*****************************************************************
06/28/04 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 12.153
*****************************************************************
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 AFP: UN nuclear chief plays down chance of inspectors returning to I
2 AFP: Solution "in sight" on Iran's nuclear program - Rice
3 Mos News: Russia to Speed Up Nuclear Deal With Iran — Top Nuclear Of
4 AFP: NKorea rejects "unrealistic" US offer but calls nuclear talks p
5 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. to Bear All Expenses in Abolishing N
6 BBC: N Korea responds to US offer
7 Asia Times: Pondering the Pyongyang puzzle
8 CBS News: Nuclear Politics: Iran & N. Korea
9 Mos News: Russia Ships Tons of Food to N. Korea -
10 AU ABC: N Korea rejects 'unrealistic' US offer.
11 asahi.com: Substantial 6-way talks
12 US: Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: White House secrets
13 US: Infoshop News: Western Shoshone 'Payoff' Bill - A 'Legal' Disgra
14 UK: Butler widens his inquiry to include spin campaign
15 BBC: Analysis: Rivals make progress
16 Charley Reese: The Nuclear Arms Race
17 Hi Pakistan: Rice reaffirms link between Iraq and al-Qaeda
18 Greenpeace: Nukes out of NATO
NUCLEAR REACTORS
19 [progchat_action] Nuclear Power Can't Stop Climate Change
20 IPS-English RENEWABLES: Asia Going Rapidly More Nuclear
21 US: [NukeNet] Entergy to examine more sites for new nukes
22 US: NRC: NRC Updates Vermont Public Service Board on Status of Vermo
23 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for th
24 US: APP.COM: Information on the Oyster Creek evacuation plan meeting
25 US: APP.COM - Part 6: Can the region be safely evacuated?
26 US: AP Wire: SEC Seeks More Information on Ohio Outage
27 US: Valley Advocate: No Hearings on Nukes
28 US: FT: US struggles to revive nuclear power industry
29 Daily Times: Pakistan plans more nuclear power plants
30 US: APP.COM - Internet resources (Nuclear)
31 Japan Times: Kepco uncovers data-fabrication scam
32 US: APP.COM - Oyster Creek: Time to Retire
33 US: APP.COM - Part 7: Reactors: Hazardous to your health?
34 US: APP.COM - Part 8: Let the campaign to close it begin
35 US: TheDay.com: NRC To Hear Testimony About Holding Hearing To Chall
36 US: NRC: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda:
37 Sofia Morning News: No Referendum on Bulgaria's Nuke Units Closure
38 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: State fights new NRC rules
NUCLEAR SAFETY
39 AFP: Israel to distribute anti-radiation pills for residents near re
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
40 AFP: Russia to host conference on spent nuclear fuel - IAEA
41 US: Salt Lake Tribune: White House help sought on N-dump
42 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: For now, a victory in Yucca fight
43 RGJ: Earthquake a danger at Yucca Mountain site
44 FT: Amec wins US waste contract
45 US: KAALtv.com: Iowa to test trucks for radioactive cargo
46 US: NEWS.com.au: Miners demand new tainted water probe
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
47 BBC: Deportation for nuclear activist
48 Asia Times: Nuclear proliferation
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
49 [Sunshine] BB #1: US Army Builds Biodefense Lab, Neglects to
50 Guardian Unlimited: Uranium Storage Planned Despite Concerns
51 DOE: Office of Science; High Energy Physics Advisory Panel
52 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Idaho
53 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern
54 DOE: Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation; Proposed Subsequen
55 Idaho Statesman: It's time for feds to invest in Idaho nuclear resea
56 Oak Ridger: DOE bus tour starts Thursday
57 U.S. Newswire: Los Alamos Contract Process Announced
58 Hanford News: Hanford to resume Saturday bus tours
59 Oak Ridger: Y-12 may have violated PR contract
60 Oak Ridger: Union contract ratified Saturday
61 lamonitor.com: Lab given notice on incident
62 DOE: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda
OTHER NUCLEAR
63 [du-list] DU in the news - 28th June 04
64 Google News Alert - nuclear
65 Bellona: Russian Parliamentarians reminded President about lost nucl
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 AFP: UN nuclear chief plays down chance of inspectors returning to Iraq soon
[http://www.spacewar.com/]
MOSCOW (AFP) Jun 28, 2004
UN nuclear chief Mohammed ElBaradei on Monday played down the
chances of international atomic inspectors returning to Iraq in
the near future, despite a new government there, saying the
current security situation was a major problem.
ElBaradei said his International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
inspectors would first need a "green light" from the UN Security
Council to return to Iraq and then "would obviously have to weigh
the security situation".
Speaking after talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov,
he added: "We work sometimes under a certain degree of risk. It
has to be managed risk ... I think right now the current
situation is a major impediment."
The United States had opposed the IAEA returning to Iraq but the
US-led coalition formally ended its 14-month occupation Monday,
handing power to a caretaker government two days earlier than
expected in order to avoid attacks on the scheduled handover
date.
ElBaradei had said in Cairo in April that the IAEA's "mandate for
the inspection of weapons of mass destruction (in Iraq) is still
in force."
The inspectors pulled out of Iraq just before the outbreak of the
US-led war to unseat Iraqi president Saddam Hussein that began in
March 2003.
Prior to this, the IAEA had issued a report to the effect that it
had no proof that Baghdad had reconstituted its nuclear program.
The United States had said it did not want UN disarmament
inspectors to return to Iraq, where its own search for mass
destruction weapons -- the principal justification for the
invasion and occupation of the country -- has found nothing.
ElBaradei said the IAEA would now be talking to the new Iraqi
government.
But the current situation was "a bit messy. It's still not very
clear," he said.
WAR.WIRE
*****************************************************************
2 AFP: Solution "in sight" on Iran's nuclear program - Rice
[http://www.spacewar.com/]
WASHINGTON (AFP) Jun 27, 2004
US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said Sunday that
Iran was providing daily proof why it belonged in the "axis of
evil" but a peaceful solution to the row over its nuclear program
was still "within sight."
Rice told Fox News Sunday that Iran remains a "dangerous state"
that was trying to develop the capacity to use nuclear power for
military purposes and even make nuclear weapons.
"The Iranians every day demonstrate why the United States has
been so hard on them and why the president put Iran into the axis
of evil when he talked about Iraq, North Korea and Iran in 2002,"
she said.
The national security aide said Washington was working with its
European allies and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
to persuade Tehran to drop its nuclear weapons ambitions or face
isolation.
The United States was also putting pressure on Russia to curb
transfers of nuclear technology to Iran, she said, adding "we've
been very clear that these rogue states that seek weapons of mass
destruction are a danger."
"It's a very tough situation. But we believe that this is one
that still has a diplomatic solution within sight," Rice said,
speaking from Turkey ahead of a NATO summit. She did not
elaborate.
The IAEA, the UN nuclear watchdog, rebuked Iran on June 18 for
failing to come clean about its nuclear program but the Islamic
Republic has shown little inclination for conciliation.
Tehran said Sunday it would resume construction of centrifuges
for uranium enrichment while continuing to suspend enrichment
itself. But a senior member of parliament said the assembly would
push to resume the process.
Rice's remarks appeared part of a general US move to step up the
rhetoric against Iran, which President George W. Bush famously
lumped with Iraq and North Korea in an "axis of evil" in his
State of the Union speech two years ago.
Earlier Sunday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld delivered his
own broadside at the Iranian government, accusing it of "not
telling the truth about its role in nuclear development."
"Most recently, we have seen them resisting the UN processes that
they have previously seemed to have agreed to, but obviously are
not adhering to," Rumsfeld said in an interview with the BBC.
WAR.WIRE
*****************************************************************
3 Mos News: Russia to Speed Up Nuclear Deal With Iran — Top Nuclear Official
- NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM
The head of the Russian Atomic Energy Agency Aleksandr
Rumyantsev / Frame from First Channel
Created: 28.06.2004 12:44 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 16:34 MSK
MosNews
Russia will avoid delays in the launch of an atomic reactor in
Iran by speeding up talks with Tehran on a key bilateral deal,
the head of the Russian Atomic Energy Agency, Aleksandr
Rumyantsev, said.
“We don’t face any difficulties with signing the deal on the
return of nuclear fuel from the Bushehr nuclear plant,” Reuters
quoted Rumyantsev as saying. “Our Iranian colleagues have
confirmed that they are ready to sign this document... We will
speed up talks if we see the process is being delayed, because we
need to fulfill our contractual obligations.”
Such an agreement would oblige Iran to return spent fuel from the
reactor to Moscow. The promise to sign this agreement was made by
Russia under U.S. pressure. The agreement would ease concerns
that Iran could extract plutonium for nuclear bombs. However, its
signing has been delayed repeatedly, the agency reminded.
Industry insiders, quoted by the agency, say a disagreement over
technical matters between Russia and Iran, as well as Moscow’s
efforts to avoid spoiling relations with the United States,
nearly prompted Moscow and Tehran to abandon the project earlier
this year.
The document on the fuel’s return must be signed soon in order
for Bushehr’s first 1,000-megawatt reactor to go online in late
2005 and reach full capacity in 2006. Once the agreement is
signed, Russia will ship fuel to Iran to start up Bushehr. Spent
fuel will be sent back to a storage center in Siberia after
roughly a decade of use.
It had been said by Iran and Russia that it was impossible to
make a bomb with the technology Moscow had been providing to the
plant.
Iran Continues Nuclear Cooperation with Russia — Iran Ambassador
[http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/06/07/iran.shtml]
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
4 AFP: NKorea rejects "unrealistic" US offer but calls nuclear talks positive
[http://www.spacewar.com/]
SEOUL (AFP) Jun 28, 2004
North Korea on Monday rejected a new US proposal aimed at
defusing a 20-month standoff over its nuclear weapons programs
but welcomed a shift in Washington's hardline negotiating stance.
Pyongyang said the US plan to give North Korea three months to
shut down and seal its nuclear weapons facilities in return for
major economic and diplomatic rewards was unworkable, branding it
"unrealistic".
North Korea's foreign ministry spokesman said in an
English-language statement that the US plan "could not be
supported by anyone as it totally lacked scientific and realistic
nature."
Instead it said the United States should come up with immediate
rewards for a nuclear freeze and drop its "unreasonable
assertion" that Pyongyang is running a clandestine nuclear
programme based on enriched uranium.
"A scrutiny of the US proposal suggests that, to out regret it
only mentioned phased demands for disarming the DPRK (North
Korea)," the spokesman said in the statement carried by the
official Korean Central News Agency monitored here.
North Korea has offered to freeze its nuclear weapons drive in
return for an end to US sanctions and energy assistance.
In return for concessions Pyongyang was prepared to "freeze all
the facilities related to nuclear weapons" that would entail a
ban on producing, transferring and testing nuclear weapons and
would lead to the ultimate dismantlement of the nuclear weapons
program, the statement said.
Prior to last week's Beijing talks, the United States had
insisted that North Korea had to scrap its nuclear ambitions
first, before it would receive concessions.
At the Beijing talks, however, Washington called for a
step-by-step dismantling of North Korea's plutonium and uranium
weapons programs in return for aid and security guarantees and
easing of its political and economic isolation.
North Korea welcomed Washington's retreat from its earlier demand
for the unconditional scrapping of the North's nuclear weapons as
a first step towards resolving the standoff.
"Some common elements helpful to making progress were found
there," the spokesman said in the dispatch monitored here.
It also applauded Washington's decision to drop the term "CVID",
referring to the US goal of complete, verifiable and irreversible
dismantling of its nuclear facilities.
Washington has used the term as a mantra at previous rounds, much
to the irritation of North Korean delegates, according to media
reports here.
The statement was North Korea's first official reaction to last
week's six-nation talks that ended without concrete progress.
It contrasted sharply with wholly negative statements issued by
North Korea after each of the previous two previous rounds of
six-party talks in the Chinese capital.
After the February round, North Korea said further talks would be
meaningless. Last August, it described the first round of talks
as "useless." On both occasions the Stalinist state said it would
build more nuclear bombs.
Since then Washington has come under pressure from its allies in
the region and partners at the talks to do more to help resolve
the standoff.
China, South Korea, and Japan have taken the lead in engaging
North Korea while Washington remained aloof.
However the deadlock over North Korea's alleged uranium-based
scheme is the main stumbling block to progress.
North Korea has boasted openly of its plutonium-producing program
at its Yongbyon complex, north of Pyongyang, but publicly denies
any uranium-enriching activities.
The stand-off erupted in October 2002 when the United States said
North Korea had acknowledged it was developing nuclear weapons
through enriched uranium, violating a 1994 international
agreement.
WAR.WIRE
*****************************************************************
5 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. to Bear All Expenses in Abolishing N. Korea's Nuclear
Updated Jun.28,2004 19:15 KST
Once North Korea announces that it will abolish all the nuclear
programs, including the Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) program,
the United States would bear all the expenses needed in
abolishing the nuclear programs, said a diplomatic source Sunday.
The official said, ¡°During the third round of six-nation talks
held in Beijing that lasted six days from June 21, the U.S.
proposed to apply the Nunn-Lugar program to North Korea, which
was applied to Ukraine and other countries when abolishing the
nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union, which will take care
of all costs needed in abolishing the nuclear program, and will
give economic support to the North.¡±
Along with such supports, the U.S. said that it would provide
re-education of North Korean scientists related to nuclear
weapons and will mediate new jobs once all nuclear programs
within the North are abolished.
The official said that James Kelly, head of the U.S. delegation
and Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific
Affairs, said about the proposal that, ¡°It is a very interesting
proposal and we will be able to find meaningful parts through
consideration.¡±
During the third round of six-nation talks, which ended on
Saturday, North and South Korea, the U.S., Japan, China and
Russia agreed on holding a working group conference next month,
at the earliest, and discussed the range, period and methods to
verify a nuclear freeze and compensation measures, and to discuss
those matters further at the fourth round of the six party talks.
The participating countries agreed to hold the fourth round
before end-September. The six countries adopted a statement made
by the chairman that includes all the discussed matters.
(englishnews@chosun.com )
*****************************************************************
6 BBC: N Korea responds to US offer
Last Updated: Monday, 28 June, 2004
[North Korean spent nuclear fuel rods in Yongbyon
(archive picture)]
Washington offered aid in return for a nuclear freeze
North Korea has cautiously welcomed a proposal by the US to end
the 20-month impasse over its nuclear programme.
A statement by the North Korean Foreign Ministry said some common
ground was reached at six-nation talks which ended on Saturday in
Beijing.
But it stressed that "big differences" remained, including
disagreement over whether the North was harbouring a secret
enriched uranium programme.
All parties have agreed in principle to meet again in September.
The six nations - the US, China, Japan, Russia and the two Koreas
- had been discussing a US proposal to provide North Korea with
much-needed fuel aid in return for a freeze and eventual
dismantlement of its nuclear facilities.
It was the first detailed proposal from Washington on ending the
nuclear deadlock since President George W Bush took office.
"Unlike the previous talks, each party advanced various proposals
and ways, and had a discussion on them in a sincere atmosphere at
the talks," the North Korean statement said.
BREAKING THE DEADLOCK?
US reportedly ready t agree to fuel aid and 'provisional
guarantee' not to attack Talks on lifting US sanctions also on
offer In return, North must seal nuclear facilities within 3
months Fuel aid and talks will continue if North then
dismantles facilities
"Some common elements helpful to making progress in the talks
were found there," it said.
However, it said differences include the US proposal that the
North would have only three months to freeze its nuclear
facilities in return for fuel aid and talks on lifting US
sanctions.
North Korea said this timeframe "could not be supported by
anyone, as it totally lacked scientific and realistic nature".
The statement also said Washington should drop its "unreasonable
assertion" about the existence of an enriched uranium programme
and said mutual distrust and suspicion remained.
US officials told reporters there had been "no breakthroughs" at
the talks.
"The process is moving along, but we are not ready to point to
successes," an unnamed official said, adding that there had been
a lack of "tangible, boastable progress".
Two previous rounds of talks also ended inconclusively.
But North Korea was publicly far more negative following those.
It spoke of a "fundamental difference" between Pyongyang and
Washington and "no substantive and positive result" after the
February talks.
After the first round of talks, in August 2003, North Korea
dismissed the US' demand for its nuclear disarmament as a
"brigandish-like demand beyond the tolerance limit".
*****************************************************************
7 Asia Times: Pondering the Pyongyang puzzle
News and analysis from Korea; North and South
Search
[http://www.atimes.com
- Nuclear North Korea by Victor D Cha and David C Kang;
- Crisis on the Korean Peninsula by Michael O'Hanlon and Mike
Mochizuki;
- Target North Korea by Gavan McCormack.
Reviewed by Bradley Martin
In that other crisis besides Iraq, the nuclear one bubbling away
on the North Korean back burner, Washington's policy seems to be
one of simultaneously containing and engaging Pyongyang. Beyond
simply delaying an intensified confrontation on the Korean
Peninsula (because, for one thing, the Pentagon has more than it
can handle in Iraq and Afghanistan), the idea is to give North
Korean leader Kim Jong-il a chance to show that negotiations can
work to resolve the problem.
Or, as pessimists see it, Kim is being given enough rope to hang
himself by demonstrating incontrovertibly to other countries
that negotiations will not suffice. Once he does that, the
theory goes, Washington can try to do a better job of lining up
international support for a get-tough approach than it managed
regarding Iraq in 2002-03. (Never mind that Kim in the process
is also being given time for further development of weapons of
mass destruction. So much for containment.)
Victor D Cha and David C Kang coin a term that seems to describe
t he current policy: "hawk engagement". Their Nuclear North
Korea: A Debate on Engagement Strategies, one of several books
published in recent months that advise on how to deal with
Pyongyang, is aptly titled. Rather than the sort of matched
hissy fits that so often pass for political and academic
discourse these days, it presents what is indeed a debate and in
the process demonstrates that a hawk and a dove can talk to -
rather than past - each other.
In commendably civil and cooperative fashion the co-authors
alternate chapters until they manage to come together on many
points.
As the somewhat hawkish Cha and the somewhat dovish Kang look
for places where they can agree despite their different starting
points, they succeed admirably in clearing cobwebs out of their
own and their readers' heads. Although their publisher, Columbia
University Press, has let them down with a sloppy job of
copy-editing, the two men's status as longtime Korea specialists
- Cha teaches at Georgetown, Kang at Dartmouth - lends authority
to their arguments.
But can hawk engagement work?
Consider an official description of Washington's policy.
Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly said in a February
speech that "North Korea has an opportunity to change its path.
As some Americans might put it there is a chance for redemption
... With continued international solidarity, there is good
reason to believe that North Korea will eventually rethink its
assumptions and reverse course."
If the policy works smoothly, some imagine a result similar to
Libya's agreement this year to give up its nuclear-weapons
program. Sensing the determination of the United States, Kim
Jong-il might realize that refusal to deal with all issues fully
would mean further isolation, economic sanctions and other
measures to destabilize his regime or destroy it outright. At
that point he might decide to submit, relinquish even his
existing nukes (assuming he actually has any; their existence
remains a matter of surmise) and take his chances on the US
guarantees given in return.
In a Brookings Institution study, Crisis on the Korean
Peninsula: How to Deal with a Nuclear North Korea, Michael
O'Hanlon and Mike Mochizuki lay out a detailed vision of how
this might work in practice. They propose a "grand bargain"
whose centerpiece would be a reduction of conventional weaponry
on both sides of the Demilitarized Zone by perhaps 50%. The US
and its partners in the region would give Pyongyang development
assistance, full diplomatic and trade relations and security
guarantees. Besides relinquishing its nuclear and chemical
weapons and long-range missiles programs, Pyongyang would agree
to improve its human-rights policies and move to a market
economy.
O'Hanlon and Mochizuki, while they are prominent
inside-the-Beltway experts on related issues, have not been
known particularly as North Korea specialists. That fact could
account for some minor flaws in their treatment. In particular,
they repeatedly call for Washington and its allies to "push"
Pyongyang to reform its economy. The term is an unfortunate one.
As is well known by now, North Koreans when pushed always push
back. A country's basic economic policies normally might be
considered its own business. O'Hanlon and Mochizuki argue,
however, that lack of economic reform in North Korea would
ensure that its leaders at some future point would be tempted to
resort once again to the diplomacy of blackmail, which has
already resulted in two nuclear standoffs in a single decade.
Although the point is well taken, it appears - as the authors
acknowledge - that North Korean leader Kim Jong-il at long last
is eager to undertake limited reform, for his own reasons.
Rather than "pushing" him on this, policymakers and negotiators
would do well to heed the advice of David Kang that "you can't
tell a Korean anything, but suggestions of a solution might be
met by receptive ears".
That said, O'Hanlon and Mochizuki bring to bear expertise -
military and to a lesser extent economic - that permits them to
sketch in remarkable detail how the "grand bargain" could work
in practice. (Koreans in both the North and South love the word
"grand" as much as the French do - Grand People's Study Palace,
Grand National Party - so in this case the authors' choice of
terminology rings just right.) It is a roadmap that in its broad
strokes looks highly promising.
Still, imagining such a positive outcome requires considerable
optimism. In two sets of talks this year, neither side budged
appreciably from its positions. Some analysts believe that to a
large extent the current impasse represents the mutual wish of
US President George W Bush and Kim Jong-il to do nothing before
the US November presidential election. Bush hopes his victory
will give him more domestic political leeway to deal with
Pyongyang. Kim hopes the victory of the Democratic candidate
will make Washington more amenable to serious, one-on-one
negotiations.
No matter who wins the White House, though, it is a lot to hope
that the North Koreans will soon become convinced that the US
has abandoned all its hostility to the regime. (That would
represent the flip side of Washington's own inability to trust
Pyongyang enough to drop its hostility.) Kelly addressed that by
saying Washington did not necessarily expect to "resolve the
nuclear problem in a matter of a few weeks or even a few
months".
What happens if the engagement phase of hawk engagement fails to
produce a resolution? Next comes the hawkish part, efforts to
remove the regime - but how? It would be foolish for Americans
to presume that they know the will of the North Korean people -
beyond the certainty that refusing to truckle to "American
devils" remains a top priority. The tens of thousands of inmates
in political prison camps would welcome an invasion, certainly,
but many other North Koreans would greet any would-be US
military liberators with bullets and bombs, not flowers.
Although the society is one that hardly anyone outside the
country would choose, large numbers of North Koreans - still
indoctrinated, still proud - continue to endorse much of its
ideological foundation.
Even Washington's most aggressive hawks now display a healthy
reluctance to risk an actual invasion of North Korea. They plot
other means of bringing about regime change or collapse,
including encouraging a coup d'etat and enforcing intensified
sanctions. These authors would urge patience before moving to
that next phase, which they see as fraught with danger.
"Refugees, a military split in North Korea and other problems
with uncontrolled collapse are not palatable and could be
deleterious to stability in the region," David Kang writes.
"What engagement does is allow the United States to proceed
cautiously and also to slowly transform the regime."
But patience in Washington certainly is not unlimited. As Gavan
McCormack, a specialist on Korea and Japan at Australian
National University, writes in Target North Korea: Pushing North
Korea to the Brink of Nuclear Catastrophe, "Failure of
negotiations could lead to the imposition of sanctions, whether
or not pursuant to a Security Council resolution. Such an
outcome would involve economic encirclement and steadily
increasing pressure designed to enforce the abandonment of
nuclear and missile programs. It would carry the risk of
provoking North Korea, possibly to the point of launching a
preemptive war."
Although McCormack's book is largely a judicious and useful
treatment, an occasionally annoying feature is his knee-jerk
tendency to blame the Americans whether they deserve it or not.
Ignoring the post-Hiroshima turf grab that placed Soviet troops
in charge of northern Korea, he insists that "the
American-imposed division of the peninsula will have to be
recognized as the original sin that is the ultimate cause of the
contemporary Korean crisis". Almost as an aside he implicates
the US in the 1980 massacre in Kwangju, South Korea. (Apparently
he has bought into an argument that appeared some years ago,
based on hyped research, that was unpersuasive from the start to
someone like this reviewer who had been in Kwangju at the time.
Simply stated, Kwangju was a case of Koreans, under the
bloody-minded and self-installed military dictator Chun
Doo-hwan, brutalizing other Koreans.)
Similarly, McCormack is merciless in his portrayal of Japan's
role in Korean problems. Here, however, he performs a service by
laying out information that will be new to many readers and by
assembling it into an argument that is harder to dismiss than
are his ritual condemnations of the US.
"The fierceness of Japanese hostility to North Korea, and the
linked reluctance to face Japan's crimes against North Korea,
may stem in some measure from the fact that North Korea so
closely resembles the Japan that many middle-aged Japanese
remember from the 1940s and so could be seen as an affront, a
kind of burlesque, second-class representation of Japan's form
of divine, myth-based state," he writes insightfully.
McCormack clearly would be slow to see any need for a hawkish
approach, particularly to deal with the domestic failings of the
North Korean regime. He writes approvingly about many South
Koreans' "optimistic scenario for the future that sees the human
rights and other problems of contemporary North Korea being
resolved by popular protest and pressure, as they were in South
Korea, rather than by outside intervention, or worse, by the
cataclysm of renewed war".
The three books reviewed would, together, provide a fine short
course for anyone seriously interested in current North
Korea-related issues.
Nuclear North Korea by Victor D Cha and David C Kang. New York:
Columbia University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-231-13128-3. Price
US$24.50, 265 pages.
Crisis on the Korean Peninsula by Michael O'Hanlon and Mike
Mochizuki. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003. ISBN 0-07-143155-1.
Price $19.95, 230 pages.
Target North Korea by Gavan McCormack. New York: Nation Books,
2004. ISBN 1-56025-557-9. Price $13.95, 228 pages.
An Asia-based journalist and Pyongyang watcher for more than a
quarter-century, Bradley Martin currently teaches at Louisiana
State University.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online, Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales
*****************************************************************
8 CBS News: Nuclear Politics: Iran & N. Korea
LONDON, June 28, 2004
North Korea denies having a nuclear weapons program, but has used
it as a threat to win concessions from the United States. North
Korea's secret nukes are, as former President Clinton once said
in private, "the only cash crop they have."
Iran (above, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami) has been
disappointed in the outcome of the Iraq war - which it expected
would result in a Shiite majority government, a natural ally of
Shiite Iran. (Photo: AP)
(CBS) Tom Fenton, in his fourth decade with CBS News, has been
the network's Senior European Correspondent since 1979. He
comments on international events from his "Listening Post" in
London, and other parts of the world as well.
Another crisis over weapons of mass destruction is brewing in the
Greater Middle East, and this time there seems to be little the
United States can do about it.
In defiance of the United States, the United Nations and the
European governments that think they can sweet talk it into
compliance, Iran has decided to resume its program for producing
highly enriched uranium - a precursor to producing an atomic
bomb. It is manufacturing parts for its high-speed centrifuges,
and preparing uranium feedstock for them, in spite of having
promised to stop.
It is also about to start building a heavy water reactor that
would be too small for producing useful amounts of electricity
but very useful for producing plutonium - the other route to
making an atomic bomb.
In addition, Iran is suspected of hiding sites where other
nuclear work is being done. As we now know, it has been deceiving
the International Atomic Energy Agency for almost two decades.
Iran still insists its intentions are peaceful and that its
nuclear program is for making electricity, but no one really
believes that. The problem is that no one is prepared to do much
about it.
The United States and the countries of the European Union
produced a joint statement at their June 26th summit in Ireland,
which "expressed united determination to see the proliferation
implications of Iran's nuclear program resolved." President Bush
and his European partners said they were "disturbed" by Iran's
decision. There was no mention of any action, and there is not
likely to be any.
The last thing President Bush needs four months from an election
is another full-blown crisis in the Greater Middle East. And this
one would be right next door to Iraq.
Why Iran has chosen this moment to cause trouble is not clear,
but there are several possible motives.
The Bush Administration's decision to topple Saddam Hussein
opened the door to improved relations with America's old enemy,
Iran. Iran was delighted to see its other old enemy, Iraq,
rendered harmless. It not only gave America its acquiescence to
the war next door. It also reportedly agreed to help in other
ways, such as ignoring minor incursions or over-flights by
coalition forces and offering to help recover pilots that might
be shot down.
Iran assumed that the United States would leave a new Iraqi
government in the hands of the country's Shiite majority, which
would become a natural ally of Shiite Iran. Iran would then end
up as the major player in the Persian Gulf.
It has not worked out that way. It now seems that members of
Saddam's old Baathist party will play leading roles in Baghdad.
The unspoken deal with America (if that's what it was) has
collapsed, and Iran is angry. Angry enough, perhaps, to flaunt
its nuclear ambitions before the world. That's one explanation
for Iran's risky behavior.
Another is that Iran has been watching the way America has been
dealing with North Korea - the other member of the triple "Axis
of Evil," and a country that not only has an illicit nuclear
weapons program but probably already has a few bombs. America's
policy with North Korea is to try to placate it while making
occasional threats.
We all know how well that has worked. The talks in Beijing
between the United States and four other nations with North Korea
have just been suspended without results. North Korea denies
having a nuclear weapons program, but at the same time has been
using it as a threat to win concessions from the United States.
North Korea's secret nukes are, as former President Clinton once
said in private, "the only cash crop they have."
What North Korea's dictator wants from America are aid and a
guarantee that he will not be toppled.
What Iran wants is more influence in Iraq. And in the long run,
it probably wants nuclear weapons as its own guarantee of
survival in a part of the world where nearby neighbors - Pakistan
and India - already have them.
Complicating these crises are the apparent weaknesses of American
intelligence.
Washington is playing a high stakes game with Iran. In order to
play safe, it needs a clear picture of Iran's nuclear
capabilities and a correct assessment of its intentions. The
President needs intelligence estimates he can rely on.
The CIA seems to have been wrong about Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction. The President must hope it has better information on
Iran.
By Tom Fenton ©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
[http://www.cbsnews.com]
*****************************************************************
9 Mos News: Russia Ships Tons of Food to N. Korea -
NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM
Created: 28.06.2004 15:26 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 16:06 MSK
MosNews
A Russian freight ship, carrying 35 tons of food, sailed to
famine-hit North Korea on Monday, Reuters quoted a top Russian
foreign ministry official as saying.
“Fairly substantial aid will be sent to North Korea — almost 35
tons of wheat,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Yury Fedotov
said.
“This should ease the tension linked to the difficult food
situation in the country.”
North Korea has suffered from chronic shortages of energy and raw
materials, outdated industrial structures, and low productivity
due to natural disasters and economic mismanagement.
That has led to severe famine.
Russia is part of the six-country talks on North Korea’s nuclear
issue, which closed on Saturday with only limited results,
Reuters reported. Russia, with Soviet-era ties to North Korea,
has tried to play the role of neutral negotiator in the crisis.
However, its role has been overshadowed by that of China, the
reclusive Stalinist state’s major trade partner.
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
10 AU ABC: N Korea rejects 'unrealistic' US offer.
28/06/2004. ABC News Online
[http://www.abc.net.au/]
North Korea has rejected a new US proposal aimed at defusing a
20-month stand-off over its nuclear weapons program but welcomed
a shift in Washington's hardline negotiating stance.
Pyongyang said the US plan to give North Korea three months to
shut down and seal its nuclear weapons facilities in return for
major economic and diplomatic rewards was unworkable, branding
it "unrealistic".
North Korea's Foreign Ministry spokesman said in an
English-language statement that the US plan "could not be
supported by anyone as it totally lacked scientific and
realistic nature".
Instead it said the US should come up with immediate rewards
for a nuclear freeze and drop its "unreasonable assertion" that
Pyongyang is running a clandestine nuclear program based on
enriched uranium.
"A scrutiny of the US proposal suggests that, to out regret it
only mentioned phased demands for disarming the DPRK (North
Korea)," the spokesman said in the statement carried by the
official Korean Central News Agency monitored here.
North Korea has offered to freeze its nuclear weapons drive in
return for an end to US sanctions and energy assistance.
In return for concessions, Pyongyang was prepared to "freeze
all the facilities related to nuclear weapons" that would entail
a ban on producing, transferring and testing nuclear weapons and
would lead to the ultimate dismantlement of the nuclear weapons
program, the statement said.
Prior to last week's Beijing talks, the United States had
insisted that North Korea had to scrap its nuclear ambitions
first before it would receive concessions.
At the Beijing talks, however, Washington called for a
step-by-step dismantling of North Korea's plutonium and uranium
weapons programs in return for aid and security guarantees and
easing of its political and economic isolation.
North Korea welcomed Washington's retreat from its earlier
demand for the unconditional scrapping of the North's nuclear
weapons as a first step towards resolving the stand-off.
"Some common elements helpful to making progress were found
there," the spokesman said in the dispatch.
It also applauded Washington's decision to drop the term
"CVID", referring to the US goal of complete, verifiable and
irreversible dismantling of its nuclear facilities.
Washington has used the term as a mantra at previous rounds,
much to the irritation of North Korean delegates, according to
media reports here.
The statement was North Korea's first official reaction to last
week's six-nation talks that ended without concrete progress.
-- AFP
[http://www.abc.net.au]
© 2004 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
*****************************************************************
11 asahi.com: Substantial 6-way talks
[asahi.com]
Opinion,Editorial
Prompt action is needed to build on progress reached.
Six-nation talks on North Korea's nuclear program, which started
last summer, are finally starting to show progress. At the third
round held in Beijing last week, the six countries restated
their goal of a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula and agreed to take
``first steps'' toward that by working out a plan for a
verifiable freeze of North Korea's nuclear development and a
package of aid to be given to Pyongyang in return.
The negotiations were mired in deadlock in the two previous
rounds. While the United States, Japan and South Korea
reiterated their position that the North should first carry out
a ``complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement'' of its
nuclear program, Pyongyang demanded an end to Washington's
``hostile'' posture toward the regime and compensation for the
freeze. Although the task of hashing out the specifics of the
first steps has been left to working-level talks in July and
August, it is nevertheless welcome news that the third round has
pushed the negotiations forward, if only by a small step.
The main reason for this is that the United States has dropped
its hard-line attitude toward Pyongyang. This time, Washington
made its first specific proposals at the outset of the four-day
talks, saying it would approve heavy oil shipments by Japan,
South Korea, China and Russia and provisionally guarantee the
safety of the Pyongyang regime if North Korea froze its nuclear
programs with a promise of eventual dismantlement. As a reward
for complete dismantlement, Washington offered to remove North
Korea from its list of terrorism-supporting nations and lift
economic sanctions as a prelude to normalizing diplomatic
relations.
Despite its pledge to act in close coordination with Japan and
South Korea in dealing with North Korea, the United States, by
far the most influential participant, did not put any concrete
proposals on the table during previous rounds. Washington's
previous unwillingness to propose a workable solution was the
main reason for the continuing stalemate.
The Bush administration has finally started responding to
growing criticism at home about its handling of North Korea.
John Kerry, the Democratic Party's candidate to challenge Bush
for the presidency, has been stressing the need for dialogue
with Pyongyang. The Bush administration apparently decided to
try and deal with the Pyongyang regime out of a desire to reduce
the number of potential political liabilities that could
negatively affect the election results in November.
North Korea, for its part, made clear that under its proposed
freeze it will not manufacture, transfer or test nuclear
weapons.
All these encouraging signs of advance notwithstanding, there
are a slew of formidable hurdles ahead.
Many crucial issues remain to be sorted out, including the
number of facilities and substances to be covered by the freeze,
actual procedures for on-site inspections and duration of the
entire process. There are wide differences between the two sides
over these and other key questions.
North Korea has yet to admit the existence of a uranium
enrichment program, which triggered the surge in tensions in the
first place. The United States has not discarded its principle
that Pyongyang should shelve all its nuclear development plans,
including those for peaceful purposes. It has also set a
deadline for North Korea to start scrapping its nuclear
programs-three months from start of the freeze-which is
apparently too short.
Untangling this intractable situation, bitterly complicated by
deep mutual distrust between Washington and Pyongyang, demands
prompt but tenacious efforts by all the parties concerned.
Japan can play an important role in tackling this problem. It
can use a promise of future economic aid as a powerful
bargaining chip. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's two past
meetings with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il could also help in
some ways.
During his latest meeting with Koizumi, Bush expressed his
distrust of Kim's regime. The situation will never improve and
the threat of North Korea's nuclear programs will only grow
unless the United States switches to a more positive stance in
dealing with this diplomatic challenge. Tokyo is in a position
to encourage Washington to make more positive moves.
We hope that the small advance made in the latest six-party
talks will lead to big strides in efforts to solve the
long-standing dispute between Japan and North Korea over
Pyongyang's past abductions of Japanese nationals.
--The Asahi Shimbun, June 27(IHT/Asahi: June 28,2004) (06/28)
*****************************************************************
12 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: White House secrets
LAS VEGAS SUN
Last week the U.S. Supreme Court handed the Bush administration
a victory, refusing to order Vice President Dick Cheney to
reveal secret records from an energy task force that he headed.
The Supreme Court did send the case back to a lower court so
that it could be reconsidered, but the reality is that it will
take years to resolve the matter -- well after November's
presidential election. That means no embarrassing revelations
could come out about the sway that corporate executives had
regarding the White House's energy policy, a reason why
administration officials were ecstatic about the decision.
The public, of course, is the loser. We should know by now just
how much influence that utility, oil and gas executives had in
developing the White House's energy policy. We in Nevada are
particularly interested in the meetings that nuclear power
executives had with Cheney's group before President Bush
submitted his plan to Congress to bury 77,000 tons of high-level
nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. But, fortunately for the White
House, it had enough support on the Supreme Court to continue
its stonewalling ways.
*****************************************************************
13 Infoshop News: Western Shoshone 'Payoff' Bill - A 'Legal' Disgrace !
[http://www.infoshop.org/Welcome.html]
Congress Passes Bill to Force Payment on Western Shoshone Land
Struggle -- A Sad Day for the Rule of Law in the United States,
but the Fight’s not Over Say the Western Shoshone.
Crescent Valley, Nevada, U.S.A. As of Friday morning, the Western
Shoshone Distribution Bill has passed both houses of Congress and
is on its way to the Bush Administration for signature. The bill
would authorize an alleged payoff of approximately 15 cents an
acres for tens of millions of acres of disputed lands in Nevada,
Idaho, Utah and California. A majority of tribal councils,
representing approximately 80% of the population, the Western
Shoshone National Council and all the traditional people strongly
oppose the bill, they are supported by the National Congress of
American Indians and Amnesty International. This formal
opposition was apparently ignored however and an undocumented,
unverified straw poll was used instead by the Bush Administration
and Nevada legislators to justify the legislation.
White House staffer Jennifer Farley, Deputy Associate Director of
the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, informed one
Shoshone Tribal Chairman that the bill was “red hot”. The
significance of the issue to the White House is apparent: Copies
of Assistant Secretary of Interior Stephen J. Griles’ calendars
reflect meetings with Interior Department legal staff, including
Bush’s Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals nominee, William Myers,
regarding “Western Shoshone Trespass (Dann Sisters)” just six
months before the Department of Interior started military-style
seizures of livestock owned by Western Shoshone traditionalists,
including grandmothers Mary and Carrie Dann.
The land base at issue is the third largest gold producing area
in the world and cited by a 1999 Interior report as the number
one investment opportunity for extraction companies. It is also
the site where the nation’s nuclear waste repository would be
located, Yucca Mountain, and the home to the Nevada Test Site and
Federal Counterterrorism Facility where the Bush Administration
has talked of reopening nuclear testing. Both Bush and his
political advisor Karl Rove, have made personal visits to Nevada
in the last thirty days.
“I am utterly disappointed. It’s unbelievable that the U.S. body
that makes the laws has acted in this manner. The fight is not
over. A fraud is a fraud - Individuals cannot sell out a nation
and the bill, although a threat politically, does nothing to
change our inherent rights or our Treaty rights. Congress was
informed of all the facts that touch upon this issue. We will use
the Treaty of Ruby Valley to stop Yucca Mountain and to protect
our lands. Our title is still intact.” Stated Raymond Yowell,
Western Shoshone National Council.
“The self-described, private group who pushed for this money are
not members of any federally-recognized council and have no
authority to speak on behalf of our Tribe or the Western Shoshone
Nation. The Nevada legislators and the Bush Administration have
been well-advised of this fact. The way this legislation was
handled makes an absolute sham of the stated government to
government relationship and responsibility of the U.S.
government.” Stated Hugh Stevens, Chairman of the Te-Moak Tribe
of the Western Shoshone Nation. “Senator Reid has made numerous
public commitments regarding resolving land issues for our
communities. We will be looking for him to stand by that
commitment in an expeditious fashion. We demand that our land
issues be resolved in good faith in the same “hot line” fashion
as the distribution.” He added.
Mary Gibson, Western Shoshone states: “It’s not over, we still
exist and we still have our rights to our land. It makes me sad
and angry that myths continue to cloud the Truth in this country.
This struggle isn’t a Shoshone v. Shoshone battle, the underlying
issue here is the U.S. responsibility and accountability for a
Treaty with the Western Shoshone Nation. As long as the people in
the U.S. allow this to happen it will continue to happen.”
For additional info, contact the Western Shoshone Defense Project
at (1) 775-468-0230.
Western Shoshone Defense Project P.O. Box 211308 Crescent
Valley, NV 89821 United States of America (1)(775) 468-0230 Fax:
(1)(775) 468-0237 http://www.wsdp.org
For Background Information, please also see the Western Shoshone
'Payoff' Bill articles in our Economics Section.
*****************************************************************
14 UK: Butler widens his inquiry to include spin campaign
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:07:01 -0500 (CDT)
28 June 2004
The Independent (UK)
Butler widens his inquiry to include spin campaign of Number Ten
By
Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
Lord Butler has shocked Downing Street by reopening the investigation into
whether Tony Blair deliberately misled Britain over the claim that Saddam
Hussein could use weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes.
The Hutton inquiry had exonerated Mr Blair and Alastair Campbell, his former
director of communications, of the damaging charges. The inquiry, widely
condemned as a whitewash, also cleared the Prime Minister, senior cabinet
ministers and Mr Campbell of the claim that they "sexed up" the dossier of
September 2002.
The Butler inquiry was expected to produce another cover-up, limiting its
investigation into the flawed intelligence which led Mr Blair to claim that
Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But The Independent has learnt that
the Butler inquiry is now delving into highly damaging allegations of a
"spinning operation" by Number 10 to regional newspapers on the day the
report on the 45-minute claim was published.
The former cabinet secretary has written to the editors of provincial
newspapers asking whether Downing Street officials were responsible for
briefing about Saddam's ability to use weapons of mass destruction against
British targets, such as Cyprus, in 45 minutes.
Lord Butler's letter states: "One of the issues the review committee is
exploring is the use of the intelligence in the dossier on Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction published on 24 September 2002. One aspect of this is any
action taken by the Government to guide the media towards reporting
particular aspects of the dossier.
"In that context, it would be very helpful to the committee to know whether
you or your reporters were briefed by representatives of the Government
about the dossier in the period immediately prior to its publication and
whether, post-publication, you were guided to report particular aspects,
such as the statement that some chemical and biological weapons were
deployable by Iraq within 45 minutes of an order to use them."
Clare Short, a leading critic of Mr Blair after she resigned from the
Cabinet in protest at the war, said she had urged Lord Butler, in evidence
in private to his committee, to investigate the spinning. She said: "It
looks as though Butler is doing a serious job and this is very important, to
get to the truth on Iraq but also because I believe British constitutional
structures are crumbling.
"They asked to see lots of people informally at the beginning. I agreed to
do so. I am very pleased this is what is going on. We will see what the
final outcome is, but it looks as though, when people said Butler would be a
gnat, it might not be.
"It might put its finger on some very important questions. We thought Hutton
would look at these allegations, not just on [Dr David] Kelly but the way
all the decisions were made."
Journalists from regional newspapers are said to have told Lord Butler's
committee that they received the dossier with the 45-minute claim
highlighted in yellow pen by Number 10.
Michael Howard, Leader of the Opposition, refused to co-operate with the
Butler inquiry, and Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, protested
that its remit was too narrow when it was set up in February. But a Howard
aide said the widening of the inquiry to cover the handling of the 45-minute
claim was a "huge banana skin" for the Government.
He referred to the "yellow pen" highlighting. "That didn't come out in the
Hutton inquiry," the aide said. "It is very significant because it was never
really established by the Hutton inquiry why it was given such prominence by
the newspapers. It has never been adequately explained.
"It brings Campbell and the Prime Minister back into the frame, and it
raises questions about the Joint Intelligence Committee claim that it had
ownership of the dossier. This reopens the whole question of how Downing
Street took ownership by the way it was spun to the media."
The Observer reported yesterday that Lord Butler has written to Mohamed
ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
investigating the claim that Saddam tried to get uranium from Niger, a
charge discredited because documents were forged.
The committee is expected to report by the end of July.
-----------
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=535768
-----------
*****************************************************************
15 BBC: Analysis: Rivals make progress
Last Updated: Monday, 28 June, 2004
By Soutik Biswas BBC News Online correspondent in Delhi
[Ceremonial Indian and Pakistani soldiers at the Wagah border,
near Lahore]
The talks are part of a slow march to peace, analysts believe
A little over a year after former Indian prime minister Atal
Behari Vajpayee offered the "hand of friendship" to Pakistan and
set the ball rolling towards peace, the two neighbours have made
good progress.
Recent talks in Delhi between the foreign secretaries - the first
substantive discussions on disputed Kashmir in six years - are a
step towards further normalising relations.
Analysts say the meeting lived up to reasonable and realistic
expectations.
For one, the talks showed that the recent change of government in
India has not adversely impacted on the momentum of the peace
initiatives.
Confidence building
The foreign secretaries consolidated on the gains made in the
past few weeks by experts from both countries.
C Rajamohan, foreign policy analyst and a professor of South
Asian studies at Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University, says the
latest talks contained "some useful steps towards the
normalisation of relations".
"There have been confidence building measures between the two
countries in diplomatic relations, nuclear and humanitarian
matters. This is good progress," he told BBC News Online.
There
is a resolve to come grips with the Kashmir problem Former
Pakistani foreign secretary Tanvir Ahmed Khan
Once confidence has been built, the talks will have to deal with
substantive issues at the heart of the dispute.
On Kashmir, movement way well depend on what future both nations
see for the Line of Control, the de-facto border.
The Indian government defends the 1972 Simla agreement, under
which the LoC was established. But Pakistan says that the LoC
could not be made into a permanent border between the two
countries.
A joint statement issued after the latest talks said the two
sides had "reiterated... their determination to implement the
Simla agreement in letter and spirit".
Analysts say that the two countries need to further clarify their
position on the Simla agreement, as they have different views on
what it implies.
But there is little doubt that both sides want to move ahead on
resolving the most prickly issue bedevilling their relationship.
"There is a resolve to come to grips with the Kashmir problem,
and sustain it in the months ahead," former Pakistani foreign
secretary Tanvir Ahmed Khan told BBC News Online.
"The idea of representation of Kashmiri people in the [peace]
process through indirect consultations now and direct
consultations in the future augurs well for both countries."
Trust
The latest talks, which began a day before suspected Islamic
militants killed at least 10 people in a village in
Indian-administered Kashmir, also point to a maturing of the
relationship between Delhi and Islamabad.
KEY ISSUES
Kashmir Confidence-buildin Terrorism and drugs Trade and
economic co-operation Disputed Himalayan glacier of
Siachen Easing travel restrictions Indian plans to dam
Wullur lake in Kashmir Disputed border region of Sir Creek
marshes, near Gujarat
"The fact that the incident was not raised in the talks proved
that the extremists are not being able to derail the
India-Pakistan peace process," Tanvir Ahmed Khan said.
"It showed a certain minimum level of mutual trust and confidence
which was completely lacking between the two countries in the
last few years has been reached."
These are early days and progress is slow - nobody expects any
dramatic breakthrough between the two countries who have fought
two of their three wars since independence in 1947 over Kashmir.
But the "broad regime of confidence building measures" is truly
being firmed up, analysts feel.
There are a series of meetings between the experts of the two
countries on the six key issues, including terrorism and drug
trafficking planned between the third week of July and early
August.
The foreign secretaries will meet again in the third week of
August to review progress.
More importantly, they will prepare for a meeting of the foreign
ministers later in August.
*****************************************************************
16 Charley Reese: The Nuclear Arms Race
For Monday, June 28, 2004
According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Russia today
is estimated to have 7,800 operational nuclear warheads in its
arsenal. I emphasize "estimated" because Russia, like all the
nuclear powers, remains quite secretive about its nuclear
arsenal. Altogether, Russia's nuclear arsenal of intact warheads
is put at 17,000. The difference is classified as being in an
"indeterminate" status.
The point is that the administration of George W. Bush has
restarted the nuclear arms race. It did so by abandoning the
START II treaty, by withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty, and by expanding NATO to the borders of Russia.
If you were a Russian, none of those acts could be considered
friendly. They can be viewed as unfriendly, especially in light
of the president's new doctrine of "pre-emptive wars" that was
not only announced but actually put into practice; his decision
to deploy a virtually untested anti-ballistic missile system; and
his decision to pursue the development of new types of nuclear
weapons.
All of this makes up potentially the most catastrophic of Bush's
blunders, but for some reason, it can't compete in the news media
with the Laci Peterson trial or Kobe Bryant or the latest poll
numbers on the presidential horse race.
The threat of nuclear war still exists. It could happen by
accident or by a series of stupid blunders, such as those that
caused World War I. Someone observed long ago that science would
produce weapons of complexity that would far exceed the capacity
of the simpletons who ended up in positions of political power to
control them. History is a record of human stupidity writ in
blood. I have often said that history is a lot scarier than
Stephen King's horror stories. I get scared every time I hear
Bush talk — or try to talk.
If the Boy Emperor wishes to exercise his ego by attacking
practically defenseless Third World countries, that's one thing.
To put the matter in brutally frank terms, the overwhelming
majority of Americans have no loved ones in the U.S. military.
The more than 800 Americans killed so far is less than the murder
rate in some of our more badly governed cities. Since Mr. Bush is
fighting his imperial war on credit, the general public is not
even asked to sacrifice so much as a minor convenience.
Nuclear war, however, is another matter entirely. Such a
catastrophe puts at risk the lives of all Americans, not to
mention the rest of the world. Nothing any American president can
do is more important than pursuing nuclear disarmament.
The collapse of the Soviet Union presented us with an almost
miraculous opportunity to build a peaceful world, and Mr. Bush
and the Clinton administration have blown it. We should have
disbanded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, just as the
Russians disbanded the Warsaw Pact. We should have welcomed the
Russians into the West like a long-lost brother. Instead,
American politicians exploited Russia's temporary weakness and
scorned it.
NATO is an organization without a legitimate purpose. It was
created to beat back a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. There
is no Soviet Union. There is no one even tempted to invade
Western Europe. Yet the United States has not only kept NATO
alive, but expanded it and misused it in a way that any sensible
Russian leader must view with suspicion. It's no wonder the
Russians have started to rebuild their strategic nuclear forces.
The major threat to Americans lives is not terrorism, but stupid
leaders who don't have the sense to recognize that the equivalent
of mental children should not be allowed to play with nuclear
weapons.
Since the politicians refuse to do it, the American people will
have to put nuclear disarmament back on the agenda. Your life and
the lives of your children and grandchildren might depend on it.
© 2004 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.
*****************************************************************
17 Hi Pakistan: Rice reaffirms link between Iraq and al-Qaeda
June 28 2004
WASHINGTON: US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on
Sunday vigorously defended administration claims of a link
between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network, but said it fell
short of "operational control."
Disputing allegations by leading Democrats that the White House
had misled the US public to justify the invasion of Iraq, Rice
said Iraqi security services had maintained contacts with
al-Qaeda going back a decade.
"It’s simply not true that there was no contact, that there were
no relationships between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein," she said
in an interview with Fox News Sunday from Ankara en route to a
NATO summit with President George W. Bush.
"I would say, yeah, it wasn’t operational control. But there was
some facilitation of what al-Qaeda was trying to accomplish,"
Rice said.
She contradicted a national commission investigating the
September 11, 2001 terror attacks that said earlier this month it
found no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between
Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaeda.
"It is not anyone’s contention that somehow Saddam Hussein
directed 9/11," Rice said. But she added that Baghdad "provided
expertise in bomb making, in document forgery" to Osama bin
Laden’s group.
Rice said Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, a reputed al-Qaeda operative and
mastermind of a series of anti-US attacks in Iraq, was "known to
be from time to time in Baghdad, his network operated out of
Baghdad."
Bush’s top national security aide said that Saddam was also
involved with "a wide range of terrorists," including Palestinian
suicide bombers whose families received 25,000 dollars from Iraq
for each attack.
"Saddam Hussein’s regime was a sponsor of terrorism. It’s been
noted in State Department reports for years and years and years,"
she said. "It’s been noted in UN Security Council resolutions."
Rice also defended the administration’s contention it was
necessary to invade Iraq to rid it of suspected weapons of mass
destruction, even though evidence of nuclear, biological or
chemical arms has never been found.
"His regime used weapons of mass destruction (in the past),
continued to seek to make weapons of mass destruction, had the
capability, the intent, the knowledge and the know-how to do it,"
she said.
"That says nothing of the horrors he committed against his own
people. We overthrew one of the worst tyrants of the 20th century
who was well into those activities in the 21st century."
Copyright 1996-2002 . Hi Pakistan. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
18 Greenpeace: Nukes out of NATO
Mon 28 June 2004
TURKEY/Istanbul
The NATO summit and its attendant world leaders rolled into
Istanbul this week. While the rhetoric is of peace, the North
Atlantic Treaty Organisation's (NATO) version includes a constant
nuclear threat. We are highlighting the military alliance's
hypocrisy in trying to 'make peace' using the threat of nuclear
weapons.
To send the message home Greenpeace Mediterranean activists hung
a massive banner from the Bosphorous Bridge for all the delegates
to see.
"NATO is the world's largest military nuclear alliance. It is
about 'keeping the peace' through a threat - the threat of using
nuclear weapons- and threats are the least likely way to achieve
peace and stability in the world," said Nicky Davies from
Greenpeace. The expansion of NATO to 26 member nations reaffirms
the importance of NATO countries starting the process of nuclear
disarmament.
We have consistently campaigned for a world free of nuclear
weapons. The US, Britain and France possess over 10,000 nuclear
weapons. There are also over 150 nuclear bombs placed in six NATO
member states, including Turkey, provided by the US and assigned
for use by NATO. Use our 'zoom on doom' map
[http://archive.greenpeace.org/wmd/] to discover which countries
have nuclear weapons.
Yet, some countries have been able to say no to NATO coercion:
Denmark, Norway and Spain have made a conscious decision to not
allow the deployment of NATO nuclear weapons on their
territories, and Greece has successfully requested the removal of
the nuclear arms in its territory.
In 1971, 184 countries made a commitment to achieve complete
nuclear disarmament under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
More than thirty years later, nuclear disarmament still has not
been achieved. To the contrary, the US Administration now
justifies the use of nuclear weapons first, even in conventional
conflict, rather than only when threatened with a nuclear strike,
the world is more at risk from nuclear conflict than at any time
since the Cold War.
As NATO nuclear policy traditionally mirrors that of the US,
leaders of NATO member countries, meeting for the first time this
morning, must send a clear message to the US Administration that
this time NATO will not follow in its footsteps.
"If the leaders of the world's most powerful nations feel they
have come to Istanbul to promote peace here on the bridge between
Europe and Asia in the way the vast majority of Europeans demand,
they will do so by saying no to Bush's nuclear doctrine, no to
NATO nuclear weapons altogether, and no to the concept that
deadly nuclear arms can in any way promote peace," said Ozgur
Gurbuz from Greenpeace Mediterranean.
Despite unprecedented security measures, Greenpeace activists
unfurled a banner off the Bosphorous Bridge to protest against
NATO's irrational nuclear policy.
[Despite unprecedented security measures, Greenpeace
activists unfurled a banner off the Bosphorous Bridge to protest
against NATO's irrational nuclear policy.]
Despite unprecedented security measures, Greenpeace activists
unfurled a banner off the Bosphorous Bridge to protest against
NATO's irrational nuclear policy.
[http://archive.greenpeace.org/feeds/]
*****************************************************************
19 [progchat_action] Nuclear Power Can't Stop Climate Change
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:02:10 -0500 (CDT)
(Supporters of nuclear power such as General Electric, Vice Preseident
Cheney and, especially, Gaia theorist James Lovelock have recently
touted nuclear power as a "cure" for global warning, a new report
from IAEA deflates that hot air balloon)
Nuclear power 'can't stop climate change'
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
27 June 2004
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=535576
Nuclear power cannot solve global warming, the international body
set up to promote atomic energy admits today.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which exists to
spread the peaceful use of the atom, reveals in a new report that
it could not grow fast enough over the next decades to slow climate
change - even under the most favourable circumstances.
The report - published to celebrate yesterday's 50th anniversary
of nuclear power - contradicts a recent surge of support for the
atom as the answer to global warming.
That surge was provoked by an article in The Independent last month
by Professor James Lovelock - the creator of the Gaia theory - who
said that only a massive expansion of nuclear power as the world's
main energy source could prevent climate change overwhelming the
globe.
Professor Lovelock, a long-time nuclear supporter, wrote: "Civilisation
is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear - the one safe,
available, energy source - now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted
by our outraged planet."
His comments were backed by Sir Bernard Ingham, Lady Thatcher's
former PR chief, and other commentators, but have now been rebutted
by the most authoritative organisation on the matter.
Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power emits no carbon dioxide, the
main cause of climate change. However, it has long been in decline
in the face of rising public opposition and increasing reluctance
of governments and utilities to finance its enormous construction
costs.
No new atomic power station has been ordered in the US for a quarter
of a century, and only one is being built in Western Europe - in
Finland.
Meanwhile, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden have all
pledged to phase out existing plants.
The IAEA report considers two scenarios. In the first, nuclear
energy continues to decline, with no new stations built beyond those
already planned.
Its share of world electricity - and thus its relative contribution
to fighting global warming - drops from its current 16 per cent to
12 per cent by 2030.
Surprisingly, it made an even smaller relative contribution to
combating climate change under the IAEA's most favourable scenario,
seeing nuclear power grow by 70 per cent over the next 25 years.
This is because the world would have to be so prosperous to afford
the expansions that traditional ways of generating electricity from
fossil fuels would have grown even faster. Climate change would
doom the planet before nuclear power could save it.
Alan McDonald, an IAEA nuclear energy analyst, told The Independent
on Sunday last night: "Saying that nuclear power can solve global
warming by itself is way over the top." But he added that closing
existing nuclear power stations would make tackling climate change
harder.
*****************************************************************
20 IPS-English RENEWABLES: Asia Going Rapidly More Nuclear
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:46:43 -0700
ROMAIPS EU AP WD EN=20
RENEWABLES: Asia Going Rapidly More Nuclear
By Sanjay Suri
LONDON, Jun 26 (IPS) =FB Asia is going rapidly more nuclear to meet its=20
energy needs, a new report by the International Atomic Energy Agency says=
=2E
Twenty-two of the last 31 nuclear power plants (NPPs) connected to the=20
world's energy grid have been built in Asia, the report says. The nuclear=
=20
option has been =94driven by the pressures of economic growth, natural=20
resource scarcity and increasing populations.=94
Of the 27 new NPPs under construction, 18 are in Asia, while construction=
=20
has virtually halted in Western European and North American countries=20
with long-standing nuclear power programmes, says the International=20
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).=20
The IAEA reports that although four Western European countries have=20
decided to shut down their nuclear energy plants, =94the future of nuclea=
r=20
energy in Europe and North America is still far from clear during a=20
period when energy needs and concerns over global warming are both=20
rising.=94
Only one new NPP is beginning construction in Western Europe, in Finland.=
=20
No new NPPs are planned in North America, =94although that could change=20
very soon,=94 the IAEA says.=20
The IAEA is making a renewed case for use of nuclear energy. The Greens=20
can hardly be expected to support this, but the IAEA is holding up=20
nuclear power as a clean and renewable route to energy.
Greens apart the IAEA believes many people support the idea. =94There is =
a=20
lot of assumption of public opposition to nuclear power which may not be=20
there,=94 leading nuclear expert with the IAEA Alan McDonald told IPS in =
an=20
interview in London Saturday.
As a part of its campaign to promote polling there is a need to do some=20
polling, McDonald said. =94In one poll we found most people saying they=20
favoured the idea but thought their neighbours did not,=94 he said.=20
In Britain some MPs talked of opposition to nuclear energy within their=20
constituencies that was not really there. In one poll in the EU 45=20
percent thought nuclear energy contributes to global warming, =94but only=
=20
37 percent got it right that it does not,=94 McDonald said.
The IAEA strongly supports the nuclear way to energy that Asia is taking=20
up now. =94The more we look to the future, the more we can expect countri=
es=20
to be considering the potential benefits that expanding nuclear power has=
=20
to offer for the global environment and for economic growth,=94 IAEA=20
director-general Mohamed ElBaradei said in a statement.
The statement was issued ahead of a gathering of 500 nuclear power=20
experts assembled in Moscow June 27-July 2 for the 'International=20
Conference on Fifty Years of Nuclear Power - the Next Fifty Years'.=20
The conference will examine the status and future of nuclear power 50=20
years after the first nuclear energy producing plant went into production=
=20
at a plant near Moscow on June 26, 1954.
The IAEA is not knocking other energy sources, McDonald said. =94There ca=
n=20
be no one-size-fits-all in energy policy. =94In Japan and Korea where the=
re=20
are few alternatives nuclear energy makes sense. In Austria where we are=20
(the IAEA is based in Vienna) two-thirds of our energy comes from=20
hydropower projects, so renewable energy is a big contributor.=94
New renewables such as wind or solar are usually more expensive, McDonald=
=20
said. Energy from the nuclear plant being built in Finland will cost 3=20
cents a kilowatt/hour whereas feasibility studies for wind power had=20
priced the cost at twice as much.=20
On the other hand =94the Danish and German governments are subsidising=20
renewables like wind and solar energy. But different strokes for=20
different folks.=94
McDonald acknowledged that the two big fears around nuclear power are=20
issues of safety, and what to do with nuclear waste. Chernobyl was a very=
=20
serious accident, he said, but it arose from a particular fault in design=
=20
in one kind of reactor.=20
The few reactors of that design have all been fixed and the safety record=
=20
is very good with other reactors, he said. The Chernobyl disaster has led=
=20
also to the setting up of a safety advisory group on best practices.
Regarding fears that nuclear material could be diverted to make weapons,=20
McDonald said =94power plants are not good for nuclear weapons.=94 The da=
nger=20
is at the enrichment stage before material is used in power generation,=20
and again at the reprocessing end.=20
The IAEA has set in motion =94a new initiative to look at multilateral=20
control of key points of the fuel cycle,=94 McDonald said.
Progress is being made also in disposal of nuclear waste. At present most=
=20
nuclear plants store it right at the plant, but some countries such as=20
Sweden and Finland are preparing to deposit waste in deep geological=20
depositories. But most plants have not decided yet what they finally will=
=20
do with the waste, he said.
According to one 'low' IAEA projection, all present nuclear plants will=20
retire on schedule and no new ones are built. By this projection the=20
nuclear share of world electricity will drop from the present 16 percent=20
to 12 percent in 2030.
On its 'high' projection nuclear power would generate 70 percent more=20
electricity in 2030 than in 2002, but total electricity produced from all=
=20
sources would grow much more.
There are 442 nuclear power plants operating at present in 32 countries.=20
The United States has the most, with 104. Lituania gets 80 percent of its=
=20
electricity from nuclear power, followed by France with 78 percent. Only=20
39 of the 442 plants are in developing countries.
*****
+IAEA (http://www.iaea.or.at)
(END/IPS/EU/AP/WD/EN/SS/RAJ/04)
=20
=3D 06261118 ORP002
NNNN
*****************************************************************
21 [NukeNet] Entergy to examine more sites for new nukes
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:03:31 -0700
>From: CAN
SORRY FOR CROSS POSTING
Mississippi nuke leads to Plymouth (Massachusetts)
By Gregg Gethard
MPG Newspapers
PLYMOUTH (June 26) - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has required a
subsidiary of Entergy to investigate Plymouth as the potential site of a
second nuclear power plant. The company wants to construct a new nuclear
power plant in Mississippi, not Plymouth.
Entergy owns the Pilgrim nuclear power plant in Plymouth.
As part of its application to build in Grand Gulf, Miss., Entergy
subsidiary System Energy Resources must also investigate other potential
sites to build. In its application it has listed River Bend in Louisiana,
Fitzpatrick in upstate New York and Plymouth as potential alternate sites.
A spokesman for the NRC said the agency requires companies wishing to build
nuclear reactors must look at alternative sites during the early stages of
the building process.
"They need to take a look at other locations to see what is the most
convenient one from an environmental point of view," said an NRC spokesman.
"There are no plans to do that," said Entergy spokesman Carl Crawford about
whether the company was looking at building another reactor at Pilgrim Station.
Crawford then referred all questions to spokesmen located at Pilgrim
Station, who did not return phone calls.
As part of the application review, an NRC staff scientist plans to come
Plymouth July 7 to collect socioeconomic information on the area.
"My role is to assist the NRC in preparing the EIS (Environmental Impact
Statement) to help determine whether any of the alternative sites is
environmentally preferable (and, ultimately, whether any of the alternative
sites is obviously superior) to Grand Gulf as the host for a new nuclear
reactor," wrote Michael Scott to the Plymouth Area Chamber of Commerce on
June 23.
Scott's phone message said he would be unavailable until next week.
The chamber's executive committee voted Friday to facilitate the
information collection process.
"The chamber has been invited to facilitate a meeting," chamber president
Bob Dawson said. "On relatively short notice, the chamber agreed to help,
if possible. We do not take a stand on whether a plant should be built here
or in Mississippi or anywhere."
The July 7 meeting will be with "area community leaders" knowledgeable
about the local economy and population. Conversation will revolve around
issues pertaining to the effects a new plant would have on housing, other
employers and regional economic development.
In Scott's letter, he said discussion would focus on the effects of a
hypothetical situation where 3,150 construction workers would build the
plant over the course of five years and 1,160 employees would be needed to
operate the new facility.
"We've been advised it's a perfunctory process," Dawson said. "They're
obligated by federal rules and regulations to go through this."
Two other companies have inquired about building new nuclear facilities.
One proposal calls for an additional reactor to be built at a nuclear power
site in Virginia. The other calls for an additional reactor to be built at
a nuclear site in Illinois.
No new nuclear power plants have been ordered since the Three Mile Island
disaster in 1979. The last nuclear power plant constructed was finished in
1996 and built in Tennessee. On average, it takes at least 20 years to
build a nuclear reactor.
Entergy filed its application to build the potential Mississippi site in
October of 2003. According to the NRC Web site, it will take up to 36
months before a decision on the project will be made.
Last week, the Senate approved $16 billion in loan guarantees that would
call for the construction of six new nuclear power plants. Some
politicians, including Vice President Dick Cheney, have called for the
construction of new power plants as a way to decrease America's dependence
on foreign oil.
Last week, members of the Utility Workers Union of America Local 369, one
of two unions representing employees at Pilgrim Station, voted to strike on
July 13 if they could not settle a contract with Entergy. The main issue of
contention is the company's decision in 2003 to offer voluntary severance
packages to employees as a way to trim payroll. Employees and the company
have also failed to reach an agreement regarding health care payments.
Because of the strike, along with fears of potential terrorist attacks,
local anti-nuclear activists have filed petitions asking the NRC to shut
down the plant.
Entergy reported $950.4 million in profits on $9.2 billion in revenue last
year, according to documents filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. In the first quarter of this year, Entergy's nuclear division
earned $68.8 million, attributed to increases in wattage outputs from its
nuclear plants.
A 40-year license to operate Pilgrim ends in 2012. Earlier this year,
Entergy decided to halt action on a renewal application that would have
extended the lease for another 20 years.
Deb Katz
Citizens Awareness Network
Box 83 Shelburne Falls, MA 01370
413-339-5781
can@nukebusters.org
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
22 NRC: NRC Updates Vermont Public Service Board on Status of Vermont Yankee Uprate Review
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. 04-079 June 28, 2004
MONTPELIER, Vt. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
informed the Vermont Public Service Board Monday it will only
approve the request by the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant to
produce higher levels of electricity if the agency finds that
the plant can operate safely at that level.
During the discussions, agency officials also detailed the
additional safety inspections due at Vermont Yankee in August as
part of a new pilot program to enhance engineering inspections
of the nations operating nuclear reactors.
The expanded engineering inspection will provide additional
confirmation, beyond the routine inspection program, of the
Vermont Yankee plant design as we consider whether or not we
should approve the power uprate, Bill Ruland, the NRC power
uprate manager, told the Board.
Entergy must provide sufficient justification to prove to us
that safety is maintained, Ruland said. They arent there
yet.
Ruland and two other senior NRC officials appeared before the
Board to outline the process to be used in the additional
engineering inspections. They emphasized that the inspection is
focused on safety, but noted that in certain cases, safety
issues can also involve reliability issues. The uprate review is
expected to last through January 2005.
NRC officials also said that Vermonters and others interested in
the uprate issue will have several opportunities to comment
either in writing, or in person at meetings, including at the
conclusion of the inspection.
Also speaking before the Board was Stuart Richards, chief of the
Inspection Program Branch of the NRCs Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation. He said the new inspection program will make its
debut at Vermont Yankee in August, and run at least three weeks.
He said the program will later be used at three additional
reactors. The amount of time devoted to the examination is a
significant increase beyond the current engineering inspection
process.
Brian Holian, the NRC manager responsible for inspection
oversight at the plant, said the independent inspection team
would include at least seven individuals. The teams leader will
come from outside the NRCs Region I office, which oversees
Vermont Yankee. The team will include NRC inspectors who have
not worked at the plant in recent years, and private sector
nuclear engineering experts.
Last revised Monday, June 28, 2004
*****************************************************************
23 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the
FR Doc 04-14559
[Federal Register: June 28, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 123)]
[Notices] [Page 36106] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28jn04-89] [[Page 36106]]
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice
of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of
public comment.
SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the
following proposal for the collection of information under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
1. Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: Extension.
2. The title of the information collection: NRC Forms 366, 366A,
and 366B, ``Licensee Event Report.'' 3. The form number if
applicable: NRC Forms 366, 366A, and 366B.
4. How often the collection is required: On occasion, as defined
reactor events are reportable on occurrence.
5. Who will be required or asked to report: Holders of operating
licenses for commercial nuclear power plants.
6. An estimate of the number of annual responses: 400. 7. The
estimated number of annual respondents: 104. 8. An estimate of
the total number of hours needed annually to complete the
requirement or request: 20,000 (Reporting: 20,000 Hours / 400
responses = 50 hrs per response).
9. An indication of whether Section 3507(d), Public Law 104-13
applies: N/A.
10. Abstract: With NRC Forms 366, 366A, and 366B, the NRC
collects reports of the types of reactor events and problems that
are believed to be significant and useful to the NRC in its
efforts to identify and resolve threats to public safety. They
are designed to provide the information necessary for engineering
studies of operational anomalies and trends and patterns analysis
of operational occurrences. The same information can be used for
other analytic procedures that will aid in identifying accident
precursors.
A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of
charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB
clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site:
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comm
ent/omb/index.html] . The document will be available on the NRC
home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this
notice.
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer
listed below by July 28, 2004. Comments received after this date
will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of
consideration cannot be given to comments received after this
date. OMB Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (3150-0104), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC 20503.
Comments can also be submitted by telephone at (202) 395-3087.
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of June, 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-14559 Filed 6-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
24 APP.COM: Information on the Oyster Creek evacuation plan meeting
ASBURY PARK PRESS
Published in the Asbury Park Press 6/25/04
If you want to comment on, or learn more about, the Oyster Creek
evacuation plan, the state will hold a public hearing on it
Wednesday, July 21, at 7 p.m. at the Ocean County Emergency
Operations Center, Route 530 and Mule Road in Berkeley. The
hearing will be preceded at 6 p.m. by a public information
session.
Representatives of the Bureau of Nuclear Engineering, Department
of Environmental Protection, and the Office of Emergency
Management, Division of State Police, will attend the hearings
and respond to questions and comments.
A copy of the evacuation plan is available at the Ocean County
Public Library, 101 Washington St., Toms River, (732) 349-6200.
Go Back | Subscribe to the Asbury Park Press
[http://marketing.injersey.com/subscriptions.html]
*****************************************************************
25 APP.COM - Part 6: Can the region be safely evacuated?
[http://www.app.com/] ASBURY PARK PRESS
Published in the Asbury Park Press 6/25/04
Is the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Lacey
adequately prepared for an emergency evacuation, should one
become necessary?
Many of the towns that have come out against a 20-year license
extension for the plant don't think so. Neither do we.
The Oyster Creek evacuation plan, contained in a three-inch
thick binder, is a supplement to two generic volumes that
together constitute the state's Radiological Emergency Response
Plan. The binder on Oyster Creek includes each of the county's
municipal response plans and lists everything from
decontamination facilities, to radioactivity monitoring station
sites, to motels suitable for housing federal Nuclear Regulatory
Commission employees during an emergency.
At a public hearing last summer on Oyster Creek's newly updated
evacuation plan, many residents argued that the plan was
inadequately explained, failed to consider the ramifications of a
Sept. 11-type attack and could not possibly work given the area's
deficient road network.
The plan, updated last summer to reflect the 2000 census,
estimated it would take seven hours and 33 minutes to fully
evacuate a 10-mile ring around the plant in a best-case scenario
- fair weather on a winter night.
It would take 9 hours, 33 minutes during bad weather on a summer
day. The evacuation times would be longer during the summer
because of the additional seasonal population, estimated to be
63,163 more than the normal resident population of about 125,000.
The evacuation plan is based on a projected maximum population
within the 10-mile zone of 243,986.
The population of Ocean County today is about 115,000 more than
it was in 1990. Much of the growth occurred in towns within the
10-mile zone around Oyster Creek considered to be at greatest
risk from a major accidental release of radiation - Lacey itself,
Barnegat, Stafford, Berkeley and Waretown (Ocean Township). The
county's population has more than tripled since construction
began on Oyster Creek in 1965, yet the carrying capacity of the
roads in the region has remained essentially unchanged.
Evacuation plans are limited to the 10-mile radius around the
plant, despite studies showing that the effects on humans could
be felt well beyond that. The state conceded as much in its
written response to questions posed at last year's evacuation
hearing: "No one is saying the (radioactive) plume couldn't
travel more than 10 miles. The primary threat beyond 10 miles
would be contaminated food. The immediate health threat would not
be as great as closer in."
Emergency planners contend that Oyster Creek's relatively long
evacuation time estimates are misleading because it's unlikely
that the entire 10-mile radius around the plant would have to be
evacuated. An evacuation, should one occur, would take place only
in certain subzones of the 10-mile radius, depending on the
extent of the release and the wind direction, they say. Plumes of
radioactive material typically travel through the atmosphere in
one direction.
"You don't need to move a whole population. You need to move the
population in front of that plume," said Mike Beemer, spokesman
for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which reviews state
emergency preparedness plans. "You can't make radiation go 360
degrees. And you don't need to move people right away. There's
significant lead time."
Oyster Creek's evacuation plan estimates that it would take one
to four hours for radiation to release in a worst-case scenario.
In the two subzones that would be the quickest to evacuate, it
would take 2 hours and 15 minutes under optimal conditions and 3
hours 15 minutes during a summer peak period. During the summer,
according to the plan, only three of the 20 subzones within the
10-mile radius could be evacuated within three hours.
Ocean County Undersheriff Wayne Rupert, whose office is
responsible for coordinating evacuations at the county level,
estimates that about 20 percent of the population would leave on
their own without waiting for instructions. Studies show that
number may be far higher.
Some researchers have noted that evacuations of nuclear power
plants are dissimilar to those for other emergencies, such as
hurricanes, earthquakes and other natural disasters. Fear of the
effects of radiation makes the public more prone to panic and
less likely to follow government instructions.
During the Three Mile Island meltdown in 1979, the governor
advised evacuation only for an estimated 3,500 pregnant women and
children living within 5 miles of the plant. Yet nearly 200,000
people fled their homes, some of which were located more than 25
miles from the plant. Some fled for several weeks.
Other studies have shown that many emergency workers and medical
personnel counted on to assist with the evacuation and treat the
casualties would either not report to duty at all in the event of
a nuclear accident or would report only after first ensuring the
safety of their family members. A report on the psychological
effects of terrorist attacks by the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Management noted the implications of such an
attack on a nuclear power plant for evacuation planners: "These
effects represent a huge problem because they will have a
significant impact on the success of the response."
Concerns about the adequacy of Oyster Creek's evacuation plan
prompted Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, the Washington-based Nuclear
Information and Research Service and the New Jersey Public
Interest Research Group to ask the state to commission an
independent review of the plan. The request was rejected.
In preparation for evacuations, FEMA requires evacuation
exercises for the 10-mile "plume zone" every two years. An
"ingestion pathway" drill, designed to prepare emergency workers
for radioactive releases extending 10 to 50 miles out, is
required every six years. At Oyster Creek, both drills were
conducted in September 2003.
The ingestion drill was scheduled for three days. But it was
shortened to a one-day, computer-modeled event after a tornado
struck the state Bureau of Nuclear Engineering headquarters in
Ewing, causing a gas leak and an evacuation. The nuclear staff
was sent home while state police dealt with the emergency at the
building. Despite the shortened exercise, confined to a tabletop
exercise at the Ocean County Office of Emergency Management, the
NRC declared it a success and the drill was never rescheduled.
The scenario approved by the NRC for Oyster Creek's plume zone
drill last year was an earthquake, even though the likelihood of
an earthquake in that part of the state is deemed remote. The
drill did not involve residents or motorists, and the responders
were not tested on reacting to problems outside the plant's
boundaries. Asked why such a scenario was used, an NRC spokesman
said that accident assessments and protective-action decisions
would be the same regardless of the type of emergency.
Two weeks ago at the Indian Point nuclear power plant north of
New York City, the NRC conducted its first drill of a simulated
airborne terrorist attack. But under the crash scenario, there
was no damage to the reactor's concrete containment building and
no release of radiation.
At Oyster Creek -- given the region's population density and the
inadequate road network -- the only scenario under which its
evacuation plan would work is one in which the plan never had to
be implemented.
It's another reason why the plant must be shut down.
Tomorrow: The health effects: known and unknown.
Asbury Park Press
*****************************************************************
26 AP Wire: SEC Seeks More Information on Ohio Outage
| 06/28/2004 |
Associated Press
AKRON, Ohio - The Securities and Exchange Commission wants
FirstEnergy Corp. to provide it with additional information on
the two-year outage at its Davis-Besse nuclear power plant.
Neither the SEC nor FirstEnergy would disclose what documents are
being sought. The SEC made the request Thursday, the company said
on Monday.
"We'll compile them and get them to the SEC in a timely fashion,"
FirstEnergy spokeswoman Ellen Raines said.
Davis-Besse, located along Lake Erie about 30 miles east of
Toledo, started producing electricity again in March after a
two-year shutdown. In February 2002, the plant was closed for
routine maintenance. A month later, inspectors found corrosion on
the reactor vessel, where leaking boric acid had eaten almost
through a 6-inch-thick steel cap.
The SEC began an informal inquiry in September, the company said.
FirstEnergy shares rose 17 cents to close at $37.57 Monday on the
New York Stock Exchange.
*****************************************************************
27 Valley Advocate: No Hearings on Nukes
valleyadvocate.com
by Stephanie Kraft - June 24, 2004
I t always took a lot of vigilance to live near a nuclear power
plant. Neighbors had to watch every move in the game when plant
owners moved for relicensing, power uprates or other changes
requiring the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's approval.
But groups that researched the records, got hip to the NRC's
bureaucratic quirks and followed the letter of the hearing
process sometimes won shutdowns, got more thorough cleanups, or
at least unearthed vital information about their local reactors.
Now, however, new NRC regulations may make the hearing process --
which won many victories for people who didn't want their local
nuke to become a Three Mile Island -- a thing of the past.
The new rules, effective since February, would nearly eliminate
the public's right to demand full-scale hearings on such matters.
Citizens would in most cases lose the right to the formal
hearings that in the past allowed them to force plant owners to
hand over crucial documents and to cross-examine witnesses.
Instead, the normal process would involve so-called "informal"
hearings that do not include the right to demand documents and
examine witnesses. The new rules also give people far less time
to research the problems they want to discuss at hearings.
But Valley nuke watchers aren't giving up without a fight.
Charlemont-based Citizens Awareness Network late this winter sued
the NRC over the new regulations in federal appeals court in
Boston. The NRC tried to get the venue moved to Washington, D.C.
-- closer to its own territory --but the Boston court refused to
change the venue. So the case remains in the court that 12 years
ago, when CAN sued to force the NRC to hold hearings on the
Yankee Rowe plant decommissioning, found the NRC "arbitrary,
capricious and utterly irrational."
Public Citizen, the National Whistleblower Center and the Nuclear
Information and Resource Service have joined the CAN suit. Last
week Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly and the AGs of
Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, Wisconsin and California
all filed a brief in the Boston court supporting CAN's case,
arguing that the states have an interest in public safety and in
the environmental and economic effects of nuclear operations. A
trial on the new rules is expected in September.
"This will determine whether there are hearings on uprates,
relicensing, all these things, for communities across the
country," said CAN executive director Deborah Katz. "Hearings are
our right. The NRC can't just take it away. " -- Stephanie Kraft
skraft@valleyadvocate.com [skraft@valleyadvocate.com] Use our
contact form to write to Stephanie Kraft.
Copyright © 1995-2004 New Mass Media. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
28 FT: US struggles to revive nuclear power industry
By Sheila McNulty in Houston
Published: June 28 2004 22:10 | Last Updated: June 29 2004 0:42
As the US struggles with high oil and gas prices and an
overdependence on foreign suppliers, Washington is trying to get
a reluctant nuclear power industry to build itself up as an
alter- native.
The US energy department is providing incentives to encourage US
power companies to apply for licences to build the first new
nuclear plants in 25 years. The department is also considering
building a plant of its own.
The 103 operational US nuclear power plants are so old they are
being forced to apply for 20-year extensions on their 40-year
operating licences. Even though they provide 20 per cent of the
nation's energy, no provisions have been made to continue that
supply, much less increase it, once the plants are too old to
operate.
A tedious application process, high costs and public resistance
have made utilities skittish about new nuclear power for decades.
In 1979, a partial core meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile
Island - which remains the worst-ever US nuclear plant accident -
awakened the public to nuclear power's danger.
In 1984, public opposition prevented a completed $5.3bn (?4.35bn,
£2.9bn) plant from opening in New York state. The devastating
Chernobyl accident in Ukraine two years later all but finished
the debate.
Today Mark Urso, who works in the nuclear services division of
Westinghouse Electric, gives talks on nuclear energy. "Typically,
the only thing they [the public] know or ask questions about are
the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl," he
says.
There is another, arguably bigger obstacle than public opinion:
the build-up of nuclear waste. Without an offsite repository,
nuclear plants must store their own waste onsite. And when
storage space is full, the plant can be threatened with closure.
Efforts to set up a national nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada, have been blocked for years by the state's
governors and members of Congress, regardless of party.
Lee Raymond, chief executive of ExxonMobil, the world's biggest
publicly listed oil and gas company, has stated that nuclear has
great potential, especially from an environmental standpoint. But
he has noted that political opposition makes nuclear power a poor
contender for meeting the rising US energy demand.
"The political reality in the US today would lead to the
conclusion that there will not be any more nuclear power plants
built in this country for a long time," said James A. Baker, the
former secretary of state to President George H.W. Bush.
The utilities seem reluctant to prove them wrong, in spite of
improvements in plant safety, mandated by US regulators, lower
operating costs and a streamlined application process.
"No one has ever tried to use [the new process], so there is a
lot of uncertainty about how the process will work," says William
D. Magwood IV, director of the energy department's Office of
Nuclear Energy.
The department has agreed to split costs to get three commercial
operators to apply for permits to build new plants on specific
sites.
Mr Magwood expects the Yucca Mountain dispute will be settled,
allowing the site to begin receiving waste by 2010. Environmental
concerns over fossil fuel pollution will force nuclear to the
forefront, he says, noting that nuclear waste is contained as
solids, not released into the air. President George W. Bush has
aimed to reduce the economic growth-carbon emissions ratio by 18
per cent by 2012.
Many believe there is no better option than nuclear power for
environmentally friendly energy. Larry Foulke, president of the
American Nuclear Society, says: "It is unrealistic to think we
can power factories with solar and wind mills."
But David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer at the Union of
Concerned Scientists, believes the US must replace its ageing
nuclear facilities. "We're now headed toward the wear-out phase,
and we need to be on our guard," he says.
© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2004. "FT" and
"Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times. Privacy
*****************************************************************
29 Daily Times: Pakistan plans more nuclear power plants
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
* Dr Pervez says CHASNUPP Unit-2 agreement signed
* PAEC will prepare ‘Vision 2025’ plan for nuclear power
development
Staff Report
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan is planning to build many more nuclear power
plants that will have more indigenous content, said Dr Pervez
Butt, the chairman of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission
(PAEC).
Speaking at the 29th International Nathiagali Summer College, Dr
Butt said Pakistan’s specialised defence-related nuclear projects
thrived due to the sustained government patronage, according to a
press release.
He said President Pervez Musharraf had not only shown his
personal interest in nuclear power plans but also encouraged the
PAEC to plan ahead for its development. He said the Chashma
Nuclear Power Plant (CHASNUPP) Unit-2 contract had been signed
which would be one of the largest industrial projects in
Pakistan. “We plan to build many more nuclear plants that will
have a progressively increasing indigenous content,” he added.
Dr Butt said the PAEC had been tasked to prepare “Vision 2025”
plan for nuclear power development in Pakistan, which would be
presented to the government soon. “CHASNUPP Unit-1 is operating
well with a 85 percent availability factor and we have also
refurbished the Karachi Nuclear Power Plant (KANUPP) after 30
years,” he added.
“The budgetary allocations to science and technology have been
increased tremendously on the president’s initiative, which apart
from boosting scientific progress, have stopped brain drain,” he
said.
Inaugurating the summer college, Prof Attaur Rahman, the Chairman
of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) said the government’s
support had increased Pakistani scientists’ contributions to
world knowledge by 44 percent.
He praised the PAEC for its indigenous efforts in basic research,
industrial support services, improvement in agriculture, cancer
treatment, human resource development and nuclear energy.
Dr Rahman called for immediate measures to improve the education
standards in Pakistan and the Islamic world. “In Pakistan,
low-quality universities are mushrooming which are producing
students who can hardly face modern challenges. He said strict
criteria would be introduced for such universities and those
failing to meet them would be closed down.
He said that the budget for the universities had been raised to
Rs 9,500 million from Rs 5,000 million in the new budget. Dr
Rahman said 15 scientific centres would be set up in Pakistan.
Dr Rahman said that the information gap between the North and
South was alarming and it could be bridged only if the developing
nations invested in their human resources and science and
technology. Home | National
Daily Times - All Rights Reserved [http://www.wcis.com.pk]
*****************************************************************
30 APP.COM - Internet resources (Nuclear)
[http://www.app.com/]
ASBURY PARK PRESS
Published in the Asbury Park Press 6/27/04 An Asbury Park Press
editorial
Exelon Corp: Owner of Oyster Creek nuclear power plant.
www.exeloncorp.com.
Federal Emergency Management Agency: Oversees emergency
evacuation plans. www.fema.gov/hazards/nuclear/radiolo.shtm.
Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch: Citizens watchdog group calling for
immediate shutdown of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.
www.jerseyshorenuclearwatch.org.
N.J. Board of Public Utilities: www.bpu.state.nj.us. N.J.
Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Nuclear
Engineering: Operates environmental surveillance and monitoring
program for New Jersey's four nuclear power plants.
www.nj.gov/dep/rpp/bne.
N.J. Public Interest Research Group: Opposes relicensing of
Oyster Creek. www.njpirg.org.
Nuclear.com: Oyster Creek news.
www.nuclear.com/n-plants/OysterCreek/OysterCreeknews.html.
Nuclear Energy Institute: Nuclear industry trade group.
www.nei.org.
Nuclear Information Resource Service: Networking center for
citizens and organizations concerned about nuclear power,
radioactive waste and radiation. www.nirs.org.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Federal regulatory body for
nuclear industry. www.nrc.gov.
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Plant: www.oystercreeklr.com.
PJM Interconnection: Regional electricity transmission
organization. http://www.pjm.com/index.jsp.
Radiation and Public Health Project (Tooth Fairy Project):
www.radiation.org.
Riverkeeper: Citizen watchdog group seeking to close the Indian
Point nuclear power plant. www.riverkeeper.org/index.php.
Union of Concerned Scientists : National nuclear watchdog group.
www.ucsusa.org.
Unplug Salem Campaign: Watchdog group seeking to close the two
Salem, N.J., nuclear power plants. www.unplugsalem.org.
*****************************************************************
31 Japan Times: Kepco uncovers data-fabrication scam
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
BOGUS CHECKUP REPORTS FOUND
OSAKA (Kyodo) Kansai Electric Power Co. said Monday it found
3,659 cases of fabricated records at its 11 thermal power
generation facilities between fiscal 2000 and 2003.
Japan's second-largest electric utility said the fabrication of
data regarding regular facility checkups and administrative
matters was uncovered at 10 of its thermal power plants and a
generation site that provides electricity to Kansai International
Airport.
The company made the revelation after last month's disclosure of
176 cases of falsified data reports by officials of Kansai
International Airport Energy Center, a heat-electricity
cogeneration facility that serves the airport.
This prompted Kepco to reinvestigate the results of voluntary
inspections it had carried out at its thermal plants since
September 2000. It discovered an additional 3,483 instances of
false and wrong data, bringing the total to more than 3,600.
The cases included fabricating figures gained during the checks
and concocting minutes of meetings that were never held.
In addition to these cases, there were 3,345 instances of
mistakes such as failing to submit inspection reports on time.
Kepco said it will do its best to prevent a recurrence before
its next round of voluntary checks begins in September, and added
it is considering reprimanding those who were involved in
especially malicious fabrications.
It blamed "insufficient internal check-and-balance functions and
lack of understanding of laws and regulations" for the massive
amount of false reports.
Hideji Sugiyama, vice minister of economy, trade and industry,
told a news conference, "We will scrutinize the case, possibly
with additional inspections, and decide whether we need to give
an administrative punishment to the company."
He said he wants all power companies to conduct their safety
checkups in a strict manner.
Asked about possible repercussions on the government's policy of
promoting the recycling of spent nuclear fuel, Sugiyama said, "I
don't think (the case) is directly linked with the issue of the
safety of nuclear power generation."
The utility earlier this year got permission to resume plans to
use reprocessed spent nuclear fuel in the reactors at its plant
in Takahama, Fukui Prefecture. The plan had been stalled by a
safety-data falsification that surfaced in 1999.
In that scandal, British Nuclear Fuels PLC doctored inspection
data on MOX fuel to be used at Kepco's Takahama plant.
The Japan Times: June 29, 2004 (C) All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
32 APP.COM - Oyster Creek: Time to Retire
[http://www.app.com/]
ASBURY PARK PRESS
PART 1: OVERVIEW
* [http://www.nrc.gov/]
* [http://www.oystercreeklr.com/]
* [http://www.nirs.org/]
* [http://www.nei.org/]
* [http://www.ucsusa.org/]
PART 2: ENERGY NEEDS
* [http://www.pjm.com/index.jsp]
* [http://www.bpu.state.nj.us/reports/RenEnergyTFR.pdf]
PART 3: THE SAFETY RECORD
*
[http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/page.cfm?pageI
D=1408]
*
[http://www.nuclear.com/n-plants/Oyster_Creek/Oyster_Creek_news.h
tml]
*
[http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/l/li/list_of
_nuclear_accidents.html]
PART 4: TERRORISM
* [http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/safeguards/response-911.html]
* [http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/terrorismqa.asp]
* [http://www.nirs.org/roadsrails/hlrw-nir.PDF]
* [http://www.nirs.org/roadsrails/hlrw-nir.PDF]
* [http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ymp/index.shtml]
PART 5: WORST-CASE SCENARIO
* [http://www.chernobyl.info/en]
* [http://www.radwaste.org]
[http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/chernobyl.html]
*
[http://stellar-one.com/nuclear/staff_reports/technical_analysis_
reports_summary.htm]
PART 6: EVACUATION
* [http://www.fema.gov/hazards/nuclear/radiolo.shtm]
* [http://www.nj.gov/dep/rpp/bne/]
PART 7: HEALTH EFFECTS
* [http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/risk.htm]
* [http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/radiation/affect.html]
* [http://www.epa.gov/radiation/students/calculate.html/]
Part 8: Let the campaign to close it begin
June 27, 2004
In the end, the question of whether Oyster Creek should be shut
down permanently in 2009 or be granted a 20-year license
extension should be determined on the basis of whether the
benefits of its continued operation outweigh the risks.
What's your opinion?
June 27, 2004
Tell us your views on Oyster Creek's license renewal, and we'll
share them with our readers.
Internet resources
June 27, 2004
Part 7: Reactors: Hazardous to your health?
June 26, 2004
When the Nuclear Regulatory Commission begins deliberating
whether to approve Oyster Creek's request for a 20-year license
renewal, the potential health risks associated with living near
a nuclear power plant won't be on their list of things to
consider.
Information on the Oyster Creek evacuation plan meeting
June 25, 2004
If you want to comment on, or learn more about, the Oyster
Creek evacuation plan, the state will hold a public hearing on
it Wednesday, July 21, at 7 p.m. at the Ocean County Emergency
Operations Center, Route 530 and Mule Road, Berkeley.
Part 6: Can the region be safely evacuated?
June 25, 2004
Is the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Lacey
adequately prepared for an emergency evacuation, should one
become necessary?
Part 5: What would a meltdown look like?
June 24, 2004
What if the unthinkable happened? What if the byproduct of the
technology used to help generate electricity were turned against
us?
Part 4: Terrorist target on reactor's back
June 23, 2004
A 9/11 commission report released last week revealed that the
mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed,
originally proposed using hijacked planes to strike 10 targets,
including unidentified nuclear plants.
Oyster Creek: The Recent Record
June 22, 2004
Pundits say there are three ways to judge a politician: the
first is to look at the record; the second is to look at the
record; the third is to look at the record.
Part 3: Are the safety margins wide enough?
June 22, 2004
When the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission reviews the
application for a 20-year license extension for the Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station, it will consider only two factors.
*****************************************************************
33 APP.COM - Part 7: Reactors: Hazardous to your health?
[http://www.app.com/]
ASBURY PARK PRESS
Part 7: Reactors: Hazardous to your health?
Published in the Asbury Park Press 6/26/04 An Asbury Park Press
editorial
When the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission begins
deliberating whether to approve Oyster Creek's request for a
20-year license renewal, the potential health risks associated
with living near a nuclear power plant won't be on their list of
things to consider.
It wasn't always that way. In 1995, the NRC changed its
regulations to eliminate the requirement that the health effects
of radioactive emissions be considered. The commission does
assess the environmental impact of the plant, including its
effects on fish and wildlife. But it considers human health
outside its scope.
Few scientists believe routine emissions produced by nuclear
power plants pose a risk to human health. A 1990 National Cancer
Institute study, the largest of its kind, found no evidence of
any increase in cancer mortality, including childhood leukemia,
among people living in 107 counties containing or adjoining 62
nuclear plants, including Oyster Creek.
Nuclear energy advocates say that the annual dose of radiation
received at the boundary of a nuclear power plant during normal
operation is less than the amount absorbed during a
coast-to-coast plane trip and about the same as sitting directly
in front of a TV set for an hour. The average annual dose from a
nuclear plant is 600 times less than the dose obtained from all
sources -- about 80 percent of which are naturally occurring --
and 800 times less than the occupational limit established for
nuclear plant employees.
Most of the handful of U.S. scientists who believe radiation
released from nuclear plants could be harmful to humans are
associated with the nonprofit Radiation and Public Health
Project. The group's researchers have been collecting baby teeth
and testing them for levels of strontium-90, a cancer-causing,
radioactive isotope produced only in nuclear weapons and nuclear
reactors.
The group's national coordinator, Joseph Mangano, argues that
the radiation contained in the 100 chemicals emitted from
nuclear plants is different from the naturally occurring
radiation found in soil and rocks.
"These chemicals are manmade," Mangano said. "They did not
exist before 1945. All are carcinogenic. You can't compare one
curie of strontium-90 with one curie of background radiation."
Strontium-90 has been the focus of the group's studies at
Oyster Creek and elsewhere because it takes years to decay,
attaches to the bone after it enters the body by breathing or
ingestion, and emits particles that can penetrate the bone
marrow.
"That's where white blood cells are formed," Mangano said.
"They represent the entire immune army that will not just fight
cancer of the bone, but all cancers and all immune conditions."
Using baby teeth to measure the amounts of radiation absorbed
in the body dates back to the 1950s when scientist Barry
Commoner and activists in St. Louis began studying the effects
of fallout from atomic weapons tests on human health. Their
findings built public pressure for the nuclear test ban treaty
in 1963.
Mangano says his group's studies over the past eight years have
strengthened his conviction that radioactive emissions from
nuclear plants can cause cancer in children. The studies have
shown a consistent correlation between the rising levels of
strontium-90 in baby teeth and similar rising rates of childhood
cancer near nuclear plants.
Mangano says levels of strontium-90 increased 50 percent in
Ocean and Monmouth counties between 1986-89 and 1994-97,
reversing a trend beginning in the early 1960s he ties to the
phaseout of the atomic testing program. He thinks nuclear
reactors are the likely principal source of the recent rise in
strontium-90. Others attribute it to fallout from the 1986
meltdown at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union.
Those who doubt the work of the Radiation and Public Health
Project -- the NRC, the nuclear industry and most scientists --
dismiss its research as "junk science." Julie Timins, chairman
of the N.J. Commission on Radiation Protection, is among the
detractors.
In December, a month after the N.J. Legislature approved a
$25,000 state grant for the group to study a possible link
between cancer and New Jersey's nuclear power plants, she
advised Gov. McGreevey in a letter not to allocate any more
money to the group until it demonstrated it was using accepted
research methodology. "Any information gathered through this
project would not stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific
community," she wrote.
The state provided the funding despite a January 2003
Department of Environmental Protection report on the Toms River
cancer clusters that dismissed airborne emissions of radioactive
material at Oyster Creek as a possible cause. The report said
the lifetime cancer risk based on exposure levels estimated by
computer modeling was about one in a billion. It concluded that
emissions from Oyster Creek did not appear to be associated with
any of the childhood cancers identified in the studies.
Mangano responds to his critics by pointing out that the group
has had 19 studies published in peer-reviewed journals, meaning
other scientists examined the findings for credibility before
they were published. Most of the studies have addressed linkages
between strontium 90 and childhood illnesses.
Skeptics say the group's thesis -- that exposure to nuclear
plant emissions can cause cancer and birth defects -- is not
consistent with observed emission levels from U.S. reactors, all
of which consistently meet or exceed federal safety standards.
The Radiation Public Health Project chose Oyster Creek as one
of its study sites because of the area's elevated cancer rates
and the fact that Oyster Creek had the highest lifetime
emissions of radiation of any nuclear reactor in the nation in
1993 -- the last year the NRC issued comparative records.
Citing state figures, project researchers noted that cancer
death rates for children under 10 in Ocean and Monmouth counties
rose 20 percent between the early 1980s and late 1990s, while
the rates fell 25 percent in New Jersey and 35 percent
nationally during that same period. The rates for adolescents
and young adults also were 16 percent higher than the state
average and 17 percent higher than the national average. And the
breast cancer death rate for white females in the two counties
was 10 percent higher than other counties in New Jersey, which
had the highest breast cancer death rate in the nation.
In 2001, however, the American Cancer Society found no new
evidence linking strontium-90 with increases in childhood
cancer, breast cancer or prostate cancer rates. "Ionizing
radiation emissions from nuclear facilities are closely
controlled and involve negligible levels of exposure for
communities near such plants," the report said.
But the Radiation and Public Health Project says its research
indicates that in counties within 30 miles of nuclear plants in
the eastern United States, rates of cancer in children under 10
years old from 1988 to 1997 exceeded national rates in all 13
areas it studied.
In November 2000, after the publication of a health journal
article by RPHP researchers about a possible link between
strontium-90 in baby teeth and childhood cancers, N.J.
Department of Environmental Protection officials, acknowledging
their expertise was limited, sent a letter to the NRC asking for
guidance in responding to inquiries. The NRC pointed to the 1990
National Cancer Institute study, which found no cause-effect
relationship between nuclear plants and cancer rates.
One of the goals of the RPHP is to encourage public funding of
studies that measure "in-body" radiation levels. To date, all
the studies have focused on comparing cancer rates between areas
with nuclear plants and those without them. The group's own
studies may not prove a link. But they have raised enough
questions and concerns that it is incumbent upon those who have
criticized the group's research methods to suggest follow-up
studies that could help put the matter to rest.
Even if the Radiation and Public Health Project's detractors
are correct that emissions of radiation from plants are
harmless, there are those who believe that the "nuclear fuel
cycle" -- the mining and processing of uranium used in nuclear
reactors, the generation of highly radioactive spent fuel, and
the reprocessing or storage of spent fuel -- poses a health risk
to everyone.
A 2003 study by the European Committee on Radiation Risk,
commissioned by the European Union, found that the risk from
low-level radiation was significant. It concluded that "the
present cancer epidemic is a consequence of exposures to global
atmospheric weapons fallout in the period 1959 to 1963 and that
more recent releases of radio-isotopes to the environment from
the operation of the nuclear fuel cycle will result in
significant increases in cancer and other types of ill health."
The evidence at this point suggests that the health risks posed
by Oyster Creek are not sufficient reason to shut it down. But
overall concerns about the production, use and safe disposal of
nuclear materials add strength to the argument.
Tomorrow: What now?
Asbury Park Press
*****************************************************************
34 APP.COM - Part 8: Let the campaign to close it begin
[http://www.app.com/] ASBURY PARK PRESS
Published in the Asbury Park Press 6/27/04 An Asbury Park Press
editorial
"Nuclear power is one hell of a way to boil water," Albert
Einstein once said.
At Oyster Creek, it's an unacceptably perilous way.
In the end, the question of whether Oyster Creek should be shut
down permanently in 2009 or be granted a 20-year license
extension should be determined on the basis of whether the
benefits of its continued operation outweigh the risks.
Unfortunately, under the ground rules established by the federal
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for license renewal, it won't.
The NRC won't factor in the health risks associated with living
near Oyster Creek.
It won't consider the plant's vulnerability to terrorist attacks
from the ground or from the air.
It won't take into account the plant's emergency preparedness,
or the ability of the local road system to handle a mass
evacuation.
It won't consider the effect a major reactor accident at Oyster
Creek would have on the more than 3.5 million people living
within 50 miles of it, or on the tourism, fishing and agriculture
industries.
It won't consider whether the plant is economically viable, or
whether the company has a track record of putting safety above
profitability.
It won't consider the method used to store intensely radioactive
spent fuel on site.
It won't consider the safety and security risks of transporting
spent fuel should the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste
depository ever open in Nevada.
It won't consider the dampening role that rubber-stamping
nuclear power plant license extensions has on efforts to develop
newer, safer forms of energy.
It won't consider the long-term hazards associated with
radioactive materials that will take tens of thousands of years
to break down.
It won't consider whether the management at the plant has the
skills and track record needed to operate it safely.
In the end, the NRC will consider only two things: Can the
plant, judged by standards established when the plant was
originally built, "continue to maintain adequate levels of
safety," and will it do any harm to the immediate environment.
The big-picture questions will not even be asked. That's why
every nuclear plant operator that has sought a license extension
from the NRC to date has received one.
If New Jersey is to avoid a similar fate, it will take a
coordinated, concentrated effort. Gov. McGreevey, the state
Department of Environmental Protection, the 17 Ocean County towns
that have passed resolutions either opposing relicensing or
seeking an immediate shutdown of Oyster Creek and the citizen
groups that have been working to have the plant decommissioned
must band together and draw on the resources of national
clean-energy organizations. Closing the plant down also will
require a commitment to fight the license extension from U.S.
Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg and Jon S. Corzine, both D-N.J., and
the area's congressional delegation. To date, the congressmen
have been irresponsibly silent on the subject.
Rep. H. James Saxton, R-N.J., whose district includes the
plant's host town, Lacey, and much of Ocean and Burlington
counties, and Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., whose district includes
the rest of Ocean County and much of Monmouth County, need to
make their presence felt. Reps. Rush Holt and Frank Pallone Jr.,
both D-N.J., also must get off the sidelines. All four have
ducked the issue, declining to respond to repeated phone calls by
the Press seeking their position on the issue.
We hope the judgments of Saxton, Smith and Holt won't be clouded
by the political contributions they have received in the past
from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which
represents much of Oyster Creek's workforce. Saxton, Smith and
Holt all received $10,000 in campaign donations from the IBEW
during the last election cycle. For Smith and Holt, the $10,000
was the second largest contribution they received, according to
the Center for Responsive Politics. The $10,000 gift to Saxton
was his fourth largest.
Those seeking to shut down Oyster Creek also will have to deal
with the financial resources and lobbying clout of Exelon, the
largest operator of nuclear power plants in the country and one
of the most generous campaign contributors. During the 2002
election cycle, Exelon contributed $588,044 to congressional
candidates -- the most of any nuclear energy company, according
to Public Citizen.
Earlier this year, Exelon hired lobbyists from State Street
Partners to work the halls of the Statehouse in Trenton. The best
man at both of McGreevey's weddings, Rahway Mayor James J.
Kennedy, is a principal with the firm.
There are few strategies for fighting license renewal that those
who oppose it here can draw on. New Jersey will have to be
creative. It will have to compile as much information as it can
for use during the formal NRC approval process. And it will have
to develop a legal strategy that includes signaling Oyster Creek
that if it moves forward with its relicensing request, it may
well get bogged down in the courts. Good preparation for the
upcoming hearings, strong political organization and networking
with organizations that have done battle with the NRC, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency and the nuclear industry are
essential.
It would be comforting to know that the NRC's decision about
Oyster Creek's future will hinge on an objective review of all
the issues surrounding the plant. But it won't. That will be left
to those committed to the safety and security of the people
living in the plant's wide shadow. Let the campaign to close
Oyster Creek begin.
Last of an eight-part series
the Asbury Park Press
*****************************************************************
35 TheDay.com: NRC To Hear Testimony About Holding Hearing To Challenge
Millstone Licenses
By PATRICIA DADDONA
Day Staff Writer, Waterford
Published on 6/28/2004
New London The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board will hear arguments Wednesday on whether to
hold a hearing in which opponents could challenge proposals to
renew licenses at Millstone Power Station.
The panel of three administrative judges answers to the NRC,
which is considering re-licensing power plants Millstone 2 and 3
through 2035 and 2045, respectively. Millstone 1 is in the
process of being decommissioned. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut
owns Millstone, which is located in Waterford, and applied for
the renewals in January.
The Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone is seeking the
hearing. The group plans to argue that the plants' licenses
should be immediately revoked, citing existing and potential harm
to the community and the environment. The organization advocates
safe energy and protection of the environment. CCAM will be
allotted set time limits in which to present evidence.
Organizer Nancy Burton states in her petition that she will show
that Millstone has caused cancer clusters and is a terrorist
target that cannot be fully protected or safely evacuated. The
petition states that she will also show the facility does not
hold a valid National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, is
irreparably harming winter flounder and other aquatic resources,
and shows signs of recurrent technical defects and premature
aging.
Dominion will be allotted time for rebuttal. NRC will also have
time to state its points.
The session, called a pre-hearing conference, will begin at 9
a.m. at the Radisson Hotel New London at 35 Governor Winthrop
Boulevard.
Dominion's application is available at
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati
ons/millstone.html, at the Waterford Public Library at 49 Rope
Ferry Road, Waterford; and at the Thames River Campus Library,
Three Rivers Community College, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich.
442-2200 | © 1998-2004 The Day Publishing Co. You are 1 of
*****************************************************************
36 NRC: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda:
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC)
[[Page 38628]]
[June 28, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 123)] [Unified Agenda] From
the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[frwais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID: f:ua040459.wais] [Page
38628-38641] Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------ Part LIX
-----------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________
______ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Ch. I Unified Agenda
of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions AGENCY: Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Semiannual regulatory agenda.
_________________________________________________________________
______ SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
publishing its semiannual regulatory agenda in accordance with
Public Law 96-354, ``The Regulatory Flexibility Act,'' and
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' The
agenda is a compilation of all rules on which the NRC has
recently completed action or has proposed or is considering
action. This issuance updates any action occurring on rules
since publication of the last semiannual agenda on December 22,
2003 (68 FR 74000). ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on any
rule in the agenda by any one of the following methods. Please
include the RIN (Regulation Identifier Number) in the subject
line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in
writing or in electronic form will be made available for public
inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you
against including personal information such as social security
numbers and birth dates in your submission. Mail comments to:
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. E-mail
comments to: SECY@nrc.gov.If you do not receive a reply e-mail
confirming that we have received your comments, contact us
directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the
NRC's rulemaking web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address
questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301)
415-5905; e-mail cag@nrc.gov. Comments can also be submitted via
the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. Hand
deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays. (Telephone
(301) 415-1966). Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission at (301) 415-1101. Publicly available
documents related to the rulemaking may be viewed electronically
on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document
Room (PDR), O1?F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy
documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, may
be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking
web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Publicly available
documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999,
are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading
Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ adams.html. From this
site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide
Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides
text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not
have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by
e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information concerning NRC rulemaking procedures or the
status of any rule listed in this agenda, contact Michael T.
Lesar, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of
Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
301-415- 7163 (e-mail: mtl@nrc.gov). Persons outside the
Washington, DC, metropolitan area may call, toll-free:
1-800-368-5642. For further information on the substantive
content of any rule listed in the agenda, contact the individual
listed under the heading ``Agency Contact'' for that rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information contained in this
semiannual publication is updated to reflect any action that has
occurred on rules since publication of the last NRC semiannual
agenda on December 22, 2003 (68 FR 74000). Within each group,
the rules are ordered according to the Regulation Identifier
Number (RIN). The information in this agenda has been updated
through May 10, 2004. The date for the next scheduled action
under the heading ``Timetable'' is the date the rule is
scheduled to be published in the Federal Register. The date is
considered tentative and is not binding on the Commission or its
staff. The agenda is intended to provide the public early notice
and opportunity to participate in the NRC rulemaking process.
However, the NRC may consider or act on any rulemaking even
though it is not included in the agenda. The NRC agenda lists
all open rulemaking actions. Four rules affect small entities,
one of which may potentially have a ``significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities'' as defined in
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Dated at Rockville, Maryland,
this 7th day of May 2004. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division
of Administrative Services, Office of Administration. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission--Proposed Rule Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Number Number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- 4194 Nuclear
Power Plant Worker
Fatigue....................................................
3150-AG99 4195 Control of Solid
Material.........................................................
.... 3150-AH18 4196 Large Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident
(LB-LOCA) Redefintion............................ 3150-AH29 4197
Incorporation by Reference of ASME BPV Code
Cases..................................... 3150-AH35 [[Page
38629]] 4198 Elimination of Requirement To Submit Annual
Financial Report.......................... 3150-AH39 4199
Collection, Reporting, or Posting of
Information...................................... 3150-AH40
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Nuclear
Regulatory Commission--Final Rule Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Number Number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- 4200 Fitness for
Duty
Programs.........................................................
.... 3150-AF12 4201 Early Site Permits; Standard Design
Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear 3150-AG24
Power
Plants...........................................................
............... 4202 Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment
of Stuctures, Systems and Components for 3150-AG42 Nuclear Power
Reactors.........................................................
....... 4203 Performance-Based, Risk-Informed Fire
Protection...................................... 3150-AG48 4204
Changes to Emergency Action Levels - Appendix
E....................................... 3150-AH00 4205 Security
Requirements for Portable Gauges Containing Byproduct
Material............... 3150-AH06 4206 Public
Records..........................................................
.............. 3150-AH12 4207 Options for Addressing Training
and Experience Issues Associated With Recognition of 3150-AH19
Specialty Boards by
NRC..............................................................
. 4208 Industry Codes and Standards; Amended
Requirements.................................... 3150-AH24 4209
Licensing Proceedings for the Receipt of High-Level Radioactive
Waste at a Geologic 3150-AH31 Repository: Licensing Support
Network, Submissions to the Electronic Docket...........
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Nuclear
Regulatory Commission--Long-Term Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Number Number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- 4210 Update Fuel
Performance Considerations and Other Fuel Cycle
Issues.................... 3150-AA31 4211 Disposal by Release
Into Sanitary
Sewerage............................................ 3150-AE90
4212 Advance Notification to Native American Tribes of
Transportation of Certain Types of 3150-AG41 Nuclear
Waste............................................................
............. 4213 Integrated Rulemaking for Decommissioning
Nuclear Power Reactors...................... 3150-AG47 4214
Reevaluation of Power Reactor Physical Protection Regulations
and Position on a 3150-AG63 Definition of Radiological
Sabotage................................................... 4215
Transfers of Certain Source Materials by Specific
Licensees........................... 3150-AG64 4216 Entombment
Options for Power
Reactors.................................................
3150-AG89 4217 Modifications to Pressure-Temperature
Limits.......................................... 3150-AG98 4218
Distribution of Source Material to Exempt Persons and General
Licensees and Revision 3150-AH15 of 10 CFR 40.22 General
License.......................................................
4219 Acceptable Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems for
Light-Water Nuclear Power 3150-AH22
Reactors.........................................................
..................... 4220 Implement US-IAEA Safeguards
Agreement................................................
3150-AH38 4221 Exemptions from Licensing and Distribution of
Byproduct Material; Licensing and 3150-AH41 Reporting
Requirement......................................................
........... 4222 Performance-Based ECCS Acceptance
Criteria............................................ 3150-AH42
4223 Decoupling of Assumed Loss of Offsite Power from
Loss-of-Coolant Accidents (LOCA)..... 3150-AH43
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Nuclear
Regulatory Commission--Completed Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Number Number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- 4224 Changes to
Adjudicatory
Process.......................................................
3150-AG49 4225 Compatibility With IAEA Transportation Safety
Standards............................... 3150-AG71 4226
Financial Information Requirements for Applications To Renew or
Extend the Term of an 3150-AG84 Operating License for a Power
Reactor................................................. 4227
Electronic Submission of Fingerprint
Records.......................................... 3150-AH16 4228
List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC-UMS Revision
(Amendment 3)............. 3150-AH25 4229 List of Approved Spent
Fuel Storage Casks: Standardized NUHOMS System Revision
3150-AH26 (Amendment
5)...............................................................
.......... 4230 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks:
Standardized NUHOMS -24P, -52B, -61BT, - 3150-AH27 32PT, and
-24PHB Revision (Amendment
6)............................................... [[Page 38630]]
4231 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Standarized
NUHOMS System Revision 3150-AH28 (Amendment
7)...............................................................
.......... 4232 Minor Changes to Decommissioning Trust Fund
Provisions................................ 3150-AH32 4233 Minor
Correction
Amendments.......................................................
.... 3150-AH34 4234 List of Approved Sent Fuel Storage Casks:
Standardized NUHOMS -24P, -52B, and -61BT 3150-AH36 Revision
(Amendment
5)...............................................................
. 4235 Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery, FY
2004...................................... 3150-AH37
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________
______ Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Proposed Rule Stage
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4194. NUCLEAR POWER PLANT WORKER FATIGUE Priority:
Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC
5841 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 26 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The
proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to
establish thresholds for the control of working hours to ensure
that working hours in excess of the thresholds are controlled
through a risk-informed deviation process. This rule would
provide significantly greater assurance that worker fatigue does
not adversely affect the operational safety of nuclear power
plants. This rulemaking also would address a petition for
rulemaking submitted by Barry Quigley (PRM-26- 02). Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 07/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels Affected: None
Agency Contact: David Desaulniers, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC
20555-0001 Phone: 301 415-1043 Email: drd@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AG99
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4195. CONTROL OF SOLID MATERIAL Priority: Substantive,
Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 CFR
Citation: 10 CFR 20 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The proposed
rule would amend the Commission's regulations to evaluate
alternatives for the control of solid materials with very low,
or no, levels of radioactivity. There are currently non-codified
guidance and practices for the control of solid materials.
Current practice is to apply, on a case-by-case basis, either
Regulatory Guide 1.86 surface contamination values or no
detectable activity using environmental measurements methods. In
addition, there are no current release levels
establishedgenerally for volumetrically contaminated materials.
An examination of approaches to the control of solid materials
would help the NRC staff evaluate the cost effectiveness of
means to handle requests for clearance of materials during both
operations and decommissioning. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 09/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions
Government Levels Affected: Federal, State Agency Contact: Frank
Cardile, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001 Phone:
301 415-6185 Email: fpc@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AH18
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4196. LARGE BREAK LOSS-OF-COOLANT ACCIDENT (LB-LOCA)
REDEFINTION Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status
under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201;
42 USC 5841 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50 Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's
regulations to allow for a risk-informed alternative to the
present maximum loss-of- coolant accident (LOCA) break size.
This rulemaking would grant in part a petition for rulemaking
submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute (PRM-50-75).
Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 06/00/05 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels Affected: None
Agency Contact: Eileen McKenna, Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-2189 Email: emm@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AH29
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4197. [bullet][ls-thn-eq] INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF
ASME BPV CODE CASES Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal
Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 [[Page 38631]] CFR Citation:
10 CFR 50 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The proposed rule would
amend the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.55a to incorporate
by reference the latest revisions of two previously incorporated
regulatory guides which address NRC review and approval of Code
cases published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME). The Code cases listed in these regulatory guides have
been reviewed by the NRC and found to be acceptable for use as
alternatives to requirements in the ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code pertaining to the construction and inservice
inspection of nuclear power plant components. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Proposed Rule 07/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels
Affected: None Agency Contact: Harry S. Tovmassian, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
Washington, DC 20555 Phone: 301 415-3092 Email: hst@nrc.gov RIN:
3150-AH35
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4198. [bullet][ls-thn-eq] ELIMINATION OF REQUIREMENT TO
SUBMIT ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT Priority: Substantive,
Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 CFR
Citation: 10 CFR 50 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The proposed
rule would amend the Commission's regulations to eliminate the
reporting requirement in 10 CFR 50.71(b), which requires that
licensees for production and utilization facilities submit
annual financial reports, including certified financial
statements, to the Commission. The proposed rule would eliminate
the costs to licensees of submitting their annual financial
reports and the costs to the NRC of processing those submittals.
The cost savings are relatively small but it is expected that
the costs associated with the rulemaking will be justified by
the cost savings from eliminating the reporting requirement. The
elimination of the report will also serve to fulfill a
Congressional mandate to address outdated or paperwork oriented
requirements. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Proposed Rule 06/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels
Affected: None Agency Contact: William D. Reckley, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Phone: 301 415-1323 Email: wdr@nrc.gov
RIN: 3150-AH39
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4199. [bullet][ls-thn-eq] COLLECTION, REPORTING, OR
POSTING OF INFORMATION Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant
Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 CFR Citation: 10 CFR
19; 10 CFR 20; 10 CFR 50 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The
proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to
clarify or revise the regulations such that (1) licensees would
not be required, unless a specific request was made by a worker,
to provide an annual report to a worker of their radiation dose
if a worker received less than two percent of the limits defined
in 10 CFR part 20; (2) licensees for production and utilization
facilities governed by 10 CFR part 50 would not need to label
containers in accordance with 10 CFR 20.1904, ``Labeling
containers,`` if the containers met conditions such as being
clearly identifiable as containing radioactive materials, being
accessible only to trained individuals, and being located in an
area posted pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1902, ''Posting
requirements``; and (3) licensees would no longer need to
attempt to obtain records of a worker's cumulative radiation
dose unless the worker was to be involved in a planned special
exposure. In addition, the staff is considering using this
opportunity to propose a change to 10 CFR 20.1003,
``Definitions,'' to clarify the definition of total effective
dose equivalent (TEDE). Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Proposed Rule 06/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels
Affected: None Agency Contact: William D. Reckley, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Phone: 301 415-1323 Email: wdr@nrc.gov
RIN: 3150-AH40
_________________________________________________________________
______ Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Final Rule Stage
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4200. FITNESS FOR DUTY PROGRAMS Priority: Substantive,
Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 CFR
Citation: 10 CFR 26 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The proposed
rule would amend the Commission's regulations to ensure
compatibility with the Department of Health and Human Services
guidelines, reduce unnecessary regulatory burden in some areas,
clarify the Commission's original intent of the rule, and
improve overall program effectiveness and efficiency. This
rulemaking would address the petition for rulemaking submitted
by the Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) (PRM-26-1).
Because of the issues raised in response to the earlier affirmed
rule, a new proposed rule will be published. [[Page 38632]]
Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 05/09/96 61 FR 21105 NPRM Comment Period End
08/07/96 Final Rule 06/00/05 Second NPRM 11/00/06 Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No
Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Garmon West
Jr., Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Security
and Incident Response, Washington, DC 20555 Phone: 301 415-0211
Email: fitnessforduty@nrc.gov Mark C. Nolan, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response,
Washington, DC 20555 Phone: 301 415-8171 Email:
fitnessforduty@nrc.gov Related RIN: Related to 3150-AG62 RIN:
3150-AF12
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4201. EARLY SITE PERMITS; STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATIONS;
AND COMBINED LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Priority:
Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC
5841 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 20; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 51; .
. . Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The proposed rule would amend
the Commission's requirements for early site permits, standard
design certifications, and combined licensees for nuclear power
plants, and for other licensing processes. The amendments are
based on the NRC staff's experience with the previous design
certification reviews and on discussions with stakeholders about
the early site permit (ESP), design certification, and combined
license (COL) processes. This action is expected to improve the
effectiveness of the licensing processes for future applicants.
The rulemaking also would make conforming clarifications and
corrections to the NRC's regulations. The NRC is proposing to
reorganize 10 CFR part 52 to establish a separate section for
each of the seven licensing processes currently described in 10
CFR part 52 (early site permits, early site reviews, standard
design certification, standard design approvals, combined
licenses, manufacturing licenses, and duplicate design
licenses). The purpose of this reorganization is to clarify that
each licensing process has equal standing. In addition, several
subparts would be reserved for future licensing processes. No
substantive changes are intended by the incorporation of current
appendices M, N, O, and Q into the new subparts in 10 CFR part
52. The NRC is also proposing to retitle 10 CFR part 52 as
Additional Licensing Processes for Nuclear Power Plants to
clarify that the licensing processes in 10 CFR part 52 are in
addition to and supplement the two-step licensing process in 10
CFR part 50 and the license renewal process in 10 CFR part 54,
and are not limited to the early site permit, standard design
certification, and combined license processes as the current
title implies. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 07/03/03 68 FR 40025 NPRM Comment Period End
09/16/03 Final Rule 08/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels
Affected: None Additional Information: In addition, the proposed
rule would reserve sections for future licensing processes. In
doing so, the NRC hopes to convey that 10 CFR part 52 is the
preferred location in 10 CFR for nuclear power plant licensing
processes. The proposed rule subsumed the rulemaking,
``Standardized Plant Designs, Early Review of Sites Suitability
Issues; Clarifying Amendments'' (RIN 3150-AE25), that would
remove redundant Appendices M, N, O, and Q from Part 50. The
Part 52 rulemaking plan (SECY-98-282) was approved by the
Commission on January 14, 1999. Agency Contact: Jerry N. Wilson,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001 Phone: 301 415-3145 Email:
jnw@nrc.gov Nanette Giles, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001 Phone:
301 415-1180 Email: nvg@nrc.gov Related RIN: Merged with
3150-AE25 RIN: 3150-AG24
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4202. RISK-INFORMED CATEGORIZATION AND TREATMENT OF
STUCTURES, SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS FOR NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC
2201; 42 USC 5841 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50 Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: The proposed rule would provide an alternative,
risk-informed approach for special treatment requirements in the
current regulations. Special treatment requirements are
requirements imposed on structures, systems, and components
(SSCs) that provide additional confidence that these SSCs are
capable of meeting design basis functional requirements. The
contemplated risk-informed approach would categorize SSCs and
vary the associated regulatory treatment based on the SSC's
safety significance. This action is a result of the Commission's
continuing efforts to risk-inform its regulations. The staff
provided the Commission the proposed rule package on September
30, 2002. In a Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-02-0176,
dated March 28, 2003, the Commission directed the staff to
publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public
comment. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ ANPRM 03/03/00 65 FR 11488 ANPRM Comment Period End
05/17/00 NPRM 05/16/03 68 FR 26511 NPRM Comment Period Extended
07/30/03 68 FR 44672 Final Rule 07/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government
Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Tim Reed, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Office of [[Page 38633]] Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001 Phone: 301 415-1462 Email:
tar@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AG42
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4203. PERFORMANCE-BASED, RISK-INFORMED FIRE PROTECTION
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC
2201; 42 USC 5841 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50 Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: The proposed rule would address the Commission's
direction provided in the staff requirements memorandum dated
April 1, 1999, to establish a performance-based, risk-informed
alternative to the NRC's existing reactor fire protection
requirements through the adoption of an industry consensus
standard: NFPA 805, ``Performance-Based Standard for Fire
Protection for Light-Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants.''
Draft rule language was posted for public comment on the NRC
Rulemaking Forum website on December 20, 2001; April 2, 2002,
and May 30, 2002. The proposed rule package was provided to the
Commission on July 15, 2002 (SECY-02-132). Public comments have
been incorporated and a final rule package was prepared. The
draft final rule was presented to the ACRS on December 4, 2003,
and the ACRS gave its general approval of the rule in a letter
to the Chairman on December 12, 2003. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 11/01/02 67 FR 66578 NPRM Comment Period End
01/15/03 Final Action 07/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels
Affected: None Federalism: Undetermined Agency Contact: Joseph
L. Birmingham, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001 Phone: 301
415-2829 Email: jlb4@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AG48
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4204. CHANGES TO EMERGENCY ACTION LEVELS - APPENDIX E
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC
2201; 42 USC 5841 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50 Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: The proposed rule would resolve an ambiguity in the
regulations regarding NRC approval of nuclear power plant
licensee- initiated changes to emergency action levels (EALs).
The proposed rule would allow licensees to make minor changes to
EALs without prior NRC approval. The proposed rule would also
establish emergency planning exercise requirements for
co-located licensees. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 07/24/03 68 FR 43673 NPRM Comment Period End
10/07/03 Final Rule 08/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels
Affected: None Agency Contact: Michael T. Jamgochian, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Phone: 301 415-3224 Email:
mtj1@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AH00
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4205. SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR PORTABLE GAUGES
CONTAINING BYPRODUCT MATERIAL Priority: Substantive,
Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 CFR
Citation: 10 CFR 30 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The proposed
rule would amend the Commission's regulations governing the use
of byproduct material in specifically licensed portable gauges.
The proposed rule would require a licensee to provide a minimum
of two independent physical controls that form tangible barriers
to secure the gauge from unauthorized removal whenever the
portable gauges are not under the control and constant
surveillance of the licensee. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 08/01/03 68 FR 45172 NPRM Comment Period End
10/15/03 Final Rule 12/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels
Affected: None Agency Contact: Lydia Chang, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Phone: 301 415-6319 Email:
lwc1@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AH06
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4206. PUBLIC RECORDS Priority: Substantive,
Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 CFR
Citation: 10 CFR 9 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The proposed
rule would amend the Commission's regulations to reflect changes
in officials who initially deny access to records or deny access
to records whose initial denial has been appealed, and to
reflect a change in an appellate official due to a
reorganization. The amendment would allow the Executive
Assistant to the Secretary of the Commission, rather than the
Assistant Secretary, to make the initial determination to deny
NRC records in whole or in part under the Commission's
regulations. Also, an appeal of a denial of a request for a
waiver or reduction of fees, or denial of a request for
expedited processing would be appealed to the Executive Director
for Operations rather than the Secretary of the Commission.
Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Proposed Rule 04/27/04 69 FR 22737 Comment Period End
07/12/04 Final Rule 03/00/05 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels
Affected: None Agency Contact: Carole Ann Reed, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Office of the Chief Information Officer,
Washington, DC 20555 [[Page 38634]] Phone: 301 415-7169 Email:
car2@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AH12
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4207. OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE
ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH RECOGNITION OF SPECIALTY BOARDS BY NRC
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC
2201; 42 USC 5841 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 35 Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's
regulations modifying the training and experience requirements
based on recommendations submitted by the Advisory Committee on
the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI), contained in SECY-02-0194
(October 30, 2002, ``Staff Requirements - SECY-02-0194 - Options
for Addressing Part 35 Training and Experience Issues Associated
with Recognition of Specialty Boards by NRC'' (February 12,
2003). The Commission approved an option that includes posting
on the NRC's web site the names of boards whose certifications
are recognized as meeting revised criteria for training and
experience rather than including the names in regulations. The
Commission directed that the staff develop the proposed rule
based on the ACMUI's recommendations, with certain
qualifications in SRM-02- 0194, including clarifications about
the meaning of terms in preceptor statements - the retention of
which was required by the Commission. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Proposed Rule 12/09/03 68 FR 68549 Comment Period End
02/23/04 Final Rule 09/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions
Government Levels Affected: State Agency Contact: Roger W.
Broseus, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001 Phone:
301 415-7608 Email: rwb@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AH19
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4208. INDUSTRY CODES AND STANDARDS; AMENDED REQUIREMENTS
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC
801 is undetermined. Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The
proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to
incorporate by reference the 2001 Edition and 2002 Addenda of
Division 1 rules in section III, ``Rules for Construction of
Nuclear Power Plant Components,'' of the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME BPV
Code); the 2001 Edition and 2002 Addenda of Division 1 rules in
section XI, ``Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power
Plant Components,'' of the ASME BPV Code; and the 2001 edition
and 2002 addenda of the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance
of Nuclear Power Plants (OM Code). Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Proposed Rule 01/07/04 69 FR 879 Comment Period End
03/22/04 Final Rule 09/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels
Affected: None Agency Contact: Stephen A. Tingen, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Phone: 301 415-1280 Email: sgt@nrc.gov
RIN: 3150-AH24
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4209. LICENSING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE RECEIPT OF HIGH-LEVEL
RADIOACTIVE WASTE AT A GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY: LICENSING SUPPORT
NETWORK, SUBMISSIONS TO THE ELECTRONIC DOCKET Priority:
Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is
undetermined. Legal Authority: 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC
2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2239; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC
5842; 42 USC 5846 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 2 Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's
regulations that govern Rules of Practice applicable to the use
of the Licensing Support Network (LSN) for the licensing
proceeding on the disposal of high-level radioactive waste at a
geologic repository (HLW licensing proceeding). The proposed
amendments would establish the basic requirements and standards
for the submission of adjudicatory materials to the electronic
docket by parties to the HLW licensing proceeding. The proposed
amendments would also address the issue of reducing the
unnecessary loading of duplicate documents on individual LSN
participant websites. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Proposed Rule 11/26/03 68 FR 66372 Comment Period End
01/12/04 Final Rule 07/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact:
Francis X. Cameron, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the
General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001 Phone: 301 415-1642
Email: fxc@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AH31 [[Page 38635]]
_________________________________________________________________
______ Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Long-Term Actions
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4210. UPDATE FUEL PERFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS AND OTHER
FUEL CYCLE ISSUES Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal
Authority: 42 USC 2011; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 4321; 42 USC 5841;
42 USC 5842 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 51 Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's
regulations by addressing uranium fuel cycle environmental data
(Table S-3) and the environmental effects of transportation of
fuel and waste data (Table S-4). In section 51.51, the
environmental data would be re-estimated and reflect changes in
the structure and activities of the fuel cycle and the
availability of better data. Estimates of releases of Radon-222
and Technetium-99 would be added to Table S-3. The addition of a
specific value for Radon-222 would address the outstanding
portion of petition for rulemaking PRM-51-1, submitted by the
New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution. To provide immediate
relief to the petitioners' request, the Commission published a
final rule on March 14, 1977 (42 FR 13803), that removed the
original value for Radon-222 from Table S-3 so that it became
subject to case-specific litigation. It was anticipated that the
Commission would add a specific value for Radon-222, but the
Commission deferredaction until a general updating of Table S-3
is undertaken. For section 51.52, the environmental impact
estimates would be re-estimated to reflect the use of more
highly enriched fuel and discharge of more highly irradiated
fuels from a reactor; as well as many changes needed to update
fuel cycle process and technologies. This rulemaking would
result in current and more accurate estimates of the
environmental impact of licensing a new plant, and would
eliminate the requirement to review thecontribution to
environmental impacts from Radon-222 and Technetium-99 in
individual plant reviews. This rule is being reissued as a
proposed rule, and would update the initial rulemaking effort to
address newly emerging issues and research. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 03/04/81 46 FR 15154 NPRM Comment Period End
05/04/81 Second NPRM To Be Determined Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government
Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Stewart Schneider, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
Washington, DC 20555 Phone: 301 415-4123 Email: ssx4@nrc.gov
RIN: 3150-AA31
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4211. DISPOSAL BY RELEASE INTO SANITARY SEWERAGE
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC
2201; 42 USC 5841 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 20 Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) was
published to request public comment, information, and
recommendations on contemplated amendments to the Commission's
regulations governing the release of radionuclides from licensed
nuclear facilities into sanitary sewer systems. The Commission
believes that by incorporating current sewer treatment
technologies, the contemplated rulemaking would improve the
control of radioactive materials released to sanitary sewer
systems by licensed nuclear facilities. The Interagency Steering
Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS), the NRC and the
Environmental Protection Agency conducted a joint survey of
sewage treatment plants. The need for and the extent of a
rulemaking will be evaluated pending the result of the survey
and the associated dose assessment. This rulemaking would also
address a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Northeast
Ohio Sewer District (PRM-20-22). Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ ANPRM 02/25/94 59 FR 9146 ANPRM Comment Period End
05/26/94 NPRM To Be Determined Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels
Affected: None Agency Contact: David Tiktinsky, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
Washington , DC 20555-0001 Phone: 301 415-6195 Email:
dht@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AE90
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4212. ADVANCE NOTIFICATION TO NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES OF
TRANSPORTATION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF NUCLEAR WASTE Priority:
Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC
5841 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 71; 10 CFR 73 Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)
invited early input from affected parties and the public on the
issues associated with the advance notification of Indian tribes
of spent fuel shipments. The Department of Energy (DOE) has
indicated that it intends to comply with NRC's physical
protection requirements for shipments under the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act; however, its current practices conflict with NRC
regulations. For example, DOE has asked for and will continue to
ask for exemptions from the shipment itinerary information
requirements of foreign research reactor fuel. DOE, as a
courtesy, provides Indian tribes with notification of spent fuel
shipments. NRC's current regulations do not address notification
of Indian tribes. Further, DOE has developed a satellite
tracking system to monitor the status of spent fuel shipments at
all times. Distribution of this status information to parties
other than Governors' designees is also not compatible with NRC
regulations. A rulemaking plan was approved by the Commission on
February 20, 2001. This rulemaking was put on hold by the
Commission pending review of NRC rules in response to events of
September 11, 2001. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ ANPRM 12/21/99 64 FR 71331 ANPRM Comment Period End
07/05/00 65 FR 18010 NPRM To Be Determined Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis Required: No [[Page 38636]] Small Entities
Affected: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact:
Roger W. Broseus, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC
20555-0001 Phone: 301 415-7608 Email: rwb@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AG41
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4213. INTEGRATED RULEMAKING FOR DECOMMISSIONING NUCLEAR
POWER REACTORS Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal
Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50
Legal Deadline: None Abstract: A staff requirements memorandum
dated June 23, 1999, directed the NRC staff to consider an
integrated, risk-informed decommissioning rule rather than
individual rulemakings to address emergency preparedness,
insurance, safeguards, operator staffing, and backfit for
nuclear power plants that are being decommissioned. SECY-99-168,
dated June 30, 1999, recommended that the integrated approach be
approved and outlined staff plans for pursuing such a
rulemaking. Accordingly, the staff has subsumedprevious
rulemaking activities in the areas of emergency planning,
insurance, safeguards, operator staffing, and backfit into one
integrated rulemaking effort. This rulemaking would apply to
licensees who certified, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a), that they
have permanently ceased facility operation(s) and have
permanently removed fuel from the reactor vessel. The Commission
approved this approach in an SRM dated December 21, 1999. This
rulemaking also would address a petition for rulemaking
submitted by the North Carolina Public Utility Commission
(PRM-50-57). Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM To Be Determined Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels
Affected: None Additional Information: In SECY-00-0145, dated
June 28, 2000, the NRC staff recommended a decommissioning
rulemaking plan in the areas of emergency planning, insurance,
safeguards, operator staffing, and backfit (the integrated
decommissioning rulemaking plan). The rulemaking plan relied on
a draft decommissioning risk study as the basis for its
recommendations. The Commission returned the rulemaking plan to
the staff for rework in September 2000, based on changes to the
decommissioning risk study findings. The decommissioning risk
study, NUREG-1738, was issued in January 2001. After assessing
the findings in the risk study, the staff presented a policy
options paper to the Commission, SECY-01-0100, dated June 4,
2001, that provided options and made recommendations on issues
to be addressed in the integrated rulemaking. Following the
terrorist events of September 11, 2001, the NRC staff
recommended and the Commission approved the withdrawal of
SECY-01-0101 because of the likely changes in the staff's
position on decommissioning plant safeguards. The
decommissioning policy position will be revisited when a
broad-scope NRC safeguards policy is developed in response to
potential terrorist acts at nuclear facilities. The schedule for
the integrated rulemaking cannot be determined at this time.
Agency Contact: George J. Mencinsky, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC
20555-0001 Phone: 301 415-3093 Email: gjm@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AG47
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4214. REEVALUATION OF POWER REACTOR PHYSICAL PROTECTION
REGULATIONS AND POSITION ON A DEFINITION OF RADIOLOGICAL
SABOTAGE Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 73 Legal Deadline:
None Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's
regulations to incorporate the Commission actions taken as a
result of September 11, 2001. The proposed rulemaking would (1)
require power reactor licensees to conduct drills and exercises
to evaluate their protective strategy against a simulated design
basis threat (DBT) of radiological sabotage; (2) incorporate
requirements of Commission Orders issued February 25, 2002,
January 7, 2003, and April 29, 2003; (3) require the development
and implementation of an integrated response plan; (4) consider
appropriate information obtained as a result of on-going
vulnerability assessments; (5) consider appropriate aspects of
access authorization program changes; (6) codify the applicable
requirements from the Commission Orders (and revisions to
section 73.55) as part of the licensing and design regulations
applicable to future/new reactor applications/designs (Part 50)
(SRM to SECY-03-0157); and (7) codify the applicable
requirements from the Commission Orders as part of the licensing
and design regulations applicable to Early Site Permits (ESPs).
In conjunction with this rulemaking effort, all associated
regulatory guidance documents such as regulatory guides, NUREGs,
Information notices, etc., would require review and revisions as
appropriate. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM To Be Determined Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels
Affected: None Agency Contact: Scott A. Norris, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident
Response, Washington, DC 20555 Phone: 301 415-7083 Email:
sam1@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AG63
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4215. TRANSFERS OF CERTAIN SOURCE MATERIALS BY SPECIFIC
LICENSEES Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 40 Legal Deadline:
None Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's
regulations to require NRC approval for transfers from licensees
of unimportant quantities of source material (less than 0.05
percent by weight) to persons exempt from [[Page 38637]]
licensing requirements. The objective of this proposed action is
to ensure that the regulations regarding transfers of materials
containing low concentrations of source material are adequate to
protect public health and safety. Publication of the final rule
is being delayed until certain recent related issues are
resolved to minimize the possibility of future inconsistencies
in the regulations. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 08/28/02 67 FR 55175 NPRM Comment Period End
11/12/02 Final Action To Be Determined Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government
Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Gary Comfort, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001 Phone: 301 415-8106 Email:
gcc1@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AG64
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4216. ENTOMBMENT OPTIONS FOR POWER REACTORS Priority:
Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC
5841 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 20; 10 CFR 50 Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) was
published seeking stakeholder input on three proposed regulatory
options and whether entombment was a viable decommissioning
alternative. In SECY 02-0191 (October 25, 2002), NRC staff
proposed deferring the rulemaking until the Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research has conducted research to develop a sound
technical basis for an entombment option, estimated in 2005. The
Commission, in a Staff Requirements Memorandum dated November
26, 2002, did not object to staff's proposal, and requested
information regarding the scope and type of research needed to
support any entombment option. This information was provided to
the Commission on May 14, 2003. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ ANPRM 10/16/01 66 FR 52551 ANPRM Comment Period End
12/31/01 NPRM To Be Determined Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels
Affected: None Agency Contact: Patricia Eng, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Phone: 301 415-7206 Email: ple@nrc.gov
RIN: 3150-AG89
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4217. MODIFICATIONS TO PRESSURE-TEMPERATURE LIMITS
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC
2201; 42 USC 5841 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50 Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's
regulations to eliminate those requirements for
pressure-temperature limits that are related to the metal
temperature of the reactor pressure vessel closure head flange
and vessel flange areas. The proposed rule would amend footnotes
2 and 6 to table 1 of appendix G, and simplify restructuring of
the table. Also, this rulemaking would address the petition for
rulemaking submitted by Westinghouse Electric Company
(PRM-50-69). Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM To Be Determined Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels
Affected: None Agency Contact: Matthew Mitchell, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Phone: 301 415-3303 Email:
mam4@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AG98
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4218. DISTRIBUTION OF SOURCE MATERIAL TO EXEMPT PERSONS
AND GENERAL LICENSEES AND REVISION OF 10 CFR 40.22 GENERAL
LICENSE Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 40 Legal Deadline:
None Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's
regulations to improve the control over the distribution of
source material to exempt persons and to general licensees in
order to make part 40 more risk- informed. The proposed rule
also would govern the licensing of source material by adding
specific requirements for licensing of and reporting by
distributors of products and materials used by exempt persons
and general licensees. Source material is used under general
license and under various exemptions from licensing requirements
in part 40 for which there is no regulatory mechanism for the
Commission to obtain information to fully assess the resultant
risks to public health and safety. Although estimates of
resultant doses have been made, there is a need for ongoing
information on the quantities and types of radioactive material
distributed for exempt use and use under general license.
Obtaining information on the distribution of source material is
particularly difficult because many of the distributors of
source material to exempt persons and generally licensed persons
are not currently required to hold a license from the
Commission. Distributors are often unknown to the Commission. No
controls are in place to ensure that products and materials
distributed are maintained within the applicable constraints of
the exemptions. In addition, the amounts of source material
allowed under the general license in 10 CFR 40.22 could result
in exposures above 1 mSv/year (100 mrem/year) to workers at
facilities that are not required to meet the requirements of
parts 19 and 20. Without knowledge of the identity and location
of the general licensees, it would be difficult to enforce
restrictions on the general licensees. This rule also would
address PRM-40-27 submitted by the State of Colorado and
organization of Agreement States. [[Page 38638]] Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM To Be Determined Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: Yes Small Entities Affected: Governmental
Jurisdictions Government Levels Affected: State Agency Contact:
Gary Comfort, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001 Phone:
301 415-8106 Email: gcc1@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AH15
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4219. ACCEPTABLE CRITERIA FOR EMERGENCY CORE COOLING
SYSTEMS FOR LIGHT- WATER NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS Priority:
Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is
undetermined. Legal Authority: 41 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 CFR
Citation: 10 CFR 50 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The proposed
amendment would eliminate the agency's practice of approving the
use of M5, a zirconium-niobium alloy, by exemptions. This action
is intended to increase NRC's effectiveness and efficiency and
to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden for licensees without
adversely affecting public health and safety. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 03/00/06 Final Rule 03/00/07 Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government
Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Merilee Banic, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
Washington, DC 20555 Phone: 301 415-2771 Email: mjb@nrc.gov RIN:
3150-AH22
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4220. [bullet][ls-thn-eq] IMPLEMENT US-IAEA SAFEGUARDS
AGREEMENT Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10
CFR 60; 10 CFR 61, 1 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The final
rule will amend the Commission's regulations to implement the
additional reporting and complementary access requirements
contained in the US/IAEA Additional Protocol for the application
of safeguards in the United States of America. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Final Rule To Be Determined Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government
Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: David Tiktinsky, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
Washington , DC 20555-0001 Phone: 301 415-6195 Email:
dht@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AH38
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4221. [bullet][ls-thn-eq] EXEMPTIONS FROM LICENSING AND
DISTRIBUTION OF BYPRODUCT MATERIAL; LICENSING AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENT Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal
Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 30; 10
CFR 31; 10 CFR 32 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The proposed
rule would amend the Commission's regulations to use the results
of the reevaluation of exemptions to make Parts 30, 31, and 32
more risk-informed, less prescriptive, and better ensure safety.
This goal would include considering a new exemption to cover a
number of types of devices that are currently used under
specific or general license. Some issues related to the
distribution of generally licensed devices also would be
considered. This rulemaking would subsume RM 526, ``Use of
Exempt Sources in Devices, 10 CFR 30.18,`` which has been
terminated. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Proposed Rule To Be Determined Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government
Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Catherine R. Mattsen,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555- 0001 Phone: 301 415-6264
Email: crm@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AH41
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4222. [bullet][ls-thn-eq] PERFORMANCE-BASED ECCS
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal
Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50
Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the
Commission's regulations to Sec. 50.46 to develop
performance-based acceptance criteria for fuel cladding
performance during loss-of-coolant accidents. Existing
provisions of Sec. 50.46 applicable to certain zirconium-based
cladding materials would be supplemented by performance-based
standards for maximum peak cladding temperature and oxidation
limit. The supplementary performance standard would allow
licensees to use alternative cladding materials, without seeking
an exemption, provided that (1) testing demonstrated that
adequate ductility would be maintained and (2) ECCS analyses
showed that the new performance criteria would be satisfied. The
proposed rulemaking would also grant PRM-50-71, a petition for
rulemaking submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Proposed Rule 03/00/06 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels
Affected: None Agency Contact: Peter C. Wen, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington ,
DC 20555-0001 [[Page 38639]] Phone: 301 415-2832 Email:
pxw@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AH42
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4223. [bullet][ls-thn-eq] DECOUPLING OF ASSUMED LOSS OF
OFFSITE POWER FROM LOSS-OF-COOLANT ACCIDENTS (LOCA) Priority:
Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC
5841 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The
proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to Part
50, Appendix A, to eliminate--based upon appropriate risk
considerations--the assumption of a coincident loss of offsite
power (LOOP) for postulated large-break (low frequency)
loss-of-coolant accidents (LB-LOCA) in General Design Criterion
(GDC) 35. The proposed rule would provide a voluntary
alternative to existing requirements where specified acceptance
criteria are satisfied, and would grant, in part, PRM-50-77, a
petition for rulemaking submitted by Bob Christie (Performance
Technology). Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Proposed Rule To Be Determined Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government
Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Peter C. Wen, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
Washington , DC 20555-0001 Phone: 301 415-2832 Email:
pxw@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AH43
_________________________________________________________________
______ Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Completed Actions
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4224. CHANGES TO ADJUDICATORY PROCESS Priority:
Substantive, Nonsignificant CFR Citation: 10 CFR 1; 10 CFR 2; 10
CFR 50; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 52; 10 CFR 54; 10 CFR 60; 10 CFR 70;
10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 75; 10 CFR 76; 10 CFR 110 Completed:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Reason Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Final Rule 01/14/04 69 FR 2182 Final Rule Effective
02/13/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small
Entities Affected: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency
Contact: Geary S. Mizuno Phone: 301 415-1639 Email: gsm@nrc.gov
RIN: 3150-AG49
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4225. COMPATIBILITY WITH IAEA TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
STANDARDS Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant CFR Citation: 10
CFR 71 Completed:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Reason Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Final Rule 01/26/04 69 FR 3698 Final Rule Effective
10/01/04 Portions of Sections 71.19 and 71.20 10/01/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small Entities
Affected: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact:
Naiem S. Tanious Phone: 301 415-6103 Email: nst@nrc.gov RIN:
3150-AG71
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4226. FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICATIONS
TO RENEW OR EXTEND THE TERM OF AN OPERATING LICENSE FOR A POWER
REACTOR Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant CFR Citation: 10
CFR 50 Completed:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Reason Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Final Rule 01/30/04 69 FR 4439 Final Rule Effective
03/01/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small
Entities Affected: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency
Contact: George J. Mencinsky Phone: 301 415-3093 Email:
gjm@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AG84
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4227. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF FINGERPRINT RECORDS
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant CFR Citation: 10 CFR 73
Completed:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Reason Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Subsumed into RIN 3150-AH33 10/10/03 68 FR 58791
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small Entities
Affected: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact:
Cheryl Stone Phone: 301 415-7404 Email: cms2@nrc.gov RIN:
3150-AH16
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4228. LIST OF APPROVED SPENT FUEL STORAGE CASKS: NAC-UMS
REVISION (AMENDMENT 3) Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant.
Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. CFR Citation: 10
CFR 72 Completed:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Reason Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Direct Final Rule 01/16/04 69 FR 2497 Direct Final Rule
Effective 03/31/04 Proposed Rule 01/16/04 69 FR 2528
Confirmation of Effective Date 03/31/04 69 FR 16769 Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No
Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Jayne M.
McCausland Phone: 301 415-6219 Email: jmm2@nrc.gov RIN:
3150-AH25 [[Page 38640]]
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4229. LIST OF APPROVED SPENT FUEL STORAGE CASKS:
STANDARDIZED NUHOMS SYSTEM REVISION (AMENDMENT 5) Priority:
Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is
undetermined. CFR Citation: 10 CFR 72 Completed:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Reason Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Direct Final Rule Effective 11/03/03 Withdrawal of
Direct Final Rule 10/30/03 68 FR 61734 Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government
Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Jayne M. McCausland Phone:
301 415-6219 Email: jmm2@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AH26
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4230. LIST OF APPROVED SPENT FUEL STORAGE CASKS:
STANDARDIZED NUHOMS - 24P, -52B, -61BT, -32PT, AND -24PHB
REVISION (AMENDMENT 6) Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant.
Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. CFR Citation: 10
CFR 72 Completed:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Reason Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Proposed Rule 10/07/03 68 FR 57839 Direct Final Rule
10/07/03 68 FR 57785 Confirmation of Effective Date 12/17/03 68
FR 71021 Direct Final Rule Effective 12/22/03 Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No
Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Margaret
Stambaugh Phone: 301 415-5449 Email: msx8@nrc.gov Margaret
Stambaugh Phone: 301 415-5449 Email: msx8@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AH27
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4231. LIST OF APPROVED SPENT FUEL STORAGE CASKS:
STANDARIZED NUHOMS SYSTEM REVISION (AMENDMENT 7) Priority:
Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is
undetermined. CFR Citation: 10 CFR 72 Completed:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Reason Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Proposed Rule 12/18/03 68 FR 70463 Direct Final Rule
12/18/03 68 FR 70423 Confirmation of Effective Date Published
02/27/04 69 FR 9199 Final Rule Effective 03/02/04 Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No
Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Jayne M.
McCausland Phone: 301 415-6219 Email: jmm2@nrc.gov RIN:
3150-AH28
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4232. MINOR CHANGES TO DECOMMISSIONING TRUST FUND
PROVISIONS Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status
under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50
Completed:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Reason Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Proposed Rule 11/20/03 68 FR 65415 Comment Period End
12/22/03 Direct Final Rule 11/20/03 68 FR 65386 Direct Final
Rule Effective 12/24/03 Confirmation of Effective Date 02/04/04
69 FR 5267 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small
Entities Affected: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency
Contact: Brian J. Richter Phone: 301 415-1978 Email: bjr@nrc.gov
Brian J. Richter Phone: 301 415-1978 Email: bjr@nrc.gov RIN:
3150-AH32
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4233. [bullet][ls-thn-eq] MINOR CORRECTION AMENDMENTS
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC
2201; 42 USC 5841 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 1; 10 CFR 4; 10 CFR 19;
10 CFR 35; 10 CFR 39; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50 Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: The final rule amends the Commission's regulations to
correct several miscellaneous errors in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR). This document is necessary to inform the
public of these corrective changes to NRC regulations.
Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Final Rule 12/31/03 68 FR 75388 Final Rule Effective
12/31/03 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small
Entities Affected: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency
Contact: Alzonia W. Shepard, Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Office of Administration, Washington, DC 20055-0001 Phone: 301
415-6864 Email: aws1@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AH34
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4234. [bullet][ls-thn-eq] LIST OF APPROVED SENT FUEL
STORAGE CASKS: STANDARDIZED NUHOMS -24P, -52B, AND -61BT
REVISION (AMENDMENT 5) Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant
Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 CFR Citation: 10 CFR
72 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The final rule amends the
Commission's regulations that apply to storage of spent fuel by
revising the Transnuclear, Inc., Standardized NUHOMS cask system
listing within the ``List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks''
to include Amendment No. 5 to Certificate of Compliance Number
1004. This amendment will add another dry shielded canister
(DSC), designated NUHOMS -32PT DSC, to the authorized contents
of the Standardized NUHOMS -24P, -52B, and -61BT cask system.
This canister is designed to accommodate 32 [[Page 38641]]
pressurized water reactor assemblies with or without Burnable
Poison Rod assemblies. It is designed for use with existing
NUHOMS horizontal Storage Module and NUHOMS Transfer Cask under
a general license. A significant adverse comment was received on
the direct final rule, therefore the direct final rule was
withdrawn on October 30, 2003; 68 FR 61734 (see RIN AH26).
Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Final Rule 01/07/04 69 FR 849 Final Rule Effective
01/07/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small
Entities Affected: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency
Contact: Jayne M. McCausland, Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC
20555- 0001 Phone: 301 415-6219 Email: jmm2@nrc.gov RIN:
3150-AH36
_________________________________________________________________
______ 4235. [bullet][ls-thn-eq] REVISION OF FEE SCHEDULES; FEE
RECOVERY, FY 2004 Priority: Economically Significant. Major
under 5 USC 801. Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 CFR
Citation: 10 CFR 170; 10 CFR 171 Legal Deadline: None Abstract:
The final rule amends the licensing, inspection, and annual fees
charged to NRC licensees and applicants for an NRC license. The
rulemaking is necessary to recover, through the assessment of
fees, approximately 92 percent of the NRC's budget authority for
Fiscal Year 2004, less the amounts appropriated from the Nuclear
Waste Fund as required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
(OBRA) of 1990, as amended. The FY 2001 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act amended OBRA-90 to decrease the
NRC's fee recovery amount by 2 percent per year beginning in FY
2001 until the fee recovery amount is 90 percent for FY 2005.
The purpose of this amendment is to address the fairness and
equity concerns related to charging NRC license holders for
agency expenses that do not provide a direct benefit to the
licensee. The dollar amount to be recovered for FY 2004 is
approximately $545.6 million. OBRA-90, as amended, requires that
the fees for FY 2004 be collected by September 30, 2004.
Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Proposed Rule 02/02/04 69 FR 4865 Comment Period End
03/03/04 Final Rule 04/26/04 69 FR 22663 Final Rule Effective
06/25/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes Small
Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions,
Organizations Government Levels Affected: Local, State Agency
Contact: Tammy D. Croote, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office
of the Chief Financial Officer, Washington, DC 20555-0001 Phone:
301 415-6041 Email: txc1@nrc.gov RIN: 3150-AH37 [FR Doc.
04-11479 Filed 06-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-S
*****************************************************************
37 Sofia Morning News: No Referendum on Bulgaria's Nuke Units Closure
Sofia News Agency]
novinite.com
Politics: 28 June 2004, Monday.
There would be no referendum over the decommissioning of units 3
and 4 of Bulgaria's only nuke plant Kozloduy.
Except for the Bulgarian socialists, no other party has asked for
referendum on that move, Vesselin Bliznakov, head of the
parliamentary energy commission, explained.
Bliznakov pointed out that some 15% of the Bulgarian people are
not aware of the existence of nuclear units in Bulgaria. He also
stated that the second nuclear plant in Belene will start working
by 2010.
Bulgaria's government was put under strong pressure June 9 over
the fate of two of the units of the country's only nuclear power
plant, facing EU demand for shutting them down and national
demands for keeping them active. Sixty-eight Bulgarian
parliamentarians from across the political spectrum placed a
motion before the 240-seat parliament calling for a referendum on
the future of the reactors, located at the Kozlodouy plant in the
north of the country.[ width=]
novinite.com Forum Google
All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2004 - Copyright
Novinite.com (thebulgariannews.com also) is unique with being a
real time news provider in English that informs its readers
about the latest Bulgarian news. The editorial staff also
*****************************************************************
38 San Luis Obispo Tribune: State fights new NRC rules
| 06/27/2004 |
Critics say guidelines meant to streamline hearings will reduce
local oversight of Diablo Canyon
David Sneed The Tribune
SAN LUIS OBISPO - California has joined four other states in
criticizing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a new set of
streamlined hearing rules that critics say will significantly
reduce local oversight of Diablo Canyon and other commercial
nuclear power plants.
State attorneys say the new rules, adopted in February, deprive
local governments of two of their most powerful legal tools when
utilities apply for nuclear power licenses, reducing their
ability to cross-examine industry and government witnesses during
hearings and to get documents relevant to those hearings.
The rules also make it harder for citizen activists to challenge
those licenses.
But nuclear advocates say the new rules are intended to benefit
the public by streamlining hearings and that they are equally
limiting for utilities.
The states are asking a federal appeals court in Boston to throw
out the rules. A hearing is expected in August or September.
California has two nuclear power plants that supply nearly 20
percent of the state's electricity. They are Diablo Canyon in San
Luis Obispo County and the San Onofre nuclear plant near San
Clemente.
The new rules govern how hearings are conducted for many of the
most vital nuclear power licenses, including building new plants,
renewing licenses for existing plants and constructing
above-ground storage facilities for highly radioactive waste.
Diablo Canyon has no licenses pending before the NRC, but an
application to extend by three years the operating license of one
of the plant's two reactors is expected as soon as late this
year. The new rules would be applicable to any hearings this
request might generate.
The arguments
NRC spokeswoman Sue Gagner said the old rules encouraged formal,
trial-like adjudicatory hearings. But she and nuclear industry
advocates say the new rules benefit the public by making hearings
more efficient and understandable.
"Our position is that the new rules are consistent with federal
law and will allow all parties to get at the issues more directly
and incisively than under trial-style hearings," said Michael
Bauser, a lawyer with the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry
advocacy group.
Bauser also noted that the new rules cut both ways. Utilities
must also do without cross-examination and extensive discovery.
"They are equitable across the board, and we think that's fine,"
Bauser said.
But Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for California Attorney General
Bill Lockyer, said the new procedures severely limit activists
and local government officials.
"The practical effect is that, with these new procedures, we
don't have the ability to discover evidence or cross-examine
witnesses unless the presiding officer deems it OK," Dresslar
said.
"These streamlined rules are a disaster for public participation.
They come at a time when a lot of these nuclear plants are
getting pretty old, so it's important that states have an
opportunity to fully participate in license hearings."
The new rules also restrict the amount of time activists and
governments have to intervene in an NRC hearing and formally
challenge aspects of the pending license.
This puts activists, who often have meager budgets and rely on
volunteers, at a great disadvantage compared to well-financed
utility companies, said Deb Katz, executive director of the
Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) in Shelburne Falls, Mass.
"The NRC is setting up conditions to make it easier for the
(nuclear) industry and basically eliminate the one avenue for the
public to object," she said, "and we believe that is the
purpose."
CAN, a nuclear watchdog group with offices throughout New
England, has sued the NRC to overturn the new rules. Lockyer and
his counterparts from Connecticut, New York, New Hampshire, and
Wisconsin have filed a friend-of-the court brief in support of
the CAN lawsuit.
The arguments contained in the brief are very similar to those
made by Lockyer earlier this year when he and other attorneys
general sided with the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace in a
separate lawsuit against the NRC. That focused on the agency's
refusal to hold public hearings into safety issues surrounding a
proposed dry-cask storage facility at Diablo Canyon for highly
radioactive spent reactor fuel.
In both cases, the states argue that NRC actions diminished
public safety because they deprive the agency of valuable local
input on how to protect nuclear plants and respond effectively in
the case of an accident or attack.
They also contend that a lack of local participation erodes
confidence in the regulatory process and the nuclear industry.
"It is essential that members of the public be given a meaningful
opportunity to participate in licensing hearings," the states'
brief reads. "Without this opportunity, the public will have
little confidence that government decision-makers will address
their concerns during the relicensing process."
Diablo Canyon owners Pacific Gas and Electric Co. received a
license in March to build the dry-cask storage facility for the
plant's used but still highly radioactive reactor fuel. The new
rules were adopted a month before the dry cask license was issued
and were not in effect when the agency deliberated whether to
issue the permit.
However, if Mothers for Peace activists prevail in their lawsuit,
the NRC will be forced to hold hearings and the new rules would
be relevant. Activists fear the rules will put them at a
disadvantage.
"Our reduced ability to participate is a disservice not only to
this community but the nation as a whole," said Rochelle Becker,
an activist with the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace.
Future license applications
Other important licenses are on the horizon for Diablo Canyon
which will likely require hearings under the new rules. The
utility plans to apply late this year or early next for a
three-year extension to the operating license of the plant's Unit
1 reactor.
Called a license recapture, small extensions like this are
intended to allow plants to recover lost operating time under
their current license. In the case of Diablo Canyon, the
extension would recover generating time lost when the plant first
started up and was operating in low power, said Jeff Lewis, plant
spokesman.
If granted, the recapture will delay the expiration of the unit's
license from September 2021 to November 2024. In that case, both
units' licenses would expire within months of each other, Lewis
said.
However, the big licensing battle over Diablo Canyon will come
when the utility applies to renew its operating license.
Commercial nuclear plants are initially licensed for 40 years and
can apply for a 20-year extension.
Diablo Canyon officials say they are studying whether to apply
for license renewal but have not made any decision because the
current licenses won't expire for another 20 years.
"We are still in a position of working on our spent fuel project
and replacing the steam generators, so we are focusing our
efforts on those issues," Lewis said.
However, nuclear industry officials say they expect all operating
nuclear plants, including Diablo Canyon, to apply for license
renewal, said Mitch Singer, NEI spokesman. Of the nation's 103
operating reactors, 26 have already renewed their licenses, 18
have renewal applications pending and 24 others are expected to
apply for renewal within three years.
"Nobody has been turned down yet," Singer said.
The NRC normally needs two or three years to review a renewal
application, but the process begins long before that, Singer
said. Utilities often start the process a decade, sometimes 15
years, before their operating licenses expire.
This means PG&E could begin preparing its license renewal
application in as little as five years. Activists say it is
unlikely they can stop such renewals but want the old hearing
rules back in order to improve safety.
"Sometimes we lose these hearings, but the agency and the
utilities do a better job when they are being watched," Katz
said.
David Sneed covers environmental issues for The Tribune. E-mail
story ideas and comments to him at dsneed@thetribunenews.com.
*****************************************************************
39 AFP: Israel to distribute anti-radiation pills for residents near reactors
[http://www.spacewar.com/]
JERUSALEM (AFP) Jun 27, 2004
Israel is to distribute iodine anti-radiation pills to residents
lving near the country's two nuclear reactors, a defense ministry
spokesman said Sunday.
The decision was taken after talks between officials from the
defense and health ministries and the Israeli nuclear energy
commission, the spokesman told AFP.
"These pills have been stored in the health ministry for the last
20 years amd will be distributed over the next two months as a
preventative measure," he added.
"We have taken this decision because it has been proven that
these pills are effective and should be taken very quickly in
case of an increase in radiation around the reactors at Dimona
and Nahal Sorek."
He denied that there was any cause for concern about safety
measures or levels of radiation, adding that similar precautions
had been taken in other foreign countries.
The tablets will be handed out in the towns of Dimona and Arad as
well as to Bedouins living in the southern Negev desert close to
the Dimona reactor.
Residents living in the town of Yavne, south of Tel Aviv and
close to the smaller Nahal Sorek plant, will also be given the
pills.
Israeli scientists and politicians have called for the closure of
the 40-year-old Dimona plant, saying its age had increased the
risk of accidents.
Israel has never publicly acknowledged that it maintains a
nuclear arsenal but foreign experts say it has used its reactor
at Dimona to produce between 100 and 200 nuclear warheads.
WAR.WIRE
*****************************************************************
40 AFP: Russia to host conference on spent nuclear fuel - IAEA
[http://www.spacewar.com/]
MOSCOW (AFP) Jun 28, 2004
Russia is to host a conference next year on disposing of spent
nuclear fuel, a highly radioactive material that is considered
one of the major dangers in using atomic reactors to generate
electricity, the chief UN nuclear inspector said Monday.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General
Mohamed ElBaradei said after meeting with Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov that Russia would hold the conference next year but that
neither an exact date nor place had been set.
ElBaradei said Russia was willing to build a "state of the art"
geological depository for spent nuclear fuel and be the first in
the world "to accept foreign spent fuel."
"There is a lot of spent fuel in former Soviet eastern Europe,"
ElBaradei said.
ElBaradei had Sunday told an IAEA conference in Moscow on the
peaceful uses of nuclear power that public opinion about nuclear
energy "will likely remain skeptical, and nuclear waste disposal
will likely remain controversial, until the first geological
repositories are operational and the disposal technologies fully
demonstrated."
He said more than 50 countries have spent nuclear fuel but "not
all countries have the right geology to store waste underground"
or the money to do this.
"I am encouraged the Russian Federation is considering one such
collective disposal initiative," he said.
ElBaradei said the "greatest progress on deep geological disposal
has been made in Finland, Sweden and the United States."
But he said the problem must be solved multinationally.
"Most technological hurdles to spent fuel disposal or
reprocessing have already been solved," he said.
In addition, "when the actual amount of spent nuclear fuel
produced globally every year -- 12,000 tons -- is contrasted with
the 25 billion tons of carbon waste released directly into the
atmosphere every year from fossil fuels, the amount of nuclear
waste seems relatively small," ElBaradei said.
But he said the "management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel
remains a challenge for the nuclear power industry."
WAR.WIRE
*****************************************************************
41 Salt Lake Tribune: White House help sought on N-dump
June 28, 2004
By Robert Gehrke
WASHINGTON -- Mired in red tape, the head of Private Fuel
Storage turned to an offshoot of Vice President Dick Cheney's
Energy Task Force for help in making the firm's proposed nuclear
waste storage facility in Utah a reality.
In a letter, Private Fuel Storage Chairman John D. Parkyn
asked the White House Task Force on Energy Policy Streamlining
to force the Defense Department to complete a study on whether
putting the nuclear waste near the sprawling Utah Test and
Training Range might hinder the preparedness of the Air Force,
which uses the range in Utah's west desert for combat practice.
Until the congressionally mandated study is completed, the
Interior Department cannot approve Private Fuel Storage's
request to build a rail line across federal land to the Skull
Valley Goshute Indian Reservation, where the company plans to
store 40,000 tons of radioactive waste from the nation's nuclear
power plants.
"The failure of the Department of Defense to undertake this
study, as directed by law . . . offers a prime example of a
federal agency's inaction thus delaying or stopping the orderly,
ongoing licensing of a facility that is key to the continued
production of electricity from nuclear power generating
facilities throughout the nation," Parkyn said in his letter to
the energy task force.
The 2001 letter was among thousands of pages of Energy Task
Force documents obtained recently by the Natural Resources
Defense Council through an ongoing Freedom of Information Act
lawsuit filed against the vice president.
Parkyn's plea appears to have prompted a meeting between
Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles and Tod
Neuenschwander, Private Fuel Storage's lobbyist at the time.
Griles calendar shows he met with Neuenschwander on Nov. 1,
2001, to discuss the waste storage proposal.
It also generated a letter from the director of the task
force, Virginia Stephens, to Interior Department officials,
asking what needed to be done to move the Private Fuel Storage
project forward.
Dana Perino, spokeswoman for the White House Council on
Environmental Quality, said the letter to Interior was
essentially a form letter and the task force sent similar
letters to other agencies to gather information on issues
brought to its attention.
In its response to the task force, the Interior Department's
associate deputy secretary, James Cason, said the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission needs to license the PFS facility and the
Bureau of Indian Affairs needs to sign off on the lease with the
Goshute tribe before the Bureau of Land Management can OK the
rail line. Neither step is expected to be taken until at least
late in 2004.
Perino said the task force has not taken any further action
to assist Private Fuel Storage.
The Defense Department still has not completed its study on
the potential effects of the dump on the Air Force range.
Pentagon spokesman James Turner said the Air Force is preparing
the report internally for the Defense Department and it is
expected to be complete by the end of the year.
"We have certainly tried in a number of different ways to
encourage the Department of Defense to do this study," said PFS
spokeswoman Sue Martin. "We'd like to see it done and over with,
because it is just another part of the process that has to be
done before we can carry through with our project."
The closest the Pentagon has come to taking a position on
the waste dump came in a 2002 affidavit by Gerald Pease Jr.,
associate director for ranges and airspace for the Air Force,
who said that the Utah Test and Training Range is a "vital and
irreplaceable part of the test and training infrastructure at
the Department of Defense."
"Degradation of our operational test and training
capabilities would be unacceptable. Consequently, any proposed
location must not restrict current UTTR operations," Pease said.
Attorneys for Private Fuel Storage and from the state are
scheduled to go before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in
August to argue the final issues remaining before the NRC makes
a licensing decision.
Parkyn's letter was the only request for assistance that the
task force received from nuclear energy producers. There was no
mention of it in the White House Task Force on Energy Policy
Streamlining's report issued in December 2002, although it was
included in the public comments to the task force.
At roughly the same time that PFS sought aid from the White
House, Utah's senators were working to stop the dump.
In July 2002, Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett met at the
White House with Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and White
House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and agreed to vote to build a
permanent nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, Nev., in
exchange for assurances the senators felt would prevent the PFS'
Skull Valley dump from being built.
gehrke@sltrib.com [gehrke@sltrib.com]
"> -->
Copyright Salt Lake City Tribune
*****************************************************************
42 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: For now, a victory in Yucca fight
LAS VEGAS SUN
A war is looming in Congress over the agreement on next year's
budget for Yucca Mountain. For now, however, Nevada has won an
important victory. For that matter, the victory belongs to the
whole nation, as security and safety will be at risk immediately
if the go-ahead to open Yucca Mountain is ever granted. Located
just 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, the mountain is the
planned site for burying the nation's high-level nuclear waste.
On Friday, in the first major battle over the 2004-2005 Yucca
budget, the House voted to authorize only $131 million. This
compares to the current-year budget of $577 million and the $880
million the Bush administration is hoping to receive for next
year.
Nevada's representatives in the House, Jim Gibbons, R-Reno,
Shelley Berkley, D-Las Vegas and Jon Porter, R-Henderson,
lobbied successfully against an amendment by Rep. Joe Barton,
R-Texas, which would have added $750 million to the budget. It
seems almost paradoxical for representatives to work against
money destined for their own state. But Gibbons, Berkley and
Porter have our full support as they work to cut every cent
possible out of the Yucca budget. Ideally, Congress -- and
perhaps a John Kerry administration -- will come to its senses
and halt work on this dangerous project. In the meantime, we
welcome anything that does the next best thing, which is to slow
it down.
The Energy Department says it will now work with the House and
Senate to get Yucca's funding for next year restored, which is a
highly possible scenario in Washington. The Yucca budget was
contained in a larger House energy and water bill, which could
yet undergo several revisions. The Senate will vote separately
on Yucca Mountain's budget sometime after July 4. Then the House
and Senate will appoint a committee to confer on the final
number.
If the $131 million stands, the Energy Department says it will
have to lay off 1,700 workers at Yucca Mountain, meaning that
the dump's planned opening date of 2010 could not be met. In our
view, there should never be an opening date, because the
mountain's geology will never be adequate protection against the
more than 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste planned for
burial there. And common sense is all that's needed to
understand that transporting the waste to Yucca Mountain will
endanger every community along the thousands of miles of rail
and highway routes.
Gibbons, Berkley and Porter voted against even the reduced
budget, because they do not believe any money should be spent on
Yucca. Neither do we.
*****************************************************************
43 RGJ: Earthquake a danger at Yucca Mountain site
Letters for June 28, 2004
[http://www.rgj.com/] -->
Reno Gazette-Journal]
6/27/2004 10:39 pm
As a geologist, I am getting tired of President Bush and his
representatives telling us that Yucca Mountain is a safe site to
store the nation’s nuclear waste for the next 20,000 years.
That being the case, why does a current college textbook
titled,“The Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geology,” Third
Edition, show two maps on page 405 that show Yucca Mountain in a
major risk of seismic destruction zone as well as a high level of
ground motion during an earthquake?
If that isn’t enough to give you cause for concern, then take a
look at the “Earthquakes In California and Nevada” map published
by the U.S. Department of Interior Geological Survey, Reston,
Va., 1999, which shows hundreds of earthquakes between 1980 and
1994 in and around the Yucca Mountain site. Twelve of those
earthquakes have been of a magnitude of 5.5 or greater.
Unfortunately for Yucca Mountain and the human race there is no
such thing as an earthquake proof building/facility.
Paul Hauser, Reno
Drivers should leave the ‘I’ off of the road
Let’s examine the “eyes” and “I”s of driving.
Safe driving means your “eyes” should be on the road paying
attention to traffic, practicing defensive driving and watching
for pedestrians and emergency vehicles.
Unfortunately, a lot of drivers are the “I” type: I own the road;
I don’t have to obey the speed limit; I don’t have to stop at red
lights or stop signs; I’m the king of the road.
Which type of driver are you — An “eye” or an “I”? Think about
it.
George C. Shaffer, Sun Valley
© Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a [http://www.gannett.com]
*****************************************************************
44 FT: Amec wins US waste contract
By Steve Johnson
Published: June 28 2004 5:00 | Last Updated: June 28 2004 5:00
Amec has won an initial contract worth up to $53m (£30m) to clean
up radioactive waste in the US. It could lead to further
contracts and up to $1.4bn in revenues. The project management
and engineering company will help treat waste stored at Hanford,
Washington State. From 1943 to 1989 the site's 13 nuclear
reactors produced plutonium for nuclear weapons.
The resultant radioactive and chemical waste is stored in 177
underground tanks, but 3.8m litres of radioactive waste has
leaked. The initial contract, worth $38m to $53m, is a trial run
until September 2006. Amec then hopes to bid for a second phase
running to 2011 to design and construct a full-scale
vitrification plant at Hanford, and a third phase to 2028.
The proprietary Amec's Geomelt technology was bought from
Battelle of the US in 2000. The process involves melting waste
and contaminated soil at temperatures of 2,0000C to create a
glass-like material.
"The beauty is the radioactive material can't leech or be exposed
to the elements or atmosphere," said Nick Welsh, an Amec
representative. Steve Johnson
© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2004. "FT" and
"Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times. Privacy
*****************************************************************
45 KAALtv.com: Iowa to test trucks for radioactive cargo
Publishing date: 06-28-2004 3:26 PM
(Des Moines-AP) -- Iowa officials say that drive-through
radiation detection equipment will be installed at five
interstate highway weigh stations to look for radioactive cargo
in heavy trucks.
The Des Moines Register reports today it's part of a state effort
to stop terrorists from smuggling bomb-making materials or stolen
nuclear weapons.
Law enforcement officers who work at the weigh stations will be
given hand-held devices that can check for explosives. The state
is purchasing the equipment with federal homeland security money.
The checkpoints will be at I-80 weigh stations in Dallas, Jasper
and Cedar counties, and along I-35 in Worth and Clarke counties.
Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
[http://www.dayport.com/]
*****************************************************************
46 NEWS.com.au: Miners demand new tainted water probe
(June 29, 2004)
[http://www.news.com.au/]
By PAUL DYER
Territory workers have called for an inquiry into water
contamination at Ranger uranium mine to be redone amid conflict
of interest claims against one of the investigators.
Alex Zapantis, who contributed to the Commonwealth Supervising
Scientist's report into the incident, will next week take a
position as the mine's health, safety and environment manager.
The report -- one of three into the March incident in which 12
workers fell ill after drinking water contaminated by waste water
and uranium -- is yet to be finalised.
Unions NT health and safety officer Didge McDonald said workers
were not satisfied that the investigation was impartial.
"There are real questions to be answered there," he said.
Mr McDonald last night called for a new independent investigation
into the incident.
"It all comes down to the guys themselves having confidence in
the investigation," he said.
"If there are any long-term health effects they are going to be
carrying them."
Mr Zapantis last night declined to comment.
But supervising scientist Arthur Johnston said Mr Zapantis's
portion of the study was completed before he applied for the
position with mine owner Energy Resources of Australia.
"Alex's part in it was finished some time ago," he said. "I can
understand there is a public perception issue that has to be
dealt with but the reality is there really isn't a conflict of
interest issue.
"I am perfectly comfortable with the integrity of our report."
ERA spokeswoman Amanda Buckley said there was nothing improper
about Mr Zapantis's appointment.
"The position was advertised nationally -- he just applied for it
in the normal way," she said.
"He is supremely well qualified and he is one of the top
scientists up here."
Mr Zapantis ceased his employment with the Office of the
Supervising Scientist last week.
Dr Johnston's report is not expected to be completed for several
weeks.
Northern Territory News
Copyright 2004 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT+10).
*****************************************************************
47 BBC: Deportation for nuclear activist
Last Updated: Monday, 28 June, 2004
[Greenpeace activists unfurl a banner from Bosporus bridge]
A Greenpeace activist from Glasgow is facing deportation from
Turkey after staging a protest during the Nato summit.
William Peden, 37, was among 18 demonstrators arrested after
unfurling a huge banner attacking the "nuclear threat" of the
international body.
The group was charged with illegal protest after flying the
banner off a bridge over the Bosporus river.
Also arrested was Nicky Davies, 33, an Australian with a British
passport.
The pair were in police custody as they awaited deportation.
The Greenpeace protest was one of many demonstrations targeting
world leaders including Tony Blair in Istanbul.
The activists suspended themselves from the bridge to unfurl a
banner with the words "Nukes out of Nato".
We have been held for hours and are now in a building, in
custody, waiting to be deported William Peden Greenpeace activist
Greenpeace said the protest was to "highlight the military
alliance's hypocrisy in trying to make peace by way of using the
threat of nuclear weapons".
Mr Peden and Ms Davies, who both live in Amsterdam, said they
appeared in court for illegal protest and may have to face the
charge in August.
Mr Peden said: "We have been held for 12 hours and are now in a
building, in custody, waiting to be deported."
Ms Davies said they were in contact with British consular staff.
A Foreign Office spokeswoman confirmed the pair were to be
deported from Turkey.
The rest of the group arrested included an Austrian and 15 Turks.
*****************************************************************
48 Asia Times: Nuclear proliferation
News from greater China; Hong Kong and Taiwan
[http://www.atimes.com/
Part 1: The arch-proliferator (Jun 23, '04)
Part 2: All the right noises (Jun 24, '04)
Proliferation is in the eye of the beholder. Or, put another way,
it is relative, meaning that before one passes judgment on a
state for what it has done in proliferating nuclear weapons
exports, or not done in stemming such exports, one would be well
advised to look at what other states have been doing, or not
doing.
For some, China's actions are worrisome. The second annual report
of the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, released
on June 15, stated, "China's continued failure to adequately curb
its proliferation practices poses significant national security
concerns to the United States."
That may be, but China is hardly alone. Consider Pakistan, for
example. For years it's been the world's worst kept secret that
Pakistan helped develop nuclear programs in Iran, North Korea and
probably in Libya.
After September 11, 2001, the news media reported that two
Pakistani scientists had direct contacts with Osama bin Laden
while he was operating in Afghanistan. Investigators later
alleged that Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear
program, had traveled almost a dozen times to North Korea to help
Pyongyang develop a uranium-enrichment program. And International
Atomic Energy Agency officials reported that uranium-enrichment
equipment inspected in Iran was identical to that found in
Pakistan.
Though it now seems like years ago, it was only last February 4
that Khan gave a speech, broadcast on Pakistan television, in
which he apologized for having transferred nuclear secrets to
other countries.
The recent investigation was ordered by the government of
Pakistan consequent to the disturbing disclosures and evidence by
some countries to international agencies relating to alleged
proliferation activities by certain Pakistanis and foreigners
over the last two decades. The investigation has established that
many of the reported activities did occur, and that these were
initiated at the behest of this writer.
In interviews with the concerned government officials, this
writer was confronted with the evidence and the findings and
voluntarily admitted that much of it was true and accurate.
Khan's revelations that he operated a huge black market in
nuclear materials and technology and supplied uranium-enrichment
technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea confirmed everyone's
worst fears: that a huge arsenal of nuclear material and
technology is diffused without control.
In October 2002 North Korea reportedly admitted it had a
clandestine uranium-enrichment program and the press reported
that Pakistan had exchanged centrifuge enrichment technology for
North Korean help in developing longer range missiles. But last
November the Washington Post reported that the administration of
US President George W Bush had evidence that Pakistan aided North
Korea's suspected nuclear weapons program as recently as last
August.
Publicly, the United States has said that while Pakistan aided
North Korea's nuclear weapons efforts in the past, Islamabad had
cut off assistance after the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks on the US. The White House is said to believe, however,
that Pakistan continued to exchange technical nuclear
information, and possibly materials, in exchange for missile
components until last summer.
According to the US Congressional Research Service, by the time
Pakistan probably needed to pay North Korea for its purchase of
medium-range No Dong missiles in the mid-1990s (upon which its
current Ghauri missiles are based), Pakistan's cash reserves were
low. With its nuclear tests in 1998 Pakistan could offer North
Korea a route to nuclear weapons using highly enriched uranium
(HEU) that would circumvent the plutonium-focused 1994 Agreed
Framework signed with the United States and would be difficult to
detect.
Given how loudly the United States sounds the alarm about
proliferation, it is worth noting that its own record on
proliferation is far from spotless.
In December 2002, The Associated Press stated, dozens of
suppliers, most in Europe, the United States and Japan, provided
the components and know-how Saddam Hussein needed to build an
atomic bomb, according to Iraq's 1996 accounting of its nuclear
program.
Iraq's report says the equipment was either sold or made by more
than 30 German companies, 10 American companies, 11 British
companies and a handful of Swiss, Japanese, Italian, French,
Swedish and Brazilian firms. It says more than 30 countries
supplied its nuclear program.
And in late 2002, Iraq delivered a report to the United Nations,
pursuant to a Security Council resolution, in an attempt to avert
a US invasion. US officials intercepted the report and removed
certain sections, based on claims of "national security". It
turned out that the deleted sections involved the delivery of
those weapons of mass destruction (WMD) components and equipment
by the United States and other Western countries to Saddam
Hussein. A February 3, 2003, Sunday Morning Herald article
reported, "What is known is that the 10 non-permanent [Security
Council] members had to be content with an edited, scaled-down
version. According to the German news agency DPA, instead of the
12,000 pages, these nations - including Germany, which this month
became president of the council - were given only 3,000 pages."
So what was missing? The Guardian reported that the nine-page
table of contents included chapters on "procurements" in Iraq's
nuclear program and "relations with companies, representatives
and individuals" for its chemical weapons program. This
information was not included in the edited, scaled-down version.
On nuclear arms control initiatives, the US has also proven
itself an obstructionist. Last December, when the UN General
Assembly voted on resolutions on disarmament and security, the
United States consistently voted against the most important
resolutions on nuclear disarmament:
+ Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: The US cast the only vote
against this resolution calling for bringing the CTBT into force.
It was adopted by a vote of 173-1, with four abstentions; + Path
to the total elimination of nuclear weapons: The US and India
were the only countries to vote against this resolution.
Sponsored by Japan, it called for compliance with the program for
transparent, verified, and irreversible reduction and elimination
of nuclear forces agreed by all states (including the United
States) participating in the 2000 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
(NPT) review conference. It was adopted by a vote of 164-2, with
14 abstentions; + New agenda for a nuclear-weapon-free world:
Sponsored by Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden
and South Africa, this resolution centered on a call for
compliance with the 2000 NPT program and also addressed missile
defenses, weaponization of outer space, and reduction of
non-strategic weapons. It was adopted by a vote of 128-6, with 41
abstentions. The negative votes were cast by the United States,
France, India, Israel, Pakistan and the United Kingdom; +
Obligation of nuclear disarmament: Paragraph one of the
resolution on follow-up to the 1996 opinion of the International
Court of Justice underscores the court's unanimous conclusion
that there is an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to
a conclusion negotiations on nuclear disarmament in all its
aspects. In a separate vote, the paragraph was approved by a vote
of 165-4, with three abstentions. The four countries voting "no"
were the United States, France, Israel and Russia.
This concludes the three-part report
David Isenberg, a senior analyst with the Washington-based
British American Security Information Council (BASIC), has a wide
background in arms control and national security issues. The
views expressed are his own.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online, Ltd. All rights reserved.
Jun 25, 2004
material from Asia Times Online may be republished in any form
without written permission. Copyright 2003, Asia Times Online,
4305 Far East Finance Centre, 16 Harcourt Rd, Central, Hong Kong
*****************************************************************
49 [Sunshine] BB #1: US Army Builds Biodefense Lab, Neglects to
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:50:35 -0500 (CDT)
The Sunshine Project
Biosafety Bites #1 (28 June 2004)
http://www.sunshine-project.org
US Army Builds Biodefense Lab, Neglects to Inspect It
-----------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY:
The US Army-funded BSL-3 facility at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in
Tennessee holds biological (and chemical) weapons agents and is
preparing to produce ricin. While the facility is physically a BSL-3
lab, it is said to operate at BSL-2 containment (obviating the need
for NEPA evironmental review). The facility activities and agents
held, however, suggest that BSL-3 containment is already needed for
safe operation. In December 2003, the ORNL Institutional Biosafety
Committee considered lab safety and resolved that it "remains
comfortable of the review and inspections of the Chem/Bio Facility
conducted by the CDC and the Army". In fact, the lab not been
inspected by the Army for three years, and CDC hadn't visited for
more than four.
-----
A US Army-funded biosafety level three (BSL-3) lab in Tennessee that
holds biological weapons agents and is used for biological and
chemical weapons studies hasn't had an Army biosafety inspection in
three years.
In late 1998, officials at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in
Tennessee opened a new BSL-3 laboratory. Located beside ORNL's
aerosol chamber, the lab opened new possibilities for ORNL research
on biological (and chemical) weapons agents. Built to facilitate
research links with the US Army's Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, the
Army funded the lab's construction and signed a contract with ORNL
that committed it to perform annual inspections to ensure lab safety.
In late 1998 or early 1999, ORNL received its first biological agent,
botulinum toxin, while work proceeded on chemical weapons agents.
But ORNL's biological expansion drew unflattering attention from the
Department of Energy's Inspector General. In a 1999 report, the
Inspector General determined that, in addition to financial
mismanagement, ORNL had ignored NEPA, the National Environmental
Policy Act. NEPA requires environmental review of new federal level 3
and level 4 labs. An embarrassed ORNL replied by saying that it would
operate the lab at BSL-2 and that it would give up its "select agent"
permit to handle live bioweapons.
At the time, the inspector general dryly - and presciently - noted
that "the Chem-Bio facility was prefabricated to contain a fully
functioning Biosafety Level 3 laboratory and that the future
microbiological capabilities of the laboratory would not be affected
by simply deregistering the facility for live biological weapons
agents."
Indeed. ORNL's work at the facility with chemical weapons agents was
never impaired. And by 2003 (at least), ORNL was back into biosafety
level three territory. It is again registered to handle select
agents. In fact, it may never have gotten rid of its bioweapons
organisms. Earlier this year, a US government report stated that
ORNL holds biological weapons agents; but that the precise organisms
are classified "secret".(1) At least one of ORNL's bioweapons
projects is known - the Chem/Bio Facility, as the BSL-3 is
locally-known, is preparing to extract batches of ricin from castor
beans.
In December 2003, the ORNL Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC)
reviewed safety at the entire lab, concluding that "the Chem/Bio
Facility continues to operate properly and [the IBC] remains
comfortable of the review and inspections of the Chem/Bio Facility
conducted by the CDC and the Army." (CDC=Centers for Disease Control)
Oops.
In early 2004, the Inspector General returned. It turns out that CDC
hadn't visited the lab since its commissioning in 1999, and that Army
safety inspectors, who were supposed to come every year, hadn't been
seen for three years. In effect, the IBC had declared its
satisfaction with fictitious safety inspections. And the Army had
neglected - for three years running - to ensure the safety of a bio
(and chemical) defense lab that it built.
In summary, the Army-ORNL BSL-3 facility at Oak Ridge, Tennessee
holds biological (and chemical) weapons agents and is preparing to
produce ricin. It handles select agents, despite previously
surrendering its permit to do so. While it is physically a BSL-3 lab,
the facility is said to operate at BSL-2 (obviating the need for a
public NEPA review). The facility activities and agents held,
however, suggest that BSL-3 containment is already needed for safe
operation. While, in December 2003, the ORNL IBC "remain[ed]
comfortable of the review and inspections of the Chem/Bio Facility
conducted by the CDC and the Army", in fact, the lab not been
inspected by Army biosafety officials for three years, and CDC hadn't
visited for more than four.
----
(1) In addition, the facility was described as a BSL-2 lab in this
report, the US Confidence Building Measure A for 2004, submitted to
the Biological Weapons Convention.
-------
Sources:
DOE Office of the Inspector General, Inspection of Selected Issues of
the Chem-Bio Facility at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, November
1999.
Minutes of the ORNL IBC, meetings of 9 July 2003, 12 December 2003,
and 23 February 2004.
ORNL Ridgelines (lab newsletter), "The real thing: At last,
researchers can work with real chem-bio agents", 12 November 1998.
US Department of State, Confidence Building Measure A, submitted to
the Biological Weapons Convention, April 2004.
_______________________________________________
Distributed via the Sunshine
Project Announcements List
(See: http://www.sunshine-project.org)
*****************************************************************
50 Guardian Unlimited: Uranium Storage Planned Despite Concerns
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday June 28, 2004 3:16 AM
OAK RIDGE, Tenn. (AP) - Construction of an above-ground storage
complex for bomb-grade uranium will begin in August despite
auditors' concerns about the design, federal officials said.
An earlier proposal had called for partially burying the Y-12
National Security Complex, but U.S. Department of Energy
spokesman Steven Wyatt said building the $250 million facility
above ground will be ``more flexible and cost-effective.''
That decision comes despite a March DOE inspector general's
report that questioned whether such a design would provide
enhanced security. It also said the structure, which is expected
to be completed in 2007, would cost more than a below-ground
facility to build and operate.
Uranium stocks from around the Y-12 plant are to be consolidated
in the new facility under heightened security,
The approved design was recommended by BWXT, which replaced
Lockheed Martin as Y-12's contractor in late 2000. Lockheed
Martin had proposed partially burying the uranium vaults at the
weapons plant.
Critics say an above-ground facility could harm security efforts.
``Instead of guarding one side of the building, you have to guard
five,'' Peter Stockton, a security analyst with the nonprofit
watchdog group Project On Government Oversight, said of the
design earlier this year.
Dennis Ruddy, president of BWXT and the plant's general manager,
disagrees, saying that burying the vaults wouldn't automatically
enhance security.
``Then you've got to have sensors in the building that would tell
you if somebody is burrowing in under the ground,'' Ruddy said.
``If the facility is sitting out there and you've got a guard
tower on every corner, you just have to look out the window to
see if anybody's monkeying around.''
In a May policy speech, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said the
Y-12 uranium facility would be a model for ``applying security
oriented construction techniques and technology to the problem of
securing materials.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
51 DOE: Office of Science; High Energy Physics Advisory Panel
FR Doc 04-14611
[Federal Register: June 28, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 123)]
[Notices] [Page 36078] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28jn04-44]
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the High Energy
Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP). Federal Advisory Committee Act
(Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of
these meetings be announced in the Federal Register.
DATES: Thursday, September 23, 2004; 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. and
Friday, September 24, 2004; 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Hilton Washington Embassy Row, 2015 Massachusetts
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20036. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT: Bruce Strauss, Executive Secretary; High Energy Physics
Advisory Panel; U.S. Department of Energy; SC-20/ Germantown
Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585-1290; Telephone: 301-903-3705.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice
and guidance on a continuing basis with respect to the high
energy physics research program.
Tentative Agenda: Agenda will include discussions of the
following: Thursday, September 23, 2004, and Friday, September
24, 2004 Discussion of Department of Energy High Energy Physics
Programs Discussion of National Science Foundation Elementary
Particle Physics Program Reports on and Discussions of Topics of
General Interest in High Energy Physics Public Comment (10-minute
rule) Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. If
you would like to file a written statement with the Panel, you
may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like
to make oral statements regarding any of these items on the
agenda, you should contact Bruce Strauss, 301-903-3705 or
Bruce.Strauss@science.doe.gov [Bruce.Strauss@science.doe.gov]
(e-mail). You must make your request for an oral statement at
least 5 business days before the meeting. Reasonable provision
will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the
agenda. The Chairperson of the Panel will conduct the meeting to
facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will
follow the 10-minute rule. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting
will be available for public review and copying within 90 days at
the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room; Room 1E-190;
Forrestal Building; 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
Carol A. Matthews, Acting Deputy Advisory Committee Management
Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-14611 Filed 6-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
52 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Idaho
FR Doc 04-14612
[Federal Register: June 28, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 123)]
[Notices] [Page 36076-36077] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28jn04-42]
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory AGENCY:
Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. The Federal Advisory
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public
notice of these meeting be announced in the Federal Register.
DATES: Tuesday, July 20, 2004, 8 a.m.-6 p.m. Wednesday, July 21,
2004, 8 a.m.-5 p.m. Opportunities for public participation will
be held Tuesday, July 20, from 12:15 to 12:30 and 5:30 to 5:45
p.m. and on Wednesday, July 21, from 11:45 a.m. to 12 noon and
3:55 to 4:10 p.m. Additional time may be made available for
public comment during the presentations.
These times are subject to change as the meeting progresses,
depending on the extent of comment offered. Please check with the
meeting facilitator to confirm these times.
ADDRESSES: Ameritel Inn, 645 Lindsay Boulevard, Idaho Falls, ID
83402.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Peggy Hinman, INEEL CAB
Administrator, North Wind, Inc., P.O. Box 51174, Idaho Falls, ID
83405, Phone (208) 557-7885, or visit the Board's Internet home
page at http://www.ida.net/users/cab
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.ida.net/users/cab] .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of
environmental restoration, waste management, and related
activities.
The Tentative Agenda Objectives include: To provide additional
information to the new CAB members in support of providing an
overall orientation, including: --An overview of environmental
regulation --An overview of the types of wastes managed at the
INEEL --An overview of the historical contamination at INEEL and
how it is being addressed To receive a status report on the
Environmental Management Program at the INEEL.
To receive a status report on the progress on the procurement
process for new site contractors.
To receive presentations related to the End States for the INEEL,
including: --An overview of the 1995 Comprehensive Facilities and
Land Use Plan --A status report on the Risk-Based End States
Vision Document for the INEEL To discuss and develop a possible
recommendation addressing End States for the INEEL.
To receive a presentation on the status of efforts and plans for
Pit 4, the final report on the Glovebox Excavator Method project,
and the treatment of volatile organic compounds.
To receive a presentation and to discuss a possible
recommendation addressing the Engineering Evaluation and Cost
Analysis for the CPP-603 Basins.
To discuss future opportunities for public involvement in site
cleanup decision-making.
Tentative Agenda for Tuesday, July 20 8 a.m. Welcome and
Introductions. 8:45 a.m. Welcome to New Members. 9 a.m. Member
and Committee Reports. 9:15 a.m. Break. 9:30 a.m. Environmental
Management (EM) Program Status and Emerging Issues of Potential
Interest to the INEEL CAB (TRA Catch Tank, Tank Farm Capping,
Closure Plan for Tank 180, WIR Legal Situation, D at INTEC,
Foster Wheeler Project).
10:50 a.m. Break.
[[Page 36077]] 11:05 a.m. Orientation to the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental (INEEL) Laboratory.
12:15 p.m. Public Participation. 12:30 p.m. Lunch. 1:30 p.m.
Annual Work Plan. 1:55 p.m. Orientation to the INEEL (continued).
2:50 p.m. Break. 3:05 p.m. Orientation to the INEEL (continued).
4:15 p.m. Break. 5 p.m. End States for the INEEL. 5:30 p.m.
Public Participation 5:45 p.m. Letter Regarding CAB Support
Services 6 p.m. Adjourn. Tentative Agenda for Wednesday, July 21
8 a.m. End States for the INEEL (continued). 9 a.m. Break. 9:15
a.m. End States for the INEEL (continued). 10:15 a.m. Break.
10:30 a.m. End States for the INEEL (continued). 11 a.m.
Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis for CPP-603 Basins.
11:30 a.m. Member and Committee Reports. 11:45 a.m. Public
Participation. 12 noon Lunch.
1 p.m. Procurement Process. 1:30 p.m. Pit 4/Glovebox Excavator
Method Project/Volatile Organic Compound Treatment.
2:15 p.m. Break. 2:30 p.m. End States for the INEEL (continued).
3 p.m. Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis for CPP-603
Basins (continued).
3:40 p.m. Break. 3:55 p.m. Public Participation. 4:10 p.m. Board
Work. 5 p.m. Adjourn. Public Participation: This meeting is open
to the public.
Written statements may be filed with the Board facilitator either
before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral
presentations pertaining to agenda items should contact the Board
Chair at the address or telephone number listed above. Request
must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable
provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda.
The Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Richard Provencher,
Assistant Manager for Environmental Management, Idaho Operations
Office, U.S. Department of Energy, is empowered to conduct the
meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of
business. Every individual wishing to make public comment will be
provided equal time to present their comments.
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public
review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading
Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available by
writing to Ms. Peggy Hinman, INEEL CAB Administrator, at the
address and phone number listed above.
Issued in Washington, DC on June 21, 2004.
Carol A. Matthews, Acting Deputy Advisory Committee Management
Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-14612 Filed 6-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
53 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern
FR Doc 04-14613
[Federal Register: June 28, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 123)]
[Notices] [Page 36077-36078] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28jn04-43]
New Mexico AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New
Mexico. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86
Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be
announced in the Federal Register.
DATES: Wednesday, July 28, 2004, 1 p.m.-8:30 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Cities of Gold Hotel, Pojoaque, NM.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Menice Manzanares, Northern New
Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board, 1660 Old Pecos Trail, Suite B,
Santa Fe, NM 87505. Phone (505) 995-0393; fax (505) 989-1752 or
e-mail: mmanzanares@doeal.gov [mmanzanares@doeal.gov] .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of
environmental restoration, waste management, and related
activities.
Tentative Agenda Wednesday, July 28, 2004 1 p.m.--Call to Order
by Ted Taylor, DDFO; Establishment of a Quorum; Welcome and
Introductions by Chair; Approval of Agenda; Approval of Minutes
of May 22, 2005.
1:15 p.m.--Public Comment. 1:30 p.m.--Consideration and Action of
Proposed Bylaws Amendment No. 5, as per Section XII, page 13, of
the NNMCAB Bylaws. (Tabled from 3-31- 04). Consideration and
Action of Proposed Bylaws Amendment No. 6. 2 p.m.--Board
Business. A. Recruitment/Membership Update B. Report from Chair,
``Opportunities for Improvement'' from Retreat C. Report from
DOE, Ted Taylor, DDFO D. Report from Executive Director, Menice
Manzanares E. New Business 2:30 p.m.-- Break. 2:45 p.m.--Reports.
A. Executive Committee--Chair B. Environmental Monitoring,
Surveillance and Remediation Committee, Tim DeLong C. Waste
Management Committee Introduction of recommendation 2004-3
Introduction of recommendation 2004-4 D. Community Involvement
Committee, Abad Sandoval E. Ad Hoc Committee on Bylaws, Jim
Brannon F. Ad Hoc Committee on Constituency Seats G. Comments
from Ex-Officio Members 5 p.m.--Dinner Break. 6 p.m.--Public
Comment. 6:15 p.m.--Consideration and Action on Recommendation
2004-3, ``EEG, DOE And CAB Value''.
6:30 p.m.--Presentation on NMED Consent Order. 7:15 p.m.--Break.
7:30 p.m.--Discussion on NMED Consent Order. 8 p.m.--Comments
from Board Members and Recap of Meeting. 8:30 p.m.--Adjourn. This
agenda is subject to change at least one day in advance of the
meeting.. Public Participation: The meeting is open to the
public.
Written statements may be filed with the Committee either before
or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral
statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Menice
Manzanares at the address or telephone number listed above.
Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and
reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in
the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to
conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly
conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public
comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present
their comments at the beginning of the meeting.
Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public
review and
[[Page 36078]] copying at the Freedom of Information Public
Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be
available at the Public Reading Room located at the Board's
office at 1660 Old Pecos Trail, Suite B, Santa Fe, NM. Hours of
operation for the Public Reading Room are 9 a.m.-4 p.m. on Monday
through Friday. Minutes will also be made available by writing or
calling Menice Manzanares at the Board's office address or
telephone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents
are on the Internet at: http:http://www.nnmcab.org
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nnmcab.org] . Issued in
Washington, DC on June 18, 2004.
Carol A. Matthews, Acting Deputy Advisory Committee Management
Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-14613 Filed 6-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
54 DOE: Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation; Proposed Subsequent
FR Doc 04-14684
[Federal Register: June 28, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 123)]
[Notices] [Page 36076] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28jn04-41]
Arrangement AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Subsequent arrangement.
SUMMARY: This notice has been issued under the authority of
Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42
U.S.C. 2160). The Department is providing notice of a proposed
``subsequent arrangement'' under the Agreement for Cooperation in
the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between the United States and
the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) and the Agreement
for Cooperation Between the United States and Japan Concerning
Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.
This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 594.94
grams of U.S.-origin uranium (2.26 grams U-235) and 7.04 grams
plutonium from Studsvik Research Center, Nykoping, Sweden, to the
Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI). The nuclear
material being retransferred is contained in segments of reactor
fuel rods cut out at the Studsvik Hot Cell Laboratory for
analysis of the burn up rates by JAERI. The analysis will support
the Studsvik development of a database of information regarding
how uranium oxide and mixed-oxide (MOX) react at high burn-up
rates.
These material segments will undergo post-irradiation examination
at JAERI, which will take ownership of the material when the
transport leaves Studsvik. Upon completion of the analysis, the
material will be handled as waste and stored in Japan.
In accordance with section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended, we have determined that this subsequent arrangement
is not inimical to the common defense and security.
This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than
fifteen days after the date of publication of this notice.
For the Department of Energy.
Kurt Siemon, Acting Director, Office of Nonproliferation Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-14684 Filed 6-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
55 Idaho Statesman: It's time for feds to invest in Idaho nuclear research
Editorials -
06-28-2004
Rep. Mike Simpson Edition
Date: 06-22-2004
A mission is one thing. Money is another.
So Rep. Mike Simpson deserves credit for trying to force the feds
to put their money where their mouth is on nuclear research.
Simpson isn't just looking to ensure jobs in Idaho; he's
advocating exciting science that could have a national impact.
Simpson, R-Idaho, pushed House Appropriations Committee
colleagues to put about $50 million into Idaho energy projects.
A big chunk of the money would go into nuclear energy research,
restoring Idaho's place as a center for reactor testing. Energy
Secretary Spencer Abraham in 2002 named the Idaho site the feds'
lead lab for nuclear energy research, but as the House
Appropriations Committee pointed out in a report on the budget,
"The secretary's rhetoric has not been matched by the
department's budget request."
Simpson whose eastern Idaho congressional district includes the
Idaho lab is trying to change that.
The House's version of the budget now includes $21 million to
study a safer nuclear fuel that burns more efficiently and leaves
less waste, with at least one half of this money spent in Idaho;
another $10 million to study a new "Generation IV" reactor
design, which could be applied to new power reactors or fuel
cells for hydrogen-powered cars; and $10 million for work at
Idaho's Advanced Test Reactor.
None of the money is a done deal. The Senate will write its
version of the appropriations bill. Then the Senate and House
will hash out their differences.
But Simpson is hopeful, and Idahoans should be hopeful as well.
When the site is renamed the Idaho National Laboratory next
winter, Simpson wants to ensure the site has a real shot at
developing a nuclear reactor that doesn't produce tons of deadly,
long-lived radioactive wastes. This promising work is a logical
assignment for a site with a half century's experience in reactor
design; it's high time the feds put money into it.
*****************************************************************
56 Oak Ridger: DOE bus tour starts Thursday
Story last updated at 12:34 p.m. on June 28, 2004
The DOE Facilities Public Bus Tour, with guide commentary on the
history of science and technology at three Department of Energy
facilities and the American Museum of Science and Energy, will be
Thursday and Friday.
Registration begins at 9 a.m. in the AMSE lobby. All participants
must be U.S. citizens. Off-the-bus stops include ORNL Graphite
Reactor, a national historic landmark and East Tennessee
Technology Park Overlook.
Tour participants board the bus at noon and depart at 12:15 p.m.
and return at 2:30 p.m. Tour size is limited and some
restrictions apply. Cost is $3 for adults; $2 for ages 10-17 and
65 and older. Tours will resume July 7 and will be offered
through September.
*****************************************************************
57 U.S. Newswire: Los Alamos Contract Process Announced
6/28/2004 6:02:00 PM
To: State Desk, Energy Reporter
Contact: Bryan Wilkes of the U.S. Department of Energy,
202-586-7371
WASHINGTON, June 28 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Department of Energy
(DOE) has initiated the process to compete the management and
operating contract for Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in
New Mexico for the first time since LANL's creation in 1943. The
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a separately
organized agency within DOE, has announced that parties
interested in competing for the contract should submit an
Expression Of Interest (EOI) that describes their capabilities.
The NNSA is preparing a Request for Proposal (RFP), including the
draft contract terms and conditions, that is tentatively
scheduled for release in late fall 2004. A website,
http://www.doeal.gov/LANLContractRecompete/Default.htm
[http://releases.usnewswire.com/redir.asp?ReleaseID=32600&Link=ht
tp://www.doeal.gov/LANLContractRecompete/Default.htm] has been
established for the dissemination of all information related to
the competition. The website will identify when the EOI is due to
the NNSA Service Center in Albuquerque, NM. A subscription
feature will be included in the website, which will enable
interested parties to receive notice whenever the website is
updated. The website will be the principal solicitation
distribution medium for notices, changes, questions and answers,
and the forthcoming RFP.
The actual RFP release date will be announced on the website. Any
amendments to the RFP or other pertinent information relating to
the acquisition will also be available on the website.
Additionally, NNSA plans on sharing draft sections of the RFP for
public comment as they become available to help streamline the
procurement process and initiate industry comments and
recommendations.
LANL is currently operated by the University of California. The
laboratory is one of the largest multidisciplinary institutions
in the world and the largest institution and employer in northern
New Mexico. It has approximately 7,500 employees and
approximately 3,200 contractor personnel. Its current annual
budget is approximately $2 billion. About a third of the lab's
technical staff members are physicists, a fourth are engineers, a
sixth are chemists and materials scientists. Other technical
staff members work in mathematics and computational science,
biological science, geoscience and other disciplines.
The principal mission of LANL is to strengthen American security
by applying world-class science and technology to enhance the
nation's security through stockpile stewardship and reduce the
global threat from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The
contractor will be required to provide the intellectual
leadership and management expertise necessary and appropriate to
manage, operate and staff the laboratory and to accomplish the
missions assigned by NNSA.
NNSA enhances U.S. national security through the military
application of nuclear energy, maintains the U.S. nuclear weapons
stockpile, promotes international nuclear nonproliferation and
safety, reduces global danger from weapons on mass destruction,
provides the U.S. Navy with safe and effective nuclear
propulsion, and oversees its national laboratories to maintain
U.S. leadership in science technology.
http://www.usnewswire.com/ [http://www.usnewswire.com/]
-0-
/© 2004 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
*****************************************************************
58 Hanford News: Hanford to resume Saturday bus tours
Monday June 28th 2004
For the first time since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the
Department of Energy is offering Saturday public bus tours of the
Hanford site beginning in July through September.
The free tours will pass the old townsites of Hanford and White
Bluffs, former nuclear production reactors and the site's central
plateau. Some will include a stop at the historic B Reactor, the
world's first large-scale plutonium production reactor.
Registration for the tours is required 14 days in advance.
Tour-goers must be U.S. citizens at least 16 years old, must have
valid photo identification and must provide their full name,
social security number and birth date.
Tours that do not visit B Reactor will be held from 7:30 a.m. to
11:30 a.m. on July 10 and Aug. 7. Tours that do visit B Reactor
will be held from 7:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. on July 24, Aug. 21 and
Sept. 18. House approves Hanford cleanup money Saturday June 26th
2004
WASHINGTON - The House approved a massive spending bill Friday
that provides full funding for Hanford reservation cleanup in the
coming fiscal year and rejects an administration effort to
withhold $350 million unless Washington and other states agreed
to changes in their nuclear cleanup plans.
The $28 billion energy and water development appropriations bill
also includes $1.5 million for the Bureau of Reclamation to
continue studying increasing water storage in the Yakima River
Basin, with a specific focus on the proposed Black Rock
Reservoir.
Also included in the bill was $9.5 million to help the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory in Richland relocate from its
current space in Hanford's 300 Area and $8 million for the
Volpentest Hazardous Management and Emergency Response Training
and Education Center, or HAMMER. Last year, HAMMER received $6
million.Hanford's future explored Friday June 25th 2004
Participants at a two-day workshop in Richland see the Hanford
nuclear reservation north of Gable Mountain being used for
recreation in the next 50 years.
But whether people will be hiking and fishing in the shadow of
old nuclear reactor cores was a debate that could not be decided
now.
Regulators and the Department of Energy have asked for the
public's help to clarify the vision of what Hanford should look
like when cleanup is completed. Should reactor cores be removed
from near the Columbia River? Should B Reactor be saved? Should
pipes be pulled from the river?
© 2004 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
59 Oak Ridger: Y-12 may have violated PR contract
Story last updated at 12:07 p.m. on June 28, 2004
INSPECTION: 'I may not tell you what I find, but it will be
fixed if it's out of line.'
By: Paul Parson | Oak Ridger Staff
paul.parson@oakridger.com [paul.parson@oakridger.com]
The top manager at Oak Ridge's nuclear weapons plant said he
isn't sure if a particular working arrangement in his public
affairs department poses a contractual violation.
"I don't know that off the top of my head," Dennis Ruddy,
president and general manager of BWXT Y-12, said in a phone
interview.
The situation pertains to Bill Gubbins' role as acting manager
of the Y-12 National Security Complex's Public and Governmental
Affairs department. As previously reported, Gubbins is working
with Y-12 through a contract with Laine Communications - a
Knoxville-based marketing and public relations firm.
According to Y-12's public Web site, Gubbins has been assigned
an e-mail address and phone number at the plant. Documents also
note that Gubbins "set up (a) Y-12 office computer" on May 18.
"He (Gubbins) has an office here and most days he works out of
Y-12," Ruddy said.
However, a January 2004 purchase order obtained by The Oak
Ridger states: "BWXT Y-12 will not provide any designated office
space or equipment under this subcontract. The Laine consultant
for this subcontract will be Bill Gubbins.
"If Mr. Gubbins needs to come on-site to work, BWXT will allow
Mr. Gubbins to use an office that is available at that time,"
the document also states. "It is estimated that Mr. Gubbins will
work on-site 4-16 hours per week."
In response to the purchase order, Ruddy said: "If that's a
violation of some kind of contract, we'll get that fixed. I
don't know if there's been subsequent words or if that's been
superseded by some other document, which wasn't filched from our
files."
While the BWXT Y-12 president said he would examine the
situation, the outcome might remain a secret.
"I may not tell you what I find, but it will be fixed if it's
out of line," Ruddy told The Oak Ridger.
The last two people who held the manager's post in the public
affairs department both left the Y-12 plant for other jobs in
the last couple of years. Ruddy said he doesn't know how long
Gubbins will serve as acting manager under Laine's contract to
provide technical oversight at Y-12 in the area of
communications.
"It probably will depend on how quickly we can fill that
position once we get the organizational structure in place and
decide what kind of credentials we want on the person who
permanently fills it," Ruddy said.
According to a document reportedly prepared by Gubbins, he
worked anywhere from 34 hours to 59.25 hours per week in May on
Y-12-related activities - far more than specified in the
purchase order. His tasks included assistance on media
interviews, setting up displays for a technology summit and
several hours associated with Oak Ridger stories.
"They bill his time," Ruddy responded when asked how Gubbins
was paid.
Though it doesn't specify who or how many people actually
accrued the time, a recent invoice reportedly from Laine to BWXT
Y-12 bills the government contractor for 365 hours for the month
of May at a cost of more than $45,000.
Gubbins did not return calls for comment last week regarding
his role at Y-12. Instead, a full-time Y-12 public affairs staff
member, Bill Wilburn, was tasked with calling The Oak Ridger to
find out what the newspaper wanted.
Ruddy admitted that The Oak Ridger had a "legitimate beef" that
Gubbins had not returned calls for two days in a row.
"I will make sure that never happens again," Ruddy said.
"That's discourteous at best."
During the course of the interview, though, Ruddy went on the
defensive as he questioned why The Oak Ridger continued to be
interested in BWXT Y-12's dealings with Laine, and the firm's
task of overseeing the plant's public affairs-related activities.
"I guess I don't understand it," Ruddy said. "Are you becoming
an advocate for the people in the organization who aren't
capable of doing this and therefore haven't been promoted into
these positions?"
The BWXT Y-12 chief also suggested that the newspaper might
have a bone to pick due to the attention other media outlets
have received. Recently, the company allowed one local
television station to film in parts of the weapons plant that
have been off limits to media cameras.
"Are we talking redress or grievance?" Ruddy said. "You're not
asking me the same question in the area where I'm subcontracting
engineering, and there's a heck of a lot more money going on
there."
Previously, Y-12 officials noted that subcontracting forms a
substantial portion of the plant's annual business. For example,
BWXT Y-12 spent more than $180 million last year employing over
1,000 subcontractors in various areas, including support
services and construction.
*****************************************************************
60 Oak Ridger: Union contract ratified Saturday
Story last updated at 12:34 p.m. on June 28, 2004
CHANGES: Increases in health insurance and increases in annual
wages and weekend and shift premiums.
By: Jennifer Fern | Oak Ridger Staff
jennifer.fern@oakridger.com [jennifer.fern@oakridger.com]
A new contract for members of the Atomic Trades and Labor
Council was approved Saturday night by a substantial majority
vote.
Union delegates recommended the new contract to the ATLC
membership Tuesday - just 30 minutes after the most recent deal
expired. Carl "Bubba" Scarbrough, president of the ATLC, said it
took three months to get the contract. He said union members
were given copies of the contract Friday to read over before
voting and copies were also available Saturday at the union hall.
"I think we're needing our unions more and more," said union
member Beth Hill. "I looked (the contract) over and I feel our
union did the best they could."
[http://oakridger.com/photo_pages/062804/9392.html]
Jennifer Fern/Staff
Beth Hill signs up to vote on the new contract
for members of the Atomic Trades andLabor Council Saturday at
the union hall on Lincoln Road. The union received 1,529 votes
with the new contract passing by a substantial majority.
"It's not a perfect world," Hill said.
The ATLC is an umbrella organization that represents 16 unions
and more than 2,000 hourly workers at Oak Ridge's federal
facilities. Scarbrough said they received 1,529 votes at the
union hall located on Lincoln Road.
"I came out to vote just because I am a union member," said
Jimmy Davis. "I try to support it the best I can."
Sarah Merivieth, a chemical operator at the Y-12 National
Security Complex, said it's always important to cast a vote.
"I'm happy with the turnout, but I wish we'd strike because of
the insurance issues," she said.
The new contract increases health insurance, which will be
phased in over a three-year period: 15 percent this July 1, 18
percent in 2005 and 20 percent in 2006.
On the other hand, the new contract also calls for five annual
wage increases of 4.5, 4, 4, 3.5 and 3 percent. In addition, it
calls for increases in weekend and shift premiums: 30 cents to
60 cents for evening shift, 60 cents to $1.20 for midnight shift
and 50 cents to $1 for weekend premium.
*****************************************************************
61 lamonitor.com: Lab given notice on incident
The Online News Source for Los Alamos
[http://www.lac-nm.us]
ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor
One day last August, according to a federal safety report, a
continuous air monitor sounded an alarm in a plutonium
waste-storage room in Technical Area 55, while two workers were
taking an inventory of containers. The two workers were
immediately evacuated for treatment and found to have significant
body contamination. They were later found to have inhaled
one-and-a-half and twice the annual limit respectively.
On Friday, Los Alamos National Laboratory was given notice under
the Price Anderson Act for a battery of failures and deficiencies
surrounding that event, some of which date as far back as 1996.
The National Nuclear Security Administration has given Los Alamos
National Laboratory 30 days to respond to its notice.
The violations include seven specific violations, each of which
entails several sub-violations of procedures. Each of the seven
violations is punishable by a civil penalty of $110,000, or
$770,000 altogether, but they are waived to the University of
California under a federal law that exempts nonprofit
organizations. Some of the violations were given a higher degree
of severity, the notice said, "due to the long-standing nature of
the underlying problems that led to this event."
Under the category of quality improvement deficiencies the report
noted that radioactive containers had been stored in the
Plutonium Facility since 1996 and that the storage packages had
deteriorated since that time, causing potentially dangerous
gasses to build up inside. During an enforcement conference April
13 and 14, lab officials said they agreed substantially with the
findings of the report.
LANL Director G. Peter Nanos in his concluding remarks at that
conference told the officials from DOE and NNSA that LANL's
single greatest challenge was enhancing the nuclear safety
culture.
"He then outlined LANL's approach which included understanding
the extent and specifics of the culture problem, defining and
communicating management expectations, increasing the formality
and improving training, and emphasizing accountability at all
levels," the report said.
In a press release sent out Friday afternoon, the laboratory
emphasized the aggressive steps that have been taken to increase
safety performance and make corrective actions.
Previous violations of the Price Anderson Act were found in 2001
for improper waste storage at the Plutonium Facility and in 2002
for a glove box accident and for workers' presence on the roof of
a building where radiography was taking place, according to
reports at the time.
In 2002, a $220,000 penalty was waived; and in 2003, 385,000 was
waived.
A series of safety incidents last fall motivated lab officials to
mount a new safety advisory group and then to intensify efforts
to cut down on accidents immediately.
In his written rebuke, NNSA Administrator Linton F. Brooks refers
to other safety incidents discussed at the conference.
"These events indicate that the underlying safety culture
concerns are not only present, but are continuing to lead to
adverse safety events," he wrote. "(T)here is still a long way to
go to solve this problem."
© 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
62 DOE: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda
[June 28, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 123)] [Unified Agenda] From
the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[frwais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID: f:ua040407.wais] [Page
37410-37426] Department of Energy
Part VII
[[Page 37410]] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Chs. II, III, and X 48 CFR
Ch. 9 Regulatory Agenda AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION:
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
_________________________________________________________________
______ SUMMARY: The Department of Energy has prepared and today
is publishing its semiannual regulatory agenda pursuant to
Executive Order 12866 ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 58 FR
51735, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. sections
601-612 (1988). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further
information about any particular item on the regulatory agenda,
please contact the individual listed under that item. For
further information on the regulatory agenda in general, please
contact: Richard L. Farman, Room 6E-078, Forrestal Building,
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202)
586-8145. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Entries appended to this
notice reflect the status of activities as of approximately
April 30, 2004. They are divided into categories first by
subagencies and then according to their stage of rulemaking
action: prerule, proposed rulemaking, final rulemaking,
long-term action, or completed action. A draft of this
regulatory agenda has been transmitted to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration for comment,
if any, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 602(b). Issued in Washington, DC,
on June 2, 2004. Lee Liberman Otis, General Counsel. National
Nuclear Security Agency--Proposed Rule Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Number Number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- 752 Initial
Parts of NNSA Acquisition Regulation
(NAR).................................... 1994-AA00 753 Computer
Security: Access to Information on National Nuclear Security
Administration 1994-AA01 Computer
Systems..........................................................
............
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy--Prerule Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Number Number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- 754 Energy
Efficiency Standards for Residential Furnaces, Boilers, and
Mobile Home 1904-AA78
Furnaces.........................................................
..................... 755 Determination for High-Intensity
Discharge Lamps...................................... 1904-AA86
756 Determination for Small Electric
Motors............................................... 1904-AA87
757 Energy Efficiency Standards for Electric Distribution
Transformers.................... 1904-AB08 758 Energy Efficiency
Standards for Commercial Central Air Conditioning Units and Heat
1904-AB09 Pumps Rated 65-240
kBtus/Hr.........................................................
..
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy--Proposed Rule Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Number Number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- 759 Energy
Efficiency Code for New Federal Residential Low-Rise
Buildings................. 1904-AA53 760 State and Local
Incentives Program: Alternative
Fuels................................. 1904-AA66 761 Test
Procedures for Electric Distribution
Transformers................................ 1904-AA85 762
Energy Standards for New Federal Commercial and Multi-Family
High-Rise Residential 1904-AB13
Buildings........................................................
.....................
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy--Final Rule Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Number Number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- 763 Test
Procedures for Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat
Pumps--Amendments... 1904-AA46 764 Test Procedures for
Commercial Water
Heaters.......................................... 1904-AA95 765
Test Procedures for Commercial Warm Air
Furnaces...................................... 1904-AA96 766
Test Procedures for Commercial Air Conditioning
Equipment............................. 1904-AA97 767 Test
Procedures for Commercial Package
Boilers........................................ 1904-AB02 768
Energy Efficiency Program for Commercial and Industrial
Equipment: Efficiency 1904-AB17 Standards for Packaged Terminal
Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps; and Oil- and Gas- Fired
Commercial Package
Boilers......................................................
[[Page 37411]] 769 Energy Efficiency Standards for Central Air
Conditioners and Heat Pumps............... 1904-AB46
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy--Long-Term Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Number Number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- 770 National
Voluntary Residential Energy Efficiency Rating
Guidelines.................... 1904-AA74 771 Energy Efficiency
Standards for Clothes Dryers and
Dishwashers........................ 1904-AA89 772 Energy
Efficiency Standards for Pool Heaters and Direct Heating
Equipment............. 1904-AA90 773 Energy Efficiency Standards
for 1-200 HP Electric Motors..............................
1904-AA91 774 Energy Efficiency Standards for Fluorescent and
Incandescent Lamps.................... 1904-AA92 775 Coverage of
Certain Types of Commercial Refrigeration Equipment (Reach-In
Freezers, 1904-AB14 Reach-In Refrigerators, Vending Machines,
and Beverage Merchandisers)................. 776 Coverage of
Certain Incandescent Reflector Lamps, Torchieres, and Ceiling
Fans........ 1904-AB15 777 Energy Efficiency Program for
Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Efficiency 1904-AB16
Standards for 3-Phase Air Conditioners and Heat Pump Less Than
65 kBtu/h.............. 778 Energy Efficiency Program for
Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Efficiency 1904-AB44
Standards for Commercial Single Packaged Vertical
Air-Conditioners and Commercial Single Packaged Vertical Heat
Pumps...................................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy--Completed Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Number Number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- 779 Alternative
Fueled Vehicle Acquisition Requirements for Private and Local
Government 1904-AA98
Fleets...........................................................
..................... 780 Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products: Test Procedures for Clothes Washers 1904-AB43
781 Energy Conservation Standards for Small Duct, High Velocity
Central Air Conditioning, 1904-AB45 and Heat Pump
Systems..........................................................
.......
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Defense and
Security Affairs--Proposed Rule Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Number Number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- 782 Polygraph
Examination
Regulations.....................................................
1992-AA33
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Defense and
Security Affairs--Final Rule Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Number Number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- 783 Physical
Protection of Security
Interests............................................. 1992-AA23
784 Procedural Rules for the Assessment of Civil Penalties for
Security Violations........ 1992-AA28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Defense and
Security Affairs--Completed Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Number Number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- 785 Computer
Security; Access to Information on National Nuclear Security
Administration 1992-AA27 Computer
Systems..........................................................
............ 786 Human Reliability
Program..........................................................
... 1992-AA29 787 Criteria and Procedures for Determining
Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or 1992-AA31 Special
Nuclear Material, Subpart
A................................................... 788
Criteria and Procedures for Nonprejudicial Restriction of Access
Authorization........ 1992-AA32 [[Page 37412]] 789 Initial Parts
of NNSA Acquisition Regulation
(NAR).................................... 1992-AA34
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Departmental and
Others--Proposed Rule Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Number Number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- 790 Freedom of
Information
Act............................................................
1901-AA32 791 Research
Misconduct.......................................................
............ 1901-AA89 792 Occupational Radiation
Protection.....................................................
1901-AA95 793 Guidelines for Voluntary Greenhouse Gas
Reporting..................................... 1901-AB11
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Departmental and
Others--Final Rule Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Number Number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- 794 Economic
Development Transfers of Real
Property....................................... 1901-AA82 795
Guidelines for Physician Panel Determination on Worker Requests
for Assistance in 1901-AB13 Filing for State Worker's
Compensation Benefits; Procedural Amendments................
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Departmental and
Others--Long-Term Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Number Number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- 796 Radiation
Protection of the Public and the
Environment................................ 1901-AA38 797
Annotation of Land Records for Remediated Properties in the
Uranium Mill Tailings 1901-AA57 Remedial Action Project
(UMTRA).......................................................
798 Worker Safety and
Health...........................................................
... 1901-AA99
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Departmental and
Others--Completed Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Number Number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- 799 Low Density
Discount.........................................................
......... 1901-AB12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Office of
Procurement and Assistance Management--Proposed Rule Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Number Number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- 800 DEAR: Make
or Buy
Plans............................................................
... 1991-AB63 801 DEAR Changes to Provisions for Facilities
Management, Work Authorization, Contractor's 1991-AB65
Organization, Contractor Relations, and Laws, Regulations, and
Directives............. 802 Cooperative Audit
Strategy.........................................................
... 1991-AB67
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- [[Page 37413]]
Office of Procurement and Assistance Management--Final Rule
Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Number Number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- 803
Organizational Conflict of Interest
Disclosure........................................ 1991-AB52 804
Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation: Management
Contractor Compensation for 1991-AB61 Personal
Services.........................................................
............ 805 Technical Amendment of the Department of Energy
Acquisition Regulation................ 1991-AB62 806 DEAR: Work
for
Others...........................................................
...... 1991-AB64
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Office of
Procurement and Assistance Management--Completed Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Number Number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- 807 Acquisition
Regulation: Payment of Fee Relating to Security
Issues/Conditional Payment 1991-AB54 of
Fee..............................................................
.................. 808 Financial Assistance Regulation:
Administrative Requirements Related to For-Profit 1991-AB57
Organizations....................................................
..................... 809 New and Revised DEAR
Clauses..........................................................
1991-AB60 810 Financial Assistance Regulations: Implementation
of OMB Grants Management Policies.... 1991-AB66
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Office of
General Counsel--Final Rule Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Number Number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- 811 Conduct of
Employees........................................................
.......... 1990-AA19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Office of
General Counsel--Long-Term Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Number Number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- 812 Claims for
Damages Against Department of Energy
Employees............................. 1990-AA26
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________
______ Department of Energy (DOE) Proposed Rule Stage National
Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA)
_________________________________________________________________
______ 752. [bullet][ls-thn-eq] INITIAL PARTS OF NNSA
ACQUISITION REGULATION (NAR) Priority: Substantive,
Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority: 40 USC 486(c); 50 USC 2402 CFR Citation: 48 CFR
ch 11 Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, December 1, 2003.
Abstract: This action would initiate the implementation of an
acquisition regulation for National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA). Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 12/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels Affected: None
Additional Information: This action was included in the previous
regulatory agenda under the RIN 1992-AA34. Agency Contact: James
J. Cavanagh, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202 586-7535 RIN: 1994-AA00
_________________________________________________________________
______ 753. [bullet][ls-thn-eq] COMPUTER SECURITY: ACCESS TO
INFORMATION ON NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMPUTER
SYSTEMS Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority:
42 USC 7101 et seq; 42 USC 2001 et seq; 50 USC 2425; 50 USC
2483(c) CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: This action would codify rules governing access by any
individual to information on National Nuclear Security
Administration computer systems. [[Page 37414]] Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 09/00/04 Final Action 03/00/05 Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No
Government Levels Affected: None Additional Information: This
action was included in the previous regualtory aggenda under RIN
1992-AA27. Agency Contact: Catherine McCulloch, Department of
Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202
586-2515 RIN: 1994-AA01
_________________________________________________________________
______ Department of Energy (DOE) Prerule Stage Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE)
_________________________________________________________________
______ 754. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL
FURNACES, BOILERS, AND MOBILE HOME FURNACES Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801. Unfunded
Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under PL
104-4. Legal Authority: 42 USC 6295 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 1, 1994. Abstract: The
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended,
establishes initial energy efficiency standard levels for most
types of major residential appliances and generally requires DOE
to undertake two subsequent rulemakings, at specified times, to
determine whether the extant standard for a covered product
should be amended. This is the initial review of the statutory
standards for furnaces, boilers, and mobile home furnaces.
Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ ANPRM 09/08/93 58 FR 47326 Framework Workshop 07/17/01
Venting Workshop 05/08/02 ANPRM 06/00/04 NPRM 07/00/05 Final
Action 03/00/06 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No
Government Levels Affected: Local, State Additional Information:
This action is a high priority, and the Department is working
actively on this action. Agency Contact: Mohammed Kahn, EE-2J,
Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Office of Building Technologies Program, 1000 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202 586-7892 Email:
mohammed.kahn@ee.doe.gov RIN: 1904-AA78
_________________________________________________________________
______ 755. DETERMINATION FOR HIGH-INTENSITY DISCHARGE LAMPS
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC
6317 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430 Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory,
April 24, 1995, Determination Notice. Abstract: The Energy
Policy Act of 1992 requires the Department to prescribe test
procedures and efficiency standards for high-intensity discharge
lamps for which the Secretary makes a determination that energy
conservation standards would be technologically feasible and
economically justified, and would result in significant energy
savings. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Determination Notice 11/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None
Additional Information: The Department's regulatory actions
related to energy efficiency standards have been categorized as
high, medium, and low priority based on significant input from
the public. This action is a high priority. The Department is
gathering information and conducting analysis in preparation for
a determination under 42 U.S.C. 631(b). Agency Contact: Sam
Johnson, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Office of Building Technologies Program, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202
586-0854 Fax: 202 586-4617 Email: sam.johnson@ee.doe.gov RIN:
1904-AA86
_________________________________________________________________
______ 756. DETERMINATION FOR SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS Priority:
Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC 6317 CFR
Citation: 10 CFR 431 Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, April 24,
1995, Determination Notice. Abstract: The Energy Policy Act of
1992 requires the Department to prescribe test procedures for
small electric motors for which the Secretary makes a
determination that energy conservation standards would be
technologically feasible and economically justified, and would
result in significant energy savings. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Determination Notice 08/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None
Additional Information: The Department's regulatory actions
related to energy efficiency standards have been categorized as
high, medium, and low priority based on significant input from
the public. This action is a high priority and the Department is
gathering information and conducting analyses in preparation for
a determination under 42 U.S.C. 6317(b). Agency Contact: James
Raba, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Office of Building Technologies Program, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202
586-8654 Email: jim.raba@ee.doe.gov RIN: 1904-AA87 [[Page
37415]]
_________________________________________________________________
______ 757. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR ELECTRIC
DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS Priority: Economically Significant.
Major under 5 USC 801. Legal Authority: 42 USC 6317 CFR
Citation: 10 CFR 430 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The Energy
Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, (EPCA) establishes
initial energy efficiency standard levels for certain types of
major residential appliances and certain types of commercial
equipment. EPCA contains no energy efficiency standards for
distribution transformers. This rulemaking will determine
whether it is appropriate to establish such standards.
Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Determination Notice 10/22/97 62 FR 54809 ANPRM 06/00/04
NPRM 07/00/05 Final Action 03/00/06 Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: None
Agency Contact: Ronald Lewis, EE-2J, Department of Energy,
Office of Building Research and Standards, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Office of Building Technologies Program, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202
586-8423 Email: ronald.lewis@ee.doe.gov RIN: 1904-AB08
_________________________________________________________________
______ 758. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL CENTRAL
AIR CONDITIONING UNITS AND HEAT PUMPS RATED 65-240 KBTUS/HR
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector
under PL 104-4. Legal Authority: 42 USC 6293 CFR Citation: 10
CFR 431 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended, establishes initial energy
efficiency standard levels for certain types of major
residential appliances and certain types of commercial
equipment. EPCA requires DOE to amend the standards for products
whenever ASHRAE amends its standards. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Screening Workshop 10/01/01 66 FR 43123 ANPRM 06/00/04
NPRM 07/00/05 Final Action 03/00/06 Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: None
Agency Contact: James Raba, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Building Technologies
Program, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-8654 Email: jim.raba@ee.doe.gov RIN: 1904-AB09
_________________________________________________________________
______ Department of Energy (DOE) Proposed Rule Stage Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE)
_________________________________________________________________
______ 759. ENERGY EFFICIENCY CODE FOR NEW FEDERAL RESIDENTIAL
LOW-RISE BUILDINGS Priority: Other Significant Legal Authority:
42 USC 6834 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 435 Legal Deadline: Final,
Statutory, October 24, 1994. Abstract: Title III of the Energy
Conservation and Production Act as amended by the Energy Policy
Act of 1992 directs DOE to establish Federal building energy
standards that require in new Federal buildings those energy
efficiency measures that are technologically feasible and
economically justified. The standards for Federal buildings are
intended to parallel closely the voluntary building energy codes
of the Energy Policy Act for private sector construction.
Interim energy performance standards which DOE had issued before
enactment of the Energy Policy Act are to remain in effect for
the Federal sector until the new Federal building energy
standards become effective. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 05/02/97 62 FR 24164 NPRM Comment Period End
07/14/97 Supplemental NPRM 12/00/04 Final Action 12/00/05
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels
Affected: Federal Agency Contact: Stephen P. Walder, EE-2J,
Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Office of Building Technologies Program, 1000 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202 586-9209 Fax: 202
586-4617 Email: stephen.walder@ee.doe.gov RIN: 1904-AA53
_________________________________________________________________
______ 760. STATE AND LOCAL INCENTIVES PROGRAM: ALTERNATIVE
FUELS Priority: Other Significant Legal Authority: 42 USC 13235
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 409 Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, April
24, 1993. Abstract: The Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires DOE
to issue regulations establishing the State and Local Incentives
Program. Under this program DOE may grant financial assistance
to States for projects in DOE-approved State plans to promote
use of alternative fuels and alternative-fueled vehicles. With
the publication of an integrated State Energy Program (61 FR
35890), the alternative fuel grant programs may be a part of the
State grant special projects, depending on funding availability.
The next action will be a cancellation notice of any separate
State grant program. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 03/21/95 60 FR 15020 Withdraw NPRM 12/00/04
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No [[Page 37416]]
Government Levels Affected: State, Local Agency Contact: Dorothy
Wormley, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Office of Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs,
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202
586-7028 RIN: 1904-AA66
_________________________________________________________________
______ 761. TEST PROCEDURES FOR ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION
TRANSFORMERS Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal
Authority: 42 USC 6317 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430 Legal Deadline:
Other, Statutory, April 24, 1995, Determination Notice.
Abstract: The Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires the Department
to prescribe testing requirements for electric distribution
transformers for which the Secretary makes a determination that
energy conservation standards would be technologically feasible
and economically justified, and would result in significant
energy savings. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Determination Notice 10/22/97 62 FR 54809 NPRM 11/12/98
63 FR 63359 Supplemental NPRM 06/00/04 Final Action 03/00/05
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels
Affected: None Additional Information: Due to the Department's
limited staff and financial resources, regulatory actions
related to energy efficiency standards have been categorized as
high, medium, and low priority based on significant input from
the public. This action is a high priority, and the Department
is working actively on this action. Agency Contact: Cyrus
Nasseri, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Office of Building Technologies Program, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202
586-9138 Email: cyrus.nasseri@ee.doe.gov RIN: 1904-AA85
_________________________________________________________________
______ 762. ENERGY STANDARDS FOR NEW FEDERAL COMMERCIAL AND
MULTI-FAMILY HIGH- RISE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS Priority:
Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC 6834 CFR
Citation: 10 CFR 434 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: Section
305(a)(1) of the Energy Conservation and Production Act, as
amended, requires the Department to establish by rule building
energy efficiency standards for all new Federal commercial and
multi- family high-rise residential (over three stories in
height above ground) buildings. In developing this rule, DOE is
directed to consult with other Federal agencies as well as
private, State, and other appropriate entities. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 08/00/04 Final Action 02/00/05 Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected:
None Agency Contact: Cyrus Nasseri, EE-2J, Department of Energy,
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Building
Technologies Program, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington,
DC 20585 Phone: 202 586-9138 Email: cyrus.nasseri@ee.doe.gov
RIN: 1904-AB13
_________________________________________________________________
______ Department of Energy (DOE) Final Rule Stage Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE)
_________________________________________________________________
______ 763. TEST PROCEDURES FOR RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL AIR
CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS--AMENDMENTS Priority: Substantive,
Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC 6293 CFR Citation: 10 CFR
430 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: These revisions to the test
procedures for central air conditioners and heat pumps in
accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act will
reorganize the test procedure regulations to place them in a
logical order and also will update the references. The revisions
include an updated nomenclature compatible with the test
procedure for combined (domestic hot water and central air
conditioners or heat pumps) appliances, additional tables
listing test tolerances, a clearer specification for the demand
defrost credit, and test methods for ECM (electronically
commutated motor) blowers and history-dependent defrosts.
Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 01/22/01 66 FR 6768 Final Action 05/00/05
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small Entities
Affected: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact:
Michael Raymond, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Office of Building Technologies Program,
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202
586-9611 Email: michael.raymond@ee.doe.gov RIN: 1904-AA46
_________________________________________________________________
______ 764. TEST PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL WATER HEATERS
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC
6293 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended,
establishes energy conservation standards for commercial water
heating products, prescribes test procedures, and requires
labeling for such equipment. This action would [[Page 37417]]
promulgate by regulation the energy conservation standards and
test procedures established in EPCA for these products. This
action will incorporate by reference energy conservation
standards and test procedures, as promulgated by EPCA and as
revised by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and
Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 08/09/00 65 FR 48852 Final Action 07/00/04
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels
Affected: None Agency Contact: Mohammed Kahn, EE-2J, Department
of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of
Building Technologies Program, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202 586-7892 Email:
mohammed.kahn@ee.doe.gov RIN: 1904-AA95
_________________________________________________________________
______ 765. TEST PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL WARM AIR FURNACES
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC
6293 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended,
establishes energy conservation standards for commercial
furnaces, prescribes test procedures, and authorizes labeling
for such equipment. This action would promulgate by regulation
the energy conservation standards and test procedures
established in EPCA for commercial furnaces. This action will
also incorporate by reference energy conservation standards and
test procedures for commercial furnaces, as revised by the
American Society ofHeating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE), and will also include enforcement and other
provisions for commercial products generally. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 12/13/99 64 FR 69597 Final Action 07/00/04
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels
Affected: None Agency Contact: Mohammed Kahn, EE-2J, Department
of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of
Building Technologies Program, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202 586-7892 Email:
mohammed.kahn@ee.doe.gov RIN: 1904-AA96
_________________________________________________________________
______ 766. TEST PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONING
EQUIPMENT Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority:
42 USC 6293 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431 Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as
amended, establishes energy conservation standards for
commercial air conditioning equipment, prescribes test
procedures, and authorizes labeling for such equipment. This
action would promulgate by regulation the energy conservation
standards and test procedures established in EPCA for these
products. This action will also incorporate by reference energy
conservation standards and test procedures, as promulgated by
EPCA and as revised by the AirConditioning and Refrigeration
Institute or by the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning Engineers (ARI/ASHRAE). Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 08/09/00 65 FR 48828 Final Action 07/00/04
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels
Affected: None Agency Contact: Mohammed Kahn, EE-2J, Department
of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of
Building Technologies Program, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202 586-7892 Email:
mohammed.kahn@ee.doe.gov RIN: 1904-AA97
_________________________________________________________________
______ 767. TEST PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL PACKAGE BOILERS
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC
6293 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended,
establishes energy conservation standards for commercial
boilers, prescribes test procedures, and authorizes labeling for
such equipment. This action would promulgate by regulation these
provisions. It would also incorporate by reference energy
conservation standards and test procedures, as promulgated by
EPCA. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 08/09/00 65 FR 48838 Final Action 07/00/04
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels
Affected: None Agency Contact: Mohammed Kahn, EE-2J, Department
of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of
Building Technologies Program, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202 586-7892 Email:
mohammed.kahn@ee.doe.gov RIN: 1904-AB02
_________________________________________________________________
______ 768. ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT: EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR PACKAGED TERMINAL
AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS; AND OIL- AND GAS-FIRED
COMMERCIAL PACKAGE BOILERS Priority: Substantive,
Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Legal Authority: 42 USC 6311 to
6316; 42 USC 6313(a) CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431 Legal Deadline:
None Abstract: The efficiency requirements in the statute
correspond to the levels in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 as in
effect on October 24, 1992. The statute further provides that if
the efficiency levels in ASHRAE/ IESNA Standard 90.1 are amended
after that date for any [[Page 37418]] of the covered products,
as recently occurred, the Secretary of Energy must establish an
amended uniform national standard for such equipment at the new
minimum level for each effective date specified in ASHRAE/ IESNA
90.1, unless he determines that a more stringent standard is
technologically feasible and economically justified and would
result in significant additional energy conservation.
Additionally, the Secretary may not prescribe any amended
standard that increases the maximum allowable energy use or
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered
product. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Workshop 03/00/05 Final Action 05/00/05 Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected:
Local, State Additional Information: Due to the Department's
limited staff and financial resources, regulatory actions
related to energy efficiency standards have been categorized as
high, medium, and low priority based on significant input from
the public. This action is a high priority and the Department is
working actively on this action. Agency Contact: Maureen Murphy,
EE-2J, Department of Energy, Office of Building Technologies,
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Building
Technologies Program, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington,
DC 20585 Phone: 202 586-0598 Fax: 202 586-4617 Email:
maureen.murphy@ee.doe.gov RIN: 1904-AB17
_________________________________________________________________
______ 769. [bullet][ls-thn-eq] ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR
CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS Priority: Substantive,
Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC 6291 to 6309; 28 USC 2461
note CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430 Legal Deadline: None Abstract:
This action would replace the standards levels that were
established by a final rule published by DOE on May 23, 2002,
with the higher standard levels contained in a final rule
published by DOE on January 22, 2001. On January 13, 2004, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that DOE's
actions withdrawing the January 22, 2001, rule and promulgating
a rule establishing lower standards were unlawful. In addition,
this action would set standards for space constrained products
at the levels set by the May 23, 2002 final rule. The January
22, 2001 final rule established the space constrained product
class, but reserved standards pending further rulemaking.
Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Final Action 07/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact:
Michael Raymond, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Office of Building Technologies Program,
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202
586-9611 Email: michael.raymond@ee.doe.gov RIN: 1904-AB46
_________________________________________________________________
______ Department of Energy (DOE) Long-Term Actions Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE)
_________________________________________________________________
______ 770. NATIONAL VOLUNTARY RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY
RATING GUIDELINES Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant CFR
Citation: 10 CFR 437 Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 07/25/95 60 FR 37949 Final Action To Be Determined
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: David
Boomsma, EE-3B Phone: 202 586-7086 Fax: 202 586-1233 Email:
david.boomsma@ee.doe.gov RIN: 1904-AA74
_________________________________________________________________
______ 771. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR CLOTHES DRYERS AND
DISHWASHERS Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5
USC 801. CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430.32 Timetable: Next Action
Undetermined Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No
Government Levels Affected: Local, State Agency Contact: Barbara
Twigg, EE-2J Phone: 202 586-8714 Email: barbara.twigg@ee.doe.gov
RIN: 1904-AA89
_________________________________________________________________
______ 772. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR POOL HEATERS AND
DIRECT HEATING EQUIPMENT Priority: Economically Significant.
Major under 5 USC 801. CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430 Timetable: Next
Action Undetermined Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No
Government Levels Affected: Local, State Agency Contact: Cyrus
Nasseri, EE-2J Phone: 202 586-9138 Email:
cyrus.nasseri@ee.doe.gov RIN: 1904-AA90
_________________________________________________________________
______ 773. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR 1-200 HP ELECTRIC
MOTORS Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC
801. CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431 Timetable: Next Action
Undetermined Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No
Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: James Raba,
EE-2J Phone: 202 586-8654 [[Page 37419]] Email:
jim.raba@ee.doe.gov RIN: 1904-AA91
_________________________________________________________________
______ 774. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR FLUORESCENT AND
INCANDESCENT LAMPS Priority: Economically Significant. Major
under 5 USC 801. CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430.32 Timetable: Next
Action Undetermined Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No
Government Levels Affected: Local, State Agency Contact: Ronald
Lewis, EE-2J Phone: 202 586-8423 Email: ronald.lewis@ee.doe.gov
RIN: 1904-AA92
_________________________________________________________________
______ 775. COVERAGE OF CERTAIN TYPES OF COMMERCIAL
REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT (REACH-IN FREEZERS, REACH-IN
REFRIGERATORS, VENDING MACHINES, AND BEVERAGE MERCHANDISERS)
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431
Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM - Coverage of Certain Commercial Equipment 12/00/05
Final Rule - Coverage of Certain Commercial Equipment To Be
Determined Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No
Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Linda Graves,
EE-2J Phone: 202 586-1851 Email: linda.graves@ee.doe.gov RIN:
1904-AB14
_________________________________________________________________
______ 776. COVERAGE OF CERTAIN INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS,
TORCHIERES, AND CEILING FANS Priority: Substantive,
Nonsignificant CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430 Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM - Coverage of Residential Products 12/00/05 Final
Rule - Coverage of Residential Products To Be Determined
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels
Affected: None Agency Contact: Linda Graves, EE-2J Phone: 202
586-1851 Email: linda.graves@ee.doe.gov RIN: 1904-AB15
_________________________________________________________________
______ 777. ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT: EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR 3-PHASE AIR
CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMP LESS THAN 65 KBTU/H Priority:
Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is
undetermined. CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431 Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Workshop 11/00/05 Final Action 03/00/06 Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected:
Local, State Agency Contact: Maureen Murphy, EE-2J Phone: 202
586-0598 Fax: 202 586-4617 Email: maureen.murphy@ee.doe.gov RIN:
1904-AB16
_________________________________________________________________
______ 778. ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT: EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL SINGLE
PACKAGED VERTICAL AIR- CONDITIONERS AND COMMERCIAL SINGLE
PACKAGED VERTICAL HEAT PUMPS Priority: Substantive,
Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431 Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Workshop 11/00/05 Final Action 03/00/06 Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No
Government Levels Affected: Local, State Agency Contact: Maureen
Murphy, EE-2J Phone: 202 586-0598 Fax: 202 586-4617 Email:
maureen.murphy@ee.doe.gov RIN: 1904-AB44
_________________________________________________________________
______ Department of Energy (DOE) Completed Actions Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE)
_________________________________________________________________
______ 779. ALTERNATIVE FUELED VEHICLE ACQUISITION REQUIREMENTS
FOR PRIVATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FLEETS Priority: Other
Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. CFR
Citation: 10 CFR 490 Completed:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Reason Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Final Action 01/29/04 69 FR 4219 Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis Required: Yes Small Entities Affected: Businesses,
Governmental Jurisdictions Government Levels Affected: Local
Agency Contact: Dana O'Hara, EE-2G Phone: 202 586-8063 Email:
dana.o'hara@ee.doe.gov RIN: 1904-AA98
_________________________________________________________________
______ 780. ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS:
TEST PROCEDURES FOR CLOTHES WASHERS Priority: Substantive,
Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430 [[Page 37420]] Completed:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Reason Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 10/31/03 68 FR 62205 Direct Final Rule 10/31/03 68
FR 62198 Direct Final Rule Effective 01/01/04 Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No
Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Barbara Twigg,
EE-2J Phone: 202 586-8714 Email: barbara.twigg@ee.doe.gov RIN:
1904-AB43
_________________________________________________________________
______ 781. ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR SMALL DUCT, HIGH
VELOCITY CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING, AND HEAT PUMP SYSTEMS
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC
801 is undetermined. CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430.32 Completed:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Reason Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Withdrawn by Program Office 04/30/04 Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No
Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Michael
Raymond, EE-2J Phone: 202 586-9611 Email:
michael.raymond@ee.doe.gov RIN: 1904-AB45
_________________________________________________________________
______ Department of Energy (DOE) Proposed Rule Stage Defense
and Security Affairs (DSA)
_________________________________________________________________
______ 782. POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION REGULATIONS Priority:
Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC 2011 et seq;
42 USC 7101 et seq; 42 USC 7383h-1 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 709
Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The purpose of this action is to
promulgate new counterintelligence polygraph regulations
consistent with section 3152 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 04/14/03 68 FR 17886 Correction to NPRM 04/18/03 68
FR 19166 Revised NPRM 06/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels
Affected: None Agency Contact: Douglas Hinckley, Program
Director, Department of Energy, Office of Counterintelligence,
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202
586-5901 RIN: 1992-AA33
_________________________________________________________________
______ Department of Energy (DOE) Final Rule Stage Defense and
Security Affairs (DSA)
_________________________________________________________________
______ 783. PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF SECURITY INTERESTS Priority:
Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC 2011; 42 USC
7101 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 1046 subpart A; 10 CFR 1046 subpart B
Legal Deadline: None Abstract: 10 CFR part 1046, subparts A and
B, establishes DOE contractor requirements in the areas of
protective force, medical, physical fitness, and firearms
qualifications and training. An Interim Final Rule to clarify
the role of Local Law Enforcement Agencies in annual training
exercises will be published in advance of a more extensive
revision of the rule. The major revision will address matters
concerning physical training of Security Police Officers and
Security Officers, to more clearly define Security Police
Officer I and Security Police Officer II positions, and to
revise physical fitness qualifications requirements. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 04/14/03 68 FR 17886 NPRM Correction 04/18/03 68 FR
19166 NPRM Comment Period End 06/13/03 Interim Final Rule
07/00/04 Revised NPRM 01/00/05 Final Action 08/00/05 Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected:
None Agency Contact: John Cronin, Department of Energy, Office
of Security, Germantown, MD 20874 Phone: 301 903-6209 RIN:
1992-AA23
_________________________________________________________________
______ 784. PROCEDURAL RULES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL
PENALTIES FOR SECURITY VIOLATIONS Priority: Substantive,
Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC 2011 et seq; 42 USC 7101
et seq; 42 USC 2282(b) CFR Citation: 10 CFR 824 Legal Deadline:
None Abstract: This action would define the process for the
imposition of civil penalties on contractors for violations
relating to the safeguarding or security of classified or
sensitive data. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 04/01/02 67 FR 15339 NPRM Comment Period End
07/01/02 Final Action 07/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Small Entities Affected: No [[Page 37421]]
Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Geralyn C.
Praskievicz, Department of Energy, Office of Security, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202
586-4451 RIN: 1992-AA28
_________________________________________________________________
______ Department of Energy (DOE) Completed Actions Defense and
Security Affairs (DSA)
_________________________________________________________________
______ 785. COMPUTER SECURITY; ACCESS TO INFORMATION ON NATIONAL
NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMPUTER SYSTEMS Priority:
Substantive, Nonsignificant CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined
Completed:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Reason Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Reassigned to RIN 1994-AA01 05/18/04 Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No
Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Catherine
McCulloch Phone: 202 586-2515 RIN: 1992-AA27
_________________________________________________________________
______ 786. HUMAN RELIABILITY PROGRAM Priority: Substantive,
Nonsignificant CFR Citation: 10 CFR 710; 10 CFR 711; 10 CFR 712
Completed:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Reason Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Final Action 01/23/04 69 FR 3213 Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency
Contact: Lynn Gebrowsky Phone: 301 903-6637 RIN: 1992-AA29
_________________________________________________________________
______ 787. CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY
FOR ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED MATTER OR SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL,
SUBPART A Priority: Info./Admin./Other CFR Citation: 10 CFR 710
subpart A Completed:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Reason Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Withdrawn 04/29/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels
Affected: None Agency Contact: A. Barry Dalinsky Phone: 301
903-5010 RIN: 1992-AA31
_________________________________________________________________
______ 788. CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR NONPREJUDICIAL
RESTRICTION OF ACCESS AUTHORIZATION Priority: Substantive,
Nonsignificant CFR Citation: 3 CFR 1949 to 1953 Comp., p. 936; 3
CFR 1959 to 1963 Comp., p. 398; 3 CFR ch IV, sec 104(c)
Completed:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Reason Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Withdrawn 04/29/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact:
Mary E. Gallion Phone: 301 903-6545 Email:
mary.gallion@hq.doe.gov RIN: 1992-AA32
_________________________________________________________________
______ 789. INITIAL PARTS OF NNSA ACQUISITION REGULATION (NAR)
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC
801 is undetermined. CFR Citation: 48 CFR ch 11 Completed:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Reason Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Reassigned to RIN 1994-AA00 05/18/04 Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No
Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: James J.
Cavanagh Phone: 202 586-7535 RIN: 1992-AA34
_________________________________________________________________
______ Department of Energy (DOE) Proposed Rule Stage
Departmental and Others (ENDEP)
_________________________________________________________________
______ 790. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT Priority: Other
Significant Legal Authority: 5 USC 552 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 1004
Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA), as amended, permits any person to request access to
agency records. The DOE has promulgated a regulation at part
1004 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations to implement
the FOIA. The DOE will revise its FOIA regulation to reflect
current procedures for processing requests for information that
are submitted to the agency, to ensure compliance with the
Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996, and to
make the regulation more user friendly. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 09/00/04 Final Action 01/00/05 Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected:
None Agency Contact: Abel Lopez, Director, FOIA and Privacy Act
Division, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585 [[Page 37422]] Phone: 202 586-5955 Email:
abel.lopez@hq.doe.gov RIN: 1901-AA32
_________________________________________________________________
______ 791. RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Priority: Substantive,
Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 7101 et seq;
50 USC 2401 et seq CFR Citation: None Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: This action would establish policies and procedures
for handling research misconduct allegations. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 11/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No Government Levels Affected: Federal Agency Contact: William
J. Valdez, Director, Office of Planning and Analysis, Department
of Energy, Office of Science, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202 586-9942 Fax: 202 586-7719
Email: bill.valdez@science.doe.gov RIN: 1901-AA89
_________________________________________________________________
______ 792. OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION PROTECTION Priority:
Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC
7191 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 835 Legal Deadline: None Abstract:
This action would amend the Department of Energy's occupational
radiation protection regulations to provide additional
flexibility in meeting requirements, to update the dosimetric
models and dose terms, to establish certain concentration values
and limits, and to clarify requirements for radioactive material
transportation not subject to DOT regulations. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 12/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels Affected: None
Agency Contact: Peter O'Connell, Department of Energy, Office of
Worker Protection Policy and Programs, 1000 Independence Avenue
S.W., Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 301 903-5641 RIN: 1901-AA95
_________________________________________________________________
______ 793. GUIDELINES FOR VOLUNTARY GREENHOUSE GAS REPORTING
Priority: Other Significant Legal Authority: 42 USC 13385(b) CFR
Citation: 10 CFR 300 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: This action
would revise the procedures and reporting requirements for the
Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. The revisions would
enhance the measurement accuracy, reliability, and verifiability
of reported data. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 12/05/03 68 FR 68204 NPRM Comment Period End
02/17/04 Revised NPRM with Technical Guidelines 07/00/04 Final
Action 11/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No
Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels Affected: None
Agency Contact: Mark Friedrichs, Office of Policy and
International Affairs, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202 586-0124 RIN:
1901-AB11
_________________________________________________________________
______ Department of Energy (DOE) Final Rule Stage Departmental
and Others (ENDEP)
_________________________________________________________________
______ 794. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRANSFERS OF REAL PROPERTY
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: PL
105-85, sec 3158 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 770 Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: This action would establish procedures for
indemnifying and disposing of real property by sale or lease at
the Department's defense nuclear facilities for the purpose of
permitting economic development. It would also establish
procedures for reporting actions to Congress, informing those
acquiring the property of the availability of indemnification
for injury to people or property from releases or threatened
releases of hazardous materials, requesting indemnification, and
making claims for indemnification. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Interim Final Rule 02/29/00 65 FR 10685 Final Action
02/00/05 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government
Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Andrew Duran, Realty
Officer, ME-90, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202 586-4548 Email:
andrew.duran@hq.doe.gov RIN: 1901-AA82
_________________________________________________________________
______ 795. [bullet][ls-thn-eq] GUIDELINES FOR PHYSICIAN PANEL
DETERMINATION ON WORKER REQUESTS FOR ASSISTANCE IN FILING FOR
STATE WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS; PROCEDURAL AMENDMENTS
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC
801 is undetermined. Legal Authority: 42 USC 7384, et seq.; 42
USC 2201 and 7101, et seq.; 50 USC 2401, et seq. CFR Citation:
10 CFR 852 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: This action would
reduce from three to one the minimum number of physicians
required for an [[Page 37423]] affirmative physician panel
determination in most instances. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Interim Final Rule 03/24/04 69 FR 13709 Interim Final
Rule Comment Period End 04/24/04 Final Action 09/00/04
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small Entities
Affected: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact:
Judy Keating, Department of Energy, Environment, Safety and
Health, Office of Woker Advocacy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202 586-7551 RIN: 1901-AB13
_________________________________________________________________
______ Department of Energy (DOE) Long-Term Actions Departmental
and Others (ENDEP)
_________________________________________________________________
______ 796. RADIATION PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC AND THE
ENVIRONMENT Priority: Other Significant CFR Citation: 10 CFR 834
Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 03/25/93 58 FR 16268 Second NPRM 08/31/95 60 FR
45381 Final Action 06/00/06 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal Agency Contact:
Andrew Wallo Phone: 202 586-4996 RIN: 1901-AA38
_________________________________________________________________
______ 797. ANNOTATION OF LAND RECORDS FOR REMEDIATED PROPERTIES
IN THE URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REMEDIAL ACTION PROJECT (UMTRA)
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant CFR Citation: Not Yet
Determined Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 04/14/89 54 FR 29732 Final Action To Be Determined
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels
Affected: Federal, State Agency Contact: Christopher J. Clayton
Phone: 202 586-9034 RIN: 1901-AA57
_________________________________________________________________
______ 798. WORKER SAFETY AND HEALTH Priority: Other Significant
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 851 Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 12/08/03 68 FR 68276 NPRM Comment Period End
02/06/04 NPRM Suspension 02/27/04 69 FR 9277 Next Action
Undetermined Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small
Entities Affected: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency
Contact: C. Rick Jones Phone: 301 903-5926 RIN: 1901-AA99
_________________________________________________________________
______ Department of Energy (DOE) Completed Actions Departmental
and Others (ENDEP)
_________________________________________________________________
______ 799. LOW DENSITY DISCOUNT Priority: Substantive,
Nonsignificant CFR Citation: None Completed:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Reason Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Withdrawn by Program Office 04/28/04 Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No
Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Kurt Casad
Phone: 503 230-4024 RIN: 1901-AB12
_________________________________________________________________
______ Department of Energy (DOE) Proposed Rule Stage Office of
Procurement and Assistance Management (PR)
_________________________________________________________________
______ 800. DEAR: MAKE OR BUY PLANS Priority: Substantive,
Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 7101; 50 USC
2401 CFR Citation: 48 CFR 901; 48 CFR 970 Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: The requirement for detailed Make or Buy Plans under
all DOE management contracts is being eliminated. Make or buy
analysis will be retained for major systems acquisitions. A new
clause entitled Performance Improvement and Collaboration is
being added. It provides for collaboration among DOE's
management contractors and the Department to identify possible
improvements in contract performance. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 07/00/04 Final Action 12/00/04 Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis Required: No [[Page 37424]] Government
Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Irma Brown, Procurement
Analyst, Department of Energy, Office of Procurement and
Assistance Management, ME-61, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202 586-8455 Email:
irma.brown@hq.doe.gov RIN: 1991-AB63
_________________________________________________________________
______ 801. DEAR CHANGES TO PROVISIONS FOR FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT, WORK AUTHORIZATION, CONTRACTOR'S ORGANIZATION,
CONTRACTOR RELATIONS, AND LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND DIRECTIVES
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC
801 is undetermined. Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 7101;
50 USC 2401 CFR Citation: 48 CFR 907; 48 CFR 952; 48 CFR 970
Legal Deadline: None Abstract: This action would delete 48 CFR
part 970.5237-2, Facilities Management; add new clauses dealing
with work authorization and government-contractor relations; and
incorporate other revisions that would emphasize the
contractor's responsibility for effective cost management in
flowing down prime contract requirements to its subcontractors.
Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 07/00/04 Final Action 01/00/05 Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No
Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Michael
Fischetti, Procurement Analyst, ME-61, Department of Energy,
Office of Procurement and Assistance Management, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202
586-8192 RIN: 1991-AB65
_________________________________________________________________
______ 802. [bullet][ls-thn-eq] COOPERATIVE AUDIT STRATEGY
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC
2201; 42 USC 7101; 50 USC 2401 CFR Citation: 48 CFR 970 Legal
Deadline: None Abstract: The Department of Energy is amending
its acquisition regulation to more fully describe the audit
procedures to be followed under its management and operating
contracts. The revised procedures call for an annual audit plan
and audit report as explained under the Accounts, Records and
Inspection clause at 48 CFR 970.5232-3. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 07/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels Affected: None
Agency Contact: Richard B. Langston, Procurement Analyst,
Department of Energy, Office of Procurement and Assistance
Management, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-8247 Email: richard.langston@pr.doe.gov RIN:
1991-AB67
_________________________________________________________________
______ Department of Energy (DOE) Final Rule Stage Office of
Procurement and Assistance Management (PR)
_________________________________________________________________
______ 803. ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC
7254 CFR Citation: 48 CFR 909; 48 CFR 970 Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: This action would amend provisions that cover
organizational conflicts of interest and purchases from
affiliated sources to protect the Department in transactions
involving a DOE M contractor and its affiliates. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ NPRM 10/13/99 64 FR 55453 Final Action 09/00/04
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels
Affected: None Agency Contact: Robert M. Webb, Procurement
Analyst, Department of Energy, Office of Procurement and
Assistance Management, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington,
DC 20585 Phone: 202 586-8264 RIN: 1991-AB52
_________________________________________________________________
______ 804. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ACQUISITION REGULATION:
MANAGEMENT CONTRACTOR COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICES
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC
2201; 42 USC 7101; 50 USC 2401 CFR Citation: 48 CFR 970.22; 48
CFR 970.31; 48 CFR 970.52 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: This
action would amend the policy and procedures regarding
compensation for personal services under contracts for
management of Department of Energy facilities. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Final Action 08/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact:
Richard B. Langston, Procurement Analyst, Department of Energy,
Office of Procurement and Assistance Management, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202
586-8247 Email: richard.langston@pr.doe.gov RIN: 1991-AB61
_________________________________________________________________
______ 805. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ACQUISITION REGULATION Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant
Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 7101; 50 USC 2401 [[Page
37425]] CFR Citation: 48 CFR 030; 48 CFR 952; 48 CFR 970 Legal
Deadline: None Abstract: This action would make technical
amendments and corrections to various parts of the Department of
Energy Acquisition Regulations. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Final Action 07/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact:
Stephen Zvolensky, Department of Energy, Office of Procurement
and Assistance Management, ME-61, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202 586-5936 Email:
stephen.zvolensky@hq.doe.gov RIN: 1991-AB62
_________________________________________________________________
______ 806. DEAR: WORK FOR OTHERS Priority: Substantive,
Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 7101; 50 USC
2401 CFR Citation: 48 CFR 970.1707; 48 CFR 970.5217--1 Legal
Deadline: None Abstract: This action would amend the Department
of Energy Acquisition Regulations (DEAR) to provide policies and
procedures regarding work for non-DOE entities performed by DOE
contractors who manage and operate DOE owned or leased
facilities. These procedures are being relocated from the DOE
Directives to the DEAR as part of a larger effort to decrease
overly prescriptive guidance. The contractor requirements
previously found in DOE order 481.1B are being relocated to the
DEAR. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Interim Final Rule 07/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency
Contact: A. Scott Geary, Program Analyst, Department of Energy,
Office of Procurement and Assistance Management, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202
586-3299 RIN: 1991-AB64
_________________________________________________________________
______ Department of Energy (DOE) Completed Actions Office of
Procurement and Assistance Management (PR)
_________________________________________________________________
______ 807. ACQUISITION REGULATION: PAYMENT OF FEE RELATING TO
SECURITY ISSUES/ CONDITIONAL PAYMENT OF FEE Priority:
Substantive, Nonsignificant CFR Citation: 48 CFR 970 Completed:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Reason Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Final Action 12/10/03 68 FR 68771 Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency
Contact: Michael L. Righi Phone: 202 586-8175 RIN: 1991-AB54
_________________________________________________________________
______ 808. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE REGULATION: ADMINISTRATIVE
REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS Priority:
Substantive, Nonsignificant CFR Citation: 10 CFR 600 Completed:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Reason Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Final Action 08/21/03 68 FR 50646 Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government
Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Trudy Wood Phone: 202
586-5625 Email: trudy.wood@pr.doe.gov RIN: 1991-AB57
_________________________________________________________________
______ 809. NEW AND REVISED DEAR CLAUSES Priority: Substantive,
Nonsignificant CFR Citation: 48 CFR 970; 48 CFR 901 to 952
Completed:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Reason Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Duplicate of 1991-AB65 04/28/04 Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency
Contact: Michael Fischetti Phone: 202 586-8192 RIN: 1991-AB60
_________________________________________________________________
______ 810. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS: IMPLEMENTATION OF
OMB GRANTS MANAGEMENT POLICIES Priority: Substantive,
Nonsignificant CFR Citation: 10 CFR 600 Completed:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Reason Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Final Action 02/20/04 69 FR 7865 Final Action Effective
03/22/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small
Entities Affected: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency
Contact: Trudy Wood Phone: 202 586-5625 Email:
trudy.wood@pr.doe.gov RIN: 1991-AB66 [[Page 37426]]
_________________________________________________________________
______ Department of Energy (DOE) Final Rule Stage Office of
General Counsel (OGC)
_________________________________________________________________
______ 811. CONDUCT OF EMPLOYEES Priority: Info./Admin./Other
Legal Authority: 42 USC 7211 et seq; PL 103-160, sec 3161; EO
12674 CFR Citation: 10 CFR 1010; 5 CFR 2635 Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: The DOE regulation on conduct of employees needs to be
revised to reflect the issuance of the Standards of Ethical
Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR 2635) and
the repeal of conflict-of-interest provisions formerly
applicable to DOE employees. Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Interim Final Rule 07/05/96 61 FR 35085 Final Action
08/00/04 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government
Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Susan Beard,
Assistant General Counsel for General Law, Department of Energy,
Office of General Counsel, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202 586-1522 RIN: 1990-AA19
_________________________________________________________________
______ Department of Energy (DOE) Long-Term Actions Office of
General Counsel (OGC)
_________________________________________________________________
______ 812. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES AGAINST DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
EMPLOYEES Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant CFR Citation: 10
CFR 1014 Timetable:
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Action Date FR Cite
_________________________________________________________________
_______ Interim Final Rule To Be Determined Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected:
None Agency Contact: Susan Beard Phone: 202 586-1522 RIN:
1990-AA26 [FR Doc. 04-13256 Filed 06-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING
CODE 6450-01-S
*****************************************************************
63 [du-list] DU in the news - 28th June 04
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:03:26 -0700
UNFRIENDLY fire rmy's new 'green' ammunition, may pose health ...
Cape Cod Times - Hyannis,MA,USA
... Tungsten, with the highest melting point of any metal, had already
been considered as a replacement for larger depleted uranium munitions
used by the Navy and ...
<http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/unfriendlyfire27.htm>
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
82a2dd.jpg
82a30a.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: 82a2dd.jpg: 00000001,21d654bc,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 82a30a.jpg: 00000001,21d654bd,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
64 Google News Alert - nuclear
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
UN inspects suspected Iran nuclear site
Reuters - London,England,UK
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Inspectors from the UN nuclear watchdog have visited
the Lavizan site in Tehran where Washington suspects Iran carried out
secret atomic ...
See all stories on this topic:
NORTH Korea Rejects US Nuclear Proposal
Voice of America - Washington,DC,USA
North Korea has described last week's talks on its nuclear weapons program
as "positive," but said a US proposal to defuse the issue was unacceptable.
...
See all stories on this topic:
IRAN'S Nuclear Shell Game
Payvand - Iran
... of that quagmire gracefully, or hang tough for the duration, concerns
over Iraq will take second seat to the new regional flashpoint: Iran’s
nuclear ambitions ...
See all stories on this topic:
IAEA chief in talks with Russian FM on nuclear issues and Iran
Xinhua - China
... Minister Sergei Lavrov Monday held talks with visiting chief of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed El-Baradei on nuclear
non-proliferation ...
See all stories on this topic:
DELAY in Russian-Iranian protocol on spent nuclear fuel technical
Interfax - Moscow,Russia
June 28 (Interfax) - The delay in signing a Russian-Iranian protocol on
returning spent nuclear fuel to Russia from Iran is technical, Hossein
Mussavian, head ...
See all stories on this topic:
SPESCOM Software Launches Nuclear Advisory Council
Yahoo News (press release) - USA
... a leading provider of enterprise content and configuration management
solutions, today announced the establishment of the Spescom Nuclear Advisory
Council as a ...
NUCLEAR terrorism realities
Washington Times - Washington,DC,USA
A nuclear catastrophe could occur if terrorists gained access to nuclear
weapons or weapons-grade materials, and if regional conflicts or instability
...
See all stories on this topic:
CELL Phone Service On Wheels For Nuclear Research Lab
TechWeb - USA
... called “COW” (for cellular-on-wheels) -- at the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory in Tennessee to improve spotty coverage at the nuclear research
facility. ...
SOLUTION "in sight" on Iran's nuclear program: Rice
SpaceDaily - USA
... Rice said Sunday that Iran was providing daily proof why it belonged
in the "axis of evil" but a peaceful solution to the row over its nuclear
program was ...
See all stories on this topic:
RUSSIAN Parliamentarians reminded President about lost nuclear ...
Bellona - UK
In April the Russian parliament members from the Russian Far East reminded
the Russian President and the Government about the two nuclear powered
lighthouses ...
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/
*****************************************************************
65 Bellona: Russian Parliamentarians reminded President about lost nuclear lighthouses
In April the Russian Parliament members from the Far East
reminded President Vladimir Putin and the Government about the
two nuclear powered lighthouses lost in Okhotskoye Sea back in
1987 and 1997 and asked to take measures to salvage them,
Regions.ru reported.
2004-06-28 19:57
According to the Russian Parliament the lighthouses were
accidentally dropped from the helicopters in the Okhotskoye Sea
during transportation. Each lighthouse of IEU-1 type weighs 2.5
ton and its total radioactivity is 1.5 million curie. It can leak
strontium-90 into the marine environment and lead to irreversible
consequences in the local regions.
The head of the press service of the Russian Pacific Fleet
Alexander Kosolapov said to the daily Vladivostok, that the
radiation level was normal in the area where the nuclear
lighthouses had been lost. The exact places, however, are not
known. The search works in the sea require about $700,000, but
the Russian navy cannot afford it. It would be easier to find
them if they emitted radiation, Kosolapov added.
Director-coordinator of the Far East environmental organisation
“Green Cross” Alexander Malyshev said that back in 1999 they had
asked prime-minister Vladimir Putin to arrange expedition to
locate and salvage the nuclear powered lighthouses, RusEnergy
reported.
Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no]
, President: Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no] Information:
info@bellona.no [info@bellona.no] , Technical contact:
webmaster@bellona.no [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23
46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505
Oslo, Norway Menu system java script courtesy of dhtml central
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************