***************************************************************** 07/25/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.175 ***************************************************************** 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 Platts: Sanction threats already hampering energy investment in Iran 2 AFP: Major powers seek elusive consensus on Iran nuclear issue - 3 AFP: North Korea hits out at "imbecile" Rice ahead of ASEAN meeting 4 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Lashes Out at Rice 5 US: Las Vegas SUN: Sen. Specter Readies Bill to Sue Bush 6 Guardian Unlimited: Critics Oppose U.S.-India Nuclear Deal 7 AFP: Kadhafi says Libya was close to building nuclear bomb - 8 PTI: 'F-16s+N-reactor to Pak=disaster' 9 Guardian: Pakistan launches huge nuclear arms drive NUCLEAR REACTORS 10 [NukeNet] Spain's Garona nuclear plant closed down 11 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: Diablo safety meeting today 12 RIA Novosti: Russia, Kazakhstan sign documents on 3 nuclear joint ve 13 US: Platts: NRC to launch Office of New Reactors, to be ready by Jan 14 US: Platts: NRC creating office for oversight of new reactor activit 15 Platts: Hamoka-5 BWR to be offline "for a considerable period of tim 16 Platts: UK's HSE approves decommissioning of 560-MW Dungeness A nuke 17 Independent: Asian arms race heats up as Pakistan builds new reactor 18 US: Bennington Banner: What's the fuss over wind? 19 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Hearings to focus on VY dryers 20 US: NRC: Union Electric Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance 21 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find 22 channel4.com: Dungeness finally decommissioned 23 US: UCS: NRC Ignores Public Demands to Stop Water Contamination 24 Guardian: Pak Nuke expansion won't derail India N-deal - US NUCLEAR SECURITY 25 BBC: Trio cleared of red mercury plot 26 US: Morris Daily Herald: Pavich introduces plant plan NUCLEAR SAFETY 27 DOVA: Gulf Veterans illness committee meeting 28 US: Tahoe Daily Tribune: Radiological alarm raised at weigh station 29 BBC: What is red mercury? 30 BBC: Compensation for nuclear veteran 31 US: Waste News: N.H. foundry fined $42,000 for air violations 32 channel4.com: Dying veteran gets compensation - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 33 US: [NukeNet] Deadly nuke rods piling up in state 34 US: AU ABC: WA entitled to own uranium stance - Smith 35 US: AU ABC: Martin defends uranium mining support 36 US: RIA Novosti: Russia, U.S. set to start talks on uranium exports 37 Las Vegas SUN: Energy stays out of the fray 38 US: Waco Trib: Editorial: Giant piles of nuclear waste need a home 39 US: kgw.com: DOE files notice of appeal in Idaho nuclear waste rulin 40 US: The Australian: NT chief now backs uranium mining 41 The Hill: Yucca Mountain prominent if Nevada caucus is moved up 42 US: Australian: State ban on uranium mining to stay | | 43 US: AU ABC: Labor's uranium plan critics grow louder. 44 US: AU ABC: Labor divided over Beazley's proposed changes to uranium 45 US: AU ABC: Premiers divided over uranium mines policy 46 US: AU ABC: Uranium u-turn will hurt Labor - Greenpeace. 47 US: AU ABC: Uranium back on Labors agenda 48 US: AU ABC: Beazleys uranium push dividing the party 49 PR News: New Report From The Boston Consulting Group Demonstrates 50 US: Australian: Lawrence opposes uranium shift | | 51 US: The Australian: Garrett rejects uranium backflip | | PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 52 DOE: Joint USDA-DOE National Renewable Energy Conference Opens Regis 53 Hanford News: Waste Treatment Plant project honored by DOE 54 Hanford News: Medical claims near $100 million 55 Hanford News: PNNL shopping water treatment method 56 Tri-City Herald: Study links Hanford, disease 57 Salt Lake Tribune: DOE to appeal Idaho ruling ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Platts: Sanction threats already hampering energy investment in Iran - US Washington (Platts)--25Jul2006 The international community's decision to give Tehran a "clear choice" -- opt either for incentives or for punishment -- when deciding whether to continue to pursue nuclear enrichment activities has already hampered investment in the country's energy sector, a US State Department official said Tuesday. "Iran, already, even before sanctions have been imposed, is a less desirable place to invest," said Paul Simons, deputy assistant secretary for economic and business affairs at the State Department. Simons was testifying before the Senate and House's Joint Economic Committee on Iran's energy sector and economy. "Putting the sanctions option front and center has had a significant impact," he said. "It's affected the political risk calculations of business and banks" by making it difficult for international companies to reach agreement on terms for new energy investments that would mitigate the high political risk of such deals. The threat of sanctions has also caused banks to downgrade Iran's credit rating, he added. Simons said US unilateral sanctions against Iran that began in the 1980s and the broad prohibitions on US business transactions in Iran imposed in the mid-1990s also have played a role in slowing global investment in Iranian energy investment. "US companies were certainly not investing in this period," he noted. The Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, a US law that threatened reprisals against non-US countries that sought to invest in Iran's energy sector, also played a role in tamping down foreign investment, he said, even though ILSA sanctions were never levied despite several high-profile energy investments by international oil companies. "There was a lot less involvement by the rest of the world than there would have been had we not gone down this road," Simons said. Simons said he would not answer questions in "an open session" of Congress on whether Iran's threat to use oil as a weapon in the nuclear dispute was credible. But he did note "the importance of oil and energy to Iran's economic engine." Iran has not ruled out using oil as a weapon in the dispute over its nuclear program, and oil market concerns about the potential for Iranian supplies to be disrupted helped drive crude prices towards the record highs of more than $78/barrel seen earlier this month. Oil and gas account for 80% of Iran's export revenues and its oil and gas exports represent about 20% of its Gross Domestic Product, said committee chairman Representative Jim Saxton, a New Jersey Republican. Simons insisted the US and its allies could "handle" a potential shutoff of Iran's 2.5 million b/d of oil exports by using "various methods at our disposal" including use of emergency crude oil reserves held by the member countries of the International Energy Agency. The US does not import any oil from Iran. --Cathy Landry, cathy_landry@platts.com For more news, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at http://nucweek.platts.com or subscribe now at http://www.platts.com/infostore/product_info.php?cPath=22_41& products_id=67 Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 2 AFP: Major powers seek elusive consensus on Iran nuclear issue - By Gerry Aziakou UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - Envoys of six world powers resumed tough bargaining and were considering turning to their political masters to break a deadlock on a UN draft resolution mandating a halt to Iran's uranium enrichment activities. Ambassadors of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany huddled behind closed doors early Tuesday and were to meet again later in the day. "We had a good discussion, an intense exchange of views ...and I think we are moving closer and closer," Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told reporters after the morning session. "We are moving rather smoothly toward our goal of having a draft resolution...We are not far away," he added. But his US counterpart John Bolton said the envoys might have to refer the case back to their ministers. "We have been at this this for some time now. We'll have to see if we are able to reach agreement or if we have to refer this to our ministers, at least some of whom will meet in Rome tomorrow," he added. US Secretay of State Condoleezza Rice and her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov will be among foreign dignitaries what will attend a crisis meeting on Lebanon in Rome Wednesday. Bolton said turning to the ministers might be necessary "to get a reaffirmation of the agreement made when they met last time to make mandatory on Iran the requirement that they suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities." Ministers from the six powers tackling the Iranian nuclear issue decided earlier this month to send the Iran nuclear dossier back to the Security Council after Tehran failed to respond to a package of Western security and economic incentives in exchange for a suspension of its enrichment activities. Iran reiterated Monday it will not halt sensitive uranium enrichment work. "We are ready to discuss anything in negotiations ... (but) we will not accept any preconditions," Iranian government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters. And top Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani has said Iran will respond to the nuclear offer by August 22. The draft resolution being discussed by the six envoys here would require Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities. It "decides that Iran shall suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the IAEA (the UN nuclear watchdog), and suspend the construction of a reactor moderated by heavy water." The text invokes articles 39 and 40 of Chapter Seven of the UN charter that stipulate "provisional measures" to be taken ahead of imposing tougher steps such as sanctions. But it also expresses the council's intention in the event of Iran's non-compliance with the enrichment freeze demand "to adopt such further measures under Article 41 of Chapter Seven as may be necessary to ensure compliance." Article 41 provides for a broad range of economic sanctions but does not authorize the use of force. The text also calls on all states "immediately to take steps to prevent the transfer of any items, materials, goods and technology that could contribute to Iran's enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and ballistic missile programs." It gives Iran up to an as yet undecided date in August to comply with the UN demands. Iran denies Western charges that it is seeking to acquire a covert nuclear weapons capability and insists it wants to enrich uranium solely to make reactor fuel. It argues that this is a right under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which it signed. AFP ***************************************************************** 3 AFP: North Korea hits out at "imbecile" Rice ahead of ASEAN meeting - Tue Jul 25, 4:07 AM ET SEOUL (AFP) - North Korea " /> North Koreahas defended its missile launches ahead of an Asian security forum expected to focus on them, describing US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as a "political imbecile" for criticising the tests. The North's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) accused Rice, who called North Korea a "completely irresponsible" and "dangerous" state for test-firing seven ballistic missiles on July 5, of distorting the facts. However, the communist state also came in for criticism from a United Nations " /> United Nationsofficial who said the launches had prompted a cutback in food aid. Rice and her North Korean counterpart Paek Nam-Sun are due to attend the ASEAN Regional Forum in Kuala Lumpur Friday amid international tensions over the missile tests. "Obviously, Rice made such an outcry in a bid to justify the US hostile policy to pressurize the DPRK (North Korea) with the ministerial meeting of the ASEAN Regional Forum at hand and draw regional countries into its pressure campaign," KCNA said in a commentary late Monday. "Her remarks are nothing but a sheer distortion of the reality which can convince no one." The news agency said the North is under threat of attack from "the worst gangsters in the world" after the Bush administration listed it as part of an "axis of evil." "It was none other than Rice who let loose a spate of such piffle over the launch of a few missiles as part of military training to cope with the US reckless moves for aggression and war," KCNA said. "This cannot be construed otherwise than an outburst made by a political imbecile." The North's test-firing of the seven missiles, which splashed down in the Sea of Japan (East Sea), earned a unanimous rebuke from the United Nations Security Council -- one immediately rejected by Pyongyang. The North also rejected Rice's claims that its tests had been reckless, saying it had "launched missiles only after airspace, land and waters of the sea had been confirmed to be completely safe." In Kuala Lumpur the UN special rapporteur on human rights in North Korea said Monday the missile launches were "irresponsible" and had affected goodwill and aid for the North. "The acts, particularly the missile launch, have ultimately impacted upon human rights, because they have led to a certain reaction from neighbours in terms of cutback on food and fertiliser aid," Vitit Muntarbhorn told reporters. Japan has already banned a major North Korean ferry link, visits by diplomats and charter flights in response to the missile tests, while South Korea " /> South Koreahas suspended shipments of rice and fertiliser. Malaysia's Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar said Monday the two Koreas would meet on the sidelines of the Asian forum this week but the North was unwilling to join six-nation talks on its nuclear programme. The talks ground to a halt in November over Pyongyang's objections to financial sanctions imposed by Washington. North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam-Sun is due to arrive in Kuala Lumpur Thursday to attend Asia's top security talks, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), according to officials at the North Korean embassy in the Malaysian capital. North Korea has insisted on first addressing the financial sanctions issue with the United States before reviving the multilateral talks. Washington has flatly rejected the offer. The United States and South Korea have been pushing for an unofficial "five-nation" nuclear meeting on the sidelines of the ASEAN regional forum regardless of North Korea's participation. "I think they feel that the sanctions, the banks, the embargo on the cash transactions is hurting them a lot," Syed Hamid said. "So all these things need to be addressed in order to bring all the parties back to talking." Before its latest boycott, the North shunned the six-party talks for five months after Rice called North Korea an "outpost of tyranny" in February 2005. The North, though thin-skinned when criticized, has its own robust line in insults. In 2003 it described John Bolton, then the top US anti-proliferation official, as "human scum" for criticizing the regime of Kim Jong-Il. Later the same year it said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who branded North Korea an "evil regime", was a "human butcher" who put Hitler in the shade. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 4 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Lashes Out at Rice From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday July 25, 2006 4:31 AM AP Photo AEM104 SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea lashed out Monday at Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for saying the communist nation was irresponsible because it had not given advance warning of its recent missile tests. On Friday, Rice labeled the North ``a completely irresponsible state and very dangerous,'' Malaysia's national news agency Bernama reported. North Korea ``launched missiles only after airspace, land and waters of the sea had been confirmed to be completely safe,'' according to a report carried late Monday by the North's official Korean Central News Agency. The launches ``hurt neither ships nor civilian planes nor anyone. This fact was admitted even by the neighboring countries,'' KCNA said. Always sensitive to criticism, the North shot back by accusing the Bush administration of being made up of ``the worst gangsters in the world'' and of launching a ``new global nuclear arms race.'' The North's test-firings in early July led the U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution sanctioning the country and banning all U.N. member states from missile-related dealings with it. The resolution also criticized the North for endangering civil aviation and shipping by failing to give adequate notice of the launches. The KCNA report also noted that Washington officials had spoken of possibly trying to intercept the missiles amid reports of the impending launch. ``Had the (North) announced its plan for missile launches in advance as demanded by Rice, an extremely grave situation would have been created in the Asia-Pacific,'' KCNA said, adding that the North and the U.S. remain technically at war. The 1950-53 Korean War, in which the North fought against American-led U.N. forces, ended in a cease-fire that persists to this day. The North violated a self-imposed moratorium on long-range missile tests with this month's launches, in which it tested a new rocket believed capable of reaching the U.S. and which failed shortly after takeoff. It also launched six other short- and medium-range missiles. The North has refused to return to international nuclear disarmament talks, demanding the U.S. lift financial restrictions imposed for its alleged illegal financial activity, including counterfeiting and money laundering. North Korea claims to have nuclear weapons, and experts believe it has enough radioactive material to make at least a half-dozen bombs. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 5 Las Vegas SUN: Sen. Specter Readies Bill to Sue Bush Today: July 25, 2006 at 7:40:34 PDT By LAURIE KELLMAN ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) - A powerful Republican committee chairman who has led the fight against President Bush's signing statements said Monday he would have a bill ready by the end of the week allowing Congress to sue him in federal court. "We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on the Senate floor. Specter's announcement came the same day that an American Bar Association task force concluded that by attaching conditions to legislation, the president has sidestepped his constitutional duty to either sign a bill, veto it, or take no action. Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds. "That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement," said ABA president Michael Greco. The practice, he added "is harming the separation of powers." Bush has challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers compiled by Specter's committee. The ABA estimated Bush has issued signing statements on more than 800 statutes, more than all other presidents combined. Signing statements have been used by presidents, typically for such purposes as instructing agencies how to execute new laws. But many of Bush's signing statements serve notice that he believes parts of bills he is signing are unconstitutional or might violate national security. Still, the White House said signing statements are not intended to allow the administration to ignore the law. "A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "It never says, 'We're not going to enact the law.'" Specter's announcement intensifies his challenge of the administration's use of executive power on a number of policy matters. Of particular interest to him are two signing statements challenging the provisions of the USA Patriot Act renewal, which he wrote, and legislation banning the use of torture on detainees. Bush is not without congressional allies on the matter. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a former judge, has said that signing statements are nothing more than expressions of presidential opinion that carry no legal weight because federal courts are unlikely to consider them when deciding cases that challenge the same laws. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 6 Guardian Unlimited: Critics Oppose U.S.-India Nuclear Deal From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday July 25, 2006 9:01 AM By FOSTER KLUG Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - As the House prepares to vote on a plan to share civilian nuclear technology with India, critics are mounting last-ditch efforts to scuttle an accord they say obliterates the global goal of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. Lawmakers are trying to attach conditions that, if adopted, could cause the deal to collapse. One possible proposal would require that India halt production of material that could be used to make bombs; another would call for President Bush to certify that India is cooperating to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. India probably would balk at such conditions, and supporters of the plan have vowed to fight any attempts to include in the legislation what they see as deal-breakers. The plan, which was expected to be voted on Wednesday, would overturn decades of U.S. policy by allowing trade in nuclear fuel and technology with India in return for safeguards and inspections at India's civilian nuclear plants; military plants would be off-limits. The Bush administration is asking Congress to make an exception for India in U.S. laws that bar nuclear trade with countries that have not submitted to full international inspections. India built its nuclear weapons program outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Supporters say the deal provides crucial energy to a friendly country that has a strong nonproliferation record, and it allows U.S. companies to crack a lucrative market. Critics say it ruins the global nonproliferation treaty and could start a nuclear arms race between India and its rival and neighbor Pakistan. Speaking Monday night in New Delhi, Indian Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee said: ``Our nuclear doctrine affirms that India will not resort to (a) first strike and never use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states. India's nuclear doctrine has a purely defensive orientation.'' While the accord has broad support from members of both political parties, lawmakers will soon leave for their summer recess. They return to a crowded legislative agenda and to November elections. The full Senate also must vote on the initiative. In addition, the deal would have to clear the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an assembly of nations that export nuclear material. As the House vote nears, several lawmakers sent a letter Monday to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice questioning why the State Department has yet to submit a required semiannual report that details the activities of foreigners deemed to have dealt with Iran or Syria in nuclear trade. The lawmakers suggested the department was stalling the report until the India deal had cleared Congress. Past reports, they noted, have accused India of proliferation. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., said in a statement that it was ``staggering that the State Department could be failing to provide Congress with information about illicit transfers of nuclear and chemical weapons-related technology and goods from entities located in the state of India.'' State Department spokesman Tom Casey told reporters Monday that he believed the report would be released shortly. He said ``there are no political considerations that are delaying its release'' to Congress. Critics also sought to link the Indian deal to a report by the Institute for Science and International Security that said Islamabad was building a nuclear reactor able to fuel up to 50 atomic bombs a year. ``If either India or Pakistan starts increasing its nuclear arsenal, the other side will respond in kind,'' said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. ``The Bush administration's proposed nuclear deal with India is making that much more likely.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 7 AFP: Kadhafi says Libya was close to building nuclear bomb - by Afaf Geblawi Tue Jul 25, 6:03 AM ET TRIPOLI (AFP) - Libya was on the verge of building a nuclear bomb before it decided in 2003 to abandon its programme to produce weapons of mass destruction, its leader Moamer Kadhafi has said, according to the country's official news agency. "Libya was on the point of building a nuclear bomb: that is no longer a secret," Kadhafi was quoted on Monday as telling a group of engineers. "The Americans and the International Atomic Energy Agency " /> International Atomic Energy Agencywere well aware." In a dramatic move that has seen his former pariah state returned to the international fold, Kadhafi announced in December 2003 that Libya was abandoning plans to build weapons of mass destruction. Kadhafi, whose support for revolutionary causes led to his country being ostracised by the West for more than two decades, and fingered by Washington as a terrorist state, acknowledged that his hopes of building a pan-Arab nation had been illusory. "We spent a lot of money on military projects but not on civilian projects and reconstruction; our hopes on setting up an Arab nation were immense but unfortunately all failed," he said, recalling that Libya had supported liberation movements in Africa, America and Asia, and the Irish Republican Army " /> Irish Republican Army(IRA). "This support was indispensable at that time. It was in the name of Arab nationalism, socialism and revolution. Now all that has changed and we have paid dearly for it," Kadhafi said. Since Kadhafi's surprise 2003 announcement, a string of Western leaders have visited the north African country, with many eyeing its under-developed potential oil wealth. The lifting of US economic sanctions on Libya opened a new era in relations -- especially since the Libyan government selected US oil companies Occidental, Chevron and Amerada Hess in January 2005 to prospect for Libyan oil and modernize its oil facilities. Libya has Africa's biggest oil reserves. Last week, in another commercial deal with the West, Afriqiyah Airways of Libya signed a preliminary agreement to buy 12 Airbus planes for an estimated one billion dollars, with the option to purchase eight further aircraft, Airbus said. Washington severed ties with Libya in 1981 and began imposing sanctions, two years after radical students ransacked the US embassy in Tripoli. An alleged Libyan-backed attack on a Berlin disco popular with Americans in 1986 spurred the United States to launch air raids against Tripoli, killing 41 people. Libya in 2003 accepted responsibility for the bombing of a US Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988 that killed 270 people, and agreed to pay families of victims 10 million dollars each in compensation. Last May, Washington renewed diplomatic ties with Tripoli and formally removed Libya from a US list of states it says sponsor terrorism. It followed this in July by saying it had lifted sanctions on Libyan air transport. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 8 PTI: 'F-16s+N-reactor to Pak=disaster' Alternative & Independent Source of Indian Subcontinent News Washington, July 25, 2006: A prominent American lawmaker asked Bush administration to scrap the sale of F-16s to Pakistan, saying the acquisition of the US-made fighter jets plus the plutonium reactor reportedly being built by Islamabad equals a ?catastrophe.? In a ?dear colleague? letter written in the wake of reports about the plutonium reactor, Gary Ackerman, the co chair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans said, ?at any time this news would be unwelcome?. Pointing to the Washington Post piece on Tuesday about the dramatic expansion in Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme, Ackerman said the import of the story is ?truly alarming? in the context of a pending sale by US of F-16 fighter-bombers. ?Despite assurances by the Bush administration that these aircraft will not be misused, or their technology transferred to other countries like China, once these planes have been delivered to Pakistan, there is, in fact, absolutely nothing we can do to prevent misuse,? the New York Democrat said in his letter. "Based on history and strategic analysis, there is every reason to believe the contrary that these F-16s will be drafted for use as nuclear weapons delivery vehicles, and that they will be picked apart by potential adversaries to answer questions about our aviation capabilities," he said. "Help stop a catastrophe before it happens. And stop the sale of F-16s to Pakistan," the lawmaker, also a senior member in the House International Relations Committee said. While Islamabad has certainly provided critical assistance in the war on terror, this recognition should not entail the transfer of aircraft that is capable of delivering nuclear weapons, Ackerman said. ?The sale of F-16s has nothing whatsoever to do with the requirements of the war on terror and everything to do with the plutonium-producing heavy-water reactor Islamabad has found the resources to procure,? he added. (Source : Press Trust of India) © 2003-Copyrights World News Exchange. Site maintained and hosted by GMN Multimedia Communications< ***************************************************************** 9 Guardian: Pakistan launches huge nuclear arms drive Alternative & Independent Source of Indian Subcontinent News Satellite images reveal major building site US and China embroiled in buildup of rival arsenals by Randeep Ramesh, Julian Borger Washington, July 25, 2006: Pakistan appears to have embarked on a dramatic expansion of its nuclear arsenal with the construction of a new heavy water reactor capable of producing enough plutonium for up to 50 warheads a year, according to a report released yesterday by a US thinktank. The report by the Institute for Science and International Security (Isis), is largely based on commercially available satellite images showing a large building site at a nuclear production complex at Khushab, in Pakistani Punjab. Isis, a non-governmental nuclear watchdog, estimates that the huge rectangular building under construction and the circular structure inside it almost certainly represent the early stages of a 1,000MW reactor capable of generating more than 200kg (440lbs) of weapons-grade plutonium per year. When completed it would be 20 times the size of the existing reactor at Khushab. The Khushab complex uses deuterium oxide, known as heavy water because of its chemical similarity to water, to produce plutonium and tritium, which is used as a booster in nuclear fission weapons. The Isis report suggests the Indian government must know of the new reactor and may be seeking to increase its own plutonium production. In an agreement with the Bush administration, under review by Congress this week, India insisted several of its own nuclear reactors remain exempt from international safeguards. "South Asia may be heading for a nuclear arms race that could lead to arsenals growing into the hundreds of nuclear weapons, or at a minimum vastly expanded stockpiles of military fissile material," the Isis report said. The Pakistani army is thought to have about 50 uranium warheads. India and Pakistan, which have fought three conventional wars in less than 60 years, already have nuclear weapons and an arsenal of missiles capable of reaching far beyond each other's territory. There has so far been no official reaction from Islamabad, although the Washington Post quoted an unnamed "senior Pakistani official" as acknowledging that an expansion of the country's nuclear programme was under way. Ayesha Siddiqi Agha, a Pakistani writer on defence issues, pointed out that since Washington had proposed a nuclear deal with India, the Pakistani establishment had been keen to "match it": "The signal is that while India surges ahead, Pakistan has ways to pull them off balance. So this may be about restoring a psychological balance between the two." Commodore Uday Bhaskar of the Institute of Defence and Strategic Analysis in Delhi suggested the timing of the report could be intended to influence the US Congress's debate on the Indian deal: "My initial reaction is that one of the report's authors [David Albright] is a critic of the India-US nuclear deal and therefore this report has to be seen in the light of its passage through Congress. It may be true but there's a reason why the report appears now." Mr Albright, a former UN weapons inspector who now runs Isis, denied there was any link between the timing of the report and the congressional debate. "It is a strange twist to the debate to see a potential Pakistani threat to India as an attempt to derail the India agreement in Congress," he said, adding that the publication was dictated more by the need to get the report out before the summer holidays began. There is speculation in Delhi that the new plant may be a fresh sign of China's commitment to a "strategic partnership" with Pakistan. The pair already have extensive military and diplomatic ties. "China has supported Pakistan since the 80s and it remains the wild card here," Commodore Bhaskar said. "At the time of the Indo-US deal, there were clear indications that Beijing thought if Washington can assist India, China can aid Pakistan." Mr Albright said Chinese assistance was a possibility. "You always worry that some of this is coming from China. Can Pakistan really do all this on its own? You wonder," he said. "That would be very serious." According to the Isis report, construction of the new reactor at Khushab began in March 2000 and could be finished in a few years. "However, nothing suggests that Pakistan is moving quickly to finish this reactor," the report said, suggesting that there may be a bottleneck in the supply of heavy water or in Pakistan's fuel reprocessing capacity. (Source : The Guardian) © 2003-Copyrights World News Exchange. Site maintained and ***************************************************************** 10 [NukeNet] Spain's Garona nuclear plant closed down Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:07:13 -0700 http://www.eitb24.com/portal/eitb24/noticia/en/life/rise-in-temperature-garona-nuclear-power-plant-closed-down?itemId=B24_917&cl=%2Feitb24%2Fsociedad&idioma=en or http://tinyurl.com/pj2mh Spain's Garona nuclear plant closed down 07/24/2006 According to the company owner of the power plant, it was closed as a precautionary measure after a rise in temperature of the waters of river Ebro used in the plant's refrigeration system. Garoña nuclear plantThe Garoña nuclear power plant on the banks of the Ebro river in the Spanish province of Burgos was closed down and disconnected from the national grid Monday early morning as a precautionary measure. According to a statement issued by Nuclenor, owner of the plant, the closure of the plant was caused by a rise in temperature of the waters of the river Ebro used in the plants's refrigeration system. The closure took place at 01:32 in the morning following all technical guidelines, Nucleor reported. Maintenance work will be carried out until the plant starts its activity again and is reconnected to the national electricity grid. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." Bush, June 18, 2002 "War is Peace" Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984 Molly Johnson 6290 Hawk Ridge Place San Miguel, CA 93451 Cell: 805 296-0524 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 11 San Luis Obispo Tribune: Diablo safety meeting today | 07/25/2006 | Federal regulators will take public comment about nuclear power plant David Sneed The public can hear a review of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant’s safety record in 2005 and share concerns today with federal regulators in a town hall-style meeting. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold two meetings in San Luis Obispo at the Embassy Suites Hotel at 333 Madonna Road. The first will begin at 2:30 p.m. NRC officials will review with plant managers the results of the various inspections held at the plant last year. Those inspections showed that the plant was operated in a safe manner but identified some recordkeeping problems that resulted in incorrectly reporting that several unsuccessful emergency drills had been successfully completed. The second meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. Eight NRC officials from the agency’s regional office near Dallas will be on hand to answer questions and take public comment. ***************************************************************** 12 RIA Novosti: Russia, Kazakhstan sign documents on 3 nuclear joint ventures 25/ 07/ 2006 MOSCOW, July 25 (RIA Novosti) - Russia and Kazakhstan signed documents Tuesday on establishing three joint ventures in the nuclear sphere, mainly in designing new reactors, uranium production and enrichment. The memorandums were signed during a session of a working group on the development of Kazakhstan's nuclear energy chaired by Kazakh Prime Minister Danial Akhmetov and Russian nuclear chief Sergei Kiriyenko. Kiriyenko, the head of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power, said the signing of these documents was an important stage of cooperation in the nuclear sphere and "real steps toward the joint development of uranium production and enrichment in Russia." Akhmetov said the first venture on designing new reactors was the most important and Kazakhstan was planning to export products of joint ventures. Techsnabexport, Russia's state-controlled uranium supplier and provider of uranium enrichment services, already holds a 49.33% stake in a joint venture set up in 2004 in the south of mineral-rich Kazakhstan. It is exploring a uranium ore deposit with estimated reserves of 19,000 metric tons of uranium in Zarechnoye near the border with Central-Asian neighbors Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. Kiriyenko said July 15 that the first international uranium enrichment center would be established in Angarsk in southeast Siberia's Irkutsk Region. "One of the elements of convergence [in the initiatives] is the idea to create international centers. We will begin with an international center for uranium enrichment," he said. Kiriyenko described the international uranium enrichment center in Angarsk as "the first step to be taken by Russia in this direction." © 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 13 Platts: NRC to launch Office of New Reactors, to be ready by January 2007 Washington (Platts)--24Jul2006 The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Monday that it will reorganize its Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to create an Office of New Reactors by January 2007. The new office would ensure effective oversight of operating nuclear power plants and prepare for the industry's interest in licensing and building new nuclear power plants in the near term, it said. The agency also is adding a new organizational unit, headed by a Deputy Regional Administrator for Construction in its Atlanta office, to oversee inspections related to expected new construction of nuclear facilities, it said. "This change will ensure we maintain our focus on the safe and secure operation of existing nuclear power plants, while enhancing our effectiveness in processing the anticipated new plant licensing workload," said Luis Reyes, executive director for operations. The new Deputy Regional Administrator position and organizational unit in Atlanta will focus on the agency's Construction Inspection Program, announced earlier in 2006. This program would be responsible for the agency's oversight of any new nuclear power plant construction for the entire country, it said. The reorganized Region II office "will be better equipped to carry out construction inspection activities while maintaining its focus on ensuring safe operation of nuclear power plants in Region II," NRC said. NRC said it is expecting several applications for new nuclear power plants in late 2007 and early 2008, with initial construction activities "soon thereafter." For more news, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at http://nucweek.platts.com or subscribe now at http://www.platts.com/infostore/product_info.php?cPath=22_41& products_id=67 Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 14 Platts: NRC creating office for oversight of new reactor activities NRC creating office for oversight of new reactor activities Washington (Platts)--24Jul2006 NRC is creating an office of new reactors by splitting off part of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, the agency announced July 24. NRR will focus on the oversight of the existing US nuclear reactors, while the new office, called NRO, will take responsibility for the licensing and oversight of new reactor activities. NRO is expected to be in place by January. Separately, NRC said it will create another deputy regional administrator position in the NRC Region II office to head new construction inspection activities. Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 15 Platts: Hamoka-5 BWR to be offline "for a considerable period of time" London (Platts)--24Jul2006 The Hamoka-5 BWR will be offline "for a considerable period of time" as a result of findings of problems in the turbines, according to Chubu Electric Power Co. The recently-commissioned ABWR was shut June 15 following indications of vibrations in a low-pressure turbine. It was thereafter discovered that a turbine vane had detached. Since then, Chubu has found cracks in the vanes in all three turbines at the unit. The problem is now under investigation. Chubu Electric said it is currently assuming that the forced outage will extend beyond the current fiscal year, which ends March 31, 2007, leading the utility to revise downward its forecast business results for 2006/2007. For more news, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/ or subscribe now at http://www.platts.com/infostore/product_info.php?cPath=22_41& products_id=67 Terms & Conditions Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 16 Platts: UK's HSE approves decommissioning of 560-MW Dungeness A nuke London (Platts)--25Jul2006 The UK's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, part of the Health and Safety Executive, has given formal consent for British Nuclear Group to decommission the 560-MW Dungeness A nuclear power station in Kent once it ceases generation at the end of 2006, BNG said Tuesday. British Nuclear Group's site manager at Dungeness A, Nick Gore, said: "By the time the station ceases generating in December, it will have provided electricity safely for 40 years." He added that the application for decommissioning was a "transparent and inclusive process" for which BNG produced a "detailed Environmental Statement." The decision follows an application by the licensee, BNG, which has responsibility for decommissioning and nuclear clean-up, and operates the Dungeness A power station. The current owner of the station is the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. The first stage of decommissioning is to remove all the fuel from the two Magnox reactors and transport it to Sellafield for reprocessing. BNG said current plans schedule this work to be completed by 2009, resulting in the removal of the vast majority of the radioactive inventory from the site. All plant and buildings, except for the reactor containment, will be removed by 2021, with final site clearance scheduled for 2111. BNG said it is working with the NDA, to "develop a business case to accelerate the site clearance process in line with the NDA's declared strategy." Dungeness is one of four Magnox power stations still generating in the UK. In May, the NII gave consent for another of the Magnox plants, the 420-MW Sizewell A nuclear power station in Suffolk, to be decommissioned. Both Sizewell A and Dungeness A are scheduled to stop production this year. The last Magnox plant to close was the 194-MW Chapelcross plant, which stopped production in 2004. Of the other Magnox plants, the 430-MW Oldbury plant is scheduled to shut in 2008 and the 1,240-MW Wylfa plant in 2010. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority confirmed closure plans for Wylfa on July 21. For more news, request a free trial to Platts Power in Europe at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/ or subscribe now at http://www.platts.com/infostore/product_info.php?cPath=2_31&p roducts_id=55 Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 17 Independent: Asian arms race heats up as Pakistan builds new reactor By Justin Huggler in Delhi Published: 25 July 2006 Satellite photographs of what appears to be a nuclear reactor under construction in Pakistan are the latest evidence that President George Bush's foreign policy is fuelling a nuclear arms race in south Asia. The photographs show a heavy-water reactor capable of producing enough plutonium to make 40-50 nuclear weapons a year, more than 20 times Pakistan's existing capacity, according to the US-based Institute for Science and International Security. The new pictures come just weeks after a former head of Indian intelligence said that a controversial civilian nuclear fuel deal with the US will allow India to produce 50 warheads a year, by freeing up its existing fuel for military use. The border between India and Pakistan remains one of the most dangerous nuclear faultlines in the world. The two countries nearly went to war in 2002 - believed by many analysts to be the closest the world has come to nuclear war since the Cuban missile crisis. The photogrpahs of the construction going on at Pakistan's Khushab nuclear site will add to fears of a nuclear arms race across this border. The pictures are the latest example of what could be termed the "Google Earth effect" - the way in which commercially available satellite photpraphs are making what were once state secrets open knowledge. These photographs, provided by Digital Globe, show a construction site next to Pakistan's sole existing plutonium production reactor. But the new construction dwarfs the existing 50-megawatt reactor. The Institute for Science and International Security believes it has a capacity of 1,000 megawatts or more. At the moment Pakistan is believed to have 30 to 50 uranium warheads. The new reactor could allow it to make 50 plutonium warheads a year. That would dramatically raise the nuclear stakes in south Asia. Pakistan declined to deny the institute's analysis. "This ought to be no revelation to anyone because Pakistan is a nuclear weapon state," Tasnim Aslam, a Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, said, but she refused to discuss specific facilities. But it is not only on the Pakistani side of the border that there are signs of a massive increase in the nuclear arsenal. Last month, JK Sinha, a retired head of India's RAW intelligence service, came out publicly with what observers have long suspected: that the nuclear fuel deal with the US will allow India to increase massively its stock of nuclear weapons. Under the controversial deal, the US will supply India with nuclear fuel for civilian power-generating purposes, in return for India agreeing to put most of its reactors under international safeguards that would prevent them being used for military purposes. But. Mr Sinha wrote in Indian Defence Review, that would free India's existing, limited domestic supplies of nuclear fuel to be used exclusively in the six reactors that will remain outside international safeguards, for military purposes. The nuclear deal is at the centrepiece of Mr Bush's attempts to forge a strategic alliance with India as a counterweight to the growing power of China - and, for some, strengthening India militarily has always been part of the agenda. "Why should the US want to check India's missile capability in ways that could lead to China's permanent nuclear dominance over democratic India," Robert Blackwill, a former US ambassador to India who is now lobbying for the nuclear deal, has said. But the prime nuclear rivalry in Asia remains between India and Pakistan, and some observers fear the US may be exacerbating a nuclear arms race between them. Any sign of an expanding nuclear capacity in Pakistan will raise proliferation concerns, with memories of the A Q Khan scandal still fresh. Dr Khan, the scientist known as the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, was found to be providing nuclear secrets to Libya, Iran and North Korea. At least one leading Pakistani journalist has said that Dr Khan must have had sanction from within the Pakistani state. The American-based analysts said that Pakistan did not appear to be in a hurry to complete it, or interested in hiding the reactor. © 2006 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 18 Bennington Banner: What's the fuss over wind? The Brattleboro Reformer Tuesday, July 25 The state of Vermont this week handed out about $1.3 million for various renewable energy projects. That money is coming mostly from Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, which promised to fund some renewable energy initiatives in exchange for getting permission to store its nuclear waste in concrete "dry casks." About $500,000 is going for small-scale solar installations for homes and farms. Another $485,000 is going toward upgrading power lines so that more methane digesters on dairy farms can be hooked up to the power grid. The rest is paying for energy efficiency projects. Conspicuously absent from the list of funded projects was wind energy. While the Douglas administration doesn't mind wind turbines as long as they are small and not on a mountain top, it is actively discouraging the development of wind power on a commercial scale. The Public Service Board on Monday rejected a proposed six-megawatt wind project in East Haven, in the Northeast Kingdom. By all appearances, this project should have been approved. It was proposed for an abandoned Air Force radar base, so the land was already developed. The four 329-foot turbines would have been in a isolated site and would have had little impact on the recreational use of the surrounding land. In other words, this was a perfect spot to put the turbines. But the Public Service Board thought otherwise, fearing the big spinning blades would harm birds and bats. The developers of the East Haven project are still reviewing the decision and haven't decided they will appeal it to the Vermont Supreme Court. But it is clear to others contemplating wind projects in Vermont that if you can't build turbines on an isolated, previously developed ridgeline site in the middle of nowhere, there is no place in Vermont where you can build them. The day after the Public Service Board ruling, a group of residents from Sheffield and Sutton took a tour of the Searsburg wind farm. Granted, the Searsburg turbines are half the size of what's being proposed in Sheffield and Sutton. But the residents came away from their visit wondering what all the fuss is about. We share their view. Wind has the potential to provide a significant portion of Vermont's energy needs. Combined with other renewable energy sources such as solar, hydro and biomass, plus aggressive energy efficiency initiatives, Vermont can make up most if not all of the energy that Vermont Yankee currently generates. We think the PSB's worries about birds and bats are misplaced. As global warming and climate change becomes more and more of a problem, every species on this planet - not just the winged varieties - will be affected. What is more of a danger? A spinning turbine blade, or nuclear waste by the Connecticut River? What is more damaging to Vermont? A wind farm on a ridgeline, or the trees on that ridgeline dying off from acid rain and pollution generated by coal-fired power plants? These are some of the questions that need to be considered in the wind energy debate. Unfortunately, they are questions that are not being taken seriously by the Douglas administration. New England Newspapers, Inc. » (802) 447-2025 » 425 Main Street » Bennington, VT 05201 ***************************************************************** 19 Brattleboro Reformer: Hearings to focus on VY dryers By ANDY ROSEN, Reformer Staff Tuesday, July 25 BRATTLEBORO -- The state should have a decision in September on whether Vermont Yankee will need to provide extra protections for ratepayers. The Public Service Board will begin to hold hearings next month that will focus on the reliability of Vermont Yankee's steam dryer, which removes liquid from steam before it reaches the generating turbines. That component has been problematic at similar plants that have boosted their power, as Vermont Yankee did this spring. The Department of Public Service asked the board to hold these hearings in June, and the docket was opened on July 11. The department took issue with the testing methods Vermont Yankee used to evaluate the integrity of the steam dryer as it boosted its power by 20 percent. While state officials did not raise issues of plant safety, they were concerned about the economic effects of a related decrease in power. In an interview last month, Bill Sherman, state nuclear engineer, said if the steam dryer were to fail, it might force the plant to cut its output in order to operate safely. If that happens, he said, it could cost the state's ratepayers more than $19 million per year, because utilities would have to buy higher-priced power to meet demand. Reached Monday, Sherman declined to comment further because of the pending legal proceeding. Vermont Yankee has funded $4 million for a "ratepayer protection plan" to cover extra power costs connected to uprate-related outages. About $2 million remains in that fund. Department officials were uncomfortable with results the plant's "power ascension testing," which led to the uprate being halted three times while officials from Vermont Yankee and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reviewed possible signs of excessive strain. They asked the Public Service Board to consider whether Vermont Yankee should give the state additional financial assurances. Rob Williams, spokesman for Vermont Yankee, said the plant has complete confidence in its testing methods, which were consistent with industry standards and revealed no problems. He said the existing ratepayer protections should be sufficient. Several parties have been approved as "intervenors," and can participate in the hearings, which are due to finish up on Sept. 18. Central Vermont Public Service and Green Mountain Power are both involved. Officials from both power companies said they wanted to keep tabs on the situation because of the high percentage of power they get from Vermont Yankee. Utility contracts are structured in such a way that if the plant had to revert to its original power level, the utilities would get less power from the plant than they did before. Vermont Yankee sells its power in-state at rates that are below market levels, but it's allowed to sell new power, created from the uprate, however it chooses. That proportion would remain at a reduced power level. The Associated Industries of Vermont, an industry group of manufacturers and their supporting businesses, will also participate. The Windham Regional Commission has been approved as an intervenor as well, as has the nuclear watchdog New England Coalition. Ray Shadis, technical advisor to the coalition, said the organization got involved for several reasons. The New England Coaliton has consistently opposed Vermont Yankee's uprate and continues to doubt its safety. One major reason, Shadis said, is that the coalition's membership is spread across several states, including New Hampshire and Massachusetts. The economic effect of the plant is not confined to Vermont, he said. Andy Rosen can be reached at arosen@reformer.comor (802) 254-2311, ext. 275. ***************************************************************** 20 NRC: Union Electric Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of FR Doc E6-11832 [Federal Register: July 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 142)] [Notices] [Page 42134-42137] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25jy06-110] Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-30, issued to Union Electric Company (the licensee), for operation of the Callaway Plant, Unit 1 (Callaway), located in Callaway County, Missouri. The proposed amendment would delete the (1) containment cooler condensate monitoring system and (2) containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor from the limiting [[Page 42135]] condition for operation in Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.15, ``RCS [reactor coolant system] Leakage Detection Instrumentation.'' The conditions, required actions, completion times, and surveillance requirements in TS 3.4.15 that are associated with both of these monitors would also be deleted from TS 3.4.15. This would remove these two monitors from the TSs as methods to detect an RCS leak rate of 1 gallon per minute (gpm) in 1 hour. The licensee submitted its request to revise the TSs in its application dated July 19, 2006. This application supercedes the licensee's previous two applications dated August 26, 2005, and August 29, 2006, which proposed only to delete the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor from TS 3.4.15. In its application, the licensee requested that the amendment be approved on an exigent basis, in accordance with Paragraph 50.91(a)(6) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 50.91(a)(6)), by no later than August 8, 2006. The licensee provided the following basis for its request. On July 10, 2006, a Commission's resident inspector at Callaway identified a concern with the licensee using the containment cooler condensate monitoring system for RCS leakage detection in accordance with TS 3.4.15. Specifically, the resident inspector questioned the ability of the system to detect a 1 gpm RCS leak rate in 1 hour based on realistic or normal plant conditions. The licensee stated that in subsequent reviews it was unable to establish that the system could meet this criteria and declared the system inoperable on July 10, 2006, at 15:44 in the afternoon. Because the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor had previously been declared inoperable because it could not be shown to meet this criteria, TS 3.4.15, with both monitors being inoperable, requires that the licensee analyze samples of the containment atmosphere, or verify RCS operational leakage is within limits by performance of an RCS watery inventory balance, once every 24 hours, and restore either of the two monitors within 30 days, or start shutting down. Since the licensee does not see the basis to justify that either of the two monitors can meet the criteria for TS 3.4.15, it has requested the exigent amendment to remove the two monitors from TS 3.4.15 and, thus, prevent the plant shut down starting 30 days after the containment cooler condensate monitoring system was declared inoperable (i.e., 30 days after July 10, 2006, at 15:44). The licensee concluded that it could not have reasonably foreseen or anticipated this situation and, therefore, could not have avoided the need for the exigent amendment request. Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: (1) Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change has been evaluated and determined to not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not make any hardware changes and does not alter the configuration of any plant system, structure, or component (SSC). The proposed change will remove the containment cooler condensate monitoring system and the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor as an option for meeting the OPERABILITY requirements for TS 3.4.15. The TS will continue to require diverse means of leakage detection equipment, thus ensuring that leakage due to RCS piping cracks would continue to be identified prior to propagating to the point of a pipe break and the plant shutdown accordingly. Therefore, the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not increased. (2) Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change does not involve the use or installation of new equipment and the currently installed equipment will not be operated in a new or different manner. No new or different system interactions are created and no new processes are introduced. The proposed changes will not introduce any new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not already considered in the design and licensing bases. The proposed change does not affect any SSC associated with an accident initiator. Based on this evaluation, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. (3) Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change does not alter any Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage detection components. The proposed change will remove the containment cooler condensate monitoring system and the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor as an option for meeting the OPERABILITY requirements for TS 3.4.15. This change is required since the level of radioactivity in the Callaway reactor coolant has become much lower than what was assumed in the [Callaway] FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report] and the gaseous channel can no longer promptly detect a small RCS leak under normal conditions. Similarly, for certain combinations of essential service water (ESW) temperature, outside air temperature and relative humidity, the containment cooler condensate monitoring system's ability to detect an RCS leak rate of 1 gpm in one hour is also uncertain. The proposed amendment continues to require diverse means of leakage detection equipment with capability to promptly detect RCS leakage. Although not required by TS, additional diverse means of leakage detection capability are available as described in the FSAR Section 5.2.5. Early detection of leakage, as the potential indicator of a crack(s) in the RCS pressure boundary, will thus continue to be in place so that such a condition is known and appropriate actions taken well before any such crack would propagate to a more severe condition. Based on this evaluation, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. [[Page 42136]] The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 14 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 14-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period, such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 14-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and State comments received. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner/requestor is aware and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petitioner/requestor must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/ requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory [[Page 42137]] Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415- 3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037, attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated July 19, 2006, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of July 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jack Donohew, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-11832 Filed 7-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 21 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding FR Doc E6-11833 [Federal Register: July 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 142)] [Notices] [Page 42137-42139] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25jy06-111] of No Significant Impact Concerning the ExxonMobil Refining and Supply Company License Amendment Request for Alternate Groundwater Protection Standards at the Highland Reclamation Project AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myron Fliegel, Senior Project Manager, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-6629; fax number: (301) 415-5955; e-mail: mhf1@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Source Materials License SUA-1139 issued to ExxonMobil Corporation (ExxonMobil, the licensee), to establish alternate groundwater protection standards for chromium, uranium, selenium, and nickel at the Highland Reclamation Project (Highland), located in Converse County, Wyoming. Pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR part 51 (Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions), the NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with ExxonMobil's proposed modifications to the groundwater protection standards for the Highland site. Based on this evaluation, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate for the proposed licensing action. The license amendment will be issued following the publication of this Notice. II. Environmental Assessment Introduction By letter dated January 16, 2006, ExxonMobil submitted an application to the NRC, requesting an amendment to Source Materials License SUA-1139 for the Highland Reclamation Project to modify the groundwater protection standards for chromium, uranium, selenium, and nickel at the designated point of compliance (POC) wells in the license. In this regard, the NRC's groundwater protection standards in 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5) specify the following: 5B(5)--At the point of compliance, the concentration of a hazardous constituent must not exceed: (a) The Commission approved background concentration of that constituent in the groundwater; (b) The respective value given in the table in paragraph 5C if the constituent is listed in the table and if the background level of the constituent is below the value listed; or (c) An alternate concentration limit established by the Commission. Further, groundwater monitoring to comply with the standards established in accordance with the above specifications is required by Criterion 7A. Consistent with the requirements of Criterion 7A, License Condition (LC) 33 of ExxonMobil's Source Materials License SUA-1139 specifies that a groundwater monitoring program must be conducted at the Highland site and ExxonMobil must comply with the established groundwater protection standards at the designated POC wells for the constituents of interest, including chromium, uranium, selenium, and nickel. For chromium and selenium, the groundwater protection standards for the Highland site were set at the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for those constituents in the table in paragraph 5C of 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A. The MCLs for the constituents listed in the table in paragraph 5C were derived from the MCLs established for those constituents in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs). For uranium and nickel, the groundwater protection standards were based on the NRC approved background concentrations for those constituents in the groundwater. However, in the years subsequent to the establishment of the groundwater protection standards in ExxonMobil's license, the MCLs for chromium and selenium in the EPA's NPDWRs have been modified and a new MCL for uranium has been promulgated. The former MCL for nickel in the NPDWRs (0.1 parts per million) was remanded in 1995, and there is now no EPA legal limit on the amount of nickel in drinking water. In light of the aforementioned changes to the EPA's NPDWRs, ExxonMobil has requested that Source Materials License SUA-1139 be amended to reflect the current MCLs for chromium, selenium, and uranium in the NPDWRs. In this regard, the staff notes that the table in paragraph 5C of 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A, has not yet been revised to reflect the current NPDWRs for chromium, selenium, and uranium. Additionally, even though the MCL for nickel has been remanded and nickel is no longer listed as a regulated contaminant in the NPDWRs, ExxonMobil has requested that its license be modified to incorporate the former MCL for nickel as the groundwater protection standard. In this regard, the NRC notes that the EPA believed that the 0.1 parts per million level for nickel would not cause any potential health problems. In accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5)(c), the requested modifications to ExxonMobil's license would establish alternate concentration limits for [[Page 42138]] chromium, uranium, selenium, and nickel for implementation of a groundwater corrective action program in the event a concentration limit is exceeded for any of those constituents at the designated POC wells. Correspondingly, the requested license modifications have the potential for impacting the quality of the groundwater offsite. The NRC staff has evaluated ExxonMobil's request and has developed this EA to support the detailed technical review of ExxonMobil's proposed modifications to the groundwater protection standards for the Highland site, in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. The Proposed Action The proposed action is to amend NRC Source Materials License SUA- 1139 to reflect the current groundwater protection standards for chromium, uranium, and selenium in the EPA NPDWRs and incorporate the former groundwater protection standard for nickel, even though it is no longer a regulated constituent. ExxonMobil's objective in this proposal is to establish groundwater protection standards for the Highland site that are appropriate and consistent with the current standards for chromium, uranium, and selenium in the EPA NPDWRs and conservative with respect to the retention of a groundwater protection standard for nickel. Specifically, ExxonMobil has proposed the following modifications to the groundwater protection standards in LC 33 of the Highland license: Chromium would change from 0.05 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 0.10 mg/L (the current MCL); uranium would change from the former radiotoxicity value of 0.43 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) (0.00065 mg/L) to the new chemical toxicity MCL of 0.03 mg/L (20 pCi/ L); and selenium would change from 0.01 mg/L to 0.05 mg/L (the current MCL). The standard for nickel would change from the 0.02 mg/L background concentration in the groundwater to 0.1 mg/L (the equivalent of the EPA's former MCL of 0.1 parts per million). The Need for the Proposed Action The purpose of the proposed action is to establish groundwater protection standards for the Highland site which are consistent with the present or former EPA NPDWRs and correspondingly reflective of the understanding of the health and environmental impacts of specific contaminants in drinking water. With this EA, the NRC is fulfilling its responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act to make a decision on a proposed license amendment for groundwater protection standards that ensures protection of public health and safety and the environment. The Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The staff has evaluated the potential impacts associated with ExxonMobil's proposed modifications to the groundwater protection standards for chromium, uranium, selenium, and nickel at the Highland site and determined that those effects are limited to the potential public health and safety impacts related to possible degradation of offsite groundwater quality and water utilization. In this case, the bounding or controlling environmental impact is related to the potential use of that groundwater for drinking water purposes. However, as noted in ExxonMobil's amendment request, ExxonMobil has proposed to establish onsite groundwater protection standards for chromium, uranium, and selenium at the designated POC wells that are reflective of the current EPA NPDWRs for those contaminants. Additionally, even though the drinking water standard for nickel was remanded more than a decade ago, ExxonMobil has proposed a conservative health based standard for nickel that is consistent with the former MCL (0.1 mg/L) for that constituent. Conceptually, the EPA has determined that the drinking water limits in the NPDWRs pose acceptable hazards. The NPDWRs effectively protect the public health and safety and the environment by limiting the concentrations of contaminants in drinking water. The NRC finds that ExxonMobil has proposed onsite groundwater protection standards for chromium, uranium, selenium, and nickel that are adequately protective of public health and safety and the environment. Groundwater protection standards that are consistent with EPA's NPDWRs also satisfy the intent of 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5)(b), recognizing the outdated table in paragraph 5(C). Further, in the event that any of the proposed groundwater protection standards for chromium, uranium, selenium, and nickel are exceeded, ExxonMobil's license specifies that a corrective action program must be proposed with the objective of returning the concentrations of those constituents to the values mandated in the license. These requirements will minimize the potential for any adverse impacts and further ensure the protection of public health and safety and the environment. Alternatives to the Proposed Action As the only reasonable alternative to the proposed action, the staff has considered denial of ExxonMobil's request (i.e., the no action alternative). Denial of ExxonMobil's request would result in no change in environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar, though, since both would be protective of offsite sources of drinking water. However, the no action alternative would leave the groundwater protection standards in ExxonMobil's license unnecessarily restrictive and out-of- date with respect to the current EPA NPDWRs and the present understanding of the potential health effects of certain contaminants in drinking water. Agencies and Persons Consulted This EA was prepared by NRC staff (Myron Fliegel, Senior Project Manager) and coordinated with the following agency:Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ). NRC staff provided a draft of its EA to WDEQ for review. In electronic correspondence dated June 13, 2006, the WDEQ indicated that it did not have any comments on the draft EA. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Likewise, the NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Conclusion The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed license amendment to modify the groundwater protection standards for the Highland site. Based upon the analysis contained in this EA, the staff concludes that proposed action will not have a significant effect on public health and safety and the environment. III. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of this EA, NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed license amendment and has determined that the proposed action does not warrant the preparation of an environmental impact statement. Accordingly, it has been determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. [[Page 42139]] IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are as follows: 1. ExxonMobil Refining and Supply. Letter dated January 16, 2006, from D. Burnham, ExxonMobil, to G. Janosko, NRC, requesting amendment to License Condition 33 of Source Materials License SUA-1139 for the Highland Reclamation Project. (ML060260421) 2. E-mail correspondence dated February 7, 2006, from M. Fliegel, NRC, to D. Burnham, ExxonMobil, acknowledging receipt of the ExxonMobil January 16, 2006, license amendment request. (ML060400048) 3. E-mail correspondence dated June 13, 2006, from M. Thiesse, WDEQ, to M. Fliegel, NRC, indicating that WDEQ had no comments on the draft EA. (ML061670212) If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of July, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Myron Fliegel, Senior Project Manager, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E6-11833 Filed 7-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 22 channel4.com: Dungeness finally decommissioned Last Modified: 25 Jul 2006 Source: ITN Formal consent has been granted for the decommissioning of one of the country's oldest nuclear power stations. Dungeness A in Kent will stop producing electricity at the end of the year, 41 years after it opened. But final site clearance is not scheduled for more than 100 years. British Nuclear Group received consent from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to decommission the power station, starting with the removal of fuel from the two Magnox reactors. This will be transported to Sellafield in Cumbria for reprocessing, with the work scheduled to be finished by 2009. All plant and buildings will be removed by 2021 but final site clearance will not be completed until the year 2111. The site manager, Nick Gore told reporters: "We've worked hard to make the application for decommissioning a transparent and inclusive process by producing a detailed environmental statement that informs stakeholders of our plans and their likely implications." The confirmation comes in the same month that Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling cautioned environmental groups that nuclear power would still play a significant part in the future of the UK's energy supply. ***************************************************************** 23 UCS: NRC Ignores Public Demands to Stop Water Contamination July 20, 2006 Backroom Deal with Industry Group Alleged In Nuclear Power Safety Opposition to NRC Decision on Water Contamination WASHINGTON, DC, July 20The Union of Concerned Scientists today filed formal opposition to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's decision to ignore the growing problem of radioactive tritium leaks from nuclear power plants into water sources. The appeal was made after learning the NRC based its decision on an industry "promise" to monitor the leaks voluntarily. Today's opposition was filed on behalf of the 25 national, state, and local organizations that petitioned the NRC in January 2006 to address the leaks. "It is outrageous that the NRC would shirk its duties to protect public safety and relysight unseenon an undocumented promise from an industry with a long track record of broken promises," said David Lochbaum, Director of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union of Concerned Scientists and lead author of the coalition's petition and appeal. "The NRC should reverse this bad decision." Last fall, it was revealed that millions of gallons of tritium-laden water had leaked from the Braidwood nuclear plant in Illinois into nearby water sources. Smaller leaks have been reported at nuclear facilities in New York, New Jersey, Missouri, Connecticut, and Virginia. On June 28 of this year, the NRC proposed denying the coalition's petition based on a promise allegedly made by a nuclear industry lobbyist to provide information on tritium leaks on a voluntary basis. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a lobby group that only promotes industry interests, presented a sketchy outline of this voluntary initiative to the NRC on July 12two weeks after the NRC proposed denying the petition. "How can industry be trusted to monitor itself when many of the leaks occurred for months, perhaps even years, before finally being found?" asked Lochbaum. "Most NRC-licensed facilities haven't looked to see if they also have ongoing leaks, so an already serious problem will only get worse." In its proposal to deny the petition, the NRC pointed out that nuclear plant owners had a contractual obligation to NEI to provide the information as promised. In today's appeal, the coalition provided the NRC with an abridged list of 10 times over the past decade where nuclear plant owners were sanctioned by the NRC for violating federal regulations by providing incomplete and/or inaccurate information to the NRC. The coalition questioned whether information provided to the NRC by the industry under a contractual obligation to its own trade group will be likely to be more complete and accurate than this proven track record strongly suggests. "Apparently, the NRC can't spare the time to worry itself about a public health matter," said Lochbaum. "Move over FEMA, the NRC is about to join you in the penalty box." Reporters: Join our notification listto receive breaking news from UCS. For general media inquiries, please call our press office at 202-331-5420. Press Contacts: ERIC YOUNG Press Secretary 202-331-5439 eyoung@ucsusa.org EMILY ROBINSON Press Secretary 202-331-5427 erobinson@ucsusa.org z RICH HAYES Media Director 202-331-5437 rhayes@ucsusa.org © Union of Concerned Scientists Page Last Revised: 07/24/06 ***************************************************************** 24 Guardian: Pak Nuke expansion won't derail India N-deal - US Alternative & Independent Source of Indian Subcontinent News Washington, July 25, 2006: Pakistan is building a new nuclear reactor that could produce enough plutonium for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year in what would be a major expansion of its nuclear program and could prompt an intensified arms race in South Asia, a report said Monday. But US officials and Congressional aides, who confirmed the Pakistani plan, said it was unlikely to derail a nuclear cooperation accord with India or the sale of US-made F-16 jets to Islamabad. News of the planned new Pakistani facility was confirmed as the US Congress faced targets for action this week on both an Indian cooperation accord and the F-16s deal. "We have been aware of these plans, and we discourage any use of that facility for military purposes such as weapons development," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. He said the administration "discourage(s) expansion and modernisation of nuclear weapons programs, both of India and Pakistan," nuclear rivals who refused to sign the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. While US officials knew about the reactor project, Congressional aides said Congress was largely unaware until a report in the Washington Post on Monday citing an analysis of satellite photos and other data by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security. The analysis concluded Pakistan was building a second larger heavy water reactor at its Khushab complex that could produce enough plutonium for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year. Construction apparently began sometime after March 2000. But the analysis said Pakistan did not appear to be hastening completion, possibly due to shortages of reactor components or weapons production infrastructure. The administration preferred to keep the project quiet because public disclosure "probably will aggravate concerns in India" as well as on Capitol Hill, one US official said. Congress this week faces a deadline for acting if it wants to block administration plans to sell Pakistan up to 36 F-16C/D Block 50/52 Falcon fighters built by Lockheed Martin Corp in a deal potentially worth up to $5 billion. Some lawmakers are concerned about Pakistan's past nuclear proliferation record and fear the warplane technology could be leaked to China, Pakistan's close ally. Congress could block the sale by enacting a resolution of disapproval in both Houses within 30 days of the June 28 notification date, but such action is rare. But to survive a Presidential veto, the legislation would have to pass both Houses with a two-thirds majority. "The reality ...is that it's very difficult to pass a resolution of disapproval," said Rachel Stohl of the Center for Defense Information. Added a Congressional aide, "There should be no effect on the sale of F-16s (because of the new reactor). So far there seem to be no major obstacles to the sale. The US House of Representatives on Wednesday is to take the first of two key votes on the Indo-US nuclear deal, which would permit sales of American nuclear fuel and reactors to New Delhi for the first time in 30 years. US officials and Congressional aides expect the deal to be approved. However, Democratic Rep Edward Markey, an administration critic, said, "The nuclear arms race in South Asia is about to ignite, and ... the Bush Administration is throwing fuel on the fire. If either India or Pakistan starts increasing its nuclear arsenal, the other side will respond in kind; and the Bush Administration's proposed nuclear deal with India is making that much more likely." He and other lawmakers accused the State Department of withholding until after the vote an embarrassing report, which will show Indian entities have sold or received weapons of mass destruction technology from Iran or Syria. A department spokesman said the report would be out "shortly." (Source : The Guardian) © 2003-Copyrights World News Exchange. Site maintained and ***************************************************************** 25 BBC: Trio cleared of red mercury plot Last Updated: Tuesday, 25 July 2006 [Roque Fernandes (left) and Dominic Martins] Roque Fernandes (left) and Dominic Martins have walked free from court Three men have been cleared of trying to procure a substance which police claimed could have made a "dirty bomb". They were arrested in September 2004 after trying to buy "red mercury" from an undercover reporter. But Roque Fernandes, 44, Abdurahman Kanyare, 53, both of Edgware, and Dominic Martins, 45, of Stanmore, had denied three terror-related charges. They denied being interested in a radioactive or toxic substance and claimed they had been tricked. A joint statement by the defence solicitors said: "This is a great tribute to the jury system and English justice and a dark day for the News of the World." This is great tribute to the jury system and English justice and a dark day for the News of the World Defence lawyers What is red mercury? Is this end of 'fake sheikh'? The court heard how Mazher Mahmood, better known as the News of the World's "fake sheikh", played the part of a Muslim, called Mohammed, who claimed to have nearly a kilogram of red mercury which he was looking to sell. Mr Mahmood set up a meeting and then contacted officers from the Metropolitan Police's anti-terrorist squad, who arrested the men at the Holiday Inn in Brent Cross on 24 September 2004. The three men were acquitted of two charges of trying to set up funding or property for terrorism. They were also found not guilty of one charge of conspiracy to possess "a highly dangerous mercury-based substance" for the purposes of terrorism. All three men had denied any involvement in terrorism and claimed their motives were innocent. Mr Kanyare said he was interested in a liquid called red mercury which could be used to wash discoloured money. He said when Mohammed mentioned it was radioactive or toxic he "strung him along" because he thought he might be able to pass the information on to a Norwegian police officer whom he had helped in the past. Tactics questioned Defence lawyers criticised Mr Mahmood's tactics. One described him as having an "egotistical obsession" for stories and accused him of being "charismatic and highly intelligent but...dangerously deceitful, ruthless, exploitative and corrupt." Stephen Solley QC, defending Mr Martins, said justice had gone "out of the window" in a bid to sell newspapers. He had urged the Recorder of London, Judge Peter Beaumont, to throw out the case - estimated to have cost upwards of £1 million - before the trial had even started. Mr Solley also accused Mr Mahmood of serially misleading the police, Crown Prosecution Service, Customs and Excise and the courts. He said that a witness in the case - known only as B, to protect his identity - had deliberately misled the three men into agreeing a deal, when they would not have done if they had known the truth. [(left to right) Dominic Martins, Roque Fernandes and Abdurahman Kanyare] All three defendants denied the charges Mr Mahmood, who testified during the trial, denied manipulating the three defendants and setting up the covertly-recorded meeting to make them look like they were guilty. A spokeswoman for the News of the World said the paper was "disappointed" with the outcome of the trial but was "entirely satisfied" that the investigation was conducted with "wholly proper" methods and in close liaison with the police. "Our story resulted from a thorough and legitimate investigation by Mazher Mahmood, one of the paper's most senior and experienced reporters, whose exposes have led to over 200 convictions," she said. A spokesman for the Metropolitan police said: "The fact that defendants have been acquitted does not mean the case was not properly brought to court. "The Crown Prosecution Service assessed the evidence and decided there was a case to answer, a decision later confirmed by the trial judge. "The Attorney General was required to give formal consent to the prosecution under the Terrorism Act 2000. "The verdict is then a matter for the jury and we respect the decision they reached." Mr Kanyare's solicitor, Paul Harris, paid tribute to both Judge Beaumont and the jury for the "scrupulously fair way" they had reached the conclusion of the highly complex case. Mr Martins' solicitor, Paul Butcher, also said the verdicts were a great tribute to the jury system. "Mr Martins now wishes to go back to his family from which he has been parted for two years," he said. Somalian-born Mr Kanyare remains in custody over immigration issues. ***************************************************************** 26 Morris Daily Herald: Pavich introduces plant plan Serving The Greater Grundy County Area Email Us at: news@morrisdailyherald.com 7/25/2006 4:05:00 PM Democratic congressional candidate John Pavich outlined Monday five steps to safeguard nuclear stations from terrorist attacks. (Herald Photo/Jo Ann Hustis) Candidate lists steps to guard against attacks By Jo Ann Hustis Herald Reporter Democratic congressional candidate John Pavich has a five-step program to safeguard nuclear generating stations from terrorist attack. Speaking Monday during a press conference at Goose Lake Prairie State Natural Area - overlooking Dresden Generating Station east of Morris - Pavich urged nuclear plant security be federalized, for one step. "Protection against terrorist attacks should be handled by a well-trained security force, preferably under the Department of Homeland Security rather than the Nuclear Regulatory Commission," he said. The second step would revise the standard for plant security to match those for the Department of Nuclear Energy's waste sites. "To protect against 9/11-size terrorist attacks and other world threat groups," added Pavich, who is opposing incumbent 11 District Congressman Jerry Weller, R-Morris, in the November election. His third step calls for construction of shields of steel I-beams and tabling to be placed around nuclear power plants to protect them from aerial attacks. "This would provide additional protection for the pools containing spent nuclear fuel," the Beecher attorney and former CIA counter-terrorism official said. Step four would require new nuclear plants in the construction stage to demonstrate the ability to survive 21st Century threats and operating conditions. "This would preclude construction of pebble bed reactors without a containment structure," Pavich said. The fifth step would transfer review of nuclear generating station security from the NRC to an independent agency, a recommendation Pavich said came from the National Academy of Scientists. He said one nuclear watchdog agency identified the NRC as "a creature of the industry it is intended to regulate." "I am confident these straight-forward steps will significantly reduce the threat of terrorist attacks against nuclear reactors across the district and nation," he said. If Pavich wins the district seat in November, he said implementation of the five-step program will be among his highest priorities in Congress. During the question-answer session which followed, Pavich said he did not have cost estimates, but noted the steel shields would probably be the most expensive part of the program. He said the shields are estimated at less than 1 percent of the total construction costs for nuclear power plants. The cost was a little more than $2 billion to construct La Salle Generating Station in Brookfield Township, Marseilles, in the late 1970s-early 1980s. "In terms of finding money in the budget to pay for it, we just have to reassess our priorities," Pavich said of his program. "That's one of the areas this administration and this congress has fallen down on. It can be done." He said the nation's nuclear plants and reactors are unnecessarily vulnerable to terrorist attack, and called attention to the 11th Congressional District - with three generating stations and six reactors - having the largest concentration of nuclear power in the country. "People in the area have the right to know the nature of these risks and whether everything possible is being done to protect them from any possible harm," he said. "Expert testimony by engineers and scientific studies indicate serious gaps remain in our ability to protect our nuclear plants again terrorist attacks. Such an attack would quite simply be catastrophic." Pavich said the NCR, the only government agency with enforcement power over nuclear plants, has fallen down on the job, according to Congressmen Ed Markey and Chris Shays. "Today, the NRC still does not have a plan to guard against attack by a commercial size airplane," he added. Pavich said everything he discussed during the press conference is open source information readily available in national publications such as Time magazine and Chicago Tribune. Morris Daily Herald • 1804 N. Division St. • Morris, Illinois 60450 (815) 942-3221 • (800) 215-9778 ***************************************************************** 27 DOVA: Gulf Veterans illness committee meeting FR Doc 06-6465 [Federal Register: July 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 142)] [Notices] [Page 42174] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25jy06-135] DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses; Notice of Meeting The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses will meet on August 14-15, 2006 in room 230, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The sessions will convene at 8 a.m. each day and adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on August 14, and at 3:30 p.m. on August 15. Sessions will be open to the public. The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice and make recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on research plans and research strategies relating to the health consequences of military service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Gulf War. The Committee will review VA program activities related to Gulf War veterans' illnesses and updates on scientific research on Gulf War illnesses published since the last committee meeting. Additionally, there will be presentations and discussion of changes in immune function and inflammation and immune responses in the central nervous system associated with chronic multisymptom illnesses and/or chemical exposures. Members of the public may provide up to 5 minute statements during the period reserved for public comments. They may also submit, at the time of the meeting, a 1-2 page summary of their comments for inclusion in the official meeting record. Any member of the public seeking additional information should contact Dr. William Goldberg, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 254-0294. Dated: July 17, 2006. By direction of the Secretary. E. Philip Riggin, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 06-6465 Filed 7-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-M ***************************************************************** 28 Tahoe Daily Tribune: Radiological alarm raised at weigh station July 25, 2006 Greyson Howard An empty uranium container triggered the radiological alarm Thursday at the CHP Truckee weigh station but was later determined to be within legal limits. At about 5:30 p.m. on July 20, the weigh station's alarm was triggered by a load aboard a big rig, said CHP Officer Yolanda Nemeth. "The detector indicated that there was radioactive material on-board," Nemeth said. The detector, called an ARAM (adaptable radiation area monitor), can detect radiation signatures from different chemicals, not just radioactive materials, Nemeth said. Both Truckee Fire Protection District and Nevada County Health Services were contacted by CHP shortly after the alarm sounded. "It didn't set off the safety alarm; just the radiological," Nemeth said. "The measurements were within the legal limits." Truckee Fire's hazardous materials unit arrived at 6:30 p.m., staged and monitored the scene at the west end of the scales, said Gene Welch, public information officer with Truckee Fire. Nemeth said that the driver didn't have the appropriate paperwork, but it was later faxed to the weigh station. "It was a UPS load being shipped by a contract carrier," Nemeth said. "It was an empty uranium container, and it was a legal load. The detector was set off by residue." The truck was held until the paperwork could be verified and the inspection completed. It was released at 8:54 p.m., Nemeth said. "It was all normal procedure," she said. "No one was exposed to radiation." All contents © Copyright 2006 tahoedailytribune.com 3079 Harrison Avenue - South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 ***************************************************************** 29 BBC: What is red mercury? Last Updated: Tuesday, 25 July 2006 By Chris Summers BBC News Three men have been cleared of trying to procure the raw ingredients for a "dirty bomb" which the prosecution claimed could have devastated a British city if it fell into the hands of terrorists. But mystery surrounds the material at the centre of the plot. So what exactly is red mercury? [Scene from the BBC's Dirty War drama] If real, a red mercury bomb might cause radioactive devastation The most bizarre aspect of the trial of Abdurahman Kanyare and his two co-defendants was the fact that no-one in the court could be certain whether the terrifying substance on which the entire prosecution case was based actually existed. The prosecutor, Mark Ellison, admitted the police had no idea if there even was such a thing as red mercury - supposedly the main ingredient for a "dirty bomb" which could have devastated London. But he told the jury at the outset: "The Crown's position is that whether red mercury does or does not exist is irrelevant." He warned the jury not to get "hung up" on whether red mercury actually existed at all. Mr Ellison said the fact was that the three defendants had hit upon a meaning for it as a substance which was highly dangerous and expensive, and they pursued it. Urban myth The indictment accused them of "conspiring together and with persons unknown to possess and article, namely a highly dangerous mercury-based substance, in circumstances which gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that it was to be possessed for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism." It emerged during the trial at the Old Bailey that red mercury was something of an urban myth, a substance which was either radioactive or toxic or neither, depending on who you spoke to. Indeed some of the conversations between undercover reporter Mazher Mahmood and the prospective buyers were bordering on the farcical. At one meeting in a shopping arcade in Edgware, north London both sides kept asking what it was that they thought the other side was there to buy or sell. Mahmood kept repeating, probably for the sake of his covert recordings: "Now let's just make it clear what exactly it is you want to buy." Kanyare replied: "You know what we're here for." When he gave evidence Kanyare said he believed red mercury was a liquid which could be used to wash soiled money. Summing up, The Recorder of London, Judge Peter Beaumont, said: "He (Kanyare) told you that Muslim people from the Middle East are usually on the lookout for red mercury as a medicine, I thought he said for impotency but the other barristers thought he said it was for long life. Whatever it was, he said it was a faith medicine." Kanyare testified that he had absolutely no interest in procuring a radioactive or toxic substance and would have had no means of testing it anyway. Internet search The trial heard that when detectives checked Dominick Martins' computer after his arrest they found evidence that he had been scouring the internet trying to find out about red mercury. He was particularly interested by an article, by Dr Anne Marie Helmenstine, which was posted on the About.com website. The article aired the various theories about what red mercury is without confirming whether or not it really existed at all. The five main theories are: + That red mercury is a reference to cinnabar, a naturally-occurring mercuric sulphide. The red pigment derived from cinnabar is known as vermillion. + That it is a reference to the alpha crystalline form of mercury iodide, which changes to a yellow colour at very high temperatures. + That it is simply referring to any mercury compound originating from the former Soviet Union. The 'red' tag would simply be a legacy of the Cold War era. + That it is a ballotechnic mercury compound which just happens to be red in colour. Ballotechnics are substances which react very energetically when subjected to shock compression at high pressure. They include mercury antimony oxide which, according to some reports, is a cherry red semi-liquid produced in Russian nuclear reactors. This theory contends that it is so explosive that a fusion reaction - a nuclear explosion - can be triggered even without fissionable material such as uranium. + That it is a military codeword for a new nuclear material, probably manufactured in Russia. Interestingly Dr Helmenstine mentioned rumours of prices of up to $300,000 being charged on the black market for a kilogram of red mercury. But is there any way of knowing if red mercury really did exist? No bigger than a baseball In the early 1990s, in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, several articles were published claiming that a pure fusion device had been invented. It reportedly weighed around 10 pounds and was no bigger than a baseball. If such a device existed, and was capable of triggering a nuclear explosion, the threat to the world - especially the western world - would be catastrophic. But no such bomb has been discovered and nobody - not even Osama bin Laden from his mountain base in Afghanistan or Pakistan - has even threatened to use one. So is red mercury just a hoax? Let us hope so. ***************************************************************** 30 BBC: Compensation for nuclear veteran Last Updated: Tuesday, 25 July 2006 [Roy Prescott] Roy Prescott wants a public inquiry in to the nuclear tests A veteran of Allied atomic bomb tests is the first British soldier to win compensation from the US government over Christmas Island nuclear testing. Roy Prescott of Burton-upon-Trent, Staffordshire has terminal lung cancer. The US government has agreed to pay £40,000 under the US Radiation Exposure Compensation Act for his illness following the nuclear tests. But the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said there was not enough evidence the tests caused the 66-year-old's illness. In 1962, he was on national service and watched 36 nuclear tests in 11 weeks whilst on Christmas Island in the South Pacific. 'Cold war casualty' Mr Prescott's rare type of lung cancer is a form of the illness which can be caused by exposure to radiation. He said it was the overwhelming evidence and research in the US which had led to the compensation payment. The MoD has refused his application for compensation, turning down his claim for an enhanced war pension. Mr Prescott said: "I am a casualty of the Cold War and whilst I am pleased the I am receiving compensation and recognition from the US government it galls me that the British government continues to fail in their duty of care towards me and thousands of other nuclear test veterans." 'Reasonable link' He called on the prime minister to apologise for the suffering inflicted on nuclear test veterans and to carry out a full public inquiry in to the matter. An MoD spokesman said: "The US compensation scheme does not require claimants to show that their illness was as a result of service. "The UK government, however, does ask those claiming compensation to show a reasonable link between their service and their illness. "Unfortunately there is insufficient evidence to indicate that Mr Prescott's illnesses are attributable to his participation in these tests." ***************************************************************** 31 Waste News: N.H. foundry fined $42,000 for air violations [Wastenews.com headlines e-mailed daily] [Win a DVD player] July 25 -- AlCuMet Inc. has agreed to pay $42,000 to settle federal pollution and clean air rule violations at its Londonderry, N.H., foundry. The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services discovered that the company began using beryllium in its casing process in 1995 without getting the required state permit until 2003. AlCuMet also conducted stack testing for beryllium emissions, a hazardous air pollutant, only after the state ordered it to do so in 2002. The company will pay a $42,000 civil penalty. The Rockingham County Superior Court approved the consent decree July 19. The agreement credits AlCuMet $10,000 for installing air pollution controls that will reduce toxic emissions beyond state and federal requirements. Entire contents copyright 2006 by Crain Communications Inc.All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 32 channel4.com: Dying veteran gets compensation - >>Watch the report 25 Jul 2006 By: Nick Martin A British veteran who's dying of lung cancer has finally been awarded compensation for taking part in nuclear tests over 40 years ago. He took part in nuclear tests more than 40 years ago -now Roy Prescott was granted £40,000 - not from Britain, but the United States - which was in charge of the Christmas Island tests. But he's angry that the Ministry of Defence still insists there's not enough evidence to link Mr Prescott's disease to the radiation he was exposed to. ***************************************************************** 33 [NukeNet] Deadly nuke rods piling up in state Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:08:08 -0700 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/07/24/MNGIHK4CSM1.DTL Deadly nuke rods piling up in state Burial site project in Nevada in limbo - Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer Monday, July 24, 2006 Thousands of tons of deadly radioactive rods of spent nuclear fuel and waste have accumulated at three California nuclear power plants because the federal government has failed to open a permanent nuclear burial site in Nevada that was supposed to be ready eight years ago. And the delay is only getting worse: Last week, the U.S. Department of Energy announced that the nuclear dump site won't open until 2017 -- almost two decades past the original 1998 inauguration target and five years beyond the most recent scheduled opening date. The latest delay climaxes a yearlong debacle at the Yucca Mountain Project in Nevada -- a debacle during which staff scientists were suspected of fraud, federal investigators blasted the project's management, and project officials announced plans to revamp the operation and redesign the burial site. On July 14, according to news reports, officials said they'd lay off up to 500 employees as part of the planned reorganization. The Energy Department estimated in 2001 that the facility would cost $60 billion. But in February, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman admitted at a conference of nuclear power industrialists that there's no trustworthy cost estimate. Energy Department officials say the facility will offer a permanent solution to the nation's deadliest waste, protecting the environment from the radiation of spent nuclear fuel for 10,000 years or longer. Critics say the computer models the Energy Department used to make such predictions are unreliable. To its harshest critics, the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository looks dead in the water. "The Yucca Mountain nuke dump has been riddled with scientific, health and safety problems from the beginning," said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., in a statement last month. "I don't believe the dump will ever open." But project defenders are confident they'll get their act together and overcome long-standing technical objections to the site -- especially fears that the super-hot nuclear fuel and wastes could leak into groundwater and spread for miles far faster than anyone dreamed when the project was proposed in the 1970s. Someday "Yucca Mountain will open," Paul Golan, deputy director of the Energy Department's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, told The Chronicle. "We're going to demonstrate that we have good science, good process, good engineering. We have good quality standards in place. This (repository) is certainly a challenge that this country can solve -- and can solve credibly." Utility officials in California and across the nation are not pleased to be stuck with growing mountains of spent fuel and waste that the Energy Department had promised to take off their hands long ago. Nationwide, more than 50,000 tons of poisonous, super-hot rods of spent nuclear fuel are sitting in cooling ponds and dry casks at atomic power plants awaiting the day when they will be shipped to Yucca Mountain. Several utilities have sued the department to recover costs of on-site storage and won; more suits are planned. PG&E officials, who run the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant and the now-defunct Humboldt Bay reactor, are among the litigants. They have demanded $100 million in damages and say they expect a court decision in September. So far, the Diablo Canyon plant has accumulated more than 1,000 tons of spent fuel and waste; the much smaller Humboldt Bay plant, which closed in the 1970s, has almost 30 tons. Southern California Edison spokesman Ray Golden told The Chronicle that the utility is reviving legal action against the Energy Department, which had been temporarily delayed, for its failure to take spent fuel and waste now accumulating at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station near San Diego. A pool at that plant stores 3,000 tons of spent fuel; an additional 300 tons is stored in dry casks. Utility officials insist that it's safe to store the fuel and nuclear waste on site. But anti-nuclear activists fear the spent fuel and waste storage facilities could become juicy targets for terrorists -- say, a pilot flying a plane filled with explosives. On June 2, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, responding to a lawsuit by the anti-nuclear activist group San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, ordered the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to study the possibility of a terrorist attack at Diablo Canyon. Nearly a half-century has passed since the National Academy of Sciences recommended burying spent fuel from nuclear power plants at an underground site, and it's been two decades since Congress designated Yucca Mountain as that site. Nothing else like the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, which would be operated by the Energy Department, has been built. The facility some 70 miles northwest of Las Vegas would consist of a series of tunnels 1,000 feet underground, where spent fuel rods from the nation's nuclear plants would be permanently buried. Four years ago, President Bush, seeking to make nuclear power a cornerstone of his energy policies, unveiled a plan to complete the project by authorizing the Energy Department to file for a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to open the site. The Energy Department still hasn't filed the application, in part because it's still struggling to come up with a workable repository design that will withstand the commission's scrutiny. That scrutiny could be particularly intensive given the recent highly publicized scandal over suspicions of data fraud inside the Yucca Mountain project. Additionally, if Congress isn't convinced that the project can pass examination by the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, it can refuse to bankroll construction or to fund the expensive transport, by truck and rail, of the nation's spent fuel to Nevada. The review board, one of the proposed repository's most dogged and distinguished critics, is an independent agency chartered by Congress in 1987 to provide independent scientific monitoring of the project. The board consists of presidential appointees and a technical staff. On May 16, board chairman R. John Garrick testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources that the Energy Department's computer model for the repository "may not give a realistic picture of how a proposed repository would perform" over the centuries. Garrick noted that the repository must be able to withstand unprecedentedly severe conditions, namely, "above-boiling repository temperatures that will last for about 1,000 years," which, he added, are difficult to model in computers. The most potentially fateful recent development involving the planned dump site was the revelation last year of several private e-mails among U.S. Geological Survey scientists working for the project. Some e-mails hinted that researchers were faking data used in developing computer models for simulating one of the most important scientific puzzles at hand: How quickly water flows through Yucca Mountain. The e-mails have been made public. "I don't have a clue when these (computer) programs were installed. So I've made up the dates and names," one unidentified e-mailer said. "If they (officials) need more proof, I will be happy to make up more stuff, as long as it's not a video recording of the software being installed." In testimony to a House committee in July 2005, one of the scientists admitted he was "somewhat horrified" by his remarks in the e-mails but insisted that such comments were "water-cooler talk" and that there was no scientific fraud. The U.S. attorney for Nevada decided, without explanation, not to prosecute any of the scientists. But in an April report, the Energy Department's inspector general, Gregory Friedman, told Congress that the e-mails still "had the effect of undermining public confidence in the quality of the science associated with the Yucca Mountain Project" and that repairing it will be "a costly, time-consuming process." Energy Department officials are so shaken by the e-mails and other problems that they've assigned scientists at Sandia National Laboratories in Nevada to repeat the computer research conducted by the Yucca Mountain Project scientists. The purpose is to ensure that the models are credible. Outside observers suggest it might be for naught. At this point "there's probably an even chance either way that (Yucca Mountain) opens or doesn't open," said geologist and MIT Professor Alison McFarlane, co-editor of "Uncertainty Underground," a 431-page anthology of scientific reports on Yucca Mountain published by MIT Press in May. "It has suffered some severe blows in the past couple of years. There are a number of people in the (scientific) community who are talking about whether we need a 'Plan B,' " she said. McFarlane believes that some kind of underground repository in the United States is "absolutely necessary." But she thinks it might be wiser to build the repository elsewhere, perhaps in a state closer to the East Coast, where there are far more nuclear power plants and, therefore, less need to transport nuclear fuel to Nevada. Officials in Nevada, where a majority of residents vehemently oppose the project, couldn't agree more. The project "is really a hopeless morass," said Robert Loux, director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects, who leads the state's fight against the Yucca Mountain Project. A growing number of members of Congress are upset, too. In a report in June on the Bush administration's proposed Energy Department budget, the Senate Energy and Water Committee said it is "frustrated by challenges facing the Yucca Mountain Project," including, in an allusion to the e-mail scandal, the quality of research by USGS scientists. The committee also said it is "greatly concerned" that, at this late date, the Energy Department "is redesigning the repository with significant changes." The committee adopted the report by unanimous vote. Despite his otherwise optimistic air, the Energy Department's Golan humorously deflected a question about when he thought Yucca Mountain will open. "I'm not a betting man," he said. "I go to Vegas all the time -- and I never put a quarter in the slot." E-mail Keay Davidson at kdavidson@sfchronicle.com. Page A - 1 URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/07/24/MNGIHK4CSM1.DTL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." Bush, June 18, 2002 "War is Peace" Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984 Molly Johnson 6290 Hawk Ridge Place San Miguel, CA 93451 Cell: 805 296-0524 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 34 AU ABC: WA entitled to own uranium stance - Smith ABC North West Tuesday, 25 July 2006. 11:07 (AEDT)Tuesday, 25 July 2006. 10:07 Federal Opposition industry spokesman Stephen Smith says he will not pressure the West Australian Government to change its mind on uranium mining. Federal Labor leader Kim Beazley wants the existing ban on new mines to be lifted. But West Australian Premier Alan Carpenter says there will be no new mines in the state, even if the policy changes. Mr Smith says it is up to each state to make that decision. "I don't propose to put pressure on anyone," he said. "I think Mr Carpenter is quite right to say he regards himself as bound by election promises he gave. "Whether he changes the policy approach for the next election, time will tell." ***************************************************************** 35 AU ABC: Martin defends uranium mining support ABC Northern Territory | Local News | Story (ACST)Tuesday, 25 July 2006. 15:08 (AEST)Tuesday, 25 July 2006. Clare Martin has thrown her support behind the move to scrap the no new mines policy.ABC The Northern Territory Chief Minister denies her support for the expansion of uranium mining is an act of surrender to the Federal Government on hosting a nuclear waste dump. Clare Martin has thrown her support behind the push by the federal Labor leader Kim Beazley to scrap the party's no new mines policy. She says she has always personally supported uranium mining even though she defended the existing party policy prior to the last Territory election. Ms Martin says countries that import uranium should also deal with the waste. "There is not a connection between uranium mines and being the waste dump for other people's nuclear waste," she said. "And I think the big issue here for the Federal Government is the Federal Government lied to territorians. And that's a very serious issue." Ms Martin says there is no link between expanding uranium mining in the Top End and having to store nuclear waste. "We don't take every single battery in the world back and we produce some of the raw material for batteries," she said. "And I think that part of the discussion we've had in Caucus and it's quite strongly supported is, we should be saying those who take our uranium, 'look after the waste products'." The Northern Territory Mines Minister says an expansion of uranium extraction could provide a significant boost to the local economy. At this stage, the Territory Government says it does not know of any new commercially viable deposits of uranium. But Kon Vatskalis says the proposed policy change could be lucrative for the Territory. "We've got one particular mine, ERA in Jabiru, that employs about 350-400 people [which] generates significant wealth for the Territory," he said. "If a similar size mine opens in the Territory, we will double the number of people working and that would double the income for Territorians." Related Audio Labor prepares for uranium mining stoush. The Labor Party is preparing for a stoush over changes Kim Beazley wants introduce, which see the party to change its policy at the national conference to allow new uranium mines to open. ***************************************************************** 36 RIA Novosti: Russia, U.S. set to start talks on uranium exports - ministry 25/ 07/ 2006 MOSCOW, July 25 (RIA Novosti) - Talks between Russia and the United States on lifting restrictions on the supplies of Russian uranium to the U.S. will open in Moscow on Tuesday, an economics ministry official said. "The talks with the U.S. will start today in Moscow," Maxim Medvedkov, head of trade talks department at the Ministry of Economic Development said. He added that Russia would be represented mostly by officials from the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power. Restrictions on imports from Russia of low-enriched uranium have been in force since the Soviet era. Russia is currently allowed to operate on the U.S. market without a 116% import duty only through the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), a special intermediary agent, under the HEU-LEU Conversion program. The U.S. International Trade Commission voted on July 18 to keep the 116% import duty on Russian uranium products claiming that the lifting of anti-dumping restrictions would seriously harm the American economy. Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier said Russia opposed U.S. discrimination against its nuclear companies and wanted to supply uranium directly. "We disagree with the discriminatory restrictions that are currently in force in the U.S. for Russian nuclear companies, and would like to supply uranium for your [American] nuclear power plants directly, and not via an intermediary monopoly that was established, in our opinion, artificially," Putin said in response to a American question posed during a Web cast on June 6. Russia and the U.S. have previously agreed to form a task force to draw up an action plan designed to resolve the anti-dumping issue. Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power, said on the sidelines of the summit of the Group of Eight industrialized nations in St. Petersburg earlier this month that Russia and the U.S. were not planning to prolong their HEU-LEU program for converting high-enriched uranium into low-enriched uranium beyond 2013, but that Russia would comply with all its obligations under the program. He added that in hindsight, he did not think the Russian side should have agreed to sell low-enriched uranium to the U.S. through a go-between monopoly. "We are not demanding any preferential treatment, any benefits or special conditions, but we are demanding equal rights and equal opportunities for competition on the U.S. market," Kiriyenko said. Asked whether talks with U.S. negotiators in late July were likely to produce a breakthrough on the anti-dumping issue, Kiriyenko said: "Of course not. We wish it could, but there is a long way to go. There are no quick fixes." He said the issue would take two or three years to resolve through the courts, or a year through negotiations, but that Russia would try to have the restrictions lifted by 2010. By this date, contracts for uranium supply beyond 2013 are to be signed, he said. © 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 37 Las Vegas SUN: Energy stays out of the fray Today: July 25, 2006 at 7:44:22 PDT Censoring was UNLV's call By Jeff German Las Vegas Sun The Energy Department wants to stay out of the brouhaha over whether to make public a heavily censored federal grant application submitted by UNLV's Institute for Security Studies. Darwin Morgan, a spokesman for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees the $2.5 million being sought by the institute, said Monday that his agency was surprised by UNLV's decision to drag it into the fray. "We don't understand why they came to us for relief," Morgan said. "It's up to the university to determine what is releasable in that document - not us." Last week, UNLV and institute officials blacked out large portions of a copy of the application requested by the Sun, insisting that the information was proprietary. The extensive censoring makes it impossible to tell from the 26-page document, which was stamped "for official use only," precisely how the counterterrorism institute plans to spend the Energy Department money. But under pressure from university system regents and Chancellor Jim Rogers, who do not believe there is a legitimate reason to keep the information secret, UNLV agreed Friday to take steps to make the entire application public. As part of that effort, UNLV General Counsel Richard Linstrom faxed a letter Friday to Kathy Izell, the Energy Department's chief lawyer in Nevada, asking for a waiver of department policies so that the application could be uncensored. Morgan, however, said Monday that Izell and other officials familiar with how the department classifies information told him that there is no such waiver available. "The bottom line is that this is a state document," Morgan said. "The markings on the document were made by the state. We're not in a position to do anything with it." That explanation prompted Regent Steve Sisolak, an outspoken critic of the institute, to urge the university to make the entire application public as soon as possible. "If the Energy Department isn't objecting, then I would hope that in the spirit of open government, the university would release it immediately," Sisolak said. Linstrom, though, said Monday he could not commit to doing that until he reviews the Energy Department's response to his request. Jeff German is the Sun's senior investigative reporter. He can be reached at 259-4067 or at german@lasvegassun.com. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 38 Waco Trib: Editorial: Giant piles of nuclear waste need a home www.wacotrib.com Tuesday, July 25, 2006 Nuclear waste has been accumulating in growing piles around the United States for decades. This haphazard condition presents a health threat to Americans and the environment should any of the storage containers leak and another sort of threat should any of this material fall into the hands of terrorists. It is ridiculous, not to mention dangerous, for the United States to not have a repository for nuclear wastes when this nation led the world into the atomic age. American scientists, policy leaders, economists and environmentalists have recognized that a safe repository for nuclear wastes has been a national priority since World War II. While everyone agrees that a secure national repository is needed, the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) reaction has seldom been stronger when it comes to agreeing on where this repository should be located. Finally, after decades of inaction, a panel of experts representing a cross section of the sciences concluded that Yucca Mountain in Nevada would be the best location for a respository for the nations nuclear waste. About 90 percent of Nevada is owned by the federal government. Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is next to a former nuclear test site. It also is near Nellis Air Force Base, which gives the location added security. Even though five miles have been excavated into Yucca Mountain, the combined efforts of Nevada officials and environmentalists have all but buried the project under lawsuits, environmental impact statements and paperwork. The complaints include fears that the mountain storage site will leak radiation, that terrorists could steal the nuclear material when it is transported from more than 130 sites in 39 states to Yucca Mountain and that Yucca Mountain will become a magnet for terrorists. The best way to prevent nuclear wastes from leaking into the environment is to put all the material in one location where it can be observed with electronic and human monitoring. Nuclear material has always been moved around the United States and will continue to be in the future. The movement of nuclear waste presents no additional risks. If terrorists wanted to get their hands on this nations nuclear waste, they have a greater opportunity with the material scattered hither and yon without the intense security it would receive at Yucca Mountain. The small Utah Goshute Tribe has agreed to accept nuclear waste, as has a group of businessmen in Wyoming. Russian officials also have offered to take this nations nuclear waste materials. The Bush administration reportedly is shipping nuclear waste to Russia as part of a deal to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. It would be so much easier to simply find a way to complete work at Yucca Mountain. No matter what the speculated risks would be at Yucca Mountain, they are considerably less than doing nothing. Cox Newspapers, L.P. - The Waco Tribune-Herald- Our Partners ***************************************************************** 39 kgw.com: DOE files notice of appeal in Idaho nuclear waste ruling News for Oregon and SW Washington | AP Wire 07/25/2006 By REBECCA BOONE / Associated Press The U.S. Department of Energy has filed a notice of appeal of a federal court ruling that ordered it to abide by a 1995 agreement to remove all high-level radioactive waste stored at the Idaho National Laboratory. The Justice Department filed the notice on behalf of the Energy Department in U.S. District Court on Monday, the last day allowed under court deadlines. Officials would not say whether an actual appeal would be filed, though it appeared likely. In May, U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge rejected DOE's argument that the agreement signed with then-Gov. Phil Batt only covered waste such as rags, tools, gloves and dirt contaminated with radioactive material that had been stored in barrels on asphalt pads at the southeastern Idaho compound since 1970. The federal government had claimed it was not required to dig up and remove other rotting containers of waste that was indiscriminately dumped into open pits and buried before 1970. DOE officials have said that not moving that waste is safer than trying to dig it up for removal. State officials don't want the waste left in place, however, because some studies have shown that buried radioactive material is seeping toward the underground aquifer that feeds the Snake River, which runs almost the entire length and width of Idaho. In his ruling, Lodge found that the words "all transuranic waste" in the 1995 agreement meant the removal of all nuclear waste, not just some of it. In court documents, Barclay Samford with the Justice Department wrote only a general statement on what would be raised if an appeal were filed: Whether the district court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous, and whether the court erred in interpreting the settlement. "The state is disappointed that the Department of Energy has elected to appeal the decision," said Darrell Early with the Idaho attorney general's office. "We will await the next steps and vigorously defend the judgment we obtained at trial." While the case continues, the DOE will work on cleaning up the INL waste and on "the continued shipment of transuranic wastes out of the state under the 1995 agreement," spokeswoman Megan Barnett said in a statement. "We intend to continue to work in partnership with the state of Idaho to ensure the safe cleanup of our Idaho site." This text is invisible on the page, but this text is affected by the invisible item's flow. This text is invisible on the page, but this text is affected by the invisible item's flow. copy; 2006, KGW-TV ***************************************************************** 40 The Australian: NT chief now backs uranium mining This story is from our network Source: AAP July 25, 2006 NORTHERN Territory Chief Minister Clare Martin has done an about face on her pre-election pledge of banning any new uranium mines. In a key shift from her previous stance, Ms Martin today said she now supports the creation of new mines in the resource rich territory. It comes after federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley last night called on the party to ditch its no new mines policy. "The territory is somewhere that does have uranium, we don't know what commercial quantities it is and I am a strong supporter of mining," Ms Martin told ABC Radio. "So I've looked at my opinion and I am happy to come out and say that I will support a change and I will actively go to the federal conference and seek that change." The NT is home to $12 billion worth of known uranium deposits, but currently has just one operating uranium mine, Energy Resources of Australia's (ERA's) Ranger mine, surrounded by Kakadu National Park. In the lead up to the NT election last June, Ms Martin vowed to ban any new uranium mines. Environmentalists hailed Labor's landslide election victory as a win for the environment. However, two months later the NT Government conceded the Commonwealth had the power to override any ban, and the Federal Government declared the NT open to uranium mining. But as recently as March, Ms Martin still would not say whether she supported a change to Labor's three-mines uranium policy. Ms Martin said she had never been anti-uranium. "I think technology has moved on and I think our community in many ways has changed its view about uranium," she said. "My personal position has never been anti-uranium mines, it has been one of caution about an expansion and I have looked at that and I am prepared to change that position." The NT's two federal Labor representatives, Senator Trish Crossin and Member for Lingiari Warren Snowdon, have both said they are against further uranium mining in the NT. © The Australian ***************************************************************** 41 The Hill: Yucca Mountain prominent if Nevada caucus is moved up July 25, 2006 By Jonathan E. Kaplan If Democrats push Nevadas caucus forward in the presidential nominating calendar in 2008, candidates will be competitive only if they oppose plans to store nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, according to several political observers in the state. Opposing Congresss decision to store radioactive waste in a mountain 90 miles from Las Vegas will be as important as support of ethanol subsidies are in Iowas caucus, said David Damore, political scientist at the University of Nevada in Reno. Eric Herzik, another political scientist at the same university, described Yucca Mountain as a litmus test for Democrats in the state. When former state Sen. Joe Neal (D-Nev.) ran for governor in 2002, he did not oppose Yucca Mountain because it would bring jobs to the state. His position, coupled with proposals that were not considered friendly to the gambling industry, cost him dearly, as Democrats deserted him in droves. National Democrats approved a measure Saturday to move Nevada and South Carolina close to the beginning of the presidential nominating process. The Democratic National Committee will vote on the decision when it meets next month in Chicago. Western Democrats have sought to make their states more relevant to the nominating process for years. In 2005, some Democrats proposed creating a regional primary in eight Western states that would take place in early February. But Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and labor unions, which play a big role in Nevada politics, lobbied the Democratic Partys rules and bylaws committee to take a chance on Nevada. Yucca Mountain has been one of the biggest so-called NIMBY (not in my back yard) issues in U.S. politics during the past 20 years as opponents have thrown up court challenges and regulatory road blocks to stop the government from transporting and burying the waste in Nevada. Siding with the opposition helped Bill Clinton win the state in 1992 and 1996. The Senates likely Democratic contenders for president in 2008  Sens. John Kerry (Mass.), the partys nominee in 2004; Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.); Joseph Biden (Del.); Evan Bayh (Ind.); Russ Feingold (Wis.); and Chris Dodd (Conn.)  voted against a resolution in 2002 that approved the Yucca Mountain location. Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), Kerrys running mate in 04, voted for the measure. Edwards, upon being selected as vice president, immediately said he would defer to Kerry on the issue. The Washington Post quoted Reid in 2004 as saying Edwards told him, I am on the Yucca Mountain bandwagon. Edwards continues to oppose storing the waste in Nevada, said Kim Rubey, the spokeswoman for Edwardss One America PAC. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean also supported moving nuclear waste to Nevada when he served as governor of Vermont. But the issue, which the courts and regulatory agencies have taken up in recent years, seems to have lost some of its potency. Opposing the site at Yucca Mountain was not enough to help Kerry to win Nevada; President Bush defeated him 50 to 48 percent. In 2000, Bush defeated Vice President Al Gore 50 to 46 percent to win the states five electoral votes. Im not going to kid you that its something that will have to be dealt with, said Billy Vassiliadis, a political consultant in Nevada who lobbied for an early caucus date. Other issues, economic and immigration, could overwhelm Yucca. Water, homeland-security and transportation funding [could] sway Nevada voters. Peggy Maze Johnson, the executive director of Nevada nuclear watchdog Citizen Alert, said, I just dont think that its going to be an issue. I just think any Democrat would not have a position that would be pro-Yucca Mountain. Iowas caucus, on Jan. 14, 2008, would remain the first test of the Democratic nomination calendar. Nevadas caucus would be held five days later, and New Hampshire still would have the first Democratic primary election, on Jan. 22. South Carolinas primary would take place a week later. Meanwhile, the partys decision has angered New Hampshire Democrats. Paul Hodes, a Democrat who is challenging Rep. Charlie Bass (R-N.H.), said, This is a misguided attempt to fix a system that is not broken. © 2006 The Hill 1625 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax ***************************************************************** 42 Australian: State ban on uranium mining to stay | | This story is from our news.com.aunetwork Source: AAP July 25, 2006 NSW Premier Morris Iemma says he has no intention of permitting uranium mining or nuclear power in his state. Federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley wants to abolish Labor's no-new-mines policy. Mr Iemma today said he was happy for the party to debate its uranium policy but the ban on uranium mining and nuclear power in NSW would remain in place. "It's a debate I'll follow with interest," he said. "I'm not going to be turning the NSW Government inside out, nor losing sleep about uranium mines in NSW because our legislation is there and I'm not changing the NSW legislation." ***************************************************************** 43 AU ABC: Labor's uranium plan critics grow louder. 25/07/2006. ABC News Online Industry expansion: A number of Labor MPs say Mr Beazley has failed to consult on the plan." There is growing criticism from within federal Labor ranks of Kim Beazley's push to overturn the party's ban on new uranium mines. Labor MP Harry Quick says Mr Beazley has failed to consult his own party. "I think it's another knee-jerk reaction by Kim trying to keep up with [Prime Minister] John Howard," he said. "We've had no real discussion within the Caucus and to say we are going to have a big debate at the next conference when he has already made up his mind I think is selling the Caucus short." Mr Quick says the issue will be raised when Parliament resumes. "There might be a few heated words said in the Monday Caucus meeting," he said. Labor's environment spokesman, Anthony Albanese is also continuing to condemn Mr Beazley's stand. But the Opposition Leader has told Southern Cross radio the discussion will not damage the party. "There won't be blood on the walls but there will be a serious argument," he said. Mr Howard says Mr Beazley will eventually win the policy debate. "I think it'll get there," he said. "Surely they won't roll him on this, I can't believe they would but I predict it will get carried. "But all it does is bring them limping towards basic common sense." Greens hopeful Greens leader Bob Brown says Mr Beazley's decision on uranium will result in further support for the Greens. "The option's going to be as we move to the next election for many, many Labor voters to support the Greens," he said. "We've got stronger policies than Labor on workplace relations, protecting the workplace, on forests and environmental issues, on global warming and now of course uranium," he said. ***************************************************************** 44 AU ABC: Labor divided over Beazley's proposed changes to uranium policy The World Today - Tuesday, 25 July , 2006 12:46:00 Reporter: Louise Yaxley ELEANOR HALL: Key figures in the Labor party are positioning themselves for an extended stoush about uranium mining at the party's national conference next year. The Federal Labor leader, Kim Beazley, wants the party to change its policy to allow new uranium mines to open. But the State Premiers are divided and one of Mr Beazley's frontbenchers is already campaigning hard against the plan. Kim Beazley, says there won't be blood on the walls at next year's conference. But as Louise Yaxley reports, there's every sign that there will be a drawn out battle over one of Labor's most sensitive policies. LOUISE YAXLEY: At the moment there are three operating uranium mines in Australia - the huge Olympic Dam and the smaller Beverly in South Australia, and Ranger in the Northern Territory. Kim Beazley says Labor should move on from its no new uranium mine policy. He's told Southern Cross radio it's time to get the issue out of the way. KIM BEAZLEY: This is a pretty deadly serious party now. I mean, Howard has pulled us on industrial relations issues and we're going to defeat him on them. This is clearing the decks. LOUISE YAXLEY: Mr Beazley says agreeing to let more uranium mines open up would demonstrate Labor's economic credentials. KIM BEAZLEY: We also need to be able to demonstrate to the Australian people that we can manage the economy, and we have a major export problem now. LOUISE YAXLEY: He concedes there will be a huge push to defeat him at next year's Labor Party conference. KIM BEAZLEY: Well, there won't be blood on the walls, but there will be a serious argument. LOUISE YAXLEY: The Prime Minister says Mr Beazley will get his way in the end. JOHN HOWARD: Surely won't roll him on this. I can't believe they would, but, you know, I predict it will get carried, but all it does is bring them limping towards a basic common sense. LOUISE YAXLEY: Kim Beazley says if he does get his way, then there will be a clear difference between Labor and the Coalition, with his party opposed to nuclear power and enrichment. KIM BEAZLEY: The debate, to a large extent now, has moved on, domestically as well as internationally. And domestically, the debate now is not over this or that mine, the debate is over nuclear power, and there are now clear cut lines between us and Howard on that. LOUISE YAXLEY: But John Howard is happy to compare and contrast the two parties' policies. JOHN HOWARD: He's still totally opposed to even looking at the possibility of uranium enrichment. He said last night that nuclear power was the policy of an idiot. There are 31 countries in the world that have nuclear power. Nuclear power produces 16 per cent of the world's electricity, and the countries include the United Kingdom and France, and many countries in Asia, and the United States, and Japan, and so the list goes on. LOUISE YAXLEY: But before Kim Beazley can get down to the battle with John Howard, he has to win the day with his own party at the national conference. The West Australian Premier Alan Carpenter says he'll vote with Kim Beazley, but he still wouldn't agree to allow any more uranium mines in his state. ALAN CARPENTER: Western Australia has a clear position. We do not want to see uranium mining here because we don't want to be taken down the pathway that will lead to us becoming the world's nuclear waste dump. That is perfectly consistent with Kim Beazley's position. LOUISE YAXLEY: The Queensland Premier Peter Beattie is hedging his bets. PETER BEATTIE: This will be a very contentious debate in the next couple of years. The Prime Minister's made some comments in relation to the future of uranium - that will be part of the debate. I think because of climate change, there is perhaps more support for uranium mining now than there was in the past, but I still don't think we'll resolve some of the environmental issues. LOUISE YAXLEY: Kim Beazley can count on the Northern Territory Chief Minister' Clare Martin's vote at the national conference and that of the South Australian Premier Mike Rann, who is one of the most enthusiastic advocates of opening up the uranium mining industry. But opponents of the change are firing up their campaign. Labor's Environment Spokesman, Anthony Albanese says his leader, Kim Beazley, is wrong. ANTHONY ALBANESE: I certainly welcome Kim's statements that he will continue to oppose uranium enrichment for Australia and will continue to oppose nuclear power plants for Australia. However, I do oppose any watering down of Labor's anti-uranium policy. Uranium is a moderate export earner, but a very big principle. It's a big principle because it goes to the heart of the values of the Australian Labor Party. ELEANOR HALL: And that's Labor's Environment spokesman, Anthony Albanese, ending that report by Louise Yaxley in Canberra. ***************************************************************** 45 AU ABC: Premiers divided over uranium mines policy PM - Tuesday, 25 July , 2006 18:24:30 Reporter: Gillian Bradford MARK COLVIN: Kim Beazley's push to overturn Labor's long held opposition to new uranium mines, has brought a mixed response from the state premiers, some of whom think there's just no good reason for a change in policy. Victoria and New South Wales are both lukewarm to the idea, and Queensland's Premier Peter Beattie says he's yet to be convinced about the need to open up any more mines. But Mr Beazley has a solid cheer squad in South Australia and the Northern Territory - the two places most likely to benefit from a uranium boom. From Canberra, Gillian Bradford reports. GILLIAN BRADFORD: It will be one of the headline battles at Labor's National Conference next April, and leading the charge to change the party's uranium mining policy will of course be Kim Beazley, backed up by South Australia's Premier Mike Rann. That State's Deputy Premier is Kevin Foley. KEVIN FOLEY: Mike Rann as Premier of our State, myself, have been calling for this change in Labor party policy now for at least 12 months or more, strong leadership from Kim Beazley as the federal leader of the Labor Party. We'll go to the conference next year, and I'm confident that the Labor Party will support the Premier Mike Rann and Kim Beazley in what is a sensible move, and one that will give great confidence to the mining industry here in South Australia, we're on the verge of a mining boom. GILLIAN BRADFORD: But South Australia has its work cut out to convince the other states to support a change in Labor's policy. New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma says he's not going to turn himself inside out worrying about the issue while no one's knocking on his door to open a mine in New South Wales. MORRIS IEMMA: We've got our legislation in place of no nuclear power. And I can understand Kim wants a debate at the National Conference and my focus is on transport, on health, on education, you know our position and our legislation on nuclear energy and I don't see a need to be changing that. GILLIAN BRADFORD: Steve Bracks is also far from convinced about the need for a change, but like other premiers he's not disputing the case for a debate. STEVE BRACKS: I actually take the view that the current policy is suitable, it was worked through well. There is no clear evidence that we are outstripping our supply arrangements currently, that there is more demand that we can supply to, and I think the current arrangement has served us well for a long period of time. GILLIAN BRADFORD: Western Australia's Premier Alan Carpenter is leading the State reaping the most from the current resources boom. Yet he's against new uranium mines because he says it would add to calls for his State being asked to store nuclear waste. ALAN CARPENTER: If other states want to pursue expanded or new uranium mines, then that's their decision. The Western Australian decision is that we do not want to go down the uranium mining path because it will inevitably lead to us becoming the world's nuclear waste dump. I don't want that to happen, and it won't happen while I'm the Premier. GILLIAN BRADFORD: Several Labor figures including the party's environment spokesman Anthony Albanese have already made it plain they will challenge the party's leader all the way to National Conference next year. They'll be backed up by environmental groups who'll try to fuel the public debate, while those pushing for change will hope economic arguments will win the day. The Northern Territory's Chief Minister Clare Martin is also behind Kim Beazley. CLARE MARTIN: On the whole, Caucus is very pleased to see the debate opened up and to have that debate next year at the National Conference. And can I say that I have done a lot of that work too, I've looked at past views, my present views, the technology, you know, the changing mood, and I will be going to the National Conference to say we should change the policy. MARK COLVIN: The Northern Territory Chief Minister Clare Martin ending that report by Gillian Bradford. ***************************************************************** 46 AU ABC: Uranium u-turn will hurt Labor - Greenpeace. 25/07/2006. ABC News Online Ranger ... operators have welcomed the push to scrap the no new mines policy. Environmentalists are warning federal and Northern Territory Labor that any change to their 'no new uranium mines' policy will backfire at the ballot box. The Territory Chief Minister Clare Martin has backed her federal leader Kim Beazley in his bid to expand the uranium mining industry. They both say it is time to change Labor policy. But Greenpeace's Danny Kennedy says nothing has changed in terms of the safety of nuclear energy or the storage of waste and he says the public agrees. "They're flying in the face of public opinion in this country," he said. "Most Australians know they don't want it because there are no solutions to the waste." Energy Resources of Australia operates the Territory's Ranger Mine. Its chief Harry Kenyon Slaney has applauded Mr Beazley and Ms Martin for going out on a limb. "That's a courageous move on her behalf too and it just shows that this policy is under rigorous review," he said. The policy will be debated at the next Labor party conference. ***************************************************************** 47 AU ABC: Uranium back on Labors agenda 7.30 Report - 25/07/2006: Australian Broadcasting Corporation 7.30 Report Reporter: Michael Brissenden KERRY O'BRIEN: Welcome to the program. Of all the issues that have sparked serious divisions in the modern Labor Party over the decades, few have caused more bitterness than the uranium debate more than 20 years ago. Now uranium is back. But this time political pragmatism is diluting the passion. Keenly aware that John Howard wants to make a fight of it, Opposition Leader Kim Beazley has moved to scrap the ALP's long-standing 'three mines' policy and cash in on what is expected to be a uranium boom. The policy is highly likely to be endorsed by Labor's national conference next year, even though there is still some spirited internal opposition. But a clear point of difference with the Government remains as well and Mr Beazley says the voters will be given a stark choice at the next election, a future Labor administration, he says, will not proceed with uranium enrichment or nuclear power. Political editor Michael Brissenden reports. JOHN HOWARD: There will be a big debate in Australia in the months ahead regarding nuclear energy. I think it's a debate we have to have. MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: John Howard kicked the latest round off and it's now been formalised by the leaders of both political blocks. But it is, in fact, a debate we've been having off and on for years already and as the Prime Minister well knows, nowhere is it more rancorous and difficult than within the faction-riven ideological battles of his opponents. Like anyone who's been around publics over the past 25 years or so he's seen it all unravel before and is surely not too disappointed to see the struggle continue. FRANK WALKER, ALP LEFT FACTION: Even if a sell-out on uranium does not produce a Green Party - and there is no guarantee that won't happen - then the very least it will do is guarantee the Democrats a boat race at the next Senate election. BOB HAWKE, THEN PRIME MINISTER: If you left uranium in the ground it would do nothing for the questions of peace and disarmament. That great mass of the Australian people out there are wise, they are correct. MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: But times have moved on considerably since the bitter internal fights that established Labor's 'three mines' policy. The Cold War threat has given way to fears of global terrorism. Global warming has become the most pressing environmental issue and nuclear technology has advanced and nuclear energy is being viewed seriously by many as an environmental panacea. Perhaps, most importantly, we're on the brink of a uranium mining boom and after many years of opposition the Labor Party is keen to display an economic credibility to the electorate and head off a predictable Government attack in the lead-up to next year's election. KIM BEAZLEY, OPPOSITION LEADER: Look, I think you have to take a stand in the national interest. There are a number of reasons we are taking this stand. One is economic. We have a major fight with the Government on the issue of industrial relations on support for education, on support for training, universities, innovation - all of these things are now open battle ground between ourselves and our political opponents. We also need to be able to demonstrate to the Australian people that we can manage the economy. MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: This is, in part, is Kim Beazley's response to John Howard's challenge. But also to the internal policy shift that was already well under way in his open party. But while John Howard wants to consider all the options, including enrichment and power generation, Labor is only arguing about the mines. This is an internal battle between pragmatism and idealism. And there are limits even for the most pragmatic. This is the message pushed in radio interviews, press conferences and no doubt with his colleagues as well. KIM BEAZLEY, OPPOSITION LEADER: At the next election there will be a clear choice - you can vote for the Labor Party, in which case you know economically responsible decisions will be taken on mining, or you can vote for the Liberal Party and know you will get a reactor and know that you will get an enrichment plan. They're quite clear on that. If Howard is re-elected, that is what you will get. MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: As he says the policy difference was the Government are now clear and well defined. But Kim Beazley is getting ahead of himself a little. The ideological gap within has to be bridged first and that, as expected, is already proving difficult. ANTHONY ALBANESE, OPPOSITION ENVIRONMENT SPOKESMAN: Uranium is a moderate export earner, but a very big principle. MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: The squabbles will be resolved at Labor's national conference next April. The debate will be spirited, but it's not just a left-right issue in the party anymore and Kim Beazley is confident he will have the numbers when the time comes. Principle is one thing. Electoral credibility is another. For Kim Beazley and many others, it is economic credibility. But for some, including Anthony Albanese, the argument may also be about self-preservation. The Greens could be a real challenge in his inner-city Sydney seat. They already attract more than 20 per cent of the vote. ANTHONY ALBANESE, OPPOSITION ENVIRONMENT SPOKESMAN: No, this isn't about my seat. It is about my position as shadow environment minister. I believe very strongly that the Australian public want to vote for a Labor government that will have an environment minister who will actually speak up in the interests of the environment, who will take on vested interests and from time to time take risks like I'm doing on this issue. SENATOR BOB BROWN, GREENS LEADER: It will cause a lot of angst in the party, the Labor Party. There will be a lot of people in tears over this. The option is going the be as we move to the next election for many, many Labor voters to support the Greens. MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: So a few may be worried, but for most in the Labor Party, burnt by Mark Latham's foray into the forests at the last poll, the economic argument wins hands down. Australia has more than a third of the world's proven uranium deposits. A good deal of it is in Western Australia. For two years now Perth has been the venue for an international uranium miners' and prospectors' conference. They can smell the opportunity and they're obviously keen to get digging. PETER MCNALLY, REDPORT LTD: We are hopeful that through a well-established process that the party has got to review these things, make decisions, that they will review it and change the policy in Western Australia. MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: The Premier of the State that will mine almost anything says he supports Kim Beazley's decision to scrap the 'no mines' policy, but surprisingly he clearly believes there's more political advantage leaving it in the ground. ALAN CARPENTER, WA PREMIER: The West Australian State Government, our State Government, has said we don't support uranium mining because it will lead to us becoming a nuclear waste dump. MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: The West Australian Premier believes the decision to mine or not should be left to the states. For him, it's not a federal issue. For Kim Beazley, it's obviously a bit more difficult. The Government wants to make uranium a political fight. Kim Beazley, naturally enough, wants to neutralise it, and he sees this as the way to do it. He may be right, but he also knows it's not a fight he could ignore anymore. ***************************************************************** 48 AU ABC: Beazleys uranium push dividing the party Lateline - 26/07/2006: Australian Broadcasting Corporation Lateline Reporter: Dana Robertson TONY JONES: Well, back to Australian politics now. Kim Beazley insists his push to change Labor's uranium mining policy won't divide the party, but, it appears, members are far from united on the issue. Mr Beazley's own environment spokesman says his leader's stance is neither good policy nor good politics, and he'll fight it all the way to the floor of the ALP's national conference next year. From Canberra, Dana Robertson reports. DANA ROBERTSON: It's the internal brawl Kim Beazley knew was coming. After announcing his intention to overturn Labor's decades-old ban on new uranium mines, those opposed to his stance have come out swinging. ANTHONY ALBANESE, OPPOSITION SPOKESMAN (SYDNEY): This is not good policy, but it is also not good politics. DANA ROBERTSON: Labor's environment spokesman believes the economic rewards of uranium exports are being oversold and there's not an extra vote in it for the party. ANTHONY ALBANESE: I think it is very hard to argue that there are people out there in marginal electorates, who voted for John Howard and the Liberal Party at the last election, who will change their vote to Labor if Labor changes our anti-uranium policy. DANA ROBERTSON: But Kim Beazley's confident that before long, the focus of the debate will change and that votes will too. KIM BEAZLEY, OPPOSITION LEADER: The real debate here is emerging clearer and clearer, and that is between the Australian Labor Party, who does not believe, we do not believe, there ought to be nuclear power and enrichment in this country, and John Howard who believes there should be. DANA ROBERTSON: Although the Labor leader's resolved to a drawn-out internal stoush over the potential policy change. KIM BEAZLEY: Well, there won't be blood on the walls but there will be a serious argument. DANA ROBERTSON: He's confident he'll ultimately get his way. John Howard thinks so too. JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER (MELBOURNE): They surely won't roll him on this... I can't believe they would. No, I predict it will get carried, but all it does is bring them limping towards basic common sense. DANA ROBERTSON: And the Prime Minister's taken aim at Kim Beazley's statement that nuclear power is the policy of an idiot. JOHN HOWARD: There are 31 countries in the world that have nuclear power. Nuclear power produces 16 per cent of the world's electricity. Lots of idiots and lots of idiotic prime minister and idiotic presidents. DANA ROBERTSON: Anthony Albanese maintains he'll stick to his guns right up until the final vote at the Labor national conference in April but he denies his stance is influenced by the strong Green vote in his own electorate. ANTHONY ALBANESE: I don't think the Greens are a viable proposition at all to win Lower House seats anywhere. DANA ROBERTSON: While Federal Labor is at odds over the merits of an expanded uranium industry so too are the state and territory leaders. Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria are happy with the status quo. But those who oversee the nation's existing mines are thrilled at the prospect of more. CLARE MARTIN, NT CHIEF MINISTER (DARWIN): I would like to see a uranium mine judged on the same basis as a gold mine or a manganese mine, with all the criteria that you apply there, and certainly done on a case by case basis. KEVIN FOLEY, SA DEPUTY PREMIER: This is a great leadership decision by Kim Beazley. DANA ROBERTSON: But another premier with control over rich uranium deposits is adamant it should stay in the ground. ALAN CARPENTER, WA PREMIER (PERTH): We do not want to go down the uranium mining path because it will inevitably lead to us becoming the world's nuclear waste dump. DANA ROBERTSON: Nonetheless, the WA Premier says he supports Kim Beazley's stance: because whether or not to mine should be a decision for the states alone. Dana Robertson, Lateline. ***************************************************************** 49 PR News: New Report From The Boston Consulting Group Demonstrates Economic Solutions for Recycling U.S. Nuclear Fuel PR Newswire Portfolio Strategy That Combines Recycling and Repository Solutions Offers Broad Benefits and Comparable Economics to a Once Through Strategy BETHESDA, Md., July 25 /PRNewswire/ -- The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) today announced that its study, Economic Assessment of Used Nuclear Fuel Management in the United States, concludes that nuclear fuel recycling, as part of a portfolio strategy in which a large scale integrated recycling plant complements a repository (such as the planned Yucca Mountain repository) could be attractive for solving the long-term used nuclear fuel management requirement of the U.S. nuclear power market. Conducted for Bethesda, Maryland-based AREVA, Inc., BCG performed the first extensive study of proprietary operational and financial data from decades of AREVA's nuclear recycling experience at the La Hague and Melox facilities in France. The study shows that the economics of recycling and disposal of high level waste in Yucca Mountain are comparable to the economics of the targeted once- through U.S. fuel cycle, especially considering uncertainties that surround the nuclear fuel cycle, such as capital investment costs and uranium prices. "This study shows that current generation recycling technologies for used nuclear fuel are in an economic range that can be competitive," said Dennis Spurgeon, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy. "This economic benchmark is useful as we work on advanced recycling technologies that make better use of our energy resources and reduce the space and time needed to store nuclear waste." "As companies and governments decide how to navigate the opportunities presented by nuclear power technologies, BCG's economic analysis of AREVA's experience as one of the world's leading reprocessing and recycling plant operators offers vital insight into the development of a comprehensive nuclear waste management strategy," said Rick Peters, Senior Vice President and the head of BCG's worldwide energy practice. Using AREVA's established technical expertise and experience, BCG evaluated the costs of a large scale state-of-the-art fuel treatment plant with enhanced processes integrated with recycled fuel manufacturing. The study reports that recycling, as part of a portfolio strategy in which an integrated treatment and recycling plant complements a repository such as the planned Yucca Mountain repository, offers specific benefits including: * Increasing the capacity of Yucca Mountain by a factor of 4 by recycling newly discharged fuel within four years and cooling the vitrified high level waste for 25 years at the recycling facility. * Providing a comparable cost of disposal while eliminating the need for a second repository during the 50 years of recycling plant operation. * Creating an effective long term hedge on rising fuel costs by providing 20-25 percent of the annual nuclear fuel needs in the U.S. through recycled products. * Reducing used fuel inventory in the short term by removing the newly discharged, hotter fuel for recycling. * Eliminating the need for additional storage at reactor sites while recycling some of the older legacy fuel in dilution with new fuel. BCG's access to cost data, supplemented with external reports, surveys and interviews, takes into consideration the economics of the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and the specifics of the U.S. context and does not represent an accounting audit of the data. The report's conclusions reflect BCG's efforts to develop a detailed understanding of the economics of recycling within specific U.S. parameters. To download a copy of the study, please visit http://www.bcg.com/publications. About AREVA As the leading U.S. nuclear vendor and a key player in the electricity transmission and distribution sector, AREVA Inc.'s 5,000 American energy employees are committed to serve the nation and pave the way for the future of the electricity market. With 40 locations across the nation and nearly $2 billion in energy revenues in 2005, AREVA Inc., through its subsidiaries combines homegrown leadership, access to worldwide expertise and a proven track record of performance. In the U.S. and in over 100 countries around the world, AREVA is engaged in the 21st century's greatest challenges: making energy available to all, protecting the planet, and acting responsibly towards future generations. AREVA Inc. is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. About The Boston Consulting Group BCG's Energy practice helps companies navigate an increasingly complex and uncertain business environment. We work with the full range of oil, gas and utility players in the industry, and are helping define the new rules of the competitive game in many countries around the world. Since its founding in 1963, The Boston Consulting Group has focused on helping clients achieve competitive advantage. Our firm believes that best practices or benchmarks are rarely enough to create lasting value and that positive change requires new insight into economics and markets and the organizational capabilities to chart and deliver on winning strategies. We consider every assignment to be a unique set of opportunities and constraints for which no standard solution will be adequate. BCG has 61 offices in 36 countries and serves companies in all industries and markets. For further information, please visit our Web site at http://www.bcg.com. SOURCE AREVA, Inc. Related links: + http://www.bcg.com Copyright © 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights Reserved. A United Business Mediacompany. ***************************************************************** 50 Australian: Lawrence opposes uranium shift | | This story is from our news.com.aunetwork Source: AAP By David Crawshaw July 25, 2006 LABOR MP Carmen Lawrence says she is opposed to party leader Kim Beazley's plan to allow new uranium mines in Australia. Mr Beazley last night announced he wanted to scrap Labor's long-standing policy of no new uranium mines, insisting the move was responsible and would not alter his opposition to nuclear power. Dr Lawrence, a former West Australian premier, today joined fellow Left faction figure Anthony Albanese in criticising Mr Beazley's planned policy overhaul. "I'm opposed to the expansion of uranium mining in Australia," she told AAP. But Dr Lawrence welcomed public debate on Labor's uranium policy and the Government's push for Australia to become involved in nuclear power. Australia is among the world's largest exporters of uranium, which is used to produce nuclear power and atomic weapons. "It's a debate we should have, and one which we've had before," Dr Lawrence said. "(Prime Minister John) Howard is saying that if you mine uranium then it's hard to see why you shouldn't agree to enrichment. "Now Labor has to find that line in the sand, and for Kim (Beazley) that means mining but no enrichment. "But a number of us, myself included, believe that line is best drawn by avoiding getting involved in the nuclear fuel cycle at all." WA Labor Premier Alan Carpenter has said he will stand firm in opposing uranium mining in his state. Dr Lawrence said she could "tolerate" Labor's existing policy of permitting existing uranium mines to operate, but opposed new mines. "If you ... have objections to the use of nuclear fuel and weapons, to be consistent you should say you're not going to add to that by continuing to expand mining operations," she said. She said there was still no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste, and warned Australia could end up having to store increased amounts of waste if it increased uranium exports. The economic benefits of alternative energy sources outstripped those that uranium mining could deliver, she said. ***************************************************************** 51 The Australian: Garrett rejects uranium backflip | | This story is from our news.com.aunetwork Source: AAP By Saffron Howden July 25, 2006 LABOR frontbencher and former anti-nuclear campaigner Peter Garrett says he does not support expanding Australia's nuclear industry. After months of internal party debate, Opposition Leader Kim Beazley has announced he wants to dump Labor's 22-year-old policy of opposing any new uranium mines. In a major U-turn, Mr Beazley wants next year's national conference to endorse a new party platform which would impose stringent safeguards on uranium use and export, but allow new mines to open. Opposition environment spokesman Anthony Albanese has already come out strongly against the plan, as has former national ALP president, Carmen Lawrence. Mr Garrett, a one-time candidate for the Nuclear Disarmament Party, today welcomed the debate, but could not support his leader's position. "I welcome a debate," he said. "(But) I have strong reservations about the nuclear cycle and all aspects of the nuclear industry," he said. The former president of the Australian Conservation Foundation does not support any expansion of Australia's nuclear industry. "My own view is that our emphasis ought not be on expanding the nuclear industry in Australia." ***************************************************************** 52 DOE: Joint USDA-DOE National Renewable Energy Conference Opens Registration July 25, 2006 WASHINGTON, DC - Registration is now open for Advancing Renewable Energy: An American Rural Renaissance, a national renewable energy conference that will be hosted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on October 10-12, 2006, at Americas Center in St. Louis, Missouri. The conference will focus on achieving goals outlined in President Bushs Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI), which seeks to change the way we power our cars, homes and businesses through the use of alternative energy sources. We must work together to keep America competitive by expanding sustainable, market-driven, domestic energy sources, USDA Secretary Mike Johanns said from Kazakhstan where he is conducting a trade mission. The October conference will build upon the Presidents vision for overcoming our energy challenges and will create new opportunities in rural communities. Advancing Renewable Energy is designed to help create and strengthen partnerships and strategies necessary to accelerate commercialization of renewable energy industries and distribution systems, the crux of President Bushs AEI. The conference will specifically focus discussions on biomass, wind and solar research and commercialization. USDA and DOE expect the conference to identify critical pathways, and to make recommendations to help accelerate renewable energy technology development. The conference also will examine incentives to help reduce risk for investors and developers in the marketplace and will review challenges of developing new distribution systems. Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman said, Never has reducing our dependence on foreign oil been a more pressing issue. We are hopeful this conference will identify major impediments and critical pathways to get more domestically grown, renewable energy sources out of the laboratory and into consumers' hands as soon as possible. Attendance is open to the public. Anyone involved with, or interested in, renewable energy is encouraged to attend, including transportation, large- and small-scale farming, finance and investment officials, as well as academia, and federal, state, government and elected officials. All attendees must register for the conference, including press, who may attend without charge. For more information and to register for the conference, visit: http://www.AdvancingRenew ableEnergy.com. Media contact(s): USDA: Jim Brownlee (202) 720-4623 DOE: 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 | e/General ***************************************************************** 53 Hanford News: Waste Treatment Plant project honored by DOE This story was published Sunday, July 23rd, 2006 By the Herald staff The Waste Treatment Plant project received the Department of Energy's Facility Management Contractor Small Business Achievement Award for fiscal year 2005. The award honors the DOE prime contractor with the highest percentage increase in subcontract awards to small businesses from the previous year. The contract required 46 percent of all subcontracted dollars be awarded to small businesses. In 2005, the amount was almost 58 percent were awarded to small businesses. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 54 Hanford News: Medical claims near $100 million This story was published Sunday, July 23rd, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Hanford and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory workers have received $97.5 million since a program began five years ago to compensate workers made ill by radiation or hazardous chemicals. It also has paid $1.3 million in medical bills. The program, which began July 31, 2001, marked a policy reversal for the Department of Energy, which had fought nuclear workers who claimed workplace exposures had caused cancer and other illnesses. Part B Most of the compensation has been paid under Part B of the program, which gives workers or their survivors $150,000 if exposure to radiation caused cancer or if breathing particles of the metal beryllium caused an incurable lung disease. However, the percentage of Hanford claims approved for radiation-caused cancers is lower than the average for nuclear sites across the nation. Slightly less than 25 percent of the cancer claims decided for Hanford workers have been approved for payment versus about 29 percent nationwide, said Shelby Hallmark, director of the Department of Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs. Before the federal government approves a payment, it determines whether there's at least a 50 percent chance that radiation caused the cancer based on an estimate of how much radiation the worker was exposed to at work. Workers at sites with lots of radiation exposure data are more likely to have their cancer claims denied than at sites where little information is available, Hallmark said. Estimates that have to be made when data is not available may give the benefit of the doubt to workers. In addition, sites where most of the work was done decades ago also have higher approval rates for cancer claims, he said. In more recent decades, more effective monitoring and protection methods may have been used, he said. Hanford began producing plutonium during World War II and continued through the Cold War. But the site has remained active since then for a massive environmental cleanup effort. In addition, many claims filed when the program began were denied because workers or their survivors were filing for illnesses other than cancer, he said. The Part B program continues to get about 100 claims filed each week from workers at sites across the nation. Part E Part E, which works as a traditional worker compensation program, has been far slower to reach decisions and pay claims. But the Department of Labor is offering hope to those who filed five years ago that the government is making progress on processing claims. Rather than a lump sum benefit for cancer and beryllium disease, Part E pays workers or survivors up to $250,000 in benefits. They include coverage of lost wages because of illness or disability caused by exposure to toxins, including radiological, chemical and biological hazards. Many workers are eligible for payments under Part B as well as Part E. Only 20 percent of the Part E claims filed at Hanford so far have been decided. Because the Department of Energy made little progress is resolving claims in the initial years of Part E, Congress moved the program to Department of Labor and made other changes. A year after new rules for the program were adopted by the Department of Labor, It has paid $20.2 million in compensation to Hanford workers or their survivors and $3.2 million in claims to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory workers. When the program was transferred to the Department of Labor, it inherited 25,000 unresolved cases from DOE. "We are very dedicated to work through the backlog of cases," Hallmark said. But building an infrastructure to process the claims, including hiring staff and setting up computer systems, has taken time. The Department of Labor plans to have initial decisions on 75 percent of the backlog of claims it inherited by Sept. 30. "The money is flowing now," Hallmark said. "I believe we will meet that goal." Once initial decisions are made, more work is needed to determine the amount of wages lost, and workers may need more medical tests to determine their amount of disability. But all of the inherited claims should be resolved in 2007, allowing Department of Labor workers to concentrate on processing more recent claims, said. About 150 claims continue to be filed each week under Part E from sites across the nation. For more information on Part B or Part E, call the Hanford Resource Center in Richland at 946-3333 or 1-888-654-0014. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 55 Hanford News: PNNL shopping water treatment method This story was published Saturday, July 22nd, 2006 By the Herald staff Pacific Northwest National Laboratory researchers have found a new, more environmentally friendly way to treat a certain kind of contaminated water. Battelle, which operates PNNL for the Department of Energy, is hoping to license the technology, as well as make it available for other joint-research opportunities, according to a statement released Friday. Part of Battelle's mission is to get these new technologies from the lab and into the marketplace. So far, the lab has 1,200 patents, 200 active license agreements for its technologies and another 100 technologies available for licensing. This technology, still in its early stages and just being made available for licensing, would treat water contaminated with perchlorate, which is a toxic chemical that has been found in drinking water in 35 states. The chemical is used in rocket fuel, fireworks and defense manufacturing. High levels of perchlorate have been associated with thyroid disease, plus the possibility of cancer and other health problems, according to PNNL. The historical method for treating perchlorate-contaminated water was using an ion exchange resin. Pulling the perchlorate from the resin required an acidic solution, which resulted in large quantities of waste. The new method is with an electrically controlled anion exchange process. "The technology is unique in that it uses an electric current to regenerate the resin and release the perchlorate without producing a lot of secondary waste," said Yuehe Lin, PNNL's lead scientist for the research. Lin added that the process is "green" because it produces so little waste. The PNNL method could also be used to remove other contaminants, such as cesium and chromium. A radioactive material common to nuclear waste sites, cesium could be used by terrorists to build dirty bombs or contaminate drinking water. Chromate is a toxic form of chromium that is readily absorbed by the body. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 56 Tri-City Herald: Study links Hanford, disease Published Tuesday, July 25th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Men who grew up near the Hanford nuclear reservation in the '40s and '50s have a small increased risk to develop one type of thyroid disease, according to a new government study. Women in the study did not show a similar risk, according to the findings of the Hanford Birth Cohort study by the Centers for Disease Control's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The results of the study may provide the strongest potential link to date between radioactive emissions from Hanford and disease in those who lived downwind of the plant. About 2,000 people are suing the federal government in a 15-year-old case, claiming that radioactive releases from Hanford damaged their health. An earlier and larger study, the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study, failed to find increased thyroid disease in those who lived downwind of Hanford. When plutonium was produced for the nation's nuclear weapons program at Hanford, radioactive iodine was released from processing plant stacks to drift with the wind. As it fell to the ground around Hanford and downwind to the northeast, people consumed it in contaminated produce and in milk from cows that grazed on contaminated grass. Radioactive iodine concentrates in the thyroid, and children are believed to be particularly susceptible to developing disease, sometimes decades later, as a result. "We found a statistically significant increase in thyroid disease in men next to Hanford," said Greg Thomas, of ATSDR's Seattle office. The increase was in underactive thyroids, or Hashimoto's thyroiditis, a condition in which the thyroid produces too little thyroid hormone. However, the study did not link the increase to iodine 131, Thomas said. Although study participants reported some health problems more often than the general population, other factors such as diet, lifestyle and work history make it difficult to determine if exposure to radiation caused the findings, according to a statement from ATSDR. Thomas also pointed out it was a relatively small study of a small number of people. People who are concerned about the study's findings should discuss them with their doctor, he said. Thyroid disease can be detected early and treated for the best outcomes, he said. The study collected health information from people who were born in Washington between 1945 and 1951 and lived in Adams, Benton or Franklin counties for at least one year. Those years are believed to have had the largest radioactive iodine releases from Hanford. The information was compared with that of people who were born and lived in Mason, San Juan or Whatcom counties -- far from Hanford -- at the same time. The study included 1,160 people from all six counties. They were among 4,190 people randomly selected from birth records who proved eligible and could be interviewed. They included 291 men living near Hanford. ATSDR found that 10 of the men who lived near Hanford had underactive thyroids, compared with 4 of 385 men in the counties far from Hanford. Among women, they found 10 cases of underactive thyroids among 185 women who lived near Hanford, compared with 23 cases among 275 women who lived in the other counties. Underactive thyroids are much more common in women than men nationwide. The study was conducted to address concerns among those who grew up downwind of Hanford that radiation releases may have caused autoimmune or heart disease. Because of the earlier Hanford Thyroid Disease Study, it was not looking specifically for a link to thyroid disease. But the only autoimmune disease that showed up at a statistically significant level was hypothyroidism, or underactive thyroid, in men. There was no increase in heart disease or other autoimmune disease among those living close to Hanford. Among health conditions the study checked for were chronic fatigue syndrome, heart attacks, hypertension, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis and stroke. The finding of an increase among men of underactive thyroids is consistent with the scientific evidence presented during the initial downwinder trials that radiation doses of any amount can cause harm to cells and lead to thyroid disease, said Roy Haber, of Eugene, an attorney who represents some of the plaintiffs in the downwinder lawsuit. Plaintiff attorneys in the case have argued the $22 million Hanford Thyroid Disease Study completed earlier was flawed. It estimated a dose of radiation for people who lived downwind of Hanford and then considered whether they developed thyroid disease. In the first of the claims to be heard in the case, a jury awarded $550,000 combined to two people who lived downwind of Hanford as children and developed thyroid cancer. Juries rejected a third thyroid cancer claim and also failed to award any money for three people who believed their underactive thyroids were caused by living downwind of Hanford. "There have been a number of Hanford health impact studies over the years finding no adverse links from Hanford to health effects," said Karen Lutz, a spokesman for the Department of Energy in Richland. DOE will be interested in learning more about how the new study was conducted, she said. A town meeting is planned Wednesday to discuss the study. © 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 57 Salt Lake Tribune: DOE to appeal Idaho ruling Article Last Updated: 07/25/2006 01:41:20 AM MDT The Associated Press BOISE, Idaho - The U.S. Department of Energy filed a notice of appeal of a federal court ruling that ordered it to abide by a 1995 agreement to remove all high-level radioactive waste stored at the Idaho National Laboratory. The Justice Department filed the notice on behalf of the Energy Department in U.S. District Court on Monday, the court's deadline. Officials would not say whether an actual appeal would be filed, though it appeared likely. In May, U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge rejected DOE's argument that the agreement signed with then-Gov. Phil Batt only covered waste such as rags, tools, gloves and dirt contaminated with radioactive material that had been stored in barrels on asphalt pads at the southeastern Idaho compound since 1970. The federal government had claimed it was not required to dig up and remove other rotting containers of waste indiscriminately dumped in open pits and buried before 1970. DOE officials have said that not moving that waste is safer than digging it up for removal. State officials don't want the waste left in place, however, because some studies have shown that buried radioactive material is seeping toward the underground aquifer that feeds the Snake River. © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************