***************************************************************** 05/25/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.120 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Renews Nuclear Promise, Straw Says 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Ready to Compromise in Europe Talks 3 UK The Times: Brakes put on nuclear ambitions 4 BBC: Iran in new nuclear arms pledge 5 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: N. Korea's Nuclear Drive Biggest Threat i 6 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Beijing Grows Frustrated with Unyielding 7 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Korean Delegation Reveals More Allied Dru 8 Interfax: Russian delegation to discuss nuclear problem in Pyongyang 9 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: NPT Review Meeting Drafts Shackle Clause 10 ITAR-TASS: Beijing strongly warns Pyongyang against nuke test - Kyod 11 US: Bernie Sanders Steps Up -- Zizek on Star Wars 12 US: Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Brochure Drops Arms-Control Deals 13 US: Guardian Unlimited: Senate Bill Would Double Ethanol Use 14 Deseret News: Crossing N-line must have clear effects 15 US: Haaretz: The U.S. removes the nuclear brakes 16 Mos News: U.S. Wants More Russian Oil — Bodman - 17 US: csmonitor.com: Don't Cross This Space Frontier | 18 [NukeNet] NPT's Article IV Allows Death Of 3.5 Million People, 19 Moscow Times: Missing Scientist Resurfaces 20 Guardian Unlimited: Prospects at Nuclear Conference Unravel 21 AP: Missing Russian nuclear scientist reappears after more than 18 m NUCLEAR REACTORS 22 US: [NukeNet] Nuclear Power Not Needed to Reduce Global Warming 23 Deutsche Welle: A Rebirth for German Nuclear Energy? 24 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to Meet June 1 25 US: toledoblade.com: Davis-Besse receives favorable report 26 US: NRC: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Alabama Power Com 27 US: NRC: Notice of Opportunity To Comment on Model Safety Evaluation 28 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collecti 29 US: E Magazine: Nuclear Energy: A Bitter Pill to Alleviate Global Wa 30 US: Lincoln County News: Maine Yankee Litigation Could Cost Wiscass 31 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find NUCLEAR SECURITY 32 US: Markey Nuclear Security Amendment Passes NUCLEAR SAFETY 33 Taipei Times: Fallout from test would be troubling for everyone 34 Bellona: Activist forces the release of long hidden documents on rad 35 Yokwe: STUDENTS HELP WASHINGTON MARSHALLESE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 36 [NukeNet] Renewed Calls for a Moratorium on Rokkasho 37 US: Guardian Unlimited: Federal Board Rejects Utah's Nuke Appeal 38 US: Guardian Unlimited: House Votes for Temporary Nuclear Storage 39 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Lawmakers hold off on dry cask bill vote 40 US: NRC: NRC Licensing Board Denies the State of Utahs Motion for Re 41 US: Bradenton Herald: Tallevast residents shaping the future 42 US: Deseret News: Another blow in fight to keep out nuclear waste 43 US: Deseret News: House OKs a study of nuclear sites 44 US: Las Vegas RJ: House OKs stop gap storage 45 US: Platts: PFS wins licensing proceeding for spent fuel storage fac 46 US: NRC: RIN 3150-AH72: Spent fuel casks 47 Las Vegas SUN: Columnist Jeff German: Good news for Nevada from D.C. 48 US: Washington Post: House Votes for Temporary Nuclear Storage 49 Mail & Guardian: SA has 'no real plan' for nuclear waste 50 US: Rutland Herald: Nuclear storage talks continue 51 canadaeast.com: Nuclear waste disposal could prove costly 52 US: NRC: RIN 3150-AH72: Spent fuel casks 53 US: NRC: RIN 3150-AH67 54 US: E Magazine: The Paiute Mining Disaster 55 KLAS TV: House Debates $29.7 Billion DOE Funding Bill 56 National Post: Future nuclear waste disposal woes 57 CBC Saskatchewan: Sask. named as possible nuclear waste site PEACE 58 Japan Times: Reluctancy to make nuclear cuts 59 Japan Times: Invasions don't wash with time US DEPT. OF ENERGY 60 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridg 61 DOE: Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology; Nuclear Energ 62 DOE: Agency Information Collection Extension 63 Guardian Unlimited: UC Faces Decision on Los Alamos Contract 64 Albuquerque Tribune: University of California still wants LANL 65 Guardian Unlimited: UC Board Wants to Keep Los Alamos Contract 66 California Aggie: Decision to bid on Los Alamos lab has weighty cons 67 PISJ: Bill funds INL space for nuke storage - Plan consolidates bomb 68 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Rocky 69 DOE: Notice of Availability of Draft Section 3116 Determination for ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Renews Nuclear Promise, Straw Says From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday May 25, 2005 5:31 PM AP Photo TEH106 ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS Associated Press Writer GENEVA (AP) - Iran on Wednesday renewed its promise to refrain from developing nuclear weapons and left the door open for further talks this summer, Britain's foreign minister said as negotiators appeared to be inching toward agreement on Tehran's atomic program. After three hours of talks, foreign ministers mediating the issue on behalf of the European Union agreed to come up with more proposals and give them to Iran at the end of July or early August, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw said. ``Iran has for its part reaffirmed its commitment not to seek to develop nuclear weapons,'' Straw told reporters. Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Hasan Rowhani, was cautious, saying, ``We need to consult in Tehran before we make a decision.'' In Tehran earlier Wednesday, Iran's President Mohammad Khatami signaled Iran's willingness to reach an agreement with the foreign ministers, saying, ``We are ready to compromise, and we hope Europe makes its decision independently and not based on U.S. pressures.'' Resuming activity in Iran's uranium conversion facility ``does not mean resumption of enrichment,'' Khatami told reporters. The talks between Iranian negotiators and foreign ministers from France, Germany and Britain, as well as EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, were originally scheduled to last as little as an hour. But in an indication that the two sides were pushing for an agreement, they met for two hours, took a brief break, then resumed negotiations, officials said. In Tehran, some 200 Iranian students wearing red headbands to symbolize their readiness to fight for Iran's nuclear rights demonstrated in front of Western embassies. They condemned what they called the West's double standards, chanting ``possession of nuclear energy is the obvious right of Iran.'' Iranian officials gave no sign Wednesday as to whether they might relent in their declared intention to resume nuclear enrichment. In the past, however, Tehran has said it won't give up its right to enrich uranium but is prepared to offer strong guarantees that its atomic program won't be diverted toward nuclear weapons. It is unclear if a tougher European strategy of economic sanctions would work. The only certainty for Western powers in such a scenario would be a big negative: still higher gas prices at the pump. Following months of fruitless talks, the European Union has begun warning that it is moving toward the U.S. position that Tehran should be hauled before the U.N. Security Council for suspect nuclear activities in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. To avert a showdown that could result in U.N. sanctions, Tehran agreed to meet the foreign ministers from France, Germany and Britain and the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, for last-ditch talks in Geneva. The EU push followed Iran's announcement last week that it was considering restarting its uranium-enrichment program, which Iran insists is only aimed at generating electricity as permitted under the treaty. The EU and the United States fear the program is being used to develop weapons. However, any strong sanctions against Tehran would likely cause oil prices, already around $50 a barrel, to rise. ``The most severe sanctions that would affect Iran would be sanctions against their oil industry, that is, an international boycott on Iranian oil products,'' said Gary Sick, a senior research scholar at Columbia University. ``That would mean basically taking 3 million barrels a day off the market, which would probably cause the price to spike.'' Sick said it was far from certain that the Security Council would impose sanctions, with veto-wielding China and Russia among countries that have expressed opposition. The United States has been demanding since last year that Iran face sanctions for its nuclear program - but up to now the EU has used enticements instead. If Iran agrees to keep its program within bounds, the EU says it can expect economic and technical cooperation as well as support for joining the World Trade Organization. The 25-member EU has offered a free trade pact and more economic aid, and European officials have said they would improve the offer. It was the talks with the Europeans that persuaded Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program in November. Iran has long had strong trade links with Europe, and there have been calls on the Europeans to use this as leverage. But Tehran has warned that if the talks fail, it would cost the Europeans more than it would Iran. ``The case will turn into a crisis they cannot manage any longer, and the Islamic Republic will act unilaterally,'' Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said without elaborating. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he hoped the talks would succeed but conceded that ``the Iranians are tough to negotiate with.'' Joining Straw will be French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier and German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. Heading the Iranian delegation is the country's top nuclear negotiator, Hasan Rowhani. Reflecting a growing pessimism, a leading London think tank said Tuesday that the diplomatic talks appear doomed to failure. ``Prospects that the current negotiations between the EU-3 and Iran will produce a lasting resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue are not encouraging,'' said John Chipman, director of the International Institute of Strategic Studies. ``The EU3-Iran talks seem headed for inevitable failure.'' So far, President Bush has gone along with the European efforts for dialogue with Tehran. In March, the Bush administration agreed to drop long-standing opposition to Iranian membership in the WTO. A WTO meeting coincidentally being held across Geneva later this week could give Iran the go-ahead to start its membership negotiations, trade officials said. But pressure has been building in the U.S. Congress for independent American action against Iran. A bill in the House of Representatives would tighten long-standing U.S. sanctions against Iran, bar subsidiaries of U.S. companies from doing business in Iran and cut foreign aid to countries that have businesses investing there. A more limited measure is pending in the Senate. --- Associated Press writers Nasser Karimi in Tehran and Bradley S. Klapper in Geneva contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Ready to Compromise in Europe Talks From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday May 25, 2005 3:31 PM AP Photo GE109 By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS Associated Press Writer GENEVA (AP) - Key European Union foreign ministers sought anew Wednesday to persuade Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions, as Iran's president said his country was prepared to compromise. As Iranian negotiators sat down with the foreign ministers from France, Britain and Germany and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, Iran's President Mohammad Khatami signaled there was room to maneuver regarding its threat to resume uranium enrichment. ``We are ready to compromise, and we hope Europe makes its decision independently and not based on U.S. pressures,'' Khatami told reporters in Tehran. Resuming activity in Iran's uranium conversion facility ``does not mean resumption of enrichment,'' he said. Following months of fruitless talks, the EU has warned it is moving toward the U.S. position that Tehran should be hauled before the U.N. Security Council for suspect nuclear activities in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. To avert a showdown that could lead to U.N. sanctions, Tehran agreed to meet the three European ministers and Solana for last-ditch talks in Geneva. The EU push followed Iran's announcement last week that it was considering restarting its uranium-enrichment program, which Iran insists is only aimed at generating electricity as permitted under the nonproliferation treaty. The EU and the United States fear the program is being used to develop nuclear weapons. It is unclear if a tougher European strategy of economic sanctions would work. Any strong sanctions against Tehran would likely cause oil prices, already around US$50 (euro40) a barrel, to rise. ``The most severe sanctions that would affect Iran would be sanctions against their oil industry,'' said Gary Sick, a researcher at Columbia University. ``That would mean basically taking 3 million barrels a day off the market which would probably cause the price to spike.'' Sick said it was far from certain that the Security Council would impose sanctions, with veto-wielding China and Russia among countries that have expressed opposition. The United States has been demanding since last year that Iran face sanctions for its nuclear program - but up to now the EU has offered incentives instead. If Iran agrees to keep its program within bounds, the EU says it can expect economic and technical cooperation as well as support for joining the World Trade Organization. The 25-member EU has offered a free trade pact and more economic aid, and European officials have said they would improve the offer. It was the talks with the Europeans that persuaded Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program in November. Iran has long had strong trade links with Europe, and there have been calls on the Europeans to use this as leverage. But Tehran has warned that if the talks fail, it would cost the Europeans more than it would Iran. ``The case will turn into a crisis they cannot manage any longer and the Islamic Republic will act unilaterally,'' said Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi, but he didn't elaborate. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he hoped the talks would succeed, but conceded, ``the Iranians are tough to negotiate with.'' The Iranians hosted the meeting in a Geneva compound that serves as their ambassador's residence. Joining Straw on one side of a long wooden table were French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier and German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. Heading the Iranian delegation is the country's top nuclear negotiator, Hasan Rowhani, who arrived Tuesday to prepare for the talks. Reflecting a growing pessimism on the issue, the London-based think tank International Institute of Strategic Studies said Tuesday that the diplomatic talks appear doomed to failure. So far, U.S. President George W. Bush has gone along with the European efforts for dialogue with Tehran. In March, the Bush administration agreed to drop long-standing U.S. opposition to Iranian membership in the WTO. A WTO meeting coincidentally being held across Geneva later this week could give Iran the go-ahead to start its membership negotiations, trade officials said. But pressure has been building in the U.S. Congress for independent American action against Iran. A bill in the House of Representatives would tighten long-standing U.S. sanctions against Iran, bar U.S. companies' subsidiaries from doing business in Iran and cut foreign aid to countries that have businesses investing there. A more limited measure is pending in the Senate. --- Associated Press writers Nasser Karimi in Tehran and Bradley S. Klapper in Geneva contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 3 UK The Times: Brakes put on nuclear ambitions May 26, 2005 Foreign Editor's Briefing By Bronwen Maddox IRAN stepped back last night from a full-scale international row over its nuclear ambitions and agreed not to restart the most controversial parts of its programme for two months. Its move, after a tense three-hour meeting with Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and his French and German counterparts, marks a decision by Tehran to cool the dispute after a month of threats that it would reopen nuclear plants that had been sealed by United Nations inspectors. The agreement means that a collapse in talks between Iran and the European Union before the Iranian presidential elections on June 17 is now unlikely. But a clash still looms at the end of July over a deal on what nuclear work Iran might continue. Mr Straw said yesterday: “These have always been difficult and complex negotiations but they have so far been better than the alternative.” A senior British official added: “We have had difficult moments in the past few years but we have kept the show on the road and we have done so again today.” Under yesterday’s agreement Iran will keep to the terms of last year’s Paris agreement, at least until the end of July. It will not restart enrichment of uranium, a process that can make nuclear fuel but can also make nuclear weapons. Nor, contrary to recent threats, will it restart conversion of uranium ore to gas at its Esfahan plant. The talks were held at the Iranian Ambassador’s residence in Geneva, a jumbled fantasy of a château, its Rapunzel-like turrets rising from painted timber and plasterwork, and its rooms decorated with paintings of classical Mediterranean ruins. The eight members of the European delegation faced eight Iranians across a narrow mahogany table. Mr Straw, in the centre, with Joschka Fischer, of Germany, Michel Barnier, of France, and Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, together with their political advisers, sat opposite the turbaned figure of Hassan Rowhani, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator. Earlier, over lunch at the French Ambassador’s residence, Mr Straw, M Barnier and Herr Fischer had hammered out their intricate three-way script. Despite the elegance of that setting — white linen, champagne, and smooth lawns overlooking Lake Geneva — officials said that it was a complicated task to marshal a common front, through translators, in a short time, in the face of much uncertainty about how the Iranians would respond. Britain, France and Germany, dubbed the EU3, have taken the lead in trying to negotiate a deal with Iran to allay the world’s suspicions that it wants to acquire nuclear weapons. Iran says that its 20-year covert programme, exposed by dissidents three years ago, is intended only to provide fuel for power stations. It maintains that its work is legal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and that the only offence it has committed is in keeping it secret. A year ago the United States’s view of the EU3’s efforts was “one of scepticism verging on hostility”, one British official said. But the US has swung round to backing the three on the condition that if they fail, the EU will join the US in referring Iran’s behaviour to the UN Security Council. Under yesterday’s agreement Iran will stick to the Paris agreement until the end of July. European countries have promised Tehran that they will put proposals to it by July for the shape of a final agreement “which enables Iran’s civil nuclear programme to go ahead in a way that meets proliferation concerns”. In effect, Iran has backed down from its threat to break the Paris agreement. Western officials believe that the past month’s tension is triggered by the imminent Iranian elections and hope that, if a moderate leader emerges, it could ease. Officials said that they gave Iran no commitment about their offer in July, but they will require assurances on how Iran treats reactor fuel, economic and technical co-operation, and “objective guarantees” that Iran is not building weapons. Copyright The Times - timesonline.co.uk ***************************************************************** 4 BBC: Iran in new nuclear arms pledge Last Updated: Wednesday, 25 May, 2005 [A nuclear enrichment plant at Isfahan] Iran is threatening to restart its enrichment programme Iran has renewed its pledge not to seek nuclear weapons during talks in Geneva with European Union countries. The announcement was made by UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw who said the discussions had been "complex". The Europeans are to give Iran detailed proposals on implementing the Paris deal on suspending enrichment, he said. Chief Iranian negotiator Hasan Rohani said an agreement could be reached "within a reasonably short time". But a decision would be taken in Tehran. Europe has threatened to refer Iran to the UN Security Council - and possible sanctions - if it resumes uranium enrichment. The US says Tehran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran insists its programme is for civilian use only. The EU has until now employed a more conciliatory approach, offering economic and political incentives to keep enrichment activities frozen in line with the Paris deal struck in November. It's now a matter for t Iranian government to decide whether what we outlined today... is sufficient for them to continue with the Paris agreement [ src=] Jack Straw UK Foreign Secretary Iran's announcement earlier in May that it was considering resuming uranium enrichment triggered Europe's invitation to the Geneva talks. They took place as more than 180 states continue with discussions at the UN on strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran's nuclear programme, along with North Korea's nuclear ambitions, are widely believed to be a key obstacle in the NPT talks, although critics also point to a lack of US leadership. Pessimism Mr Straw was joined at the talks by his French and German counterparts - known as the EU3 - and the EU foreign policy chief. After the discussions at the Iranian embassy in Geneva, Mr Straw said a fresh set of European proposals on implementing the Paris agreement would be submitted to the Iranians by the end of July or the beginning of August. "The Paris agreement... sets out very clearly that the suspension of conversion and uranium enrichment processing continues until there is a long term agreement under the Paris agreement," Mr Straw told the BBC. We will definitely impleme our decision even if our friends fail to come to an understanding Mohammad Khatami Iranian President "It's now a matter for the Iranian government to decide whether what we outlined today, in outline, not in any sort of detail, is sufficient for them to continue with the Paris agreement," he said. "We believe that we could reach a reasonable agreement within a reasonably short time," the chief Iranian nuclear negotiator said. Mr Rohani later told CNN Iran insisted on producing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in order to maintain its independence and not have to extend its hand to others. Earlier, Iranian President Khatami said the Europeans had to understand the Iranian position and its "inalienable right" to nuclear power. "We will definitely implement our decision even if our friends fail to come to an understanding," Mr Khatami said. In the meantime, pressure within the US for unilateral action is building. Both houses of the US Congress have bills calling for tighter economic sanctions and cuts to foreign aid for countries whose businesses invest in Iran. ***************************************************************** 5 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: N. Korea's Nuclear Drive Biggest Threat in Asia: British Think > Updated May.25,2005 14:32 KST A British think tank has a gloomy outlook for the ongoing efforts to resolve the North Korean nuclear dispute. Researchers at the International Institute of Strategic Studies said there's little chance for Pyongyang's complete disarmament through diplomacy and a freeze on nuclear development may be the best outcome. North Korea's nuclear ambitions remain the most daunting security issue facing Asia, and the current diplomatic efforts would not lead to Pyongyang's disarmament. So said a leading London-based think tank on Tuesday. In its annual report dubbed "Strategic Survey," the International Institute of Strategic Studies pointed out that six-nation talks on the nuclear impasse have made almost no progress since they began in 2003. The institute said with the continued diplomatic stalemate and North Korea's nuclear build-up, the prognosis for resolving the crisis remains uncertain. "North Korea believes that nuclear weapons are absolutely vital to the survival of the regime and the defense of the country, against what they see as much larger and more powerful countries. So I don't think any diplomatic process can lead to disarmament." Researchers said a freeze on North Korea's nuclear capability is what diplomacy can bring at best. They also pointed to worsening Sino-U.S. relations over Taiwan, saying the instability in bilateral ties could negatively affect regional security. IISS experts said, however, that North Korea fully recognizes that a conflict would result in the destruction of its regime, and that it does not have any interest in starting a war. Arirang TV ***************************************************************** 6 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Beijing Grows Frustrated with Unyielding Positions in N.K. and Home> National/Politics Updated May.25,2005 14:35 KST As North Korea's traditional ally, China has been a key mediator hosting three rounds of multilateral talks on the nuclear issue. While Beijing tries to arrange another round, analysts note there is growing frustration with the intransigence by Pyongyang and Washington. It's been nearly a year since North Korea walked out on the six-party nuclear disarmament talks, turning its back on South Korea, the United States, Japan, China and Russia. With Pyongyang flirting with the idea of returning to the dialogue table, China, the North's historical ally and provider of fuel and food aid, is in a delicate position. China is faced with pressure, particularly from the U.S., to use more economic and political leverage to bring North Korea back to the talks. But there seems to be a growing frustration in China with the Bush administration, as Beijing believes Washington should show more flexibility and sincerity in trying to peacefully resolve the issue. Reflecting China's stretched patience, Assistant Foreign Minister Shen Guofang said on Tuesday that resuming the six-party talks was up to the U.S. and North Korea. And a Chinese scholar in Beijing specializing on Northeast Asia said Washington should "engage" not "isolate" Pyongyang. "I think if America shows more flexibility on the nuclear issues, I think in the near future, Pyongyang may return to the six-party talks." Professor Zhang said China, on its part, has already conveyed quite clear messages to Pyongyang that any provocative display of its nuclear capability would have serious consequences. As Washington cautiously talks about "other options," China's role as mediator is becoming increasingly essential. With its reluctance to strong-arm Pyongyang, though, it looks like Beijing will keep pressing along the diplomatic track. Arirang TV ***************************************************************** 7 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Korean Delegation Reveals More Allied Drubbing Home> National/Politics Updated May.25,2005 21:37 KST Seoul Insists AllˇŻs Well With U.S. Alliance Korean Lawmakers Get Earful from Allied Hardliners Has Seoul Lost the Trust of Its Allies? Members of a National Assembly Defense Committee who recently came in for a drubbing by U.S. and Japanese officials have revealed more details of their uncomfortable tour of Tokyo, Washington and Hawaii. They say the Japan Defense Agency expressed surprise in that South Korean ruling party legislators appeared to justify North KoreaˇŻs development of nuclear weapons at a time when Seoul needed to take a firm stand against it. The agencyˇŻs leadership also reportedly said there was definitely a problem in the relationship between South Korea and the United States. ˇ°It appears the United States has come to distrust South Korea,ˇ± they said. JapanˇŻs outspoken Vice Foreign Minister Shotaro Yachi reportedly said, "The South Korea-U.S.-Japan relationship is very important in resolving the North Korean nuclear dispute, but the problem was South Korea... ItˇŻs questionable whether South Korea stands with us. On the contrary, I wonder if the South is moving in the opposite direction.ˇ± Grand National Party lawmaker Park Jin, who is on the Defense Committee, went off on his own to meet a high-ranking U.S. official, who told him the Chinese government was divided between pragmatists and hardliners on the North Korea issue. Park said the official told him Chinese President Hu Jintao supported the pragmatists, but again South Korea was the problem. According to the official, Chinese pragmatists were telling the U.S. that as long as Seoul continues to ˇ°appeaseˇ± the North and take a low-key approach, Beijing cannot take the lead in persuading Pyongyang. According to the official, South Korea held the key to resolving the issue, Park said. Park also quoted the unnamed official as saying, ˇ°After Korea and the U.S. agreed in 2003 on OPLAN 5029 [a joint military plan for contingencies in North Korea including mass defections and natural disaster], Seoul belatedly called for it to be cancelled, and the South Korean government intentionally leaked this to the press.ˇ± Park said the U.S. official called this ˇ°a slap in the face for an allyˇ± which had damaged the bilateral relationship. (englishnews@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 8 Interfax: Russian delegation to discuss nuclear problem in Pyongyang Interfax.com Text version Site map May 25 2005 1:53PM MOSCOW. May 25 (Interfax) - A Russian delegation will visit Pyongyang in August to discuss ways to resolve the standoff over North Korea's nuclear problem, said presidential envoy to the Far East Federal District Konstantin Pulikovsky. "The main problem is why they are laying claims for a nuclear program. This is of course North Korea's energy problem," Pulikovsky told a news conference at the Interfax main office on Wednesday. "All of the participants in the six-sided negotiations [Russia, the United States, China, Japan, North Korea and South Korea] are ready to help Pyongyang tackle its energy crisis by building power transmission lines and supplying electricity. We in the Far East have excessive electricity supplies and other energy sources - oil and gas," he said. "There are suggestions in this respect that we are ready to put forth in exchange for their steps to abandon their nuclear programs. We want our suggestions to be accepted. We are interested in a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula," the presidential envoy said. © 1991-2005 Interfax ***************************************************************** 9 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: NPT Review Meeting Drafts Shackle Clause Home> National/Politics Updated May.24,2005 23:20 KST way at UN headquarters in New York has worked out the rough draft of an agreement that would compel states opting out of the treaty to return any nuclear material they have, JapanˇŻs Mainichi Shimbun reported Tuesday. The draft calls breaking with the NPT a ˇ°threat to international peace and security,ˇ± and proposes hauling anyone who thinks of doing so before the UN Security Council. If they still entertain the idea they would have to give back nuclear material to the countries they got them from and disassemble related equipment. With U.S. development of miniature nuclear warheads in mind, the draft calls on nuclear-armed states to abandon research and development of new forms of nuclear weapons, the paper said. The draft also proposes a review of plans for the IAEA to guarantee the supply of nuclear fuel to countries that give up uranium enrichment technology. The daily said the meeting demanded an immediate additional protocol allowing the IAEA to conduct full-scale inspections of nations trying to develop nuclear weapons. (Choi Heup, pot@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 10 ITAR-TASS: Beijing strongly warns Pyongyang against nuke test - Kyodo 25.05.2005, 06.36 TOKYO, May 25 (Itar-Tass) -China has ''strongly'' warned North Korea through a diplomatic channel against carrying out a nuclear weapons test, stressing a test would undermine Beijing's stated policy of seeking a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, Kyodo News said Wednesday in its report from Washington. The news agency cited its sources at the six-party talks. Beijing's hard-line stance exerts enormous pressure on Pyongyang, given that China is the major supporter of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's government, providing the country with energy, food and other aid, Kyodo wrote. The sources said North Korea should have recognized the Chinese government's position of seeking a nuclear-free Korean peninsula and a peaceful resolution to the tensions centering on Pyongyang's nuclear weapons programs. ''The Chinese government has strongly warned and urged against the carrying out of a nuclear test,'' one source said. Given the two countries' long history of political and economic ties, Beijing may have not spelled out in a warning to Pyongyang such concrete measures as supporting a move to refer the case to the U.N. Security Council if North Korea goes ahead with a nuclear test. But Beijing has apparently cautioned Pyongyang using abstract expressions such as ''grave consequences.'' According to Kyodo, it remained unclear exactly when and how China warned North Korea. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, ***************************************************************** 11 Bernie Sanders Steps Up -- Zizek on Star Wars Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 10:38:46 -0500 (CDT) SANDERS STEPS UP | By Joel Bleifuss Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has said that he plans to seek the Vermont Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.) in 2006. Judging from his popularity, Sanders' election is all but assured. If he takes office, he will become the Senate's most progressive member. If elected, or should I say when elected, what kind of leadership will you bring to the U.S. Senate? If I'm elected to the U.S. Senate, I think it would be fair to say that I'll be the most progressive voice in the Senate and that I will continue to do the work that I did in the House. There are many huge issues out there, but my major emphasis will be on economic issues and addressing what I consider to be the collapse of the middle class: the fact that despite the huge increases in productivity and technology, the average American worker is worse off today than he or she was 30 years ago. It's important that Congress and the media start focusing on that reality: the growing gap between the rich and poor, the increase in poverty, our disastrous trade policy, the fact that we're the only country in the industrialized world that doesn't have a national health care program and the increasingly regressive tax structure. Those are some of the issues I'll be talking about and talking about very loudly. http://en.groundspring.org/EmailNow/pub.php?module=URLTracker&cmd=track&j=31432342&u=286623 --------------------------- REVENGE OF GLOBAL FINANCE | By Slavoj Zizek When the final installment of the Star Wars series, Revenge of the Sith, brings us the pivotal moment of the entire saga--the change of the "good" Anakin Skywalker into the "bad" Darth Vader--it aims to draw parallels between our personal and political decisions. http://en.groundspring.org/EmailNow/pub.php?module=URLTracker&cmd=track&j=31432342&u=286624 --------------------------- HOWARD ZINN, GRAPHIC NOVELIST MARJANE SATRAPI, AND CRITIQUING MAYOR RICHARD M. DALEY Join Aaron Sarver for a conversation with Howard Zinn-historian, writer and activist. Zinn has just published a companion volume to his seminal A People's History of the United States, titled Voices of a People's History of the United States. Emily Udell interviews Marjane Satrapi, author and illustrator of the best-selling graphic memois Persepolis I and Pereseplois II. Satrapi has just published a new book called Embroideries. And hear Chicagoans respond to a recent Time magazine article's claim that their mayor Richard M. Daley is one of the top five in the nation. http://en.groundspring.org/EmailNow/pub.php?module=URLTracker&cmd=track&j=31432342&u=286625 Our postal address is 2040 N. Milwaukee Ave. Chicago, Illinois 60647 United States ***************************************************************** 12 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Brochure Drops Arms-Control Deals From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday May 25, 2005 9:16 AM AP Photo NY193 By CHARLES J. HANLEY AP Special Correspondent UNITED NATIONS (AP) - With a few keystrokes, an official U.S. brochure eliminated some historic arms-control deals, angered the champions of disarmament, and showed again that in the paper deluge of a global conference, what's left out can be as telling as what's put in. In this case, the publication's ``rewriting of history,'' as one critic put it, also illustrates in black and white a dispute that has helped bog down the 188-nation conference reviewing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The monthlong conference entered its final three days on Wednesday with uncertain prospects for producing any major agreements to tighten controls on the spread of atomic arms, or to speed nuclear disarmament. The brochure, slickly produced by the State Department and distributed to hundreds of delegates, lists milestones in arms control since the 1980s, while touting reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. But the timeline omits a pivotal agreement, the 1996 treaty to ban nuclear tests, a pact negotiated by the Clinton administration and ratified by 121 nations but now rejected under President Bush. Further along, the brochure skips over the year 2000 entirely, a snub of the treaty review conference that year, when the United States and other nuclear-weapons states committed to ``13 practical steps'' to achieve nuclear disarmament - including activating the test-ban treaty, negotiating a pact to ban production of bomb material, and ``unequivocally undertaking'' to totally eliminate their arsenals. Bush administration officials now suggest the 2000 commitments are outdated. Other delegations reject that, however, demanding a reaffirmation of the goals in a final document at the current conference. Few expect that, and they cite the blank spots in the brochure as another piece of evidence. ``Official disdain for these agreements seems to have turned into denial that they existed,'' said Joseph Cirincione, an arms-control specialist with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who accused the State Department of rewriting history. ``Does this mean that, because we have a change of administration, we are not accountable to other countries?'' asked another disarmament advocate, Jonathan Granoff of the Global Security Institute. Asked why the 1996 treaty and the 2000 U.S. commitments - along with similar commitments in 1995 - didn't make the 40-entry list of ``progress in arms control,'' U.S. delegation spokesman Richard Grenell said simply, ``We highlighted certain items, and it wasn't an exhaustive list.'' By contrast, an official U.N. chronology has several entries on the test ban, and prominently notes the 1995 and 2000 agreements. Under the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, reviewed every five years for ways to strengthen implementation, nations without nuclear weapons commit to not pursuing them in exchange for a pledge by five weapons states - the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China - to move toward disarmament. The nonweapons states, meanwhile, are guaranteed access to peaceful nuclear technology. The United States has sought to have the conference focus on the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs. In Geneva on Wednesday, European diplomats resume negotiations with Tehran in an effort to get the Iranians to roll back their uranium-enrichment program, which can produce both fuel for nuclear energy and material for bombs. The Iranians cite the treaty guarantee on peaceful technology in justifying the program, but Washington contends they have plans to make weapons. North Korea was the first ``defector'' from the treaty, having announced its withdrawal in 2003 and now claiming to have built nuclear weapons. This was done without consequences under the treaty, and many here would like to make it harder to exit the nuclear pact, and to threaten sanctions against those who do. Many nonweapons states, however, want an additional focus on the nuclear powers, complaining they are moving too slowly on their disarmament obligations. They cite in particular Bush administration talk of ``modernizing'' the U.S. nuclear arsenal and rejection of the test-ban treaty. Washington still adheres to a unilateral moratorium on testing, but treaty advocates say a formal outlawing of testing is needed to stop development of new nuclear arms. Visiting the troubled conference on Tuesday, a U.S. negotiator of the test-ban treaty told reporters the 1996 pact is a ``litmus test.'' ``If countries that promised never to have nuclear weapons now see weapons states holding open the option to test, some of them think, `Why should we give up nuclear weapons?''' said former Ambassador Thomas Graham. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 13 Guardian Unlimited: Senate Bill Would Double Ethanol Use From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday May 25, 2005 11:16 PM By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Over the strong objections of oil companies, a Senate committee on Wednesday approved a requirement that refiners use more corn-based ethanol and other renewable fuels in gasoline. The legislation would mandate that refiners annually use at least 8 billion gallons of renewable components - almost all of it ethanol from corn - in gasoline by 2012, doubling ethanol production, a boon to farmers. A House-passed energy bill would require 5 billion gallons. Supporters of the higher number argued that such a mandate would replace 5 percent of the gasoline by volume beginning in 2012 and reduce U.S. need for oil imports. ``This is about a supply that is domestic,'' said Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., who offered and won voice vote approval for the ethanol mandate as part of an energy bill being crafted by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., the panel's chairman, said the ethanol mandate will be key to getting energy legislation through the Senate when it takes up the bill, probably in late June. Talent said ethanol use would reduce refiners' need for imported oil, reduce gasoline costs and help the environment by curtailing toxic emissions and climate-changing carbon dioxide. ``There's no question that ethanol helps the environment,'' he said. But the oil industry, in an intense lobbying effort, said expanding the mandate from 5 billion to 8 billion gallons will require ethanol use in regions where it is not economical and increase fuel costs while providing ``negligible reductions in oil imports.'' The ethanol industry countered that 8 billion gallons of ethanol would replace 2 billion barrels of crude oil and trigger $6 billion in new investment in ethanol production. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., cited a report by the Energy Information Administration that said an 8 billion-gallon ethanol requirement would add 2.4 cents a gallon to the price of gasoline. Supporters of the mandate dismissed the study, saying it was based on oil costing $25 a barrel, when all expectations are that oil prices - now above $50 a barrel - will remain substantially higher than that in the foreseeable future. Feinstein also cited California agency findings that the use of ethanol during hot days increased smog-causing vehicle emissions. ``You're forcing something on us that is not necessary,'' she said. By a 12-10 vote, the committee agreed to give California a summertime waiver to the ethanol mandate if needed to meet air quality requirements, although refiners in the state would still be required to use 900 million gallons of ethanol annually. Meanwhile, President Bush again urged Congress to move more quickly on energy legislation. ``I think the American people are tired of waiting. I'm getting a little tired of waiting on the energy bill,'' Bush said as he visited a gasoline station in northeast Washington that features - as a demonstration project - a pump that provides hydrogen as a motor fuel. The Senate bill calls for expanding hydrogen fuel research, with the goal of having 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010 and 2.5 million vehicles as well as a hydrogen fuel infrastructure by 2020. The energy panel also approved construction of a prototype $1.25 billion nuclear reactor that would produce hydrogen as well as electric power at the Energy Department's Idaho National Laboratory. Separately the panel voted to extend for another 20 years a government commitment, first made in 1957, to limit the nuclear industry's liability from a major nuclear accident, with taxpayers assuming costs above $9.34 billion. --- On the Net: Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee: http://energy.senate.gov/public/ Renewable Fuels Association: http://www.ethanolrfa.org American Petroleum Institute: http://www.api.org Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 14 Deseret News: Crossing N-line must have clear effects [deseretnews.com] Wednesday, May 25, 2005 By John Hughes Deseret Morning News It seems to me the odds are about 50-50 that North Korea or Iran — two of the nations most hostile to the United States — will acquire nuclear weapons. North Korea, whose official statements are not always notable for their veracity, may be bluffing when it suggests it already has them. Iran, which also takes considerable license with the facts, may be bluffing when it says it doesn't have them. But whatever the actual state of nuclear weapons development in each country, the fact is that both have aspired to possess such weapons; both have been working on their development; both have hidden such development, and both are stubbornly rejecting efforts to deter them by a string of nations who think it would be dangerous to let either one of them get a nuclear arsenal. Military action is not presently an option for the Bush administration. Diplomacy is in play, but it is not going well. In the case of North Korea, the United States is pinning its hopes on six-party talks between the United States, North and South Korea, China, Russia and Japan. Recently there were some direct, lower-level discussions between North Korean and U.S. officials, but the United States believes that it is critical for China to use its leverage on North Korea, because China plays a significant role in meeting Pyongyang's urgent need for food, fuel and money. The happy scenario is that North Korea might respond to a carrot-and-stick approach. If it suspends its development of nuclear weapons, its interlocutors will do significant things to improve its wretched economy. If it doesn't it will face sanctions and other punitive measures. The problem is that while there is unity among the interlocutors with North Korea that the Korean peninsula should be a nuclear-free zone, there is not unity about punitive measures. China does not want a de-stabilized North Korea and a flood of refugees across its border. South Korea is acutely aware of the unpredictability of an armed, dangerous northern neighbor just up the road from Seoul. Meanwhile North Korea goes its way, playing a stalling, cat-and-mouse game with the diplomats and pressing ahead with its nuclear program. There has long been evidence of North Korea's interest in uranium enrichment for nuclear purposes. But by 2002, State Department, Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency analysts were at one in determining that a laboratory program using tens of centrifuges for enrichment had escalated to an ominous one using thousands of centrifuges. With Iran, the United States has been relying on the European Union to take the lead in a similar diplomatic carrot-and-stick approach: economic goodies if Iran suspends the program, but the threat of U.N. action and sanctions if the nuclear development program continues. Iran has suspended enrichment during negotiations, but has emphasized that this is only temporary to see what the talks yield. It says it will not compromise on permanent cessation, arguing that its interest is only in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Such protestations ring hollow to the Americans and Europeans, because Iran has concealed key parts of its nuclear development for some 20 years and dissembled about their existence. Just in the past few days, Iran was accused of circumventing international export bans by smuggling in a graphite compound that can be used in nuclear weapons production. If diplomacy is unsuccessful in halting the development of nuclear weapons in North Korea and Iran, what would this portend? Nothing comforting for Japan, South Korea, and other Asian countries neighboring North Korea, nor for the Israelis and some neighboring Islamic countries that might be at odds with Iran. Should either of them use a nuclear weapon against the United States, either directly, or by terrorist surrogate, they must surely be aware of the probability of terrible retaliation bordering on extinction. But the experts point out that while intelligence can generally chart the movement of missiles, the traffic in fissile material and nuclear devices is much more difficult to detect, or interdict. In discussions in 2003, the North Koreans did offer an assurance that there would be no "transfer" of nuclear material to any foreign government or entity. Such assurances by a duplicitous regime that acquires nuclear weapons are hardly much consolation. But it does suggest they are aware of a "red line," which overstepped would have awesome consequences. Should the present regimes in North Korea and Iran, despite diplomatic efforts, acquire such weapons, the existence of that red line should be made strikingly clear to them. John Hughes is editor and chief operating officer of the Deseret Morning News. He is a former editor of the Christian Science Monitor, which syndicates this column. E-mail: hughes@desnews.com © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 15 Haaretz: The U.S. removes the nuclear brakes Thu., May 26, 2005 Iyar 17, 5765| info@mosnews.com Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM ***************************************************************** 17 csmonitor.com: Don't Cross This Space Frontier | Commentary > The Monitor's View from the May 26, 2005 edition The Monitor's View AS moviegoers the world over flock to the final Star Wars episode, another space drama awaits screening in Washington. The plot revolves around the military use of space and the possible first-ever overt deployment of weapons where heretofore only satellites and astronauts have gone. A Pentagon study on future US space policy will be delivered to President Bush in June. Initial indications are that the study, led by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and three years in the making, has as an option a directive to the Air Force to deploy some type of weapon in space. One mission would be to defend commercial and military satellites. The president should not allow the Pentagon to deploy offensive or defensive weapons in space at this time. A Pandora's box is opened if weaponized satellites or high-tech space planes can hit another nation's satellites in 20 minutes, preventing them from detecting an offensive strike. Maintaining transparency in spotting such a "first strike" has been the bedrock of peace between Russia, China, and the US. Deploying a satellite that can blind a nation's space surveillance or hold a nation's space commerce hostage would be the starter's gun for a new arms race. Historically, soldiers strive to command the high ground. Satellites are today's high ground. Military officials are understandably concerned about a Pearl Harbor or 9/11 attack against satellites in space. History teaches them to bring a healthy skepticism to almost any disarmament treaty. Yet a 1967 UN treaty serves as a solid foundation for thinking about this issue. The treaty, signed by the US and based on policies that began in the Eisenhower era, certifies that "all nations on earth share space." It listed the rights and responsibilities for nations using space. If, for instance, a nation launched a satellite that upon reentry didn't completely burn up and thus caused damage upon impact, the launching country was liable for damages. Though it did not prohibit conventional weapons in space, it forbids nuclear weapons in space. Canada has just rejected a space defense alliance with the US because it feared the real goal was space weaponization. A multilateral treaty, perhaps similar to the weapons ban in force on Antarctica, might be one way to close this loophole. The president should continue US passive military use of space as a platform for communication, observation, and land-based targeting, but not weaponization. www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 18 [NukeNet] NPT's Article IV Allows Death Of 3.5 Million People, Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 20:11:00 -0700 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Nuke Terrorism Site: http://www.tmia.com/sabter.html NPT Treaty Including Article IV Which Allows "Peaceful" Commercial Nuclear Reactors: http://www.cornnet.nl/~akmalten/docs.html Attack on nuclear plant 'could kill 3.5m' By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor 16 February 2003 http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=378739 More than three and a half million people could be killed by a terrorist attack on a British nuclear plant, concludes a series of three reports so alarming that even Greenpeace - which commissioned them - is unwilling to publish them. The reports - whose findings the Government has also sought to suppress - show that terrorists could identify the most dangerous parts of the plants from publicly available information and crash aircraft into them, releasing vast amounts of radioactivity. Now MPs and peers have launched an investigation by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology into the revelations as part of a formal inquiry into "the possible risks and consequences of a terrorist attack at a nuclear facility in the UK". They decided to set up the inquiry last month - at the urging of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee - drawing on the reports and other material, even though ministers warned that much of the information they needed was secret and would not be made available to them. The reports show that Britain could face a far greater threat than the danger of ricin, constantly quoted by ministers, or the warnings of a rocket attack on an aircraft that led to last week's deployment of tanks at Heathrow. Yet one of their authors - John Large, an independent nuclear expert - says that the Government has reacted to it with "staggering indolence". The three reports, commissioned by Greenpeace after the 11 September attacks, cover the vulnerability of Britain's nuclear installations, the possibility of an attack from the air and the consequences of the resulting disaster. They were completed at the end of 2001, but the pressure group has sat on them for over a year, unable to decide what to do with them. They are still being kept a closely guarded secret. The first, by Dr Large, concludes that Britain's nuclear plants are "almost totally ill-prepared" for an airborne terrorist attack. The second, by an aviation expert, suggests that it would only take four minutes for an airliner to divert from its regular flight path to attack the most dangerous target of all, the Sellafield nuclear complex in Cumbria. And the third, by leading scientist Dr Frank Barnaby, estimates that, at worst, 3.6 million people could die as a result. Dr Large said last night that he had found it "astonishingly easy" to get information on targets at Sellafield and other nuclear plants, and that he had been sent official reports identifying them without any attempt to check on his bona fides. He said: "A terrorist cell charged with attacking Sellafield could readily obtain sufficient information from publicly available documents to identify highly hazardous and vulnerable targets for which there exists little defence in depth." Dr Barnaby - a former Aldermaston scientist, who was for 10 years director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute - concludes that a jumbo jet crashing into Sellafield could cause a fireball over a mile high. He says that 25 times as much radioactivity as was emitted by the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 would be likely to be released, eventually killing 1.1 million people from cancer. In the worst case scenario, the number of deaths could reach 3.6 million. Dr Large was so alarmed by his findings that he asked Greenpeace not to publish his report, and stamped the words "Not for Open Publication" on every page. Greenpeace, for its part, has been paralysed by indecision by the reports, unable to decide even to disclose their findings to ministers or officials to try to get them to act on the vulnerabilities they identified. The pressure group is highly sensitive about this, and has only now decided - after repeated questioning by The Independent on Sunday - "to seek to stimulate this debate within government over the next months". Shaun Birnie, a nuclear campaigner for Greenpeace International, said last week that there had been "months of debate" inside the organisation about what to do with the reports, with some activists fearing that the Government might take action against it. He admitted: "We never got round to agreeing how to use this report" but threatened that any suggestion in this article that Greenpeace had sat on the report would damage relations with the IoS. Challenged to explain the organisation's lack of urgency at a time of an increasing terrorist threat, he said: "There is no reason to rush this. A year is a very, very short time in the half life of plutonium." 16 February 2003 17:25 http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=378739 _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 19 Moscow Times: Missing Scientist Resurfaces Thursday, May 26, 2005. Issue 3174. Page 3. By Carl Schreck Staff Writer Kommersant Sergei Podoinitsyn A nuclear scientist who mysteriously vanished more than 18 months ago returned home this week, claiming to remember little about where he was, Krasnoyarsk prosecutors said Wednesday. Sergei Podoinitsyn -- who as a scientist at a nuclear facility in the secretive defense industry city of Zheleznogorsk had access to top secret nuclear information -- turned up showing signs of partial amnesia, said Yelena Pimonenko, a spokeswoman for the Krasnoyarsk regional prosecutor's office. Podoinitsyn disappeared on Oct. 17, 2003, when he left by taxi for Krasnoyarsk with $9,000 to buy a car, police said. He did not return, and five days later the Zheleznodorosk prosecutor's office opened a murder case in connection with his disappearance. Speculation flourished that Podoinitsyn had been kidnapped by foreign agents seeking to obtain nuclear secrets or that he had fled to the United States. At the time of his disappearance, Podoinitsyn's colleagues dismissed the talk, noting an increased openness with the United States on nuclear issues and that he had traveled to the United States several times to attend conferences. Pimonenko said an investigation had been opened into whether Podinitsyn had been kidnapped. She declined to give any details regarding Podinitsyn's reappearance, citing the investigation. Kommersant, citing Podinitsyn's relatives, reported that the scientist called his wife and the Federal Security Service on Saturday to tell them he was alive. The region's top prosecutor, Viktor Grin, told Itar-Tass that Podinitsyn arrived home to his wife and family on Sunday. Podinitsyn told his family that he had worked for a while at a construction site in Novosibirsk but could not recall how he ended up there, Kommersant said. Podoinitsyn worked for 20 years at the the Zheleznogorsk Mining and Chemical Plant, which houses an atomic reactor and large amounts of nuclear fuel. © Copyright 2005 The Moscow Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 20 Guardian Unlimited: Prospects at Nuclear Conference Unravel From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday May 25, 2005 10:01 PM By CHARLES J. HANLEY AP Special Correspondent UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The world's nuclear tensions, distilled into words on paper, threatened on Wednesday to wreck a conference to strengthen the nonproliferation treaty, as diplomats labored on into the monthlong meeting's final days. One of three committees ended its closed-door work with no recommendations to forward, in part because of Iran's objection to being singled out as a proliferation concern. ``It's a sobering moment, a very bad signal,'' Chairman Laszlo Molnar of Hungary said of his committee's failure late Tuesday. The two other committees also wrangled behind closed doors over a long list of divisive issues, among them U.S. objections to wording related to the disarmament obligations of nuclear-weapons states under the 1970 treaty. ``The Americans have requested deletion of some fundamental issues. We cannot agree,'' Mexico's Luis Alfonso de Alba told a reporter. Of prospects for an overall accord, the Mexican ambassador said, ``It doesn't look good.'' Those two committees ended their work Wednesday and forwarded proposals to the main conference body, but without consensus endorsement. It was left to conference President Sergio de Queiroz Duarte to try to cobble together some kind of final document by Friday, the meeting's final day. Disputes over the agenda had kept delegates from serious negotiation until last week. With no input from a main committee, sharp differences on pressing issues, and so little time, it seemed the most Duarte might produce would be a vague declaration, rather than a concrete plan of action, since the gathering requires unanimity among the more than 180 treaty members. ``I am still trying to have the conference adopt whatever it can adopt,'' the Brazilian diplomat said as he rushed from one meeting to another. Member states of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty meet every five years to identify weaknesses in the 1970 pact and win commitments on steps to remedy them. Though not legally binding, like a treaty, these consensus positions give a boost to nonproliferation initiatives. Under the treaty, five nuclear weapons states - the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China - undertook to eventually eliminate their nuclear arsenals, in exchange for a pledge by other treaty states not to develop nuclear arms. The nonweapons states, meanwhile, are guaranteed access to peaceful nuclear technology. That guarantee underlies the confrontation over Iran's uranium-enrichment program, which can produce both fuel for nuclear power plants and material for bombs. Washington contends Tehran has plans for such weapons, a charge Iran denies. The German, French and British foreign ministers met with Iranian negotiators on Wednesday in Geneva in the latest round of long-running talks to get Iran to roll back its nuclear program in exchange for political and economic incentives. The U.S. delegation here sought to have the conference focus heavily on Iran, and Main Committee II's proposal included a paragraph urging Tehran, among other things, to continue its current suspension of nuclear activities. But the Iranians objected to any mention in the text, since the situation is being handled in other forums, an Iranian delegate said privately. Some delegations had hoped the U.N. meeting might jump-start an examination of ways to limit access to sensitive dual-use technology, such as enrichment equipment. But that looks unlikely. Egypt also objected to Committee II's proposed document on the Middle East, where Arab nations have long sought a nuclear weapons-free zone, requiring Israel to dismantle its undeclared nuclear arsenal. The details of Egypt's objection were not immediately available. Behind the closed doors of Main Committee I, meanwhile, the U.S. delegation objected to clauses in the text relating to weapons states' disarmament obligations, participants reported. Among other things, the proposal took a stand against ``nuclear sharing,'' a term applicable to longstanding U.S. basing of nuclear weapons in European countries. Many nuclear ``have-nots'' complain the weapons states are moving too slowly toward disarmament, and cite in particular Bush administration talk of ``modernizing'' the U.S. nuclear arsenal and its rejection of the 1996 treaty banning nuclear tests. In reply, U.S. officials point to sharp reductions in strategic nuclear forces since the early 1990s. American actions ``have established an enviable record of Article VI compliance,'' U.S. delegate Jackie Sanders told Committee I last week, referring to the treaty article on disarmament. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 21 AP: Missing Russian nuclear scientist reappears after more than 18 months - JAMAICAOBSERVER.COM MOSCOW (AP) - A Russian nuclear scientist who went missing more than 18 months ago has reappeared mysteriously, prosecution officials said yesterday."> Wednesday, May 25, 2005 MOSCOW (AP) - A Russian nuclear scientist who went missing more than 18 months ago has reappeared mysteriously, prosecution officials said yesterday. Sergei Podoinitsyn, a scientist engaged in work on weapons-grade plutonium in a Siberian nuclear facility, disappeared in October 2003 with a large sum of money. The prosecutor's office in the Krasnoyarsk region said that he turned up Monday in the town of Zheleznogorsk where he lived and worked. In a statement, it said it had opened a criminal case for kidnapping. "He shows signs of amnesia," said local prosecutor Elena Pimonenko, who added that Podoinitsyn would require treatment. The prosecutor's office said it had no definite information on where Podoinitsyn had been all this time. In 2002, another nuclear scientist from the same Siberian region went missing and is now presumed dead, according to the Gazeta.ru news Web site. Copyright© 2000-2001 Jamaica Observer. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 22 [NukeNet] Nuclear Power Not Needed to Reduce Global Warming Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 14:16:51 -0700 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) image0013.gif5/25/05 Nuclear Power Not Needed to Reduce Global Warming Emissions Rob Sargent Senior Energy Policy Analyst National Association of State PIRGs & affiliated organizations 44 Winter Street Boston, MA 02108 P: 617-747-4317 F: 617-292-8057 C: 617-312-7546 rsargent@pirg.org www.pirg.org Arizona PIRG * CALPIRG * Environment California * CoPIRG * Environment Colorado * ConnPIRG * Florida PIRG * Georgia PIRG* Iowa PIRG* Illinois PIRG* INPIRG * Environment Maine * MaryPIRG * MASSPIRG * PIRGIM * MoPIRG * MontPIRG * NHPIRG * NJPIRG Citizen Lobby * NMPIRG * NYPIRG * NCPIRG * OhioPIRG* Oregon State PIRG * PennPIRG * PennEnvironment * RIPIRG * TexPIRG * U.S. PIRG * VPIRG * WashPIRG * WISPIRG _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net Attachment Converted: image0013.gif: 00000001,75bd224c,00000000,00000000 ***************************************************************** 23 Deutsche Welle: A Rebirth for German Nuclear Energy? 25.05.2005 A majority of Germans are against nuclear power] The prospect of victory by Germany's conservative opposition in an early general election has shaken up the country's energy sector. The nuclear power industry is hoping to slow the planned phase out atomic energy. Only a few weeks ago Germany closed down the country's oldest nuclear power plant after nearly 37 years in operation. The atomic reactor in Obrigheim, Baden-WĂĽrttemberg was the second plant closed down in agreement with the government. After Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's center-left coalition of Social Democrats (SPD) and environmentalist Greens hammered out an agreement in 2001 with the energy industry to slowly phase out Germany's nuclear power plants, most Germans thought the subject was dead and buried. But Schröder's decision to call for an early general election this fall after his party was trounced in a regional poll on Sunday has changed the political landscape. Suddenly, the conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) are considered favorites to form the next government in Berlin. And that has convinced many in the energy sector that reports of nuclear power's demise may have been premature. "If the CDU wins the election, economic aspects of the power industry would take precedence over the environmental," Klaus Rauscher, head of utility Vattenfall's European operations, told the Handelsblatt newspaper. Investors favor nuclear stocks Investors in Frankfurt this week appeared inclined to think likewise. Shares of those energy firms involved in nuclear energy such as E.ON and RWE rose on the stock market. Conversely, companies for renewable energy like wind and solar power came under pressure under the assumption the conservatives would cut subsidies for sectors presently favored by the Greens. While few conservative politicians are openly for returning to nuclear power -- which remains highly unpopular with most Germans -- there is a move towards lengthening the lifespan of Germany's remaining atomic reactors. "There is underlying support for lifting the limits regulating plant operating lives," Peter Paziorek, the environmental spokesman for the conservatives in parliament, told German news agency DPA. "That doesn't mean there is any perspective to build new nuclear power plants." Phasing out power plants [JĂĽrgen Trittin shows off a banner celebrating the closing of Obrigheim.] Obrigheim was the second reactor that was shut down as a result of the national nuclear phase out. The first to close was E.ON's 672 megawatt Stade reactor, which was switched off in November 2003. The 340 megawatt Obrigheim reactor will be prepared for permanent closure over the course of the year. There are 17 other atomic reactors still active in Germany. Despite concerns by the public about safety and the environment, discussion about reviving nuclear power is coming back in vogue in Europe. Industry lobbyists are pushing it as an alternative to oil and coal, since atomic reactors produce almost no greenhouse gas emissions and petroleum prices remain at high levels. But those arguments are unconvincing to German Environment Minister JĂĽrgen Trittin, a leading Greens politician. "We buried a decades-long conflict with the decision to phase out nuclear power," Trittin told DPA. "Anyone who wants to reverse that will be digging up old graves." Info] Germany Shuts Down Atomic Reactor Germany closed down a second atomic reactor -- also the country's oldest -- on Wednesday. The move is part of a government policy to phase out nuclear power. (May 11, 2005) France Forges Ahead with Nuclear Power Flamanville on Normandy's Atlantic Coast is already home to one nuclear facility, and it's about to get another. Paris plans to start building the first of a new generation of nuclear plants in 2007. (October 22, 2004) German Conservatives Urge Nuke Energy Rethink Germany's conservative Christian Social Union party defends nuclear energy in the face of high oil and coal prices and demands that the government abandon its plan to close all German nuclear power plants. (April 29, 2005) ***************************************************************** 24 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to Meet June 1-3 in Rockville, Maryland News Release - 2005-08 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-084 May 25, 2005 The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards will hold a public meeting June 1-3 in Rockville, Md., to discuss, among other items, the interim review of the license renewal application for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, in Wisconsin, and the draft Safety Evaluation Report related to the Grand Gulf Early Site Permit Application. It will also cover nuclear plant fire protection matters and policy issues related to new plant licensing. The meeting, to be held in Room T-2B3 of the agencys Two White Flint North building, at 11545 Rockville Pike, will run from 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Wednesday and Thursday, and from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Friday. A complete agenda is available on the NRCs Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/agenda/2005/. Individuals with questions or those wanting to make public statements during the meeting should contact Sam Duraiswamy at 301-415-7364. Last revised Wednesday, May 25, 2005 ***************************************************************** 25 toledoblade.com: Davis-Besse receives favorable report Article published Wednesday, May 25, 2005 Enough progress made for oversight panel to be phased out by July 1 By TOM HENRY BLADE STAFF WRITER PORT CLINTON - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission last night discussed its plans for phasing out the special oversight panel it has had in place for intense scrutiny of Davis-Besse the last three years. The panel - a rarity in the nuclear industry - was formed April 29, 2002, seven weeks after the NRC learned on March 6, 2002, about the near rupture of Davis-Besse's reactor head. Shortly after its formation, the panel worked with a number of other NRC officials to understand the significance of FirstEnergy Corp.'s uncontrolled acid leak inside Davis-Besse's radioactive containment area - how it had nearly burned a hole through the reactor's massive steel lid and had put northern Ohio on the brink of experiencing the nation's first major nuclear accident since the 1979 partial meltdown of Three Mile Island's Unit 2 reactor near Harrisburg, Pa. Many of those same federal regulators learned how records they had received from FirstEnergy Corp. about the plant's status prior to the 2002 shutdown were inaccurate or incomplete - and how a buildup of radioactive steam from a rupture in containment might have led to a disaster, given longstanding flaws in Davis-Besse's emergency core cooling system. Last night's final oversight panel meeting, held at the Ohio National Guard's Camp Perry clubhouse, was a mix of emotions. About 125 people in the audience, many of them plant employees, applauded as NRC officials joined FirstEnergy Corp. executives and Ottawa County officials in what was perhaps the most upbeat message since the beleaguered plant was allowed to go back online March 8, 2004. The overriding theme: strong, consistent progress. There's been enough of it, NRC officials said, for the oversight panel to disband by July 1, thereby ending another chapter in Davis-Besse's darkest era and moving the 28-year-old plant one step closer to normalcy. Sort of. Although the oversight panel is winding down, NRC officials said Davis-Besse will continue to be atypical, in that it will be subjected to some inspections above and beyond the normal for an indefinite period. Among other things, the NRC will continue to analyze the significance of backlogged work and FirstEnergy's continuing efforts to boost morale and improve Davis-Besse's workplace atmosphere, said Steve Reynolds, the outgoing oversight panel's chairman. Barring unforeseen circumstances, Davis-Besse will return to a more-normalized process in which the public will be invited to hear about the plant's status at annual meetings. The next such annual meeting is to occur in early 2006, officials said. Contact Tom Henry at: thenry@theblade.com or 419-724-6079. The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000 ***************************************************************** 26 NRC: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Alabama Power Company, FR Doc E5-2630 [Federal Register: May 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 100)] [Notices] [Page 30148-30150] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25my05-150] Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) is considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8, issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (the licensee) for operation of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP), Units 1 and 2, located in Houston County, Alabama. The proposed amendments would revise FNP, Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications Plant Systems Section 3.7 and Design Features Section 4.3 to establish spent fuel cask storage area boron concentration limits and to restrict the minimum burn up of spent fuel assemblies associated with spent fuel cask loading operations. Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) section 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendments would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Cask loading operations will not require any physical changes to part 50 structures, systems, or components, nor will their performance requirements be altered. The potential to handle a spent fuel cask was considered in the original design of the plant. Therefore, the response of the plant to previously analyzed Part 50 accidents and related radiological releases will not be adversely impacted, and will bound those postulated during cask loading activities in the cask storage area. Accordingly, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Existing fuel handling procedures and associated administrative controls remain applicable for cask loading operations. Additionally, the soluble boron concentration required to maintain Keff eff eff eff will remain less than 1.0 should the cask storage area become fully flooded with unborated water. Therefore, there will not be a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Based upon the preceding information, SNC has concluded that the requested license amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30- day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A [[Page 30150]] petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, hearingdocket@nrc.gov; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to M. Stanford Blanton, Esq., Balch and Bingham, Post Office Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, Alabama 35201, attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated May 17, 2005, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1- 800-397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of May, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Evangelos Marinos, Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-2630 Filed 5-24-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 27 NRC: Notice of Opportunity To Comment on Model Safety Evaluation on FR Doc E5-2631 [Federal Register: May 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 100)] [Notices] [Page 30151-30156] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25my05-152] Technical Specification Improvement Regarding Revision to the Completion Time in STS 3.6.1.3, ``Primary Containment Isolation Valves'' for General Electric Boiling Water Reactors Using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Request for comment. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------ SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared a model safety evaluation (SE) relating to changes to the completion time (CT) in Standard Technical Specification (STS) 3.6.1.3 ``Primary Containment Isolation Valves (PCIVs).'' The proposed change to the Technical Specifications (TS) would extend to 7 days the CT (or allowed outage time (AOT)) to restore an inoperable PCIV or isolate the affected penetration flow path for selected primary containment penetrations with two (or more) PCIVs and for selected primary containment penetrations with only one PCIV. This change is based on analyses provided in a generic topical report (TR) submitted by the Boiling Water Reactors Owner's Group (BWROG). The BWROG participants in the TS Task Force (TSTF) proposed this change to the STS in Change Traveler No. TSTF-454, Revision 0. This notice also includes a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination relating to this matter. The purpose of these models is to permit the NRC to efficiently process amendments to incorporate this change into plant-specific TS for General Electric boiling water reactors (BWRs). Licensees of nuclear power reactors to which the models apply can request amendments conforming to the models. In such a request, a licensee should confirm the applicability of the SE and NSHC determination to its plant. The NRC staff is requesting comments on the model SE and model NSHC determination before announcing their availability for referencing in license amendment applications. DATES: The comment period expires 60 days from the date of this publication. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted either electronically or via U.S. mail. Submit written comments to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: T-6 D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hand deliver comments to: 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Submit comments by electronic mail to: CLIIP@nrc.gov. Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC's Public Document Room, One White Flint North, Public File Area O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bhalchandra Vaidya, Mail Stop: O-7D1, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001, telephone (301) 415-3308. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Regulatory Issue Summary 2000-06, ``Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process [CLIIP] for Adopting Standard Technical Specifications Changes for Power Reactors,'' was issued on March 20, 2000. The CLIIP is intended to improve the efficiency and transparency of NRC licensing processes. This is accomplished by processing proposed changes to the STS in a manner that supports subsequent license amendment applications. The CLIIP includes an opportunity for the public to comment on proposed changes to the STS following a preliminary assessment by the NRC staff and finding that the change will likely be offered for adoption by licensees. This notice is soliciting comment on a proposed change to the STS that changes the PCIV CTs for the BWR/4 and BWR/6 STS, NUREG-1433, Revision 3 and NUREG- 1434, Revision 3, respectively. The CLIIP directs the NRC staff to evaluate any comments received for a proposed change to the STS and to either reconsider the change or proceed with announcing the availability of the change for proposed adoption by licensees. Those licensees opting to apply for the subject change to TSs are responsible for reviewing the staff's evaluation, referencing the applicable technical justifications, and providing any necessary plant-specific information. Each amendment application made in response to the notice of availability would be processed and noticed in accordance with applicable NRC rules and procedures. This notice involves an increase in the allowed CTs to restore an inoperable PCIV or isolate the affected penetration flow path when selected PCIVs are inoperable at BWRs. By letter dated September 5, 2003, the BWROG proposed this change for incorporation into the STS as TSTF-454, Revision 0. This change is based on the NRC staff-approved generic analyses contained in the BWROG TR NEDC-33046, ``Technical Justification to Support Risk-Informed Primary Containment Isolation Valve AOT Extensions for BWR Plants,'' submitted on May 3, 2002, as supplemented by letter dated July 30, 2003, and as approved by the NRC by letter and Safety Evaluation dated October 8, 2004, accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic [[Page 30152]] Reading Room on the Internet (ADAMS Accession No. ML042660055) at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC Public Document Room Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Applicability This proposed change to revise the TS CTs for selected PCIVs is applicable to General Electric BWRs. To efficiently process the incoming license amendment applications, the NRC staff requests each licensee applying for the changes addressed by TSTF-454, Revision 0, using the CLIIP to address the seven plant- specific conditions and the one commitment identified in the model SE, as follows: Conditions 1. Because not all penetrations have the same impact on core damage frequency (CDF), large early release frequency (LERF), incremental conditional core damage frequency (ICCDP), or incremental conditional large early release frequency (ICLERP), a licensee's application must provide supporting information that verifies the applicability of TR NEDC-33046, including verification that the PCIV configurations for the specific plant match the licensing topical report (LTR) and the risk parameter values used in the LTR are bounding for the specific plant. Any additional PCIV configurations or non-bounding risk parameter values not evaluated by the LTR should be included in the licensee's plant-specific analysis. [Note that PCIV configurations or non-bounding risk parameter values outside the scope of the LTR will require NRC staff review of the specific penetrations and related justifications for the proposed CTs.] 2. The licensee's application must provide supporting information that verifies that external event risk, either through quantitative or qualitative evaluation, will not have an adverse impact on the conclusions of the plant-specific analysis for extending the PCIV AOTs. 3. Because TR NEDC-33046 was based on generic plant characteristics, each licensee adopting the TR must provide supporting information that confirms plant-specific Tier 3 information in their individual submittals. The licensee's application must provide supporting information that discusses conformance to the requirements of the maintenance rule (10 CFR 50.65(a)(4)), as they relate to the proposed PCIV AOTs and the guidance contained in NUMARC 93.01, Section 11, as endorsed by Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.182, including verification that the licensee's maintenance rule program, with respect to PCIVs, includes a LERF/ICLERP assessment as part of the maintenance rule process. 4. The licensee's application must provide supporting information that verifies that a penetration remains intact during maintenance activities, including corrective maintenance activities. Regarding maintenance activities where the pressure boundary would be broken, the licensee must provide supporting information that confirms that the assumptions and results of the LTR remain valid. This includes the assumption that maintenance on a PCIV will not break the pressure boundary for more than the currently allowed AOT. 5. The licensee's application must provide supporting information that verifies the operability of the remaining PCIVs in the associated penetration flow path before entering the AOT for the inoperable PCIV. 6. Simultaneously entering the extended AOT for multiple PCIVs and the resulting impact on risk were not specifically evaluated by the BWROG. However, TR NEDC-33046 does state that multiple PCIVs can be out of service simultaneously during extended AOTs and does not preclude the practice. Therefore, since the current STS also allows separate condition entry for each penetration flow path, the licensee's application will provide supporting information that verifies that the potential for any cumulative risk impact of failed PCIVs and multiple PCIV extended AOT entries has been evaluated and is acceptable. The licensee's Tier 3 configuration risk management program (10 CFR 50.65(a)(4)) must provide supporting information that confirms that such simultaneous extended AOT entries for inoperable PCIVs in separate penetration flow paths will not exceed the RG 1.174 and RG 1.177 acceptance guidelines, as confirmed by the analysis presented in TR NEDC-33046, and that adequate defense-in-depth for safety systems is maintained. 7. The licensee shall provide supporting information that verifies that the plant-specific probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) quality is acceptable for this application in accordance with the guidelines given in RG 1.174. To ensure the applicability of TR NEDC-33046, to a licensee's plant, additional information on PRA quality will be required from each licensee requesting an amendment in the following areas: a. Justification that the plant-specific PRA reflects the as-built, as-operated plant. b. Applicable PRA updates including individual plant examinations/ individual plant examinations of external events (IPE/IPEEE) findings. c. Conclusions of the peer review including any A or B facts and observations (F and Os) applicable to the proposed PCIV extended CTs. d. The PRA quality assurance program and associated procedures. e. PRA adequacy, completeness, and applicability with respect to evaluating the proposed PCIV extended AOT plant specific impact. Commitment 1. The RG 1.177 Tier 3 program ensures that while the plant is in a limiting condition for operation (LCO) condition with an extended AOT for an inoperable PCIV, additional activities will not be performed that could further degrade the capabilities of the plant to respond to a condition the inoperable PCIV or system was designed to mitigate and, as a result, increase plant risk beyond that assumed by the LTR analysis. A licensee's implementation of RG 1.177 Tier 3 guidelines generally implies the assessment of risk with respect to CDF. However, the proposed PCIV AOT impacts containment isolation and consequently LERF as well as CDF. Therefore, a licensee's configuration risk management program (CRMP), including those implemented under the maintenance rule of 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4), must be enhanced to include a LERF methodology/assessment and must be documented in a licensee's plant-specific submittal. The CLIIP does not prevent licensees from requesting an alternative approach or proposing the changes without providing the information described in the above 7 conditions, or making the requested commitment. Variations from the approach recommended in this notice may, however, require additional review by the NRC staff and may increase the time and resources needed for the review. Public Notices This notice requests comments from interested members of the public within 60 days of the date of this publication. Following the NRC staff's evaluation of comments received as a result of this notice, the NRC staff may reconsider the proposed change or may proceed with announcing the availability of the change in a subsequent notice (perhaps with some changes to the SE or [[Page 30153]] proposed NSHC determination as a result of public comments). If the NRC staff announces the availability of the change, licensees wishing to adopt the change will submit an application in accordance with applicable rules and other regulatory requirements. The NRC staff will, in turn, issue for each application a notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license(s), a proposed NSHC determination, and an opportunity for a hearing. A notice of issuance of an amendment to operating license(s) will also be issued to announce the revised requirements for each plant that applies for and receives the requested change. Proposed Safety Evaluation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Consolidated Line Item Improvement Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Change Traveler No. TSTF-454, Revision 0, ``Increase PCIV Completion Times From 4 hours, 24 hours [note that the 24-hour portion was withdrawn], and 72 hours to 7 days (NEDC-33046)'' 1.0 Introduction By application dated [ ] , [Licensee] (the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for [facility]. The proposed changes would revise TS 3.6.1.3, ``Primary Containment Isolation Valves (PCIVs),'' by extending to 7 days the completion time (CT) to restore an inoperable PCIV or isolate the affected penetration flow path for selected primary containment penetrations with two (or more) PCIVs and for selected primary containment penetrations with only one PCIV. 2.0 Regulatory Evaluation The existing Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.6.1.3, requires that each PCIV be operable. The operability of PCIVs ensures that the containment is isolated during a design-basis accident (DBA) and is able to perform its function as a barrier to the release of radioactive material. For boiling water reactor (BWR)/4 plants, if a PCIV is inoperable in one or more penetrations, the current required action is to isolate or restore the inoperable PCIV to operable status within 4 hours for penetrations with 2 PCIVs (except for the main steam line, in which case 8 hours is allowed), and within 4 hours for penetrations with a single PCIV (except for excess flow check valves (EFCVs) and penetrations with a closed system, and for other cases if justified with a plant-specific evaluation, in which case 72 hours is allowed). Regarding the leakage rate of EFCVs, 72 hours is also currently allowed to restore EFCV leakage to within limit. For BWR/6 plants, the current required actions are the same as those for the BWR/ 4 plants with the exception that there are no TSs for EFCVs. The times specified for performing these actions were considered reasonable, given the time required to isolate the penetration and the relative importance of ensuring containment integrity during plant operation. In the case of a single EFCV PCIV or a single PCIV and a closed system, the specified CT takes into consideration the ability of the instrument and the small pipe diameter (associated with the EFCV) or the closed system to act as a penetration boundary. On May 3, 2002, as supplemented by letter dated July 30, 2003, the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Owners Group (BWROG) submitted the generic Topical Report (TR) NEDC-33046, which provided a risk-informed justification for extending the TS allowed outage time (AOT) (also referred to as completion time), for a specific set of inoperable PCIVs from the current 4 hours or 72 hours to 7 days. Specifically, for BWR/4 plants, if a PCIV is inoperable in one or more penetrations, the proposed action is to isolate or restore the inoperable PCIV to operable status within 7 days for penetrations with 2 PCIVs (except for the feedwater isolation valves (FWIVs) and the residual heat removal (RHR) shutdown cooling suction line PCIVs, in which case the 4 hours is kept, and except for the main steam line isolation valves (MSIVs), in which case the 8 hours is kept); and within 4 hours for penetrations with a single PCIV, except for EFCVs and penetrations with a closed system, in which case 7 days is allowed (and except for other cases if justified with a plant-specific evaluation, in which case the 72 hours is kept). Regarding the leakage rate of EFCVs, 7 days is also proposed to restore EFCV leakage to within the limit. For BWR/6 plants, the proposed actions are the same as those for the BWR/4 plants with the exception that for penetrations with 2 PCIVs, there is an additional exception to the 7-day AOT (for the low pressure core spray system PCIVs, in which case the 4 hours is kept); and with the exception that there are no TSs for EFCVs. The NRC staff used the guidance of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.174, ``An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Current Licensing Basis, 1998,'' and RG 1.177, ``An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decision Making: Technical Specifications, 1998,'' in performing its review of this TR. RG 1.174 provides the guidelines to determine the risk level associated with the proposed change. RG 1.177 provides a three-tiered approach to evaluate the risks associated with proposed license amendments. The first tier evaluates the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) model and the impacts of the changes on plant operational risk. The second tier addresses the need to preclude potentially high risk configurations, should additional equipment outages occur during the AOT. The third tier evaluates the licensee's configuration risk management program (CRMP) to ensure that the removal of equipment from service immediately prior to or during the proposed AOT will be appropriately assessed from a risk perspective. The NRC staff's safety evaluation (SE) dated October 8, 2004, also discusses the applicable regulations and additional applicable regulatory criteria/guidelines that were considered in its review of TR NEDC- 33046. 3.0 Technical Evaluation 3.1 Statement of Proposed Changes The proposed changes to TS 3.6.1.3 include: 1. For the Condition of one or more penetration flow paths with one PCIV inoperable in a penetration flow path with two [or more] PCIVs, the Completion Times for isolating the affected penetration (in Standard Technical Specification (STS) 3.6.1.3 Required Action A.1) are revised from ``4 hours except for main steam line AND 8 hours for main steam line,'' to ``4 hours for feedwater isolation valves (FWIVs), residual heat removal (RHR) shutdown cooling suction line PCIVs, and Low Pressure Core Spray (LPCS) System PCIVs (NUREG-1434 only) AND 8 hours for main steam line isolation valves (MSIVs) AND 7 days except for FWIVs, RHR shutdown cooling suction line PCIVs, LPCS System PCIVs (NUREG-1434 only), and MSIVs.'' For PCIVs not analyzed in NEDC-33046 (i.e., FWIVs and MSIVs), the current Completion Times of 4 hours and 8 hours (of STS 3.6.1.3 Required Action A.1) are maintained; 4 hours for FWIVs and 8 hours for main steam lines (i.e., MSIVs as described in the current Bases for STS 3.6.1.3 Required Action A.1). For PCIVs analyzed in NEDC-33046 that did not meet the criterion for extension (i.e., RHR shutdown cooling suction line PCIVs (for all BWRs) and LPCS System PCIVs (for BWR/5 and BWR/6 designs only), the current Completion Time (of 4 hours of STS 3.6.1.3 Required Action A.1) is maintained. The Completion [[Page 30154]] Time for other PCIVs, associated with penetrations with two [or more] PCIVs, is extended to 7 days. 2. For the Condition of one or more penetration flow paths with one PCIV inoperable in a penetration flow path with only one PCIV, the Completion Times for isolating the affected penetrations (STS 3.6.1.3 Required Action C.1) are revised from ``4 hours except for excess flow check valves (EFCVs) and penetrations with a closed system AND 72 hours for EFCVs and penetrations with a closed system,'' to ``4 hours except for excess flow check valves (EFCVs) and penetrations with a closed system AND [72 hours] [7 days] for EFCVs and penetrations with a closed system.'' (For NUREG-1434, the Completion Times for STS 3.6.1.3 Required Action C.1 are revised from ``4 hours except for penetrations with a closed system AND 72 hours for penetrations with a closed system,'' to ``4 hours except for penetrations with a closed system AND [72 hours] [7 days] for penetrations with a closed system.'') 3. For the Condition of one or more [secondary containment bypass leakage rate,] [MSIV leakage rate,] [purge valves leakage rate,] [hydrostatically tested line leakage rate,] [or] [EFCV leakage rate] not within limit, the Completion Time for restoring leakage rate to within limit, when the leakage rate exceeded is the EFCV leakage rate (in STS 3.6.1.3 Required Action D.1), is revised from ``[72 hours]'' to ``[7 days]'' by adding a new Completion Time, ``[AND 7 days for EFCV leakage].'' (The EFCV leakage rate Completion Time change is not applicable to NUREG-1434.) 3.2 Evaluation of Proposed Changes The NRC staff's SE on TR NEDC-33046, dated October 8, 2004, found that based on the use of bounding risk parameters for General Electric (GE)-designed plants, for the proposed increase in the PCIV AOT from 4 hours (for penetrations with 2 or more PCIVs) or 72 hours (for penetrations with a single EFCV PCIV, and penetrations with a single PCIV and a closed system) or 72 hours (for EFCV leakage) to 7 days, the risk impact of the proposed 7-day AOT for the PCIVs as estimated by core damage frequency (CDF), large early release frequency (LERF), incremental conditional core damage probability (ICCDP), and incremental conditional large early release probability (ICLERP), is consistent with the acceptance guidelines specified in RG 1.174, RG 1.177, and NRC staff guidance outlined in Chapter 16.1 of NUREG-0800. The NRC staff found that the risk analysis methodology and approach used by the BWROG to estimate the risk impacts were reasonable and of sufficient quality. The NRC staff's October 8, 2004, SE also found the following. The Tier 2 evaluation did not identify any risk-significant plant equipment configurations requiring TS, procedure, or compensatory measures. TR NEDC-33046 implements a CRMP (Tier 3) using 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) to manage plant risk when PCIVs are taken out-of-service. PCIV reliability and availability will also be monitored and assessed under the maintenance rule (10 CFR 50.65) to confirm that performance continues to be consistent with the analysis assumptions used to justify extended PCIVs AOTs. The NRC staff's October 8, 2004, SE also found that the following conditions and commitment must be addressed by licensees adopting TR NEDC-33046 in plant-specific applications that seek approval of TSTF- 454, Revision 0 for their plants: Conditions 1. Because not all penetrations have the same impact on core damage frequency (CDF), large early release frequency (LERF), incremental conditional core damage frequency (ICCDP), or incremental conditional large early release frequency (ICLERP), a licensee's application must provide supporting information that verifies the applicability of TR NEDC-33046, including verification that the PCIV configurations for the specific plant match the licensing topical report (LTR) and the risk parameter values used in the LTR are bounding for the specific plant. Any additional PCIV configurations or non-bounding risk parameter values not evaluated by the LTR should be included in the licensee's plant-specific analysis. [Note that PCIV configurations or non-bounding risk parameter values outside the scope of the LTR will require NRC staff review of the specific penetrations and related justifications for the proposed CTs.] 2. The licensee's application must provide supporting information that verifies that external event risk, either through quantitative or qualitative evaluation, will not have an adverse impact on the conclusions of the plant-specific analysis for extending the PCIV AOTs. 3. Because TR NEDC-33046 was based on generic plant characteristics, each licensee adopting the TR must provide supporting information that confirms plant-specific Tier 3 information in their individual submittals. The licensee's application must provide supporting information that discusses the conformance to the requirements of the maintenance rule (10 CFR 50.65(a)(4)), as they relate to the proposed PCIV AOTs and the guidance contained in NUMARC 93.01, Section 11, as endorsed by Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.182, including verification that the licensee's maintenance rule program, with respect to PCIVs, includes a LERF/ICLERP assessment as part of the maintenance rule process. 4. The licensee's application must provide supporting information that verifies that a penetration remains intact during maintenance activities, including corrective maintenance activities. Regarding maintenance activities where the pressure boundary would be broken, the licensee must provide supporting information that confirms that the assumptions and results of the LTR remain valid. This includes the assumption that maintenance on a PCIV will not break the pressure boundary for more than the currently allowed AOT. 5. The licensee's application must provide supporting information that verifies the operability of the remaining PCIVs in the associated penetration flow path before entering the AOT for the inoperable PCIV. 6. Simultaneously entering the extended AOT for multiple PCIVs and the resulting impact on risk were not specifically evaluated by the BWROG. However, TR NEDC-33046 does state that multiple PCIVs can be out of service simultaneously during extended AOTs and does not preclude the practice. Therefore, since the current STS also allows separate condition entry for each penetration flow path, the licensee's application will provide supporting information that verifies that the potential for any cumulative risk impact of failed PCIVs and multiple PCIV extended AOT entries has been evaluated and is acceptable. The licensee's Tier 3 configuration risk management program (10 CFR 50.65(a)(4)) must provide supporting information that confirms that such simultaneous extended AOT entries for inoperable PCIVs in separate penetration flow paths will not exceed the RG 1.174 and RG 1.177 acceptance guidelines, as confirmed by the analysis presented in TR NEDC-33046, and that adequate defense-in-depth for safety systems is maintained. 7. The licensee shall provide supporting information that verifies that the plant-specific probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) quality is acceptable for this application in accordance with the guidelines given in RG 1.174. To ensure the applicability of TR NEDC-33046, to a licensee's plant, additional information on PRA quality will be [[Page 30155]] required from each licensee requesting an amendment in the following areas: a. Justification that the plant-specific PRA reflects the as-built, as-operated plant. b. Applicable PRA updates including individual plant examinations/ individual plant examinations of external events (IPE/IPEEE) findings. c. Conclusions of the peer review including any A or B facts and observations (F and Os) applicable to the proposed PCIV extended CTs. d. The PRA quality assurance program and associated procedures. e. PRA adequacy, completeness, and applicability with respect to evaluating the proposed PCIV extended AOT plant specific impact. Commitment 1. The RG 1.177 Tier 3 program ensures that while the plant is in a limiting condition for operation (LCO) condition with an extended AOT for an inoperable PCIV, additional activities will not be performed that could further degrade the capabilities of the plant to respond to a condition the inoperable PCIV or system was designed to mitigate and, as a result, increase plant risk beyond that assumed by the LTR analysis. A licensee's implementation of RG 1.177 Tier 3 guidelines generally implies the assessment of risk with respect to CDF. However, the proposed PCIV AOT impacts containment isolation and consequently LERF as well as CDF. Therefore, a licensee's configuration risk management program (CRMP), including those implemented under the maintenance rule of 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4), must be enhanced to include a LERF methodology/assessment and must be documented in a licensee's plant-specific submittal. Staff Findings The NRC staff has reviewed the proposed TS changes and finds that they are consistent with previous staff reviews of TR NEDC-33046 as supplemented by letter dated July 30, 2003, and as approved by the NRC by letter and Safety Evaluation dated October 8, 2004, and TSTF-454, Revision 0, and are acceptable. The NRC staff has also reviewed the licensee's supporting information and the statements regarding the above conditions and commitment and finds them acceptable. Therefore, the NRC staff finds that the increase in the CTs from 4 hours (for penetrations with 2 or more PCIVs) or 72 hours (for penetrations with a single EFCV PCIV, and penetrations with a single PCIV and a closed system) or 72 hours (for EFCV leakage) to 7 days is justified. 4.0 Regulatory Commitment The licensee's letter dated [ ], contained the following regulatory commitment: [State the licensee's commitment and ensure that it satisfies the commitment in this SE, in Section 3.2 above.] The NRC staff finds that reasonable controls for the implementation and for subsequent evaluation of proposed changes pertaining to the above regulatory commitment are best provided by the licensee's administrative processes, including its commitment management program. The above regulatory commitment does not warrant the creation of a regulatory requirement (item requiring prior NRC approval of subsequent changes). 5.0 State Consultation In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the [State] State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had [choose one: (1) No comments, or (2) the following comments--with subsequent disposition by the staff]. 6.0 Environmental Consideration The amendment changes a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts and no significant change in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (XX FR XXXXX). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment. 7.0 Conclusion The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) There is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by the operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination Description of Amendment Request: The proposed amendment extends the completion time (CT) for penetration flow paths with one valve inoperable from 4 hours or 72 hours to 7 days. The change is applicable to both primary containment penetrations with two (or more) primary containment isolation valves (PCIVs) and with one PCIV. This change is not applicable to the feedwater isolation valves (FWIVs), the residual heat removal (RHR) shutdown cooling suction line PCIVs, the low pressure core spray (LPCS) PCIVs (boiling water reactor (BWR)/6 only), the main steam isolation valves (MSIVs), and [list of plant-specific valves]. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes revise the completion times (CTs) for restoring an inoperable primary containment isolation valve (PCIV) (or isolating the affected penetration) within the scope of the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Owners Group (BWROG) Topical Report (TR) NEDC-33046, ``Technical Justification to Support Risk-Informed Primary Containment Isolation Valve AOT [Allowed Outage Time] Extensions for BWR Plants,'' submitted on May 3, 2002, as supplemented by letter dated July 30, 2003, and as approved by the NRC by letter and Safety Evaluation (SE) dated October 8, 2004, from 4 hours or 72 hours to 7 days. PCIVs are not accident initiators in any accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. PCIVs, individually and in combination, control the extent of leakage from the primary containment following an accident. The proposed CT extensions apply to the reduction in redundancy in the primary containment isolation function by the PCIVs for a limited period of time, but do not alter the ability of the plant to meet the overall primary containment leakage [[Page 30156]] requirements. In order to evaluate the proposed CT extensions, a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) evaluation was performed in TR NEDC-33046, submitted on May 3, 2002, as supplemented by letter dated July 30, 2003, and as approved by the NRC by letter and SE dated October 8, 2004. The PRA evaluation concluded that, based on the use of bounding risk parameters for the General Electric (GE)-designed plants, the proposed increase in the PCIV CTs from 4 hours or 72 hours to 7 days does not alter the ability of the plant to meet the overall primary containment leakage requirements. It also concluded that the proposed changes do not result in an unacceptable incremental conditional core damage probability (ICCDP) or incremental conditional large early release probability (ICLERP) according to the guidelines of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.177. As a result, there would be no significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes revise the CTs for restoring an inoperable PCIV (or isolating the affected penetration) within the scope of TR NEDC-33046 submitted on May 3, 2002, as supplemented by letter dated July 30, 2003, and as approved by the NRC by letter and Safety Evaluation dated October 8, 2004, from 4 hours or 72 hours to 7 days. PCIVs, individually and in combination, control the extent of leakage from the primary containment following an accident. The proposed CT extensions apply to the reduction in redundancy in the primary containment isolation function by the PCIVs for a limited period of time, but do not alter the ability of the plant to meet the overall primary containment leakage requirements. The proposed changes do not change the design, configuration, or method of operation of the plant. The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed changes revise the CTs for restoring an inoperable PCIV (or isolating the affected penetration) within the scope of the TR NEDC-33046 submitted on May 3, 2002, as supplemented by letter dated July 30, 2003, and as approved by the NRC by letter and SE dated October 8, 2004, from 4 hours or 72 hours to 7 days. PCIVs, individually and in combination, control the extent of leakage from the primary containment following an accident. The proposed CT extensions apply to the reduction in redundancy in the primary containment isolation function provided by the PCIVs for a limited period of time, but do not alter the ability of the plant to meet the overall primary containment leakage requirements. In order to evaluate the proposed CT extensions, a PRA evaluation was performed in TR NEDC-33046 submitted on May 3, 2002, as supplemented by letter dated July 30, 2003, and as approved by the NRC by letter and SE dated October 8, 2004. The PRA evaluation concluded that, based on the use of bounding risk parameters for GE-designed plants, the proposed increase in the PCIV CTs from 4 hours or 72 hours to 7 days does not alter the ability of the plant to meet the overall primary containment leakage requirements. It also concluded that the proposed changes do not result in an unacceptable ICCDP or ICLERP according to the guidelines of RG 1.177. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Based on the above, the proposed change involves no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and accordingly, a finding of no significant hazards consideration is justified. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of May, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Herbert N. Berkow, Director, Project Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-2631 Filed 5-24-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 28 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; FR Doc E5-2632 [Federal Register: May 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 100)] [Notices] [Page 30148] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25my05-149] [[Page 30148]] Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------ SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted: 1. The title of the information collection: 10 CFR Part 26, ``Fitness for Duty Program.'' 2. Current OMB approval number: 3150-0146. 3. How often the collection is required: On occasion. 4. Who is required or asked to report: All licensees authorized to construct or operate a nuclear power reactor; all licensees authorized to use, possess, or transport Category 1 nuclear material; and contractors/vendors who have developed a fitness-for-duty program that is formally reviewed and approved by a licensee, which meets the requirements of part 26. 5. The number of annual respondents: 69. 6. The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request: 61,143 (5,853 hours reporting [an average of 4.3 hours/ response] and 55,290 hours recordkeeping [an average of 801 hours/ recordkeeper]). 7. Abstract: 10 CFR Part 26, ``Fitness for Duty Program,'' requires licensees of nuclear power plants, contractors/vendors who have developed a fitness-for-duty program that is formally reviewed by a licensee, and licensees authorized to possess, use, or transport Category 1 nuclear material to implement fitness-for-duty programs to assure that personnel are not under the influence of any substance or mentally or physically impaired, to retain certain records associated with the management of these programs, and to provide reports concerning significant events and program performance. Compliance with these program requirements is mandatory for licensees subject to 10 CFR part 26. In addition, licensees of nuclear power plants are required to comply with security order EA-03-038, which implements work hour controls for security force personnel and requires licensees to retain certain records associated with the management of this security order. Submit, by July 25, 2005, comments that address the following questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC toproperly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site:http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html . The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda Jo. Shelton, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, T-5 F53, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by internet electronic mail at infocollectsnrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of May, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E5-2632 Filed 5-24-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 29 E Magazine: Nuclear Energy: A Bitter Pill to Alleviate Global Warming? May 25, 2005 Reporting by Roddy Scheer Some prominent environmentalists--as well as Senators McCain and Lieberman, who back legislation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions--are supporting further development of nuclear power to serve as an emission-free bridge to an economy based entirely on renewable energy. "It's not that something new and important and good had happened with nuclear, it's that something new and important and bad has happened with climate change," says environmentalist Stewart Brand, who recently authored a controversial article on the topic in the May issue of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Technology Review. Brand has joined a small but growing cadre of environmentalists, which includes Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies dean James Gustave Speth and World Resources Institute head honcho Jonathan Lash, in touting new, cleaner, safer nuclear technologies as a solution to the vexing problem of how to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels before solar and other renewables are ready to take up the slack. Together, alternative renewables account for less than two percent of the nation's energy production, while nuclear power contributes ten times as much power to the grid today. And in a new twist, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has reportedly added language to the climate change bill he is drafting with Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) that calls for major federal subsidies to pay the cost of developing new nuclear energy technologies to lessen our nation's dependence on fossil fuels, which cause heat-trapping carbon dioxide build-up in the atmosphere. Felicity Barringer writes in the New York Times that the new language in the McCain-Lieberman bill would actually increase its chances of passage significantly by codifying a new political bargain: "Conservatives would support emission controls in return for liberal support for a new generation of nuclear power plants, a shift that could reshape the existing alignments on these issues." But despite the conversion of a few high-profile greens and some Senators, the majority of environmentalists still decry the safety risks and economic expense of nuclear power, instead calling on the federal government to subsidize the development of renewable alternatives such as solar, wind, geothermal and biomass. "The notion out there from some of these deep thinkers is that we have to take our medicine and if only we could accept nukes, the global warming problem would be solved," says Anna Aurilio, the legislative director at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. "We have a whole bunch of solutions already that are not as risky." Indeed, as the issues get more complex--and the planet continues to heat up--it's getting harder and harder to tell the realists from the idealists anymore. Source: www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/national/15nuke.html?ex=1273809600&en= db2ec205abbfeaba&ei=5088 E/The Environmental Magazine. Copyright 1995 - 2004. All Rights ***************************************************************** 30 Lincoln County News: Maine Yankee Litigation Could Cost Wiscasset More May 26, 2005 Greg Foster The chief lawyer in the Maine Yankee assessment settlement case is asking Wiscasset for an additional $25,000 in fees related to the litigation. “I had an agreement with the town that I would submit a proposal, and I would abide by the town’s decision,” said Atty. Peter Murray said. In addition to the $25,000, Murray has also proposed a $50,000 accomplishment fee. Murray led the charge for the town in the case that won $20 million over 20 years. maine Yanklke and the Wiscasset officials both described the deal as a win-win situation. However, selectmen looked somewhat askance at Murray's figures Tuesday because of overdrafts in the town budget and belt tightening to keep property taxes down. After some discussion, there was a consensus about putting them both on the town meeting warrant for June 18 with the possibility of taking the $25,000 figure out of surplus to be applied to the current fiscal year budget. Town Manager Andrew Gilmore said that it should be added to the current budget, since expenses came from it. The additional $50,000 is another story, though, as was an additional proposal for a $25,000 annual retainer fee over the next four years in the event of any issues with the settlement agreement. As for the retainer fee, the board voiced no approval of it and instead indicated a desire to keep an ad hoc relationship with Murray. When the litigation began a couple of years ago, the town agreed to pay Murray a base rate of $250 per hour and in the event of a favorable outcome, the board would determine an accomplishment fee after discussing it with him. Murray said that he agreed to a lower rater of pay at the outset because of the “hazard” involved in the unusual litigation because of the nature of the property as a decommissioning nuclear power station. If he had been working for Maine Yankee, he would have been charging $350 per hour, he told the board. In an agreement letter, which selectmen signed, he stated that the fee would be “based on the size of the favorable outcome and its implications over future years”. Tuesday night during board discussions with Murray a couple of members said the matter put them in an awkward position considering budgetary factors that have transpired since the settlement agreement was final. In the written agreement, Murray stated, “A ‘favorable outcome’ will be any resolution that brings the Town of Wiscasset tax revenues of $1 million or more from the Maine Yankee properties for 2003. Unlike the City of Bath, Wiscasset won something in its court battle. The settlement agreement ensures the town payment of slightly over $1 million for the next several years tapering off over the next 20 years for a total $18 million.” “We managed to bring home a lot of money for the town,” Murray said. “Even though we didn’t bring home a grand slam, I’d call it a triple.” He told selectmen that he considers $50,000 a small part of a major recovery and appealed to their sense of fairness. As part of his appeal, he listed three main reasons for the proposed sum, including the risk involved, the length of time it took, and the degree of sophistication of the situation. The target figure Murray and the town originally sought was about $3.5 million per year but for this coming fiscal year will be receiving $1.45 million; for 2006-2007, $1.3 million; 2007-2008, $1.2 million, and tapering off each year but totaling roughly $20 million over a 20-year period. Since 2003 Maine Yankee had been paying only $600,000, which it was required to do by law. “I find this very awkward, it’s very difficult to talk about this,” said Selectman Judy Flanagan. “It would be easy if this was a business, but we have residents to answer to.” Flanagan said she was not on the board at the time of the agreement with Murray for his work. Asked by Flanagan if he would be comfortable placing the matter before the town, he indicated he would be amenable to that. Murray also said that the board should not fear any loss of a relationship with him, which has been ongoing for 25 years or more. “I’m not going huffing off. I’ll be available to assist the town on any matters,” he said. Selectman Rines stated his doubts about public support for the request. The board is meeting Tuesday at 6:30 p.m. to discuss the warrant articles for the $25,000 and the proposed accomplishment fee for a one item agenda, since Tuesday is supposed to be an off night on the new meeting schedule. Vol. 130 - No. 21 [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [0] [ border=] This site is owned by Lincoln County News © 2002 [ border=] [ border=] ***************************************************************** 31 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding FR Doc 05-10408 [Federal Register: May 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 100)] [Notices] [Page 30150-30151] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25my05-151] of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for Northern States Power Company D.B.A. Xcel Energy Pathfinder Site, Sioux Falls, SD AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chad Glenn, Project Manager, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001. Telephone: (301) 415-6722; fax number: (301) 415-5398; e-mail: cjg1@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Materials License No. 22-08799-02 issued to Northern States Power Company D.B.A. Xcel Energy (the licensee) to authorize decommissioning at its Pathfinder site in Minnehaha County, South Dakota for unrestricted use and termination of this license. NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this amendment in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the publication of this Notice. II. EA Summary The purpose of the proposed amendment is to authorize decommissioning of the licensee's Pathfinder site in Sioux Falls, South Dakota for unrestricted use to allow for license termination. Specifically, the proposed amendment would incorporate the Pathfinder Decommissioning Plan (DP) into the license and authorize decommissioning activities in accordance with the DP. On February 17, 2004, Xcel Energy submitted the Pathfinder DP for NRC approval and requested a license amendment. Xcel Energy's request was published in the Federal Register on August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47185) with a notice of an opportunity to request a hearing and an opportunity to provide comments on the amendment and its environmental impacts. The NRC staff has received no hearing request or comments on the proposed amendment. The NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of the proposed license amendment. The staff has reviewed the Pathfinder DP and examined the environmental impacts of decommissioning. Based on its review, the staff has also determined that the environmental impacts are enveloped by the generic analysis performed in support of ``Radiological Criteria for License Termination'' (62 FR 39058). Additionally, no non- radiological impacts were identified. The staff also finds that the proposed decommissioning of the site is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402, the radiological criteria for unrestricted use. III. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the EA, NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed amendment and has [[Page 30151]] determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed amendment. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession number for the EA related to this notice is (ML050960256). If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 19th day of May, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Daniel M. Gillen, Director, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. 05-10408 Filed 5-24-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 32 Markey Nuclear Security Amendment Passes Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 14:16:49 -0700 Sent: Tue May 24 20:42:27 2005 Subject: Immediate Release: Markey Nuclear Security Amendment Passes <> News from Ed Markey United States Congress Massachusetts Seventh District FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Tara McGuinness May 24, 2005 Michal Freedhoff (202) 225-2836 MARKEY NUCLEAR SECURITY AMENDMENT PASSES Markey Provision Prevents NRC from Hiring Nuke Industry for Security Washington, DC: Representative Edward J. Markey (D-MA), a senior Member of the Homeland Security Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the panel which oversees the regulation of nuclear reactors, today offered an amendment to the House Energy and Water Appropriations bill that prohibits the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) from using funds to contract with or reimburse nuclear reactor licensees or the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI, the nuclear industry's lobbing organization) for matters relating to nuclear site security. The amendment was agreed to by a voice vote. "I am pleased that the House of Representatives recognized the fact that just as we can't rely on the airline industry to test itself to see whether its screeners are effective, we can't rely on the nuclear industry to write its own "take home" tests on nuclear security," said Rep. Markey. "The temptation to give oneself an "A" is simply too great." The report accompanying the House Energy and Water Appropriations bill contained language that was critical of the NRC's decision to allow NEI to contract with Wackenhut Corporation to act as the mock terrorist team during the force-on-force security exercises at nuclear reactors, as well as the decision to allow NEI to conduct site-specific consequence analyses for various nuclear sites. The report stated that "Public confidence in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires that the NRC be perceived as an independent regulator of the nuclear industry," and the bill contained an additional $21 million to ensure that the NRC conducts these activities itself instead of delegating them to the nuclear industry's lobbying group. Rep. Markey's amendment ensured that the NRC would be prohibited from using funds to contract with or reimburse the nuclear industry for any security-related activities. The Congressman has long believed that the NRC maintains too close a relationship with the nuclear industry: * In the late 1990s, after the NRC backed down from its ill-advised plan to eliminate its force-on-force security exercise program, it planned to allow the nuclear industry to design, implement and evaluate security exercises at nuclear reactors. Rep. Markey has been a long-time opponent of this plan, and has written numerous oversight letters and offered legislative remedies to ensure that the NRC remains in charge of this important function. Most recently, the Congressman voiced his strong opposition to the NEI contract with Wackenhut, since NEI has an inherent conflict-of-interests and since Wackenhut provides security services for about half the nation's nuclear reactors and could therefore not objectively evaluate itself. * Rep. Markey has written the NRC regarding its decisions to hold secret meetings with the nuclear industry to discuss potential regulatory changes while it bars non-industry experts from obtaining access to information they need to prepare materials to oppose a licensee application. Evidently, non-industry experts are almost never granted 'need to know' even when they possess the necessary security clearances. Moreover, in the rare event that they are granted, the process takes an inordinately long time, and these individuals must continually demonstrate a 'need to know' for each document they request access to. In contrast, nuclear industry members are reportedly able to receive the 'need to know' by merely submitting their names and social security numbers to the Commission. * Rep. Markey has requested that the NRC Inspector General conduct an investigation into the NRC's inappropriate use of secrecy designations to bar independent experts and members of the public from obtaining access to security information and information related to other NRC proceedings, while it allows the nuclear industry complete and unfettered access to the same information. For more information regarding the Rep. Markey's amendment and other work in the area of nuclear reactor security, please see www.house.gov/markey. Michal Ilana Freedhoff, Ph.D. Senior Policy Associate - nuclear issues Office of Congressman Edward J. Markey (D-MA) 2108 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC, 20515 202-225-2836 Michal.Freedhoff@mail.house.gov # # # Attachment Converted: "c:\program files\eudora\attach\NRC.nuke security.may24.doc" ***************************************************************** 33 Taipei Times: Fallout from test would be troubling for everyone www.taipeitimes.com AP , WASHINGTON Wednesday, May 25, 2005,Page 4 A nuclear weapons test by North Korea would reverberate around the world, altering the nuclear balance in Asia and posing stark new challenges for US policy-makers and military planners. It could also induce China, Russia and other powers to join the US in seeking UN-approved penalties against the hard-line communist country, analysts suggest. With US officials increasingly concerned that North Korea may conduct a test soon, how would Washington respond? First, the Bush administration probably would try to involve the UN. Less clear is whether US President George W. Bush would consider a risky military strike -- given North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's million-man army, heavy conventional weaponry and perhaps several nuclear weapons. "The North Koreans are basically hellbent on proving to the world that they need to be taken seriously. That's dangerous," said Representative Curt Weldon, vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "A North Korean test would embarrass China and might actually rally other nations to our position. But the result might push Kim Jong-il to take whatever steps he felt were necessary to rally his people into war," Weldon said. Weldon, who led a delegation to North Korea in January, said he met last Monday in New York with North Korea's deputy UN ambassador, Han Song-ryol, and told him, "If you do a test, you're going to set this process back years and years, and it's going to lead to consequences neither of us want." Meanwhile, North Korea has indicated a willingness to return to the bargaining table but said it is waiting for Washington to clarify conflicting statements on US policy. Citing differences between Washington's public and private statements, the North's official Korean Central News Agency quoted a Foreign Ministry spokesman Sunday as saying Pyongyang "will continue to closely watch the US side's attitude, and when the time comes we will officially deliver to the US side our position through the New York contacts." White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Monday that the Bush administration sees no contradictions in its statements on North Korea. "The six-party talks are the way forward to resolving this issue. We want to see them come back to the talks. We have no preconditions for returning to the talks and we've made that very clear," he said. US officials want China to exert more pressure on its longtime ally. China says bullying rhetoric by the US makes it harder to coax the North Koreans back to the negotiating table. "The potential downside of a test is enormous," said Kurt Campbell, former assistant secretary of defense for Asia in the Clinton administration. "It would set off a chain reaction in the region with completely impossible-to-predict consequences." It could even lead South Korea and Japan to rethink their policy against nuclear arsenals, he said. This story has been viewed 376 times. Copyright © 1999-2005 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 34 Bellona: Activist forces the release of long hidden documents on radiation accident A Russian human rights activist has scored a major victory by securing legal access documents detailing a three week long cancer provoking radiation leak at the Russia’s largest atomic research center at Dimitrovgrad—an event that Moscow and the institute have held close to thier chests for eight years. NIIAR, Dimitrovgrad. MIR-M1 reactor cupola (left). www.niiar.ru Rashid Alimov, Vera Ponomareva, 2005-05-24 14:33 Though the court battles of the activist, Mikhail Piskunov, are still ongoing, Russian environmentalists greeted the decision of the Ulyanovsk Region Arbitration court—which has jurisdiction over Dmirovgrad’s Atomic Reactor Scientific Research Institute (or NIIAR in its Russian abbreviation)—with celebration. Piskunov’s petition, filed with the Ulyanovsk Arbitration court demanding the public release of reams of documents pertaining to the 1997 radiation leak at NIIAR, was fulfilled by the court at the beginning of March after a long battle involving several other courts. The court, nonetheless, found in favour of NIIAR for damages to its reputation. Piskunov is appealing the verdict. But the sheer release of the documents is viewed in environmental circles as the true victory. “We consider this as a great achievement,” said Oleg Bodrov of the Green World environmental group of Sosonvy Bor, where the Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant runs four Chernobyl-type RBMK reactors. “Piskunov has gone though three courts and finally obtained the information” he sought. One of Russia’s most prominent environmentalists, Alexei Yablokov, who was former Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s environmental advisor, hailed the court decision as an important victory. “Piskunov is undoubtedly right saying that NIIAR tried to conceal the information. And having got the information, having dug it out, is an important precedent,” Yablokov said. As revealed by the documents secured by Piskunov, the reason behind the radioactive release at NIIAR was corrosion of the hermetic seals on cooling assemblies at the facility’s MIR-M1 reactor. As a result, iodine 131, which is especially harmful to the human thyroid gland, leaked into the atmosphere over an extended period of time last from July 25th to August 16th of 1997. During some days of the leakage, the maximum permissible emissions limited was breached by some 15 to 20 times. NIIAR representatives strongly disagree with these evaluations. Piskunov’s newspaper commentary sparks legal proceedings An opportunity to seek legal recourse over the leak arose when Piskunov published an article in the local newspaper 25th Kanal, in which he publicised the results of a civilian investigation conducted by the organization he leads—the Dimitrovgrad Center for Civil Initiative Assistance. In response to that article, the General Director for NIIAR, Aleksei Grachyov, filed a lawsuit against Piskunov, demanding that he acknowledge that certain of his claims were inaccurate and damaged the business reputation of NIIAR. Mikhail Piskunov, the leader of the Dimitrovgrad Center for Civil Initiative Assistance. Victor Tereshkin/Bellona The suit: The legal definition of an accident In part, the leadership of NIIAR contended the legality of Piskunov’s use of the word “accident” to describe the mishap in his article of the local newspaper 25th Kanal. NIIAR insisted that the 1997 Iodine release was classified only as an “event” by the former Russian nuclear regulator Gosatomnadzor’s 1997 criteria. Nuclear regulation, after a government shake-up last summer, now falls to the Federal Service for Energy, Technology and Atomic Oversight—FSETAN in it’s Russian abbreviation. However, by the criteria of the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES), which was developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the occurrence at NIIAR did qualify as an accident. According to INES guidelines, it is sufficient that any leakage occurring off-site qualifies as an accident. The INES scale, which classifies operation violations according to the severity of their consequences on a seven point scale—level one being least severe and level 7 most severe—is only a “recommended” set of criteria for Russia to observe and do not apply to Russia’s nuclear regulatory definitions. “This was not an accident—the release was localized, and the measured levels of background radiation on-site, despite exceeding the norm by several times, correspond with the level of radiation at other sites within the city,” a NIIAR representative said in a telephone interview with Bellona Web. In contrast to the NIIAR scale—which defines an accident as an occurrence “without significant off-site risk”—the current Russian law “On radiation safety of the population” provides for broader criteria that are more open to interpretation. As currently defined and “accident” is a “loss of control of a source of ionizing radiation as a consequence of equipment malfunction, personal error, natural disaster or other reasons resulting in the irradiation of people above the legally established levels or radioactive contamination of the environment.” Piskunov’s asserts that what happened at NIIAR in 1997 fully correspond with the Russian definition of a nuclear accident. The suit: gamma-irradiation In his article, Piskunov also suggested that the commission from Ulyanovsk, having conducted a check several days after the release began, concluded that “the generated quantities of gamma-radiation [were] within the limits of natural background radiation, additional radiation influence by NIIAR on the surrounding environment has not been ascertained, measures for protecting the local population from radiation effects are not required.” But, according to Piskunov, “the investigators conducted their examination with ordinary Geiger counters. In other words, they measured only the gamma background. But the radionuclide Iodine-131 gives off primarily beta radiation. Furthermore, using Geiger counters, it is, of course, impossible to determine its airborne concentration.” Vyacheslav Usoltsev, head of the division of radiation information at NIIAR, concurred with this assessment in a recent interview with Bellona Web, saying that the volume and movement of air currents had not been accounted for in the measurements taken by the Ulyanovsk commission. He said that releases must be accounted for in precisely this manner. “The nuclide Iodine-131, beyond releasing beta-radiation, also gives off intense gamma rays. With the diffusion of aerosols in the air, they then naturally settle on the surface of soil,” said Usoltsev. In the given case, the commission did not measure the concentration of iodine in the atmosphere, but the strength of the dose from a potential release. It was simpler and more effective, taking into account the aggregate effect of the release.” Yablokov, who is also a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said that that the NIIAR release did, in fact, register gamma-levels. He said that once gamma levels are detected, it is imperative that beta releases also be checked with specialised equipment. MIR-M1: The central part of the reactor. www.niiar.ru The suit: connection between the leakage and the health In his article, Piskunov also cited data from a report entitled “Health of the Populace of Dimitrovgrad” prepared by local municipal environmental protection authorities. The data describe how the rate endocrine system related illnesses shot up among the city’s 50,000 residents in 1998. By 1999, the rate exceeded the national average by three times. Piskunov connected that spike in health problems in his 25th Kanal commentary with the 1997 release, insofar as no measures had been taken to protect the population. “And that is a criminal mistake. My opinion is that the leadership of NIIAR should answer for it,” Piskunov wrote. Greenpeace supported Piskunov’s conclusions in public commentary that was released on the 19th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster on April 19, 2005. “According to statistical data, two years after the accident in Dimitrovgrad an outbreak occurred in the incidence of endocrine disorders,” wrote Greenpeace experts. “By strange coincidence, on the second day after the initial release, the president of the [former] Russian Federation [Boris Yeltsin], who was vacationing nearby, cut his visit short and moved to a different residence in Karelia.” After the announcement in 25th Kanal, the representative of the Environmental Protection Service, Anatoly Doronenko, hastily distanced the involvement of his organization in the preparation of the municipal report to which Piskunov had referred. In an article published in late October in another local newspaper, Dimitrovgrad Panorama, Doronenko called Piskunov’s conclusions “too liberal an interpretation of the report’s data,” and wrote that they “bear obvious indications of new so-called mass-media publicity technologies” In their suit against Piskunov, NIIAR officials also claim that the assumptions Piskunov’s initial article made are groundless. The documents acquired The latest court decision to be handed down in Piskunov’s case was the one formulated by the Ulyanovsk Arbitration court that ruled in NIIAR’s favour. But the case is on-going as the Centre for Citizens’ Initiatives Assistance has launched another appeal. But the mere fact that NIIAR was forced in the process to disclose documents about the 1997 incident make its victory a hollow one, and is viewed by Piskunov as the most important outcome of the case. The documents acquired by Piskunov, he said, indicate that the accident was quite serious and had a correlating negative impact on the health of the local population. One document— an Act of the inner commission of the NIIAR and its 16 attachments—was finally admitted into evidence and demonstrates data relative to the radiation situation in Dimitrovgrad surrounding areas before and after the radiation release. In particular, one of the documents produced by NIIAR soon after the release confirms that “the impact of releases from NIIAR was detected in probes taken in the territory of the Mullovka settlement and near the [NIIAR] building 239.” “From our own sources we knew that before the release of summer 1997, radioactive iodine-131 wasn’t registered in Dimitrovgrad or in Mullovka, and in the end of July and beginning of August, 1997, it appeared and increased almost 10 times,” Piskunov said. “The representatives of the NIIAR first tried to refute these data, but then these documents recently received, proved that we were right.” But the 1997 Gosatomnadzor criteria stated that the leakage brought about a background radiation level in NIIAR’s central hall was 10 microRoentgens per second, or 36,000 microRoentgens per hour—exceeding the normal background radiation level by 1000 times. The same 1997 Gosatomnadzor Act said of the MIR-M1 reactor facility that “there are no devices for workers’ personal protection from iodine,” The same held true for handheld devices for the monitoring of irradiated gas aerosol mixtures, according to Gosatomnadzor, meaning workers may have been irradiated above acceptable norms. “We are going to publish the facts from the documents acquired from NIIAR,” said Piskunov. “We think, the people living in our region will understand for themselves, who is right.” ‘Every sneeze’ Galina Pavlova, head of the NIIAR press service outlined NIIAR’s the information policy to Bellona Web. “The NIIAR information policy is functioning according to the principle: ‘It’s wrong to give information in doses, but it’s also inadmissible to worry people about every sneeze,’” she said. According to the law “On the state secrets,” information about the conditions of environment qn on emergency situations threatening safety and health of citizens, can not be classified. But, as Piskunov says, NIIAR has an “unwritten ban” to transfer such information to people and organizations. Fall-Guy found for November panic over Balakovo Nuclear Power Station Saratov Regional Prosecutors have brought charges against the author of an anonymously posted web site for spreading what the criminal code defines as disseminating false information about an industrial accident at the Balakovo Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), fixing guilt for the panic - that was spread in the wake of a mishap in November - on one person. Claming up or telling the truth—the origins of nuclear panic According to Piskunov, NIIAR’s information policy practice is to“not to say anything about radioactive discharges in order to avoid panic.” But in fact, it is precisely the lack of information about situations at nuclear plants that causes the panic. A case in point is the February panic surrounding a leaking cooling pipe at the Balakovo Nuclear Power Plant that triggered an emergency shutdown of the effected reactor. For 24 hours, rumours circulated that a radioactive leak had occurred and panic spread among southern regions in Russia. Official comment on the state of the plant emerged a full day following. During the NIIAR radiation release in 1997, which continued for 23 days, NIIAR officially claimed that “iodine concentrations in the air above the institute’s territory, Dimitrovgrad, and the nearby settlements is significantly lower than the allowable limits.” The local department of the Citizens’ Defense and Emergency Situation ministry received the following information from NIIAR: “On July 28-29, the values of releases of rare gases do not exceed the allowed limits, the values of the daily releases of iodine-131 are 60-70 milliCuries.” But, as Mikhail Piskunov points out, 60 to 70 milliCuries per day dramatically exceeds the norms for NIIAR of iodine releases, which are usually 3.3 milliCurie daily. According to independent calculations made by Piskunov, on July 31st 1997, 64 milliCuries of iodine-131 were discharged into the air, exceeding the daily norm by more than 30 times. “The calculations show that this amount of the release corresponds to the annual limit of the absorption for 169,142 people through respiration or for 422 857 through the food, according to the Norms of radiation safety adopted in 1999,” Piskunov said. NIIAR claims, Piskunov’s activity is an ungrounded “sowing of fear among the population.” “Piskunov’s attacks at NIIAR have a long history. And his ability to distort any information in this way […] is well known to us,” NIIAR’s Usoltsev told Bellona Web. But NIIAR’s information chief Pavlova put a more positive spin on Piskunov’s observations on the facility. “On the other hand, Piskunov’s articles make us always vigilant. After his hysterics we do check everything 20 times,” she said. She added though that, in her opinion, all the Piskunov’s publications are made to order and paid for by Western organizations, though she could offer no proof of this. In Dimitrovgrad, there are four publicly visible monitors showing current levels of background radiation. NIIAR has also installed an automatic system to control the radioactive functions in Dimitrovgrad and information can be broadcast via the internet. But so far, such installations are available only within the institute. Inspections in NIIAR NIIAR press-service told Bellona Web that inspections at the institute are carried out regularly, as scheduled by Russia’s nuclear regulatory agency, which also has the authority to undertake non-scheduled inspections “with a right to full access.” In September 1997, soon after the release, specialists at the Central region of Gosatomnadzor examined the site of the event. But during this inspection, NIIAR refused to present inspection documents on the MIR.M1 reactor. This fact is mentioned in the Act drafted by the inspection team, which was quoted by Piskunov in the court. According Pavlova, apart from Gosatomnadzor, there are Sanitary Epidemiological Oversight inspections, which, in particular, focus on the levels of water pollution. There are also fire prevention inspections. “Speaking about non-governmental organizations, NIIAR does not forbid checks by their specialists, provided they have appropriate licenses,” Pavlova said. According to Mikhail Piskunov, radioactive releases from NIIAR are an on-going process. In 1996, 4.5 tonnes of a radioactive gas-vapour mixture were released from the facility’s VK-50 reactor into the atmosphere. During another earlier accident, a release of about 15 tons was recorded. The last unscheduled shut down of the reactors at NIIAR happened on March, 27 2005 when the overhead transmission line tripped an operational halt affected by the safety systems in the VK-50, BOR-60, SM-3 and MIR-M1 reactors. In 2002, Piskunov’s organization lost a case against NIIAR, in which the NGO tried to prevent the institute from dumping radioactive waste into underground water tables. The court was not swayed, even by the position of the Ulyanovsk environmental prosecutor, who supported the suit of Piskunov’s NGO. In 2003, Piskunov’s Centre for Citizens’ Initiatives Assistance claimed that specific activity of the industrial caesium-137, found in the probes of silt at the NIIAR sewage facility, exceeded the upper limits of global discharges by 70 times. A recent check, carried out by the Gosatomnadzor’s successor, FSETAN and completed in April 2005, found one violation of NIIAR’s license, and 40 violations of the laws, federal norms and regulations in the field of the nuclear energy use. Publisher: , President: Information: , Technical contact: Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 35 Yokwe: STUDENTS HELP WASHINGTON MARSHALLESE Everything Marshall Islands:: http://www.yokwe.net May 26, 2005 - 12:47 AM Email@yokwe.net and Yokwe Eok Discussion Group accounts are [UW Students Help Marshallese] Twenty-eight students at the University of Washington are putting their academic knowledge to work in a project helping Marshallese immigrants. The members of the applied anthropology class met with Marshall Islanders residing in the Greater Seattle area to find out more about difficulties they face while in the US. Dr. Holly Barker, Senior Advisor for Political and Economic Affairs at the Republic of the Marshall Islands Embassy in Washington, D.C., is teaching the field studies class as an extension of her Embassy work. The students attended church meetings, participated in focus groups, and conducted individual interviews and community forums to assess the needs of communities in Federal Way/Auburn and Lynnwood/Everett. The resulting projects will help Marshallese access educational programs, apply for employment, acquire affordable health care, and learn English. "What started simply as a class project has blossomed into a work of compassion," reported student Emily Mercer. According to Dr. Barker, four of the students plan to go to the Marshall Islands to teach after they graduate. READ STORY: University Students Help Marshallese in Washington VIEW ALBUM: UofW Students Help Marshallese Hearing from Washington, DC, May 25, 2005 Change Circumstances Petition Today The Full Committee Resources and International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the United States House of Representatives, will hold a hearing on “The United States Nuclear Legacy in the Marshall Islands: Consideration of Issues Relating to the Changed Circumstances Petition," today, May 25. The hearing will review the nuclear test compensation petition filed nearly five years ago by the Marshall Islands government, seeking expanded compensation and medical treatment for the Marshallese affected by Cold War US nuclear testing in the Islands. The Hearing will be broadcast live from the Longworth House Office Building, Room 1324, Washington, D.C., at 2:00 p.m. EDT - LIVE AUDIO LINK YokweOnline | Wednesday, May 25, 2005 | 120 Reads [Nuclear] NGO's Urge Congress to Address the U.S. Nuclear Legacy in the Marshall Islands More than 35 non-governmental organizations from across the US are calling on Congress to grant the people of the Republic of the Marshall Islands the same level of health care, clean up and standards for radiation safety that apply to US citizens affected by similar circumstances. On Wednesday, May 25, 2005, there will be hearings in the House of Representatives Committee on Resources and International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific on the legacy of US nuclear testing in the Pacific and the Changed Circumstance Petition for the Republic of the Marshall Islands. ***************************************************************** 36 [NukeNet] Renewed Calls for a Moratorium on Rokkasho Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 14:16:48 -0700 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Media Release - 25 May 2005 Japanese Government should heed growing calls for a moratorium on the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant Calls are growing for a moratorium on the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant, currently undergoing uranium trials in Aomori Prefecture (1). Yesterday (Tuesday May 24th), during the closing stages of the Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, an "appeal to Japan for leadership toward strengthening of the non-proliferation regime" was handed to the Japanese delegation to the United Nations in New York. The appeal, signed by 150 academics, politicians and leaders in the peace movement from around the world, calls for an indefinite postponement of the operation of the Rokkasho plutonium reprocessing plant. Later in the same day a press conference was held in the United Nations building by the International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation, Physicians for Social Responsibility (US) and Peace Boat (Japan). This appeal follows a similar appeal (2) on 5 May 2005, also at the NPT Review Conference, by 27 eminent scientists, former policy makers and analysts, including four Nobel Physics prize winners and two former Secretaries of Defense. Their declaration was released by the Union of Concerned Scientists, which warned, "Japan's plan to separate and stockpile up to 8 metric tons of plutonium annually - the equivalent of 1,000 nuclear bombs each year - calls into question Japan's commitment to strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty". The idea for a moratorium on uranium enrichment and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel was initially proposed by people such as IAEA Director, Mohamed ElBaradei, and a high-level panel established by UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan. Since then, however, calls have been growing for the moratorium to be applied to the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant. Japanese people signing this latest appeal include academics such as Shoji Sawada (also a Hibakusha), Mitsuhei Murata, Mitsuo Okamoto, Manabu Hattori, Hideo Tsuchiyama and Masao Kunihiro, politicians such as Hitoshi Motojima and world famous musician Ryuichi Sakamoto. Hideyuki Ban of the Tokyo based Citizens' Nuclear Information Center also signed the appeal. He said today, "The Japanese Government has tried to dismiss calls for a moratorium on Rokkasho, but it can be seen from the growing number of people signing statements in support of such a moratorium that this is an issue that won't go away." "This appeal supports the appeal by leading scientists and policy analysts made earlier in the NPT Review Conference. These are people who know perfectly well the significance of Rokkasho for nuclear proliferation. Also the general public is much more aware now that the only sure way to prevent further proliferation of nuclear weapons is to cut off the supply of bomb making materials. The Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant will vastly increase the supply of plutonium, one of the key bomb making materials, so it is just what we don't need." The appeal states, "Additional production and accumulation of weapons-usable materials by Japan would further complicate proliferation concerns in the Northeast Asia region. If the plant is started now this would present an excuse called 'the Japanese example' to those countries seeking to acquire nuclear weapons (materials)." Mr Ban questioned the government's need for more plutonium, saying, "Given that Japan already has over 40 tons of plutonium stockpiled and that there is no clear plan to use this plutonium, inevitably people begin to wonder what it is really for. On 1 December 1997, Japan stated that its nuclear fuel cycle is based on 'the principle of no surplus plutonium'. However, this huge stockpile will only increase if the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant is started up." "The government's claim that it will use the plutonium in MOX fuel (3) doesn't make economic sense. Uranium fuel is much cheaper and the government has admitted that it is cheaper to dispose of spent nuclear fuel directly, rather than extract the plutonium through reprocessing." "After nearly a month of negotiations in New York, very little progress has been made. Meanwhile, the threat of more states breaking out from the treaty and developing nuclear weapons is increasing. A bold decision by the Japanese government to suspend its plan to open Rokkasho could breathe new life into the NPT." "The world is looking to Japan, which more than any country knows the dangers of nuclear weapons, to show leadership. For the sake of the NPT, and also for its own sake, Japan should heed the calls for a moratorium on the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant." Contacts: Hideyuki Ban, CNIC Co-Director Philip White, International Liaison Officer Notes and References 1. The Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant commenced uranium trials (running depleted uranium through the whole plant) on 21 December 2004. Trials using spent nuclear fuel are scheduled to commence in December 2005 and the plant is due to commence operations in May 2007. 2. The declaration is entitled "A Call on Japan to Strengthen the NPT by Indefinitely Postponing Operation of the Rokkasho Spent Fuel Reprocessing Plant" and was originally released by the Union of Concerned Scientists at the NPT Review Conference on May 5th, 2005. See the following link for UCS's press release and the full declaration: http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=481 3. 'MOX fuel' refers to nuclear reactor fuel made from a mixed oxide of plutonium and uranium. Full text of the appeal: An appeal to Japan for leadership toward strengthening of the non-proliferation regime - Call for an indefinite postponement of the operation of the Rokkasho plutonium reprocessing plant May 24, 2005 The 2005 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference is nearing its end. The member states must make utmost efforts to make the conference a successful one in order to reduce the nuclear threats now facing the world. While it is vital for the nuclear-weapon states to take concrete measures towards irreversible disarmament, the halt of the proliferation of the materials usable for nuclear weapons -- highly enriched uranium and plutonium -- is also an integral part of the objectives of the NPT. At the opening of the NPT Review Conference, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stressed the nuclear threat and warned as follows: "The regime will not be sustainable if scores more States develop the most sensitive phases of the fuel cycle" (uranium enrichment and reprocessing) and those states "are equipped with the technology to produce nuclear weapons on short notice - and, of course, each individual State which does this only will leave others to feel that they must do the same. This would increase all the risks - of nuclear accident, of trafficking, of terrorist use, and of use by states themselves." Thus, efforts to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons materials and technology are important in order also to secure progress toward nuclear abolition. A statement released at the beginning of the NPT Review Conference by the Union of Concerned Scientists, signed by 27 US experts including four Nobel laureates, says "At a time when the non-proliferation regime is facing its greatest challenge, Japan should not proceed with its current plans for the start-up of the Rokkasho reprocessing plant. " If operated, the Rokkasho plant would be the only commercial-scale plutonium production plant in a country without nuclear weapons. Planned to start its active testing using spent nuclear fuel in December of this year and to go into commercial operation in 2007, it could separate approximately 8 metric tons of plutonium per year, enough to make 1000 nuclear bombs. To underscore how absolutely unnecessary this production would be, Japan already has more than 40 tons of plutonium stockpiled in Japan and in Europe, enough to make 5000 bombs. Additional production and accumulation of weapons-usable materials by Japan would further complicate proliferation concerns in the Northeast Asia region. If the plant is started now this would present an excuse called "the Japanese example" to those countries seeking to acquire nuclear weapons (materials). Thus, the start up of Rokkasho and implementation of an uneconomical program to use the separated plutonium as a fuel in commercial nuclear power reactors presents a global proliferation risk that simply cannot be ignored by NPT signatories. With the closing of the NPT Review Conference at hand, we call on the government of Japan, which well knows the tragedy that could be caused by the use of nuclear weapons, to lead the world toward the disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. A critical step towards this goal would be for Japan to take the courageous decision to indefinitely postpone the operation of the Rokkasho reprocessing plant. 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 ***************************************************************** 37 Guardian Unlimited: Federal Board Rejects Utah's Nuke Appeal From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday May 25, 2005 2:31 AM By CHRIS CLARK Associated Press Writer SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - A federal licensing board on Tuesday rejected Utah's appeal to thwart the stockpiling of spent nuclear fuel rods at an American Indian reservation. The state had argued in April that radiation could escape from waste casks if an outer protective shield was breached, even if the interior canister holding the fuel rods remained fully intact. But lawyers for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Utah's argument was too late and lacked scientific merit, advising the three-member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to reject it. Although turning aside the state's argument, the board suggested the NRC study whether radioactive waste could leak from a cask that was damaged but not breached. The ruling clears the way for the NRC to approve the project, which would create a temporary waste dump for spent rods on the reservation pending the opening of a national repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. It was not immediately clear when the commission would issue its final decision. The Goshute Indian tribe has sought the waste station at its reservation in Skull Valley, about 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, hoping to earn as much as $3 million. The tribe is teaming with Private Fuel Storage to build the station, which would store more than 40,000 tons of nuclear waste. The state had previously argued that the proposed waste station's proximity to an Air Force base increased the risk of a fighter jet crashing into the spent fuel rods. The licensing board dismissed that scenario as unlikely. The state also contended that rods could end up permanently in Utah because the Energy Department isn't obligated to transport them to Nevada, but the board rejected that argument in February. Gov. Jon Huntsman's legal counsel, Mike Lee, said the governor was disappointed with Tuesday's ruling but ``remains firm in his resolve to fight this battle at every possible front.'' He said the state is pursuing various options, including appeals in the courts and with the NRC, the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said the company was pleased the process was moving forward. ``All of these challenges and the additional hearings and things like that that have gone on for the last eight years is evidence of how rigorous this process is,'' she said. The issue has wound its way through the courts since Skull Valley Band Tribal Chairman Leon Bear signed a lease in 1997 allowing PFS to store the fuel on Goshute land. The planned underground nuclear dump at Yucca Mountain has also endured a string of problems. The Energy Department recently abandoned a 2010 completion date and did not set a new one. --- On the Net: Licensing board: http://www.nrc.gov/who-we-are/organization/aslbpfuncdesc.html%und - off(%) Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 38 Guardian Unlimited: House Votes for Temporary Nuclear Storage From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday May 25, 2005 2:46 AM By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The House voted Tuesday to begin temporary storage of commercial nuclear waste at one or more federal facilities, fearing further delays in a proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada. The directive was included in a $29.7 billion measure funding the Energy Department and came over the objections of lawmakers from Washington and South Carolina, two states where the waste from commercial power reactors might be located. An attempt by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., to strip the bill of $10 million for the interim storage program failed 312-110. The House passed the spending measure Tuesday night by a 416-13 vote. While the legislation leaves it up to the Energy Department to select one or more interim storage sites, a report accompanying the bill suggested the Energy Department's Savannah River weapons facility in South Carolina, the Hanford complex in Washington state and a facility in Idaho as possible locations. It also said the department should consider other federal sites, including closed defense bases for temporary storage. It calls on the energy secretary to produce a plan for interim storage four months after the bill becomes law and begin accepting waste before the end of next year. The legislation must still be considered by Senate. Washington and South Carolina lawmakers said that if their states are targeted, they feared the interim facilities could end up as permanent waste repositories. They worried that establishing interim waste dumps might reduce pressure to open Yucca Mountain. ``The state of Washington does not want to become ... a nuclear waste dump more than we are already,'' said Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash. ``Interim, in geologic time, could mean several lifetimes.'' The interim storage proposal comes as concerns continue about delays in opening the proposed Yucca Mountain project in Nevada, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Last year a federal court questioned its proposed radiation protection plans. More recently concerns surfaced over allegations that government workers on the project falsified data. The bill provides $661 million for continued development of the Yucca facility, which must still get a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, chairman of the Appropriations energy subcommittee, said that he strongly supports development of the Yucca facility but that interim storage is needed because of the delays. He said the government faces an estimated $500 million in additional liability costs for every year the government fails to accept waste. By law, the Energy Department was supposed to begin taking commercial used reactor fuel in 1998. More than 50,000 tons of nuclear waste is now kept at reactors in 31 states. The spending bill also contains $4.7 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, most of it devoted to waterways, dams and flood control projects. That is $414 million more than requested by President Bush but $294 million less than current funding. The House approved less money than the Bush administration had wanted for maintaining the country's nuclear weapons. The White House said the $450 million cut from its request for the nuclear weapons program threatens the ability to ensure the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile without underground testing. Lawmakers added the $450 million to the president's $6 billion request for environmental cleanup at heavily polluted sites used to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. The bill calls for spending $62 million for oil and gas research, programs the administration had wanted phased out, arguing that the highly profitable industry already ``has the financial incentives and resources'' to develop new technologies without taxpayer subsidies. Separately, a House Appropriations subcommittee approved by voice vote a bill to fully fund Bush's request for NASA, while cutting law enforcement grants to state and local governments and in the State Department's budget. The trade-offs came in a $57.5 billion measure for NASA and the Commerce, Justice and State departments. The subcommittee's treatment of NASA, approving Bush's full $16.5 billion request, contrasts with last year's budget cycle when a bill containing the agency's funding slashed Bush's request by 7 percent, or more than $1 billion. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, whose district is home to the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, refused to bring that bill to the floor and forced negotiators to restore the cuts when assembling a $388 billion catchall spending bill last November. The measure approved by the subcommittee on Tuesday would cut crime-fighting grants to state and local governments by $400 million from current levels. The panel also would cut $273 million from Bush's request for the State Department but boost FBI spending by 10 percent over this year. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 39 Brattleboro Reformer: Lawmakers hold off on dry cask bill vote May 25, 2005 Brattleboro, VT MONTPELIER -- The House Ways and Means Committee was prepared to vote Tuesday on a bill for dry cask storage at Vermont Yankee's nuclear power plant in Vernon, but did not at the request of Democratic House Speaker Gaye Symington and state Rep. Robert Dostis, D-Waterbury, according to Symington. Symington said officials from Entergy, the plant's owner, requested the vote be delayed for one day. Entergy explained it could have a negative impact on continuing negotiations between the state and the corporation, according to her. Dositis is the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources and Energy, which crafted the bill, and has been one of the representatives involved in negotiations with Entergy. Talks were expected to resume today, Symington said. State Rep. Michael Obuchowski, D-Rockingham, said the committee made minor changes to the bill, such as requesting that the Vermont Public Service report back to the Legislature before adjusting any of the charges. The bill currently would levy a multi-million dollar fee for the storage of spent nuclear fuel in dry casks at the power plant. If an agreement is reached between the state and Entergy, the bill will be changed to reflect that agreement. Otherwise, it is expected to go the House Committee on Appropriations next. Copyright ©1999-2005 New England Newspapers, Inc., ***************************************************************** 40 NRC: NRC Licensing Board Denies the State of Utahs Motion for Reconsideration of the Boards Final Partial Initial Decision Approving the Private Fuel Storage News Release - 2005-08 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-083 May 24, 2005 The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, an independent adjudicatory arm of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, issued a decision today essentially denying the State of Utahs Motion for Reconsideration of the Boards Feb. 24, 2005 Final Partial Initial Decision on the spent nuclear fuel storage facility proposed for Skull Valley, Utah, by the Private Fuel Storage (PFS) consortium. In February, after a formal 16-day hearing which was closed for security purposes, the Board rejected the States assertion that there is too high a probability that the accidental crash of an F-16 traveling through Skull Valley from Hill Air Force Base could puncture the internal canister of a storage cask, causing a radiological release, and today adhered to that determination. The States motion raised several challenges to the Boards February decision. The Board rejected several State claims regarding technical issues. Additionally, the Board rejected the States argument that it was being improperly deprived of the opportunity to show that some accidents, while not breaching the canister holding the spent fuel, might cause enough damage to the shielding of the outer cask to result in an excessive radiation dose. The Board concluded that the State had not raised that issue at the hearing. The Board did, however, suggest to the Commission that, in its supervisory role over the NRC staff, it consider directing the staff to fully examine this matter and report back to it. In the course of its ruling, the Board noted that the State had properly brought its attention to points not explicitly addressed in the Feb. 24 decision. After examining those matters, however, the Board held that none of the procedural or substantive deficiencies claimed by the State were of sufficient merit and/or moment to alter the result. The Board thus remained convinced that the likelihood of a consequential accidental F-16 crash is less than the one-in-a-million per year standard set by the Commission. The Commission had previously held in abeyance the time within which the parties may appeal the Boards decision. With todays ruling, the matter is no longer in abeyance and the appeal period outlined in the Feb. 24 decision is once again in effect. The question of whether to issue the requested PFS license remains in the Commissions hands. Last revised Wednesday, May 25, 2005 ***************************************************************** 41 Bradenton Herald: Tallevast residents shaping the future | 05/25/2005 | STEPHEN MAJORS Herald Staff Writer TALLAHASSEE - In the minds of nine Tallevast residents who traveled to the state capital Tuesday, the first step in counteracting years of injustice is complete. After being kept in the dark for almost four years about their own properties' groundwater contamination, the Tallevast residents have demanded change - even if it's too late to help them. The bill the governor signed Tuesday is now known as the "Tallevast" law. "Thank you for your civic involvement," said Gov. Jeb Bush, before he handed out bill-signing pens to the Tallevast visitors. "It makes a difference." The law, guided through the Legislature by Rep. Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton, requires the state Department of Environmental Protection to notify property owners within 30 days if contamination has spread onto their property. "It doesn't take care of it for Tallevast," said Laura Ward, president of Family Oriented Community United and Strong, an organization representing Tallevast. "Remember that." The community is still fighting to learn the extent of the contamination that spread into its groundwater from the old beryllium plant site that was operated by several owners under numerous names for more than four decades. In September of 1996, Lockheed Martin Corp. took over Loral American Beryllium Co. in a buyout and the plant was shut down. Lockheed Martin discovered in 2000 that groundwater contamination had spread into the surrounding community and notified the DEP. The process of notification stopped there, though, and Tallevast residents didn't find out about the pollution until they inquired about drilling going on in their neighborhood in late 2003. Tallevast residents who went to Tallahassee said the law bearing their community's name will maintain the area's high profile and hopefully prevent a similar occurrence somewhere else in the state. "We wanted to ensure that no one else would be treated the way we have been, and now there is a law," said Marvin Washington, a Tallevast resident and husband of FOCUS vice-president Wanda Washington. Said Galvano: "We're not by any means near the conclusion in this process." Although Galvano's bill received a unanimous vote in both the House and Senate, it was no simple task to get it to the governor's desk. Galvano worked to form an unusual coalition of environmental and industry groups to ease the bill's passage through committees before it reached the floor. It was a matter of not going too far with the law so that it wouldn't invite opposition from any particular group, Galvano has said. At one point, it looked as though the coalition might unravel, but an amendment was added to smooth the bill's passage. After passing the House, it passed the Senate a few days later with 48 hours - and a host of big priorities - left in the session. Immediately following the ceremony Tuesday, it was time to move on to goals that remain unsatisfied. The nine Tallevast residents had a brief meeting with DEP Secretary Colleen Castille in one of the governor's conference rooms. Ward and Wanda Washington outlined their continuing concerns about the expanding toxic plume that plagues the community. They want to know when the agency will comment on Lockheed's February and April reports on the spread of contamination. They want the DEP to ask Lockheed Martin to do more soil testing to see how deep and how far the chemicals have spread. And they asked about a new technology that can measure how much pollution could rise up from the ground in the form of vapors. Castille told The Herald after the meeting that the DEP would ask Lockheed in the next week to do further soil testing. She added that she is unfamiliar with the vapor testing method, but "would look into that new test and look into its efficacy." Castille said the agency was reviewing the contamination data in a draft letter and would release the information in the next week. "We have a process in place which ensures that the data we get is quality data and reviewed in detail," Castille said. "I didn't want to make a judgment until (we send) the comment letter." Washington took her two daughters out of school and brought them to Tallahassee to be present for "history." The group of Tallevast residents came to see the fruits of their efforts to change the law. "We've come a long way, but we still have a ways to go," she said. They also want prominent signs at the contaminating property warning of the pollution, which they say has given the small community an unusually high cancer rate. "We're concerned about what their remedial process is going to be," Ward said. "If it's going to take 10 years for them to clean up. . . . how am I going to live (there)?" They hope that Galvano will continue to work with them. "We're up for it," Wanda Washington said. "I hope he's up for it. We'll lead the way." She and her husband talked to Galvano about changing where the burden of proof lies in cases of contamination. They don't think they should have to prove that they are getting sick from chemicals. It should be the companies proving the chemicals aren't making them sick, they said. They also want to look into how local governments give companies licenses to operate in certain areas. Galvano, an attorney, said he would explore the possibilities, but said a lot of research needs to be done. "I need to look at where we are currently in law so I have a clear understanding," he said. "You are talking about a very bold change. "I can say the DEP, since this story broke, has been very, very helpful," Galvano added. • The toxic plume stemming from the former Loral American Beryllium Co. plant now measures more than 131 acres. • Lockheed Martin Corp., the former owner of the beryllium plant that has assumed responsibility for cleanup, has resumed drilling on a nearby golf course and airport property to determine the extent of the plume. • The Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through the U.S. Department of Energy offers free beryllium exposure tests for former Loral American Beryllium workers employed between 1967-68 and from 1980-89. Those who test positive may be eligible for a government benefit/compensation program. For more information contact ORISE toll free at (866) 219-3442. • The Department of Environmental Protection is expected to release its comments on Lockheed's latest drilling reports later this week. HeraldToday.com • Read The Herald's archive coverage of the contamination in Tallevast. • Read the legislation, plus find more photos from Tuesday's signing. About HeraldToday.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of ***************************************************************** 42 Deseret News: Another blow in fight to keep out nuclear waste [deseretnews.com] Wednesday, May 25, 2005 By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News Next stop: the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Utah lost its bid Tuesday to have an NRC board overturn its earlier decision that favored licensing the Private Fuel Storage nuclear waste storage facility proposed for Skull Valley. The next appeal apparently will be before the full NRC. Mike Lee, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.'s general counsel on the issue, said Huntsman was disappointed by the development. "Nevertheless, the governor's really firm in his resolve to keep high-level nuclear waste out of Utah," he said. "The state is going to use all of its resources at its disposal to keep any quantity of spent nuclear fuel from entering the state's borders." "Disappointing but probably expected," said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah. The decision by the commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board bolsters the board's ruling of three months ago. The board held that a crash of an Air Force F-16 is so unlikely that the plant can be built. The PFS facility, planned for land owned by the Skull Valley Band of the Goshute Indian Tribe, would be about 50 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. The site is in a corridor that F-16s from Hill Air Force Base take toward the Utah Test and Training Range. Two main issues were decided on Tuesday. The first was the state's claim that the board had not considered the possibility of a crash that didn't breach the protective container holding nuclear fuel but weakened it so that it might later leak radiation. The second was an allegation that the the board was wrong in two matters it did consider: determining the strength of a cask to withstand crashes, and the likelihood of certain kinds of F-16 crashes. The state lost on both categories. The board ruled that the state had not brought up the argument on non-breaching damage and asked the NRC to check into it. It also decided against the state on the second subject. But Peter S. Lam, one of the three board members, refused to endorse the finding on the second subject, saying the board did not significantly alter its rationale in the Feb. 24 ruling on those matters. At that time, he issued a dissenting opinion. A silver lining in the latest ruling is that the board agreed with the state that modified casks, with greater safeguards, will be needed. "Any other design and conditions are not covered by our decision," it noted. Lee said this refers to custom-engineered casks that have not yet been engineered. Meanwhile, he said, canisters inside the storage cask would not be accepted at the proposed Yucca Mountain permanent fuel repository in Nevada. Unless there is some evidence that the material could be transferred to Nevada, "the whole idea of this being an interim storage site is a farce, is a ruse," Lee said. Arguments decided in the latest appeal were largely technical, involving questions such as whether a glancing blow at the top of a cask from a crashing F-16 could smash with sufficient force into an adjacent cask to cause damage to its side. The board said it could not. Another issue was whether enough F-16 crashes had been analyzed to calculate the likelihood of such an accident at the site. The board said there's no reason to think recalculating such factors would change the remote likelihood of such an accident. Lee said the NRC licensing board is not the end of the line for Utah's opposition. "We're fighting this battle on various fronts." These include: • Appealing to the whole NRC. "We've got 15 days to file a petition for review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commis- sion," Lee said. • Opposing the plant siting before the Bureau of Indian Affairs. BIA approval is needed before any such action can take place on an Indian reservation. • Asking the Bureau of Land Management not to authorize the railroad spur across BLM land that would be required to haul casks from the Union Pacific main line to Skull Valley. The state also is appealing federal court rulings against a Utah law that would have given state regulators more authority over PFS. A petition is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, which may decide whether to accept the challenge by the end of next month. "We're going to fight this at every step," Lee said. Bishop said the licensing board and the NRC deal with technical issues, not policy issues. An example of a policy issue is that "it is not very smart to build a nuclear waste dump next to a bombing range," he said. "What we are talking about is airspace, and by definition the NRC doesn't deal with that." Bishop does not have much hope that the NRC will listen to Lam. "If the NRC was going to make the right policy decision, it would have done it already. If they surprise me, I will be happy. But I am not counting on them to be part of our strategy" to block PFS, Bishop said. Contributing: Jerry Spangler © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 43 Deseret News: House OKs a study of nuclear sites [deseretnews.com] Wednesday, May 25, 2005 Bishop is hopeful clarification keeps waste out of Utah By Andrew Taylor Associated Press and Jerry Spangler Deseret Morning News WASHINGTON — The House voted Tuesday night to begin temporary storage of commercial nuclear waste at one or more federal facilities — none in Utah — fearing further delays in the proposed but long-delayed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada. The directive was included in a $29.7 billion measure funding the Energy Department and came over the objections of lawmakers from Washington and South Carolina, two states where the waste from commercial power reactors might be located. An attempt by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., to strip the bill of $10 million for the interim storage program failed 312-110. The House passed the spending measure by a 416-13 vote. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, voted against the measure; Reps. Rob Bishop and Chris Cannon, both R-Utah, voted for it. The legislation must still be considered by Senate. The House bill also provides $661 million for continued development of the Yucca facility, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, which must still get a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. While the legislation leaves it up to the Energy Department to select one or more interim storage sites, a report accompanying the bill suggested the Energy Department's Savannah River weapons facility in South Carolina, the Hanford complex in Washington state and a facility in Idaho as possible locations. It also said the department should consider other federal sites, including closed defense bases for temporary storage. It calls on the energy secretary to produce a plan for interim storage four months after the bill becomes law and begin accepting waste before the end of next year. Earlier Tuesday, the chairman of a House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, in response to concerns expressed by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, insisted that language inserted in the Yucca Mountain funding package is not intended to open the door for interim storage of nuclear waste on Goshute tribal lands in Utah — even if the wording makes it appear so. "I do not see any reason for the secretary (of energy) to consider making a private site or a site on tribal land into a DOE site for interim storage," said Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio. "My intent is for the secretary to evaluate storage options at existing DOE sites." Hobson's disclaimer came Tuesday in response to concerns expressed by Bishop, who sought the chairman's assurances on the record in the event the Department of Energy decides to utilize a private site similar to the one proposed by Private Fuel Storage in Tooele County's Skull Valley. "The fact he said it on the record gives me a whole lot of comfort," Bishop told the Deseret Morning News. "Having him clarify his intent is powerful if push ever comes to shove." As has been often the case in the Utah's nuclear storage debates, Washington and South Carolina lawmakers said Tuesday that if their states are targeted, they fear the interim facilities could end up as permanent waste repositories. They are concerned that establishing interim waste dumps might reduce pressure to open Yucca Mountain — which is opposed by many in Nevada. "The state of Washington does not want to become . . . a nuclear waste dump more than we are already," said Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash. "Interim, in geologic time, could mean several lifetimes." The interim storage proposal comes as concerns continue about delays in opening the Yucca Mountain project. Last year a federal court questioned its proposed radiation protection plans. More recently concerns surfaced over allegations that government workers on the project falsified data. Hobson, chairman of the Appropriations energy subcommittee, said that he strongly supports development of the Yucca facility but that interim storage is needed because of the delays. He said the government faces an estimated $500 million in additional liability costs for every year the government fails to accept waste. By law, the Energy Department was supposed to begin taking commercial used reactor fuel in 1998. More than 50,000 tons of nuclear waste are now kept at reactors in 31 states. Of concern to Utahns in the spending bill was language in the nonbinding committee report that states, "Should these or other DOE sites prove impractical, the department should investigate other alternatives for centralized interim storage, including other federally owned sites, closed military bases and non-federal storage facilities." The only non-federal storage facility currently in the licensing process is the PFS Skull Valley proposal, which won a major victory Tuesday when the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board rejected the state's appeal of an earlier decision to recommend that PFS be granted a license. If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission grants the PFS license — and the Utah congressional delegation seems resigned that it will — the PFS facility could be operational by the deadline specified in the appropriations bill debated Tuesday on the House floor. And just as Utah, Washington and South Carolina are temporary storage proposals, Nevadans are fighting Yucca Mountain. And in many respects, the Utah and Nevada projects are tied at the hip: The Utah site is seen as temporary storage until Yucca is up and running, and as a transitional site after Yucca is at capacity. The earliest that Yucca Mountain could open is 2012, even though the government was bound by contract with the nuclear power industry to have a site up and running by 1998. Failure to have a permanent storage site put the government at legal risk — a risk that Hobson said could cost taxpayers $1 billion a year. The House spending bill also contains $4.7 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, most of it devoted to waterways, dams and flood control projects. That is $414 million more than requested by President Bush but $294 million less than current funding. The House approved less money than the Bush administration had wanted for maintaining the country's nuclear weapons. The White House said the $450 million cut from its request for the nuclear weapons program threatens the ability to ensure the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile without underground testing. Lawmakers added the $450 million to the president's $6 billion request for environmental cleanup at heavily polluted sites used to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. The bill calls for spending $62 million for oil and gas research, programs the administration had wanted phased out, arguing that the highly profitable industry already "has the financial incentives and resources" to develop new technologies without taxpayer subsidies. Separately, a House Appropriations subcommittee approved by voice vote a bill to fully fund Bush's request for NASA, while cutting law enforcement grants to state and local governments and in the State Department's budget. The trade-offs came in a $57.5 billion measure for NASA and the Commerce, Justice and State departments. The subcommittee's treatment of NASA, approving Bush's full $16.5 billion request, contrasts with last year's budget cycle when a bill containing the agency's funding slashed Bush's request by 7 percent, or more than $1 billion. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, whose district is home to the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, refused to bring that bill to the floor and forced negotiators to restore the cuts when assembling a $388 billion catchall spending bill last November. The measure approved by the subcommittee on Tuesday would cut crime-fighting grants to state and local governments by $400 million from current levels. The panel also would cut $273 million from Bush's request for the State Department but boost FBI spending by 10 percent over this year. © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 44 Las Vegas RJ: House OKs stop gap storage Wednesday, May 25, 2005 Interim sites sought for nuclear waste B y STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The House voted Tuesday to start storing nuclear waste at federal government sites as a stopgap while work continues on a Yucca Mountain repository. Lawmakers also supported accelerated research into nuclear fuel recycling, technology that scientists have said could wring more energy from reprocessed nuclear waste while reducing the volume and radioactivity of waste that would be buried in Nevada. The new directions for nuclear waste were outlined in a $29.7 billion spending bill for the Department of Energy and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The bill passed 416-13 and goes to the Senate. "It is time to rethink our approach to spent fuel," said Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, the energy and water subcommittee chairman and author of the measure. "We already are storing foreign reactor fuel at DOE sites, and its time to think we do the same thing for domestic fuel." Hobson said nuclear waste needs to be moved away from power plants, where it is costing the government $1 billion a year in legal liabilities and project delays. Yucca Mountain, which the House bill fully funded at $661 million, would remain a cornerstone of the waste disposal strategy. The bill directs Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to identify interim waste storage sites four months after the bill becomes law and to start moving spent fuel from nuclear utilities to one or more locations by the end of 2006. The bill identified nuclear sites in South Carolina, Washington state and Idaho as among potential hosts. The Energy Department has been lukewarm to the idea, and some officials in the nuclear industry fear it could distract attention from completing the Yucca project, which has been delayed. Lawmakers said the vote marked the first time the House has supported storing nuclear waste anywhere other than Nevada. Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., voted to store nuclear waste at interim sites, while Reps. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., and Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., voted against the proposal. Porter said a push for interim storage outside Nevada will compel lawmakers to consider alternatives to Yucca Mountain. "It is a start in forcing members to understand there needs to be other solutions," he said. Berkley said she opposes transporting nuclear waste anywhere from reactors where it is stored. Gibbons had the same position, his spokeswoman said. Berkley said the proposal to set up interim nuclear waste site is going nowhere. She said it would provoke strong opposition from any targeted state, just as Yucca Mountain has done in Nevada. "I predict within three years, this ridiculous notion will be dead," Berkley said. "Nobody will go for it." Lawmakers from potential storage areas were quick to declare their states off-limits. Rep. Butch Otter, R-Idaho, said a 1995 pact between the Energy Department and the state prevents storage of commercial nuclear waste at the Idaho National Laboratory. Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., questioned whether law permits the Energy Department to develop stopgap sites for nuclear waste. The Savannah River site in South Carolina handles nuclear programs and could be a destination. Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., said the government's nuclear site at Hanford is in the midst of a cleanup. "It's the last place you'd want to send more nuclear waste," he said. Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 45 Platts: PFS wins licensing proceeding for spent fuel storage facility + Private Fuel Storage LLC (PFS) won a victory today in a protracted licensing proceeding to construct an away-from-reactor spent fuel facility in Utah. In a split decision, an Atomic Safety & Licensing Board (ASLB) ruled in favor of PFS, saying it believed there was less than a one-in-a-million per year likelihood of an F-16 military jet accidentally crashing into a cask at the facility and causing a radiological release of materials. The ASLB reaffirmed the conclusion it reached Feb. 24 in a 2-1 decision. The state of Utah has until June 13 to file a final appeal to the commission, which will make the ultimate decision as to whether to issue PFS a license. Jay Silberg, an attorney for PFS, called the decision "very good news." Washington (Platts)--24May2005 Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 46 NRC: RIN 3150-AH72: Spent fuel casks FR Doc 05-10389 [Federal Register: May 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 100)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 29931-29934] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25my05-4] List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Standardized NUHOMS[reg]-24P, -52B, -61BT, -32PT, -24PHB, and -24PTH Revision AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations revising the Transnuclear, Inc., Standardized NUHOMS[reg] System listing within the ``List of approved spent fuel storage casks'' to include Amendment No. 8 to Certificate of Compliance Number (CoC No.) 1004. Amendment No. 8 to the Standardized NUHOMS[reg] System CoC will modify the cask design by adding a new spent fuel storage and transfer system, designated the NUHOMS[reg]-24PTH System. The NUHOMS[reg]-24PTH System consists of new or modified components: The -24PTH dry shielded canister (DSC); a new -24PTH DSC basket design; a modified horizontal storage module (HSM), designated the HSM-H; and a modified transfer cask (TC), designated the OS 197FC TC. The NUHOMS[reg]-24PTH System is designed to store fuel with a maximum average burnup of up to 62 gigawatts-day/metric ton of uranium; maximum average initial enrichment of 5.0 weight percent; minimum cooling time of 3.0 years; and maximum heat load of 40.8 kilowatts per DSC, under a general license. DATES: The final rule is effective August 8, 2005, unless significant adverse comments are received by June 24, 2005. A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. If the rule is withdrawn, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include the following number (RIN 3150-AH72) in the subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates in your submission. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. E-mail comments to: . If you do not receive a reply e- mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking [[Page 29932]] Web site at . Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail . Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal . Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays (telephone (301) 415-1966). Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Selected documents, including comments, can be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at . Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at . From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to . An electronic copy of the proposed CoC, Technical Specifications (TS), and preliminary safety evaluation report (SER) can be found under ADAMS Accession No. ML050750211. CoC No. 1004, the revised TS, the underlying SER for Amendment No. 8, and the Environmental Assessment (EA), are available for inspection at the NRC PDR, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. Single copies of these documents may be obtained from Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6219, e-mail . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayne M. McCausland, telephone (301) 415-6219, e-mail , of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA), requires that ``[t]he Secretary [of the Department of Energy (DOE)] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.'' Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that ``[t]he Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 218(a) for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.'' To implement this mandate, the NRC approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule in 10 CFR part 72 entitled, ``General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites'' (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new Subpart L within 10 CFR part 72, entitled ``Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks'' containing procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on December 22, 1994 (59 FR 65920), that approved the Standardized NUHOMS[reg] System (NUHOMS[reg]-24P and -52B) cask designs and added them to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in Sec. 72.214 as CoC No. 1004. Amendments 3, 5, and 6, respectively, added the -61BT, -32PT, -24PHB designs to the Standardized NUHOMS[reg] System. Discussion On September 19, 2003, and as supplemented on January 22, July 6, August 16, September 17, and October 11, 2004; and January 14 and March 15, 2005, the certificate holder, Transnuclear, Inc. (TN), submitted an application to the NRC to amend CoC No. 1004 to add a new spent fuel storage and transfer system, designated the NUHOMS[reg]- 24PTH System. The NUHOMS[reg]-24PTH System consists of new or modified components: (1) The -24PTH DSC; (2) a new -24PTH DSC basket design; (3) a modified horizontal storage module, designated the HSM-H; and (4) a modified transfer cask, designated the OS 197FC TC. The NUHOMS[reg]-24PTH System is designed to store fuel with a maximum average burnup of up to 62 gigawatts-day/metric ton of uranium (GWd/MTU); maximum average initial enrichment of 5.0 weight percent; minimum cooling time of 3.0 years; and maximum heat load of 40.8 kilowatts (kW) per DSC. No other changes to the Standardized NUHOMS[reg] System cask design were requested in this application. The NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC amendment request and found that an acceptable safety margin is maintained. In addition, the NRC staff has determined that there is still reasonable assurance that public health and safety and the environment will be adequately protected. This direct final rule revises the Standardized NUHOMS[reg] System cask design listing in Sec. 72.214 by adding Amendment No. 8 to CoC No. 1004. The amendment consists of changes to the TS as described above. The particular TS which are changed are identified in the NRC staff's SER for Amendment No. 8. The amended Standardized NUHOMS[reg] System, when used in accordance with the conditions specified in the CoC, the TS, and NRC regulations, will meet the requirements of Part 72; thus, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured. Discussion of Amendments by Section Section 72.214 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks Certificate No. 1004 is revised by adding the effective date of Amendment Number 8. Procedural Background This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment 8 to CoC No. 1004 and does not include other aspects of the Standardized NUHOMS[reg] System design. The NRC is using the ``direct final rule procedure'' to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing CoC that is expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The amendment to the rule will become effective on August 8, 2005. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments by June 24, 2005, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will address the comments received in response to the proposed amendments published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or [[Page 29933]] approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if: (1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, in a substantive response: (a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis; (b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or (c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff. (2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition. (3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the CoC or TS. These comments will be addressed in a subsequent final rule. The NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action. Voluntary Consensus Standards The National Technology Transfer Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC would revise the Standardized NUHOMS[reg] System cask design listed in Sec. 72.214 (List of NRC-approved spent fuel storage cask designs). This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that establishes generally applicable requirements. Agreement State Compatibility Under the ``Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs'' approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the Federal Register on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), this rule is classified as Compatibility Category ``NRC.'' Compatibility is not required for Category ``NRC'' regulations. The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), or the provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements reserved to NRC, it may wish to inform its licensees of certain requirements via a mechanism that is consistent with the particular State's administrative procedure laws but does not confer regulatory authority on the State. Plain Language The Presidential Memorandum dated June 1, 1998, entitled ``Plain Language in Government Writing,'' directed that the Government's writing be in plain language. The NRC requests comments on this direct final rule specifically with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used. Comments should be sent to the address listed under the heading ADDRESSES above. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, the NRC has determined that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The rule would amend the CoC for the Standardized NUHOMS[reg] System within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. The amendment will add a new spent fuel storage and transfer system, designated the NUHOMS[reg]-24PTH System, to the Standardized NUHOMS[reg] System. The NUHOMS[reg]-24PTH System consists of new or modified components: (1) The -24PTH DSC; (2) a new -24PTH DSC basket design; (3) a modified horizontal storage module, designated the HSM-H; and (4) a modified transfer cask, designated the OS 197FC TC. The NUHOMS[reg]-24PTH System is designed to store fuel with a maximum average burnup of up to 62 GWd/MTU; maximum average initial enrichment of 5.0 weight percent; minimum cooling time of 3.0 years; and maximum heat load of 40.8 kW per DSC. The EA and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. Single copies of the EA and finding of no significant impact are available from Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6219, e-mail . Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This direct final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, Approval Number 3150- 0132. Public Protection Notification The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number. Regulatory Analysis On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in Sec. 72.214. On December 22, 1994 (59 FR 65920), the NRC issued an amendment to Part 72 that approved the Standardized NUHOMS[reg] System (NUHOMS[reg]-24P and -52B) by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in Sec. 72.214. Amendments 3, 5, and 6, respectively, added the -61BT, -32PT, -24PHB designs to the Standardized NUHOMS[reg] System. On September 19, 2003, and as supplemented on January 22, July 6, August 16, September 17, and October 11, 2004; and January 14 and March 15, 2005, the certificate holder, TN, submitted an application to the NRC to amend CoC No. 1004 to add a new spent fuel storage and transfer system, designated the NUHOMS[reg]-24PTH System. The NUHOMS[reg]-24PTH System consists of new or modified components: (1) The -24PTH DSC; (2) a new -24PTH DSC basket design; (3) a modified horizontal storage module, designated the HSM-H; and (4) a modified transfer cask, designated the OS 197FC TC. The NUHOMS[reg]-24PTH System is designed to store fuel with a maximum average burnup of up to 62 GWd/MTU; maximum average initial enrichment of 5.0 weight percent; minimum cooling time of 3.0 years; and maximum heat load of 40.8 kW per DSC. The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of this amended cask system design and issue an exemption to each general license. This alternative would cost both the NRC and the utilities more time and money because [[Page 29934]] each utility would have to pursue an exemption. Approval of the direct final rule will eliminate this problem and is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, the direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other Government agencies. Based on this discussion of the benefits and impacts of the alternatives, the NRC concludes that the requirements of the direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and thus, this action is recommended. Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants, independent spent fuel storage facilities, and TN. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of ``small entities'' set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR part 121. Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109 or 10 CFR 72.62) does not apply to this direct final rule because this amendment does not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. List of Subjects In 10 CFR Part 72 Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing. 0 For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 72. PART 72--LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR- RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE 0 1. The authority citation for Part 72 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102- 486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c)), (d), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c),(d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2244 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198). 0 2. In Sec. 72.214, Certificate of Compliance 1004 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks. * * * * * Certificate Number: 1004 Initial Certificate Effective Date: January 23, 1995 Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: April 27, 2000 Amendment Number 2 Effective Date: September 5, 2000 Amendment Number 3 Effective Date: September 12, 2001 Amendment Number 4 Effective Date: February 12, 2002 Amendment Number 5 Effective Date: January 7, 2004 Amendment Number 6 Effective Date: December 22, 2003 Amendment Number 7 Effective Date: March 2, 2004 Amendment Number 8 Effective Date: August 8, 2005. SAR Submitted by: Transnuclear, Inc. SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the Standardized NUHOMS[reg] Horizontal Modular Storage System for Irradiated Nuclear Fuel. Docket Number: 72-1004. Certificate Expiration Date: January 23, 2015. Model Number: NUHOMS[supreg]-24P, -52B, -61BT, -32PT, -24PHB, and - 24PTH * * * * * Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6 day of May, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. 05-10389 Filed 5-24-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 47 Las Vegas SUN: Columnist Jeff German: Good news for Nevada from D.C. Columnist Jeff German: Good news for Nevada from D.C. Jeff German's column appears Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays in the Sun. Reach him at german@lasvegassun.comor (702) 259-4067. ••• Now that the "nuclear option" is dead in the U.S. Senate, Nevada can breathe easier in its fight to stop nuclear waste from coming to Yucca Mountain. An 11th-hour agreement has averted a constitutional crisis over changing the Senate's filibuster rules during the debate over President Bush's judicial nominees. Had the Senate weakened the minority party's right to filibuster (prolong debate) in this instance, there's no telling what impact it would have had on other debates in Congress, including the Yucca Mountain debate down the line. In a statement released by e-mail Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada described the historic compromise as a "significant victory for our country, for democracy and for all Americans." Reid easily could have added "for all Nevadans," too, because we clearly are among the winners here. "This is a major victory for us," said former Sen. Richard Bryan. "The filibuster has been our salvation in the fight against Yucca Mountain." Bryan said that he and Reid were able to use the threat of a filibuster on several occasions over the years to hold the pro-Yucca Mountain forces at bay. "Because the threat of a filibuster was present, they knew they had to get the required votes to stop it, and they would abandon their efforts," Bryan said. Preserving the time-honored rules of the Senate, it seems, has kept us in the Yucca Mountain fight on Capitol Hill. "In a small state like Nevada, where you don't have many permanent friends on Capitol Hill, the rules are everything," one congressional insider says. There are no guarantees that power-hungry ideologues won't look to undermine the filibuster -- and the checks and balances it brings to Congress -- in the future. But that shouldn't stop us from feeling like winners today. -- Lt Gov. Lorraine Hunt should know by now where she stands with the Bush administration -- about as far away as possible. Two months have passed and the underdog Republican candidate for governor has yet to receive a response to the letter she sent President Bush urging him to re-evaluate his decision to recommend Yucca Mountain. That's too bad because Hunt is the only top Nevada Republican with the backbone these days to take the fight against the nuclear waste dump directly to the Republican president. According to her aides, Hunt hasn't even gotten an acknowledgement of receipt of her March 23 letter. Nevada Rep. Shelley Berkley, a Democrat, got such an acknowledgment on May 2 in response to her April 19 correspondence asking Bush to halt the Yucca Mountain licensing process amid allegations that scientific evidence was rigged. A White House aide told Berkley in the canned response that her letter was being shared with the president's advisors "for their careful review." I'll bet they're carefully reviewing the quickest way to file it in the trash can. But Hunt, who polls show is trailing Rep. Jim Gibbons (a Bush apologist) in the Republican primary for governor, can't even get a formal brush-off from White House. Her aides, however, say the ever-optimistic lieutenant governor is still hoping for some kind of response. And I'm still waiting for my Megabucks check to arrive in the mail. ***************************************************************** 48 Washington Post: House Votes for Temporary Nuclear Storage By H. JOSEF HEBERTThe Associated Press Wednesday, May 25, 2005; 3:45 AM WASHINGTON -- Fearing more delays in the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project in Nevada, the House wants the Energy Department to establish temporary storage for commercial reactor waste at one or more federal sites around the country. The directive was included as part of a $29.7 billion spending bill that passed the House late Tuesday. It still awaits Senate action. The measure also provides $4.7 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, mostly for water and dam projects, and money for maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile and other Energy Department programs. The spending bill calls on the Energy Department to produce a plan for aboveground storage for spent reactor fuel from commercial nuclear power plants within four months at one or more federal sites, and to begin accepting waste by October 2006. It provides $10 million for the program with a stipulation that more can be requested if needed. It also calls for the department to step up its research into new technologies to reprocess used reactor fuel to reduce the amount of disposable waste. Nuclear nonproliferation advocates have criticized reactor waste recycling. Fuel reprocessing was abandoned by the nuclear industry in this country in the 1970s because of nuclear proliferation concerns. "The proliferation risks from reprocessing are too great" to revive it, argued Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., whose attempt to remove the interim storage and reprocessing provisions from the bill failed 312-110. Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Appropriations energy subcommittee, said that while he strongly supports building the Yucca facility for long-term burial of the reactor waste, temporary storage is needed because the Yucca project is now projected to not be finished until 2012 and could be delayed further. It still needs a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license. He said temporary storage could head off hundreds of millions of dollars in damages the government faces for every year of delay in taking the waste. Courts have ruled that the government was contractually obligated to provide for long-term disposal of commercial used reactor fuel and should have begun taking the waste in 1998. There are 60 lawsuits pending by utilities over the waste disposal issue. More than 54,000 tons of the highly radioactive waste is being kept at commercial power plants in 31 states, with the amount growing every year. While the legislation leaves it up to the Energy Department to select one or more interim storage sites, a report accompanying the bill suggested a wide range of potential facilities from DOE weapons complex sites to closed military bases. Among the sites mentioned were the department's Savannah River weapons facility in South Carolina, the Hanford complex in Washington state and the Idaho National Laboratory. Some lawmakers worried that temporary storage could become permanent. Markey in a letter to other lawmakers said the interim storage proposal threatens to create "new regional nuclear waste dumps around the country." © 2005 The Associated Press © 1996- The Washington Post Company | | ***************************************************************** 49 Mail & Guardian: SA has 'no real plan' for nuclear waste www.mg.co.za Africa's first online Wendell Roelf | Cape Town, South Africa 5/25/2005 5:21:00 PM In the high-stakes nuclear game, will a radioactive waste-management policy be foisted on an unsuspecting public or will "transparency, consultation and stakeholder participation" be a reality? A draft policy containing those words remains ungazetted while the government commits itself to developing prototype pebble-bed nuclear reactors for commercial use. "The draft policy appears to be following a 'design, announce, defend' approach with respect to all radioactive waste," said Nik Wullschleger, an independent scientist and geologist. Wullschleger said given the complex scientific nature of radioactive waste management, there has been "insufficient time" for capacity building, effective public participation and proper comment. He said the public participation process is "seriously flawed" and makes a mockery of a ministerial foreword to the draft legislation that states that among the policy's "great achievements is its participatory process". By Wednesday afternoon, the government had not commented, despite a list of questions e-mailed to the nuclear chief director, Tseliso Maqubela, and ministerial spokesperson Yvonne Msolo last week. The radioactive waste-management policy, released for public comment in 2003, is the government's attempt at addressing shortcomings in managing nuclear waste. The comment period was initially only a month and the policy was only available in English. Lack of framework Despite operating the Koeberg nuclear reactor on the Cape West coast, and another nuclear facility at Pelindaba near Pretoria, the country does not have a regulatory framework for radioactive waste management. High-level waste at both facilities is stored on site because it is too dangerous to move, while medium- to low-level waste is buried at the Vaalputs site in the Northern Cape. South Africa might build 20 pebble-bed modular reactors (PBMRs) to meet future electricity demand, with each plant producing up to 32 tonnes of high-level waste a year, including 1,5 tonnes of uranium. If only five reactors are built, each operating for its entire 40-year lifespan, space would have to be found to store a massive 6 400 tonnes of radioactive waste. Earthlife Africa's Sibusiso Mimi said a "policy is simply an idea of a plan". He used the United States -- a nuclear giant -- to illustrate that proposals to store high-level waste remain unresolved after years of controversial debate. In the US, the proposed Yucca Mountain high-level waste-storage facility remains unbuilt, with investigations into suitable sites costing hundreds of millions of dollars. "It is totally foolhardy to continue to produce highly toxic waste with no real plan of what to do with it," said Mimi. Critiquing the draft legislation, Wullschleger recommended that polluters carry the full cost for the entire hazardous lifespan of the waste, "including 'grave-side' maintenance and monitoring". Wullschleger said the principle of best available technology not entailing excessive cost (BATNEEC) could be abused by profit-motivated generators and operators, such as Eskom. He said in accordance with the precautionary principle, BATNEEC should be replaced with the best practicable environmental option, as described by the National Environmental Management Act of 1998. Wullschleger also raised concern over the proposed national radioactive waste-management agency, saying a potential conflict of interest exists because the agency will be a "wholly-owned subsidiary" of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa). Necsa is the promoter of nuclear technology and will now be charged with the management of radioactive waste. While the government appeared to favour deep geological disposal of radioactive waste, Wullschleger said "retrievability" of containers, when considering public safety or a possible containment breach, should be ensured at all costs -- especially because the hazardous lifespan of radioactive waste, such as spent fuel, plutonium or uranium, could be millions of years. 'True costs' In its submission, the City of Cape Town suggested that the draft radioactive waste strategy be revised to include a framework timetable, budget and deadline for the establishment of a final repository for high-level nuclear waste. This timetable would consider the "true costs" of nuclear power, the city said. Cape Town wants the costs of providing financial guarantees and security against potential nuclear accidents to be assessed relative to the population potentially affected in a worst-case scenario. "Although unlikely, a severe accident could have far-reaching and long-term impacts on the entire city population and economy of the Western Cape. To put some perspective on the magnitude, the R3,5-billion guarantee [for Koeberg] would provide just over R1 000 per person [for compensation] for the 3,2-million population of Cape Town." The city warned that if the full lifecycle financial and environmental risks and costs are not taken into consideration, current electricity consumers may not have paid the full costs of electricity. "And the outstanding costs may be held over for future generations to bear." The city has already submitted an appeal to Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Marthinus van Schalkwyk, against the record of decision authorising the pilot PBMR at Koeberg. The PBMR authorisation included the condition that the national policy on radioactive waste must be in place before commencement of construction of the prototype nuclear reactor. -- Sapa All material copyright Mail&Guardian. ***************************************************************** 50 Rutland Herald: Nuclear storage talks continue May 25, 2005 By Vermont Press Bureau MONTPELIER — The owners of Vermont's sole nuclear power plant will continue negotiating with lawmakers today over how much they must pay for developing a storage facility for radioactive waste at their sprawling plant in Vernon. Representatives from Entergy Nuclear — the Louisiana-based owner of the nearly 35-year-old power plant — met in fits and starts with lawmakers Tuesday, trying to come to an agreement that would satisfy the company's desire to build a so-called dry cask storage facility without having to pay the millions of dollars a year contemplated by the Legislature. The negotiations were held in a building just to the west of the Statehouse and amid an increasing amount of tension between Entergy lobbyists and lawmakers. The House Ways and Means Committee heard an analysis from legislative number-crunchers indicating that annual charges related to the new waste facility and a proposed 20 percent boost in the plant's output could total some $132 million over the next 27 years. Brian Cosgrove, director of communications for the plant, suggested that the plant's owners don't have any intention of paying anywhere near that amount, and he said that it would seriously "damage the company's business plan." He hinted that the company may just walk away from Vermont if it were forced to pay for waste storage, a move that Rep. Michael Obuchowski, the Democrat who chairs Ways and Means, said was irresponsible and inflammatory. He said that Entergy was required to give six months' notice if it intended to close or sell the plant. "No one has received that notice," Obuchowski said. "It's time to act like grown-ups." From Entergy's point of view, the $132 million tab on a plant for which the company paid $180 million is unreasonable. The company has steadfastly maintained that it does not want to pay a new tax on a storage facility, a position favored by the administration of Gov. James Douglas. Cosgrove said any discussions about triggering the six months' notice would be held by senior company officials. Representatives from the Legislature and Entergy on Tuesday would not characterize the negotiations except to say that they are continuing. If they reach a resolution, it is likely that it would be agreed to by the Douglas administration. The final approval for any waste facility rests with the Public Service Board. If there is no agreement, the Legislature is expected to pass a bill with the new tax, setting up a likely veto showdown with the governor. The money from the tax would be used to establish a renewable energy fund. At the same time the company is balking at paying a storage fee, some analysts have suggested that the company stands to make more money in the years to come, particularly if the federal government approves the 20 percent power boost sought by Entergy. "Nuclear plants are becoming more valuable each week, and Entergy's uprate alone will generate as much as $40 million per year in additional revenue to the company," wrote Mark Sinclair, vice president of the Clean Energy Group, to key lawmakers. "Since Vermont's citizens are being asked to store this waste so Entergy can pursue the uprate," he wrote, "it seems fair to ask the company to provide some monetary benefit to Vermont to allow us to create a more diversified electricity portfolio going forward." Contact Darren Allen at . ***************************************************************** 51 canadaeast.com: Nuclear waste disposal could prove costly published on page A1/A11 on May 25, 2005 Point Lepreau wastes may cost NB Power about $300M BY RICHARD ROIK Telegraph-Journal NB Power could be on the hook for about $300 million under a proposed new long-term strategy by the country's nuclear industry to bury its radioactive waste fuel in a central disposal site. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) has released a $6.1-billion draft plan for the deep geological disposal of the equivalent of five hockey rinks of irradiated nuclear fuel that includes radioactive waste currently stored on-site at New Brunswick's Point Lepreau power plant. Senior NB Power officials insisted when the NWMO was first formed almost three years ago that financing the waste disposal from nuclear power generation would not result in higher electric bills in the province. But a spokeswoman for the utility could not confirm the impact of the new plan released Tuesday. "We have received the draft recommendations and we will be reviewing them," NB Power Nuclear's Pamela McKay said in a telephone interview. NB Power has already contributed $28 million toward an existing industry-sponsored $770-million trust fund to finance the disposal work, which would eventually cost $24.4 billion and take 60 years before the first waste is ever buried at a yet-to-be- determined site. Liz Dowdeswell, president of the NWMO, wrote in a statement posted on the organization's website Tuesday that the proposed system for phasing in and adapting the management of the waste will allow this generation of Canadians to take immediate responsibility for the spent nuclear fuel while keeping other disposal options open for future innovations. "We are advocating realistic, manageable phases - each marked by explicit decision points and continuing participation of interested Canadians," Ms. Dowdeswell wrote. Under the potential plan, NWMO would take up to 30 years to prepare for the eventual disposal, including the selection of a willing host community and the building of an underground research laboratory. Another 30 years could then be needed to confirm the suitability of the site and the technology for a deep repository. Environmental groups have been quick to dismiss the new plan as a re-hash of a similar proposal rejected by a federal environmental assessment review panel in the 1990s. "It sounds like something out of the past. In fact it is," said David Coon, policy director with the New Brunswick Conservation Council. "Our sense has always been that this whole process they are engaged in right now was to circumvent the recommendations of the environmental review panel," Mr. Coon added. "It didn't give them the answer they wanted, and now we are back to where we started." He said a more appropriate approach would be to phase out nuclear energy while making certain improvements to NB Power's current method of dry storing its existing radioactive waste fuel in concrete casks. "I can't think of too many other activities that are allowed when the wastes produced are so toxic that we don't know how to neutralize or destroy them," Mr. Coon said. It's estimated that nuclear waste can remain dangerously radioactive for up to 100 centuries. Under the NWMO's plan, the nuclear waste would be stored in underground mausoleums kept open for up to two centuries to allow Canada to rethink its options in case there is a change of heart or new technologies emerge for better dealing with the waste. "This is a possible model, and Canadians will have a big say in how it actually rolls out," said NWMO spokesman Mike Krizanc. "That's the big thing about adaptive phase management, people are involved all along the way." The NWMO has until Nov. 15 to submit its final report to Natural Resources Minister John Efford. The organization plans to use the summer consulting with Canadians. Reach our reporter tjotta@nb.aibn.com Copyright © 2005 Brunswick News Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 52 NRC: RIN 3150-AH72: Spent fuel casks FR Doc 05-10390 [Federal Register: May 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 100)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 30015-30017] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25my05-32] List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Standardized NUHOMS[reg]-24P, -52B, -61BT, -32PT, -24PHB, and -24PTH Revision AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations revising the Transnuclear, Inc., Standardized NUHOMS[reg] System listing within the ``List of approved spent fuel storage casks'' to include Amendment No. 8 to Certificate of Compliance Number (CoC No.) 1004. Amendment No. 8 to the Standardized NUHOMS[reg] System CoC would modify the cask design by adding a new spent fuel storage and transfer system, designated the NUHOMS[reg]-24PTH System. The NUHOMS[reg]-24PTH System consists of new or modified components: the -24PTH dry shielded canister (DSC); a new -24PTH DSC basket design; a modified horizontal storage module (HSM), designated the HSM-H; and a modified transfer cask (TC), designated the OS 197FC TC. The NUHOMS[reg]-24PTH System is designed to store fuel with a maximum average burnup of up to 62 gigawatts-day/metric ton of uranium; maximum average initial enrichment of 5.0 weight percent; minimum cooling time of 3.0 years; and maximum heat load of 40.8 kilowatts per DSC, under a general license. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before June 24, 2005. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include the following number (RIN 3150-AH72) in the subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, [[Page 30016]] the NRC cautions you against including personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates in your submission. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply e- mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail cag@nrc.gov. Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays (telephone (301) 415-1966). Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically on the public computers at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Selected documents, including comments, can be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. An electronic copy of the proposed CoC, Technical Specifications (TS), and preliminary safety evaluation report (SER) can be found under ADAMS Accession No. 050750211. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayne M. McCausland, telephone (301) 415-6219, e-mail, jmm2@nrc.gov of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct final rule published in the final rules section of this Federal Register. Procedural Background This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment 8 to CoC No. 1004 and does not include other aspects of the Standardized NUHOMS[reg] System cask design. The NRC is using the ``direct final rule procedure'' to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing CoC that is expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The direct final rule will become effective on August 8, 2005. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments by June 24, 2005, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws the direct final rule and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule. The NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action. A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if: (1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, in a substantive response: (a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis; (b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or (c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff. (2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition. (3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the CoC or TS. List of Subjects In 10 CFR Part 72 Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 72. PART 72--LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR- RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE 1. The authority citation for Part 72 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102- 486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c),(d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97- 425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2244 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198). 2. In Sec. 72.214, Certificate of Compliance 1004 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks. * * * * * Certificate Number: 1004. Initial Certificate Effective Date: January 23, 1995. Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: April 27, 2000. Amendment Number 2 Effective Date: September 5, 2000. Amendment Number 3 Effective Date: September 12, 2001. Amendment Number 4 Effective Date: February 12, 2002. [[Page 30017]] Amendment Number 5 Effective Date: January 7, 2004. Amendment Number 6 Effective Date: December 22, 2003. Amendment Number 7 Effective Date: March 2, 2004. Amendment Number 8 Effective Date: August 8, 2005. SAR Submitted by: Transnuclear, Inc. SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the Standardized NUHOMS[reg] Horizontal Modular Storage System for Irradiated Nuclear Fuel. Docket Number: 72-1004. Certificate Expiration Date: January 23, 2015. Model Number: NUHOMS[supreg] -24P, -52B, -61BT, -32PT, -24PHB, and -24PTH. * * * * * Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of May, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. 05-10390 Filed 5-24-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 53 NRC: RIN 3150-AH67 FR Doc 05-10391 [Federal Register: May 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 100)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 29934-29936] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25my05-5] Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material; Exports to Syria Embargoed AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------ SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its export/import regulations to remove Syria from the list of restricted destinations and add it to the list of embargoed destinations. This amendment is necessary to conform the NRC's regulations with U.S. law and foreign policy. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 25, 2005. ADDRESSES: Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), Public File Area O1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments can be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are available [[Page 29935]] electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to PDR@nrc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk Foggie, International Relations Specialist, Office of International Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-2238, e-mail kxf@nrc.gov, or Suzanne Schuyler-Hayes, International Policy Analyst, Office of International Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-2333, e-mail: ssh@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this final rule is to conform NRC's export/import regulations in 10 CFR Part 110, ``Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material'', with current U.S. Government law and policy on Syria. The Executive Branch has requested that in light of the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-175) (SAA) and Executive Order (E.O.) 13338, Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria (May 11, 2004), which implements that legislation, 10 CFR Part 110 be amended by moving Syria from the restricted to the embargoed destinations list. The purpose of this rule is to move Syria from the list of restricted destinations for exports at 10 CFR 110.29 to the list of embargoed destinations at 10 CFR 110.28. This means that no nuclear material or equipment can be exported to Syria under a general license in 10 CFR 110.21-110.25. Administrative Procedure Act The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act under 5 U.S.C. 553 requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a 30-day delay in effective date are inapplicable because this rule involves a foreign affairs function of the United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Accordingly, this final rule is effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. This rule updates the NRC's regulations at 10 CFR Part 110 governing the export and import of nuclear equipment and materials to incorporate the U.S. Government's foreign policy in light of changing circumstances with respect to Syria. This rulemaking moves Syria from the list of restricted destinations at 10 CFR 110.29 to the list of embargoed destinations at 10 CFR 110.28. This action is being taken at the request of the Executive Branch. After enactment of the SAA, on May 11, 2004, the President issued E.O. 13338, in which he determined that ``the actions of the Government of Syria in supporting terrorism, continuing its occupation of Lebanon, pursuing weapons of mass destruction and missile programs, and undermining the United States and international efforts with respect to the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States,'' and he declared a national emergency to deal with that threat. To address that threat, and to implement the SAA, he ordered, among other things, that ``No * * * agency of the United States Government shall permit the exportation or reexportation to Syria of any product of the United States, except to the extent provided in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order in a manner consistent with the SAA, and notwithstanding any license, permit, or authorization granted prior to the effective date of this order.'' Section 1.c. On this basis, the U.S. Department of State recently requested that Syria be moved from the list of restricted destinations at 10 CFR 110.29 to the list of embargoed destinations at 10 CFR 110.28. The effect of moving Syria from 10 CFR 110.29 to 10 CFR 110.28 will be to prohibit the export of any nuclear material and components to Syria under general license. The NRC has determined that moving Syria from the restricted list to the embargoed list is consistent with current U.S. law and foreign policy, and will pose no unreasonable risk to the public health and safety or to the common defense and security of the United States. Voluntary Consensus Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-113, requires that Federal Agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless using such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. This final rule does not constitute the establishment of a standard for which the use of a voluntary consensus standard would be applicable. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for the rule. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule does not contain new or amended information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0036. Public Protection Notification If a means used to impose an information collection does not display a current valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information collection. Regulatory Analysis The NRC currently controls exports to Syria as a restricted destination in 10 CFR 110.29. There is no alternative to amending the regulations to achieve the stated objective of embargoing nuclear exports to Syria. This rule conforms the NRC's export controls to U.S. law and foreign policy regarding Syria. Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Commission certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule affects only companies exporting nuclear equipment and materials to Syria which do not fall within the scope of the definition of ``small entities'' set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601(3)), or the Size Standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810). Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that a backfit analysis is not required for this direct final rule because these amendments do not include any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR Chapter I. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement [[Page 29936]] Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 110 Administrative practice and procedure, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Export, Import, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment. 0 For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 110. PART 110--EXPORT AND IMPORT OF NUCLEAR EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL 0 1. The authority citation for Part 110 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 54, 57, 63, 64, 65, 81, 82, 103, 104, 109, 111, 126, 127, 128, 129, 161, 181, 182, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 931, 932, 933, 936, 937, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2074, 2077, 2092-2095, 2111, 2112, 2133, 2134, 2139, 2139a, 2141, 2154-2158, 2201, 2231-2233, 2237, 2239); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); sec. 5, Pub. L. 101-575, 104 Stat. 2835 (42 U.S.C. 2243); Sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Sections 110.1(b)(2) and 110.1(b)(3) also issued under Pub. L. 96-92, 93 Stat. 710 (22 U.S.C. 2403). Section 110.11 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152) and secs. 54c and 57d, 88 Stat. 473, 475 (42 U.S.C. 2074). Section 110.27 also issued under sec. 309(a), Pub. L. 99-440. Section 110.50(b)(3) also issued under sec. 123, 92 Stat. 142 (42 U.S.C. 2153). Section 110.51 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 110.52 also issued under sec. 186, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236). Sections 110.80-110.113 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552, 554. Sections 110.30-110.135 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Sections 110.2 and 110.42(a)(9) also issued under sec. 903, Pub. L. 102-496 (42 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.). Sec. 110.28 [Amended] 2. Section 110.28 is amended by adding Syria to the list of embargoed destinations. Sec. 110.29 [Amended] 3. Section 110.29 is amended by removing Syria from the list of restricted destinations. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this May 3, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director For Operations. [FR Doc. 05-10391 Filed 5-24-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 54 E Magazine: The Paiute Mining Disaster May/June 2005 Vol. Vol. XVI, no. 3 www.emagazine.com IN BRIEF by Bob Boyce The Yerington Anaconda Mine in northern Nevada was one of the world’s largest producers of copper from 1953 to 2000. Today, nearby residents complain the defunct site is a major polluter. The Yerington Paiute Tribe’s (YPT) Campbell Ranch Reservation is barely three miles north, downwind from the 3,500-acre mining property and squarely in the path of any contaminants that might leave the mine. Several owners and tenants operated the mine over the years, including the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO), which purchased Anaconda’s interest in 1977 (and was itself later swallowed up by British Petroleum). When the bankrupt operator, Arimetco, walked away from the project in 2000, it left everything as it was, including millions of gallons of waste solutions in evaporation ponds and processing chemicals in miles of pipelines and storage drums. The tribe met firm resistance from authorities when it asked for the site to be included on the National Priorities List (NPL) for Superfund status. City and county leaders pointed out fears of decreased property values and stigma. Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn said in 2001, “While we can all agree that there is localized contamination at the site, we fail to see any scientific evidence that tribal resources are threatened, or have been adversely impacted.” With the requested Superfund status circumvented, Governor Guinn put the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) in charge of site remediation. After two years, the first barrels of chemicals were removed from the site. It was another year before the first work plan was approved for the processing area, but basic site evaluations are still underway. The YPT had long suspected uranium was on the mine site and that it may have polluted a nearby river and local irrigation ditches. Both ARCO and NDEP discounted the possibility until the summer of 2003, when documents were located that described Anaconda’s processing of yellowcake on the site in 1976. Eventually, tests of about 30 wells to the north of the mine site revealed that nine had “elevated levels” of uranium above drinking water standards. A U.S. Geological Survey test of the site in 1978 established high levels of many heavy metals (including uranium and thorium) in evaporation and tailing ponds, but it did not test groundwater. NDEP, ARCO and local officials said there was no evidence that high levels of uranium in off-site wells came from the mine. “Their position is totally against what we know,” says YPT Chairman Wayne Garcia. “There were high levels of uranium in the ponds found on the site in the 1978 survey. High levels of other heavy metals in those ponds were confirmed to be in the groundwater below the site. Did somehow the uranium stay behind?” High winds have also been blowing over the site and toward the reservation for decades. Undefined red dust has found its way into attics of reservation homes, many of which were built on top of fill dirt and tailings from the mine. Governor Guinn has reportedly agreed to reconsider his position, but he remains insistent that “things have been accomplished” and that NDEP can do the job. But a fractious meeting of all interested parties last August revealed considerable unhappiness with NDEP’s stewardship. BP of America has thus far been silent, but its subsidiary ARCO publicly demanded last year that the federal Bureau of Land Management, which has coordinated hazardous waste cleanup with the state, end its involvement in the dispute. “That action in and of itself speaks volumes about BP’s and ARCO’s intentions regarding this site,” says Garcia. CONTACTS Yerington Paiute Tribe Phone: (702)463-3301 E MAGAZINE.COM 2004. All Rights Reserved. Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 55 KLAS TV: House Debates $29.7 Billion DOE Funding Bill May 25, 2005 klastv.com Yucca Mountain Coverage The House started debate Tuesday on a $29.7 billion funding bill for the Department of Energy.The energy and water projects bill would provide $661 million to continue development of the nuclear waste storage site at Yucca Mountain. Because of the delays in the project, the House added $10 million for developing sites to hold the waste while waiting for Yucca Mountain to be finished. Nevada lawmakers are working to stop the project. Representive Jim Gibbons said going forward with Yucca Mountain is like using 8-track tapes in the era of iPods. The delays are largely caused by accusations of falsified science. The project is scheduled to be finished in 2012. All content © Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and KLAS. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 56 National Post: Future nuclear waste disposal woes canada.com May 25, 2005 TORONTO -- Ontario's energy minister says the hardest part about dealing with Canada's nuclear waste is yet to come. Dwight Duncan says the major challenge will be choosing a site to handle spent nuclear fuel from Canada's nuclear reactors. It's been a controversial topic for years. An interim report by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization outlines a $24-billion process to bury Canada's spent nuclear fuel. The group wants to bury it deep underground. But it will be years before the organization, which reports to the federal government, starts looking for such a site. The report says the organization will look for a community that's willing to host such a site. The report says selection of a site will focus on Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, since that's where most spent nuclear fuel is produced. ©  2005 Copyright © CanWest Interactive Inc. All rights reserved. CanWest Interactive Inc. is an affiliate of CanWest Global ***************************************************************** 57 CBC Saskatchewan: Sask. named as possible nuclear waste site www.cbc.ca Last Updated May 25 2005 05:15 PM CDT CBC PRINCE ALBERT, SASK. – A report suggests Saskatchewan would be a good place to dump nuclear waste  and a Saskatchewan government minister agrees the idea shouldn't be ruled out. [ Saskatchewan is the centre of Canada's uranium industry In a report released Tuesday, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization said there are now about two million used nuclear fuel bundles in Canada. Provinces involved in the nuclear industry  including Ontario and Quebec, which have nuclear power plants, and Saskatchewan, which is home to Canada's uranium industry  should be considered as storage sites, the report says. Nuclear Waste Management Organization: Choosing a way forward: The future management of Canada's used nuclear fuel (Note: CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external sites. Links will open in new window) The report says northern Saskatchewan might be a good place to store spent nuclear fuel, which could be buried deep in rock formations. But even Regina, Saskatoon and other urban areas shouldn't be ruled out, the 304-page draft report says. The report says nuclear waste is currently being stored at nuclear power plants, but in the long term, other sites will have to be found. Saskatchewan Industry and Resources Minister Eric Cline thinks the province should be part of the solution. "I don't believe that we should just mine uranium, sell uranium and then just completely wash our hands of the issue of how uranium is used and ultimately stored and disposed of as nuclear waste," Cline said. "I think we should be concerned about that." Cline noted that a final decision on a nuclear waste dump is a long way off. If the organization's plan moves ahead, it could take as long as 18 years to pick a site and it could be 30 years before spent nuclear fuel is buried there. Copyright © CBC 2005 ***************************************************************** 58 Japan Times: Reluctancy to make nuclear cuts Wednesday, May 25, 2005 It is evident that the United States has not emerged from the acute guilt complex of being the first to use nuclear bombs on civilians -- in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although it is the mission of the armed forces of any country to kill, when ordered to do so, the armed forces of an enemy state and risk being killed by them, to deliberately kill civilians in war violates the division of labor on which all of modern civilization is based. The civil use of nuclear power is welcome, but why is the U.S. so shy about declaring that it will use its clout, through the United Nations and other world forums, to help mankind rid itself -- lock, stock and barrel -- of nuclear weapons of mass destruction in a time-bound manner. The lack of a clear-cut policy on eliminating nuclear WMD raises legitimate doubts about current U.S. attitudes toward the use of nuclear WMD in war and about whether the U.S. seeks to have other nonpliable nations shun them for no other reason than to advance an obviously selfish strategy. HEM RAJ JAIN Bangalore, India The Japan Times: May 25, 2005 (The opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect the policies of The Japan Times.) ***************************************************************** 59 Japan Times: Invasions don't wash with time Wednesday, May 25, 2005 While Japan's government has done much to remember the hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens who perished from nuclear bombs in 1945, it has done very little in memory of the millions of Asians who fell victim to Imperial Army atrocities during the hellish era of invasion and conflict from 1931 to 1945. If only Germany hadn't done so much in the way of remembrance, Japan wouldn't look so horribly remiss or forgetful. On Aug. 6, I will remember the atomic bombing of Hiroshima 60 years ago as well as why that bomb was dropped. On Aug. 7, 1945, there was celebration in Singapore and other Asian cities still occupied by Japanese Imperial Army troops. Why not invite Asian survivors of the occupation or invasion ordeal to speak at Hiroshima or in Japan's high schools? After all, Germany invites Holocaust survivors to speak at various educational gatherings in that nation, which understands the true nature of atonement. No postwar German leader has ever claimed to be a "victim" of World War II aggression. This is a lesson for Japan's leaders. Perhaps Yasukuni Shrine (the memorial to Japan's war dead including convicted war criminals) should be temporarily closed until many of these issues are resolved. Germany surrendered in May 1945, the same month the world learned to its horror that the Hitler regime had carried out one of the worst holocausts in human history. In terms of mankind's struggle for a modern civilization, 60 years is a mere blink of the eye. It happened yesterday. Think about that the next time Japanese leaders retort to protesters in China that Japan's atrocities took place 60 years ago. In Muslim countries, mullahs still talk about the terrible brutality and butchery of the Christian Crusaders who slew so many innocent Islamic followers a thousand years ago. Even Japanese still talk about the aborted invasions of Kublai Khan in the 13th century (1274 and 1281), invasions that were averted only by the miracle of the arrival of a thunderous typhoon. The Mongol hordes would have waged a great war of destruction if their invasion had been successful. Some things are not easily forgotten. R. McKINNEY Tokyo The Japan Times: May 25, 2005 (The opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect the policies of The Japan Times.) ***************************************************************** 60 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge FR Doc 05-10426 [Federal Register: May 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 100)] [Notices] [Page 30092] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25my05-79] Reservation AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Oak Ridge Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register. DATES: Wednesday, June 8, 2005, 6 p.m. ADDRESSES: DOE Information Center, 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat Halsey, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 576-4025; Fax (865) 576-5333 or e- mail: halseypj@oro.doe.gov or check the Web site at http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities. Tentative Agenda: Environmental Management Program Coordination with Oak Ridge National Laboratory and National Nuclear Security Administration concerning potential criticality issues at East Tennessee Technology Park. Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to the agenda item should contact Pat Halsey at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. This notice is being published less than 15 days before the date of the meeting due to programmatic issues. Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Department of Energy's Information Center at 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, TN between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, or by writing to Pat Halsey, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, or by calling her at (865) 576-4025. Issued at Washington, DC, on May 18, 2005. Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 05-10426 Filed 5-24-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 61 DOE: Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology; Nuclear Energy FR Doc 05-10427 [Federal Register: May 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 100)] [Notices] [Page 30091] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25my05-76] Research Advisory Committee; Notice of Renewal Pursuant to section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, App.2, and section 102-3.65, title 41, Code of Federal Regulations and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee has been renewed for a six month period. The Committee will provide advice to the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology on long-range planning and priorities in the nuclear energy program. The Secretary of Energy has determined that renewal of the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee is essential to conduct the business of the Department of Energy and is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed by law upon the Department of Energy. The Committee will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the General Services Administration Final Rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, and other directives and instructions issued in implementation of those acts. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rachel Samuel at (202) 586-3279. Issued in Washington, DC, on May 18, 2005. Carol Matthews, Acting Advisory Committee Officer. [FR Doc. 05-10427 Filed 5-24-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-M ***************************************************************** 62 DOE: Agency Information Collection Extension FR Doc 05-10434 [Federal Register: May 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 100)] [Notices] [Page 30090-30091] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25my05-75] AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Submission for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review; comment request. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted an information collection package to the OMB for extension under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The package requests a three-year extension of OMB Control Number 1910-0600, entitled, ``Industrial Relations.'' This information collection package covers information necessary to collection of Human Resource information from major DOE contractors for contract management, administration, and cost control for example, reports of contractor expenditures for employee supplementary compensation such as medical insurance, life insurance, flexible benefit program, retirement and short term disability, overtime hours, holiday hours and other data. DATES: Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before June 24, 2005. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the OMB Desk Officer of your intention to make a submission as soon [[Page 30091]] as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4650. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be sent to: DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Rm 10102, 735 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. Comments should also be addressed to: Sharon A. Evelin, Director, IM-11/Germantown Bldg., U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290; or by fax at 301-903-9061 or by e- mail at sharon.evelin@hq.doe.gov, and to Stephanie Weakley, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585- 1615, 202/287-1554, or by fax at 202/287-1656 or by e-mail at stephanie.weakley@hq.doe.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The individuals listed in ADDRESSES. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This package contains: (1) OMB No. 1910- 0600; (2) Package Title: Industrial Relations; (3) Purpose: This information is required for management oversight for DOE's Facilities Management Contractors and to ensure that the programmatic and administrative management requirements of the contract are managed efficiently and effectively; (4) Estimated Number of Respondents: 307; (5) Estimated Total Burden Hours: 7183; (6) Number of Collections: The package contains 9 information and/or recordkeeping requirements. Statutory Authority: Department of Energy Organization Act, Pub. L. 95-91, of August 4, 1997. Issued in Washington, DC, on May 18, 2005. Sharon Evelin, Director, Records Management Division, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. 05-10434 Filed 5-24-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 63 Guardian Unlimited: UC Faces Decision on Los Alamos Contract From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday May 25, 2005 11:16 AM By MICHELLE LOCKE Associated Press Writer BERKELEY, Calif. (AP) - University of California regents face a big decision: Compete to run the Los Alamos nuclear weapons lab or walk away from the atomic birthplace it has managed since World War II. A committee of the university's governing Board of Regents was set Wednesday to recommend whether to submit a bid. The full board will vote on that recommendation Thursday. ``This is a significant decision for the university,'' school spokesman Chris Harrington said Tuesday. The university has run the New Mexico lab for the government since it was founded in 1943. But its performance has come under attack after a series of fiscal and security lapses. In April 2003, the Energy Department announced it would seek bids when the management contract expired this year. The contract will be for seven years, with potential extensions for 13 more. If the university does bid, it will face competition. Lockheed Martin has announced plans to try for the contract, and the University of Texas is planning to join that bid. Northrop Grumman also has indicated it will compete. Bidders have until July 19 to submit proposals. The National Nuclear Security Agency, part of the Department of Energy, aims to award a new contract Dec. 1. The new contractor will take over July 1, 2006. Los Alamos, with about 8,000 University of California employees and 3,000 contract workers, is one of the nation's three chief installations responsible for maintaining the nation's nuclear arsenal and manufacturing weapons components. In 1999, in a case that proved a major embarrassment for the government and the lab, Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee was jailed amid an investigation into possible Chinese espionage. Lee pleaded guilty to mishandling classified information. The lab was rocked by other security lapses, as well as credit card abuses, theft of equipment and other instances of mismanagement. --- On the Net: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 64 Albuquerque Tribune: University of California still wants LANL By Sue Vorenberg Tribune Reporter May 25, 2005 Two University of California committees voted unanimously this morning to recommend that the institution move forward with a bid to operate Los Alamos National Laboratory. The final decision will be made by the board of regents on Thursday afternoon. If the regents take the recommendation, UC and Bechtel Corp. will form a limited liability company to bid on and operate the lab. Before the votes, regents on the two panels - the Committee on Oversight of the Department of Energy Laboratories, and the Committee on Finance - held spirited debates among themselves and with students. Topping the issues list for many of the participants were whether the lab will end up making bunker buster bombs and whether it will end up as a manufacturing facility for the pit cores of nuclear weapons. Both projects would require a great deal of Congressional approval and are not part of the National Nuclear Security Administration's request for proposals to run the lab, committee members concluded. Many questioned whether it would be in the university's best interests to continue managing the lab, which it has operated for the past 62 years. Students from several of UC's 10 campuses dominated initial the public comment period, saying they did not want their university managing a nuclear weapons laboratory. At the end of the period, they disrupted the meeting for about 20 minutes, chanting "We will not be silent in the name of UC violence." The regents cleared the room briefly, but came back after students agreed to stay quiet. "I think a lot of the comments that did come from the audience today are comments that we all had to deal with in our own minds over the last year," said Regent Richard C. Blum, a member of the committees. "I for one have questioned whether we should continue with this program." At that, the students shouted their approval, but it was short lived. "We live in a very dangerous world," Blum continued. "We all wish there were no nuclear weapons, but there are nuclear weapons, and many of them are rapidly developing in the hands of people that we wish didn't have them." With that concern, Blum said he thought it was vital that the university continue the work at Los Alamos, rather than allowing a defense contractor to take the contract - such as a bid team comprised of Lockheed Martin and the University of Texas. "I'm not sure the competitors have the competence or the wherewithal - or maybe even the integrity - to manage this institution," Blum said. Regent George Marcus, another member of the committees, said he was concerned that several security and accounting scandals at the lab have damaged UC's ability to recruit students, but he added that he thinks UC has an obligation to move forward with a bid. "We are the best competitor, and we should strengthen ourselves by this competition," he said. Before the vote, interim Los Alamos Director Robert Kuckuck spoke up for the lab's employees, who are facing uncertainty and stress during the bidding process, he said. "They're struggling with morale issues; they're struggling under a microscope," Kuckuck said. "They're struggling under uncertainty of their own personal futures. . . . In spite of that they continue with a positive attitude toward their futures. I'm very impressed with that." Kuckuck added that the employees have been harshly criticized over the past several years of scandals and have not had their accomplishments equally emphasized. Regent Peter Preuss, also a member of both committees, said he thinks the university has a moral obligation to bid for the contract - and help scientists get back to their scientific work at the lab. "This is not a commercial undertaking - this is a service to our country," Preuss said. "We cannot shy away from our service to the nation. It would be nice if our country would beg us to do it, but this is not in the political winds today." The committees finished their vote to recommend moving ahead with the bid shortly before noon MST. Students, however, ended up shouting their final words at the end of the vote. "We vote no," they chanted. ***************************************************************** 65 Guardian Unlimited: UC Board Wants to Keep Los Alamos Contract From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday May 26, 2005 12:31 AM By MICHELLE LOCKE Associated Press Writer SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - After months of uncertainty, University of California regents gave preliminary approval Wednesday to a bid to continue managing the Los Alamos nuclear weapons lab. The unanimous votes by two key committees came after regents said they felt they had a duty to keep managing the birthplace of the atomic bomb. The proposal goes before the full board for ratification Thursday. ``The nation needs us to do this job,'' said Regent Peter Preuss. The university has run the New Mexico laboratory since it was created in 1943 to build the atomic bomb. But after an embarrassing string of financial and security lapses, the government announced it would put the contract up for bid for the first time. Students at the regents meeting urged them to cut ties with the weapons lab and stood after the vote, shouting, ``We vote no!'' ``UC should take this opportunity to get out of the bomb-making business,'' said UC Berkeley law student Garrett Wright, who addressed the regents before the vote. The new contract will be for seven years, with potential extensions for 13 more, and will pay as much as $79 million a year - nearly 10 times the amount the University of California now makes for a job it essentially regards as a nonprofit venture. ``I'd rather be on the inside - having a voice, playing a role in the decision-making, and bringing the values of good science to the institution - than on the outside looking in,'' UC President Robert C. Dynes said. Lockheed Martin and the University of Texas are planning a joint bid. Northrop Grumman also has indicated it will compete for the contract. Bidders have until July 19 to submit proposals. The government plans to award the contract by Dec. 1. In 1999, in a case that proved a major embarrassment for the government and the lab, Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee was jailed amid an investigation into possible Chinese espionage. The case proved to be weak, and Lee pleaded guilty to a single charge of mishandling classified information and was released. Los Alamos, with about 8,000 University of California employees and 3,000 contract workers, is one of the nation's three chief installations responsible for maintaining the nation's nuclear arsenal and manufacturing weapons components. --- On the Net: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 66 California Aggie: Decision to bid on Los Alamos lab has weighty consequences Loss of management could weaken UC's prestige By MELISSA B. TADDEI / Aggie Senior Staff Writer Posted 05/25/2005 [Story graphic, read With the UC Board of Regents’ decision on whether to bid for the U.S. Department of Energy labs — Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Lawrence Berkeley — looming, there is considerable reason to wonder what would happen if the UC didn’t run them for the first time in over half a century. On Nov. 7, 2003, the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill for the 2004 fiscal year was approved. The bill included a clause mandating labs with “noncompetitive management and operating contract(s)” — contracts which have been held for more than 50 years — be renegotiated when their contracts expired. Managing the labs gives the UC access to state-of-the-art research equipment and funding for scientific research and prestige, but it has also elicited many problems dealing with mismanagement and scandal. Lawrence Berkeley is an unclassified research lab, and Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore are primarily nuclear weapons labs; however, they support research in a variety of fields from nuclear energy to biotechnology. The University of California’s management of the labs has been deemed important because of the possibility that a private company might focus more exclusively on the defense aspects of the research, instead of pursuing academic research. A survey conducted among UC lecturers and librarians found 61 percent disapproved of the manufacture of nuclear weapons at the Los Alamos lab. The UC is currently the direct employer of everyone who works there, which would mean a big shakeup if the UC were to lose in the bidding process. Lab employees pay into UC retirement plans, and their children are eligible to attend UCs for in-state tuition prices. Los Alamos has approximately 10,000 UC employees, according to UC spokesperson Chris Harrington, who said that the final request for proposals issued by the DOE offers the employees some protection. Although the upcoming competition will be a first for the UC labs, revoking a contract as the result of mismanagement is not new to the DOE. In 1997, the DOE fired Associated Universities Incorporated, the contractor that had run the Brookhaven national lab for 50 years, after the local community was outraged by its belated response to a leak in one of the pools where spent nuclear fuel rods were cooled. Brookhaven is an unclassified research lab specializing in high-energy nuclear physics, but the criteria in its Request For Proposals weren’t all that different from the one for Los Alamos and Livermore. Terms included retaining a certain level of employment and employee benefits, and a clause that let the DOE terminate the contract without termination of liability. But, despite the many steps the DOE took to ensure Brookhaven would remain the same, the new lab managers — New York State University, Stony Brook and Battelle — failed to interact with the scientific community. What appears to be the UC’s most likely competition — the team of Lockheed-Martin and the University of Texas — will also be the most formidable. Lockheed-Martin is a defense contractor that does 80 percent of its business with the federal government and has managed the Sandia National Laboratories since 1993, which could give it the experience to be strong competitors for the UC labs. The Sandia labs are located in Albuquerque, N.M. and Livermore, Calif. They are nuclear weapons labs similar to Los Alamos. UC president Robert Dynes is a physicist, but Lockheed-Martin’s CEO also has a strong science background. Prior to becoming CEO, Vance Coffman — an aerospace engineer — was president of Lockheed’s Space Systems Division when it designed the Hubble telescope. The UC has decided to partner with Bechtel National, BWX Technologies, Inc., and Washington Group International to bid for the Los Alamos lab. Bechtel, one of the key contractors rebuilding Iraq, is a construction and development firm that currently manages the Idaho National Laboratory and the Nevada Test Site. Unlike the UC and Lockheed Martin, CEO Riley Bechtel does not have a background in science. Bechtel holds degrees in political science and psychology from UC Davis, and is a member of the American Bar Association. Regardless of the qualifications of the winner of the lab’s contract, lab employees have several concerns. The UC’s management of the labs has given the labs a university-like feel which the employees feel might be lost if the labs were run by a private corporation. Many also report a growing concern that retirement plans could be lost. Long before the decision to bid was even a question, Douglas Roberts, a 20-year LANL staff member, was maintaining a website calling on President Dynes to take action. His analysis and compilation of media reports is available at http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com. Harrington said the terms of the RFP cannot be discussed because of the competitive environment. But, he said the UC is operating under the assumption it will win the contract. “Should the Board of Regents decide to bid, we expect to win,” Harrington said. “We plan to compete vigorously.” The UC Board of Regents will vote today on whether to bid at a meeting being held at UC San Francisco Laurel Heights. The decision will be preceded by public comment. MELISSA B. TADDEI can be reached at campus@californiaaggie.com. © 1995 - 2005 by The California Aggie. ***************************************************************** 67 PISJ: Bill funds INL space for nuke storage - Plan consolidates bomb-grade uranium Pocatello Idaho State Journal: By Christopher Smith - Associated Press Writer BOISE (AP) - The U.S. House considered a spending bill Tuesday that would set aside money to upgrade buildings at the Idaho National Laboratory for storing bomb-grade uranium stockpiles from federal weapons labs in other states. The $29.7 billion appropriations bill for federal energy and water programs includes money for several existing and new programs at the eastern Idaho nuclear research compound. If passed by the House, the spending bill would need to be reconciled with a Senate version before being sent to the White House for President Bush's signature. The House bill would boost the budget for the Energy Department's Office of Security and Performance Enhancement to $356.5 million, more than the $300 million recommended by Bush. An unspecified portion of that increase would be used to design renovations to two concrete bunkers at INL to house surplus plutonium and highly enriched uranium no longer needed for nuclear bomb production. Hundreds of tons of the so-called "special nuclear materials" are stored at installations around the country. The bill would order the Energy Department to come up with a plan by Sept. 30 to consolidate much of the weapons material in Idaho. The Bush administration is seeking to cut costs and the threat of terrorist attack by moving the materials from multiple sites near population centers to more remote locations. Idaho Republican Congressman Mike Simpson is a member of the House appropriations panel that approved the language in the spending bill. He said that because the enriched uranium is not waste and similar materials are already stored at INL, he's willing to consider using the Idaho lab as a storage site. "It's important to keep in mind that Idaho has the experts, the facilities and the security to deal with these materials in a safe and responsible manner," Simpson said Tuesday. "If the Idaho National Laboratory can play a significant role in helping to secure our nation against nuclear terrorism and save taxpayers billions of dollars in the process, we have a responsibility to sit down with DOE and talk about it." Opponents say that although the Idaho lab has been billed as the proving ground for new generations of clean nuclear power, consolidating the material there would put INL into a Cold War-era role of atomic weapons support. "Just because INL has better security than Los Alamos (National Laboratory in New Mexico) - which isn't hard - it seems all of the real dangerous programs are turning toward us," said Jeremy Maxand of the Boise-based Snake River Alliance. "It's all happening through the appropriations process and there's no public debate, no hearings, no environmental impact statements." Maxand also points to $8.5 million in the bill for INL to plan and build facilities to take over Los Alamos National Laboratory's production of plutonium-238, which is used in "space batteries" to power orbiting satellites. Simpson said several provisions in the House spending bill reinforce INL's role in developing nuclear power reactors, including $13.5 million for an advanced test reactor for the Navy, $7 million to accelerate operation of a homeland security test range to study ways to protect the nation's electrical grid and wireless communications systems, and $16 million for upgrading research facilities at the site. The bill also would direct the Department of Energy to begin storing spent commercial nuclear reactor fuel at interim storage sites by 2006, specifying INL as one possible alternative until a permanent repository is operating at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. Simpson says chances of that ever happening are slim. He said the bill's language does not alter the force of a 1995 court-ordered settlement between the state of Idaho and the Energy Department that says DOE "will make no shipments of spent fuel from commercial nuclear power plants" to INL. The $29.7 billion appropriations bill for federal energy and water programs includes money for several existing and new programs at the eastern Idaho nuclear research compound. If passed by the House, the spending bill would need to be reconciled with a Senate version before being sent to the White House for President Bush's signature."> originally published online on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 Copyright © 2005 Pocatello Idaho State Journal P O Box 431 Pocatello, ID 83204-0431 ***************************************************************** 68 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Rocky FR Doc 05-10410 [Federal Register: May 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 100)] [Notices] [Page 30091-30092] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25my05-78] Flats AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Rocky Flats. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register. DATES: Thursday, June 2, 2005, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. ADDRESSES: College Hill Library, Room L-107, Front Range Community College, 3705 W. 112th Avenue, Westminster, Colorado. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Korkia, Executive Director, Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Board, 10808 Highway 93, Unit B, MV-72, Room 107B, Golden, CO 80403; telephone (303) 966-7855; fax (303) 966-7856. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities. Tentative Agenda 1. Presentation and Discussion on the Rocky Flats Integrated Monitoring Plan 2. Presentation and Discussion on Plans for Aerial Survey of Rocky Flats 3. Other Board business may be conducted as necessary Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should [[Page 30092]] contact Ken Korkia at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received at least five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provisions will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. This Federal Register notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting date due to programmatic issues that had to be resolved prior to the meeting date. Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the office of the Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Board. To make arrangement, contact the Board by telephone at (303) 966-7855. Board meeting minutes are also posted on RFCAB's Web site within one month following each meeting at: http://ww.rfcab.org/Minutes.HTML . Issued at Washington, DC on May 18, 2005. Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 05-10410 Filed 5-24-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 69 DOE: Notice of Availability of Draft Section 3116 Determination for FR Doc 05-10411 [Federal Register: May 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 100)] [Notices] [Page 30091] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25my05-77] Salt Waste Disposal at the Savannah River Site; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY: Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of availability; extension of comment period. SUMMARY: On April 1, 2005, the Department of Energy (DOE) published in the Federal Register a notice of availability of a draft Section 3116 determination for the disposal of separated, solidified, low-activity salt waste at the Savannah River Site (SRS) near Aiken, South Carolina. That notice set a deadline for public comments of May 16, 2005. On April 8, 2005, DOE published a correction to the April 1 notice, and extended the deadline for public comments to May 20, 2005. DOE has since received and is hereby granting a request for a further extension. The new deadline for submitting public comments on the draft Section 3116 determination is Tuesday, May 31, 2005. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 31, 2005. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Mr. Randall Kaltreider, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, EM-20, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. Alternatively, comments can be filed electronically by e-mail to saltwastedetermination@hq.doe.gov, or by Fax at (202) 586-4314. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Duchesne at (202) 586-6540. Issued in Washington, DC, on May 18, 2005. Charles E. Anderson, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. [FR Doc. 05-10411 Filed 5-24-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************