across BNFL and BNG at Blackpool on November 3 and 4.” The industrial unions are to consult their members through their shop stewards at Sellafield on November 4. ***************************************************************** 27 Salt Lake Tribune: Funds to develop bunker buster N-bomb scrapped Article Last Updated: 10/26/2005 08:00:54 AM Negotiated end: Research could have led to testing in Utah; the focus will turn to conventional weaponry By Thomas Burr The Salt Lake Tribune WASHINGTON - Funding for researching the nuclear bunker buster will be scrapped in favor of more conventional weapons, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., announced Tuesday, curtailing fears from some Utah sectors that continued research on the bomb could lead to it being tested near the Four Corners area. Domenici said Tuesday night in a statement that money for continued study of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator had been scrapped as part of negotiations over funding a bill for the Department of Energy. "The focus will now be with the Defense Department and its research to earth penetrating technology using conventional weaponry," Domenici, who has been a supporter of the nuclear bunker buster, said in a statement. Negotiators working on the bill tossed the $4 million provision to continue the research, a sigh of relief for downwinders and environmentalists worried that more study could lead to testing the weapon on U.S. soil. "We hope this signifies a long-term commitment to avoid a nuclear catastrophe and the creation of a second-generation of downwinders," said Vanessa Pierce, program director of the advocacy group, Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah. The House had approved its version of the bill without funding for the program, but the Senate approved the funding, a sticking point for those negotiating the final version. The move to remove the funding comes at the request of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which has been the driving force behind the bunker buster. It is unclear why the chief proponent of the funding withdrew its request. This is the second year the funding has been dropped from the bill during negotiations. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, praised the decision. "It's great news for everybody in Utah," Matheson said. "A new nuclear weapon means more nuclear weapon tests and I don't think we ever want to do down that road again." Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said through a spokesman late Tuesday that he has always voted to find the best way to "deal with these deeply buried bunkers" and if the National Nuclear Security Administration "believes this can be accomplished through conventional weapons, all the better." tburr@sltrib.com © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 28 Physicists Oppose U.S. Policy on Nuclear Attack Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:47:22 -0500 (CDT) X-Fingerprint: owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu-127.127 http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/515605/?sc=dwtn Source: University of California, San Diego Released: Tue 25-Oct-2005, 14:10 ET Physicists Sign Petition to Oppose U.S. Policy on Nuclear Attack PHYSICS NUCLEAR PETITION POLICY WEAPONS More than 470 physicists, including seven Nobel laureates, have signed a petition to oppose a new U.S. Defense Department proposal that allows the United States to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. More than 470 physicists, including seven Nobel laureates, have signed a petition to oppose a new U.S. Defense Department proposal that allows the United States to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. The petition was started by two physics professors at the University of California, San Diego, Kim Griest and Jorge Hirsch, who said they felt an obligation to speak out about the nuclear policy change because their profession brought nuclear weapons into the world 60 years ago. They and other prominent physicists who signed the petitionwhich will be delivered to members of Congress, scientific professional societies and the news mediaobject to the new policy because it blurs the sharp line between nuclear weapons and conventional, chemical and biological weapons. While it has long been a U.S. policy to use nuclear weapons in order to respond to a nuclear attack, said Hirsch, the new policy allows the U.S. to use nuclear weapons against states that do not have nuclear weapons and for a host of new reasons, including rapid termination of a conflict on U.S. terms or to ensure success of the U.S. forces. Humanity has gone more than half a century without using nuclear weapons, in large part because of the success of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, said Griest. The U.S. use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states will destroy the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and give strong incentive for other countries to develop and use nuclear weapons, thus making nuclear war more likely. As physicists we feel we need to bring this to the attention of policy makers and the public, in order to engender discussion, debate, and hopefully repudiation of the new policy. The two physicists began their grass roots petition last month following reports in The New York Times and Washington Post that the federal government was in the final process of adopting a new U.S. policy that would permit the use of nuclear weapons against an adversary for the following reasons: For rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms. To ensure success of U.S. and multinational operations. To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of weapons of mass destruction. Against an adversary intending to use weapons of mass destruction against US, multinational, or alliance forces. Griest and Hirsch put their petition on the internet at http://physics.ucsd.edu/petition/ , invited their colleagues to sign and quickly received an avalanche of responses. The petition is signed by two past presidents of the American Physical Society, the premier professional organization for U.S. physicistsGeorge Trilling of UC Berkeley and Jerome Friedman of MIT. Friedman, who is also a Nobel laureate, was joined on the petition by six other Nobel Prizewinners in physicsPhilip Anderson of Princeton University, Anthony Leggett of the University of Illinois, Douglas Osheroff of Stanford University, Daniel Tsui of Princeton University, Steven Weinberg of the University of Texas and Frank Wilczek of MIT. Other prominent physicists on the petition include Fields Medal winner Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study, Wolf Prize laureates Michael Fisher of the University of Maryland and Daniel Kleppner of MIT, and Leo Kadanoff of the University of Chicago, a recipient of the National Medal of Science and president-elect of the American Physical Society. We point out in the petition that nuclear weapons are on a completely different scale than other weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons and that the underlying principle of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is that in exchange for other countries forgoing the development of nuclear weapons, the nuclear weapon states will pursue nuclear disarmament, said Hirsch. "Instead, this new U.S. policy dramatically increases the risk of nuclear proliferation and, ultimately, the risk that regional conflicts will explode into all-out nuclear war, with the potential to destroy our civilization. The physicists hope to gain additional supporters before a meeting of the executive board of the American Physical Society on November 18 and a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency on November 24. 2005 Newswise. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 29 New Scientist: US drops nuclear bunker buster from budget [NewScientist.com] 28 October 2005 Controversial plans to research nuclear bunker busters have been abandoned by the by the US in the country's 2006s budget. The Bush administration and the Senate have agreed with the House of Representatives to scrap the funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) in the 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. The Pentagon will instead focus on developing a conventional deep-earth penetrating bomb, said Senator Pete Domenici, chair of the Senate subcommittee dealing with the issue. He said the National Nuclear Security Administration had requested such a switch. "The focus will now be with the Defense Department and its research into earth-penetrating technology using conventional weaponry. The NNSA indicated that this research should evolve around more conventional weapons rather than tactical nuclear devices, he said in a statement. Political fallout The RNEP would have been designed to bury deep into the ground before detonating a nuclear device. Its proponents argued this would give the capability to destroy buried weapon dumps or communication centres. They also said underground explosions would lead to less fallout than airborne nuclear weapons. But critics said it would be extremely difficult for a bunker buster to plunge deep enough into the ground to contain any subsequent nuclear explosion. I have long cautioned against an RNEP weapon and I am relieved that the Administration has abandoned this irresponsible and dangerous path, says Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, a democrat in California. Since their first days in office, the Bush Administration has appeared intent on finding new uses for existing nuclear weapons and designing new nuclear weapons - whether the military had any use for them or not, and regardless of the grave international ramifications. She adds: Developing new nuclear bunker busters would undermine decades of United States leadership aimed at preventing non nuclear states from acquiring nuclear weapons and encouraging nuclear states to reduce their stockpiles. + Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd. Home ***************************************************************** 30 komo news: Murray: Hanford Cleanup Budget Slashed By KOMO Staff & News Services SPOKANE - Congress is slashing more than $100 million from the budget for a plan to clean up the most dangerous radioactive waste at the Hanford nuclear reservation, a move that threatens deadlines for cleaning up the mess, Sen. Patty Murray said Wednesday. Negotiators for the House and Senate have decided the $626 million requested by the Bush administration to continue construction of the vitrification plant is too much, especially as the nation faces costs of Hurricane Katrina and other problems, the Washington state Democrat said. The cuts will cause a yearlong delay in construction and lead to layoffs at the nuclear reservation located near Richland, Murray said. "It means it will cost more in the future, more people will be laid off and the whole project will be in jeopardy," Murray said by telephone Wednesday evening. Hanford supporters will have a last chance to try and restore the money Thursday, before the conference committee on Energy and Water approves the budget, Murray said. She blamed the U.S. Department of Energy, which operates Hanford, for failing to strongly defend its budget needs. "The department is committed to our cleanup obligations at Hanford and views the waste-treatment plant as a critical part of our overall strategy," said Mike Waldron, a spokesman for Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman in Washington, D.C. "The department has been fully engaged with the Congress and has vigorously advocated for both the project and the need to fully fund the president's budget request of $626 million." The vitrification plant is the U.S. government's largest construction project. It has been plagued with construction woes for years, and is only about 30 percent completed. The plant is designed to convert decades-old radioactive waste from Cold War production of nuclear weapons into glasslike logs for permanent disposal in a nuclear waste repository. The waste, about 53 million gallons, is stewing in 177 aging underground tanks at Hanford. Some of the tanks have leaked and threaten the Columbia River less than 10 miles away. Many tanks have outlived their design life, which makes retrieval of the waste a top priority. The one-of-a-kind plant is massive: Once completed it will stand 12 stories tall and be the size of four football fields. It has a budget of $5.8 billion and rising. Murray said that the Senate approved the Bush administration's $626 million budget request for fiscal 2006, and the House even added money. But the Energy Department did not aggressively lobby for the money in the conference committee, which is the final step before budgets are sent to the president, Murray complained. She said she spoke with Bodman and urged him to protect the vit plant's budget. "This is not a little Washington state project," Murray said. "This is a national project with national significance." The nation cannot leave the highly radioactive wastes where they are, she said. Any delays mean the Energy Department will not be able to meet legal deadlines in agreements with federal and state regulators, Murray said. In August, the Department of Energy said it had to slow construction following a new seismic study that found the government had underestimated the impact a severe earthquake could have on the plant. Communications, Inc.(KOMO RADIO-TV) ***************************************************************** 31 The Olympian: Hanford faces slashed budget, Murray says Olympia, Washington Thursday October 27, 2005 BY NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS THE ASSOCIATED PRESS SPOKANE -- Congress is slashing more than $100 million from the budget for a plant to clean up the most dangerous radioactive waste at the Hanford nuclear reservation, a move that threatens deadlines for cleaning up the mess, Sen. Patty Murray said Wednesday. Negotiators for the House and Senate have decided the $626 million requested by the Bush administration to continue construction of the vitrification plant is too much, especially as the nation faces costs of Hurricane Katrina and other problems, the Washington state Democrat said. The cuts will cause a yearlong delay in construction and lead to layoffs at the nuclear reservation located near Richland, Murray said. "It means it will cost more in the future, more people will be laid off and the whole project will be in jeopardy," Murray said by telephone Wednesday evening. Hanford supporters will have a last chance to try to restore the money today, before the conference committee on Energy and Water approves the budget, Murray said. She blamed the U.S. Department of Energy, which operates Hanford, for failing to strongly defend its budget needs. "The department is committed to our cleanup obligations at Hanford and views the waste-treatment plant as a critical part of our overall strategy," said Mike Waldron, a spokesman for Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman in Washington, D.C. "The department has been fully engaged with the Congress and has vigorously advocated for both the project and the need to fully fund the president's budget request of $626 million." The vitrification plant is the U.S. government's largest construction project. It has been plagued with construction woes for years, and is only about 30 percent completed. The plant is designed to convert decades-old radioactive waste from Cold War production of nuclear weapons into glasslike logs for permanent disposal in a nuclear waste repository. The waste, about 53 million gallons, is stewing in 177 aging underground tanks at Hanford. Some of the tanks have leaked and threaten the Columbia River less than 10 miles away. Many tanks have outlived their design life, which makes retrieval of the waste a top priority. The one-of-a-kind plant is massive: Once completed it will stand 12 stories tall and be the size of four football fields. It has a budget of $5.8 billion and rising. Murray said that the Senate approved the Bush administration's $626 million budget request for fiscal 2006, and the House even added money. But the Energy Department did not aggressively lobby for the money in the conference committee, which is the final step before budgets are sent to the president, Murray complained. She said she spoke with Bodman and urged him to protect the vitrification plant's budget. "This is not a little Washington state project," Murray said. "This is a national project with national significance." The nation cannot leave the highly radioactive wastes where they are, she said. Any delays mean the Energy Department will not be able to meet legal deadlines in agreements with federal and state regulators, Murray said. In August, the Department of Energy said it had to slow construction following a new seismic study that found the government had underestimated the impact a severe earthquake could have on the plant. Do you want The Olympian to keep you in mind when we canvass the community for opinions? SITE MAP: TheOlympian.com ***************************************************************** 32 PRN: Steelworkers Union Says DOE Would be Courting Disaster in Allowing DuPont Involvement in Operation and Clean-Up of Nuclear Weapons Plant in South Carolina NASHVILLE, Tenn., Oct. 27 /PRNewswire/ -- The United Steelworkers (USW) today sent the following letter to Samuel Bodman, U.S. Secretary of Energy, concerning a recent press release by DuPont Company that it will partner with Fluor Corporation to compete with other companies for contracts worth $7.5 billion in managing and cleaning up the Savannah River nuclear weapons site near Aiken, South Carolina: October 27, 2005 Samuel W. Bodman Secretary of Energy U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20585 Dear Secretary Bodman: We recently learned that DuPont Company, in a strategic alliance with Fluor Corporation, will be bidding on contracts valued at $7.5 billion at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. The USW is in a unique position to judge DuPont's prospective role in managing and cleaning up the Department of Energy's (DOE) Savannah River Site. We currently represent approximately 5,000 workers at eight DOE facilities along with 1,800 DuPont employees at six of the company's plants. We know first-hand what it takes to operate a safe nuclear facility, and have intimate knowledge of how DuPont treats its workers and the communities where its plants are located. DuPont has an abysmal record in the area of worker and community safety, and is one of the major polluters in the U.S. Hiring DuPont to manage and clean up the Savannah River Site is tantamount to hiring a wolf to guard a hen house. DOE surely remembers that DuPont was literally forced to abandon its 35- year operation of the Savannah River Site in 1989, after receiving heavy criticism from DOE for its operational and safety record that included accidents which could have resulted in cataclysmic accidents. Based on this experience alone, we believe DOE would be courting disaster in allowing DuPont to be become involved in the operation of the Savannah River Site. DuPont's management and so-called clean-up of the site could put many lives at risk. Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency launched an investigation to determine if DuPont withheld important information concerning the health and environmental effects of C8, a potentially harmful chemical that has contaminated community water supplies and entered the blood of most Americans. The Environmental Crimes Section of the U.S. Department of Justice has issued a subpoena to DuPont about C8, as part of a federal grand jury investigation. DuPont recently settled a multi-million dollar lawsuit in West Virginia after C8 leaked into the local water supply, and medical monitoring is currently being conducted on thousands of residents. It is notable that Fluor, DuPont's prospective partner in this endeavor, is the main contractor for DuPont at the company's Fayetteville, North Carolina site where C8 is produced. The C8 plant began operating in late 2002 with DuPont's assurances that C8 would not leak into the air or water. However, three months later C8 was discovered in groundwater and discharges to a nearby river. The USW's own investigation revealed that information about the contamination was not disclosed to state officials for almost six months. I am enclosing a recent USW report, Not Walking the Talk: DuPont's Untold Safety Failures, that documents DuPont's poor record of safety performance and environmental compliance. The report also shows how the company covers up this deplorable record through carefully engineered public relations efforts. DuPont's spin doctors will be hard at work to fool the public and perhaps the government into believing that the company can safely operate the Savannah River Site. The USW intends to carefully monitor the awarding of contracts at the Savannah River Site, and will continue to educate the public about DuPont's deplorable and dangerous record on worker and community safety. DOE should not put workers and the public at risk by allowing DuPont to perform work at the Savannah River Site. Sincerely, James K. Phillips, Jr. Chair, USW Atomic Workers' Council c: Leo Gerard, USW International President Ken Test, Chair of USW DuPont Council SOURCE United Steelworkers Web Site: Copyright 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights Reserved. A company. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************