***************************************************************** 05/12/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.109 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Reconsidering Ending Freeze on Nukes 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Says It Will Resume Nuclear Activity 3 Guardian Unlimited: Britain, France Warn Iran on Nuke Actions 4 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Said May Delay Resuming Nuke Work 5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran May Keep Freeze on Nuclear Activities 6 RIA Novosti: IRAN DENIES US CHARGES 7 RIA Novosti: IRAN TO GET RUSSIAN NUCLEAR FUEL IN LATE 2005 8 Guardian Unlimited: Blair Backs U.N. Intervention for Iran 9 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: When Dealing With North Korea, Assume the 10 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Seoul officials unruffled over fuel rod repor 11 RIA Novosti: U.S. PROVOKES CRISIS IN NORTH KOREAN NUCLEAR SETTLEMENT 12 AFP: Alarm spreads as North Korea speeds up nuclear drive - 13 US: OpEd Intl. Herald Tribune on Nuke Proliferation 14 US: [progchat_action] Fw: REP. MCKINNEY EFFORT TO DEFUND NUCLEAR 15 US: Guardian Unlimited: Delegates Agree on Nuclear Treaty Agenda 16 US: Chattanoogan.com: Wamp Said Nation Needs To Move On Energy Agend 17 US: NRC: NRC Toughens Export-Import Requirements for Certain Radioac 18 US: Judicial Watch: APPEALS COURT PERMITS ENERGY TASK FORCE RECORDS 19 [NYTr] UN non-proliferation conference adopts agenda 20 OPEN ME FIRST: Are the Anti Uranium Weapons Bills being surpressed 21 Nuclear Non-proliferation Conference At UN Agrees On Agenda 22 Report from Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Conf NUCLEAR REACTORS 23 US: NRC: NRC Staff to Meet with Arizona Public Service Co. to Discus 24 US: NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Honors Employees on May 12 in 25 US: SignOnSanDiego.com: Route of 4 new generators for nuclear plant 26 BBC: Scotland 'can say no' to nuclear 27 US: NRC: NRC Renews Operating Licenses for Farley Nuclear Plant, Uni 28 US: APP.COM: NRC meeting tonight on Oyster Creek open to public 29 FAZ Weekly: Second nuclear plant shut down - 30 US: NRC: Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2; Notice o 31 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for th 32 US: NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Monticello Nuclear Generat 33 US: NRC: In the Matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Diablo Canyon Nuc 34 US: NRC: Pacific Gas and Electric, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant 35 US: NRC: In the Matter of PSEG Nuclear LLC, Hope Creek and Salem 36 US: NRC: In the Matter of PSEG Nuclear LLC, Hope Creek and Salem 37 US: NRC: In the Matter of Duke Energy Corporation; Catawba Nuclear 38 US: NRC: In the Matter of Duke Energy Corporation, Catawba Nuclear 39 US: NRC: Draft Regulatory Guide; Issuance, Availability 40 US: NRC: NRC Announces Opportunity for Hearing on Application to Ren 41 Scotsman.com: Nuclear Power Must Be Considered Says Blair 42 US: Vermont Guardian: NRC: September uprate target unlikely 43 Independent: Nuclear power may be the only way, says chief scientist 44 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting NUCLEAR SECURITY 45 [NYTr] North Korea raises nuclear stakes 46 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Says It Will Bolster Nuke Arsenal 47 Guardian Unlimited: Europe on alert over Iran nuclear ambitions 48 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea sparks fresh plutonium alarm NUCLEAR SAFETY 49 US: Idaho Statesman: Crapo to present downwinder bill today 50 US: KTVB.COM: Crapo introduces legislation for downwinders' compensa 51 US: Independent Online: Living with fallout 52 US: PISJ: Senators aim to aid downwinder radiation victims 53 US: Salt Lake City Weekly: Justice Delayed NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 54 US: Guardian Unlimited: 34 Bases on Worst Toxic Waste Sites List 55 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Dry cask concerns irk NRC 56 Manchester Evening News: Scientist quells Sellafield disaster fear 57 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: A 'yes man' for Bush 58 US: RFID Journal: RFID Helps Hanford Manage Waste 59 US: Bangornews.com: Defending the environment - 60 Whitehaven News: BNFL DENIES LEAK FEARS OVER CLEAN-UP 61 Whitehaven News: TARTAN WASTE FLOW CHECKED 62 Whitehaven News: SELLAFIELD’S NEW EXCELLENCE CENTRE IS FIRST IN UK 63 Las Vegas SUN: Congressional panel promotes interim storage for PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 64 Guardian Unlimited: UC Gets Partners for Possible Nuke Lab Bid 65 Oakland Tribune: UC-Bechtel venture sets up epic lab fight 66 lamonitor.com: Cleanup job may stay in LANL contract ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Reconsidering Ending Freeze on Nukes From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday May 12, 2005 10:01 AM By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran blinked on the brink of resuming a program that can be part of the process of making nuclear weapons, with diplomats saying Thursday that Tehran was considering whether to back away from its threat to immediately end its freeze of such activities. One of the diplomats told The Associated Press that Iranian officials in Tehran were discussing delaying the resumption of uranium conversion because of a warning from key European countries that such a move would result in ``consequences ... that would only be negative for Iran'' - diplomatic code for likely action by the U.N Security Council. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Says It Will Resume Nuclear Activity From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday May 12, 2005 10:46 AM TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran vowed Thursday it would ``definitely'' resume some uranium reprocessing activities, refuting suggestions that Tehran, under European pressure, was considering backing away from its threat to immediately end its freeze of uranium conversion. Hasan Rowhani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, said Tehran will resume some nuclear activities because it cannot continue nuclear negotiations with Europeans. ``Continuation of negotiations in their present format is not possible for us,'' Rowhani told state-run television. ``The basic point that the Islamic Republic of Iran will resume part of its nuclear activities in the near future is definite,'' Rowhani said. Earlier, a diplomat in Austria told The Associated Press that Iranian government officials in Tehran were discussing delaying the resumption of uranium conversion because of a warning from key European countries that such a move would result in ``consequences ... that would only be negative for Iran'' - diplomatic code for likely action by the U.N Security Council. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited: Britain, France Warn Iran on Nuke Actions From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday May 12, 2005 6:01 PM AP Photo LON115 By ED JOHNSON Associated Press Writer LONDON (AP) - Britain and France warned Iran on Thursday that it could face harsh measures, including possible U.N. Security Council action, if it breaches its nuclear obligations, while Tehran threatened to resume some activities that can be part of the process of making nuclear weapons. Hasan Rowhani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, said negotiations with key European powers were not balanced and were costly for Tehran. ``Continuation of negotiations in their present format is not possible for us,'' Rowhani told Iranian state-run television. ``The basic point that the Islamic Republic of Iran will resume part of its nuclear activities in the near future is definite.'' Diplomats close to the International Atomic Energy Agency and familiar with Iran's nuclear dossier said Rowhani appeared to be creating some wiggle room for his country in negotiations as his statement appeared more vague than other recent Iranian pronouncements warning such a move would come in the next few days. British Prime Minister Tony Blair stepped up the pressure on Tehran, warning that he would support Iran being referred to the U.N. Security Council if it breached its nuclear obligations - including a freeze on all aspects of uranium enrichment while discussing the issue with France, Germany and Britain. ``We certainly will support referral to the U.N. Security Council if Iran breaches it undertaking and obligations,'' Blair said. France also urged Iran not to resume suspended nuclear activities, warning of harsh - but unspecified - consequences if it does. ``We continue to hope that Iran will not make this gesture of which it knows the consequences,'' French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier told the Senate in Paris. The Europeans have resisted referring Iran to the Security Council, but have taken a stronger line in recent days. The comments came a day after a diplomat said the Europeans sent a letter to Tehran saying ``the consequences could only be negative for Iran'' if it fails to maintain its freeze on uranium conversion - using diplomatic code for likely action by the Security Council, which could impose sanctions. The Washington Post was the first to report a letter was sent from foreign ministers from Britain, Germany and France warning of consequences. Iran suspended uranium-enrichment activities as a gesture of good faith in November and any resumption of conversion would likely torpedo talks with the European powers that are acting on behalf of the 25-nation European Union. Those talks are intended to ease suspicions about Tehran's ultimate nuclear aims. The United States says Iran wants to make a nuclear bomb, but Iran insists it is interested only in a source of energy. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Thursday the Bush administration ``continues to support the efforts by the Europeans to resolve this matter and to make sure there's an objective guarantee in place.'' ``Iran needs to abide by its international obligations,'' he said. Earlier in Vienna, Austria, a diplomat told The Associated Press that Iranian government officials were discussing keeping their freeze on uranium conversion - at least in the next few days - because of the written warning. The Europeans stressed their commitment to diplomacy, with Blair saying that ``nobody is talking about invasions of Iran or military action against Iran.'' But Barnier reiterated that Europe is not ready to be hoodwinked. ``We are advancing with our eyes open with Iran. Our objective has always been clear - ruling out that this great country develops the capacity to produce fissile material that could eventually be used to make a nuclear weapon,'' he said. Iranian officials have indicated they will resume uranium reprocessing work at the Isfahan Nuclear Conversion Facility, which converts uranium ore concentrate, known as yellowcake, into uranium gas, the feedstock for enrichment. Rowhani confirmed receiving messages from Europeans urging Iran not to resume such activities but said Tehran had made its decision. ``The principle that we resume activities has been decided. We are discussing the conditions and timing of that,'' he said. The various signals out of Tehran, which repeatedly has insisted it has a right to enrich uranium and conduct related activities including conversion, left officials at the IAEA guessing about Iran's intentions. One diplomat close to the agency said the U.N. watchdog agency had expected formal notification that conversion activities would restart Thursday. And Sirous Nasseri, a senior Iranian envoy, confirmed after arriving in Vienna on Wednesday that he was carrying a letter from his government to the IAEA. While he declined to disclose its contents, diplomats said it likely contained word of Iran's intention to resume conversion as part of a process whose end result is uranium hexafluoride - a substance that can be turned into either energy producing uranium or more highly enriched weapons-grade material. The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. Talks that began last year have failed to find common ground on the European insistence that Iran scrap - or at least agree to a long-term suspension of - uranium enrichment and related activities, and Tehran's insistence that any freeze was voluntary and short-lived. The last formal round ended inconclusively April 29. --- AP writers George Jahn in Vienna and Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 4 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Said May Delay Resuming Nuke Work From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday May 12, 2005 8:46 PM By NASSER KARIMI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran may postpone resumption of uranium reprocessing, the head of the country's nuclear agency said Thursday after Tehran came under increased European pressure not to end its suspension of a program that officials fear could result in a nuclear bomb. ``No certain day is fixed for resumption of reprocessing. It is possible to postpone it some days,'' Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran's Atomic Organization, told the Tehran state-run television in a live roundtable discussion. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said earlier Thursday that he would support Iran being referred to the U.N. Security Council if it breaches its nuclear obligations, sending a strong warning against any resumption of the reprocessing program. Iran announced Sunday that it would resume some conversion activities within days, expressing impatience with deadlocked negotiations with the Europeans over its nuclear program. The announcement sparked a Europan warning of ``negative'' consequences for Iran. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran May Keep Freeze on Nuclear Activities From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday May 12, 2005 11:01 AM By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran is considering backing away from its threat to immediately resume activities that can be part of the process of making nuclear weapons, in an apparent attempt to defuse a showdown with key European nations, diplomats said Thursday. One of the diplomats told The Associated Press that Iranian government officials in Tehran were discussing maintaining their freeze on uranium conversion because of a warning from key European countries that such a move would result in ``consequences ... that would only be negative for Iran'' - diplomatic code for likely action by the U.N Security Council. In Tehran, Hasan Rowhani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, appeared to be creating some wiggle room to allow his country to maneuver. While saying his country would ``resume part of its nuclear activities in the near future,'' his statement Thursday appeared more vague than other recent Iranian pronouncements warning such a move would come in the next few days. It seemed in line with earlier repeated Iranian insistence that the country has a right to enrich uranium and conduct related activities including conversion. Tehran has repeatedly served notice any suspension of enrichment and related programs program would be temporary and brief. The various signals out of Tehran left officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency - the U.N. watchdog monitoring Iran's nuclear activities - guessing about Iran's intentions. Speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, one diplomat close to the agency earlier said the IAEA had expected formal notification that conversion activities would restart on Thursday. And Sirous Nasseri, a senior Iranian envoy confirmed hours after arriving in Vienna on Wednesday that he was carrying a letter from his government to the IAEA. While he declined to disclose the contents of his letter, diplomats who follow both Iran's nuclear dossier and the IAEA's work said it likely contained word of Iran's intention to resume conversion as part of a process whose end result is uranium hexafluoride - a substance that can be turned into either energy producing uranium or more highly enriched weapons grade material. A well-connected diplomat said Nasseri met with the IAEA official in charge of monitoring Iran's freeze late Wednesday but did not deliver the letter, describing the encounter as a ``social call.'' Any formal notification of resumption of conversion would torpedo Iran's talks with France, Germany and Britain. Those talks are intended to ease suspicions about Tehran's ultimate nuclear aims. The United States says Iran wants to make a nuclear bomb, but Iran insists it is interested only in a source of energy. Washington has long maintained that Iran's nuclear program - kept secret for nearly two decades until revealed by a dissident group in 2002 - is meant to make weapons, and as such, Tehran's nuclear dossier belongs in the hands of the Security Council. But because of strong resistance at previous IAEA board meetings, it reluctantly embraced the European diplomatic efforts. The on-off talks, which began last year, have failed from the beginning to find common ground on the European insistence that Iran scrap - or at last agree to a long-term suspension of - uranium enrichment and related activities, and Tehran's insistence that any freeze was voluntary and short-lived. The last formal round ended inconclusively April 29. The Europeans appeared braced for the inevitable. Beyond their letter, delivered Wednesday in Tehran to government officials, diplomats in Vienna said the three nations had begun informal contacts with the IAEA about convening a special session of its 35-nation board should the Iranians tell the agency they were ready to break IAEA seals on conversion equipment in the central city of Isfahan. Such a session could be called within days of formal notification by Iran of plans to resume conversion. The diplomats said a likely scenario would see board nations giving Iran a two- to three-week deadline to change its mind. If it refused, sentiment at the next board meeting - probably in June - would be strong to declare Tehran in violation of its agreements to suspend enrichment while negotiating in good faith with the Europeans. In that case, the board might refer the case to the U.N. Security Council. One senior Western diplomat said the three European nations also were consulting with the United States on a common course of action. A senior U.S. official in Washington said earlier that the Bush administration was conferring closely with the allies and that all the governments were determined there would be consequences for Iran if it ends the moratorium. While the Europeans had been key in previous board opposition to referring Iran to the Security Council, senior officials in several European capitals suggested any resumption of reprocessing would leave them no choice but to support such a move. ``I think the reaction of the ... Europeans is going to be very tough if conversion resumes,'' said one who spoke on condition of anonymity. ``It's not possible to get the Europeans scared.'' --- On the Net: http://www.iaea.org Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 6 RIA Novosti: IRAN DENIES US CHARGES TEHRAN, MAY 12, (RIA Novosti's Nikolai Terekhov) - The Iranian Foreign Ministry's spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi has denied US charges to the effect that Iran wanted to develop nuclear weapons, and that it supported terrorism. This was disclosed to RIA Novosti here today at the Iranian Foreign Ministry's press service. The latest claims by US State Secretary Condoleezza Rice show that the United States is irritated with the Iranian nation's independent and correct position on various issues, Asefi noted. Charges concerning alleged Iranian support for terrorism are ridiculous, the Iranian diplomat added. By making groundless and ridiculous charges with regard to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States simultaneously supports and conducts a discriminatory policy in the interests of the aggressive Israeli regime, which itself implements a policy of state terrorism, Asefi said. Asefi denied allegations concerning Tehran's intention to develop nuclear weapons. US counteraction, despite our striving to preserve our legitimate right to use civilian nuclear technologies, does not exert any influence on us, Asefi added. Instead of finding fault with Iran's civilian nuclear programs, the United States ought to destroy its own nuclear weapons, Asefi noted. Talking to Georgian television, Condoleezza Rice once again accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons and of supporting terrorism. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 7 RIA Novosti: IRAN TO GET RUSSIAN NUCLEAR FUEL IN LATE 2005 MOSCOW, May 12 (RIA Novosti) - Russia is planning to channel nuclear fuel to Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant in late 2005 or early 2006, Vremya Novostei, a daily, reported, citing Director of the Federal Nuclear Energy Agency Alexander Rumyantsev, who also told the paper U.S. inspectors would not be allowed to visit sensitive nuclear facilities and that Russia could ensure their adequate protection. According to Rumyantsev, a supplement to a Russian-Iranian inter-governmental agreement was signed in late February. Tehran pledged to return spent nuclear fuel to Russia. "We also agreed to supply fresh nuclear fuel to the NPP, fully conforming to its construction cycle. This means that Bushehr will receive nuclear fuel somewhere in late 2005 or in early 2006," he said. About 100 tons of fuel will be delivered under IAEA control to Iran by special shipments. All international safety measures will be observed, Rumyantsev said. Spent nuclear fuel will be stored inside a special tank near the reactor core for three to four years. The required fuel batches will be returned to Russia. Spent nuclear fuel will lie inside special compounds for another ten years. Such fuel will eventually be processed and 95 percent will be recycled. The remaining five percent will be fused into glass and stored accordingly. "Any country that has less than 8 to 10 nuclear power units will find it unprofitable to create its own nuclear cycle. It is much more profitable to receive fresh nuclear fuel and to return used fuel," Rumyantsev said. Rumyantsev also addressed U.S. concerns over the project. "Russia allows U.S. inspectors to visit its research reactors and R institutes where protective systems were installed with U.S. assistance," he said. "However, the Americans will not be allowed to inspect our most sensitive facilities and those that are adequately protected by us. I visit these facilities all the time and I know that we do not do this work any worse." © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 8 Guardian Unlimited: Blair Backs U.N. Intervention for Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday May 12, 2005 2:01 PM AP Photo LON114 By ED JOHNSON Associated Press Writer LONDON (AP) - Prime Minister Tony Blair said Thursday that Iran should be referred to the U.N. Security Council if it breaches its nuclear obligations, while Tehran vowed to resume some activities that can be part of the process of making nuclear weapons. Hasan Rowhani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, said negotiations with key European powers were not balanced and were costly for Tehran. ``Continuation of negotiations in their present format is not possible for us,'' Rowhani told Iranian state-run television. ``The basic point that the Islamic Republic of Iran will resume part of its nuclear activities in the near future is definite.'' Diplomats close to the International Atomic Energy Agency and familiar with Iran's nuclear dossier said Rowhani appeared to be creating some wiggle room for his country in negotiations as his statement appeared more vague than other recent Iranian pronouncements warning such a move would come in the next few days. Blair stepped up the pressure, warning that he would support Iran being referred to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions, if it breached its nuclear obligations. ``We certainly will support referral to the U.N. Security Council if Iran breaches it undertaking and obligations,'' Blair said at the first news conference since his Labour Party won a historic third term in last week's elections. Iran suspended uranium-enrichment activities as a gesture of good faith in November and any resumption of conversion would likely torpedo talks with France, Germany and Britain, which are acting on behalf of the 25-nation EU. Those talks are intended to ease suspicions about Tehran's ultimate nuclear aims. The United States says Iran wants to make a nuclear bomb, but Iran insists it is interested only in a source of energy. Earlier in Vienna, Austria, a diplomat told The Associated Press that Iranian government officials in Tehran were discussing keeping their freeze on uranium conversion - at least over the next few days - because of a European warning that anything else would result in ``consequences ... that would only be negative for Iran'' - diplomatic code for likely action by the U.N Security Council. Blair stressed that Britain was committed to the diplomatic process. ``Nobody is talking about invasions of Iran or military action against Iran. We have to make sure that this diplomatic process works, and we will fight very hard to do that. There is no point in speculating what happens down the line if you reach an impasse. But there is a lot of processes that have to be gone through before you are at that point, not least the Security Council,'' he said. Iranian officials have indicated that they will resume uranium reprocessing work at the Isfahan Nuclear Conversion Facility in central Iran. The facility converts uranium ore concentrate, known as yellowcake, into uranium gas, the feedstock for enrichment. Rowhani confirmed receiving messages from Europeans urging Iran not to resume such activities but said Tehran had made its decision. ``The principle that we resume activities has been decided. We are discussing the conditions and timing of that,'' Rowhani said. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to state-run TV, said Iran was opposed to nuclear weapons but would not be ``bullied'' by the West into giving up its nuclear capabilities. The various signals out of Tehran, which repeatedly has insisted it has a right to enrich uranium and conduct related activities including conversion, left officials at the IAEA guessing about Iran's intentions. One diplomat close to the agency said the U.N. watchdog agency had expected formal notification that conversion activities would restart on Thursday. And Sirous Nasseri, a senior Iranian envoy confirmed hours after arriving in Vienna on Wednesday that he was carrying a letter from his government to the agency. While he declined to disclose the contents of his letter, diplomats said it likely contained word of Iran's intention to resume conversion as part of a process whose end result is uranium hexafluoride - a substance that can be turned into either energy producing uranium or more highly enriched weapons grade material. The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. Washington has long maintained that Iran's nuclear program - kept secret for nearly two decades until revealed by a dissident group in 2002 - is meant to make weapons, and as such, Tehran's nuclear dossier belongs in the hands of the Security Council. But because of strong resistance at previous IAEA board meetings, it reluctantly embraced the European diplomatic efforts. The on-off talks, which began last year, have failed from the beginning to find common ground on the European insistence that Iran scrap - or at last agree to a long-term suspension of - uranium enrichment and related activities, and Tehran's insistence that any freeze was voluntary and short-lived. The last formal round ended inconclusively April 29. --- Associated Press writers George Jahn in Vienna and Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 9 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: When Dealing With North Korea, Assume the Worst > Updated May.12,2005 22:49 KST N. Korea ˇ®Finished Harvesting Fuel RodsˇŻ Rumors of N.Korea Crisis in June Intensify Nations Soften to Save Six-Party Talks North Korea's Foreign Ministry said Wednesday the country successfully removed 8,000 spent fuel rods from the nuclear power station in Yongbyon. "We have been taking steps to increase our nuclear arsenal,ˇ± it added. Reprocessing of spent fuel rods produces weapons-grade plutonium. The announcement adds nothing we did not suspect and therefore hardly represents a qualitative change in the nuclear dispute. But the countries involved in getting North Korea to give up its nuclear arms program are now concentrating their efforts to revive the six-party talks amid talk that the North is preparing to test a nuclear bomb. That the North has taken another provocative step at this time proves that it wants the crisis to deepen, though it is not clear whether it will go all the way and test an atomic bomb or whether it hopes to come back to the talks once it has secured U.S. concessions. As the Chinese Communist PartyˇŻs foreign affairs chief Wang Jiarui said, even Kim Jong-il himself may be vacillating between getting the bomb and disarmament. If Pyongyang thinks it is in control so long as it can arbitrarily adjust the level of tension, it miscalculates dangerously. Washington and Tokyo have offered no particular response this time, indicating that they won't be dragged into Pyongyang's schemes. That means the North will have to ratchet up the danger yet again if it wants to provoke a response. For this sort of tightrope walk, North Korea needs the nerves not only to know its own capabilities but also to sense from where the wind is blowing. Are North KoreaˇŻs internal economic and political conditions stable enough to sustain a nuclear venture? Has Kim Jong-il secured the internal status and leadership he needs to handle the dispute based on his own judgment? Does Pyongyang accurately understand how much U.S. policy toward it and the international community's perception of it have changed, and continue to change as we speak? Any calamity resulting from a shortcoming in any one of these areas will not be confined to the North but will hit the entire Korean Peninsula. We can no longer afford to second-guess North KoreaˇŻs intentions and capabilities. We need a comprehensive response based on the worst-case scenario now. ***************************************************************** 10 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Seoul officials unruffled over fuel rod report May 13, 2005 ¤Ń Senior South Korean government officials expressed concern yesterday over claims by Pyongyang that its scientists have removed 8,000 fuel rods from its nuclear power plant, but they also said the step appeared to be more political brinkmanship by the North. The comments were in line with Seoul's effort to take a calm view of the standoff with North Korea over its development of nuclear arms. Rhee Bong-jo, a vice minister in the South Korean Unification Ministry, said the removal of the fuel rods, which can be used to create plutonium, was part of a "worsening situation and done with an eye on the on-going discussions aimed at reviving six-party disarmament talks." On Wednesday, the North's state-run Korean Central News Agency quoted a Foreign Ministry spokesman as saying that 8,000 fuel rods had been removed from its nuclear power plant in Yongbyon, 80 kilometers (50 miles) north of Pyongyang. Mr. Rhee said Pyongyang might ratchet up tension by reprocessing the fuel rods into plutonium but that the government had contingency plans for such an event. He did not elaborate. But the vice minister ruled out the possibility of referring the North Korean nuclear crisis to the UN Security Council, saying that there is "enough room" to solve the problem through negotiations. Another senior government official admitted the situation is worrisome, but said the latest development was less troublesome than earlier steps, such as an announcement in 2003 by Pyongyang that it completed reprocessing spent fuel into weapons-grade plutonium. "This is not a step that worsens the situation," said the official. "It appears to be a move to gain leverage in the negotiations." As part of a deal in 1994 with the United States, North Korea shut down its plant at Yongbyon and put it under international monitoring. In return the United States promised energy aid, among other incentives. The nuclear reactor was restarted in 2002 after Pyongyang withdrew from the agreement. Last month, Seoul confirmed that the plant had been shut down, prompting concern that Pyongyang might take steps to increase its nuclear arsenal. In Washington, officials also reacted with apparent calm to Pyongyang's announcement and urged the North to return to the negotiation table. "They've made similar statements in the past about this," said Richard Boucher, U.S. Department of State spokesman. "We see rhetoric, claims, statements, activities, whatever by North Korea that go in the wrong direction. It's time for them to stop isolating themselves, for them to realize that they need to come back to the talks and be constructive." Separately, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Kong Quan said yesterday he saw "positive signs" with regard to the nuclear stalemate. Mr. Kong said that Pyongyang has a desire to hold a direct meeting with the United States and that it had expressed a wish to continue the six-party talks. by Brian Lee africanu@joongang.co.kr> Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use | ***************************************************************** 11 RIA Novosti: U.S. PROVOKES CRISIS IN NORTH KOREAN NUCLEAR SETTLEMENT MOSCOW, May 12 (RIA Novosti) - The current crisis in the settlement of the North Korean nuclear problem is caused by the extremely tough position of the United States, chairman of the State Duma international affairs committee Konstantin Kosachev said at a press conference in Moscow on Thursday. However, the parliamentarian does not justify North Korea's decision to secede from the non-proliferation regime and all subsequent statements of the country's leadership. In Kosachev's opinion, it is necessary to consider all aspects of the crisis. He believes that the North Korean leadership is afraid of color revolutions which recently occurred on the post-Soviet space. US statements on the "axis of evil" make North Korea beware of US intentions to change the regime in the DPRK. "Highly politicized issues are included in the agenda of the six-party talks creating additional problems to the settlement," Konstantin Kosachev emphasized. According to him, all countries involved in the six-sided talks are interesting in easing political tensions between the United States and North Korea and bringing the DPRK back to the negotiation table. Kosachev believes that North Korea hardly possesses nuclear weapons but can be carrying out work on nuclear bomb creation. During the visit of the State Duma's delegation to Pyongyang, the North Korean side claimed that the DPRK "considered itself a country possessing nuclear weapons," Kosachev added. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 12 AFP: Alarm spreads as North Korea speeds up nuclear drive - Thursday May 12, 12:08 PM SEOUL (AFP) - Fears of an impending crisis in the nuclear standoff with North Korea grew after Pyongyang said it had completed another step towards making more atomic weapons. North Korea said Wednesday it had unloaded 8,000 spent fuel rods from its nuclear reactor and planned to reprocess them to make nuclear bombs. A senior US envoy said the same day preparations for North Korea's first ever nuclear weapons test were in the works. "The (South Korean) government has serious concern about the aggravated situation. I think China, Russia, the United States and Japan all have serious concerns about it," South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon said in an interview with YTN television. He said North Korea reprocessing would be viewed as further "aggravating" the standof while a nuclear test would be regarded more seriously. "If North Korea goes ahead with a nuclear test, it will be completely isolated from the international community as a result," he said. Analysts are divided on whether North Korea wants atomic weapons or is using nuclear brinkmanship as a tool to extract concessions from the United States. But a sense of an impending crisis is brewing. "It is quite clear we are heading to a very serious crisis," said Jun Bong-Geum, who heads the Institute for Ppeace and Cooperation, a Seoul think tank. "History of the past 15 years shows that there have only been useful negotiations when matters have reached a crisis." The South Korean government said the North should stop being unhelpful and return to dialogue. "North Korea should immediately return to the dialogue table and talk, rather than delay the settlement of the nuclear issue by taking unhelpful measures," Rhee Bong-Jo, South Korea's vice unification minister, told a news briefing here. South Korean officials believe North Korea's latest move indicates the regime is busily raising the stakes in a game of nuclear brinkmanship. Last month, Pyongyang said it had shut down its nuclear reactor, a necessary step prior to unloading spent nuclear fuel. The new claim that unloading has been completed was a logical escalation. "It is a move that has been expected since March 31, when the (North Korean) nuclear reactor was shut down," said Rhee, number two in the ministry that handles relations with the isolated North. Washington warned it could take the case to the UN Security Council and called on China to take "robust" steps to bring North Korea back to six-party talks with the United States, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia that have been in limbo for almost a year. China opposes applying force to North Korea and reportedly rebuffed a US request that it cut oil supplies to its unpredictable ally. Japan expressed alarm at North Korea's latest claim, with Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda telling reporters "we have extremely strong concerns." Ban, accompanying President Roh Moo-Hyun on a visit to Uzbekistan, told reporters the latest claim looked like a bid to pressure the outside world, "because they made such an announcement in public." North Korea has been raising the stakes at predictable intervals since February 10 when it declared itself a nuclear power and said it would stay away from talks. In March it said it would end a missile testing moratorium and threatened to build more nuclear bombs. Then it confirmed US reports that it had shut down its nuclear reactor in a step that could lead to the doubling of its nuclear arsenal if it reprocessed the reactor's 8,000 spent fuel rods. Fears that efforts to negotiate would evaporate completely were compounded by US Ambassador to Japan Thomas Schieffer who said he believed North Korea had taken "some preparatory steps," towards carrying out a test. Recent media reports from the United States have quoted US officials as saying North Korea has been preparing to launch an underground nuclear test since March at Kilju, in northeastern North Korea, and might conduct one as early as June. Copyright © 2005 AFP AFP. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 13 OpEd Intl. Herald Tribune on Nuke Proliferation Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 04:24:06 EDT International Herald Tribune A stronger model for nonproliferation Bennett Ramberg International Herald Tribune THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2005 LOS ANGELES April 24, 1945: "Dear Mr. President, I think it is very important that I should have a talk with you as soon as possible on a highly secret matter. I mentioned it to you shortly after you took office but have not urged it since, on account of the pressure you have been under. It, however, has such a bearing on our present foreign relations and has such an important effect upon all my thinking in this field that I think you ought to know about it without much further delay." - Henry Stimson The next day, Stimson, the secretary of war, entered the Oval Office to educate the new president, Harry S. Truman, about the portent of a nuclear-weaponized world that the United States would shortly initiate. The memorandum he brought, and the solutions to nuclear proliferation it would stimulate, provide an unfulfilled aspiration for international control of all nuclear activities worldwide. It is an ambition the 189 countries gathered in New York for the month-long Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty review conference ought to ponder. "Within four months," the memo began "we shall in all probability have completed the most terrible weapon ever known in human history. ..." For the "present," the United States would be the sole nuclear weapons state. However, "it is practically certain that we could not remain in this position indefinitely. ... Various segments of its [nuclear weapons] discovery and production are widely known among many scientists in many countries, though few scientists are now acquainted with the whole process which we have developed." Stimson's report went on to forecast that easier and cheaper methods to produce weapons would emerge. He then warned that the resulting bombs might not be the province of the great powers only. "It is extremely probable that the future will make it possible to be constructed by smaller nations or even groups, or at least a large nation in a much shorter time." Stimson was quite uncertain that the United States could mobilize international control of the nuclear challenge. Still, he suggested that the president appoint a panel to investigate the possibilities. The result culminated in the 1946 Baruch Plan. The proposal, presented by the U.S. representative, Bernard Baruch, before the United Nations, called for an International Atomic Development Authority. The authority would have managerial control or ownership of all dangerous atomic-energy activities including nuclear raw materials: "By assigning intrinsically dangerous activities exclusively to the authority, the difficulties of inspection are reduced." "Immediate and certain" penalties - not subject to a Security Council veto - would be imposed upon nations who illegally possessed or attempted to possess weapons-usable materials or created dangerous projects. The plan called for the elimination of nuclear weapons once the atomic authority established effective nuclear oversight. The United Nations never implemented the Baruch Plan. Cold war politics intervened. Rather, over a period of decades, the international community put together a patchwork solution. The nonproliferation treaty, regional nuclear-free zones, compensatory military alliances, nuclear export controls, international monitoring and the partial test ban were among the many constituent parts. During the cold war, these initiatives contributed to nuclear peace. Our post-9/11 world raises the question whether the patchwork is up to the current challenge. The fear that nuclear weapons or materials could fall into the hands of a new breed of terrorist, or national proliferant, gives old concerns new meaning. True, Washington has implemented fresh solutions, for example, the Proliferation Security Initiative, which joins nations in combating nuclear contraband. The International Atomic Energy Agency has pushed for ratification of the Additional Protocol, a more intrusive inspection of undeclared nuclear sites. A treaty to combat nuclear terrorism that emerged out of the UN will be opened for signature on Sept. 14. Still, the urgency generated by 9/11 appears to be waning. Most countries have yet to ratify the Additional Protocol. Securing all Russian nuclear materials remains an unfulfilled ambition. Weapons- usable highly enriched uranium still remains scattered at research reactors around the world. The history of the nonproliferation review conference - which takes place every five years and generates more heat than light - provides little confidence that the current meeting will yield much more than rhetoric. With inertia dominating the current nuclear nonproliferation regime, perhaps it is time that concerned countries and organizations lay plans for the "day after" a significant nuclear event. Unfortunately, it appears that only such a circumstance will prompt recognition that the current nonproliferation patchwork cannot be repaired and that the far more robust progeny of the Stimson-Truman meeting 60 years ago provides the path to nuclear salvation. (Bennett Ramberg served in the State Department during the administration of George H.W. Bush.) Copyright © 2005 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com ***************************************************************** 14 [progchat_action] Fw: REP. MCKINNEY EFFORT TO DEFUND NUCLEAR Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:13:46 -0500 (CDT) ----- Original Message ----- From: Global Network To: Global Network Against Weapons Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 7:43 AM Subject: REP. MCKINNEY EFFORT TO DEFUND NUCLEAR ROCKET REP. CYNTHIA MCKINNEY TRIES TO DEFUND NUCLEAR ROCKET: YOUR HELP URGENTLY NEEDED On May 5, Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) sent a "Dear Colleague" letter to all members of Congress urging them to join her in an effort to defund Project Prometheus, the nuclear rocket. See her letters at this link: www.space4peace.org/articles/cynthis_mckinney.pdf In the letter, Rep. McKinney says, "I write to invite you to join me as a co-signer on the two attached letters. They are intended to protect our citizens from the potential of a catastrophic nuclear accident posed by the Prometheus Project, a NASA/DoE/Pentagon program to develop and deploy a nuclear propulsion rocket." "The first letter is directed to the office that will prepare the Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement for the Prometheus Program. The second letter is to express the support of Members of Congress for shifting Federal funding from the development of nuclear propulsion systems to research and development for solar and other alternative energy systems that can support our space program." This effort by Rep. McKinney is a crucial step in the effort to ensure that we stop the nuclearization of space. In addition, it is the nuclear rocket that could be used to power weapons in space like the space-based laser so it is also a vital step in ensuring that we cut-off the power source for the weaponization of space. (In a study Commissioned by Congress called Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years, staffer John Collins reported that "Nuclear reactors thus remain the only known long-lived, compact source able to supply military space forces with electric power.... Larger versions could meet multimegawatt needs of space-based lasers..... Nuclear reactors must support major bases on the moon until better options, yet unidentified, become available.") We urge all our affiliate members and supporters to immediately call your Congressperson in Washington DC and request that they contact Rep. McKinney's office to become a cosigner of her letter calling for the defunding of the nuclear rocket. Please call the Congressional switchboard right away at (202) 224-3121 and ask for the office of your Congressional representative. Please help us by passing this e-mail on to your personal lists so that we can expand the numbers of people who see it. Call me if you have any questions. It is not often that we get Congressional support to end the arms race in space. We don't want to let Rep. McKinney down! Please act today. Thank you. Bruce K. Gagnon Coordinator Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 652 Brunswick, ME 04011 (207) 729-0517 (207) 319-2017 (Cell phone) globalnet@mindspring.com http://www.space4peace.org http://space4peace.blogspot.com (Our blog) ***************************************************************** 15 Guardian Unlimited: Delegates Agree on Nuclear Treaty Agenda From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday May 12, 2005 3:31 AM By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Delegates from 188 nations agreed on an agenda to review the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Wednesday, ending days of diplomatic wrangling and paving the way for the first serious discussions on improving the treaty's control of nuclear weapons. Egypt had insisted that the monthlong conference include discussion of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, and the deadlock was broken when delegates agreed to put a reference to previous conferences where that issue was discussed in a footnote to the agenda. Ahmed Fatthala, Egypt's assistant foreign minister for international organizations, said agreement means that all three subjects discussed at the 1995 review conference will also be on the agenda at the current meeting - the Mideast, disarmament and nonproliferation. ``These were the three pillars,'' he said. ``We wanted to have a successful meeting, and we couldn't have a successful meeting if we ignored the balanced package we have already agreed upon in 1995.'' Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, said the impasse was the result of U.S. insistence that the conference ignore the 1995 and the 2000 treaty reviews and their decisions on disarmament steps, and the insistence of the 116 developing countries in the Nonaligned Movement that the current meeting review and assess progress on past commitments. Brazilian diplomat Sergio de Queiroz Duarte, president of the monthlong review conference, said the solution to the agenda dispute ``accommodates the interest of all delegations, including that of Egypt.'' Delegates will meet Thursday to try to resolve the other key procedural issue - allocating items on the agenda to three main committees and determining how the committees will organize their work, he said. With just over two weeks left for the conference, Duarte said there was still time to reach an agreement that would reinforce the treaty ``in all its aspects'' if delegates help. ``I continue to be optimistic,'' he said. But others are pessimistic, pointing to the lengthy dispute over the agenda language as a reflection of the deep divisions on the treaty itself. The Nonproliferation Treaty - the cornerstone of global efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons - went into effect in 1970 and has been signed by 188 countries, though North Korea withdrew in 2003. Three countries have refused to join - India and Pakistan, which conducted rival nuclear tests in 1998; and Israel, which is believed to have anywhere between 200 and 400 nuclear weapons. Under the pact, nations without nuclear weapons pledge not to pursue them, in exchange for a commitment by five nuclear-weapons states - the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China - to negotiate toward nuclear disarmament. The treaty guarantees countries that renounce nuclear weapons access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Some nuclear ``have-nots'' complain that the nuclear-weapons states are moving much too slowly toward disarmament. The United States insists that its disarmament record is good and that the conference should focus on the transgressions and noncompliance of Iran and North Korea. Kimball said the agenda adopted Wednesday will allow discussion on all the issues, but whether an agreement is reached remains to be seen. ``For the conference to produce a successful outcome, key states will have to be more flexible in the coming days,'' he said. ``Otherwise the conference will be a squandered opportunity to strengthen the treaty.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 16 Chattanoogan.com: Wamp Said Nation Needs To Move On Energy Agenda - 5/12/2005 - Congressman Wamp, Dr. Phyllis Yoshida with DOE's FreedomCAR and Congressman Bob Inglis (R-SC) Wednesday participated via satellite in Fuel Cell South's yearly conference. Fuel Cell South is a South Carolina organization that seeks to create awareness and opportunities for fuel cell initiatives. Here is a transcript of Congressman Wamp's remarks and question and answer: For the last five years, I have had the privilege of co-chairing the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus in the House with Congressman Mark Udall of Colorado. We have done a host of things that I'll get to. I serve on the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee and the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee. And then in the last Congress, Speaker Hastert asked me to head up the energy piece of our House Policy Committee, which I continue to do today. In an overview, I believe if we will focus and make a higher priority out of what I call "Entech," energy-technology, like we did information technology a half a generation ago, we will lead the world. We will have a robust export economy. We will balance the budget again through increased revenues and a healthy economy. Energy technology for the world is something we are capable of providing, but we need to make it a much higher priority issue than it is even today. It is extremely important that we shift gears. We led the world in information technology during the 1990s. We had a robust economy, brought in record revenues that surpassed expenses and balanced the budget. Today, we have a gross budget deficit and a host of problems from homeland security and national security around the world. Energy is at the heart of this problem. And it is at the heart of the solution. But we've got to move rapidly towards an energy technology agenda in this country that moves us away from dependence on Middle Eastern oil and grows our economy at the same time. Now we've got an energy bill moving through the Congress that I felt was very important, but at the end of the day the House-passed version was missing a few things. I even voted against it, as bad as I wanted an energy policy and an energy bill. When the President laid out his proposal, he said of the 6.7 billion in tax incentives for alternative energy, energy efficiency, and renewable energy programs - 72% of his tax plan was to go towards these new energy technologies. When the House finished its work, we dropped that to 6% and raised the tax incentives to $8 billion with oil and gas taking the majority of it again. That's not acceptable. I advocated and offered four amendments to the Rules Committee to put the renewables, energy efficiency and energy conservation incentives back in. The bill went forward without them. I want to vote for the conference report, and I believe I will because I believe the Senate will restore the renewables and energy efficiency provisions. Frankly, the hybrid tax credit was not even extended, yet people are waiting in line to buy hybrid vehicles in our country. That is the bridge to the hydrogen economy. There is a whole portfolio now of new hybrids available in this country. That is the bridge to the FreedomCAR - to have more and more people step out and get out of their traditional mind set of what they are driving and move toward hybrid vehicles. I think we will do better, and I think our tax policy must encourage alterative fuels. That's the best way to incentivize people to move forward. We did get, in this bill, and our Caucus advocated for, a two-year, 15% tax credit for residential and commercial stationary fuel cells, which was a big victory for the development of fuel cells. I've been to the National Renewable Energy Lab with Congressman Udall. I've seen the latest in technology. I know the challenge of the infrastructure and the distribution of hydrogen. I also know that there are a host of breakthroughs that may happen while we're in this transition such as a way to produce hydrogen in your garage and actually fuel these vehicles without having to have stations all across the country. I'm incredibly encouraged that GM and Shell have entered this partnership. We have a hydrogen station in New York City, and we have a hydrogen station here in DC. I have driven hydrogen fuel cell vans around Washington. Members can do that, but the challenge is that those $400,000 units must be brought down to $40,000 dollars, which means we've got to have incentives for production. We've got to have the research advance quickly. We've got to make these things cost effective. Most importantly, we've got to make this a national priority. It's not an original idea, but when John Kennedy said we'd go to the moon in ten years, we beat that target. Some people thought we were crazy. We need leadership from the very top, and I've asked the President to make this a bold part of his agenda. I hope that within ten years, we're going to take half of our transportation systems off of their reliance on petroleum and secure our own energy independence. It's doable, we just frankly have not laid it out for the world. Question #1: You were featured in a special Roll Call op-ed as having strident support for renewable energy production. Is there a specific agenda that the Caucus is going to pursue over the next few years? Dr. Barnhill, in the last Congress, our Caucus actually got up to 232 members - more than a majority. It's about 60/40 in terms of Democrats and Republicans. As Bob Inglis said, it's a very bipartisan thing. We advocate, educate, demonstrate and legislate, all four. We have conferences. We bring people in and host these demonstrations. We are the organization that provides the cooperation for the Shell and GM people so that members know how to go and see these technologies. We want Members to feel them, drive them and understand how the stations work. We also show them the National Renewable Energy Lab so people can actually know what is the latest. This is all happening so fast, and we're all pulled in a million different directions. When it comes time to pass an energy bill, we're going to go up there to offer amendments, try to move up the priorities for renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy conservation. Now we're not all in agreement on all of the different issues because a host of our Members do not agree - as Bob Inglis and I do - that nuclear is clean and safe. As matter of fact, everyone should know that next year there will be a new commercial reactor in the TVA system brought online in this country at Browns Fairy. So while we haven't had a nuclear plant permitted or coming online in a long time, we actually are going in that direction. It's a DOE-TVA partnership, but we have to have a prototype design for nuclear if we are going to clean up the carbon in the air. I believe that is an essential part of this next generation of energy production in this country. Quite frankly, I am puzzled why France, which is very environmentally-sensitive, provides over 70% now of their electricity from nuclear. Yet our country is still stuck in a paradigm of 25 years ago that we shouldn't go nuclear - even when we absolutely have the technology and Yucca Mountain's advances. Though we may not agree on all the issues, we are moving this cleaner, more balanced agenda forward and believe that hydrogen fuel cells is at the heart of the goal over the next ten years to wean ourselves off Middle East oil. When the President met with Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia two weeks ago, he told me he would send clear signals to the Middle East that "you guys are going to kill that goose that laid your golden egg at these prices. Without the capacity or increased oil production, our country will move rapidly away from our reliance on oil." I applaud the President for using his consistent global leadership to say to OPEC: "You better produce, or we're moving away." Question #2: Are there special challenges to being a Congressman from rural area with a facility as complicated as the Oak Ridge National Lab? I'll try to boil that three-hour answer down to three minutes. We're now up to almost $3 billion a year in combined missions at the nation's premiere multipurpose lab and site. From weapons to environmental clean up to cutting edge science and research, it is a challenge. I think we still struggle with the difference in basic research and applied technologies. I think that people like me get hit a lot, especially as an appropriator, on the issue of 'pork vs. beef.' Because these missions are carried out for the whole free world, in my district, people think I bring money back to my district. But, these missions preceded me, and they are very, very, very important. I think we still have challenges with missions competing against each other when we're talking about material science, biological science, high-end computational science, or energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. These all come out of the same bill, and there is competition at our site about which one of these priorities is the highest priority. Let me also say following up a little on what Bob has said here. There are some people at DOE that still think that hydrogen fuel cells might be dangerous because they want to be extra sure they are safe and secure before putting them on wheels. I have to follow the private sector. If Bill Gates, Shell and GM are willing to invest private sector dollars in going in this direction saying that it is going to happen, then I think the government needs to understand that you just don't throw money away in the private sector. If they see this going in that direction, we can work out the problems. This is just really a collective will that it is going to happen. The labs are going to play a key role. We found that the ten-year old Tennessee Valley Technology Corridor helped bring the region together from Huntsville, Alabama to Virginia Tech. With the 'Research Triangle' in North Carolina, we jointly received the national award from the Department of Commerce for regional economic development. South Carolina makes cars; it didn't twenty years ago. Tennessee makes cars; we didn't 20 years ago. Today, we're fourth. Let me tell you, we in Tennessee can make the next generation vehicles - not just Detroit. We are prepared to do it. The technology is there. The research is there. The infrastructure is there. We have the largest sites for this type of investment now in the southeastern United States because we've been working on it for ten years. We may be the Detroit of the next generation vehicles, and this is an export economy for the world. It will be a robust thing, and it's great for our country and our long-term security. We just have to have the will to do it. news@chattanoogan.com (423) 266-2325 © 2004 Site designed and copyrighted by Three HD ***************************************************************** 17 NRC: NRC Toughens Export-Import Requirements for Certain Radioactive Materials News Release - 2005-08 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: No. 05-080 May 12, 2005 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today approved new regulations to require specific licenses for the export or import of radioactive materials that could be used in so-called dirty bombs or other terrorist weapons, making the United States the first country to implement international export controls on these materials. The export-import controls are part of the Commissions effort to protect the American people from the threat of radiological terrorism while allowing the beneficial, peaceful uses of radioactive materials in industry and medicine, NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz said. They are part of the U.S. governments efforts to increase control of radioactive material, in cooperation with our allies. The regulations, contained in a final rule to be published next month in the Federal Register and to be effective by Dec. 31, are based on export-import provisions of the Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources adopted in September 2003 by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The United States played a key role in developing the Code of Conduct and, at U.S. urging, the Group of Eight Industrial Nations agreed at their June 2004 summit in Sea Island, Ga., to implement the Codes export-import provisions by December 2005. With this rule, the United States is the first country to do so. The new regulations require specific licenses for all exports and imports of radioactive materials (in sealed sources or in bulk) as defined in the rule. The rules lists of nuclear materials and radioactivity levels of concern are essentially identical to those in Category 1 and Category 2 of the Code of Conduct. Anyone in the United States wishing to export or import these materials would be required to apply for NRC approval. Under current NRC regulations, these radioactive materials may be exported or imported under a general license, which does not require filing an application to the NRC or the issuance of licensing documents. Before approving an export license, the NRC will determine that the proposed export is not inimical to the common defense and security of the United States. In making this determination, the Commission, in consultation with the Executive Branch, will consider whether the importing country has the technical and administrative capability and the resources and regulatory structure to manage the material in a safe and secure manner, and has authorized the recipient to receive and possess the material. Import licenses will be granted only after NRC determines the import would not be inimical to the common defense and security of the United States or pose a threat to public health and safety. Importers must verify to the exporting country that they are authorized to receive the material, provide prior notification of shipments to the NRC, and verify to the NRC that each recipient is authorized to possess the material. The Commission will have the discretion to grant broad specific licenses covering multiple shipments over several years or limit a license to a single shipment. A proposed rule containing these requirements was published Sept. 16, 2004, in the Federal Register. The NRC received comments from the Executive Branch, private individuals and industry, relating in general to the scope of the rule, the effect on commerce (including supply disruption), and concerns about fees for the new licenses. A summary of the comments and the NRCs responses is included in the upcoming Federal Register notice on the final rule. Last revised Thursday, May 12, 2005 ***************************************************************** 18 Judicial Watch: APPEALS COURT PERMITS ENERGY TASK FORCE RECORDS TO REMAIN SECRET May 10, 2005 Contact: Press Office 202-646-5172 (Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, expressed disappointment with the a federal appeals court decision today that Vice President Cheney and the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG) is not subject to the federal open meetings law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that, despite numerous reports of outsiders participating in the NEPDG, Judicial Watch did not have the right to seek information concerning the identities and activities of these outside parties. Judicial Watch brought a lawsuit against Mr. Cheney and the NEPDG in 2001 after it was denied access to meetings and documents of the Energy Task Force. The suit was filed under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), or open meetings law, following a number of reports that lobbyists and energy company officials participated in the task force’s deliberations. A U.S. District Court ordered the Vice President and the NEPDG to respond to Judicial Watch’s discovery requests for records and information about the Energy Task Force meetings, including the names of participants. The Bush administration refused to comply. After the Appellate Court refused to intervene, the administration appealed the U.S. Supreme Court, which last April refused to dismiss the case, but sent it back to the Appellate Court for further review. The Appellate Court today ruled against any discovery related to the make up of the Energy Task Force or its committees and dismissed the suit. According to the court, the open meetings law does not apply even if an outsider participates in or influences an advisory committee, but only if the outsider actually “votes” as a member of the committee or “vetoes” the committee’s recommendations. The court further ruled that statements provided by administration officials were sufficient evidence, by themselves, to conclude that no outsiders voted on or vetoed the task force’s recommendation on energy policy. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said, “The court’s ruling is without any basis in the text of the open meetings law and is contrary to the intent of the law, which is to allow broad public participation in certain types of meetings between government officials and private lobbyists. Further, it means that, going forward, the public will simply have to take the word of the government that no outsiders are improperly influencing the decisions of their government. “The American people have a right to know whether lobbyists became de facto members of the Energy Task Force, which helped to write our nation’s energy policies. Today’s decision means that now the public may never know the truth about how these policies were formulated.” © Copyright 1997-2004, Judicial Watch, Inc. ***************************************************************** 19 [NYTr] UN non-proliferation conference adopts agenda Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 14:05:47 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Xinhua - May 12, 2005 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-05/12/content_2948317.htm UN non-proliferation conference adopts agenda UNITED NATIONS, May 11 (Xinhuanet) -- The 187 nations meeting at the United Nations on reviewing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) adopted an agenda on Wednesday which enabled them to go on with their work. The agreement came after over a week of wrangling when Egypt insisted that the past disarmament commitment should be honored, and the issue of nuclear weapons in the Middle East should be on the agenda. Conference president Sergio Duarte of Brazil said in a statement, after a comprise was worked out, that "it is understood that the review will be conducted in the light of the decisions and the resolutions of previous conferences and allow for discussion of any issue raised by states parties." Meanwhile, Duarte pointed out that the issue of the Middle East, which had been discussed in previous conferences, would also be taken into account. The landmark conference, which opened on May 2 and will conclude on May 27, will examine the implementation of the NPT's provisions since 2000. Among the issues which are expected to be considered at great length at the conference in view of recent developments are universality of the NPT, nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, safeguards, verification and compliance, nuclear-weapon-free zones, security assurances, peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and withdrawal from the NPT. * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 20 OPEN ME FIRST: Are the Anti Uranium Weapons Bills being surpressed Right Now? Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 21:25:17 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
  
DISTRIBUTE WIDELY PLEASE
May 11, 2005 CDT 8:32 PM
 
Question: Suppressing the news, is it happening before our eyes?
 
 
Louisiana and Connecticut's House of Reps passed big anti-uranium weapons bills in the past 48 hours.
 
Google these phrases: 
"connecticut legislature" + uranium + 2005
43 hits at 8:27pm CDT
 
"louisiana legislature" + uranium + 2005
25 hits at 8:28 pm CDT
 
Now, is it just me? Or, do you look at this and think that this particular news is being surpressed?
 
Bob Nichols
Writers&Warriors Speakers Group
Project Censored Award Winner
***************************************************************** 21 Nuclear Non-proliferation Conference At UN Agrees On Agenda Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 18:00:16 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on pascal.ctyme.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_ORG, SPF_HELO_PASS,SP_HAM_SUPER,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS,WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham version=3.0.3 X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION CONFERENCE AT UN AGREES ON AGENDA New York, May 12 2005 6:00PM Nearly halfway through a four-week conference reviewing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), delegations meeting at United Nations Headquarters in New York have <"http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/dc2963.doc.htm">adopted an agenda which will enable them to go on with their work. But Ambassador Sergio Duarte of Brazil, President of the <"http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/">2005 NPT Review Conference, said the adoption of an agenda after a week and a half of protracted negotiations was but a "tiny first step" and that parties to the accord still had to untangle other procedural knots before talks on the "real issues" before the meeting could move forward in earnest. "The agenda agreed yesterday evening tries to address the concerns of everyone," Ambassador Duarte said at a press conference. "That's what diplomacy is all about – still, it's just a first step, the next step is the organization of work and items must be allocated to the main committees." Those discussions might continue into the weekend, he added. At the end of yesterday's meeting of the State parties, he had read a statement based on the negotiations, which said: "It is understood that the review will be conducted in the light of the decisions and the resolution of previous Conferences, and allow for discussion of any issue raised by State Parties." Today, Ambassador Duarte said this formulation met the concerns of delegations who had stressed that the decisions of past review conferences – particularly those of 1995 and 2000 on a nuclear weapons-free Middle East and "13 practical steps" toward disarmament – not be diminished in any way. It had also addressed the concerns of those who believe that the Conference should be able to discuss recent developments, nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, safeguards, verification and compliance. Considered a landmark agreement, the 35-year-old Treaty seeks to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons technology, foster the peaceful use of nuclear energy and further the goal of general and complete disarmament. Under the pact, nations without such weapons pledge not to pursue them, in exchange for a commitment by five nuclear-weapons States – the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China – to negotiate toward getting rid of them. Asked if the NPT was still valid with countries like Iran, Israel, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), India and Pakistan outside its purview, Ambassador Duarte said the accord was still significant because 188 other parties had not taken that path. Many States had spoken about Israel during the general debate and many had also discussed the DPRK's withdrawal from the NPT, Ambassador Duarte noted. As soon as the parties agreed on a way in which they can discuss the "real issues" on the agenda, he expected more discussion along those lines. This was a "painful and protracted process," he said, adding that the issues were known, but the Conference was tied up with procedural matters. The nuclear "have-nots" have long been saying that the rhythm and the pace of measures undertaken by the five recognized the nuclear countries have not been satisfactory. Non-nuclear States had been pointedly asking for movement on that issue. "But if we don't discuss the substance of the Treaty and keep discussing the formulation of the agenda, we won't get there," the Ambassador said. 2005-05-12 00:00:00.000 ________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml ***************************************************************** 22 Report from Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Conf Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:38:38 -0500 (CDT) Dear Friends, I've just returned from the first week of the 2005 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference at the United Nations in New York. The interaction and networking there with other civil society representatives from around the world was very positive. Among others, civil society groups represented in New York included the Mayors for Peace, with some 100 mayors in attendance, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament from the United Kingdom, the Mouvement de la Paix from France and many other groups connected with the Middle Powers Initiative and Abolition 2000. Representing the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation were myself and Carah Ong, the Director of our Washington, DC office. We distributed the Foundation's Briefing Booklet, " Back to Basics: Reviving Nuclear Disarmament in the Non-Proliferation Regime ," and hosted a panel at the United Nations on the same topic. Participants on our panel were eminent journalist Walter Cronkite; Marian Hobbs, New Zealand's Minister for Disarmament; nuclear weapons expert Daniel Ellsberg; Douglas Roche, Chair of the Middle Powers Initiative; and myself. Carah Ong served as our moderator. The panel was well received, and we are awaiting an edited video of the presentations. Walter Cronkite's remarks were included in an Associated Press story on the event . Things were not so bright on the official side. The actual meeting of parties to the treaty was stalled at the end of the first week by an inability to agree upon an agenda, despite it being five years since the last Review Conference. One of the major problems was in the area of nuclear disarmament, with the United States being unwilling to stand behind previous disarmament obligations it made at the 1995 and 2000 NPT Review Conferences. US government literature being handed out at the meeting did not even mention past obligations to achieve a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty or the 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament agreed to at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. All of this reinforces the tremendous need for education and advocacy on nuclear disarmament issues in the United States. An ignorant and apathetic public and Congress will assure the drift toward disaster. It is past time for Americans and America to wake up and help lead the way toward a world free of nuclear threat. The surest way to do this and to prevent nuclear proliferation is to negotiate a Nuclear Weapons Convention that will lead to the elimination of all nuclear weapons in the world. That is our major goal at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and we will continue to be unrelenting in our pursuit of it. Sincerely, David Krieger President ***************************************************************** 23 NRC: NRC Staff to Meet with Arizona Public Service Co. to Discuss Performance of Palo Verde Nuclear Plant News Release - Region IV - 2005-02 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV No. IV-05-021 May 12, 2005 CONTACT: Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Arizona Public Service Co. on May 17 to discuss the results of the agencys annual assessment of safety performance at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. The facility, operated by APS, is located about 55 miles west of Phoenix, Ariz. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. in the Centennial Room, Ruth Fisher Elementary School, 38201 W. Indian School Road, Tonopah, Ariz. Before the session is adjourned, NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the public on the plants safety performance, as well as the agencys role in ensuring safe operation of the facility. Each year the NRC staff evaluates the performance of each of the nations commercial nuclear plants, said Region IV Administrator Bruce S. Mallett. This meeting gives us a chance to discuss our assessment with the company, local officials and residents near the plant. We want to make this information available to the public and answer any questions people may have about the plant. Palo Verde operated safely during 2004. However, the NRC staff has identified a trend in declining human performance at the plant, as well as weaknesses in problem identification and resolution. NRC will focus attention on these areas as part of its baseline, or routine inspections during 2005. Baseline inspections are performed by the NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the Region IV office and the agencys headquarters in Rockville, Md. A letter sent from the NRC Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas, to plant officials will serve as the basis for the meeting. It is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/palo_2004q4.pdf [PDF Icon] . Current information for Unit 1 is available at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PALO1/palo1_chart.html. Current information for Unit 2 is available at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PALO2/palo2_chart.html. Current information for Unit 3 is available at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PALO3/palo3_chart.html. Last revised Thursday, May 12, 2005 ***************************************************************** 24 NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Honors Employees on May 12 in Rockville, Maryland News Release - 2005-07 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-078 May 12, 2005 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold its 28th Annual Awards Ceremony on Thursday, May 12, at 2 p.m. in front of the agency headquarters at the White Flint Complex in Rockville, Md. During the ceremony, the NRC will acknowledge recipients of the Presidential Distinguished and Meritorious Executive Rank Awards and the NRCs Distinguished and Meritorious Service Awards. The recipients are: Presidential Meritorious Executive Rank Awards Dwight D. Chamberlain Director Division of Reactor Safety Region IV John W. Craig Former Deputy Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Mark A. Cunningham Deputy Director Division of Risk Analysis and Applications Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Marc L. Dapas Director Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Region III Stephen D. Dingbaum Assistant Inspector General for Audits Office of the Inspector General Timothy F. Hagan Director Office of Administration M. Wayne Hodges Deputy Director Technical Review Directorate Spent Fuel Project Office Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Wayne D. Lanning Director Division of Reactor Safety Region I Charles L. Miller Director Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Peter J. Rabideau Deputy Chief Financial Officer Office of the Chief Financial Officer Jack R. Strosnider, Jr. Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Roy P. Zimmerman Director Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response NRC Distinguished Service Awards Steven Louis Baggett Technical Assistant Spent Fuel Project Office Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards William D. Johnson Chief Reactor Projects Branch A Region IV Patrick Michael Madden Chief Research and Test Reactor Section Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Brenda Joyce Shelton Chief Records and FOIA/Privacy Services Branch Office of Information Services NRC Honorary Meritorious Service Awards Margaret Doane Deputy Director Office of International Programs Daniel J. Graser Licensing Support Network Administrator Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel John Thomas Larkins Executive Director Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards/ Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Janice Dunn Lee Director Office of International Programs Arnold (Moe) Levin Director Infrastructure and Computer Operations Division Office of Information Services Linda D. Lewis Special Assistant Office of Commissioner McGaffigan NRC Meritorious Service Awards for Equal Employment Opportunity Excellence Samson Sui-sun Lee Chief License Renewal Section A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation McKenzie Thomas Senior Reactor Inspector Region II NRC Meritorious Service Awards Shelly L. Baggett Program Assistant Office of the Chief Financial Officer Althemese Renea Bailey Service Center Team Leader Office of Administration Lena M. Boyd Secretary Office of Investigations Lawrence T. Doerflein Chief Safety Systems Branch Region I Allen L. Hiser, Jr. Chief Component Integrity Section Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Catherine M. Holzle Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Laura A. Hurley Operator Licensing Assistant Region IV John P. Jankovich Team Leader Sealed Source and Device Team Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Sharon Law Johnson Allegations Assistant Region I Caudle A. Julian Senior Project Manager Region II Ralph R. Landry Senior Reactor Engineer Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Joseph L. López, Jr. Human Resources Specialist Region IV John R. Madera Chief Materials Inspection Branch Region III Alan L. Madison Chief Vulnerability Assessment and Integrated Response Staff Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response John D. Monninger Chief Licensing Section Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards John A. Nakoski Chief Section II-1 Office of the Nuclear Reactor Regulation Robert A. Nelson Chief Uranium Processing Section Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Steven K. Orth Health Physics Program Manager (Team Leader) Region III Renée M. Pedersen Senior Enforcement Specialist Office of Enforcement Marie A. Pohida Senior Risk and Reliability Analyst Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Jacqueline K. Raines Administrative Assistant Office of Commissioner Jaczko Diane Screnci Senior Public Affairs Officer Region I Office of Public Affairs Elizabeth K. Suarez Senior Budget Analyst Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response Alison H. Tallarico Human Resources Team Leader Services and Operations Team 2 Office of Human Resources Christopher S. Thomas Senior Resident Inspector Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Region III Gina F. Thompson Team Leader Program Planning and Budget Team Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Tu Thi Tran Team Leader Application Services and Maintenance Team Office of Information Services Betsy Ullrich Senior Health Physicist Region I Rosetta O. Virgilio Senior Federal and State Liaison Program Manager Office of State and Tribal Programs Sandra L. Wastler Chief Section B Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Beth Wetzel Senior Regional Coordinator/Program Engineer Office of the Executive Director for Operations Elois J. Wiggins Assistant for Acquisition Management and Competitive Sourcing Office of Administration Martha Campbell Williams Senior Material Control and Accounting Physical Scientist Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response Jerry N. Wilson Senior Policy Analyst Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation John Zeiler Senior Resident Inspector Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Region II Last revised Thursday, May 12, 2005 ***************************************************************** 25 SignOnSanDiego.com: Route of 4 new generators for nuclear plant in dispute By Adam Klawonn  UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER May 12, 2005 An environmental study recommends that four new steam generators that will be trucked to the San Onofre nuclear power plant from Camp Pendleton use an inland route instead of along the beach to avoid damaging the shore and scaring campers. The draft 545-page report also suggests that the aging generators being replaced be hauled off-site for disposal and not stored at the plant. Graphic: [ ALIGN=] Route to San Onofre Southern California Edison, which owns most of plant, prefers to haul the new 620-ton, six-story generators on the beach route and will contest the report's recommendation during public hearings today, a plant spokesman said. But the company had already planned to ship the old generators elsewhere, as recommended. The proposed $813 million project to replace steam generators that are increasingly cracking will be the largest capital undertaking at San Onofre since the two existing reactors were built 23 years ago. The new generators are expected to be in place as early as 2009. The six-month environmental study of the project, which was completed by Aspen Environmental Group and released in mid-April, is the first of its kind for nuclear plants in California. The study's results will be discussed in public hearings today in San Clemente, and the project's price tag will be discussed at hearings Tuesday in Oceanside and San Clemente. The environmental study is already under fire. San Onofre officials said it was "credibly thorough." But critics said it was cursory because it did not consider the long-term impacts of keeping the 2,150-megawatt plant open until its license expires in 2022  and possibly beyond. Rochelle Becker, executive director of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, which opposes nuclear power in California, said there is more at stake than just swapping generators in and out of a nuclear power plant. Spokesmen for San Onofre and the California Public Utilities Commission said such big-picture thinking was not part of the research firm's mission. "They were tasked with looking at steam generator replacement," said plant spokesman Ray Golden. "It wasn't to look at the overall licensing of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station." The Public Utilities Commission is considering an average 2 percent rate increase over 15 years for more than 2 million Southern Californians to cover San Onofre's project, but San Diego Gas & Electric Co. customers may end up not paying anything extra. Though Edison is pushing for the increase, SDG&E, which owns 20 percent of the plant, wants to opt out of the project. Edison is also paying for the environmental study for the project, which includes the design, fabrication and installation of steam generators made in Japan by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Inc. and the removal, transport and disposal of the old generators. No one disagrees that the generators should be shipped from Japan to Long Beach and then to the Camp Pendleton boat basin on the Marine base. It's the route from there to San Onofre that's in dispute. The Aspen group concluded that two routes have as many benefits as drawbacks  making them a virtual tie. The route that Edison prefers would move the new generators in multiaxle trucks along the beach near Camp Pendleton to the Las Pulgas area, turn east onto mostly dirt roads to Interstate 5, go north on the freeway a quarter-mile, then turn west onto old Highway 101 for the final leg. This is identical to the route Edison proposed 18 months ago for moving the reactor vessel head of Unit 1, which was decommissioned. But Aspen researchers found that trucks traveling that route would cause higher air emissions than on the other route, pass dangerously close to unstable bluffs, and damage the tranquillity of the state beach and campgrounds nearby. "Here you are trying to have a nice time camping with the wife and kids, and all of a sudden there are these things that are entirely unnatural, huge, coming along the road," said Andrew Barnsdale, project manager for the Public Utilities Commission. So Aspen researchers recommended the second route along restricted, mostly paved roads on Camp Pendleton that are controlled by the Marines, then north on I-5 about two miles before reaching the plant. They said the route would avoid the bluffs and cause less disruption to state beach and campground activities, but would require that the freeway be closed longer and that work be done to protect wetland areas along the way, such as laying special paving or mats across sensitive parts of the route. "We've never shipped that way, first and foremost," said San Onofre's Golden. "We have a demonstrated success shipping along the route we're proposing." The study suggests shipping the old generators to another site, possibly Clive, Utah, where a private company named Envirocare would cover them in dirt and rock and leave them there until they are less radioactive. The environmental study said that would be better than storing them at San Onofre, because plant officials never picked a spot there, the public would probably balk at the idea and the risk of a terrorist attack would make it a liability. Tim Barney, Envirocare senior vice president, said the company has accepted old steam generators from nuclear plants in Illinois and Florida, among others, and would welcome a chance to bury those from San Onofre. However, no agreement is in place, Golden and Barney said. The final environmental impact report, due in August, will incorporate public comments from today's hearings, from 2 to 4 p.m. and from 7 to 9 p.m. at the San Clemente Community Center, 100 N. Calle Seville. Adam Klawonn: (760) 476-8245; adam.klawonn@uniontrib.com © Copyright 2005 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 26 BBC: Scotland 'can say no' to nuclear Last Updated: Thursday, 12 May, 2005 [Hunterston B] Two nuclear power stations in Scotland are near the end of their lives The Scottish Executive has the power to stop nuclear power stations being built whatever the Westminster government decides, the first minister has said. Energy policy is a reserved matter on which Holyrood does not legislate. However, it emerged that Jack McConnell was referring to a little-known clause in the 1989 Electricity Act. The first minister also said that there would be no new nuclear power stations in Scotland until the issue of managing radioactive waste was resolved. Mr McConnell has previously said that Scottish ministers will aim to block any attempt to build a new nuclear power station in Scotland by refusing planning consent. However, during first minister's questions, he was challenged by Green MSP Shiona Baird over the coalition executive's commitment not to support the further development of nuclear power stations. He could not have fudged h answer more, leaving Scots completely in the dark about what the executive's position is Shiona Baird Green MSP Labour and the Lib Dems have a partnership agreement which states that nuclear power remains off the agenda "while waste management issues remain unresolved". Ms Baird asked the first minister to define the word "unresolved". She asked if it meant waiting 25 years until a new storage site was built. 'We have the power' Ms Baird also asked if the first minister would think the matter resolved when the government-appointed Committee for Radioactive Waste Management reports its findings in July 2006 Mr McConnell replied that it would be "decided upon, preferably by independent bodies". He went onto to tell MSPs: "We do have the power to stop nuclear power stations being built in Scotland. "We will use those powers until the issues of nuclear waste have been resolved, but that is a very clear position we have held, both parties hold it, we will stick together on this issue." Planning 'centralisation' Later Ms Baird said: "Essentially Mr McConnell said the issue of nuclear waste will be resolved when it is resolved. "He could not have fudged his answer more, leaving Scots completely in the dark about what the executive's position is on one of the most crucial questions facing Scotland." The Greens also claimed that ministers were centralising planning powers and minimising opportunity for community input as a means of paving the way for developments such as new nuclear power stations that would otherwise be unfeasible due to widespread public opposition. Coal role A recent report by Westminster's Scottish Affairs Committee demanded an audit of energy resources and suggested a renewed role for nuclear power and coal. Two nuclear power plants generate much of Scotland's energy but they are reaching the end of their lives. Hunterston B nuclear power station in Ayrshire is set to close in 2011 and Torness, in East Lothian, will last until 2023. MPs have concluded that renewable energy and imports cannot plug the gap. ***************************************************************** 27 NRC: NRC Renews Operating Licenses for Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, for an Additional 20 Years News Release - 2005-07 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: No. 05-079 May 12, 2005 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has renewed the operating licenses of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, for an additional 20 years. The Farley plant is located about 18 miles southeast of Dothan, Ala. The licensee, Southern Nuclear Operating Co., submitted its license renewal applications for both reactors on Sept. 15, 2003. With the renewals, the license for Farley Unit 1 is extended to June 25, 2037, and the license for Unit 2 is extended to March 31, 2041. The NRCs environmental review is described in a site-specific supplement to the NRCs Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-1437, Supplement 18), issued March 9. The review concluded there were no environmental impacts that would preclude renewal of the licenses for environmental reasons. Two public meetings to discuss the environmental review were held near the plant on Jan. 8 and Sept. 30, 2004. After carefully reviewing the plants safety systems and specifications, the staff concluded that there were no safety concerns that would preclude license renewal, because the licensee had demonstrated the capability to manage the effects of plant aging. The Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, was published March 3. In addition, NRC conducted inspections of the plants to verify information submitted by the licensee. The reports relating to the Farley renewals are available on the NRC Web site at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati ons/farley.html. On April 14, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards an independent body of technical experts which advises the Commission issued its recommendation that the operating licenses for Farley be renewed. That recommendation is contained in Report on the Safety Aspects of the License Renewal Application for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. This document is available on the NRC Web site at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/letters/2005/. The Farley license renewals bring the total number of renewals to 32 reactor units. A complete listing of renewal applications can be found on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati ons.html. Last revised Thursday, May 12, 2005 ***************************************************************** 28 APP.COM: NRC meeting tonight on Oyster Creek open to public Published in the Asbury Park Press 05/12/05 BY NICHOLAS CLUNN MANAHAWKIN BUREAU IF YOU GO Federal regulators will answer questions from the public during an annual meeting about Oyster Creek's safety. The meeting at 7 tonight will be held at the Ocean County Administration Building, 101 Hooper Ave., Toms River. Though safety regulators gave the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant overall good marks on how it operated last year, they found five cases of reactor owner AmerGen failing to follow through on plans to correct problems. Most of the problems cited by federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspectors in 2004 were determined to have low impact on safety, though collectively they indicated a need for plant managers to be more attentive to resolving concerns faster. A. Randolph Blough, a regional director for the NRC, mentioned the findings and others to a top plant official in an annual assessment letter, the subject of an annual public meeting between the two groups today at 7 p.m. in Toms River. The meeting comes about two months before AmerGen officials plan to ask the NRC to renew the plant's license for another 20 years past 2009. Oyster Creek, the oldest operating commercial reactor in the country, would close without the renewal. Because public meetings with NRC officials are rare, some Shore residents critical of AmerGen's plans for the 650-megawatt reactor in Lacey are anxious to express their views and ask questions tonight. "Now, we get to see each other face-to-face," Brick resident Janet Tauro said. "And I plan to look them in the eye and tell them why that nuclear reactor should not be relicensed." Tauro said she plans to attend the meeting with fellow members of Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety, or GRAMMES (pronounced GRAM-ees). It's a grass-roots group with about 100 members who want Oyster Creek closed. The group also has called for a greater reliance on renewable energy, including windmills off the New Jersey coast. NRC officials will answer general questions from the public about license renewal, but not about Oyster Creek's expected participation in the renewal application process, said Neil Sheehan, an NRC spokesman. Such a discussion would be premature because AmerGen has not submitted its application, he said. The assessment letter sent in March to Christopher Crane, president and chief executive officer of AmerGen, will serve as the starting point for a discussion between company and NRC officials, Sheehan said. In the letter, Blough gives AmerGen credit for realizing that it needs to improve how it resolves problems. He cited the issue because inspectors found that shortcoming in several areas of the plant's operation, according to the letter. An appropriate AmerGen official could not be reached for comment Wednesday, but a company representative is expected to tell the NRC tonight how it responded to the matters cited in the letter. Asbury Park Press Copyright © 2005 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 29 FAZ Weekly: Second nuclear plant shut down - FAZ.NET - Issue: May 13, 2005 Decision devastates southern German town, encourages environmental minister 13. Mai 2005 F.A.Z. Weekly. To some, the occasion resembled a funeral. To others, a champagne celebration. The occasion on Wednesday was the permanent shutdown of a nuclear power plant in the southern state of Baden-Württemberg. The plant, in operation since 1969, was taken off line as part of a groundbreaking agreement to abandon nuclear energy that the national government reached in 2000. Under the plan, all 19 German nuclear power plants are to be shut down by 2020. The plant in Obrigheim was the second shut down. The shutoff was a cause for celebration among the Greens, the junior coalition partner in Berlin that was the driving force behind the 2000 agreement. The shutdown of the nuclear power plant in Obrigheim brings another section of the energy turnaround into view, Environmental Minister Jürgen Trittin said. The goal is to switch to a form of energy that is more environmentally friendly and safe, said Trittin, a member of the Greens. The future belongs to … energy conservation, energy efficiency and renewable energies, he said. In Obrigheim, the mood at the plant's control room resembled a funeral, said the town's mayor, Roland Lauer. From an economic point of view, the end of the nuclear power plant is a catastrophe, Lauer said. He said the economically weak region would lose about 400 people who worked at the plant and about 400 people who worked in supply companies and gastronomy. And these losses will cut tax revenues by about €2 million ($2.5 million), he said. The country's leading opposition party, the Christian Democratic Union, rejects the shutdown agreement and is considering whether it would allow the 17 remaining plants to stay in operation if it were elected in 2006. Within the Union, there is a wide consensus that the operating times of the nuclear power plants should be extended, said Peter Pazio-rek, a member of parliament. But he said he did not want to debate the possibility of building new plants. [Mehr über die F.A.Z.] Mehr über die F.A.Z. [Syndikation/Nachdrucke] Syndikation/Nachdrucke [RSS] RSS [FAZ.NET-Impressum] FAZ.NET-Impressum [redaktioneller Kodex] redaktioneller Kodex [Nutzungsbedingungen] Nutzungsbedingungen [Online-Werbung] Online-Werbung © F.A.Z. Electronic Media GmbH 2001 - 2005 ***************************************************************** 30 NRC: Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2; Notice of FR Doc E5-2339 [Federal Register: May 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 91)] [Notices] [Page 25122-25124] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12my05-146] Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-14 and NPF-22, issued to PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL, the licensee), for operation of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, located in Berwick, Pennsylvania. The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.4, ``DC Sources--Operating,'' to address new required actions for the condition in which a 125 volt direct current (VDC) charger is taken out of service for the purposes of a special inspection and related activities. The proposed changes would be in effect [[Page 25123]] until the special inspection and related activities are completed on each of the 125 VDC Class 1E battery chargers but no later than 60 days following the issuance of the Unit 1 and 2 amendments. Specifically, required Action A.2.1 would require that surveillance requirement 3.8.6.1 will be performed within 2 hours and once-per-12 hours thereafter; required Action A.2.2 would restrict the restoration time for the inoperable electrical power subsystem to 36 hours. The exigent amendment request is being made because of the desire to verify, on an expedited basis, that the Unit 1 125 VDC battery chargers are not degraded such that a failure could occur as was experienced on Unit 2 on April 10, 2005. The current TS requirements do not afford enough time to maintain 100% power operation and perform the desired inspections and related activities. The Unit 2 TSs are being requested as a contingency should it be necessary to perform further work on the Unit 2 125 VDC battery chargers as a result of the ongoing Unit 2 125 VDC cause evaluation. Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? No. The proposed changes affect Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.4 for ``DC Sources--Operating.'' The proposed changes add new Required Actions for Unit 1 and Unit 2 to specifically address a Class 1E 125 VDC electrical power subsystem that has been taken out of service to perform special inspection and related activities. These changes rely upon the capability of providing the battery charger function by an alternate means (e.g., a 125 [volt direct current] VDC portable battery charger) to justify the proposed completion times. The DC electrical power systems, including associated battery chargers, are not initiators to any accident sequence analyzed in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Operation in accordance with the proposed TS ensures that the DC electrical power systems are capable of performing their functions as described in the FSAR. Therefore, the mitigative functions supported by the DC Power Systems will continue to provide the protection assumed by the analysis. Based on the above, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? No. The proposed changes involve revising TS 3.8.4 ``DC Sources--Operating,'' for the DC electrical power systems. These changes rely upon the capability of providing the battery charger function by an alternate means to justify the proposed completion times when a normal battery charger is taken out of service to perform special inspections and related activities. The DC electrical power systems, which include the associated battery chargers, are not initiators to any accident sequence. Rather, the DC electrical power systems are used to supply equipment used to mitigate an accident. These mitigative functions, supported by the DC electrical power systems, provide the protection assumed by the safety analysis described in the FSAR. The portable battery charger will be connected to the Class 1E 125 VDC subsystem using a double isolation method. Therefore, there are no new types of failures or new or different kinds of accidents or transients that could be created by these changes. Based on the above, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? No. The margin of safety is established through equipment design, operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions are initiated. The proposed changes do not adversely affect operation of any plant equipment. These changes do not result in a change to the setpoints at which protective actions are initiated. Sufficient DC electrical system capacity is ensured to support operation of mitigation equipment. The equipment fed by the DC electrical sources will continue to be provided adequate power to safety-related loads in accordance with the safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 14 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 14-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period, such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 14-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and State comments received. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, [[Page 25124]] which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner/requestor is aware and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petitioner/requestor must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/ requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(I)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to Bryan A. Snapp, Esquire, Assoc. General Counsel, PPL Services Corporation, 2 North Ninth St., GENTW3, Allentown, PA 18101-1179, attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated April 27, 2005, as supplemented by letter dated May 4, 2005, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of May 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Richard V. Guzman, Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-2339 Filed 5-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 31 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the FR Doc E5-2340 [Federal Register: May 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 91)] [Notices] [Page 25113-25114] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12my05-140] Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request AGENCY: 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: Revision. 2. The title of the information collection: 10 CFR part 52, ``Early Site Permits (ESP); Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants''. 3. The form number if applicable: Not applicable. 4. How often the collection is required: On occasion and every 10 to 20 years for applications for renewal. 5. Who will be required or asked to report: Designers of commercial nuclear power plants, electric power companies, and any person eligible under the Atomic Energy Act to apply for a construction permit for a nuclear power plant. 6. An estimate of the number of annual responses: 5. 7. The estimated number of annual respondents: 3 (2 early site permit applicants, 2 combined license applicants, and 4 design certification applicants are expected over a 3 year period.) 8. An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request: 185,181 hours (37,036 hours per response). 9. An indication of whether Section 3507(d), Pub. L. 104-13 applies: Not applicable. 10. Abstract: 10 CFR part 52 establishes requirements for the granting of early site permits, certifications of standard nuclear power plant designs, and licenses which combine in a single license a construction permit, and an operating license with conditions (combined licenses), manufacturing licenses, standard design approvals, and [[Page 25114]] pre-application reviews of site suitability issues. Part 52 also establishes requirements for renewal of those approvals, permits, certifications, and licenses; amendments to them; exemptions from certifications; and variances from early site permits. NRC uses the information collected to assess the adequacy and suitability of an applicant's site, plant design, construction, training and experience, and plans and procedures for the protection of public health and safety. The NRC review of such information and the findings derived from that information from the basis of NRC decisions and actions concerning the issuance, modification, or revocation of site permits, design certifications, combined licenses, and manufacturing licenses for nuclear power plants. 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://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/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 June 13, 2005. 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. John A. Asalone, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150- 0151), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be e-mailed to John_A._Asalone@omb.eop.gov or submitted by telephone at (202) 395-4650. The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of May, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E5-2340 Filed 5-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 32 NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Monticello Nuclear Generating FR Doc E5-2341 [Federal Register: May 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 91)] [Notices] [Page 25117-25119] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12my05-143] Plant; Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the Application and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing Regarding Renewal of Facility Operating License No. DPR-22 for an Additional 20-Year Period The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering an application for the renewal of Operating License No. DPR-22, which authorizes the Nuclear Management Company, LLC, to operate the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant at 1775 megawatts thermal. The renewed license would authorize the applicant to operate the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant for an additional 20 years beyond the period specified in the current license. The current operating license for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant expires on September 8, 2010. The Commission's staff has received an application dated March 16, 2005, from Nuclear Management Company, LLC, pursuant to 10 CFR part 54, to renew Operating License No. DPR-22 for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. A Notice of Receipt and Availability of the license renewal application, ``Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Facility, Operating License No. DPR-22, for an Additional 20-Year Period,'' was published in the Federal Register on April 6, 2005 (70 FR 17482). The Commission's staff has determined that Nuclear Management Company, LLC has submitted sufficient information in accordance with 10 CFR 54.19, 54.21, 54.22, 54.23, and 51.53(c) that is acceptable for docketing. The current Docket No. 50-263 for Operating License No. DPR- 22 will be retained. The docketing of the renewal application does not preclude requesting additional information as the review proceeds, nor does it predict [[Page 25118]] whether the Commission will grant or deny the application. Before issuance of each requested renewed license, the NRC will have made the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. In accordance with 10 CFR 54.29, the NRC will issue a renewed license on the basis of its review if it finds that actions have been identified and have been or will be taken with respect to: (1) Managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation on the functionality of structures and components that have been identified as requiring aging management review, and (2) time-limited aging analyses that have been identified as requiring review, such that there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the renewed license will continue to be conducted in accordance with the current licensing basis (CLB), and that any changes made to the plant's CLB comply with the Act and the Commission's regulations. Additionally, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(c), the NRC will prepare an environmental impact statement that is a supplement to the Commission's NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,'' dated May 1996. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.26, and as part of the environmental scoping process, the staff intends to hold a public scoping meeting. Detailed information regarding this meeting will be the subject of a separate Federal Register notice. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this Federal Register Notice, the requestor/petitioner may file a request for a hearing, and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene with respect to the renewal of the license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852 and is accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC's PDR reference staff at 1-800- 397-4209, or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov. If a request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene is filed within the 60-day period, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. In the event that no request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within the 60-day period, the NRC may, upon completion of its evaluations and upon making the findings required under 10 CFR parts 51 and 54, renew the license without further notice. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, taking into consideration the limited scope of matters that may be considered pursuant to 10 CFR parts 51 and 54. The petition must specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) The nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the requestor's/ petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases of each contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or the expert opinion that supports the contention on which the requestor/ petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the requestor/petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The requestor/petitioner must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact.\1\ Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the action under consideration. The contention must be one that, if proven, would entitle the requestor/ petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ To the extent that the application contains attachments and supporting documents that are not publicly available because they are asserted to contain safeguards or proprietary information, petitioners desiring access to this information should contact the applicant or applicant's counsel to discuss the need for a protective order. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha designation within one of the following groups and all like subject- matters shall be grouped together: 1. Technical--primarily concerns issues relating to technical and/ or health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant safety analysis for the application (including issues related to emergency planning and physical security to the extent that such matters are discussed or referenced in the application). 2. Environmental--primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Environmental Report for the license renewal application. 3. Miscellaneous--does not fall into one of the categories outlined above. As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more requestors/petitioners seek to co-sponsor a contention or propose substantially the same contention, the requestors/petitioners shall jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act for the requestors/ petitioners with respect to that contention. If a requestor/petitioner seeks to adopt the contention of another sponsoring requestor/ petitioner, the requestor/petitioner who seeks to adopt the contention must either agree that the sponsoring requestor/petitioner shall act as the representative with respect to that contention, or jointly designate with the sponsoring requestor/petitioner a representative who shall have the authority to act for the requestors/petitioners with respect to that contention. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the [[Page 25119]] Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at 301-415-1101, verification number is 301-415- 1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene must also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the attorney for the applicant. Attorney for the Applicant: Jonathan Rogoff, Esq., Vice President, Counsel & Secretary, Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 700 First Street, Hudson, WI 54016. Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(I)-(viii). Detailed information about the license renewal process can be found under the Nuclear Reactors icon at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html on the NRC's Web site. Copies of the application to renew the operating license for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, are available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738, and at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati ons.html on the NRC's Web site while the application is under review. The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. These documents may be accessed through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html under ADAMS Accession Number ML050880237. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, may 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. The staff has verified that a copy of the license renewal application is also available to local residents near the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, at the Monticello Public Library, 200 West 6th Street, Monticello, MN 55362. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of May, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director, License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-2341 Filed 5-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 33 NRC: In the Matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Diablo Canyon Nuclear FR Doc E5-2342 [Federal Register: May 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 91)] [Notices] [Page 25119-25121] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12my05-144] Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately) AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of order for implementation of additional security measures associated with access authorization. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Barr, Project Manager, Licensing and Inspection Directorate, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: (301) 415-4015; fax number: (301) 415-8555; e-mail CSB2@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.106, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing notice in the matter of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately). II. Further Information I. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG) holds a license issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) authorizing the operation of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50 and 10 CFR part 72. Commission regulations at 10 CFR 72.184 require PG to have a safeguards contingency plan to respond to threats of radiological sabotage and to protect the spent fuel against the threat of radiological sabotage. Inasmuch as an insider has an opportunity equal to or greater than any other person to commit radiological sabotage, the Commission has determined these measures to be prudent. This Order has been issued to all licensees who currently store spent fuel or have identified near- term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI. II. On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, utilizing large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees in order to strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. On October 16, 2002, the Commission issued Orders to the licensees of operating ISFSIs to put the actions taken in response to the Advisories in the established regulatory framework and to implement additional security enhancements which emerged from the NRC's ongoing comprehensive review. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State, and local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment in order to assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. In addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements. As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and security requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community, the Commission has determined that certain additional security measures are required to address the current threat environment in a consistent manner throughout the nuclear ISFSI community. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachment [[Page 25120]] 1 \1\ of this Order, on all licensees of these facilities. These requirements, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the public health and safety and common defense and security continue to be adequately protected in the current threat environment. These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ Attachment 1 contains Safeguards Information and will not be released to the public. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The Commission recognizes that licensees may have already initiated many of the measures set forth in Attachment 1 to this Order in response to previously issued advisories, the October 2002 Order, or on their own. It also recognizes that some measures may not be possible or necessary at some sites, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the specific circumstances existing at the licensee's facility to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe storage of spent fuel. Although the additional security measures implemented by licensees in response to the Safeguards and Threat Advisories have been adequate to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety, the Commission concludes that these actions must be supplemented further because the current threat environment continues to persist. Therefore, it is appropriate to require certain additional security measures and these measures must be embodied in an Order, consistent with the established regulatory framework. In order to provide assurance that PG is implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current threat environment, PG's general license issued pursuant to 10 CFR 72.210 shall be modified to include the requirements identified in Attachment 1 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, the Commission finds that in light of the common defense and security matters described above, the public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be immediately effective. III. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 53, 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR parts 50, 72, and 73, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that your general license is modified as follows: A. PG shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any Commission regulation or license to the contrary, comply with the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order except to the extent that a more stringent requirement is set forth in the PG's security plan. PG shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachment 1 to the Order and shall complete implementation no later than October 31, 2005, with the exception of the additional security measures B.4, which shall be implemented no later than May 2, 2006, or the first day that spent fuel is initially placed in the ISFSI, whichever is later. B.1. PG shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission: (1) If it is unable to comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment 1, (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in their specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation of any of the requirements would cause PG to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license. The notification shall provide PG's justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement. 2. If PG considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order would adversely impact the safe storage of spent fuel, PG must notify the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 1 requirements in question, or a schedule for modifying the facility to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, PG must supplement its response to Condition B.1 of this Order to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications as required under Condition B.1. C.1. PG shall, within twenty (20) days of this Order, submit to the Commission a schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described in Attachment 1. 2. PG shall report to the Commission when they have achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 1. D. Notwithstanding the provisions of 10 CFR 72.186, all measures implemented or actions taken in response to this Order shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise. PG's response to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, above shall be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.4. In addition, submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by PG of good cause. IV. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, PG must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; to the Director, Office of Enforcement at the same address; to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator for NRC Region IV at 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, TX 76011-4005; and to the licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the licensee. Because of possible disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that requests for a hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a person other than the PG requests a [[Page 25121]] hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his/her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by PG or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), PG may, in addition to demanding a hearing at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations or error. In the absence of any request for hearing or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty (20) days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires, if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order. Dated this 5th day of May 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Margaret V. Federline, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E5-2342 Filed 5-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 34 NRC: Pacific Gas and Electric, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, FR Doc E5-2344 [Federal Register: May 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 91)] [Notices] [Page 25121-25122] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12my05-145] Independent Spent FUEL Storage Installation; Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately) AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of order for implementation of interim safeguards and security compensatory measures. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Barr, Project Manager, Licensing and Inspection Directorate, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: (301) 415-4015; fax number: (301) 415-8555; e-mail . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.106, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing notice in the matter of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately). II. Further Information I. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG or the Licensee) holds a site- specific license issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) authorizing storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and 10 CFR Part 72. This Order is being issued to PG who has identified near term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI under the site specific license provisions of 10 CFR Part 72. The Commission regulations at 10 CFR 72.184(b) require the licensee to maintain safeguards contingency plan procedures in accordance with 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix C. Specific safeguards requirements are contained in 10 CFR Part 73. II. On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, N.Y., and Washington, DC, utilizing large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees in order to strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State, and local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment in order to assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. In addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements. As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and security plan requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community and other governmental agencies, the Commission has determined that certain compensatory measures are required to be implemented by the Licensee as prudent, interim measures to address the current threat environment in a consistent manner throughout the nuclear ISFSI community. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachment 1 \1\ of this Order, on PG who has indicated near term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI under their site-specific license issued under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 72. These interim requirements, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the public health and safety, and common defense and security continue to be adequately protected in the current threat environment. These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ Attachment 1 contains SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION and will not be released to the public. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The Commission recognizes that some measures may not be possible or necessary, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the specific circumstances existing at PG's facility to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe storage of spent fuel. In order to provide assurance that the licensees are implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current threat environment, the Commission concludes that security measures must be embodied in an Order consistent with the established regulatory framework. PG's License No. SNM-2511 shall be modified to include the requirements identified in Attachment 1 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that in light of the common defense and security matters described above, the public health, safety and interest require that this Order be immediately effective. III. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 53, 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Parts 72 and 73, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that the license identified in this order is modified as follows: A. PG shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any Commission regulation or license to the contrary, comply with the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order except to the extent that a more stringent requirement is set forth in their security plan. PG shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachment 1 to the Order and shall [[Page 25122]] complete implementation before October 31, 2005, or the first day that spent fuel is initially placed in the ISFSI, whichever is later. B.1. PG shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission, (1) if it is unable to comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment 1, (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in its specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation of any of the requirements would cause the Licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license. The notification shall provide licensee's justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement. 2. If PG considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order would adversely impact safe storage of spent fuel, PG must notify the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 1 requirement in question or a schedule for modifying the facility to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, the PG must supplement its response to Condition B.1 of this Order to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications as required in Condition B.1. C.1. PG shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, submit to the Commission, a schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described in Attachment 1. 2. PG shall report to the Commission when they have achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 1. D. Notwithstanding the provisions of 10 CFR 72.186, all measures implemented or actions taken in response to this Order shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise. PG's response to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, shall be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.4. In addition, submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by the Licensee of good cause. IV. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, PG must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the Licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Director, Office of Enforcement at the same address, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator for NRC Region IV at 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, TX 76011-4005, and to the Licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the Licensee. Because of potential disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission, either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101, or by e-mail to and also to the Office of the General Counsel, either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725, or by e-mail to . If a person other than PG requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by the Licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(I), PG may, in addition to demanding a hearing at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations or error. In the absence of any request for hearing or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty (20) days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires, if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order. Dated this 5th day of May 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Margaret V. Federline, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E5-2344 Filed 5-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 35 NRC: In the Matter of PSEG Nuclear LLC, Hope Creek and Salem FR Doc E5-2345 [Federal Register: May 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 91)] [Notices] [Page 25124-25126] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12my05-147] Generating Stations; Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately) AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Order for implementation of additional security measures associated with access authorization. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Barr, Project Manager, Licensing and Inspection Directorate, [[Page 25125]] Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: (301) 415-4015; fax number: (301) 415-8555; e-mail CSB2@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.106, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing notice in the matter of Hope Creek and Salem Generating Stations Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately). II. Further Information I PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG) holds a license issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) authorizing the operation of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 72. Commission regulations at 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) and 10 CFR 73.55(h)(1) require PSEG to have a safeguards contingency plan to respond to threats of radiological sabotage and to protect the spent fuel against the threat of radiological sabotage. Inasmuch as an insider has an opportunity equal to or greater than any other person to commit radiological sabotage, the Commission has determined these measures to be prudent. This Order has been issued to all licensees who currently store spent fuel or have identified near- term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI. II On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, utilizing large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees in order to strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. On October 16, 2002, the Commission issued Orders to the licensees of operating ISFSIs to put the actions taken in response to the Advisories in the established regulatory framework and to implement additional security enhancements which emerged from the NRC's ongoing comprehensive review. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State, and local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment in order to assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. In addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements. As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and security requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community, the Commission has determined that certain additional security measures are required to address the current threat environment in a consistent manner throughout the nuclear ISFSI community. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachment 1 \1\ of this Order, on all licensees of these facilities. These requirements, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the public health and safety and common defense and security continue to be adequately protected in the current threat environment. These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ Attachment 1 contains SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION and will not be released to the public. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The Commission recognizes that licensees may have already initiated many of the measures set forth in Attachment 1 to this Order in response to previously issued advisories, the October 2002 Order, or on their own. It also recognizes that some measures may not be possible or necessary at some sites, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the specific circumstances existing at the licensee's facility to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe storage of spent fuel. Although the additional security measures implemented by licensees in response to the Safeguards and Threat Advisories have been adequate to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety, the Commission concludes that these actions must be supplemented further because the current threat environment continues to persist. Therefore, it is appropriate to require certain additional security measures and these measures must be embodied in an Order, consistent with the established regulatory framework. In order to provide assurance that PSEG is implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current threat environment, PSEG's general license issued pursuant to 10 CFR 72.210 shall be modified to include the requirements identified in Attachment 1 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, the Commission finds that in light of the common defense and security matters described above, the public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be immediately effective. III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 53, 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Parts 50, 72, and 73, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that your general license is modified as follows: A. PSEG shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any Commission regulation or license to the contrary, comply with the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order except to the extent that a more stringent requirement is set forth in the PSEG's security plan. PSEG shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachment 1 to the Order and shall complete implementation no later than October 31, 2005, with the exception of the additional security measures B.4, which shall be implemented no later than May 2, 2006, or the first day that spent fuel is initially placed in the ISFSI, whichever is later. B.1. PSEG shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission: (1) If it is unable to comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment 1, (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in their specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation of any of the requirements would cause PSEG to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license. The notification shall provide PSEG's justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement. 2. If PSEG considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order would adversely impact the safe storage of spent fuel, PSEG must notify the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 1 requirements in question, or a schedule for modifying the facility to address the adverse safety condition. If neither [[Page 25126]] approach is appropriate, PSEG must supplement its response to Condition B.1 of this Order to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications as required under Condition B.1. C.1. PSEG shall, within twenty (20) days of this Order, submit to the Commission a schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described in Attachment 1. 2. PSEG shall report to the Commission when they have achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 1. D. Notwithstanding the provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5), all measures implemented or actions taken in response to this Order shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise. PSEG's response to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, above shall be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.4. In addition, submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by PSEG of good cause. IV In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, PSEG must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; to the Director, Office of Enforcement at the same address; to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator for NRC Region I at 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA 19406; and to the licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the licensee. Because of possible disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that requests for a hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a person other than the PSEG requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his/her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by PSEG or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), PSEG may, in addition to demanding a hearing at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations or error. In the absence of any request for hearing or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty (20) days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires, if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this Order. Dated this 5th day of May, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Margaret V. Federline, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E5-2345 Filed 5-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 36 NRC: In the Matter of PSEG Nuclear LLC, Hope Creek and Salem FR Doc E5-2346 [Federal Register: May 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 91)] [Notices] [Page 25126-25128] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12my05-148] Generating Stations; Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately) AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Order for implementation of interim safeguards and security compensatory measures. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Barr, Project Manager, Licensing and Inspection Directorate, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: (301) 415-4015; fax number: (301) 415-8555; e-mail CSB2@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.106, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing notice in the matter of Hope Creek and Salem Generating Station Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately). II. Further Information I PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG) has been issued a general license by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) authorizing storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 10 CFR Part 50, and 10 CFR Part 72. This Order is being issued to PSEG who has identified near-term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI under the general license provisions of 10 CFR Part 72. The Commission regulations at 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) and 10 CFR 73.55(h)(1) require PSEG to maintain safeguards contingency plan procedures in accordance with 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix C. Specific safeguards requirements are contained in 10 CFR 73.55. [[Page 25127]] II On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, utilizing large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees in order to strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State, and local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment in order to assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. In addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements. As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and security plan requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community and other governmental agencies, the Commission has determined that certain compensatory measures are required to be implemented by licensees as prudent, interim measures, to address the current threat environment in a consistent manner throughout the nuclear ISFSI community. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachment 1 \1\ of this Order, on PSEG who has indicated near-term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI under the general license provisions of 10 CFR Part 72. These interim requirements, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the public health and safety and common defense and security continue to be adequately protected in the current threat environment. These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ Attachment 1 contains SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION and will not be released to the public. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The Commission recognizes that some measures may not be possible or necessary, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the specific circumstances existing at PSEG's facility to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe storage of spent fuel. In order to provide assurance that licensees are implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current threat environment, the Commission concludes that security measures must be embodied in an Order consistent with the established regulatory framework. PSEG's general license issued pursuant to 10 CFR 72.210 shall be modified to include the requirements identified in Attachment 1 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, the Commission finds that in light of the common defense and security matters described above, the public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be effective immediately. III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Parts 50, 72, and 73, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that your general license is modified as follows: A. PSEG shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any Commission regulation or license to the contrary, comply with the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order except to the extent that a more stringent requirement is set forth in their security plan. PSEG shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachment 1 to the Order and shall complete implementation before October 31, 2005, or the first day spent fuel is initially placed in the ISFSI, whichever is later. B.1. PSEG shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission: (1) If they are unable to comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment 1, (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in their specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation of any of the requirements would cause the licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license. The notification shall provide the licensee's justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement. 2. If PSEG considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order would adversely impact the safe storage of spent fuel, PSEG must notify the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 1 requirement(s) in question, or a schedule for modifying the facility to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, PSEG must supplement its response to Condition B.1 of this Order to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications as required in Condition B.1. C.1. PSEG shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, submit to the Commission, a schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described in Attachment 1. 2. PSEG shall report to the Commission when they have achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 1. D. Notwithstanding the provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5), all measures implemented or actions taken in response to this Order shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise. PSEG's responses to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, shall be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.4. In addition, submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by PSEG of good cause. IV In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, PSEG must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material [[Page 25128]] Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; to the Director, Office of Enforcement at the same address; to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator for NRC Region I at 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA 19406; and to the licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the licensee. Because of potential disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission, either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101, or by e-mail to hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of the General Counsel, either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725, or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a person other than PSEG requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by PSEG or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such a hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(I), PSEG may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty (20) days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this Order. Dated this 5th day of May, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Margaret V. Federline, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E5-2346 Filed 5-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 37 NRC: In the Matter of Duke Energy Corporation; Catawba Nuclear FR Doc E5-2347 [Federal Register: May 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 91)] [Notices] [Page 25114-25116] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12my05-141] Station; Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately) AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Order for implementation of additional security measures associated with access authorization. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Barr, Project Manager, Licensing and Inspection Directorate, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: (301) 415-4015; fax number: (301) 415-8555; e-mail CSB2@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.106, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing notice in the matter of Catawba Nuclear Station Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately). II. Further Information I Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy) holds a license issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) authorizing the operation of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 72. Commission regulations at 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) and 10 CFR 73.55(h)(1) require Duke Energy to have a safeguards contingency plan to respond to threats of radiological sabotage and to protect the spent fuel against the threat of radiological sabotage. Inasmuch as an insider has an opportunity equal to or greater than any other person to commit radiological sabotage, the Commission has determined these measures to be prudent. This Order has been issued to all licensees who currently store spent fuel or have identified near- term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI. II On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, utilizing large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees in order to strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. On October 16, 2002, the Commission issued Orders to the licensees of operating ISFSIs to put the actions taken in response to the Advisories in the established regulatory framework and to implement additional security enhancements which emerged from the NRC's ongoing comprehensive review. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State, and local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment in order to assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. In addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements. As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and security requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community, the Commission has determined that certain additional security measures are required to address the current threat environment in a consistent manner throughout the nuclear ISFSI community. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachment 1 \1\ of this Order, on all licensees of these facilities. These requirements, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the public health and safety and common defense and security continue to be adequately protected in the current threat environment. These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ Attachment 1 contains SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION and will not be released to the public. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The Commission recognizes that licensees may have already initiated many of the measures set forth in Attachment 1 to this Order in response to previously issued advisories, the October 2002 Order, or on their own. It also recognizes that some measures may not be possible or necessary at some sites, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the specific [[Page 25115]] circumstances existing at the licensee's facility to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe storage of spent fuel. Although the additional security measures implemented by licensees in response to the Safeguards and Threat Advisories have been adequate to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety, the Commission concludes that these actions must be supplemented further because the current threat environment continues to persist. Therefore, it is appropriate to require certain additional security measures and these measures must be embodied in an Order, consistent with the established regulatory framework. In order to provide assurance that Duke Energy is implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current threat environment, Duke Energy's general license issued pursuant to 10 CFR 72.210 shall be modified to include the requirements identified in Attachment 1 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, the Commission finds that in light of the common defense and security matters described above, the public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be immediately effective. III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 53, 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Parts 50, 72, and 73, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that your general license is modified as follows: A. Duke Energy shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any Commission regulation or license to the contrary, comply with the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order except to the extent that a more stringent requirement is set forth in the Duke Energy's security plan. Duke Energy shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachment 1 to the Order and shall complete implementation no later than October 31, 2005, with the exception of the additional security measures B.4, which shall be implemented no later than May 2, 2006, or the first day that spent fuel is initially placed in the ISFSI, whichever is later. B.1. Duke Energy shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission: (1) If it is unable to comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment 1, (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in their specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation of any of the requirements would cause Duke Energy to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license. The notification shall provide Duke Energy's justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement. 2. If Duke Energy considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order would adversely impact the safe storage of spent fuel, Duke Energy must notify the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 1 requirements in question, or a schedule for modifying the facility to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, Duke Energy must supplement its response to Condition B.1 of this Order to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications as required under Condition B.1. C.1. Duke Energy shall, within twenty (20) days of this Order, submit to the Commission a schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described in Attachment 1. 2. Duke Energy shall report to the Commission when they have achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 1. D. Notwithstanding the provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5), all measures implemented or actions taken in response to this Order shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise. Duke Energy's response to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, above shall be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.4. In addition, submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Duke Energy of good cause. IV In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Duke Energy must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; to the Director, Office of Enforcement at the same address; to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator for NRC Region II at 61 Forsyth Street SW., Suite 23T85, Atlanta, GA 30303-8931; and to the licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the licensee. Because of possible disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that requests for a hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a person other than the Duke Energy requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his/her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by Duke Energy or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(I), Duke Energy may, in addition to demanding a hearing at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is [[Page 25116]] not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations or error. In the absence of any request for hearing or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty (20) days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires, if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this Order. Dated this 5th day of May, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Margaret V. Federline, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E5-2347 Filed 5-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 38 NRC: In the Matter of Duke Energy Corporation, Catawba Nuclear FR Doc E5-2348 [Federal Register: May 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 91)] [Notices] [Page 25116-25117] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12my05-142] Station, Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately) ACTION: Issuance of Order for Implementation of Interim Safeguards and Security Compensatory Measures. I. Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.106, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing notice in the matter of Catawba Nuclear Station Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately). II. Further Information Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy) has been issued a general license by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) authorizing storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 10 CFR Part 50, and 10 CFR Part 72. This Order is being issued to Duke Energy who has identified near-term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI under the general license provisions of 10 CFR Part 72. The Commission regulations at 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) and 10 CFR 73.55(h)(1) require Duke Energy to maintain safeguards contingency plan procedures in accordance with 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix C. Specific safeguards requirements are contained in 10 CFR 73.55. II On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, utilizing large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees in order to strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State, and local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment in order to assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. In addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements. As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and security plan requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community and other governmental agencies, the Commission has determined that certain compensatory measures are required to be implemented by licensees as prudent, interim measures, to address the current threat environment in a consistent manner throughout the nuclear ISFSI community. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachment 1 \1\ of this Order, on Duke Energy who has indicated near-term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI under the general license provisions of 10 CFR Part 72. These interim requirements, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the public health and safety and common defense and security continue to be adequately protected in the current threat environment. These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ Attachment 1 contains SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION and will not be released to the public. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The Commission recognizes that some measures may not be possible or necessary, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the specific circumstances existing at Duke Energy's facility to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe storage of spent fuel. In order to provide assurance that licensees are implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current threat environment, the Commission concludes that security measures must be embodied in an Order consistent with the established regulatory framework. Duke Energy's general license issued pursuant to 10 CFR 72.210 shall be modified to include the requirements identified in Attachment 1 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, the Commission finds that in light of the common defense and security matters described above, the public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be effective immediately. III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Parts 50, 72, and 73, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that your general license is modified as follows: A. Duke Energy shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any Commission regulation or license to the contrary, comply with the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order except to the extent that a more stringent requirement is set forth in their security plan. Duke Energy shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachment 1 to the Order and shall complete implementation before October 31, 2005, or the first day that spent fuel is initially placed in the ISFSI, whichever is later. B.1. Duke Energy shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission: (1) If they are unable to comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment 1, (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in their specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation of any of the requirements would cause the licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license. The notification shall provide the licensee's justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement. 2. If Duke Energy considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order would adversely impact the safe storage of spent fuel, Duke Energy must notify the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of [[Page 25117]] the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 1 requirement(s) in question, or a schedule for modifying the facility to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, Duke Energy must supplement its response to Condition B.1 of this Order to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications as required in Condition B.1. C.1. Duke Energy shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, submit to the Commission, a schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described in Attachment 1. 2. Duke Energy shall report to the Commission when they have achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 1. D. Notwithstanding the provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5), all measures implemented or actions taken in response to this Order shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise. Duke Energy's responses to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, shall be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.4. In addition, submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Duke Energy of good cause. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Duke Energy must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; to the Director, Office of Enforcement at the same address; to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address; to the Regional Administrator for NRC Region II at 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Suite 23T85, Atlanta, GA 30303-8931; and to the licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the licensee. Because of potential disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission, either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101, or by e-mail to and also to the Office of the General Counsel, either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725, or by e-mail to . If a person other than Duke Energy requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by Duke Energy or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such a hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(I), Duke Energy may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty (20) days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this Order. Dated this 5th day of May, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Margaret V. Federline, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E5-2348 Filed 5-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 39 NRC: Draft Regulatory Guide; Issuance, Availability FR Doc E5-2349 [Federal Register: May 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 91)] [Notices] [Page 25128-25129] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12my05-150] The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued for public comment a draft revision to an existing guide in the agency's Regulatory Guide Series. This series has been developed to describe and make available to the public such information as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses. The draft Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 3.71, entitled ``Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards for Fuels and Material Facilities,'' is temporarily identified by its task number, DG-3023, which should be mentioned in all related correspondence. Like its predecessor, the proposed revision describes methods that the NRC staff finds acceptable for complying with the NRC's regulations in Title 10, parts 70 and 76, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR parts 70 and 76). In 10 CFR Part 70, ``Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material,'' Section 70.20, ``General License To Own Special Nuclear Material,'' defines a specific license to acquire, deliver, receive, possess, use, transfer, import, or export special nuclear material. According to 10 CFR 70.22, ``Contents of Applications,'' each application for such a license must contain proposed procedures to avoid nuclear criticality accidents. In 10 CFR Part 76, ``Certification of Gaseous Diffusion [[Page 25129]] Plants,'' Section 76.87, ``Technical Safety Requirements,'' states that the technical safety requirements should reference procedures and equipment that are applicable to criticality prevention. The NRC initially issued Regulatory Guide 3.71 in 1998 to provide guidance concerning procedures that the staff considered acceptable for complying with these portions of the NRC's regulations. Toward that end, the original guide endorsed specific nuclear criticality safety standards developed by the American Nuclear Society's Standards Subcommittee 8 (ANS-8), ``Operations with Fissionable Materials Outside Reactors.'' Those national standards provide guidance, criteria, and best practices for use in preventing and mitigating criticality accidents during operations that involve handling, processing, storing, and/or transporting special nuclear material at fuel and material facilities. The original guide also took exceptions to certain portions of individual ANS-8 standards. In addition, the original guide consolidated and replaced a number of earlier NRC regulatory guides, thereby providing all of the relevant guidance in a single document. Since that time, several ANS-8 nuclear criticality safety standards have been added, reaffirmed, revised, or withdrawn. Consequently, the NRC staff has decided to update this guide to clarify which standards the agency endorses and to clearly state exceptions to individual standards. This proposed revision does not change any of the guidance provided in Regulatory Guide 3.71; rather, it provides guidance concerning changes that have occurred since the NRC published the original guide in 1998. The NRC staff is soliciting comments on Draft Regulatory Guide DG- 3023. Comments may be accompanied by relevant information or supporting data. Please mention DG-3023 in the subject line of your comments. Comments on this draft regulatory guide submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available to the public in their entirety on the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). Personal information will not be removed from your comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods. Mail comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. E-mail comments to: NRCREP@nrc.gov. 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 A. Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail CAG@nrc.gov. Hand-deliver comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Fax comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415-5144. Requests for technical information about Draft Regulatory Guide DG- 3023 may be directed to H.D. Felsher, at (301) 415-5521 or via e-mail to HDF@nrc.gov. Comments would be most helpful if received by June 20, 2005. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time. Electronic copies of Draft Regulatory Guide DG-3023 are available through the NRC's public Web site under Draft Regulatory Guides in the Regulatory Guides document collection of the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/. Electronic copies are also available in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, under Accession ML050390450. Note, however, that the NRC has temporarily limited public access to ADAMS so that the agency can complete security reviews of publicly available documents and remove potentially sensitive information. Please check the NRC's Web site for updates concerning the resumption of public access to ADAMS. In addition, regulatory guides are available for inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), which is located at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland; the PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The PDR can also be reached by telephone at (301) 415-4737 or (800) 397-4205, by fax at (301) 415-3548; and by e- mail to PDR@nrc.gov. Requests for single copies of draft or final guides (which may be reproduced) or for placement on an automatic distribution list for single copies of future draft guides in specific divisions should be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Reproduction and Distribution Services Section; by e-mail to DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov; or by fax to (301) 415-2289. Telephone requests cannot be accommodated. Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and Commission approval is not required to reproduce them. (5 U.S.C. 552(a)). Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of April, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Mabel F. Lee, Director, Program Management, Policy Development and Analysis Staff, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. [FR Doc. E5-2349 Filed 5-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 40 NRC: NRC Announces Opportunity for Hearing on Application to Renew Operating License for Monticello Nuclear Power Plant News Release - 2005-08 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-081 May 12, 2005 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has announced the opportunity to request a hearing on an application to renew the operating license for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant for an additional 20 years. The Monticello plant is a boiling water nuclear reactor, located 30 miles northwest of Minneapolis. The Nuclear Management Co., LLC, submitted the renewal application March 24. The current operating license for Monticello expires on Sept. 8, 2010. The NRC staff has determined that the application contains sufficient information for the agency to formally "docket," or file, the application and begin its technical review. Docketing the application does not preclude requesting additional information as the review proceeds; nor does it indicate whether the Commission will grant the application. A notice of opportunity to request a hearing was published today in the Federal Register. The deadline for requesting a hearing is July 11. Petitions may be filed by anyone whose interest may be affected by the license renewal and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding. A request for hearing and a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Requests may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 415-1101 or e-mail to HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov. A copy should also be submitted to the NRC Office of General Counsel, by facsimile to (301) 415-3725 or e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. Information about the license renewal process can be found on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html. The Monticello renewal application is online at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati ons/monticello.html. Last revised Thursday, May 12, 2005 ***************************************************************** 41 Scotsman.com: Nuclear Power Must Be Considered Says Blair Thu 12 May 2005 By James Lyons, PA Political Correspondent Nuclear power must be considered as a method of cutting green house gas emissions, Prime Minister Tony Blair said today. Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett has kept new nuclear reactors off the agenda, leaked papers recently disclosed. But the Prime Minister said: “There can’t be debate on climate change without serious consideration of it.” A decision on whether to replace the UK’s ageing nuclear reactors will have to be made in this Parliament. Ms Beckett prevented officials examining how Britain can meet targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions from considering the option. However Alan Johnson, the new Productivity, Energy and Industry Secretary, is thought to be a cautious supporter of nuclear power. Mr Blair told his monthly press conference his two issues had been always been “cost and public acceptability”. “Whatever the intellectual answer may be you will never get a new generation of nuclear power stations until you have dealt with these two issues that lie very much around the issues of waste and how you deal with it,” he said. 2005 Scotsman.com ***************************************************************** 42 Vermont Guardian: NRC: September uprate target unlikely By Kathryn Casa | Vermont Guardian BRATTLEBORO A federal request for more information from Entergy about whether Vermont Yankee can withstand a proposed 20 percent power increase makes it unlikely that the plant will meet its fall timetable for implementing the change, according to a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As we speak today, its not realistic, NRC Region I spokesman Neil Sheehan said May 11 of Entergys plans to increase power incrementally starting in September. We dont even have a new timeframe for resumption or completion of the review at this point, Sheehan said. Entergy officials sought a May 9 meeting at NRC headquarters in Rockville, MD, to give regulators an overview of their uprate preparations, said Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee spokesman Larry Smith. Were characterizing it as an excellent meeting, a good exchange of information between Entergy and the NRC, Smith said. Entergy originally was hoping for approval of the proposed power uprate by January 2004. The company made most of its $60 million in modifications to the plant last year, and planned to complete the process during the next refueling outage this fall. Observers said Entergy was looking for a green light on their timetable from the NRC at the May 10 meeting. It is my own judgment that they are probably disappointed, said Vermont state nuclear engineer William Sherman. NRC staff members sent Entergy back to the drawing board, seeking information relating to codes used by General Electric when it built the reactor things like what the conditions would be inside the reactor following a severe event, Sheehan said. He noted that the NRC is also still assessing information submitted by Entergy about the Vermont Yankee steam dryer. Inspectors in April 2004 discovered about 40 hairline cracks in the dryer, a component that has been problematic in at least four sister GE boiling water reactor models that have undergone uprates. VY officials maintain that the cracks are the result of stress corrosion and that increased steam flow under uprated conditions would not adversely affect the unit, which has since been repaired. The technical data we have submitted shows that we have sufficient engineering margin to accommodate increases in steam flow through the steam dryer, VY spokesman Rob Williams noted in an e-mail. Entergy officials have answered 161 requests from the NRC for additional information in 28 supplements since they filed their initial uprate application. The federal process already has dragged on far longer than NRC approval of six other extended power uprates, which each took about a year. But one nuclear watchdog who attended the May 10 meeting said the delay is of the companys own making. It is Entergys style to bully and push their way past any regulatory obstructions, said Ray Shadis, technical advisor to the nonprofit New England Coalition, the Brattleboro citizens group that opposes the uprate. Often they gave evasive and oblique answers that didnt go directly to the questions, and the result is that the questions have stacked up. State approval of the uprate also remains outstanding. The Vermont Public Service Board approved the uprate on the condition that VY undergo an independent safety assessment. An NRC-led assessment of the plant was conducted last summer. The board has invited the NRC officials to Montpelier on May 27 to help determine whether the condition has been met, Sherman said. The PSB conference hearing will be from 9:30 a.m.-noon, at Washington County Superior Courthouse, 65 State Street. Parties to the uprate case will address the board directly, but not each other, Sherman noted. Sherman said he has not yet decided whether he will introduce the NRCs internal memo on uprate-related problems at boiling water reactors, which he uncovered while doing research on the NRC website. According to the memo, major power uprates have generated increased feedwater flow that has resulted in steam dryer failure at Quad Cities Units 1 and 2, and steam dryer cracks and feedwater sampling probes failures at Dresden Units 2 and 3. These events and associated failures throughout the EPU [boiling water reactor] fleet, such as pipe support structures failures, and other failed internal structures as a result of increased flow-induced vibrations have not all been formally compiled, wrote Les Cupidon, an engineer within the NRCs Division of Systems Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness. Cupidon has recommended that by October the NRC should compile information from all boiling water reactors that have undergone extended power uprates since 1998 for an internal NRC report. The report will provide an overview on the effects of increased flow-induced vibration on structures, systems and components (SSCs) resulting from EPU operation, he wrote. Although the metal steam dryer is not considered by the NRC to be a key safety component, cracking could cause a piece of metal to break off and fall back into the reactor, leading to potentially serious consequences, according Shadis. A broader NRC review of boiling water reactor steam dryers would not directly delay the VY application, Sheehan said, but if any information comes to light from the other plants and we are close to making a decision on Vermont Yankee, we would factor that in. VY spokesman Williams said it is not uncommon for the NRC to compile reports like the one recommended in Cupidons memo as a basis for regulatory guidance. Our uprate application and supplements are based on industry experience and lessons learned at other plants, Williams wrote. Send us your news tips, a letter to the editor or general comments. Vermont Guardian PO Box 335 Winooski, VT 05404 ***************************************************************** 43 Independent: Nuclear power may be the only way, says chief scientist independent.co.uk By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor 12 May 2005 Britain may need one more generation of nuclear power stations in the fight against climate change, Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser, says. Sir David, who has sounded the alarm about global warming more loudly than anyone else in recent years, believes that new nuclear plants may be needed to keep Britain's faltering plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on course. His comments, in an interview with The Independent, come three weeks after this newspaper reported that Tony Blair was drawing up plans to revive the nuclear option as a key element in the Government's drive to combat global warming. They are the clearest on-the-record indications yet of high-level thinking about what will be an immensely controversial decision, likely to split the Cabinet, enrage the green movement and deeply concern many of the public, frightened about nuclear waste, nuclear accidents and potential nuclear terrorism. Sir David, who said last year that the threat of climate change was worse than the terrorism risk, and publicly castigated the Bush administration in the United States for not signing the Kyoto climate treaty, does not see an unlimited nuclear future for Britain. In years to come, he believes, renewable energy systems such as wind, wave and solar power, together with increased energy efficiency and the possible development of fusion power, will be sufficient to cut back the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from conventional coal and gas-fired power stations, which are believed to be raising temperatures around the globe. In the short term, he thinks, there may be no alternative to building new nuclear facilities - "one generation only", he stresses - if Britain is not to miss badly its more demanding global warming targets. The reason is what he refers to as the "energy gap" - the period coming soon when Britain's existing range of atomic power stations, which provide us with nearly a quarter of our electricity without producing any significant amounts of CO2, start to be retired and drop out of the energy mix. Unless they are replaced, Sir David believes, the Government may not be able to meet its target of providing 20 per cent of our electricity from non-fossil-fuel sources by 2020. To its considerable embarrassment, the Government has already admitted that it will miss, by a wide margin, its target of cutting CO2 emissions by a fifth by 2010. It has been further embarrassed by an increase in emissions in each of the past two years. In the interview, Sir David, one of Tony Blair's most trusted advisers, said the energy gap was imminent and was the key issue. In a long discussion of the nuclear question, he said he well understood the fears of many of the public about nuclear waste, nuclear accidents and the possibilities of terrorists acquiring nuclear material. He said: "I've never been a great nuclear protagonist, because of concerns of waste and leakage, the cost of disposal, the decommissioning issue and the whole question of public acceptability." But he said the question of climate change and its impacts on human society - "the most serious problem we're faced with globally this century" - was so important that the nuclear option had to be re-examined, and that public perception of nuclear's dangers did not necessarily accord with reality. He said fewer people had been killed in nuclear power generation than in other forms of energy production, and that modern nuclear stations being designed were inherently much safer than those involved in the notorious accidents at Three Mile Island in the US in 1979 and Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986. Furthermore, he indicated that if new nuclear power stations were built in Britain, they would be sited near existing nuclear sites, and it would be highly unlikely that fresh "greenfield" sites would be chosen. The decision to go nuclear would not mean large amounts of Government money being spent he said, merely opening the option to the private sector. But it would be necessary to look at the fiscal regime very carefully, so that nuclear, with its high fixed costs, did not lose out in a competitive energy market. Sir David stressed that going nuclear once more would not mean that Britain's commitment to the renewable energy systems of wind, wave and solar power would be in any way weakened. But the energy gap was a key issue, he said, as it was imminent. He said: "That's why it's a live issue. I'd be ducking it if I wasn't to say that. And it may be that the conclusion would be reached that we need another generation of nuclear-fission power stations." He went on: "Examining the situation now, because there's this imminent projected gap in nuclear energy on the grid, the whole question is whether this gap can be filled quickly enough with renewables. But if it can't, then I would imagine that one further generation of nuclear power stations would be all that would be required." The Government is actively studying whether or not the gap can be filled in the review of its climate change programme, which is expected in the late summer. Sir David said he did not wish to prejudge the issue, but he warned: "The more ambitious targets that the Government has set are beginning to look quite difficult." 'Climate change is so important, we have to examine use of nuclear' Sitting in his third-floor office in the new Department for Productivity, Energy and Industry (the Department of Trade and Industry until last weekend) in Victoria Street, central London, the Government's chief scientist spoke at length of his concerns about climate change, nuclear power, and in particular what he terms the energy gap. Sir David King means what will happen to Britain's fight against global warming as, over the next 15 years or so, 11 out of Britain's current 12 nuclear power stations, which do not emit carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, come to the end of their working lives. As they are shut down, the proportion of Britain's electricity produced by nuclear (CO2-free) power will drop from around a quarter now to about 4 per cent by 2020. Can renewable energy systems, such as wind, wave and solar power, currently providing 3 per cent of Britain's electricity, provide enough CO2-free power in the meantime to fill the gap and enable the UK to meet its demanding climate-change targets? For if they cannot, Sir David says, a new generation of atomic power stations may be necessary. The quietly spoken South African-born scientist, professor of chemistry at the University of Cambridge, is a practised Whitehall hand and was scrupulously careful not to give any direct public endorsement of his own to a new nuclear energy programme. This is a decision strictly for ministers. But the stress he laid on the energy gap gave an insight into the Government's private thinking. "I've always said in the past that, as we move to 2020, the proportion of nuclear energy going on to the grid, if there is no nuclear new-build, is going to drop from roughly 27 per cent to roughly 4 per cent," he said. "By 2020 we'll be left with Sizewell B [the nuclear plant in Suffolk]. "So the question in my mind and in many other people's mind is going to be, whether the renewables targets and the energy-efficiency targets will be sufficient to meet CO2 reductions, in the face of a falling percentage from nuclear power. He went on: "That gap in energy is imminent, and that's why [nuclear] is a live issue, I'd be ducking it if I wasn't to say that. And it may be that the conclusion would be reached that we need another generation of nuclear-fission stations." However, one generation would probably be sufficient, he said, and then a much-expanded renewables sector, and possibly nuclear-fusion power, would be able to take on the burden of the UK's carbon-free future. "In other words, if we look into the long-term future, and project forward the work on renewables, and also project forward the work on nuclear-fusion power stations, I would imagine we would in the long term not need to continue with nuclear-fission power." The other question was the public acceptability of any new nuclear build programme, he said. "I don't see any government being prepared to go down a route on an issue like this without taking the public with them, so I think that is a key issue." He said he could understand fears over waste and accidents. "I'm not a great fan of nuclear," he said. "I can understand the public concerns, I can understand all the concerns about radioactive waste and so on. But I also feel that the climate change issue is so important that we really have to examine the potential use of nuclear." Alternative energy sources WIND POWER Wind energy is by far the most advanced form of renewable power in Britain. There are 101 wind farms in the United Kingdom with a total of 1,234 wind turbines, and a total capacity of 980 megawatts, or enough to supply more than half a million homes - about the same as a large coal or gas-fired power station. Currently, wind produces 0.8 per cent of UK electricity, or about a third of the total power from renewables, but that is set to leap as new projects come on stream. Wind energy has encountered hostility from some environmentalists who say the large turbines disfigure the landscape. SOLAR POWER Solar power has immense potential which is not yet anything like fully exploited. It is based on the fact that every day the sun bathes the earth in an immense amount of energy, most of which is lost; it uses photovoltaic (PV) panels which are made of silicon and generate electricity whenever light falls upon them, whatever the weather. Britain's leading solar company, Solarcentury, says that "if we covered a small fraction of the Sahara desert with PV, we could generate all the world's electricity requirements". WAVE AND TIDAL POWER Wave and tidal power are again potentially huge sources of energy but the least developed, certainly in Britain. A wave-powered generator christened Limpet is operating on rocks on the Scottish island of Islay but only produces about 500 kilowatts of energy. The Department for Productivity, Energy and Industry has commissioned the UK Renewable Energy Atlas which will spatially map the wave and tidal resource potential. But other countries such as France have already gone much further: since 1966, the big tidal power station at La Rance on the Normandy coast has been producing 240 megawatts of energy with its 24 turbines. ©2005 Independent News &Media (UK) Ltd. ***************************************************************** 44 NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting FR Doc 05-9571 [Federal Register: May 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 91)] [Notices] [Page 25128] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12my05-149] Agency Holding the Meeting: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Date: Week of May 9, 2005. Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Status: Public and Closed. Matters to be Considered: Week of May 9, 2005 Thursday, May 12, 2005, 10:45 p.m.--Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) a. Final Rule to Amend 10 CFR Part 110, ``Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Materials; Security Policies''. b. USEC Inc. (American Centrifuge Plant) Petitioners' Standing to Intervene. *The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)--(301) 415- 1292. Contact person for more information: Dave Gamberoni, (301) 415- 1651. * * * * * Additional Information: By a vote of 5-0 on May 9, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and Sec. 9.107(a) of the Commission's rules that ``Affirmation of USEC, Inc. (American Centrifuge Plant) Petitioners' Standing to Intervene'' be held May 12, and on less than one week's notice to the public. * * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. * * * * * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, August Spector, at (301) 415-7080, TDD: 301- 4152100, or by e-mail at aks@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. * * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: May 9, 2005. Dave Gamberoni, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 05-9571 Filed 5-10-05; 11:09 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M ***************************************************************** 45 [NYTr] North Korea raises nuclear stakes Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 18:55:40 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit BBC News Online - May 11, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4536181.stm North Korea raises nuclear stakes North Korea has moved to "increase its nuclear arsenal" by removing fuel rods from a nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, according to an official statement. The rods can be treated to produce plutonium for use in nuclear weapons. The statement comes amid an escalating stand-off between North Korea and the US, after reports that Pyongyang may be preparing a nuclear test. "Provocative statements and actions by North Korea only further isolate it," said a White House spokesman. The spokesman, Scott McClellan, said the US was still hoping Pyongyang would return to stalled international talks. "That's where our focus is. That's where our focus remains," he told reporters. South Korea expressed "serious concern" about the North Korean statement, while China urged restraint from all sides. "We have been taking steps necessary to increase our nuclear arsenal for defence purposes," the North Korean Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the official KCNA news agency. There has been mounting speculation about the Yongbyon reactor since South Korea reported last month that it appeared to have been shut down, presumably in order to remove spent fuel rods. Recent satellite images are reported to also suggest possible preparations for a nuclear test in North Korea's remote north-east. Diplomatic standstill The row over North Korea's nuclear programme first flared between Pyongyang and the Bush administration in 2002, when North Korea allegedly admitted to having a secret uranium programme. YONGBYON REACTOR Five megawatt nuclear reactor, 100km north of Pyongyang Frozen in 1994 under agreement with US Restarted in 2002, after N Korea says deal was over Reportedly closed down in April 2005 May 2005: N Korea says reactor's fuel rods extracted to produce more plutonium North Korea responded by expelling International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitors and restarting its plutonium reactor at Yongbyon - frozen under an agreement with the Clinton administration. Six-party international talks were set up to address the stand-off, but North Korea pulled out of them last June. The US envoy to North Korea, Christopher Hill, went to Beijing recently to try and persuade China to use its influence over North Korea to draw it back to the talks. The US and Japan have been hinting at more coercive measures in recent weeks, but China and South Korea oppose sanctions and say more diplomacy is needed. The IAEA said at the weekend that North Korea already has enough weapons-grade plutonium for five or six nuclear weapons from its last harvest of spent fuel rods, begun in 2003. Analysts estimate the latest extraction of rods could give North Korea at least another two atomic bombs, once the fuel has cooled down in about three months' time. ) BBC MMV * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 46 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Says It Will Bolster Nuke Arsenal From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday May 12, 2005 5:01 AM AP Photo NY190 By BURT HERMAN Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea said Wednesday it had taken steps that could allow it to harvest more plutonium for atomic bombs and that it would bolster its arsenal, the communist country's latest provocation amid deadlocked talks over its nuclear program. A North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman said the country had removed 8,000 fuel rods from the reactor at its main nuclear complex at Yongbyon, 50 miles north of Pyongyang. North Korea kicked out international nuclear inspectors in late 2002, making it impossible to verify the claim. If reprocessed, the rods could, after several months, yield enough plutonium for a couple of nuclear bombs, South Korean media reported. The North claimed in February to have nuclear weapons, and the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said recently the North previously had enough plutonium for up to six nuclear bombs. North Korea ``keeps taking necessary measures to bolster its nuclear arsenal for the defensive purpose of coping with the prevailing situation, with a main emphasis on developing the self-reliant nuclear power industry,'' said the spokesman, who wasn't further identified in the report by the North's official Korean Central News Agency. The move comes amid rising international speculation about a possible North Korean nuclear test. U.S. officials said last week that spy satellites looking at northeastern Kilju saw tunnel digging and the construction of a reviewing stand - possible indications of a test. On Tuesday, the North's main newspaper alleged the United States was making a ``fuss'' by spreading reports of the alleged test preparations. However, the commentary in the state-run Rodong Sinmun daily didn't deny the North was planning a test. The U.S. ambassador to Japan, Thomas Schieffer, told Japanese politicians Wednesday he believes North Korea has taken steps toward a possible nuclear test, the U.S. Embassy said. ``I believe they have taken some preparatory steps,'' an embasssy official quoted Schieffer as telling members of the Komeito party. ``If there is a test it would be a serious blow to the (six-party negotiations) process.'' North Korea issues daily warnings to its citizens of the alleged threat of invasion by the United States, and since June 2004 has refused to return to the disarmament talks, citing Washington's ``hostile'' policy. The United States has repeatedly said it has no intention to attack North Korea, but U.S. officials have said the nuclear impasse won't be allowed to drag on forever. South Korean Vice Unification Minister Rhee Bong-jo on Thursday told reporters that the North's latest move was a ploy ``to increase pressure and bolster its negotiating power.'' International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei said last weekend that Pyongyang already had enough plutonium to make up to six bombs from an earlier batch of fuel rods. The estimated yield was higher because those rods spent more time in the reactor, which was last restarted in 2003 when North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. On Wednesday, the North Korean official noted the country had already announced plans to operate the five-megawatt reactor at Yongbyon and resume construction on a bigger reactor there because the United States pulled out of a 1994 deal on the North's nuclear program made with the Clinton administration. U.S. officials accused North Korea of running a secret uranium enrichment program in 2002 in violation of the earlier deal, under which Pyongyang agreed to forgo nuclear weapons development in exchange for energy aid and the construction of nuclear reactors that couldn't be diverted for weapons use. South Korea expressed ``serious concern'' at the latest development. ``North Korea should immediately halt actions that have a negative impact'' on efforts to resume disarmament talks, the Foreign Ministry said. ``We strongly urge North Korea to return to the six-party talks without delay.'' Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi noted North Korea has made such statements before to bolster its negotiating position. ``We must work to show that North Korea will benefit the most from returning quickly to the six-nation talks and disposing of its nuclear program,'' he said. On Tuesday, China rejected using sanctions to prod North Korea to return to six-nation talks on its nuclear ambitions, with a spokesman saying Beijing's political and trade relations with its neighbor should be kept separate. The statement by Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao came as a Bush administration official said the United States has asked Beijing to redouble its efforts to lure North Korea back to the negotiations. Three rounds of talks including China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States haven't led to any breakthroughs. The Bush administration is depending heavily on China to rescue a faltering diplomatic effort to negotiate an end to the dispute but has suggested no specific pressure tactics to Beijing, senior U.S. officials said Wednesday. ``We have normal bilateral relations'' with North Korea, the Chinese Embassy spokesman, Maoming Chu, said in Washington. ``We don't try to solve problems through pressure or sanctions.'' The U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they were unable to verify China has dismissed the idea of sanctions to pressure North Korea. To seek a resolution to the impasse, the top U.S. negotiator on the North Korean nuclear dispute will visit South Korea this week as part of efforts to lure Pyongyang back to the negotiating table, an official said Wednesday. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 47 Guardian Unlimited: Europe on alert over Iran nuclear ambitions Ian Traynor Thursday May 12, 2005 The Guardian European powers are poised to call an emergency meeting of the board of the UN's nuclear watchdog after an escalating dispute with Iran about its nuclear projects. Iran appears about to renege on a six-month-old pact with Britain, Germany and France, which freezes all of its uranium enrichment activities - a gamble that could see it penalised by the UN security council but also win a diplomatic victory in the battle of wits over its ambitions. "This is all very disingenuous of the Iranians. But they are playing this perfectly," said a diplomat who has been following the two-year-old crisis. Last night, a senior Iranian envoy flew into Vienna, home to the International Atomic Energy Agency, with a letter from his government that diplomats anticipated to be formal notification that Iran was reneging on the agreement to freeze its uranium enrichment activities. The Iranian leadership was reported to be meeting yesterday in Tehran. Diplomats said Iran could start breaking UN seals on nuclear technology as early as today. Tehran has told the IAEA it will promptly inform the agency of the decision and a letter is expected by the end of the week. The EU troika, which has been negotiating with the Iranians since last November, when the deal was struck in Paris, is expected to summon an emergency meeting of the 35-strong IAEA board for next week, at which the Americans will push to have the dispute taken to the UN security council for possible sanctions. The Iranians are expected to restart conversion of raw uranium yellowcake into UF4 gas, a precursor to manufacturing UF6, which is turned into enriched uranium fuel. The degree of enrichment determines whether the fuel can be used for nuclear power stations or nuclear weapons. The deal agreed last November 14 stipulated that Iran would freeze "all uranium enrichment-related activities". Tehran will declare that the making of UF4 does not constitute a breach of that pledge, a claim that will not wash with the Europeans or the US. "Restarting conversion of uranium would be a clear breach of the agreement," said the European diplomat. If the Iranians resume the work at their uranium conversion plant in Isfahan, the resulting breakdown in EU-Iran talks will be the second in 18 months. The EU states promised Iran that they would block a transfer of the dispute to the security council as long as there was a freeze on enrichment. But the Europeans also vowed to support Washington in referring the dispute to the security council in New York should the talks fail. This could make for another showdown next week in Vienna, with the US and the EU for the first time united in calling for security council action. Sources in Vienna said, however, there was little appetite at the IAEA board for penalties for Iran. The board generally operates by consensus. And a non-European diplomat said the non-aligned countries on the board would "accept the Iranian argument - that this is uranium conversion work and not enrichment work". Nor is it clear what would happen if the dispute were passed to New York. China and Russia could veto sanctions on Iran. Uranium enrichment is the key to obtaining nuclear weapons. The EU talks are aimed at getting Iran to abandon uranium enrichment and instead import low-enriched nuclear fuel for Tehran's civil nuclear programme. Recently the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, for the first time publicly supported the EU's policy, saying that Iran should "abandon all technology to create a full nuclear fuel cycle" - meaning uranium enrichment. An emergency meeting in Vienna next week will reinforce the sense of worsening crisis over the problem. But diplomats said there was little chance of a quick resolution and that the issue would be deferred until the next scheduled board meeting of the IAEA in mid-June, a few days before Iran's presidential election. Special reports Iran Iraq Israel and the Middle East Saudi Arabia [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 48 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea sparks fresh plutonium alarm Agencies in Seoul and Washington Thursday May 12, 2005 The Guardian North Korea said yesterday it has completed removing spent fuel rods from an atomic reactor, enabling it to harvest more weapons-grade plutonium. The announcement was the communist state's latest provocation amid deadlocked talks over Pyongyang's nuclear programme. A foreign ministry spokesman said the country had "successfully finished" removing 8,000 fuel rods from the reactor at its Yongbyon complex, which was shut down last month, so it can "bolster its nuclear arsenal". The South Korean foreign ministry expressed "serious concern" at the development. Washington said the north's "provocative statements" about its nuclear activities "only further isolate it from the international community". [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 49 Idaho Statesman: Crapo to present downwinder bill today 05-12-2005 Senator seeks compensation for all Idaho victims dpopkey@idahostatesman.com">Dan Popkey The Idaho Statesman Sen. Mike Crapo will introduce a bill today adding all of Idaho to the federal compensation plan for downwinders sickened by nuclear-bomb testing. Crapo is fulfilling a promise he made April 27, when a three-year study by the National Academy of Sciences said the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act should be expanded across the country based on the estimated risk and health history of individuals, not geography. "That will take some time," Crapo said Tuesday night. "While we wait for that to happen, I don't think it's right for Idahoans to have to wait." Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, is joining Crapo as a co-sponsor. Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter is backing the bill, as is Gov. Dirk Kempthorne. Rep. Mike Simpson has said he is withholding judgment for now. Crapo said Idahoans should be eligible for $50,000 payments if they lived in the state during Nevada bomb tests between 1951-1962 and suffered any of 19 cancers covered by RECA. Currently, downwinders in 21 counties in Nevada, Utah and Arizona are eligible and more than $440 million has been paid to victims and survivors since the law was enacted in 1990. "Information used to establish who would be eligible for compensation failed to recognize that four counties in Idaho ranked in the top five in having the highest per capita thyroid dosage of radiation in the nation, more than any other county currently recognized by RECA for eligibility," Crapo says in a draft of a floor speech to be entered in today's Congressional Record. "This clear inequity must be rectified; Idaho has a documented history of high cancer rates in people who lived in these areas during testing." The four counties are Gem, Blaine, Custer and Lemhi. The other 40 Idaho counties all had higher thyroid dosage than some RECA-covered counties. "The NAS report recognizes that the RECA program needs revamping, but Idahoans deserve equal treatment with those in Utah, Arizona and Nevada now," says Crapo in the speech. "They should not have to wait while Congress comes up with a better way to administer this program." Crapo also thanks state Rep. Kathy Skippen, R-Emmett, Gem County native and cancer survivor Sheri Garmon and activist Tona Henderson of Emmett for pressing the issue, an effort that began last July. Their advocacy carried Idaho's downwinders from the pages of the Emmett Messenger-Index to the New York Times and Reader's Digest. Henderson welcomed the news. "Idaho needs to be included in the RECA we have now. I don't think Idahoans should have to prove anything  they already know what they've done to us." Crapo said he will press for hearings in the Judiciary Committee, where the bill will likely be referred. That's where Utah GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch expanded the bill in 2000. Hatch has called for further expansion in Utah, and Crapo said he plans to discuss the issue with Hatch soon. On Monday, Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., introduced a bill expanding RECA to 15 Montana counties that were among the hardest-hit by fallout. Burns cited reasons similar to Crapo's. Crapo said he will reach out to colleagues to work on expanding RECA on a geographical basis, as well as a longer-term reform. "We're better served banding together," he said. ***************************************************************** 50 KTVB.COM: Crapo introduces legislation for downwinders' compensation 06:57 PM MDT on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 Bonnie Loftus Idaho's NewsChannel WASHINGTON -- Senator Mike Crapo introduced legislation today that would include Idaho in the radiation exposure compensation act or RECA. It provides federal dollars for people who have been diagnosed with specific diseases that could have been caused by exposure to radiation. The National Academy of Sciences recommended last month that the government expand the act to include the entire country, but Sen. Crapo says Idahoans deserve compensation now. "Idahoans who clearly qualify under the standards of the old law are left out of the old law. So, I propose that we include Idaho in the law as it now stands," said Sen. Crapo. A group calling itself the downwinders has claimed for years their health was severely affected by nuclear weapons testing near the end of World War Two. If Crapos bill passes, those affected would receive government money. ***************************************************************** 51 Independent Online: Living with fallout [www.MissoulaNews.com] Vol. 16 No. 22 Issue Date 5/12/2005 [ border=] by Jessie McQuillan Photo by Chad Harder Nancy Wilson, who lives in Missoula and was raised in Helena, was diagnosed with thyroid cancer last year. A new study found 15 Montana counties received some of the nation’s highest doses of fallout following Nevada’s nuclear tests in the 1950s, but Montanans aren’t included in the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. How much for that mushroom cloud in the window? The first question the doctor asked Missoulian Nancy Wilson after he told her she had thyroid cancer last May was where she was raised. She said “Helena” and he told her he wasn’t surprised. That’s because Helena is just west of Meagher County. And a newly released National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study on the dispersal of fallout from nuclear testing in Nevada in the ’50s and ’60s finds that Meagher County received the highest estimated per capita dose of radiation from those tests in the entire nation. The study also finds that 14 other Montana counties—Broadwater, Beaverhead, Jefferson, Powell, Judith Basin, Madison, Fergus, Gallatin, Petroleum, Lewis and Clark, Blaine, Silver Bow, Chouteau and Deer Lodge—are also on the high end of the dosage spectrum, which confirms the results of a 1997 fallout study by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). That Montanans were exposed to radiation blown in from the testing in the first place—as were others across the nation, albeit at lower levels—is one issue. That Montanans aren’t covered by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, a 1990 attempt to compensate people who developed cancer and other diseases from living downwind from or working on the test site, is another. Only downwinders in certain counties of Nevada, Utah and Arizona are currently eligible for the $50,000 payout. A wider coverage area and higher levels of compensation are reserved for the uranium miners, millers and transporters who have developed problems in the decades since the testing. On Monday, in response to the study, Sen. Conrad Burns introduced amendments to the act that would make ailing Montanans eligible. Other states, like Idaho, experienced relatively high levels of radiation and remain without coverage as well. Although the most concentrated contamination was showered upon the West, it sprinkled down from coast to coast. Until the new study came out, Wilson, 51, hadn’t thought much about what caused her cancer. In the past year, she has concentrated mainly on getting through her treatments and getting back to normal because, she says, “I just wanted to have it be over and move on.” She says she just feels fortunate to have a good job with insurance that made it possible for her to take some time off and recover. But Wilson, who says there’s no history of cancer in her family, feels strongly that “If [fallout] is the reason I got thyroid cancer, I think the federal government should compensate Montana the same way they’re compensating everyone else.” To qualify for compensation, downwinders must have lived in designated areas for at least two years during the period from Jan. 21, 1951, to Oct. 31, 1958. They also must have developed any of a host of medical problems linked to radiation exposure; thyroid cancer is among the most common because of the sensitivity of thyroid tissue, but other types of cancer, like leukemia and lymphomas, are included in the list. The people who are most likely to have been harmed by radiation are those who were milk-drinking children in the 1950s. As radioactive Iodine 131 floated from the sky and settled onto the earth and in the water, radiation often accumulated in humans through cows, which transmitted irradiated particles in their milk. Since the onset of the act, more than 12,000 claims—two-thirds of them from downwinders—have been approved and more than $900 million has been paid, according to the Department of Justice. The NAS study found that more than two-thirds of downwinder claims have been approved, but recommended widening the geographical coverage boundaries and making the process easier for claimants. The news of Montana’s decades-old contamination comes as efforts are building to develop new nuclear weapons and, consequently, to resume nuclear testing. President George W. Bush’s 2006 budget includes $8.5 million for development of Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators, otherwise known as “bunker-busters.” Last year, Congress gutted similar funding for the weapons and in March, Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, reintroduced legislation that would make it more difficult to resume testing at the Nevada Test Site. But the United States has a long and determined history of nuclear testing: Between 1945 and 1992, the government conducted more than 1,000 official nuclear tests. In 1992, President George H. Bush began a moratorium that was continued by President Clinton and made official by Clinton’s signing of the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. As America’s children of the ’50s begin to display the effects of round one in our testing history, Wilson and many others wonder at our apparent inability to learn from the past. The prospect of future testing, Wilson says, can be summed up in one way: “That’s just crazy!” If Montana is eventually recognized under the Radiation Compensation Exposure Act, Wilson says she would want to be included. But if the process of proving that radiation caused her cancer were drawn-out, she thinks it would be better just to move on. She says she could never be compensated for the time and stress required by the endeavor. And she feels the same way about other people and lands affected by nuclear testing. “Can we really be compensated for all the poor environmental decisions we’re making?” she asks. jmcquillan@missoulanews.com [Independent Main Page] ***************************************************************** 52 PISJ: Senators aim to aid downwinder radiation victims Pocatello Idaho State Journal: POCATELLO - Less than two weeks after the release of a report that concluded nuclear fallout impacted wide swaths of the country, members of the Idaho congressional delegation are leaping into action. Sens. Mike Crapo and Larry Craig introduced legislation in Washington D.C. on Wednesday that would include all of Idaho in a federal compensation program designed to help victims of harmful government-caused radiation. Crapo had previously pledged to introduce legislation on behalf of Idaho downwinders, but waited until the release of a 378-page National Academy of Sciences report before deciding on the bill's parameters. That report, released April 28, also urged Congress to change the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to a more science-based, rather than geographically-based program. But Crapo said long-suffering Gem State natives need immediate assistance. "Congress could take a long time to shift to the new paradigm or they might never make the shift," he said. "Idahoans should not have to wait for that." Currently, RECA only includes parts of Utah, Arizona and Nevada, despite the fact that Idaho counties have shown among the highest levels of radioactive fallout in the country. "It turns out the average for the whole state of Idaho was higher than six of the counties in Utah that are already a part of the act," he said. A series of above-ground atomic bomb tests in the Nevada desert during the 1950s and 60s caused the fallout, which was carried by strong winds into other states. Many were exposed to the radiation by drinking contaminated milk as children and were unaware of the link to nuclear testing until the release of a 1997 study by the National Cancer Institute. Sen. Conrad Burns of Montana introduced similar legislation Monday to include 15 Montana counties in the act and other states might not be far behind. Despite the findings of the NAS study, Crapo acknowledges that the passage of the recently introduced bills won't be easy. "In all honesty, this is going to be a tough legislative issue," he said. "There might be some concerns that the budget implications are going to get out of hand." Each downwinder who can show medical evidence they were harmed by the fallout is eligible for $50,000, according to RECA guidelines. That burden of proof is one aspect of the legislation that worries some activists, such as Peter Rickards, a Twin Falls podiatrist. In a letter urging Congressman Mike Simpson to support Crapo's legislation, Rickards called the hurdle of probability a "cruel joke." But though he acknowledged the system might need to be overhauled, Crapo said he felt compelled to aid hundreds of Idahoans who have fought for years for compensation and recognition. In a statement on the floor of the Senate, Crapo told colleagues expanding RECA into Idaho was the right thing to do. "The truth is even more encompassing than a few more counties," he said. "Radiation fallout didn't know any arbitrary geographic boundaries. "It didn't stop because it crossed a state or county line." Dan Boyd - Journal Writer'> Sens. Mike Crapo and Larry Craig introduced legislation in Washington D.C. on Wednesday that would include all of Idaho in a federal compensation program designed to help victims of harmful government-caused radiation."> This document was originally published online on Thursday, May 12, 2005 Copyright © 2005 Pocatello Idaho State Journal P O Box 431 Pocatello, ID 83204-0431 ***************************************************************** 53 Salt Lake City Weekly: Justice Delayed Earl Keen] Voices - May 12, 2005 She is 61 and had thyroid cancer followed by surgery and radiation treatments. Two years after her diagnosis, she went on disability. Now she has myriad health problems. Sylvia Gardener of Vernal phoned me with one question last week. Will she be eligible for compensation from the federal government for her fallout-related cancer? Her question came in the wake of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on expanding compensation to downwinders under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA). The academy held four public hearingsthree of them only after being pressured by the publicto take testimony from downwinders and experts alike before making recommendations to Congress. Gardener has been waiting since last year for the NAS to release its report. Like many downwinders, shes confused by whats in the 387-page report. The NAS admits fallout from nuclear tests in Nevada affected every county in the country and that some areas not eligible under RECA, like Salt Lake County, were exposed to higher amounts of fallout than were RECA-covered counties. This is a major admission, although hardly new information. Citing the National Cancer Institutes 1997 study, the NAS says Congress shouldnt limit compensation to current geographic boundaries. Thats good news, since it implies that downwinders across the country could be eligible for compensation. Currently, only 21 rural counties in Nevada, Arizona and southern Utah are eligible, which has always been a major flaw of the compensation program. Heres where the NAS report gets tricky. Under RECA, compensation is based on if you lived in a certain county during certain years and got a certain kind of cancer. Now, the NAS says Congress should rely on hard scientific evidence to set new eligibility requirements. Those requirements may not be a problem for downwinders like Sylvia, who developed thyroid cancer, because studies show a clear link between thyroid cancer and fallout. But what about everyone else? While thyroid cancer downwinders nationwide potentially could qualify, compensation becomes more questionable for those with other fallout-related diseases. RECA currently compensates for 18 cancers, as well as leukemia and lymphoma. Downwinders with those diseases will have a harder time meeting the demands of science-based formulas because studies linking their cancers to fallout were never madea glaring omission. Nor does the NAS recommend adding additional cancers or diseases, which rules out immune system disorders. The NAS report recommends that studies into other cancers and diseases be undertaken, but its unlikely that more studies will be funded or conducted anytime soon. Remember, the Centers for Disease Control just pulled funding for a major fallout study by Dr. Joseph Lyon. As Preston Truman, the president of Downwinders says, Its so easy to say we need more studies. More studies mean more delays. Its going to take years. By the time we get compensation, more people die. So, whats my answer to Sylvia Gardener? These are just recommendations. We have no idea when or if Congress will act on them. You may have a better chance than others, but for most downwinders, its going to be virtually impossible ever to get compensation. Justice will not be served until all downwinders are equally compensated. I doubt Ill ever live to see it, she sighed sadly. And thats the worst news of all. Mary Dickson is a survivor of thyroid cancer living in Salt Lake City who attributes her illness to fallout from nuclear testing. Her articles on downwinders have been published in books, journals and magazines. template_sidebar story search Salt Lake City Weekly and slweekly.com ©1996-2004 Copperfield Publishing, Inc.. All offices: 248 S. Main Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 801-575-7003 ***************************************************************** 54 Guardian Unlimited: 34 Bases on Worst Toxic Waste Sites List From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday May 12, 2005 8:01 AM AP Photo FX104 By JOHN HEILPRIN Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Thirty-four military bases shut down since 1988 are on the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund list of worst toxic waste sites - most of them for at least 15 years - and not one is completely cleaned up. As the latest base-closing commission begins its work, an examination by The Associated Press shows EPA concerned with incomplete pollution cleanups at more than 100 Defense Department facilities. Other military-related cleanups are being led solely by states. Of the $23.3 billion in costs from four previous rounds of base closures and realignments, the Pentagon has spent $8.3 billion so far on pollution cleanups and other compliance with environmental laws, congressional investigators say. EPA officials say it will be at least a decade before many are completed - at a cost the government estimates will reach an additional $3.6 billion. They anticipate more military facilities will be added to the Superfund list after the newest round of base closings is completed. The Pentagon plans to give a list of recommendations to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission on Friday, the first major step in the process. ``A large majority of these (Superfund) sites will have all the remedies in place by 2015,'' said Jim Woolford, head of EPA's Federal Facilities Restoration &Reuse Office. ``It may take longer to remove them from the list because of groundwater contamination or unexploded ordnance.'' However, it is the cleanups still under way that pose the most frequent obstacles to the Pentagon's ability to cut costs by converting an installation to other uses. Hard-to-remove contaminants include trichloroethylene, a cleaning solvent linked to cancer, as well as asbestos-tainted soil, radioactive materials and leaded paint. ``The environmental issues, including what type of cleanup needs to be done, have been the main holdup on all of these places,'' Pentagon spokesman Glenn Flood said. ``We'll get it done, but it's going to take time in some cases as we work with the communities.'' For the Air Force, 98 percent of the delays in transferring 24,000 acres from military hands are due to environmental issues. For the Army, it's 82 percent of 101,000 acres. For the Navy, it's 65 percent of almost 13,000 acres, says the General Accountability Office. The GAO, Congress' investigative arm, found the Defense Department has saved $29 billion, and can expect to save $7 billion more, from the closures. About 72 percent of the property has been unloaded, but 28 percent remains in federal hands ``due primarily to the need for environmental cleanup,'' the GAO said in a report this month. The Pentagon insists progress is being made but that it takes time to involve communities. ``You don't know what you have until you do a thorough examination, and it can result in some delays,'' Flood said. ``It's never going to be fast enough for some communities.'' Flood said the base closures actually speed decontamination. ``We have to clean them up whether they close them or not. With BRAC, they just move to the head of the line,'' he said. Since the Superfund program began in 1980 to clean up the nation's most hazardous waste sites, base closure commissions in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995 made recommendations that led Congress to shut down 97 bases. Twenty-eight of the 34 closed bases put onto the Superfund list were added at least 15 years ago, including 11 that went on a year before the first round of base closings. Woolford attributed the delays in finishing those cleanups to the sites' complexity. ``Unlike the typical Superfund private-party sites, these sites are much larger and will generally have more contamination, and consequently take longer to clean up,'' he said. EPA lists 10 sites with problems such as groundwater contamination not yet fully under control. Five are in California; the others are in Arizona, Florida, Tennessee and Oregon. Woolford said some of those problems are nearly fixed, but the toughest and costliest remain at California's McClellan Air Force Base, in Sacramento, and Fort Ord, in Marina. ^--- On the Net: Defense environment network: http://www.denix.osd.mil EPA: http://www.epa.gov/superfund Center for Public Environmental Oversight: http://www.cpeo.org Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 55 Brattleboro Reformer: Dry cask concerns irk NRC May 12, 2005 Brattleboro, VT By CAROLYN LORIé Reformer Staff BRATTLEBORO -- In March, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was prepared to authorize design changes for a type of dry fuel storage cask made by HOLTEC International. But safety concerns raised by the New England Coalition prompted the NRC to delay making a decision. The cask in question -- HI-STORM 100 -- is the model Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee officials are proposing to use at the Vernon plant. According to Vermont Yankee spokesman Rob Williams, the company will be using the design that is already authorized and will not be affected by the proposed changes. Spent fuel at the plant is currently stored in a large pool in the reactor building, but plant officials claim it will be filled to capacity by 2008. If the NRC approves the company's request to increase power production by 20 percent the pool will be full by 2007. In order to continue operation of the nuclear reactor, large concrete casks need to be installed so that spent fuel in the pool can be moved and room made for additional assemblies. Vermont Yankee officials are in the process of negotiating an agreement on dry cask storage with state lawmakers and hope to have a final bill on the matter before the end of the legislative session. Once it is approved by the Vermont Legislature, the company must then seek approval from the Vermont Public Service Board. The issue has been a contentious one, as there are concerns about the safety of the dry casks as well as the amount of time they may spend at the plant site. According to Raymond Shadis, technical advisor to the coalition, the question over HOLTEC's proposed changes points to the uncertain future of the technology. "We don't really know what final form dry cask storage is going to take at Vermont Yankee," said Shadis. A notice posted at the Federal Register in February stated that "the NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed Certificate of Compliance amendment request [made by HOLTEC] and found that an acceptable safety margin is maintained." That position has been called into question by NRC staff, following the submission of comments by the New England Coalition. Neil Sheehan, spokesman for Region I of the NRC, said those comments would be looked at more closely before a final decision on the matter is made. Among the proposed changes is using different construction material, allowing more enriched fuel to be loaded in the casks, as well as changes in the methodology used to calculate radiation shielding and confinement. In the comments submitted by the coalition, the group criticized the data HOLTEC provided in response to NRC questions. "HOLTEC comes back with subjective, vague answers and the NRC didn't hold them to a high standard of review," said Shadis. "It is not so much that HOLTEC is wrong but that [the company] hasn't shown, by technical, defensible means, that they are right." According to Joy Russell, marketing manager for dry storage technology at HOLTEC, company officials will be meeting with the NRC on May 17 to discuss what additional information is required. Copyright ©1999-2005 New England Newspapers, Inc., ***************************************************************** 56 Manchester Evening News: Scientist quells Sellafield disaster fear Thursday, 12th May 2005 AN accident at the Sellafield nuclear complex would contaminate Ireland's environment, but the country would not suffer deaths and devastation on the scale of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, says Ireland's top nuclear expert. Dr Ann McGarry, chief of the Radiological Protection Institute, reassured members of a Dail parliament committee that the island would not be "wiped out" if dangerous radioactive material escaped from the Cumbrian plant. TDs said they feared a "doomsday scenario" in the event of explosions or a terrorist attack on Sellafield, which the Irish Government wants to be shut down. Chernobyl But Dr McGarry told the committee in Dublin: "It's certainly not the case that we would have the devastation that's within the 30km exclusion zone around Chernobyl. "Even if there was a worst-case scenario, there is no doubt that our environment would become contaminated and that it would have very serious economic consequences for us. "We would certainly suffer into the longer term, but you would not have the kind of immediate devastation and deaths in the aftermath of a nuclear accident (like Chernobyl)." Green TD Ciaran Cuffe predicted a possible "nightmare scenario" if a large aircraft crashed into huge tanks containing radioactive material. And last month Irish Environment Minister Dick Roche called on the British Government to shut Sellafield. Should we depend less on nuclear power? Have your say. © Copyright 2005 Manchester Evening News ***************************************************************** 57 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: A 'yes man' for Bush Today: May 12, 2005 at 9:07:54 PDT LAS VEGAS SUN On Tuesday Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman sat down with members of Nevada's congressional delegation to talk about the recent revelations that scientific work on the Yucca Mountain project had been falsified. When it was disclosed in March that e-mails existed that readily described doctoring quality assurance records on the Yucca Mountain project, the Nevada officials called on Bodman to shut down the program while the matter was being investigated. But Bodman refused to do so then and, during his meeting with the delegation on Tuesday, reiterated that stand. While Bodman's full-speed ahead approach is wrong, it's not altogether surprising given the Bush administration's love affair with the nuclear power industry. It is particularly ominous that Bodman told members of the congressional delegation that he wouldn't turn over some Yucca Mountain project documents that Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., has requested, documents that very well could be the undoing of this controversial program. Porter, chairman of a House subcommittee that is investigating the e-mails, is considering the possibility of issuing a congressional subpoena to obtain the records if he can't gain the cooperation of the Energy Department. "Up until this moment with the secretary, I was under the assumption that when we ask for documents and they asked for additional time, that it was in good faith," Porter said after the delegation's meeting. "It is obvious to me today that he does not have the intention of releasing documents to the committee." Indeed, Porter has been more than reasonable so far in his dealings with the Energy Department. We hope it's clear to Bodman now that Porter will move forward aggressively if the Energy Department doesn't quickly provide the congressman with the documents. We are not talking about some minor indiscretions involving a public works project; falsifying scientific work on what is supposed to be the safe burial of 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste -- man's deadliest substance -- is scandalous. The work fabricated -- dealing with how fast water can travel through the mountain and corrode waste canisters, enabling the waste to escape into the environment -- goes to the very heart of whether Yucca Mountain would be safe as a repository. As such, the falsified records should be taken seriously by the Bush administration. When the president nominated Bodman for the post in December, we wrote then that while we were not so naive as to think that the president would name an energy secretary who would suddenly reverse course on Yucca Mountain, we hoped that he would look at the project through a fresh set of eyes. Our concern was that Bodman would be just another "yes man" in a Cabinet already loaded with them, that he might not provide the president with straight talk on Yucca Mountain that was based on science. So far, with respect to Yucca Mountain and his first real test as energy secretary, Bodman is shaping up as nothing more than a "yes man." ***************************************************************** 58 RFID Journal: RFID Helps Hanford Manage Waste Bechtel Hanford has deployed an active-tag RFID system to identify a fleet of trucks and containers transporting 4,000 tons of radioactive waste daily. By Ari Juels By Mary Catherine O'Connor May 13, 2005—The environmental restoration (ER) team of Bechtel Hanford transports and secures radioactive debris at the Hanford Nuclear Site, a 586-square-mile former plutonium production facility that stretches along the Columbia River in southeastern Washington. The company recently deployed an active RFID system to automatically identify the trucks and containers used to transport the waste. And in doing so it eliminated the last manual step in its waste management tracking system. The 700-member ER team, which is operated by Bechtel, a San Francisco-based global engineering and construction firm, through a contract with the Department of Energy, extracts waste materials along a nearly 200-square-mile corridor of the Columbia river and transports them to a central landfill on the Hanford site. It moves an average of 200 truckloads, carrying a total of 4,000 tons per day. At Hanford, a Bechtel truck drives up to scale To move the loads, the ER team uses large steel containers, called cans, that attach to trucks. In total, it maintains a fleet of approximately 20 trucks and 200 cans. It is important that the ER team determine the accurate weight of each load of waste it brings to the landfill in order to keep track of the quantities of the materials being transported. This is the main reason Bechtel Hanford deployed RFID to track its trucks. This RFID data is used in combination with a bar code-based system that tracks the kinds of materials being placed in permanent storage and how they must be handled with respect to levels of hazard those pose. Prior to the RFID deployment, which was launched last week, operators had to key in the identification number of the truck and the identification number of the can for each load as it sat on a large industrial scale. The scale then used the ID numbers to call up the weight of the truck and the can when empty from an Oracle database. It determines the net weight of the load by subtracting the weight of the truck and empty can from the gross weight. Now, active tags from AXCESSattached to the trucks and cans transmit these ID numbers to a reader that is linked, through a serial connection, to the scale. This saves the operator from having to key in the ID and avoids any inaccurate load weights that could results from keying in incorrect IDs. The active tags are designed by AXCESS, using a Texas Instrumentsmicroprocessor. They have a range of approximately 100 feet and operate at 315 MHz. As the trucks approach the weigh station, an activator excites the tags attached to the truck and can, using a 126 kHz signal. With the tags now transmitting, antennas placed around the scale transmit the signals to AXCESS reader, which sends the tag data to the scale. All of the AXCESS hardware is designed by AXCESS and manufactured through contractors. Steve Teller, an IT manager with Bechtel Automation Technology, directed the RFID deployment. He and his team began attaching the tags to the trucks and cans, installed the activator, reader and its antennas in January of this year. The most difficult part, he says, was determining the optimal placement of the tags on the cans. "We use cans with four different designs. If you look at them, you wouldn't think the designs are very different, but those little differences become big differences when you're using RFID, because the radio waves are bouncing off everything," he says. After Teller and his team optimized the placement of the tags, he called a team of AXCESS technicians out to Hanford to help optimize the functionality of the antennas. Turns out the receiving antenna was missing a grounding plate. With that in place, the AXCESS system is now operating at 95 to 98 percent successful read rate. Members of the ER team keep track the makeup of the waste materials, including levels of radionuclides, in each load, as well as the exact location from which it was taken, by inputting that data into a program that prints the waste profile of each load on bar coded paperwork, which the truck operators carry with each load. After the truck and can have been identified and weighed, the operators scan the bar code on the paperwork associated with the load using a scanner link to the scale. A computer monitor at the scale guides them through the process and alerts them to whether the RFID tags have been successfully read (if they are not read, the truck and can IDs are keyed into the scale). A software application, written by Teller's team with the help of the scale manufacturer, Cardinal, integrates the bar code and RFID data into the Oracle database. It is important to know the types of waste that each can carries so that operators can clean the can appropriately before using it to haul another load. As each load is placed in the landfill, operators using handheld computers scan the bar code on the paperwork one last time. At the end of each day, the data on the handheld is downloaded into the main database to produce a complete record, "from cradle-to-grave," of each load of waste, says Teller. Because Hanford does not send any of its waste materials to other sites or accept waste from other nuclear facilities, the AXCESS deployment will remain a closed-loop system for the foreseeable future. However, Bechtel does operate other remediation contracts at other nuclear facilities, and Teller says there could be applications for similar deployments at those sites in the future. He says he's pleased with the overall performance and durability of the AXCESS readers and tags and that he picked AXCESS out of a number of other active RFID providers because its products had been deploy for vehicle ID in a range of industries. "There were other companies that had a lot of experience in single industries," says Teller. "I wanted a company that had a lot of different kinds of experience deploying RFID in the field." © 2005 RFID Journal Inc. ***************************************************************** 59 Bangornews.com: Defending the environment - [Bangordailynews.com] Thursday, May 12, 2005 - Bangor Daily News In a flier encouraging local bases to plan Earth Day activities, the Army touted its concern for the environment. “The Army is committed to total compliance with environmental laws,” the flier listed among “Army Earth Day Messages.” What the flier didn’t note is that the Department of Defense has repeatedly tried to exempt itself from a half dozen major environmental laws. Fortunately, Maine Sen. Susan Collins, a member of the Armed Services Committee, has vehemently opposed such exemptions. She will do so again this year when the department, for the third time, asks to be exempted from the Clean Air Act, the Superfund law and a solid waste disposal law as part of the 2006 Defense Authorization bill. The committee is expected to take up the bill, which currently does not include the exemptions, this week. The Defense Department says that such laws hamper its readiness. How-ever, the Government Accountability Office and the Environmental Protection Agency have not found this to be the case. “Our analysis of readiness reports from active duty units in fiscal year 2001 showed that very few units reported being unable to achieve combat-ready status due to inadequate training areas,” the GAO wrote. Two years ago, when the Defense Department asked for exemptions from five environmental laws, then EPA administrator Christie Todd Whitman told Congress, “I don’t believe there is a training mission anywhere in the country that is being held up or not taking place because of environmental protection regulation.” Even the Earth Day flier notes that “environmental dollars enhance readiness and quality of life.” Still Defense, which controls 25 million acres across the country, persists in arguing that it can’t follow environmental laws. Exempting the military from these three laws would mean that spent munitions, including chemical and depleted uranium weapons, could be left on the ground where they can leak. Further, if such contaminants found their way into groundwater, the EPA and state would be powerless to force the military to correct the situation. That’s why the American Waterworks Association, a group of drinking water utilities, is opposed to the exemptions. The legislative changes Defense is seeking “undermine the ability of water systems to provide Americans with clean, safe drinking water,” the group wrote earlier this month. Sen. Collins has been successful in keeping such exemptions out of defense authorization bills for two years. She is right to again insist that the military meet environmental laws. She can hold the Army to another one of its Earth Day talking points, which says “The Army is committed to environmental stewardship in all actions.” Bangornews.com Staff [Bangor Daily News logo] ©2005 All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 60 Whitehaven News: BNFL DENIES LEAK FEARS OVER CLEAN-UP BNFL has denied there is any risk of an uncontrolled release of radioactivity if anything goes badly wrong in clearing up the Thorp leak. The company this week dismissed anti-nuclear claims of a potential “criticality” which could result in large amounts of radioactivity escaping on and off the Sellafield site. “Obviously we have done our assessments in preparing a safety case for the clean up,” said spokeswoman Ali McKibbin. “A criticality is an uncontrolled release but there is no potential criticality risk and this is due to the low enrichment of the radioactive liquor we have to recover from the cell floor,” Work is well under way to lower radiation levels in the affected part of the Thorp plant. The complicated clean-up cannot start until the stock of radioactive material in the Head-End has been reduced. Some tanks are being emptied to make way for the liquor which has to be recovered. All the liquor, a mixture of uranium and plutonium, has to be removed from a contained cell which BNFL says was designed to deal with such a leak. No radioactivity escaped into the plant and no workers were affected. On a report in The Guardian that the liquor contained enough plutonium to make 20 nuclear weapons, Mrs McKibbin said: “The plutonium is in a very diluted form and is not weapons grade, hardly accessible to make bombs.” She also stressed that once recovered all the leaked material would be sent on to the chemical plants for reprocessing without any need for it to stored until pipework in the cell had been repaired. BNFL has also rejected as “nonsense” another claim that the leak was big enough to fill an Olympic-size swimming pool. “This is just not true. An Olympic pool is at least 50 metres long, 25 metres wide and two metres deep, and to fill half of it would involve 2,500 cubic metres of liquid. What we are dealing with is 83 cubic metres, a 30th of what is being claimed,” says the company. Thorp is expected to be closed for months due to the nature of the work. ***************************************************************** 61 Whitehaven News: TARTAN WASTE FLOW CHECKED OBJECTORS, including Copeland councillors, have welcomed a decision not to allow Scottish, or so-called tartan nuclear waste, to come to West Cumbria. Scottish Environment Minister, Ross Finnie, last week decided to stop plans to move low-level radioactive waste from Dounreay to Cumbria. The issue generated cross-border acrimony, with local councillors fearing Scotland would take a decision regardless of English protests. But Scottish ministers have directed the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) to refuse authorisation to dispose of solid waste at Drigg. The application was made by UKAEA. The decision means Dounreay waste will continue to be stored on site. Confirming the decision, Mr Finnie said: "This low level waste should be dealt with at Dounreay, where it is produced”. He added that they intended developing a low-level waste facility there. ***************************************************************** 62 Whitehaven News: SELLAFIELD’S NEW EXCELLENCE CENTRE IS FIRST IN UK THE United Kingdom’s first centre of vocational excellence to train both young people and adults for the nuclear industry has been set up at Sellafield. It will be run by GENII, the engineering and technology-based training organisation which trains apprentices for West Cumbrian firms, including BNFL. Sir Anthony Cleaver, chairman of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, and Mick Farley, executive director of the Learning and Skills Council, Cumbria, opened the centre (CoVE) in a plaque unveiling ceremony. Mick Farley, whose organisation has provided funding, explained: “This CoVE for nuclear engineering and technology is part of our strategy to ensure local people have the skills needed as the nuclear industry moves from operation to decommissioning. It will be a key element in ensuring that West Cumbria becomes a focus for skills training for the industry across the UK”. Mike Smith, GENII’s managing director, said: “This is a significant achievement for us. As the only CoVE in the UK to specialise in nuclear engineering and technology we are well equipped with the necessary skills and resources for the future training needs of the nuclear industry. We are delighted that Sir Anthony Clever has been able to open the centre, it clearly demonstrates the commitment and importance the NDA places on the skills agenda and the future of our Cumbrian workforce”. A special rig has been set up in Sellafield’s training centre building for skills to be learned and developed under simulated conditions. Money from the Ł500,000 worth of funding has also been invested into a computer-based training programme which will provide NVQ level 2 qualification in nuclear decommissioning. GENII apprentices and also adults employed in the nuclear industry will be able to use the CoVE to learn new skills. ***************************************************************** 63 Las Vegas SUN: Congressional panel promotes interim storage for nuclear waste By ERICA WERNER ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) - A House spending panel is directing the Energy Department to start sending nuclear waste to an interim storage site next year, a shift from the Bush administration's focus on the troubled Yucca Mountain dump in Nevada. Rep. David Hobson, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water, included $10 million for the effort in a spending bill the subcommittee passed on Thursday. The legislation, approved by voice vote, directs the department to select one or more aboveground sites that will be ready in 2006 to accept some of the thousands of tons of commercial reactor fuel and defense waste now accumulating in 39 states. Hobson said he remains committed to Yucca Mountain, the planned underground dump for the nation's nuclear waste, but that delays to the project have made interim storage necessary. The bill does not specify a storage site. Yucca Mountain has endured a string of problems. The most recent concerned allegations that government workers on the project falsified data. Also, the department recently abandoned a 2010 completion date and did not set a new one. The government is facing billions of dollars in potential liability from nuclear utilities because it promised to start accepting their waste in 1998, but failed to make good. "I'm trying to bridge that gap between the time that Yucca Mountain opens," Hobson, R-Ohio, told reporters after the subcommittee vote. "We're incurring a lot of litigation when we don't get the spent fuel rods out from these power plants like we said we were going to do," he said. "This way we could eliminate that, cut down on the security problems they have, and put them into some aboveground sites." Hobson's bill still grants President Bush's 2006 spending request for Yucca Mountain. Bush proposed $651 million in his budget plan released in February; Hobson's subcommittee would fund the project at $661 million, with the additional money going for the interim storage plan. An Energy Department spokeswoman said the department remains focused on Yucca Mountain, which was approved by Congress in 2002 to store 77,000 tons of nuclear waste beneath the desert 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. "We are reviewing the legislation, but obviously we are continuing to work toward a permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain," Anne Womack Kolton said. In the Senate, Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., favors legislation to permanently leave nuclear waste at the reactor sites where it now sits. --- On the Net: Energy Department's Yucca Mountain site: House Appropriations Committee: -- ***************************************************************** 64 Guardian Unlimited: UC Gets Partners for Possible Nuke Lab Bid From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday May 12, 2005 1:31 AM By MICHELLE LOCKE Associated Press Writer BERKELEY, Calif. (AP) - University of California officials said Wednesday they will team with engineering powerhouse Bechtel and other industrial partners in preparation for a possible bid to remain manager of the Los Alamos nuclear weapons lab. The university, which has run Los Alamos for decades, hasn't decided whether it will submit a bid. The announcement the university had acquired industrial partners was a key step in the process, however. Bechtel National Inc. will be leader of a team that includes BWX Technologies Inc., and Washington Group International. In a statement, UC President Robert C. Dynes said the agreement melds ``the expertise of the largest public research institution in the world with a seasoned team of contractors.'' UC ``recognized it needed to make major changes in how it manages (Los Alamos), and bringing in industrial partners with the skill sets of Bechtel National, Washington Group, and BWXT will accomplish this,'' Dynes said. The university has run the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico since it was founded to work on the atomic bomb in World War II. But the university's role as national nuclear steward came under attack after a series of management and security lapses - leading the Department of Energy to announce it would call for bids when the management contract expired this year. Lockheed Martin Corp., which runs Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, and defense contractor Northrop Grumman have announced they will go after the contract. UC's governing Board of Regents hasn't decided whether to compete for the job, and won't take a vote until the Energy Department issues final specifications for the job, something that's not expected to happen until later this month. But the board has instructed staff to proceed as though they will bid for the management contract. UC Regents Chairman Gerald Parsky praised the new team, but said any bidding decision will hinge on whether the DOE's final job description ensures that science and technology remain the foundation of the laboratory's work. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 65 Oakland Tribune: UC-Bechtel venture sets up epic lab fight Article Last Updated: 05/12/2005 04:11:54 AM Supporters say alliance more than capable of fending off Lockheed bid for Los Alamos By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER With University of California and Bechtel Corp. teaming up against giant defense contractors for control of the nation's largest nuclear-weapons lab, scientists say the U.S. Department of Energy and Congress have gotten what they wanted — a tough fight. The winning prize is $60 million a year — eight times what UC is paid now — and the prestige of running Los Alamos National Laboratory, plus patent royalties, new business opportunities in defense and intelligence and more. The burden of the victor is answering loud, persistent calls in Congress for a better-managed, safer and more secure laboratory. For at least a decade, Congress has demanded more than UC could deliver on the ground in New Mexico. Lockheed Martin, the nation's largest defense firm, and Northrop Grumman, the third largest, are building teams to challenge UC for the Los Alamos contract. Lockheed has tapped the head of Sandia National Laboratories, veteran weapons-lab executive C. Paul Robinson, as leader of its bid and, if it wins, director of Los Alamos. That sets up a titanic, high-stakes fight for operation of the lab responsible for most of the nuclear explosives in the U.S. arsenal, and virtually no one is offering odds on the winner. Yale University Dean of Engineering Paul Fleury, a former Sandia executive, said the Robinson-led Lockheed team will be "very formidable." "This could be a real competition," he said. "I wouldn't predict how it would come out." Robert Foley, the retired admiral and vice president of lab management for UC, crowed about UC's chances. The team includes nuclear-operations experts BWXT, the engineering firm Washington Group International and a consortium of all three major New Mexico universities. "These are all first-round draft choices, a terrific team," Foley said. "Anyone who says, 'University of California, you have a reason to be worried about Lockheed Martin,' the answer is, I think it's the other way around. They have a real problem with us and our team." In the end, most or all of the teams are expected to have three elements: nationally recognized talent in science or academia, industrial experience in day-to-day operations and management of large projects and experience in manufacturing or at least handling dangerous nuclear components. Political connections don't hurt. Both U.S. senators from New Mexico and a House member from California applauded the UC-Bechtel partnership, announced Wednesday. U.S. Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Alamo, said that kind of public-private partnership "provides the best of both worlds for the lab." "I have always supported competition to ensure the best possible leadership at our nation's nuclear labs, the pursuit of great science," Tauscher said, "and I believe the UC's 60-year record of service shows they can compete and win." Sen. Pete Domenici, chairman of the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations committee, which funds the weapons labs, praised UC's scientific record. "By partnering with a group headed by Bechtel National, UC is bringing a strong management team with extensive experience managing challenging projects on board," he said in a statement. "I welcome the UC-Bechtel bid and am pleased with the high level of competition and quality of announced bids so far to manage the lab." Outside of Northrop Grumman, all of the likely bidders so far are players in the U.S. nuclear-weapons complex, and for that reason, some observers doubt the competition will alter Los Alamos' overwhelming emphasis on bomb work or result in more diversification of its science. But some wonder what the Energy Department is getting for inflating the contract fee. Philip Coyle, a former UC weapons lab executive and former testing chief for the Pentagon, worries that private industry is looking to nuclear-weapons research for profits. "That shouldn't be the reason why you run a nuclear weapons lab," he said. "Truth, integrity and public service should come first." Many lawmakers and government officials presume that a rigorous competition will result in a better lab. "We won't really know until we see the outcome," says MIT anthropologist Hugh Gusterson, who studies weapons scientists, "But it sure will be fun to watch." Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com. © 2005 ANG Newspapers ***************************************************************** 66 lamonitor.com: Cleanup job may stay in LANL contract The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS, , Monitor Assistant Editor While the large institutions that are stalking the LANL management contract await the Department of Energy's release of the request for proposal, one key revision under consideration was divulged to New Mexico Environment Secretary Ron Curry this week. A letter to Curry from Tyler Przybylek on Monday said the National Nuclear Security Administration, which had planned to award a separate contract for environmental cleanup at the laboratory would, instead, "keep the full cleanup scope within the mission of the new Contractor selected to manage and operate LANL, unless the contracting officer directs the contractor otherwise." NMED had submitted comments to NNSA in March expressing disappointment that the draft RFP did not contain any criteria for environmental cleanup. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************