*****************************************************************
05/16/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.112
*****************************************************************
   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 [NukeNet] Iran parliament urges "peaceful" nuclear use
2 Xinhua: UK expresses cautiousness on forthcoming nuclear talks with 
3 Xinhua: Iran's parliament votes for nuclear development   
4 Scoop: Can The World Live With Iran's Nuclear Weapons?
5 Hankyoreh: Editorial: Intra-Korean Talks After 10 Months
6 Korea Herald: Seoul plans 'important proposals'   
7 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Chosun Ilbo-CSIS Seminar to Look at U.S.'
8 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. Chief N.Korea Negotiator ¡®Tired of 
9 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: South offers North payoff for 6-way talks
10 BBC: N Korea 'in urgent need of food'
11 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: White House Clings to N.K. Nuke Test Stor
12 Korea Times: Chung Expresses Hopes for S-N Talks 
13 Korea Times: US Eyes Kaesong for Nuke Talks Breakthrough 
14 Guardian Unlimited: Two Koreas Resume Nuke Talks After Hiatus
15 Guardian Unlimited: Seoul hints at new disarmament proposal for Nort
16 US: Renewing the Earth
17 US: Register-Guard: No waivers for military: Pentagon seeks new envi
18 US: Deseretnews: Bennett's trips a bit pricey? 
19 csmonitor.com: Recovering From Nuclear Lies
20 [NukeNet] Clearance Law Passed
21 ITAR-TASS: Nuclear engineers from India arrive in Russia for consult
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
22 [NukeNet] Helen Caldicott Re NPPs Not As Cure To Global
23 US: Dr. Helen Caldicott on Bush's Nuclear Danger - free access to
24 US: [NukeNet] INPO downgrades Hope Creek's rating
25 US: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda
26 US: Platts: NRC to implement IAEA rules on radioactive materials
27 Oregon Daily Emerald: A 'peak' into oil's future
28 BBC NEWS: Is Britain's future really nuclear?
29 BBC: Scientists switch on power probe
30 BBC: The nuclear debate
31 BBC: Poll shows opposition to
32 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point prepares dry-cask storage system
33 Xinhua: Jilin in running for nuclear plant   
34 US: NRC: Draft Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability
35 Japan Times: Sharper sense of nuclear safety
36 Channelnewsasia.com: France's Alstom wins China nuclear power deal 
37 Scotsman News: Poll Opposes Nuclear Power as Energy Source
38 US: First Coast News: Beyond BRAC: The Future Is Nuclear            
39 Scotsman: News: Scotland faces 40% slump in electricity supply
40 Helsingin Sanomat: Two new reactors planned for Russian nuclear plan
41 Taipei Times: Go nuclear to save the UK 
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
42 St. Petersburg Times: Deputies Say Adamov Could Spark Revolt 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
43 US: [du-list] Mass. Superfund site work stalled
44 US: [du-list] Protesting with art: theater, magic and poetry
45 US: [du-list] US: Depleted uranium victims plead for
46 [du-list] Iraqi Women Under US Occupation; Soaring birth
47 Scotsman News: British Atomic Bomb Victim Added to Nagasaki Memorial
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
48 [du-list] Close nuclear leak plant for good, says Sellafield
49 Bellona: Thorp leak officially ranked a “serious incident” as UK mul
50 CEN News: Nuclear dump plan for area
51 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada Senate passes measure denouncing nuclear dump
52 KRNV: Nevada lawmakers face another bill-passage deadline
53 News & Star: BNFL say clean-up is safe
54 Guardian Unlimited: Reprocessing the nuclear debate
 
                           PEACE
 
55 US: Las Vegas SUN: Letter: 'Bunker-busting' nuclear weapon is not ne
56 Japan Times: Braking an arms free-for-all
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
57 Department of Energy: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda
58 KRQE News 13: LANL cleanup to be responsibility of main contractor
59 WATE: Take first peek at $1.4 billion Oak Ridge research facility
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 [NukeNet] Iran parliament urges "peaceful" nuclear use
 
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:37:24 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

Sun, May. 15, 2005

Iran parliament urges peaceful nuclear use

ALI AKBAR DAREINI

Associated Press

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's conservative-dominated parliament on Sunday approved 
a bill pressuring the government to pursue "peaceful use" of nuclear 
energy, including uranium enrichment. The bill doesn't force the government 
to immediately resume uranium enrichment but it brings greater pressure on 
it not to give up its controversial nuclear program.

The legislation comes at a delicate time, with Iran announcing that it's 
planning to resume uranium reprocessing activities and the European Union 
threatening to take Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible 
sanctions if it does.

"The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is required to pursue, 
within the framework of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty ... to enable 
the country to make peaceful use of nuclear energy, including the cycle of 
nuclear fuel," the legislation said.

The legislation was approved by 188 out of 205 deputies who attended 
Sunday's parliamentary session.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters Sunday that Iran 
has decided to give negotiations with the Europeans a "last chance" before 
it resumes uranium reprocessing activities at Isfahan Uranium Conversion 
Facility in central Iran.

Iran and the Europeans, according to the spokesman, were considering 
convening a meeting between the foreign ministers of Britain, France and 
Germany and Iran's top nuclear negotiator Hasan Rowhani to try and defuse 
the looming crisis.

"Time is passing fast," Asefi told a news conference. "What will happen in 
the upcoming days will be the last chance for Europeans."

Asefi said Iran has postponed the resumption of uranium reprocessing at the 
request of many governments around the world, including European Union 
member states, to give dialogue a last chance to succeed. He, however, 
insisted that Tehran will eventually resume nuclear work with or without 
agreement with the Europeans.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he would support referring Iran to 
the U.N. Security Council if it breaches its nuclear obligations, sending a 
strong warning after Tehran threatened to restart a program that officials 
fear could produce a nuclear bomb.

France, Britain and Germany, acting on behalf of the 25-nation European 
Union, want Tehran to abandon its enrichment activities in exchange for 
economic aid, technical support and backing for Iran's efforts to join 
mainstream international organizations.

Iran says it won't give up its right under Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 
to enrich uranium, but is prepared to offer guarantees that its nuclear 
program won't be diverted toward weapons.

The U.S. accused Tehran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to 
build nuclear weapons. Tehran has denied the charges, saying its nuclear 
program is geared merely to generate electricity, not producing weapons.

To avoid referral to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions, Iran 
agreed to suspend actual uranium enrichment at its Natanz uranium 
enrichment plant in 2003.



_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 2 Xinhua: UK expresses cautiousness on forthcoming nuclear talks with Iran   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-05-17 01:52:22   

    LONDON, May 16 (Xinhuanet) -- Britain's Foreign Secretary
Jack Straw on Monday expressed cautiousness over forthcoming
nuclear talks with Iran. 

    According to the reports by Iran's IRNA news agency, Iranian
Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said that the next round of
nuclear negotiations between Iran and the European Union (EU)
was slated on May 23, and the place of negotiations had not yet
been determined yet. 

    But as for the outcome of the forthcoming talks, Straw told
a news conference in London he remained cautiously hopeful.
"There have been many predictions that these discussions might
fail in the past, so far, despite the difficulties, which are as
everybody understands made trickier by the impending
Presidential elections in Iran on 17 June, I remain cautiously
hopeful." Straw said. 

    "What we seek is a pathway by which Iran is able to do that
to which it is entitled, namely to generate electricity by means
of nuclear energy, at the same time as there are very clear
objective guarantees that Iran is not using its nuclear program
as a cover to build a nuclear weapons program." Straw said.
Britain, France and Germany are acting on behalf of the
25-nation European Union in negotiations with Iran to seek its
guarantees that it will not use its nuclear program to make
weapons, as Washington suspects. Enditem 
    
  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 3 Xinhua: Iran's parliament votes for nuclear development   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-05-16 19:42:36   

    BEIJING, May 16 -- Iran's parliament has voted to compel the
government to develop a nuclear fuel cycle. The action is
opposed by Washington, which fears Iran could be seeking atomic
weapons. 

    The vote ratchets up the pressure on Iran's 11th-hour talks
with France, Germany and Britain. 

    The EU trio won a suspension of Iran's nuclear fuel cycle
last year, clearing the way for talks that aim to assuage fears
on Tehran's atomic ambitions. A Foreign Ministry spokesman said
on Sunday there was no alternative but to do what parliament had
decided. Iran insists its nuclear fuel is needed only for power
stations, and not for weapons. 

    (Source: CCTV.com)   

    
  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.


*****************************************************************
 4 Scoop: Can The World Live With Iran's Nuclear Weapons?
 
Tuesday, 17 May 2005, 10:23 am
Article: Maryam Namazie            

TV International English

In January 2005 David Bell, a School Inspector, delivered a
speech which was published in the Guardian about the rise in the
number of religious schools in the UK. His comments have raised
opposition by the Institute of Islamic Organisations in the UK. 

Bahram Soroush: You may have heard statements by David Bell and
also the response by the Institute of Islamic Organisations in
the UK. They have said he is picking on Islamic schools. Do you
think this is discrimination? 

Azar Majedi: No I don’t. Actually my position is to ban all
religious schools. I think education must be separate from
religion and the church. It is a positive move to investigate
faith schools, from a children’s rights point of view. It is of
no surprise to me that they have found shortcomings in Islamic
schools. I think it will probably be more or less the same with
other religious schools. But perhaps other religious schools try
to follow the national curriculum and standards more. Islamic
schools are more into religious teachings than the regular
curriculum. 

Bahram Soroush: So you feel that religious schools altogether
across the board should be banned?

Azar Majedi: Yes. They must be banned and education must be
separated from religion and the church. Universal laws and
standards are the basis of a civil society that respects human
rights and the equality of all the citizens. Separation of
religion from the state and education is the basis of a secular
society, where free thinking is respected and encouraged.
Religion, in my opinion, is permeated with superstition and
contradicts the scientific achievements of humanity. For all
these reasons religious schools must be banned. 

Furthermore, all religions are patriarchal and sexist. As it
regards Islam, it is well-known for its sexist codes and rules.
This is so because Islam has not historically been challenged or
reformed, as it is the case with Christianity. The development
of capitalism in the west resulted in significant social
upheavals, of which the French revolution is the most
influential. These upheavals challenged Christianity in
different aspects and reduced its grip on the society and
polished its most crude prejudices. When it comes to gender
issues and sexual equality, religion has a negative effect.
Religious schools, not only do not promote sexual equality, they
reinforce sexism and encourage a sexual division of labour and
differential gender roles. Islamic schools are segregated and
promote totally different roles for girls in society and
restrict girls from many activities. Finally, these schools are
more a place for indoctrination than scientific teachings. By
allowing religious schools to function, we are discriminating
against a section of society, and we are setting double
standards.

Bahram Soroush: In that case what do say to this argument that
we should look after children’s and pupils’ religious needs and
that is why we have faith schools?

Azar Majedi: I don’t believe children have any religious needs.
When it is talked about children’s religious needs, it actually
means their parents’ need to indoctrinate their children.
“Children have no religion”; they happen to be born in a family
with a particular religion. I believe there should be no
official religious teachings to children. Once they become of
age, then they can decide whether they like to pursue a
particular faith or not. I strongly believe that religious
teaching to children is indoctrination, like exposing them to
any particular ideology. Therefore, it must be banned. It is
fine to teach them the history of ideas, the history of religion
but teaching religion as such should be prohibited.

Bahram Soroush: Somebody made a comment in the recent
controversy that you have children who are in a religious family
and when they go to school, they go to a religious school and
they come back to a religious family. So 24 hours a day they are
confronted by religion.

Azar Majedi: I think this is a very good and valid point. This
refers to a sad reality of a life of indoctrination which is
imposed on some children. I believe this must be stopped. This
is wrong both from the child’s point of view and society’s point
of view. To deprive a child of a normal happy life and normal
education has become integrated in the society as a way of life.
It is wrong to do that. They should be integrated with other
children in the society as citizens, with children of all
backgrounds. I understand that there are families with different
religions and cultures. However, these religions and cultures
must not be imposed on the children. In societies today,
children are exposed to all kinds of religions and cultures.
They should be given the right of choice. Once they reach
adulthood, they can choose. And in any circumstance, education
must be secular and based on the latest scientific achievements.
Children should be free from religious brain washing and
teachings and preaching. 

The effect of non-secular, religious and segregated education is
very destructive on the society as a whole, and on our
children’s happy, normal life, and upbringing. 

As we can see even a school inspector has come to recognise this
fact. Of course this criticism is not radical enough (probably
they have stronger criticisms themselves). It is carefully
worded as not to “offend” any religious groups. But with a bit
of insight one can recognise the severity of the problem. I am
more concerned about the lot of these children. They are being
deprived. Their basic rights are being violated. We cannot sit
and watch. We should take action to defend the rights of these
children to a happy, normal life, to safeguard their equal
access to the world’s scientific achievements, to free-thinking,
and safeguard their integration into the society, with all other
children. 

Bahram Soroush: In a sense these children are being sent to the
religious schools by their parents and are being denied the same
rights as the children who attend the mainstream schools. What
is your view on that?

Azar Majedi: Yes that is true. Mansoor Hekmat has a very
interesting and provoking statement regarding this issue and I
have quoted it in many of my speeches and articles: “The child
has no religion, tradition, and prejudices. She has not joined
any religious sect. She is a new human being who, by accident
and irrespective of her will has been born into a family with
specific religion, tradition, and prejudices. It is indeed the
task of society to neutralise the negative effects of this blind
lottery. Society is duty-bound to provide fair and equal living
conditions for children, their growth and development, and their
active participation in social life. Anybody who should try to
block the normal social life of a child, exactly like those, who
would want to physically violate a child according to their own
culture, religion, or personal or collective complexes, should
be confronted with the firm barrier of the law and the serious
reaction of society.” 

I believe the position is very clear. We should have the
interest of the child before us. Providing a happy, normal life
for any child, and the creation of a harmonic society on the
basis of secularism i.e. separation of religion from the state,
are the right principle and the basis of a right and just
position. Respect for multi-culturalism and cultural relativism
leads to discrimination against some sections of the society,
violations of human rights for some sections, double standards,
and the creation of a disintegrated and segregated society,
where people are put into different pigeon boxes and identified
by their cultural or religious backgrounds, instead of as equal
citizens. Diversity is fine but creating boxes and stamping
people’s foreheads with their religion or their family’s or
community’s religion is wrong. Furthermore, children are not
given proper scientific education in these faith schools. They
are given a one-sided education which is more based on
superstition than science. Thus a normal life is denied from
them. 

We then come to the question of gender and sexual equality.
Faith schools in general, and Islamic and Jewish schools in
particular are based on sexist values and beliefs. In all
religious schools there is a very definite defined gender role.
Girls are considered as a whole different kind of human being
than boys. There you have gender apartheid and segregation which
is very discriminatory against girls and women. We have a long
history of fighting for women’s rights in Europe. Especially the
gender roles have been challenged significantly in the past 30
years in Western Europe. The religious schools deny that and
contradict society’s achievements. They turn the clock backward.
We should not let this happen. Bringing up children in religious
schools is wrong and has to be banned.

Bahram Soroush: Some might say fair enough, you want secular
education, that children should be left alone until they reach
the age of maturity, until they are 16, and then they can decide
what religion to have or what not to have. But they also say,
what about the rights of the parents? Don’t they have any rights
and responsibilities towards raising their children? Aren’t you
excluding them of their rights?

Azar Majedi: No, I am not excluding any one of their rights.
Parents definitely have a responsibility towards their children.
They also have some rights. These rights and responsibilities
must be defined by the society as a set of universal laws.
Parents are responsible to provide their children, in the
framework of their means, with a happy, normal and safe life.
They must provide their children with love, security and safety.
But this does not mean that if a child is born in a poor or
disadvantaged family, the society will leave the child to have
only what the parents are capable of providing. Society has a
duty toward the well being of the child. That is why there are
internationally recognised charters and declarations to
safeguard and protect children. Modern society has recognised
the need for such laws. That is why every civilised society has
laws regarding obligatory education, prohibition of child
labour, criminalising physical and sexual abuse of a child and
so on. By passing such laws, the society has taken the matters
in its own hand out of the parents’ realm of rights. We are not
living in a feudal system where the parents - actually the
father - decide over the whole family’s existence. For example,
according to Islamic laws, a father or a grandfather can kill
his children without being prosecuted. This is a law in some
countries. Modern, civil society has abolished this right. I
want to say rights are not absolute and ahistorical. Each
society must define these laws according to the well being of
children and in light of children’s interests. In my opinion,
indoctrination of children is one of those so-called rights that
must be taken away from parents. Education must be standardised
and universal for every child in a given society.

What I am trying to say is that there is a responsibility by the
society towards children as much as there is parents’
responsibility towards children. That happy, normal and secure
life that I was talking about is partly society’s responsibility
in all aspects: economically and education wise. The society
will not leave it to the parents just because the children are
born in a particular family to teach them whatever they want and
brain wash them with superstition. There is actually a law and a
limited safeguard that the society offers to children if the
parents are abusive. Society would intervene and take the
child’s side.

I think abuse is understood as merely sexual or physical and
verbal violence whereas indoctrination and brain washing of
children with superstition and prejudgments must also be
recognised as abuse. Inflicting or imposing religious or
cultural customs upon children that hinder healthy physical and
mental development must be considered as abuse. I consider child
veiling as a serious violation of children rights. In the same
token, sending children to religious schools is a serious
violation of their rights.

Bahram Soroush: It particularly affects the girls. Doesn’t it?

Azar Majedi: It does. Religion by its nature and as an ideology
is very much sexist and male chauvinist. Christianity has been
challenged in the 18 and 19th century, from the French
revolution to the transformation of the European society from a
feudal society to a capitalist system. It has been pushed back
in the society and is more or less behaving itself. Islam
however, has not gone through the same process. Islam has never
been dealt with like this in the societies that it was born in.
Islam has never been challenged in this way, has never been
pushed back from the society. Moreover, for the past 3 decades a
political movement has been born and developed, which takes its
ideology and policy from Islam and is very reactionary, i.e.
political Islam. This movement is not only religious but also
political. We can see what political Islam is doing, gaining
more and more inroads in western society as well. We know
Islam’s record, what Islam says; it is written black on white
and we know how male chauvinistic and sexist it is. Gender
apartheid is the basis of Islam. The veiling of children and
many other abuses should be stopped. If you expose a girl or
even a boy to that culture and education, you are actually
depriving these children of a humane life, especially the girls.
Islamic schools must be stopped because this gender
discrimination is embedded in Islam.

TV International interview dated January 2005. Bahram Soroush
hosted the programme whilst Maryam Namazie was away.

* See International TV English with Maryam Namazie

Week beginning Sunday May 15, 2005 Programme 

Maryam Namazie is back hosting her weekly TV International
programme (www.anternasional.tv/english). In this week’s
programme of May 15, 2005, she interviews Azar Majedi on whether
the world can live with Iran's nuclear weapons, Bahram Soroush
on our being labelled Islamophobic, and Hamid Taqvaee on the two
poles of international terrorism.

TV International English is a weekly hour-long news analysis and
commentary programme that focuses on the Middle East and rights
and freedoms from a progressive and Left standpoint. Watch TV
International English every Sunday from 11.00 - 12.00pm Tehran
time (7.30-8.30pm London time). The programme is broadcast on
Satellite: Telstar 12, Centre Frequency: 12608 MHz, Symbol Rate:
19279, FEC: 2/3, Polarization: Horizontal. It an also be viewed
on its website: http://www.anternasional.tv/english.

*****************************************************************
 5 Hankyoreh: Editorial: Intra-Korean Talks After 10 Months

Updated : May.17.2005 06:32 KST     [ border=]   

Vice-ministerial talks between North and South Korea have begun
in Gaeseong. Intra-Korean talks have been stalled since last
July because of the South's decision not to allow a visit on the
occasion of the 10th anniversary of the death of North Korea's
president Kim Il Sung and because of the arrival of a massive
number of defectors. It is symbolic that the talks are opening
in Gaeseong [Kaesong], where the industrial complex project
jointly pursued by North and South has been going well recently. 

The talks are also significant in that they become the point of
departure for intra-Korean dialogue for the second half of Roh
Moo Hyun's government. We hope to see the last 10 months be like
the fertilizer for a new leap forward, just like as in the
expression "buds sprout after rain," and next month will be the
sixth anniversary of the historical intra-Korean summit. The
North appears to have proposed this meeting because it has an
urgent need for fertilizer aid and to lessen the pressure by
neighboring nations regarding the nuclear issue. The South, for
its part, needs to concentrate on growing a larger framework for
progress in intra-Korean relations, rather than challenging the
North on its motives for talks. For example, once the South has
decided to provide fertilizer for humanitarian reasons, no other
conditions should be made. 

People will be watching these talks so see whether they are a
stop on the way back to the six-party talks. While they are
formally a different venue, in terms of content they are closely
related. The fact that government-to-government contact stopped
immediately after the last round of six-party talks ended in
June of last year reflects that. The South's delegation needs to
persuade the North of the fact that progress in the intra-Korean
relationship will inevitably be held back unless the nuclear
issue is resolved, and that progress in the relationship will
make resolving the nuclear issue easier. Of course the South
should not pressure the North unreasonably about participating
in the six-party talks and by doing so harm the immediate
intra-Korean dialogue. 

Government-to-government talks take on the character of a part
of the long process of reunification. That is why there needs to
be persistent work with a long-term perspective, and to avoid
getting upset over smaller forms of discord and differences of
opinion. 

The Hankyoreh, 17 May 2005. 

[Translations by Seoul Selection(EIP)] 
Copyright 2005 Hankyoreh Plus inc.   
*****************************************************************
 6 Korea Herald: Seoul plans 'important proposals'   

 (smjoo@heraldm.com) By Joo Sang-min and Joint press corps 

2005.05.17

South urges N. Korea to return to six-party table to discuss nuke 
issue 

GAESEONG - South Korea said yesterday it will spell out 
"important proposals" for a breakthrough in resolving the 
30-month old nuclear standoff if North Korea returns to the 
six-party talks, stalled since last June because of an indefinite 
boycott by Pyongyang.

 In the first inter-Korean talks held in 10 months, the 
vice-ministerial level three-member South Korean delegation 
strongly urged the North to abandon its nuclear weapons program, 
saying it will only isolate the communist state, undermine the 
North's efforts to revive its moribund economy, and weaken 
momentum for inter-Korean economic cooperation. 

"The denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula agreed between the 
two Koreas must be maintained and if not, neither inter-Korean 
collaboration nor reconciliation nor cooperation will be 
possible," said Vice Unification Minister Rhee Bong-jo, who led 
the South Korean delegation at the talks in Janamsan Hotel in the 
northern border town of Gaeseong. 

  Chief South Korean negotiator Rhee Bong-jo (right) shakes hands 
with his North Korean counterpart Kim Man-gil before they opened 
the first inter-Korean talks in 10 months in Gaeseong, North 
Korea, yesterday. [Joint press corps]  

 The vice minister underscored the government's serious will to 
resolve the issue. 

"If the six-party talks are resumed, the talks should not be just 
for talks themselves. There should be some practical progress. To 
that end, the South has been preparing to draft practical 
proposals, and will propose them to the North when the talks are 
resumed," Lee said. 

But he refused to be specific, saying details will be made public 
after consultations with other countries involved in the 
multinational discussion. 

The North Korean negotiators listened to Seoul's plea to return 
to the six-party negotiations, but refrained from commenting on 
the nuclear issue, Lee said.

 North Korea's head negotiator Kim Man-gil called for 
inter-Korean collaboration, a phrase often used by the communist 
country to oppose Washington influence on the peninsula.

 The South, along with the United States, China, Japan and Russia 
has long been urging the North to come back to the negotiating 
table. Coincidentally, while the Gaeseong talks were being held, 
Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon and other ministers met in Seoul 
with the top U.S. negotiator, Assistant Secretary of State 
Christopher Hill, to discuss ways of getting the North to 
cooperate.

 South Korea had proposed to the North during the last, third 
rounds of six-party talks that it will provide food and energy 
aid if the North dismantles its nuclear weapons program. 

"The important proposals might be related to more robust economic 
cooperation and energy aid in terms which do not hamper 
Washington," Park Young-ho, a senior researcher at Korea 
Institute for National Unification, said in a telephone 
interview. 

At the meeting, which continues today, the two Koreas discussed 
other pending issues, how to stabilize soured inter-Korean 
relations and provide fertilizer aid from the South to the 
impoverished North.

 South Korea agreed to provide the North with 200,000 tons of 
fertilizer aid via the recently reconnected rail and road links. 
Pyongyang initially asked for 500,000 tons for its spring farming 
season, and Seoul officials said the remaining amount of aid 
should be discussed further. 

South Korea has provided about 300,000 tons of fertilizer 
annually in the past via a sea route. 

The two Koreas agreed on a South Korean delegation going to 
Pyongyang on June 15 to celebrate five years since the historic 
first inter-Korean summit between former South Korean President 
Kim Dae-jung and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. 

The South Korean delegation also proposed to their northern 
counterparts that the two Koreas resume their ministerial-level 
talks in Seoul in June, suspended since last summer after 14 
rounds of such meetings. 

"To normalize inter-Korean relations, the ministerial talks 
should be resumed first. The talks are the core of keeping to the 
declaration of the inter-Korean summit talks (in 2000)," said a 
member of the South Korean negotiating team.

 The South also proposed both Koreas hold a reunion of family 
members separated in the 1950-53 Korean War on Aug. 15, a day 
marking the liberation from Japanese colonial rule between 1910 
and 1945. 

The Gaeseong meeting took place amid signs that U.S. patience 
with North Korea on the nuclear standoff is wearing thin.

 Pyongyang has been raising the stakes in the last few months. On 
Feb. 10 it announced it possesses nuclear weapons and will 
boycott the six-party talks indefinitely. 

In the last couple of weeks, there have been persistent reports 
that the North may be preparing for its first nuclear weapons 
test and Pyongyang has also announced it has unloaded 8,000 spent 
fuel rods from its Yongbyon nuclear power plant, a move that will 
help it increase its supply of weapons-grade plutonium. 

South Korea hopes the Gaeseong meeting will help stabilize 
inter-Korean relations and nudge the North toward resuming the 
six-party talks though the North's economic and security needs 
might have driven Pyongyang to accept Seoul's repeated offer to 
resume inter-Korean sessions.

 The South Korean delegates traveled by car across the heavily 
fortified western part of the border. They were returning to the 
South by the same route after the first round of talks and will 
head back to Gaeseong today for the final round of discussions.

 The North Korean border town also houses a pilot industrial 
complex for textile and other small-size South Korean plants. 

The two Koreas remain at technically war, as the 1950-53 Korean 
War ended with a cease-fire not a peace treaty.

*****************************************************************
 7 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Chosun Ilbo-CSIS Seminar to Look at U.S.' Korea Policy
 
  Home> National/Politics    Updated May.16,2005 18:35 KST   
 
Center for Strategic &International Studies will look at
Washington¡¯s Korea policy under President George W. Bush amid
growing fears that the North Korean nuclear dispute is heading
for a crisis. The seminar on Tuesday and Wednesday will bring
together government officials, politicians and experts from both
countries at the Willard InterContinental in Washington. 

U.S. officials taking part as speakers or panelists are U.S.
House Representative and Chairman of the East Asia Pacific
Subcommittee Jim Leach, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for
East Asian and Pacific affairs Evans Revere, special envoy to
North Korean nuclear talks Joseph DeTrani, Deputy Secretary of
Defense Richard Lawless, Deputy White House National Security
Advisor JD Crouch II, Director for Asian Affairs at the National
Security Council Victor Cha and the Northeast Asia chief of the
Sate Department¡¯s Intelligence and Research Bureau John
Merrill. 

Korean figures who will be in attendance are Uri Party lawmaker
and chairman of the National Assembly's Defense Committee Yoo
Jay-kun, Grand National Party lawmaker Park Jin, the head of the
Foreign Ministry's task force on the nuclear issue Cho Tae-yong,
National Defense University security expert Han Yong-seop, the
head of Korea University¡¯s North Korea Institute Yoo Ho-yeol,
Prof. Kim Seung-hwan of Myongji University, and Prof. Chun
Jae-seong of Seoul National University. 

(englishnews@chosun.com ) 

*****************************************************************
 8 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. Chief N.Korea Negotiator ¡®Tired of Crystal-Gazing¡¯
 
  Home> National/Politics    Updated May.16,2005 19:23 KST   
 
  U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific
Affairs Christopher Hill answers questions from reporters before
meeting with South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon on
Monday, the same day official talks between the two Koreas
resumed.   

A weary U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill on
Monday declined to guess if newly resumed inter-Korean talks
were a "good signal." ¡°I am tired of looking at signals and
reading the tea leaves,¡± Washington¡¯s point man at six-party
North Korean nuclear disarmament talks told reporters. 

Hill met with Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon and Deputy Foreign
Minister Song Min-soon to discuss intra-Korean dialogue and
plans to resolve the North Korean nuclear dispute. 

Hill reportedly told Ban the U.S. was working for the success of
the six-party talks, but warned it could still consider "other
means" of resolving the dispute. By ¡°other means¡± Washington
has appeared to mean dragging North Korea before the UN Security
Council ? not an expression likely to endear Hill to South
Korean officials hoping for the most from the inter-Korean
talks. 

Hill reportedly had qualified sympathy for Seoul¡¯s desire to
provide fertilizer aid to the North despite growing nuclear
tensions, saying ¡°appropriate distribution where it is needed
out of humanitarian concern¡± was acceptable. The choice of
words upset some in the Foreign Ministry, who would have
preferred a more wholehearted endorsement. That Hill¡¯s visit to
Korea coincided with the resumption of North-South talks also
gave rise to speculation that Washington is unhappy with a thaw
in inter-Korean ties at a time it believes pressure on Pyongyang
should intensify. 

But publicly Hill on Monday only said the U.S. supported
inter-Korean dialogue and hoped for progress. He also expressed
hope the talks would have a positive influence on the six-party
talks. 

If other emotions were at work, they were kept well under wraps. 

(englishnews@chosun.com ) 

  
*****************************************************************
 9 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: South offers North payoff for 6-way talks
 
May 17, 2005 KST 13:54 (GMT+9)                                                                         
                       
  May 17, 2005 ¤Ñ In the first high-level meeting in 10 months
between representatives of the two Koreas, a Seoul official
offered major incentives yesterday to Pyongyang if it would
return to the stalled six-party nuclear disarmament talks. South
Korean officials did not specify what the offer was. 
For its part, North Korea asked for supplies of fertilizer and
rice. South Korean officials said they would provide the
fertilizer. 

At the outset of two days of talks in Kaesong, North Korea, Rhee
Bong-jo, South Korea's vice minister of unification, said, "The
1992 accord between the two Koreas on denuclearization of the
Korean Peninsula must be complied with. Or else, cooperation and
reconciliation between South and North Koreas will be
impossible. If North Korea returns to the six-nation talks, we
will make an important offer for actual progress on the nuclear
issue."

 Mr. Rhee, however, would not say what the South would give the
North. He told journalists after the talks that the South is
preparing a package and will offer details if, and when, the
six-party talks resume.

 Mr. Rhee said that during the talks he repeatedly stressed the
significance of the offer to the North Koreans. But Kim Man-gil,
North Korea's chief delegate for the talks, reportedly did not
immediately respond. 

In his opening remarks, Mr. Kim demanded that South Korea
abolish the National Security Law and stop the joint military
exercises with the United States to create an atmosphere that
would encourage inter-Korean dialogue. Pyongyang also demanded
that Seoul apologize for barring its citizens from visiting the
North in July to attend the 10th anniversary of the death of
North Korea's founder, Kim Il Sung. The North also said the
South must apologize for creating contingency plans in
preparation for the communist regime's collapse.

 Mr. Rhee responded with a request for ministerial talks next
month between the two sides. He said relations between the two
Koreas should be restored by holding a series of discussions.

 To North Korea's request for fertilizer and food aid, Seoul
agreed to provide 200,000 tons of fertilizer. The South also
proposed that more assistance can be discussed if Pyongyang
comes to ministerial talks, linking the aid packages with
restoration of bilateral contacts.

 At the start of the year, North Korea requested 500,000 tons of
fertilizer, but South Korea withheld a decision because of the
failure to persuade the North Koreans to return to the six-party
negotiations. International media, then, reported that
Washington has asked Seoul to suspend its aid to Pyongyang. 

That position visibly softened yesterday. Christopher Hill, U.S.
assistant secretary for East Asian affairs and Washington's
chief negotiator in the six-nation talks, reportedly told his
South Korean counterpart, Song Min-soon, that the fertilizer aid
is humanitarian assistance, and that he believed it would be
properly distributed where it was most needed. 

At yesterday's talks, the two Koreas also agreed that Seoul
could send a delegation to the fifth anniversary celebration of
the June 15 inter-Korean summit between President Kim Dae-jung
of South Korea and the North's leader, Kim Jong-il. The joint
event will take place in Pyongyang from June 14 to 17. 

South Korea also proposed holding ceremonies to celebrate the
opening of rail lines and highways during the June 15 event. The
two Koreas reconnected the severed railroads last year as a part
of inter-Korean economic cooperation programs. 

Seoul also asked Pyongyang to hold a reunion in August of
families that have been divided since the Korean War. The
countries have held reunions sporadically, but they stopped in
July last year. 

After Seoul airlifted more than 460 defectors from Vietnam,
Pyongyang ended inter-Korean contacts. At yesterday's talks,
North Korea made no mention of the refugee issue.
 
by Ser Myo-ja myoja@joongang.co.kr>   
	  
Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
 10 BBC: N Korea 'in urgent need of food'
 
Last Updated: Monday, 16 May, 2005
 
[A North Korean farmer with an ox-cart full walks down the road 
to Pyongyang, 13 February 2003. ]                                 
The North is expected to call for more fertiliser                                                                 

North Korea is in urgent need of more food aid, the UN has 
warned. 

The head of the World Food Programme's North Korea mission told 
the BBC that without new contributions famine-like conditions 
would be likely to reappear. 

The warning comes as North and South Koreans hold a second day of 
talks at which the North is expected to call for more aid and 
agricultural fertiliser. 

Seoul says it has offered new proposals to Pyongyang to resume 
six-party talks on its nuclear weapons programme. 

The two sides are meeting for high-level discussions at Kaesong, 
just north of the border, for their first talks for 10 months. 

No details on the incentives were given, but the BBC's Charles 
Scanlon in Seoul says they are expected to go beyond the economic 
aid and security guarantees offered almost a year ago. 

He says South Korean officials also warned the North not to 
continue developing nuclear weapons. 

Our correspondent says that Seoul believes Pyongyang is raising 
nuclear tensions to extract a better aid offer. 

The North has declared itself a nuclear weapons state, and says 
it has extracted nuclear fuel to make more bombs. 

Widespread malnutrition 

The WFP has not had a fresh offer of food aid for North Korea 
since October 2004.                     

[Food stall in Pyongyang]                               
A looser economy means rising food prices                                                              

Richard Ragan says without new support the WFP will have to 
suspend aid altogether to about 3.5 million people and focus on a 
core 3m most at risk, including the elderly and infants. 

The situation is already worrying, with malnutrition described as 
widespread, especially among children. 

Market reforms introduced in North Korea in recent years mean 
most people only get about half the food they need through the 
state and have to buy the rest themselves. 

But rampant inflation inside North Korea is making it 
increasingly difficult for people to make up that shortfall. 

Japan, the US and South Korea are key contributors to the WFP 
programme, but Mr Ragan says donations have slowed in the last 
two years. 
*****************************************************************
 11 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: White House Clings to N.K. Nuke Test Story
 
Updated May.16,2005 19:18 KST   
 
(englishnews@chosun.com ) 

  The White House on Sunday appeared to stick to a story that
has found few international takers that North Korea could be
preparing for a nuclear test. "We've seen some evidence that
says that [the North Koreans] may be preparing for a nuclear
test,¡± National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley said. ¡°We have
talked to our allies about that." Hadley¡¯s comments came just
hours before talks between North and South Korean authorities
were about to start. 

Hadley made the comment during an appearance on the hawkish FOX
TV news channel. "If there is a nuclear test, obviously that
will be a defiance by North Korea of every member of the
six-party talks, including China." But Hadley told CNN he was
¡°not sure¡± if Pyongyang was on the verge of a nuclear test. 

South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Song Min-soon was
unimpressed. "The possibility could be anywhere from 0.1 percent
to 99 percent, and it appears National Security Advisor Hadley's
comments were made with an extreme situation in mind,¡± he said.
He also dismissed rumors of a "June crisis" connected with a
North Korean nuclear test. "As a manufactured and baseless
rumor, there's no concrete evidence to back it up,¡± he said.
¡°If a particular rumor starts in the U.S., it's amplified in
Japan and then comes to Korea." 

A high-ranking Foreign Ministry official agreed. "There's no
proof positive of the possibility of a North Korean nuclear
test. There's still a long way to go before we reach a confirmed
situation." 

*****************************************************************
 12 Korea Times: Chung Expresses Hopes for S-N Talks 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times   

By Ryu Jin Staff Reporter
  
Unification Minister Chung Dong-young, left, and other
well-wishers wave good-bye to the Southern delegates before the
delegates¡¯ departure for Kaesong in North Korea for a two-day
meeting, in front of the Office of the South-North Dialogue in
Seoul, Monday. Yonhap

After enduring months of frustrations, Unification Minister
Chung Dong-young finally smiled.

 ``It is very good news _ like welcome rain after a long
drought!¡¯¡¯ he said, expressing his excitement at the reopening
of inter-Korean talks in Kaesong on Monday.

 And there are plenty of reasons for him to be so pleased at the
outset of the first official inter-Korean talks in 10 months.

 Only days after he took the oath as the South¡¯s unification
minister, a series of unsavory events took place to sour
inter-Korean relations, which had slowly flourished in recent
years since the first-ever summit in June 2000.

 On July 8, Pyongyang slammed Seoul¡¯s disapproval of a trip of
a group of South Koreans who intended to present condolences to
the late North Korean leader Kim Il-sung. The relations worsened
when a total of 468 North Korean defectors were airlifted to
Seoul later in the month.

 And, to his dismay, Chung, who took a one-month special lesson
on inter-Korean affairs, had to helplessly see the 15th round of
Cabinet-level talks, which he had so anticipated in August,
canceled amid the soured relations.

 Chung, who also heads the presidential National Security
Council (NSC) as the nation¡¯s top security official, was even
feared to be, in the words of some North Korean officials, ``a
man who might not set his feet on North Korean soil as
unification minister.¡¯¡¯

 As one of the most viable presidential candidates in the ruling
camp, Chung was to inevitably face serious setbacks, according
to political pundits, if he returned to the political circles
before the 2007 presidential race with few achievements during
his tenure.

 Chung, although he denied any implications on domestic
politics, has made repeated calls on the North to reopen the
inter-Korean dialogue at a time when Seoul could not play an
active role in the intensifying regional standoff over the
North¡¯s nuclear arms program.

 And finally, Pyongyang came out to respond on Saturday, though
many experts say the real intention of the North _ one of the
world¡¯s most erratic and unpredictable countries _ remains
uncertain.

 In a casual luncheon meeting on Sunday, Chung beamed with joy
and repeatedly proposed toasts to reporters. ``Sincerity moves
heaven,¡¯¡¯ he said. ``I am cautiously positive over the
prospects for us both but I believe we can reach an agreement if
we open up to each other.¡¯¡¯

 He rushed to top leaders of the ruling and opposition parties
to explain the background and prospects for this week¡¯s talks,
which he stressed would certainly lead to normalized relations
between the two Koreas and help in resuming the six-party talks
on the North¡¯s nuclear issue.

 In the first session of the two-day meeting yesterday, chief
Southern delegate Rhee Bong-jo proposed that the 15th round of
ministerial talks between the two Koreas be held within June,
which mark the fifth anniversary of the historic inter-Korean
summit.

 Though he has yet to hear ``truly¡¯¡¯ good news from the talks
that will go through today, Chung was full of hope: ``Now we
have to stop the on-again, off-again relations by
institutionalizing these dialogues.¡¯¡¯ 

jinryu@koreatimes.co.kr 05-16-2005 20:23         

*****************************************************************
 13 Korea Times: US Eyes Kaesong for Nuke Talks Breakthrough 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times   

By Reuben Staines Staff Reporter
  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Ban Ki-moon, left, shakes
hands with Christopher Hill, U.S. assistant secretary of state
for East Asian and Pacific affairs, at the ministry, Monday.
Yonhap

Washington¡¯s top nuclear negotiator was Monday eyeing resumed
inter-Korean talks in Kaesong for a possible breakthrough in the
deepening standoff over North Korea¡¯s nuclear weapons programs.

 Christopher Hill, U.S. assistant secretary of state, said he
was looking forward to hearing the results of the inter-Korean
meeting and hoped it would yield progress on the nuclear issue.

 ``I hope especially that North Korea can be convinced to return
to the six-party talks,¡¯¡¯ he told reporters before a series of
consultations with officials in Seoul. ``Of course, if it can
help the six-party process it will be very good.¡¯¡¯

 However, Hill was wary of placing too much weight on the
North¡¯s decision to reopen government-to-government contacts
with the South. ``I¡¯m tired of looking at signals and reading
tea leaves,¡¯¡¯ he said. ``I will just be pleased when we have a
date to start (the six-party talks.)¡¯¡¯

 The former ambassador to Seoul, who arrived in South Korea on
Friday, met with Song Min-soon, Seoul¡¯s chief negotiator on the
nuclear issue, Ban Ki-moon, minister of foreign affairs and
trade, and Unification Minister Chung Dong-young.

 His visit comes amid rising tensions in the nuclear dispute. 

North Korea last week announced it has completed unloading 8,000
spent fuel rods from its Yongbyon nuclear reactor, a move
experts say will allow it to extract weapons-grade plutonium for
two or three bombs. U.S. officials expressed concern and hinted
at punitive measures if the North does not resume the
multilateral nuclear talks soon.

 During his meeting with Hill, Ban expressed hope that the
meeting between the vice ministers of the two Koreas would
``create a favorable atmosphere¡¯¡¯ for resolving the nuclear
crisis.

 Chung said resuming inter-Korean dialogue will give the South
an avenue to urge the North to return to the bargaining table.
``It is true that Seoul has been limited from playing an active
role in the nuclear talks since the inter-Korean dialogue
channel has been shut down,¡¯¡¯ the unification minister said
while sending off the delegation to the Kaesong talks.

 But despite proposing the inter-Korean meeting, Pyongyang has
shown few signs of restarting the six-party talks, which it has
boycotted for the past 11 months.

 In Washington, U.S. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley
warned the North against further nuclear brinkmanship, such as
conducting an underground test.

 ``It would be something where North Korea would be defying not
only us, but our partners at the six-party talks, and action
would have to be taken,¡¯¡¯ he told CNN.

 Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that U.S.
intelligence officials have detected signs of preparations for a
nuclear test in Kilju, North Hamkyong Province.

 ``We¡¯ve seen some activity that is consistent with possible
preparations for a nuclear test,¡¯¡¯ Hadley said. ``We don¡¯t
know for sure. As you know, North Korea is a very hard
target.¡¯¡¯

 South Korea¡¯s intelligence chief said last week that his
agency has found no conclusive evidence of an imminent nuclear
test by the North. 

rjs@koreatimes.co.kr 05-16-2005 20:26         

*****************************************************************
 14 Guardian Unlimited: Two Koreas Resume Nuke Talks After Hiatus
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday May 17, 2005 1:01 AM

AP Photo SEL808 

By PAUL ALEXANDER 

Associated Press Writer 

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - South Korea on Monday promised a major
new proposal if North Korea returns to six-nation disarmament
negotiations as the rivals began two days of their first
face-to-face talks in 10 months amid heightened tensions over
Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions. 

The resumption of dialogue between the two countries was the
first potentially positive development on the Korean Peninsula
since February, when North Korea claimed it had nuclear weapons
and said it would indefinitely boycott arms talks until
Washington drops its ``hostile'' policy. 

Pyongyang, with a history of brinksmanship to wring aid and
other concessions from the West, said last week it had completed
removing spent fuel rods from a reactor at its main nuclear
complex - a process that could allow it to harvest more
weapons-grade plutonium - and would strengthen its nuclear
arsenal. 

The North Korean delegation listened without comment as South
Korea's Vice Unification Minister Rhee Bong-jo brought up the
nuclear issue during Monday's first session in the North Korean
border town of Kaesong. Pyongyang normally shuns direct talks
with the South over its atomic program. 

``If the six-party talks resume, it shouldn't be talks for the
sake of talks, but substantial progress is necessary,'' Rhee
said. ``For this, the South side is preparing for a substantial
proposal, and will propose it to the related countries when the
talks resume.'' He didn't elaborate. 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, meanwhile, warned North
Korea against testing nuclear weapons. 

``Escalation on the part of the North Koreans is going to deepen
their isolation a lot,'' she told reporters Monday after a visit
to Iraq. She did not elaborate. 

National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley threatened unspecified
actions against North Korea if it carried out a nuclear test, a
position echoed by Japan. 

``We've seen some evidence that says that they may be preparing
for a nuclear test,'' Hadley told CNN. ``Obviously, that would
be a serious step, and it would require us to consult very
closely with our colleagues on the six-party talks for what kind
of response we should make.'' 

He said a nuclear test ``would be something where the North
Koreans would be defying not only us, but our partners in the
six-party talks, and action would ... have to be taken.'' 

Shinzo Abe, secretary-general of Japan's ruling Liberal
Democratic Party, said Tokyo would take the issue to the United
Nations. ``It is unthinkable not to impose any sanctions in case
of a nuclear test,'' he said. 

Discussions involving the two Koreas, the United States, China,
Japan and Russia have been stalled since June after three
inconclusive rounds. North Korea refused to participate in the
fourth set of talks, originally scheduled for September 2004. 

Washington's top envoy in that dispute, U.S. Assistant Secretary
of State Christopher Hill, met Monday with South Korean
officials. 

``We are doing everything to get this six-party process going,
and we really want to, but that does not mean we are not going
to look eventually at other options,'' Hill told South Korean
Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon. 

Talks between the two Koreas broke off in July after mass
defections to South Korea from the North that Pyongyang labeled
kidnappings. 

With North Korea's chief delegate, Kim Man Gil, saying the
bilateral discussions were vital to regenerate ties, Rhee made
several suggestions for improving relations. North Korea wanted
to talk about food aid and fertilizer for its spring planting
season; Rhee said the size of such aid needs further
consultations. 

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher offered support for
South Korean efforts to bring North Korea back to negotiations.
He added, however, that United States believes ``humanitarian
assistance to the people of North Korea, including food or
helping them grow food, shouldn't be conditioned or negotiated
as part of the six-party talks.'' 

Rhee proposed resuming Cabinet-level discussions next month,
arranging more reunions in August for families separated for
more than half a century, conducting a trial run of cross-border
railways and sending a government delegation next month to the
North's capital to participate in a celebration marking the
fifth anniversary of a historic inter-Korean summit accord. 

U.S. officials said last week that spy satellites looking at the
North's northeastern Kilju spotted the digging of a tunnel and
the construction of a reviewing stand - possible indications of
an upcoming test. 

But Deputy Foreign Minister Song Min-soon played down the
prospects of a nuclear test. 

``The reports that are coming out are artificial and groundless
that have no specific evidence to back them up,'' Song told
South Korea's Yonhap news agency. 

The latest nuclear standoff with North Korea was sparked in late
2002 after U.S. officials accused the North of running a secret
uranium enrichment program. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 15 Guardian Unlimited: Seoul hints at new disarmament proposal for North Korea
 
Associated Press
Monday May 16, 2005 		
 		
South Korea told North Korea today that Pyongyang had increased 
tensions by taking a key step in preparing ingredients for 
nuclear bombs.

In the first reconciliation talks between the two sides in 10 
months, Seoul also tried to coax Pyongyang back into disarmament 
talks by promising a new "substantial proposal", but declined to 
elaborate on what it was. 

North Korea increased tension last week by saying it would 
strengthen its nuclear arsenal and that it had removed spent fuel 
rods from a reactor, a preliminary stage in the process of 
extracting weapons-grade plutonium. The disclosures raised 
concerns about a possible nuclear test. 

Today, a South Korean delegation began two-day talks in the North 
Korean border town of Kaesong. 

Pool reports from journalists covering the meeting, which broke
up after six hours, said that the South told the North it had
aggravated tensions and urged Pyongyang to return to the
six-nation talks. These talks, which involved the two Koreas,
the United States, China, Japan and Russia, have been in limbo
since June 2003. 

Today, vice unification minister Rhee Bong-jo, who led the South
Korean delegation, said: "If the six-party talks resume, it
shouldn't be talks for the sake of talks, but substantial
progress is necessary. For this, the South side is preparing for
a substantial proposal, and will propose it to the related
countries when the talks resume." 

The minister did not elaborate on the proposal, saying only that
the details would be revealed after consultations with other
countries. The North Koreans listened to his points on the
nuclear issue without comment.

Today's meeting followed comments yesterday by the US national
security adviser, Stephen Hadley, warning unspecified action
against North Korea if it carried out a nuclear test - a
position echoed by Japan. In an interview with CNN, Mr Hadley
said: "We've seen some evidence that says that they may be
preparing for a nuclear test." 

He said that such a test would defy regional powers and that
"action would ... have to be taken".

Shinzo Abe, secretary-general of Japan's ruling Liberal
Democratic Party, said Tokyo would take the issue to the United
Nations. "It is unthinkable not to impose any sanctions in case
of a nuclear testing." The Kaesong meeting coincides with other
efforts to resume the six-party talks, with Washington's top
envoy in the dispute, US assistant secretary of state
Christopher Hill, meeting today with his South Korean
counterpart, deputy foreign minister Song Min-soon. "We are
doing everything to get this six-party process going, and we
really want to, but that does not mean we are not going to look
eventually at other options," Mr Hill told the South Korean
minister.

Talks between the two Koreas broke off last July after mass
defections to South Korea from the North that it labelled
kidnappings. The renewed talks are "vital" to regenerating those
ties, said North Korea's chief delegate at Kaesong, Kim Man Gil. 

The South proposed resuming cabinet-level discussions in June,
arranging more reunions in August for families separated for
more than half a century, conducting a trial run of cross-border
railways and sending a delegation next month to the North's
capital to join a celebration marking the fifth anniversary of a
historic inter-Korean summit accord.

North Korea requested fertiliser aid from the South out of
"humanitarian concern", and also raised the prospect of food
aid. 

US officials said last week that spy satellites looking at the
North's Kilju area in the north-east saw the digging of a tunnel
and the construction of a reviewing stand - possible indications
of an upcoming test. However, Mr Song today downplayed the
prospects of a nuclear test, saying in an interview with South
Korea's Yonhap news agency that the reports "have no specific
evidence to back them up". 

The removal of spent fuel rods was the latest provocation since
North Korea claimed in February that it had nuclear weapons and
would indefinitely boycott arms talks until Washington drops its
"hostile" policy. The latest nuclear standoff with North Korea
was prompted in late 2002 after US officials accused the North
of running a secret uranium enrichment programme.
 	
[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 16 Renewing the Earth
 
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:37:04 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
Renewing the Earth by Carol Wolman

The biosphere as we know it will die if things continue as they are 
going.   Species are disappearing, the atmosphere is warming rapidly, the 
ice caps are melting.  Radioactive dust is being spread across the globe; 
it will accumulate in the gene pool of every species, causing high rates of 
mutation, miscarriages, cancer.  The danger of thermonuclear holocaust is 
increasing, with the Bush administration straining at the leash to produce 
and use mininukes, nuclear bunker busters, and worse.  The Bolton 
appointment as UN ambassador is meant to destroy the UN and the 
NonProliferation Treaty.

How can the earth be renewed?  As the psalmist makes clear, this is a 
matter of spirit, the sort of spirit that Barbara Boxer is showing as she 
puts a hold on the appointment of Bolton.

The rapture copout artists,- who call themselves "Dispensationalists", 
because they claim that by saying the magic words, they will escape the 
great tribulation that will destroy the rest of us,- the rapture cultists 
would have us believe that the spirit of the Creator is for death rather 
than for life.  The cowardly among us watch the approaching horrors and 
look for escape rather than for solutions.

Those of us with faith in the goodness of our Creator come up with 
solutions- how to stop adding to global warming, how to abolish nuclear 
weapons, how to limit population growth without too much suffering.  The 
people who still have faith to work for the future, still have love for 
their children, and still are willing to sacrifice for the greater good, 
the nonviolent peacemakers, are the true followers of Jesus, no matter who 
says what.

Look at the fruits!

In the name of the Prince of Peace,  Carol Wolman

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 17 Register-Guard: No waivers for military: Pentagon seeks new environmental exemptions - 

, Eugene, Oregon, USA
 		 		 		
May 16, 2005
 						
Four years ago, the Department of Defense asked Congress to 
exempt the military from six major laws that protect the nation's 
water, air, soil and wildlife. Pentagon officials argued that the 
restrictions undermined national security by limiting the 
military's ability to conduct training exercises free of 
environmental constraints. 

Congress, whose collective backbone turns to jelly every time its 
members hear the words "national security" or "war on terror," 
granted three of the requested waivers despite the military's 
failure to justify its claims. Lawmakers, however, balked at 
approving the remainder. 

Now, Pentagon officials are back on another environmental search 
and destroy mission, once again asking Congress for statutory 
relief from the Clean Air Act and two key hazardous waste laws. 

The House and Senate Armed Services Committees, which will 
consider the waiver as part of a military spending bill, should 
reject this request. The military already ranks as the nation's 
most prolific polluter, accounting for more than 10 percent of 
the worst Superfund cleanup sites and generating millions of 
pounds of toxic waste every year. 

Since 2001, the military has won unwarranted exemptions from the 
Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Now the military insists that 
additional waivers are necessary to preserve the quality and 
timeliness of combat training in a time of war. 

Such rhetoric camouflages the Pentagon's real motives - to reduce 
its $4 billion a year in environmental costs (less than 1 percent 
of the military's budget) and to avoid costly lawsuits over 
violations of federal laws governing air, water and waste. 

Three years ago, the Government Accountability Office concluded 
that training and readiness were not impaired by federal 
environmental laws. Two years ago, former EPA Administrator 
Christine Todd Whit- man confided to a Senate committee, "I don't 
believe that there is a training mission anywhere in the country 
that is being held up or not taking place because of 
environmental protection regulation." 

The government already has all the flexibility it needs to 
preserve national security. Current law gives the president and 
defense secretary the authority to set aside environmental 
regulations in times of emergency. The military already has shown 
that it's capable of training, testing and deploying troops in a 
timely manner without circumventing environmental laws. 

If Congress grants the new waivers, the result will be increased 
contamination of the groundwater that provides drinking water to 
Americans across the country. The military would no longer be 
required to classify munitions as solid waste. It would no longer 
have full legal liability for cleaning up polluted sites that are 
converted to other uses, with much of the cost shifting to state 
and local governments. Military sites that violate national air 
standards would be allowed to remain that way for an additional 
three years. 

The military already has an atrocious environmental record, 
producing huge amounts of toxic waste, such as perchlorate that 
leaches into groundwater and pollutes drinking water supplies. A 
USA Today analysis indicates that nearly 29 million Americans - 
an astonishing one in 10 - live within 10 miles of military sites 
listed as priorities for hazard- ous waste cleanups under the 
Superfund program. 

Instead of moving aggressively to clean up these sites, the 
Pentagon has delayed dozens of them and has consistently 
protested restrictions on uses of polluted sites. 

Congress should refuse the military's request for new waivers and 
should reconsider those it already has granted. The military 
should not be allowed to outflank environmental or any other laws 
that govern this nation. 

Copyright 2005 The Register-Guard
*****************************************************************
 18 Deseretnews: Bennett's trips a bit pricey? 

[deseretnews.com] 

Monday, May 16, 2005 

Treks cost $43,348, rank 128th in Congress 

By Bob Bernick Jr. Deseret Morning News 

With the national political spotlight shining on congressional 
travel these days, a new report on United States senators' and 
representatives' privately funded trips shows Sen. Bob Bennett 
has taken some pricey sojourns: 13 trips over four years costing 
more than $43,348 total. 

Bob Bennett 

Bennett, R-Utah, has recently gone to Cabo San Lucas, 
Mexico and Venice, Italy. 

According to the new report, compiled by 
PoliticalMoneyLine.com, Bennett's travel ranks 128th among the 
more than 600 current and former U.S. congressmen who accepted 
privately funded trips since 2000. Nearly 2,000 entities spent 
more than $17 million on members of Congress for airfare, hotels 
and meals for trips that occurred in that time frame, the report 
shows. 

The report says that congressmen often go on trips to be 
educated about specific issues. For instance, the Nuclear Energy 
Institute, which supports nuclear power, sends congressmen to 
cities that have nearby nuclear power plants or nuclear power 
conferences. It paid for trips to Paris; Barcelona, Spain; Rome; 
and Las Vegas. 

Bennett's Cabo trip, costing $2,760, was paid for by the 
Utah Automobile Dealers Association. Bennett stayed two days in 
early November 2004 and gave the keynote address during 
association meetings, said his spokeswoman Mary Jane Collipriest.

He went to Venice in August last year and stayed five 
days at a cost of $5,076, to attend a conference paid for by the 
Aspen Institute, a high-powered think tank whose meetings former 
President Bill Clinton used to attend. It also paid for him to 
go to three other foreign countries. 

Bennett has gone to Prague, Czech Republic; Helsinki, 
Finland; Punta Mita, Mexico; and Spain (no city listed). Bennett 
is the new president of the Transatlantic Policy Network, which 
paid for two of his recent trips at a cost of $4,537, and as 
such he will likely be traveling abroad even more, visiting 
foreign governments and officeholders. 

Collipriest said Bennett agrees with advice given to him 
years ago by former President Richard Nixon: "To be a good 
senator you have to travel. You have to get your feet on the 
ground and meet people, even though the press will criticize 
you." 

The study, which is made up of reports filed by members 
of Congress, comes after House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, 
R-Texas, has been criticized in public for accepting a number of 
privately funded trips, a few of which may have been illegally 
funneled to the powerful GOP leader. DeLay, who has already been 
sanctioned for questionable ethical behavior by the House Ethics 
Committee, may face a new round of ethical inquiries. 

No one is saying trips taken by Utah's two U.S. senators 
and three House members were improper or in violation of 
congressional rules. And several of the trips in the new survey 
have been reported previously in the Deseret Morning News and 
other media. 

Sen. Orrin Hatch's travel bill wasn't as costly as 
Bennett's, mainly because Hatch didn't take as many lengthy, 
expensive foreign trips. But Hatch, R-Utah, took more trips 
overall. 

Hatch ranks 151st in the cost of his travel paid for by 
private firms or foreign governments, accepting $37,879 in trips 
since 2000, the report says. 

But Hatch is near the top, 13th overall, in the number of 
privately funded trips he's taken: 38. 

Since the start of 2000 he's been to San Francisco five 
times, to New York City seven times and even came back to Salt 
Lake City three times on a private jet for speaking engagements. 
Like all members of Congress, Hatch has a taxpayer-funded budget 
to travel to and from his home state, so he visited here more 
than three times in five years. 

Hatch only took one trip out of the country, a two-day 
visit to Davos, Switzerland, in 2001, costing $1,380, to give a 
speech for the World Economic Forum, the report says. 

In February of this year, Hatch took a one-day trip to 
San Diego, costing $553, paid for by The Church of Jesus Christ 
of Latter-day Saints. Hatch spokeswoman Heather Barney said the 
senator was invited by church leaders to speak at a 
commemoration of the Mormon Battalion. 

The study only includes privately funded trips. For 
example, Hatch went to Iowa and other early-primary states in 
his presidential campaign of 2000. But those trips would have 
been paid for out of his presidential campaign account, not 
listed in the new study. 

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, has been to Germany twice on the 
dime of an association of former congressmen. In April 2003, 
both Bishop and Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, spent five days in 
Berlin and Heidelberg learning about the German legislative 
system. Bishop went back to Germany in March of this year for 
another visit. The second German trip, which was for six days, 
cost $4,960. 

All told, Bishop has taken three privately funded trips 
costing $9,948. 

Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, took five privately funded 
trips totally $5,859, the study says. The most expensive, 
$2,684, paid for by Western Watch Foundation, was a trip to Las 
Vegas in June 2002 to address a public lands conference. 

Matheson took two trips costing $6,398 (including the 
German trip, which cost $3,564). The Democratic Leadership 
Conference paid for a three-day trip to Key Largo, Fla., in May 
2001, costing $2,834. 

Congressional travel costs 

Trips taken Cost 

Sen. Bob Bennett (R) 13 trips $43,348 

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) 38 trips $37,879 

Rep. Rob Bishop (R) 3 trips $9,489 

Rep. Jim Matheson (D) 2 trips $6,398 

Rep. Chris Cannon (R) 5 trips $5,859 

Source: PoliticalMoneyLine.com 

E-mail: bbjr@desnews.com 

© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company 
*****************************************************************
 19 csmonitor.com: Recovering From Nuclear Lies

 Commentary > The Monitor's View 
 
 The Monitor's View 

The world is at a delicate stage in the struggle to contain the 
spread of nuclear weapons. The US gave North Korea a stern 
warning on Sunday not to test a bomb - as it appears it might do 
soon. On the same day, Iran's parliament thumbed its nose at a 
European offer of economic benefits to prevent Iran from 
restarting production of bomb-grade nuclear material.                   

Such defiance by Iran, meanwhile, has pushed Congress closer to
passing a bill to impose economic sanctions against Iran. What's
more, these twin crises appear to be coming to a head just as
global talks have opened this month to bolster the creaky
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The talks so far are
faltering. 

Will 2005 be the tipping-point for making the world safer from
nuclear weapons? Or will a current mix of negotiations and
economic threats fail to keep Iran and North Korea from going
nuclear, thus possibly forcing their neighbors in the Middle
East and East Asia to also obtain atomic weapons in defense? 

The answer partly lies in overcoming some big lies. 

Both nations were caught covering up their nuclear programs in
recent years, breaking international agreements. That makes the
prospect of a negotiated deal all the more difficult to achieve,
let alone enforce. 

And that's why the Bush administration has relied on nations
with more economic leverage - China in the case of North Korea,
and Britain, Germany, and France in the case of Iran - to take
the lead in persuading the two recalcitrants to back down. 

US impatience over these situations, which is driven by its
post-9/11 fear of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of
terrorists, has yet to be transformed into preemptive military
action - although the US Navy is on the ready to inspect ships
leaving North Korea that might be exporting nuclear materials. 

Yet military action seems out of the question, for any number of
reasons. It also seems unlikely that each nation's leaders will
be persuaded to give up their strong nationalist urges to
achieve nuclear capability. 

The best choices for the US and others seem to be in making good
on economic threats or simply accepting that Iran, North Korea,
and many of their neighbors will go nuclear. 

A third alternative - total global nuclear disarmament - was
envisioned by the NPT in the 1960s but hasn't gone anywhere. 

Catching Iran and North Korea in their lies has at least helped
bring them to the negotiating table. Their still-small
sensitivities to the pressures of other nations and their need
for economic progress might still provide a breakthrough for
keeping the nuclear age in check. 	 

  www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science
Monitor. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 20 [NukeNet] Clearance Law Passed
 
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:37:27 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

People on this list may remember that CNIC has been actively opposing
two nuclear related bills that were submitted to the Diet earlier this
year. The bad news is that both were passed on unlucky Friday 13th.

This first of these bills was a bill to amend the Law for the
Regulation of Nuclear Source Material, Nuclear Fuel Material and
Reactors. It permits the 'clearance' of some radioactive waste, so that
it can be disposed of as non-radioactive waste.

The second was a bill for a new law to shift to consumers the costs of
dismantling and disposing of the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant and to
make the tax system more favorable to electric power companies.

As argued in previous articles, both these bills were an essential
preliminary measure to make it possible to operate the Rokkasho
Reprocessing Plant.

The tax bill is now a done deal and there isn't much we can do to stop
it, other than to stop Rokkasho itself. That campaign is continuing as
vigorously as ever, of course.

Regarding the clearance of radioactive waste, the new system won't lead
to immediate releases of radioactive waste. The first stage will be
recycling of this cleared radioactive waste within the nuclear power
plants themselves. Beyond that, our best hope is to build public
opposition to the obviously bad idea of releasing radioactive waste
into the environment, from whence, through all sorts of routes, will
find its way into our daily lives.

See the following link for more information on these two bills:

http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit104/nit104articles/ clearance21Dec04.html

Philip White
International Liaison Officer

Citizens' Nuclear Information Center
3F Kotobuki Bdg, 1-58-15, Higashi-Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003
Phone: 81-3-5330-9520
Fax: 81-3-5330-9530
http://cnic.jp/english/
cnic@nifty.com


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 21 ITAR-TASS: Nuclear engineers from India arrive in Russia for consultations

16.05.2005, 11.22

NOVOVORONEZH, May 16 (Itar-Tass) - A group of nuclear engineers
from India has arrived in the town of Novovoronezh for
consultations and training at the Rosenergoatom Training Centre.
In future, the Indian experts will work at the Kudankulam
nuclear power plant which is being built in southern India with
Russia’s assistance, Chief of the Novovoronezh Training Centre
Alexander Ivanchenko told Tass. 

First, the Indian experts will take a course in theory and then
will go to the Kalinin nuclear power plant in the northwest of
Russia for training to operate the VVER-100 nuclear reactor
similar to a nuclear reactor at the future Indian nuclear power
plant. 

The Indian nuclear engineers will finalize training at the
Novovoronezh Center and then will work on the premises of the
Indian nuclear plant guided by Russian experts. 

The first nuclear reactor of the Kudankulam nuclear power plant
will be commissioned in 2007, and the second nuclear reactor -
in 2008. 

       
© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
 22 [NukeNet] Helen Caldicott Re NPPs Not As Cure To Global
 
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:37:25 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)



   Below is Helen Caldicott's talk at the NPT on
Nuclear Power with a
recommendation for creating a Sustainable Energy
Agency from Herman Scheer
of Eurosolar.

NGO Presentations to the 2005 NPT Review
Conference

The Medical and Ecological Consequences of Nuclear
Power
Speaker: Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Policy Research
Institute

The official task of the IAEA since 1957,
enshrined in article IV of the
NPT promotes the peaceful uses of nuclear energy
and the "transfer" of
nuclear technology. Superimposed upon this
official policy is a huge
propaganda push by the nuclear industry promoting
nuclear power as a
panacea for the reduction of global-warming gases.

There are presently 442 nuclear reactors in
operation globally. If, as the
nuclear industry suggests, nuclear power were to
replace fossil fuels on a
large scale, it would be necessary to build 2000
large 1000-megawatt
reactors. Furthermore, to replace all
fossilfuel-generated electricity
today with nuclear power, there is only enough
economically
viable uranium to fuel the reactors for three to
four years.
Belgium, Germany, Spain and Sweden have decided to
phase out their
operating nuclear reactors, while Britain plans 10
new reactors and China
plans 27 by 2020. The US administration has called
for construction of
more than 50 new reactors.

The true economies of the nuclear industry are
never fully analysed -
including costs of uranium enrichment, the massive
liability involved in a
nuclear accident, decommissioning all existing and
new nuclear reactors
and the enormous expense in the transportation and
storage of radioactive
waste for a quarter of a million years.  The
prevailing ethic says that
nuclear power is emission-free. The truth is very
different. In the US for
instance, where much of the world's uranium is
enriched, the enrichment
facility at Paducah, Kentucky, requires the
electrical output of two
1000-megawatt coalfired plants, which release
large quantities of carbon
dioxide, the gas responsible for 50% of global
warming. Also, this
enrichment facility and another at Portsmouth,
Ohio, leak from rusty pipes
93% of the chlorofluorocarbon gas emitted yearly
in the US. The production
and release of CFC gas is now banned
internationally by the Montreal
Protocol because it is mainly responsible for
stratospheric ozone
depletion. But CFC is also a global warmer, 10,000
to 20,000 times more
potent than carbon dioxide.

The nuclear fuel cycle in all countries uses large
quantities of fossil
fuel at all stages - the mining and milling of
uranium, the construction
of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic
decommissioning of the
intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20
to 40-year operating
lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage
of massive
quantities of radioactive waste. Contrary to the
current propaganda line,
nuclear power is not green and it is certainly not
clean. Nuclear reactors
consistently release millions of curies of
radioactive isotopes
into the air and water each year. These
unregulated sanctioned releases
occur because the industry considers certain
radioactive elements to be
biologically inconsequential. This is not so.
These unregulated releases
include the noble gases krypton, xenon and argon,
which are
fat-soluble and if inhaled by persons living near
a nuclear reactor, are
absorbed through the lungs, migrating to the fatty
tissues of the body,
including the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs,
near the reproductive
organs. These radioactive elements, which emit
high-energy gamma
radiation, can mutate the genes in the eggs and
sperm inducing
genetic disease. Tritium, a radioactive isotope of
hydrogen, is another
biologically significant gas, routinely emitted
from nuclear reactors.
Tritium combines with oxygen creating "tritiated"
water. Tritium which is
a soft energy beta emitter, more mutagenic than
gamma radiation
incorporates directly into the DNA molecule of the
gene and it passes
readily through the skin, lungs and digestive
system where it is
distributed throughout the body. The half life of
tritium is 12.3 years,
giving it a biologically active life of 246 years.

The dire subject of massive quantities of
radioactive waste accruing at
the 442 nuclear reactors across the world is also
rarely, if ever,
addressed by the nuclear industry. Each typical
1000-megawatt nuclear
reactor manufactures 33 tonnes of thermally hot,
intensely radioactive
waste per year. More than 80,000 tonnes of highly
radioactive waste sits
in cooling pools next to the 103 US nuclear power
plants, awaiting
transportation to a storage facility yet to be
found. Much more accrues at
reactor sites in France, Japan Russia and
elsewhere. This dangerous
material is an attractive target for terrorist
sabotage as it traverses
roads, railway and shipping lines of many nations.

The long-term storage of radioactive waste is an
immense insoluble
problem. No country, including the US has a plan
for preventing this toxic
carcinogenic material escaping into the biosphere
and contaminating the
food chain for the rest of time. Furthermore, a
study released recently by
the US National Academy of Sciences shows that the
cooling pools at
nuclear reactors, which store 10 to 30 times more
radioactive
material than that contained in the reactor core,
are subject to
catastrophic attacks by international terrorists,
which could unleash an
inferno and release massive quantities of deadly
radiation --
significantly worse than the radiation released by
Chernobyl.
This vulnerable high-level nuclear waste stored in
the cooling pools at
the 442 global nuclear power plants includes
hundreds of radioactive
elements that have different biological impacts in
the human body, the
most important being cancer and genetic diseases.

The incubation time for cancer is five to 50 years
following exposure to
radiation. Children, old people and
immuno-compromised individuals are
many times more sensitive to the malignant effects
of radiation than other
people. Following are four of the most dangerous
elements made in nuclear
power plants. Iodine 131, which was released at
nuclear accidents at
Sellafield in Britain, Chernobyl in Ukraine and
Three Mile Island in the
US, is radioactive for twenty three weeks and it
bio-concentrates in leafy
vegetables and milk. When it enters the human body
via the gut and the
lung, it migrates to the thyroid gland in the
neck, where it can later
induce thyroid cancer. In Belarus more than 2000
children have had their
thyroids removed for thyroid cancer, a situation
never before recorded in
pediatric literature. Strontium 90 lasts for 600
years. As a calcium
analogue, it concentrates in cow and goat milk. It
accumulates in the
human breast during lactation, and in bone, where
it can later
induce breast cancer, bone cancer and leukemia.
Cesium 137, which also
lasts for 600 years, concentrates in the food
chain, particularly
meat. On entering the human body, it locates in
muscle, where it can
induce a malignant muscle cancer called a sarcoma.
Plutonium 239, one of
the most dangerous elements known to humans, is so
toxic that
one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic. More than
200kg is made annually
in each 1000- megawatt nuclear power plant.
Plutonium is handled like iron
in the body, and is therefore stored in the liver,
where it causes liver
cancer, and in the bone, where it can induce bone
cancer and blood
malignancies. On inhalation it causes lung cancer.
It also
crosses the placenta, where, like the drug
thalidomide, it can cause
severe congenital deformities. Plutonium has a
predisposition for the
testicle, where it can cause testicular cancer and
induce genetic diseases
in future generations. Plutonium lasts for 500,000
years, living on to
induce cancer and genetic diseases in future
generations of plants,
animals and humans.

Plutonium is also the fuel for nuclear weapons --
only 5kg is necessary to
make a bomb and each reactor makes more than 200kg
per year. Therefore any
country with a nuclear power plant can
theoretically manufacture 40 bombs
a year.Nuclear power produces a carcinogenic
legacy for all future
generations, it produces global warming gases, and
it is far more
expensive than any other form of electricity
generation, while it triggers
the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

A supplementary protocol to the NPT is needed,
which would permit the
signatory States to fulfil their obligations
stated in Article IV of the
NPT by supplying technical aid in form of
Renewable Energy Technologies.
The supplementary protocol should be the basis for
an International
Renewable Energy Agency that can act as a
counterbalance to the
institutionalized advocates for nuclear energy.
The main provision of the
supplementary protocol to Art IV should be: "The
present Treaty permits
the parties to the Nuclear Non Proliferation
Treaty to replace the
assistance in the peaceful use of nuclear energy
provided for in article
IV with assistance in promoting the use of clean,
sustainable, renewable energy."

Convenors: Helen Caldicott, Herman Scheer, Xanthe
Hall, John Loretz, Alice
Slater



_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 23 Dr. Helen Caldicott on Bush's Nuclear Danger - free access to
 
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 19:37:15 -0500 (CDT)

 
Dr. Helen Caldicott & Meria Heller

Due to the importance of George Bush's new nuclear danger, I have put
our excellent interview with Dr.Helen Caldicott of 5/12/05 into the free
show link on my site.

http://subscribe.streamguys.com/meriaheller_od_free/todaysshow.wma

I will leave it there for the next two weeks. It is imperative that you
get every list, every friend, everyone you know to listen to it. If we
don't address our very real nuclear danger, all other "issues" will
become a thing of the past - Thank you -

Meria Heller and Mark Elsis - Co host of the bi monthly
"Earth News Hour" heard at www.Meria.net

http://subscribe.streamguys.com/meriaheller_od_free/todaysshow.wma

5/12/05 - Earth News Hour with Meria, Mark Elsis and special guest Dr.
Helen Caldicott
Mark Elsis (www.lovearth.net) and I have an uninterrupted hour with Dr.
Helen Caldicott on the nuclear danger facing us all, every second of
every day. With this crazed administration in place, we are close to
total annihilation every second. We were on optimum nuclear alert on
911; Helen has authored five books, I strongly recommend reading and
sharing "The New Nuclear Danger: George Bush's Military Industrial
Complex" (see booklist on site). What is nuclear winter? How many
hydrogen bombs are pointed at YOUR city?; There are 30,000 nuclear bombs
in the world, Russia & the U.S. own 90% of them; Who wasn't at the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation meeting at the UN yesterday? What did Robert
McNamara have to say about apocalypse soon?; What about Israel's nuclear
arsenal? What danger does that pose? Vanunu? Ellsberg? (check archives
for great interviews with both); Are we at 3 minutes to midnight on the
nuclear clock? The psycho-sexual aspects of the nuclear business; See
Randy Atkin
s film "Deadly Arrogance" at www.arsenalofhypocrisy.com; The dangers of
new nuclear plants and their waste pools; what is the Price Anderson
Act? Iraq is a NUCLEAR WAR, over 3,000 tons of depleted uranium have
been used to date; the effects of DU; Helen contends the U.S. needs a
Gandian Revolution; Where was Clinton on nuclear disarmament (since he
fancied himself like JFK); Helen says "the problems aren't the bombs,
but the minds of the men who control them"; We are the curators of life
on Earth, will we speak up? Can we achieve nuclear disarmament in five
years? See www.nuclearpolicy.org; Check out Mark's excellent site
www.nonuclear.net; Only 240 major cities in the Northern Hemisphere yet
thousands of bombs targeting them; Every city with over 50,000 people is
targeted; How close did we come when Yeltsin was drunk? "In the event of
a nuclear war, the living will envy the dead"; Diplomats terrified of
the danger right now; and so much more. Check out www.HelenCaldicott.com
for more information. This is the number one issue facing all life on
Earth. Please share this interview with everyone you know.

**Please share this interview FREELY. All our lives and all living
things on this planet (including the planet) depend on it.
This is the greatest gift you can give anyone - please tune in.
This show is the tip of the iceberg.

Meria Heller
www.Meria.net
*****************************************************************
 24 [NukeNet] INPO downgrades Hope Creek's rating
 
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:37:14 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)



------- Forwarded message -------
From: Drkymn@aol.com
To: ncohen12@comcast.net
Subject: May 13, 2005 Press of Atlantic City
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 23:47:07 EDT

      (http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/index.cfm)
  (http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/circulation/autopay.html)

____________________________________
May 13,  2005

Whistleblower says nuclear industry giving Hope Creek low safety marks



By JEROME MONTES Staff Writer, (856) 794-5115

A  former employee of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station said the nuclear
industry has given that facility's troubled Hope Creek reactor a low mark
for
safety.

Kymn Harvin, a former organizational manager at the facility,  said
Thursday
that the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations downgraded Hope  Creek's
operational rating from a 3 to a 4 following an inspection earlier this
year.

INPO was created by the nuclear and electric utility industry in  1979 in
the
wake of the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant.  Its
mission is to promote broad levels of excellence and safety throughout the
industry, according to INPO spokesman Terry Young.

Each nuclear facility  is periodically assigned a rating between 1 and 5 -
with 1 being the best rating  - based on the plant's level of maintenance,
efficiency, reliability, safety and  other operational measures.

Young refused to comment on Hope Creek's  rating, saying that INPO
evaluations are sealed from the public.

A  spokesman for the Newark-based Public Service Enterprise Group, which
owns
the  Hope Creek nuclear reactor and two others at the Salem Nuclear
Generating  Station in Salem County, also declined to comment on the
reactor's latest
rating.

Plants are generally evaluated every 18 to 24 months, but  schedules vary
across the country.

Harvin, who says she was terminated  from the Salem facility in 2003 for
raising safety issues, said INPO must have  uncovered "significant safety
issues"
to give the facility a 4  rating.

She said one federal official called that rating "awful" and  promised that
the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission would continue to  evaluate
safety
concerns at the plant.

NRC officials could not be reached  for comment Thursday.

The Salem station is already under heightened NRC  scrutiny due to safety,
equipment and work environment problems, some of which  were brought to
federal
attention by Harvin after her dismissal.

An NRC  investigation into Harvin's termination determined she was
dismissed
for  budgetary rather than retaliatory reasons.

Harvin has filed a  whistleblower lawsuit against PSEG in a New Jersey
court.

Hope Creek has  suffered a series of mishaps over the past eight months,
including shutdowns due  to radioactive steam leaks. Critics of the
facility have
urged PSEG to replace a  badly vibrating shaft on the reactor's B
recirculation pump, which they say  could lead to a meltdown if not
attended to

PSEG is in the midst of a  merger with Chicago-based Exelon. If approved,
the
merger would create the  nation's largest power company and put all four of
New Jersey's nuclear reactors  in the hands of one entity.

To e-mail Jerome Montes at The  Press:

JMontes@pressofac.com



-- 
Coalition for Peace and Justice
UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave, Linwood
NJ 08221; 609-601-8583; cell 609-742-0982
ncohen12@comcast.net; http://www.unplugsalem.org
http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org

"A time comes when silence is betrayal.
Even when pressed by the demands of
inner truth, men do not easily assume
the task of opposing their government's
policy, especially in time of war.
Nor does the human spirit move without
  great difficulty against all the apathy
of conformist thought, within one's own
bosom and in the surrounding world."

- Martin Luther King Jr.



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.10 - Release Date: 5/13/05
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
</x-flowed>

Attachment Converted: "c:\program files\eudora\attach\attachment6781.dat"
*****************************************************************
 25 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda

[May 16, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 93)]

[Unified Agenda]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access 
[frwais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID: f:ua050459.wais]

[Page 27986-28000]

Part LIX


[[Page 27986]]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC)                                    
  
10 CFR Ch. I

Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Semiannual regulatory agenda.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing its 
semiannual regulatory agenda in accordance with Public Law 96-354, The 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review. The agenda is a compilation of all rules on which 
the NRC has recently completed action or has proposed or is considering 
action. This issuance updates any action occurring on rules since 
publication of the last semiannual agenda on December 13, 2004 (69 FR 
74244).

ADDRESSES: Comments on any rule in the agenda may be sent to the 
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications 
Staff. Comments may also be hand delivered to the One White Flint North 
Building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. 
and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays. Comments received on rules for which 
the comment period has closed will be considered if it is practical to 
do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to 
comments received on or before the closure dates specified in the 
agenda.

     The agenda and any comments received on any rule listed in the 
agenda are available for public inspection and copying for a fee at 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Public Document Room, One White 
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1F21, Rockville, 
Maryland.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning NRC 
rulemaking procedures or the status of any rule listed in this agenda, 
contact Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division 
of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-
7163 (e-mail: mtl@nrc.gov). Persons outside the Washington, DC, 
metropolitan area may call, toll-free: 1-800-368-5642. For further 
information on the substantive content of any rule listed in the 
agenda, contact the individual listed under the heading Agency Contact 
for that rule.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information contained in this semiannual 
publication is updated to reflect any action that has occurred on rules 
since publication of the last NRC semiannual agenda on December 13, 
2004 (69 FR 74244). Within each group, the rules are ordered according 
to the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN).

     The information in this agenda has been updated through March 
18, 2005. The date for the next scheduled action under the heading 
Timetable is the date the rule is scheduled to be published in the 
Federal Register. The date is considered tentative and is not 
binding on the Commission or its staff. The agenda is intended to 
provide the public early notice and opportunity to participate in 
the NRC rulemaking process. However, the NRC may consider or act on 
any rulemaking even though it is not included in the agenda.

    The NRC agenda lists all open rulemaking actions. Four rules 
affect small entities.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of March 2005.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

 Michael T. Lesar,

Chief, Rules and Directives Branch,
Division of Administrative Services,
Office of Administration.

                               Nuclear Regulatory Commission--Proposed Rule Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Regulation
 Sequence                                           Title                                            Identifier
  Number                                                                                               Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3970        Fitness for Duty Programs.............................................................    3150-AF12
3971        Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear     3150-AG24
            Power Plants..........................................................................
3972        Reevaluation of Power Reactor Physical Protection Regulations and Position on a           3150-AG63
            Definition of Radiological Sabotage...................................................
3973        Controlling the Disposition of Solid Materials........................................    3150-AH18
3974        Large Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LB-LOCA) Redefinition...........................    3150-AH29
3975        Elimination of Requirement To Submit Annual Financial Report..........................    3150-AH39
3976        Collection, Reporting, or Posting of Information......................................    3150-AH40
3977        National Source Tracking..............................................................    3150-AH48
3978        Broadening Scope of Access Authorization and Facility Security Clearance Regulations..    3150-AH52
3979        Post-Fire Operator Manual Actions.....................................................    3150-AH54
3980        AP1000 Design Certification...........................................................    3150-AH56
3981        Clarification of NRC Civil Penalty Authority Over Non-Licensees.......................    3150-AH59
3982        Design Basis Treat....................................................................    3150-AH60
3983        Incorporation by Reference of ASME Code Cases.........................................    3150-AH65
3984        Implementation of a Dose Standard Beyond 10,000 Years.................................    3150-AH68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 27987]]


                                 Nuclear Regulatory Commission--Final Rule Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Regulation
 Sequence                                           Title                                            Identifier
  Number                                                                                               Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3985        Public Records........................................................................    3150-AH12
3986        Incorporation by Reference of ASME BPV Code Cases.....................................    3150-AH35
3987        Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Materials..................................    3150-AH44
3988        Administrative Changes................................................................    3150-AH49
3989        Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material: Nuclear Grade Graphite...........    3150-AH51
3990        Protection of Safeguards Information..................................................    3150-AH57
3991        Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery, FY 2005......................................    3150-AH61
3992        Conforming Administrative Changes.....................................................    3150-AH62
3993        List of Approved Sent Fuel Storage Casks: NUHOMS-24PT4 Revision, Amendment 2..........    3150-AH63
3994        List of Approved Sent Fuel Storage Casks: HI-STORM 100 Revision, Amendment 2..........    3150-AH64
3995        Charges for Duplicating Records.......................................................    3150-AH66
3996        Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material; Exports to Syria Embargoed.......    3150-AH67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                Nuclear Regulatory Commission--Long-Term Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Regulation
 Sequence                                           Title                                            Identifier
  Number                                                                                               Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3997        Update Fuel Performance Considerations and Other Fuel Cycle Issues....................    3150-AA31
3998        Disposal by Release Into Sanitary Sewerage............................................    3150-AE90
3999        Advance Notification to Native American Tribes of Transportation of Certain Types of      3150-AG41
            Nuclear Waste.........................................................................
4000        Integrated Rulemaking for Decommissioning Nuclear Power Reactors......................    3150-AG47
4001        Transfers of Certain Source Materials by Specific Licensees...........................    3150-AG64
4002        Entombment Options for Power Reactors.................................................    3150-AG89
4003        Modifications to Pressure-Temperature Limits..........................................    3150-AG98
4004        Distribution of Source Material to Exempt Persons and General Licensees and Revision      3150-AH15
            of 10 CFR 40.22 General License.......................................................
4005        Implement US-IAEA Safeguards Agreement................................................    3150-AH38
4006        Exemptions From Licensing and Distribution of Byproduct Material; Licensing and           3150-AH41
            Reporting Requirements................................................................
4007        Performance-Based ECCS Acceptance Criteria............................................    3150-AH42
4008        Decoupling of Assumed Loss of Offsite Power from Loss-of-Coolant Accidents (LOCA).....    3150-AH43
4009        Reduce the Likelihood of Funding Shortfalls for Decommissioning Under the License         3150-AH45
            Termination Rule......................................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                Nuclear Regulatory Commission--Completed Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Regulation
 Sequence                                           Title                                            Identifier
  Number                                                                                               Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4010        Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems and Components for      3150-AG42
            Nuclear Power Reactors................................................................
4011        Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities.........    3150-AH00
4012        Security Requirements for Portable Gauges Containing Byproduct Material...............    3150-AH06
4013        Medical Use of Byproduct Material--Recognition of Specialty Boards....................    3150-AH19
4014        Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Light-Water Nuclear Power      3150-AH22
            Reactors..............................................................................
4015        Codification of EA-03-009 RPV Head and Penetration Inspection Requirements............    3150-AH46
4016        Minor Correction Amendments for FY2004................................................    3150-AH58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 27988]]

_______________________________________________________________________
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)                 Proposed Rule Stage
  
_______________________________________________________________________

3970. FITNESS FOR DUTY PROGRAMS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 26

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to 
ensure compatibility with the Department of Health and Human Services 
guidelines, eliminate or modify unnecessary requirements in some areas, 
clarify the Commission's original intent of the rule, and improve 
overall program effectiveness and efficiency and establish threshold 
for the control of working hours at nuclear power plants to ensure that 
working hours in excess of the thresholds are controlled through a 
risk-informed deviation process. Because of the issues raised in 
response to the earlier affirmed (fitness for duty) rule, a new 
proposed rule will be published, including provisions to provide 
significantly greater assurance that worker fatigue does not adversely 
affect the operational safety of nuclear power plants. This new 
proposed rule is scheduled to be provided to the Commission by June 1, 
2005. This proposed rule subsumes the proposed rule ``Nuclear Power 
Plant Worker Fatigue (RIN 3150-AG99).'' This rulemaking would address 
the petition for rulemaking submitted by the Virginia Electric and 
Power Company (VEPCO) (PRM-26-1) and a petition for rulemaking 
submitted by Barry Quigley (PRM-26-2) related to worker fatigue.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            05/09/96                    61 FR 21105
NPRM Comment Period End         08/07/96
Second NPRM                     08/00/05
Final Rule                      05/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Rebecca L. Karas, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-3711
Email: rlk@nrc.gov

Related RIN: Related to 3150-AG62
RIN: 3150-AF12
_______________________________________________________________________

3971. EARLY SITE PERMITS; STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATIONS; AND COMBINED 
LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 20; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 51

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's requirements 
for early site permits, standard design certifications, and combined 
licensees for nuclear power plants, and for other licensing processes. 
The amendments are based on the NRC staff's experience with the 
previous design certification reviews and on discussions with 
stakeholders about the early site permit (ESP), design certification, 
and combined license (COL) processes. This action is expected to 
improve the effectiveness of the licensing processes for future 
applicants. The rulemaking also would make conforming clarifications 
and corrections to the NRC's regulations.
The NRC is proposing to reorganize 10 CFR part 52 to establish a 
separate section for each of the seven licensing processes currently 
described in 10 CFR part 52 (early site permits, early site reviews, 
standard design certification, standard design approvals, combined 
licenses, manufacturing licenses, and duplicate design licenses). The 
purpose of this reorganization is to clarify that each licensing 
process has equal standing. In addition, several subparts would be 
reserved for future licensing processes. No substantive changes are 
intended by the incorporation of current appendices M, N, O, and Q into 
the new subparts in 10 CFR part 52.
The NRC is also proposing to retitle 10 CFR part 52 as Additional 
Licensing Processes for Nuclear Power Plants to clarify that the 
licensing processes in 10 CFR part 52 are in addition to and supplement 
the two-step licensing process in 10 CFR part 50 and the license 
renewal process in 10 CFR part 54, and are not limited to the early 
site permit, standard design certification, and combined license 
processes as the current title implies.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            07/03/03                    68 FR 40025
NPRM Comment Period End         09/16/03
NPRM                            08/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Additional Information: The proposed rule would amend section 52.1 to 
clarify that all seven licensing processes are within the scope of 10 
CFR part 52. Sections within current appendices M, N, O, and Q would 
also become new sections of the revised part. In addition, the proposed 
rule would reserve sections for future licensing processes. In doing 
so, the NRC hopes to convey that 10 CFR part 52 is the preferred 
location in 10 CFR for nuclear power plant licensing processes. The 
proposed rule subsumed the rulemaking, ``Standardized Plant Designs, 
Early Review of Sites Suitability Issues; Clarifying Amendments`` (RIN 
3150-AE25), that would remove redundant appendices M, N, O, and Q from 
part 50. The part 52 rulemaking plan (SECY-98-282) was approved by the 
Commission on January 14, 1999.

Agency Contact: Jerry N. Wilson, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-3145
Email: jnw@nrc.gov

Nanette Giles, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-1180
Email: nvg@nrc.gov

Related RIN: Merged with 3150-AE25
RIN: 3150-AG24
_______________________________________________________________________

3972. REEVALUATION OF POWER REACTOR PHYSICAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS AND 
POSITION ON A DEFINITION OF RADIOLOGICAL SABOTAGE

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 73

Legal Deadline: None

[[Page 27989]]

Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to 
require each power reactor licensee to establish and maintain an onsite 
security program and organization with the objective of providing high 
assurance that licensed activities do not constitute an unreasonable 
risk to public health and safety as a result of radiological sabotage 
by design basis threat (DBT). To achieve the general objective, the 
regulation requires that onsite security programs and security 
organizations be designed to prevent core damage and/or spent fuel 
damage. The rulemaking uses risk insights to determine which plant 
systems need protection.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            02/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Scott A. Morris, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 
of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-7083
Email: sam1@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AG63
_______________________________________________________________________

3973. CONTROLLING THE DISPOSITION OF SOLID MATERIALS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 20

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to 
evaluate alternatives for controlling the disposition of solid 
materials with very low, or no levels of radioactivity. Current 
practice is to, on a case-by-case basis, either apply Regulatory Guide 
1.86 surface contamination values or determine that there is no 
detectable activity using environmental measurements methods. In 
addition, there are no current release levels established generally for 
volumetrically contaminated materials. An examination of approaches to 
the control of disposition of solid materials would help the NRC staff 
evaluate the cost effectiveness of means to handle requests for 
clearance of materials during both operation and decommissioning.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            05/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes

Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions

Government Levels Affected: Federal, State

Agency Contact: Frank Cardile, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of 
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-6185
Email: fpc@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH18
_______________________________________________________________________

3974. LARGE BREAK LOSS-OF-COOLANT ACCIDENT (LB-LOCA) REDEFINITION

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to 
allow for a risk-informed alternative to the present maximum loss-of-
coolant accident (LOCA) break size. This rulemaking would also address 
a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute 
(PRM-50-75).

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            06/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Richard F. Dudley, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-1116
Email: rfd@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH29
_______________________________________________________________________

3975. ELIMINATION OF REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to 
eliminate the reporting requirement in 10 CFR 50.71(b), which requires 
that licensees for production and utilization facilities submit annual 
financial reports, including certified financial statements, to the 
Commission.
The proposed rule would eliminate the costs to licensees of submitting 
their annual financial reports and the costs to the NRC of processing 
those submittals. The cost savings are relatively small, but it is 
expected that the costs associated with the rulemaking will be 
justified by the cost savings from eliminating the reporting 
requirement. The elimination of the report will also serve to fulfill a 
Congressional mandate to address outdated or paperwork-oriented 
requirements.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            06/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: William D. Reckley, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-1323
Email: wdr@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH39
_______________________________________________________________________

3976. COLLECTION, REPORTING, OR POSTING OF INFORMATION

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 19; 10 CFR 20; 10 CFR 50

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to 
clarify or revise the regulations such

[[Page 27990]]

that: (1) Licensees would not be required, unless a specific request 
was made by a worker, to provide an annual report to a worker of their 
radiation dose if a worker received less than two percent of the limits 
defined in 10 CFR part 20; (2) licensees for production and utilization 
facilities governed by 10 CFR part 50 would not need to label 
containers in accordance with 10 CFR 20.1904, ``Labeling containers,`` 
if the containers met conditions such as being clearly identifiable as 
containing radioactive materials, being accessible only to trained 
individuals, and being located in an area posted pursuant to 10 CFR 
20.1902, ''Posting requirements``; and (3) licensees would no longer 
need to attempt to obtain records of a worker's cumulative radiation 
dose unless the worker was to be involved in a planned special 
exposure. In addition, the staff is considering using this opportunity 
to propose a change to 10 CFR 20.1003, ``Definitions,'' to clarify the 
definition of total effective dose equivalent (TEDE).

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            05/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: William D. Reckley, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-1323
Email: wdr@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH40
_______________________________________________________________________

3977. NATIONAL SOURCE TRACKING

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 20; 10 CFR 32; 10 CFR 150

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The proposed rulemaking would amend the Commission's 
regulations to establish the regulatory foundation for a new national 
source tracking system for high-risk sealed sources, as designated in 
the IAEA Code of Conduct (Category 1 and 2 sources). The tracking 
system is intended to track the high-risk sources from cradle to grave. 
Licensees will be required to report manufacture of new sources, 
transfer of sources, receipt of sources and end-points for sources 
(e.g. export, and disposal).

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            06/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Federalism:  Undetermined

Agency Contact: Merri Horn, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of 
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-8126
Email: mlh1@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH48
_______________________________________________________________________

3978. BROADENING SCOPE OF ACCESS AUTHORIZATION AND FACILITY SECURITY 
CLEARANCE REGULATIONS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 41 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 25; 10 CFR 95

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The direct final rule would have amended the Commission's 
regulations to broaden the scope of the regulations applicable to 
persons who may require access to classified information, to include 
persons who may need access in connection with licensing and regulatory 
activities under the regulations that govern the disposal of high-level 
radioactive waste in geologic repositories, and persons who may need 
access in connection with other activities as the Commission may 
determine, such as vendors of advanced reactor designs. The Commission 
would have also amended its regulations to broaden the scope of the 
regulations applicable to procedures for obtaining facility security 
clearances, to include persons who may need to use, process, store, 
reproduce, transmit, transport, or handle NRC classified information in 
connection with the above-identified activities.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            12/15/04                    69 FR 75007
Direct Final Rule               12/15/04                    69 FR 74949
Direct Final Rule Effective     02/28/05
Direct Final Rule Withdrawal    02/24/05                     70 FR 8921
NPRM                            05/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Federalism:  Undetermined

Agency Contact: Anthony N. Tse, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 
of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-6233
Email: ant@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH52
_______________________________________________________________________

3979. POST-FIRE OPERATOR MANUAL ACTIONS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations 
revising fire protection requirements in appendix R to 10 CFR part 50, 
along with associated guidance, to allow manual actions when those 
actions meet appropriate acceptance criteria. The staff developed an 
interim enforcement policy to deal with compliance issues until the 
rulemaking is complete and final revisions to the regulations and the 
guidance are effective (January 14, 2005; 70 FR 2577).

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            03/07/05                    70 FR 10901
NPRM Comment Period End         05/23/05
Review of Comments              06/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Federalism:  Undetermined

Agency Contact: David T. Diec, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001

[[Page 27991]]

Phone: 301 415-2834
Email: dtd@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH54
_______________________________________________________________________

3980. [bull] AP1000 DESIGN CERTIFICATION

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 52

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to 
provide for certification of the AP1000 design. Design certification 
rules are initiated by an applicant for design certification pursuant 
to subpart B of part 52.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            04/18/05                    70 FR 20062
NPRM Comment Period End         07/05/05
Final Action                     To Be                       Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Federalism:  Undetermined

Agency Contact: Lauren Quinones-Navarro, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington , DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-2007
Email: lnq@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH56
_______________________________________________________________________

3981. [bull] CLARIFICATION OF NRC CIVIL PENALTY AUTHORITY OVER NON-
LICENSEES

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 60; 10 CFR 61; 10 
CFR 70; 10 CFR 71

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to 
enable NRC to impose civil penalties upon non-licensee contractors and 
subcontractors who discriminate against employees engaged in protected 
activities.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                             To Be                       Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Federalism:  Undetermined

Agency Contact: Doug Starkey, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of 
Enforcement, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-3456
Email: drs@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH59
_______________________________________________________________________

3982. [bull] DESIGN BASIS TREAT

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 73

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to 
revise its design basis threat requirements to consolidate the 
supplemental requirements put in place by orders following the 
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with the existing DBT 
requirements in section 73.1.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            06/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Federalism:  Undetermined

Agency Contact: Tim Reed, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-1462
Email: tar@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH60
_______________________________________________________________________

3983. [bull] INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF ASME CODE CASES

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to 
incorporate by reference recent revisions of Regulatory Guides listing 
NRC-approved American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and 
Pressure Vessel BPV) Code Cases pertaining to in-service inspection 
(DG-1134) and design, fabrication, and materials (DG-1133) in nuclear 
power reactors.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            07/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Federalism:  Undetermined

Agency Contact: Harry S. Tovmassian, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-3092
Email: hst@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH65
_______________________________________________________________________

3984. [bull] IMPLEMENTATION OF A DOSE STANDARD BEYOND 10,000 YEARS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 70

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to 
revise existing regulations on technical criteria for disposal of high-
level radioactive waste in a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada, to be consistent with the environmental standards developed by 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            11/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Federalism:  Undetermined

Agency Contact: Lydia Chang, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of 
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001

[[Page 27992]]

Phone: 301 415-6319
Email: lwc1@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH68
_______________________________________________________________________
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)                    Final Rule Stage
  
_______________________________________________________________________

3985. PUBLIC RECORDS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 9

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to 
reflect changes in officials who initially deny access to records or 
deny access to records whose initial denial has been appealed, and to 
reflect a change in an appellate official due to a reorganization. The 
amendment would allow the Executive Assistant to the Secretary of the 
Commission, rather than the Assistant Secretary, to make the initial 
determination to deny NRC records in whole or in part under the 
Commission's regulations. Also, an appeal of a denial of a request for 
a waiver or reduction of fees, or denial of a request for expedited 
processing would be appealed to the Executive Director for Operations 
rather than the Secretary of the Commission.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            04/27/04                    69 FR 22737
NPRM Comment Period End         07/12/04
Final Rule                      06/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Carol Ann Reed, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 
of the Chief Information Officer, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-7169
Email: car2@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH12
_______________________________________________________________________

3986. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF ASME BPV CODE CASES

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to 
incorporate by reference the latest revisions of two previously 
incorporated regulatory guides which address NRC review and approval of 
Code cases published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 
(ASME). The Code cases listed in these regulatory guides have been 
reviewed by the NRC and found to be acceptable for use as alternatives 
to requirements in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code pertaining 
to the construction and inservice inspection of nuclear power plant 
components.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            08/03/04                    69 FR 46452
NPRM Comment Period End         10/18/04
Final Rule                      05/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Harry S. Tovmassian, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-3092
Email: hst@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH35
_______________________________________________________________________

3987. EXPORT AND IMPORT OF NUCLEAR EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 110

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The final rule amends the Commission's regulations to require 
specific export and import licenses for high-risk radioactive material. 
The final rule is necessary to reflect recent changes to the nuclear 
material security policies of the Commission and the Executive branch.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            09/16/04                    69 FR 55785
NPRM Comment Period End         11/30/04
Final Rule                      06/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Federalism:  Undetermined

Agency Contact: Suzanne Schuyler-Hayes, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of International Programs, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-2333
Email: ssh@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH44
_______________________________________________________________________

3988. ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 1; 10 CFR 20; 10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 73

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The final rule amends the Commission's regulations to reflect 
the change of address for the NRC Region III Office in Lisle, Illinois. 
The final rule also updates the list of non-Agreement States and 
informs the public of the consolidation of the Region I and Region II 
materials programs.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Final Rule                      06/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Federalism:  Undetermined

[[Page 27993]]

Agency Contact: Michael K Williamson, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-
0001
Phone: 301 415-6234
Email: mkw1@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH49
_______________________________________________________________________

3989. EXPORT AND IMPORT OF NUCLEAR EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL: NUCLEAR GRADE 
GRAPHITE

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 110

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The direct final rule amends the Commission's regulations by 
revising its export/import regulations to remove the NRC's export 
licensing requirements for nuclear grade graphite for non-nuclear end 
use. The purpose of this change is to remove from NRC export licensing 
jurisdiction nuclear materials which are not of significance from a 
nuclear proliferation perspective. The responsibility for the licensing 
of exports of nuclear grade graphite for non-nuclear end use will be 
transferred to the Department of Commerce (DOC). The DOC, which has 
concurred in this rule, will issue a direct final rule that will place 
these exports under its jurisdiction. The DOC direct final rule will be 
published concurrently and will become effective on the same date as 
the NRC's direct final rule.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Direct Final Rule               05/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Federalism:  Undetermined

Agency Contact: Suzanne Schuyler-Hayes, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of International Programs, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-2333
Email: ssh@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH51
_______________________________________________________________________

3990. [bull] PROTECTION OF SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 2, 10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 52; 10 
CFR 63; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 76; 10 CFR 150

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations 
for the protection of Safeguards Information (SGI) to be consistent 
with recent Commission practices reflected in Orders and Threat 
Advisories, and Confirmatory Action Letters issued since September 11, 
2001. The amendments also would provide the flexibility afforded the 
Commission for the protection of such information by the Atomic Energy 
Act of 1954, as amended (AEA). The proposed amendments would affect 
certain licensees, information, and materials not currently specified 
in the regulations, but which are within the scope of the AEA. The 
proposed amendments are intended to protect SGI from inadvertent 
release and unauthorized disclosure which might compromise the security 
of nuclear facilities and materials.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            02/11/05                     70 FR 7196
NPRM Comment Period End         03/28/05
Final Rule                      01/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Federalism:  Undetermined

Agency Contact: Marjorie Rothschild, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-1633
Email: mur@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH57
_______________________________________________________________________

3991. [bull] REVISION OF FEE SCHEDULES; FEE RECOVERY, FY 2005

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 170; 10 CFR 171

Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, September 30, 2005, Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended.

Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's licensing, 
inspection, and annual fees charged to NRC licensees and applicants for 
an NRC license. The rulemaking is necessary to recover, through the 
assessment of fees, approximately 90 percent of the NRC's budget 
authority for Fiscal Year 2005, less the amounts appropriated from the 
Nuclear Waste Fund and General Fund as required by the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990, as amended.
The FY 2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act amended 
OBRA-90 to decrease the NRC's fee recovery amount by two percent per 
year beginning in FY 2001, until the fee recovery amount is 90 percent 
for FY 2005. The purpose of this amendment is to address the fairness 
and equity concerns related to charging NRC license holders for agency 
expenses that do not provide a direct benefit to the licensee. The 
dollar amount to be recovered for FY 2005 is approximately $540.7 
million. OBRA-90, as amended, requires that the fees for FY 2005 be 
collected by September 30, 2005.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            02/22/05                     70 FR 8678
NPRM Comment Period End         03/24/05
Final Rule                      06/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations

Government Levels Affected: Local, State

Federalism:  Undetermined

Agency Contact: Tammy D. Croote, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 
of the Chief Financial Officer, Washington, DC 20555-0001

[[Page 27994]]

Phone: 301 415-6041
Email: txc1@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH61
_______________________________________________________________________

3992. [bull] CONFORMING ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFF 70

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The final rule amends the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 
part 70 to make conforming changes to citations in the regulatory text. 
These changes update and correct cross-references within part 70.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Final Rule                      05/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Federalism:  Undetermined

Agency Contact: Michael K Williamson, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-
0001
Phone: 301 415-6234
Email: mkw1@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH62
_______________________________________________________________________

3993. [bull] LIST OF APPROVED SENT FUEL STORAGE CASKS: NUHOMS-24PT4 
REVISION, AMENDMENT 2

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 72

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The direct final rule amends the Commission's regulations 
that apply to storage of spent fuel by revising the Transnuclear, Inc., 
Standardized NUHOMS cask system listing within the ``List of Approved 
Spent Fuel Storage Casks'' to include Amendment No. 1 to Certificate of 
Compliance Number 1029. Amendment No. 1 will add another Dry Shielded 
Canister, designated NUHOMS-24PT4, to the authorized contents of the 
Standardized Advanced NUHOMS System. Also, the rule will be amended to 
correct a typographical error that incorrectly states the expiration 
date of the CoC.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            02/28/05                     70 FR 9548
NPRM Comment Period End         03/30/05
Direct Final Rule               02/28/05                     70 FR 9501
Direct Final Rule Effective     05/16/05
Confirmation of Effective Date  05/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Federalism:  Undetermined

Agency Contact: Jayne M. McCausland, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-
0001
Phone: 301 415-6219
Email: jmm2@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH63
_______________________________________________________________________

3994. [bull] LIST OF APPROVED SENT FUEL STORAGE CASKS: HI-STORM 100 
REVISION, AMENDMENT 2

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 72

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The direct final rule amends the Commission's regulations 
that apply to storage of spent fuel by revising the Holtec 
International HI-STORM 100 cask system listing within the ``List of 
Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks'' to include Amendment No. 2 to 
Certificate of Compliance Number 1014. Amendment No. 2 will modify the 
present cask system design to include changes to materials used in 
construction, changes to the types of fuel that can be loaded, changes 
to shielding and confinement methodologies and assumptions, revisions 
to various temperature limits, changes in allowable fuel enrichments, 
and other changes to reflect current NRC staff guidance and use of 
industry codes, under a general license.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            02/28/05                     70 FR 9550
Direct Final Rule               02/28/05                     70 FR 9504
Direct Final Rule Comment Period 
End                             03/30/05
Direct Final Rule Effective     05/16/05
Confirmation of Effective Date  05/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Federalism:  Undetermined

Agency Contact: Jayne M. McCausland, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-
0001
Phone: 301 415-6219
Email: jmm2@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH64
_______________________________________________________________________

3995. [bull] CHARGES FOR DUPLICATING RECORDS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 9

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The final rule amends the Commission's regulations to permit 
its contractor to increase the changes for copying publicly available 
documents at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR). The increases are 
necessary to adjust for inflation and a decrease in the projected 
volume of copying by the NRC contractor.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Final Rule                      06/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Federalism:  Undetermined

Agency Contact: Thomas E. Smith, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 
of Information Services, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-2950
Email: tes@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH66

[[Page 27995]]

_______________________________________________________________________

3996. [bull] EXPORT AND IMPORT OF NUCLEAR EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL; 
EXPORTS TO SYRIA EMBARGOED

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 110

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The final rule amends the Commission's regulations pertaining 
to the export and import of nuclear equipment and radioactive 
materials. The amendments implement Executive Order 13336 (May 11, 
2004) by removing Syria from the list of restricted destinations in 10 
CFR 110.29 and adding it to the list of embargoed destinations in 10 
CFR 110.28. This amendment effectively prevents the export of nuclear 
material or equipment to Syria under a general license, and is 
necessary to conform the NRC's regulations to U.S. foreign policy.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Final Rule                      05/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Federalism:  Undetermined

Agency Contact: Kirk R. Foggie, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 
of International Programs, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-2238
Email: kxf@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH67
_______________________________________________________________________
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)                   Long-Term Actions
  
_______________________________________________________________________

3997. UPDATE FUEL PERFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS AND OTHER FUEL CYCLE ISSUES

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2011; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 4321; 42 USC 5841; 42 
USC 5842

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 51

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations by 
addressing uranium fuel cycle environmental data (Table S-3) and the 
environmental effects of transportation of fuel and waste data (Table 
S-4). In section 51.51, the environmental data would be reestimated and 
reflect changes in the structure and activities of the fuel cycle and 
the availability of better data. Estimates of releases of radon-222 and 
technetium-99 would be added to Table S-3. The addition of a specific 
value for radon-222 would address the outstanding portion of petition 
for rulemaking PRM-51-1, submitted by the New England Coalition on 
Nuclear Pollution. To provide immediate relief to the petitioners' 
request, the Commission published a final rule on March 14, 1977 (42 FR 
13803), that removed the original value for radon-222 from Table S-3 so 
that it became subject to case-specific litigation. It was anticipated 
that the Commission would add a specific value for radon-222, but the 
Commission deferred action until a general updating of Table S-3 is 
undertaken. For section 51.52, the environmental impact estimates would 
be reestimated to reflect the use of more highly enriched fuel and 
discharge of more highly irradiated fuels from a reactor, as well as 
many changes needed to update fuel cycle process and technologies.
This rulemaking would result in current and more accurate estimates of 
the environmental impact of licensing a new plant, and would eliminate 
the requirement to review the contribution to environmental impacts 
from radon-222 and technetium-99 in individual plant reviews. This rule 
is being reissued as a proposed rule, and would update the initial 
rulemaking effort to address newly emerging issues and research.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            03/04/81                    46 FR 15154
NPRM Comment Period End         05/04/81
Second NPRM                      To Be                       Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Stewart Schneider, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-4123
Email: ssx4@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AA31
_______________________________________________________________________

3998. DISPOSAL BY RELEASE INTO SANITARY SEWERAGE

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 20

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) was 
published to request public comment, information, and recommendations 
on contemplated amendments to the Commission's regulations governing 
the release of radionuclides from licensed nuclear facilities into 
sanitary sewer systems. By incorporating current sewer treatment 
technologies, the contemplated rulemaking would improve the control of 
radioactive materials released to sanitary sewer systems by licensed 
nuclear facilities. Through the Interagency Steering Committee on 
Radiation Standards (ISCORS), the NRC and the Environmental Protection 
Agency conducted a joint survey of sewage treatment plants. The results 
of the final report of the joint survey were considered in the 
Commission's denial of the petition for rulemaking submitted by the 
Northeast Ohio Sewer District (PRM-20-22). A notice denying the 
petition was published in the Federal Register on January 27, 2005 (70 
FR 3898). The staff is considering public comments and whether to 
withdraw this ANPRM.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

ANPRM                           02/25/94                     59 FR 9146
ANPRM Comment Period End        05/26/94
NPRM or Withdrawal Notice        To Be                       Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

[[Page 27996]]

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Lydia Chang, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of 
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-6319
Email: lwc1@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AE90
_______________________________________________________________________

3999. ADVANCE NOTIFICATION TO NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES OF TRANSPORTATION 
OF CERTAIN TYPES OF NUCLEAR WASTE

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 71; 10 CFR 73

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) invited 
early input from affected parties and the public on the issues 
associated with the advance notification of Indian tribes of spent fuel 
shipments. The Department of Energy (DOE) has indicated that it intends 
to comply with NRC's physical protection requirements for shipments 
under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act; however, its current practices 
conflict with NRC regulations. For example, DOE has asked for and will 
continue to ask for exemptions from the shipment itinerary information 
requirements of foreign research reactor fuel. DOE, as a courtesy, 
provides Indian tribes with notification of spent fuel shipments. NRC's 
current regulations do not address notification of Indian tribes. 
Further, DOE has developed a satellite tracking system to monitor the 
status of spent fuel shipments at all times. Distribution of this 
status information to parties other than Governors' designees is also 
not compatible with NRC regulations. A rulemaking plan was approved by 
the Commission on February 20, 2001. This rulemaking was put on hold by 
the Commission pending review of NRC rules in response to events of 
September 11, 2001.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

ANPRM                           12/21/99                    64 FR 71331
ANPRM Comment Period End        07/05/00                    65 FR 18010
NPRM                             To Be                       Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Roger W. Broseus, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 
of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-7608
Email: rwb@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AG41
_______________________________________________________________________

4000. INTEGRATED RULEMAKING FOR DECOMMISSIONING NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: A staff requirements memorandum dated June 23, 1999, directed 
the NRC staff to consider an integrated, risk-informed decommissioning 
rule rather than individual rulemakings to address emergency 
preparedness, insurance, safeguards, operator staffing, and backfit for 
nuclear power plants that are being decommissioned. SECY-99-168, dated 
June 30, 1999, recommended that the integrated approach be approved and 
outlined staff plans for pursuing such a rulemaking. Accordingly, the 
staff has subsumed previous rulemaking activities in the areas of 
emergency planning, insurance, safeguards, operator staffing, and 
backfit into one integrated rulemaking effort. This rulemaking would 
apply to licensees who certified, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a), that 
they have permanently ceased facility operation(s) and have permanently 
removed fuel from the reactor vessel. The Commission approved this 
approach in an SRM dated December 21, 1999. This rulemaking also would 
address a petition for rulemaking submitted by the North Carolina 
Public Utility Commission (PRM-50-57).

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                             To Be                       Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Additional Information: In SECY-00-0145, dated June 28, 2000, the NRC 
staff recommended a decommissioning rulemaking plan in the areas of 
emergency planning, insurance, safeguards, operator staffing, and 
backfit (the integrated decommissioning rulemaking plan). The 
rulemaking plan relied on a draft decommissioning risk study as the 
basis for its recommendations. The Commission returned the rulemaking 
plan to the staff for rework in September 2000, based on changes to the 
decommissioning risk study findings. The decommissioning risk study, 
NUREG-1738, was issued in January 2001. After assessing the findings in 
the risk study, the staff presented a policy options paper to the 
Commission, SECY-01-0100, dated June 4, 2001, that provided options and 
made recommendations on issues to be addressed in the integrated 
rulemaking. Following the terrorist events of September 11, 2001, the 
NRC staff recommended and the Commission approved the withdrawal of 
SECY-01-0101 because of the likely changes in the staff's position on 
decommissioning plant safeguards. The decommissioning policy position 
will be revisited when a broad-scope NRC safeguards policy is developed 
in response to potential terrorist acts at nuclear facilities. The 
schedule for the integrated rulemaking cannot be determined at this 
time.

Agency Contact: Anthony N. Tse, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 
of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-6233
Email: ant@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AG47
_______________________________________________________________________

4001. TRANSFERS OF CERTAIN SOURCE MATERIALS BY SPECIFIC LICENSEES

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 40

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to 
require NRC approval for transfers from licensees of unimportant 
quantities of source material (less than 0.05 percent by weight) to 
persons exempt from licensing requirements. The objective of this 
proposed action is to ensure that the regulations regarding transfers 
of

[[Page 27997]]

materials containing low concentrations of source material are adequate 
to protect public health and safety. Publication of the final rule is 
being delayed until certain recent related issues are resolved to 
minimize the possibility of future inconsistencies in the regulations.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            08/28/02                    67 FR 55175
NPRM Comment Period End         11/12/02
Final Action                     To Be                       Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Gary Comfort, Jr., Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-
0001
Phone: 301 415-8106
Email: gcc1@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AG64
_______________________________________________________________________

4002. ENTOMBMENT OPTIONS FOR POWER REACTORS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 20; 10 CFR 50

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) was 
published seeking stakeholder input on three proposed regulatory 
options and whether entombment was a viable decommissioning 
alternative. In SECY 02-0191 (October 25, 2002), NRC staff proposed 
deferring the rulemaking until the Office of Nuclear Regulatory 
Research has conducted research to develop a sound technical basis for 
an entombment option, estimated in 2005. The Commission, in a Staff 
Requirements Memorandum dated November 26, 2002, did not object to 
staff's proposal, and requested information regarding the scope and 
type of research needed to support any entombment option. This 
information was provided to the Commission on May 14, 2003. The Office 
of Nuclear Regulatory Research conducted research in 2004 and plans to 
issue an Interim Research Report in mid-2005. The staff is continuing 
to defer this rulemaking activity.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

ANPRM                           10/16/01                    66 FR 52551
ANPRM Comment Period End        12/31/01
NPRM                             To Be                       Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Kevin R. O'Sullivan, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-
0001
Phone: 301 415-8112
Email: kro2@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AG89
_______________________________________________________________________

4003. MODIFICATIONS TO PRESSURE-TEMPERATURE LIMITS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to 
eliminate those requirements for pressure-temperature limits that are 
related to the metal temperature of the reactor pressure vessel closure 
head flange and vessel flange areas. The proposed rule would amend 
footnotes 2 and 6 to table 1 of appendix G, and simplify restructuring 
of the table. Also, this rulemaking would address the petition for 
rulemaking submitted by Westinghouse Electric Company (PRM-50-69).

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                             To Be                       Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Matthew Mitchell, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-3303
Email: mam4@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AG98
_______________________________________________________________________

4004. DISTRIBUTION OF SOURCE MATERIAL TO EXEMPT PERSONS AND GENERAL 
LICENSEES AND REVISION OF 10 CFR 40.22 GENERAL LICENSE

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 40

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to 
improve the control over the distribution of source material to exempt 
persons and to general licensees in order to make part 40 more risk-
informed. The proposed rule also would govern the licensing of source 
material by adding specific requirements for licensing of and reporting 
by distributors of products and materials used by exempt persons and 
general licensees. Source material is used under general license and 
under various exemptions from licensing requirements in part 40 for 
which there is no regulatory mechanism for the Commission to obtain 
information to fully assess the resultant risks to public health and 
safety. Although estimates of resultant doses have been made, there is 
a need for ongoing information on the quantities and types of 
radioactive material distributed for exempt use and use under general 
license. Obtaining information on the distribution of source material 
is particularly difficult because many of the distributors of source 
material to exempt persons and generally licensed persons are not 
currently required to hold a license from the Commission. Distributors 
are often unknown to the Commission. No controls are in place to ensure 
that products and materials distributed are maintained within the 
applicable constraints of the exemptions. In addition, the amounts of 
source material allowed under the general license in 10 CFR 40.22 could 
result in exposures above 1 mSv/year (100 mrem/year) to workers at 
facilities that are not required to meet the requirements of parts 19 
and 20. Without knowledge of the identity and location of the general 
licensees, it would be difficult to enforce restrictions on the general 
licensees. This rule also would address PRM-40-27 submitted by the 
State of Colorado and Organization of Agreement States.

[[Page 27998]]

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                             To Be                       Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes

Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions

Government Levels Affected: State

Agency Contact: Gary Comfort, Jr., Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-
0001
Phone: 301 415-8106
Email: gcc1@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH15
_______________________________________________________________________

4005. IMPLEMENT US-IAEA SAFEGUARDS AGREEMENT

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 60; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 63; 10 
CFR 70; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 75; 10 CFR 76; 10 CFR 150

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The final rule will amend the Commission's regulations to 
implement the additional reporting and complementary access 
requirements contained in the US/IAEA Additional Protocol for the 
application of safeguards in the United States of America.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Final Rule                       To Be                       Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Naiem S. Tanious, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 
of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-6103
Email: nst@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH38
_______________________________________________________________________

4006. EXEMPTIONS FROM LICENSING AND DISTRIBUTION OF BYPRODUCT MATERIAL; 
LICENSING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 31; 10 CFR 32

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The proposed rule would use the results of the reevaluation 
of exemptions to make parts 30, 31, and 32 more risk-informed and less 
prescriptive and to better ensure safety. The proposed rule would 
eliminate unnecessary restrictions and obsolete provisions currently in 
the regulations. Improvements to distributor reporting requirements are 
also being considered. This rulemaking subsumes RM 526, ``Use of Exempt 
Sources in Devices, 10 CFR 30.18.''

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            12/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Catherine R. Mattsen, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-
0001
Phone: 301 415-6264
Email: crm@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH41
_______________________________________________________________________

4007. PERFORMANCE-BASED ECCS ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The proposed rule would amend section 50.46 to develop 
performance-based acceptance criteria for fuel cladding performance 
during loss-of-coolant accidents. Existing provisions of section 50.46 
applicable to certain zirconium-based cladding materials would be 
supplemented by performance-based standards for maximum peak cladding 
temperature and oxidation limit. The supplementary performance standard 
would allow licensees to use alternative cladding materials, without 
seeking an exemption, provided that (1) testing demonstrated that 
adequate ductility would be maintained, and (2) ECCS analyses showed 
that the new performance criteria would be satisfied. This rulemaking 
would also address a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Nuclear 
Energy Institute (PRM-50-71).

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            03/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Richard F. Dudley, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-1116
Email: rfd@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH42
_______________________________________________________________________

4008. DECOUPLING OF ASSUMED LOSS OF OFFSITE POWER FROM LOSS-OF-COOLANT 
ACCIDENTS (LOCA)

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to 
eliminate, based upon appropriate risk considerations, the assumption 
of a coincident loss of offsite power for postulated large-break (low 
frequency) loss-of-coolant accidents (LB-LOCA) in General Design 
Criterion (GDC) 35. The proposed rule would provide a voluntary 
alternative to existing requirements where specified acceptance 
criteria are satisfied, and also would address a petition for 
rulemaking submitted by Bob Christie Performance Technology (PRM-50-
77).

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                             To Be                       Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

[[Page 27999]]

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Richard F. Dudley, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-1116
Email: rfd@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH43
_______________________________________________________________________

4009. REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF FUNDING SHORTFALLS FOR DECOMMISSIONING 
UNDER THE LICENSE TERMINATION RULE

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 20; 10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations by 
examining the addition and revision of requirements for (1) financial 
assurance and (2) licensee monitoring, reporting, and remediation to 
reduce the potential for sites that could have funding shortfalls or 
contamination that would complicate future decommissioning (i.e., 
create a future legacy site).

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                             To Be                       Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Federalism:  Undetermined

Agency Contact: Leslie S. Kerr, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 
of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-6272
Email: lsk@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH45
_______________________________________________________________________
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)                   Completed Actions
  
_______________________________________________________________________

4010. RISK-INFORMED CATEGORIZATION AND TREATMENT OF STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS 
AND COMPONENTS FOR NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50

Completed:
________________________________________________________________________

Reason                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Final Rule                      11/22/04                    69 FR 68008
Final Rule Effective            12/22/04

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Tim Reed
Phone: 301 415-1462
Email: tar@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AG42
_______________________________________________________________________

4011. EMERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS FOR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 
FACILITIES

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50

Completed:
________________________________________________________________________

Reason                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Final Rule                      01/26/05                     70 FR 3591
Final Rule Effective            04/26/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Michael T. Jamgochian
Phone: 301 415-3224
Email: mtj1@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH00
_______________________________________________________________________

4012. SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR PORTABLE GAUGES CONTAINING BYPRODUCT 
MATERIAL

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 30

Completed:
________________________________________________________________________

Reason                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Final Rule                      01/12/05                     70 FR 2001
Final Rule Effective            07/11/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Lydia Chang
Phone: 301 415-6319
Email: lwc1@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH06
_______________________________________________________________________

4013. MEDICAL USE OF BYPRODUCT MATERIAL--RECOGNITION OF SPECIALTY BOARDS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 35

Completed:
________________________________________________________________________

Reason                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Final Rule                      03/30/05                    70 FR 16336
Final Rule Effective            04/29/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions

Government Levels Affected: State

Agency Contact: Roger W. Broseus
Phone: 301 415-7608
Email: rwb@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH19
_______________________________________________________________________

4014. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEMS FOR LIGHT-
WATER NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50

Completed:
________________________________________________________________________

Reason                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Subsumed Into RIN 3150-AH42     01/14/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Richard F. Dudley
Phone: 301 415-1116
Email: rfd@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH22
_______________________________________________________________________

4015. CODIFICATION OF EA-03-009 RPV HEAD AND PENETRATION INSPECTION 
REQUIREMENTS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50

[[Page 28000]]

Completed:
________________________________________________________________________

Reason                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Subsumed Into RIN 3150-AH24     10/01/04                    69 FR 58804

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Federalism:  Undetermined

Agency Contact: Joseph L. Birmingham
Phone: 301 415-2829
Email: jlb4@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH46
_______________________________________________________________________

4016. [bull] MINOR CORRECTION AMENDMENTS FOR FY2004

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 19; 10 CFR 34; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 55; 10 CFR 60

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The final rule amends the Commission's regulations to correct 
several miscellaneous errors in the NRC Rules and Regulations. This 
document is necessary to inform the public of these corrective changes.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Final Rule                      12/22/04                    69 FR 76599
Final Rule Effective            12/22/04

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Federalism:  Undetermined

Agency Contact: Alzonia Sheppard, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 
of Administration, Washington, DC 20855-0001
Phone: 301 415-6863
Email: aws1@nrc.gov

RIN: 3150-AH58
[FR Doc. 05-6017 Filed 05-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-S
*****************************************************************
 26 Platts: NRC to implement IAEA rules on radioactive materials
 
  [The McGraw-Hill Companies]   
    
 
+ The U.S. will become the first country to implement the IAEA's 
Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive 
Sources. 

The NRC commissioners yesterday approved final changes to the 
agency's rules to provide greater oversight of export or import 
of radioactive materials that could be used in so-called "dirty 
bombs." 

The new rules will require specific licenses for radioactive 
materials (in sealed sources or in bulk) that have certain 
radioactivity levels. 

The levels in the NRC amendments to 10 CFR Part 110 are 
essentially equivalent to those in Category 1 and 2 of the IAEA's 
Code of Conduct. 

The new NRC regulations will be effective by Dec. 31. NRC said 
the U.S. played a key role in developing the code. 

The Group of Eight industrial nations at a 2004 summit agreed to 
implement the code's export-import provisions by December 2005. 

Washington (Platts)--13May2005
 
Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 27 Oregon Daily Emerald: A 'peak' into oil's future

University of Oregon news and sports - 

Monday, May 16, 2005 	 
Commentary
 
Ailee Slater
Commentary Editor 

May 16, 2005 In the last few days, I've been thinking a lot about 
Peak Oil. Peak Oil means the rate of oil production in relation 
to consumer need reaches the highest it will ever be, and if 
consumers want oil, it can be obtained easily and for a 
relatively low cost. Every second after Peak Oil is another 
second that our world's capacity for oil production is shrinking; 
it's like reaching the top of a bell curve -- the only place to 
go is down. 

Although estimates vary, most recent studies agree that the world 
will see a global oil peak by the year 2020 at the latest. This 
means that in fewer than 15 years, after the peak, oil just won't 
cut it. Rapidly declining supply will lead to high and unstable 
oil prices; not to mention that in a nation that depends on oil 
to fuel its economy, almost every facet of life in the United 
States will be affected by peak oil. 

Republicans and Democrats sit around and whine that the world's 
energy crisis is based on botched foreign relations or touchy 
emotions over drilling sites. The truth of the matter is much 
simpler than that. It's not Saudi Arabia's fault, nor is it 
staunch environmentalists who protest drilling the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge. Oil is a limited natural resource, and 
neither humans nor their demand for oil is decreasing. The time 
has come to take a worldwide step back and stop blaming our 
energy problems on everyone except ourselves, the people who have 
been trained to depend on a resource that by definition cannot 
sustain itself. 

One solution to diminishing oil that recently has come forward is 
nuclear power. In some ways, nuclear energy seems like just the 
silver bullet we've been searching for: It's powerful, releases 
fewer greenhouse gases than fossil fuels and has been in 
development for years. 

However, the problems associated with nuclear power are 
surprisingly numerous. Nuclear power still generates a large 
amount of carbon dioxide and doesn't make substantially lessen 
climate change, as some supporters claim. 

Another set of issues comes with the extremely high cost of 
building and maintaining nuclear power plants. Most important, a 
crack in a nuclear energy facility is not just an inconvenience, 
it is a serious threat to the surrounding population. And, 
speaking of threats, how about the resulting nuclear waste from 
power plants? Besides the conspiracy theorist fear that 
terrorists will steal nuclear byproducts and create weapons, 
there is also a very real concern about what to do with 
radioactive byproducts from nuclear material. Huge amounts of 
money and safety are being compromised in the quest to mainstream 
nuclear power. 

For what it's worth, here's a woefully unscientific opinion: 
Whatever happened to hydrogen energy? Maybe as a Bachelor of Arts 
student I'm missing something here, but it seems blatantly 
obvious that all available resources should go into exploring 
natural, renewable energy. There is no shortage of water on this 
planet. The only output from hydrogen power is more water, making 
this energy option viable from both an economic and environmental 
perspective. 

How about wind energy and energy using tidal waves? It sounds 
like so much other liberal propaganda, but isn't it just plain 
logical to suggest that nations work within the realm of 
possible, safe, clean energy sources? Instead of continually 
putting all our eggs in one basket, as with oil, our world needs 
to explore how to utilize a multitude of energy sources at the 
same time. For instance, some areas might be better equipped to 
utilize wind turbines; others may have a good source of tidal 
waves. 

Economically, there's no reason any nation should be dependent on 
companies that burn dwindling fossil fuels to make products. The 
United States especially should put some serious thought and 
resources into making sure that when oil becomes unfeasible to 
use, our country and economy will be relaxing, with the knowledge 
that the wind and the waves are not going anywhere. 

The only concrete conclusion that can be derived from this global 
energy fiasco is that all citizens who have a woefully blind eye 
toward the inevitable must undergo a serious wake-up call. 
Citizens residing in a big white house on Capitol Hill should 
especially take note. As much as we'd like to believe otherwise, 
the United States is not immune to Peak Oil, global warming and 
other inevitable events resulting from our heavy dependence on 
energy. 

The issues of productivity versus resources and safety versus
efficiency have reached the top of their bell curve. Until the
world can rely on clean and renewable energy sources, these
problems are only going to get worse. 

aileeslater@dailyemerald.com
A 'peak' into oil's future
 
© 2005 Oregon Daily Emerald 
*****************************************************************
 28 BBC NEWS: Is Britain's future really nuclear?
 
Updated: Monday, 16 May, 2005, 12:57 GMT 13:57 UK [

  Feature By Hannah Goff BBC News Website   

When the "father" of the environmental movement, James Lovelock, 
declared that nuclear energy was the only practical answer to the 
challenges of global warming he set off a chain reaction. 

[Sellafield]                            

A uranium leak at Sellafield has shut its reprocessing plant                                                             
                                 
With many politicians persuaded by that argument and a
review of nuclear power now all but certain, it seems that
Lovelock's clarion call could end in a new nuclear building
programme in the UK. 

But was he right to suggest that only a huge expansion in
nuclear power, with its zero carbon emissions, can stop the
runaway train that is the greenhouse effect? 

'Over-budget' 

Britain's 14 nuclear power stations are coming to the end of
their lifetimes, with half due to be decommissioned between now
and 2010. By 2023 all but one will have shut. 

We will find soon that our electricity supply becomes even more 
fragile and we get power cuts and it will get worse             

Prof Ian Fells Chairman of the New and Renewable Energy Centre         

This means nuclear power's contribution to Britain's electricity 
supply will be cut by two-thirds from its present 21% level to 7% 
by 2020. 

Green group Friends of the Earth says that, even if you solved 
the problem of what to do with radioactive nuclear waste and 
could guarantee against Chernobyl-type accidents, there simply 
isn't enough time for a revival. 

It points to the fact that the last nuclear power station to be 
built in the UK, Sizewell B, took 15 years to go from proposal to 
electricity production and cost more than twice its original 
budget. 

[Professor James Lovelock   Sandy Lovelock] James Lovelock was 
the first to see the earth as a living organism                                                                

"These facts swiftly brought to an end plans to build nine 
reactors of the same design," FOE climate campaigner Bryony 
Worthington says. 

"In fact, we have never built a nuclear power reactor in this 
country on time or to budget or that has succeeded in achieving 
the levels of performance that were expected." 

The group also claims the doubling of Britain's nuclear capacity 
- which ultimately means something like 28 new power stations - 
would only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 8%. 

And it provides no solution to the global warming gases produced 
by cars, lorries and domestic heating. 

Fuel security 

Chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, Keith 
Parker, says that, if government decisions are taken quickly 
enough, a new generation of nuclear power stations could be ready 
to help Britain achieve its target of a 10% cut in emissions by 
2020. 

If measures were taken "to streamline some of the procedures at 
the beginning around licensing, regulation and the planning 
system", then 10 new stations could be up and running in 10 
years' time, he says. 

"It's around 2015 when the real problem of generating capacity 
would occur. 

[Inside the Sellafield plant]           
 Half 'opposed to nuclear power'                 

"It's not only nuclear stations that are coming out of use - it's 
the coal-fired stations, too." 

This is because of EU directives forcing firms to cut their 
sulphur emissions, says Mr Parker. 

His association supports renewable energy sources - but says, 
"they are not going to be able to replace all of that 
generational capacity". 

This means the major generation will be carried out by power 
stations fired by gas - 80% of which will need to be imported by 
2020, he argues. 

"That should ring some alarm bells with politicians and consumers 
that we are relying on foreign sources - such as Russia, the 
Middle East and North Africa - for our fuel." 

Chairman of the New and Renewable Energy Centre, Professor Ian 
Fells, agrees, arguing that Britain cannot do without nuclear 
power. 

Waste build-up 

"It's like a slow-motion train crash," he says: "If we don't do 
anything about this next year, and the next, nothing will happen. 
But we will find soon that our electricity supply becomes even 
more fragile and we get power cuts and it will get worse." 

But former environment secretary Michael Meacher points to the 
fact that there is still no practical method of dealing with 
radioactive waste from nuclear power stations. 

[Harlock Hill windfarm]                                 
An expansion in wind farms must be approved by 2008 if CO2 
targets are to be met                     

There is already 10,000 tonnes of high and intermediate level 
radioactive waste 90% of which is being stored at Cumbria's 
Sellafield nuclear plant until a solution can be found. 

This is set to grow to half a million tonnes of nuclear waste by 
the end of this century even without any new build, Mr Meacher 
says 

"Do we really want to generate more nuclear reactors producing 
even more waste when we don't know what to do with all the waste 
that is building up?" 

The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) says wind projects 
representing a 10th of the UK's electricity needs from on and 
offshore projects are either being commissioned or are due to 
enter the planning system over the next 12 months. 

BWEA chief executive, Marcus Rand, says the government's Energy 
White Paper in 2003 was "seminal" because it put renewables and 
wind centre-stage. 

'Another way' 

Britain's six biggest energy firms now have to source an 
increasing proportion of energy from renewable sources each year 
and by 2010, 10% of our electricity has to come from renewable 
sources. 

"Most analysis concludes that wind both on and offshore will form 
the bulk of that 10% because of its technological maturity," says 
Mr Rand. 

"If you look at technological maturity as a 100m race, wind 
technology has already crossed the finishing line." 

[Traffic jam]                           

Carbon capture and storage could help tackle car fume pollution                                                          

Mr Rand says he is confident wind power will be able to reach the 
further target of 20% by 2020 as long as it gets planning 
approval in time. 

But without nuclear and with a reduction in coal-fired stations 
as well, a fifth falls well short of what is required. 

For the FOE the answer lies in cleaning up existing coal and gas 
power stations - perhaps by taking the CO2 out of emissions and 
burying it deep underground. 

Currently eight of the world's leading energy companies are 
working with governments on proving the technology and reducing 
the costs. 

"It shouldn't be nuclear versus renewables. It's nuclear versus 
carbon-captured storage," says Miss Worthington. 

"The industry believes they could get it going with about £30m a 
year. Nuclear power has had 30 years of subsidies, billions of 
dollars poured into it and it still only produces 7% of the 
world's energy. 

"We've got to find another way of doing it." 		 	 		 	 	 

*****************************************************************
 29 BBC: Scientists switch on power probe
 
Last Updated: Monday, 16 May, 2005
 
[Pylon]                                 

Experts will look at how energy supplies can be secured                                                          

Pressure over Scotland's energy needs is hotting up as scientists 
launch an inquiry into worries about how the country will be 
supplied in the future. 

It is feared Scotland will suffer a potential shortfall in 
generating capacity as power stations come to the end of their 
lives. 

Half of electricity comes from nuclear stations which will be 
decommissioned within a decade. 

The Royal Society of Edinburgh will conduct the inquiry. 

Enough generating capacity exists for Scotland's own current 
needs, with a surplus being exported to England. 

But in March, the Scottish affairs committee at Westminster 
suggested that a replacement nuclear power station may be needed 
to prevent blackouts. 

The issue is so important, hope it doesn't become a political 
football Professor Maxwell Irvine Royal Society of Edinburgh      

Eco-activists from WWF have argued nuclear is not necessary. 

Spokesman Richard Dixon said: "We have a number of renewable 
technologies coming up. 

"Offshore wind, onshore wind, wave power and tidal - each one of 
them on their own could provide three quarters of the power we 
currently consume." 

Dr Dixon added: "If you look at all of the renewables together, 
they can provide four times as much energy as Scotland needs." 

But Ian Fells, professor of energy conversion at the University 
of Newcastle, believes green power sources could not replace 
nuclear fuel. 

'Many wind stations' 

He said: "Hunterston B is one of the nuclear power stations and 
it comes to the end of its life in six years time, in 2011. It 
provides 20% of Scotland's electricity. 

"That has to be replaced somehow. The notion that wind farms and 
wave and tidal stream can do it doesn't bear any kind of 
scrutiny." 

He added: "To replace that power station would need 2,400 large 
wind turbines." 

Head of the energy probe, Professor Maxwell Irvine, said: "I 
personally believe there is an energy problem. 

[Wind turbine]                                  

Environment groups believe wind energy is part of the solution                                                          

"If you want to go for the wind option, it certainly requires 
very many wind stations. Nobody, as far as I know, has decently 
discussed the infrastructure implications for that. 

"At the moment, we generate energy in big stations near the 
central belt and distribute it outwards down the grid. 

"If we generate it in Lewis, we have to bring it back into the 
central belt and that requires a huge re-structuring of the 
grid." 

He continued: "There are issues about local elements in the 
islands, about tourism and eco-tourism - they have to be looked 
at. On the other hand, the nuclear issue has not been finally 
resolved." 

Prof Maxwell said of his investigation: "We will be looking at 
the science - that is social sciences, economics, environmental 
and technical. 

World leaders 

"The issue is so important, I hope it doesn't become a political 
football because that would not serve the nation well." 

"We will first of all be soliciting evidence shortly for our 
website. 

"We will also be going round the country, talking to communities 
to find out about local views. We will be visiting installations, 
talking to the champions of each one of them." 

The team will also talk to the Danes and the Germans about their 
experience of wind power, where they are currently world leaders. 

Prof Maxwell added: "We'll want to talk to the Fins about their 
decision to build a new nuclear plant. We'll try to benefit from 
knowledge abroad, as well as at home." 

*****************************************************************
 30 BBC: The nuclear debate
 
Last Updated: Monday, 16 May, 2005
 
During Monday's programme, Jeremy Paxman will chair a Newsnight 
debate from the Energy Gallery of the Science Museum in London. 

[Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks]                                 

The world's greatest environmental challenge is climate change 
and the time to act is now. A dire warning from the prime 
minister but, if he's right, where's all the action? 

According to Britain's top scientific body, the Royal Society, 
the British Government's climate change policies have failed. 

It's calling on the government to address the issue of climate 
change in Tuesday's Queen's Speech and to find the balance 
between having enough affordable energy whilst also cutting UK 
emissions. 

[Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary David Willetts] 
                                
Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks, Shadow Trade and Industry 
Secretary David Willetts and Liberal Democrat Energy Spokesman 
Andrew Stunnell will join a range of other guests all taking part 
in the debate. 

Where will the energy we'll need for the future come from and 
what can we do about our insatiable appetite for it? 

Join The Newsnight Debate at 10.30pm, Monday 16 May on BBC2. 		
	 		 	 	 



*****************************************************************
 31 BBC: Poll shows opposition to
 
Last Updated: Monday, 16 May, 2005
 
[The Newsnight Debate]                                                                                                  

More than half of people (52%) questioned for a poll commissioned 
by Newsnight believe it is wrong for the government to consider 
nuclear power as an energy source for the future. 

The results of the ICM poll will be unveiled on the flagship BBC 
TWO current affairs programme tonight at 10.30pm in a special 
nuclear debate. 

The poll asked whether respondents thought it would be right or 
wrong for the government to consider nuclear power as an energy 
source for the future. The results show that 39% agreed it was 
right. A total of 9% responded that they did not know. 

[Jeremy Paxman]                                 

Jeremy Paxman will chair the special Newsnight debate                                                                

The survey also asked which sources of energy respondents 
believed was the most feasible way of meeting the UK's future 
energy demands while reducing Carbon Dioxide emissions. 

A total of 57% of those polled chose renewable sources such as 
wave, tidal, solar and wind power. 

The poll found that 21% of those questioned believed nuclear 
power stations were the most feasible compared to 12% for 
coal/gas power stations. Again 9% said they did not know. 

The debate on nuclear power will take up two-thirds of tonight's 
programme and will be presented by Jeremy Paxman from the Science 
Museum. 

[The exterior of the Science Museum] London's Science Museum will 
host the debate                                                             

It comes on the day the Royal Society examines Britain's energy 
policy and any actions that need to be taken to reduce carbon 
dioxide emissions, on the eve of the Queen's Speech. 

The debate will include a panel of leading politicians, policy 
makers, nuclear industry experts, academics and environmentalists 
including Malcolm Wicks, Minister of State for Energy; David 
Willetts, Shadow Secretary of State for Productivity, Energy and 
Industry; and Andrew Stunell MP. 

The Newsnight Debate will be shown on BBC2 on Monday 16 May 2005.                                                    



*****************************************************************
 32 JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point prepares dry-cask storage system
 
By MICHAEL RISINIT

mrisinit@thejournalnews.com

 
(Original publication: May 16, 2005)
 
BUCHANAN

The real estate advertisement might read something like this:
"Rvr. vu, spacious, newly renov., built to last."

Such is the home planned for the nuclear waste at Indian Point
in Buchanan. By fall 2006, about a year behind schedule, Entergy
Nuclear Northeast expects to begin transferring used,
radioactive fuel from storage pools at the nuclear power plants
to massive, aboveground casks. The structures will sit on a
swath of land near the containment dome sheltering the Indian
Point 2 reactor.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission last week gave Indian Point
its top safety mark based on an annual review for 2004. But two
recent, independent government reports have faulted the
industry's handling of nuclear waste, and critics of the fuel
pools maintain the casks are a safer and more secure storage
system. The transfer, however, according to the company, is
about space.

"We're doing this because we're running out of room in the
pools," said Geoff Schwartz, manager of Indian Point's dry-cask
storage system.

The pools for Indian Point's three reactors — Indian Point 1 no
longer is active — include 2,164 used fuel assemblies, bundles
of glass rods containing uranium pellets that powered the
nuclear reaction that generates electricity. The assemblies
contain enough 12-foot-long rods to reach from Manhattan to
Orlando, Fla., if laid end to end.

On a recent afternoon, construction workers were in the midst of
building a pad to hold up to 75 casks. Maples, oaks and other
trees partially shielded a view of the Hudson River. The site's
large amount of bedrock slowed the effort and has pushed back
the transfer date.

Except for the uranium pellets — each rod contains 240 pellets,
each about the size of the top third of your pinkie finger —
nothing is small-scale in the nuclear power-plant world. The pad
itself will consist of 2,000 cubic yards of concrete on top of
24 million pounds (693 truckloads) of fill. Twenty-one miles'
worth of steel reinforcing rods will support the concrete.

"It's a very big robust patio," Schwartz said.

Entergy began searching its property three years ago for a place
to put the casks. Spent-fuel storage is an increasingly
controversial national issue, in terms of both how the material
is stored at individual plants and where a national fuel
depository may be built. Plans to open a national nuclear-waste
dump inside Yucca Mountain in Nevada by 2010 — which is when
Indian Point's pools would be full if the casks aren't used —
have stalled. Communities have balked at having the waste
trucked through them. In addition, recently discovered e-mails
by scientists involved in the Yucca project suggested some data
was falsified about whether the mountain's rock would be an
impermeable barrier to radiation.

Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the federal NRC, said the
Department of Energy is expected to apply for a nuclear waste
storage license for Yucca Mountain by December. Opening by 2010
no longer is realistic, he said, but 2013 is thought to be
feasible.

"Those dates keep slipping because of the various issues
involved," Sheehan said. "In the meantime, the plants and these
pools are running into storage issues."

About half of the assemblies in each operating reactor — Indian
Point 2 and 3 — are removed every two years and transferred to
the pools. It's a process that takes place under water to
prevent nuclear fires. Fresh rods then are inserted into each
reactor to keep the nuclear process going.

Because of rod turnover, more radioactive material is housed in
the pools than the reactors. The spent-fuel pool at Indian Point
3 is at the end of a winding journey through hallways and
stairwells filled with gauges and valves. Close to 40 feet deep
and glasslike in its stillness, the pool reflects the yellow
safety railings, catwalks and pipes inside the warehouselike
space. The tranquility belies what's below the surface.

"To a large degree, spent fuel is self-protecting," Schwartz
said, referring to the heat and radiation emitting from the used
fuel. "You can't pick it up and carry it away. (A diver) would
perish very quickly."

Loss of water in the pools, whether through an accident or an
act of terrorism, would expose the fuel to air and allow it to
heat up and catch fire. That could lead to a greater, more
dangerous meltdown — a scenario Entergy said can't happen at
Indian Point because of safety features. The National Academy of
Sciences released a report last month highlighting that
potential vulnerability at plants nationwide. Another report
last month from the Government Accountability Office, the
investigative arm of Congress, suggested the NRC institute new
control and accounting procedures for handling spent-fuel
pieces. That report was in response to episodes of missing
nuclear waste at facilities in Connecticut, Vermont and
California.

Entergy and the NRC maintain that both storage methods — the
pools and the casks — are equally safe. Indian Point opponents
contend the casks are safer because they are more rugged than
the cinder block and steel building housing the pools.

"Many of us have been calling for years for dry casks until
Yucca Mountain or another depository opens up," said Lisa
Rainwater of the environmental group Riverkeeper, which has been
fighting for years to close Indian Point. "If done correctly, it
can be a much better protective measure than spent-fuel pools."

Each cask will take about three days to fill and move from pool
to pad. A cask can be thought of as a 20-foot-tall thermos.
Thirty-two fuel assemblies — only those that have been in the
pools at least five years are cool enough to transfer — will be
placed inside an inner, inch-thick steel shell. The space
between the inner and outer shell is filled with 3 feet of
concrete; a 9-inch-thick steel lid is welded to the top. Fully
loaded, a cask weighs 180 tons — somewhere in the neighborhood
of a blue whale or an empty Boeing 747.

Entergy won't say what the project costs, but Riverkeeper
estimates the undertaking carries a price tag of about $90
million. The environmental group would like to see the pad
protected by earthen berms and a web of steel beams and cables,
which would fragment an attacking jet or rocket. Schwartz,
though, maintains the casks are impregnable and will remain
intact even if they tip over. The casks are designed to last 100
years. By then, he and the rest of the industry expect to find
accommodations in Nevada.

"It's a temporary home while we wait for Yucca Mountain to open
up," Schwartz said.

www.thejournalnews.com

  Copyright 2005 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper
serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York.
*****************************************************************
 33 Xinhua: Jilin in running for nuclear plant   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-05-17 08:10:23   

    BEIJING, May 17 -- Northeast China's Jilin Province could
win the race to develop China's first nuclear power plant in a
non-coastal region. 

    A new nuclear power plant has already been given the
go-ahead by the National Development and Reform Commission
(NDRC), according to Li Jinxiu, deputy director of Jilin
Province's economic and trade commission. 

    "Preparatory work has been taking place," said Li in a
recent interview with China Daily. 

    The plant, with a 5 million kilowatt capacity, will be based
in Baishan, a city 370 kilometres from Changchun, the provincial
capital. 

    Power generated by the plant will not only supply the local
market in Jilin, but also be sent to the regional grid for use
by other provinces, said Li. 

    "From a long-term point of view, China will rely more on
energy sources like nuclear power," said Xu Kuangdi, president
of the Chinese Academy of Engineering. 

    He said that China would develop dozens of nuclear plants
over the coming 15 years. 

    The plan demonstrates the country's determination to develop
more nuclear power to help cope with energy demands. 

    Other areas that could also become home to China's new
nuclear power plants include provinces in central and western
China, said Zhou Dadi, director of the NDRC's Energy Research
Institute. 

    He cited Hunan Province in Central China and Sichuan
Province in the Southwest. 

    China's power supply is still dominated by coal, which
accounts for about 65 per cent of total energy consumption,
while nuclear power is still marginal, accounting for less than
2 per cent of the total. 

    China has nine working nuclear power plants, four of which
are in Guangdong Province and five in Qinshan of Zhejiang
Province for a total generation capacity of 7 million kilowatts. 

    China is currently constructing a nuclear power plant in the
city of Lianyungang of East China's Jiangsu Province. 

    The plant, with a capacity of 2 million kilowatts, is
expected to come on line in 2006, according to Ye Qizhen, chief
designer of Nuclear Power Qinshan Joint Venture Co Ltd. 

    Meanwhile, Paris-based Areva, the world's biggest reactor
builder, Britain's Westinghouse Electric Company and Russia's
AtomStroyExport are competing to win a US$8-billion contract to
build four reactors, two of which are set for Zhejiang Province
and the others for Guangdong Province. 

    Ye said related authorities were examining the bids and
would decide the winner by the end of the year.Enditem 

(Source: China Daily) 

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 34 NRC: Draft Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability
 
                         FR Doc E5-2415 
[Federal Register: May 16, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 93)] [Notices] 
[Page 25865-25866] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16my05-109]                         
 
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued for 
public comment a draft of a new 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 2 of Regulatory Guide 8.7, entitled 
``Instructions for Recording and Reporting Occupational Radiation 
Dose Data,'' is temporarily identified by its task number, 
DG-8029, which should be mentioned in all related correspondence. 
Like its predecessors, the proposed revision describes an 
acceptable program for the preparation, retention, and reporting 
of records of occupational radiation doses in accordance with 
Title 10, Part 20, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 
Part 20), ``Standards for Protection Against Radiation.'' Section 
20.1502 establishes ``Conditions Requiring
 
[[Page 25866]] Individual Monitoring of External and Internal 
Occupational Dose.'' Specifically, 10 CFR 20.1502 requires 
licensees to provide radiation monitoring for all occupationally 
exposed individuals who might receive a dose in excess of 10 
percent of the limits defined in 10 CFR 20.1201 or 20 percent of 
the limits defined in 10 CFR 20.1207 or 20.1208. To augment that 
provision, 10 CFR 20.2106, ``Records of Individual Monitoring 
Results,'' requires licensees to maintain records of the 
radiation exposures of all individuals for whom personnel 
monitoring is required pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1502. Also, 
according to 10 CFR 20.2104, ``Determination of Prior 
Occupational Dose,'' licensees shall determine the dose in the 
current monitoring year for all persons who must be monitored, 
and attempt to obtain the records of cumulative occupational 
radiation dose. In addition, 10 CFR 20.2104(b) requires that, 
prior to permitting an individual to participate in a planned 
special exposure, licensees shall determine the internal and 
external doses from all previous planned special exposures, and 
record all previous doses in excess of the limits received during 
the lifetime of the individual. Licensees are required to 
maintain prior dose records on NRC Form 4 or its equivalent. 
Further, 10 CFR 20.2206, ``Reports of Individual Monitoring,'' 
requires certain licensees to submit to the NRC an annual report 
of the results of individual monitoring. Licensees are required 
to record these annual reports on NRC Form 5 or its equivalent.
 
The NRC is issuing this proposed revision to make the guide 
consistent with a recent change to 10 CFR 20.2206, which allows 
electronic submittal of licensees' annual occupational radiation 
dose data via the NRC's Radiation Exposure Information and 
Reporting System (REIRS) for Radiation Workers (a secure Web 
site) at http://www.reirs.com. Other changes include updating NRC 
Forms 4 and 5, and clarifying and improving the guide to reflect 
licensees' input and experience since the NRC issued Revision 1 
of Regulatory Guide 8.7 in 1992.
 
The NRC staff is soliciting comments on Draft Regulatory Guide 
DG- 8029, and comments may be accompanied by relevant information 
or supporting data. Please mention DG-8029 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 through 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- 8029 may be directed to Sheryl A. Burrows at (301) 415-6086 
or by e- mail to SAB2@nrc.gov. Comments would be most helpful if 
received by July 12, 2005. Comments received after that 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 the draft regulatory guide 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 
ML051120144. 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 email 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 9th day of 
May, 2005.
 
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Farouk Eltawila, 
Director, Division of Systems Analysis and Regulatory 
Effectiveness Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
 
[FR Doc. E5-2415 Filed 5-13-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 35 Japan Times: Sharper sense of nuclear safety

Monday, May 16, 2005   

EDITORIAL

The latest annual report from Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission
is a troubling reminder that accident prevention remains a key
priority for the nation's nuclear power industry. The head of
the commission acknowledges in the foreword that last August's
tragedy in Mihama, Fukui Prefecture -- Japan's deadliest nuclear
accident ever -- could have been prevented if sufficient
precautions had been taken.

 The accident, which killed five workers and injured six others,
involved the rupture of a water pipe in one of the reactors of
Kansai Electric Power Co. The affected workers were heavily
exposed to superheated steam bursting from the broken section of
pipe. In September 1999, two workers died from radiation
exposure at a uranium-purification facility in Tokaimura,
Ibaraki Prefecture.

 The basic assumption is that people are liable to make
mistakes. To make up for human shortcomings, a wide array of
safety technologies have been developed. But believing that
technologies can eliminate all accidents once and for all is
wishful thinking. In the nuclear industry, at least in its
present stages of development, there is no such thing as
absolute safety.

 According to the white paper, as many as 24 accidents and
disorders, including minor ones, occurred in 2004. The number
might have been reduced if safety laws and regulations had been
followed more strictly. But, again, these rules cannot provide
absolute guarantees of safety. They do not always apply to
specific risks and dangers that may arise in the course of
day-to-day operations.

 That is why it is absolutely necessary to raise the level of
safety awareness among those involved, particularly frontline
managers and workers. Experience shows clearly, and tragically,
that lapses in mental alertness and attitude toward safety can
lead to major accidents.

 In fact, as the commission's chairman admits, negligence was
the underlying factor in the Mihama accident. The pipe corrosion
that directly caused its rupture was preventable not only
because it was technically possible to stop the thinning of the
pipe wall, but also because some of the people involved knew
where it would occur yet kept that knowledge to themselves.

 The Mihama tragedy has focused attention on another critical
problem: the aging of nuclear plants. The Mihama reactor
involved had gone into operation 27 years earlier. That's not
"old" by industry standards, but the steady corrosion of the
pipe -- wall thickness in the affected area was said to be as
thin as paper -- demonstrated that the pipe was aging steadily.

 At present, 53 reactors are in operation across the country. A
number of them are reportedly more than 30 years old, the oldest
being 35. Current operation plans put the service life at 40
years or more. This means that many reactors will top 30 years
old in the next decade, which is considered "advanced in age."

 As the report points out, the aging problem is compounded by
the fact that it develops very slowly. This makes it difficult,
if not impossible, to detect early signs of aging. If these
signs are overlooked, they may lead eventually to disaster, as
happened in the Mihama No. 3 reactor.

 The aging process involves a complex combination of factors,
including heat, water flows, vibrations and radiation. Because
of this, experts say, the process is likely to take various --
and possibly unpredictable -- forms, depending on how these
factors interact. In this respect, experience at older nuclear
plants overseas should provide useful lessons.

 Notably, the white paper takes up a question that has not
received much attention in the past: how to ensure safety when
obsolescent nuclear facilities are dismantled. A case in point
is the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute's experimental
power reactor, which, after 13 years of operation, was scrapped
over a period of 10 years beginning in 1986. Its radioactive
waste was also disposed of.

 The fact is that current safety regulations focus on the
construction and operation of nuclear facilities, but not on
their dismantlement. Rightly, a bill to update the law governing
nuclear reactors is now being discussed in the Diet. It responds
to a commission report calling for a review of safety rules for
the disassembly of nuclear facilities.

 As nuclear safety goes, experience still seems lacking in many
respects, despite decades of operation. Indeed, the poor safety
record is a constant wake-up call to the nuclear industry as
well as the government. Their priority task, now and in the
future, is to assure the safety of nuclear plants and facilities
beyond any reasonable doubt.

 The Japan Times: May 16, 2005

*****************************************************************
 36 Channelnewsasia.com: France's Alstom wins China nuclear power deal 

A man manouevers a horse-drawn carriage past a coal fired power 
station in Beijing   

 Posted: 16 May 2005 1627 hrs 

BEIJING: French energy and engineering group Alstom said it has
won a contract to provide power generation equipment for the
extension of the Ling Ao nuclear power plant in southern China.
 
Alstom had announced during the visit to China last month by
French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin that the 80 million
euro contract with Dongfang Electric Group Corp. was being
discussed.

It was finalised on Monday and will see the French group supply
two Arabelle turbines for the second phase of construction of
the nuclear power plant in the southern province of Guangdong.
 
It is the third nuclear power contract Alstom has won in China
in recent years.
 
"This contract represents work for several hundred people for
two to three years in the factory in Belfort in eastern France,"
French Industry Minister Patrick Devedjian, who is in Shenzhen,
told AFP.
 
"It ensures Alstom has international visibility," he added.
 
China plans to increase its nuclear power generating capacity at
least five-fold within the next 15 years.
 
The ambitious plan is being implemented in an effort to overcome
ongoing energy shortages and to build up alternatives to rampant
coal use which is causing serious air pollution, acid rain and
global warming. - AFP/de
   
Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 37 Scotsman News: Poll Opposes Nuclear Power as Energy Source
 
Mon 16 May 2005   			 			

By Alan Jones, PA Industrial Correspondent 

Just over half of people were opposed to the Government 
considering nuclear power as a future energy source, according to 
a new survey today. 

A poll of 1,000 people for tonight’s BBC 2 Newsnight showed 
that only 39% were in favour. 

Almost three out of five of those questioned said renewable 
sources such as wave, wind or solar were the best way of helping 
the UK meet its future energy demands while reducing carbon 
dioxide emissions. 






Scotsman.com
*****************************************************************
 38 First Coast News: Beyond BRAC: The Future Is Nuclear                     

5/16/2005 6:30am interview with Rep. Ander Crenshaw
		 	   	 
By First Coast News Staff

JACKSONVILLE, FL -- The U.S.S. John F. Kennedy is in the sunset
of its service, but before it sails off for good local and state
lawmakers want to make sure Mayport isn't left behind.

People like Florida Congressman Ander Crenshaw say that the
future of Mayport is nuclear, and that the effort to transform
the base is further along than ever. "Already this week we'll
have some money in this year's Appropriations Bill," Crenshaw
said Monday on the set of Good Morning Jacksonville, "Which is
the first time we've ever gotten this far."

Upgrading Mayport will take about $150 million, money Crenshaw
says everyone is fighting for. He also says one of the reasons
money is being set aside this year for the potential
transformation is because he sits on the military construction
sub-committee.

Crenshaw believes that like the House, the Senate will have some
money in the its Appropriations Bill. After the bills are
finalized the two sides will have to come together.

Things are looking good for Mayport. The Secretary of the Navy
has already said on the record that he wants to make Mayport
nuclear ready. "Our job," said Crenshaw, "is simply to find the
money. And that's what we're doing."

While lawmakers are ensuring the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy isn't
mothballed before the military reviews all of its assetts, the
reality is the "Big John" is in the twilight of its long career
and its future as the corner stone of Mayport Naval Station is
short.

Crenshaw and Senator Bill Nelson are just two of the lawmakers
who have been lobbying in Washington, D.C. to spread out
America's carrier fleet and move one of its nuclear carrier's
from Norfolk to Mayport. Some draw allusions to Pearl Harbor and
the danger of putting all one's military eggs in the same
basket. 

Crenshaw also says Mayport can house two carriers at the same
time, but eventually the Kennedy will go and the future of
Mayport is nuclear.

Created: 5/16/2005 8:02:14 AM

© 2004-2005 First Coast News

*****************************************************************
 39 Scotsman: News: Scotland faces 40% slump in electricity supply
 
Tue 17 May 2005   			 			

JAMES REYNOLDS 
ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT 

SCIENTISTS warned yesterday that Scotland will face a 40 per
cent drop in its electricity generating capacity unless tough
decisions are taken on replacing current nuclear power stations. 

At the launch of an inquiry into Scotland’s energy supply,
scientists at the Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE) said that
while demand is expected to double over the next half century,
almost half of our electricity supply is expected to be lost as
nuclear power stations near the end of their life. 

Although the Executive wants to source 40 per cent of all energy
from renewable sources such as wind, wave and tidal power by
2020, critics have argued that renewables are too inefficient to
be relied upon as heavily as ministers intend. The result could
mean Scotland will have to change its role from an exporter of
electricity to a net importer. 

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, the RSE’s president, said:
"There is an urgent need for us to identify appropriate means
for the sustainable delivery of Scotland’s energy needs.
Meeting energy demands while protecting our environment must be
paramount." 

Professor Maxwell Irvine, chairman of the inquiry, said: "Energy
is the single most important commodity for our survival. The
provision of a sustainable, secure and safe supply should thus
be every nation’s highest priority." 

All electricity generating options, including the building of
replacement nuclear power stations, will be considered by the
inquiry, which will deliver a report about a year after
consulting on the issue.

*****************************************************************
 40 Helsingin Sanomat: Two new reactors planned for Russian nuclear plant near Finland 

 - International Edition - Foreign
 	 	 	 
Tuesday 17.5.2005 	 	   

Use of Chernobyl-type facility to be extended to 2026 
	
Russia is planning to build two new reactors at the
nuclear power plant in Sosnovyi Bor on the south shore of the
Gulf of Finland. 

      The new units are to come on line in 2013 and 2015. 

      The present four reactors, built in the 1970s and 1980s,
have long been a cause for concern in Finland. 

      Although the initially planned 30-year life span of two of
the reactors has come to an end, the Russian power company
running the units wants to extend their operation by another 15
years. 
      
The continued use of the antiquated reactors is a cause of worry
on the northern shore of the Gulf of Finland. The Radiation and
Nuclear Safety Authority of Finland has provided aid to the
Russians in upgrading safety at the Chernobyl-type reactors. 

      Heikki Reponen, the head of the expert service unit of the
Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Finland says that
weaknesses were noted in the operational and fire safety, and in
the physical shielding of the plant. 

      Finland has supplied the plant with fire detectors and
firefighting equipment, turnstile gates, card readers, and other
access control devices. 

      A radiation monitoring network has been built around the
power plant, and the readings can be watched in Finland. 

      Finland has provided EUR 7 million in aid for the safety
projects. 
      
A more extensive article on the Sosnovyi Bor nuclear power plant
will be included among our weekly features on Tuesday. 

	 	 	 			 			
Previously in HS International Edition:

16.5.2005 -
*****************************************************************
 41 Taipei Times: Go nuclear to save the UK 

  Mon, May 16, 2005

If Britain really wants to meet its goal of cutting down on CO2 
emissions, then the only choice may be for it to build new 
nuclear plants

DPA , LONDON 
Monday, May 16, 2005,Page 9 

Advertising [Advertising] The use of nuclear power, one of the
most emotive issues in Western European societies for decades,
is back on the political agenda in Britain.

 With the general election out of the way, the re-elected Labour
government has made it clear that it sees the extension of
nuclear energy production as the only way to fight climate
change.

 David King, the government's chief scientific adviser and
professor of chemistry at Cambridge University, said that
Britain needed "one more generation" of nuclear power stations.

 King, who has described climate change as a "worse threat than
terrorism", said 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 newspaper
Thursday, are the clearest on-the-record indication yet of
high-level thinking about what will be an immensely
controversial decision.

 "It is 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," the
paper said.

ILLUSTRATION: YUSHA
   

The professor believes that "in years to come" 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).

 In the short term, however, there may be no alternative to
building new nuclear facilities -- "one generation only," King
said.

 The government has already admitted that it will miss, by a
wide margin, its target of cutting CO2 emissions by a fifth by
2010.

 "Climate change and its impact -- the most serious problem
we're faced with globally this century -- was so important that
the nuclear option had to be re-examined," King said.

 The debate about the "energy gap" comes against the background
of dwindling gas supplies from Britain's North Sea reserves,
forecast to dry up as soon as 2011, according to some experts.

 At present gas is the main source of energy generation in
Britain, supplying 39 percent of the market, compared with 22
percent for nuclear power and 35 percent for coal.

 The prospect of future large natural gas imports, including
from countries considered to be potentially "unstable" -- such
as Russia and Algeria -- has concentrated political minds in
Britain.

 However, apart from the key question of what to do with nuclear
waste, Britain also has a particularly dismal safety record on
nuclear energy, demonstrated again recently by a major uranium
and plutonium leak at the notorious Sellafield complex.

 Of the 16 nuclear power stations operating in Britain at
present -- some more than 40 years old -- at least half are
scheduled to be decommissioned by 2010. The rest will be retired
by 2023.

 Alternative energy resources, while being promoted, would
simply not fill the "gap" quickly enough, the government argues.

 Currently, wind energy produces 0.8 percent of electricity
needs in the UK -- a third of the total power from so-called
renewables.

 The government's target is to provide 20 percent of electricity
from non-fossil-fuel sources by 2020.

 Greenpeace campaigner Jean McSorley said Thursday her group had
been "tracking" the nuclear debate, which had been "manipulated
so that not more would come out before the election."

 While predicting large-scale opposition to an extension of
nuclear power, Greenpeace was "not panicking," McSorley said.

 She predicted that the government would have "great technical
and financial problems" with updating Britain's nuclear power
stations -- most of which were run by advanced gas-cooled
reactors.

 Newly-built reactors would not go on stream before 10 to 15
years.

 Her organization would base its anti-nuclear campaign on
statistics which showed that at present, the use of atomic power
"offset only 8 percent" of CO2 emissions.

 "Nuclear power is not the answer for tackling the energy gap,"
McSorley said. The government first had to seek a drastic
reduction in harmful emissions from aviation and transport.

 "We have a broad responsibility in how we deal with nuclear
power in Britain and in Europe," McSorley said, pointing to the
"massive proliferation risk."

 Even small reactors could give countries nuclear status, she
stressed, warning of the "serious environmental and military
implications" of a new lease of life for nuclear power. 
This story has been viewed 381 times.     

Copyright © 1999-2005 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 42 St. Petersburg Times: Deputies Say Adamov Could Spark Revolt 

Tuesday, May 17, 2005   

By Carl Schreck 

STAFF WRITER MOSCOW - Two LDPR deputies on Thursday pressed for
former Nuclear Power Minister Yevgeny Adamov be sent back to
Russia and darkly warned that if the United States succeeds in
extraditing him from Switzerland on fraud and money-laundering
charges, the Kremlin could face a popular uprising.

Sergei Abeltsev, a State Duma deputy in Vladimir Zhirinovsky's
ultranationalist Liberal Democratic Party, told a plenary
session of the Duma that Adamov posed a national security risk
because he might hand over state nuclear secrets in exchange for
leniency.

 "The Orange Revolution in Kiev began after [former Ukrainian
Prime Minister Pavlo] Lazarenko handed over all of Ukraine's
state secrets to the Americans," Abeltsev said in remarks shown
on NTV television. U.S. authorities charged Lazarenko with fraud
and money-laundering in 1999, and he is now being tried by a San
Francisco court.

 "For this reason, I suggest appealing to the Russian Prosecutor
General's Office and other competent agencies to take immediate
and decisive actions to return Adamov to Russia," he said.

 "If this is impossible," he added, "then assign special
services to liquidate the nuclear scientist-businessman."

 Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told the Duma that efforts were
being made to secure Adamov's return, but he declined to
elaborate.

 Adamov, 65, was detained this month in Bern on a U.S. arrest
warrant. He and and an associate, Mark Kaushansky, are accused
of diverting some $9 million in U.S. funds meant to improve
safety at Russian nuclear facilities. Adamov served as nuclear
power minister from 1998 to 2001, when he was dismissed amid
accusations that he had received kickbacks through his U.S.
companies.

 LDPR Deputy Alexei Mitrofanov told the Duma that an appeal to
prosecutors was needed because Adamov was one of a few people
familiar with top-secret information, including Russia's
construction of a nuclear reactor in Iran. 

After a long pause, Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov said, "We'll
discuss it." 

Prosecutor Ksenia Chernikova declined to comment. "Until such an
appeal has been approved [by the Duma], it's pointless to
fantasize," she said.

 Meanwhile, Adamov's lawyer, Timofei Grindev, said his client
might change his mind and agree to a quick extradition to the
United States but only after consulting with a U.S. lawyer who
was due to arrive in Bern by the end of last week, Nezavisimaya
Gazeta reported Thursday.

[Copyright] copyright The St. Petersburg Times 1993-2004        
*****************************************************************
 43 [du-list] Mass. Superfund site work stalled
 
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:37:17 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
Mass. Superfund site work stalled
Contract awaits Army funding

By Davis Bushnell, Boston Globe Correspondent  |  May 5, 2005

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/05/05/superfund_site_work_stalled/

The awarding of a state contract to remove more than 3,700
barrels of depleted uranium at the Starmet Corp. Superfund
site in West Concord has been delayed until later this month
or early next month, according to the Department of
Environmental Protection.

The delay in selecting one of two contractors that submitted
bids in early March is due to pending negotiations with the
US Army, said Ed Coletta, a department spokesman. ''We need
more money from the Army to fund the contract, and we hope
to get closure on these negotiations" in the next month or so.

Coletta said he couldn't reveal how much additional money is
needed or the bids of the two contractors, both of which are
out-of-state firms.

As one of five parties cited by the US Environmental
Protection Agency in 2003 for contaminating the 46-acre
property off Route 62, the Army has agreed to pick up the
tab for getting rid of the barrels containing low-level
radioactive material. Starmet's predecessor firm, Nuclear
Metals Inc., made uranium-tipped bullets for the Army from
1970 to 1999.

Stored in Starmet buildings, the barrels are guarded around
the clock and do not constitute a present danger,
environmental officials say. However, their removal is
essential to determining the extent and cost of the overall
cleanup work, officials acknowledge.

''We recognize that we have to get this work done as soon as
possible," Coletta said, adding that it will be a yearlong
project.

That's also the sentiment of some Concord residents, who say
they're frustrated by the delay in picking a contractor.

While it's encouraging news that the state and the Army are
trying to resolve the funding issue, ''it's still pretty
late for getting [this] work going," said James West,
technical assistance coordinator for the Citizens Research
and Environmental Watch group of Concord. The group has a
$50,000 technical-assistance grant from the EPA.

''Until the [Starmet] buildings are emptied [of the
hazardous materials], no one will be able to delve into
what's in and underneath those buildings," West said.

That job will be tackled by De Maximis Inc., of Weatogue,
Conn., which is conducting a remedial investigation of the
property for the Army and the other culpable parties, the US
Department of Energy, Whittaker Corp. of Simi Valley,
Calif., Textron Inc. of Providence, and MONY Life Insurance
Co. of New York City.

Bruce Thompson, project director for De Maximis, said, ''We
need the state to clean out those buildings so that we can
inventory what's left."

Meanwhile, his firm, he said, continues to be on schedule in
evaluating air and ground-water data. The first ground-water
investigation, in which 99 monitoring wells were sampled,
was completed last month, Thompson said. Lab analyses of the
samples are expected to be completed by midsummer, he added.
''Then depending on what's found, there could be a second
round of sampling, most likely in the fall."

A final cleanup plan for the site is probably three or four
years away, he said. The property went on the EPA's
Superfund list of the most contaminated land nationwide in
June 2001.


-- 

Posted for educational and research purposes only,
~ in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 ~

NucNews Links and Expanded Archives - http://nucnews.net





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/79vVAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 44 [du-list] Protesting with art: theater, magic and poetry
 
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:37:16 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
Protesting with art: theater, magic and poetry examine DU

Wednesday, May 04, 2005 Port Townsend, WA, Leader

http://www.ptleader.com/main.asp?SectionID=11&SubSectionID=11&ArticleID=12095

The Port Townsend Depleted Uranium Study Team (PT DUST)
seeks to raise awareness about the presence of depleted
uranium (DU) weapons on the roads and waterways of Jefferson
County. Naval Magazine Indian Island is one of the largest
storage and transit areas for DU weaponry on the West Coast.
May 1-7 has been designated “Indian Island Awareness Week.”

Included in the week’s activities are theater and
performance pieces and a poetry reading with Poets for Peace
and Poets Against the War.

An interactive performance and community dialogue featuring
the Poetic Justice Theatre Ensemble takes place Thursday,
May 5 at the Port Townsend Community Center. The ensemble
led by Marc Weinblatt looks at the risk of having DU weapons
“In Our Own Back Yard” and the lack of preparedness to deal
with a catastrophic event. As interpreted by the ensemble,
audience stories, ideas, struggles, and dreams for the
future will be brought to life through physical imagery and
improvisation. “In Our Own Back Yard” begins at 7 p.m.

On Friday night at the community center, Joey Pipia and
friends present “Unconventional Wizdom: Magic, Politics and
Pickpocketing,” an evening of humor, insights and political
barbs. Pipia says people can expect secrets of the charlatan
revealed as only a magician can do ­ questions answered,
advice given. “If I had to describe it, I would say that if
Port Townsend had its own TV show, it might be something
like this. It will feature an incredible house band, guests,
audience participation and, dare I say it, commercials.” The
show begins at 7 p.m. May 6.

Following a peace march on Saturday, May 7, there is a rally
of marchers at Indian Island Park, where poets Sam Hamill,
Gary Lemons, Zeke Green, Barbara Bowen, Sarah Zale and
Rebecca Rafuse read their anti-war poetry.





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/79vVAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 45 [du-list] US: Depleted uranium victims plead for
 
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:37:22 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
US: Depleted uranium victims plead for understanding, help

Sunday, May 15, 2005 MidHudson News

http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/DU_conf-15May05.htm

Army National Guard Specialist Gerard Matthew is a veteran
of the Iraq war. He has an 11-month-old daughter who was
born with a deformed right hand. If she tries to stand, and
falls, she will not put out here arms to protect herself.

Matthew, himself, suffers constant headaches and blurred
vision. He has tested positive for depleted uranium, a
component used in tank armor, and weapons shells. Dust from
unexploded shells can be inhaled. The symptoms can be
devastating.

Matthew, and Sgt. Herbert Reed, were part of a panel,
Saturday afternoon, organized by the Saugerties Committee
for Peace and Social Justice.

Reed told the 50 people who gathered, that he was told, by
military doctors, that his tests results were not a cause
for concern. "Right, they said we had acceptable levels of
depleted uranium. Acceptable to whom?"

Reed has serious physical debilities and suffers memory loss.

Event organizer Angela Morano said their hope is to broaden
awareness of the problem. "As a nation, we need to
understand that these are the type of weapons we are using,"
she said. "They are harmful to us, not only to our enemy, if
you want to call someone our enemy, but they are harmful to
us as well."

Morano said they are working with members of Congress,
including Rep. Maurice Hinchey, to get proper testing and
treatment for affected veterans.

Also on the program, two representatives of Veterans for
Peace, both Vietnam veterans, who take their message into
schools. "I don't hate recruiters", said Jim Murphy. "I just
want to put them out of business."

-- 

Posted for educational and research purposes only,
~ in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 ~

NucNews Links and Expanded Archives - http://nucnews.net

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Need a home for your web domain?
We recommend our provider, Hosting Direct
https://support.hostingdirect.net/cgi-bin/affiliates/clickthru.cgi?id=nucnews



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TzSHvD/SOnJAA/79vVAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 46 [du-list] Iraqi Women Under US Occupation; Soaring birth
 
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:37:20 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
1- Iraqi Women Under US Occupation
2- Soaring birth deformities and child cancer rates in Iraq
--

Iraqi Women Under US Occupation

Ghali Hassan, www.globalresearch.ca
6 May 2005

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/HAS505A.html

"Respect for women… can triumph in the Middle East and
beyond!" President George Bush at the UN, September 2002.

Under the US Occupation, the situation of Iraqi women has
continued to deteriorate. In addition to torture, sexual
violence and rape by U.S. Occupation forces, a great number
of Iraqi women and girls are kept locked up in their homes
by a very real fear of abduction and criminal abuse. Since
the invasion of Iraq, Iraqi women have been denied their
human right, including the right to health, education and
employment.

Prior to the 1991 U.S. war and the 13 years of the genocidal
sanctions, Iraqi women enjoyed unquestionable quality rights
to education and health. Iraqi women had the most
progressive human rights in the region and Iraqi women were
the first Arab women to hold high positions in academia,
law, medicine and government. Before the U.S. invasion and
occupation of Iraq, Iraqi women made up 40 per cent of the
public-sector work force. Men and women received equal pay
for work, education and health care were free at all levels.

In addition, Iraq’s Constitution with regard to women's
rights s was the most advanced in the Middle East, if not of
the Muslim World. Women rights were enshrined in the
Constitution, which was dissolved (together with Iraqi
Police and Security) by the U.S. Occupation and replaced by
a U.S-crafted "Interim Constitution" that deprives Iraqi
women of their rights and dignity. In today’s Iraq, crimes
and abuse against women are back to the levels before
independence from colonial Britain in 1958. The crime of
rape was capital offence under Iraq’s Constitution.

Since the beginning of the U.S. Occupation, there has been a
dramatic increase in sexual assaults and violations of
women’s rights by U.S. forces in Iraq. Many women have been
taken hostage, tortured, and sexually abused. The sexual
abuse, rape and torture against Iraqi women is not confined
to the Abu Ghraib prison, parroted by the Western media, is
"happening all across Iraq", said Amal Kadhim Swadi, an
Iraqi lawyers representing women detainees at Abu Ghraib.
"Sexualized violence and abuse committed by U.S. troops goes
far beyond a few isolated cases", she added.

Crimes of sexual violence, rape and torture by U.S. forces
against Iraqi men, women and children were kept secret from
the public until Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker magazine
published photographs alongside extracts from the damning
report of General Antonio Taguba. The U.S. administration
blamed the crimes on a few black sheep. Of course this is
not true. Orders come from the top of U.S. military and
civilian leaderships. Unfortunately there has been no public
outrage in the U.S. or in Europe to condemn these appalling
practices against Iraqi women. Is it because of the
European-American "shared values"?

There is credible evidence that the highest echelons of the
Pentagon and the civilian Bush administration approved the
carrying out of these brutal acts against the Iraqi people.

According to ‘The Torture Papers’, edited by Karen
Greenberg, director of the Centre on Law and Security at the
New York University School of Law, the U.S. government is
guilty of a "systematic decision to alter the use of methods
of coercion and torture that lay outside of accepted and
legal norms". "It is ironic that a person such as [Lynndie
England, who pleaded guilty], with little education, no
authority, and zero training as a prison guard, becomes the
poster child for our depravity, while the authors of the
American policy toward Iraqi detainees remain virtually
untouched by the scandal", reported Paul Vitello of Newsday.
The U.S. Justice Department essentially immunized military
and intelligence officials from liability for physical
torture. "In fact, some officials who either knew of the
abuse or should have known about it have been retained or
promoted", reported the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on April
30, 2005. Systematic torture and sexual abuse were used to
interrogate prisoners in U.S-run prisons in Afghanistan and
at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and elsewhere.

Several documents released on 07 March 2005 by the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) show 13 cases of rape and abuse
of female detainees. The documents revealed that no action
was taken against any soldier or civilian official as a
result. "We have to start to ask the question of whether
there is a whole layer of abuse out there that we are not
seeing because the evidence of abuse has been covered up",
said ACLU staff attorney Jameel Jaffer. The documents also
provide further evidence that U.S. troops have destroyed
evidence of abuse and torture in order to avoid a repetition
of last year's Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.

Aidan Delgado, a 23-year-old U.S. Army reservist with the
320th Military Police Company told Bob Herbert of the New
York Times recently, that he "had witnessed an Army sergeant
lashed a group of children with a steel Humvee antenna, and
a Marine corporal planted a vicious kick in the chest of a
kid about 6 years old". After he was deployed to Abu Ghraib
Prison, Mr. Delgado told Herbert: "The violence [in Abu
Ghraib] was sickening, some inmates were beaten nearly to
death". In one of the many detainees’ protests at Abu
Ghraib, the "Army authorized lethal force. Four [unarmed]
detainees were shot to death", said Delgado.

An eyewitness female detainee at Abu Ghraib, who identified
herself as ‘Noor’, told Al-Jazeera that ‘U.S. soldiers at
Abu Ghraib prison raped women and, in many occasions, forced
them to strip naked in public’. She admitted seeing ‘many
female detainees got pregnant’. Iraqi lawyer Iman Khamas, of
International Occupation Watch Centre, said; "One former
detainee had recounted the alleged rape of her cell mate in
Abu Ghraib." "[The detainee] had been raped 17 times in one
day", said Khamas.

Professor Huda Shaker Al-Nuaimi, of Baghdad University
Political Science Department, told Luke Harding of the
Guardian on 12 May 2004, that; ‘U.S. soldiers in Iraq have
raped, sexually humiliated and abused several Iraqi female
detainees in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison’. Al-Nuaimi
told Harding that she knows of ‘Noor's’ case and other Iraqi
females that were arrested, taken to Abu Ghraib prison and
raped by the US Military Police. ‘Iraqi women here are
afraid and shy of talking about such subjects’, she added.
Crimes of rape were very rare before the U.S. invasion and
occupation of Iraq. Rape is shameful crimes, and was
introduced to the Muslim World by Western colonialists as a
tool of coercion and intimidation.

The U.S. Army report on Iraqi prisoners abuse by Maj. Gen.
Antonio Taguba (the Taguba Report) confirmed these accounts,
including ‘Noor's’ account and said that U.S. guards
sexually abused female detainees at Abu Ghraib. The report
found "numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton
criminal abuses" constituting "systematic and illegal abuse
of [Iraqi] detainees" at Abu Ghraib.

In addition to sexual violence, rape and physical torture, a
new comprehensive report documents the use of psychological
torture on Iraqi men, women and children by U.S. forces
released on May 01, 2005 by Physicians for Human Rights
(PHR), a British independent organization. The report shows
that "psychological torture has been at the centre of
treatment and interrogation of detainees [in Iraq and
elsewhere]". The most inhumane and damaging "[t]echniques of
psychological torture used have included sensory
deprivation, isolation, sleep deprivation, forced nudity,
the use of military working dogs to instill fear, cultural
and sexual humiliation, mock executions, and the threat of
violence or death toward detainees or their loved ones",
reveals the report.

Moreover, Iraqi women and their children are being taken
hostages by U.S. forces and used as ‘bargaining chips’. On
11 April 2005, the Guardian reported, that U.S. forces were
accused of violating international law by taking Iraqi women
hostages to force their male relatives to surrender. After
taking the women (mother and daughter) from their home in
Baghdad, U.S. soldiers left a note on the gate: "Be a man
Muhammad Mukhlif and give yourself up and then we will
release your sisters. Otherwise they will spend a long time
in detention". One wonders who is the one to "be a man",
U.S. soldiers who are abusing defenceless women or Mr.
Muhammad, who is only defending his country against foreign
invaders?

Iraqi women are arrested, detained, abused and tortured not
because of anything they have done, but to force their close
relatives (spouses, sons and brothers) to collaborate with
the Occupation and to inform against the Resistance.
Contrary to the Geneva Conventions, which stipulate that no
one can "be punished for an offence he or she has not
personally committed". The practices, which have been
condemned by the UN and human rights organisations, are
widely used by the Israeli Army against Palestinian men,
women and children in occupied Palestine.

The Italian journalist, Giuliana Sgrena, of the Italian
daily Il Manifesto, reported that, as usual U.S. Occupation
forces raided the home of Mithal Al-Hassan, a 55 years old
engineer, and arrested both her husband and son. "The
soldiers later ransacked the apartment and stole their
saving. Denounced as part of a vendetta, Mithal was
condemned without trial to eighty days of horror in the
company of other women prisoners who, like her, were
subjected to abuse and torture. She has since spotted her
tormentors on the internet". The courage and clarity of
Mithal substantiate the ongoing U.S. brutality against the
Iraqi women.

In another interview, Mithal added; "After that, they took
me to a detention centre [near Baghdad International
Airport]. There, I heard a young woman crying out from her
cell, telling an American soldier to leave her alone. She
said, ‘I am a Muslim woman’. Her voice was high-pitched and
shaky. Her husband, who was in a cell down the hall, called
out, ‘She is my wife. She has nothing to do with this’. He
hit the bars of his cell with his fists until he fainted.
The Americans poured water over his face and made him wake
up. When her screams became louder, the soldiers played
music over the speakers. Finally, they took her to another
room. I couldn't hear anything more", Ms. Mithal told Tara
McKelvey of American Prospect. The courage and clarity of
Mithal substantiate the ongoing U.S. brutality against the
Iraqi women.

Nicole Choueiry, of Amnesty International, said: "I do not
think it is the first time. It is against international law
to take civilians and use them as bargaining chips". U.S.
officials do not admit to any female inmates, but evidence
shows that women imprisoned in U.S-run prisons including Abu
Ghraib and were subjected to abuses including evidence of
sexual misconduct, rape and psychological torture against women.

"Overall, 90 women have been held in various detention
facilities in Iraq since August 2003", Barry Johnson, a
public-affairs officer for detainee operations with the U.S.
told McKelvey. "More women may be in captivity", he added,
"[U.S. Army] units can capture and keep them up to 14 days".
In addition, "approximately 60 children, or ‘juveniles’, are
being held", noted Tara McKelvey.

There were nearly 625 women prisoners in Al-Rusafah and 750
women prisoners in Al-Kazimiyah alone, including girls of
twelve and women in their sixties. Besides, Iman Kamas head
of the Occupation Watch Centre affirms that there are five
unknown U.S-run prisons in Iraq apart from the well known
ten, which include Abu-Ghraib, Al-Kazimiyah, and Al-Rusafah
prisons in Baghdad and Um-Qasir and Al-Nasiriyah prisons.
The number of innocent Iraqi prisoners and detainees are
increasing every day, together with dramatic increase in the
abuse, torture and rape of Iraqi men, women and children.

According to Amnesty International, there are new reports of
torture carried out by U.S. soldiers and the new U.S-trained
Iraqi security forces, or the ‘Occupation dogs’ as Iraqis
call them. As usual, the crimes against the Iraqi people
continue because as Ignacio Ramonet, editor of the French
monthly, Le Monde Diplomatique, rightly wrote; "The
characteristics of colonial war are usually arrogance on the
part of the occupiers, who believe that they belong to a
superior race (more civilised, more advanced), are
contemptuous of the colonised and sometimes refuse to admit
that the colonised are even human". Reports from Iraq show
that racism by U.S. soldiers fuel their violence against the
Iraqi people. It is just the Western mainstream media
complicity in the crimes prevents reporting them. It should
be borne in mind that, Western mainstream media is the
second front of the war on Iraq.

Western mainstream media, led by the Washington Post, The
New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor and CNN in the
U.S. and the BBC in Britain, not only fail to report the
horrific crimes against Iraqi women, but also continue to
publish fake stories depicting the rape crimes as "hoax" or
"conspiracies" which led many people in the West to accept
torture as an established policy. With hundreds of
newspapers subscribing to these "News Services", the
distortions become replicated and amplified throughout the
U.S. and the world.

Moreover, stories of cultural differences were deliberately
distorted to put cloud on the crimes of U.S. soldiers
committed against defenceless Iraqi women and girls. Western
mainstream media, American in particular, is full of
misleading stories such as; "Arab-Muslim patriarchy" culture
with its "honour killings" is worse than rape". Although it
is very rare and unheard of in Iraq, "honour killings" is
amplified and used to justify the abuse and rape of Iraqi
women and girls by U.S. soldiers. The media provides ‘a
diversion and an attempt to blame the victims by finding the
locus of the problem in the victim’, to use Ward Churchill
analysis. In other words, the media and politicians are
deliberately shifting the blame on the victims with
increasing sophistication.

The new wave of so-called "true stories" of "honour
killings" has been proven to be fraudulent. The trends of
dehumanising the ‘others’ are aimed at a receptive (Western)
audience, who shares the perpetrators frame of reference, to
exploit an overarching climate of fear and prejudice, and in
the process encourage more racism and Islamophobia. For
example, "Burned Alive" and "Forbidden Love", to mention
just recent two, were proved to be fabricated lies and
removed from sale. Unfortunately, the damage has already
been done to an already victimised Muslim community. The sad
thing is that the perpetrators have been rewarded
handsomely. They were not only escaped criminal libels; they
became celebrities within the anti-Muslim publishing
industry in the West.

Meanwhile, violent crimes against women are increasing in
the Western World and hardly published. "It should be not
forgotten that in America, not in the Muslim world, between
40 per cent and 60 per cent of women killed, are killed by
their husbands and boyfriends, but such murders of course
are no longer even called ‘passion’ crimes, much less
‘honour’ crimes", wrote Professor Joseph Mossad of Columbia
University. "For European women aged 16-44 violence in the
home is the primary cause of injury and death, more lethal
than road accidents and cancer…. Between 25%-50% of women
are victims of this violence", wrote Mr. Ignacio Ramonet.

It is this Islamophobic trait of imperial American-Western
culture and its anti-Muslim racism, prpagated both by the
media and the governments, not to mention several prominent
intellectuals, that propels the abuse and torture of
innocent Iraqi men, women and children in U.S-run prisons in
Iraq. The obsession of Western society with sex and sexual
exploitation of women as sex objects, further substantiate
the crimes of sexual abuse and rape against women in Iraq.

We know now that "Abu Ghraib was only the tip of the
iceberg", said Reed Brody, special counsel for the U.S-based
Human Rights Watch (HRW), because Abu Ghraib is not the only
prison in Iraq, and there are hundreds more. The "crimes at
Abu Ghraib are part of a larger pattern of abuses against
Muslim detainees around the world", added Mr. Brody.

The number of prisoners in Iraq today is far greater that
that under the former regime of Saddam. The level of sexual
abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners and detainees by the
former regime was just a fraction in today’s Iraq. Prior to
2003, Western human rights organisations were very vocal and
continued to monitor and report the situation in Iraq under
the former regime. Iraq was portrayed as a pariah state. But
since the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, they follow
the U.S. orders and stop their human rights work.

When asked about investigating U.S. crimes against Iraqi
civilians, Hania Mufti, an investigator with HRW told
Phillip Adams of Australia’s Radio National on Tuesday 26
April 2005, that: "The Agency is not concerns to investigate
U.S. crime against the Iraqi people, because U.S. crimes
against Iraqis are happening now in front of our eyes. The
Agency is more concerns to investigate crimes committed by
the previous regime which took place in 1990s so we can
pursue the ‘genocide’ charges". Her allegations against
officials of the previous regime are supported by "evidence"
collected from refugees in Jordan, Iran, Turkey, and
Britain. The refugees were enticed to make allegations. She
also admitted that U.S. forces in Iraq and Iraqi expatriates
are assisting the agency in making a case of genocide
against the former Iraqi officials.

The most disturbing and misleading allegations of Hania
Mufti’s is; "The majority of Iraqis welcomed the invasion".
Of course this is a falsehood. Most Iraqis (92-98 per cent)
opposed the invasion and occupation of their country. The
immediate uprising of Iraqi Resistance against the
Occupation was a guide. According to Iraqi pollster Saadoun
Al-Dulaimi of the Iraqi Institute of Strategic Studies, the
overwhelming majority of Iraqis (+85%), favours the
immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. A
U.S-sponsored poll in May 2004 shows that 92 per cent of
Iraqis viewed the invaders as "occupiers" rather than
"liberators", 85 per cent wanted them to leave immediately,
and only 2 per cent (2%) of Iraqis viewed the U.S. as
"liberators". The Washington Post survey revealed that;
"Public opinion polls show 80 per cent [of Iraqis] want the
Americans out of their country. In the election campaign,
one common theme among candidates was the withdrawal of
occupying forces". The Iraqi people have rejected this
U.S-imposed form of colonial dictatorship.

The miseries of the Iraqi people have more than doubled in
the last two years, and Iraqis viewed the Occupation as the
cause of their miseries. In addition to the crimes of sexual
abuse, torture and rape committed by U.S. soldiers against
Iraqi women, all other aspects of Iraqi women’s rights have
also deteriorated. Women health and women education have
fallen significantly. Unemployment, prostitution and
malnutrition, have increased dramatically, and are now
widespread among Iraqi women today.

A report by Women for Women International reveals that 57
per cent of Iraqi women and their families do not have
adequate healthcare, and that the maternal mortality rate
have tripled when compare to the period between 1989 to
2002. Iraq’s infrastructure has been reduced to rubble. The
health care services and the education system are on the
brink of total collapse. Iraq had one of the highest
standards of living in the Middle East’ prior to U.S. war
and sanctions. Under U.S. Occupation at least 200 children
are dying every day. They are dying from malnutrition, a
lack of clean water and a lack of medical equipment and
drugs to cure easily treatable diseases. This traumatic
situation has significant psychological effects on the
health and welfare of the children’s mothers. Electricity
blackout is as long as 15 hours a day, much longer than that
of pre-war level.

As a result of the U.S. dismantling of the Iraqi state, many
women lost their jobs. Unemployment among Iraqi women is
more than 70 per cent and rising. The dismantling of the
Iraqi Security and Police led to increase in violence and
crimes against women. Women are no longer leaving their
homes unaccompanied by relatives. The Bush administration’s
promotion of religious fundamentalism and sectarianism mean
the worst for Iraqi women rights. U.S. foreign policy preys
on religious fundamentalism.

Iraqi women have also suffered great loss in lives. U.S.
aerial bombing and destruction caused the death of great
numbers of women and children. In November 2004, the
reputable British medical journal, the Lancet, reported that
from March 2003 to October 2004, U.S. forces have killed
more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians. The number of Iraqis
killed is increasing daily. The Lancet authors acknowledge
that most of the victims were innocent women and children
killed by U.S. bombing of population centres.

To increase the atrocity, the U.S. provides its soldiers
with "self-immunity" from prosecution making it very easy
for them to kill Iraqis with institutionalised impunity, as
if Iraqis were not human beings. In addition, evidence shows
that the U.S-British forces use banned weapons such as
napalm and weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which
contaminated and polluted Iraq’s environment, and caused
health hazards.

Doctors in Iraq have reported a significant increase in
deformities among newborn babies that could be due to
radiation passed through mothers following U.S. wars of
1991-2003. ‘After studying family history of couples with
deformed babies, they concluded that radiation and pollution
[caused by ‘depleted’ uranium dust, DU] were the main causes
of the deformity’, Dr Lamia'a Amran, a paediatrician at the
Iraqi Red Crescent Society (IRCS) hospital in Baghdad, told
IRIN News. "Since 1991 the number of children born with
birth deformities has quadrupled", said Dr Janan Hassan, who
runs a children clinic in Basra in southern Iraq. If DU is
the cause of the cancers, which is most likely, the crisis
could become infinitely worse for women and children in Iraq.

"The depleted uranium left by the U.S. bombing campaign has
turned Iraq into a cancer-infested country. For hundreds of
years to come, the effects of the uranium will continue to
wreak havoc on Iraq and its surrounding areas", said Iraqi
artist and author of ‘Baghdad Diaries’, Nuha Al-Radi before
she died of leukaemia on August 13, 2004.

The U.S-Britain used thousands of tonnes of DU in their wars
on Iraq and over a wide range of areas. It took three to
five years for the cancers to begin manifesting after the
first Gulf crisis. Iraqi women and their newborn babies
expecting bleak future as a result of the U.S-Britain use of
WMD.

The pretexts for the war were proved to be just lies. Iraq
had no WMD and Iraq had no relations with terrorism. The war
on Iraq was an illegal act of aggression, designed to
increase the threat of terrorism and violence, in order to
exert control. The continuing Occupation of Iraq is to rob
Iraq of its oil resources, and enhance U.S. imperialist
doctrine.

So, as news of the appalling miseries of Iraqi women has
piled up, where are Western feminists? Aren’t women rights a
universal demand? Are Western feminists allowing George Bush
to steal their rhetoric to occupy Iraq and torture Iraqi
women? Where is this international women solidarity? The
setting up of an international war crimes tribunal to
investigate and prosecute those who committed these crimes
against Iraqi women should be the aim of the world community
to. It will enhance human rights and democracy worldwide.

George Bush "colonial feminism" and his use of women status
in the Middle East is merely to denigrate Islam and Islamic
culture, and serving U.S. imperial doctrine. The best way to
redress U.S. crimes against Iraqi women and end the
suffering is the immediate and full withdrawal of U.S.
forces from Iraq. This will allow Iraq to progress toward
full sovereignty and national independence.

The Occupation has had both immediate and long-term negative
implications for the safety of Iraqi women and for their
participation in post-war life in Iraq. The end of the
Occupation will stop the chain reactions of violence, and
may allow the victim’s wounds to heal.

Global Research Contributing Editor Ghali Hassan lives in
Perth, Western Australia.

----

Soaring birth deformities and child cancer rates in Iraq

by : James Cogan
Tuesday 10th May 2005 Uruknet

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=11651&hd=0&size=1&l=x

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6007

Iraqi doctors are making renewed efforts to bring to the
world’s attention the growth in birth deformities and cancer
rates among the country’s children. The medical crisis is
being directly blamed on the widespread use of depleted
uranium (DU) munitions by the US and British forces in
southern Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War, and the even greater
use of DU during the 2003 invasion.

The rate of birth defects, after increasing ten-fold from 11
per 100,000 births in 1989 to 116 per 100,000 in 2001, is
soaring further. Dr Nawar Ali, a medical researcher into
birth deformities at Baghdad University, told the UN’s
Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN) last month:
“There have been 650 cases [birth deformities] in total
since August 2003 reported in government hospitals. That is
a 20 percent increase from the previous regime. Private
hospitals were not included in the study, so the number
could be higher.”

His colleague, Dr Ibrahim al-Jabouri, reported: “In my
experiments we have found some cases where the mother and
father were suffering from pollution from weapons used in
the south and we believe that it is affecting newborn babies
in the country.”

The director of the Central Teaching Hospital in Baghdad,
Wathiq Ibrahim, said: “We have asked for help from the
government to make a more profound study on such cases as it
is affecting thousands of families.”

The rise in birth defects is matched by a continuing
increase in the incidence of childhood cancers.

Six years ago, the College of Medicine at Basra University
carried out a study into the rate of cancer among children
under the age of 15 in southern Iraq from 1976 to 1999. It
revealed a horrific change between 1990 and 1999. In the
province of Basra, the incidence of cancer of all types rose
by 242 percent, while the rate of leukaemia among children
rose 100 percent. Children living in the area were falling
ill with cancer at the rate of 10.1 per 100,000. In
districts where the use of DU had been the most
concentrated, the rate rose to 13.2 per 100,000.

The results were cited at the time in campaigns to end the
UN-imposed and US-enforced sanctions against Iraq, which
were held responsible for the death of as many as 500,000
Iraqi children from malnutrition and inadequate medical
treatment.

The study noted: “Most doctors and scientists agree that
even mild radiation is dangerous and increases the risk of
cancer. The health risk becomes much greater once the [DU]
projectile has been fired. After they have been fired, the
broken shells release uranium particles. The airborne
particles enter the body easily. The uranium then deposits
itself in bones, organs and cells. Children are especially
vulnerable because their cells divide rapidly as they grow.
In pregnant women, absorbed uranium can cross the placenta
into the bloodstream of the foetus.

“In addition to its radioactive dangers, uranium is
chemically toxic, like lead, and can damage the kidneys and
lungs. Perhaps, the fatal epidemic of swollen abdomens among
Iraqi children is caused by kidney failure resulting from
uranium poisoning. Whatever the effect of the DU shells, it
is made worse by malnutrition and poor health conditions....

“Iraq holds the United States and Britain legally and
morally responsible for the grave health and environmental
impact of the use of DU ...” (A version of the report is
available at: http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du_iraq.htm).

Terrible as these results were, the last six years have
witnessed a further rise in the number of children under 15
falling ill with cancer in Iraq. The rate has now reached
22.4 per 100,000-more than five times the 1990 rate of 3.98
per 100,000.

Dr Janan Hassan of the Basra Maternity and Childrens
Hospital told IRIN in November 2004 that as many as 56
percent of all cancer patients in Iraq were now children
under 5, compared with just 13 percent 15 years earlier.
“Also,” he said, “it is notable that the number of babies
born with defects is rising astonishingly. In 1990, there
were seven cases of babies born with multiple congenital
anomalies. This has gone up to as high as 224 cases in the
past three years.”

The statistics point to the long-term consequences of
depleted uranium contamination. Munitions containing an
estimated 300 tonnes of DU were unleashed by coalition
forces in southern Iraq in 1991. A decade after the war, DU
shell holes are still 1,000 times more radioactive than the
normal level of background radiation. The surrounding areas
are still 100 times more radioactive. Experts surmise that
fine uranium dust has been spread by the wind, contaminating
swathes of the surrounding region, including Basra, which is
some 200 kilometres away from sites where large numbers of
DU shells were fired.

A 1997 study into the cancer rate among Iraqi soldiers who
fought in the Basra area during the 1991 Gulf War found a
statistically significant increase in the rate at which they
were stricken with lymphomas, leukaemia, and lung, brain,
gastrointestinal, bone and liver cancers, as compared to
personnel who had not fought in the south. One in four of
the American personnel who fought in first Iraq war-more
than 150,000 people-are also suffering a range of medical
disorders collectively described as “Gulf War Syndrome”.
While the US military denies there is any relationship,
exposure to depleted uranium is one of the factors blamed by
veterans and medical researchers.

Somewhere between 1,000 and 3,000 tonnes of DU was expended
during the three-week war in 2003. Unlike 1991, however,
where most of the fighting took place outside major
population centres, the 2003 invasion witnessed the
wholesale bombardment of targets inside densely-populated
cities with DU shells. Christian Science Monitor journalist
Scott Peterson registered radiation on a simple Geiger
counter at levels some 1,900 times the normal background
rate in parts of Baghdad in May 2003. The city has a
population of six million.

Given that it was two to four years after the 1991 war
before cancer and birth defect rates began to rise
dramatically, the fear among medical specialists is that
Iraq will face an epidemic of cancers by the end of the
decade, under conditions where the medical system,
devastated by years of sanctions and war, is unable to cope
with the existing crisis.

Dr Amar, the deputy head of the Al-Sadr Teaching Hospital in
Basra, one of the main hospitals treating Iraqi cancer
patients, told the Sydney Morning Herald on April 29: “We
don’t have drugs to treat tumours. I have a patient with
tumours who is unconscious and I don’t have drugs or a bed
in which to treat him. I have two women with advanced
ovarian cancer but I can give them only minimum doses of
only some of the drugs they need.

“Two or three days ago we had to cancel all surgery because
we had no gauze and no anaesthetics. Our wards are like
stables for horses, not humans. We can’t properly isolate
patients or manage their diets. We don’t have proper
laboratory facilities....

“If you are sick don’t come to this hospital for treatment.
It is collapsing around us. We’re going down in a heap.”


-- 

Posted for educational and research purposes only,
~ in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 ~

NucNews Links and Expanded Archives - http://nucnews.net

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Need a home for your web domain?
We recommend our provider, Hosting Direct
https://support.hostingdirect.net/cgi-bin/affiliates/clickthru.cgi?id=nucnews



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TzSHvD/SOnJAA/79vVAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 47 Scotsman News: British Atomic Bomb Victim Added to Nagasaki Memorial
 
Mon 16 May 2005   			 			

By David Stringer, PA 

A former RAF engineer believed to be one of only two British 
servicemen killed in the atomic bombing of Japan is to be finally 
remembered at a memorial dedicated to victims. 

Corporal Ronald Shaw died at the age of 25 when American forces 
dropped the Fat Man nuclear weapon on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, 
three days after the destruction of Hiroshima. 

The engineer’s name is to be added to a list of victims in
Nagasaki’s Peace Park after a painstaking search by a Japanese
historian determined to register each foreigner killed before
services to mark the 60th anniversary of the bombing. 

Mr Shaw’s surviving family were contacted to offer their
consent to the tribute and now plan to visit the city to pay
their own respects. 

His nephew, Geoff Worland, 64, of Leigh-on-Sea, Essex, said:
“We didn’t know anything about the memorial until we were
finally put in touch with the historian. 

“Though I only met my uncle when I was very young, his service
and death were always talked about in the family. 

“It is something that came up a lot and something we were all
aware of. 

“We know that he had served in Egypt and elsewhere, before he
was captured as a prisoner of war. 

“Though we don’t yet have plans to travel to Nagasaki
immediately, we will definitely go there in the future to see
the memorial.� 

Ministry of Defence records show that Mr Shaw had been captured
in Jakarta in 1942 and two years later was sent to Japan on the
notorious “hell ships�. 

He was rescued from the sea in June 1944 following the sinking
of a vessel by an Allied torpedo and taken to work in a Nagasaki
shipyard. 

The August atomic bomb, dropped by an American B29, is thought
to have exploded close to the site where Mr Shaw, originally
from in Edmonton, north London, and several Dutch PoWs were
being held. 

Mr Shaw’s ashes were later interred at Hodogaya cemetery
alongside 1,800 Commonwealth servicemen. 

Local Nagasaki government officials believe the serviceman is
one of two Britons killed in the bombing, but he remains the
only British victim known by name. 

Around 140,000 people died in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki
as a result of the bombings, although many thousands more
suffered radiation-related deaths.

2005 Scotsman.com
*****************************************************************
 48 [du-list] Close nuclear leak plant for good, says Sellafield
 
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:37:12 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1483942,00.html

Thorp reprocessing should never be restarted - boss

Oliver Morgan, industrial editor
Sunday May 15, 2005
The Observer

The owner of the Sellafield site in Cumbria, the Nuclear Decommissioning 
Authority, wants its main reprocessing facility to shut forever following a 
leak of highly radioactive liquefied nuclear fuel containing plutonium and 
uranium.
The move would bring an early end to the UK's reprocessing programme, which 
was conceived in the Sixties to provide plutonium for Britain's nuclear 
deterrent while recycling uranium for civil energy  (sic) needs.

In any event, the leak of some 20 tonnes of uranium and plutonium fuel, 
dissolved in nitric acid, will keep the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant 
(Thorp) shut for months.

But senior sources at the NDA, the government body set up to dismantle 
radioactive facilities at 20 sites across the UK, now believes that keeping 
the plant shut is the most economical option, and also one that would 
remove reprocessing - which has always attracted controversy - from the 
debate over building new nuclear stations which many believe the government 
is keen to initiate.

'The view is that Thorp should never restart,' said a senior source.

Officials indicate that, even when operational, the plant does not make 
money. Thorp's figures are not split out in the NDA's plan for 2005-6. 
However, the published figures show that, of a total budget of £2.2 
billion, the NDA receives some £1.08bn from the commercial operations it 
inherited from British Nuclear Fuels. Of this, it expects to get £635.1 
million from reprocessing and transporting nuclear material around the world.

A large proportion of this figure will be from Thorp's activities - 
reprocessing spent fuel from British Energy's nuclear power stations, along 
with contracts from Japan, Germany and other overseas customers. But the 
NDA also incurs huge costs from Sellafield, forecast to be £727.4m over 
2005-6. Also, up to three new storage facilities for separated plutonium 
and uranium are needed, at a cost of nearly £200m each.

Meanwhile the NDA official said: 'The government is starting to think about 
new stations. The view is that it would be impossible to argue that there 
should be a new generation [of facilities] that relies on reprocessing.'

Closing Thorp would reduce the time it takes to run down the massive 
stockpile of 'highly active liquid' - spent nuclear fuel containing uranium 
and plutonium - by four and a half years. Nuclear regulators have insisted 
on the backlog being dealt with by 2015. And closure of Thorp would 
drastically reduce emissions into the Irish Sea, a continuing source of 
tension with the Irish government.

NDA chief executive Ian Roxburgh told The Observer that a decision on 
closure would be up to the government. He added: 'The NDA must produce by 
the autumn its plans for the 20 sites it operates, including Sellafield. 
The latest incident had clearly brought that forward.'

Meanwhile, sources at British Energy have indicated that the privatised 
nuclear operator wants to run any new nuclear power stations, but is not 
keen to take a major investment stake in any projects. There are doubts 
over whether private investors have the appetite to finance and build a new 
generation of reactors, given the volatility of energy markets.

The sources believe the operation of new plants should be kept separate 
from ownership and financing.

   ----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.10 - Release Date: 5/13/05


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/79vVAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 49 Bellona: Thorp leak officially ranked a “serious incident” as UK mulls shutting plant 
down for good
 
A British Nuclear Group (BNG) official told Bellona Web Friday 
that last month’s leakage of some 20 tonnes of plutonium and 
uranium dissolved in nitric acid at Sellafield’s Thorp 
reprocessing plant has been classified as a “serious incident” on 
the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES). 

  The INES scale, which assigns levels of severity from 1 to 7
for nuclear incidents and accidents.   

  Source: http://www.iaea.org   

Charles Digges, 2005-05-15 21:28

A senior official at the UK’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
(NDA), the government body set up to dismantle radioactive
facilities at 20 sites across Great Britain, meanwhile said
Sunday that the Thorp plant should be shut down for good. 

The INES rating puts the Thorp event at one step bellow an
official “nuclear accident” on the scale’s seven step rating
system. The leak, which released 83 cubic meters of highly
radioactive liquid through a ruptured pipe into in Thorp’s fuel
clarification cell, received an INES designation of “3.” This
rating corresponds to a “serious incident” on the scale devised
by the International Atomic Energy Agency. A rating of “4”
corresponds to “an accident without serious off-site risk.” 

The leak was discovered n April 18 during a camera-based
inspection to determine why readings for plutonium and uranium
levels in one of Thorp’s storage—or so-called
Accountability—tanks were not at levels that were expected.
Thorp was immediately shut down so and investigators have
convened to determine the cause of the incident. 

A rupture in the pipe itself or poor welding connecting the pipe
to the tank—investigators are still unsure—coming from one of
Thorp’s two Accountability tanks are the primary suspects for
the leak, BNG spokesmen have said. 

Still safe despite INES score 

Officials with the NDA, which owns Sellafield, and the BNG
officials that run Sellafield have repeatedly stated that the
leak poses no danger to citizens in the surrounding community or
to plant workers—so long as the leak remains contained and they
do not enter the fuel clarification cell. Britain’s nuclear
safety inspectorate, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
(NII) last week confirmed this. 

Thorp’s fuel clarification cell comprises a stainless
steel-lined space 60 metres long, 20 metres wide and 20 metres
high and its concrete walls are 2 to 3 metres thick to absorb
radiation. BNG Sellafield’s spokesman Nigel Monckton said the
cell was designed to withstand the possibility of a leak and,
because stainless steel does not dissolve in nitric acid, the
leak has been contained. 

"There has been no radiation dose to Sellafield workers as a
result of the leak and no release of radioactivity into the
atmosphere," confirmed a spokesman for the safety regulator, the
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. 

What Thorp’s fuel clarification cell does 
Thorp’s raw materials are the used fuel rods from nuclear power
stations. After receipt at Thorp, they are stored for several
months to allow the radioactivity of short-lived fission
products to decay to safer levels. The 1-metre long,
1-centimetre diameter tubular rods are then cut up into small
chunks and lowered in baskets into strong nitric acid. 

The uranium, plutonium and fission products dissolve and the
remnants of the steel rods are removed. But the fluid remaining
from the process, called liquor, still contains small shards of
steel, or tailings, from burrs created as the rods were chopped
up. So the liquor must be centrifuged to get rid of the steel
contaminants, a process called clarification. It is at this
clarification stage that the leak occurred. 

Thorp’s future in question 

The halting of work at THORP is a mixed blessing for
anti-nuclear campaigners because the revenue the plant generates
is crucial to the clean-up and decommissioning of the UK's old
nuclear power stations. 

Senior sources at the NDA now say that keeping the plant closed
is more economical, and is a move that would take reprocessing
—which has always been a lightning rod for heated debate—out of
the debate over building new nuclear facilities, a direction
many believe the government is moving in. 

“The view is that Thorp should never restart,” a senior NDA
source said in a telephone interview Sunday. 

Officials say that, even while in operation, the plant fails to
make money. Figures show that, of a total annual budget of £2.2
billion for nuclear clean-up and decommissioning around the UK,
the NDA receives some £1 billion from the commercial operations
it inherited from British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL, now known as
BNG). Of this, the NDA expects to get between £560m and £640m
from reprocessing and transporting nuclear material around the
world. 

A large proportion of this cash would come from Thorp's
activities—reprocessing spent fuel from British Energy's nuclear
power stations, along with contracts from Japan, Germany and
other overseas customers, who are currently disgruntled with
Thorp’s backlog on reprocessing orders. But the NDA also
stomachs enourmous costs from Sellafield, which are forecast to
be nearly £730m over 2005-2006. Up to three new storage
facilities for separated plutonium and uranium are also
needed—at a cost of nearly £200m each. 

Britain rethinks its position on “new generation facilities”
 The NDA official said that ”The government is starting to think
about new stations.” 

”The view is that it would be impossible to justify a new
generation of stations that relies on reprocessing.” 

Closing Thorp would reduce the time it takes to run down the
massive stockpile of liquid spent nuclear fuel containing
uranium and plutonium by four and a half years. Nuclear
regulators insist that the backlog being dealt with by 2015. 

NDA chief executive Ian Roxburgh told the British daily The
Observer that a decision on closure would be up to the
government. He added that “the NDA must produce by the autumn
its plans for the 20 sites it operates, including Sellafield.
The latest incident had clearly brought that forward.” 

Sources at British Energy have indicated that the privatised
nuclear operator wants to run any new nuclear power stations,
but is not keen to take a major investment stake in any
projects, The Observer reported. There are doubts over whether
private investors have the appetite to finance and build a new
generation of reactors, given the volatility of energy markets.
British Energy sources believe the operation of new plants
should be kept separate from ownership and financing, The
Observer said.   

  Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge
Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact:
webmaster@bellona.no
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62  * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
 50 CEN News: Nuclear dump plan for area
 
NUCLEAR waste could be dumped just 20 miles from the centre of
Newmarket. 

The scheme is to be revealed when a top secret list of planned
sites is published - more than 15 years after it was first drawn
up by Government-controlled agency Nirex. 

An RAF base at Thetford is understood to be one of the sites
earmarked by the work, withheld from the public for 16 years for
fear of local protests and damage to house prices. 

Other sites include a site in Harwell, Oxford, two uninhabited
islands off the west coast of Scotland and two further sites on
the seabed. 

There was also a proposal to build an artificial island off the
Scottish coast. 

Nirex wants to disclose all the sites as part of a public debate
on where Britain's nuclear waste should now be dumped. 

The Government confirmed this weekend Britain could build a new
generation of nuclear power plants to help combat climate
change. Britain's 14 nuclear reactors produce a quarter of the
nation's electricity, but because of their age all but one will
have to close by 2023. 					 						 					 					 					  					
					
16 May 2005                                                             

[First appeared in the Cambridge Evening News]                                                                                                                                           

*****************************************************************
 51 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada Senate passes measure denouncing nuclear dump
 
ASSOCIATED PRESS 

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - The Nevada Senate unanimously passed a
measure Monday that urges federal lawmakers to oppose
controversial plans for storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain,
about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

AJR4, approved earlier by the Assembly, asks federal
decision-makers to give up on Yucca Mountain because it is "an
ill-advised project based on bad science, bad law and bad public
policy, a choice that ignores better, less expensive and safer
alternatives, a choice which hinders, not helps, national
security." 

Despite delays and spending cuts, Energy Department officials
have said recently that the Yucca Mountain plan is alive and
well, and that support from the Bush administration remains
strong. But opponents have declared the project dead. 

Recent problems with the government's plans for the dump include
criminal investigations to determine whether workers on the
project falsified data. 

Also, a court decision has forced a rewrite of radiation safety
standards for the site - and the DOE has scrapped a planned 2010
completion date. 

*****************************************************************
 52 KRNV: Nevada lawmakers face another bill-passage deadline

May 17, 2005   

  CARSON CITY

As Nevada lawmakers head into the 15th week of the legislative
session, committees will be passing bills left and right in
advance of a Friday deadline requiring most measures to move to
either the full Senate or Assembly for final votes. 

The money committees will continue to hold budget closings, and
other panels will hold work sessions, especially as the week
wanes, to act on bills heard in past meetings. 

Monday opens with Assembly Government Affairs taking up a bill
that would expand tax incentives for businesses that move into
economic development areas. 

Assembly Ways and Means will hear a controversial proposal that
expands on 2003 legislation giving Nevada's 15 rural counties
the option to deviate from the state-mandated 15-to-one ratio
that applies to kindergarten through third grade. 

The bill would add the Reno and Las Vegas areas, and would allow
class sizes of up to 22 in grades one to three and up to 25 in
grades four to six. 

Senate Commerce and Labor will consider tightening laws
governing payday loan companies that charge excessive interest
to customers, many of whom are unlikely to be able to pay the
high costs. 

The full Senate is scheduled to vote on a slew of measures,
including a measure that would prohibit smoking in child care
centers and arcades. 

Senators may also act on a resolution that urges federal
lawmakers to oppose plans for storing nuclear waste at Yucca
Mountain, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

Also tomorrow, Assembly Education will take up a bill that would
require out-of-state students to live in Nevada for one year
before being exempt from nonresident tuition. 

The present law permits those living in Nevada for six months to
escape the tuition fee. 

(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)   
  
Copyright 2001 - 2005 WorldNow and KRNV. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 53 News & Star: BNFL say clean-up is safe
       
16/05/2005                                                                                                                                              
                                                        
By Anna Burdett
 
BNFL has denied that there is any danger following a radioactive 
leak during the clean-up of the Thorp reprocessing plant.
 
The plant at Sellafield will be closed for several months after a 
major leak of radioactive liquid into the feed clarification 
cell. 

British Nuclear Group said complex work is yet to start on 
removing the 83 cubic metres of liquor, which spilled out into a 
secure unit during a pipe failure.
 
BNFL dismissed anti-nuclear claims of a potential 
“criticality� which could result in large amounts of 
radioactivity escaping on and off the Sellafield site.
 
A spokesman said: “Obviously we have done our assessments in 
preparing a safety case for the clean-up. 

“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.�
 
The leak coincided with an annual seven-week shutdown of the 
plant for maintenance work and the 800 staff have been 
re-deployed to this task.
 
Work is well under way to lower radiation levels in the affected 
part of the Thorp plant. 

						 					 				 				 					
*****************************************************************
 54 Guardian Unlimited: Reprocessing the nuclear debate
 
Letters 
		
Monday May 16, 2005
The Guardian 		
 		
David King, the chief scientist, is right to rule out an 
immediate return to nuclear power and instead to focus on energy 
efficiency and renewables. Sadly the government is failing to 
deliver on these aspirations. Average wastage of energy from 
properties in the UK is 30% - valued at £12bn every year. The 
government has also woefully failed to bring forward a range of 
renewable technologies - including those that allow householders 
to generate their own heat and power. 

Worse, the government is failing to get to grips with an outdated 
electricity grid system, devised in the 1930s around inefficient 
coal pits. It wastes two-thirds of the energy put into it - 
enough to heat every building in the UK. 

The answer to this is to decentralise energy production, with
three simple things. First, waste less by delivering energy
efficiency properly and profitably. Second, generate heat and
power close to where it is needed. Third, bring forward a much
wider range of renewable technologies.
Adam Kennerley
Solutions adviser, Greenpeace 

Despite the leak at the Thorpe reprocessing plant, reluctantly I
have come to the conclusion that our future depends on
electricity generated by nuclear power. Previous sources of
energy like oil and natural gas will be exhasuted before
renewable resources (wind, waves and tide etc) have been
sufficiently developed to sustain our economy and counteract
global warming. Commonsense measures like a realistic tax on
aviation fuel are temporary palliatives. Until scientists devise
a method for neutralising the nuclear waste it can be stored in
disused mine shafts behind concrete walls.
Dr Michael Winter
London 

Nuclear power has always been associated with "pork barrel"
politics - pushed behind the scenes, without public debate, by
corporate interests. It has consumed huge resources while making
poor returns. Nuclear power has always cost more than the
alternatives, including wind or other renewable energies. The
subsidies to the nuclear industry have been enormous. Nuclear
power has consumed the resources that could have been invested
in alternatives and invested in social justice.
Heather McDougall
North Shields, Tyne and Wear
 	
 	
[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited ¿ Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 55 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: 'Bunker-busting' nuclear weapon is not needed
 
The coverage of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in New York
this month raised important questions about how the global
community can prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and
ultimately achieve the goal of universal nuclear disarmament.

 One important step toward that goal would be for Congress to
eliminate all funding for the new nuclear weapons that the Bush
administration has proposed to develop next year. President
Bush's budget request for 2006 includes $4 million for the first
stages of developing a "bunker- busting" nuclear weapon.

 Developing new nuclear weapons is at odds with the U.S.
commitment to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. It
undermines the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And it is
completely unnecessary as not only does the United States
already have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, but
already has a "bunker-buster" type weapon.

 The Nevada Test Site would again be the host for this
"destructive detonator." Have we not done enough damage to
Nevadans, Utahans, Idahoans and apparently Vermonters with
probably many more Americans in between.

 We want to commend Rep. Shelley Berkley who was one of the
first to sign on to a letter urgently asking Congress to not
proceed with this plan.

 Not only can we not afford it moneywise, but we also cannot
afford it diplomatically and we certainly cannot afford to harm
our people or our Earth anymore than we already have.

 PEGGY MAZE JOHNSON Editor's note: The writer is executive
director of Citizen Alert, a self-described environmental
justice organization in Nevada. 
 
*****************************************************************
 56 Japan Times: Braking an arms free-for-all

  Monday, May 16, 2005   

 By KEIZO NABESHIMA

The 2005 review conference of the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty, which opened May 2 at U.N. headquarters in New York,
remains in limbo, although the agenda has finally been agreed.

 The abnormal situation reflects deep-rooted discord between
nuclear and nonnuclear nations. The problem is complicated by
North Korea's withdrawal from the NPT and subsequent
acknowledgment that it possesses nuclear arms; Iran's
nuclear-arms development; the growing threat of nuclear
terrorism; and a proposal to tighten restrictions on peaceful
uses of atomic energy to eliminate "loopholes" for developing
nuclear weapons.

 At the root of the conflict is a landmark agreement worked out
at the 2000 NPT review conference. Included were 13 points of
agreement that established clear guidelines for abolishing
nuclear arms. It called for early implementation of the
Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty (yet unratified by the United
States and China); a moratorium on nuclear tests; and immediate
negotiations on a treaty designed to ban the production of
weapons-grade fissile materials.

 Regarded as the most important element of the agreement was "an
unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapons states to
accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals
leading to nuclear disarmament."

 At the current review conference, nonnuclear states have urged
all states involved to adhere to the 2000 agreement, but the
U.S. disregards the commitment by nuclear powers, saying the
agreement was only a political document.

 For its part, the NPT allowed the five nuclear powers -- U.S.,
Russia, Britain, France and China -- to maintain their nuclear
arsenals while prohibiting nonnuclear states from producing or
acquiring nuclear weapons. The pact, however, gave nonnuclear
nations "an inalienable right" to peaceful uses of atomic energy.

 Despite the inequities, the NPT was supported by the
international community because the nuclear powers promised to
conduct sincere negotiations on ending the nuclear-arms race
soon and reducing their nuclear arsenals. The NPT is supported
by the 2000 political agreement.

 Another problem in the current discord involves measures to
control nuclear proliferation. Washington suspects that North
Korea and Iran have been developing nuclear arms under the guise
of projects to promote peaceful uses of atomic power.

 There have been growing moves to restrict the right to peaceful
uses of atomic energy. Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of
the International Atomic Energy Agency, is pushing "multilateral
nuclear approaches" to imposing international controls on the
production and reprocessing of highly enriched uranium and
plutonium.

 Many countries have rejected moves to limit peaceful uses of
nuclear power. Japan, which plans to establish a nuclear-fuel
cycle complex in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, takes a negative
view of plans for international controls on nuclear fuels.

 The Japanese government contends that it would be unfair to
restrict Japan's right to peaceful uses of nuclear power, since
the IAEA has determined that the nation fully cooperates with
the agency and poses no threat of using nuclear fuels for
weapons production. Should the nuclear powers try to limit
nonnuclear nations' peaceful uses of nuclear power, they would
stir distrust of the NPT system.

 At the beginning of the NPT review conference, Foreign Minister
Nobutaka Machimura made some specific proposals for
strengthening the NPT system. He called for early ratification
of the CTBT to promote nuclear disarmament, and for immediate
negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. Citing the
13-point 2000 agreement, he called on all five nuclear powers to
make sharper cuts in their nuclear arsenals.

 Machimura told the conference that "universalization" of the
IAEA additional protocol is the most realistic and effective
means of strengthening the nuclear nonproliferation regime. He
called on nonsignatory nations to sign the protocol soon. Of the
190 NPT signatory nations, only 65 have done so. The
nonproliferation system would be strengthened if all signatory
nations get on board.

 Machimura urged North Korea to abandon its nuclear-arms
programs and return unconditionally to the six-party talks on
its nuclear programs. He called on Iran to conclude an agreement
with France, Germany and Britain to guarantee that its nuclear
programs are intended only for peaceful uses.

 Machimura also demanded that India, Pakistan and Israel, NPT
nonsignatory nations, promptly join the treaty as nonnuclear
nations without conditions.

 In parallel with the foreign minister's speech, the Japanese
government announced "21 measures for the 21st century,"
covering nuclear disarmament, nuclear nonproliferation, peaceful
uses of atomic power, ways to strengthen the NPT regime, and an
effective mechanism for dealing with withdrawals from the NPT. A
state that withdrew from the treaty would "remain responsible
for violations it committed while being a party." It is crucial
that the NPT regime clarify the responsibilities of nations that
have withdrawn from the pact.

 Since 1994, Japan has submitted a series of resolutions on
nuclear disarmament to the U.N. General Assembly, which has duly
adopted them. Last December a resolution on establishing "a path
to the total elimination of nuclear weapons" was adopted with
support by a record 165 nations. Only three nations -- U.S.,
India and Palau -- opposed it, while 16 nations abstained.

 The resolution included the nuclear powers' "unequivocal
undertaking" to accomplish nuclear-weapons abolition,
symbolizing the international community's growing interest in
nuclear disarmament.

 The NPT regime faces a crisis, as the number of nuclear powers
increase outside the treaty's framework. To halt proliferation,
the nuclear powers must first take specific measures to promote
disarmament. Reaffirmation of the 2000 agreement as well as the
resolution on "a path to the total elimination of nuclear
weapons" should be the first step toward preventing erosion of
the NPT system.

 Keizo Nabeshima, former chief editorial writer for Kyodo News,
writes on political and international affairs. 

The Japan Times: May 16, 2005
*****************************************************************
 57 Department of Energy: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda

Unified Agenda



[May 16, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 93)]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access 
[frwais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID: f:ua050407.wais]

[Page 26800-26815]

Part VII


[[Page 26800]]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Chs. II, III, and X

48 CFR Ch. 9

Regulatory Agenda

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Semiannual regulatory agenda.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy has prepared and today is publishing 
its semiannual regulatory agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866 
``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735, and the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. sections 601-612 (1988).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about any 
particular item on the regulatory agenda, please contact the individual 
listed under that item. For further information on the regulatory 
agenda in general, please contact: Richard L. Farman, Room 6E-078, 
Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, 
(202) 586-8145.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Entries appended to this notice reflect the 
status of activities as of approximately March 30, 2005. They are 
divided into categories first by subagencies and then according to 
their stage of rulemaking action: prerule, proposed rulemaking, final 
rulemaking, long-term action, or completed action.

     A draft of this regulatory agenda has been transmitted to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business 
Administration for comment, if any, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 602(b).

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 11, 2005.

 Eric J. Fygi,

Acting General Counsel.

                               National Nuclear Security Agency--Final Rule Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Regulation
 Sequence                                           Title                                            Identifier
  Number                                                                                               Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
771         Computer Security: Access to Information on Department of Energy Computer Systems.....    1994-AA01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               National Nuclear Security Agency--Long-Term Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Regulation
 Sequence                                           Title                                            Identifier
  Number                                                                                               Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
772         Initial Parts of NNSA Acquisition Regulation (NAR)....................................    1994-AA00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                              Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy--Prerule Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Regulation
 Sequence                                           Title                                            Identifier
  Number                                                                                               Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
773         Determination for High-Intensity Discharge Lamps......................................    1904-AA86
774         Determination for Small Electric Motors...............................................    1904-AA87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                           Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy--Proposed Rule Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Regulation
 Sequence                                           Title                                            Identifier
  Number                                                                                               Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
775         Energy Efficiency Code for New Federal Residential Low-Rise Buildings.................    1904-AA53
776         State and Local Incentives Program: Alternative Fuels.................................    1904-AA66
777         Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Furnaces and Boilers......................    1904-AA78
778         Energy Efficiency Standards for Electric Distribution Transformers....................    1904-AB08
779         Energy Efficiency Standards for Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps....    1904-AB09
780         Energy Standards for New Federal Commercial and Multi-Family High-Rise Residential        1904-AB13
            Buildings.............................................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy--Final Rule Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Regulation
 Sequence                                           Title                                            Identifier
  Number                                                                                               Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
781         Test Procedures for Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps--Amendments...    1904-AA46
782         Test Procedures for Electric Distribution Transformers................................    1904-AA85
783         Energy Efficiency Standards for Commercial 3-Phase Air Conditioners and Heat Pump Less    1904-AB16
            Than 65 kBtu/h........................................................................

[[Page 26801]]


784         Energy Efficiency Standards for Commercial Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat    1904-AB17
            Pumps; Commercial Oil- and Gas-Fired Package Boilers; and Tankless Gas-Fired Water
            Heaters...............................................................................
785         Energy Efficiency Standards for Commercial Single Packaged Vertical Air-Conditioners      1904-AB44
            and Heat Pumps........................................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy--Long-Term Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Regulation
 Sequence                                           Title                                            Identifier
  Number                                                                                               Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
786         National Voluntary Residential Energy Efficiency Rating Guidelines....................    1904-AA74
787         Energy Efficiency Standards for Clothes Dryers and Dishwashers........................    1904-AA89
788         Energy Efficiency Standards for Pool Heaters and Direct Heating Equipment.............    1904-AA90
789         Energy Efficiency Standards for 1-200 HP Electric Motors..............................    1904-AA91
790         Energy Efficiency Standards for Fluorescent and Incandescent Lamps....................    1904-AA92
791         Coverage of Certain Types of Commercial Refrigeration Equipment (Reach-In Freezers,       1904-AB14
            Reach-In Refrigerators, Vending Machines, and Beverage Merchandisers).................
792         Coverage of Certain Incandescent Reflector Lamps, Torchieres, and Ceiling Fans........    1904-AB15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                Defense and Security Affairs--Proposed Rule Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Regulation
 Sequence                                           Title                                            Identifier
  Number                                                                                               Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
793         Physical Protection of Security Interests.............................................    1992-AA23
794         Identification and Protection of Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information..........    1992-AA35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 Defense and Security Affairs--Final Rule Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Regulation
 Sequence                                           Title                                            Identifier
  Number                                                                                               Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
795         Counterintelligence Evaluation Regulations............................................    1992-AA33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 Defense and Security Affairs--Completed Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Regulation
 Sequence                                           Title                                            Identifier
  Number                                                                                               Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
796         Procedural Rules for the Assessment of Civil Penalties for Security Violations........    1992-AA28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  Departmental and Others--Proposed Rule Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Regulation
 Sequence                                           Title                                            Identifier
  Number                                                                                               Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
797         Freedom of Information Act............................................................    1901-AA32
798         Research Misconduct...................................................................    1901-AA89
799         Occupational Radiation Protection.....................................................    1901-AA95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 26802]]


                                    Departmental and Others--Final Rule Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Regulation
 Sequence                                           Title                                            Identifier
  Number                                                                                               Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
800         Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment................................    1901-AA38
801         Economic Development Transfers of Real Property.......................................    1901-AA82
802         Worker Safety and Health..............................................................    1901-AA99
803         Guidelines for Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting.....................................    1901-AB11
804         Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects...................................    1901-AB14
805         Price Competitive Sale of Strategic Petroleum Reserve Petroleum; Standard Sales           1901-AB15
            Provisions............................................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Departmental and Others--Long-Term Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Regulation
 Sequence                                           Title                                            Identifier
  Number                                                                                               Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
806         Annotation of Land Records for Remediated Properties in the Uranium Mill Tailings         1901-AA57
            Remedial Action Project (UMTRA).......................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Departmental and Others--Completed Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Regulation
 Sequence                                           Title                                            Identifier
  Number                                                                                               Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
807         Guidelines for Physician Panel Determination on Worker Requests for Assistance in         1901-AB13
            Filing for State Worker's Compensation Benefits; Procedural Amendments................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                      Office of Procurement and Assistance Management--Proposed Rule Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Regulation
 Sequence                                           Title                                            Identifier
  Number                                                                                               Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
808         DEAR Changes to Provisions for Facilities Management, Work Authorization, Contractor's    1991-AB65
            Organization, Contractor Relations, and Laws, Regulations, and Directives.............
809         Cooperative Audit Strategy............................................................    1991-AB67
810         DEAR: Biobased Content Products.......................................................    1991-AB68
811         Priorities and Allocations--Domestic Energy Supplies..................................    1991-AB69
812         Revisions to Intellectual Property Provisions for Management Contracts................    1991-AB70
813         Security Considerations--Background Checks............................................    1991-AB71
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                        Office of Procurement and Assistance Management--Final Rule Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Regulation
 Sequence                                           Title                                            Identifier
  Number                                                                                               Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
814         Organizational Conflict of Interest Disclosure........................................    1991-AB52
815         Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation: Management Contractor Compensation for       1991-AB61
            Personal Services.....................................................................
816         Technical Amendment of the Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation................    1991-AB62
817         DEAR: Make or Buy Plans...............................................................    1991-AB63
818         DEAR: Work for Others.................................................................    1991-AB64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Office of General Counsel--Final Rule Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Regulation
 Sequence                                           Title                                            Identifier
  Number                                                                                               Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
819         Conduct of Employees..................................................................    1990-AA19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 26803]]


                                  Office of General Counsel--Long-Term Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Regulation
 Sequence                                           Title                                            Identifier
  Number                                                                                               Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
820         Claims for Damages Against Department of Energy Employees.............................    1990-AA26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________________________________
Department of Energy (DOE)                             Final Rule Stage
National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA)
_______________________________________________________________________

771. COMPUTER SECURITY: ACCESS TO INFORMATION ON DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 
COMPUTER SYSTEMS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 7101 et seq; 42 USC 2001 et seq; 50 USC 2425; 
50 USC 2483(c)

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This action would codify rules governing access by any 
individual to information on Department of Energy computer systems.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            03/17/05                    70 FR 12974
Final Action                    10/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Bruce Brody, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-1090
Email: bruce.brody@hq.doe.gov

RIN: 1994-AA01
_______________________________________________________________________
Department of Energy (DOE)                            Long-Term Actions
National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA)
_______________________________________________________________________

772. INITIAL PARTS OF NNSA ACQUISITION REGULATION (NAR)

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is 
undetermined.

CFR Citation: 48 CFR ch 11

Timetable: Next Action Undetermined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: James J. Cavanagh
Phone: 202 586-8559

RIN: 1994-AA00
_______________________________________________________________________
Department of Energy (DOE)                                Prerule Stage
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE)
_______________________________________________________________________

773. DETERMINATION FOR HIGH-INTENSITY DISCHARGE LAMPS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 6317

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430

Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, April 24, 1995, Determination Notice.

Abstract: The Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires the Department to 
prescribe test procedures and efficiency standards for high-intensity 
discharge lamps for which the Secretary makes a determination that 
energy conservation standards would be technologically feasible and 
economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Determination Notice            06/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Additional Information: The timetable for this action reflects program 
priorities, which were established with significant input from the 
public. The Department is gathering information and conducting analysis 
in preparation for a determination under 42 U.S.C. 631(b).

Agency Contact: Bryan Berringer, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Building Technologies 
Program, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-0371
Fax: 202 586-4617
Email: bryan.berringer@ee.doe.gov

RIN: 1904-AA86
_______________________________________________________________________

774. DETERMINATION FOR SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 6317

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431

Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, April 24, 1995, Determination Notice.

Abstract: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended, 
requires the Department to prescribe test procedures for small electric

[[Page 26804]]

motors for which the Secretary makes a determination that energy 
conservation standards would be technologically feasible and 
economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Determination Notice            03/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Additional Information: The timetable for this action reflects program 
priorities, which were established with significant input from the 
public. The Department is gathering information and conducting analyses 
in preparation for a determination under 42 U.S.C. 6317(b).

Agency Contact: James Raba, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Building Technologies 
Program, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-8654
Email: jim.raba@ee.doe.gov

RIN: 1904-AA87
_______________________________________________________________________
Department of Energy (DOE)                          Proposed Rule Stage
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE)
_______________________________________________________________________

775. ENERGY EFFICIENCY CODE FOR NEW FEDERAL RESIDENTIAL LOW-RISE 
BUILDINGS

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 6834

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 435

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, October 24, 1994.

Abstract: Title III of the Energy Conservation and Production Act as 
amended by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 directs DOE to establish 
Federal building energy standards that require in new Federal buildings 
those energy efficiency measures that are technologically feasible and 
economically justified. The standards for Federal buildings are 
intended to parallel closely the voluntary building energy codes of the 
Energy Policy Act for private sector construction. Interim energy 
performance standards which DOE had issued before enactment of the 
Energy Policy Act are to remain in effect for the Federal sector until 
the new Federal building energy standards become effective.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            05/02/97                    62 FR 24164
NPRM Comment Period End         07/14/97
Supplemental NPRM               05/00/05
Final Action                    05/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: Federal

Agency Contact: Stephen P. Walder, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Building Technologies 
Program, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-9209
Fax: 202 586-4617
Email: stephen.walder@ee.doe.gov

RIN: 1904-AA53
_______________________________________________________________________

776. STATE AND LOCAL INCENTIVES PROGRAM: ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 13235

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 409

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, April 24, 1993.

Abstract: The Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires DOE to issue 
regulations establishing the State and Local Incentives Program. Under 
this program DOE may grant financial assistance to States for projects 
in DOE-approved State plans to promote use of alternative fuels and 
alternative-fueled vehicles. With the publication of an integrated 
State Energy Program (61 FR 35890), the alternative fuel grant programs 
may be a part of the State grant special projects, depending on funding 
availability. The next action will be a cancellation notice of any 
separate State grant program.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            03/21/95                    60 FR 15020
Withdraw NPRM                   08/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: State, Local

Agency Contact: Dorothy Wormley, Department of Energy, Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Weatherization and 
Intergovernmental Programs, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-7028

RIN: 1904-AA66
_______________________________________________________________________

777. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL FURNACES AND BOILERS

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under PL 
104-4.

Legal Authority: 42 USC 6295

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 1, 1994.

Abstract: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended, 
establishes initial energy efficiency standard levels for most types of 
major residential appliances and generally requires DOE to undertake 
two subsequent rulemakings, at specified times, to determine whether 
the extant standard for a covered product should be amended.
This is the initial review of the statutory standards for residential 
furnaces and boilers.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

ANPRM                           09/08/93                    58 FR 47326
Framework Workshop              07/17/01
Venting Workshop                05/08/02
ANPRM                           07/29/04                    69 FR 45419
DOE Review of Technical Support 
Documents                       09/00/05
NPRM                            09/00/06
Final Action                    09/00/07

[[Page 26805]]

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: Local, State

Additional Information: The timetable for this action reflects program 
priorities, which were established with significant input from the 
public.

Agency Contact: Mohammed Kahn, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Building Technologies 
Program, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-7892
Email: mohammed.kahn@ee.doe.gov

RIN: 1904-AA78
_______________________________________________________________________

778. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

Legal Authority: 42 USC 6317

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, (EPCA) 
establishes initial energy efficiency standard levels for certain types 
of major residential appliances and certain types of commercial 
equipment. EPCA contains no energy efficiency standards for 
distribution transformers. This rulemaking will determine whether it is 
appropriate to establish such standards.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Determination Notice            10/22/97                    62 FR 54809
ANPRM                           07/29/04                    69 FR 45375
DOE Review of Technical Support 
Documents                       09/00/05
NPRM                            09/00/06
Final Action                    09/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

Additional Information: The timetable for this action reflects program 
priorities, which were established with significant input from the 
public.

Agency Contact: Antonio Bouza, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20676
Phone: 202 586-4563
Email: antonio.bouza@ee.doe.gov

RIN: 1904-AB08
_______________________________________________________________________

779. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL UNITARY AIR CONDITIONERS 
AND HEAT PUMPS

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under PL 
104-4.

Legal Authority: 42 USC 6293

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended, 
establishes initial energy efficiency standard levels for certain types 
of major residential appliances and certain types of commercial 
equipment. EPCA requires DOE to amend the standards for products 
whenever ASHRAE amends its standards.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Framework Document and Public 
Meeting                         10/01/01                    66 FR 43123
ANPRM                           07/29/04                    69 FR 45459
Notice of Availabilty of Joint 
Stakeholder Comments and 
Opportunity to Comment          02/15/05                     70 FR 7673
Comment Period End              04/01/05                     70 FR 7673
Direct Final Rule               03/00/06
NPRM                            03/00/06
Public Meeting (If Needed)      09/00/06
Final Action (If Needed)        09/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

Additional Information: The timetable for this action reflects program 
priorities, which were established with significant input from the 
public.

Agency Contact: James Raba, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Building Technologies 
Program, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-8654
Email: jim.raba@ee.doe.gov

RIN: 1904-AB09
_______________________________________________________________________

780. ENERGY STANDARDS FOR NEW FEDERAL COMMERCIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY HIGH-
RISE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 6834

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 434

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Section 305(a)(1) of the Energy Conservation and Production 
Act, as amended, requires the Department to establish by rule building 
energy efficiency standards for all new Federal commercial and multi-
family high-rise residential (over three stories in height above 
ground) buildings. In developing this rule, DOE is directed to consult 
with other Federal agencies as well as private, State, and other 
appropriate entities.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            05/00/05
Final Action                    11/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Cyrus Nasseri, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Building Technologies 
Program, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-9138
Email: cyrus.nasseri@ee.doe.gov

RIN: 1904-AB13

[[Page 26806]]

_______________________________________________________________________
Department of Energy (DOE)                             Final Rule Stage
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE)
_______________________________________________________________________

781. TEST PROCEDURES FOR RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT 
PUMPS--AMENDMENTS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 6293

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: These revisions to the test procedures for central air 
conditioners and heat pumps in accordance with the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act will reorganize the test procedure regulations to 
place them in a logical order and also will update the references. The 
revisions include an updated nomenclature compatible with the test 
procedure for combined (domestic hot water and central air conditioners 
or heat pumps) appliances, additional tables listing test tolerances, a 
clearer specification for the demand defrost credit, and test methods 
for ECM (electronically commutated motor) blowers and history-dependent 
defrosts.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            01/22/01                     66 FR 6768
Final Action                    05/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Michael Raymond, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Building Technologies 
Program, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-9611
Email: michael.raymond@ee.doe.gov

RIN: 1904-AA46
_______________________________________________________________________

782. TEST PROCEDURES FOR ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 6317

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430

Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, April 24, 1995, Determination Notice.

Abstract: The Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires the Department to 
prescribe testing requirements for electric distribution transformers 
for which the Secretary makes a determination that energy conservation 
standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, 
and would result in significant energy savings.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Determination Notice            10/22/97                    62 FR 54809
NPRM                            11/12/98                    63 FR 63359
Supplemental NPRM               07/29/04                    69 FR 45506
Final Action                    09/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Cyrus Nasseri, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Building Technologies 
Program, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-9138
Email: cyrus.nasseri@ee.doe.gov

RIN: 1904-AA85
_______________________________________________________________________

783. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL 3-PHASE AIR CONDITIONERS 
AND HEAT PUMP LESS THAN 65 KBTU/H

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is 
undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 42 USC 6311 to 6316; 42 USC 6313(a)

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The efficiency requirements in the statute correspond to the 
levels in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 as in effect on October 24, 1992. 
The statute further provides that if the efficiency levels in ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1 are amended after that date for any of the covered 
products, as recently occurred, the Secretary of Energy must establish 
an amended uniform national standard for such equipment at the new 
minimum level for each effective date specified in ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1, 
unless he determines that a more stringent standard is technologically 
feasible and economically justified and would result in significant 
additional energy conservation. Additionally, the Secretary may not 
prescribe any amended standard that increases the maximum allowable 
energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a 
covered product.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Notice of Availability and 
Public Workshop                 11/00/05
Final Action                    03/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: Local, State

Additional Information: The timetable for this action reflects program 
priorities, which were established with significant input from the 
public.

Agency Contact: Maureen Murphy, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Office of 
Building Technologies, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office 
of Building Technologies Program, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-0598
Fax: 202 586-4617
Email: maureen.murphy@ee.doe.gov

RIN: 1904-AB16
_______________________________________________________________________

784. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL PACKAGED TERMINAL AIR 
CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS; COMMERCIAL OIL- AND GAS-FIRED PACKAGE 
BOILERS; AND TANKLESS GAS-FIRED WATER HEATERS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is 
undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 42 USC 6311 to 6316; 42 USC 6313(a)

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The efficiency requirements in the statute correspond to the 
levels in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 as in effect on October 24, 1992. 
The statute further provides that if the efficiency levels in ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1 are amended after that date for any of the covered 
products, as recently occurred, the Secretary of Energy must establish 
an amended uniform national standard for such equipment at the new 
minimum level for each effective date specified in ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1, 
unless he determines that a more stringent standard is technologically 
feasible and economically justified and would result in significant 
additional energy conservation. Additionally, the

[[Page 26807]]

Secretary may not prescribe any amended standard that increases the 
maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy 
efficiency of a covered product.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Notice of Availability and 
Public Workshop                 11/00/05
Final Action                    03/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: Local, State

Additional Information: The timetable for this action reflects program 
priorities, which were established with significant input from the 
public.

Agency Contact: Maureen Murphy, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Office of 
Building Technologies, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office 
of Building Technologies Program, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-0598
Fax: 202 586-4617
Email: maureen.murphy@ee.doe.gov

RIN: 1904-AB17
_______________________________________________________________________

785. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL SINGLE PACKAGED VERTICAL 
AIR-CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is 
undetermined.

Legal Authority: 42 USC 6311 to 6316; 42 USC 6313(a)

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The efficiency requirements in the statute correspond to the 
levels in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 as in effect on October 24, 1992. 
The statute further provides that if the efficiency levels in ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1 are amended after that date for any of the covered 
products, as recently occurred, the Secretary of Energy must establish 
an amended uniform national standard for such equipment at the new 
minimum level for each effective date specified in ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1, 
unless he determines that a more stringent standard is technologically 
feasible and economically justified and would result in significant 
additional energy conservation. Additionally, the Secretary may not 
prescribe any amended standard that increases the maximum allowable 
energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a 
covered product.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Notice of Availability and 
Public Workshop                 11/00/05
Final Action                    03/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: Local, State

Additional Information: The timetable for this action reflects program 
priorities, which were established with significant input from the 
public.

Agency Contact: Maureen Murphy, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Office of 
Building Technologies, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office 
of Building Technologies Program, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-0598
Fax: 202 586-4617
Email: maureen.murphy@ee.doe.gov

RIN: 1904-AB44
_______________________________________________________________________
Department of Energy (DOE)                            Long-Term Actions
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE)
_______________________________________________________________________

786. NATIONAL VOLUNTARY RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY RATING GUIDELINES

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 437

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            07/25/95                    60 FR 37949
Final Action                     To Be                       Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Stephen P. Walder, EE-2J
Phone: 202 586-9209
Fax: 202 586-4617
Email: stephen.walder@ee.doe.gov

RIN: 1904-AA74
_______________________________________________________________________

787. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR CLOTHES DRYERS AND DISHWASHERS

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430.32

Timetable: Next Action Undetermined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: Local, State

Agency Contact: Barbara Twigg, EE-2J
Phone: 202 586-8714
Email: barbara.twigg@ee.doe.gov

RIN: 1904-AA89
_______________________________________________________________________

788. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR POOL HEATERS AND DIRECT HEATING 
EQUIPMENT

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430

Timetable: Next Action Undetermined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: Local, State

Agency Contact: Cyrus Nasseri, EE-2J
Phone: 202 586-9138
Email: cyrus.nasseri@ee.doe.gov

RIN: 1904-AA90

[[Page 26808]]

_______________________________________________________________________

789. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR 1-200 HP ELECTRIC MOTORS

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431

Timetable: Next Action Undetermined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: James Raba, EE-2J
Phone: 202 586-8654
Email: jim.raba@ee.doe.gov

RIN: 1904-AA91
_______________________________________________________________________

790. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR FLUORESCENT AND INCANDESCENT LAMPS

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430.32

Timetable: Next Action Undetermined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: Local, State

Agency Contact: Bryan Berringer, EE-2J
Phone: 202 586-0371
Fax: 202 586-4617
Email: bryan.berringer@ee.doe.gov

RIN: 1904-AA92
_______________________________________________________________________

791. COVERAGE OF CERTAIN TYPES OF COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT 
(REACH-IN FREEZERS, REACH-IN REFRIGERATORS, VENDING MACHINES, AND 
BEVERAGE MERCHANDISERS)

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            12/00/06
Final Rule                       To Be                       Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Linda Graves, EE-2J
Phone: 202 586-1851
Email: linda.graves@ee.doe.gov

RIN: 1904-AB14
_______________________________________________________________________

792. COVERAGE OF CERTAIN INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS, TORCHIERES, AND 
CEILING FANS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            12/00/06
Final Rule                       To Be                       Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Linda Graves, EE-2J
Phone: 202 586-1851
Email: linda.graves@ee.doe.gov

RIN: 1904-AB15
_______________________________________________________________________
Department of Energy (DOE)                          Proposed Rule Stage
Defense and Security Affairs (DSA)
_______________________________________________________________________

793. PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF SECURITY INTERESTS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2011; 42 USC 7101

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 1046 subpart A; 10 CFR 1046 subpart B

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: 10 CFR part 1046, subparts A and B, establishes DOE 
contractor requirements in the areas of protective force, medical, 
physical fitness, and firearms qualifications and training. This 
revision would address matters concerning physical training of Security 
Police Officers and Security Officers, to more clearly define Security 
Police Officer I and Security Police Officer II positions, and to 
revise physical fitness qualifications requirements.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            01/00/06
Final Action                    08/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: John Cronin, Department of Energy, Office of Security, 
Germantown, MD 20874
Phone: 301 903-6209

RIN: 1992-AA23
_______________________________________________________________________

794. [bull] IDENTIFICATION AND PROTECTION OF UNCLASSIFIED CONTROLLED 
NUCLEAR INFORMATION

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2168

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 1017

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Revises 10 CFR part 1017, clarifying and streamlining 
requirements to reflect organizational changes, abolishing the ``May 
Contain UCNI'' marking. Adds the name of the Reviewing Official and 
guidance for using the UCNI marking, and updating physical protection 
requirements.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            06/00/05
Final Action                    11/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Emily Anne Pohl, Security Specialist, Department of 
Energy, SO-10.2 Germantown Building, US Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585-1290
Phone: 301 903-9048
Fax: 301-903-1230
Email: emily.puhl@hq.doe.gov

RIN: 1992-AA35

[[Page 26809]]

_______________________________________________________________________
Department of Energy (DOE)                             Final Rule Stage
Defense and Security Affairs (DSA)
_______________________________________________________________________

795. COUNTERINTELLIGENCE EVALUATION REGULATIONS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2011 et seq; 42 USC 7101 et seq; 42 USC 7383h-
1; 50 USC 2401 et seq

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 709; 10 CFR 710

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The purpose of this action is to promulgate new 
counterintelligence polygraph regulations consistent with section 3152 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            04/14/03                    68 FR 17886
Correction to NPRM              04/18/03                    68 FR 19166
Revised NPRM                    01/07/05                     70 FR 1383
Final Action                    08/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Douglas Hinckley, Program Director, Department of 
Energy, Office of Counterintelligence, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-5901

RIN: 1992-AA33
_______________________________________________________________________
Department of Energy (DOE)                            Completed Actions
Defense and Security Affairs (DSA)
_______________________________________________________________________

796. PROCEDURAL RULES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES FOR SECURITY 
VIOLATIONS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 824

Completed:
________________________________________________________________________

Reason                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Final Action                    01/26/05                     70 FR 3599

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Geralyn C. Praskievicz
Phone: 202 586-4451

RIN: 1992-AA28
_______________________________________________________________________
Department of Energy (DOE)                          Proposed Rule Stage
Departmental and Others (ENDEP)
_______________________________________________________________________

797. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 5 USC 552

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 1004

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), as amended, permits 
any person to request access to agency records. The DOE has promulgated 
a regulation at part 1004 of title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations to implement the FOIA. The DOE will revise its FOIA 
regulation to reflect current procedures for processing requests for 
information that are submitted to the agency, to ensure compliance with 
the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996, and to 
make the regulation more user friendly.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            08/00/05
Final Action                    02/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Abel Lopez, Director, FOIA and Privacy Act Division, 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20585
Phone: 202 586-5955
Email: abel.lopez@hq.doe.gov

RIN: 1901-AA32
_______________________________________________________________________

798. RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 7101 et seq; 50 USC 2401 et seq

CFR Citation: None

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This action would establish policies and procedures for 
handling research misconduct allegations.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            06/00/05
Final Action                    12/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: Federal

Agency Contact: William J. Valdez, Director, Office of Planning and 
Analysis, Department of Energy, Office of Science, 1000 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-9942
Fax: 202 586-7719
Email: bill.valdez@science.doe.gov

RIN: 1901-AA89
_______________________________________________________________________

799. OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION PROTECTION

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 7191

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 835

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This action would amend the Department of Energy's 
occupational radiation protection regulations to provide additional 
flexibility in meeting requirements, to update the dosimetric models 
and dose terms, to establish certain concentration values and limits, 
and to clarify requirements for radioactive material transportation not 
subject to DOT regulations.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            06/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

[[Page 26810]]

Agency Contact: Peter O'Connell, Department of Energy, Office of Worker 
Protection Policy and Programs, 1000 Independence Avenue S.W., 
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 301 903-5641

RIN: 1901-AA95
_______________________________________________________________________
Department of Energy (DOE)                             Final Rule Stage
Departmental and Others (ENDEP)
_______________________________________________________________________

800. RADIATION PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 7191

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 834

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This action would add a new 10 CFR 834 to DOE's regulations 
establishing a body of rules setting forth the basic requirements for 
ensuring radiation protection of the public and environment in 
connection with DOE nuclear activities. These requirements stem from 
the Department's ongoing effort to strengthen the protection of health, 
safety, and the environment from the nuclear and chemical hazards posed 
by these DOE activities. Major elements of the proposal include a dose 
limitation system for protection of the public; requirements for liquid 
discharges; reporting and monitoring requirements; and residual 
radioactive material requirements.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            03/25/93                    58 FR 16268
Second NPRM                     08/31/95                    60 FR 45381
Conform to Related EPA 
Regulation                      09/00/05
Final Action                    06/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: Federal

Additional Information: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 
considering revising the Federal Guidance for Radiation Protection of 
the Public. This Presidential-level guidance would refine the radiation 
protection and dose limitation framework for the public, and may 
include numerical Radiation Protection Goals (i.e., dose limits). 
Because it is DOE's policy to be consistent with Federal radiation 
protection policy, the Department is adjusting the schedule for part 
834 in anticipation of revised Federal Guidance and will issue the rule 
following EPA action on the guidance. This will allow DOE to be 
consistent with the most current Presidential-level guidance upon its 
release.

Agency Contact: Andrew Wallo III, Director, Office of Air, Water and 
Radiation Protection, Policy and Guidance, Department of Energy, Office 
of Environmental Guidance, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20585
Phone: 202 586-4996

RIN: 1901-AA38
_______________________________________________________________________

801. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRANSFERS OF REAL PROPERTY

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: PL 105-85, sec 3158

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 770

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This action would establish procedures for indemnifying and 
disposing of real property by sale or lease at the Department's defense 
nuclear facilities for the purpose of permitting economic development. 
It would also establish procedures for reporting actions to Congress, 
informing those acquiring the property of the availability of 
indemnification for injury to people or property from releases or 
threatened releases of hazardous materials, requesting indemnification, 
and making claims for indemnification.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Interim Final Rule              02/29/00                    65 FR 10685
Final Action                    08/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Andrew Duran, Realty Officer, ME-90, Department of 
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-4548
Email: andrew.duran@hq.doe.gov

RIN: 1901-AA82
_______________________________________________________________________

802. WORKER SAFETY AND HEALTH

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2011; 42 USC 5801 to 5911; 42 USC 7101 to 7352

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 851

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, December 2, 2003.

Abstract: This action would add a new 10 CFR 851 regulation to DOE's 
regulations establishing a body of rules setting forth basic 
requirements to ensure workers are protected from safety and health 
hazards at DOE facilities.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            12/08/03                    68 FR 68276
NPRM Comment Period End         02/06/04
NPRM Suspension                 02/27/04                     69 FR 9277
Supplemental NPRM               01/26/05                     70 FR 3811
Supplemental NPRM Comment Period 
End                             04/26/05
Final Action                    11/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Additional Information: A Notice of Suspension was issued on 02/27/2004 
to allow time for the Department to consult with the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) in order to resolve its concerns.

Agency Contact: Bill McArthur, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 301 930-9674

RIN: 1901-AA99
_______________________________________________________________________

803. GUIDELINES FOR VOLUNTARY GREENHOUSE GAS REPORTING

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 13385(b)

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 300

Legal Deadline: None

[[Page 26811]]

Abstract: This action would revise the procedures and reporting 
requirements for the Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program under 
section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The revisions would 
enhance the measurement accuracy, reliability, and verifiability of 
reported data.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            12/05/03                    68 FR 68204
NPRM Comment Period End         02/17/04
Technical Guidelines            03/24/05                    70 FR 15164
Interim Final Rule              03/24/05                    70 FR 15169
Final Action                    09/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Mark Friedrichs, Office of Policy and International 
Affairs, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-0124

RIN: 1901-AB11
_______________________________________________________________________

804. FEDERAL POLICY FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 289; 5 USC 301; 6 USC 551 to 559

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 745

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This action would require each institution engaged in 
research covered by this policy to provide written assurance that it 
will comply with all Federal requirements.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Final Action                    06/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: Federal

Agency Contact: Michael Viola, Life Sciences Division, Department of 
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 301 903-5346

RIN: 1901-AB14
_______________________________________________________________________

805. [bull] PRICE COMPETITIVE SALE OF STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE 
PETROLEUM; STANDARD SALES PROVISIONS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 15 USC 761; 42 USC 7101; 42 USC 6201

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 625

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This action would revise the Standard Sales Provisions 
containing or describing contract clauses, terms and conditions of 
sale, and performance and financial responsibility measures, which may 
be used for particular sales of petroleum from the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Final Rule                      07/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Nancy T. Marland, Department of Energy, FE-43, 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 
DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-4691
Email: nancy.marland@hq.doe.gov

RIN: 1901-AB15
_______________________________________________________________________
Department of Energy (DOE)                            Long-Term Actions
Departmental and Others (ENDEP)
_______________________________________________________________________

806. ANNOTATION OF LAND RECORDS FOR REMEDIATED PROPERTIES IN THE URANIUM 
MILL TAILINGS REMEDIAL ACTION PROJECT (UMTRA)

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            04/14/89                    54 FR 29732
Final Action                     To Be                       Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: Federal, State

Agency Contact: Christopher J. Clayton
Phone: 202 586-9034

RIN: 1901-AA57

[[Page 26812]]

_______________________________________________________________________
Department of Energy (DOE)                            Completed Actions
Departmental and Others (ENDEP)
_______________________________________________________________________

807. GUIDELINES FOR PHYSICIAN PANEL DETERMINATION ON WORKER REQUESTS FOR 
ASSISTANCE IN FILING FOR STATE WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS; 
PROCEDURAL AMENDMENTS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 852

Completed:
________________________________________________________________________

Reason                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Interim Final Rule              03/24/04                    69 FR 13709
Interim Final Rule Comment 
Period End                      04/24/04

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Judy Keating
Phone: 202 586-7551

RIN: 1901-AB13
_______________________________________________________________________
Department of Energy (DOE)                          Proposed Rule Stage
Office of Procurement and Assistance Management (PR)
_______________________________________________________________________

808. DEAR CHANGES TO PROVISIONS FOR FACILITIES MANAGEMENT, WORK 
AUTHORIZATION, CONTRACTOR'S ORGANIZATION, CONTRACTOR RELATIONS, AND 
LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND DIRECTIVES

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is 
undetermined.

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 7101; 50 USC 2401

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 907; 48 CFR 952; 48 CFR 970

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This action would delete 48 CFR part 970.5237-2, Facilities 
Management; add new clauses dealing with work authorization and 
government-contractor relations; and incorporate other revisions that 
would emphasize the contractor's responsibility for effective cost 
management in flowing down prime contract requirements to its 
subcontractors.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            06/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Michael Fischetti, Procurement Analyst, ME-61, 
Department of Energy, Office of Procurement and Assistance Management, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 287-1330

RIN: 1991-AB65
_______________________________________________________________________

809. COOPERATIVE AUDIT STRATEGY

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 7101; 50 USC 2401

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 970

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The Department of Energy is amending its acquisition 
regulation to more fully describe the audit procedures to be followed 
under its management and operating contracts. The revised procedures 
call for an annual audit plan and audit report as explained under the 
Accounts, Records and Inspection clause at 48 CFR 970.5232-3.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            06/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Richard B. Langston, Procurement Analyst, Department of 
Energy, Office of Procurement and Assistance Management, 1000 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 287-1339
Email: richard.langston@pr.doe.gov

RIN: 1991-AB67
_______________________________________________________________________

810. DEAR: BIOBASED CONTENT PRODUCTS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is 
undetermined.

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 7101; 42 USC 2401

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 923; 48 CFR 952; 48 CFR 970.23; 48 CFR 970.2370

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This action would update the Department of Energy Acquisition 
Regulation coverage of environmentally preferred products to promote 
the use of biobased content products.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            06/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Richard B. Langston, Procurement Analyst, Department of 
Energy, Office of Procurement and Assistance Management, 1000 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 287-1339
Email: richard.langston@pr.doe.gov

RIN: 1991-AB68
_______________________________________________________________________

811. [bull] PRIORITIES AND ALLOCATIONS--DOMESTIC ENERGY SUPPLIES

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 40 USC 486(c); 41 USC 418b; 50 USC App. 2071(c)

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 911.602; 10 CFR 216

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This action would update the Department of Energy regulations 
and clauses exercising the authorities to allocate the supplies of 
materials, equipment, services and facilities and establish priorities 
for the acceptance and performance of contracts and orders to (1) 
promote the national defense and (2) maximize domestic energy supplies 
as authorized by the Defense Production Act of 1950 as

[[Page 26813]]

amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.); the Department of Commerce 
Defense Priorities and Allocations System Program (15 CFR 700); and 
Executive Order 12919, National Defense Resource Preparedness.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            07/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Lisa Jones, Procurement Analyst, Department of Energy, 
Office of Procurement and Assistance Management, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington , DC 20585
Phone: 202 287-1470
Email: lisa.jones@hq.doe.gov

RIN: 1991-AB69
_______________________________________________________________________

812. [bull] REVISIONS TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROVISIONS FOR MANAGEMENT 
CONTRACTS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2282(a) to 2282(c); 41 USC 418(b); 
50 USC 2401

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 970.27; 48 CFR 970.5227

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This action would amend the DOE Acquisition Regulation to 
make provision for creation and use of software subject to open source 
copyright licenses. Other technical changes to the existing 
intellectual property clauses used in DOE's management and operating 
contracts will also be proposed.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            07/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Robert M. Webb, Procurement Analyst, Department of 
Energy, Office of Procurement and Assistance Management, 1000 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 287-1338

RIN: 1991-AB70
_______________________________________________________________________

813. [bull] SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS- BACKGROUND CHECKS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2011; 41 USC 418b

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 904.4

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This action would amend the DOE Acquisition Regulation (DEAR) 
to add Protective Services to the types of contracts covered by the 
DEAR. The security clause would be amended to describe the Department's 
requirement that employers do background checks before employment of 
persons who will require access authorizations to perform contract 
duties and that they and their employees agree to the use of mediation 
services as may be required to ensure continuity of operations.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            07/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Richard B. Langston, Procurement Analyst, Department of 
Energy, Office of Procurement and Assistance Management, 1000 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 287-1339
Email: richard.langston@pr.doe.gov

RIN: 1991-AB71
_______________________________________________________________________
Department of Energy (DOE)                             Final Rule Stage
Office of Procurement and Assistance Management (PR)
_______________________________________________________________________

814. ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 7254

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 909; 48 CFR 970

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This action would amend provisions that cover organizational 
conflicts of interest and purchases from affiliated sources to protect 
the Department in transactions involving a DOE M&O contractor and its 
affiliates.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            10/13/99                    64 FR 55453
Final Action                    08/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Robert M. Webb, Procurement Analyst, Department of 
Energy, Office of Procurement and Assistance Management, 1000 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 287-1338

RIN: 1991-AB52
_______________________________________________________________________

815. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ACQUISITION REGULATION: MANAGEMENT CONTRACTOR 
COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICES

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 7101; 50 USC 2401

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 970.22; 48 CFR 970.31; 48 CFR 970.52

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This action would amend the policy and procedures regarding 
compensation for personal services under contracts for management of 
Department of Energy facilities.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Interim Final Rule              08/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Richard B. Langston, Procurement Analyst, Department of 
Energy, Office of Procurement and Assistance Management, 1000 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 287-1339
Email: richard.langston@pr.doe.gov

RIN: 1991-AB61

[[Page 26814]]

_______________________________________________________________________

816. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ACQUISITION 
REGULATION

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 7101; 50 USC 2401

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 030; 48 CFR 952; 48 CFR 970

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This action would make technical amendments and corrections 
to various parts of the Department of Energy Acquisition Regulations.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Final Action                    06/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Stephen Zvolensky, Department of Energy, Office of 
Procurement and Assistance Management, ME-61, 1000 Independence Avenue 
SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 287-1307
Email: stephen.zvolensky@hq.doe.gov

RIN: 1991-AB62
_______________________________________________________________________

817. DEAR: MAKE OR BUY PLANS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 7101; 50 USC 2401

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 901; 48 CFR 970

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The requirement for detailed Make or Buy Plans under all DOE 
management contracts is being eliminated. Make or buy analysis will be 
retained for major systems acquisitions. A new clause entitled 
Performance Improvement and Collaboration is being added. It provides 
for collaboration among DOE's management contractors and the Department 
to identify possible improvements in contract performance.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

NPRM                            12/15/04                     69 FR 7517
Final Action                    06/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Irma Brown, Procurement Analyst, Department of Energy, 
Office of Procurement and Assistance Management, ME-61, 1000 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 287-1374
Email: irma.brown@hq.doe.gov

RIN: 1991-AB63
_______________________________________________________________________

818. DEAR: WORK FOR OTHERS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 7101; 50 USC 2401

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 970.1707; 48 CFR 970.5217-1

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This action amended the Department of Energy Acquisition 
Regulations (DEAR) to provide policies and procedures regarding work 
for non-DOE entities performed by DOE contractors who manage and 
operate DOE owned or leased facilities. These procedures are being 
relocated from the DOE Directives to the DEAR as part of a larger 
effort to decrease overly prescriptive guidance. The contractor 
requirements previously found in DOE order 481.1B are being relocated 
to the DEAR.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Interim Final Rule              12/15/04                    69 FR 75001
Final Action                    06/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: A. Scott Geary, Program Analyst, Department of Energy, 
Office of Procurement and Assistance Management, 1000 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 287-1507

RIN: 1991-AB64
_______________________________________________________________________
Department of Energy (DOE)                             Final Rule Stage
Office of General Counsel (OGC)
_______________________________________________________________________

819. CONDUCT OF EMPLOYEES

Priority: Info./Admin./Other

Legal Authority: 42 USC 7211 et seq; PL 103-160, sec 3161; EO 12674

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 1010; 5 CFR 2635

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The DOE regulation on conduct of employees needs to be 
revised to reflect the issuance of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for 
Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR 2635) and the repeal of 
conflict-of-interest provisions formerly applicable to DOE employees.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Interim Final Rule              07/05/96                    61 FR 35085
Final Action                    07/00/05

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Susan Beard, Assistant General Counsel for General Law, 
Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, 1000 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-1522

RIN: 1990-AA19

[[Page 26815]]

_______________________________________________________________________
Department of Energy (DOE)                            Long-Term Actions
Office of General Counsel (OGC)
_______________________________________________________________________

820. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES AGAINST DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY EMPLOYEES

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 1014

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action                            Date                      FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Interim Final Rule               To Be                       Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Susan Beard
Phone: 202 586-1522

RIN: 1990-AA26
[FR Doc. 05-8792 Filed 05-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-S
*****************************************************************
 58 KRQE News 13: LANL cleanup to be responsibility of main contractor
 		 			
Posted: 5/16/2005 8:51:00 AM 

Source: AP
 							
LOS ALAMOS, N.M. -- The next contractor selected to run Los 
Alamos National Laboratory will be responsible for the lab's 
environmental cleanup.

The US Department of Energy had been considering using a separate 
contractor for the cleanup.

But Tyler Przybylek of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration says it'll be up to the next manager to conduct 
the lab's cleanup and waste management or award it to a 
subcontractor.

State Environment Secretary Ron Curry says the environmental 
concerns at Los Alamos cannot be subjugated to a second- or 
third-level contractor.

The University of California manages the lab for the DOE. Its 
contract expires September 30th.
 						 					   					     					  
*****************************************************************
 59 WATE: Take first peek at $1.4 billion Oak Ridge research facility

  The $1.4 billion SNS facility is expected to be completed in
2006.
   
Spallation Neutron Source official site   

May 16, 2005 

By BO WILLIAMS
6 News Anchor/Reporter 

OAK RIDGE (WATE) -- The Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) is the
biggest project in the history of Oak Ridge. It's even bigger
than the Manhattan Project, the massive and secret effort to
build a city and nuclear weapons facility during World War II. 

The SNS won't officially open for business until next year, but
6 News was able to take a look inside the billion dollar
facility to see how it will someday make your life easier. 

At first glance, the grassy berm behind the new SNS building
appears to be just that. But it's when you go below the surface
that you uncover much more. And that has scientists from all
around world converging on East Tennessee.

Inside the SNS building is Oak Ridge National Lab's neutron
accelerator. It acts as a type of high-powered microscope by
providing the most intense, pulsed neutron beams in the world.

"This one will specifically address questions of biology,
biological sciences, earth sciences, things that affect you and
my life everyday," explained SNS Division Director Dr. Norbert
Holtkamp.

How does the neutron accelerator work? 

Dr. Holtkamp says protons are accelerated from the front end of
the building. The particles absorb speed here as the accelerate
through a 350-meter long tunnel. At the end of the tunnel, they
have about 90 percent of the speed of light. 

"Then, we bend them around the corner and at that point we've
created this long string of particles," Dr. Holtkamp explains.
The string is wound up like on a spool. At 60 times a second,
pieces are kicked out of the rim and into the target building
where they make impact with a mercury target. 

At that point, neutron beams are created, allowing scientists to
conduct up to 24 experiments inside the target building.

"It really addresses anything between engineering sciences --
meaning optimizing jet engines, optimizing big rotating
machinery -- to biological sciences, where you look into the
functionality of complex molecules and whole cells, actually,"
Dr. Holtkamp said.

The new Spallation Neutron Source facility will be completed in
2006 at a cost of $1.4 billion.

When complete, it will employ up to 450 people to operate.

Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and WATE. 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: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************