***************************************************************** 03/24/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.71 ***************************************************************** 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 speeds up nuclear programme as crisis talks 2 IRNA: Beijing, Moscow urge diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear cas 3 IRNA: Iran protests to UN secretary-general against US threats 4 IRNA: Merkel, ElBaradei to discuss Iran's nuclear program in Berlin 5 AFP: Rice calls Russian counterpart on Iran 6 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Expects U.S., Iran to Meet on Iraq 7 US: ANA: A national network of organizations working to address issu NUCLEAR REACTORS 8 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at Summer Nuclear Power Pla 9 Guardian Unlimited: UN accused of ignoring 500,000 Chernobyl deaths 10 London Times: Tremor fears force closure of nuclear reactor 11 US: AZ Star: N-plant radiation leaks to be probed | 12 MDM: Japanese court orders nuclear reactor shutdown in ruling on 13 Daily Yomiuri: Court ruling on N-plant flies in face of science 14 Daily Yomiuri: Court orders N-reactor shut/Utility told to suspend S 15 Daily Yomiuri: Ruling casts doubt on nuclear plant safety 16 BBC: Japan's shaky nuclear record 17 US: Burlington Free Press: Standards high for fighting Vermont Yanke 18 UPI: Japanese nuclear reactor ordered shut 19 AFP: Nuclear an integral part of China's 15-year energy plan 20 FT.com: Setback to Japan’s nuclear industry 21 US: NRC: In the Matter of David Geisen; Establishment of Atomic Safe 22 US: NRC: In the Matter of Certain Licensees Authorized To Possess an 23 US: NRC: State of Minnesota: Discontinuance of Certain Commission 24 Korea Times: Emergency Response Problems Found in Three Nuclear Powe 25 US: Middletown Press: Conn. Yankee settles lawsuit 26 Belfast Telegraph: Concern at Chernobyl effects on our children 27 Guardian Unlimited: Japanese Nuclear Reactor Ordered Shut Down 28 Guardian Unlimited Books: Extracts | No atom of doubt (Lovelock Inte NUCLEAR SECURITY 29 UN: Slovakia First To Ratify UN Pact On Nuclear Terrorism NUCLEAR SAFETY 30 BBC: 'No one cause' for Gulf illness 31 US: DesMoinesRegister.com: Fund screening for weapons workers 32 US: toledoblade.com: Action delayed by port board on loan for new be 33 US: NRC: In the Matter of Dale L. Miller; Establishment of Atomic Sa 34 US: NRC: In the Matter of Steven P. Moffitt; Establishment of Atomic 35 US: NRC: In the Matter of All Licensees Who Possess Radioactive Mate 36 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes; Renewal 37 ITAR-TASS: Prevention of pollution cheaper than cleanup – G8 experts 38 US: Milford Daily News: Radiation-laden trash truck stuck on site si NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 39 US: Bradenton Herald: Tallevast letter cites trust issues 40 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca Johnny targets youngsters' hearts, minds 41 reviewjournal.com: New report shows Yucca stuck in old errors, 42 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Hazardous waste firms' merger to move ahead 43 US: Salt Lake Tribune: 'Uranium King' altered Moab 'forever' PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 44 Sun News: SRS work split subject of contention 45 DOE: Alexander Karsner Sworn-In as DOEs Assistant Secretary for ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Guardian Unlimited: Iran speeds up nuclear programme as crisis talks bog down Ian Traynor Friday March 24, 2006 Iran is racing ahead with preparations to enrich uranium as the big powers struggle to decide on their next moves aimed at resolving the nuclear crisis surrounding the country. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, charged with investigating Iran's nuclear programme, say that the Iranians are assembling and making operational dozens of centrifuge machines for enriching uranium at their vast complex in Natanz south of Tehran. According to diplomats, the Iranians are in the process of achieving a "technological leap" by making operational a cascade of 164 centrifuges to enrich uranium for power plants or warheads. A fortnight ago they were known to have assembled only 34 centrifuges. They are believed to be rushing to assemble dozens more at a time when western negotiations with Tehran have collapsed and big power attempts to develop a coherent policy are deadlocked. "The Iranians are pushing ahead, marking out their intentions clearly," said a European diplomat. Another added: "It will be almost impossible to get them to give up, to come back down to zero." For the first time in almost three years of dispute, the Iranian issue was passed from the IAEA in Vienna to the UN security council in New York this month. But talks this week among the permanent five security council members are deadlocked, with the Russians balking at what they see as US and European attempts to start a process that will lead to sanctions and possibly military action against Iran. The five powers - the US, Russia, China, France and Britain - are trying to agree a security council statement ordering Iran to restore a freeze on its uranium enrichment activities within a fortnight. The draft also terms Iran's nuclear programmes "a threat to international peace and security" - language that could later be used to trigger economic sanctions and even military intervention. "The deadlines outlined in the proposed draft are quite categorical and provide a foundation for sanctions against Iran. We consider it all premature," said the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, yesterday. The Russians and the Chinese want the dispute handled by the IAEA, but the Americans are determined to keep it with the security council, and want the IAEA chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, to report directly to the council as soon as possible. The operation of 164 centrifuges would leave Iran able to process only minute volumes of uranium. But experts and diplomats say the real value lies in the know-how acquired in running highly delicate machinery. The Iranians appear determined to configure six rigs of 164 centrifuges at Natanz for what they call a "pilot enrichment plant". They have also told UN inspectors they intend to assemble 3,000 centrifuges by the end of the year. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 2 IRNA: Beijing, Moscow urge diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear case Beijing, March 23, IRNA China-Iran-Nuclear Beijing and Moscow stress diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear problem, said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang here on Thursday. "China and Russia have exchanged views and both sides agree the Iran nuclear issue should be resolved through diplomatic means," Qin told reporters. Qin, speaking at his weekly press briefing here after talks between the Russian and Chinese presidents, said that Beijing and Moscow now have a common stance on the nuclear issue with both favoring diplomacy. He said that with regard to Iran's nuclear case, commitment to the NPT and its safeguards was of high importance. "Concerned parties, when making decisions concerning the nuclear issue, should focus on whether these would truly help reach a lasting solution and whether these would promote peace and stability in the region...That is why we should give diplomacy more time and more space." He said Beijing's stance on Iran's nuclear case is clear and, that is, diplomatic efforts should continue to try to find a solution to the problem. China supports all positive efforts and activities of Russia toward finding a solution to the Iran nuclear issue, he said. ***************************************************************** 3 IRNA: Iran protests to UN secretary-general against US threats United Nations, New York, March 24, IRNA Iran-UN-Zarif Iranian Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the UN Mohammad-Javad Zarif on Monday sent a letter to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan protesting against recent US threats against Tehran. Following is the full text of his letter: "In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful "Your Excellency, Mr Kofi Annan, "Upon instructions from my Government, I have the honor to enclose herewith the text of a note verbal dated 13 March 2006 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic addressed to the Embassy of Switzerland in Tehran (United States Interest Section). "In the recent several months, various senior officials of the United States have used false pretexts to make public and thinly- veiled threats of resort to force against the Islamic Republic of Iran in total contempt of international law and the fundamental principles of the Charter of the United Nations. "The statements delivered at the AIPAC meeting in Washington on 5-7 March, 2006 by the US Vice-President and Permanent Representative to the United Nations, threatening Iran with "tangible and painful consequences," "use all the tools at our disposal", "Rest assured, though, we are not relying on the Security Council as the only tool in our toolbox to address this problem" and "already beefing up defensive measures" are simply the latest and more vulgar in a series of statements and publications which resort to such unlawful, unacceptable and dangerous threats of use of force. "The statements, furthermore, make US contempt for the UN Security Council and other multilateral mechanisms, as well as its intention to abuse the very same mechanism self-evident. "Regrettably, such dangerous words go beyond callous statements before single-issue constituencies and include documents officially articulating US strategy. The list includes the draft "Doctrine of Joint Military Operations" issued by the US Joint Chief of Staff on 15 March 2005 and the "National Security Strategy" issued by the White House on 16 March 2006, both of which defiantly articulate US policies and intentions on pre-emption, the use of force and resort to nuclear weapons in contravention of international law, the Charter of the United Nations, the NPT and other US multilateral undertakings on negative security assurances. "These statements and documents, in view of past illegal behavior of the United States, constitute matters of utmost gravity that require urgent, concerted and resolute response on the part of the United Nations and particularly by the Security Council. "It is indeed regrettable that past failures have emboldened senior US officials and even others to consider the threat of use of force, both of which specifically rejected under Article 2(4) of the Charter as violation of one of the most fundamental principles of the Organization, as being an "option on the table." "The United Nations has a fundamental responsibility to reject these assertions and to arrest this trend. "It will be highly appreciated if this letter and its annex were circulated as a document of the General Assembly under Agenda Items 9, 82, 87, 94, 95, 97, 110 and of the Security Council. "Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration. "(signed) M. Javad Zarif" ***************************************************************** 4 IRNA: Merkel, ElBaradei to discuss Iran's nuclear program in Berlin - Berlin, March 24, IRNA Germany-IAEA-Iran German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohammad ElBaradei will discuss Iran's nuclear program in Berlin on Monday, German deputy government spokesman Thomas Steg announced during a press briefing here Friday. The head of the UN nuclear watchdog agency will also meet with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Economic Minister Michael Glos and members of the foreign policy committee of the German parliament, Steg added. Merkel and ElBaradei have repeatedly called for a diplomatic settlement of the Iranian nuclear dispute. ***************************************************************** 5 AFP: Rice calls Russian counterpart on Iran Fri Mar 24, 3:09 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> telephoned Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov to discuss the deadlock at the UN Security Council over Iran" /> 's nuclear program, a spokesman said. State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said the two "reiterated and agreed on the importance of all of us working together to address Iran's persistent violation of its Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations and its refusal to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> " (IAEA). He added: "We all agree that Iran's actions are disturbing, are threatening, are of concern." "And I think they reaffirmed our common purpose in addressing those at the Security Council and elsewhere." Earlier Friday, Lavrov said Russia would not agree to any decision on Iran by western powers if Moscow is not previously consulted. "I doubt we would accept (a proposal) taken behind our back and then presented to us as the only outcome possible," Lavrov said. He was commenting on reports this week that Britain had been carrying out secret negotiations with other western nations on a UN resolution allowing sanctions and even the use of force if Iran refused to give up its contested nuclear activities. Russia, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, can veto any resolution. The United States and its allies believe Iran's nuclear program hides an effort to develop weapons. Iran says its research is peaceful. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 6 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Expects U.S., Iran to Meet on Iraq From the Associated Press [UP] Friday March 24, 2006 10:31 PM AP Photo WX109 By ANNE GEARAN AP Diplomatic Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday she was sure U.S. and Iranian representatives would meet to discuss security in Iraq, but she gave no time for the sessions. ``Those meetings will take place, I'm certain, at the appropriate time,'' Rice said. The United States previously had said contact with the Iranians could occur if Washington found it useful, but questioned the timing and motive of Iran in seeking talks. The Bush administration says discussions would be limited to the situation in Iraq, where Washington has long accused Iran of making trouble. The U.S. ambassador in Baghdad has had authority to talk to his Iranian counterpart since last year, but Tehran only recently said it wants to meet. President Bush's national security adviser, Steven J. Hadley, last week dismissed Iran's willingness to talk about Iraq as a way for Iran to divert pressure from the nuclear weapons issue. Iran claims it is pursuing nuclear technology only for generation of electricity. The two countries have had no diplomatic relations since the 1979 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The United States is now pushing for strong U.N. Security Council action to try to stop what it claims is Iranian ambition to build a nuclear bomb. The U.N. body has been bogged down for two weeks over how to make a first move. ``I think that everybody just needs to get to work and let's get this done so that the Iranians have a very clear message about what's going on,'' Rice said when asked whether Iran allies Russia and China are dragging their feet. Rice spoke Friday to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to try to break an impasse over the wording of a Security Council statement on Iran, and may meet soon with other permanent members of the Security Council if the group can agree on the document. ``We agreed to ask our negotiators to work again over the next of couple of days,'' Rice told reporters, ``really deciding that maybe they won't even have a weekend because we need to work on this text.'' Rice spoke following a meeting with Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Derbez. She also met in Washington with U.N. Ambassador John Bolton on Iran and other topics. ``We are waiting to see what happens in the talks between the ministers of foreign affairs of the P-5,'' Argentina's U.N. Ambassador Cesar Mayoral, the current Security Council president, said Friday, when asked when the council might meet to discuss the proposed statement. The U.S. and its European allies want a statement reiterating demands by the U.N. nuclear watchdog - the International Atomic Energy Agency - that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, the process that can be used to generate nuclear power or make nuclear weapons. The Russians and Chinese have opposed tough language including a demand for a report in 14 days on Iran's compliance with the IAEA demands. Russia and China also want the IAEA to keep the main role in cajoling Iran on uranium enrichment. They have raised concerns that pushing Iran too hard could lead to its withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and expulsion of IAEA inspectors. ``The Security Council has, of course, at its disposal tools that are not there for the IAEA,'' Rice said Friday. ``This first order of business is to get a presidential statement that will make very clear that it is in the international community's very strong demand of Iran that Iran adhere to these requirements.'' --- On the Net: State Department: http://www.state.gov Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 7 ANA: A national network of organizations working to address issues of nuclear weapons production and waste cleanup By: Luke Brothers Posted on: 3/24/2006 Alliance for Nuclear Accountability * * * M E D I A A D V I S O R Y * * * WHAT: News Briefing on the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Budget: Threats to the environment, national security and non-proliferation, featuring a new analysis of Department of Energy (DOE) spending by a former Office of Management and Budget examiner WHEN: Monday, March 27, 2006 - - 10:00am WHERE: Room HC-8 U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC WHO: Leaders of the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA), representing the concerns of communities downwind and downstream of U.S. nuclear weapons facilities. - Marylia Kelley – Executive Director, Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment, an expert on DOE weapons programs who lives next to Lawrence-Livermore National Laboratory - Tom Carpenter – Director, Nuclear Oversight Program of the Government Accountability Project, which monitors the effectiveness of DOE Cleanup programs, particularly at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation - Carah Ong – Washington Office Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, which analyzes the international impacts of U.S. nuclear initiatives such as the Global Nuclear Energy Program, Reprocessing and the recent U.S. India Nuclear Agreement WHY: Scores of activists from across the nation will be presenting their concerns about U.S. nuclear weapons policies and budget priorities in dozens of meetings with leaders of Congress and Administration from March 27 - 29 as part of ANA’s DC Days. Other DOE sites represented include Fernald, Mound, Idaho National Lab, Los Alamos, Nevada Test Site, Rocky Flats, Sandia, Savannah River, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and Yucca Mountain * Also, on Tuesday, March 28 at 6:00pm, ANA will host an Awards Reception honoring leaders in the movement for more responsible U.S. nuclear policies. Awardees include U.S. Representatives John Spratt and Lynn Woolsey, Congressman Eni Faleomavaega, Russian whistleblower German Lukashin, the Deseret Morning News and the Las Vegas Sun The event will take place at the Frederick Douglass Museum, 320 A Street, NE - an ANA briefing kit on current nuclear weapons issues is available on request – ### http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/about/media-center/2006/03/23_pre ss_dc-days-news-conference.pdf Luke Brothers Communications and Outreach Associate Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 1187 Coast Village Road, Suite 1, PMB 121 Santa Barbara, California 93108-2794 ph: 805-965-3443 lbrothers@napf.org www.wagingpeace.org www.nuclearfiles.org Copyright peacejournalism.com ©2005 PeaceJournalism.com, registered in New Jersey. All Rights Reserved. Chief Editor: ***************************************************************** 8 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at Summer Nuclear Power Plant News Release - Region II - 2006-00 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II No. II-06-006 March 24, 2006 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: NRCs annual assessment of safety performance last year at the Summer nuclear power plant, located near Jenkinsville, S.C. The period covered is the calendar year 2005. The 11:00 a.m. meeting at the Summer plants Nuclear Learning Center building is open to public observation. Before the session ends, NRC staff will be available to answer public questions on the plants safety performance, as well as the agencys role in ensuring safe operation of the facility. Each year the NRC staff assesses the performance of the Summer plant and all of the nations other commercial nuclear power plants, NRC Region II Administrator William Travers said. This meeting gives us a chance to discuss our assessment with the company, with local officials and with residents near the plant. Our aim is to make this information available to the public and answer any questions people may have about our oversight. A letter sent from the NRC Region II Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/sum_2005q4.pdf [PDF Icon] . The Summer plant operated safely during 2005. The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start with green and increase to white, yellow or red, commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. Because all inspection findings and performance indicators for the plant during 2005 were classified as green, Summer will receive the baseline, or normal, level of inspections during 2006. Routine inspections are performed by NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the Region II Office in Atlanta, and the agencys headquarters in Rockville, Md. In addition to the baseline inspections in 2006, the NRC plans special inspections of the containment building sumps and of the reactor pressure vessel head and head penetration nozzles. These inspections are part of the agencys review of sump clogging and vessel head penetration cracking at pressurized water reactors. Current information for the Summer plant is available on the NRC web site at: www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/SUM/sum_chart.html. Last revised Friday, March 24, 2006 ***************************************************************** 9 Guardian Unlimited: UN accused of ignoring 500,000 Chernobyl deaths John Vidal, environment editor Saturday March 25, 2006 United Nations nuclear and health watchdogs have ignored evidence of deaths, cancers, mutations and other conditions after the Chernobyl accident, leading scientists and doctors have claimed in the run-up to the nuclear disaster's 20th anniversary next month. In a series of reports about to be published, they will suggest that at least 30,000 people are expected to die of cancers linked directly to severe radiation exposure in 1986 and up to 500,000 people may have already died as a result of the world's worst environmental catastrophe. But the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organisation say that only 50 deaths can be directly attributed to the disaster, and that, at most, 4,000 people may eventually die from the accident on April 26 1986. They say only nine children have died of thyroid cancers in 20 years and that the majority of illnesses among the estimated 5 million people contaminated in the former Soviet Union are attributable to growing poverty and unhealthy lifestyles. An IAEA spokesman said he was confident the UN figures were correct. "We have a wide scientific consensus of 100 leading scientists. When we see or hear of very high mortalities we can only lean back and question the legitimacy of the figures. Do they have qualified people? Are they responsible? If they have data that they think are excluded then they should send it." The new estimates have been collated by researchers commissioned by European parliamentary groups, Greenpeace International and medical foundations in Britain, Germany, Ukraine, Scandinavia and elsewhere. They take into account more than 50 published scientific studies. "At least 500,000 people - perhaps more - have already died out of the 2 million people who were officially classed as victims of Chernobyl in Ukraine," said Nikolai Omelyanets, deputy head of the National Commission for Radiation Protection in Ukraine. "[Studies show] that 34,499 people who took part in the clean-up of Chernobyl have died in the years since the catastrophe. The deaths of these people from cancers was nearly three times as high as in the rest of the population. "We have found that infant mortality increased 20% to 30% because of chronic exposure to radiation after the accident. All this information has been ignored by the IAEA and WHO. We sent it to them in March last year and again in June. They've not said why they haven't accepted it." Evgenia Stepanova, of the Ukrainian government's Scientific Centre for Radiation Medicine, said: "We're overwhelmed by thyroid cancers, leukaemias and genetic mutations that are not recorded in the WHO data and which were practically unknown 20 years ago." The IAEA and WHO, however, say that apart from an increase in thyroid cancer in children there is no evidence of a large-scale impact on public health. "No increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality that could be associated with radiation exposure have been observed," said the agencies' report in September. In the Rivne region of Ukraine, 310 miles west of Chernobyl, doctors say they are coming across an unusual rate of cancers and mutations. "In the 30 hospitals of our region we find that up to 30% of people who were in highly radiated areas have physical disorders, including heart and blood diseases, cancers and respiratory diseases. Nearly one in three of all the newborn babies have deformities, mostly internal," said Alexander Vewremchuk, of the Special Hospital for the Radiological Protection of the Population in Vilne. Figures on the health effects of Chernobyl have always been disputed. Soviet authorities covered up many of the details at the time. The largest radiation doses were received by the 600,000 people involved in the clean-up, many drawn from army conscripts all over the Soviet Union. Backstory The worst nuclear accident in history took place on April 26 1986 when one of the four reactors at the Chernobyl complex 80 miles north of Kiev in Ukraine began to fail. Operators shut down the system, but a large chemical explosion followed a power surge and the 1,000-tonne cover blew off the top of the reactor. Design flaws in the cooling system were blamed for the accident, in which 31 people were killed immediately. The worst-affected area was Belarus, which took the brunt of the 4% of the 190 tonnes of uranium dioxide in the plant that escaped. Ukraine was also contaminated. Some 600,000 workers (mainly volunteers) who took part in recovery and clean-up operations were exposed to high levels of radiation; the Soviet government first suppressed news of the incident, but evacuated local people within a few days. Five million people were exposed to radiation in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, and there was a dramatic increase in thyroid cancer among children living there. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 10 London Times: Tremor fears force closure of nuclear reactor The Times March 25, 2006 From Richard Lloyd Parry in Tokyo THE newest nuclear power station in Japan was ordered yesterday to shut down because of the danger that it could spew radiation if it were ruptured by an earthquake. A panel of judges in the city of Kanazawa ruled that earthquake-resistance precautions at the Shika nuclear power plant were inadequate and based on out-of-date science. The reactor remains in operation pending an appeal, but the decision will shake the Japanese nuclear industry, which produces almost a third of the country's electricity. "An earthquake larger than what the electricity company had anticipated could occur," said Kenichi Ido, the chief judge, ruling in favour of 135 plaintiffs from across Japan. "If radioactivity is released, the dangers of infringing upon personal rights of residents will exceed a tolerable level." The islands of Japan, positioned close to the meeting place of three of the Earth's tectonic plates, suffer regularly from powerful earthquakes. But they also have 55 nuclear reactors, several of them, such as Shika, built close to active fault lines. All are designed to withstand earthquakes up to a certain magnitude. But it is difficult to be sure of the maximum strength of a potential tremor. "Japan's nuclear reactors, including the No 2 reactor at the Shika plant, would not withstand a real earthquake," a statement by the plaintiffs said. The Shika reactor began running only on Wednesday last week and is the country's second biggest in terms of capacity. The plant is also close to the Ochigata fault line, where earthquake researchers believe that simultaneous quakes could combine to generate one of magnitude 7.6 that would shake the plant severely. Japan's status as the only nation to suffer atomic attack gives it an especially queasy attitude to radiation. The absence of any domestic oil or gas reserves makes it unusually dependent on nuclear power, but public faith in the industry has been shaken by accidents. In 1999 two workers at the Tokaimura plant were killed after an explosion, and 600 local people were exposed to lower levels of radiation. Eighteen months ago, four workers were killed by a leak of non-radioactive steam at the Mihama plant west of Tokyo. Three days ago, there was a minor fire at another nuclear power station in Fukui. Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 11 AZ Star: N-plant radiation leaks to be probed | www.azstarnet.com ® The Associated Press Tucson, Arizona | Published: 03.24.2006 PHOENIX — Federal monitors have formed a task force to investigate discharges of radioactive tritium-laced water at several power plants across the nation, including one at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station west of Phoenix. Tritium, a byproduct of nuclear power generation, is a relatively weak source of radiation. However, authorities say long-term exposure to tritium can increase the risks of cancer, miscarriages and birth defects. It can be ingested or absorbed in human tissue. Palo Verde vents tritium into the air as a normal byproduct of nuclear power generation, but a leak of contaminated water was recently found. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials said the task force of experts will evaluate the health effects of what has happened at least five plants since December and possibly earlier incidents. But they emphasized that the latest reports from all the sites, including Palo Verde, do not indicate any immediate public hazards. The other plants are in Illinois and New York. The Palo Verde plant, about 50 miles west of downtown Phoenix, is the largest nuclear generating site in the country. An NRC health inspector has been working during the past week with officials from Palo Verde's operator — Arizona Public Service — and the state Department of Environmental Quality to pinpoint the source and amount of the contamination. APS first notified the state on March 2 that it found tritium in a maze of underground pipes. Water samples taken a day before had turned up levels more than triple those considered acceptable by the Environmental Protection Agency for drinking water. State, federal and APS officials said Wednesday that there is no evidence so far that Palo Verde-generated tritium has migrated beyond its boundary. ***************************************************************** 12 MDM: Japanese court orders nuclear reactor shutdown in ruling on lawsuit - MSN-Mainichi Daily News March 25, 2006 National A court on Friday ordered the shutdown of Japan's second-largest nuclear reactor in response to a lawsuit by local residents who feared it could leak dangerous radiation during an earthquake, a court official said. The Kanazawa District Court in northwestern Japan ordered the shutdown of the newly operating Number 2 Shika reactor, court official Akihiko Yasuno said. In ruling, judge Kenichi Ido said that the reactor, operated by Hokuriku Electric Power Co., could expose local residents to radioactivity should a powerful earthquake occur, Yasuno said. He gave no other details. The reactor had just began commercial operations last week after getting approval from the government's nuclear safety agency. Company officials told reporters that they would immediately appeal Friday's ruling. The plaintiffs said they were gratified by the decision, which reflects persistent concerns about nuclear power safety in Japan. The industry has been plagued for years with accidents, cover-ups and public opposition. "I think today's ruling will bring to light whether power reactors used in Japan can withstand earthquakes, and if the government's quake safety guidelines are good enough," plaintiff Tetsuya Tanaka told reporters. Kanazawa is about 295 kilometers (180 miles) northwest of Tokyo. The 135 plaintiffs filed the lawsuit last May claiming they would be in constant danger because the reactor is near a faultline that a government committee has said a quake with a magnitude of 7.6 could strike, Kyodo News agency reported. The plaintiffs said that the No. 2 reactor was built based on outdated earthquake guidelines drawn up 20 years ago, according to Kyodo. The power company has said it took all necessary measures to ensure the plant's safety, and that the reactor is needed to guarantee a steady supply of electricity, Kyodo said. The report said the government's nuclear safety commission found the reactor met standards for quake resistance, but that the commission is reviewing quake resistance guidelines for nuclear power reactors built to withstand a 6.5-magnitude quake. Resource-poor Japan is heavily dependent on its nuclear program, with the country's 55 nuclear reactors supply about one-third of its electricity, according to the Natural Resources and Energy Agency. The government has said it wants to build 11 new plants and raise electricity output generated by nuclear power to nearly 40 percent of the national supply by 2010. But the public has been increasingly wary of reactor safety. In 2004, five workers were killed when a corroded pipe at a reactor in western Japan ruptured and sprayed plant workers with boiling water and steam in the country's worst-ever nuclear plant accident. No radiation escaped from that reactor, which has since resumed operations. Earlier this week, a fire broke out at a nuclear power plant's waste incinerator in western Japan on Wednesday, but officials said no radiation leaked into the atmosphere. Two workers were injured. (AP) March 24, 2006 Have your say in the MSN-Mainichi Daily News Readers' Forum Copyright 2005-2006 THE MAINICHI NEWSPAPERS. All ***************************************************************** 13 Daily Yomiuri: Court ruling on N-plant flies in face of science Editorial : The Yomiuri Shimbun Friday's ruling by the Kanazawa District Court poses a headache for nuclear power plant operators as it requires them to ensure "absolute safety." But no technology can be viable if it is required to conform to standards that are based on unreasonable assumptions. The court ordered Hokuriku Electric Power Co. to halt the operation of the No. 2 reactor at its Shika nuclear power plant in Shikamachi, Ishikawa Prefecture. In the trial, a group of plaintiffs, including residents living in the areas surrounding the plant, demanded that the power utility shut down the reactor, claiming there is a problem with its antiseismic design. True, the Japanese archipelago is one of the world's most earthquake-prone zones. Therefore, each nuclear power reactor's antiseismic design must clear the government's stringent safety criteria. Friday's ruling raised doubts about the validity of those regulations. The initial part of the process of antiseismic designing involves estimation of types of earthquakes that could hit the area where a nuclear power plant will be built. Based on the estimation, the strongest possible seismic shocks are then estimated. Nuclear reactors and related facilities are designed to withstand such jolts. However, the district court ruled that Hokuriku Electric had not taken into account the possibility that an earthquake with a magnitude greater than the power company's worst-case estimate could strike. The court also said the company's seismic vibration estimate was not based on an adequate calculation method. The court thus rejected Hokuriku Electric's argument that the No. 2 reactor had been designed in line with and cleared the government's assessment guidelines on the antiseismic design of nuclear reactors. === N-industry could be affected A reactor's earthquake-resistance capability is designed on the basis of studies of past earthquakes. Stronger earthquakes that are unlikely to occur are not factored into seismological estimations. In fact, the government sets specific ranges of earthquake intensities that must be referred to in antiseismic designs. The ruling showed little understanding of such basic factors concerning nuclear reactor design. Friday's ruling is the first loss by the electric power industry in a lawsuit involving commercial nuclear power reactors. What is more, the No. 2 reactor at the Shika nuclear power plant only began operating on March 15. Kindling fears on the basis of an irrational supposition, the decision could adversely affect the operations of the country's other 54 commercial nuclear power reactors. The ruling seems to have taken into account the effect of the earthquake that struck Miyagi Prefecture last August. At the time, the Onagawa nuclear power plant of Tohoku Electric Power Co. in the prefecture was shaken by a quake of an intensity that exceeded the company's worst-case seismic shock estimations. To deal with such unusual circumstances, the government's guidelines for antiseismic designs permit a certain margin in calculations that errs on the side of caution. The Onagawa plant automatically halted reactor operations immediately after detecting the temblor, with the result that the plant suffered no damage. === Panel should make mind up Concerning the existing guidelines, which were worked out more than 20 years ago, there are voices seeking an expansion of the safety margin and more transparency, commensurate with the latest state of scientific knowledge. For instance, the existing guidelines assume that the largest earthquake that could occur with its epicenter just below a nuclear power reactor would have a magnitude of 6.5. It might be sensible to increase the highest estimated magnitude a little. Likewise, seismic vibrations should be predicted more precisely, while allowance for tremor resistance should be cited in specific numerical values. The government's Nuclear Safety Commission has been reviewing the safety guidelines for nearly five years now, but its members have remained divided. The district court's ruling seems to have taken into consideration the discord on the panel. The committee, therefore, should come up with an early conclusion. (From The Yomiuri Shimbun, March 25) (Mar. 25, 2006) © The Yomiuri Shimbun. ***************************************************************** 14 Daily Yomiuri: Court orders N-reactor shut/Utility told to suspend Shika facility operations over quake fears The Yomiuri Shimbun [ class=] The victorious plaintiffs stand in front of the Kanazawa District Court on Friday morning holding a banner that reads "Victory!" The Kanazawa District Court on Friday ordered Hokuriku Electric Power Co. to stop operating the No. 2 reactor at its Shika nuclear power plant in Shikamachi, Ishikawa Prefecture, ruling that the reactor may be susceptible to earthquakes. The ruling recognized a demand by a citizens group that the 1,358-megawatt No. 2 advanced boiling-water reactor be shut down. Hokuriku Electric has said it will appeal to the high court to overturn the ruling. Presiding Judge Kenichi Ido said, "The reactor has a problem in its antiseismic design, and there's a real possibility that the plaintiffs might be exposed to radiation if there was an accident at the plant." Thirty suits have been filed over the operation and installation of nuclear power plants, but prior to the Shika case only one suit had been successful. In January 2003, the Nagoya High Court's Kanazawa branch handed down a ruling that rescinded government approval to build the experimental Monju fast-breeder reactor in Tsuruga, Fukui Prefecture. But in May 2005, the Supreme Court overturned the high court's ruling on the Monju case. The lawsuit filed against the Shika nuclear power plant is the first involving a commercial water reactor that has proved successful. The district court ruling also likely will affect the operations of the nation's 54 remaining commercial nuclear reactors. The points of contention in the Shika case were how the risks posed by the 44-kilometer Ochigata fault line located near the No. 2 reactor of Shika nuclear power plant should be assessed, and whether guidelines for antiseismic designs drawn up by the Atomic Energy Commission of Japan in 1978 underestimate the dangers posed by earthquakes. In recognizing an individual's right to demand the shutdown of a nuclear reactor, Ido discussed the antiseismic design of the No. 2 nuclear reactor, located close to the Ochigata fault line. In March last year, the government's Earthquake Research Committee said there is a 2 percent possibility a major quake with a magnitude of 7.6 could occur along the fault line. The district court then ruled, "An earthquake beyond Hokuriku Electric's expectations could occur," and pointed out the following: -- The estimate that the largest earthquake that could possibly hit the area would have a magnitude of 6.5 is too conservative. -- The probability of an earthquake occurring along the Ochigata fault line was not taken into consideration. -- The method employed to determine the correct design needed to adequately cope with an earthquake is inappropriate. Three reactors at Tohoku Electric Power Co.'s Onagawa nuclear power station in Miyagi Prefecture were automatically shut down in August after being rocked by an earthquake stronger than had been factored into the reactors' antiseismic designs. The court rejected the plaintiffs' claims about the danger of the advanced boiling-water reactor, saying, "There is insufficient proof that an accident could occur [because of the design]." The group of 135 citizens filed the lawsuit in August 1999, demanding the construction of Shika nuclear power plant be stopped. Hokuriku Electric, however, started trial operations of the reactor on April 26, prompting the citizens to file a lawsuit in May demanding the firm stop operating the plant. (Mar. 25, 2006) © The Yomiuri Shimbun. ***************************************************************** 15 Daily Yomiuri: Ruling casts doubt on nuclear plant safety Science &Nature : Toshiaki Sato Yomiuri Shimbun Staff Writer The Kanazawa District Court ruling that ordered Hokuriku Electric Power Co. on Friday to halt operating the No. 2 reactor at its Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa Prefecture has cast doubt on the appropriateness of nuclear power plant safety inspections. If the ruling is finalized, many of the nation's 55 nuclear power reactors might be forced to temporarily shut down. Permission to construct a nuclear power plant is given after two examinations based on Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan guidelines--the first is conducted by the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, the second by the commission. The guidelines were formulated more than 20 years ago, and work to make them stricter is under way. Friday's court ruling in part is a preview of the likely content of the revision. Reactors are built to withstand a magnitude-6.5 earthquake with an epicenter directly below it, but some critics say this sets the bar for earthquake-resistance too low. This standard is expected to be revised. Experts also have found fault with designing reactors based on the so-called Osaki spectrum, which was created in 1979 by then Tokyo University Prof. Yorihiko Osaki based on strong motion data that took into consideration site condition, magnitude and epicentral distance of earthquakes. Adopting a more up-to-date method is under consideration, but the revision process has dragged on for five years, inviting criticism that it has taken too long. Friday's ruling can be described as a request for the latest scientific knowledge to be applied to nuclear power plant safety management, rather than just sweeping it under the carpet. It likely will greatly influence the nation's energy policy. The government nuclear energy policy outline compiled last year continued to extol nuclear power plants as key sources of electricity. The government wants nuclear power plants to generate 30 percent to 40 percent of total electricity output in 2030, the same level as present. But liberalization of the power industry has made for tougher times for some electrical power companies, and construction of nuclear power plant has become difficult. The Natural Resources and Energy Agency is devising a policy to attract long-term, large-scale investments, such as nuclear power plants, but this ruling will undoubtedly make electric companies more cautious about pouring money into such investments. (Mar. 25, 2006) © The Yomiuri Shimbun. ***************************************************************** 16 BBC: Japan's shaky nuclear record Last Updated: Friday, 24 March 2006 By Sarah Buckley BBC News Online The decision by a Japanese court to order the closure of the country's newest nuclear reactor casts a shadow over the future of Japan's nuclear power industry. Kansai Electric Power Co. President Yousaku Fuji makes a deep bow at the start of a press conference at its head office at Osaka, Monday August 9, 2004] Japan's nuclear industry has suffered a string of PR disasters Japan, with few natural resources of its own to meet its high energy demand, is very reliant on nuclear power. But a string of safety scares has prompted analysts to ask whether Japan is over-reliant for its energy on a potentially dangerous industry. Japan has the third largest nuclear generation capacity in the world, with 55 reactors, behind only France with around 80, and the United States with over 100. The Shika nuclear power plant, which will be closed if an appeal by the operating company fails, is Japan's second largest nuclear reactor, and its fate could affect the future of the country's 54 other reactors. If any of them are even temporarily closed down, it would leave the country with a serious power shortage, as they account for about a third of its electricity needs. In the US, in comparison, nuclear power provides about 20% of the country's electricity. Accidents Japan imported its first commercial nuclear power plant from the UK in 1966, and completed its first indigenous reactors in 1970. While Japan holds a good reputation for public safety, its nuclear industry has suffered several setbacks in recent years. This includes an accident at a plant in Tokaimura in 1999 caused by workers trying to save time by mixing excessive amounts of uranium in buckets, which killed two people and injured hundreds, and the temporary suspension of all 17 of Tokyo Electric Power Co's (Tepco) plants in April 2003 after it admitted falsifying safety records. In 2004, Japan suffered its worst-ever nuclear power accident, when hot water and steam leaking from a broken pipe at a nuclear plant run by Kansai in western Japan killed five workers. Satoshi Fujino, public relations officer at the Citizens' Nuclear Information Centre in Tokyo, has said the roots of the problems are two-fold: inadequacy in government regulation and a culture within the industry's management of covering up mistakes. Mr Fujino says the safety appraisal process, which takes place before a power plant is even built, was extremely lax, while the inspections carried out afterwards are "very haphazard". In the case of the Shika plant, local residents filed their lawsuit in 1999, complaining that the facility had not been built to a high enough standard to withstand earthquakes, but by the time the Kanazawa district court had weighed the evidence, the plant had already been built. [Workers check for radiation inside the Tokaimura plant] The accident at Tokaimura in 1999 set off a self-sustaining nuclear reaction The power companies insist that they over-engineer their reactors to withstand every conceivable tremor. They point to the last big earthquake in Kobe in 1995, in which buildings and highways collapsed and more than 6,000 people died, and yet none of the nuclear power stations in the area suffered significant damage. But public trust has been shaken by a number of mainly minor accidents in recent years. In the case of Japan's worst incident, at the Mihama plant in Fukui prefecture in 2004, maintenance and safety standards do appear to have been poor. Kepco, which manages the Mihama plant, has admitted since the accident that it had not properly checked the pipe which burst, fatally scalding five workers, since it was installed in 1976. It admitted that the pipe had only been inspected visually rather than by ultrasound. Because of this, the pipe had been allowed to degrade until it was wafer thin. Ironically, Japan's Kyodo news agency has reported that police believe workers may have been neglecting safety standards in order to prepare for their upcoming annual official inspection. The industry's reputation for shaky safety has resulted in popular opposition to the power plants - opinion polls show half the public believe the number of nuclear facilities should be reduced. 'Secrecy' Public confidence was not improved by the Tepco scandal, which demonstrated the culture of doctoring records within the industry. "Secrecy seems to be a characteristic of the nuclear industry, especially in Japan, because society is very much reluctant to talk about things. So information is fairly easily concealed, because the social system supports that kind of culture," Mr Fujino has said. But not all analysts agree. John Shepherd, director of Nucnet, an independent emergency reporting organisation, said at the time of the Mihama accident that the industry appeared to be learning from its mistakes. Kepco had responded quickly, and their account has been verified by three independent sources, he said. "From what I know of the industry, I think there's a real concerted effort to make people aware that safety is the utmost priority," he said, pointing to the launch of an independent body which monitors nuclear safety. But whatever progress has been made, this latest decision over the Shika plant is unlikely to reassure a jittery Japanese public. ***************************************************************** 17 Burlington Free Press: Standards high for fighting Vermont Yankee relicensure burlingtonfreepress.com | Burlington, Vermont Published: Friday, March 24, 2006 By David Gram The Associated Press BRATTLEBORO -- Groups opposed to the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant's request for a new 20-year operating license have 60 days beginning next week to ask the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission to hear their concerns. If the NRC's track record on granting such requests is any indication, however, they're likely to come away frustrated. The NRC has granted license extensions for 39 of the nation's 103 commercial reactors; it is reviewing applications from 12 more. No hearings sought by opposition groups have been held. The NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is the first stop for such a request. Last month, it said it would hold hearings on contentions raised by a coalition of environmental groups about corrosion in the reactor containment at the Oyster Creek nuclear plant in New Jersey, which also is seeking to extend its license. Plant owner AmerGen and the NRC staff have appealed the Oyster Creek decision to the NRC's five commissioners. In two previous instances in which the licensing board granted petitions for hearings -- on two plants in the Carolinas -- the commission reversed those decisions. The relicensing review process also looks at a much narrower range of issues than those routinely raised by industry critics. Worries about a nuclear plant's vulnerability to terrorism, the lack of a permanent disposal site for radioactive waste or the chances that an evacuation plan will work in a real emergency are not considered germane, NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said. "The commission has said time and time again that issues like emergency planning, spent fuel storage and security should be dealt with in the here and now and not in connection with a license renewal," Sheehan said. Despite those odds, Raymond Shadis, adviser to the anti-nuclear group New England Coalition, said his group would seek to intervene. "Of course we are." Shadis acknowledged that the hurdles are high. "Over time the NRC has accrued unto itself case law. (The industry has) won little bits and pieces and over time and in the aggregate they have damn near eliminated the public hearing right," he said. He also complained that while a nuclear plant could take a year or more to prepare a license renewal application, opponents will have 60 days to try to absorb 900 pages of highly technical material and hire expert witnesses "willing to put their professional reputations on the line" to challenge the application. Vermont Yankee spokesman Robert Williams said plant engineers actually had spent 2 1/2 years preparing the application, and that it was 1,100 pages. "It involved 40,000 engineering staff hours," he said. He added, "We think that two months is an adequate time for anyone who wishes to intervene to decide whether they want to do that." Shadis said it would take some time to develop the issues his group might want to raise. One could be the same sort of corrosion seen in the primary reactor containment at Oyster Creek, he said. "When they ordered all the parts and pieces (when Vermont Yankee was built), they were specified for 40 years of endurance," Shadis said. "Now not only do they want to run them beyond that time, but ... exposed to more extreme conditions," stemming from the plant's recently won permission to increase its power output by 20 percent. Jonathan Block, a Putney lawyer who has represented the anti-nuclear Citizens' Awareness Network in past regulatory proceedings, said the odds of getting a hearing before the NRC were not as long as some were trying to paint them. "It's propaganda that the agency (NRC) is putting out with the intent of discouraging participation in this process," he said. Sheehan said the industry's unbeaten record on winning license extensions -- it has a similar record on requests to increase the plants' power output -- shouldn't be taken as an indication that nuclear plants get a free pass from the NRC. "You have to look at the broader perspective here. Before companies even submit applications (for license renewal) they have to do a tremendous amount of advance work," Sheehan said, adding that the license renewal process typically costs a nuclear plant owner about $10 million. Copyright ©2006 Burlingtonfreepress.com All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 18 UPI: Japanese nuclear reactor ordered shut United Press International - NewsTrack - 3/24/2006 3:48:00 AM -0500 KANAZAWA, Japan, March 24 (UPI) -- A Japanese court Friday ordered the shutdown of Japan's second-largest nuclear reactor, saying its anti-earthquake safety measures are inadequate. The Kanazawa District Court said that Hokuriku Electric Power Co., the operator of the Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa prefecture north of Tokyo, had not taken into consideration the possibility of earthquakes at the Ochigata fault zone. The government's Earthquake Research Committee has said a quake with a magnitude of 7.6 could strike along the fault, Kyodo News reported Friday. A group of 135 citizens filed a lawsuit in May 2005 to demand the shutdown, citing that the nuclear reactor had been built following 20-year-old building guidelines for earthquake resistance. However, Hokuriku Electric Power insisted that it had taken all necessary measures to ensure safety in operating the reactor. Judge Kenichi Ido said, "There is a possibility that the plaintiffs may be exposed to radiation in an accident at the plant to be caused by an earthquake that is beyond the defendant's expectation." Hokuriku Electric Power said it will appeal the ruling. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 19 AFP: Nuclear an integral part of China's 15-year energy plan Fri Mar 24, 1:14 AM ET BEIJING (AFP) - China's will speed up construction of nuclear power stations as part of a 15-year national strategy to satisfy massive energy demand, state media has reported. The State Council, or cabinet, has approved the energy blueprint for 2005-2020 with nuclear to play an "integral role", the China Daily reported. "According to the blueprint, nuclear power is a strategic energy source and should be actively developed to meet the country's growing demand," the English-language newspaper said. "Nuclear power stations will be integral to the country's energy strategy and will play a significant role in enhancing national strength and technology." By 2020, the country's nuclear power generation capacity is expected to reach 40,000 Megawatts, or four percent of China's total power output, the report said, citing government think-tank China Atomic Information Network. China's current nuclear generating capacity is 8,700 megawatts, just under two percent of total output. To reach the target, China has to build at least one nuclear power station with a capacity of 1,800 megawatts per year, the network said. The ambitious plan is being implemented in an effort to overcome ongoing energy shortages and to build up alternatives to massive coal use, which is causing serious air pollution, acid rain and killing thousands of miners. China already has 11 nuclear reactors in operation and had previously announced plans to build dozens more. Like most areas of Chinese industry, China's nuclear drive has sparked huge international interest. Russian President Vladimir Putin" /> Vladimir Putinlobbied during his two-day visit to Beijing this week for his nation's nuclear industry to have a greater role in China while French and US firms are currently bidding to build four reactors. Australia is also in negotiations with China to supply it with uranium. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 20 FT.com: Setback to Japan’s nuclear industry By David Pilling in Tokyo Published: March 24 2006 09:48 | Last updated: March 24 2006 [japan nuclear] A court ordered the shutdown of Japan’s second-biggest nuclear power plant on Friday on the grounds that it was vulnerable to earthquakes, in a verdict that could have important implications for the embattled nuclear industry. Operators of Japan’s nuclear power stations, which account for about one-third of electricity production, have been wracked by a series of scandals and accidents that have shaken public faith in the industry’s safety. Friday’s verdict opens up a potentially important legal front against an industry operating in one of the world’s most earthquake-prone regions. “This is a very significant verdict,” said Aileen Mioko Smith, director of Green Action. “There are some power plants in Japan that are seismically even worse than this one.” Most nuclear plants are built in areas thought to be seismically stable. But activists point out that Kobe, where 6,500 people died in a massive 1995 earthquake, was previously thought to be in a non-seismic zone. Kenichi Ido, presiding judge of the Kanazawa District Court, on Friday ordered Hokuriku Electric Power to shut down its 1,358-megawatt Shika plant, which began operating this month. The plant, which cost Y370bn to build and is Japan’s 55th commercial reactor, is located near the Ochigata fault line, which the government judges to be prone to strong earthquakes. Hokuriku Electric said that it would appeal the ruling, and that it had no plans to shut down its “very safe” plant. Hokuriku’s share price closed unchanged on Friday, while the shares of other nuclear power operators rose slightly, suggesting that investors were confident the ruling would be overturned. Jeff Kingston, professor of Asian studies at Tokyo’s Temple university, said: “District courts tend to be more liberal, but the batting average of the nuclear industry gets better the higher they go up the legal system.” Last year, the supreme court overruled a lower court, saying that government approval for the Monju prototype fast-breeder reactor in Fukui prefecture was sound. The experimental reactor was shut down in 1995 following a major sodium coolant leak and subsequent cover-up. Energy bureaucrats are generally in favour of expanding nuclear power generation as a way of further weaning Japan from dependence on Middle Eastern oil. They have had to tread carefully after a number of recent incidents, including the death of five nuclear power workers in 2004 and the shutdown of 17 nuclear reactors after safety data was fabricated. Tatsujiro Suzuki, senior research scientist at the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, said Hokuriku might be able to continue operating the plant since the court decision had not been accompanied by an injunction. However, he said: “Seismic safety of nuclear plants will certainly influence the nuclear policy debate. It won’t help [the industry’s case], that’s for sure.” Mr Suzuki said the fallout from on Friday’s verdict could delay a decision by Saga prefecture in western Japan to accept Kyushu Electric Power’s plan to use uranium-plutonium mixed oxide fuel, or MOX, at one of its reactors. Japan’s public is very sensitive to the potential dangers of earthquakes after a recent scandal involving falsification of building safety data. Hundreds of people have been forced to leave homes revealed to be prone to collapse in even mild earthquakes. © Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2006. "FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times. ***************************************************************** 21 NRC: In the Matter of David Geisen; Establishment of Atomic Safety FR Doc E6-4269 [Federal Register: March 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 57)] [Notices] [Page 14958] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24mr06-124] and Licensing Board Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, published in the Federal Register, 37 FR 28,710 (1972), and the Commission's regulations, see 10 CFR 2.104, 2.202, 2.300, 2.303, 2.309, 2.311, 2.318, and 2.321, notice is hereby given that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is being established to preside over the following proceeding: David Geisen (Enforcement Action) This proceeding concerns a request for a hearing submitted on February 23, 2006, by David Geisen in response to a January 4, 2006 NRC staff ``Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-License Activities,'' 71 FR 2571 (January 17, 2006). Under the terms of that immediately effective staff order, the staff concluded that because Mr. Geisen (1) had knowledge of the degraded condition of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) head at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station and the limitations experienced during RPV head inspections; and (2) had deliberately provided materially incomplete and inaccurate information in connection with the continued operation of the Davis-Besse facility for a period prior to a February 2002 refueling outage that resulted in a significant adverse condition going uncorrected, Mr. Geisen was, among other things, prohibited for five years from engaging in NRC-licensed activities. The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges: Michael C. Farrar, Chair, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. E. Roy Hawkens, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Nicholas G. Trikouros, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed with the administrative judges in accordance with 10 CFR 2.202. Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of March 2006. G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. [FR Doc. E6-4269 Filed 3-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 22 NRC: In the Matter of Certain Licensees Authorized To Possess and FR Doc E6-4279 [Federal Register: March 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 57)] [Notices] [Page 14959-14961] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24mr06-128] Transfer Items Containing Radioactive Material Quantities of Concern; Order Imposing Additional Security Measures (Effective Immediately) The Licensees identified in Attachment A \1\ to this Order hold licenses issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) or an Agreement State, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR parts 30, 32, 50, 70 and 71, or equivalent Agreement State regulations. The licenses authorize them to possess and transfer items containing radioactive material quantities of concern. This Order is being issued to all such Licensees who may transport radioactive material quantities of concern under the NRC's authority to protect the common defense and security, which has not been relinquished to the Agreement States. The Orders require compliance with specific additional security measures to enhance the security for transport of certain radioactive material quantities of concern. \1\ Attachment A contains sensitive unclassified information and will not be released to the public. On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, utilizing large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to Licensees in order to strengthen Licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on this regulated activity. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State and local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment in order to assess the adequacy of the current security measures. In addition, the Commission commenced a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements. As a result of its initial consideration of current safeguards and security requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community, the Commission has determined that certain security measures are required to be implemented by Licensees as prudent, interim measures to address the current threat environment in a consistent manner. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachment B \2\ of this Order, on all Licensees identified in Attachment A of this Order. These additional security measures, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the common defense and security continue to be adequately protected in the current threat environment. These additional security measures will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise. ---------- \2\ Attachment B contains Safeguards Information and will not be released to the public. ---------- The Commission recognizes that Licensees may have already initiated many of the measures set forth in Attachment B to this Order in response to previously issued Safeguards and Threat Advisories or on their own. It is also recognized that some measures may not be possible or necessary for all shipments of radioactive material quantities of concern, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the Licensees' specific circumstances to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe transport of radioactive material quantities of concern. Although the security measures implemented by Licensees in response to the Safeguards and Threat Advisories have been adequate to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of common defense and [[Page 14960]] security, in light of the continuing threat environment, the Commission concludes that the security measures must be embodied in an Order, consistent with the established regulatory framework. The Commission has determined that the security measures contained in Attachment B of this Order contain Safeguards Information and will not be released to the public as per Order entitled, ``Issuance of Order Imposing Requirements for Protecting Certain Safeguards Information,'' issued on November 5, 2004 and issued specifically to the Licensees identified in Attachment A to this Order on the date of this Order. To provide assurance that Licensees are implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current threat environment, all licensees identified in Attachment A to this Order shall implement the requirements identified in Attachment B to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that in light of the common defense and security matters identified above, which warrant the issuance of this Order, the public health and safety require that this Order be immediately effective. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 53, 63, 81, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR parts 30, 32, 70 and 71, It is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that all licensees identified in attachment a to this order shall comply with the following: A. All Licensees shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any Commission or Agreement State regulation or license to the contrary, comply with the requirements described in Attachment B to this Order. The Licensees shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachment B to the Order and shall complete implementation by September 6, 2006, or before the first shipment of RAMQC, whichever is sooner. This Order supercedes the additional transportation security measures prescribed in Attachment 2, Section 7.d. of the Manufacturer's and Distributor's Order issued January 12, 2004. B.1. All Licensees shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission, (1) if they are unable to comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment B, (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in their specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation of any of the requirements would cause the Licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission or Agreement State regulation or its license. The notification shall provide the Licensees' justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement. 2. Any Licensee that considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment B to this Order would adversely impact the safe transport of radioactive material quantities of concern must notify the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment B requirement in question, or a schedule for modifying the activity to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, the Licensee must supplement its response to Condition B.1 of this Order to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications as required in Condition B.1. C. All Licensees shall report to the Commission when they have achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment B. D. Notwithstanding any provisions of the Commission's or an Agreement State's regulations to the contrary, all measures implemented or actions taken in response to this order shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise. Licensee responses to Conditions B.1, B.2, and C above shall be submitted to the Document Control Desk, ATTN: Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. In addition, Licensee submittals that contain sensitive security related information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with Licensees' Safeguards Information or Safeguards Information--Modified Handling program. The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by the Licensee of good cause. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the Licensee must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards or the Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the Licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement, to the Office of Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator for NRC Region I, II, III, or IV, at the respective addresses specified in Appendix A to 10 CFR part 73, appropriate for the specific facility, and to the Licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the Licensee. Because of possible disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for a hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to and also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to . If a person other than the Licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If a hearing is requested by the Licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(I), the Licensee, may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on [[Page 14961]] mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty (20) days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An Answer or a Request for Hearing Shall Not Stay the Immediate Effectiveness of this Order. Dated this 10th day of March 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jack R. Strosnider, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E6-4279 Filed 3-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 23 NRC: State of Minnesota: Discontinuance of Certain Commission FR Doc E6-4304 [Federal Register: March 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 57)] [Notices] [Page 14965-14966] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24mr06-130] [[Page 14965]] Regulatory Authority Within the State; Notice of Agreement Between the NRC and the State of Minnesota AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of Agreement between the NRC and the State of Minnesota. SUMMARY: This notice is announcing that on February 3, 2006, Dr. Nils J, Diaz, Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and on March 2, 2006, Governor Tim Pawlenty of the State of Minnesota signed an Agreement as authorized by section 274b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act). The Agreement provides for the Commission to discontinue its regulatory authority and for Minnesota to assume regulatory authority over the possession and use of byproduct material as defined in section 11e.(1) of the Act, source material, and special nuclear materials (in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass). Under the Agreement, a person in Minnesota possessing these materials is exempt from certain Commission regulations. The exemptions have been previously published in the Federal Register (FR) and are codified in the Commission's regulations as 10 CFR part 150. The Agreement is published here as required by section 274e. of the Act. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron T. McCraw, Office of State and Tribal Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone (301) 415-1277; e-mail ATM@NRC.GOV. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The draft Agreement was published in the FR for comment once a week for four consecutive weeks (see, e.g., 70 FR 68102, November 9, 2005) as required by the Act. The public comment period ended on December 9, 2005. The Commission received no comments. The proposed Minnesota Agreement is consistent with Commission policy and thus meets the criteria for an Agreement with the Commission. After considering the request for an Agreement by the Governor of Minnesota, the supporting documentation submitted with the request for an Agreement, and its interactions with the staff of the Minnesota Department of Health, the NRC staff completed an assessment of the Minnesota program. A copy of the staff assessment was made available in the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) and electronically on NRC's Web site. Based on the staff's assessment, the Commission determined on January 26, 2006, that the proposed Minnesota program for control of radiation hazards is adequate to protect public health and safety, and compatible with the Commission's program. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Documents referred to in this notice and other publicly available documents are available electronically at the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of March, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. Agreement Between the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the State of Minnesota for Discontinuance of Certain Commission Regulatory Authority and Responsibility Within the State Pursuant to Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, As Amended Whereas, The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) is authorized under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to enter into agreements with the Governor of any State providing for discontinuance of the regulatory authority of the Commission within the State under Chapters 6, 7, and 8, and section 161 of the Act with respect to byproduct materials as defined in sections 11e. (1) and (2) of the Act, source materials, and special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass; and, Whereas, The Governor of the State of Minnesota is authorized under Sec. 144.1202, Subdivision 1, Minnesota Statutes, to enter into this Agreement with the Commission; and, Whereas, The Governor of the State of Minnesota certified on July 6, 2004, that the State of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as the State) has a program for the control of radiation hazards adequate to protect public health and safety with respect to the materials within the State covered by this Agreement, and that the State desires to assume regulatory responsibility for such materials; and, Whereas, The Commission found on January 26, 2006, that the program of the State for the regulation of the materials covered by this Agreement is compatible with the Commission's program for the regulation of such materials and is adequate to protect public health and safety; and, Whereas, The State and the Commission recognize the desirability and importance of cooperation between the Commission and the State in the formulation of standards for protection against hazards of radiation and in assuring that State and Commission programs for protection against hazards of radiation will be coordinated and compatible; and, Whereas, The Commission and the State recognize the desirability of the reciprocal recognition of licenses, and of the granting of limited exemptions from licensing of those materials subject to this Agreement; and, Whereas, This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the provisions of the Act; Now, Therefore, It is hereby agreed between the Commission and the Governor of the State, acting on behalf of the State, as follows: Article I Subject to the exceptions provided in Articles II, IV, and V, the Commission shall discontinue, as of the effective date of this Agreement, the regulatory authority of the Commission in the State under Chapters 6, 7, and 8, and section 161 of the Act with respect to the following materials: A. Byproduct materials as defined in section 11e. (1) of the Act; B. Source materials; C. Special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass. Article II This Agreement does not provide for discontinuance of any authority and the Commission shall retain authority and responsibility with respect to: A. The regulation of the construction and operation of any production or utilization facility or any uranium enrichment facility; [[Page 14966]] B. The regulation of the export from or import into the United States of byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials, or of any production or utilization facility; C. The regulation of the disposal into the ocean or sea of byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials waste as defined in the regulations or orders of the Commission; D. The regulation of the disposal of such other byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials as the Commission from time to time determines by regulation or order should, because of the hazards or potential hazards thereof, not be so disposed without a license from the Commission; E. The evaluation of radiation safety information on sealed sources or devices containing byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials and the registration of the sealed sources or devices for distribution, as provided for in regulations or orders of the Commission; F. The regulation of the land disposal of byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials waste received from other persons; G. The extraction or concentration of source material from source material ore and the management and disposal of the resulting byproduct material. Article III With the exception of those activities identified in Article II, paragraphs A through D, this Agreement may be amended, upon application by the State and approval by the Commission, to include one or more of the additional activities specified in Article II, paragraphs E, F and G, whereby the State may then exert regulatory authority and responsibility with respect to those activities and materials. Article IV Notwithstanding this Agreement, the Commission may from time to time by rule, regulation, or order, require that the manufacturer, processor, or producer of any equipment, device, commodity, or other product containing source, byproduct, or special nuclear materials shall not transfer possession or control of such product except pursuant to a license or an exemption from licensing issued by the Commission. Article V This Agreement shall not affect the authority of the Commission under subsection 161b or 161i of the Act to issue rules, regulations, or orders to protect the common defense and security, to protect restricted data, or to guard against the loss or diversion of special nuclear materials. Article VI The Commission will cooperate with the State and other Agreement States in the formulation of standards and regulatory programs of the State and the Commission for protection against hazards of radiation and to assure that Commission and State programs for protection against hazards of radiation will be coordinated and compatible. The State agrees to cooperate with the Commission and other Agreement States in the formulation of standards and regulatory programs of the State and the Commission for protection against hazards of radiation and to assure that the State's program will continue to be compatible with the program of the Commission for the regulation of materials covered by this Agreement. The State and the Commission agree to keep each other informed of proposed changes in their respective rules and regulations, and to provide each other the opportunity for early and substantive contribution to the proposed changes. The State and the Commission agree to keep each other informed of events, accidents, and licensee performance that may have generic implication or otherwise be of regulatory interest. Article VII The Commission and the State agree that it is desirable to provide reciprocal recognition of licenses for the materials listed in Article I licensed by the other party or by any other Agreement State. Accordingly, the Commission and the State agree to develop appropriate rules, regulations, and procedures by which such reciprocity will be accorded. Article VIII The Commission, upon its own initiative after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the State, or upon request of the Governor of the State, may terminate or suspend all or part of this Agreement and reassert the licensing and regulatory authority vested in it under the Act if the Commission finds that (1) such termination or suspension is required to protect public health and safety, or (2) the State has not complied with one or more of the requirements of section 274 of the Act. The Commission may also, pursuant to section 274j of the Act, temporarily suspend all or part of this Agreement if, in the judgement of the Commission, an emergency situation exists requiring immediate action to protect public health and safety and the State has failed to take necessary steps. The Commission shall periodically review this Agreement and actions taken by the State under this Agreement to ensure compliance with section 274 of the Act which requires a State program to be adequate to protect public health and safety with respect to the materials covered by this Agreement and to be compatible with the Commission's program. Article IX This Agreement shall become effective on March 31, 2006, and shall remain in effect unless and until such time as it is terminated pursuant to Article VIII. Done at Rockville, Maryland, in triplicate, this 3rd day of February, 2006. For the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nils J. Diaz, Chairman. Done at St. Paul, Minnesota, in triplicate, this 2nd day of March, 2006. For the State of Minnesota. Tim Pawlenty, Governor. [FR Doc. E6-4304 Filed 3-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 24 Korea Times: Emergency Response Problems Found in Three Nuclear Power Plants Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation SEOUL (Yonhap) _ Three nuclear power plants in South Korea have been found to have insufficient emergency response capabilities, officials said Friday. According to officials at the Ministry of Science and Technology, some problems have been detected during a recent inspection of the three units at Kori, Wolsong and Yonggwang. ``Workers at the three plants did not react in a timely manner during the early stages of an emergency situation,ˇŻˇŻ one official said. South Korea has 20 operational power-generating nuclear reactors. Kori and Wolsong, on the southeastern coast, have four reactors each, and Yonggwang, on the southwestern coast, has six. The Uljin plant, on the east coast, that was not checked this time, has another six reactors. The three reactors were checked for their preparedness of the emergency response system, effectiveness in command, control in a crisis situation, and the capability of workers to react to critical situations. The workers, however, did a fine job in overseeing power generating operations during the night and maintaining emergency diesel power generators, the official said. Noting that South Korea gets more than 40 percent of its electricity from nuclear power plants, the official said it's important to maintain all reactors safely. 03-24-2006 19:47 ***************************************************************** 25 Middletown Press: Conn. Yankee settles lawsuit News - 03/24/2006 By JOSH MROZINSKI, Middletown Press Staff HADDAM -- A settlement has been reached between Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co. and the Bechtel Power Corp. The claims filed by the companies against each other in 2003 in the Hartford County Superior Court have been withdrawn, court and Connecticut Yankee officials say. "The cases are being withdrawn," said Kelley Smith, Connecticut Yankee spokeswoman. Smith said she could not comment on the settlement, which was reached Tuesday. The litigation stems from a dispute in April 1999 about who was responsible for theremediation of groundwater contaminated with strontium-90. The radioactive isotope was in reactor water that had seeped through a leaky tank, Connecticut Yankee officials said. In court documents, Connecticut Yankee claimed that Bechtel had pledged to remediate the contaminated water. The power company also claimed that Bechtel failed to perform work on time. Bechtel claimed that Connecticut Yankee did not disclose the full extent of the contamination during the bid process. Connecticut Yankee, Bechtel claimed, enlarged the scope of the work without offering fair compensation. Connecticut Yankee took over the decommissioning process in 2003 after Bechtel was fired. "We’re scheduled to complete the physical decommissioning by the year’s end," said Smith. Tuesday officials began to discuss the future of the Community Decommissioning Advisory Committee, a citizen’s group that has overseen the decommissioning process. Hugh Curley, CDAC chairman, said the role of the new committee and the meeting format are being discussed. "We formed a subcommittee that will meet in two weeks," said Curley. To contact Josh Mrozinski, call (860) 347-3331, ext. 222 or e-mail jmrozinski@middletownpress.com. ©The Middletown Press 2006 ***************************************************************** 26 Belfast Telegraph: Concern at Chernobyl effects on our children Newry mayor urges united front against atomic power By Linda McKee 24 March 2006 A Co Down mayor has called on councils to lobby against nuclear power following news that the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986 may have caused more than 1,000 infant deaths in Britain. And analysis of statistics in areas where 'black rain' clouds passed over in the wake of the Soviet reactor blast suggest an infant mortality trend which has gone unnoticed for 20 years, a conference heard yesterday. Newry and Mourne mayor Pat McGinn, who attended the conference, said he was deeply concerned that health and wellbeing on this side of the Irish Sea, particularly of young people, could have been affected. He said news that the effects of fallout from the 20-year-old Chernobyl explosion were two orders of magnitude greater than expected showed up the dangers of the Government's policies on nuclear power. The new focus on the renaissance of the nuclear industry by the Blair government was "fundamentally flawed and fraught with dangerous health implications," Mr McGinn added. Epidemiologist and statistician John Urquhart said infant deaths had risen in areas where the fallout cloud had swept across the UK. Mr Urquhart said that, while public perception was that fallout had affected only small parts of the UK, official maps showed a cloud sweeping up through Kent to the East Midlands before curving into the North West and passing over the Isle of Man towards Northern Ireland. He told the conference at London's City Hall that maps of where the fallout passed and plans highlighting apparent irregularities in death figures showed a "remarkable fit". Looking at health figures for around 200 hospital districts, Mr Urquhart said there was an 11% rise in infant deaths between 1986 and 1989 as opposed to a figure of just 4% in non-affected areas. He said the apparent rise - taking in both neonatal fatalities (deaths within the first 28 days of life) and cot deaths - translated to more than 1,000 deaths when social factors are borne in mind. Mr Urquhart said that in Bradford neonatal deaths appeared to have almost doubled from 33 to 64 in the year of the disaster, with similar trends detected elsewhere. "Traditionally, children under one have always been most sensitive to environmental influences," he said. Mr McGinn said delegates from across Ireland were deeply concerned about the rise in infant mortality reported by Mr Urquhart. "This finding has caused great concern to us all and it is clear that Sellafield has and continues to play a key role in affecting the health and well-being of all who live on this side of the Irish sea, particularly our young people." Mr McGinn said Mr Urquhart's presentation suggested that, while Ulster people had been somewhat sheltered from Chernobyl, the effects on communities of the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant has been damning. "The nuclear industry throughout the world has a key interest in not only Chernobyl but Sellafield and in downplaying concerns and issues of contamination," said Mr McGinn. "It is essential that not only Newry and Mourne but all local authorities throughout Ireland collectively and cohesively lobby against the development of this deadly industry," he said. Mr Urquhart told the conference that the apparent infant mortality trend had not been noticed before because of over-reliance on scientific models rather than observation. He said models in use in 1986 had persuaded decision-makers that the impact of fallout from Chernobyl on the British Isles would be too small to detect. Mr Urquhart was addressing a Nuclear Free Local Authorities conference in London to coincide with the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl blast. Back | Return to top | Printable Story © 2006 Independent News and Media (NI) a division of Independent News &media (UK) Ltd ***************************************************************** 27 Guardian Unlimited: Japanese Nuclear Reactor Ordered Shut Down From the Associated Press [UP] Friday March 24, 2006 3:46 PM AP Photo TOK803 By CHISAKI WATANABE Associated Press Writer TOKYO (AP) - A court Friday ordered the shutdown of Japan's second-largest nuclear reactor in response to a lawsuit by residents who feared it could leak dangerous radiation during a powerful earthquake, an official said. The Kanazawa District Court in northwestern Japan ordered the shutdown of the newly operating No. 2 Shika reactor, court official Akihiko Yasuno said. Judge Kenichi Ido ruled that the reactor, operated by Hokuriku Electric Power Co., could expose residents to radioactivity should a powerful earthquake occur, Yasuno said. He gave no other details. The reactor began commercial operations last week after getting approval from the government's nuclear safety agency. The company said it would immediately appeal. The plaintiffs said they were gratified by the decision, which reflects persistent concerns about nuclear power safety in Japan. The industry has been beset for years with accidents, cover-ups and public opposition. ``I think today's ruling will bring to light whether power reactors used in Japan can withstand earthquakes, and if the government's quake safety guidelines are good enough,'' plaintiff Tetsuya Tanaka told reporters. Kanazawa is about 180 miles northwest of Tokyo. The 135 plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in May 2005 claiming they would be in constant danger because the reactor is near a faultline that a government committee has said a quake with a magnitude of 7.6 could strike, Kyodo News agency reported. The plaintiffs said that the No. 2 reactor was built based on outdated earthquake guidelines drawn up 20 years ago, according to Kyodo. The power company has said it took all necessary measures to ensure the plant's safety, and that the reactor is needed to guarantee a steady supply of electricity, Kyodo said. The report said the government's nuclear safety commission found the reactor met standards for quake resistance, but that the commission is reviewing quake resistance guidelines for nuclear power reactors built to withstand a 6.5-magnitude quake. Resource-poor Japan is heavily dependent on its nuclear program, with the country's 55 nuclear reactors supplying about a third of its electricity, according to the Natural Resources and Energy Agency. The government has said it wants to build 11 new plants and raise electricity output from nuclear power to nearly 40 percent of the national supply by 2010. But the public has been increasingly wary of reactor safety. In 2004, five workers were killed when a corroded pipe at a reactor in western Japan ruptured and sprayed them with boiling water and steam in the country's worst nuclear plant accident. No radiation escaped from that reactor, which has since resumed operations. Earlier this week, fire broke out at a nuclear plant's waste incinerator in western Japan, but officials said no radiation leaked. Two workers were injured. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 28 Guardian Unlimited Books: Extracts | No atom of doubt (Lovelock Interview) [UP] In this exclusive extract from The Revenge of Gaia, radical environmental scientist James Lovelock examines the myths that power our fear of nuclear reactors. We must conquer our irrational fear of nuclear fission if we are to stop the catastrophic effects of global warming Friday March 24, 2006 [The Revenge of Gaia by James Lovelock] Chernobyl and the safety of nuclear reactors Franklin Roosevelt famously said on taking office in 1933, 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself.' Most of us have unreasoning fears which creep unwanted into the mind, and bring a shudder; mine are about overwhelming torrents of muddy water, at seeing and hearing a towering wall of water bearing down on me; something moving so fast that there is no chance of escape. I tell myself it is a foolish fear; we live high enough and far enough from the ocean that no conceivable tsunami would ever reach my home, and there are no great dams, filled with miles of water, upstream on our river. But still this nightmare scene steals into my dreams. I can well understand why many have similar fears of a nuclear catastrophe, fears that sensible explanation is never able to calm. We need emission-free energy sources immediately, and there is no serious contender to nuclear fission. So how can we overcome our fear of nuclear energy? Remembering my own inconsolable fear of overwhelming torrents, it might be useful to compare the dangers facing of two families - one living 100 miles downstream of the huge Yangtze Dam in China, a fine example of a powerful and effective source of renewable energy, and another living 100 miles downwind of the nuclear power station at Chernobyl, the worst example of the wrong kind of nuclear technology. If the dam burst, perhaps as many as a million people would be killed in the wave of water roaring down the course of the Yangtze River. When the Chernobyl nuclear power station suffered a steam explosion and subsequently caught fire, releasing a large proportion of its radioactivity into an easterly air stream, the products were carried by the wind across much of the Ukraine and Europe. Many think that tens of thousands if not millions died as a result of the Chernobyl accident. As we will soon see, it was no more than 75. I have never seen a dam burst or experienced in real life the terror that it would bring, but I have been in a cloud of radioactive nuclides escaping from a fire at a nuclear reactor. It happened in 1956, when the military reactor at Windscale in Cumbria caught fire and released a significant part of its accumulated activity into a northerly air stream, blowing down across England. At the time I was working as a scientist at the National Institute for Medical Research in north London. I was trying to discover, using the radioactive isotope iodine 131, more about the nature of the membrane of the human red blood cell. When I went to take my measurement I was annoyed to find that my primitive home-made Geiger counter was registering background beta radiation at a rate much higher than I expected of my samples, so measurement would be inaccurate if not impossible. My first thought was that my temperamental electronics were misbehaving, and I was about to start checking them when a colleague, Dr Tata, entered my lab and asked if I was having trouble measuring I131. He and another scientist in the institute had found the background counts far above their usual level. Iodine is a volatile element, and we wondered if one of the three of us had accidentally spilt some radioactive iodine or flushed it unwisely into the laboratory sink. A few checks showed that I131 was everywhere throughout the building. We were all of us somewhat chastened and felt an unattributable sense of guilt. It was not until nearly twenty years later, on a visit to the Atomic Energy Authority's institute at Harwell, near Oxford, that I heard about the Windscale fire and the cloud of radioactive debris that contaminated most of England. In 1956, the year of the fire, the Government was able to keep the bad news bottled tight. They had the excuse that the reactor in question was part of the nuclear weapons programme and therefore steeped in official secrecy. The fledgling green lobbies and the media missed the chance to scare us all, perhaps even to death. So far as I am aware, no one has reported any deaths or morbidity that could have come from the exposure of many millions of people to the release of 740 trillion becquerels of I131. In the UK the National Health Service was a good record keeper and any significant rise in the incidence of cancers would have been noticed. It was a real danger only to those at the scene itself, the fireman and the workers at the plant. But that must be wrong you say. Respectable media, for example the Times and the BBC, have more than once stated that 30,000 and more people have died in Europe and Russia as a result of exposure to radiation from the Chernobyl accident. I prefer to believe the physicians and radiobiologists of the UN agency the World Health Organisation (WHO). They examined the health of those in the area polluted by the plume from Chernobyl fourteen and nineteen years after the accident, and they were able to find evidence of only forty-five and seventy-five people, respectively, who had died. These were workers, firemen and others who bravely and successfully fought the fire in the burning reactor and carried out the cleanup afterwards. So where do these false claims of a huge death from Chernobyl come from? They arise mostly from a perverse misinterpretation of the facts of radiobiology. Careful and difficult observation and data gathering by epidemiologists have established a direct linear link between the dose of radiation received and death from cancer. Their data comes from the experiences of Japanese people exposed to the radiation from the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima, from the use of radiation in medicine for both treatment and diagnosis, and from the life histories of radiologists and workers exposed to radiation during their working lives. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) issued a report in 2000; this summarises the evidence and concludes that the hypothesis of a direct and linear response between radiation and harm done best fits the data. From the conclusions we could reasonably expect that the consequences of exposing the entire population of Europe to ten millisieverts of radiation, about as much as would come from 100 chest X-rays, would be 400,000 deaths. Put like this it seems a terrible risk, but it is an amazingly naďve way of presenting the facts. What matters is not whether we die but when we die. If the 400,000 were to die the week after the irradiation it would indeed be terrible, but what if instead they lived out their normal lifespans but died a week earlier than expected? The facts of radiation biology are that ten millisieverts of radiation reduces human lifespan by about four days, a much less emotive conclusion. Using the same calculations, the exposure of all those living in Northern Europe to Chernobyl's radiation on average reduces their lifespan by one to three hours. For comparison, a life-long smoker will lose seven years of life. No wonder the media and the anti-nuclear activists prefer to talk of the risk of cancer death. It makes a better story than the loss of a few hours of life expectation. If a lie is defined as a statement that purposefully intends to deceive, the persistent repetition of the huge Chernobyl death toll is a powerful lie. Chernobyl may well have cost some of those living in the Ukraine and Byelorussia even several weeks of their life expectancy. How different it would have been had they lived on the flood plain of a river with a huge dam upstream that burst. Then they would have lost their whole life expectancy; this form of renewable energy can be much more deadly than nuclear. A more solid and useful estimate of the comparative safety of the different energy sources comes from the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland, in their 2001 report. They examined all of the large-scale energy sources of the world to compare their safety records. I was astounded that they found nuclear energy to be the safest of all large-scale energy sources. The Swiss record puts it about forty times safer than taking energy by burning coal or oil and it was safer even than the renewable hydro-electricity. Yet so persistent have been the untruths about nuclear energy that we still regard taking energy from uranium in a reactor as more dangerous than burning carbon fuel in the oxygen of the air. The persistent distortion of the truth about the health risks of nuclear energy should make us wonder if the other statements about nuclear energy are equally flawed. I wonder about the statement in August 2005 from the nuclear decommissioning authority, that it would cost Ł6 billion to decommission the UK's stocks of plutonium, as part of a Ł56 billion package for decommissioning the UK's nuclear installations. It is true that plutonium is a poisonous element and there is always of risk that it may be stolen to make nuclear weapons. But the stocks of plutonium in the UK have the energy equivalent of several hundred million tons of coal or oil, enough to keep the nuclear power stations of the UK running for several years. I find it incredible that our government and its advisers regard this abundant stock of nuclear fuel and our power stations as something to be decommissioned, written off; and they are prepared to pay over Ł60 billion to do it. Oil now costs $50 a barrel: at that price the UK stock of plutonium fuel alone is worth more than Ł100 billion in energy terms. It is all being done with stealth and pretence; we have never been asked if we were prepared to pay this huge cost. Another flawed idea now circulating is that the world supply of uranium is so small that its use for energy would last only a few years. It is true that if the whole world chose to use uranium as its sole fuel, supplies of easily mined uranium would soon be exhausted. But there is a superabundance of low-grade uranium ore: most granite, for example, contains enough uranium to make its fuel capacity five times that of an equal mass of coal. India is already preparing to use its abundant supplies of thorium, an alternative nuclear fuel, in place of uranium. The right mix of energy sources My strong pleas for nuclear energy comes from a growing sense that we have little time left in which to install a reliable and secure supply of electricity; this is especially true in the United Kingdom and in several of the nations of Europe. I do not see nuclear energy as a panacea but as an essential part of a portfolio of energy sources. For the immediate future, and starting now, we need to exploit fission energy as much as we can as a temporary measure, while looking to a future when, having served our need, it can be replaced by clean energy from other sources. These should include renewables, fusion and burning fossil fuel under conditions where the carbon dioxide effluent is safely sequestered, preferably in the form of an inert solid, such as magnesium carbonate. The important and overriding consideration is time; we have nuclear power now, and new nuclear building should be started immediately. All of the alternatives, including fusion energy, require decades of development before they can be employed on a scale that would significantly reduce emissions. In the next few years renewables will add an increment of emission-free energy, mainly from wind, but it is quite small when compared with the nuclear potential. Until 2008, when closures start, the UK nuclear generating capacity is 14,000 megawatts, and this is only 21 per cent of our total electricity production. To replace the nuclear output with one megawatt wind turbines would require 56,000 of them, and they would need to be backed up by a capacity of 10,500 megawatts of fossil fuel generators for those frequent occasions when the wind is too weak or too strong. Unless there are drastic changes in lifestyle we will have to go on using fossil fuel energy for several more decades; 30 per cent of our energy use is now for transport, and there is little chance that the carbon dioxide effluent of cars, trucks, trains and aircraft will be sequestered and buried. The virtual superpower of Europe, Franco-Germany, has made the best of both worlds with its French half all nuclear and its German half all green. This would be a fine and sensible solution were it not for Germany trying to make the rest of us support their industry by buying their wind turbines. Meanwhile at the world's climate centres the barometer continues to fall and tell of the imminent danger of a climate storm whose severity the Earth has not endured for 55m years. But in the cities the party goes on; how much longer before reality enters our minds? · This is an edited extract from The Revenge of Gaia by James Lovelock, published by Allen Lane price Ł16.99 31.12.2005: Interview: James Lovelock [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 29 UN: Slovakia First To Ratify UN Pact On Nuclear Terrorism Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:00:07 -0500 Slovakia today became the first country to ratify and become party to a treaty for cooperation in staving off the horrifying possibility of terrorism involving the use of nuclear devices, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in April 2005. To date, 100 States have signed onto the <"http://untreaty.un.org/English/Terrorism/English_18_15.pdf">International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, which strengthens the global legal framework to combat the threat, requires the extradition or prosecution of those implicated and encourages the exchange of information and other inter-state cooperation. The pact opened for at 2005 World Summit that began the Assembly’s 60th session. “Nuclear terrorism is one of the most urgent threats of our time,” Secretary-General Kofi Annan said before the treaty’s adoption. “Even one such attack could inflict mass casualties and change our world forever. The prospect should compel all of us to do our part to strengthen our common defences.” 2006-03-23 00:00:00.000 For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/ ***************************************************************** 30 BBC: 'No one cause' for Gulf illness Last Updated: Friday, 24 March 2006 [Soldiers] The row about the effects of serving in the 1991 conflict continues There is no single cause for Gulf War illness, researchers have concluded. The journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society has published 16 papers outlining research into possible causes, such as exposure to chemicals. Researchers say effects on servicemen's health have been seen, but there is no direct scientific link between serving in the 1991 Gulf War and a syndrome. But the National Gulf War Veterans and Family Association said a series of medical disasters had caused illness. There is little value conducting further research into the causes Professor Simon Wessely, Institute of Psychiatry In a commentary in the journal, Professor Simon Wessely, co-director of Kings College Centre for Military Health Research and guest editor of the special issue of the journal, said one of the papers it included showed the term Gulf War Syndrome was a "misnomer". "No new illness or symptom cluster unique to Gulf War veterans has been identified." One paper in the journal looks at exposure to depleted uranium - which has been singled out by veterans' groups as a potential cause of ill-health. The research looks at soldiers directly exposed to DU in "friendly fire" incidents. But despite this exposure, there was no evidence of kidney damage, which the journal states would be the most likely effect. Vaccine regime Papers also suggest there is no "credible evidence" linking exposure to pesticides or nerve agents such as sarin, directly to ill health. But the researchers do suggest the health concerns related to the Gulf War could improve the way soldiers are monitored before, during and after future conflicts to minimise the impact of war on health. Professor Wessely said: "An enormous amount of money and effort have been expended on understanding Gulf War Illnesses worldwide. "These reviews make it clear that there is no single cause, rather there are a range of factors likely to be responsible. "There is little value in conducting further research into the causes. "We should now focus our resources on rehabilitating those people who are ill as a result of service in the Gulf War." But Shaun Rusling, of the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association, said: "We, the ill veterans, have never claimed a single cause to our ill health but a number of serious medical disasters starting with a secret vaccine regime and multiple vaccinations, with childhood whooping cough given with each anthrax vaccine to boost the immune system causing autoimmune type diseases." Veterans Minister Don Touhig said: "This publication is a significant landmark in the field of research into Gulf War illnesses and is welcomed by the Ministry of Defence. "It confirms that there is no straightforward explanation of ill-health experienced by some Gulf veterans and that it cannot be solely attributed to toxic chemicals, depleted uranium, organophosphates or medical counter-measures." "Professor Wessely is absolutely correct when he says we should now look to the future and focus our resources on rehabilitating Gulf War veterans who are ill." ***************************************************************** 31 DesMoinesRegister.com: Fund screening for weapons workers Repay their service with compensation, care March 24, 2006 It was 1945 when Virginia Carlson of Ames met her future husband, O. Norman Carlson. He was working at an Iowa State University laboratory in a federal atomic-weapons program — the Manhattan Project. In those early days of their marriage, he told her some of the other researchers' wives were getting sick from exposure to toxins at the plant. Many years later, her husband died from lung cancer. Exposure to beryllium — used in manufacturing and researching nuclear weapons — increases the chances of developing certain cancers, including lung cancer. Virginia ended up being one of those wives her husband spoke of. She was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1974, stomach cancer in 2001 and lung cancer in 2004. She said at least one doctor has told her she has one of the highest levels of beryllium sensitivity he's seen. At the time, the federal government did not understand all the risks that its nuclear-weapons program posed to workers and their families. For some, their service to their country cost them their health and their lives. The federal government has given compensation to Virginia and paid for her treatment. But she's concerned that others like her won't get help. "I get my health monitored. I'm worried about other people," she said. "If the government cuts back on testing, they won't even know people have a problem," she said. Her fears are justified. Congress is considering cutting funding for the health-screening program that helps identify former government weapons workers injured by exposure to toxic substances while assembling and researching weapons. President Bush's budget seeks to cut funding from $16.5 million to $12.3 million for the program. Dr. Lars Fuortes, a physician at the University of Iowa, provides medical screenings for those exposed to harmful substances at the Ames lab and the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in Middletown. He said the Ames lab may have caused the highest prevalence of beryllium lung disease of all the government facilities being screened. If funding is cut, it will make it harder for him to find and help the injured. And that process doesn't need to be more difficult. It took years for former workers at the Middletown plant to receive health care and compensation after being exposed to radiation and other harmful substances while assembling weapons between the 1940s and 1970s. Many got sick. Some died. And those seeking help were met with denials, red tape and multiple rounds of meetings and appeals. That was bad enough. But this proposed cut would prevent people from being screened in the first place. That's disgraceful. Members of the Iowa delegation must do everything they can to prevent that from happening. Copyright © 2005, The Des Moines Register. ***************************************************************** 32 toledoblade.com: Action delayed by port board on loan for new beryllium plant Members mull its social role Article published Friday, March 24, 2006 [Photo] Port board member Nadeem Salem By CHRISTOPHER D. KIRKPATRICK BLADE STAFF WRITER A proposed loan package for construction of a beryllium factory near Elmore has Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority board members once again morally conflicted. The new plant, to be operated by Brush Wellman Inc., would produce valuable material for the defense industry and create 25 good-paying jobs, but it also would produce potentially dangerous dust that can lead to fatal illness. The port authority board yesterday voted 9-2 for a 30-day delay in considering a $7.5 million bond package for the project. It's an old debate among board members about what factors to consider in overseeing applications for the Northwest Ohio Bond Fund - a state program that generates about $1 million a year in fees for the port authority. Should living wage, diversity, safety, or other social and workplace issues be considered when approving bond applications? Or just the financial aspects? What are the port board members' duties? Some of them aren't sure. "I still struggle with our role," said board member Nadeem Salem, who works for Savage &Associates. "I'm trying to figure out our role. To what degree do we extend our role? At some point, we have to tackle this issue." Beryllium refining has been a hot-button issue since a 1999 Blade investigative series that exposed a cover-up by the beryllium industry and federal government of a respiratory illness - berylliosis - that is sometimes caused by exposure to beryllium dust, a by-product of the manufacturing of beryllium metal alloys and ceramic products containing the metal. The Blade's series, which won numerous state and national awards and was a Pulitzer prize finalist in 2000, also reported that beryllium exposure spread to people outside the industry when workers carried dust with them out of the factory on their clothing. A Brush official said in a telephone interview last month that the new plant would be heavily automated and designed to minimize beryllium dust exposure to its projected 25 workers. So if the state and various agencies, such as the Ohio EPA, approve a company's plans, shouldn't the port authority too? Its charge as steward of the bond program is merely to certify applications as financially sound, not to make value judgments. When asked whether the port board should judge beyond financial aspects, Tom Schlachter, former chairman of the port board's finance committee, always answered "no." He resigned from the board in October, and some board members have never felt comfortable with the job of financial rubber stamp. It's an issue that keeps coming up. The board recently approved a controversial bond application for a large-scale dairy farm, operations accused by some of being environmentally unfriendly because of the amount of animal wastes created. The board approved the delay yesterday with the stipulation that they hear from Brush Wellman officials over the next 30 days about their hiring practices and workplace safety. Board member Ken Dobson said there are human elements that can't be ignored: "There are human lives involved in this process. I would hope we would have time to speak with representatives from the company." Port board vice chairman Bill Carroll, a retired Dana Corp. executive, disagreed. "I don't think this is appropriate to bring forward at this time," said Mr. Carroll. "You can't just take one piece of this, and say they are not a good corporate citizen." Board member G. Opie Rollison, an attorney, said he was not comfortable with the port authority holding title to the factory because of environmental concerns. "I think this is high risk," he said. "There are no guidelines for social consciousness," said Bruce Baumhower, who is a union official with the United Auto Workers. Mr. Rollison and Mr, Baumhower voted against the delay yesterday, and at the last board meeting also voted against moving ahead with the project. After the board voted to delay, the next project to be considered for the program was $2.5 million to be borrowed by St. Ursula Academy, an all-girls Catholic school. That was approved unanimously. The money is not used for religious purposes. Mr. Carroll used the school's project as an example of what he called the "slippery slope" of making value judgements. "Should we start looking at teacher-pupil ratios?" he asked. "It starts to become really broad, but what else do we look at? Where do we stop?" Contact Christopher D. Kirkpatrick at: ckirkpatrick@theblade.com or 419-724-6077. The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000 ***************************************************************** 33 NRC: In the Matter of Dale L. Miller; Establishment of Atomic Safety FR Doc E6-4272 [Federal Register: March 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 57)] [Notices] [Page 14958] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24mr06-125] and Licensing Board Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, published in the Federal Register, 37 FR 28,710 (1972), and the Commission's regulations, see 10 CFR 2.104, 2.202, 2.300, 2.303, 2.309, 2.311, 2.318, and 2.321, notice is hereby given that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is being established to preside over the following proceeding: Dale L. Miller (Enforcement Action) This proceeding concerns a request for a hearing submitted on February 23, 2006, by Dale L. Miller in response to a January 4, 2006 NRC staff ``Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-License Activities,'' 71 FR 2579 (January 17, 2006). Under the terms of that immediately effective staff order, the staff concluded that because Mr. Miller (1) had knowledge of the degraded condition of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) head at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station and the limitations experienced during RPV head inspections; and (2) had deliberately provided materially incomplete and inaccurate information in connection with the continued operation of the Davis-Besse facility for a period prior to a February 2002 refueling outage that resulted in a significant adverse condition going uncorrected, Mr. Miller was, among other things, prohibited for five years from engaging in NRC-licensed activities. The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges: Michael C. Farrar, Chair, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. E. Roy Hawkens, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Nicholas G. Trikouros, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed with the administrative judges in accordance with 10 CFR 2.202. Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of March 2006. G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. [FR Doc. E6-4272 Filed 3-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 34 NRC: In the Matter of Steven P. Moffitt; Establishment of Atomic FR Doc E6-4276 [Federal Register: March 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 57)] [Notices] [Page 14958-14959] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24mr06-126] Safety and Licensing Board Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, published in the Federal Register, 37 FR 28,710 (1972), and the Commission's regulations, see 10 CFR 2.104, 2.202, 2.300, 2.303, 2.309, 2.311, 2.318, and 2.321, notice is hereby given that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is being established to preside over the following proceeding: Steven P. Moffitt (Enforcement Action) This proceeding concerns a request for a hearing submitted on February 23, 2006, by Steven P. Moffitt in response to a January 4, 2006 NRC staff ``Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-License Activities,'' 71 FR 2581 (January 17, 2006). Under the terms of that immediately effective staff order, the staff concluded that because Mr. Moffitt (1) had knowledge of the degraded condition of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) head at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station and the limitations experienced during RPV head inspections; and (2) had deliberately provided materially incomplete and inaccurate information in connection with the continued operation of the Davis-Besse facility for a period prior to a February 2002 refueling outage that resulted in a significant adverse condition going uncorrected, Mr. Moffitt was, among other things, prohibited for five years from engaging in NRC- licensed activities. The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges: Michael C. Farrar, Chair, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. E. Roy Hawkens, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. [[Page 14959]] Nicholas G. Trikouros, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed with the administrative judges in accordance with 10 CFR 2.202. Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of March 2006. G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. [FR Doc. E6-4276 Filed 3-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 35 NRC: In the Matter of All Licensees Who Possess Radioactive Material FR Doc E6-4281 [Federal Register: March 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 57)] [Notices] [Page 14961-14964] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24mr06-129] in Quantities of Concern and All Other Persons Who Obtain Safeguards Information Described Herein; Order Issued Imposing Requirements for the Protection of Certain Safeguards Information (Effective Immediately) The Licensees, identified in Attachment A \1\ to this Order, hold licenses issued in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) or an Agreement State, authorizing them to possess and transfer items containing radioactive material quantities of concern. The NRC intends to issue security Orders to these licensees in the near future. Orders will be issued to both NRC and Agreement State materials licensees who may transport radioactive material quantities of concern. The Orders will require compliance with specific Additional Security Measures to enhance the security for transport of certain radioactive material quantities of concern. The NRC will issue Orders to both NRC and Agreement State licensees under its authority to protect the common defense and security, which has not been relinquished to the Agreement States. The Commission has determined that these documents contain Safeguards Information, will not be released to the public, and must be protected from unauthorized disclosure. Therefore, the Commission is imposing the requirements, as set forth in Attachment B of this Order, so that affected Licensees can receive these documents. This Order also imposes requirements for the protection of Safeguards Information in the hands of any person,\2\ whether or not a licensee of the Commission, who produces, receives, or acquires Safeguards Information. ---------- \1\ Attachment A contains Official Use Only--Security Related Information and will not be released to the public. \2\ Person means (1) any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, public or private institution, group, government agency other than the Commission or the Department, except that the Department shall be considered a person with respect to those facilities of the Department specified in section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1244), any State or any political subdivision of, or any political entity within a State, any foreign government or nation or any political subdivision of any such government or nation, or other entity; and (2) any legal successor, representative, agent, or agency of the foregoing. ---------- The Commission has broad statutory authority to protect and prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of Safeguards Information. Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, grants the Commission explicit authority to ``issue such orders, as necessary to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of safeguards information * * * .'' This authority extends to information concerning transfer of special nuclear material, source material, and byproduct material. Licensees and all persons who produce, receive, or acquire Safeguards Information must ensure proper handling and protection of Safeguards Information to avoid unauthorized disclosure in accordance with the specific requirements for the protection of Safeguards Information contained in Attachment B. The Commission hereby provides notice that it intends to treat violations of the requirements contained in Attachment B applicable to the handling and unauthorized disclosure of Safeguards Information as serious breaches of adequate protection of the public health and safety and the common defense and security of the United States. Access to Safeguards Information is limited to those persons who have established the need-to-know the information, and are considered to be trustworthy and reliable. A need-to-know means a determination by a person having responsibility for protecting Safeguards Information that a proposed recipient's access to Safeguards Information is necessary in the performance of official, contractual, or licensee duties of employment. Licensees and all other persons who obtain Safeguards Information must ensure that they develop, maintain and implement strict policies and procedures for the proper handling of Safeguards Information to prevent unauthorized disclosure, in accordance with the requirements in Attachment B. All licensees must ensure that all contractors whose employees may have access to Safeguards Information either adhere to the licensee's policies and procedures on Safeguards Information or develop, maintain and implement their own acceptable policies and procedures. The licensees remain responsible for the conduct of their contractors. The policies and procedures necessary to ensure compliance with applicable requirements contained in Attachment B must address, at a minimum, the following: The general performance requirement that each person who produces, receives, or acquires Safeguards Information shall ensure that Safeguards Information is protected against unauthorized disclosure; protection of Safeguards Information at fixed sites, in use and in storage, and while in transit; correspondence containing Safeguards Information; access to Safeguards Information; preparation, marking, reproduction and destruction of documents; external transmission of documents; use of automatic data processing systems; and removal of the Safeguards Information category. In order to provide assurance that the licensees are implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of Safeguards Information, all licensees who hold licenses issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or an Agreement State authorizing them to possess and who may transport items containing radioactive material quantities of concern shall implement the requirements identified in Attachment B to this Order. The Commission recognizes that licensees may have already initiated many of the measures set forth in Attachment B to this Order for handling of Safeguards Information in conjunction with current NRC license requirements or previous NRC Orders. Additional measures set forth in Attachment B should be handled and controlled in accordance with the licensee's current program for Safeguards Information. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that in light of the common defense and security matters identified above, which warrant the issuance of this Order, the [[Page 14962]] public health, safety and interest require that this Order be effective immediately. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 81, 147, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR part 30, 10 CFR part 32, 10 CFR part 35, and 10 CFR part 70, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that all licensees identified in Attachment A to this Order and all other persons who produce, receive, or acquire the additional security measures identified above (whether draft or final) or any related safeguards information shall comply with the requirements of Attachment B. The Director, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, may in writing, relax or resend any of the above conditions upon demonstration by the licensee. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the Licensee must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the Licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, and to the Licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the Licensee. Because of possible disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to and also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to . If a person other than the Licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If a hearing is requested by the Licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), the Licensee may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in section III above shall be final twenty (20) days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order. Dated this 10th day of March 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jack R. Strosnider, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. Attachment A--Service List of Materials Licensees (Redacted) Attachment B--Modified Handling Requirements for the Protection of Certain Safeguards Information (SGI-M) General Requirement Information and material that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) determines are Safeguards Information must be protected from unauthorized disclosure. In order to distinguish information needing modified protection requirements from the Safeguards Information for reactors and fuel cycle facilities that require a higher level of protection, the term ``Safeguards Information Modified Handling'' (SGI-M) is being used as the distinguishing marking for certain materials licensees. Each person who produces, receives, or acquires SGI-M shall ensure that it is protected against unauthorized disclosure. To meet this requirement, licensees and persons shall establish and maintain an information protection system that includes the measures specified below. Information protection procedures employed by state and local police forces are deemed to meet these requirements. Persons Subject to These Requirements Any person, whether or not a licensee of the NRC, who produces, receives, or acquires SGI-M is subject to the requirements (and sanctions) of this document. Firms and their employees that supply services or equipment to materials licensees would fall under this requirement, if they possess facility SGI-M. A licensee must inform contractors and suppliers of the existence of these requirements and the need for proper protection (See more under Conditions for Access). State or local police units who have access to SGI-M are also subject to these requirements. However, these organizations are deemed to have adequate information protection systems. The conditions for transfer of information to a third party, (i.e., need-to-know) would still apply to the police organization, as would sanctions for unlawful disclosure. Again, it would be prudent for licensees who have arrangements with local police to advise them of the existence of these requirements. Criminal and Civil Sanctions The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, explicitly provides that any person, ``whether or not a licensee of the Commission, who violates any regulations adopted under this section shall be subject to the civil monetary penalties of section 234 of this Act.'' Furthermore, willful violation of any regulation or order governing Safeguards Information is a felony subject to criminal penalties in the form of fines or imprisonment, or both. See sections 147b. and 223 of the Act. Conditions for Access Access to SGI-M beyond the initial recipients of the order will be governed by the background check requirements imposed by the order. Access to SGI-M by licensee employees, agents, or contractors must include both an appropriate need-to-know determination by the licensee, as well as a determination concerning the trustworthiness of individuals having [[Page 14963]] access to the information. Employees of an organization affiliated with the licensee's company, e.g., a parent company, may be considered as employees of the licensee for access purposes. Need-to-Know Need-to-know is defined as a determination by a person having responsibility for protecting SGI-M that a proposed recipient's access to SGI-M is necessary in the performance of official, contractual, or licensee duties of employment. The recipient should be made aware that the information is SGI-M and those having access to it are subject to these requirements as well as criminal and civil sanctions for mishandling the information. Occupational Groups Dissemination of SGI-M is limited to individuals who have an established need-to-know and who are members of certain occupational groups. These occupational groups are: A. An employee, agent, or contractor of an applicant, a licensee, the Commission, or the United States Government; B. A member of a duly authorized committee of the Congress; C. The Governor of a State or his designated representative; D. A representative of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) engaged in activities associated with the U.S./IAEA Safeguards Agreement who has been certified by the NRC; E. A member of a state or local law enforcement authority that is responsible for responding to requests for assistance during safeguards emergencies; F. A person to whom disclosure is ordered pursuant to Section 2.744(e) of Part 2 of part 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations; or G. State Radiation Control Program Directors (and State Homeland Security Directors) or their designees. In a generic sense, the individuals described above in (A) through (G) are considered to be trustworthy by virtue of their employment status. For non-governmental individuals in group (A) above, a determination of reliability and trustworthiness is required. Discretion must be exercised in granting access to these individuals. If there is any indication that the recipient would be unwilling or unable to provide proper protection for the SGI-M, they are not authorized to receive SGI-M. Information Considered for Safeguards Information Designation Information deemed SGI-M is information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to have a significant adverse effect on the health and safety of the public or the common defense and security by significantly increasing the likelihood of theft, diversion, or sabotage of materials or facilities subject to NRC jurisdiction. SGI-M identifies Safeguards Information which is subject to these requirements. These requirements are necessary in order to protect quantities of nuclear material significant to the health and safety of the public or common defense and security. The overall measure for consideration of SGI-M is the usefulness of the information (security or otherwise) to an adversary in planning or attempting a malevolent act. The specificity of the information increases the likelihood that it will be useful to an adversary. Protection While in Use While in use, SGI-M shall be under the control of an authorized individual. This requirement is satisfied if the SGI-M is attended by an authorized individual even though the information is in fact not constantly being used. SGI-M, therefore, within alarm stations, continuously manned guard posts or ready rooms need not be locked in file drawers or storage containers. Under certain conditions the general control exercised over security zones or areas would be considered to meet this requirement. The primary consideration is limiting access to those who have a need- to-know. Some examples would be: Alarm stations, guard posts and guard ready rooms; Engineering or drafting areas if visitors are escorted and information is not clearly visible; Plant maintenance areas if access is restricted and information is not clearly visible; and Administrative offices (e.g., central records or purchasing) if visitors are escorted and information is not clearly visible. Protection While in Storage While unattended, SGI-M shall be stored in a locked file drawer or container. Knowledge of lock combinations or access to keys protecting SGI-M shall be limited to a minimum number of personnel for operating purposes who have a ``need-to-know'' and are otherwise authorized access to SGI-M in accordance with these requirements. Access to lock combinations or keys shall be strictly controlled so as to prevent disclosure to an unauthorized individual. Transportation of Documents and Other Matter Documents containing SGI-M when transmitted outside an authorized place of use or storage shall be enclosed in two sealed envelopes or wrappers. The inner envelope or wrapper shall contain the name and address of the intended recipient, and be marked both sides, top and bottom with the words ``Safeguards Information--Modified Handling.'' The outer envelope or wrapper must be addressed to the intended recipient, must contain the address of the sender, and must not bear any markings or indication that the document contains SGI-M. SGI-M may be transported by any commercial delivery company that provides nation-wide overnight service with computer tracking features, U.S. first class, registered, express, or certified mail, or by any individual authorized access pursuant to these requirements. Within a facility, SGI-M may be transmitted using a single opaque envelope. It may also be transmitted within a facility without single or double wrapping, provided adequate measures are taken to protect the material against unauthorized disclosure. Individuals transporting SGI- M should retain the documents in their personal possession at all times or ensure that the information is appropriately wrapped and also secured to preclude compromise by an unauthorized individual. Preparation and Marking of Documents While the NRC is the sole authority for determining what specific information may be designated as ``SGI-M,'' originators of documents are responsible for determining whether those documents contain such information. Each document or other matter that contains SGI-M shall be marked ``Safeguards Information--Modified Handling'' in a conspicuous manner on the top and bottom of the first page to indicate the presence of protected information. The first page of the document must also contain (i) the name, title, and organization of the individual authorized to make a SGI-M determination, and who has determined that the document contains SGI-M, (ii) the date the document was originated or the determination made, (iii) an indication that the document contains SGI-M, and (iv) an indication that unauthorized disclosure would be subject to civil and criminal sanctions. [[Page 14964]] Each additional page shall be marked in a conspicuous fashion at the top and bottom with letters denoting ``Safeguards Information--Modified Handling.'' In additional to the ``Safeguards Information--Modified Handling'' markings at the top and bottom of page, transmittal letters or memoranda which do not in themselves contain SGI-M shall be marked to indicate that attachments or enclosures contain SGI-M but that the transmittal does not (e.g., ``When separated from SGI-M enclosure(s), this document is decontrolled''). In addition to the information required on the face of the document, each item of correspondence that contains SGI-M shall, by marking or other means, clearly indicate which portions (e.g., paragraphs, pages, or appendices) contain SGI-M and which do not. Portion marking is not required for physical security and safeguards contingency plans. All documents or other matter containing SGI-M in use or storage shall be marked in accordance with these requirements. A specific exception is provided for documents in the possession of contractors and agents of licensees that were produced more than one year prior to the effective date of the order. Such documents need not be marked unless they are removed from file drawers or containers. The same exception applies to old documents stored away from the facility in central files or corporation headquarters. Since information protection procedures employed by state and local police forces are deemed to meet NRC requirements, documents in the possession of these agencies need not be marked as set forth in this document. Removal From SGI-M Category Documents containing SGI-M shall be removed from the SGI-M category (decontrolled) only after the NRC determines that the information no longer meets the criteria of SGI-M. Licensees have the authority to make determinations that specific documents which they created no longer contain SGI-M information and may be decontrolled. Consideration must be exercised to ensure that any document decontrolled shall not disclose SGI-M in some other form or be combined with other unprotected information to disclose SGI-M. The authority to determine that a document may be decontrolled may be exercised only by, or with the permission of, the individual (or office) who made the original determination. The document shall indicate the name and organization of the individual removing the document from the SGI-M category and the date of the removal. Other persons who have the document in their possession should be notified of the decontrolling of the document. Reproduction of Matter Containing SGI-M SGI-M may be reproduced to the minimum extent necessary consistent with need without permission of the originator. Newer digital copiers which scan and retain images of documents represent a potential security concern. If the copier is retaining SGI-M information in memory, the copier cannot be connected to a network. It should also be placed in a location that is cleared and controlled for the authorized processing of SGI-M information. Different copiers have different capabilities, including some which come with features that allow the memory to be erased. Each copier would have to be examined from a physical security perspective. Use of Automatic Data Processing (ADP) Systems SGI-M may be processed or produced on an ADP system provided that the system is assigned to the licensee's or contractor's facility and requires the use of an entry code/password for access to stored information. Licensees are encouraged to process this information in a computing environment that has adequate computer security controls in place to prevent unauthorized access to the information. An ADP system is defined here as a data processing system having the capability of long term storage of SGI-M. Word processors such as typewriters are not subject to the requirements as long as they do not transmit information off-site. (Note: if SGI-M is produced on a typewriter, the ribbon must be removed and stored in the same manner as other SGI-M information or media.) The basic objective of these restrictions is to prevent access and retrieval of stored SGI-M by unauthorized individuals, particularly from remote terminals. Specific files containing SGI-M will be password protected to preclude access by an unauthorized individual. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) maintains a listing of all validated encryption systems at . SGI-M files may be transmitted over a network if the file is encrypted. In such cases, the licensee will select a commercially available encryption system that NIST has validated as conforming to Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS). SGI-M files shall be properly labeled as ``Safeguards Information-Modified Handling'' and saved to removable media and stored in a locked file drawer or cabinet. Telecommunications SGI-M may not be transmitted by unprotected telecommunications circuits except under emergency or extraordinary conditions. For the purpose of this requirement, emergency or extraordinary conditions are defined as any circumstances that require immediate communications in order to report, summon assistance for, or respond to a security event (or an event that has potential security significance). This restriction applies to telephone, telegraph, teletype, facsimile circuits, and to radio. Routine telephone or radio transmission between site security personnel, or between the site and local police, should be limited to message formats or codes that do not disclose facility security features or response procedures. Similarly, call-ins during transport should not disclose information useful to a potential adversary. Infrequent or non-repetitive telephone conversations regarding a physical security plan or program are permitted provided that the discussion is general in nature. Individuals should use care when discussing SGI-M at meetings or in the presence of others to insure that the conversation is not overheard by persons not authorized access. Transcripts, tapes or minutes of meetings or hearings that contain SGI-M shall be marked and protected in accordance with these requirements. Destruction Documents containing SGI-M should be destroyed when no longer needed. They may be destroyed by tearing into small pieces, burning, shredding or any other method that precludes reconstruction by means available to the public at large. Piece sizes one half inch or smaller composed of several pages or documents and thoroughly mixed would be considered completely destroyed. Standards (FIPS). SGI-M files shall be properly labeled as ``Safeguards Information-Modified Handling'' and saved to removable media and stored in a locked file drawer or cabinet. Attachment C--Designation Guide for Safeguards Information [FR Doc. E6-4281 Filed 3-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 36 NRC: Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes; Renewal FR Doc E6-4286 [Federal Register: March 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 57)] [Notices] [Page 14959] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24mr06-127] Notice AGENCY: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: This notice is to announce the renewal of the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) for a period of two years. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has determined that the renewal of the charter for the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes for the two year period commencing on March 17, 2006 is in the public interest, in connection with duties imposed on the Commission by law. This action is being taken in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, after consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration. The purpose of the ACMUI is to provide advice to NRC on policy and technical issues that arise in regulating the medical use of byproduct material for diagnosis and therapy. Responsibilities include providing guidance and comments on current and proposed NRC regulations and regulatory guidance concerning medical use; evaluating certain non- routine uses of byproduct material for medical use; and evaluating training and experience of proposed authorized users. The members are involved in preliminary discussions of major issues in determining the need for changes in NRC policy and regulation to ensure the continued safe use of byproduct material. Each member provides technical assistance in his/her specific area(s) of expertise, particularly with respect to emerging technologies. Members also provide guidance as to NRC's role in relation to the responsibilities of other Federal agencies as well as of various professional organizations and boards. Members of this Committee have demonstrated professional qualifications and expertise in both scientific and non-scientific disciplines including nuclear medicine; nuclear cardiology; radiation therapy; medical physics; nuclear pharmacy; State medical regulation; patient's rights and care; health care administration; and Food and Drug Administration regulation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: Mohammad S. Saba, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; Telephone (301) 415-7608; e-mail mss@nrc.gov. Dated: March 17, 2006. Andrew L. Bates, Federal Advisory Committee, Management Officer. [FR Doc. E6-4286 Filed 3-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 37 ITAR-TASS: Prevention of pollution cheaper than cleanup – G8 experts 24.03.2006, 20.56 MOSCOW, March 24 (Itar-Tass) -- It would be cheaper to prevent pollution of the planet Earth than to clean up the pollution aftermath, says a final document of the Moscow meeting of heads of G8 environmental and technological safety agencies. The document will be referred to G8 leaders through sherpas, said head of the Russian Technological, Environmental and Nuclear Supervisory Service Konstantin Pulikovsky. The Moscow meeting called for further development of the action plan on climatic changes, environmentally friendly energy and sustainable development, which was adopted at the previous G8 summit in the UK’s Gleneagles, and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. They also urged research into trans-border atmospheric pollution. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, ***************************************************************** 38 Milford Daily News: Radiation-laden trash truck stuck on site since Monday MilfordDailyNews.com By John Hilliard / Daily News Staff Friday, March 24, 2006 HOLLISTON -- For some residents, it has been an interloper that will not go away -- a trash truck loaded with radioactive waste and parked for days at Casellas Washington Street station. "If its not safe to be transported on our highways, it shouldnt be in Holliston," said neighbor Andy Bell. Casella Regional Vice President Michael Wall said the company is trying to keep the stuff out of their operation. "Were putting our haulers on notice that this material is not acceptable," said Wall. "We dont want it at the facility." The load of trash laced with low-level radioactive waste was first discovered inside a truck attempting to leave Casella Waste Systems station on Monday. The state Department of Public Health ordered the material kept at the facility until at least this morning. Board of Health Chairman Richard Maccagnano said the radiation does not threaten people, but levels have been too high for the material to be removed from the facility. Town officials think the material could be medical waste. He said the company and town Compliance Officer John Lavin spent yesterday working on a plan to get the material out of town. "Theyre going to try to figure out what the stuff is," Maccagnano said. He said the materials radiation level dropped since Monday, but remained too high for the truck to travel on public roads. The incident was the second this month, and the third since January. The trash has been kept inside a truck parked in a secured garage at the Casella station, said the company division manager, Len Landry. Workers discovered radioactive material in a truck leaving the station Monday, just like the previous two incidents. Wall said the company is working on better radiation screening methods for incoming trucks, but said the screening can be difficult because radioactive material can be hidden deep inside a trash load. He would not comment on whether the company would release the names of its customers to the Board of Health. [continue] "If we knew the source of the (radioactive) material, we would provide the information," Wall said. Board of Health member Elizabeth Theiler said the radiation incident proves the town's need for professional help. "I think the Board of Health needs to hire an expert to help determine what the substance is," she said. She is seeking information on whether the town's radiation bylaw -- which bans storage of radioactive waste -- applies to the Casella facility. Bell said the company should do more to ease neighborhood worries. "If they were good neighbors, they'd tell us what these sources are," he said. (John Hilliard can be reached at 508-626-4449 or jhilliar@cnc.com.) © Copyright of CNC ***************************************************************** 39 Bradenton Herald: Tallevast letter cites trust issues | 03/24/2006 | DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer TALLEVAST - Leaders of this village sitting atop a 131-acre toxic plume have appealed to the head of Lockheed Martin Corp. for open dialogue with company representatives they can trust. The letter to Lockheed chief executive Robert Stevens, and other company officials, faults Lockheed for not fulfilling its promises to handle the "fall out" that has occurred over soil, water and air contamination linked to the former Loral American Beryllium Co. plant Lockheed once owned. Lockheed has the responsibility for cleaning up the mess. The letter from Laura Ward and Wanda Washington, president and vice president of Family Oriented Community, is dated March 10. Lockheed spokeswoman Gail Rymer said Wednesday that Stevens did receive the letter and will respond. Copies of the letter were sent to the media this week. Copies of the letter also were sent to local, state and federal elected officials, as well as county staff. "Project managers assigned to handle this matter have come and gone, evaluation/assessment teams have changed, promises have been made and not kept, to not only the residents but to the County of Manatee government officials as well," the letter states. "No one seems to honor the agreements of their predecessors. Citing Lockheed's ethics policies and promise to do the right thing, which they say the corporation has violated, Ward and Washington challenged Stevens to walk in their shoes. "Would you allow your family and friends to live here? Can we anticipate a different tact or is the ethics package a charade?" they wrote. FOCUS is willing to work with Lockheed, the leaders wrote, but the community wants to do so only with those company representatives who have the authority to back up their promises. "We need to dialogue with those whose words carry weight and can right more quickly this horrible wrong," the two leaders wrote. "Our lives have been put on hold long enough. We don't need to continue to sit back while your representatives spend much time and energy as well as money trying to clean up/fix a severely marred public relations image." Meanwhile, communications continue between Lockheed Martin and residents over compensation for the closure of private drinking water and irrigation wells that all sides have agreed must be sealed to protect public health. But the two sides differ on terms. Ward and Washington are among 254 Tallevast residents who filed suit against Lockheed. A second lawsuit representing a smaller group also has been filed against the company. Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be reached at 745-7049 or at dwright@HeraldToday.com. HeraldToday.com For more stories on the events at Tallevast, go to the Special Coverage area online. HERALD WATCHDOG ***************************************************************** 40 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca Johnny targets youngsters' hearts, minds March 24, 2006 By Launce Rake Las Vegas Sun The Energy Department has worked for years to educate adults on the value of a Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. Now it is also targeting children. A federal government Web site hosted by an animated "Yucca Johnny" suggests that the waste must be stored somewhere. And for Yucca Johnny's druthers, that "somewhere" is about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, where the federal government wants to store 80,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste deep inside Yucca Mountain. "What if we took out the garbage, but let it pile up in our yards?" Yucca Johnny asks on the Web site, www.ocrwm.doe.gov/youth/index.htm. "Over time, our neighborhoods would become very unhealthy places to live. So we have sanitary workers pick up our garbage and properly dispose of it in landfills. "Right now, nuclear waste is piling up in a lot of places around the country ... We must be responsible for our nuclear waste and put in a place where it can never harm people or the environment." Yucca Johnny speaks in a drawl lifted from the comic sidekicks in old horse operas, certainly not like the native accents found in Nevada - where elected state and federal officials and conservation groups, among others, want no part of the nuclear waste. They say the proposed $60 billion repository would allow the waste to seep into the environment. So now, they've got Yucca Johnny in the cross hairs. Peggy Maze Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert, an environmental advocacy group, compared the Web site to techniques used by child molesters. "They're grooming," she said. "Child molesters start out by grooming their targets, their intended victims. This is outrageous. It's disgusting, is what it is." Allen Benson, director of external affairs for Energy's Yucca Mountain Project, said the goal of such "youth zone" Web sites is to educate and inform. In the case of Yucca Johnny, the purpose is not to push the project, he said. "You'll find youth zones on all government Web sites," Benson said. "It's not unusual. Our job in the Youth Zone is to present factual information on the project at a level the kids can understand. Johnson said her group is drafting a curriculum to balance the department's message. A Citizen Alert program in the schools would focus on recycling and environmental stewardship, she said. "We want young people to understand that we're here to protect this land for future generations," she said. "We're not going to talk Yucca Johnny in the early grades." Launce Rake can be reached at 259-4127 or at lrake@lasvegassun.com. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 41 reviewjournal.com: New report shows Yucca stuck in old errors, Porter says Mar. 24, 2006 Some of the same issues today raised in 2004 By KEITH ROGERS
REVIEW-JOURNAL Rep. Jon Porter reads Thursday from a Government Accountability Office report at the Las Vegas Yucca Mountain Information Center. Photo by Clint Karlsen. A new report by government auditors released Thursday by Nevada Rep. Jon Porter says Energy Department managers failed to bolster the quality of scientific work at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project and have resorted to a "costly and time-consuming rework" to fix problems. Porter, a Republican who chairs a subcommittee that is scrutinizing flaws with the project, said he will hold a hearing April 26 to discuss and define specific problems to which the Government Accountability Office report alluded in vague, general terms. He said, however, that "a good share" of the report probably was based on revelations last year about e-mails sent among U.S. Geological Survey scientists on the project who made references to "fudge factors" and falsifying quality assurance documents to meet deadlines. "We keep focusing on these documents to make sure, if there was any falsified information, we want to know how it has impacted the project and the science itself," Porter said at a briefing outside the Yucca Mountain Information Center near Meadows Mall. He said an inspector general's probe into the USGS e-mail flap now is being examined by Justice Department attorneys. "They want to find out if it was done maliciously or if it was done in error. They want to find out if there was any criminal activity," Porter said. The 55-page GAO report said the Department of Energy "has been relying on costly and time-consuming rework to resolve lingering quality assurance concerns. For example, to address problems with the transparency and traceability of scientific work in technical documents, DOE implemented, in the spring of 2004, a roughly $20 million, 8-month project called the Regulatory Integration Team." The effort involved about 150 full-time employees from the department, the USGS and a number of national laboratories including the Sandia lab and the labs in Los Alamos, N.M., and Livermore, Calif. Porter said recurrent problems with the Yucca Mountain Project, such as being off schedule and fraught with cost overruns, is costing taxpayers "billions of dollars" over the current expenditure of $9 billion since scientific work began in the 1980s. The total systemwide cost through closure of the planned repository is expected to be $58.5 billion. "We have 30-plus states that are trying to find a place to put nuclear waste," he noted. "If this was a private-sector project, Wall Street would shut it down and local governments would shut it down because it does not have quality assurance in place," he said. Porter said some of the same problems that were identified in a 2004 GAO report continue to plague the project, particularly in implementing quality assurance controls that are designed to ensure that the data is traceable, transparent, credible and reliable to keep the public and the environment safe from contamination. "When we talk about quality assurance, we're not talking about a widget at some factory. ... We're talking about nuclear waste and how it impacts the health and safety and welfare of Nevadans and the American people," he said. Allen Benson, a spokesman for DOE's Office of Repository Development in Las Vegas, said all the issues raised in the new GAO report "have already been identified by the department, and they've either been fixed or are on their way to being fixed." "The department remains committed to following our obligation under the law to license, construct and operate Yucca Mountain as the nation's permanent repository for spent fuel," he said. On March 8, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman told lawmakers that the Yucca Mountain Project was "broken, and we are trying to fix it." Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement ***************************************************************** 42 Salt Lake Tribune: Hazardous waste firms' merger to move ahead Article Last Updated: 03/23/2006 10:59 PM MST Antitrust review: The $396M deal involving EnergySolutions and Duratek does not cause federal antitrust objections By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune The U.S. Justice Department has decided there are no further antitrust issues to consider in the merger of Salt Lake City-based EnergySolutions with Duratek Inc. Maryland-based Duratek said Thurs- day that a month-long waiting period mandated by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act of 1976 - an antitrust regulation that automatically triggers a 30-day review whenever an investor seeks to acquire either a 15 percent stake, or a stake valued at more than $15 million, in a particular security - ended this week without any indication the Justice Department wants more time to review the merger, which will create the nation's largest full-service nuclear waste company. However, the $396 million deal, announced Feb. 7, is still months from being complete. Publicly traded Duratek needs shareholder approval, and a vote has not been scheduled yet, said Diane R. Brown, who leads the company's investor relations. In addition, EnergySolutions, formerly called Envirocare of Utah, must complete the bureaucratic process of transferring Duratek's licenses and permits with other states and the federal government into its name. With the merger, EnergySolutions will have more than 2,000 employees and operations in more than 40 states and England. It will operate the only two low-level radioactive waste facilities available for regulated waste from more than 30 states. In Utah, EnergySolutions already has done the necessary paperwork, said Dane Finerfrock, director of the state Division of Radiation Control. "All of the licenses and permits EnergySolutions has with the department have already changed over," he said. The company operates a mile-square radioactive and hazardous waste landfill about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City. A request to the state to double the site's size is pending and faces a lawsuit. Meanwhile, EnergySolutions has amended its current license to switch equipment planned for the new acreage to the existing site. Another proposed change is to increase the amount of waste that can go into the disposal pits. Under its current license, EnergySolutions can stack waste about 44 feet above ground. The mounds would be 75 feet off the ground if the amendment is approved, allowing the company to expand its Utah disposal capacity by growing up instead of out. fahys@sltrib.com © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 43 Salt Lake Tribune: 'Uranium King' altered Moab 'forever' Article Last Updated: 03/24/2006 1:49 AM MST By Lisa J. Church Special to The Tribune Charlie Steen 1919-2006 MOAB - A week after the March 11 opening of the Dan O'Laurie Canyon Country Museum's exhibit celebrating the life of Charlie Steen, the "Uranium King" who first put southeastern Utah on the map, museum officials learned that the Steen had died more than two months earlier. He died on New Year's Day. He was 86. "The uranium boom was a part of our history that seems to be overlooked today. But if Charlie Steen hadn't made that big strike, we probably wouldn't be the tourist town we are now," said museum curator Rusty Salmon. "We really owe Charlie Steen and the miners of that time a big debt. His death marks the end of an era." The rags-to-riches story of Charlie Steen captured the public imagination and made Steen an American icon. Born Dec. 1, 1919, in Caddo, Texas, Charles Augustus Steen earned a geology degree from the Texas College of Mines and Metallurgy in 1943. In 1950, a U.S. government campaign to draw prospectors to the Four Corners area in search of uranium for Cold War weapons development sparked Steen's interest. He borrowed money from his mother to buy a portable drill, and moved his family - wife, Minnie Lee, also known as M.I., and three small sons - to the Moab area in search of his fortune. Over the next two years, Steen staked dozens of claims in a place called Big Indian Wash in Lisbon Valley. He developed his own theory about the geology of the region and where and how to unlock its ore deposits, postulating that concentrated deposits of uranium in the mineral pitchblende would be located in the sandstone rock layers beneath. One of those claims eventually yielded the mother lode - the largest deposit of pitchblende in U.S. history. The find transformed Steen into a multi-millionaire, and transformed the town of Moab into the "Uranium Capital of the World." During his Moab years, Steen served on the local school board and was elected to the Utah Senate. In the mid-1960s Steen sold some of his Utah mining interests and the Atlas Uranium Mill, and moved first to Nevada and then Colorado, where he invested in several new mining ventures. He lost most of his fortune in 1968 in a dispute with the IRS. His wife died in 1997. In recent years, Steen was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. Steen is survived by his four sons, Mark, John, Andrew, and Charles. Lifelong Moab resident Sam Taylor remembers Steen as an "energetic, enthusiastic, generous, excitable guy." "He was generous to a fault," Taylor said, adding that during his hey days, Steen had donated land to every Moab church that asked, and he also gave land to the Grand County School District to construct a new elementary school. Steen's impact on Moab can still be found in the neighborhoods, including one area dubbed Steenville, where he constructed housing for his many mine employees. Steen was also known for showering employees, friends, family and sometimes strangers with money and gifts. Stories of Steen's help to someone in trouble are legendary in Grand County. Taylor said Steen even loaned his equipment to employees, encouraging them to go out and find their own uranium strikes. Several became millionaires, Taylor said. Much of Steen's legacy has been preserved through the collection of family photos and memorabilia, including the bronzed size 12 boots he was wearing when he hit pay dirt, now on loan from Steen's son, Mark, to the Dan O'Laurie Museum. The exhibit is scheduled to run for at least six months, board member Sena Hauer said. "The loan of these artifacts is a huge, huge gift for the museum, and it helps spotlight what was such a big part of our history," Hauer said. The exhibit also serves as an important reminder of the legacy Charlie Steen helped build, Hauer said. "There are lots of silver mining towns, and gold mining towns, but we're the only big uranium boom town. In so many ways, Charlie Steen changed Moab forever." lchurch@citlink.net © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 44 Sun News: SRS work split subject of contention | 03/24/2006 | The Associated Press AIKEN - A top Department of Energy official disagrees with a nuclear oversight group over how many private contractors should manage activities at the Savannah River Site former nuclear weapons complex. Assistant Energy Secretary James Rispoli said Wednesday the site needs two contractors - one to handle millions of gallons of high-level radioactive waste and another to manage other activities. But the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, an independent oversight group created by Congress, said this month that dividing the work between two contractors could make it difficult for the federal agency to review work. Rispoli said both the agency and oversight group have safety in mind, and a sole contractor should be focused on the nuclear waste, the agency's most serious environmental risk. "Let [one] future contractor focus on liquid waste. Let someone else worry about everything else," he said. Washington Savannah River Co. currently runs the site, but its contract expires at the end of this year. The company, one of several interested in new contracts at SRS, has been asked to manage the nuclear waste project through 2007. It's unclear whether its operations contract will be extended. Rispoli's comments came during the Environmental Management Advisory Board meeting. The DOE oversight panel usually meets in Washington, but it held a rare meeting here. DOE wants all 36 million gallons of waste out of South Carolina by 2020, even though officials face an unexpected two-year delay on a facility needed to help remove nuclear waste stored in underground tanks. SRS manager Jeff Allison said the 2020 goal could be met. "I think that with the right contract vehicle, I can still meet that," he said. DOE wants all 36 million gallons of waste out of South Carolina by 2020. ***************************************************************** 45 DOE: Alexander Karsner Sworn-In as DOEs Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy March 23, 2006 WASHINGTON, DC  Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today announced the swearing-in of Alexander Andy Karsner as Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). Assistant Secretary Karsner was confirmed by unanimous consent of the U.S. Senate on March 16, 2006. Im pleased to have Andy as a member of our team. His background in developing new energy technologies in the private sector will be invaluable as the DOE pursues President Bushs Advanced Energy Initiative, Secretary Bodman said. As assistant secretary, Mr. Karsner will manage the Department of Energys (DOE) $1.17 billion EERE office, which promotes the development of domestic, renewable, and environmentally sound energy technologies, as well as efficient use of our energy resources. Assistant Secretary Karsner will also lead DOEs efforts to carry out the new Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI), announced by President Bush in his 2006 State of the Union address, which provides a 22 percent increase in clean-energy research to accelerate breakthroughs in the way we power our cars, homes, and businesses. DOE is working on a wide variety of fronts to foster more rapid development, commercialization, and deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. I look forward to working with Secretary Bodman and my colleagues to bring these technologies to bear on our nations energy security and environmental well-being, Assistant Secretary Karsner said. Joining DOE from Enercorp LLC, Assistant Secretary Karsner served as managing director of the company, known for international project development, management, and financing of renewable energy infrastructure. Mr. Karsners global energy experience has encompassed a wide range of technologies including heavy fuel oil, distillates, natural gas, coal, wood waste/biomass, and wind energy and distributed generation based upon renewable technologies. Assistant Secretary Karsner graduated with honors with a BA from Rice University, and an MA from Hong Kong University. He and his family reside in Alexandria, Virginia. Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 [ ] U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************