*****************************************************************
06/14/04 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 12.141
*****************************************************************
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 Mehr News Agency: Carrying Radioactive Materials Intercepted In Iraq
2 Iran Must Be Transparent In Declaring Nuclear Activities, UN Watchdo
3 BBC: Iran 'must come clean' on uranium
4 albawaba.com: ElBaradei demands ''full cooperation'' from Iran
5 Guardian Unlimited: Head of U.N. Atomic Agency Rebukes Iran
6 AFP: Iran atom probe needs to end soon, with focus on enrichment - U
7 Mehr News Agency: Draft Resolution on Iran’s Nuclear Program Likel
8 Mehr News Agency: Respond to Europe’s Negative Approaches - MP
9 JoongAng Daily: Frustrations, progress mark Koreas' ties
10 BBC: N Korea defies G8 nuclear appeal
11 BBC: Koreas ease border tensions
12 FT: US and N Korea urged to strike interim deal
13 TIMEasia Magazine: Shuttle Diplomacy
14 US: [NukeNet] Resist Legislative Ploy to Push Passage of Bush
15 Rediff: Nuke secrets: NRI still being quizzed in Mumbai
16 Economic Times: 'N-thief' could just be a trickster -
17 Times of India: 'Akhtar has no nuclear secrets' -
18 Times of India: Ahmed was trying to sell N-data for $1 m
19 Toronto Star: Editorial: Nixing nuclear folly
20 ITAR-TASS: Meeting of IAEA Board of Governors in Vienna
21 ITAR-TASS: NATO week opens in the Azerbaijani capital Baku on Monday
22 UK Independent: Senior colleagues rally round Blair after Labour suf
23 Mehr News Agency: Insistence on Draft Resolution Will Negatively Inf
24 Mehr News Agency: Report Politicized - Diplomat
NUCLEAR REACTORS
25 US: Reuters: House Republicans to Push New Energy Policy
26 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Subcommittee Meet
27 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Meeting on Planning and
28 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee Meeti
29 US: NRC: Tennessee Valley Authority, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit No
30 US: NRC: Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (R.E. Ginna Nuclear
31 allAfrica.com: South Africa: Give Pebble Bed Reactor a Try
32 ITAR-TASS: First power unit of Kalinin NPP stopped for scheduled ove
33 New Zealand News: Nuclear power gets a surge of political energy
34 US: NRC: Live NRC Meeting Webcast
35 US: NRC: NRC to Hold Public Meeting June 17 to Discuss Risk-Informed
NUCLEAR SAFETY
36 US: [du-list] Senators push nuke workers bill
37 [du-list] Independent inquiry into Gulf war illnesses
38 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee Meeti
39 US: NRC: Bulletin 2004-01 Inspection of Alloy 82/182/600 Materials U
40 Guardian Unlimited: Independent inquiry into Gulf war illnesses
41 BBC: 'Gulf War syndrome' probe planned
42 US: Deseret news: Tooele leaders send Huntsman a warning
43 US: lamonitor.com: Pressure's on to reform nuclear workers comp bill
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
44 Las Vegas SUN: Rove: Yucca won't be an election issue
45 US: Oak Ridger: Waste takes long way home
46 IEER: Yucca Mountain Design Defective, Says Dr. Craig
47 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste to Meet June 22-24
48 NRC: Yucca Licensing submissions
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
49 SF Chronicle: Smarter technology for port defense
50 U.S. Newswire: Energy Sec. Abraham to Speak on Nuclear
51 Times-News: Texas A part of team vying for nuclear laboratory contra
52 Oak Ridger: Security contract nearly up, could mean new provider
53 Oak Ridger: DOE assistance efforts may fall short, Sen. Alexander sa
54 Oak Ridger: Another View: DOE shouldn't administer sick workers' pro
OTHER NUCLEAR
55 Google News Alert - nuclear
56 Space Review: In defense of the beleaguered spysat (page 1)
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 Mehr News Agency: Carrying Radioactive Materials Intercepted In Iraq-Kuwait Border
Tehran:06:25,2004/06/15
(MNA) -– The UAE-based daily Al-Khaleej reported on Monday that
Kuwaiti tariff officials have intercepted a truck loaded with
radioactive materials in the Iraq-Kuwait border.
The daily quoted informed sources as saying that the radioactive
control team from Kuwait’s Health Ministry discovered that one
of the trucks belonging to the U.S.-led coalition forces was
carrying heavy radioactive materials trucks. The trucks were
headed for Iraq.
The daily said that such materials could only enter a country
when there is permission from related bodies while the materials
were secretly being carried to Iraq.
Security forces stressed that no contamination had been caused by
the material.
The MNA reported for the first time the coalition forces’
suspicious transfer of WMD parts from Kuwait to Southern Iraq by
trucks.
The possible presence of WMD in Iraq and its likely nuclear
programs were the main U.S. pretext for attacking the country.
However, their failure to find weapons of mass destruction in the
country and the continuing turmoil in Iraq questioned the
legitimacy of the U.S. war against Iraq and their presence in the
country.
© 2003 Mehr News Agency
*****************************************************************
2 Iran Must Be Transparent In Declaring Nuclear Activities, UN Watchdog Chief Says
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:00:25 -0400
IRAN MUST BE TRANSPARENT IN DECLARING NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES, UN WATCHDOG CHIEF SAYS
New York, Jun 14 2004 1:00PM
Iran must be "proactive and fully transparent" in declaring its nuclear
activities, and should do so within the next few months to
allay suspicions about its programme, the head of the United Nations
atomic watchdog agency said today.
Speaking before the International Atomic Energy Agency's <"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/index.html">(IAEA)
Board of Governors in
Vienna, Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said despite progress
in cooperation with Iran, unresolved issues continued to swirl around
its undeclared nuclear programme in the nearly two years since
it came to the Agency's attention.
"It is essential for the integrity and credibility of the inspection
process that we are able to bring these issues to a close within
the next few months, and provide the international community
with the assurances it urgently seeks regarding Iran's nuclear activities,"
the Agency chief said.
Referring to his report on the IAEA's verification work in Iran,
Mr. ElBaradei said the Agency still needed to clarify the origin
of high-enriched and low-enriched uranium contamination found at
various sits related to uranium enrichment in Iran. The Agency was
also receiving "changing and at times contradictory" information
about the extent of Iran's efforts to import, manufacture and use
centrifuges of the P-2 design, he added.
This pattern of engagement was "less than satisfactory," he said,
and, after a year of difficulties encountered by IAEA inspectors,
"Iran needs to be proactive and fully transparent."
Turning to the situation in other countries, the Director-General
told the Board that since Libya announced last December it decision
to eliminate all materials, equipment and programmes leading
to the production of internationally proscribed weapons -- including
nuclear arms -- the Agency has been working with the authorities
in Tripoli to gain a complete picture of its nuclear programme.
"Libya has proactively coop
information and prompt access to all locations requested. We are
making good progress in understanding Libya's past nuclear activities
but some aspects still need to be assessed, and it is important
that Libya provide the necessary information to enable that assessment
to be made," he said.
Regarding Iraq, Mr. ElBaradei noted that it has been more than a
year since the Agency's inspectors were last in the country and he
hoped the Security Council would soon provide guidance on the future
of their mandate. "Given the current level of instability in
the country, and Iraq's past nuclear weapons related activities
and capabilities, it is important and urgent that a credible verification
and monitoring system be reinstalled," he stressed.
As for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), Mr. ElBaradei
said the IAEA has been unable to draw any conclusions about
the country's nuclear activities since on-site verification activities
were cancelled at Pyongyang's request at the end of 2002.
2004-06-14 00:00:00.000
________________
For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml
*****************************************************************
3 BBC: Iran 'must come clean' on uranium
Last Updated: Monday, 14 June, 2004
[Aerial view of Natanz facility]
Iran has been accused of keeping some of its nuclear activities
secret [Photo: Digitalglobe]
Iran has been criticised for its lack of co-operation by the UN's
chief nuclear inspector at a meeting to decide on a united
response.
"The way they have been engaging us on this issue has been less
than satisfactory," Mohamed ElBaradei said.
Britain, France and Germany have put forward a draft resolution
deploring Iran's conduct.
The International Atomic Energy Agency is investigating whether
Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Tehran denies it is and says the agency should drop its
investigation.
Questions remain
But Mr ElBaradei said he and his inspectors were unsure how far
the Iranian nuclear programme went.
"We still have a central issue and that is whether Iran has
declared all of its enrichment activities," he said.
Enriched uranium can be used to make nuclear weapons.
He said there were still questions over the origins of traces of
weapons-grade uranium discovered in the country, and the scale of
its centrifuge-building programme.
[Mohamed ElBaradei takes questions in Vienna It is essential for
the integrity of th safeguards operations that we should bring
this issue to a close in the next few months IAEA head Mohamed
ElBaradei
Mr ElBaradei said there was no clear proof to back up
Washington's claims that Iran is chasing nuclear weapons, but he
called on Tehran to be "more transparent and proactive".
He said he would like the matter cleared up within "the next few
months".
On Monday the IAEA began a meeting in Vienna to debate a
toughly-worded resolution put forward by Britain, France and
Germany.
The three countries have traditionally taken a softer line on
Iran than the United States, which has called on the IAEA to
report Tehran to the UN Security Council.
The European countries' resolution does not go that far, but
would censure Iran while calling for further co-operation.
Last year, a deal was struck with Tehran under which Iran agreed
to suspend enrichment activities and accept more intrusive
inspections of its nuclear sites in exchange for technology.
Bethany Bell, the BBC's correspondent in Vienna, says the IAEA's
toughened stance puts that deal under pressure.
Iran defiant
The draft calls for Iran to freeze additional parts of its
nuclear programme, something Iran rejects.
The Iranian Foreign Minister, Kamal Kharrazi, says Iran has to be
recognised by the international community as a member of the
nuclear club.
Iran says its nuclear activities are purely peaceful and aimed
solely at generating electricity.
Iranian MPs have threatened to retaliate if the IAEA pushes them
too hard.
"If Western governments impose extreme demands the parliament
will not sign the protocol," said parliamentarian Mohammad Reza
Tajeddini on Monday, referring to a UN protocol on snap nuclear
checks.
*****************************************************************
4 albawaba.com: ElBaradei demands ''full cooperation'' from Iran
Al Bawaba - Middle East News and Information
[webmaster@albawaba.com]
The American ‘moment’ in Iraq and the Middle East by John Munro
14-06-2004
The head of the U.N. atomic watchdog agency urged Tehran Monday
to have "full cooperation" with his agency's probe of suspicious
nuclear activities.
Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic
Energy Agency, spoke outside a meeting of the IAEA's 35-nation
board of governors, which will review Iran's record of working
with the agency.
According to The AP, an Iran resolution will likely be presented
during the meeting, which started Monday. The participants will
discuss an agency report on Iran's cooperation.
The two major IAEA concerns regarding Iran are contradictory,
missing or withheld information on the scope of Iran's enrichment
program and the source of enriched uranium found inside the
country.
"These are two issues where we need accelerated and proactive
cooperation on the part of Iran," ElBaradei told reporters. "The
way they have been engaging us on these issues has been less than
satisfactory."
The agency report, written by ElBaradei, says Iran inquired about
purchasing thousands of magnets for centrifuges on the black
market - casting doubt on Iranian assertions that its centrifuge
program was purely experimental and not geared toward full
uranium enrichment. (Albawaba.com)
© 2004 Al Bawaba [http://www.albawaba.com]
*****************************************************************
5 Guardian Unlimited: Head of U.N. Atomic Agency Rebukes Iran
Associated Press [UP]
Monday June 14, 2004 9:16 PM
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer
VIENNA, Austria (AP) - A key meeting of the International Atomic
Energy Agency moved Monday toward a sharp rebuke of Iran for
delaying a probe into its suspect nuclear activities. Delegates
said Tehran would likely get off with a reprimand instead of
sanctions.
Diplomats at the 35-nation IAEA board of governors' meeting took
their cue from agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who urged Tehran
to replace foot-dragging with ``full cooperation,'' saying his
agency's inquiry ``can't go on forever.''
A resolution calling for increased cooperation and disclosure is
likely to be presented at the meeting, which will also review an
agency report noting that Iran granted IAEA inspectors access to
sites, but otherwise failed to eliminate international concern
that it is attempting to make nuclear weapons.
Any resolution is unlikely before midweek, giving Iran time to
press for softer language - and for the United States and its
allies to try to toughen the wording.
France, Germany and Britain, the authors of the draft, met Monday
to rework sections, taking into account suggested changes from
developing nations allied with Iran and the United States and its
backers.
Diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the
nonaligned nations sought to ease the harsh tone of the draft and
wanted a paragraph removed that called on Tehran to abort plans
to build a heavy water reactor.
The Americans were looking for a time limit for Iran to answer
all outstanding questions. That would, implicitly at least, hold
out the threat of future sanctions, said the diplomats.
The agency is chiefly concerned with contradictory, missing or
withheld information on the scope of Iran's uranium enrichment
program, and the source of enriched uranium found in the country.
``These are two issues where we need accelerated and proactive
cooperation,'' ElBaradei told reporters. ``The way they have been
engaging us on these issues has been less than satisfactory.''
In the meeting, ElBaradei said Iran's responses to IAEA requests
about its centrifuge enrichment program have been ``changing and
at times contradictory.''
Kenneth Brill, the chief U.S. delegate, said ElBaradei's comments
amounted to a ``very firm message that Iran needed to do much
better than it has been doing.''
In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher
welcomed ElBaradei's report, saying it provided ``further
evidence that Iran's troubling lack of cooperation with IAEA
continues.''
A senior Western diplomat said ElBaradei was clearly unhappy the
Iran dossier contained blank pages a year after the start of the
probe.
While the Iran resolution will not directly threaten sanctions,
any toughly worded document will maintain pressure on Iran to
come clean on what was a covert nuclear program for nearly 20
years until discovered two years ago.
Since the start of international scrutiny, Iran has suspended
uranium enrichment, stopped building centrifuges and has allowed
unannounced IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities.
Iran has denied being uncooperative and rejected U.S. allegations
its nuclear program is a smoke screen for making weapons. The
country says its uranium-enrichment program is geared solely
toward generating electricity.
The IAEA report says Iran inquired about buying thousands of
magnets for centrifuges on the black market - casting doubt on
assertions that its P-2 centrifuge program was purely
experimental and not geared toward full uranium enrichment.
On the traces of enriched uranium - which include minute amounts
of weapons-grade material - Tehran says they were not
domestically produced but inadvertently imported in purchases
through the nuclear black market.
But IAEA investigators have not been able to verify that claim
because Pakistan, the main source of the equipment, has blocked
free access to its nuclear material, so the agency has been
unable to match isotope samples to the traces found in Iran.
---
On the Net:
International Atomic Energy Agency, www.iaea.org
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
6 AFP: Iran atom probe needs to end soon, with focus on enrichment - UN
[http://www.spacewar.com/]
VIENNA (AFP) Jun 14, 2004
UN nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Monday it was
important an international probe into Iran's suspected atomic
weapons program be completed "within a few months," and added
that the key issue at stake was uranium enrichment.
He told reporters he would tell the International Atomic Energy
Agency's (IAEA) 35-nation board that began meeting in Vienna
Monday that Iran's cooperation has "been less than satisfactory
and I'm calling on them obviously and expect the board also to
call on them to become more transparent and more pro-active."
"It is essential for the integrity of the (international nuclear)
safeguards operations that we should bring this issue to a close
in the next few months," ElBaradei said.
"I think everybody would like to see this issue brought to a
close... because we can not go on forever," he added.
However the UN official seemed to reject the idea of imposing a
deadline on Iran when he said that finishing the investigation
involved "technical issues. It is not a political issue by which
you can set a particular date or month."
ElBaradei said the extent of Iran's uranium enrichment activities
was the central issue to be resolved.
"We still have a central issue and that is whether Iran has
declared all its enrichment activities," he said.
Highly enriched uranium can be used as fuel for a civilian
nuclear reactor, but also in building an atomic bomb.
The United States charges that Iran is secretly trying to develop
nuclear weapons and should be taken to the UN Security Council
for possible sanctions.
But Washington does not have support at the IAEA for its hardline
stance and the board was set to consider a British-French-German
draft resolution to rap Iran for failing to fully disclose its
nuclear activities but to call for further cooperation in the
investigation.
The IAEA has been investigating the Iranian program since
February 2003 and reporting to the board on it for the past year.
Iran claims its program is strictly peaceful and had wanted the
investigation to be brought to a close this June.
WAR.WIRE
*****************************************************************
7 Mehr News Agency: Draft Resolution on Iran’s Nuclear Program Likely to Be
Changed: IAEA Spokesperson
Tehran:06:25,2004/06/15
(MNA) –- In response to Iran’s statement on the draft
resolution on its nuclear program, International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said on Monday that it is
likely that some points of the draft resolution will be changed.
Gwozdecky told the Mehr News Agency that IAEA Director General
Mohamed ElBaradei has studied a ten-page explanation of its
nuclear program submitted by Iran.
He also said the results of the 35-nation IAEA Board of Governors
meeting cannot be predicted because member states may have
different views.
Iran has protested a draft resolution drawn up by France,
Germany, and Britain, saying the resolution has ignored Iran’s
full declaration of its nuclear activities and its extensive and
transparent cooperation with the IAEA.
The IAEA Board began discussions on Iran’s nuclear program on
Monday.
MS/HG End
MNA
*****************************************************************
8 Mehr News Agency: Respond to Europe’s Negative Approaches - MP
Tehran:06:25,2004/06/15
(MNA) –- MP Seyyed Ahmad Musavi said here Sunday that Iran will
continue its cooperation with Europe only if the three European
countries -- Britain, Germany and France -- remain honest toward
their commitments as stated in the Tehran Declaration.
He said that Tehran would strongly respond to the European big
three if they adopt a negative approach toward Iran’s peaceful
nuclear program.
In an interview with the Mehr News Agency (MNA) he said that Iran
has absolute right to find access to peaceful nuclear technology,
adding that no one can forgo this right.
He said that Europe, the U.S. and other western countries know
that coercive measures toward Iran have never bear fruit.
Musavi said that Iran should adopt a logical approach in its
foreign policy in order to protect the country’s national
security.
*****************************************************************
9 JoongAng Daily: Frustrations, progress mark Koreas' ties
[http://www.iht.com]
2004.06.14
[http://joongangdaily.joins.com]
On the eve of the fourth anniversary of the first inter-Korean
summit, a huge electronic signboard at the Dorasan Observatory
in Paju, Gyeonggi province, flashed "Peace, reconciliation,
cooperation," perhaps the last time the board will be
illuminated. The sign has carried other messages, visible across
the Demilitarized Zone in North Korea, promoting South Korea's
vision of a reunified Korea.
But an agreement that went into effect today will end such
propaganda along both sides of the zone. Loudspeakers will fall
silent and North Korea's massive hillside signs praising its
"Dear Leader" are expected to be dismantled.
During the day at the observatory, the completed southern
portion of the inter-Korean Gyeongui Railway is visible to the
naked eye. A short drive away, the Dorasan train station is
completed, but empty. That may change in October, when the first
test runs on the relinked railroad are expected.
Some inter-Korean developments have come at lightning speed,
such as the agreement to halt the propaganda shows. The
agreement came at four-day marathon talks between North and
South Korean generals on June 10-13 in Gaeseong, North Korea.
Some things go much more slowly, like the Gyeongui railroad
project. It was begun in September 2000 and was scheduled to be
completed in 2002.
Events to mark the fourth anniversary of the handshake between
Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-il began yesterday. A North Korean
delegation, 133 strong, arrived for a seminar in Seoul and a
rally in Incheon.
Ri Jong-hyuk, the vice chairman of the North's Asia-Pacific
Peace Committee, will head his country's delegation at the
seminar, hosted by former President Kim Dae-jung. Kim Jeong-ho,
chief of the General Federation of Korean Literature and Arts
Union, will lead the 126 North Koreans attending the rally,
joined by about 1,200 South Koreans.
Mr. Ri said, "We've made a lot of progress in the past four
years since the announcement of the Joint Communique." He also
paid a visit on Kim Dae-jung at the latter's home in
Donggyo-dong, Seoul.
Mr. Ri's presentation at the seminar will be one of the few
public appearances here by a senior member of the North Korean
hierarchy. On Tuesday, Mr. Ri and his delegation will visit
Samsung Electronics Co. in Giheung, Gyeonggi province and the
electronic library at Yonsei University.
Since the 2000 summit, the two Koreas have come a long way.
There have been nine reunions of separated Korean families
involving 9,020 persons. Ten ministerial meetings have been
held, and nine working-level economic cooperation discussions.
At the last of those meetings, the two Koreas agreed to the
start of production by plants in the Gaeseong Industrial Complex
before the end of this year. In all, 123 inter-Korean meetings
have taken place in the past four years.
"The two Koreas have made considerable progress in inter-Korean
dialogue and exchanges in the past four years," said Professor
Koh Yu-hwan of Dongguk University. "But those achievements were
not matched by reductions in military tension until the
agreement at the recent generals' meeting. The challenge ahead
is to resolve the North Korean nuclear issues, dismantle the
Cold War framework for the Korean Peninsula and have Kim Jong-il
visit the South."
Asked about the Roh administration's policy toward the North,
Mr. Koh said, "The peace and co-prosperity policy aims at the
Northeast Asian region as a whole, but it rests on the
assumption that the North Korean nuclear issue will be resolved."
by Kim Ji-soo tarzan@joongang.co.kr>
*****************************************************************
10 BBC: N Korea defies G8 nuclear appeal
Last Updated: Sunday, 13 June, 2004
[North Korean spent nuclear fuel rods in Yongbyon]
New six-nation talks on the nuclear issue are due to start this
week
North Korea has replied defiantly to a new international call to
dismantle any nuclear weapons-related programmes.
State media criticised last week's statement by the G8 nations,
saying the group was trying to spark another Iraq crisis by
imposing nuclear inspections.
It said North Korea would be justified in strengthening its
nuclear deterrent.
A new round of six-nation talks aimed at ending the standoff over
the North's nuclear ambitions is set to resume in Beijing this
week.
"We cannot but wake up to all those attempts to divide and devour
our country like they did Iraq," said a North Korean foreign
ministry spokesman.
Enriched uranium
The G8 backed Washington's demand that Pyongyang dismantle its
nuclear programme in a complete, verifiable and irreversible
manner.
The North Korean spokesman said "such a demand is, mysteriously,
the same thing as they sought on Iraq, and this is ultimately to
make another Iraq case", in North Korea.
The G8 call "only provides [North Korea] with enough
justification to increase its nuclear deterrent force for
self-defence with the help of a strong catalyst" the spokesman
said.
North Korea has acknowledged a plutonium programme but has denied
a uranium one.
Enriched uranium can be used to fuel nuclear power stations, but
if enriched further, it can also be used in weapons.
Washington wants North Korea to completely dismantle its nuclear
programme, while Pyongyang has said in the past it will only do
so in return for aid and security guarantees.
The two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States have
met twice in Beijing - in August last year and in February -
since the nuclear stand-off flared in October 2002.
*****************************************************************
11 BBC: Koreas ease border tensions
Last Updated: Monday, 14 June, 2004
Koreas ease border tensions
[South Korean warships (archive photo)]
The two sides clashed in 2002
The North and South Korean navies have established radio contact
for the first time, as moves to reduce tensions along their Cold
War border gather pace.
Warships exchanged brief messages to say neither had hostile
intentions.
Allowing radio contacts was one of several measures agreed
earlier this month by the two countries' militaries to stop any
repeat of border clashes.
But North Korea has remained defiant over international calls
that it should scrap its nuclear programme.
The country's state media criticised last week's statement by the
G8 nations, claiming the group was trying to spark another Iraq
crisis by imposing nuclear inspections.
TROUBLESOME BORDER
Known Northern Limit Line
Position declared by UN in 1953 Not recognised by North
Regularly breached by North's fishermen
The two militaries met earlier this month and agreed a number of
measures to ease tensions, including a telephone hotline between
the rival navies, the sharing of radio frequencies and the use of
visual signals.
The agreement was important because the naval border is still
disputed, which led to gun battles in 1999 and 2002.
Monday's radio exchange was welcomed by South Korea's navy.
"With the successful communication today, I believe that the
dangers of accidental clashes taking place along the western sea
will be reduced," said Lt Commander Yoo Jae-geun.
Following the exchange, the two sides are also due to stop
broadcasting propaganda across the border and start taking down
signs along the Demilitarised Zone (DMZ).
The measures are due to be in place by 15 August, the anniversary
of Korea's 1945 independence from Japanese colonial rule.
Correspondents say that although North Korea appears keen to
improve ties with the South, it has not shifted position on its
nuclear ambitions.
A third round of six-nation talks on the nuclear stand-off are
due to convene in Beijing this month, but neither the US nor
North Korea has shown any sign of urgency to resolve the issue.
*****************************************************************
12 FT: US and N Korea urged to strike interim deal
By Victor Mallet in Seoul
Published: June 14 2004 11:55 | Last Updated: June 14 2004
A solution to the North Korean nuclear crisis would be delayed
until after the US elections in November unless Washington and
Pyongyang make progress at the next round of six-nation talks in
Beijing, Bill Richardson, a leading US Democrat, said on Monday.
Mr Richardson urged the two sides to adopt an interim deal under
which South Korea would provide energy assistance to the
electricity-starved North while North Korea would accept a
verifiable freeze of its nuclear activities as a prelude to
dismantlement.
Without progress at the meeting due later this month, a window
of peace will be lost until, at the very best, next year , Mr
Richardson told a meeting of the World Economic Forum in Seoul.
He is governor of New Mexico and a former UN ambassador, and
could play a prominent role in government if the Democrat John
Kerry is elected president.
Mr Richardson described the six-nation talks as deadlocked . But
South Korean and Japanese leaders and the UN believe that Kim
Jong-il, the North Korean leader, is prepared ultimately to
abandon nuclear weapons in exchange for concessions from the
US.
I see an improved mood there, a desire for peace, an acceptance
finally that they will not be able to get their nuclear weapons
tacitly accepted by the world community as happened with Pakistan
and India, said Maurice Strong, special representative of the UN
secretary-general. But they will not do so without an acceptable
form of security guarantee.
Mr Strong, who visited Pyongyang last month, said: I believe we
are closer to a solution than we have ever been, and yet the
risks remain considerable. Both parties have shown flexibility
but frankly not sufficient flexibility to do a deal.
Roh Moo-hyun, South Korean president, and Kim Dae-jung, his
predecessor, both expressed optimism about the negotiations,
noting that Monday was the first day of new confidence-building
measures between the two Koreas. This week is also the fourth
anniversary of a historic summit between Mr Kim and Kim Jong-il,
the North Korean leader.
The two countries on Monday ended cross-border propaganda
campaigns using loudspeakers and giant signboards. For the first
time since the end of the Korean war in 1953, their warships also
began to communicate on a common radio frequency to avoid clashes
at sea - a particular risk during the current crab-catching
season for fishermen.
Im sure these will all be an important stepping stone towards
easing tension here on the Korean peninsula, said President Roh.
The Bush administration has refused to make major concessions to
North Korea on the grounds that the regime cannot be trusted, and
US officials are likely to respond to the idea of an interim deal
with scepticism. Mr Richardson suggested freezing only the
reprocessing of plutonium fuel rods, thus leaving aside
the controversy over North Koreas suspected uranium enrichment
programme.
However, Mr Richardson said neither a Democratic nor a Republican
administration in the US would tolerate nuclear weapons in North
Korea. He praised the Bush administrations acceptance of the
six-party talks but added: I want them to move a little faster.
Its a question of revitalising the talks right now.
© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2004. "FT" and
"Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times. Privacy
*****************************************************************
13 TIMEasia Magazine: Shuttle Diplomacy
[http://www.time.com
The Korean peninsula is one of the world's most volatile flash
points
Posted Monday, June 14, 2004; 20:00 HKT
Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi originally swept to
power on a platform of domestic economic reform, but his boldest
initiatives so far have been in the area of foreign policy. In
recent weeks in particular, Koizumi has been playing honest
broker in one of the world's most vexing conundrums: how to
defuse North Korea, which claims a nuclear weapons capability.
First, in a one-day dash to Pyongyang, Koizumi secured the
release of most family members of five repatriated Japanese
citizens abducted by the Hermit Kingdom in the 1970s. Meeting
with reporters in Tokyo last week, Koizumi sounded sympathetic to
North Korean strongman Kim Jong Il, almost to the point of what
some might call naiveté. "I personally felt that North Korea was
interested in moving forward in a positive way," Koizumi said.
"[Kim] clearly stated that the objective was denuclearization."
Koizumi might have been echoing Margaret Thatcher's famous phrase
after she met Soviet perestroika master Mikhail Gorbachev for the
first time in 1985: "We can do business together."
Immediately after talking to the press, Koizumi boarded a plane
for the G-8 summit on Sea Island in the U.S. state of Georgia,
where he did business with Kim's chief adversary. George W. Bush
conferred with Koizumi before anyone else, hosting the Prime
Minister for a one-on-one private lunch before the summit began.
Two Japanese dailies, Asahi and Mainichi, reported that Kim asked
Koizumi to inform Bush that he badly wanted bilateral talks with
Washington. Koizumi, said the papers, quoting a source close to
the Prime Minister, told the U.S. President that "[Kim] wanted to
dance [with Bush] so much as to get thirsty." But, the papers
said, Bush rejected the overture and insisted that negotiations
continue through the existing six-nation forum hosted by Beijing.
By positioning himself as the one person that both Bush and Kim
can talk to, Koizumi may be angling for Japan to take an
increasingly prominent role in the next round of six-party talks
aimed at curbing North Korea's nuclear weapons program. "Koizumi
may be more important to the U.S.-North Korea relationship than
anyone realizes," says Matake Kamiya, an international-relations
professor at Japan's National Defense Academy.
Others dismiss the notion that Koizumi has developed any real
sway over Washington or Pyongyang. Indeed, some skeptics carp
that Koizumi is popular with both regimes only because he readily
agrees to virtually any of their demands: economic aid in North
Korea's case, and support for the U.S.'s Iraq policy.
(Reaffirming his commitment at the G-8 summit, Koizumi said
Japanese troops would remain in Iraq even after power transfers
from the U.S. to an interim government at the end of the month.)
"Japan didn't bring North Korea to the [negotiating] table," says
Masaaki Gabe, a political-science professor at the University of
the Ryukyus in Okinawa. "North Korea called on Koizumi when Kim
felt ready." Maybe so, but, for now, he's having to share the
stage with Japan's Prime Minister.
With reporting by Toko Sekiguchi/Tokyo
Copyright © 2004 Time Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
14 [NukeNet] Resist Legislative Ploy to Push Passage of Bush
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:45:58 -0700
*** Apologies for cross-posting ***
June 14, 2004
!!! A C T I O N A L E R T !!!
Resist Legislative Ploy to Push Passage of Bush Energy Policy!
The Republican leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives has
declared this week "Energy Week" in order to push the Senate to pass a
handful of bills, including the infamous Energy Policy Act of 2003 (S.
2095). Public Citizen is declaring the Energy Bill WEAK, on account of
the fact that it fails to address major problems in America's energy
sector while lavishing billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies on
polluting industries.
SEND AN E-MAIL to your senators and representative, urging them to
oppose this regressive energy policy, via Public Citizen's Web site:
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energyweek
AND STAY INFORMED on the latest news on energy legislation in Congress
at Public Citizen's energy bill action Web page:
http://www.stopenergybill.org
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
15 Rediff: Nuke secrets: NRI still being quizzed in Mumbai
Home [http://www.rediff.com/] > News > PTI
Nuke secrets: NRI still being quizzed at Mumbai airport
June 14, 2004 18:18 IST
Security agencies continued to grill Akhtar Hussain Qutbuddin
Ahmed, who was deported from Dubai on Saturday night after being
arrested for allegedly trying to sell Indian nuclear secrets.
However, sources at Sahar International airport said authorities
have not made much headway in the efforts to corroborate
allegations made by the Dubai police.
Akhtar questioned by senior officers for the third consecutive
day at a secluded place in the airport. The Central Industrial
Security Force had been asked to provide security to the place
where he is lodged. No one, including Airports Authority of India
staff, is allowed in the area.
Akhtar, who was detained immediately after he landed at Sahar
International Airport, is being interrogated by various security
and intelligence agencies to establish if he has access to any
official concerned with atomic energy establishments.
NRI held in Dubai for selling nuclear secrets
[http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jun/12uae.htm]
'Akhtar was trying to sell nuke secrets since 1990s'
[http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jun/13uae.htm]
© Copyright 2004 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or
*****************************************************************
16 Economic Times: 'N-thief' could just be a trickster -
[http://www.indiatimes.com/]
Monday, June 14, 2004|
TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ MONDAY, JUNE 14, 2004 03:23:19 AM
NEW DELHI : When news of the arrest of nuclear assets dealer
Akhtar Hussain Qutbuldin in Dubai broke, the Indian spook
thought they had a daunting task at hand. But what is emerging
in the initial investigations is leaving intelligence agencies
puzzled.
An NRI, Mr Ahmed was deported to Mumbai late last night after he
was arrested by the Dubai police on charges of attempting to
sell India ’s nuclear assets to embassies there. He is alleged
to have obtained the nuclear secrets from his brother who is
said to be a nuclear scientist in India , Mr Tamim had said.
Intelligence agencies have found none of his brothers work in
Bhabha Atomic Centre. Sources said he appears to be a trickster,
as he has been found to be giving different versions. He has
alleged he was booked in a false case and deported.
Copyright © 2004 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. |
*****************************************************************
17 Times of India: 'Akhtar has no nuclear secrets' -
MONDAY, JUNE 14, 2004
THE TIMES OF INDIA
[http://www.indiatimes.com]
NEW DELHI : Indian intelligence agencies have found no link
between a Dubai-based Indian businessman deported to Mumbai for
allegedly selling nuclear secrets and the country's Bhabha Atomic
Research Centre (BARC) during his interrogation here.
Akhtar Hussain Qutbuddin Ahmed, 35, a small time Delhi
businessman, was arrested in Dubai and deported to Mumbai Sunday
after he was found allegedly selling nuclear secret programmes of
the country.
Senior officials of the Research and Analysis Wing, Intelligence
Bureau and Central Bureau of Investigation are questioning Ahmed
in an undisclosed place in the Indian capital after his arrival
here Sunday night.
"It is absolutely clear that Ahmed had no nuclear secret and
wanted to make money by claiming that his brother is a nuclear
scientist in India ," said a senior government official.
BARC was contacted to find out about a nuclear scientist named Dr
Adil Hussain but inquiries have revealed that no scientist of
this name ever worked in India , the official said.
Investigations revealed that Ahmed has three brothers, not one of
whom is a nuclear scientist.
"One brother Arif Hussain is a businessman based in Jamshedpur,
the second Dr Adil Hussain is a medical practitioner in Delhi
while and the youngest Asif Hussain is in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia,"
said the official.
Ahmed's passport, issued in 2003 from Delhi , mentions his name
as Akhtar Hussaini.
A detailed report has been submitted to home ministry about the
incident.
What has baffled intelligence sleuths is why Ahmed chose to
approach people in Dubai for selling nuclear secrets when he had
no contacts in India - and no brother was a nuclear scientist
either.
"We have been told by Dubai Police that Ahmed was under their
surveillance for quite a long time. However, at the same time
they claimed that no incriminating documents have been found from
him," the official said.
PTI adds:
Akhtar was still being questioned by senior officers at a
secluded place at the airport, according to sources.
The Central Industrial Security Force had been asked to provide
security to the place where Akhtar was lodged and not to allow
any person, including the AAI staff, in the region, the sources
added.
The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) also said on Sunday night
that there was nothing to suggest that Akhtar had any links with
DAE or that he was related to any scientist working in any
department of DAE.
Copyright © 2004 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. |
*****************************************************************
18 Times of India: Ahmed was trying to sell N-data for $1 m
SUNDAY, JUNE 13, 2004
THE TIMES OF INDIA
SRINIVAS LAXMAN, ANEESH PHADNIS, SHABANA ANSARI
TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ MONDAY, JUNE 14, 2004 06:44:51 AM ]
MUMBAI: Dubai resident Akhtar Hussain Qutbuldin Ahmed is being
interrogated for allegedly trying to sell Indian atomic secrets
in the Gulf.
Sources within India's nuclear establishment inMumbai pointed out
that Akhtar's arrest in Dubai came almost two years after
security officials both in India and in Dubai mounted an
intensive surveillance operation to see if he had worked with any
international network.
They quoted reports from the Dubai police which said he had been
trying to sell Indian nuclear secrets to different Arab states in
the weeks following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in the early
'90s.
Dubai police chief Lt Gen D K Kamim is quoted as saying that
Akhtar has been trying sell nuclear data even to Dubai-based
diplomatic missions.
"He even contacted the UAE ambassador to India who immediately
alerted the security agencies," Lt Gen Tamim is quoted as saying
in the media.
Akhtar came to the UAE and started a business for which he tried
to seek the help of his brother Ahmed Hussain who, he claimed,
was a scientist with BARC in Mumbai.
Till late Sunday evening, BARC security were trying to find out
if anyone by that name was employed in the nuclear establishment.
"At the officers level it has been established that there is no
such person," said a spokesperson of the department of atomic
energy (DAE), adding that efforts were now underway to see if
there were any junior staffers with that name.
"We are seriously looking into the affair," he said. "It is
possible that he could be giving a false name," the spokesperson
said.
Akhtar's nefarious activities relating to India's nuclear
programme did not leave much impact on the UAE government. He,
therefore, began to focus his attention on the embassies and
consulates and offered to part with Indian nuclear secrets for
one million of dollars.
He told the police at Dubai that he wanted to sell the secrets
for making money by using his brother's name.
When TNN contacted the Indian embassy in Abu Dhabi on Sunday, a
spokesperson said Akhtar had been staying in Dubai for the last
two years.
The original plan envisagedAkhtar being flown to New Delhi for
questioning. But it was deferred since top nuclear officials are
based in Mumbai and would be available to the police and the IB.
Reacting to the development, AEC chairman Anil Kakodkar said that
the "matter was under investigation".
Defence analyst Bharat Karnad observed, "If Akhtar was trying to
sell details of our fissile material it is certainly dangerous.
Officials must try to find out whoAkhtar's contact in the BARC
is."
Copyright © 2004 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. |
*****************************************************************
19 Toronto Star: Editorial: Nixing nuclear folly
TheStar.com -
Mon. Jun. 14, 2004. | Updated at 08:06 AM
Does U.S. President George Bush need more nuclear weapons? Well,
not really. He has 11,000 at his disposal right now. As far as we
know, they work just fine.
So it comes as a relief that a U.S. Congress panel has just
denied a Bush request for nearly $100 million to develop and test
new "low-yield mini-nukes" and "bunker-busters." These bombs are
meant to minimize fallout and to destroy buried targets.
Combined with Bush's readiness to consider pre-emptive nuclear
strikes, even against non-nuclear-armed adversaries, these
"battlefield" weapons would lower the psychological bar to using
nukes, and increase the risk of nuclear war.
Democratic contender Sen. John Kerry, in an important policy
clash with Bush, rightly calls the bunker-buster "a weapon we
don't need."
Kerry also urges deeper cuts than planned to the U.S. and Russian
arsenals, a more aggressive international approach to containing
potential nuclear rebel states, such as North Korea and Iran, and
stepped-up efforts to remove plutonium and highly enriched
uranium from the world's stockpile of fissile materials.
These are approaches the Canadian government favours, too. The
world doesn't need more "usable" nukes. It needs fewer, to reduce
the risk that they might fall into the hands of Al Qaeda or a
rogue nation.
For decades, the nuclear club consisted of the U.S., Russia,
China, Britain, France and Israel. In recent years India,
Pakistan and North Korea have acquired nukes. And terrorists want
them, too.
As the world's military superpower, the U.S. ought to restrict
the spread of this technology, if only to safeguard its own
primacy in this area.
Instead, incredibly, the Bush administration busies itself
developing new rationales for using the Bomb, and proposes to
build new ones.
This is folly. It gives legitimacy to the efforts of other
nuclear wannabes to build arsenals, and undercuts arms control.
The Congressional panel was right to tell the administration to
cool its jets.
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All
*****************************************************************
20 ITAR-TASS: Meeting of IAEA Board of Governors in Vienna
will be attended by representatives of 35 countries
[ITAR-TASS News Agency of Russia]
14.06.2004, 09.22
VIENNA, June 14 (Itar-Tass) - Problems connected with control
over the observance of the regime of non-proliferation of
nuclear weapons will feature prominently on the agenda of a
regular meeting of the Board of Governors of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which opens in the Austrian capital
on Monday. It will be attended by representatives of 35
countries, which are members of the IAEA steering body, as well
as by observers from some other countries.
The meeting is expected to devote special attention during the
discussion of the IAEA control functions to the fulfilment of
guarantees, connected with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
by Libya and Iran. IAEA Director-General Mohammed ElBaradei is
going to make a report on the problem.
So far as Libya is concerned, the point at issue is the
liquidation of materials, equipment and programmes, connected
with the production of nuclear weapons. Concerning Iran, which
did not fully inform IAEA of its nuclear activities, some IAEA
member countries express anxiety over a possible existence of
nuclear programmes in that country. Both problems need further
clarification, primarily the origin of illegally purchased
radioactive materials and nuclear equipment.
IAEA has no complaints over Libya’s cooperation with it and, at
the same time, has some reproaches to Iran. In this connection
Germany, France and Britain are going to submit a draft
resolution to the meeting, which urges Teheran to cooperate more
closely with IAEA and to refrain from full implementation of its
ambitious national nuclear programme.
Observers believe that the IAEA Board of Governors will begin
the discussion of the problem of Libya and Iran no earlier than
Wednesday, after it discussed other items of the agenda, which
deal, among other things, with the development of technological
cooperation, the ensuring of safety of nuclear materials and of
radioactive waste and the use of radiation in treating cancer.
© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
21 ITAR-TASS: NATO week opens in the Azerbaijani capital Baku on Monday
[ITAR-TASS News Agency of Russia]
14.06.2004, 04.54
BAKU, June 14 (Itar-Tass) - The week of NATO is opening in the
Azerbaijani capital Baku on Monday. Seminars, meetings with the
country's public and the opening of a ‘NATO's summer school’ will
be held within the framework of the week, Azerbaijani foreign
ministry sources told Itar-Tass. The participants in the events
will discuss issues of fighting international terrorism and
ensuring global nuclear security.
© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
22 UK Independent: Senior colleagues rally round Blair after Labour suffers double
election blow
Elections 2004: Today's stories in full
Sceptics' success puts Howard under fresh pressure
Inquiry into causes of Gulf War syndrome announced
By Harvey McGavin
14 June 2004
An independent inquiry is to be held into Gulf War syndrome, the
range of unexplained illnesses suffered by soldiers who served in
the conflict 14 years ago.
Lord Morris of Manchester, who is honorary parliamentary advisor
to the Royal British Legion, announced yesterday that he had
established an inquiry team led by Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who
would conduct the first open investigation into its possible
causes.
Lord Lloyd said that although the Government had claimed it had
not ruled out holding an inquiry, it had "repeatedly resisted
one".
A Ministry of Defence spokesman said last night: "We do not
believe that a public inquiry is appropriate at this time. Any
scientific research is likely to be able to answer the basic
question of why some Gulf veterans are ill." The spokesman said
that it would not be right to comment further until more details
about the inquiry were known.
Lord Lloyd, 75, a retired judge and former Lord Justice of
Appeal, said his inquiry would be held in public and question
veterans, relatives and medical experts. He said: "I was
delighted to be invited to conduct an independent public inquiry
into Gulf War illnesses. My intention is to open the inquiry as
soon as possible and to hold hearings in public."
The Royal British Legion, which has repeatedly called for an
inquiry into the illnesses suffered by veterans of the conflict,
welcomed the announcement and said it would support the inquiry
in any way it could. A spokesman said: "It is a matter of great
disappointment that an inquiry could not have happened sooner so
that any issues identified could be used to improve the
procedures for the preparation of troops for current operations."
However, the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association
reacted to the news with caution. Shaun Rusling, the chair of the
association, said: "My first concern would be that the scope of
the inquiry would be narrow and we would get a whitewash. That is
something we would find unacceptable: it has to be a fully open
and complete inquiry and nothing must be withheld from the
public."
Lord Morris said that an inquiry into Gulf War syndrome - which
the British Legion first demanded in 1997 - was long overdue. He
said: "It is now 14 years since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait
precipitated the first Gulf conflict. With 2,585 veterans - many
now terminally ill - already in receipt of war pensions, and more
than 5,000 reporting a range of undiagnosed illnesses, there is
clearly a problem to be addressed."
He said that a great many of those veterans in failing health
were still unable to have their illnesses accepted as
war-related. He added: "Lord Lloyd's terms of reference will be
to investigate the circumstances that have led to the ill-health,
and in some cases death, of more than 5,000 British troops
following deployment to the Gulf. He will call on Gulf veterans,
bereaved dependents and eminent physicians to assist in the
inquiry and hopes to receive the full co-operation of the
relevant government departments."
The inquiry team will include Dr Norman Jones, emeritus
consulting physician at St Thomas' Hospital, London, as medical
assessor, while Sir Michael Davies, formerly Clerk of the
Parliaments, will be the administrator.
The Legion's most recent demand for an inquiry, in February this
year, was supported by lawyers who signed a letter stating
"science has not explained their illnesses" and called on the
government to institute "a full public review of the position of
veterans".
Last week the United States government revealed that 100,000
troops, including 9,000 Britons, may have been exposed to
hazardous chemicals released when troops destroyed a stockpile in
Iraq in 1991.
UK Independent Ltd.
*****************************************************************
23 Mehr News Agency: Insistence on Draft Resolution Will Negatively Influence
Cooperation: MP
Tehran:06:25,2004/06/15
(MNA) – MP Ala’ddin Burujerdi said here on Monday that the
insistence of the European Union big three (France, Britain, and
Germany) on the draft resolution about Iran’s nuclear
activities will negatively influence the process of cooperation.
Burujerdi told the Mehr News Agency that the government should
not tolerate inordinate pressure but should take its national
interests and the international regulations of the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) into consideration, adding that
the Majlis will only support this policy.
He said that the three European countries made baseless
statements in the resolution, adding that despite Iran’s
complete cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) the EU big three failed to fulfill their Tehran
Declaration commitments.
According to the NPT, the Islamic Republic has the right to
develop nuclear technology and countries that have access to
nuclear expertise are required to transfer it to NPT signatories
who do not possess such technology, the MP noted.
He said that the statement issued by the G8 at their summit in
Sea Island, Georgia, in the United States is unacceptable, adding
that if the draft resolution is approved in its current form it
will certainly have a negative influence on Iran-IAEA
cooperation.
Since Iran acted in good faith, any duplicity or failure to
fulfill commitments and obligations by other parties will weaken
the process of cooperation, Burujerdi added.
He also stated that the Iranian nation and parliament expect the
IAEA Board of Governors to make a decision that would help close
Iran’s nuclear dossier.
HL/HG End
MNA
*****************************************************************
24 Mehr News Agency: Report Politicized - Diplomat
Tehran:06:25,2004/06/15
(MNA) -- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director
General Mohammad ElBaradei presented an oral report on Iran’s
nuclear activities at the IAEA Board of Governors session on
Monday.
A high-ranking diplomat at IAEA headquarters in Vienna told the
Mehr News Agency that the report was surprisingly politicized and
contained false information in response to the demands of the
United States and the European Union big three of Britain,
France, and Germany, particularly Britain.
The diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that
ElBaradei’s report did not raise new questions about Iran’s
nuclear activities but clearly proved that the IAEA director
general is determined to keep Iran’s nuclear dossier open in
order to satisfy the U.S. and the EU big three.
The report contains statements that run contrary to the findings
of IAEA inspectors as well as ElBaradei’s written report in
early June, the source said.
The diplomat said that ElBaradei announced on Monday that if Iran
really intends to gain the confidence of the international
community it should increase its transparency and cooperation,
although he had declared in his recent report that Iran’s
cooperation with the agency was transparent and acceptable.
According to the diplomat, ElBaradei announced that IAEA
inspectors have faced certain problems during inspections of
Iran’s nuclear sites over the past year.
Yet, if this was the case it would have been officially announced
by now, but ElBaradei even lauded Iran for offering IAEA
inspectors unlimited access to the country’s nuclear
installations in his written report, the source added.
He stated that ElBaradei also raised new questions about P2
centrifuges in Iran.
However, Iran has offered the agency sufficient information on
the issue and the IAEA inspectors all agree that there is no
contradiction in Iran’s explanations, he added.
The diplomat said that ElBaradei has also magnified the fact that
Iran purchased magnets for conventional use in its nuclear
research activities.
He added that the IAEA director general consciously de-emphasized
Iran’s extensive cooperation with the agency in his remarks.
ElBaradei showed that he has become strongly influenced by the
U.S and its Western allies since he presented his written report
on Iran’s nuclear activities, the diplomat noted.
HL/HG End
MNA
*****************************************************************
25 Reuters: House Republicans to Push New Energy Policy
Mon Jun 14, 2004 06:31 PM ET
By Tom Doggett
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans in the U.S. House of
Representatives on Tuesday plan to turn the spotlight on
Congress' failure to pass broad energy legislation, voting on
several bills which, when pieced together, would be a major
overhaul of U.S. energy policy.
The action is mostly symbolic, because some of the measures were
previously approved by the House and the Republican-controlled
Senate is not likely to adopt any of the House bills in their
current form.
Energy legislation has been bogged down since the Senate refused
to accept an energy package the House approved last year. Some
moderate Senate Republicans and most Democrats balked at the
House plan to protect oil companies that make the water-polluting
fuel additive MTBE from liability lawsuits.
With the Bush administration facing criticism for not doing
enough to tackle record-high gasoline prices, House Republicans
hope to divert some of that pressure by again approving
legislation to boost U.S. oil and natural gas supplies and
provide tax breaks worth billions of dollars to energy companies.
"(We want) to turn up the heat on the Senate," said a spokesman
for House Majority Leader Tom Delay. "It's long past time for us
to have a comprehensive energy package and the Senate has been
unwilling to act."
The House is also scheduled to vote Tuesday and Wednesday on
bills that would cut the number of required gasoline blends to
fight pollution, ease permit approvals for building new oil
refineries, reduce federal regulations on renewable energy
projects and allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge.
Environmental groups oppose the measures, arguing they threaten
public land and coastlines and use taxpayers' dollars to give
subsidies to polluting energy industries.
Energy trade groups back the House efforts.
The American Gas Associate wrote all 435 House members on Monday
urging them to vote for energy legislation, saying: "America
needs an energy policy that provides reliable supplies at
reasonable prices."
Drilling in the Arctic refuge was the centerpiece of the Bush
administration's plan, but moderate Republicans and Democrats in
the Senate have repeatedly rejected opening the area to energy
exploration.
The Senate's energy committee will hold a hearing on Tuesday
about U.S. crude oil supplies, gasoline demand and factors
affecting prices.
It will hear from Guy Caruso, who heads the Energy Information
Administration -- the Energy Department's analytical arm. Red
Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute, the main
trade group for the big oil companies, also will testify.
Last month, the Senate approved a massive corporate tax bill with
$19 billion in energy tax incentives for nuclear power plants,
coal technology, and oil drilling. The House Ways and Means
Committee is preparing its version of the bill and is expected to
strip out most of the Senate's energy items.
A form of the corporate tax bill is expected to win approval from
both chambers later this year to repeal export tax subsidies that
the World Trade Organization said violate international trade
rules.
*****************************************************************
26 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Subcommittee Meeting
FR Doc 04-13250
[Federal Register: June 14, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 113)]
[Notices] [Page 33080] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14jn04-115] [[Page 33080]]
on Future Plant Designs; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee
on Future Plant Designs will hold a meeting on June 24, 2004,
Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Thursday,
June 24, 2004-1 p.m. until 5 p.m. The Subcommittee will review
and discuss the NRC staff's proposed technology-neutral framework
document for future plant licensing. The Subcommittee will gather
information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate
proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation
by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official,
Dr. Medhat M. El-Zeftawy (telephone 301-415-6889) between 7:30
a.m. and 5 p.m. (ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible,
so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic
recordings will be permitted.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and
5 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to
contact the above named individual at least two working days
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to
the agenda.
Dated: June 3, 2004.
Ralph Caruso, Acting Associate Director for Technical Support,
ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. 04-13250 Filed 6-10-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
27 NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Meeting on Planning and
FR Doc 04-13251
[Federal Register: June 14, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 113)]
[Notices] [Page 33079] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14jn04-113]
Procedures; Notice of Meeting The ACNW will hold a Planning and
Procedures meeting on June 22, 2004, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the
exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel
matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and
practices of ACNW, and information the release of which would
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Tuesday,
June 22, 2004--8 a.m.-9:30 a.m. The Committee will discuss
proposed ACNW activities and related matters. The purpose of this
meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and
facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as
appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official,
Mr. Howard J. Larson (Telephone: 301/415-6805) between 7:30 a.m.
and 4:15 p.m. (ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible,
so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic
recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the
meeting that are open to the public.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and
4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged
to contact the above named individual at least two working days
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in
the agenda.
Dated: June 4, 2004.
Ralph Caruso, Acting Associate Director for Technical Support,
ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. 04-13251 Filed 6-10-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
28 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee Meeting on
FR Doc 04-13252
[Federal Register: June 14, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 113)]
[Notices] [Page 33080] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14jn04-116]
Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena; Notice of Meeting The ACRS
Subcommittee on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena will hold a meeting
on June 22-23, 2004, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Tuesday
and Wednesday, June 22-23, 2004--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion
of business.
The Subcommittee will discuss the ongoing staff review associated
with GSI-191, Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Sump Performance.
Representatives from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) will
present a description of their guidelines for use by licensees,
the staff will present their initial assessment of guidelines,
and the staff will present the results of the public comments on
the draft Generic Letter regarding PWR sump blockage. The Office
of Nuclear Regulatory Research is also expected to provide the
initial results of experimental programs to investigate chemical
phenomena in PWR sumps. The Subcommittee will gather information,
analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed
positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the
full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official,
Mr. Ralph Caruso (Telephone: 301-415-8065) five days prior to the
meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be
made.
Electronic recordings will be permitted.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and
4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged
to contact the above named individual at least two working days
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to
the agenda.
Dated: June 3, 2004.
Ralph Caruso, Acting Associate Director for Technical Support,
ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. 04-13252 Filed 6-10-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
29 NRC: Tennessee Valley Authority, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1
FR Doc 04-13253
[Federal Register: June 14, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 113)]
[Notices] [Page 33075-33079] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14jn04-112]
and 2; Exemption 1.0 Background The Tennessee Valley Authority
(the licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-77 and DPR-79, which authorize operation of the Sequoyah
Nuclear Plant (facility or SQN), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, respectively.
The licenses provide, among other things, that the facility is
subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in
effect.
[[Page 33076]] The facility consists of two pressurized water
reactors located in Hamilton County, Tennessee.
2.0 Request/Action Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR), part 50, section 50.68(b)(1) sets forth the following
requirement that must be met, in lieu of a monitoring system
capable of detecting criticality events.
Plant procedures shall prohibit the handling and storage at any
one time of more fuel assemblies than have been determined to be
safely subcritical under the most adverse moderation conditions
feasible by unborated water.
The licensee is unable to satisfy the above requirement for
handling of the 10 CFR part 72 licensed contents of the Holtec
HI-STORM 100 Cask System. Section 50.12(a) allows licensees to
apply for an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 if
the regulation is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose
of the rule and other conditions are met. The licensee stated in
the application that compliance with 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1) is not
necessary for handling the 10 CFR part 72 licensed contents of
the cask system to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.
3.0 Discussion Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon
application by any interested person or upon its own initiative,
grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1)
the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue
risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the
common defense and security, and (2) when special circumstances
are present. Therefore, in determining the acceptability of the
licensee's exemption request, the staff has performed the
following regulatory, technical, and legal evaluations to satisfy
the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12 for granting the exemption.
3.1 Regulatory Evaluation The SQN Technical Specifications (TSs)
currently permit the licensee to store spent fuel assemblies in
high-density storage racks in each spent fuel pool (SFP). In
accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(4), the
licensee takes credit for soluble boron for criticality control
and ensures that the effective multiplication factor (keff) of
the SFP does not exceed 0.95, if flooded with borated water. As
stated in 10 CFR 50.68(b)(4), it also requires that, if credit is
taken for soluble boron, the keff must remain below 1.0
(subcritical), if flooded with unborated water. However, the
licensee is unable to satisfy the requirement to maintain the
keff below 1.0 (subcritical) with unborated water, which is also
the requirement of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1). Therefore, the licensee's
request for exemption from 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1) proposes to permit
the licensee to perform spent fuel loading, unloading, and
handling operations related to dry cask storage, without being
subcritical under the most adverse moderation conditions feasible
by unborated water.
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 50, Appendix A,
``General Design Criteria (GDC) for Nuclear Power Plants,''
provides a list of the minimum design requirements for nuclear
power plants. According to GDC 62, ``Prevention of criticality in
fuel storage and handling,'' the licensee must limit the
potential for criticality in the fuel handling and storage system
by physical systems or processes.
Section 50.68 of 10 CFR part 50, ``Criticality accident
requirements,'' provides the NRC requirements for maintaining
subcritical conditions in SFPs. Section 50.68 provides
criticality control requirements which, if satisfied, ensure that
an inadvertent criticality in the SFP is an extremely unlikely
event. These requirements ensure that the licensee has
appropriately conservative criticality margins during handling
and storage of spent fuel.
Section 50.68(b)(1) states, ``Plant procedures shall prohibit the
handling and storage at any one time of more fuel assemblies than
have been determined to be safely subcritical under the most
adverse moderation conditions feasible by unborated water.''
Specifically, 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1) ensures that the licensee will
maintain the pool in a subcritical condition during handling and
storage operations without crediting the soluble boron in the SFP
water.
The licensee has received a license to construct and operate an
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) at SQN. The
ISFSI would permit the licensee to store spent fuel assemblies in
large concrete dry storage casks. In order to transfer the spent
fuel assemblies from the SFP to the dry storage casks, the
licensee must first transfer the assemblies to a Multi-Purpose
Canister (MPC) in the cask pit area of the SFP. The licensee
performed criticality analyses of the MPC fully loaded with fuel
having the highest permissible reactivity, and determined that a
soluble boron credit was necessary to ensure that the MPC would
remain subcritical in the SFP. Since the licensee is unable to
satisfy the requirement of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1) to ensure
subcritical conditions during handling and storage of spent fuel
assemblies in the pool with unborated water, the licensee
identified the need for an exemption from the 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1)
requirement to support MPC loading, unloading, and handling
operations, without being subcritical under the most adverse
moderation conditions feasible by unborated water.
The staff evaluated the possibility of an inadvertent criticality
of the spent nuclear fuel at SQN during MPC loading, unloading,
and handling. The staff has established a set of acceptance
criteria that, if met, satisfy the underlying intent of 10 CFR
50.68(b)(1). In lieu of complying with 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1), the
staff determined that an inadvertent criticality accident is
unlikely to occur if the licensee meets the following five
criteria: 1. The cask criticality analyses are based on the
following conservative assumptions: a. All fuel assemblies in the
cask are unirradiated and at the highest permissible enrichment,
b. Only 75 percent of the Boron-10 in the Boral panel inserts is
credited, c. No credit is taken for fuel-related burnable
absorbers, and d. The cask is assumed to be flooded with
moderator at the temperature and density corresponding to optimum
moderation.
2. The licensee's ISFSI TS requires the soluble boron
concentration to be equal to or greater than the level assumed in
the criticality analysis and surveillance requirements
necessitate the periodic verification of the concentration both
prior to and during loading and unloading operations.
3. Radiation monitors, as required by GDC 63, ``Monitoring Fuel
and Waste Storage,'' are provided in fuel storage and handling
areas to detect excessive radiation levels and to initiate
appropriate safety actions.
4. The quantity of other forms of special nuclear material, such
as sources, detectors, etc., to be stored in the cask will not
increase the effective multiplication factor above the limit
calculated in the criticality analysis.
5. Sufficient time exists for plant personnel to identify and
terminate a boron dilution event prior to achieving a critical
boron concentration in the MPC. To demonstrate that it can safely
identify and terminate a boron dilution event, the licensee must
provide the following: a. A plant-specific criticality analysis
to identify the critical boron concentration in the cask based on
the highest reactivity loading pattern.
b. A plant-specific boron dilution analysis to identify all
potential dilution pathways, their flowrates, and the time
[[Page 33077]] necessary to reach a critical boron concentration.
c. A description of all alarms and indications available to
promptly alert operators of a boron dilution event.
d. A description of plant controls that will be implemented to
minimize the potential for a boron dilution event.
e. A summary of operator training and procedures that will be
used to ensure that operators can quickly identify and terminate
a boron dilution event.
3.2 Technical Evaluation In determining the acceptability of the
licensee's exemption request, the staff reviewed three aspects of
the licensee's analyses: (1) Criticality analyses submitted to
support the ISFSI license application, (2) boron dilution
analysis, and (3) legal basis for approving the exemption. For
each of the aspects, the staff evaluated whether the licensee's
analyses and methodologies provide reasonable assurance that
adequate safety margins are developed and can be maintained in
the SQN SFP during loading of spent fuel into canisters for dry
cask storage.
3.2.1 Criticality Analyses For evaluation of the acceptability of
the licensee's exemption request, the staff reviewed the
criticality analyses provided by the licensee in support of its
ISFSI license application. Chapter 6, ``Criticality Evaluation,''
of the HI-STORM Final Safety Analysis Report (HI-STORM FSAR)
contains detailed information regarding the methodology,
assumptions, and controls used in the criticality analysis for
the MPCs to be used at SQN. The staff reviewed the information
contained in Chapter 6 as well as information provided by the
licensee in its exemption request to determine if Criteria 1
through 4 of Section 3.1 were satisfied. First, the staff
reviewed the methodology and assumptions used by the licensee in
its criticality analysis to determine if Criterion 1 was
satisfied. The licensee provided a detailed list of the
assumptions used in the criticality analysis in Chapter 6 of the
HI-STORM FSAR as well as in its exemption request. The licensee
stated that it took no credit in the criticality analyses for
burnup or fuel-related burnable absorbers. The licensee also
stated that all assemblies were analyzed at the highest
permissible enrichment. Additionally, the licensee stated that
all criticality analyses for a flooded MPC were performed at
temperatures and densities of water corresponding to optimum
moderation conditions. Finally, the licensee stated that it only
credited 75 percent of the Boron-10 content for the fixed neutron
absorber, Boral, in the MPC. Based on its review of the
criticality analyses contained in Chapter 6 of the HI-STORM FSAR,
the staff finds that the licensee has satisfied Criterion 1.
Second, the staff reviewed the proposed SQN ISFSI TS. The
licensee's criticality analyses credit soluble boron for
reactivity control during MPC loading, unloading, and handling
operations.
Since the boron concentration is a key safety component necessary
for ensuring subcritical conditions in the pool, the licensee
must have a conservative TS capable of ensuring that sufficient
soluble boron is present to perform its safety function. The most
limiting loading configuration of an MPC requires 2600
parts-per-million (ppm) of soluble boron to ensure the keff is
maintained below 0.95, the regulatory limit relied upon by the
staff for demonstrating compliance with the requirements of 10
CFR 72.124(a). SQN's ISFSI TSs require the soluble boron
concentration in the MPC cavity be greater than or equal to the
concentrations assumed in the criticality analyses under a
variety of MPC loading configurations. In all cases, the boron
concentration required by the proposed ISFSI TS ensures that the
keff will be below 0.95 for the analyzed loading configuration.
Additionally, the licensee's proposed ISFSI TS contains
surveillance requirements which ensure it will verify that the
boron concentration is above the required level both prior to and
during MPC loading, unloading, and handling operations. Based on
its review of the proposed SQN ISFSI TS, the staff finds that the
licensee has satisfied Criterion 2.
Third, the staff reviewed the SQN FSAR Update and the information
provided by the licensee in its exemption request to ensure that
it complies with GDC 63. GDC 63 requires that licensees have
radiation monitors in fuel storage and associated handling areas
to detect conditions that may result in a loss of residual heat
removal capability and excessive radiation levels and initiate
appropriate safety actions. As a condition of receiving and
maintaining an operating license, the licensee must comply with
GDC 63. The staff reviewed the SQN FSAR Update and exemption
request to determine whether it had provided sufficient
information to demonstrate continued compliance with GDC 63.
Based on its review of both documents, the staff finds that the
licensee complies with GDC 63 and has satisfied Criterion 3.
Finally, as part of the criticality analysis review, the staff
evaluated the storage of nonfuel related material in an MPC. The
staff evaluated the potential to increase the reactivity of an
MPC by loading it with materials other than spent nuclear fuel
and fuel debris.
SQN's spent fuel and nonfuel hardware are bounded by the spent
fuel and non- fuel hardware analyzed and represented in Holtec
Hi-Storm 100 Certificate of Compliance (COC) No. 1014, Appendix
B, ``Approved Content and Design Features.'' The COC provides
limitations on the materials that can be stored in the MPC design
intended to be used at the SQN ISFSI. The staff determined that
the loading limitations described in the COC will ensure that
nonfuel hardware loaded in the MPCs will not result in a
reactivity increase. Based on its review of the loading
restrictions for nonfuel hardware, the staff finds that the
licensee has satisfied Criterion 4.
3.2.2 Boron Dilution Analysis Since the licensee's ISFSI
application relies on soluble boron to maintain subcritical
conditions within the MPCs during loading, unloading and handling
operations, the staff reviewed the licensee's boron dilution
analysis to determine whether appropriate controls, alarms, and
procedures were available to identify and terminate a boron
dilution accident prior to reaching a critical boron
concentration.
By letter dated October 25, 1996, the staff issued a safety
evaluation of licensing topical report WCAP-14416, ``Westinghouse
Spent Fuel Rack Criticality Analysis Methodology.'' This safety
evaluation specified that the following issues be evaluated for
applications involving soluble boron credit: The events that
could cause boron dilution, the time available to detect and
mitigate each dilution event, the potential for incomplete boron
mixing, and the adequacy of the boron concentration surveillance
interval.
The TS requirements for the HI-STORM 100 Cask System include a
minimum boron concentration of 1900 ppm boron when spent fuel
assemblies with enrichments less than or equal to 4.1
weight-percent (wt-percent) U-235 are loaded into an MPC-32
canister. When fuel assemblies are enriched to greater than 4.1
wt-percent U-235 and less than or equal to 5.0 wt-percent U-235
and loaded into an MPC-32, the minimum boron concentration is
2600 ppm. These TS requirements ensure that keff is maintained
less than 0.95. TS surveillance requirements require the boron
concentration in the MPC water to be verified by two independent
measurements within 4 hours prior to commencing any loading or
unloading
[[Page 33078]] of fuel; verified when one or more fuel assemblies
are installed if water is to be added or recirculated through the
MPC; and verified every 48 hours thereafter while the MPC is in
the SFP when one or more fuel assemblies are installed.
The licensee contracted with Holtec International to perform a
criticality analysis to determine the soluble boron concentration
that results in a keff equal to 1.0 for both 4.1 wt-percent and
5.0 wt-percent U-235 fuel enrichments using the same methodology
as approved in the HI-STORM 100 Cask System Final Safety
Analysis.
The analysis determined the critical boron concentration level
for 4.1 wt- percent U-235 enriched fuel was 1180 ppm and for 5.0
wt-percent U-235 enrichment was 1780 ppm. Therefore, the boron
concentration within the canister would have to decrease from the
TS limit to the respective critical boron concentration before
criticality is possible. The licensee based its boron dilution
analyses and its preventive and mitigative actions on dilution
sources with the potential to reduce the boron concentration from
the TS minimum values for the two fuel enrichment bands to the
respective concentration for criticality.
The licensee reviewed plant drawings to identify potential
dilution sources and performed a plant walk-down to verify the
drawing review. This review identified that, with the exception
of the raw cooling water (RCW) system piping, large diameter
piping with the potential to dilute the spent fuel pool boron
concentration was seismically qualified to assure the piping
would adequately maintain its position and pressure boundary
integrity during the design basis safe-shutdown earthquake.
Subsequently, the licensee evaluated the RCW piping and
components on the refueling floor and concluded the RCW system
would also adequately maintain its position and pressure boundary
integrity during the design basis safe-shutdown earthquake.
Therefore, an instantaneous complete severance of these piping
systems is not credible. However, the licensee reviewed its
calculation for moderate energy line breaks and performed
calculations for these piping systems in the refueling pool area
to determine dilution potentials from postulated critical cracks
in the piping. Numerous smaller piping systems may experience
critical cracks; however, the most limiting critical crack flow
rate is the calculated value of 314 gallons per minute (gpm) for
the RCW system.
The licensee identified the following additional credible
bounding dilution sources and their flow rates: 250 gpm from the
demineralized water system through an open isolation valve to the
SFP cooling system; 5 gpm from the demineralized water system to
make up for undetected, small leaks from the SFP or its cooling
system; and 150 gpm from the fire protection system through a
fire hose station to the spent fuel pool. The staff found the
scope and results of the dilution source evaluation acceptable.
To demonstrate that it has ample time and opportunity to identify
and terminate a boron dilution event, the licensee calculated the
time necessary for dilution from the TS boron concentration to
the critical boron concentration for each fuel enrichment range
and described the alarms, procedures, and administrative controls
it has in place.
The RCW critical crack flow rate of 314 gpm, which is the
limiting high flow-rate dilution event, would require more than 8
hours to dilute the SFP to the critical boron concentration. The
licensee modified the SFP high level setpoint and procedural
limits for initial SFP water level prior to cask loading
operations to assure the SFP high level alarm would be effective
in detecting dilution during cask loading operations. The RCW
critical crack would cause the SFP water level to reach the high
level alarm setpoint within several minutes of water beginning to
spill into the pool, allowing operators ample time to stop the
dilution after the alarm. The indications and response to a high-
rate dilution event from the demineralized water system through
the spent fuel cooling system would be similar, but the licensee
committed to the additional action of tagging closed the
demineralized and primary water supplies to the spent fuel
cooling system during cask loading and unloading operations.
Dilution to the critical boron concentration resulting from
addition of water to compensate for an undetected slow loss of
SFP coolant is also not credible. The licensee calculated that
the dilution from the TS required boron concentration would
require hundreds of hours at leakage rates that could credibly go
unnoticed. The 48-hour TS surveillance interval for boron
concentration measurement provides strong assurance that such a
dilution would be detected and corrected well before the critical
boron concentration could be reached.
The configuration of the cask pit could allow localized boron
dilution and stratification because the pit is open to the SFP
only through a narrow transfer path above the level of stored
fuel.
Addition of cold water directly to the cask pit (e.g., through a
fire hose) that is denser than the warm, borated pool water could
fill the bottom of the cask pit with water having a low boron
concentration.
However, the licensee stated that the spent fuel cooling system
with a normal flow rate of 2300 gpm discharges flow through one
4-inch line into the cask pit and one 10-inch line into the SFP.
The cooled return flow to the cask pit provides assurance that
localized boron dilution and stratification would not occur
within the cask pit during canister loading operations.
In addition to the conservative criticality and boron dilution
analyses it performed, the licensee will enhance its procedures
and operator training to ensure that the casks can be safely
loaded, unloaded, and handled in the SQN spent fuel pool. The
licensee committed to enhance its operation procedures to
explicitly describe reaction to alarms and indications which are
indicative of a boron dilution event prior to initial dry cask
loading operations. Additionally, SQN committed to provide
training on the new procedures to ensure that operators can
effectively identify and terminate boron dilution sources in a
minimum amount of time prior to reaching a critical boron limit.
The licensee stated in its supplement that the training will
emphasize the importance of avoiding any inadvertent additions of
unborated water to the SFP, responses to be taken for
notification or alarms that may be indicative of a potential
boron dilution event during cask loading and fuel movement in the
SFP, and identification of the potential for a boron dilution
event during decontamination rinsing activities and abnormal SFP
make-up with the fire protection system. Finally, in order to
ensure rapid identification of an ongoing boron dilution event,
the licensee committed either to increase the frequency of its
normal rounds or station a trained monitor who is assigned to
watch for a dilution event in SFP area.
Based on the staff's review of the licensee's exemption request
dated February 20, 2004, the supplemental information provided by
letter dated April 27, 2004, and its boron dilution analysis, the
staff finds the licensee has provided sufficient information to
demonstrate that an undetected and uncorrected dilution from the
TS required boron concentration to the calculated critical boron
concentration is not credible. Based on its review of the boron
dilution analysis and enhancements to the operating procedures
and operator training program, the staff finds that the licensee
has satisfied Criterion 5.
[[Page 33079]] Therefore, in conjunction with the conservative
assumptions used to establish the TS required boron concentration
and critical boron concentration, the boron dilution evaluation
demonstrates that the underlying intent of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1) is
satisfied. 3.3 Legal Basis for the Exemption Pursuant to 10 CFR
50.12, ``Specific Exemption,'' the staff reviewed the licensee's
exemption request to determine if the legal basis for granting an
exemption had been satisfied, and concluded that the licensee has
satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12. With regards to the
six special circumstances listed in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), the staff
finds that the licensee's exemption request satisfies
50.12(a)(2)(ii), ``Application of the regulation in the
particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose
of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose
of the rule.'' Specifically, the staff concludes that since the
licensee has satisfied the five criteria in Section 3.1 of this
exemption, the application of the rule is not necessary to
achieve its underlying purpose in this case.
3.4 Staff Conclusion Based upon the review of the licensee's
exemption request to credit soluble boron during MPC loading,
unloading, and handling in the SQN SFP, the staff concludes that
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) the licensee's exemption request
is acceptable. However, the staff limits its approval to the
loading, unloading, and handling of the components of the
HI-STORM 100 dual-purpose dry cask storage system at SQN.
4.0 Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission has determined that,
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law,
will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety,
and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also,
special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission
hereby grants Tennessee Valley Authority an exemption from the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1) for the loading, unloading,
and handling of the components of the HI-STORM 100 dual- purpose
dry cask storage system at SQN. Any changes to the cask system
design features affecting criticality or its supporting
criticality analyses will invalidate this exemption.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the
granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on
the quality of the human environment (69 FR 31849).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of June, 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ledyard B. Marsh, Director, Division of Licensing Project
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 04-13253 Filed 6-10-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
30 NRC: Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power
FR Doc 04-13255
[Federal Register: June 14, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 113)]
[Notices] [Page 33075] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14jn04-111]
Plant); Order Modifying May 28, 2004, Order Approving Transfer of
License and Conforming Amendment I.
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG) is the holder of
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18, which authorizes
the operation of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna) at
steady-state power levels not in excess of 1520 megawatts
thermal. The facility is located on the south shore of Lake
Ontario, in Wayne County, New York. The license authorizes Ginna
to possess, use, and operate the facility.
II.
By Order dated May 28, 2004, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC or the Commission) approved the transfer of the license for
Ginna from RG to R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC (Ginna LLC),
a subsidiary of Constellation Generation Group, LLC (CGG).
Condition III.(2) of the May 28, 2004, Order specified that on
the closing date Ginna LLC shall obtain from RG a minimum of
$201.6 million for decommissioning funding assurance for the
facility. This amount was based on a June 30, 2004, closing date.
By letter dated June 2, 2004, CGG and RG informed the NRC that
the closing would occur on June 10, 2004. According to a June 3,
2004, submittal from CGG, the minimum amount that Ginna LLC will
obtain from RG, based on a June 10, 2004, closing date, is
$200,791,928 under the terms of the agreement of sale between RG
and Ginna LLC.
III.
Accordingly, pursuant to sections 161b, 161i, and 184 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2201(b),
2201(i), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80, it is hereby ordered that
Condition III.(2) of the Order Approving Transfer of License and
Conforming Amendment dated May 28, 2004, is modified to state: On
the closing date of the transfer of Ginna, Ginna LLC shall obtain
from RG the greater of (1) $200,791,928 or (2) the amount
necessary to meet the minimum formula amount under 10 CFR 50.75
calculated as of the date of closing for decommissioning funding
assurance for the facility, and ensure the deposit of such funds
into a decommissioning trust for Ginna established by Ginna LLC.
This Order is effective upon issuance.
For further details with respect to this Order, see the initial
application dated December 16, 2003, and supplemental letters
from RG dated March 26, and April 30, 2004, and from CGG dated
February 27, April 30, May 24, June 2, and June 3, 2004, and the
Order and Safety Evaluation dated May 28, 2004, which are
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public
Document Room, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland,
and accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading
Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov] ). Dated in Rockville,
Maryland, this 4th day of June, 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
J.E. Dyer, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 04-13255 Filed 6-10-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
31 allAfrica.com: South Africa: Give Pebble Bed Reactor a Try
Business Day (Johannesburg)
Posted to the web June 14, 2004
Robyn Chalmers
Johannesburg
SINCE the first big nuclear accident at Three Mile Island in the
US 25 years ago, the concept of nuclear power has spawned heated
debate around the globe. Despite estimates that a chest X-ray or
a long-distance flight exposes people to more radioactivity than
is likely to be experienced living next to a nuclear plant, when
individuals die horrible deaths due to a nuclear explosion,
emotions understandably run high for a long, long time.
But as the South African government moves to deal with a looming
energy crisis as electricity utility Eskom's surplus electricity
capacity begins to run out, a revolutionary new form of nuclear
power over and above the Koeberg nuclear station is being
seriously considered as part of the country's future energy mix.
The reason is simple. Eskom has spent more than a decade, and
invested many millions of rands, researching the pebble bed
modular reactor, a mini nuclear reactor which is billed as being
inherently safe and able to produce comparatively cheap power.
The reactor uses fuel based on a ceramic coating of very small
enriched uranium particles embedded in a graphite matrix the
"pebbles". Helium is used to cool the reactor core and drive the
turbines to produce electricity. Technically, a core meltdown
cannot occur. Each of the 440000 "pebbles" in the reactor is in
a meltproof core and is therefore, theoretically, contained
against radiation leaks.
The reactor's relatively cheap power can be produced without the
massive emissions produced by Eskom's coalbased stations, the
environmental cost of which has yet to be fully calculated in
this country. It is estimated that the reactor could generate
electricity at a cost of about 21c a kilowatt hour, which is not
as cheap as coal, but less expensive than gas or renewable
energies.
Politically, the prospect of clean, cheap power will be a
godsend for the ruling African National Congress in the face of
the looming energy crunch. Building new power stations even
coal-based will put pressure on SA's electricity prices . The
pebble bed reactor holds out the prospect of producing clean,
cheap power at roughly the same time as SA hits an energy
crunch.
If it can be shown that the reactor is safe and can produce
hydrogen at commercial levels as promised it stands to get a
foot in the door of the new hydrogen-based energy drive in the
US. That, in turn, will bring billions of dollars into SA . The
proposed US Energy Policy Act stipulates the US wants hydrogen
to replace oil as a future energy source and the pebble bed
reactor fits the bill.
But there are problems. Environmental groups such as Earthlife
Africa are outraged the nuclear issue is even on the table. They
say the technology is untested; that Germany abandoned the
concept as unviable; it is unsafe and could do irreparable harm
to the country's development.
They also raise legitimate concerns about the storage of
radioactive waste. The environmentalists have undertaken
significant research into the economics of, and risks posed by,
the pebble bed modular reactor, and their concerns need to be
taken seriously.
Yet the fears and plans and promised economic and political
opportunities will come to naught unless the investors, Eskom
and the Industrial Development Corporation, can achieve at least
two things.
They need to secure a credible and heavyweight international
partner to sell the concept to potential global investors. This
is especially important in light of damage done to confidence in
the reactor after US energy group Exelon pulled out two years
ago. And the existing international investor, British Nuclear
Fuels, faces big internal financial challenges since its
bankruptcy scare two years ago.
The second requirement is that a demonstration plant be built to
show the project is viable. At a cost of up to $1bn, this calls
for an investor with deep pockets and a fair amount of faith in
the scheme.
Nevertheless, the proponents remain optimistic that the reactor
will fly. The cabinet gave new impetus just last week when it
approved a programme to develop human capital and improve
research and innovation for the initiative.
After more than a decade of toil, there might yet be a light at
the end of the tunnel for the reactor; and if it can contribute
to dealing with SA's coming power shortage, surely the pebble
bed reactor deserves to be considered.
allAfrica.com
Copyright © 2004 Business Day. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
32 ITAR-TASS: First power unit of Kalinin NPP stopped for scheduled overhaul
[ITAR-TASS News Agency of Russia]
14.06.2004, 07.00
UDOMLYA (Tver region), June 14 (Itar-Tass) - The first
power-generating unit of the Kalinin nuclear power plant was
stopped on Monday for scheduled major overhaul that will be
carried out within 60 days.
The Kalinin NPP information department told Itar-Tass, “Besides
standard shutdown list, it is planned, in particular, to carry
out full replacement of flanges and worn out movers of control
rods of the upper unit of the reactor. It is also planned to
carry out a comprehensive programme of control of the metal of
the upper unit of the reactor and the mechanism itself.”
The radiation background at the industrial site of the Kalinin
NPP and in the town of Udomlya is within natural levels.
© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
33 New Zealand News: Nuclear power gets a surge of political energy
[http://www.nzherald.co.nz/]
Tuesday June 15, 2004
PARIS - Nuclear power, its image darkened by the 1986 Chernobyl
disaster, appears to be making a comeback of sorts in Europe as
the Continent struggles to meet energy needs, faces higher bills
for imported oil and honours its pledge to cut carbon pollution.
The industry may still be eyed with suspicion in the world's most
environmentally conscious region, but today it is confidently
presenting itself as a cheap, clean and reliable provider of
energy.
Little more than a year ago, that argument that would have raised
guffaws in Europe.
But things have changed, thanks to continuing unrest in
oil-producing countries in the Middle East and the rise in the
cost of a barrel of oil.
France is the most conspicuous example. Its two houses of
parliament have just approved the first reading of a law that
shapes the country's future energy supplies.
It says the nation must retain self-sufficiency and nuclear
should retain a "significant share" of the energy mix.
How big is not spelt out, but - to the damnation of Green groups
- it will clearly account for a majority share over the next 20
years or so.
The bill incorporates measures for extending by 10 years the
30-year operating life for existing reactors and for building an
experimental pressurised water reactor by 2015 that will be the
test-bed for the next generation.
"The brand-new orientation law on energy, drawn up without any
democratic debate, continues to push France down a [nuclear]
one-way street," said the French branch of Friends of the Earth,
bitterly.
"The argument put forward that nuclear helps offset the
greenhouse gas emissions is just bogus. The industry's enormous
overcapacity is a complete discouragement to energy savings."
France is more nuclear-dependent than any country in the world:
three-quarters of its electricity needs are met by its array of
59 nuclear reactors, a programme launched during the first oil
shock 30 years ago, and which has cost some $160 billion.
Adding to the pressure on oil is France's undertakings to reduced
greenhouse gas emissions in accord with the Kyoto Protocol.
To that end, the energy law offers major incentives to promote
solar, wind, biomass and other renewable energy sources. France
aims to derive at least 20 per cent of its national electricity
needs from "Green" sources by 2010.
Ever since the 1974 oil shock, France has had a "nuclear
consensus," where the public acquiesced in the huge dependence on
nuclear power, provided it was safe and cheap.
Until the 2002 change of government, in which conservatives
replaced a left-wing coalition, the future of the nuclear
industry was in doubt.
The present generation of nuclear reactors was heading towards
the end of its designed life, and environmentalists were
confident they could put the atom on the run.
But then nagging questions began to be asked. If nuclear were
phased out, wouldn't that mean a bigger dependence on dirty
fossil fuels? And how could renewables quickly deliver the raw
megawatts needed for a large, modern economy and energy-gobbling
homes?
Then the latest oil crisis erupted. Oil prices surged in response
to the Iraq war and terrorism in Saudi Arabia, a reminder that
crude is an unreliable and volatile source.
France is not alone in this shift of opinion. Sweden, Belgium and
Germany - countries where there is a ferocious Green lobby - have
either abandoned plans to scrap their nuclear plants or delayed
phasing them out.
Germany's plants are scheduled to close by 2020. But the nuclear
industry, for years a favoured target of young Germans, is now
lobbying hard for a postponement of up to 2038, thanks to
technical updates.
"We are making ourselves economically dependent on a few
oil-exporting countries and that could threaten the long-term
security of supplies," says Ralf Gueldner, who heads the German
subsidiary of French nuclear-plant maker Framatome.
More dismaying to diehard environmentalists is that part of the
Green movement is now toying with the idea of living with
nuclear.
In this minority view, nuclear is indeed dangerous, but probably
a less-immediate peril than global warming. It could be a useful
bridging source until renewables become cheaper and more energy
efficient.
"Only one immediately available source does not cause global
warming, and that is nuclear energy," says James Lovelock, the
British scientist who became a Green icon for developing the
"Gaia Hypothesis" in the mid-1960s, which sees the Earth as a
living thing that retaliates against those who wound and threaten
it.
"We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources.
Civilisation is in imminent danger. Opposition to nuclear energy
is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the
Green lobbies and the media."
Power plays
* France says nuclear power should retain a "significant share"
of the country's energy mix.
* Sweden, Belgium and Germany have either abandoned plans to
scrap their nuclear plants, or delayed their phase-out.
© Copyright 2004, New Zealand Herald
Privacy Policy [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/privacypolicy/]
*****************************************************************
34 NRC: Live NRC Meeting Webcast
Meeting Webcast [http://nrcvideo.cit.nih.gov]
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is currently broadcasting
some Commission meetings over the Internet as a means of
improving communications with the public. Upcoming webcasts are:
Date Subject
7/21/04 Meeting with Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste
(ACNW)
9:30 A.M.
The following resources will assist you in participating:
+ Public Meeting Schedule - provides a complete listing of
agency meetings. Live meetings shown as [webcast]
+ Commission Meeting Schedule - lists all Commission meetings
for a six (6) week period. Live meetings shown as [webcast]
+ Slides - available in advance of the meeting
+ Transcripts - available within 48 hours of the conclusion of
the live meeting
To view a webcast you will need to Download Webcast Viewer
RealOne Plugin [RealNetworks Media Streaming Player icon] .
You may also view previously held webcast meetings at our
Webcast
Archive
[http://nrcvideo.cit.nih.gov/archive.asp] .
Comments and Feedback
To help us determine the value of continuing to provide this
service, the NRC would appreciate your assistance by providing
comments and feedback on the usefulness, performance, and
frequency with which you might use this service or any other
items related to this service.
+ Contact Us About Webcasts
+ Webcast Interest Survey
Notes on Accessibility
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires equal access to
the Federal government's electronic and information technology.
In compliance with this Act, NRC is including text equivalents
(captioning) as part of the video image being shown over the
Internet during the Commission meeting. Although every effort is
made to assure the accuracy and completeness of this text, users
should be aware that errors may nonetheless occur. Expressions
of opinion in this text do not necessarily reflect final
determination or beliefs. No pleadings or other paper may be
filed with the Commission in any proceeding as a result of any
statement or argument contained in the text-equivalent
(captioned) material.
Last revised Thursday, June 10, 2004
*****************************************************************
35 NRC: NRC to Hold Public Meeting June 17 to Discuss Risk-Informed Approach to Reactor Containment Sump
Issue
News Release - 2004-07 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office
of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC
20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 04-074 June 14, 2004
Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with interested
stakeholders on June 17 in Rockville, Md., to discuss risk
information relevant to resolving issues with containment sumps,
which are a major component of the safety-related water
recirculation systems found in nuclear power plants. The meeting
will be held in the Commission Meeting Room on the first floor
of One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, from 1 p.m.
until 4 p.m.
Members of the public are invited to discuss the issue with NRC
staff and ask questions at designated points during the meeting.
The meeting agenda is available electronically through the NRCs
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System on the NRC web
site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html, by
entering accession number ML041550817. For further information,
contact Mark Kowal via phone at 301/415-1663 or via e-mail at
mxk7@nrc.gov [mxk7@nrc.gov] .
Last revised Monday, June 14, 2004
*****************************************************************
36 [du-list] Senators push nuke workers bill
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:00:11 -0700
National Nuclear Workers for Justice is asking all of you to keep up the
pressure we need to really check out the bill (S 3438) in the Senate, with
16 co-sponsors (Bunning, Bingaman, Domenici, Alexander, Mukowski, Stevens,
Murray, Cantwell, Grassley, Bond, Talent, Kennedy,
Clinton, Schumer, Voinovich, DeWine). Thank all of you for the calls and
letter we have sent allready.
A special thanks to Florence Stringer for blowing the whistle on the claims
scam..
Here is the website to get the phone numbers for your Senators both local
and in DC.
ttp://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
CHILLICOTHE GAZETTE
6/11/04
Senators push nuke workers bill
By GREG WRIGHT
Gazette Washington Bureau
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON -- Fourteen Republican and Democratic senators next week will
push a bill they claim would help thousands of sick nuclear weapons workers
in Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky and other states get workers' compensation
checks.
Sens. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., and Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., and others will try to
put language in a defense spending bill to move the Energy Department's
controversial nuclear workers' compensation program to the Labor Department.
The Energy Department helps Cold War-era workers who got cancer or other
diseases from radiation or chemical exposure get workers' compensation
checks. The Labor Department runs a separate program that covers eligible
workers' medical bills and gives them a $150,000 reparation check.
Congress created both programs in 2000.
Some lawmakers complain the Energy Department does a bad job processing
claims, mainly because it cannot find enough doctors to review them. Energy
finished only 10 percent of 24,354 claims it received by June 4. In
contrast, the Labor Department processed 60 percent of the 55,888 claims to
its program.
The delays, the lawmakers, say, are unacceptable because workers who
sacrificed their health for national defense are dying before getting any
compensation. But even workers who have filed with the Labor Department
gripe they have a problem with delays.
Thomas Little, 89, sent in a claim in 2001. Little, who has skin cancer, is
still waiting for answer, said his son, Thomas Little Jr.
During World War II the elder Little worked at the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory in Tennessee, which helped build the atomic bombs dropped on
Japan. Little suffers skin cancer on his back, which is so scarred it "looks
like a road map," his son said.
"For persons this old it is ridiculous that this should be taking so much
time," Little's son said in an e-mail to Gannett News Service.
Energy Department spokesman Thomas Welch could not immediately comment on
whether the Bush administration would fight moving the program to the Labor
Department.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, tried unsuccessfully to make the move last
year. Grassley spokeswoman Beth Levine thinks chances are better this time,
but noted that the House could block the switch even if the Senate approves
it.
"The Cold War was won by the men and women who toiled away in our defense
plants making the weapons that enforced peace," Sen. George Voinovich, one
of the bill's cosponsors, stated in a release Thursday. "While the
compensation program has provided overdue compensation for many of those who
contracted terrible illnesses from the materials they worked with, it has
failed others. Agencies have had a chance to make it work, but there are
clearly some problems that need legislative fixes and this amendment will
make the needed changes so workers can get the compensation they deserve."
Other senators who support moving the program to labor include fellow Ohio
senator Mike DeWine, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman
Pete Domenici, R-N.M., Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Hilary Rodham Clinton,
D-N.Y., Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., Lamar Alexander,
R-Tenn., Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Jim Talent,
R-Mo.
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
152d25.jpg
152d99.jpg
----------
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
*
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
*
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
*
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Attachment Converted: 152d25.jpg: 00000001,49629293,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 152d99.jpg: 00000001,49629294,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
37 [du-list] Independent inquiry into Gulf war illnesses
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:00:13 -0700
Independent inquiry into Gulf war illnesses
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,11816,1238167,00.html
James Meikle, health correspondent
Monday June 14, 2004
The Guardian
An unprecedented independent inquiry into whether more than 5,000 veterans
of the first Gulf war became ill as a result of their service will be
announced today.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick, the former law lord, will conduct hearings in
central London in the next few months and pose a political dilemma for the
government which has refused to authorise a public inquiry for the past six
years.
He is expected to invite current and former ministers, civil servants,
health and scientific experts, as well as veterans and their families to
establish the medical consequences of their service.
It is understood that Lord Lloyd, a law lord until 1999 and a former
attorney general to the Prince of Wales, is determined to begin with no
preconceptions about the veterans' claims that they were made ill, but
believes an inquiry will help settle the long-standing sores between former
service personnel and the Ministry of Defence.
"I was delighted to be invited to conduct an independent public inquiry
into Gulf war illnesses. My intention is to open the inquiry as soon as
possible and to hold hearings in public," he said yesterday.
The arrangements for an inquiry have been prepared in confidence, leaving
the government little time to decide how to react. Although Lord Lloyd will
not have formal legal powers, ministers will have to consider how to
respond to invitations to give evidence. Refusal to cooperate could be
damaging politically.
The pressure for an inquiry, first made by the Royal British Legion in
1998, has intensified since February when an eight-year legal battle by
more than 2,000 veterans collapsed because there was insufficient
scientific evidence to pursue their case. The Legal Services Commission
which paid an estimated £4m in legal aid, withdrew further funding after
reviews of research could find no specific cause for the veterans' health
problems.
But their lawyers said there was no doubt many of them were ill and that
their suffering was genuine. They called for an independent inquiry and
urged the government to instigate a "process of conciliation" with
veterans' groups.
It is thought the inquiry will be funded by anonymous independent donations
by people not directly involved in the controversy.
Lord Morris of Manchester, who has been involved behind the scenes, said
last night: "I hope this will clear an impasse that has been of deep
concern to the ex-service community. There is no one more suited or
well-qualified to lead aninquiry."
Other eminent figures are expected to help in the inquiry. They include Sir
Michael Davies, former clerk to the parliaments, who chaired the management
board of the House of Lords. Former presidents of the General Medical
Council are also thought to be involved as medical advisers.
Many former troops who served in the Gulf during the 1991 conflict have
reported symptoms such as muscle weakness, neurological symptoms,
headaches, depression, skin rashes and shortage of breath.
The suggested causes have ranged from the pre-conflict injections which
Lord Morris has referred to as "a veritable blitzkreig on the immune
system" to pollution from burning oil wells, stress, depleted uranium,
organophosphates and the effect of low-level exposure to chemical agents
destroyed during and after the war.
A US congressional investigation has suggested that far more troops and
civilians were exposed to chemical agents than was previously estimated by
the Pentagon and the CIA.
The government has not ruled out an inquiry, but it does not regard one as
useful. It has instead stressed the value of its £8.5m research programme,
much of which has compared the health of veterans with those who did not
serve in the Gulf.
This has failed to find any single Gulf war syndrome, although veterans are
twice as likely as non-veterans to report symptoms when asked about them.
Death rates are similar between the groups.
Lord Morris accepted the value of research, but said: "We are now 13 years
on. None of us wants to see the afflicted and bereaved of the conflict made
to suffer added strain and hurtful and demeaning indignities that
preventable delay in dealing with their concerns might impose."
About 2,000 Gulf veterans have been awarded "no-fault" war pensions: the
onus in these was on the MoD to prove that the illness was not linked to
service in the Gulf war, and there was no need for the claimants to prove
negligence. There has been pressure from MPs and peers for the government
to introduce ex-gratia payments for veterans to avoid further proceedings.
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
15347d.jpg
1534c8.jpg
----------
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
*
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
*
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
*
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Attachment Converted: 15347d.jpg: 00000001,04a03c46,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 1534c8.jpg: 00000001,04a03c47,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
38 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee Meeting on
FR Doc 04-13249
[Federal Register: June 14, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 113)]
[Notices] [Page 33079] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14jn04-114]
Future Plant Designs; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on
Future Plant Designs will hold a meeting on June 25, 2004, Room
T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Friday,
June 25, 2004--8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. The Subcommittee will
review the AP1000 Final Safety Evaluation Report (FSER) and the
resolution of any remaining open items and ACRS concerns. The
Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and
facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as
appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official,
Dr. Medhat M. El-Zeftawy (telephone 301-415-6889) between 7:30
a.m. and 5 p.m. (ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible,
so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic
recordings will be permitted.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and
5 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to
contact the above named individual at least two working days
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to
the agenda.
Dated: June 3, 2004.
Ralph Caruso, Acting Associate Director for Technical Support,
ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. 04-13249 Filed 6-10-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
39 NRC: Bulletin 2004-01 Inspection of Alloy 82/182/600 Materials Used
FR Doc 04-13254
[Federal Register: June 14, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 113)]
[Notices] [Page 33080-33081] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14jn04-117]
in the Fabrication of Pressurizer Penetrations and Steam Space
Piping Connections at Pressurized-Water Reactors (PWRs); Notice
of Availability AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of issuance.
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued NRC
Bulletin 2004-01 to all holders of operating licenses for PWRs
except those who have permanently ceased operations and have
certified that fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor
pressure vessel. The NRC is issuing this bulletin to: (1) Advise
PWR licensees that current methods of inspecting Alloy 82/182/600
materials used in the fabrication of pressurizer penetrations and
steam space piping connections may need to be supplemented with
additional measures to detect and adequately characterize flaws
due to primary water stress corrosion cracking, (2) Request PWR
addressees to provide the NRC with information related to the
materials from which the pressurizer penetrations and steam space
piping connections at their facilities were fabricated, (3)
Request PWR licensees to provide the NRC with information related
to the inspections that have been and those that will be
performed to ensure that degradation of Alloy 82/182/600
materials used in the fabrication of pressurizer penetrations and
steam space piping connections will be identified, adequately
characterized, and repaired, and (4) Require PWR addresses to
provide a written response to the NRC in accordance with the
provisions of Section 50.54(f) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR 50.54(f)).
DATES: The bulletin was issued on May 28, 2004.
ADDRESSEES: Not applicable.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy G. Colburn at
301-415-1402, E- mail tgc@nrc.gov [tgc@nrc.gov] or Matthew A.
Mitchell at 301-415-3303, E-mail: mam4@nrc.gov [mam4@nrc.gov] .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NRC Bulletin 2004-01 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, 1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publically
available records are accessible electronically from the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html]
. The ADAMS Accession No. for the bulletin is ML041480034.
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the
NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff by telephone at
301-415-4737 or 1-800-397-4209, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov
[pdr@nrc.gov] . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of
June 2004.
[[Page 33081]] For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William Beckner, Chief, Reactor Operations Branch, Division of
Inspection Program Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 04-13254 Filed 6-10-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
40 Guardian Unlimited: Independent inquiry into Gulf war illnesses
James Meikle, health correspondent
Monday June 14, 2004
The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk]
An unprecedented independent inquiry into whether more than 5,000
veterans of the first Gulf war became ill as a result of their
service will be announced today.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick, the former law lord, will conduct hearings
in central London in the next few months and pose a political
dilemma for the government which has refused to authorise a
public inquiry for the past six years.
He is expected to invite current and former ministers, civil
servants, health and scientific experts, as well as veterans and
their families to establish the medical consequences of their
service.
It is understood that Lord Lloyd, a law lord until 1999 and a
former attorney general to the Prince of Wales, is determined to
begin with no preconceptions about the veterans' claims that they
were made ill, but believes an inquiry will help settle the
long-standing sores between former service personnel and the
Ministry of Defence.
"I was delighted to be invited to conduct an independent public
inquiry into Gulf war illnesses. My intention is to open the
inquiry as soon as possible and to hold hearings in public," he
said yesterday.
The arrangements for an inquiry have been prepared in confidence,
leaving the government little time to decide how to react.
Although Lord Lloyd will not have formal legal powers, ministers
will have to consider how to respond to invitations to give
evidence. Refusal to cooperate could be damaging politically.
The pressure for an inquiry, first made by the Royal British
Legion in 1998, has intensified since February when an eight-year
legal battle by more than 2,000 veterans collapsed because there
was insufficient scientific evidence to pursue their case. The
Legal Services Commission which paid an estimated £4m in legal
aid, withdrew further funding after reviews of research could
find no specific cause for the veterans' health problems.
But their lawyers said there was no doubt many of them were ill
and that their suffering was genuine. They called for an
independent inquiry and urged the government to instigate a
"process of conciliation" with veterans' groups.
It is thought the inquiry will be funded by anonymous independent
donations by people not directly involved in the controversy.
Lord Morris of Manchester, who has been involved behind the
scenes, said last night: "I hope this will clear an impasse that
has been of deep concern to the ex-service community. There is no
one more suited or well-qualified to lead aninquiry."
Other eminent figures are expected to help in the inquiry. They
include Sir Michael Davies, former clerk to the parliaments, who
chaired the management board of the House of Lords. Former
presidents of the General Medical Council are also thought to be
involved as medical advisers.
Many former troops who served in the Gulf during the 1991
conflict have reported symptoms such as muscle weakness,
neurological symptoms, headaches, depression, skin rashes and
shortage of breath.
The suggested causes have ranged from the pre-conflict injections
which Lord Morris has referred to as "a veritable blitzkreig on
the immune system" to pollution from burning oil wells, stress,
depleted uranium, organophosphates and the effect of low-level
exposure to chemical agents destroyed during and after the war.
A US congressional investigation has suggested that far more
troops and civilians were exposed to chemical agents than was
previously estimated by the Pentagon and the CIA.
The government has not ruled out an inquiry, but it does not
regard one as useful. It has instead stressed the value of its
£8.5m research programme, much of which has compared the health
of veterans with those who did not serve in the Gulf.
This has failed to find any single Gulf war syndrome, although
veterans are twice as likely as non-veterans to report symptoms
when asked about them. Death rates are similar between the
groups.
Lord Morris accepted the value of research, but said: "We are now
13 years on. None of us wants to see the afflicted and bereaved
of the conflict made to suffer added strain and hurtful and
demeaning indignities that preventable delay in dealing with
their concerns might impose."
About 2,000 Gulf veterans have been awarded "no-fault" war
pensions: the onus in these was on the MoD to prove that the
illness was not linked to service in the Gulf war, and there was
no need for the claimants to prove negligence. There has been
pressure from MPs and peers for the government to introduce
ex-gratia payments for veterans to avoid further proceedings.
Useful links
British army [http://www.army.mod.uk/]
Royal Navy [http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/]
RAF [http://www.raf.mod.uk/]
Ministry of Defence [http://www.mod.uk/]
Nato [http://www.nato.int/home.htm]
United Nations [http://www.un.org/]
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
41 BBC: 'Gulf War syndrome' probe planned
Last Updated: Monday, 14 June, 2004
[A unidentified soldier is injected during the first
Gulf War]
Many soldiers had numerous injections
An independent inquiry is to be held into the plight of thousands
of British troops who reportedly suffered ill health after the
first Gulf War.
The Royal British Legion has appointed a retired judge to
question veterans, relatives and doctors.
More than 5,000 British veterans have reported illnesses which
they believe may have been caused by vaccines or exposure to
chemicals.
The government has never acknowledged the existence of Gulf War
syndrome.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick, a former Lord Justice of Appeal, was
called upon to head the inquiry by Lord Morris of Manchester, who
is honorary parliamentary advisor to the British Legion.
Vaccinations
Lord Lloyd said that although the government had claimed it was
not closed to an inquiry, it had "repeatedly resisted one".
He said he intended to open the inquiry as soon as possible and
to hold hearings in public.
The Legion first called for a public inquiry into the illnesses
surrounding the 1991-1992 Gulf War veterans seven years ago.
There is clearly a maj problem to be addressed Lord Morris of
Manchester
Lord Morris, who announced the inquiry, said the Legion had
repeatedly called for an inquiry into the reported illnesses from
the first Gulf War.
He said: "With 2,585 veterans - many now terminally ill - already
in receipt of war pensions, and over 5,000 reporting a wide range
of undiagnosed illnesses, there is clearly a major problem to be
addressed."
He said many veterans, now in failing health, found themselves
locked in a long battle to have their illnesses accepted as war
related.
'Whitewash'
A spokesman for the British Legion said he was "delighted" by the
announcement and said his organisation would support the inquiry
in any way it could.
But he said it was disappointing that an inquiry could not have
been held sooner and its findings used to improve procedures to
prepare troops for current operations.
The National Gulf Veterans and Families Association gave a
cautious welcome to the news.
Chairman Shaun Rusling said: "My first concern would be that the
scope of the inquiry would be narrow and we would get a
whitewash.
"That is something we would find unacceptable - it has to be a
fully open and complete inquiry and nothing withheld from the
public."
He added: "I would very much like to see, for all my members,
full medical care and proper pensions.
"It's absolutely despicable to make these soldiers fight for
these pension rights and entitlements."
*****************************************************************
42 Deseret news: Tooele leaders send Huntsman a warning
[deseretnews.com]
Sunday, June 13, 2004
Their concerns focus on waste ban amendment
By Josh Loftin Deseret Morning News
Tooele County leaders fear that campaign rhetoric in the
governor's race could have serious economic implications on their
county.
In a June 10 letter to gubernatorial candidate Jon
Huntsman Jr., eight elected officials cautioned that even
proposing a constitutional amendment to prohibit Class B and
Class C low-level radioactive waste from the state could have
significant impacts on Tooele County, where the Envirocare
radioactive waste landfill is located.
The officials, including all three county commissioners,
five legislators who represent portions of the county and the
director of the Tooele County Chamber of Commerce, said the
letter was in response to comments made by Huntsman's running
mate, Gary Herbert, on a radio talk show.
"We are deeply concerned that your campaign is attempting
to leverage an issue into political gain that would directly
damage the economic well-being of a rural county . . . without
even attempting to first learn the facts," the officials wrote.
The leaders urged Huntsman to allow the "unfettered
opportunities of individual businesses" to continue without the
government interference that a constitutional amendment would
create. They also caution against following the advice of groups
which may not have the majority interest in mind.
"Calling for selectively imposing restrictions on
businesses because of the perception of negativism spread by a
few vocal activists . . . is anti-business, anti-Tooele County
and anti-Utah," the letter reads. "We would hope that you, as a
possible future governor, would not favor the idea of
circumventing the legislative process by leaning towards an
initiative type of government."
Huntsman is facing fellow Republican Nolan Karras in a
June 22 primary for the GOP nomination.
Huntsman's campaign manager, Jason Chaffetz, said that
while Herbert did mention a constitutional amendment as one tool
that could be used to stop the "hotter" nuclear waste, it is not
a proposal that has been solidified. Instead, it is simply one of
many ideas to achieve the ultimate goal of stopping the waste
from coming to the state.
"It's something we've been looking at, something we're
considering," Chaffetz said. Huntsman "has consistently been on
the record as saying that he's opposed to the hotter waste."
Huntsman and Herbert, who as a Utah County commissioner
has developed a good relationship with Tooele County
commissioners, will both talk to the county leaders about the
issue before making any actual proposals, Chaffetz said. Yet
while the economic impact on Tooele is one part of the
discussion, there are many other factors, including health issues
and the economic impact on the entire state if Class B and C
waste is accepted.
Economic impacts "are one of the considerations, but not
the overriding consideration," he said. "It's bad on many fronts.
It's bad for our image, and it's bad for our desire to keep Hill
Air Force Base."
Karras did not receive a letter from Tooele
representatives. Steve Sparks, Karras' campaign manager, said
that while they do oppose hotter nuclear waste, they would not
get involved in any disputes between their opponent and county
officials.
"It's an issue between the people of Tooele, and
particularly Envirocare, and the Huntsman campaign," Sparks said.
"Obviously, it's something that has upset them, but it is between
the people who sent the letter Huntsman."
E-mail: jloftin@desnews.com [jloftin@desnews.com]
© 2004 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
43 lamonitor.com: Pressure's on to reform nuclear workers comp bill
The Online News Source for Los Alamos
[http://www.lanl.gov/worldview]
[http://www.lac-nm.us]
ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor
Four years ago, Congress passed the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Act (EEOICA), a bill that was supposed to
make up for years of neglect of employees of the Department of
Energy who had been exposed to serious illnesses while on
dangerous jobs in nuclear facilities.
Under Subtitle B, the bill provided a lump sum payment of
$150,000 and medical benefits as compensation to workers who
developed certain cancers and other diseases after exposure to
radiation and other toxic substances.
Since 2000, many employees covered by the bill have suffered
deteriorating health and some have died. Survivors, some of whom
are also entitled to compensation, have struggled on without
their relatives, expecting their cases to be resolved soon.
Others, afflicted by diseases not specifically covered by the
act, were shunted into 50 different state workers compensation
programs, where they are often frustrated by similar or worse
delays in obtaining adequate data for establishing eligibility.
This program is known as Subtitle D.
Some cases have been resolved, and the energy department claims
the pace of handling the claims has accelerated in the last six
months. Case in point
Jonathan Garcia of Espanola hopes things are going faster, but
he's not holding his breath. Four years after the bill passed and
long periods in between form letters advising him of no progress,
he finally got a letter from the government saying they had data
on his exposures from Los Alamos National Laboratory. "I was a
heavy equipment operator for Zia when I first started back in
'75," he said. "I worked all the areas in Los Alamos, every
single one I was Q-cleared for."
Garcia was diagnosed with leukemia in 1993. He endured one bone
marrow transplant in 1994, and then was rescued with another
experimental operation in 1996. To qualify for his lump sum
compensation, a provision in the compensation act required that
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health obtain
his exposure records to estimate how much radiation he was
exposed to.
"I buried the fuel rods from TA-18," he said. "I buried 100,000
barrels of plutonium and uranium."
Even so, he doubts that the dosage records for his exposure are
complete.
"I was breathing that, crushed glove boxes and powdered graphite,
loose dust around the pit, wearing only a dust mask," he said.
And they didn't have any monitoring devices inside the pit. There
was no dosage for me at the time. Film badges don't pick up
everything."
If his claim holds, he said, his colleagues with other
complications feel they may have a chance too.
"If I don't get it, with leukemia and working one of the hottest
areas," he said, "then there are some real questions about this
program."
Case for reform
Last month two new studies, critical of the creeping progress of
the bureaucracy were published, answering some of those
questions, but prompting new legislative efforts at the national
level to mend what the bills' sponsors consider a broken and
unresponsive system.
One of the studies, by the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health reported that of the 15,000-plus cases they
were involved in, almost all of them were delayed by problems
obtaining information from other agencies or the claimants
themselves, or by problems NIOSH had in getting staffed, prepared
and facilitated for the job.
Among sites listed as "not consistently providing adequate
responses to data requests," is Los Alamos National Laboratory,
where a NIOSH random survey found three out of ten requests for
dose reconstruction efforts were inadequate.
Lab officials have acknowledged that there were problems
providing NIOSH with exposure data in a format they needed, but
say those problems have now been worked out.
A Government Accounting Office report released last week gave an
even bleaker assessment of the over-all picture.
"During the first 2-and-a-half years of the program, ending
December 31, 2003, Energy had completely processed about 6
percent of the more than 23,000 cases that had been filed," write
the authors on the Subtitle D claims that are being filed under
state workers compensation laws."(P)rocessing had not yet begun
on nearly 60 percent of the cases."
A DOE reply, dated May 11, complains that the report does not
include progress that was made since the beginning of this year,
saying that more like 10 percent of the cases were complete then,
and 23 percent were essentially completed.
DOE also answered that without an additional $10 million in
funding, it would not be able to meet its goal "to eliminate the
entire backlog of applications by the end of CY 2006."
Members of New Mexico's congressional delegation, specifically
the state's two U.S. senators and Rep. Tom Udall, D-NM, have
taken action in the last month toward another round of reform.
On May 19, Udall introduced a bill that would designate Los
Alamos National Laboratory as a Special Exposure Cohort under the
EEOICA, which would automatically entitle certain LANL workers
with specific cancers to qualify for the lump sum payment even if
the government can't adequately reconstruct their levels of
exposure.
Visiting the state on June 4, Udall said he had been working on
these problems, even before the original legislation passed in
2000.
"When we came to the public meetings in Espanola and heard the
workers, the rooms were overflowing with people, and you had a
sense of tremendous concern from the workers," he said.
Even with the legislation, he said, many of these people have not
been served well, and since then he has worked in tandem with a
bi-partisan group in the House, monitoring developments and
trying to come up with a piece of legislation that would fix the
problems quickly.
"I would hope to hook on to any kind of reform bill that goes
through," he said. "I'm very frustrated with the way DOE has run
the program."
Another tack has been taken in the Senate, where an amendment to
the Defense Authorization Act proposes to shift responsibility
for administering all claims to the Department of Labor. The
amendment, sponsored by Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky, and co-sponsored
by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-NM, is reported to have strong
bipartisan support from a number Senators in both parties.
Among them, Sen. Pete Domenici said in a statement last week, "I
am pleased to be able to help fix deficiencies in the original
law intended to help DOE employees receive compensation for
exposure to toxic substances.
"The amendment would also create an Office of Ombudsman to work
with DOL on the claims process and, among other measures, require
DOE to continue gathering and providing the necessary records,
Domenici said.
"My sense is that the Department of Energy has a hard problem
with running these kinds of programs," Udall said. "I'm not sure
their heart is really in it."
© 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
44 Las Vegas SUN: Rove: Yucca won't be an election issue
Today: June 14, 2004 at 11:21:47 PDT
Bush strategist says other issues key for Nevadans
By Kirsten Searer
LAS VEGAS SUN
The presidential race in Nevada will not come down to the
state's feelings on the Yucca Mountain issue, a top presidential
adviser said this weekend.
Instead, Karl Rove, the president's lead strategist, said
Nevadans will base their decision on what he believes are the
same factors that most Americans will -- the war on terrorism,
the state of the economy and the "values" of each presidential
candidate.
President Bush, he said, did not lie to Nevadans when he said
he would wait for "sound science" to determine the fate of the
site, which now is scheduled to be the final resting spot of the
nation's high-level nuclear waste.
"He's been pretty consistent all along that he's going to base
it on sound science," Rove said, later adding, "but he's not
going to play politics with this. He didn't four years ago when
he ran. He said he would make a decision based on science and he
did."
Rove, who was in Nevada this weekend for a string of
fund-raisers, has been creditied for much of Bush's political
successes, including his win in 2000 and the strong Republican
showing in the 2002 mid-term elections.
Rove also criticized presidential candidate John Kerry's pledge
to block the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository if he is elected.
"I think Nevadans are smart enough to know it's one thing to
make a rash pledge that it's not coming here," he said. "It's
another thing to be able to operate on it when you have so many
states that have material in their states and for so long have
been told that eventually there will be a place to put it.
"You have to explain what you're going to do with the stuff
that's now lying around," he said.
Kerry spokesman Sean Smith responded that Kerry is committed to
stopping the Yucca Mountain project, though where it goes
instead "will be determined on a later date."
"John Kerry has promised the people of Nevada that Yucca
Mountain will not be a nuclear waste respository and he means
it," Smith said. "And if I were the Republicans, I would try to
change the subject, too, because George Bush's failure on Yucca
Mountain is the biggest broken promise in the history of
presidential politics as far as Nevadans are concerned."
Rove was greeted by protestors in both Las Vegas and in Reno on
Saturday, including someone dressed in a nuclear hazard suit in
Las Vegas.
Mark Benoit, the Nevada spokesman for America Coming Together,
a national group that pushes progressive candidates, said it
could backfire on Republicans if they continue to "duck" the
issue of Yucca Mountain.
"This is an issue that comes up strong in most polling," he
said. "When people list their worries, Yucca Mountain is always
in the top three or four for Nevadans. You can't say it's a
nonissue."
Bush's promise to rely on "sound science" came in the 2000
presidential campaign, when Nevada was closely divided between
Bush and Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore.
Before the election, Bush issued a statement saying: "I believe
sound science, and not politics, must prevail in the designation
of any high-level nuclear waste respository.
"As president, I would not sign legislation that would send
nuclear waste to any proposed site unless it's been deemed
scientifically safe."
Bush later allowed Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham to push
forward with Yucca Mountain, even as some scientific reviews
were showing potential problems with the site.
However, Rove said, Yucca Mountain isn't a sure thing. He
pointed to Nevada's legal battle against the site and the
ongoing license application that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission is now reviewing.
"Nevada has exercized its legitimate rights to take this to
court, and this is probably going to be one of the better ways
to resolve the question of was sound science used in the
preparation of the decision or not," Rove said.
Rove, who lived in Sparks from 1960 to 1966, said he still has
family in Nevada and understands that people have concerns with
the Yucca Mountain site. "That's why Congress, and I'm not
certain who the wise man was, set up a slow-moving and a very
in-depth process some 20 years ago," he said.
Rove's visit was yet another from a high-level Republican this
election year. President Bush is scheduled to be in Reno this
weekend, though he is not scheduled to stop in Southern Nevada.
Rove said he expected Bush to visit Southern Nevada before the
presidential election. When asked if Bush would answer questions
from the local media about the promises he made about Yucca
Mountain, Rove laughed and said, "Oh yeah. Might be, might be."
Rove, who first worked with Bush when he was governor in Texas,
said that Bush still holds values that Westerners can appreciate.
"He's a person of great optimism, of great clarity," Rove said.
"He does what he believes, he does what he says. People know
he's got convictions that are not going to change with fad or
fashion, and they know he's somebody who's a conservative. And
the state of Nevada is generally conservative.
"It's going to be a hard-fought state," he said. "I feel good
about it at the end of the day, though, because the state is a
conservative state. It's not a state that warms to high taxes
and soft on defense and sort of the left-wing values."
He said Bush's work on the Healthy Forest Initiative to clear
out forests and prevent forest fires should appeal to Nevadans.
Bush also fought for Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Colorado to
receive the allotment of water from the Colorado River that the
states deserve under government compacts, he said.
Bush is also fighting for Congress to send more Homeland
Security money to places with a high security threat, such as
Las Vegas, instead of distributing the money on a per capita
basis as some congressional members have tried to do, Rove said.
He criticized MoveOn.org, a group that has run a blitz of
anti-Bush ads in Nevada. He said the group called for a
nonviolent response to the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
"They didn't want us to take out Osama bin Laden and the
killers," he said. "They just wanted us to sit down and offer up
therapy and a platter of cookies and lemonade."
Rove raised about $50,000 for Rep. Jon Porter's re-election
campaign. Fund-raising totals from Northern Nevada were still
being totaled today, officials said.
Questions or problems? Click here.
*****************************************************************
45 Oak Ridger: Waste takes long way home
Story last updated at 11:23 a.m. on June 14, 2004
MAYOR: 'I just have a terrible, terrible time understanding how
they can justify appeasing Oak Ridge and bringing it the long way
around through Oliver Springs.'
By: Paul Parson | Oak Ridger Staff [paul.parson@oakridger.com]
When it comes to shipments of waste cylinders, Oak Ridge's loss
is apparently Oliver Springs' and Clinton's gain, according to at
least one official.
Oliver Springs Mayor Ed Kelley confirmed that shipments of
depleted uranium hexafluoride cylinders have been coming through
his town, hitting Highway 61 to Clinton and ending up on
Interstate 75 to Ohio. He also noted that one of the trucks
hauling the material was involved in a minor traffic accident
last month.
On the other hand, Clinton Mayor Wimp Shoopman said he was
unaware that the waste was being shipped through his city.
The depleted uranium hexafluoride in question is a byproduct of
an operation where uranium was ultimately processed into nuclear
reactor fuel and weapons-grade material. Stored in cylinders at
the Oak Ridge K-25 site, the material is being shipped to
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Ohio.
Transport of the waste cylinders was met with a little
controversy last year when it appeared the material would be
hauled through the city of Oak Ridge. Though DOE and its cleanup
contractor, Bechtel Jacobs Co., have declined to disclose
transport routes, some officials have suggested that Oak Ridge
Turnpike was never considered for use in transporting the
material to Clinton and I-75.
"I just have a terrible, terrible time understanding how they can
justify appeasing Oak Ridge and bringing it the long way around
through Oliver Springs," said Kelley, who added the shipments
come out of K-25 and hit Blair Road en route to Oliver Springs.
The Oliver Springs mayor said the early morning waste shipments
stopped at least three times at the school crossing in front of
Norwood schools. Kelley also said at least one of the transport
trucks has been involved in a traffic accident.
A report filed by Oliver Springs Police Officer Tim Elmore
indicates a vehicle ran into one of the trucks while it was
preparing to turn onto Highway 61 to go to Clinton. The driver of
the cylinder truck was not at fault, and neither the transport
truck nor its load was reportedly damaged.
Kelley said DOE had a "screaming fit" because Oliver Springs
officials released the truck involved in the accident so it could
proceed to its destination.
"We didn't have any idea what we were supposed to do," Kelley
said.
Both DOE spokesman Walter Perry and Bechtel Jacobs spokesman
Dennis Hill said they were unaware of any other accidents
involving the cylinder transport trucks. They also declined to
confirm the transport route mention by Kelley or comment on
whether multiple routes are being utilized.
Hill said more than 700 cylinders have been shipped to date, with
about 5,200 remaining to be transported to Portsmouth. The goal
is to have all of the cylinders out of Oak Ridge by the end of
fiscal year 2005.
"The frequency and size of individual shipments is security
sensitive information," Hill said. "Because of that, we don't
want people to have enough information to calculate how many or
how often cylinders are shipped."
With more shipments ahead, Kelley has sent a letter to DOE
requesting that the federal agency make some kind of payment to
Oliver Springs because the "large and heavy trucks" will be using
roads through the town. The mayor said the payments would be used
to maintain and upgrade streets in addition to various other
projects to improve the town.
*****************************************************************
46 IEER: Yucca Mountain Design Defective, Says Dr. Craig
For immediate release, Monday, June 14, 2004
For further information contact:
Arjun Makhijani: (301) 270-5500
Dr. Paul Craig (925) 370-9729
ENERGY DEPT. IS "RUSHING AHEAD WITH A DEFECTIVE YUCCA MOUNTAIN
DESIGN"
SAYS FORMER U.S. NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD MEMBER;
NEW ARTICLE CITES MANAGEMENT PARALLELS WITH SPACE SHUTTLE
DISASTERS
If the Department of Energy (DOE) pursues its present design,
the nation's proposed high-level waste repository at Yucca
Mountain, is likely to leak. This is the conclusion reported in
a new article by Dr. Paul Craig, a former member of the U.S.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. "Rush to Judgment at Yucca
Mountain" is a cover story of the June issue of Science for
Democratic Action [http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/12-3.pdf] ,
published by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
(IEER).
In his article, Rush to Judgment at Yucca Mountain, Dr. Craig
draws parallels between the mistakes made by NASA leading up to
the Challenger and Columbia space shuttle disasters and DOE's
plans to dispose of high-level radioactive waste. "Lessons from
NASA are generic," explains Dr. Craig. "They apply to the Yucca
Mountain project." Among the similar management flaws he cites:
+ Poor design with the flaws often obvious from the outside;
+ Schedule-driven programs, which are "especially problematic
when the science isn't well understood as was the case with the
shuttles and is the case with Yucca Mountain;"
+ Institutional arrogance. DOE's present design illustrates
the first problem. The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
reported last year that DOE had chosen a repository environment
in which the waste containment canisters are likely to corrode
and leak.
Craig believes that a sound design is probably possible at Yucca
Mountain. However, he warns that even if DOE developed a sound
design, it is unclear whether that organization is
institutionally competent to carry it out. His article
concludes, "I do know that the worst approach is to ignore sound
science. And that's what DOE is doing at Yucca Mountain."
Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president of IEER, added, "With the DOE in
charge, there is no hope for a sound repository program."
- - 3 0 - -
The complete text of Dr. Craig's article, Rush to Judgment at
Yucca Mountain, is posted online at:
http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/12-3.pdf
[http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/12-3.pdf] . IEER's position on the
issues is also summarized there.
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
[http://www.ieer.org/index.html] Comments to Outreach
Coordinator: ieer{at}ieer.org Takoma Park, Maryland, USA June 14,
2004
*****************************************************************
47 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste to Meet June 22-24 in Rockville, Maryland
News Release - 2004-07 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office
of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC
20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 04-073 June 14, 2004
The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Advisory Committee on
Nuclear Waste will meet June 22-24 in Rockville, Md., to hear
presentations and hold discussions with NRC staff, the
Department of Energy, and the U.S. Geological Survey concerning
the scientific methods used to predict the behavior of
radioactive material in the proposed nuclear waste repository at
Yucca Mountain, Nev. It will also hold discussions with the DOE
related to the NRCs review of the technical documents intended
to support the future Yucca Mountain license application.
The meeting will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agencys Two White
Flint North Building, at 11545 Rockville Pike. The meeting will
begin at 10:00 a.m. on June 22, at 9:00 a.m. on June 23 and at
8:30 a.m. on June 24.
A complete agenda will be available on the NRCs Web site at
this address:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acnw/agenda/2004/.
For additional information or schedule changes, please contact
Howard Larson at 301-415-6805.
Last revised Monday, June 14, 2004
*****************************************************************
48 NRC: Yucca Licensing submissions
RIN 3150-AH31
FR Doc 04-13113
[Federal Register: June 14, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 113)] [Rules
and Regulations] [Page 32836-32849] From the Federal Register
Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14jn04-2]
Licensing Proceeding for a High-Level Radioactive Waste Geologic
Repository; Licensing Support Network, Submissions to the
Electronic
Docket
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its Rules
of
Practice applicable to the use of the Licensing Support Network
(LSN)
and the electronic hearing docket in the licensing proceeding on
the
disposal of high-level radioactive waste at a geologic
repository. The
amendments establish the basic requirements and standards for
the
submission of adjudicatory materials to the electronic hearing
docket
by parties to the high-level radioactive waste licensing
proceeding.
The amendments also address the issue of reducing the
unnecessary
loading of duplicate documents on individual participant LSN
document
collection servers (Web sites); the continuing obligation of LSN
participants to update their documentary material after the
initial
certification; the Secretary of the Commission's determination
that the
DOE license application is electronically accessible; and the
provisions on material that may be excluded from the LSN.
DATES: Effective Date: July 14, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francis X. Cameron, U.S.
Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001, telephone (301)
415-
1642, e-mail [FXC@nrc.gov] .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J,
provide
for, among other things, the use of an electronic information
management system to provide documents related to the high-level
radioactive waste (HLW ) repository licensing proceeding.
Originally
promulgated on April 14, 1989 (54 FR 14944), the information
management
system required by Subpart J is to have the following functions:
(1) The Licensing Support Network (LSN) provides full text
search
and retrieval access to the relevant documents of all parties
and
potential parties to the HLW repository licensing proceeding
beginning
in the time period before the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
license
application for the repository is submitted;
(2) The NRC Electronic Information Exchange (EIE) provides
for
electronic submission of filings by the parties, as well as the
orders
and decisions of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
(ASLBP),
during the proceeding; and
(3) The Electronic Hearing Docket (EHD) provides for the
development and
[[Page 32837]]
access to an electronic version of the HLW licensing proceeding
docket.
The creation of the LSN (originally called the ``Licensing
Support
System'') was stimulated by the requirements of section 114(d)
of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA). This provision sets as
a goal
Commission issuance of a final decision approving or
disapproving
issuance of the construction authorization for a geologic
repository
for HLW within three years of the docketing of the DOE license
application. The Commission anticipated that the HLW proceeding
would
involve substantial numbers and volumes of documents created by
well-
informed parties on numerous and complex issues. The Commission
believed that the LSN could facilitate the timely review of
DOE's
application by providing for electronic access to relevant
documents
via the LSN before the application is submitted, rather than the
traditional, and potentially time-consuming, discovery process
associated with the physical production of documents after an
application is submitted. In addition, the Commission believed
that
early access to these documents in an electronically searchable
form
would allow for a thorough and comprehensive technical review of
the
license application by all parties and potential parties to the
HLW
licensing proceeding, resulting in better focused contentions in
the
proceeding.
The current requirements in 10 CFR 2.1003(a) require the DOE
to
make its documentary material available in electronic form no
later
than six months in advance of DOE's submission of its
application to
the NRC. The NRC must make its documentary material available in
electronic form no later than thirty days after the DOE
certification
of compliance. All other participants must make their documents
available in electronic form no later than ninety days after the
DOE
certification of compliance. Originally, the LSN was conceived
as a
large, centralized information management system administered by
what
was then called the Licensing Support System Administrator (now
the LSN
Administrator). To take advantage of the advances in technology
that
occurred since the promulgation of the original rule, the
Commission
revised the rule to use the Internet to link geographically
dispersed
sites rather than rely on a complex and expensive centralized
system
(63 FR 71729; December 30, 1998).
As noted, one of the objectives of the regulations in 10 CFR
Part
2, Subpart J is to provide for electronic submission of filings
by the
parties, as well as the orders and decisions of the ASLBP,
during the
proceeding. The purpose of this function is to reduce the time
that it
takes to serve filings by substituting electronic transmission
for the
physical mailing of filings that is typically used in NRC
licensing
proceedings. Shortening the amount of time for certain
activities
during the hearing process will support the NRC's efforts to
meet the
schedule in the NWPA. 10 CFR 2.1013(c)(1) requires that all
filings in
the HLW adjudicatory proceeding be ``transmitted
electronically''
(emphasis added) by the submitter to the Presiding Officer, the
parties, and the Secretary of the Commission. The Commission
believes
that the majority of these filings will consist of simple
documents
that can be readily transmitted by EIE. However, after further
considering the nature of some of the documents that may be
submitted
by the parties during the proceeding, the Commission believes
that it
is necessary to specify requirements for submitting large and/or
complex documents. This need was the reason the Commission
initiated
the proposed rulemaking that is the subject of this final rule.
The
proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on November
26,
2003 (68 FR 66372).
The proposed amendments addressed a number of aspects of the
current rules:
The requirements and standards for a party's submissions
to the electronic docket for the HLW repository licensing
proceeding;
Those provisions that could result in the loading of
duplicate documents on individual participant LSN document
collection
servers;
The provisions related to the Secretary of the
Commission's determination that the DOE license application is
electronically accessible; .
Those provisions related to the continuing obligation of
LSN participants to update their documentary material; and
Those provisions on material that may be excluded from the
LSN.
II. Public Comments
The Commission received nine comments on the proposed rule
from the
following entities:
(1) U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
(2) State of Nevada.
(3) Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI).
(4) Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, Incorporated.
(5) Nye County, Nevada.
(6) Lincoln County and the City of Caliente, Nevada.
(7) White Pine County, Nevada.
(8) Eureka County, Nevada.
(9) Progress Energy.
These comments addressed the following categories of issues:
1. Rule or Guidance
Two commenters (DOE, NEI) recommended that the technical
standards
in proposed section 2.1013(c)(1) be incorporated into a guidance
document rather than in the NRC regulations. These commenters
noted
that the proposed standards in section 2.1013(c)(1) were useful
clarifications, but it was not necessary to formalize them in a
rulemaking. The rationale for this recommendation was that
technical
capabilities can change significantly over the period of time
that the
HLW licensing proceeding will take place and that any needed
changes to
reflect new technical capabilities could more efficiently be
implemented by revising guidance rather than by initiating a new
rulemaking. In addition, NEI was concerned about the need for
stability
in the LSN regulatory framework as the date for submission of
the DOE
license application draws closer. NEI also recommended that, if
the NRC
decides to proceed with the rulemaking, it be done as
expeditiously as
possible. NEI also requested that the NRC provide some assurance
to LSN
participants on the stability of the LSN regulatory framework in
the
interim period while a rule was being finalized. Finally, NEI
urged the
Commission to issue the final revision to NRC Regulatory Guide
3.69 on
the Topical Guidelines that were issued for public comment in
June,
2002, See ``Draft Regulatory Guide DG-3022 (Proposed Revision 1
of
Regulatory Guide 3.69).'' Another commenter, Progress Energy,
expressed
the same concerns as NEI.
Response
The Commission has tried to balance the need for
flexibility,
informality, and responsiveness, i.e., using guidance for the
technical
standards, with the need to ensure that the fundamental
compliance
requirements for LSN participants are clear, i.e., using a rule.
Accordingly, the Commission has expressed what it believes to be
the
most important technical standards in Section 2.1013(c)(1) of
the final
rule, while including the majority of the detailed technical
specifications in a guidance document, ``Guidance for the
Submission of
Electronic Docket Materials Under 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J'',
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, (Guidance Document). The Guidance
Document is available on the NRC Web site,
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov] .
The Guidance document can also be found in the Commission's
Agencywide Documents Access and Management
[[Page 32838]]
System (ADAMS) at Accession Number ML041560341. The Guidance
Document
contains essential information in regard to the proper
implementation
of the requirements of this rule.
In terms of providing an assurance of a stable regulatory
framework, the Commission is not imposing any new requirements
that
would significantly alter the current regulatory framework.
Furthermore, the Commission does not anticipate adding any
additional
requirements beyond those in this final rule before the
repository
license application is submitted. As explained by the NRC staff
at the
December 2003 meeting of the LSN Advisory Review Panel, the only
revision to the scope of documents covered by the Topical
Guidelines in
Regulatory Guide 3.69, was a proposed new exclusion for
``congressional
correspondence.'' Therefore, the Commission does not believe
that the
existing regulatory framework will in any way be
``destabilized.'' The
final revision of the Topical Guidelines will be completed
immediately
after this rule is finalized.
2. Technical standards
DOE had several comments on the technical standards for the
submission of electronic filings to the adjudicatory proceeding.
A. Complex Documents
Section 2.1013(c)(1)(iii) of the proposed rule would have
required
that those portions of ``complex documents'' that are amenable
to being
transmitted electronically as a filing in the HLW adjudicatory
proceeding be transmitted electronically, while those parts of
complex
documents that were not amenable to electronic transmission be
submitted on optical media. DOE, in its comment letter,
questioned the
advantage of electronically transmitting only some portions of a
complex document. If a complex document is not amenable to
submittal in
its entirety via electronic transmission through the EIE, the
advantage
of submitting only portions of it is unclear because those
portions may
not be useful by themselves. DOE recommended that the entire
document
be submitted on optical storage media, with a transmittal letter
submitted via the EIE providing notification of the submittal of
that
document.
Response
The final rule maintains the approach of the proposed rule
to the
submission of complex documents. In terms of the usefulness of
submitting portions of the document by electronic transmittal,
the
Commission believes that this would serve several useful
purposes.
First, it provides early notification that a complex document is
coming
in and consequently allows other parties to plan their review
and
possible response. Second, there often will be substantial
benefit in
receiving the text portion of a complex document via electronic
transmission, notwithstanding the delay in receiving the
additional
attachments. Various Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards have
been
issuing orders for several years that use this practice. This
has
allowed the parties and the Boards to review the text portion,
which
contains the arguments of the parties, while awaiting the rest
of the
pleading. However, for purposes of the service requirements in
section
2.1013(c) or the computation of time requirements in section
2.1017,
the filing of a complex document or a large document is not
complete
until all portions of the document have been submitted.
B. Image Resolution
Section 2.1013(c)(1)(iv) of the proposed rule would have
required
that all electronic submissions to the EHD have 300 dots per
inch (dpi)
minimum resolution for bi-tonal, color, and grayscale. DOE noted
the
inconsistency between these EHD requirements and the
requirements in
section 2.1011(b)(2)(iv) for documents placed on individual LSN
participant Web sites. The LSN participant Web site documents
are
required to have 300 dpi for bi-tonal but 150 dpi minimum
resolution
for grayscale and color. DOE recommended that the final rule on
the EHD
be consistent with the LSN participant Web site requirements to
avoid
having to convert the color and grayscale parts of existing
documents
from 150 dpi to 300 dpi. According to DOE, this would not be
``an
efficient use of resources.'' The Commission interprets this
latter
phrase to mean that the conversion would be not only costly, but
unnecessary because 150 dpi color and gray scale would be fully
readable. DOE also noted that the Guidance Document states that
there
is flexibility with respect to the minimum resolution as long as
the
integrity and quality of the document result in readable copies.
The
DOE suggests that this flexibility should be added to the rule
if the
technical requirements are to be retained in the rule.
Response
Records submitted to the NRC as part of the Electronic
Hearing
Docket are Federal ``official agency records.'' The National
Archives
and Records Administration (NARA) issued a standard that records
scanned after December 23, 2002, must meet the minimum standard
of 300
dpi for bi-tonal, color, and grayscale documents. The NRC
adopted this
standard on January 1, 2004, the effective date for the NRC
final rule
on the electronic maintenance and submission of information to
the NRC
(68 FR 58792; October 10, 2003). The NRC has considered the
DOE's
concern with regard to the ``efficient use of resources.'' In
response,
the NRC has modified language in the rule to: (1) require
submitters to
use the 300 dpi standard for documents created after the January
1,
2004 effective date of the electronic maintenance rule, except
in
limited circumstances in which (a) submitters may need to use an
image
scanned before January 1, 2004, in a document created after
January 1,
2004 or (b) the scanning process for a large, one-page image may
not
successfully complete at the 300 dpi standard resolution; and
(2)
require that documents created or scanned before January 1,
2004, (or
for those documents in 1(a) or (b) above), meet the standards
for
documents placed on LSN participant Web sites in section
2.1011(b)(2)(iv) which is 150 dpi for color and grayscale
documents and
300 dpi for bi-tonal documents. The Commission is also assuming
that
this document image resolution requirement for LSN participant
Web
sites would meet the criterion of ``readability.''
C. Image Format
Section 2.1013(c)(1)(v) of the proposed rule would have
required
electronic submissions to be generated in Adobe Acrobat Portable
Document Format (PDF). DOE noted that this PDF requirement was
inconsistent with the requirement for LSN participant Web sites
in
section 2.1011(b)(2)(iv) that allows Tagged Image File Format
(TIFF).
DOE suggests that files on LSN participant Web sites that are
submitted
to the adjudicatory proceeding be allowed to be submitted in the
TIFF
format. Converting images in the LSN that are usable in TIFF
format to
PDF format for the EHD would again, according to DOE, ``not be
an
efficient use of resources.''
Response
The electronic documentary material submitted to the EHD
will be
entered as official agency records in ADAMS. The PDF became the
NRC
standard for official agency records on January 1, 2004, the
effective
date for the NRC final rule on the electronic maintenance and
submission of information to the NRC (68 FR 58792; October 10,
2003).
The NRC has adopted PDF as the NRC
[[Page 32839]]
standard for this official agency records system based on the
following:
PDF represents a ``generic'' format that behaves
consistently across multiple hardware and operating systems;
When files are distributed in PDF, the information is
``locked down'' for the general user, who can access the content
through the use of PDF viewer software;
The PDF standard, though it is proprietary to Adobe, has
been published, is freely available, and the capability to
create PDF
documents has been integrated into many other software
applications;
PDF documents can be generated from any application that
can generate Postscript printer files; thus anything that can be
printed can be represented in PDF;
PDF supports file generation options for text-oriented
files produced on a word processing or publishing system;
PDF supports file generation options for scanned image-
oriented files; and
PDF supports file generation options for scanned text-
oriented files capable of full text search.
In contrast, adherence to the PDF standards for NRC official
agency
records is not required for purposes of individual LSN
participant Web
sites and therefore, TIFF is acceptable under section
2.1011(b)(2)(iv).
The Commission also believes that TIFFs can readily be converted
to PDF
using features inherent in PDF-authoring software. In those rare
circumstances where technical reasons would prevent the
successful
conversion to PDF, DOE or any other LSN participant, can submit
the
image in TIFF and include a detailed statement of the technical
reasons
that prevent conversion to PDF, in a transmittal letter to
accompany
the filing.
D. Hyperlinks
Section 2.1013(c)(1)(vi) of the proposed rule requires that
documents be free of hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites
other
than within a single PDF file. DOE notes that some documents may
have
embedded hyperlinks that are difficult to remove. The DOE
suggests that
the requirement be revised to state that use of the document in
the EHD
should not depend on hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites.
The
Commission understands this comment to suggest that there should
be no
restriction in the rule on documents containing hyperlinks, but
that
the use of the document in the hearing may not depend on those
hyperlinks.
Response
The Commission has considered the DOE comments and has
revised the
final rule to allow hyperlinks to be contained in documents
submitted
to the EHD. The Commission believes that it will be difficult
and
costly to remove these hyperlinks. Instead of prohibiting a
document
from being submitted with hyperlinks, section 2.1013(c)(1)(vi)
of the
final rule would prohibit reliance on the hyperlinks for
purposes of
providing additional evidentiary material or completing a
submittal.
This would require the submitter to review all documents
submitted to
the EHD for hyperlinks to the Internet or other documents. Any
necessary material would need to be included in the filing or as
an
attachment to the filing.
However, the Commission is also concerned that hyperlinks in
a
filing that do not function, or that link a user to an external
website
that has changed or perhaps contains some type of offensive
material,
could create a negative perception of the integrity of the EHD
database. Therefore, the final rule requires each electronic
submission
to contain a disclaimer that notifies the reader that the
hyperlinks in
the filing may not operate or may link the reader to material
that is
not intended to be necessary, or in some cases, even related, to
the
use of the filing in the proceeding. This disclaimer must either
be in
the transmittal memorandum required for filings over 50 MB or in
the
body of the pleading for filings under 50 MB. The single
exception to
the use of hyperlinks in a filing is when the hyperlink connects
to
another part of the same PDF file. The use of hyperlinks in this
context is permissible. This also has implications for the
minimum size
of a file that is submitted to the EHD. The Commission
encourages
submitters to combine small files that are components of a
larger
document into one file to facilitate efficient distribution and
use of
the documentary material. For example, if a document consists of
15
separate 2 MB files, those 15 files should be combined to result
in one
30 MB file. This will allow submitters to use hyperlinks in a
larger
file, i.e., a single electronic file up to 50 MB.
E. Definitions
DOE noted that the definition of complex documents in
section
2.1001 of the proposed rule could be viewed as inconsistent with
the
definition in the Supplementary Information for the proposed
rule.
Proposed section 2.1001 states that a complex document has
substantial
portions that are neither textual nor image. However, the
Supplementary
Information (68 FR 66374) states that complex documents can also
include a textual or graphic file that cannot be segmented into
50
megabyte (MB) files. The DOE suggests that the description in
the
Supplementary Information be used as the definition in section
2.1001
of the rule.
Response
The Commission agrees and has revised the definition
accordingly.
3. Docketing
Section 2.1012(a) provides that the DOE license application
cannot
be docketed unless the Secretary of the Commission determines
that the
license application can be effectively accessed through ADAMS.
DOE is
concerned that this establishes a requirement on DOE that is
beyond its
control. Entering documents into ADAMS is strictly a NRC
function and
ADAMS is under the sole control of the NRC. Any accessibility
problems
resulting from entering the license application into ADAMS would
be the
responsibility of the NRC. DOE notes that, in preparing its
electronic
license application, the DOE is responsible for meeting the NRC
requirements, as well as addressing any guidance that has been
issued
by the NRC, and transmitting the license application to the
proper
address and in the proper format(s) specified by the NRC for
these
actions. If the DOE meets clearly defined specifications for
such
transmittals, the NRC should be able to make the document
available
through ADAMS.
The DOE recommends that section 2.1012(a) be revised to
read: ``The
Director may determine that the tendered application is not
acceptable
for docketing under this subpart if the application is not
accompanied
by an updated certification pursuant to section 2.1009(b) or if
the
application is not submitted on optical storage media in a
format
consistent with NRC regulations and guidance.''
Response
The Commission agrees with this suggestion and has revised
the
final rule accordingly. However, in addition to the above two
criteria,
the Commission has also added a third criterion on
non-compliance with
any other requirements in Subpart J.
4. The Continuing Need to Supplement Individual LSN Participant
Web
Sites
Proposed section 2.1003(e) would have required an LSN
participant
to
[[Page 32840]]
supplement its LSN Web site with any documentary material
created after
the time of initial certification. NEI was concerned that this
requirement could continue indefinitely. It is NEI's opinion
that the
requirement to supplement ends when discovery, in the form of
document
production, is completed.
Response
The Commission agrees and has revised section 2.1003(e) to
specify
that the requirement to supplement ends when discovery is
complete. The
Commission anticipates that discovery will be complete by the
time set
for the second Pre-Hearing Conference at which issues for
hearing will
be finalized and schedules for prefiled testimony and hearing
will be
set. See Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 2. However, it should be
emphasized
that the Board could extend discovery beyond this time period.
Moreover, although there is no obligation on an LSN participant
to add
new documents to its site after discovery closes, an LSN
participant
does have an obligation to maintain its existing LSN collection
intact
and available for the balance of the construction authorization
proceeding. Parties will have a continuing need to search LSN
participant databases during the evidentiary hearing and
throughout the
NRC appellate process.
5. The Scope of the Congressional Exclusion
Nye County, Nevada expressed the view that the exclusion for
congressional correspondence in proposed section 2.1005(i) seems
overly
broad. The commenter believes that it is entirely conceivable
that
somewhere in correspondence with a member of Congress or with
congressional staff, DOE, or any other party, may have made
relevant
and admissible statements about some technical issues affecting
the
licensibility of Yucca Mountain. To exclude all such
correspondence
categorically is unwarranted. According to Nye County, a better
approach would be to limit the exclusion to correspondence
involving
such matters as budget, and program management.
Response
The Commission appreciates the thoughtful comments of Nye
County on
this matter. However, the Commission continues to believe that
this
type of material will not have a significant bearing on
repository
licensing issues. Much of this material either relates to
budgetary
issues and schedules or is merely a summary of information in an
agency
primary document. It would normally not be the source of
material that
a party would rely on for its case in the hearing or a source of
material that would be contrary to such reliance information.
However,
most, if not all, of the material directed to Federal entities
of
concern to Nye County, would still be available as part of the
normal
Federal recordkeeping requirements. If a particular item of
Congressional correspondence does become relevant to a
contention
admitted in the HLW proceeding, it can be made available at that
time.
The Commission does not anticipate that any disputes over this
clearly
and narrowly defined exclusion will be brought before the
Pre-license
Application Presiding Officer (PAPO).
6. The Trigger for Participant Certification
Three commenters, the Agency for Nuclear Projects in the
State of
Nevada's Governor's Office, the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force,
and
Eureka County's Yucca Mountain Information Office, all raised
concerns
on the timing of LSN participant certification in relation to
DOE's
certification. The current requirements in 10 CFR 2.1003(a)
require the
DOE to make its documentary material available in electronic
form no
later than six months in advance of DOE's submission of its
license
application to the NRC. The NRC must make its documentary
material
available in electronic form no later than thirty days after the
DOE
certification of compliance. All other participants must make
their
documents available in electronic form no later than ninety days
after
the DOE certification of compliance. However, these commenters
noted
that although DOE may have all of its documentary material
available on
its LSN document server by the time required for certification,
it is
possible that the DOE collection would not yet have been indexed
and
audited by the LSN Administrator. Therefore, the entire DOE
collection
would not yet be ``available'' to the public. The commenters
recommended that the Commission add an additional certification
by the
LSN Administrator that the DOE collection had been indexed and
audited.
This LSN Administrator certification would then become the
tolling
event for the certification by all other LSN participants,
rather than
the DOE certification.
Response
At the outset, the Commission notes that an amendment such
as that
recommended by the commenters is outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
This issue was not raised in the proposed rule and was not
intended to
be part of this rulemaking effort. However, the Commission also
recognizes the importance of this concern. The NRC is pursuing
an
approach with DOE to ensure that the DOE collection has been
indexed
and audited by the LSN Administrator in approximately the same
time
frame as the DOE certification. This should ensure that an
indexed and
baselined DOE collection will be available to other LSN
participants
well in advance of the point at which the NRC dockets an
acceptable DOE
license application.
7. Transportation Issues
Lincoln County and the City of Caliente, in their comments
on the
proposed rule, urged the Commission to clarify the extent to
which
Yucca Mountain repository system transportation related
information
will be considered during licensing and, therefore, be required
for
inclusion within the LSN. The County and the City believe that
the
Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding should encompass all aspects
of the
Yucca Mountain repository transportation system.
Response
The Commission recognizes that issues related to the
transportation
of High Level Waste (HLW) and Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) to the
Yucca
Mountain site in Nevada are of concern to members of the public.
These
issues are complicated by the multi-agency coordination that is
required between DOE, the Department of Transportation (DOT),
and the
NRC. As a preliminary matter, it is important to distinguish the
role
of the NRC in matters related to transportation. The only role
of the
NRC in the licensing proceeding for Yucca Mountain with respect
to
transportation issues is to review the DOE Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), for adoption to the extent practicable.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 42 U.S.C. 10101, et
seq., as
amended (NWPA), provides the primary framework for issues
related to
the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, including transportation
issues. Section 114(f) of the NWPA requires DOE to prepare an
EIS, part
of which may include an evaluation of transportation impacts.
Additionally, section 114(f) mandates that the NRC, to the
extent
practicable, adopt the DOE EIS, including those parts of the EIS
related to transportation. Such adoption shall be deemed to
satisfy the
responsibilities of the NRC under NEPA and ``no further
consideration
shall be required.'' See NWPA section 114(f)(4). The Topical
[[Page 32841]]
Guidelines in Regulatory Guide 3.69 specifically address those
aspects
of transportation that are included under documentary material
for
purposes of the LSN.
III. The Final Rule
Submissions to the Electronic Docket for the Hearing
As noted, one of the objectives of the regulations in 10 CFR
Part
2, Subpart J is to provide for electronic submission of filings
by the
parties, as well as the orders and decisions of the Atomic
Safety and
Licensing Board, during the proceeding. The purpose of this
function is
to reduce the time that it takes to serve filings by
substituting
electronic transmission for the physical mailing of filings that
is
typically used in NRC licensing proceedings. Shortening the
amount of
time for certain activities during the hearing process will
support the
NRC's efforts to meet the schedule in the NWPA. 10 CFR
2.1013(c)(1)
requires that all filings in the HLW licensing proceeding be
transmitted electronically (emphasis added) by the submitter to
the
Presiding Officer, the parties, and the Secretary of the
Commission.
The Commission believes that the majority of these filings will
consist
of simple documents that can be readily transmitted by EIE.
However,
after further considering the nature of some of the documents
that may
be submitted by the parties during the proceeding, the
Commission
believes that it is necessary to specify requirements for
submitting
large and/or complex documents.
Large documents consist of electronic files that, because of
their
size, create challenges for both the NRC staff, potential
parties and
the public when transmitting, viewing, or downloading the
document
(e.g., significant delays in transmission, uploading, or
downloading
times). The Commission anticipates that the potential license
application and some filings in the HLW repository adjudicatory
proceeding will be of a size that will create transmission,
viewing, or
downloading challenges. In electronic format, some of these
files could
be up to several hundreds of megabytes (MB) in size. Examples of
potential large documents are:
DOE Site Characterization Plan
DOE License Application and supporting materials
DOE Environmental Impact Statement
Some adjudicatory documents (e.g., motions, responses,
transcripts, exhibits, and orders)
Additionally, any or all of these types of documents could
contain
embedded photographs, charts, tables, and other graphics.
Complex documents consist (entirely or in part) of
electronic files
having substantial portions that are neither textual nor image
in
nature, and graphic or other Binary Large Objects that exceed 50
MB and
cannot be logically divided. For example, these types of
specialized
documents may include:
Executable files, which can be opened (run) to execute a
programmed series of instructions on a computer or network;
Runtime executable software, which generally is
operational upon demand without being installed on a computer or
network;
Viewer or printer executable software that causes images
to be displayed on the computer monitor or pages to print on an
attached printer;
Files from a dynamic link library (.dll), which are a
collection of small, bundled executable programs that each
provide one
or more distinctive functions used by application programs and
operating systems and are available when needed by applications
or
operating systems;
Large data sets associated with an executable; and
Actual software code for analytical programs that a party
may intend to introduce into the proceeding.
As part of complex document submittals, the NRC anticipates
receiving files that--
(1) Due to their file size, may preclude easy transmission,
retrieval, and use; or
(2) May require specialized software and/or hardware for
faithful
display and subsequent use; and
(3) May not be suitable for inclusion in a ``generic'' file
format
such as the Adobe'' Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF).
Examples of files that could be part of a complex document
are:
Maps
Databases
Simulations
Audio files
Video files
Executable programs
There are several potential problems presented by the
electronic
transmission of these large or complex documents, including the
``time
out'' problems when submitting very large documents via the
Internet,
difficulty of use in the hearing room, and Federal records
management
considerations. These potential problems are evaluated in more
detail
in the regulatory analysis for this final rule.
In response to these potential problems, the Commission is
revising
the framework for the submission of filings during the HLW
licensing
proceeding. This revised framework is based on segmenting large
documents using manageable file size units to reduce the
potential for
interruption or delay in transmission, uploading, or
downloading. For
example, large documents could be segmented into pieces, which
correspond to the organization (chapters or sections) of the
document,
in order to address the transfer and retrieval performance
problems
discussed above. The author of the document would be in the best
position to break up document files into usable segments without
adversely impacting the organization or content of the document.
The electronic submission of filings in the HLW repository
proceeding must be made via the Internet using the NRC EIE, when
practicable. The EIE is an electronic transfer mechanism being
established by the NRC for electronic transmission of documents
to the
agency via the Internet. EIE provides for the transmission of
documents
in a verifiable and certifiable mode that includes digital
signatures.
The final amendments revise section 2.1001 to establish
three
categories of electronic filings for purposes of the HLW
repository
proceeding and would revise section 2.1013(c)(1) to specify the
submission requirements for these three categories of electronic
filings.
``Simple documents'' are textual or graphic oriented
material that
are less than 50 megabytes (MB) in size. These documents are
transmitted electronically via EIE as contemplated by the
current 10
CFR 2.1011. Test results have demonstrated that 50 MB is a
reasonable
size for downloading files across wide area networks or from the
Internet via phone lines.
``Large documents'' are those that have textual or graphic
oriented
material larger than 50 MB in size. Under revised section
2.1013(c)(1)(ii), these documents must be submitted via the EIE
in
multiple transmissions of 50 MB or less each. The large document
submission may also be supplemented with a courtesy copy on
optical
storage media to provide NRC staff, parties, and interested
governmental participants in the HLW repository proceeding with
a
useful reference copy of the document. For purposes of the NRC
staff
review of the DOE license application, as opposed to an
electronic
submission to the adjudicatory docket, the requirements for
DOE's
submission of the license application are already specified in
10 CFR
63.22 of the Commission's regulations. 10 CFR 63.22(a) specifies
that
the application, any amendments to
[[Page 32842]]
the application, and an accompanying environmental impact
statement and
any supplements, must be signed by the Secretary of Energy or
the
Secretary's representative and must be filed with the Director
in
triplicate on paper and optical storage media. In addition, 10
CFR
63.22(b) requires that 30 additional copies of the license
application
be submitted on paper and optical storage media.
``Complex documents'' are any combination of the following:
Textual or graphic-oriented electronic files
Electronic files that cannot be segmented into 50 MB files
Other electronic objects, such as computer programs,
simulations, video, audio, data files, and files with special
printing
requirements.
Under final section 2.1013(c)(1)(iii), those portions of
complex
documents that can be electronically submitted through the EIE,
again
in 50 MB or less segments, will be transmitted electronically.
Those
portions that are not amenable to electronic transmission will
be
delivered on optical storage media. The optical storage media
must
include the complete document, i.e., include the portions of the
document that have been delivered via the EIE.
In addition to these revisions, section 2.1013 (c)(1) is
amended to
require the following:
Electronic submissions of files created after January 1,
2004 must have 300 dots per inch (dpi) as the minimum resolution
for
bi-tonal, color, and grayscale, except in limited circumstances
in
which (a) submitters may need to use an image scanned before
January 1,
2004, in a document created after January 1, 2004, or (b) the
scanning
process for a large, one-page image may not successfully
complete at
the 300 dpi standard resolution.
Electronic submissions of files created before January 1,
2004, or electronic submissions created after January 1, 2004,
which
cannot meet the 300 dpi standard for color and grayscale, must
meet the
standard for documents placed on LSN participant Web sites (10
CFR Part
2.1011(b)(2)(iv)) which is 150 dpi for color and grayscale
documents
and 300 dpi for bi-tonal documents.
Electronic submissions must be in the appropriate PDF
output format. These formats and their use are:
PDF--Formatted Text and Graphics--use for textualdocuments
converted from native applications
PDF--Searchable Image (Exact)--use for textual documents
converted from scanned documents
PDF--Image Only--use for graphic-, image-, and forms-
oriented documents
Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) images and the results of
spreadsheet
applications will need to be converted to PDF, except in those
rare
instances, examples of which are described in the Guidance
Document,
where PDF conversion is not practicable. Spreadsheets may be
submitted
using Microsoft[reg] Excel, Corel[reg] Quattro Pro, or
Lotus[reg] 123.
Electronic submissions to the hearing docket cannot rely
on the use of any hyperlinks to other electronic files or
websites to
generate additional documentary material. Any such documentary
material
must be submitted either as an attachment to the filing or as a
separate filing. If a submittal contains hyperlinks, then it
must
include a disclaimer to the effect that the hyperlinks may be
inoperable or are not essential to the use of the filing.
Electronic submissions to the EHD may rely on the use of
hyperlinks within the same PDF file.
Electronic submissions must be free of any security
restrictions imposed by the author (proposed section
2.1013(c)(1)(vii)).
Additional information on the submission of these filings
will be
provided in the Guidance Document, discussed earlier. The
Guidance
Document is available on the NRC Web site (
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov] ). The NRC
expects parties, interested governmental participants, and
potential
parties to use the detailed instructions in the Guidance
Document to
ensure that their electronic filings are effectively submitted.
Areas
covered by the Guidance Document address the need for and format
of the
transmittal letter for electronic filings, file naming
conventions,
copyrighted information, and instructions on sensitive or
classified
information.
Docketing
The final revisions clarify the responsibility of the
Secretary of
the Commission, under section 2.1012(a), to determine whether
the DOE
license application for a HLW repository is in an electronic
media form
and format that is acceptable for docketing. Under section
2.1012(a),
the DOE license application cannot be docketed unless the
Secretary of
the Commission determines that the DOE license application has
been
submitted on optical storage media in a format consistent with
NRC
regulations and guidance.
Documentary Material
Section 2.1003 of the current LSN rule requires a party, a
potential party, or an interested governmental participant
(hereinafter
``participant'') to make its documentary material available in
electronic form. The definition of ``documentary material''
includes
material prepared by an individual participant, for example, all
reports or studies prepared by, or on behalf of, a participant.
It also
includes other material in the possession of the participant on
which
the participant intends to rely and/or cite in support of its
position
in the HLW repository proceeding or that doesn't support its
position.
This provision can be read to obligate a party who possesses a
document
prepared by another participant to make that document available
on its
LSN document collection server even though it is already
available on
the LSN document collection server of the party who had prepared
the
document. For example, under this interpretation a document
prepared by
DOE would not only need to be available through the centralized
LSN Web
site from the DOE LSN document collection server, but also from
the LSN
document collection server of other participants. Without
compromising
the objective of ensuring that all documentary material is
available on
the LSN, the Commission believes that it would be beneficial to
eliminate or at least significantly reduce the loading of
duplicate
documents. Reducing duplication will not only alleviate burdens
on the
participants, but will also make search and retrieval of the LSN
collection more efficient. Therefore, the final amendment to
section
2.1003(a)(1) allows an LSN participant to avoid loading a
document
created by another LSN participant if that document has already
been
made available by the LSN participant who created the document
or on
whose behalf the document was created.
If, in the process of eliminating duplicate documents, an
LSN
participant identifies a document which the creator of that
document
has not included on its LSN document collection server, as a
practical
matter, the participant who identified the document should
include it
on its LSN document collection server, as well as notifying the
creator
of the document that it is taking that action. Moreover, in such
circumstances, it is not apparent what purpose would be served
by
raising the issue before the PAPO unless the documentary
material has
some readily apparent significance as a Class 2 document (as
delineated
in the
[[Page 32843]]
discussion below) or a significant number of ``missing''
documents were
identified with regard to a particular LSN participant, so as to
raise
the issue of a concerted, deliberate effort not to comply with
the
regulations.
The Commission is also amending section 2.1003 by adding a
new
paragraph (e) to this section. Section 2.1003(e) requires LSN
participants to supplement the documentary material provided
under
section 2.1003(a) in its initial certification with documentary
material produced after that event. While much of an LSN
participant's
documentary material will be made available early, it is
reasonable to
expect that additional material will be created after the
initial
compliance period specified in section 2.1003(a). In addition,
the
ongoing performance confirmation program required of DOE by
section
63.131 of the Commission's regulations will generate additional
documentary material after the license application is docketed.
The
Commission has revised section 2.1003(e) to specify that the
requirement to supplement ends when discovery is completed. The
schedule in Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 2 anticipates the close of
discovery to occur near the time of the second pre-hearing
conference
held to finalize issues for hearing and schedules for prefiled
testimony and hearing. However, during the proceeding, the
Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board can always direct that additional
discovery
or discovery supplementation must take place. Moreover, it
should be
added that while there is no obligation on an LSN participant to
add
new documents to its site after discovery closes, an LSN
participant
does have an obligation to maintain its existing LSN collection
intact
and available for the rest of the proceeding. Parties will have
a
continuing need to search LSN participant databases during the
evidentiary hearing and throughout the NRC appellate process.
Finally, the Commission is providing further information and
a
clarification on the responsibilities of LSN participants in
regard to
the three classes of documentary material in section 2.1001.
These
three classes are:
1. Any information on which a party, potential party, or
interested
governmental participant intends to rely and/or cite in support
of its
position in the HLW repository proceeding;
2. Any information that is known to, and in the possession
of, or
developed by the party that is relevant to, but does not
support, that
information noted in item 1 or that party's position; and
3. All reports and studies prepared by or on behalf of a
potential
party, interested governmental participant, or party, including
all
related ``circulated drafts'' relevant to the application and
the
issues set forth in the Topical Guidelines, regardless of
whether they
will be relied upon or cited by a party.
The first two classes of documentary material are tied to a
``reliance'' criterion. Reliance is fundamentally related to a
position
that a party in the HLW repository proceeding will take in
regard to
compliance with the Commission regulations on the issuance of a
construction authorization for the repository. These compliance
issues
take the form of ``contentions'' of law or fact that a party has
successfully had admitted for litigation in the HLW repository
proceeding under the rules of practice in 10 CFR Part 2. The
third
class of material, ``reports and studies prepared for or on
behalf of
the potential party'' has meaning independent of any contentions
that
might be offered. The material in this class must be available
on the
LSN regardless of whether it has any relation to a contention
offered
at the hearing. It is also a likely source of the material that
a party
would use to develop its contentions. ``Reports'' and
``studies'' will
also include the basic documents relevant to licensing such as
the DOE
EIS, the NRC Yucca Mountain Review Plan, as well as other
reports or
studies prepared by a LSN participant or its contractor.
To fall within the definition of ``documentary material'',
reports
or studies must have a nexus to both the license application
(emphasis
added) and the Topical Guidelines contained in NRC Regulatory
Guide
3.69. This dual requirement is designed to ensure that LSN
participants
do not have to identify, and include as documentary material,
reports
or studies that have no bearing on the DOE license application
for a
geologic repository at the Yucca Mountain site, such as reports
or
studies on other potential repository sites or on issues outside
of the
NRC licensing criteria. In addition, Sec. 63.21 of the
Commission's
regulations requires that the DOE Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)
must accompany the license application. Therefore, reports and
studies
relevant to issues addressed by the DOE EIS must also be made
available
as Class 3 documentary material. This is also consistent with
the
coverage of the Topical Guidelines.
To assist participants in identifying documentary material
that may
be relevant to the license application in the time period before
it is
submitted, the Commission is recommending that LSN participants
use the
NRC Yucca Mountain Review Plan (NUREG-1804, Rev. 2, July, 2003)
as a
guide. The Yucca Mountain Review Plan provides guidance to the
NRC
staff on evaluating the DOE license application. As such, it
anticipates the form and substance of the DOE license
application and
can be used as a reliable guide for identifying documentary
material.
The Commission also notes that the history of the LSN and
its
predecessor, the Licensing Support System, makes it apparent it
was the
Commission's expectation that the LSN, among other things, would
provide potential participants with the opportunity to frame
focused
and meaningful contentions and to avoid the delay potentially
associated with document discovery, by requiring parties and
potential
parties to the proceeding to make all their Subpart J-defined
documentary material available through the LSN prior to the
submission
of the DOE application. These objectives are still operational.
Nonetheless, the Commission is clarifying that, because the full
scope
of coverage of the reliance concept will only become apparent
after
proffered contentions are admitted by the Presiding Officer in
the
proceeding, an LSN participant would not be expected to identify
specifically documents that fall within either Class 1 or Class
2
documentary material in the pre-license application phase.
In this regard, the Commission still expects all
participants to
make a good faith effort to have made available all of the
documentary
material that may eventually be designated as Class 1 and Class
2
documentary material by the date specified for initial
compliance in
section 2.1003(a) of the Commission's regulations. Thereafter,
in
conjunction with its license application submission, DOE would
be
required to supplement its Class 1 and Class 2 documents to the
degree
the application makes it apparent the scope of the DOE
documentary
material in those classes had changed, a process that might well
be
repeated by all parties following the admission of contentions.
Finally, as part of the regular post-contention admission
discovery
process under section 2.1018, a party could be required to
identify the
specific documents that comprise its Class 1 and Class 2
documentary
material. As a consequence, while it is not possible to say
there are
no special circumstances that would necessitate a ruling by the
PAPO on
the availability of a particular document in the pre-license
application stage based on its Class 1 or Class 2 status,
disputes over
Class 1 and Class 2 documentary material generally would be of a
type
that would be more appropriately raised before the Presiding
Officer
designated
[[Page 32844]]
during the time following the admission of contentions when the
NRC
staffis working to complete the Safety Evaluation Report in its
entirety.
Exclusions
The Commission has reviewed its procedural rules for the HLW
repository licensing proceeding, including the LSN requirements,
to
assess whether they appropriately reflect the evolution of the
relevant
technology, law, and policy since the rules were originally
promulgated
in 1987, being mindful of a recent report by the House Committee
on
Appropriations (Committee), issued July 2003, expressing concern
on the
extent of documentation that DOE may be required to provide as
part of
the LSN. The Committee encouraged the Commission to review its
regulatory requirements regarding the LSN to ensure that they do
not
require the duplication of information otherwise easily
obtainable,
focus on information that is truly relevant to the substantive
decisions that will have to be made, and establish a time frame
in
accord with the traditional conduct of an adjudicatory
proceeding.\1\
Based on our review, the Commission has determined that the LSN
rule
could be further revised to address the Committee's concerns,
while
still maintaining the overall purpose and functionality of the
LSN.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------
\1\ H.R. Rep. No. 108, 108th Cong. 1st Sess. (2003).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------
The Commission is revising section 2.1005 of the rule to
specify an
additional category of documents, ``congressional
correspondence,''
that may be excluded from the LSN. Section 2.1005 of the
Commission's
regulations establishes several categories of documents that do
not
have to be entered into the LSN, either under the documentary
material
requirements of section 2.1003, or under the derivative
discovery
provisions of section 2.1019. These include materials that are
either
widely available or do not have any significant relevance to the
issues
that might be litigated in the HLW licensing proceeding. The
Commission
is adding ``correspondence between a party, potential party, or
interested governmental participant and the Congress of the
United
States' to these exclusions. This reflects the Commission's
current
judgment that this type of material will not have a significant
bearing
on repository licensing issues. Much of this material either
relates to
budgetary issues and schedules or is merely a summary of an
entity's
primary document. It would normally not be the source of
material that
a party would rely on for its case in the hearing or as a source
of
material that would be contrary to such reliance information.
However,
the correspondence generated by Federal entities will still be
available as part of the normal Federal recordkeeping
requirements. If
a particular item of Congressional correspondence does become
relevant
to a contention admitted in the HLW proceeding, it can be made
available at that time. The Commission does not anticipate that
any
disputes over this clearly and narrowly defined exclusion would
be
brought before the PAPO.
Plain Language
The Presidential memorandum dated June 1, 1998, entitled,
``Plain
Language in Government Writing,'' directed that the Government's
writing be in plain language. This memorandum was published June
10,
1998 (63 FR 31883). In light of this directive, editorial
changes have
been made in these proposed revisions to improve the
organization and
readability of the existing language of the paragraphs being
revised.
These types of changes are not discussed further in this
document. The
NRC requested comment on the proposed rule specifically with
respect to
the clarity of the language used. The Commission did not receive
any
comments on this aspect of the proposed rule.
Voluntary Consensus Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995, Pub.
L. 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical
standards that
are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies
unless
using such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise
impractical. This final rule would establish requirements and
standards
for the submission of filings to the electronic docket for the
HLW
licensing proceeding. Although the specific standards in the
final rule
are unique to the Commission's HLW repository proceeding, they
are
based on industry-wide standards such as Portable Document
Format
(PDF).
Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion
The NRC has determined that this final regulation is the
type of
action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1).
Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an
environmental assessment has been prepared.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This final rule does not contain information collection
requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements
of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Regulatory Analysis
The Commission did not receive any specific comments on the
regulatory analysis for the proposed rule. The regulatory
analysis for
the final rule has not been changed.
The following regulatory analysis identifies several
alternatives
to the rule set forth in the final rule. Subpart J of 10 CFR
Part 2
establishes an electronic environment for the adjudicatory
proceeding
for consideration of a potential license application by the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) for a proposed HLW repository at
Yucca
Mountain, Nevada. The NRC expects to begin receiving and
processing a
significant volume of electronic documents associated with the
adjudicatory proceeding in the near future. Some of these
filings will
consist of large or complex documents. Examples of material in
these
large electronic files include maps, charts, video
presentations,
computer modeling or simulation programs with their associated
databases, and narrative reports with extensive embedded graphic
objects. Consistent with 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J:
The NRC has established the Licensing Support Network
(LSN) so that all parties, potential parties, and participants
in the
proceeding will be able to make their documentary material
electronically available to meet document discovery requirements.
The NRC will direct all participants in the adjudicatory
proceeding to use the agency's EIE capabilities to submit their
filings
electronically to the NRC when practicable.
After processing, documents submitted in the HLW
repository proceeding would be available in the Electronic
Hearing
Docket (EHD), which is accessible via the Internet; electronic
objects
that cannot be made directly accessible via the EHD Web site,
such as
computer simulation models, will be described in the EHD and
made
available on optical storage media.
The assessment of existing and anticipated technology
capabilities
identified a number of potential issues that may make it
difficult to
meet the challenges of electronic submission of large documents
as
specified in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J. Those challenges are
driven by
the following fundamental issues:
[[Page 32845]]
Technology limitations of current electronic document and
records transmission and management systems.
Maintaining document and object fidelity, integrity, and
authenticity.
Receiving source document formats in an acceptable
resolution.
Management of and access to non-textual information.
Federal recordkeeping requirements.
General usability of the electronic submittals.
Potential limitations of information technology (hardware,
software, or Internet service provider) used by the general
public.
The Nature of the Documents
Documents may be large, complex, or a combination of both,
as
follows:
Large documents consist of electronic files that, because
of their size, create challenges for both the NRC and the public
when
transmitting, viewing, or downloading the document (e.g.,
significant
delays in transmission, uploading, or downloading times). The
NRC
anticipates that the potential license application and some
filings in
the HLW repository adjudicatory proceeding will be of a size
that will
create transmission, viewing, or downloading challenges. In
electronic
format, some of these files could contain several hundred
megabytes.
Complex documents consist (entirely or in part) of
electronic files having substantial portions that are neither
textual
nor image in nature, and graphic or other Binary Large Objects
that
exceed 50 MB and cannot be logically divided. For example,
specialized
exhibits may include computer software programs and their
operating
components, large data files, and actual software code for
analytical
programs that a party may intend to introduce into the
proceeding.
Articulation of the Issues
Large and/or complex documents may pose challenges in any or
all of
the following general areas:
Electronic Submission Process
When submitted via the Internet, very large documents or
files can
cause ``time-out'' problems for computers at either end of the
transfer, resulting in a failed or canceled transfer.
Transmission
times are dependent on the speed of the sender's communication
device
and the technology used by the Internet service provider. Very
large
documents or files require lengthy transmission times during
which the
potential for error conditions or other service interruptions
increases
in direct proportion to the time the communication link must be
maintained. The time-out problems could affect each party who
receives
the documents as part of the service of a filing. The actual
transfer
times for very large documents or files may approach 24 hours
using
standard Internet File Transfer Protocol (FTP) routines. In
terms of
ensuring timeliness, this may not be a significant improvement
over the
use of an overnight courier to send the files on optical storage
media
(e.g.,CD-ROM).
Access to Large, Complex Documents in the Electronic Hearing
Docket (EHD)
Keeping a large document together in one very large file may
allow
users to easily search for, retrieve, and analyze the document
in its
entirety, but may result in service interruption problems
similar to
those described above. This is particularly true if a user wants
to
download the image file of one of these large documents.
Retrieval time
will be unacceptably slow, or will result in a time-out problem
with
the user's Internet connection.
Users of the EHD may encounter comparable download delays
because
of the file size of large or complex documents and, depending on
the
nature of the file, the file may not be executable on a user's
desktop
personal computer because of configuration, memory, display, or
other
technical problems.
Use of Large, Complex Documents in a Hearing Room
Large documents may be pre-filed as potential exhibits in
the
docket; however, in a hearing room, it is possible that only
portions
of such documents, e.g., specified chapters, pages, or
paragraphs will
be offered. In a dynamic and fast-paced hearing room
environment, it
would not be desirable to delay the proceeding to wait for a
large file
to load; navigate to the desired chapters, pages, or paragraphs;
and
then extract the appropriate selection for use in the
proceeding.
Complex documents may also require specialized hardware and/or
software
to execute software program files and access their associated
data.
Official Record and Federal Records Management Considerations
For both large and complex documents, the NRC must consider
the
need to generate an official record of the proceeding for use in
potential appellate environments, see 10 CFR 2.1013(a), and for
generating an Official Agency Record (OAR) version of the
docketed
materials for retirement to the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). Each of these situations requires the
ability to
reassemble the record version of the documentary material
(excluding
software executables), independent of the media or software
initially
used to create it.
Coupled with the project objectives and technical
requirements
(discussed in the next section), these issues represent the
framework
for potential solutions. The NRC analysis distilled and assessed
the
objectives, technical requirements, and issues and developed
four
designs.
Technical Requirements
Given the anticipated size and complexity of individual
documents,
and the quantity of submittals, the need to transmit, manage,
and
retrieve electronic documents and objects challenges both the
NRC's
current processes and its information technology/information
management
(IT/IM) infrastructures, and the information technology
(hardware,
software, Internet service provider) in use by the general
public.
Examples of potential large documents are:
The DOE Site Characterization Plan;
The DOE License Application and supporting materials;
The DOE Environmental Impact Statement;
Adjudicatory documents (e.g., motions, responses,
transcripts, exhibits, and orders).
Any or all of these types of documents may contain embedded
photographs, charts, tables, and other graphics that contribute
to the
understanding of the narrative.
The NRC also anticipates receiving files that could be part
of
complex document submittals that:
(1) Due to their file size, may preclude easy transmission,
retrieval, and use; or
(2) May require specialized software and/or hardware for
faithful
display and subsequent use; and
(3) May not be suitable for inclusion in a ``generic'' file
format
such as PDF. The PDF standard, though it is proprietary to
Adobe[reg],
has been published and is available for use by software vendors.
Users
can access the content of a PDF format file through the use of
the
Adobe Reader[reg] viewer software.
Examples of files that could be part of complex documents
include
maps, databases, simulations, audio files, video files, and
executable
programs.
The analysis of the challenges of handling large documents
in the
NRC and public IT environments considered the following
functional
areas:
[[Page 32846]]
Transmit activities entail sending a submittal from the
submitter to the NRC, either via electronic format (through
transmission or media) or as a physical object (e.g., video or
audio).
Capture relates to the receipt of electronic objects, with
notifications provided according to an approved service list,
preferably through e-mail. Upon receipt at the NRC, each
submittal is
staged for additional processing.
Index & Cross-Reference are two distinct processes. Each
submittal must be indexed based on prescribed profile templates.
In
addition, as part of the cataloging process, a submittal may be
identified (or cross-referenced) as part of a package or
compound
document.
Store manages the storage location of a submittal, i.e.,
within a folder or larger collection for electronic submittals,
or the
physical media location for submittals provided on optical
storage
media (e.g., CD-ROM) containing text, data, and objects. This
process
involves applying security and audit controls, as well as the
appropriate retention schedule.
Search & Retrieve operations involve querying the
bibliographic header and content, displaying the pertinent
object(s),
and, if desired, printing all or part of the displayed object(s).
Create & Revise activities facilitate the creation or
revision of new documents using content that has been extracted
(copied
and pasted) from original submittals.
Copy & Distribute activities involve maintaining
distribution (service) lists and providing the means to copy or
download an individual document or a collection of documents.
These activities may also involve reproduction when the need
arises
to generate a hard copy of a submittal (e.g.,
``8.5[sec]x``11[sec]
paper'', drawings, etc.).
Finally, there was an assessment of the existing NRC
document and
records management systems environment as well as requirements
for
enhancements to support the large document business requirements.
Assessment and Alternatives
The NRC assessed a number of alternatives to the existing
technology infrastructure, current and planned operating
procedures for
processing documents, and regulatory requirements to determine
how the
identified objectives, issues, and technical requirements can be
addressed while ensuring that--
Document fidelity and integrity is preserved (e.g.
organization, accuracy, completeness);
Documents are accessible to users via commonly used
computer configurations;
The information is available on reliable and controllable
media; and
Unique submittals with special software/hardware
components can be handled.
The assessment also considered that the NRC should provide
guidance
to participants in the proceeding well in advance of when large,
complex filings are reasonably anticipated. The guidance, as
well as
the underlying technology and procedures, would address matters
such as
processes, file sizes, file formats, document organization
overviews to
facilitate reconstruction of the complete filing, labeling
formats, and
alternative transfer media.
This section presents general concepts and four alternatives
for
handling large, complex electronic submittals in the HLW
repository
proceeding.
General Concept
The overall information infrastructure for receiving and
managing
HLW-related documents involves several existing agency
information
systems. Participants in the proceeding will primarily send
submittals
to the NRC in the preferred PDF format via EIE, which provides a
Web-
form (an entry form similar to that of an overnight express mail
carrier shipping form) for the submitter to accurately identify
what is
being transmitted. Upon receipt, each submittal would be entered
into
the Agencywide Document and Management System (ADAMS). Once
captured
within ADAMS, the submittal would be available for internal use
by
agency staff, and the information would be made publicly
available (as
appropriate) via the EHD. Variations on this general process and
issues
associated with large, complex documents are described in the
following
sections.
Alternative 1
Description: Documents, images, and other submittal
components are
submitted through the EIE as a single file, and the EIE Web-form
serves
as the transmittal letter. The NRC captures large files as
single
units, without the need for any manual manipulation, such as
breaking a
submission into workable pieces. Based on the service list, an
e-mail
is sent to provide notification of receipt and a link from the
EIE
server to the file for immediate access by parties and
participants to
the proceeding. In addition, the file is made available (as
appropriate) to the EHD. Interested parties can search on the
bibliographic header information, the content, or a combination
of the
two. Retrieval of a document is directly to the user's desktop.
Positives: This alternative would satisfy the electronic
transmission requirements of 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J. This
alternative
primarily benefits and is less restrictive to the submitter.
That is,
the submitter dictates the form and format of the content, and
the
submittal comes in as a single optimized PDF format file.
Negatives: Submittal file size could be very large
(potentially
several hundred MB), particularly if graphics are widely used.
The
transmission may be problematic because of service interruptions
or
time-outs attributable to the very long transfer times required
for
large files. File sizes could also make this alternative
unfeasible for
subsequent users of a file, primarily because of download delays
and
time-outs. In addition, although any executables contained in
the
submittal could be stored in the EHD, they could not be indexed
for
search and retrieval or accessed online. The executable file
would need
to be downloaded and run locally.
Alternative 2
Description: The only object transmitted through the EIE is
the
transmittal letter for the large, complex document, which
notifies the
NRC of an impending package submittal. All other electronic
files
pertaining to the submittal are sent on optical storage media
(e.g.,
CD-ROM), which is delivered to the NRC via an overnight express
mail
carrier. Based on the service list, the NRC sends an e-mail
containing
links from the EIE server to the transmittal letter for
immediate
access by parties and participants to the proceeding. All
text-based
components (e.g., narrative with embedded graphics) are rendered
as
optimized PDF format files. The NRC extracts each file from the
optical
storage media (e.g., CD-ROM) and makes the files available (as
appropriate) to the EHD as either individual objects or a
compound
document, depending on the document organization. The NRC also
links a
bibliographic header to the appropriate optical storage media
(e.g.,
CD-ROM) for files or objects that are not candidates for
extraction
(because of some technical constraint). Interested parties can
search
the EHD on the bibliographic header, the content, or a
combination of
the two. Retrieval of a document or specified component(s) is
directly
to the user's desktop. Additionally, the NRC provides copies
(upon
request and for a fee) of the
[[Page 32847]]
optical storage media (e.g., CD-ROM) for public access.
Positives: The NRC provides guidance to the submitter to
facilitate
processing and use within the agency. This alternative also
avoids
potential problems associated with submitting large files via
the EIE.
Negatives: This alternative does not meet the electronic
service
requirements of 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J. There may also be a
delay in
parties and participants receiving documents. As compared with
Alternative 1, additional processing will be required to
extract,
profile, and store files in a timely manner. In addition, use of
this
alternative could adversely affect document fidelity and
integrity
(e.g. organization, accuracy, or completeness) which could
affect the
efficient conduct of an adjudication, as well as for agency
recordkeeping and eventual turnover to NARA.
Alternative 3
Description: Documents, images, and other components
(including the
transmittal letter and enhanced Web-form) are transmitted
through the
EIE as multiple segmented files (``chunks'') of a single
submittal. All
text-based components (e.g., narrative with embedded graphics)
are
rendered as optimized PDF format files. Based on the service
list, the
NRC sends an e-mail containing links from the EIE server to the
transmittal letter and the various segmented files for immediate
access
by parties and participants to the proceeding. Upon receipt and
subsequent processing, the NRC makes the segmented files
available (as
appropriate) to the EHD as a ``package'' or ``compound
document.''
Interested parties can search on the bibliographic headers, or
content,
or a combination of both. Retrieval of selected components is
direct to
the user's computer.
Positives: This alternative satisfies electronic
transmission
requirements of 10 CFR Part 2 and allows submission via the EIE.
It
also allows the NRC to provide guidance to have precisely
defined
segments and bibliographic header information associated with
each
segment. The segmentation facilitates later use and access.
Negatives: This alternative requires the EIE to facilitate
the
transfer, segregate component content from bibliographic header
information and the transmittal letter, and make that
information
available to the EHD. A possible fatal flaw is that some file
types may
not be able to be segmented into manageable sizes (e.g., graphic-
oriented materials showing subsurface geology in color or
computer
modeling information and/or software), and some materials may
not be
accessible via the EHD.
Alternative 4
Description: All text-based components (e.g. narrative with
embedded graphics) are rendered as optimized PDF files and
transmitted
in manageable segments. All non-text components that are not
suitable
for an optimized PDF file are submitted on optical storage media
(e.g.,
CD-ROM). When necessary, due to the nature of the submittal, a
submittal letter identifies all electronic files that comprise
the
submission, clearly indicating which components are submitted
via EIE,
and which are submitted on optical storage media (e.g., CD-ROM).
The
submittal letter, enhanced Web-forms, and all segmented text
files are
sent through the EIE. The optical storage media (e.g., CD-ROM)
containing the complete submission (i.e., text-based segments
submitted
via EIE and any files submitted only on optical storage media)
are
delivered to the NRC and other parties via an overnight mail
carrier or
other overnight delivery service. The NRC links a bibliographic
header
to the optical storage media (e.g., CD-ROM) component of the
submission.
Based on the service list, the NRC sends an e-mail
containing links
from the EIE server to the transmittal letter and the various
components submitted through the EIE for immediate access by
parties
and participants to the proceeding. The NRC indexes the
text-based
components sent via EIE and makes them available to the EHD as a
``package'' or ``compound document.'' Additionally, the NRC
provides
copies (upon request and for a fee) of the optical storage media
(e.g.,
CD-ROM) for the public. Interested parties can search on the
bibliographic header information, content, or a combination of
both.
Retrieval of text-based components is directly to the user's
computer,
and non-text components are retrievable from the optical storage
media
(e.g., CD-ROM).
Positives: This alternative combines the best features and
advantages of Alternatives 2 and 3, including text-based
component
submission through the EIE and non-text component submissions
via
optical storage media (e.g., CD-ROM). This alternative provides
several
means to optimize a submission and allows the NRC to process the
submission appropriately; provide access to end-users (i.e.,
adjudicatory proceeding participants and the general public);
and
prepare for the eventual transfer to NARA.
Negatives: Processing will need to be closely coordinated to
maintain the integrity of the various submittal components
(segmented
files stored in ADAMS with the bibliographic header records that
point
to optical storage media, such as a CD-ROM).
Documentary material submitted on optical storage media and
sent by
overnight mail (or other expedited delivery services) would not
meet
the electronic transmission requirements of 10 CFR Part 2,
Subpart J.
There may be a delay in parties and participants receiving
document
components contained only on the optical storage media (e.g.,
CD-ROM).
Planned Actions
Alternative 4 is the recommended approach for the NRC to
meet the
identified objectives. The NRC believes that this alternative
provides
the best means for transferring the wide variety of file types
and
sizes received from parties and participants in the proceeding,
as well
as the most practical means for delivering electronic
information to
parties and participants in the HLW repository adjudicatory
proceeding,
the presiding officer, and the Office of the Secretary (SECY),
under
the requirements of 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J.
Toward that end, the agency will take the following steps:
Develop guidance for use in generating HLW proceeding
submissions that specifies the size, file characteristics, and
method
(either EIE or optical storage media) for different submittal
types
(i.e. simple, large, or complex). This guidance will also
provide
direction concerning the information the agency requires to
ensure
proper identification of each segment.
Implement enhancements to the agency's existing IT/IM
systems (such as an improved EIE capability) in anticipation of
storage, search, and retrieval needs, as they pertain to
Alternative 4.
Implement enhancements to the agency's current document
processing work flows in anticipation of the receipt, indexing,
and
distribution of information, as they pertain to Alternative 4.
Develop a rule change to implement the recommended
alternative. The final rule reflects this approach.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
605(b)),
the Commission has evaluated the impact of the final rule on
small
entities. The NRC has established standards for
[[Page 32848]]
determining who qualifies as small entities (10 CFR 2.810). The
Commission certifies that this final rule, if adopted, would not
have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities.
The amendments would modify the NRC's rules of practice and
procedure
in regard to the HLW repository licensing proceeding. Parties to
the
HLW repository licensing proceeding will be required to submit
their
filings during the proceeding according to the standards in the
proposed rule. Some of the participants affected by the final
rule, for
example, DOE, NRC, the State of Nevada, would not fall within
the
definition of ``small entity'' under the NRC's size standards.
Other
parties and potential parties may qualify as ``small entities''
under
these size standards. However, the required standards will
overall make
it easier for those parties who are small entities to
participate in
the HLW repository licensing proceeding.
Backfit Analysis
The NRC has determined that a backfit analysis is not
required for
this final rule because these amendments would not include any
provisions that require backfits as defined in 10 CFR Chapter I.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 2
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct
material, Classified information, Environmental protection,
Nuclear
materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Sex
discrimination, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste
treatment and disposal.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority
of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization
Act of
1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 2.
PART 2--RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS AND
ISSUANCE OF ORDERS
0
1. The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs.161, 181, 68 Stat. 948, 953, as amended (42
U.S.C. 2201, 2231); sec. 191, as amended, Pub. L. 87-615, 76
Stat.
409 (42 U.S.C. 2241); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42
U.S.C.
5841); 5 U.S.C. 552; sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504
note).
Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 62, 63, 81, 103,
104,
105, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42
U.S.C. 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2135); sec. 114(f),
Pub.
L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2213, as amended (42 U.S.C. 10143(O)); sec.
102,
Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332); sec.
301,
88 Stat. 1248 (42 U.S.C. 5871). Sections 2.102, 2.103, 2.104,
2.105,
2.321 also issued under secs. 102, 104, 105, 163, 183i, 189, 68
Stat. 936, 937, 938, 954, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133,
2134, 2135, 2233, 2239). Section 2.105 also issued under Pub. L.
97-
415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200-2.206 also
issued under secs. 161 b, i, o, 182, 186, 234, 68 Stat. 948-951,
955, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201 (b), (i), (o),
2236,
2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5846). Section 2.205(j)
also issued under Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 90, as amended by
section 3100(s), Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-373 (28 U.S.C.
2461
note). Subpart C also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42
U.S.C.
2239). Sections 2.600-2.606 also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.
91-
190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332). Section 2.700a
also
issued under 5 U.S.C. 554. Sections 2.343, 2.346, 2.754, 2.712
also
issued under 5 U.S.C. 557. Section 2.764 also issued under secs.
135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155,
10161). Section 2.790 also issued under sec. 103, 68 Stat. 936,
as
amended (42 U.S.C. 2133) and 5 U.S.C. 552. Sections 2.800 and
2.808
also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 2.809 also issued under
5
U.S.C. 553, and sec. 29, Pub. L. 85-256, 71 Stat. 579, as
amended
(42 U.S.C. 2039). Subpart K also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat.
955
(42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42
U.S.C.
10154). Subpart L also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42
U.S.C. 2239). Subpart M also issued under sec. 184 (42 U.S.C.
2234)
and sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Subpart N also
issued
under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Appendix A also
issued under sec. 6, Pub. L. 91-550, 84 Stat. 1473 (42 U.S.C.
2135).
0
2. In Sec. 2.1001, definitions of ``Complex document,'' ``Large
document,'' and ``Simple document'' are added in alphabetical
order to
read as follows:
Sec. 2.1001 Definitions.
* * * * *
``Complex document'' means a document that consists
(entirely or in
part) of electronic files having substantial portions that are
neither
textual nor image in nature, and graphic or other Binary Large
Objects
that exceed 50 megabytes and cannot logically be divided. For
example,
specialized submissions may include runtime executable software,
viewer
or printer executables, dynamic link library (.dll) files, large
data
sets associated with an executable, and actual software code for
analytical programs that a party may intend to introduce into
the
proceeding.
* * * * *
``Large document'' means a document that consists of
electronic
files that are larger than 50 megabytes.
* * * * *
``Simple document'' means a document that consists of
electronic
files that are 50 megabytes or less.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 2.1003, the introductory text of paragraph (a) and
paragraph (a)(1) are revised, and paragraph (e) is added, to
read as
follows:
Sec. 2.1003 Availability of material.
(a) Subject to the exclusions in Sec. 2.1005 and paragraphs
(b),
(c), and (e) of this section, DOE shall make available, no later
than
six months in advance of submitting its license application for
a
geologic repository, the NRC shall make available no later than
thirty
days after the DOE certification of compliance under Sec.
2.1009(b),
and each other potential party, interested governmental
participant or
party shall make available no later than ninety days after the
DOE
certification of compliance under Sec. 2.1009(b)--
(1) An electronic file including bibliographic header for
all
documentary material (including circulated drafts but excluding
preliminary drafts) generated by, or at the direction of, or
acquired
by, a potential party, interested governmental participant or
party;
provided, however, that an electronic file need not be provided
for
acquired documentary material that has already been made
available by
the potential party, interested governmental participant or
party that
originally created the documentary material. Concurrent with the
production of the electronic files will be an authentication
statement
for posting on the LSN Web site that indicates where an
authenticated
image copy of the documents can be obtained.
* * * * *
(e) Each potential party, interested governmental
participant or
party shall continue to supplement its documentary material made
available to other participants via the LSN with any additional
material created after the time of its initial certification in
accordance with paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section
until
the discovery period in the proceeding has concluded.
0
4. In Sec. 2.1005, paragraph (i) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 2.1005 Exclusions.
* * * * *
(i) Correspondence between a potential party, interested
governmental participant, or party and the Congress of the
United
States.
0
5. In Sec. 2.1012, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 32849]]
Sec. 2.1012 Compliance.
(a) If the Department of Energy fails to make its initial
certification at least six months prior to tendering the
application,
upon receipt of the tendered application, notwithstanding the
provisions of Sec. 2.101(f)(3), the Director of the NRC's
Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards will not docket the
application
until at least six months have elapsed from the time of the
certification. The Director may determine that the tendered
application
is not acceptable for docketing under this subpart if the
application
is not accompanied by an updated certification pursuant to Sec.
2.1009(b), or if the Secretary of the Commission determines that
the
application is not submitted on optical storage media in a
format
consistent with NRC regulations and guidance, or for
non-compliance
with any other requirements identified in this subpart.
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec. 2.1013, paragraphs (a)(2) and (c)(1) are revised to
read as
follows:
Sec. 2.1013 Use of the electronic docket during the proceeding.
(a) * * *
(2) The Secretary of the Commission will establish an
electronic
docket to contain the official record materials of the
high-level
radioactive waste repository licensing proceeding in searchable
full
text, or, for material that is not suitable for entry in
searchable
full text, by header and image, as appropriate.
* * * * *
(c)(1) All filings in the adjudicatory proceeding on the
application for a high-level radioactive waste geologic
repository
under part 60 or 63 of this chapter shall be transmitted by the
submitter to the Presiding Officer, parties, and Secretary of
the
Commission, according to the following requirements--
(i) ``Simple documents'' must be transmitted electronically
via
EIE;
(ii) ``Large documents'' must be transmitted electronically
in
multiple transmissions of 50 megabytes or less each via EIE;
(iii) ``Complex documents'':
(A) Those portions that can be electronically submitted
through the
EIE, in 50 MB or less segments, must be transmitted
electronically,
along with a transmittal letter; and
(B) Those portions that are not capable of being transmitted
electronically must be submitted on optical storage media which
must
also include those portions of the document that had been or
will be
transmitted electronically.
(iv) Electronic submissions must have the following
resolution--
(A) Electronic submissions of files created after January 1,
2004
must have 300 dots per inch (dpi) as the minimum resolution for
bi-
tonal, color, and grayscale, except in limited circumstances
where
submitters may need to use an image scanned before January 1,
2004, in
a document created after January 1, 2004, or the scanning
process for a
large, one-page image may not successfully complete at the 300
dpi
standard resolution.
(B) Electronic submissions of files created before January
1, 2004,
or electronic submissions created after January 1, 2004, which
cannot
meet the 300 dpi standard for color and grayscale, must meet the
standard for documents placed on LSN participant Web sites in
Sec.
2.1011(b)(2)(iv) of this subpart, which is 150 dpi for color and
grayscale documents and 300 dpi for bi-tonal documents.
(v) Electronic submissions must be generated in the
appropriate PDF
output format by using:
(A) PDF--Formatted Text and Graphics for textual documents
converted from native applications;
(B) PDF--Searchable Image (Exact) for textual documents
converted
from scanned documents; and
(C) PDF--Image Only for graphic-, image-, and forms-oriented
documents. In addition, Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) images
and the
results of spreadsheet applications must to be converted to PDF,
except
in those rare instances where PDF conversion is not practicable.
(vi) Electronic submissions must not rely on hyperlinks to
other
documents or Web sites for completeness or access except for
hyperlinks
that link to material within the same PDF file. If the submittal
contains hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites, then it
must
include a disclaimer to the effect that the hyperlinks may be
inoperable or are not essential to the use of the filing.
Information
contained in hyperlinks to a Web site on the Internet or to
another PDF
file, that is necessary for the completeness of a filing, must
be
submitted in its entirety in the filing or as an attachment to
the
filing.
(vii) All electronic submissions must be free of
author-imposed
security restrictions.
* * * * *
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of June, 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-13113 Filed 6-10-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
49 SF Chronicle: Smarter technology for port defense
Livermore lab's neutron beam would expose atomic bombs in ship cargo
[http://sfgate.com]
Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer
[kdavidson@sfchronicle.com] Monday, June 14, 2004
It would be the ultimate Trojan Horse: a nuclear weapon smuggled
into the United States inside an innocent-looking cargo
container, like those stacked atop freighters that routinely slip
under the Golden Gate Bridge.
To prevent terrorists from smuggling atomic bombs into the ports
of Oakland, Los Angeles-Long Beach, New York or other U.S.
harbors, Bay Area scientists are developing a unique kind of bomb
detector this summer that uses subatomic particles called
neutrons to detect highly enriched uranium or plutonium. They
hope it'll be ready for scanning imported cargo containers as
early as 2007.
Just as a doctor uses an X-ray machine to scan a patient's
insides, the bomb-detector under development at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory would scan a cargo container for a
hidden nuclear device. The Department of Homeland Security is
spending $4 million on the project this year alone.
Each year, aboard transoceanic freighters, 6 million of these
truck-size cargo containers arrive at U.S. ports packed with
Japanese DVD players, French wines, Chinese circuit boards and
other foreign goods.
Even before Sept. 11, U.S. security officials feared that
terrorists might hide a nuclear weapon or "dirty bomb" inside a
cargo container. A worst- case result might resemble that
portrayed in the 2002 film "Sum of All Fears" starring Ben
Affleck: Terrorists hide a stolen nuke inside a soft-drink
machine and sneak it into Baltimore. The bomb explodes,
vaporizing much of the city.
"If you wanted to do the one thing that would damage the whole
fabric of our society, this is probably the one," said Eric
Norman of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's nuclear
astrophysics division, a key player in the project.
An August 2003 report from Livermore, titled "Detection of
Special Nuclear Material in Cargo Containers Using Neutron
Interrogation," states:
"The rate of container arrivals at U.S. ports is expected to
increase dramatically over the coming decade. The West Coast
ports of Los Angeles-Long Beach, Oakland and Seattle are
currently processing 11,000 containers per day, or eight per
minute on a 24/7 basis," says the report, authored by Livermore
nuclear physicist Dennis Slaughter and 12 colleagues.
"Because successful delivery of just one such weapon can have
catastrophic consequences it is essential that all cargo
containers entering the U.S. be screened with an extremely high
probability of detecting any (bomb) hidden within. The cost of
failure is very high," adds the unclassified report.
Ordinary X-ray scanners, like those in airports, can't reliably
detect nuclear or fissionable materials transported in the cargo
containers. That's because of the cargo containers' sheer mass:
they weigh up to 27 tons, says Stan Prussin, an applied nuclear
chemist at UC Berkeley and a central participant in the Livermore
project. The containers' mass and contents -- everything from
Korean tennis shoes to Brazilian nuts to Russian vodka --
provides a tremendous amount of shielding, which could frustrate
ordinary scanners.
So this month, a team of about 20 investigators from Lawrence
Livermore, UC Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley hope to begin
calibration tests on a crude prototype of the nuke-detector
inside a barn-size, mundane-looking manufacturing building at
Livermore.
Later in the summer, if all goes well, they'll begin testing the
ability of the device to detect a small sample of highly enriched
uranium concealed inside a simulated cargo container. The
container will be filled with sheets of plywood, aluminum, steel
and other material, to simulate materials that terrorists might
use to shield a bomb from detection.
In theory, the Livermore detector would work by firing a neutron
beam through a cargo container as it rolls along a conveyor belt
between two large, flat arrays of detectors. (The scientists
jokingly call it a "nuclear car wash. ") The high-speed neutrons
would split atoms within concealed uranium or plutonium. Bursting
like eggs, the atoms would then expose their presence by emitting
their own telltale electromagnetic radiation (gamma rays) and
neutrons, which could be sensed by the detector arrays.
Scientists want to be able to detect at least 5 kilograms (11
pounds) of uranium or 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of plutonium. Those
amounts are significantly less than is required to make a bomb.
Security experts fear that some terrorists, rather than smuggling
a fully operational bomb all at once, might try to evade security
scanners by bringing fissionable materials into the country in
small chunks, then assembling the bomb inside the United States.
Although the detector sounds pretty simple, it isn't. Scientists
face a number of technical headaches, including:
-- Figuring out how to detect enriched uranium or plutonium even
if terrorists have shielded the materials with lead, which
absorbs gamma rays, or with materials rich in hydrogen (such as
water, wax or wood), which absorb neutrons.
-- Figuring out how to discern the signal of a bomb against the
background noise of natural radioactivity in the environment. A
special source of concern is cosmic rays: These high-speed,
electrically charged particles routinely fall to Earth from outer
space. (As you read this passage, they're zipping harmlessly
through your body like bullets through fog.)
The trouble is, bomb-detectors could be confused by the steady
"noise" of cosmic rays as they plunge to Earth. To determine how
much cosmic rays might confuse a nuclear detector, the scientists
have hired a physics student to spend part of this summer
measuring the cosmic-ray intensity in the Bay Area.
In interviews and an internal Livermore report, the scientists
caution that not all the challenges are technical in nature.
Rather, some of the questions are political, diplomatic, economic
-- even moral. For example:
-- Can the scanner scan an entire cargo container reliably enough
and fast enough (ideally, within one minute) to avoid delaying
shipments? The detector must have an extremely low rate of false
alarms. Otherwise, repeated scares could paralyze commerce,
especially if it results in unnecessary public panic.
-- Illegal immigrants sometimes sneak into the United States by
hiding inside cargo containers. Can the scientists develop a
bomb-detector that emits neutrons, and possibly gamma rays,
intense enough to detect fissionable materials without being
severe enough to harm human stowaways?
-- The scanner's neutrons would temporarily "radioactivate" --
make radioactive, by shattering an atom so that it gushes its
energy and particles into the environment -- materials inside the
cargo container, including food. Would importers of French wines
and other products tolerate even brief radioactivation of their
shipments? And would consumers later shun such products, even
after their radioactivity has decayed to a safe level?
Based on what Slaughter calls "back-of-the-envelope"
calculations, he is "very confident" that the radioactivity would
be short-lived and normally no more dangerous than natural
background radioactivity in plants and food. However, he
acknowledges that some consumers might not be reassured by such
calculations.
-- Should the U.S. demand the right to install and use the
nuclear bomb- detectors at foreign ports of embarkation, before
the ships set sail for the United States? There's a potential
diplomatic downside: Other countries might resent the continual
presence of U.S. inspectors who are empowered to delay and scan
suspicious-looking cargo containers.
"How likely is (a terrorist nuclear attack) to happen? I have no
idea," says Berkeley's Norman. "But in terms of what might
happen, it's extremely scary, and we have to do everything we can
to prevent such a thing from happening. I look out my window at
the Port of Oakland, and you see how many cargo containers come
in every day."
E-mail Keay Davidson at kdavidson@sfchronicle.com
[kdavidson@sfchronicle.com] .
Page A - 1
©2004 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ
*****************************************************************
50 U.S. Newswire: Energy Sec. Abraham to Speak on Nuclear
Nonproliferation Efforts; Will Counter Critics of Bush
Administration Accomplishments
6/14/2004 10:00:00 AM
To: National and Assignment desks, Energy Reporter
Contact: Jeanne Lopatto of the U.S. Department of Energy,
202-586-4940
News Advisory:
Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham will deliver a major policy
speech today (June 14) to the Eisenhower Institute where he will
outline non-proliferation accomplishments and opportunities posed
by the evolving threats of the 21st century.
Two weeks ago in Vienna, Austria, Secretary Abraham announced the
Department of Energy's Global Threat Reduction Initiative, a
comprehensive global initiative to secure and remove high-risk
nuclear and radiological materials that continue to pose a threat
to the United States and the international community.
Today's speech will discuss the Department of Energy's actions to
respond to the evolving threat posed by undersecured nuclear and
radiological materials and will address the challenges of
implementing and advancing the departments nonproliferation
programs.
In his speech, Secretary Abraham will answer criticisms of
administration efforts in this area that were recently raised in
a published opinion pieces in the Washington Post and Los Angeles
Times.
There will be a media availability with Secretary Abraham
following his speech.
WHO: U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham
WHAT: Speech to the Eisenhower Institute
WHEN: Monday, June 14, 2004, 2:00 p.m.
WHERE: The National Press Club, Holeman Room, 529 14th Street NW
13th Floor, Washington, D.C.
http://www.usnewswire.com/ [http://www.usnewswire.com/]
/© 2004 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
*****************************************************************
51 Times-News: Texas A part of team vying for nuclear laboratory contract
www.magicvalley.com
Monday, June 14, 2004 • Twin Falls, Idaho
COLLEGE STATION, Texas (AP) -- The Texas A University System and
a team of corporations are vying for a multibillion dollar
contract to run a new national nuclear laboratory in Idaho.
The university has teamed with Bechtel, Entergy Corp. and
Honeywell in a bid to manage the Idaho National Laboratory, which
is being created by the U.S. Department of Energy.
The department plans to make the lab the country's top facility
for nuclear development, research and education within the next
10 years. It is being formed by combining parts of the Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory and Argonne
National Laboratory West.
Texas A officials and other members of the team are crafting a
proposal that will be submitted to the Energy Department in late
July. The contract is scheduled to be awarded in November, and
the winner will begin managing the laboratory in February.
The 10-year contract would pay $500 million each year for the
team to run the lab and carry out research. It would be, by far,
the largest research contract associated with the Texas A system.
"The main attraction to A is not only in the mission of the new
lab but in the superb opportunities the Bechtel team is giving us
to participate in a very meaningful way in the mission of the
lab, the functions, the research and the leadership," Lee
Peddicord, A's vice chancellor for research and federal
relations, said in Sunday's edition of the Bryan-College Station
Eagle.
Texas A has the nation's largest nuclear engineering department,
with more than 200 undergraduate students and 75 graduate
students.
Peddicord said laboratory employees could spend time teaching and
conducting research in College Station, and researchers and
graduate students based on campus could travel to Idaho to work
in the lab.
The lab's primary focus will be to create the next generation of
nuclear reactors. They are expected to be capable of producing
low-cost electricity and large quantities of cost-effective
hydrogen.
Researchers believe the new reactors will be ready for commercial
sale by 2030.
Copyright © 2004, Lee Publications Inc.
Magicvalley.com is an on-line division of The Times-News,
published daily at 132 W. Fairfield St.,
Twin Falls, Idaho 83301 by Lee Publications, Inc., a subsidiary
of Lee Enterprises.
*****************************************************************
52 Oak Ridger: Security contract nearly up, could mean new provider
Story last updated at 11:23 a.m. on June 14, 2004
REASON: The contract cycle for the current security provider is
nearly up.
By: Paul Parson | Oak Ridger Staff paul.parson@oakridger.com
[paul.parson@oakridger.com]
With no signs of security decreasing at Oak Ridge's federal
facilities, the Department of Energy has taken some initial steps
in an effort to determine who will be responsible for that job in
the future.
A recently released DOE document essentially alerts interested
parties about a possible opportunity to provide security at local
federal facilities, including the Oak Ridge K-25 site and the
Y-12 National Security Complex.
It's a mission currently assigned to Wackenhut Services Inc.
However, DOE spokesman Walter Perry noted the company's contract
has nearly run its course. Originally valued at $75 million a
year, Wackenhut's three-year contract began in January 2000 and
included two one-year renewal options.
"We've run out of the option years," Perry said.
Based on a preliminary schedule, a draft request for proposals
for the new security contract could be issued by Sept. 30 - the
end of fiscal year 2004. A final request is tentatively set to
hit the streets in early FY 2005, with a contract possibly
awarded in the second quarter of that fiscal year.
DOE's facilities have been operating on a heightened state of
security since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and there
are no signs of that slowing down.
According to the DOE document, the security contractor will
"supply fully qualified personnel (armed and unarmed)" to assist
the federal agency in providing paramilitary protective force
services at a number of Oak Ridge sites. The contractor will also
provide qualified staff to assist DOE in the area of cyber
security in addition to conducting or supporting performance
testing of security systems.
Though officials with Wackenhut were unavailable for comment this
morning, the company has suffered some tough criticism lately.
Earlier this year, the watchdog group known as the Project On
Government Oversight proclaimed that Y-12 could not adequately
protect its supply of bomb-grade uranium in the event of a
terrorist attack. In addition, DOE's Inspector General's Office
called a 2003 security test Wackenhut took "tainted and
unreliable" because the company was privy to information about
the exercise before it happened.
And, while DOE plots the future of the security contract, the
process could be thrown for a loop if Energy Secretary Spencer
Abraham's proposed plan to federalize protective forces ever came
to fruition.
*****************************************************************
53 Oak Ridger: DOE assistance efforts may fall short, Sen. Alexander says
Story last updated at 12:20 p.m. on June 14, 2004
By: Stan Mitchell and Paul Parson
The Department of Energy maintains that it is taking steps to
help Oak Ridge realize self-sufficiency, but a Tennessee senator
said he wonders if it will be enough.
Responding to a request by U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.,
DOE issued the lawmaker roughly a three-page outline notifying
him of the efforts. The formal response says DOE and its major
contractors "have worked and continue to work closely" with Oak
Ridge and organizations within the city that are focused on
economic development.
When asked by The Oak Ridger about DOE's efforts, Alexander's
office responded: "These activities should help the Oak Ridge
community achieve self-sufficiency but they may not be enough.
The office will continue to monitor the progress that DOE and the
city make."
According to the DOE response, "Of the initial 58,575 acres
acquired for the Oak Ridge Reservation, almost 25,000 acres have
been transferred or conveyed to the city of Oak Ridge or other
entities which support the city for a variety of purposes
including schools, housing, industrial park developments,
recreational parks, utilities and roads. In addition to land
transfers, DOE has granted many easements, licenses, permits and
leases to the city of Oak Ridge and to others within the city."
The DOE response also summarizes all of the direct financial
assistance made to Oak Ridge.
"The financial assistance from 1960 through 1986 totaled
$69,403,970," the response says. "The 1986 payment included a
$22,254,187 payment that covered financial assistance
expectations through 1995. PILT (Payment In Lieu of Tax) payments
resumed in Fiscal Year 1996 and to date, the city has been paid
$8,113,017."
The response goes on to highlight contributions to the city from
DOE's major contractors.
Oak Ridge Mayor David Bradshaw does not question any of the facts
presented from DOE.
"I feel confident that DOE has accurately captured what has
happened in the past," Bradshaw said.
But, the Oak Ridge mayor said the more important discussion
should center on the 1986 buyout agreement and what has happened
since then. Namely, that only approximately 20 percent of the
acreage promised to be transferred has been, Bradshaw said.
"The reason that's important is that the Council which entered
into that agreement had an expectation that land would be
transferred," he said. "And that is one of the main reasons that
drove them to sign the buyout agreement.
"Well, that's not happened," Bradshaw said. "Therefore, that
agreement needs to be revisited."
*****************************************************************
54 Oak Ridger: Another View: DOE shouldn't administer sick workers' program
Story last updated at 11:38 a.m. on June 14, 2004
The (Nashville) Tennessean, June 3
Here's a simple solution for the Bush administration in handling
claims of compensation for nuclear weapons workers: Kick the
Energy Department off the team.
The Department of Energy doesn't seem to have the energy for the
job, and the department doesn't deserve the chance to improve its
record. By the end of last year, Energy had processed 6 percent
of 23,000 claims filed on behalf of sick nuclear weapons workers
possibly exposed to radiation and other toxic matter during the
Cold War era. That's three years after Congress authorized the
payments.
The Bush administration has insisted that moving the process over
to the Department of Labor, which Congress is pushing, would not
work because the two departments would still have to work
together.
Why? If Energy isn't doing the job, the slack can be taken up
over at Labor which has a good track record of processing claims.
The excuses seem particularly mystifying given the four years the
Bush administration has had to process the claims. The Energy
Department now says it doesn't have enough doctors to review
claims. According to a report by the General Accounting Office,
Energy officials can't even explain to workers what's taking so
long.
The Energy Department's handling of the compensation might be
comical were it not deadly serious. Some of these claims go back
decades when the nation depended on their skill to wage war by
threat, instead of contact. They are no less deserving of this
administration's attention than those on the battlefields of
today. The Energy Department has proved it can't do the job: The
White House should find someone who can.
*****************************************************************
55 Google News Alert - nuclear
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
THE Ticking Clock of Iran ’ s Nuclear Program
Eurasianet - New York,NY,USA
The International Atomic Energy Agency convened a board of governors meeting
June 14, debating how to respond to Iran’s nuclear program, which critics
say is ...
See all stories on this topic:
'AKHTAR has no nuclear secrets'
Times of India - India
... DELHI : Indian intelligence agencies have found no link between a Dubai-based
Indian businessman deported to Mumbai for allegedly selling nuclear secrets
and ...
See all stories on this topic:
FLUOR Names New Leaders in Environmental and Nuclear Operations
Yahoo News (press release) - USA
... PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Fluor Corporation (NYSE: FLR - News) today
announced two management appointments in its Environmental and Nuclear
Operations within ...
See all stories on this topic:
KYODO News Agency: Talks on North Korea's Nuclear Program to ...
Voice of America - Washington,DC,USA
There is more indication that another round of six-party talks on North
Korea's nuclear program will be held next week in Beijing. ...
See all stories on this topic:
DPRK defies G8 nuclear appeal
Voice of Viet Nam - Hanoi,Vietnam
The Democratic People Republic of Korea has replied defiantly to a new
international call to dismantle any nuclear weapons-related programmes.
...
See all stories on this topic:
JUNE 15 Summit Should Bring Solution to Nuclear Issue
Korea Times - Seoul,South Korea
... Most of all, the nuclear crisis that reached a new peak in October
2002 has brought about tension on the peninsula. The worsening ...
See all stories on this topic:
NIXING nuclear folly
Toronto Star - Toronto,Ontario,Canada
Does US President George Bush need more nuclear weapons? ... For decades,
the nuclear club consisted of the US, Russia, China, Britain, France and
Israel. ...
See all stories on this topic:
TEXAS A&M vying for Idaho nuclear contract
Salt Lake Tribune - Salt Lake City,UT,USA
... Texas -- The Texas A&M University System and a team of corporations
are vying for a multibillion dollar contract to run a new national nuclear
laboratory in ...
See all stories on this topic:
NUCLEAR power gets a surge of political energy
New Zealand Herald - Auckland,New Zealand
PARIS - Nuclear power, its image darkened by the 1986 Chernobyl disaster,
appears to be making a comeback of sorts in Europe as the Continent struggles
to meet ...
NUCLEAR warning urged for Iran
Melbourne Herald Sun - Melbourne,Victoria,Australia
THE United States today demanded the United Nations nuclear watchdog pass
a tough resolution demanding Iran's co-operation to ensure its nuclear
program is not ...
This daily-once News Alert is brought to you by Google News (BETA)...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Remove this News Alert:
http://www.google.com/newsalerts/remove?s=92d1672a1b037a07&hl=en
Create another News Alert:
http://www.google.com/newsalerts?hl=en
Try Google News:
http://news.google.com/
*****************************************************************
56 Space Review: In defense of the beleaguered spysat (page 1)
[KH-11 illustration] No unclassified images of the KH-11 spysat
exist, but some believe it bears a strong resemblence to the
Hubble Space Telescope. (courtesy Dwayne Day)
In defense of the beleaguered spysat
by Dwayne A. Day
Monday, June 14, 2004
During the height of Cold War arms control in the 1970s and
1980s, Americas spy satellites were superheroes, capable of
simultaneously defending democracy and defying the laws of
physics.
Of course back then nobody could really talk about them. The
United States government did not even admit that it operated
intelligence satellites. Instead they were concealed behind the
catchall term national technical means and the organization
that operated them, the National Reconnaissance Office, was
secret. But everybody knew that the satellites were up there,
silently circling the globe and taking photographs of Soviet ICBM
silos and submarine piers and nuclear weapons bunkers. The ABM
Treaty, the SALT I Treaty, and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces
Treaty were all backed up by these national technical means that
were a crucial part of the policy that Ronald Reagan once
summarized succinctly as trust, but verify. As a result,
journalists tended to view these secretive spy satellites with a
certain degree of awe. They didnt know what the satellites were
capable of, but it was apparently formidable.
This was, of course, a myth. There was plenty that the spy
satellites could not see. They could not see, for instance,
Soviet violations of those arms control treaties, such as the
huge Krasnoyarsk radar that had been cloud-covered and unseen
until somebody told the CIA where to look for it. They could not
see inside those ICBM silos unless the Soviets left the doors
open. And although they were machines, they required a human
element to interpret the data and sometimes that human element
failed, such as the time that the United States discovered a
battalion of Soviet troops in Cuba that had been there for
decades.
The spysats reputation seems to have taken a real hit after the
end of the Cold War. It continues to be maligned as increasingly
irrelevant in the age of complex ambiguity that we now inhabit.
Not only did journalists start discussing problems with the
satellites, such as cost overruns with the Future Imagery
Architecture, but they also began discussing their limitations in
a world where the adversarys weapons were no longer strategic
bombers and submarines, but terrorists with box cutters.
One popular myth among journalists is the allegation that the
United States spends too much energy and money on imagery
intelligence (imint) and too little energy and money on human
intelligence (humint), and that the former is to blame for the
latter. This claim has been repeated so often, particularly
whenever there is an intelligence failure, that it has assumed
the aura of a truismthose who repeat it never bother to question
it, because it must be true.
One popular myth among journalists is the allegation that the
United States spends too much energy and money on imagery
intelligence and too little energy and money on human
intelligence, and that the former is to blame for the latter.
Philip Taubman, the Washington bureau chief for the New York
Times, made this claim in his book Secret Empire, on early
satellite reconnaissance. Ronald Kessler, in his book The CIA at
War, also claimed that certain information could only be gained
by human sources and that the CIA had placed too much emphasis on
technical collection systems. It was also voiced by a former CIA
agent in the BBC radio program “Spies R Us: A History of
the CIA.”
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/spies_cia.shtml] . It is
often a throwaway line in television reports about the future of
intelligence collection and regularly appears in the pages of
Time and Newsweek and elsewhere, usually as part of a larger
debate about why American intelligence agencies are allegedly so
bad at collecting intelligence. The primary thrust of this
viewpoint is that intelligence agencies need more human sources
and not so many satellites, and that the satellites may even to
be to blame for the sorry state of human intelligence.
But the current controversy over the intelligence failures of
9-11 and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have highlighted the
fact that human intelligence is not only unreliable, but also
extremely difficult. Now that investigative journalists have
turned their attention to what went wrong, and how human sources
mislead the CIA, perhaps they will reexamine the myth that
satellite intelligence is increasingly irrelevant in the
twenty-first century. Myth versus reality
The allegation that the U.S. spends too much energy and money on
technical assets in general and spy satellites in particular is
one of many journalistic myths about intelligence. Like many of
those other myths, it is essentially a result of reporters trying
to simplify a complicated subject and ultimately losing
perspective.
The claim of overreliance on satellites fails on several
accounts. First, it downplays the tremendous past and current
importance of satellite reconnaissance in gathering basic
intelligence. Before the dawn of satellite reconnaissance in
August 1960, CIA estimates on Soviet military capabilities were
filled with caveats and equivocations. Even the successful
recruiting of spies like Oleg Penkovsky had left massive gaps in
American knowledge about what the Soviets were capable of doing,
let alone what they intended to do. But only a short time after
the satellites began returning their pictures, one high-ranking
intelligence official looked at the latest, much thicker National
Intelligence Estimate on Soviet strategic weapons, where precise
numbers had replaced murky estimates for how many bombs, planes
and ICBMs the Soviets had built, and remarked this isnt an
estimate, its a fact book! Satellite reconnaissance had
revolutionized intelligence collection and contributed greatly to
superpower stability, a fact that is still little recognized by
journalists and most Cold War historians.
Satellite reconnaissance had revolutionized intelligence
collection and contributed greatly to superpower stability, a
fact that is still little recognized by journalists and most Cold
War historians.
Although terrorists are not as easy to locate via satellite as
many Cold War targets, the reality is that the United States
still faces other adversaries who operate in more traditional
ways, and satellites are highly useful at providing information
on their actions. When North Korea reactivated its nuclear
reactor, the heat plumes were detected by satellite. When the
United States invaded Iraq, the locations of fixed and mobile
Iraqi forces were pinpointed by satellite. Signals intelligence
satellites can still snare the whispers of cell phone
conversations and radar emissions. Even when analysts cannot
crack encoded communications intercepted by satellite, sometimes
merely noting the location of the emitter is significant. All of
this information feeds into assembly of the big intelligence
picture and often the problem is that there is too much
information coming from these sources. But for all their cost,
the satellites certainly pull their weight, and increasingly
serve military customers that they could not serve only a decade
or two ago.
In addition, their critics also misunderstand the limitations of
satellite intelligence. One common claim is that satellites
cannot indicate intentions. They cannot see inside the mind of a
foreign leader. But this is not entirely accurate, and it is
based upon the somewhat dubious assumption that there is any
intelligence source that can accurately predict an adversarys
intentions.
In 1968 a satellite photographed Soviet tanks on the border of
Czechoslovakia. The Red Army had painted invasion stripes on the
side of the tanks so they could be differentiated from similar
Czech tanks, a clear indication that the Soviets were going to
roll across the border. Unfortunately, the limited technology of
the day resulted in the pictures reaching the intelligence
community only after the invasion had taken place. Before Saddam
Husseins invasion of Kuwait in 1991 satellites revealed that his
generals had deployed fuel supplies close to the Kuwaiti border,
a clear indication that he was about to invade, because there was
no other reason to put fuel supplies for Iraqi forces so close to
the border unless that border would soon become the support area
for advancing troops. page 2: the difficulties of humint >>
Subscribe Enter your email address below to be notified when new
articles are published: our privacy policy
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************