*****************************************************************
08/02/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.177
*****************************************************************
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 IPS-English POLITICS: Europe Plays Nuclear Poker with Iran
2 [NYTr] Iran agrees two-day uranium delay
3 [NYTr] Iran 10 Years Away from a Nuclear Bomb
4 Guardian Unlimited: France Urges U.N. Intervention With Iran
5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran reiterates intention to resume uranium enri
6 Daily Times: Iran will not reverse decision on restarting nuclear fu
7 Reuters: Russia will help Iran despite nuclear moves
8 Reuters: Iran to restart nuclear work, crisis looms
9 Reuters: EU3 tells Iran talks end if nuclear activity starts
10 Guardian Unlimited: EU warns Iran: no more talks if nuclear freeze e
11 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korean Envoy: No Progress at Nuke Talks
12 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Says Korea Nuclear Talks May End Soon
13 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Sets Conditions for Disarmament
14 Xinhua: Six-party talks close to end: Hill
15 AFP: NKorea says state of nuclear talks 'bad' -
16 Reuters: Korea nuclear crisis talks deadlocked; to continue
17 Guardian Unlimited: Korean Nuclear Talks Stretch Into 2nd Week
18 US: KRT Wire: Barton's energy success a love-hate story
19 Annan Urges Iran Not To Resume Nuclear Activities Before Receiving E
20 [toeslist] "At a Critical Moment in History-" Mel Hurtig -
21 Guardian Unlimited: Newly Appointed Bolton Arrives at U.N.
22 Bellona: Russia to spend $175m for submarine decommissioning in 2005
23 Xinhua: Russia to send 1800 troops for joint exercise with China
24 Japan Times: The end of silence: Korea's Hiroshima
NUCLEAR REACTORS
25 US: [NukeNet] PSEG to cut 400 jobs in merger
26 US: India: Rediff: NTPC has nuclear plans
27 The Hindu: Two reactors shut down
28 Times & Telegraph How 'risky' is Point Lepreau deal?
29 US: thedesertsun.com: Local geothermal region could have power of 10
30 US: record online: Indian Point emergency pumps failed
31 HSC: HSC Consults on proposed amendments to nuclear reactors
32 Daily Times: Nukes not included in India-US defence deal, says Rocca
33 US: NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Beaver Valley Power
34 US: NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Davis-Besse Nuclear
35 US: NRC: In the Matter of Certain Power Reactor Licensees and Resear
36 US: NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Beaver Valley Power
37 US: NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Perry Nuclear Power
38 US: NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Perry Nuclear Power
39 US: NRC: PSEG Nuclear LLC, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No
40 US: NRC: Exelon Generation Company, LLC, PSEG Nuclear LLC, Peach Bot
41 US: NRC: PSEG Nuclear LLC, Hope Creek Generating Station; Notice of
42 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collecti
43 US: York Daily Record: SECURITY: NRC plans Md. meeting -
44 Prague Daily Monitor: Skoda JS in second round of Bulgarian nuclear
45 US: NRC: Sunshine Federal Register Notice
46 US: Daily Sentinel: State pursues nuclear energy at Bellefonte
47 CBC New Brunswick: Lepreau refit will mean higher power rates
48 CBC New Brunswick: Environmental assessment of Lepreau inadequate -
49 Guardian Unlimited: Iran to Delay Reopening Nuclear Plant
NUCLEAR SECURITY
NUCLEAR SAFETY
50 RIA Novosti: Prosecutors investigate fatal nuclear submarine fire
51 US: NRC: Notice of License Request for Pa'ina Hawaii, LLC, Irradiato
52 US: NRC: In the Matter of Certain Licensees Authorized To Possess an
53 Telegraph: The clouds of nuclear war are still hanging over Hiroshim
54 US: Reuters: Alaska food safe decades after nuclear blasts-study
55 US: i-Newswire.com: Researchers find Amchitka seafood safe for now
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
56 US: DailyBulletin.com: Company renegotiating perchlorate cleanup
57 US: Bradenton Herald: Tallevast residents criticize new plan
58 au abc: Community groups to plan approach to nuclear dump
59 US: Lincoln Journal Star: Call finally ends nuke waste dispute
60 US: AU ABC: Macfarlane seeks clarity on NT uranium policy.
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
61 Rocky Mountain News: Steel jaws erase last Flats building
62 San Luis Obispo Tribune: Diablo license study planned
63 ABQJOURNAL: Los Alamos Radiological Contamination Tracked
64 DOE: Expression of Interest Regarding the Scope of an Intended
65 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Hanford
66 lamonitor.com: Event to recognize end of WWII
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 IPS-English POLITICS: Europe Plays Nuclear Poker with Iran
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 14:11:31 -0700
autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
ROMAIPS AP IP BW EN ML
POLITICS: Europe Plays Nuclear Poker with Iran
Analysis by Praful Bidwai
NEW DELHI, Aug 2 (IPS) - The Iranian government's threat to resume
limited nuclear activities after the European Union (EU) missed a
deadline on Sunday to offer new incentives is clearly part of a
calculated attempt to mount pressure on the EU-3 (Britain, France and
Germany).
The EU-3 has rebuffed Iran's call and warned against ''any unilateral
move'' on Tehran's part that would be ''unnecessary and damaging'' and
could ''make it very difficult to continue'' negotiations.
The threats are being seen by neutral observers in this country, which
has just signed a nuclear energy pact with the United States, as part of
a cynical game of nuclear poker now being played over Iran.
At the heart of the moves and countermoves is the changed situation in
Iran after the surprise election of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad as president and
the West's great discomfort at dealing with someone who has been termed
a ''hardline'' Islamist.
If the nuclear issue is not resolved very soon, the danger will grow and
the nuclear poker game could easily get out of control. The immediate
risk is that the EU and the US might push Iran into an intransigent
stand by threatening to take the controversy to the United Nations
Security Council for possible sanctions against Tehran.
Iran has refused to extend the Jul. 31 deadline agreed with the EU-3
last November, when Tehran suspended its nuclear activities. This was
done on condition that the European states would make proposals that
give Iran the incentive not to pursue its nuclear programme, which it
says is entirely for ''peaceful'' purposes.
The EU-3 requested Iran to extend the deadline for six days. ''This
time-span might appear trivially short, but it is not,'' says Hamid
Ansari, a former Indian ambassador Iran and a Distinguished Fellow at
the Observer Research Foundation, a policy think-tank in New Delhi.
''Probably the EU-3 wants to hear a pronouncement on the nuclear issue
from the new president-elect, who will assume office on Aug. 6. And the
Iranians do not want to oblige the EU-3''.
It was not an accident that the EU ''missed'' the July 31 deadline.
According to reports, ''which appear reliable and solid'', says Ansari,
the EU-3 had formulated a package of proposals on the assumption that
a ''moderate'' like Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani would be elected to
Iran's presidency.
But their plans went awry when Ahmedinejad pipped Rafsanjani at the
polls.
The package reportedly includes an assured supply of lightly enriched
uranium fuel for Iran's proposed nuclear power stations, lifting of
barriers on the sale of technology to Iran to help enhance its oil and
gas output.
Thrown in is the promise of a serious security dialogue leading to the
promise of a no-aggression agreement that would end the a hostile
posture by the US towards Iran -- which President George W. Bush has
designated a part of the ''Axis-of-Evil".
The holding back of this package itself appears related to a hardening
of the US posture vis-a-vis Iran since Ahmedinejad's election and also
the visit to Tehran of Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari seeking
to repair some of the damage caused to mutual relations since the Iran-
Iraq war of the 1980s.
Washington is not just looking to mount pressure on Iran in favour
of 'democracy' but may actually be contemplating an armed attack.
The US magazine, 'The Nation', reported on Jul.21 that 'Bush has given
the Defence Department approval to develop scenarios for an attack if
Tehran proceeds with uranium-enrichment activities viewed in Washington
as a precursor to the manufacture of nuclear munitions'.
In the article, by The Nation's defence correspondent Michael T. Klare,
who is also professor peace and world security at Hampshire College,
pointed out that top officials in the Bush administration have argued in
favour of military action again Iran even before Ahmadinehad's election.
According to 'The American Conservative' another publication, US
contingency plans involve the use of conventional and even nuclear
weapons against over 400 targets in Iran.
Iran, for its part, has made a clean, physical separation between two
components of its 18 year-old nuclear enrichment programme, which it had
kept secret. Its enrichment plant is located at Natanz. But the factory
that is supposed to feed it is located in Isfahan and is designed to
convert solid uranium oxides into hexaflouride gas.
At the moment, Iran is only threatening to begin operating the Isfahan
factory --one clean step away from enrichment itself. In any case, Iran
says it wants to enrich uranium to a low level for use in nuclear power
reactors. (Normally, power reactors burn 2 to 4 percent enriched
uranium, in which the proportion of its fissile isotope U-235 has been
raised to that percentage up from the naturally occurring 0.7 percent).
Iran has consistently affirmed that it has a right to acquire and
develop nuclear technology for peaceful uses and that it will never
pursue weapons of mass destruction.
''In this regard, all major Iranian leaders are unanimous; even
Rafsanjani could not have changed the strong consensus that exists in
Iran on nuclear policy'', says Gulshan Dietl, professor of West Asian
Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in the Indian capital.
''That consensus is that Iran must pursue nuclear power although it will
not make nuclear weapons, at least not yet. There is no reason to
believe that there are major differences on this,'' Dietl said.
However, the US suspects that Iran, which has oil and gas reserves,
wants to enrich uranium only to make nuclear weapons.
It is another matter that the US is not a state with merely suspected
nuclear activity and a weapons programme, but a declared nuclear
weapons-state, and that it developed nuclear power despite its
petroleum reserves.
The EU-3 have been trying to mediate between the US and Iran, but their
efforts could fail if the US takes a tough, unhelpful stand to isolate
Iran, driving it to harden its own posture. That could bring two years
of difficult EU- Iran negotiations to a sorry end.
Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which
permits the pursuit of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes like
generating power. It has a strong legal case for developing a peaceful
nuclear programme under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
supervision.
Iran's case has been further buttressed by the exceptional agreement the
US signed with India just two weeks ago. Under it, Washington has
recognised India as a ''responsible state with advance nuclear
technology'', agreed to resume civilian nuclear trade with it, and also
to help ''adjust'' the international nuclear control regime to enable
wide-ranging civilian transactions with India.
Iran, predictably, responded to this deal by accusing the Bush
administration of double standards and undermining the NPT. Iran
says ''the US signed this agreement despite the fact that India, unlike
Iran, has not signed the NPT.''
An Iranian official has been quoted as saying: ''India is looking after
its own national interest. We cannot criticise them for this. On the
one hand, [the US] are depriving an NPT member from having peaceful
technology, but at the same time they are cooperating with India, which
is not a member of the NPT, to their own advantage.''
Such criticism might complicate matters in major Western capitals and
also in the 44-member Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG). The US will find
hard to justify an inflexible and hostile posture towards Iran. And the
EU-3 will find it even more difficult to win this round of nuclear
poker. (END/IPS/AP/IP/BW/SC/EN/ML/PB/RDR/05)
= 08021511 ORP009
NNNN
*****************************************************************
2 [NYTr] Iran agrees two-day uranium delay
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 10:30:16 -0500 (CDT)
autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Imperialist Disinformation about Iran
Western coverage of Iran has been largely contradictory smoke. The Iranians
will/will not resume nuclear production and uranium enrichment. The
president-elect, to be sworn in tomorrow, was/was not one of the militant
students who occupied the US Embassy in 1979. Iran's military is/is not
training the Shiite Iraqi Resistance. Iran supports international
terrorism, and maybe even al Qaeda. Over the weekend, Alex Cockburn of
CounterPunch reported on a new rumor being floated that uranium from several
US "broken arrows" (nuclear bombs lost from a crippled B-52) has made its
way into Iran. None of it is to be taken seriously.
We do not preface every mainstream story with a note that it's likely
disinformation, or an analysis of its propaganda aims. We assume our
readers are well enough informed to figure it out for themselves. The
details are designed to confuse. The overall theme that is being hammered
home through the fog of contradictory factoids is: Iran is a threat. It all
sets the stage for a justification of a future attack of some sort (by the
US, Israel and perhaps others), should the desperate, floundering empire
decide to step deeper into the quagmire they have created for themselves. If
they do, they will select from among the "facts" they've planted previously
in the press to bolster their lies. Citizens of the Evil Empire are expected
not to remember -- and the mainstream press not to report -- any
contradictory information when the time comes. With their 10-minute
attention span, most of them likely won't. They will only remember the theme
-- Iran is a threat -- and thus will be ready to receive and swallow yet
another enormous lie. -NY Transfer]
sent by Simon McGuinness
The Independent - 02 August 2005
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article303087.ece
("... countries believe it is in their strategic interests to obtain the
bomb as a guarantee against attack by the US. It saved North Korea.")
Iran agrees two-day uranium delay
By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
Iran is engaged in a game of brinkmanship with Europe over its nuclear
programme only two days from the installation of the new hardline
Iranian President.
In a day of high drama, Iran defied its European negotiating partners by
informing the UN nuclear watchdog it intended to resume nuclear-related
activities starting yesterday. That is expected to lead to the collapse
of talks with Britain, France and Germany and the possible referral of
Iran before the UN Security Council for sanctions.
The Iranian letter provoked a personal appeal from the head of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed ElBaradei, who urged the
Iranian leadership not to jeopardise its hard-fought deal with the
Europeans.
But it also offered an opportunity for more time, which would enable the
Europeans to complete their proposals by the end of the week, by which
time Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will have taken over as President.
Mr ElBaradei asked Tehran for a "maximum of two days" to send its
experts to the Isfahan facility where they would watch the breaking of
the UN seals to enable Iran to resume uranium processing. Last night,
Iran agreed to the two-day delay.
Its decision had been expected since the weekend, when it suddenly
announced a deadline for Europe to deliver its package of incentives
aimed at persuading Iran to permanently freeze its uranium enrichment
programme. The Europeans are insisting on a freeze as a guarantee that
Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon. They made it clear resumption
of uranium conversion would signify a breach of their agreement with
Iran.
British officials said the three European countries - which had rejected
the Iranian deadline - still intended to submit their proposals to Iran.
They are expected to specify no military action would be taken to
compromise Iran's political integrity, as well as confirm support for
Iranian membership of the World Trade Organisation.
The crisis with the Europeans is the worst since Iran agreed to suspend
uranium-related activities in November last year. Such activities are a
crucial stage in the development of a nuclear weapon. Iran insists its
nuclear programme is purely for civil purposes.
But the unfolding crisis comes against a backdrop of domestic Iranian
politics, after the surprise election of Mr Ahmadinejad, which triggered
widespread dismay in the West. His inauguration is tomorrow.
Ali Agha Mohammadi, the spokesman for Iran's Supreme National Security
Council, accused the European Union of delaying its proposals to "take a
stance" against Mr Ahmadinejad, who is replacing the pro-reform
President Mohamed Khatami.
Britain has ruled out a military option, which has been evoked by the
Israelis. A military attack on Iran could produce retaliation by the
Iranians elsewhere in the region, and would strengthen the hand of the
advocates of nuclear weapons in Tehran. The programme could go
underground, making it even harder for the West to detect than under the
present United Nations-supervised regime.
Experts believe it would take Iran, which has dabbled in all aspects of
nuclear fuel, at least four years to be able to build a bomb.
Countries want the bomb to protect themselves from US attack
Which country poses the biggest nuclear threat?
North Korea. It says it has a nuclear arsenal, and the head of the
International Atomic Energy Agency says it may have enough plutonium for
six bombs. The CIA believes Pyongyang could produce "one or two bombs" a
year. But nobody knows for sure because the UN weapons inspectors were
thrown out before North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003. Six-party talks in Beijing, involving
the US, are trying to negotiate North Korean disarmament.
Why do countries want the bomb?
*******************************
National prestige and deterrence against regional rivals. India and
Pakistan entered the exclusive nuclear "club" of five - the US, Britain,
France, Russia, China - after tit-for-tat nuclear explosions in 1998.
Also, with the war on Iraq (which did not have the bomb), countries
believe it is in their strategic interests to obtain the bomb as a
guarantee against attack by the US.
It saved North Korea. North Korea and Iran have discovered the threat of
nuclear weaponry can be turned into a powerful tool to obtain security
and economic compensation from the West.
What will happen if the NPT negotiations fail?
**********************************************
A very grave situation. The system of international safeguards aimed at
preventing a repeat of the horrors of Hiroshima in disarray. The North
Koreans have pulled out and others may follow, leaving the Middle East
and Asia with a big security deficit. The NPT members Egypt and South
Korea have admitted secret experiments, and there are questions about
Brazil and Argentina's intentions. Iran was forced to admit that it had
cheated for 18 years, and Iraq and Libya violated the treaty.
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
3 [NYTr] Iran 10 Years Away from a Nuclear Bomb
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 11:57:48 -0500 (CDT)
WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
[Looks like the Washington Post may have decided to stop serving as one
of the Bush Regime's handmaidens, at least on its Iran disinfo. See 2nd
item for Howard Kurtz's 2004 survey of how the Post's editors censored
reporting on Iraq that contradicted the Bush propaganda.-NYTr]
The Washington Post - Aug 2, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453_pf.html
Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb
U.S. Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a
decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon,
roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to
government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.
The carefully hedged assessments, which represent consensus among U.S.
intelligence agencies, contrast with forceful public statements by the
White House. Administration officials have asserted, but have not
offered proof, that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear
arsenal. The new estimate could provide more time for diplomacy with
Iran over its nuclear ambitions. President Bush has said that he wants
the crisis resolved diplomatically but that "all options are on the table."
The new National Intelligence Estimate includes what the intelligence
community views as credible indicators that Iran's military is
conducting clandestine work. But the sources said there is no
information linking those projects directly to a nuclear weapons
program. What is clear is that Iran, mostly through its energy program,
is acquiring and mastering technologies that could be diverted to
bombmaking.
The estimate expresses uncertainty about whether Iran's ruling clerics
have made a decision to build a nuclear arsenal, three U.S. sources
said. Still, a senior intelligence official familiar with the findings
said that "it is the judgment of the intelligence community that, left
to its own devices, Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons."
At no time in the past three years has the White House attributed its
assertions about Iran to U.S. intelligence, as it did about Iraq in the
run-up to the March 2003 invasion. Instead, it has pointed to years of
Iranian concealment and questioned why a country with as much oil as
Iran would require a large-scale nuclear energy program.
The NIE addresses those assertions and offers alternative views
supporting and challenging the assumptions they are based on. Those
familiar with the new judgments, which have not been previously
detailed, would discuss only limited elements of the estimate and only
on the condition of anonymity, because the report is classified, as is
some of the evidence on which it is based.
Top policymakers are scrutinizing the review, several administration
officials said, as the White House formulates the next steps of an Iran
policy long riven by infighting and competing strategies. For three
years, the administration has tried, with limited success, to increase
pressure on Iran by focusing attention on its nuclear program. Those
efforts have been driven as much by international diplomacy as by the
intelligence.
The NIE, ordered by the National Intelligence Council in January, is the
first major review since 2001 of what is known and what is unknown about
Iran. Additional assessments produced during Bush's first term were
narrow in scope, and some were rejected by advocates of policies that
were inconsistent with the intelligence judgments.
One such paper was a 2002 review that former and current officials said
was commissioned by national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, who was
then deputy adviser, to assess the possibility for "regime change" in
Iran. Those findings described the Islamic republic on a slow march
toward democracy and cautioned against U.S. interference in that
process, said the officials, who would describe the paper's classified
findings only on the condition of anonymity.
The new estimate takes a broader approach to the question of Iran's
political future. But it is unable to answer whether the country's
ruling clerics will still be in control by the time the country is
capable of producing fissile material. The administration keeps "hoping
the mullahs will leave before Iran gets a nuclear weapons capability,"
said an official familiar with policy discussions.
Intelligence estimates are designed to alert the president of national
security developments and help guide policy. The new Iran findings were
described as well documented and well written, covering such topics as
military capabilities, expected population growth and the oil industry.
The assessments of Iran's nuclear program appear in a separate annex to
the NIE known as a memorandum to holders.
"It's a full look at what we know, what we don't know and what
assumptions we have," a U.S. source said.
Until recently, Iran was judged, according to February testimony by Vice
Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, to
be within five years of the capability to make a nuclear weapon. Since
1995, U.S. officials have continually estimated Iran to be "within five
years" from reaching that same capability. So far, it has not.
The new estimate extends the timeline, judging that Iran will be
unlikely to produce a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium,
the key ingredient for an atomic weapon, before "early to mid-next
decade," according to four sources familiar with that finding. The
sources said the shift, based on a better understanding of Iran's
technical limitations, puts the timeline closer to 2015 and in line with
recently revised British and Israeli figures.
The estimate is for acquisition of fissile material, but there is no
firm view expressed on whether Iran would be ready by then with an
implosion device, sources said.
The timeline is portrayed as a minimum designed to reflect a program
moving full speed ahead without major technical obstacles. It does not
take into account that Iran has suspended much of its uranium-enrichment
work as part of a tenuous deal with Britain, France and Germany. Iran
announced yesterday that it intends to resume some of that work if the
European talks fall short of expectations.
Sources said the new timeline also reflects a fading of suspicions that
Iran's military has been running its own separate and covert enrichment
effort. But there is evidence of clandestine military work on missiles
and centrifuge research and development that could be linked to a
nuclear program, four sources said.
Last month, U.S. officials shared some data on the missile program with
U.N. nuclear inspectors, based on drawings obtained last November. The
documents include design modifications for Iran's Shahab-3 missile to
make the room required for a nuclear warhead, U.S. and foreign officials
said.
"If someone has a good idea for a missile program, and he has really
good connections, he'll get that program through," said Gordon Oehler,
who ran the CIA's nonproliferation center and served as deputy director
of the presidential commission on weapons of mass destruction. "But that
doesn't mean there is a master plan for a nuclear weapon."
The commission found earlier this year that U.S. intelligence knows
"disturbingly little" about Iran, and about North Korea.
Much of what is known about Tehran has been learned through analyzing
communication intercepts, satellite imagery and the work of U.N.
inspectors who have been investigating Iran for more than two years.
Inspectors uncovered facilities for uranium conversion and enrichment,
results of plutonium tests, and equipment bought illicitly from Pakistan
-- all of which raised serious concerns but could be explained by an
energy program. Inspectors have found no proof that Iran possesses a
nuclear warhead design or is conducting a nuclear weapons program.
The NIE comes more than two years after the intelligence community
assessed, wrongly, in an October 2002 estimate that then-Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was reconstituting
his nuclear program. The judgments were declassified and made public by
the Bush administration as it sought to build support for invading Iraq
five months later.
At a congressional hearing last Thursday, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, deputy
director of national intelligence, said that new rules recently were
imposed for crafting NIEs and that there would be "a higher tolerance
for ambiguity," even if it meant producing estimates with less
definitive conclusions.
The Iran NIE, sources said, includes creative analysis and alternative
theories that could explain some of the suspicious activities discovered
in Iran in the past three years. Iran has said its nuclear
infrastructure was built for energy production, not weapons.
Assessed as plausible, but unverifiable, is Iran's public explanation
that it built the program in secret, over 18 years, because it feared
attack by the United States or Israel if the work was exposed.
In January, before the review, Vice President Cheney suggested Iranian
nuclear advances were so pressing that Israel may be forced to attack
facilities, as it had done 23 years earlier in Iraq.
In an April 2004 speech, John R. Bolton -- then the administration's
point man on weapons of mass destruction and now Bush's temporarily
appointed U.N. ambassador -- said: "If we permit Iran's deception to go
on much longer, it will be too late. Iran will have nuclear weapons."
But the level of certainty, influenced by diplomacy and intelligence,
appears to have shifted.
Asked in June, after the NIE was done, whether Iran had a nuclear effort
underway, Bolton's successor, Robert G. Joseph, undersecretary of state
for arms control, said: "I don't know quite how to answer that because
we don't have perfect information or perfect understanding. But the
Iranian record, plus what the Iranian leaders have said... lead us to
conclude that we have to be highly skeptical."
Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
) 2005 The Washington Post Company
***
The Washington Post - Aug 12, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58127-2004Aug11.html
The Post on WMDs: An Inside Story
This is a sort of mea culpa piece on keeping critical wmd stories OFF the
front page.
PREWAR ARTICLES QUESTIONING THREAT OFTEN DIDN'T MAKE FRONT PAGE
By Howard Kurtz
Days before the Iraq war began, veteran Washington Post reporter Walter
Pincus put together a story questioning whether the Bush administration had
proof that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.
But he ran into resistance from the paper's editors, and his piece ran
"We did our job but we didn't do enough, and I blame myself mightily for not
pushing harder," Woodward said in an interview. "We should have warned
readers we had information that the basis for this was shakier" than widely
believed. "Those are exactly the kind of statements that should be published
on the front page."
As violence continues in postwar Iraq and U.S. forces have yet to discover
any WMDs, some critics say the media, including The Washington Post, failed
the country by not reporting more skeptically on President Bush's
contentions during the run-up to war.
An examination of the paper's coverage, and interviews with more than a
dozen of the editors and reporters involved, shows that The Post published a
number of pieces challenging the White House, but rarely on the front page.
Some reporters who were lobbying for greater prominence for stories that
questioned the administration's evidence complained to senior editors who,
in the view of those reporters, were unenthusiastic about such pieces. The
result was coverage that, despite flashes of groundbreaking reporting, in
hindsight looks strikingly one-sided at times.
"The paper was not front-paging stuff," said Pentagon correspondent Thomas
Ricks. "Administration assertions were on the front page. Things that
challenged the administration were on A18 on Sunday or A24 on Monday. There
was an attitude among editors: Look, we're going to war, why do we even
worry about all this contrary stuff?"
In retrospect, said Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr., "we were so focused
on trying to figure out what the administration was doing that we were not
giving the same play to people who said it wouldn't be a good idea to go to
war and were questioning the administration's rationale. Not enough of those
stories were put on the front page. That was a mistake on my part."
Across the country, "the voices raising questions about the war were lonely
ones," Downie said. "We didn't pay enough attention to the minority."
When national security reporter Dana Priest was addressing a group of
intelligence officers recently, she said, she was peppered with questions:
"Why didn't The Post do a more aggressive job? Why didn't The Post ask more
questions? Why didn't The Post dig harder?"
Several news organizations have cast a withering eye on their earlier work.
The New York Times said in a May editor's note about stories that claimed
progress in the hunt for WMDs that editors "were perhaps too intent on
rushing scoops into the paper." Separately, the Times editorial page and the
New Republic magazine expressed regret for some prewar arguments.
Michael Massing, a New York Review of Books contributor and author of the
forthcoming book "Now They Tell Us," on the press and Iraq, said: "In
covering the run-up to the war, The Post did better than most other news
organizations, featuring a number of solid articles about the Bush
administration's policies. But on the key issue of Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction, the paper was generally napping along with everyone else. It
gave readers little hint of the doubts that a number of intelligence
analysts had about the administration's claims regarding Iraq's arsenal."
The front page is a newspaper's billboard, its way of making a statement
about what is important, and stories trumpeted there are often picked up by
other news outlets. Editors begin pitching stories at a 2 p.m. news meeting
with Downie and Managing Editor Steve Coll and, along with some reporters,
lobby throughout the day. But there is limited space on Page 1
-- usually six or seven stories -- and Downie said he likes to feature a
broad range of subjects, including education, health, science, sports and
business.
Woodward, for his part, said it was risky for journalists to write anything
that might look silly if weapons were ultimately found in Iraq. Alluding to
the finding of the Sept. 11 commission of a "groupthink" among intelligence
officials, Woodward said of the weapons coverage: "I think I was part of the
groupthink."
Given The Post's reputation for helping topple the Nixon administration,
some of those involved in the prewar coverage felt compelled to say the
paper's shortcomings did not reflect any reticence about taking on the Bush
White House. Priest noted, however, that skeptical stories usually triggered
hate mail "questioning your patriotism and suggesting that you somehow be
delivered into the hands of the terrorists."
Instead, the obstacles ranged from editing difficulties and communication
problems to the sheer mass of information the newsroom was trying to digest
during the march to war.
THE DOUBTS GO INSIDE
From August 2002 through the March 19, 2003, launch of the war, The Post
ran more than 140 front-page stories that focused heavily on administration
rhetoric against Iraq. Some examples: "Cheney Says Iraqi Strike Is
Justified"; "War Cabinet Argues for Iraq Attack"; "Bush Tells United Nations
It Must Stand Up to Hussein or U.S. Will"; "Bush Cites Urgent Iraqi Threat";
"Bush Tells Troops: Prepare for War."
Reporter Karen DeYoung, a former assistant managing editor who covered the
prewar diplomacy, said contrary information sometimes got lost.
"If there's something I would do differently -- and it's always easy in
hindsight -- the top of the story would say, 'We're going to war, we're
going to war against evil.' But later down it would say, 'But some people
are questioning it.' The caution and the questioning was buried underneath
the drumbeat.... The hugeness of the war preparation story tended to drown
out a lot of that stuff."
Beyond that, there was the considerable difficulty of dealing with secretive
intelligence officials who themselves were relying on sketchy data from
Iraqi defectors and other shadowy sources and could never be certain about
what they knew.
On Sept. 19, 2002, reporter Joby Warrick described a report "by independent
experts who question whether thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes
recently sought by Iraq were intended for a secret nuclear weapons program,"
as the administration was contending. The story ran on Page A18.
Warrick said he was "going out on a limb.... I was struck by the people I
talked to -- some on the record, others who couldn't be -- who were saying
pretty persistently that these tubes were in no way suitable for uranium
enrichment. On the other side were these CIA guys who said, 'Look, we know
what we're talking about but we can't tell you.' "
Downie said that even in retrospect, the story looks like "a close call." He
said the inability of dissenters "to speak up with their names" was a factor
in some of his news judgments. The Post, however, frequently quotes unnamed
sources.
Not all such stories were pushed inside the paper. A follow-up Warrick piece
on the aluminum tubes did run on Page 1 the following January, two months
before the war began. And The Post gave front-page play to a Sept. 10, 2002,
story by Priest contending that "the CIA has yet to find convincing
evidence" linking Hussein and al Qaeda.
That hardly settled the matter. On Dec. 12, 2002, investigative reporter
Barton Gellman -- who would later win acclaim for his skeptical postwar
stories from Iraq on WMDs -- wrote a controversial piece that ombudsman
Michael Getler complained "practically begs you not to put much credence in
it." The headline: "U.S. Suspects Al Qaeda Got Nerve Agent From Iraqis."
The story, attributed to "two officials with firsthand knowledge of the
report" to the Bush administration "and its source," said in the second
paragraph that "if the report proves true" -- a whopper of a qualifier -- it
would be "the most concrete evidence" yet to support Bush's charge that Iraq
was helping terrorists.
Gellman does not believe he was used. "The sources were not promoting the
war.... One of them was actually against it," he said. "They were career
security officials, not political officials. They were, however, wrong."
Gellman added that "it was news even though it was clear that it was
possible this report would turn out to be false."
But sources, even suspect ones, were the only game in town. "We had no
alternative sources of information," Woodward said. "Walter [Pincus] and I
couldn't go to Iraq without getting killed. You couldn't get beyond the
veneer and hurdle of what this groupthink had already established" -- the
conventional wisdom that Hussein was sitting on a stockpile of illegal
weapons.
In October 2002, Ricks, a former national security editor for the Wall
Street Journal who has been covering such issues for 15 years, turned in a
piece that he titled "Doubts." It said that senior Pentagon officials were
resigned to an invasion but were reluctant and worried that the risks were
being underestimated. Most of those quoted by name in the Ricks article were
retired military officials or outside experts. The story was killed by
Matthew Vita, then the national security editor and now a deputy assistant
managing editor.
"Journalistically, one of the frustrations with that story was that it was
filled with lots of retired guys," Vita said. But, he added, "I completely
understood the difficulty of getting people inside the Pentagon" to speak
publicly.
Liz Spayd, the assistant managing editor for national news, says The Post's
overall record was strong.
"I believe we pushed as hard or harder than anyone to question the
administration's assertions on all kinds of subjects related to the war....
Do I wish we would have had more and pushed harder and deeper into questions
of whether they possessed weapons of mass destruction? Absolutely," she
said. "Do I feel we owe our readers an apology? I don't think so."
DIGGER OR CRUSADER?
No Post reporter burrowed into the Iraqi WMD story more deeply than Pincus,
71, a staff member for 32 of the last 38 years, whose messy desk is always
piled high with committee reports and intelligence files. "The main thing
people forget to do is read documents," said Pincus, wielding a yellow
highlighter.
A white-haired curmudgeon who spent five years covering the Iran-contra
scandal and has long been an expert on nuclear weapons, Pincus sometimes had
trouble convincing editors of the importance of his incremental,
difficult-to-read stories.
His longevity is such that he first met Hans Blix, who was the chief U.N.
weapons inspector in Iraq, at a conference in Ghana in 1959.
"The inspectors kept getting fed intelligence by our administration and the
British and the French, and kept coming back and saying they couldn't find"
the weapons, Pincus said. "I did one of the first interviews with Blix, and
like everyone else he thought there would be WMDs. By January and February
[of 2003], he was starting to have his own doubts.... What nobody talked
about was how much had been destroyed," either under U.N. supervision after
the Persian Gulf War or during the Clinton administration's 1998 bombing of
Iraqi targets.
But while Pincus was ferreting out information "from sources I've used for
years," some in the Post newsroom were questioning his work. Editors
complained that he was "cryptic," as one put it, and that his hard-to-follow
stories had to be heavily rewritten.
Spayd declined to discuss Pincus's writing but said that "stories on
intelligence are always difficult to edit and parse and to ensure their
accuracy and get into the paper."
Downie agreed that difficulties in editing Pincus may have been a factor in
the prewar period, because he is "so well sourced" that his reporting often
amounts to putting together "fragments" until the pieces were, in Downie's
word, "storifyable."
Some editors, in Pincus's view, also saw him as a "crusader," as he once put
it to Washingtonian magazine. "That's sort of my reputation, and I don't
deny it," he said. "Once I get on a subject, I stay with it."
On Jan. 30, 2003, Pincus and Priest reported that the evidence the
administration was amassing about Baghdad hiding weapons equipment and
documents "is still circumstantial." The story ran on Page A14.
Some of the reporters who attended the daily "war meetings," where coverage
was planned, complained to national editors that the drumbeat of the
impending invasion was crowding out the work of Pincus and others who were
challenging the administration.
Pincus was among the complainers. "Walter talked to me himself," Downie
said. "He sought me out when he was frustrated, and I sought him out. We
talked about how best to have stories be in the kind of shape that they
could appear on the front page." Editors were also frustrated, Downie said.
"Overall, in retrospect, we underplayed some of those stories."
THE WOODWARD FACTOR
Bush, Vice President Cheney and other administration officials had no
problem commanding prime real estate in the paper, even when their warnings
were repetitive. "We are inevitably the mouthpiece for whatever
administration is in power," DeYoung said. "If the president stands up and
says something, we report what the president said." And if contrary
arguments are put "in the eighth paragraph, where they're not on the front
page, a lot of people don't read that far."
Those tendencies were on display on Feb. 6, 2003, the day after Secretary of
State Colin Powell delivered a multimedia presentation at the United Nations
-- using satellite images and intercepted phone calls -- to convince the
world that Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.
An accompanying front-page story by DeYoung and Pincus examined Powell's
"unprecedented release of U.S. intelligence." Not until the ninth paragraph
did they offer a "however" clause, saying that "a number of European
officials and U.S. terrorism experts" believed that Powell's description of
an Iraqi link to al Qaeda "appeared to have been carefully drawn to imply
more than it actually said."
Warrick focused that day on the secretary's assertion, based on human
sources, that Iraq had biological weapons factories on wheels. "Some of the
points in Powell's presentation drew skepticism," Warrick reported. His
piece ran on Page A28.
Downie said the paper ran several pieces analyzing Powell's speech as a
package on inside pages. "We were not able to marshal enough evidence to say
he was wrong," Downie said of Powell. "To pull one of those out on the front
page would be making a statement on our own: 'Aha, he's wrong about the
aluminum tubes.' "
Such decisions coincided with The Post editorial page's strong support for
the war, such as its declaration the day after Powell's presentation that
"it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of
mass destruction." These editorials led some readers to conclude that the
paper had an agenda, even though there is a church-and-state wall between
the newsroom and the opinion pages. Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt, not
Downie, runs the opinion side, reporting to Post Co. Chairman Donald Graham.
In mid-March, as the administration was on the verge of invading Iraq,
Woodward stepped in to give the stalled Pincus piece about the
administration's lack of evidence a push. "We weren't holding it for any
political reason or because we were being pressured by the administration,"
Spayd said, but because such stories were difficult to edit at a time when
the national desk was deluged with copy. "People forget how many facets of
this story we were chasing... the political ramifications... military
readiness... issues around postwar Iraq and how prepared the administration
was... diplomacy angles... and we were pursuing WMD.... All those stories
were competing for prominence."
As a star of the Watergate scandal who is given enormous amounts of time to
work on his best-selling books, Woodward, an assistant managing editor, had
the kind of newsroom clout that Pincus lacked.
The two men's recollections differ. Woodward said that after comparing notes
with Pincus, he gave him a draft story consisting of five key paragraphs,
which said the administration's evidence for WMDs in Iraq "looks
increasingly circumstantial and even shaky," according to "informed
sources." Woodward said Pincus found his wording too strong.
Pincus said he had already written his story when Woodward weighed in and
that he treated his colleague's paragraphs as a suggestion and barely
changed the piece. "What he really did was talk to the editors and made sure
it was printed," Pincus said.
"Despite the Bush administration's claims" about WMDs, the March 16 Pincus
story began, "U.S. intelligence agencies have been unable to give Congress
or the Pentagon specific information about the amounts of banned weapons or
where they are hidden, according to administration officials and members of
Congress," raising questions "about whether administration officials have
exaggerated intelligence."
Woodward said he wished he had appealed to Downie to get front-page play for
the story, rather than standing by as it ended up on Page A17. In that
period, said former national security editor Vita, "we were dealing with an
awful lot of stories, and that was one of the ones that slipped through the
cracks." Spayd did not recall the debate.
Reviewing the story in his glass-walled office last week, Downie said: "In
retrospect, that probably should have been on Page 1 instead of A17, even
though it wasn't a definitive story and had to rely on unnamed sources. It
was a very prescient story."
In the days before the war, Priest and DeYoung turned in a piece that said
CIA officials "communicated significant doubts to the administration" about
evidence tying Iraq to attempted uranium purchases for nuclear weapons. The
story was held until March 22, three days after the war began. Editors
blamed a flood of copy about the impending invasion.
Whether a tougher approach by The Post and other news organizations would
have slowed the rush to war is, at best, a matter of conjecture.
"People who were opposed to the war from the beginning and have been
critical of the media's coverage in the period before the war have this
belief that somehow the media should have crusaded against the war," Downie
said. "They have the mistaken impression that somehow if the media's
coverage had been different, there wouldn't have been a war."
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
4 Guardian Unlimited: France Urges U.N. Intervention With Iran
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday August 2, 2005 12:46 PM
AP Photo PAR101
By CHRISTINE OLLIVIER
Associated Press Writer
PARIS (AP) - Iran's decision to resume its nuclear activities
could spark a ``major international crisis,'' France's foreign
minister said Tuesday, increasing the pressure on Tehran to
return to the negotiating table or risk facing sanctions.
Hardening France's tone, Philippe Douste-Blazy said that
European negotiators planned to urgently propose a meeting of
the International Atomic Energy Agency's council of governors.
In the meeting, the EU would ask the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog
``to specify very strongly and very firmly to the Iranians the
need to return to the negotiating table'' or risk facing
sanctions.
``If the Iranians still do not accept what the council of
governors propose, then the international community must turn to
the Security Council'' and ``we will see what type of sanctions
to give to Iran,'' Douste-Blazy said.
On Monday evening Iran agreed to a two-day delay in reopening
its Isfahan nuclear processing plant, after vowing to restart
nuclear processing.
France, Germany and Britain have urged Iran not to take
unilateral action, saying they are only days from delivering a
package of incentives addressing security and political,
economic and nuclear issues.
``This Iranian affair is very serious,'' Douste-Blazy said. ``It
could be the beginning of a major international crisis.''
France's Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said earlier
Tuesday that Iran should be taken before the U.N. Security
Council if it follows through on its promise to resume uranium
processing.
``It will be submitted to the Security Council if Iran does not
comply,'' Villepin told Europe-1 radio. ``Iran must hold to the
commitments it has made.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran reiterates intention to resume uranium enrichment
Rosalind Ryan and agencies
Tuesday August 2, 2005
[Iran's Isfahan nuclear facility]
A worker at Iran's Isfahan nuclear facility. Photograph: AP
Iran reiterated its intention today to resume uranium enrichment
at its Isfahan facility this week, giving UN inspectors two days
to install monitoring equipment.
"The International Atomic Energy Agency will finish the
installation of surveillance equipment in the next 24 hours and
we will restart the plant's activities in the next one or two
days," said Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's atomic energy
organisation.
The UN's nuclear watchdog, however, said it had not agreed to a
two-day delay and had told Iran that more time was needed to send
in inspectors to oversee the breaking of IAEA seals at Isfahan.
Article continues "We have sent a letter to Iran indicating that
it would take at least a week to get our surveillance equipment
and other required measures in place," said IAEA spokeswoman
Melissa Flemming.
Mr Saeedi's declaration came as the Washington Post reported that
Iran might be only 'a decade away' from producing a key
ingredient for nuclear weapons.
The controversy surrounding Iran's nuclear programme arises from
doubts in the west over whether Tehran wants to enrich uranium
for energy generation, or take the process further in an effort
to produce nuclear weapons.
The conversion plant at Isfahan, 340km (211 miles) south of
Tehran, converts processed uranium ore into uranium hexafluoride
gas, which can then be used to enrich uranium. Enriched uranium
is used in nuclear power plants, or can be further enriched to
weapons-grade material.
Tehran says this its activities are within the terms of a pact
agreed with the EU in November, but the US and the EU unconvinced
of its intentions.
The Washington Post report said a major US intelligence review
has projected that Iran could have a key ingredient for nuclear
weapons within ten years.
"The National Intelligence estimate includes what the
intelligence community views as credible indicators that Iran's
military is conducting clandestine work," it reports.
The paper says there is no information linking those projects
directly to a nuclear weapons program, but "what is clear is that
Iran, mostly through its energy program, is acquiring and
mastering technologies that could be diverted to bomb-making".
Yesterday's announcement that Iran would begin resumption of
nuclear activity could mean the end of careful negotiations with
the EU - represented by Britain, France and Germany - and carries
the risk of international sanctions.
Tehran suspended its uranium enrichment programme in November
2004 and began talks with the EU trio, aimed at getting Iran to
use imported low-enriched nuclear fuel for its reactors instead.
The EU troika now says it is only days away from handing over new
incentives for nuclear, economic and political cooperation, but
Iran has shown increasing impatience with the pace of
negotiations and the country's president-elect, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, has already showed signs of wanting to harden the
country's stance.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
6 Daily Times: Iran will not reverse decision on restarting nuclear fuel work
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
TEHRAN: Iran said on Tuesday that there was no going back on its
decision to restart nuclear fuel work.
The US says Iran is trying to build a nuclear arsenal under the
veil of a civilian atomic fuel programme. Iran says it only
wants to build nuclear power stations.
The so-called EU3 of Britain, France and Germany had been due to
offer Iran nuclear, political and economic incentives to freeze
its nuclear fuel activities indefinitely.
Iran insists the EU recognise its right to enrich uranium,
something the union has so far refused to do. Iranian officials
said they had grown impatient with what they called EU time
wasting and rejected the offer even before it had been made.
“The political decision has been taken. The resumption is
irreversible,” said Supreme National Security Council spokesman
Ali Aghamohammadi. He said as far as Iran was concerned, the
resumption had already begun. Iranian officials said that IAEA
inspectors began work at a uranium conversion plant near Isfahan
on Monday in preparation for Iran to begin its nuclear
activities there.
“The IAEA will finish the installation of surveillance equipment
in the next 24 hours and we will restart the plant’s activities
in the next one or two days,” Mohammad Saeedi said. But the IAEA
said preparations could not be made that soon. “The equipment
needs to be sent from Vienna and it will take at a minimum of
one week to get the surveillance equipment installed as well as
other safeguard measures in place before seals could be
removed,” said IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming. reuters
Daily Times - All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
7 Reuters: Russia will help Iran despite nuclear moves
Tue Aug 2, 2005 8:48 AM ET
(Adds Rosatom paragraphs 3-4,9-10, details 6-7,11, EU3 8)
MOSCOW, Aug 2 (Reuters) - Russia will maintain support for
Iran's nuclear programme despite Tehran's decision to restart the
enrichment of uranium, Russian news agencies quoted sources in
Russia's atomic agency, Rosatom, as saying on Tuesday.
"We always stressed Iran's right to develop its nuclear fuel
cycle, though we at the same time urge countries not possessing
the cycle to refrain from developing it," Interfax and RIA
Novosti agencies quoted a Rosatom source as saying.
A spokesman for Rosatom did not comment on the specific
situation, but repeated Russia's position that Iran has a right
to the peaceful use of atomic energy.
He said the latest moves, which have sparked a crisis that could
go to the United Nations Security Council, did not undermine
that.
Russia is building a nuclear power station for Iran at Bushehr
on the Gulf, despite Washington's concern that Tehran could use
Russian know-how to build an atomic bomb.
Britain, France and Germany have been trying to broker a deal
that would give Iran nuclear, political and economic incentives
to halt its enrichment activities.
But Iran has now said it is impatient with the talks, and wants
to restart nuclear fuel work -- prompting the European powers to
move closer to the U.S. view that Iran should be referred to the
Security Council for possible sanctions.
The EU trio told Iran on Tuesday that a resumption of its
nuclear activities would end negotiations on the nuclear issue
and it would have to pursue "other courses of action."
A spokesman for Rosatom said only a U.N. resolution or a
decision by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) could
provide the legal basis for Russia to break its contracts and
stop working with Iran.
"It goes without saying that we would fulfill those," Nikolai
Shingaryov said.
Russia sees Iran as a key market for its atomic technology, and
has previously said it is keen to expand their partnership with
more lucrative power stations.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
8 Reuters: Iran to restart nuclear work, crisis looms
Tue Aug 2, 2005 7:39 AM ET
By Parisa Hafezi
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran said on Tuesday there was no going back
on its decision to restart nuclear fuel work, a move a French
minister said could spark a major international crisis.
Two years of hard bargaining between the European Union and Iran
over its nuclear programme looked close to breaking point with
the EU coming round to the U.S. view that Tehran should be
referred to the United Nations for possible sanctions.
"I think this Iranian affair is very serious and that it could
be the start of a major crisis," French Foreign Minister Philippe
Douste-Blazy told reporters in Paris.
The United States says Iran is trying to build a nuclear arsenal
under the veil of a civilian atomic fuel programme. Iran says it
only wants to build nuclear power stations.
The so-called EU3 of Britain, France and Germany had been due to
offer Iran nuclear, political and economic incentives to freeze
its nuclear fuel activities indefinitely.
But Iran insists the EU recognise its right to enrich uranium,
something the union has so far refused to do.
Iranian officials said they had grown impatient with what they
called EU time-wasting and rejected the offer even before it had
been made.
"The political decision has been taken ... The resumption is
irreversible," Supreme National Security Council spokesman Ali
Aghamohammadi told Reuters. He said that as far as Iran was
concerned, the resumption had already begun.
But he did not say the Iranians had actually broken the seals
placed at the plant by U.N. inspectors -- which would be a more
decisive defiance of the international community.
CHANCE TO SALVAGE TALKS?
Iranian officials said International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
inspectors began work at a uranium conversion plant near the
central city of Isfahan on Monday in preparation for Iran to
begin its nuclear activities there.
"The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) will finish the
installation of surveillance equipment in the next 24 hours and
we will restart the plant's activities in the next one or two
days," Mohammad Saeedi said.
But the IAEA in Austria said it would take at least a week.
"The equipment needs to be sent from Vienna and it will take at
a minimum of one week to get the surveillance equipment installed
as well as other safeguard measures in place before seals could
be removed," said IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming.
EU diplomats say a decision on whether to keep diplomatic
options alive could depend on whether fuel work actually begins,
meaning the extra week needed to bring in inspectors could offer
a hope of salvaging talks.
The conversion plant near Isfahan turns uranium ore into gas.
The gas is then enriched into fuel that could be used either in
power stations or to make weapons.
A new U.S. intelligence review estimates Iran is about 10 years
away from having the ability to build a nuclear bomb, The
Washington Post said on Tuesday.
The EU3 said if Iran went ahead and began work at the Isfahan
plant it would call for an urgent meeting of the IAEA board which
can refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council.
"Iran must stick to its commitments ... There will be a referral
to the UN Security Council if Iran doesn't back off," French
Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin told Europe 1 radio.
In the United States, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said
if Iran restarted activities at the Isfahan plant "we would have
to look to the Security Council".
Some EU officials speculated Iran might be creating a
mini-crisis that President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could defuse
by calling at his inauguration on Saturday for more time for
negotiation. This could make him appear statesmanlike and soften
his image as an anti-Western Islamic hardliner.
But Aghamohammadi said the EU wanted to send its proposals later
to make Ahmadinejad look bad.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
9 Reuters: EU3 tells Iran talks end if nuclear activity starts
Tue Aug 2, 2005 9:02 AM ET
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain, France and Germany told Iran on
Tuesday a resumption of its nuclear activities would bring
negotiations on the atomic issue to an end and urged Tehran not
to take any unilateral steps.
"Were Iran to resume currently suspended activities, our
negotiations would be brought to an end and we would have no
option but to pursue other courses of action," the EU trio and EU
foreign policy chief Javier Solana said in a letter sent to
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rohani and obtained by
Reuters.
"We therefore call upon Iran not to resume suspended activities
or take other unilateral steps," said the letter.
Iran said earlier there was no going back on its decision to
restart nuclear fuel work as two years of hard bargaining between
the European Union and Iran over its nuclear programme looked
close to breaking point.
The EU3 had been due to offer Iran nuclear, political, security
and economic incentives to freeze its nuclear activities within
the next week.
But the letter said the trio was concerned that Iran was
proposing to take a step that would terminate the dialogue before
it had presented the ideas.
It also said the EU3 was seeking a special session of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board of governors in
the next few days to discuss the way ahead.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
10 Guardian Unlimited: EU warns Iran: no more talks if nuclear freeze ends
Issue will be taken to UN security council, Tehran told
Ian Traynor
Wednesday August 3, 2005
The Guardian
The European Union warned Iran yesterday that it would
end two years of negotiations over nuclear projects if Tehran
fulfils threats to end its freeze on enrichment of uranium.
Amid a mood of mounting emergency and showdown between the west
and the incoming regime of President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
new US intelligence sounded a less alarmist note about the
potential nuclear crisis, despite sabre-rattling from the Bush
administration and Israel.
Details of a US intelligence estimate on Iran, ordered last
January, concluded that it could be 10 years before Tehran had
sufficient material to arm a nuclear warhead, the Washington
Post reported.
Article continues
On Monday Iran notified the UN's nuclear inspectorate that it was
removing the UN seals on equipment for converting raw uranium
into gaseous form for enrichment, ending a freeze agreed with the
EU last November. The move came days before the EU is to table
detailed incentives to Iran in an attempt to persuade it to scrap
uranium enrichment.
The deal was negotiated by Britain, France and Germany for the
EU, with the tacit support of Washington.
The EU troika responded to the Iranian move yesterday in a
letter to Tehran's chief nuclear negotiator, implicitly warning
they would join the US for the first time in two years of
dispute in taking the issue to the UN security council in New
York. "Were Iran to resume currently suspended activities, our
negotiations would be brought to an end and we would have no
option but to pursue other courses of action," the EU letter
said.
While Chancellor Gerhard Schröder called Iran's manoeuvres
"threatening", the French government warned of a looming "major
international crisis".
Despite the manoeuvring, operations have not yet started at the
uranium conversion plant at Isfahan 300 miles south of Tehran.
While Iranian officials said the decision to restart activities
was "irreversible", a senior official also said Iran would not
break the UN seals unilaterally, providing scope for a climbdown.
"This Iranian affair is very serious," said the French foreign
minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy. "It could be the beginning of a
major international crisis." If Iran started processing uranium
ore known as yellowcake into the gaseous form, uranium
hexafluoride, the minister said, the EU troika would summon an
emergency meeting of the board of the International Atomic
Energy Agency in Vienna and push for referral to the UN security
council and the prospect of sanctions against Iran.
The Americans, in particular, have pushed for referral and
sanctions for two years, convinced Tehran has long had an
illicit bomb programme. While supporting that contention, the
new US intelligence takes a more sanguine view, surmising that
it could be 2015 before Iran can build a bomb, considerably
longer than previous estimates by western intelligence agencies.
In February, the head of the Pentagon's intelligence, Vice
Admiral Lowell Jacoby, told Congress that Iran could build one
within five years.
The two years of negotiations between Iran and the EU trio are
now on the cusp of collapse because Tehran in advance deems the
EU offer to be made this weekend as "totally unacceptable".
The sticking point in the haggling over the EU package concerns
uranium enrichment. As a signatory to the non-proliferation
treaty, Iran is entitled to enrich uranium for a civil programme
and insists the EU acknowledges that right. The Europeans balk
at this. By contrast, while agreeing Iran may conduct some
activities in what is known as the nuclear fuel cycle, they
demand that Iran forgoes the right to enrich uranium until there
are "objective guarantees" the programme is peaceful.
Effectively that means making the freeze permanent. Iran, in
what it views as a national project, has spent more than 20
years, mostly in secret, developing a sophisticated enrichment
programme and is unlikely to mothball it permanently.
In an interview with the AP news agency, Hans Blix, the former
UN chief weapons inspector said yesterday that the best way to
make Iran cease was for the US to guarantee it would not seek
regime change.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited ¿ Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
11 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korean Envoy: No Progress at Nuke Talks
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday August 2, 2005 12:31 PM
AP Photo XHG202
By BO-MI LIM
Associated Press Writer
BEIJING (AP) - North Korea's main envoy said Tuesday that his
country won't give up its nuclear weapons until an alleged U.S.
nuclear threat against the communist nation is eliminated, the
first public comments from the North after eight days of
six-party negotiations.
Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan said ``differences in
opinions'' remained between the North and the United States.
``Our decision is to give up nuclear weapons and programs
related to nuclear weapons if the United States removes its
nuclear threat against us and when trust is built,'' Kim said
outside the North Korean Embassy in Beijing.
The North has alleged the United States has nuclear weapons in
South Korea, a claim both Seoul and Washington deny. However,
the North could also be referring to other American forces
across the region, where the U.S. military has maintained a
strong presence since the end of World War II.
Despite the disagreements, Kim said the North still looked to
``narrow these differences as much as we can to present
results.''
Top envoys from all six countries on Tuesday discussed a draft
of a proposed statement of principles as they struggled with
North Korea's demands for what it should receive if it disarms.
``There are five parties that are in pretty close agreement on
those principles and the key question is whether North Korea is
willing to make the strategic decision it needs to make to go
forward,'' U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick said
in Beijing, where he was on a visit separate from the nuclear
talks.
As a result of the latest meeting, China proposed a new draft
``that reflects a balance'' of what was discussed, South Korean
Deputy Foreign Minister Song Min-soon said Tuesday evening. He
said meetings would continue Wednesday on the proposal.
Delegates at the talks expressed frustration over the lack of
progress earlier Tuesday before heading into the first meeting
of all head delegates since Saturday.
Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura told reporters in
Tokyo that the talks would ``take more time.''
``I can't say discussions on the wording of the agreement are
going smoothly,'' Machimura said. ``North Korea continues to
deny that it has a uranium enrichment program.''
U.S. officials said in late 2002 that the North admitted to
violating a 1994 deal by embarking on a secret uranium
enrichment program, sparking the latest nuclear standoff.
``I don't know where we go with this,'' the chief U.S. delegate,
Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, said before
Tuesday's meetings.
His South Korean counterpart, Song, added: ``In the current
situation, we are almost running out of wisdom.''
Unlike previous negotiations where the sides failed to agree on
a joint statement, delegates this time have set no deadline for
the talks and appeared determined to work out a declaration.
No details of any drafts have been released, but reports have
said it would mention energy aid and a security guarantee for
Pyongyang and eventually normalized political relations with
Washington.
``We'll stay here as long as we feel we're making progress,''
Hill said late Monday. ``If we're not making progress, we're not
going to stay.''
Despite delegates' pessimistic tone, analysts cautioned it was
too soon to talk about deadlock.
``North Korea has a tendency to use brinkmanship in the last
stage to get maximum concessions,'' said Ko Yu-hwan, professor
of North Korean studies at South Korea's Dongguk University.
``The pessimistic atmosphere or last-minute struggle can, in a
way, be seen as a sign that we are close to getting results from
the talks.''
In February, the North claimed it had nuclear weapons and has
since has claimed it has taken steps that would allow it to
harvest more plutonium for possible use in bombs. Many experts
believe the North already has enough weapons-grade material for
about a half-dozen atomic weapons.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
12 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Says Korea Nuclear Talks May End Soon
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday August 2, 2005 7:16 PM
AP Photo XHG202
By BURT HERMAN
Associated Press Writer
BEIJING (AP) - Breaking its public silence on nuclear
disarmament talks, North Korea said Tuesday it wants to narrow
differences with the United States but still insisted it won't
give up its atomic weapons program until Washington withdraws
alleged threats.
The main U.S. envoy said talks were nearing their conclusion -
possibly within days - with delegates from six countries set to
submit final comments Wednesday on a draft proposed by China for
a statement of principles to guide future arms negotiations.
However, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill
raised the possibility the discussions might break off without
an agreement, with envoys heading home for further counsel.
``Whether we have a draft that everyone agrees on, or whether
it's decided that there should be a recess of some kind, we
don't know yet,'' Hill said, adding negotiators were ``close to
the end of this round'' after eight days of talks.
Hill said the latest version of the statement was ``a good
draft'' that he had submitted to Washington for review, but he
didn't know how other delegations would respond. He declined to
give any specifics of what the document contained.
Hill appeared noticeably more upbeat after Tuesday's meetings
compared to his pessimism the day before, but cautioned: ``I
don't think one can talk about progress until you actually see
the agreement.''
``We have to find a way to get (North Korea) out of this nuclear
business,'' he said.
The Chinese hosts of the talks were ``really trying to bring
these negotiations to a conclusion of some kind in the next few
days, with the idea that we would not be here for the next few
weeks,'' Hill said.
``There are five parties that are in pretty close agreement on
those principles and the key question is whether North Korea is
willing to make the strategic decision it needs to make to go
forward,'' U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick said
in Beijing, where he was on a visit separate from the nuclear
talks.
The North's main envoy said Tuesday evening there ``remain
differences in opinions'' between Pyongyang and Washington,
making his first public comments since the arms talks began July
26.
``Our decision is to give up nuclear weapons and programs
related to nuclear weapons if the United States removes its
nuclear threat against us and when trust is built,'' Vice
Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan said.
Still, Pyongyang hopes to ``narrow these differences as much as
we can to present results,'' he said.
The North has alleged the United States has nuclear weapons in
South Korea, a claim Seoul and Washington deny. However, the
North's reference to a U.S. threat could also mean other forces
in Asia, where the U.S. military has maintained a strong
presence since the end of World War II.
When asked about Kim's comments, Hill responded: ``The United
States is not threatening anybody.''
No details of any draft statements have been released
officially, but reports have said it would mention energy aid
and a security guarantee for Pyongyang, as well as eventually
normalizing relations with Washington.
Unlike previous negotiations where delegates failed to agree on
a joint statement after meetings lasting about three days each,
this round had no time limit for concluding.
U.S. officials said in late 2002 that the North admitted
violating a 1994 deal by embarking on a secret uranium
enrichment program, sparking the latest nuclear crisis. Three
previous rounds of six-nation arms talks since 2003 - between
China, Japan, Russia, the United States and the two Koreas -
have failed to make any breakthroughs.
The North doesn't want to give up its nuclear program without
receiving anything first, while Washington is wary of
Pyongyang's promises and instead wants to see the weapons
verifiably eliminated before giving any rewards.
In February, the North claimed it had nuclear weapons and has
since taken steps that would allow it to harvest more plutonium
for possible use in bombs. Many experts believe the North
already has enough weapons-grade material for about a half-dozen
atomic weapons.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
13 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Sets Conditions for Disarmament
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday August 2, 2005 4:01 PM
AP Photo XHG202
By BO-MI LIM
Associated Press Writer
BEIJING (AP) - North Korea's main envoy said Tuesday his country
won't give up its nuclear weapons until an alleged U.S. atomic
threat against the communist nation is eliminated, the first
public comments from the North after eight days of six-party
negotiations.
Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan said ``differences in
opinions'' remained between the North and the United States.
``Our decision is to give up nuclear weapons and programs
related to nuclear weapons if the United States removes its
nuclear threat against us and when trust is built,'' Kim said
outside the North Korean Embassy in Beijing.
The North has alleged the United States has nuclear weapons in
South Korea, a claim both Seoul and Washington deny. However,
the North could also be referring to other American forces
across the region, where the U.S. military has maintained a
strong presence since the end of World War II.
Despite the disagreements, Kim said the North still looked to
``narrow these differences as much as we can to present
results.''
Top envoys from all six countries on Tuesday discussed a draft
of a proposed statement of principles as they struggled with
North Korea's demands for what it should receive if it disarms.
In Washington, a U.S. official said China, which is doing all
the drafting, presented one draft Tuesday morning and a second
Tuesday afternoon.
The plan is to have all six nations report to their capitals
Wednesday morning, then reassemble in the afternoon and decide
on the next steps to take.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was
not authorized to speak for the record, said all sides were
being constructive.
``There are five parties that are in pretty close agreement on
those principles and the key question is whether North Korea is
willing to make the strategic decision it needs to make to go
forward,'' U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick said
in Beijing, where he was on a visit separate from the nuclear
talks.
As a result of the latest meeting, China proposed a new draft
``that reflects a balance'' of what was discussed, South Korean
Deputy Foreign Minister Song Min-soon said Tuesday evening. He
said meetings would continue Wednesday on the proposal.
Earlier Tuesday, delegates at the talks expressed frustration
over the lack of progress before heading into the first meeting
of all head delegates since Saturday.
Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura told reporters in
Tokyo that the talks would ``take more time.''
``I can't say discussions on the wording of the agreement are
going smoothly,'' Machimura said. ``North Korea continues to
deny that it has a uranium enrichment program.''
U.S. officials said in late 2002 that the North admitted to
violating a 1994 deal by embarking on a secret uranium
enrichment program, sparking the latest nuclear standoff.
``I don't know where we go with this,'' the chief U.S. delegate,
Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, said before
Tuesday's meetings.
His South Korean counterpart, Song, added: ``In the current
situation, we are almost running out of wisdom.''
Unlike previous negotiations where the sides failed to agree on
a joint statement, delegates this time have set no deadline for
the talks and appeared determined to work out a declaration.
Russia's Interfax news agency quoted an ``informed North Korean
source'' as saying the talks could end Wednesday.
``We believe that if we don't succeed in signing a final
document, that will mean the fourth round of negotiations sort
of did not take place, collapsed,'' Interfax quoted the
unidentified source as saying Tuesday.
No details of any drafts have been released, but reports have
said it would mention energy aid and a security guarantee for
Pyongyang and eventually normalized political relations with
Washington.
``We'll stay here as long as we feel we're making progress,''
Hill said late Monday. ``If we're not making progress, we're not
going to stay.''
Despite delegates' pessimistic tone, analysts cautioned it was
too soon to talk about deadlock.
``North Korea has a tendency to use brinkmanship in the last
stage to get maximum concessions,'' said Ko Yu-hwan, professor
of North Korean studies at South Korea's Dongguk University.
``The pessimistic atmosphere or last-minute struggle can, in a
way, be seen as a sign that we are close to getting results from
the talks.''
In February, the North claimed it had nuclear weapons and has
since has claimed it has taken steps that would allow it to
harvest more plutonium for possible use in bombs. Many experts
believe the North already has enough weapons-grade material for
about a half-dozen atomic weapons.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
14 Xinhua: Six-party talks close to end: Hill
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-08-02 23:05:26
BEIJING, Aug. 2 (Xinhuanet) -- US delegation head
Christopher Hill said here on Tuesday evening that this round of
six-party talks on Korean Peninsula nuclear issue is "close to
the end."
Hill also expressed appreciation of China's good job in
drafting the joint document for the talks, saying the
delegations would make a "final comment" on the latest fourth
draft on Wednesday. The negotiators "are really getting close,
close to the end of this round," he said.
"Whether we have a draft everyone agrees on, or whether it
is decided that there should be a recess of some kind, we don't
know yet," said Hill. "Because it all depends on what the
responses all the delegations have on the draft."
Hill said he was satisfied with China's latest draft, saying
though the other sides may look at it differently, "it is a good
draft" and a "negotiated document."
Chief negotiators of the fourth round of six-party talks
will continue their meeting on Wednesday to discuss the fourth
draft document, seeking a possible agreement.
The open-ended fourth round of the six-party talks,
involving China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the
United States, the Republic of Korea, Russia and Japan, will
enter a record ninth day on Wednesday. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
15 AFP: NKorea says state of nuclear talks 'bad' -
Tuesday August 2, 11:47 AM
BEIJING (AFP) - North Korea said no progress had been made in
talks over the dismantlement of its nuclear weapons programs,
describing the state of the negotiations as "bad."
"The talks lasted for long hours but produced no progress," the
North's top envoy to the six-party talks Kim Kye-gwan told
reporters outside the North Korean embassy on Tuesday.
"The situation is bad. There are some differences and
confrontations over several issues. We will do our best to reach
an agreement."
But deputy chief US envoy Joseph DeTrani told reporters as he
returned to his hotel after an eighth day of negotiations that
the talks would continue into a ninth day on Wednesday.
"The talks were conducted in an extremely tough, fierce and
serious manner," Japan's chief delegate Kenichiro Sasae said.
"The basic points of contention have not been removed."
He also said discussions would continue for a ninth day on
Wednesday.
The talks have become bogged down in differences about what
should be in a Chinese draft document aimed at establishing a
framework to rid the Korean peninsula of nuclear weapons.
Copyright © 2005 AFP AFP. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
16 Reuters: Korea nuclear crisis talks deadlocked; to continue
Tue Aug 2, 2005 9:04 AM ET
By Teruaki Ueno and Jack Kim
BEIJING (Reuters) - Six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear
crisis appeared to be deadlocked on Tuesday and facing possible
failure, but North Korean and other negotiators vowed to continue
talking in an attempt to narrow differences.
Using a Chinese draft as a basis for discussion, the two Koreas,
the United States, Russia, Japan and the host nation have been
locked for days in intensive discussions aimed at agreeing on a
joint statement, however bland, that everyone can sign.
As negotiations went into week two, making this the longest of
four rounds since the crisis erupted in 2002, the parties were
still apparently unable to discuss openly the critical issue of
North Korea relinquishing its nuclear programmes.
Pyongyang continued to spurn U.S. and Japanese demands that it
scrap all of its nuclear programmes, even those for peaceful
means, until a list of demands was met, a diplomatic source said.
The secretive North also repeated its denial that it even had a
uranium enrichment programme, the source close to the talks said,
and noted there was furious disagreement over the "scope of the
abandonment" of Pyongyang's nuclear programmes.
"This is one of the most contentious issues," he said.
Russia's Interfax news agency quoted an informed North Korean
source as saying the talks were likely to end on Wednesday.
"Our estimate is that the round should end on Wednesday," the
source said. "We believe that if we fail to sign a final
document, that would mean that the fourth round ... failed."
Chief delegates agreed that whether and when North Korea
abandons its nuclear programmes was central to the discussions.
"This is an issue that holds the key to whether we will be able
to draft a joint statement," he said.
China, the talks host and Pyongyang's closest ally, attempted to
mediate in the dispute, saying the North could be entitled to
have reactors for civilian use if it rejoined the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty (NPT).
North Korea expelled U.N. inspectors and quit the NPT after the
United States accused it in October 2002 of having a clandestine
uranium-based nuclear weapons programme in addition to its
mothballed plutonium-based reactor at Yongbyon.
The stakes rose in February, when Pyongyang announced it now had
nuclear weapons and demanded aid, assurances and diplomatic
recognition from Washington in return for scrapping them.
The current round of six-way talks is now in its eighth day with
envoys struggling to agree on a possible joint text.
"North Korea still does not acknowledge that it has a uranium
enrichment programme. The work on the wording of a joint
statement is not going smoothly. I think it will take a while,"
Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura said in Tokyo.
"All the cards are on the table, and we need to gather our
wisdom to match the cards," South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister
Song Min-soon said ahead of Tuesday's meetings.
"I think differences have narrowed considerably since the first
draft," another South Korean official said.
Washington says Pyongyang can win aid and security guarantees
only if it dismantles its weapons programmes. Some intelligence
analysts estimate it has material for up to nine nuclear bombs.
North Korea insists that it receive concessions before even
considering scrapping its nuclear programmes.
"At last the negotiations have come close to the moment of
truth," top Japanese negotiator Kenichiro Sasae told reporters.
North Korea's envoy to the talks, Kim Kye-gwan, told reporters
Pyongyang's decision whether to abandon its nuclear programmes
hinged on Washington, but added that he too hoped to narrow the
differences between them at further talks.
"There have been long discussions for many days between the DPRK
and the United States. Of course, differences in views remain,
but we want to narrow them and produce a result."
Kim said: "As you know our decision is to give up nuclear
weapons and nuclear weapons-related programmes when the U.S.
nuclear threat against us is removed and trust is established."
The United States, which still has more than 30,000 troops in
South Korea, denies there is an American nuclear threat.
Visiting U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick told
reporters five of the six parties were on the same page in terms
of the "core guiding principles" they are trying to draft.
"The key question is whether North Korea is willing to make the
strategic decision it needs to make to go forward," he said.
Given historic rivalries among the six parties, any joint
statement would mark a breakthrough at talks where past progress
was measured by whether delegates could even agree to reconvene.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
17 Guardian Unlimited: Korean Nuclear Talks Stretch Into 2nd Week
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday August 2, 2005 10:01 AM
AP Photo XHG104
By AUDRA ANG
Associated Press Writer
BEIJING (AP) - Frustrated delegates to North Korean nuclear
talks said they had made little progress toward a joint
statement as envoys on Tuesday began a record eighth day of
negotiations aimed at persuading the communist nation to disarm.
Envoys were working on a third draft of a proposed statement
after they spent the weekend struggling with North Korea's
demands for what it should receive if it disarms, said South
Korean envoy Song Min-soon.
``I don't know where we go with this,'' the chief U.S. delegate,
Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, said before
Tuesday's meetings. Song added: ``In the current situation, we
are almost running out of wisdom.''
Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura told reporters in
Tokyo Tuesday that the talks would ``take more time.''
``I can't say discussions on the wording of the agreement are
going smoothly,'' Machimura said. ``North Korea continues to
deny that it has a uranium enrichment program.''
U.S. officials said in late 2002 that the North admitted to
violating a 1994 deal by embarking on a secret uranium
enrichment program, sparking the latest nuclear standoff.
The heads of delegations from the six governments - which also
include host China and Russia - held their first group meeting
since Saturday, U.S. and South Korean officials said.
The latest draft being discussed Tuesday reflects ``all
political and economic measures'' proposed by each country so
far to reward the North for giving up nuclear development, Song
said.
No details of any drafts have been released, but reports have
said it would mention energy aid and a security guarantee for
Pyongyang and eventually normalized political relations with
Washington.
Late Monday, a visibly exhausted Hill said he had little
progress to report after a 12-hour day of meetings.
He said ``rather major differences'' remained between North
Korea and the other five governments. He said some issues that
the Americans had thought were resolved re-emerged as
disagreements on Monday, but he wouldn't give details.
The American said he didn't know how long the talks would last,
but said he was having eight shirts laundered.
``We'll stay here as long as we feel we're making progress,''
Hill said. ``If we're not making progress, we're not going to
stay.''
Despite delegates' pessimistic tone, analysts cautioned it was
too soon to talk about deadlock.
``North Korea has a tendency to use brinkmanship in the last
stage to get maximum concessions,'' said Ko Yu-hwan, professor
of North Korean studies at South Korea's Dongguk University.
``The pessimistic atmosphere or last-minute struggle can, in a
way, be seen as a sign that we are close to getting results from
the talks.''
Ko said the six nations would likely adopt a joint statement
that ``suggests the general direction toward the first stage''
of dismantling the North's nuclear weapons program, rather than
addressing complete dismantlement.
Pyongyang has previously demanded a phased-in process of
dismantling its nuclear weapons program, while Washington has
called on a complete dismantlement within the short time period
before it grants any concessions.
Unlike previous negotiations where the sides failed to agree on
a joint statement, delegates this time have set no deadline for
the talks and appeared determined to work out a declaration.
In February, the North claimed it had nuclear weapons and has
since taken steps that would allow it to harvest more plutonium
for possible use in bombs. Many experts believe the North
already has enough weapons-grade material for about a half-dozen
atomic weapons.
---
AP reporter Bo-mi Lim contributed to this report.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
18 KRT Wire: Barton's energy success a love-hate story
| 08/02/2005 |
BY TODD J. GILLMAN
The Dallas Morning News
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - It couldn't be done. It hadn't been done.
In the end, Joe Barton did it.
After a year on the job as chairman of the House Energy and
Commerce Committee, the Texas Republican delivered a national
energy plan - something Republicans have demanded for a decade.
Something the president campaigned on, twice, that eluded the
last chairman and that the energy industry has worked years to
obtain.
"People in Texas think big, and Joe, in my opinion, is a real
giant," said Thomas Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric
Institute, the utility industry trade group, beaming a few hours
before the House approved the massive 1,724-page bill Barton had
spent the last few weeks midwifing.
Like other giants, though, this one is both loved and despised.
The morning Kuhn and a restaurant full of other energy lobbyists
gave Barton a standing ovation for his achievement,
environmentalists and others were blasting him as a water boy
for dirty industry - accusing him of using his skill and
influence to lavish huge tax breaks on oil companies already
swimming in record profits.
"The bill is filled to the brim with massive giveaways for
mega-rich energy companies," said Jill Lancelot, president of
the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, calling it a
"lobbyist backyard barbecue bill" because of the pork stuffed
into it.
Barton concedes that the $14.5 billion bill won't wean the
nation from foreign oil, though it will encourage domestic
production, expand refinery capacity and spur development of
nuclear, wind, ethanol and other energy sources. But the bill
also omits the most controversial provisions he'd long
championed - a relaxation of clean air rules, a legal shield for
makers of a gasoline additive that has fouled water supplies and
drilling in the Arctic wilderness.
"We wanted a bill. We decided if we wanted a bill, we shouldn't
put things in it that made it impossible to get a bill. If that
makes me weak, then so be it," Barton said. "I think that makes
me a consensus builder and builds on my credibility to do other
things in the future."
That pragmatic side surprised some longtime Barton watchers.
"Give him credit for one thing," said Frank O'Donnell, president
of Clean Air Watch and a longtime critic. "He's proven that he
can shepherd legislation through the Congress."
Barton is quick to share credit with colleagues. But the energy
bill isn't the only thing he's been up to. And his style doesn't
always win high marks for consensus-building. He's been accused
of throwing some sharp elbows lately, waging turf battles and
using his powerful perch to attempt to discredit the theory
behind global warming.
Drawing on the Energy and Commerce Committee's considerable
resources and authority - it has jurisdiction over nearly half
the areas Congress controls, from environmental rules to
professional baseball - he opened an investigation of the
world's top climatologists, whose views on climate change he
disputes. He demanded reams of data, computer models and
career-spanning financial records.
A top Democrat, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., accused Barton of
trying to "bully and harass" the experts. A fellow Republican,
House science chairman Sherwood Boehlert of New York, accused
him of pursuing an "illegitimate" inquiry out of scientific
ignorance.
He's tussled so often with other chairmen over such issues as
Medicare, environmental regulations and spyware that The Hill
recently dubbed him "Bruiser Barton."
"He is new, but no pushover," the Capitol newspaper opined.
"Barton has emerged rapidly as one of the toughest chairmen in
the House. ... He is helped in this by an apparent indifference
to getting good press and by having seemingly absorbed a version
of Machiavelli's dictum that it is more important for political
leaders to be feared than to be liked."
"I don't pick fights," Barton said, relaxing in his office last
week. "Nobody with any sense picks a fight. But nobody with any
courage backs down from a fight just because you're going to
have to fight. What was it Davy Crockett said? Make sure you're
right, then go ahead."
He's also thrown his weight around on issues of special interest
back home, working behind the scenes to keep flight restrictions
at Dallas Love Field. He and the other three House members that
represent Tarrant County are vastly outnumbered on the issue,
but he's drawn on his relationship with the House transportation
chairman to keep a lid on bills that would repeal the Wright
Amendment.
"You know - one riot, one ranger," Barton said. "If you got the
right one, you don't need but one."
Whether his style serves him in the long run remains to be seen.
"He's starting to get into too many scrapes," said O'Donnell,
the clean air activist. "Maybe he doesn't care, but these are
the kind of things that add up."
On the energy bill, Barton showed his conciliatory side.
Just last November, he declared he wouldn't waste the
committee's time working on comprehensive energy legislation.
But as fuel prices climbed, pressure mounted, and the White
House and GOP leaders prevailed on him to take up the bill.
By the end, lawmakers involved in negotiations praised Barton
for running an unusually open process - no secret deals, no
last-minute surprises.
The senior Democrat on the Barton committee, Rep. John Dingell
of Michigan, who chaired the panel for 14 years, said the Texan
ran the talks "the way it used to be run, in an open, decent and
fair fashion." Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., the former Black
Panther, called Barton's approach a "blueprint" that, if
emulated, would lead to "a lot less sniping."
The things Barton gave up also speak volumes about his approach.
Barton dropped a provision to give the Environmental Protection
Agency authority to grant polluted cities extra time to meet
air-quality standards. He cited a lack of consensus but said he
may look for another way to enact the rule later this year.
And then there's MTBE. The fuel additive makes cars burn more
cleanly but hundreds of cities and a few states have sued
makers, saying it's made drinking supplies unusable.
With another stalemate looming and a week left before the summer
recess, Barton proposed a deal: an $11 billion cleanup fund, a
third of it paid by manufacturers, in exchange for lawsuit
protection. He expected resistance from environmentalists, who
felt the fund wasn't nearly big enough. What surprised him was
that his allies in industry also rejected it, calling it far too
costly.
"My inexperience shows," Barton said. "In hindsight I put it out
too late in the process."
But he's got time to learn. House term limits would let him
serve another five years as chairman. Next he plans to tackle
Medicaid and telecommunications policy and the National
Institutes of Health - big projects for which he'll need allies.
"It's too early to tell what kind of chairman I'm going to be,"
he said, "other than I'm going to be an activist chairman, and
I'm going to push the envelope on trying to create positive
change for America. I think that's what senior congressmen are
supposed to do."
---
© 2005, The Dallas Morning News.
Visit The Dallas Morning News on the World Wide Web at
http://www.dallasnews.com
Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
*****************************************************************
19 Annan Urges Iran Not To Resume Nuclear Activities Before Receiving European Plan
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 14:09:48 -0400
ANNAN URGES IRAN NOT TO RESUME NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES BEFORE RECEIVING
EUROPEAN PLAN
New York, Aug 2 2005 2:00PM
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan today called on Iran
not to restart its nuclear activities before receiving the latest
European proposals aimed at finding a diplomatic solution to the
issue arising out of Tehran's two decades-long concealment of its
nuclear activities in breach of its treaty obligations.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog,
<"http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2005/infcirc648.pdf">said
yesterday Iran had informed it that it would
resume activities at the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) in Esfahan
as of yesterday. Enriched uranium can be used for such peaceful
purposes as generating energy, but also for making nuclear
weapons.
Several countries, including the United States, insist that Iran
is seeking such weapons, but Iran denies this and last year suspended
all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities as a good-will
gesture while three European Union (EU) countries, Britain,
France and Germany, known as the European Three, sought to resolve
the issue.
"The Secretary-General urges restraint and patience on the part of
the Iranian authorities," spokesman Stephane Dujarric told the
daily briefing today. "He very much believes that they should wait
for the latest proposals from the European Three before making
any attempts to restart their nuclear activities."
"In his dealings with the three European countries, the Secretary-General
is convinced that they are very much constructively engaged
in a search for a solution and therefore encourages the Iranian
authorities to continue to work with them. The Secretary-General
very much supports the dialogue between the European Three and
the Iranian authorities," Mr. Dujarric added.
The <"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/index.html">IAEA has also called
on Iran to continue negotiating with the EU and not take any
action that could undermine agency inspections. It said yesterday
that in order to implement effective safeguards it would need to
install additional surveillance equipment at the UCF in Esfahan
and would not be able to do so until some time next week.
Iran's nuclear programme has been a matter of concern since 2003,
when the IAEA determined that the country had for almost two decades
concealed its nuclear activities in breach of its obligations
under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
2005-08-02 00:00:00.000
________________
For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml
*****************************************************************
20 [toeslist] "At a Critical Moment in History-" Mel Hurtig -
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 00:04:52 -0500 (CDT)
WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Dear All:
Critical insights and an imperative warning from Mel Hurtig about the
dire threat posed to the world by the policies of the current US
adminstration i.e. the horrible and increasing danger of an
apocalyptic nuclear Armageddon.
In regard to the recent failure of the Conference of the Non-
Proliferation Treaty Hurtig singles out the US:
"Not only was no progress made on the vitally important issues of
nuclear disarmament, proliferation, abolishing testing and the
continuing upgrading and refinement of nuclear weapons and their
delivery systems, but in a shocking betrayal to the worlds
aspirations for peace, disarmament and redirecting arms funding to
badly-needed humanitarian use, clear-cut widely agreed-to commitments
made in the previous 1995 and 2000 Reviews were either ignored or
repudiated. Its impossible not to single out the administration of
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld for the Conference
failure."
And he goes on to point out the cumulative failures of the US in this
regard:
"Having already backed away from the vitally important ABM Treaty,
having refused to back the Test Ban Treaty, having embarked on the
dangerous, escalating, so-called missile defence fiasco, having
already budgeted for the refinement of its nuclear weapons, having
planned for the development of new nuclear weapons and the horrendous
prospect of the weaponization of space, having agreed to a dangerous
new provocative nuclear agreement with India, the U.S. is now clearly
identifiable as the major threat to world peace and to the very
survival of the human race."
Hurtig concludes by citing the success of the Canadian Campaign
against joining Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD), particualry the role
of the Internet, and the hope that implies for the future.
"There were many elements in our successful battle. But, if I had to
credit one above all others, it was our success in getting expert
information out over the internet that made the most difference.
Its a lesson that I know many of you will want to employ in the
future, because in the end, given reliable unbiased information, the
public will make the right choice, even in the face of well-financed
military-industrial misinformation, ignorant editorials and myopic
columnists, and concerted government propaganda."
fyi-janet
p.s Mel Hurtig is a well known Canadian nationalist, founder and past
Chair of the Council of Canadians, former Chair of the committee for
an Independent Canada, and author of "The Betrayal of Canada" and
"Rushing to Armageddon: The Shocking Truth About Canada , Missile
Defence, and Star Wars"
====================
Do not reply to this email. Comments and response may be directed to
Mel Hurtig at mhurtig@telus.net. For list subscribe/unsubscribe
only,
please contact mhadmin@vivelecanada.ca.
AT A CRITICAL MOMENT IN HUMAN HISTORY
SO BIZARRE AS TO BE BEYOND BELIEF*
A Keynote Address by Mel Hurtig Association of World Citizens
Conference
University of San Francisco August 2, 2005
*words from an article by Robert S. McNamara, Foreign Policy,
May/June 2005
In what follows, I acknowledge with gratitude and admiration the
invaluable work of Douglas Roche, O.C. formerly Canadas Ambassador
for Disarmament and currently Chairman of the Middle Powers
Initiative. Roches analysis of the May, 2005 Seventh Review
Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is perceptive and
extremely
important.
While all of us in this room are fully aware of the dismaying failure
of the crucial Seventh Review Conference on the Non-Proliferation
Treaty which took place in New York in May, I very much doubt if one
in a thousand around the world paid attention to the month-long
deliberations or have any even vague idea of their importance, or the
inevitable tragic consequences of the enormously disappointing
Conference results.
Not only was no progress made on the vitally important issues of
nuclear disarmament, proliferation, abolishing testing and the
continuing upgrading and refinement of nuclear weapons and their
delivery systems, but in a shocking betrayal to the worlds
aspirations for peace, disarmament and redirecting arms funding to
badly-needed humanitarian use, clear-cut widely agreed-to commitments
made in the previous 1995 and 2000 Reviews were either ignored or
repudiated.
Its impossible not to single out the administration of George W.
Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld for the Conference failure.
Time
and again the U.S. blocked crucial references to earlier commitments
and continued to stubbornly refuse to join the widely- supported
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
While most countries wanted a strengthened Non-Proliferation Treaty,
the U.S. clearly wanted it weakened.
And, while many U.S. allies, including seven NATO states called for
specific steps to quicken nuclear disarmament, and almost 2,000 NGOs
presented thoughtful, passionate pleas and warnings about the growing
dangers of proliferation, and while well-reasoned plans for
verification and the elimination of nuclear arsenals were presented
and overwhelmingly supported, the U.S. frustrated any such progress
towards goals almost universally supported.
Having already backed away from the vitally important ABM Treaty,
having refused to back the Test Ban Treaty, having embarked on the
dangerous, escalating, so-called missile defence fiasco, having
already budgeted for the refinement of its nuclear weapons, having
planned for the development of new nuclear weapons and the horrendous
prospect of the weaponization of space, having agreed to a dangerous
new provocative nuclear agreement with India, the U.S. is now clearly
identifiable as the major threat to world peace and to the very
survival of the human race.
The mayor of Hiroshima has eloquently warned of the terrible
consequences, as have numerous others such as Secretary-General Kofi
Annan, Mohamed ElBaradei, Robert McNamara, Canadas Douglas Roche,
and
John Polanyi, Sir Joseph Rotlat, and many other respected world
leaders and admired authorities.
Conversely, and remarkably, not a single high-ranking U.S. official
bothered to attend the New York Conference.
Meanwhile, in most Western democracies, the media has done a
miserable job of informing citizens about the horrible and increasing
danger of an apocalyptic nuclear Armageddon.
With the U.S., and to a somewhat lesser degree France and Britain
essentially repudiating their previous commitments to the Programme
of 13 Practical Steps for the elimination of their nuclear weapons,
with new weapons and their delivery systems being planned by the
nuclear weapon states, is it any wonder that around the world non-
nuclear states (north Korea and Iran among them) are logically saying
that if the major nuclear powers refuse to pay attention to the will
of the overwhelming majority, to their previous clear-cut promises,
or to the explicit direction of the International Court of Justice,
is it any wonder that these currently non-nuclear states are
concluding that their own best interests oblige them to acquire an
arsenal of nuclear weapons?
And why would they not do so given the pathetic failure in New York,
and the aggressive, militaristic behaviour of the Bush government and
the widespread emergence of the Pakistani nuclear black market?
Bear in mind that what needs to be done has been already widely-
agreed-to. A non-reversible program for the destruction of all
strategic and tactical nuclear weapons is essential. A fissile
material cut off treaty must be rushed into force. All strategic
nuclear weapons must be promptly taken off alert status. Stockpiles
of nuclear materials must be much more heavily guarded and converted
for peaceful uses. While the world continues to fear the despicable,
murderous terrorist activities that have shocked the U.S., Europe,
the Middle East and Asia, the inevitability of terrorist access to
plutonium and/or enriched uranium has been growing for years. The
potential for a massively horrendous, unprecedented slaughter of
innocents is no longer a remote possibility.
In all of this, as I spelled out in my last book, its essential to
consider the actions and responses of both Russia and China. Both
countries have reacted to the aggressive posture of the U.S. and the
huge increases in American military spending by increasing and
modernizing their own military strength and by developing formidable
new weapons. Russia is carrying out research and missile tests for
new state-of-the-art nuclear missile systems and a unique new
generation of nuclear weapons. including new maneuverable
warheads, increased road-mobile weapons and new ICBMs and cruise
missiles. China is developing improved long- range missiles carrying
multiple nuclear warheads and rapidly expanding its ballistic missile
submarine force, and increasing its own number of nuclear weapons.
Recent ominous Chinese threats to attack the U.S. with nuclear
weapons in response to American aggression or interference re Taiwan
were neither frivolous nor unplanned.
At the same time, while Russia and China conduct unprecedented joint
military exercises, both have also repeatedly come down firmly on the
side of peace and disarmament, repudiating the U.S. abandonment of
the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the plans for the weaponization of
space, the failure of the U.S. to ratify the 1996 Comprehensive Test
ban Treaty (now ratified by 120 countries), the Conference on
Disarmament paralysis, the American proposals for the development of
new nuclear weapons, the U.S. pre-emptive nuclear strike policy and
the American lowering of the threshold for the use of nuclear
weapons.
Meanwhile, the European Unions position and its 43 New York
suggestions relating to disarmament and non-proliferation would have
definitely strengthened the NPT.
As the New Agenda Coalition (Sweden, Egypt, Ireland, New Zealand,
Mexico, Brazil and South Africa) pointed out at the New York
Conference, there are now some 30,000 nuclear weapons in existence,
almost as many as those that existed when the NPT came into force 35
years ago! Moreover, there is now the clear potential for a
disastrous major new nuclear arms race.
The 119-member states of the Non-Aligned Movement warned that We must
all call for an end to this madness and seek the elimination and ban
on all forms of nuclear weapons and testing as well as the rejection
of the doctrine of nuclear deterrence.
At the end of the New York Conference, delegates described the
results as extremely regrettable (Japan), profoundly
disappointing (Norway), unfortunate (Ukraine), and they expressed
frustration (Chile and Brazil).
Ambassador Paul Meyer of Canada condemned the hubris that demands
the priorities of the many be subordinated to the preferences of the
few..
During the Conference, a massive accumulation of evidence showed how
the U.S. was ignoring its previous disarmament promises and how it
still plans to have over 5,000 operational nuclear weapons in 2012,
how it has no plans to reduce its nuclear deployments or discontinue
the maintenance of thousands of nuclear weapons on high alert, how it
is currently budgeting over $22 million for research into new nuclear
weapons and providing additional funding for new delivery systems,
how it intends to modify and update its existing nuclear weapons and
ballistic missiles and develop a global strike capacity that will
facilitate the delivery of nuclear weapons, anywhere on earth, in a
few hours at the most. Moreover, the U.S. is now spending some $40
billion a year on its nuclear forces, far more than the total of all
military spending for most countries and a 150 per cent increase over
its nuclear weapons spending during the Cold War.
And of course all of this is in addition to the over $100 billion
already spent on the so-called Missile Defense program, which many
believe is in reality a precursor for the weaponization of space.
And the result?
As The Western States Legal Foundation put is so well, there is a
growing possibility of a new nuclear confrontation that may
overshadow the Cold War in its complexity. Moreover, the American
implication that the selective use of nuclear weapons in ordinary
warfare is lawful and legitimate [implies that] if it is legal and
moral for one country to use nuclear weapons. it is legitimate for
any country to do so.
As Tri-Valley CARES of Livermore, California put it The United States
is conducting a one-nation arms race against itself to upgrade its
nuclear weapons and capabilitiesan approach that undercuts
international efforts to discourage nuclear weapons development in
countries like North Korea and Iran.
Moreover, in the words of the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, nations such as Egypt, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Taiwan
will very likely initiate nuclear weapons programmes, increasing both
the risk of the use of the weapons and the diversion of weapons and
fissile materials into the hands of terrorists.
Carnegie should also have included a host of other countries, such as
Brazil and South Africa.
Douglas Roche draws attention to The New York Times article by the
distinguished 97-year-old Sir Joseph Rotlat, where the 1995 Nobel
Peace Prize winner warns of a nuclear arms race. To gloss over the
hypocrisy of the nuclear weapons states, which are modernizing
nuclear weapons and ensconcing them in their ongoing military
doctrine, while urging abstinence on everyone else is stunning.
Throughout the Conference there were many excellent suggestions about
the ways to diminish the threat of a nuclear catastrophe, including
those by informed critics of nuclear power. Unfortunately, its now
clear that in many ways relating to nuclear matters the world is
rapidly headed down exactly the wrong path.
Among the proposals from Mohamed ElBaradei were a five-year
moratorium on new uranium enrichment and plutonium separation
facilities, and the conversion of all nuclear reactors now using
highly enriched uranium to low grade uranium which cannot be used for
bombs.
As the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
points out, the NPT has been the foundation for non-proliferation and
disarmament for 35 years, and the vast majority of its members
support its goals and obligations without question. But today, the
Treaty is essentially in shreds, and the world is plunging towards
the abyss.
Among the many eloquent recent warnings of the potential for
catastrophe, one of the most forceful has come from Robert S.
McNamara, U.S. Secretary of Defence from 1961 to 1968[1] McNamara
says U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons is immoral, illegal, militarily
unnecessary and dreadfully dangerous. U.S. policy has only grown
more dangerous and diplomatically destructive. The average U.S.
warhead has a destructive power 20 times that of the Hiroshima bomb.
2000 are on hair-trigger alert, ready to be launched on 15 minutes
warning.
The whole situation seems so bizarre as to be beyond belief. On any
given day, as we go about our business, the president is prepared to
make a decision within 20 minutes that could launch.a nuclear
holocaust.
[Our policy] raises troubling questions as to why any other state
should restrain its nuclear ambitions.
In his article, McNamara describes the horrendous destruction which
would be caused by only a single 1 megaton weapon. Its chilling
reading. As for U.S. policy The statement that our nuclear weapons
do not target populations per se was and remains totally misleading
in the sense that the so-called collateral damage of large nuclear
strikes would include tens of millions of innocent civilian dead.
This in a nut shell is what nuclear weapons do: They
indiscriminately blast, burn and irradiate with a speed and finality
that are almost incomprehensible. This is exactly what countries
like the United States and Russia, with nuclear weapons on hair-
trigger alert; continue to threaten every minute of every day in this
new 21st century.
There is no way to effectively contain a nuclear strike to keep it
from inflicting enormous destruction on civilian life and property,
and there is no guarantee against unlimited escalation once the first
nuclear strike occurs.
McNamara goes on to estimate the destructive power of a U.S.-Russian
nuclear exchange at at least 65,000 times that of the Hiroshima bomb.
He describes current U.S. policy as We, with the strongest
conventional military force in the world, require nuclear weapons in
perpetuity, but you are never to be allowed even one nuclear weapon.
He concludes with an ominous warning: The knowledge of how to
construct a simple gun-type nuclear device, like the one that was
dropped on Hiroshima, is now widespread. ..Former Secretary of
Defence William J. Perry said just last summer I have never been
more fearful of a nuclear detonation than now. There is a greater
than 50 percent probability of a nuclear strike on U.S. targets
within a decade. I share his fears. We are at a critical moment in
human history.
I want to end my remarks here today in San Francisco with a brief
description of how some of us mobilized successfully to keep Canada
out of the so-called U.S. missile defence plans.
It wasnt easy. Long before most Canadians and most of the media had
any idea of the implications, after a cabinet meeting in Ottawa,
Canadas Minister of Defence met with Donald Rumsfeld in Washington
and, in no uncertain terms, promised Canadas participation. When we
learned about this, many of us were appalled. And the more we
learned about the profound implications, the more we became
determined, if at all possible, to reverse the governments decision,
a decision that had been made with virtually no public debate.
Early on, the public opinion polls, for what they were worth, sided
with the Liberal government in Ottawa. Most Canadians had absolutely
no idea what the dangers of the U.S. plans were. When asked
questions like Should Canada join with the U.S. in building a missile
defence system which will stop rogue states from dropping a nuclear
bomb on your home, destroying you and your family and friends?
most Canadian, of course, answered yes. Early polls were roughly
60 per cent in favour of participation, but with a surprisingly
strong 40 per cent opposed. The government was firmly committed.
Having stayed out of the Iraq war, much to the displeasure of the
Bush administration, timid, colonial-minded politicians and
bureaucrats in Ottawa were offering missile defence as a mending mea
culpa.
But those of us who understood the significant danger of a new arms
race, the prospects for the weaponization of space, the horrendous
costs of a system that would never work, the hidden offensive
military first-strike implications, the increasing possibility of a
nuclear nightmare in a situation of certain escalation,
destabilization and insecurity.those of us who studied and
understood these dangers became even more determined to try to stop
Canadas participation.
In countries like the U.S. and Canada, with heavy degrees of media
concentration in the hands of men on the far right of the political
spectrum, getting the message and the truth out is never easy.
We did it in several ways, one of the most important being the
internet. While the right-wing press and television essentially
parroted the Ottawa and Washington official propaganda lines, we
brought in our own skilled experts to new conferences, and began a
steady stream of internet releases including expert testimony from
some of the most brilliant scientist, economists, political
scientists and others with expertise not previously available to the
public.
We worked with wonderful people and organizations in Washington, such
as the Center for Defense Information, physicists at MIT and many
others, including our own Canadian experts. We published books,
papers, studies and articles full of information most Canadians were
not aware of. My own weekly e-mail to some 1,500 across the country
would be recirculated to, on average, some 100,000. Many of my
colleagues across the country had their own extensive lists.
And we prevailed. After several months, the polls turned in our
favour. After seven consecutive polls, the last one showing 65 per
cent of Canadians opposed, the government, much to the displeasure of
the Prime Minister, felt that Canadas participation was so
increasingly unpopular that it had no choice. Canada announced we
would not be joining in the American plans.
There were many elements in our successful battle. But, if I had to
credit one above all others, it was our success in getting expert
information out over the internet that made the most difference.
Its a lesson that I know many of you will want to employ in the
future, because in the end, given reliable unbiased information, the
public will make the right choice, even in the face of well-financed
military-industrial misinformation, ignorant editorials and myopic
columnists, and concerted government propaganda.
Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today. Its a great honour
and I wish you well in your continuing deliberations.
[1] Foreign Policy, May, June, 2005
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/toeslist/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
toeslist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
21 Guardian Unlimited: Newly Appointed Bolton Arrives at U.N.
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday August 2, 2005 5:16 PM
AP Photo UNMA101
By EDITH M. LEDERER
Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - On his first full day as ambassador to the
United Nations, John Bolton arrived Tuesday at the place he's
called irrelevant as he tries to advance President Bush's reform
agenda.
The 56-year-old arms control expert with a reputation for
brilliance, obstinacy and speaking his mind arrived at the
United Nations just weeks before a summit in which world leaders
will seek to adopt sweeping changes to enable the U.N. to meet
the challenges of the 21st century.
Smiling and carrying a large tan envelope, Bolton strode past
reporters and photographers without speaking as he entered the
Secretariat building. He got into an elevator, heading to
Secretary-General Kofi Annan's 38th floor office to present his
letter of appointment from Bush.
Bolton will be thrust into intense negotiations with diplomats
from 190 nations on contentious issues ranging from Security
Council reform and poverty alleviation to stepping up the global
fight against terrorism and improving U.N. management.
``He will be one of the key players because the United States is
the largest contributor and a great power in the Security
Council,'' Germany's U.N. Ambassador Gunter Pleuger said.
``There are conflicting views on nearly every issue that is on
our plate for the reform, and the largest player in the U.N., of
course, plays a key role.''
Many U.N. diplomats say Bolton will be judged on his performance
here, not on his past, which features sharp criticism of the
world body and resistance to his appointment as U.S. ambassador.
``No one should make prejudgments on reputation,'' said Chile's
U.N. Ambassador Heraldo Munoz. ``One must do it on the merit of
the facts, when we see what happens here.''
The fact that Bolton failed twice to win Senate confirmation
forcing Bush to appoint him Monday after Congress adjourned for
the summer, was also unlikely to have an impact, diplomats said.
``He's a colleague like any other and will be received as
such,'' said Denmark's U.N. Ambassador Ellen Margrethe Loj, who
noted that in many countries no confirmation of ambassadors is
required.
Annan told reporters Monday he looks forward to working with
Bolton, in the same way that he works with ambassadors from the
other U.N. member states.
Bolton planned to present his credentials to Annan on Tuesday
morning.
The Bush administration says a tough-talking Bolton is ideally
suited to lead an effort to overhaul the U.N. bureaucracy and
make it more accountable. But Annan cautioned that negotiation
and compromise are the key to success at the United Nations.
``I think it is all right for one ambassador to come and push,
but an ambassador always has to remember that there are 190
others who will have to be convinced, or a vast majority of
them, for action to take place,'' Annan said.
Bolton will certainly face antagonism from some countries
including North Korea and Iran. In 2003, he said North Korea was
led by a ``tyrannical dictator,'' while he contends Iran is
secretly planning to build nuclear weapons.
Bolton's past comments about the United Nations and his
intimation that the United States can pull the strings have also
not been forgotten, and will likely make some U.N. members wary.
In 1994, Bolton said it wouldn't make a ``bit of difference'' if
the top 10 floors of the United Nations - which include the
secretary-general's office - vanished from the 39-story
headquarters building.
In the same speech, he said there is ``no such thing as the
United Nations,'' just ``an international community that
occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the
world, and that is the United States.''
While Bolton has been highly critical of the United Nations, he
is no stranger to its inner workings. He dealt with U.N. affairs
in the State Department from 1989-93, and in his latest post as
the department's arms control chief he has had frequent contacts
with the Chinese and Russians, and will find several familiar
faces in their delegations and elsewhere.
``Honestly, I'm looking forward to working with him,'' said
Algeria's U.N. Ambassador Abdallah Baali, whose two-year term on
the Security Council ends in December. ``I worked with him
several years ago, and I enjoyed working with him.''
``He's a very smart guy who can be very constructive, who can be
very creative. So I think it will be very interesting to spend a
few months with him in the Security Council,'' Baali said.
Russia's deputy U.N. ambassador Konstantin Dolgov said Bolton
was well known in Moscow and ``as far as I know he is a
negotiator with quite some background.''
Diplomats said Bolton's first test will come very quickly in
whether he plays a positive role in helping make the September
summit a success.
With just over six weeks left to produce a final document that
all 191 U.N. member states support, negotiations are heating up
on contentious many issues: expanding the Security Council,
creating a new Peacebuilding Commission, revamping the U.N.'s
human rights machinery, defining terrorism, protecting civilians
facing war crimes and genocide, and overhauling the U.N.
Secretariat.
``I think this is a time when it is make or break as far as the
future relevance of the United Nations is concerned,'' said
Germany's Pleuger.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
22 Bellona: Russia to spend $175m for submarine decommissioning in 2005
The western countries will provide the major part of this sum in
the frames of non-proliferation efforts.
2005-08-01 17:10
The head of the State Duma's Committee on Industry,
Construction, and Science Intensive Technologies, Martin Shakkum
announced the exact sum in the beginning of July, Kommersant
reported. The Russian budget allocated $66.8m, the western
donors will provide the rest. The western aid is increasing
every year from $21m in 2002 till $94.5m in 2004 while the
Russian share is the same, Shakkum said.
He added that total 195 nuclear power submarined and two surface
nuclear-powered ships were taken out of service in Russia, 112
nuclear submarines have been dismantled.
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
*****************************************************************
23 Xinhua: Russia to send 1800 troops for joint exercise with China
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-08-02 21:30:46
MOSCOW, Aug. 2 (Xinhuanet) -- Russia said on Tuesday that as
many as 1,800 troops will be involved in the Peace Mission-2005
joint military exercise with China scheduled on Aug. 18-25.
"Russia will send a group of Pacific Fleet ships, a company
of the Marines, 17 long-range and military transport planes,
several fighter jets, and a company of paratroops from the Pskov
76 airborne division -- eighteen hundred in all," deputy
commander-in-chief of Russia's ground troops, Colonel-General
Vladimir Moltenskoi, said.
The general said the joint exercises will be staged in the
territory near Russia's far-east coast city of Vladivostok as
wellas China's Shandong Peninsula and nearby waters.
He said Russian and Chinese will be the working languages in
the exercise and China's nuclear powered submarine will not
participate due to the shallow depth of the water.
Earlier, the Russian Defense Ministry's public relations
department said up to 10,000 servicemen of the two countries'
air, naval, airborne and ground forces of the two countries will
take part in the exercises. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
24 Japan Times: The end of silence: Korea's Hiroshima
Tuesday, August 2, 2005
THE ZEIT GIST
Korean A-bomb victims seek redress
By ANDREAS HIPPIN
When Shin Jin Tae's first daughter died, her mother was still
breast-feeding her.
[News photo] Kwak Kwi Hoon
"She became thinner and thinner until she passed away," the
62-year-old farmer says. When more mysterious diseases and
inexplicable deaths occurred in Hapcheon county where he lives,
Shin started to think that all this might be related to the
past.
Shin was born in Hiroshima. When the atomic bomb was dropped on
Aug. 6, 1945, he was two years old.
"More than 70 percent of the Korean victims of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki came from Hapcheon," he says. Most of the survivors
returned. Shin is one of 598 atomic bomb victims still living
there.
Hapcheon county is an otherwordly place in South Korea's
Gyeongsangnamdo Province. With its rice paddies and mixed
deciduous and coniferous forests, the poor mountainous region
north of Pusan is a paradise for romantics.
Haeinsa, a UNESCO world heritage temple boasting a collection of
more than 80.000 beautifully carved woodblocks with Buddhist
scriptures, is hidden in its mountains.
But these mountains also keep darker secrets from a more recent
past.
Hapcheon is also called "the Korean Hiroshima."
"Ten percent of the 700,000 victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
were Korean. Most of them were forced laborers making guns and
ammunition in the factories of the Japanese military. Others
were landless farmers, mostly from Hapcheon, looking for
employment in Japanese cities," says Kang Je Suk.
As secretary general of a group called Peace Project Network,
her main aim is to achieve compensation for former forced
laborers.
"That the victims of Hiroshima were not only Japanese is widely
unknown in Japan and Korea. Japan sees itself as the only nation
that was ever attacked with an atomic weapon. But Koreans and
other Asians have also been hit," Kang says.
Many Koreans returned to Korea between 1945 and 1950.
"Those people were ignored by the Japanese and by the Korean
government. Korean people were not welcoming them," says
Professor Han Hong Koo, a teacher of modern Korean history at
Sungkonghoe University in Seoul.
"Some were accused of being pro-Japanese. At least they have
been there."
Young people like Shin faced discrimination because their
Korean was not so good. Of the 50,000 Korean survivors of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki 43,000 went back to the Korean peninsula.
"There were rumors that the Japanese would kill those who want
to stay in Japan," says Kim Il Jo. She was born in Kyoto, but
had to move to Hiroshima. After being conscripted to work for
the military she had married quickly to avoid being transferred
to another city. When the bomb fell she was 18 years old.
"It was very hard for us to make a living in Hapcheon," she
remembers. "We did not have our own land and we had no idea of
agriculture. But my husband's mother wanted to go back to
Hapcheon."
Kim tried to re-enter Japan illegally with her husband in June
1946 but was caught and deported.
A-bomb victims who could not hide their scars were mistaken for
victims of Hansen's disease and excluded from society. Most of
them ended up begging in the streets.
"Their scars were gleaming in the sun. They were easy to
recognize," Shin remembers. Those who were not recognized, tried
to stay undercover. "If you went public, you could not get
married anymore," Shin said. "I had to remain silent."
"There was no support from the government, so why should people
admit they were atomic bomb victims? There was no reason to tell
it loudly," Professor Han explains.
According to him there were many reasons for the victims to
remain silent. "Japan capitulated after the bombing of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. Many people believe that the nuclear bombs
liberated Korea," he says.
During the Korean War, the United States was thinking about the
use of atomic bombs against the North. And between 1957 and 1991
South Korea was under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Between 600 and
1,200 U.S. nuclear weapons were deployed in the country.
"In this situation the victims could not speak out," Han says.
"Ninety percent of those who returned to South Korea died
because there was no medical treatment and no support for them,"
claims Kwak Kwi Hoon, president of the Korean Atomic Bomb Victim
Association.
A-bomb victims and their descendants are still unable to lead a
normal life in South Korea.
"People do not hire private detectives to investigate the
background of wedding candidates as in Japan, but they are very
afraid of genetic diseases," Professor Han says.
For this reason Kim Il Jo waited until 1993 before she
registered as a victim. At that time her son and her three
daughters were married. She is one of the 79 residents of the
Hapcheon Welfare Center for Atomic Bomb Victims. Young offenders
sentenced to some hours of community work here respectfully call
her "halmeoni" (grandmother).
The Welfare Center was built with Japanese money. In 1993, Japan
paid South Korea 4 billion yen in humanitarian assistance to
help the Korean A-bomb survivors.
The money was handed over to the Red Cross and used to build and
run the center and to pay the survivors a small pension of
100,000 Won a month. Since the money from Japan ran out last
year, the Korean government has funded the Welfare Center. A lot
of the equipment was donated by Japanese NGOs like Kakkin.
That Japan never compensated Korean A-bomb victims has caused a
lot of bitterness.
"We want compensation, not humanitarian gestures," says
72-year-old Kim Jae Man. "The Japanese government is simply
waiting for us to die. When I saw Koizumi on TV during his visit
in Seoul I thought: 'How can he treat me like this?' "
Kim was born in Hiroshima. When the bomb exploded he was in
elementary school.
The Korean victims fought for decades to receive compensation
and medical treatment from Japan.
In a landmark decision the Japanese Supreme Court decided in
1978 that Son Jin Doo, a South Korean A-bomb victim who had
entered Japan to get medical treatment in Saga, has to be
treated equally regardless of his status as an illegal
immigrant.
However the health administration drafted a rule that turned
Son's success into a Phyrric victory. It limited medical
treatment and pension payments to victims living in Japan. In
October 1998, Kwak Kwi Hoon sued against this rule. He wanted
the Japanese government to pay for his follow-up treatment in
South Korea.
"We want to be treated like the Japanese victims. I am an A-bomb
victim regardless whether I am in Korea or Japan. I have to be
compensated, wherever I am,", he argues. Four years later he won
in Supreme Court.
"The Japanese government has been taken to court more than 80
times by former forced laborers, women forced into prostitution
by the Japanese military and other victims from Korea. All were
turned down," Kwak says.
"Only I won and only I got money from Japan in the end. In my
case the statute of limitations had not expired and it was not
about people just following their orders. The court just decided
whether an administrative rule was legally binding or not."
As a result A-bomb victims living abroad were able to get the
official victim passbook ("hibakusha techo") after March 1,
2003.
Approximately 3,000 survivors in Korea received it.
According to Kwak it is still difficult for the victims to apply
for it, because they have to bring two witnesses testifying that
they were in Hiroshima or Nagasaki at the time of the bombings.
Because of her good Japanese language skills Kim Il Jo has often
accompanied other victims as an interpreter when they had to go
to Japan.
"Under my Japanese name Matsumoto Kimiyo I worked three years as
a bus service attendant for Dentetsu in Hiroshima," she
remembers. "They took me for a Japanese."
About 600 victims in South Korea still did not manage to get the
passbook entitling them to medical treatment and pension
payments, Kwak says.
Even after their death, discrimination continues. While Japanese
victims receive 198,000 yen for their funeral, the Korean
victims get nothing.
But it was not Mr. Kwak who put the issue on the political
agenda this spring. Sixty years after, the descendants of the
victims managed to draw the attention of the South Korean public
by proposing a law to support the victims of the atomic
bombings.
"Before that only progressive people from the medical sector did
something about it," Professor Han said.
Kim Hyeon Gyul was the leader of a group of 50 second generation
victims who no longer wanted to remain silent.
"Frankly speaking, as a historian I did not know that so many
Koreans got killed until a year ago," admits Professor Han. "I
heard about it from Kim Hyeon Gyul. Our schools do not tell much
about the dangers and horrors of nuclear weapons. In Hiroshima
and Nagasaki about 50,000 Koreans were killed in a day and there
is nothing about it in the school books."
"We do not know how many second generation victims there are,"
he says. "At that time people had four or five children each.
That would make about 80,000 to 120,000 second generation
victims in South Korea."
The second generation issue is a ticking bomb, not only in
South Korea. Kwak estimates that there are 500,000 second
generation victims in Japan. The law proposed in South Korea
addresses this issue for the first time.
The public discussion encouraged NGOs like the Korea Youth Corps
(KYC) to get engaged.
"In contrast to former forced laborers or the so called comfort
women these people were excluded from our history and
abandoned," says Kim Dong Lyul. He is the KYC office head in
Taegu. "We might not be able to help them get compensated, but
we can keep their history."
Send comments to: community@japantimes.co.jp
The Japan Times: Aug. 2, 2005
(C) All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
25 [NukeNet] PSEG to cut 400 jobs in merger
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 14:17:40 -0700
SP_HAM_SUPER,SUBJ_GROUP,US_DOLLARS_2,WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham
version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
http://www.nj.com/news/bridgeton/index.ssf?/base/news-0/112297560054010.xml&coll=10
200 others leaving
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
By BONNIE PFISTER
Associated Press Writer
TRENTON -- Public Service Enterprise Group Inc., the parent company of
PSEG Nuclear, said Monday it would trim 400 jobs from its nuclear power
business in Salem County.
Hundreds of other company jobs across the state are also expected to be
cut by the time the company is acquired by Exelon Corp. next year.
PSEG Nuclear, with about 1,800 workers, is Salem County's largest employer.
Public Service Enterprise Group Chief Financial Officer Thomas O'Flynn
said in a conference call Monday that about 200 workers at the company's
Artificial Island nuclear generating complex in Lower Alloways Creek
Township have volunteered to leave the company.
The workers were offered incentives to leave the company, according to
Skip Sindoni, spokesman for PSEG Nuclear. The workers were required to
make a decision by July 26 whether take the incentives and most will
likely be gone by the end of September, according to Sindoni. The offer
was open to all employees, but most taking it were nearing the retirement
age.
Some workers, however, may be asked to stay on longer.
"We are conducting management reviews now to make sure we aren't short in
any particular area," Sindoni said.
The cuts are part of the implementation of the Exelon Management Model at
PSEG Nuclear, according to Sindoni.
"We determined we could safely and efficiently operate the plants with 200
fewer people than we started the year with in January 2005," Sindoni said.
Exelon and PSEG are in the midst of completing a merger. Stockholders from
both companies have approved the deal which was first announced last
December.
In January Exelon took over day-to-day management of the three nuclear
reactors at Artificial Island -- Salem 1, Salem 2 and Hope Creek.
The other 200 nuclear plant cuts would come through attrition and layoffs,
officials said.
"Once the Exelon Management Model is fully implement, likely we'll see
other opportunities for reductions," Sindoni said.
He said there is no target date for the 200 other staff reductions.
Pending regulatory approval, Chicago-based Exelon is to complete its $12
billion stock acquisition of PSEG by mid-2006, creating the country's
largest power generation company.
An additional 500 jobs across the company's three other divisions in New
Jersey will be eliminated when the deal is completed, said company
spokesman Paul Rosengren. The company employs 10,500 people.
The announcement of job cuts Monday came as Newark-based PSEG also
reported a second-quarter loss of $82 million, or 34 cents per share,
after selling an Ohio power plant at a loss.
PSEG took a $183 million, or 76-cents-per-share, charge after selling its
821-megawatt, gas-fired electricity plant in Waterford, Ohio.
at a loss just two years after it was built.
"Conditions in the wholesale power market in that region have been
disappointing, and we decided to sell the plant," O'Flynn said.
Setting aside that charge, PSEG reported net income from continuing
operations of $101 million, or 42 cents per share. That fell short of the
54 cents per share expected by six analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial.
Net income during the same period in 2004 was $127 million, or 53 cents
per share.
PSEG also reported costs of $14 million, or 6 cents per share, related to
the Exelon deal, but did not factor that into its earning statement in
order to align its accounting methods with those of Exelon, O'Flynn said.
Operating revenues were $2.4 billion in the quarter that ended June 30, up
7 percent from the same period in 2004.
PSEG reaffirmed its earnings guidance of $3.15 to $3.35 per share for 2005.
O'Flynn said the nuclear refueling and reactor upgrades at the Salem 2
plant were completed in a record 36 days. Capacity was also increased at
the Branchburg transfer station, and the company began operating a new
gas-fired plant in Bethlehem, N.Y., last month.
Neil Kalton, an analyst with A.G. Edwards & Sons, said PSEG's upgrades and
improvements of its power plants, combined with higher commodity prices,
should bode well for the company.
"Going forward, they're sitting in a pretty good spot," he said.
Shares of PSEG were down $1.80, or 2.8 percent, to close at $62.50 in
afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Over the past year,
shares have traded between $38.10 and $64.53.
--
Staff Writer Bill Gallo Jr. contributed to this report.
© 2005 Bridgeton News
© 2005 NJ.com All Rights Reserved.
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/cumberland/080205SALEMPLANT080105.cfm
August 2, 2005
Salem, Hope Creek to shed 400 jobs in PSEG, Exelon deal
From Press staff and wire reports
TRENTON - Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. said Monday it would trim
400 jobs from its nuclear power business in southern New Jersey and
hundreds of other jobs across the state by the time the company is
acquired by Exelon Corp. next year.
PSEG Chief Financial Officer Thomas O'Flynn said in a conference call
Monday that about 200 workers at the company's Salem and Hope Creek
nuclear plants have volunteered to leave the company. The other 200
nuclear plant cuts would come through attrition and layoffs, officials
said.
The company will give 13 weeks' pay to each of the employees taking the
voluntary buyout, PSEG spokesman Skip Sindoni said. PSEG had advertised
July 11 the option of voluntary departure and within two weeks had the 200
volunteers.
Sindoni stressed, however, that future job cuts may not come through
layoffs if other options can be found.
Pending regulatory approval, Chicago-based Exelon is to complete its $12
billion stock acquisition of PSEG by mid-2006, creating the country's
largest power generation company. Exelon owns or operates 17 nuclear
plants and already manages the three Salem County plants, Sindoni said.
The work force cuts come as a part of Exelon's business model.
Exelon owns and operates the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey
Township, Ocean County, through its wholly owned subsidiary, AmerGen.
An additional 500 jobs across the company's three other divisions in New
Jersey will be eliminated when the deal is completed, company spokesman
Paul Rosengren said. The company employs 10,500 people.
The announcement of job cuts Monday came as Newark-based PSEG also
reported a second-quarter loss of $82 million, or 34 cents per share,
after selling an Ohio power plant at a loss.
PSEG suffered a $183 million, or 76-cents-per-share, loss after selling
its 821-megawatt, gas-fired electricity plant in Waterford, Ohio, just two
years after it was built.
"Conditions in the wholesale power market in that region have been
disappointing, and we decided to sell the plant," O'Flynn said.
Setting aside that loss, PSEG reported net income from continuing
operations of $101 million, or 42 cents per share. That fell short of the
54 cents per share expected by six analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial.
Net income during the same period in 2004 was $127 million, or 53 cents
per share.
PSEG also reported costs of $14 million, or 6 cents per share, related to
the Exelon deal, but did not factor that into its earning statement in
order to align its accounting methods with those of Exelon, O'Flynn said.
Operating revenues were $2.4 billion in the quarter that ended June 30, up
7 percent from the same period in 2004.
PSEG reaffirmed its earnings guidance of $3.15 to $3.35 per share for 2005.
Shares of PSEG closed down $1.80, or 2.8 percent, at $62.50 in trading
Monday on the New York Stock Exchange. Over the past year, shares have
traded between $38.10 and $64.53.
Staff writer Daniel Walsh and The Associated Pres
--
Coalition for Peace and Justice
UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave, Linwood
NJ 08221; 609-601-8583; cell 609-742-0982
ncohen12@comcast.net; http://www.unplugsalem.org
http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org
"A time comes when silence is betrayal.
Even when pressed by the demands of
inner truth, men do not easily assume
the task of opposing their government's
policy, especially in time of war.
Nor does the human spirit move without
great difficulty against all the apathy
of conformist thought, within one's own
bosom and in the surrounding world."
- Martin Luther King Jr.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.6/59 - Release Date: 7/27/05
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
26 India: Rediff: NTPC has nuclear plans
Mamata Singh in New Delhi | August 02, 2005 09:35 IST
India's largest electricity producer National Thermal Power
Corporation Ltd will soon appoint two advisers to help it firm
up its strategy to enter the nuclear energy business.
With Prime Minister Manmohan Singh inking a deal on the import
of nuclear fuel to India, the possibility of entering the
nuclear energy business had become very real, and the company
had decided to see how soon it could start work, NTPC executives
said.
The agreement with the US for fuel supply, if it fructifies,
will enable India to step up its civil nuclear programme.
Production may go up from 10 giga watt to 275 giga watt by 2052.
Chairman and managing director of NTPC C P Jain said, "We are
looking at it as a long-term option." But he refused to
elaborate on the company's plans.
NTPC accounts for around 27 per cent of the power produced in
the country, though thermal generation continues to be its
mainstay.
The company plans to have an installed capacity of 56,000 Mw by
2017 against 23,739 Mw at the end of 2004-05. It intends to do
so through significant addition in hydel capacity and by
foraying into non-conventional and nuclear energy generation.
"Nuclear power is the way to go in the long-run. Going by
current consumption trends, our coal reserves will only last us
another 50 years," said an executive, adding that nuclear power
was the preferred option for countries like France and Japan
with low hydrocarbon reserves.
Executives said NTPC would have to deliberate upon how to get
around the dual-use technology export ban imposed by the US, if
it did enter the sector.
Certain components required for use in gas-based turbines were
covered under dual-use technology, and if imports were not
allowed, it would pose a problem for the company, energy
analysts said. Nuclear power can account for up to 20 per cent
of India's power generation by 2052, up from 5 per cent in 2012,
as per projections.
Copyright © 2005 rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
27 The Hindu: Two reactors shut down
Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Aug 03, 2005
Special Correspondent
MUMBAI: Two principal nuclear research reactors of the Bhabha
Atomic Research Centre (BARC) here were shut down last Tuesday
when it started raining heavily.
A Department of Atomic Energy spokesman said the Cirus and
Dhruva reactors were shut down after the level in the intake
well rose. The reactors located at Trombay draw seawater through
a specially made well for cooling. The reactor heat is passed to
the seawater through a heat exchanger and the warm water is
released into the sea.
The shutting down was a routine procedure called `take safe shut
down.' He said both the reactors were "healthy."
The third reactor, Apsara, the first nuclear reactor in India
and one of the oldest in the world, was shut down for
maintenance, the spokesman said.
Copyright © 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of
*****************************************************************
28 Times & Telegraph How 'risky' is Point Lepreau deal?
canadaeast.com: TT Down To Business
published on page C2 on August 2, 2005
ALEC BRUCE
By conceding that his decision to foot the Point Lepreau
refurbishment bill was - though necessary - a "risky" gamble,
Premier Bernard Lord has laid most of his cards on the table.
Now, New Brunswickers need to see the rest of his hand, and
without the poker face.
At first cut, last week's announcement seemed a model of
political prudence and candor. The Tory government chose to
contract with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to modernize the
aging reactor at a cost of $1.4 billion over the next four
years. In doing so, it rejected a bid by Bruce Power that would
have transferred the financial risk to the Ontario company in
return for a guaranteed sales agreement with the province, but
only at a premium price point.
Also off the table was the deeply divisive option of
decommissioning the plant altogether. That move, the government
argued, would have forced it to build coal and other fossil-fuel
burning plants, further shackling the province to unpredictable
price shocks and environmental degradation.
No, Mr. Lord said, the only responsible decision was to swallow
hard and jump into bed with AECL. "This is the lowest-price
option of all of the options," he stated at last Friday's news
conference. "We acknowledge that New Brunswick is taking on more
risk than we had originally intended. I think it's important for
everyone to realize that."
The premier also grabbed the opportunity to remind his
constituents that he had had little choice in the matter thanks
to the last-minute disingenuousness of the ruling federal
Liberal Party. "Two weeks ago," he thundered, "we were very
disappointed by the decision of the [Government of Canada] to
say no to New Brunswick. I'm also surprised that they would
support the nuclear industry in foreign countries, such as
China, but not support the industry here at home."
Fair enough. But serious questions remain - not so much about
the rationale for the decision, or the mechanics of deal, but
about the meaning behind the premier's use of the word, "risk".
On this score, and for the time being, answers remain as rare as
uranium in Fredericton.
According to the terms of the agreement, for example, AECL faces
stiff penalties if it fails to complete its assigned task by the
September, 2009, deadline. At the moment, however, no one in
government appears inclined to spell out exactly what these are,
how they will be enforced, and how they will be collected.
Refurbishment programs of this type do not exactly enjoy a
stellar record in Canada (check out the multi-million-dollar
cost overruns and technical snafus at Pickering, Ontario, if you
have any doubts). All of which provides critics of the Point
Lepreau deal with some justification to doubt. Says Tom Adams,
executive director of the Toronto-based Energy Probe: "I would
put the chances of Lepreau being finished on schedule at little
to none."
It's also difficult to believe NB Power's contention that any
rate hikes in New Brunswick over the next few years will not be
linked to the cost of rebuilding the plant as was reported by
The Canadian Press after covering comments made by the utility's
president, David Hay - when its political masters have already
acknowledged that the refit will directly cost Lepreau customers
in Prince Edward Island as much as $70 million. Why them, and
not us? Will export customers pay a premium to help defray the
expense? What about Quebec, Maine, New Hampshire and New York?
Finally, what of the provincial government's much-lauded plan to
diversify the energy grid over the next several years to obtain
at least 30 per cent of total generation from eco-friendly and
renewable sources, such as wind, solar, tidal and geothermal?
Will this proceed? If so, who pays, what's the price tag, and
what impact, if any, does the Lepreau decision have on the
future of this sensible approach?
The Lord government must provide answers to these questions, and
soon. Otherwise, its principled stand on the subject of "risk"
will begin to fold like a house of cards.
Alec Bruce is a Moncton-based journalist and author. His
column about business, industry and public policy appears in the
Times &Transcript every Tuesday and Friday. You can contact him
via E-Mail:
Copyright © 2005 Brunswick News Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
29 thedesertsun.com: Local geothermal region could have power of 10 nuclear plants
The Desert Sun
[Geothermal power plants near the southeastern part of the
Salton Sea.]
Desert Sun File Photo Geothermal power plants near the
southeastern part of the Salton Sea.
Geothermal energy
How it worksGeothermal GuideVirtual tour of a geothermal plant
Doug Abrahms and Benjamin Spillman
The Desert Sun
August 2, 2005
WASHINGTON - The Salton Sea is a goldmine - if you're looking to
tap the massive amounts of geothermal energy under the ground
near California's largest lake, which is situated about 50 miles
from Palm Springs.
And a component of the energy bill passed by the U.S. Senate on
Friday gives a tax credit boost to those hoping to build more
clean power plants. That could help offset the need for more
electricity as the Coachella Valley booms.
"The Salton Sea is the crown jewel of undeveloped geothermal
resources," said Vince Signorotti, vice president of CalEnergy
Corp. "Most of us believe we've just begun to tap its ultimate
potential."
Signorotti's company is planning to build the biggest geothermal
plant of its type at the Salton Sea - with a possible online
date of 2007.
The area near the Salton Sea could produce up to 2,000 megawatts
of geothermal power a year - the equivalent of 10 nuclear power
plants, Signorotti said. A megawatt is about enough power to run
1,000 homes, although large industrial electricity customers use
much more juice.
That could help the electric utility Imperial Irrigation
District. It supplies power to about 125,000 customers, 60
percent of them in the Coachella Valley cities of Indio, La
Quinta and Coachella, roughly east of Washington Street.
For residents and electricity users, the new geothermal
potential means a backup as population growth strains the local
electrical grid. So tapping the Earth's energy could mean less
chance of brownouts, rolling blackouts or system failure.
IID customers recently experienced a scare, when during
unrelenting triple-digit heat, the utility reached near capacity
and issued conservation alerts to keep from maxing out its
system. The utility is recalibrating its system after the recent
scare, but is still facing a future than includes thousands of
new rooftops in Indio and Coachella, all needing power.
A provision in the energy bill provides a tax credit for
producing geothermal electricity designed to make it cost
competitive with natural gas and coal-fired power plants. Until
Friday's passage of the bill, only wind energy got the credit.
That item is essential for CalEnergy to move forward with plans
to build its 215-megawatt power plant at the Salton Sea,
although the company has yet to make a final decision, said
Signorotti.
The plant, which would use hot water to spin turbines and create
electricity, would be the largest geothermal plant in the
country, he said. The company has signed a long-term contract to
sell the electricity to IID but hasn't committed to the project
until it can lower the plant's costs, he said.
The geothermal item is one small part in a wide-ranging energy
bill that focuses on increasing U.S. oil, natural gas and
electricity supplies over the next decade.
The legislation, passed Thursday by the House, also toughens
efficiency standards for air conditioners, requires electric
utilities to make their transmission lines more reliable to
prevent blackouts, and requires a survey of oil and gas reserves
along the entire U.S. coastline.
Proponents say the overall bill will boost U.S. energy
production over the long term. Critics say it does little to
lessen the nation's appetite for oil, and nothing to lower gas
prices.
But most of those involved with energy issues support a
provision that provides a tax credit aimed at making geothermal
electricity cost competitive with natural gas and coal-fired
power plants.
Rep. Mary Bono, R-Palm Springs, said she hoped that increased
geothermal power production is incorporated as part of the plan
to revitalize the Salton Sea area.
"This tax credit fits in nicely to that plan," said Bono, who
voted for the energy bill.
A wave of geothermal plants were built nationwide during the
late 1980s and early 1990s, but interest cooled when electric
utilities started deregulating and looking for the cheapest
source of power, said Daniel Schochet, vice president at Ormat
Technologies Inc. The Reno, Nev., company builds geothermal
plants.
The picture brightened again after the electricity shortages in
the West over the last few years and with new state laws that
require utilities to use larger amounts of renewable power, he
said.
"There's a resurgence in interest in geothermal," he said.
The Western Governors' Association established a goal of
generating 30,000 megawatts in the region of electricity from
solar, clean-coal and geothermal technologies by 2015.
California already leads the nation in geothermal power, and
produces about 2,500 megawatts, according to the group. At least
four new projects in the state are planned, including
CalEnergy's at the Salton Sea.
IID also is a promoter of geothermal energy and has designs on
enough geothermal juice to power more than 195,000 homes in the
next few years. The energy would come from a series of
geothermal power plants on the south end of the Salton Sea.
Rosa Maria Gonzales of IID Energy said the fact that geothermal
energy doesn't produce much air pollution is important,
especially in the Imperial Valley, which has notoriously dirty
air.
"Being able to provide clean energy is important to us,"
Gonzales said.
The geothermal energy will help IID reach a goal of producing 20
percent of its power with renewable resources.
Even if the tax cuts spur geothermal development beyond what IID
customers can consume, the utility could allow producers to ship
the power elsewhere, she said.
Karl Gawell, executive director of the Geothermal Energy
Association, said the federal tax break should really push the
geothermal industry forward.
"We're on the verge on seeing a whole new generation of
renewable power plants coming on line," he said. "I think we'll
finally start seeing (geothermal) plants on this line this fall."
*****************************************************************
30 record online: Indian Point emergency pumps failed
www.recordonline.com
August 2, 2005
Buchanan
Pumps used to inject water into Indian Point nuclear power
plant in the event of a meltdown were inoperable for 17 days
earlier this year, a federal inspection released yesterday
concluded.
In a letter to plant owner Entergy Nuclear Northeast, the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said leaking nitrogen caused
one of three "safety injection" pumps on Unit 2 to fail sometime
before Jan. 27.
Two other pumps were deemed questionable during the same
period, the NRC said.
The devices, which have since been fixed, are used to cool
reactors with water during an accident.
"Whenever there is an erosion in the plant's safety
measures, that is something we are very concerned with," NRC
spokesman Neil Sheehan said.
Calls to Entergy yesterday evening were not immediately
returned.
Greg Bruno
Record Online is brought to you by the Times Herald-Record,
serving New York's Hudson Valley and the Catskills.
40 Mulberry Street * PO Box 2046 * Middletown, NY 10940
Telephone 845-341-1100 or 800-295-2181 outside the Middletown,
N.Y., area.
CopyrightOrange County Publications. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
31 HSC: HSC Consults on proposed amendments to nuclear reactors
(environmental impact for decommissioning) regulations
HSC press release C021:05 - 1 August 2005
The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has today published a
Consultative Document outlining proposals to amend the Nuclear
Reactors (Environmental Impact Assessment for Decommissioning)
Regulations 1999 (EIADR99).
Two key changes are proposed:
+ To implement changes made to EIADR99’s parent EC
Directive; and
+ To simplify arrangements around decommissioning part(s) of a
nuclear licensed site
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has already consulted key
stakeholders and believes there is broad support for the changes
proposed.
Comments should be made no later than 31 October 2005 to
eiadr.amendments@hse.gsi.gov.ukor sent to Jason Batt, Specific
Interventions Division 9, Policy Group, HSE, 7th Floor, Rose
Court, 2 Southwark Bridge, London SE1 9HS.
An online copy of the Consultation Document can be obtained from
HSE’s website at www.hse.gov.uk/consult/live.htm
Paper copies are available on request from Jason Batt at the
address given above.
NOTE TO EDITORS
1. The Nuclear Reactors (Environmental Impact Assessment for
Decommissioning) Regulations 1999 (EIADR99) implement the part
of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC, that
assesses the effects of certain public and private projects on
the environment, including the dismantling or decommissioning of
specified nuclear power stations and nuclear reactors.
2. EIADR99 apply to all decommissioning projects beginning
after 19 November 1999, and to existing projects that are
subject to a change or extension, which may have significant
adverse effects on the environment.
3. The competent authority for EIADR99 in Great Britain is
HSE. Although the Regulations are made under the European
Communities Act 1972, HSE enforces them, using powers under the
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
4. EIADR99 require reactor licensees to:
+ Submit an application for consent (in the form of an
Environmental Statement) to HSE for consideration;
+ Publicise the application (usually via publication in one
or more newspapers circulating in the locality in which the
project is to be carried out); and
+ Make available to the public copies of the Environmental
Statement.
5. A licensee cannot start a decommissioning project or change
an existing project (where that change/extension produces any
significant adverse environmental effect) until HSE, after
consulting other stakeholders (e.g. Environment Agency, Scottish
Environment Protection Agency), has granted consent.
6. The legislation applies to reactors over 1 kilowatt
continuous thermal load. It is not expected to affect
decommissioning work already underway (unless there is a
change/extension where there may be a significant adverse
effect), and does not apply to nuclear chemical plants.
7. To date HSE has granted consent for decommissioning
projects at Hinkley Point A, Bradwell and Calder Hall nuclear
power stations. HSE is currently considering an application from
another station (Chapelcross) and in the next four years expects
to receive applications from at least a further four stations.
8. The purpose of the amendments is to implement amendments to
the EIADR99’s parent directive, the Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) Directive 85/337/EC, as amended by 97/11/EC, by
Directive 2003/35/EC ; to correct two typographical errors
identified by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments; and
to achieve greater administrative clarity and efficiency.
9. The latter aim will be achieved by the proposal to amend
regulation 13(1) of EIADR99. Regulation 13(1) currently places
the initial responsibility on the licensee to consider whether a
change/extension to a decommissioning project may have a
significant adverse effect on the environment (SAEE). If SAEE is
likely, the licensee must apply to HSE for a determination as to
whether the project shall be subject to an Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA). However, the whole project must stop until HSE
has made a determination, and cannot restart if HSE decides an
EIA is required which, under the requirements of regulation 13,
requires a public consultation of three months.
10. The proposed amendment to regulation 13(1) provides HSE
with the option of considering that if a change/extension occurs
to a project that has a significant adverse effect on the
environment, then only the part(s) of the site affected would be
subject to the requirements of regulation 13. Thus work on the
other parts of the site, unaffected by this change/extension,
could continue if HSE decides ceasing such work is unnecessary.
11. One of the changes made to the EIADR99’s parent
directive is to remove the blanket exemption for defence
projects and replace it with a case-by-case assessment on
whether an application is required.
12. The costs and benefits from these amendments are detailed
in Appendix 2 of the Consultative Document. The amendments
driven by some of the changes to the parent directive will
present some additional administrative costs to the Ministry of
Defence and HSE (though HSE’s costs should be absorbed by
existing resources).
13. It is estimated that allowing work to continue on any part
not subject to SAEE would save the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority and the nuclear industry somewhere in the region of
£40 - £60 million per site.
Public Enquiries : HSE InfoLine, Tel: 0845 345 0055, visit:
www.hse.gov.uk/contact/or write to: HSE InfoLine, Caerphilly
Business Park, Caerphilly CF83 3GG.
Press Enquiries : Journalists only : Mark Wheeler 020 7717 6905
*****************************************************************
32 Daily Times: Nukes not included in India-US defence deal, says Rocca
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Daily Times Monitor
LAHORE: US Undersecretary of State for South Asia Christina
Rocca said on Tuesday that the sale of nuclear weapons was not
included in the India-US defence pact, Geo news channel reported.
Addressing Islamabad-based diplomats and journalists from
Washington, Rocca described reasons for the India-US defence
pact and said the US actually wanted stability in South Asia,
the report added. She said the US would provide peaceful atomic
assistance to India to fulfil its energy needs and that the US
wanted equally good relations with Pakistan, the report said.
Rocca said the US wished for India and Pakistan to resolve all
issues including Kashmir through dialogue, the report said,
adding that she said the US would also talk to Pakistan about
energy cooperation between both countries. She said Iran was
involved in state terrorism and had violated the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the report said. It quoted her
as saying that the US was against the Iran-Pakistan-India gas
pipeline. Praising Pakistan’s role in the war against terror,
Rocca said Pakistan had caught the largest number of Al Qaeda
leaders, the channel reported.
She said Osama Bin Laden and Aiman al Zawahri were at large, but
the US would arrest them some day, the report said. Rocca also
said Pakistan had played a major role in maintaining peace in
Afghanistan and the US administration was thankful to the
country, it added.
Daily Times - All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
33 NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Beaver Valley Power
FR Doc E5-4095
[Federal Register: August 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 147)]
[Notices] [Page 44390-44391] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02au05-62]
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Notice of Consideration of Approval
of Transfer of Facility Operating Licenses and Conforming
Amendments, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering the
issuance of an order under 10 CFR 50.80 approving the direct
transfer of Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73
for the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 (BVPS 1) and 2
(BVPS 2), respectively, to the extent held by Ohio Edison Company
(Ohio Edison) regarding its non-leased interests in BVPS 2, the
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Cleveland Electric) and
the Toledo Edison Company (Toledo Edison). The transfer would be
to FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corporation (FENGenCo). The
Commission is further considering amending the licenses for
administrative purposes to reflect the proposed transfer.
According to an application for approval dated June 1, 2005, as
supplemented by letter dated July 15, 2005, filed by FirstEnergy
Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), on behalf of Ohio Edison,
Cleveland Electric, Toledo Edison and FENGenCo, FENGenCo would
assume Ohio Edison's 35 percent undivided ownership interest in
BVPS 1 and 20.22 percent undivided ownership interest in BVPS 2,
Cleveland Electric's 24.47 percent undivided ownership interest
in BVPS 2, and Toledo Edison's 1.65 percent undivided ownership
interest in BVPS 2 following approval of the proposed license
transfers. FENOC, currently the licensed operator of BVPS 1 and
BVPS 2, would remain so and continue to be responsible for the
operation and maintenance of BVPS 1 and BVPS 2. Ohio Edison's
21.66 percent leased interest in BVPS 2 and Toledo Edison's 18.26
percent leased interest in BVPS 2 would not be changed. No
physical changes to the BVPS 1 and BVPS 2 facilities or
operational changes are being proposed in the application.
The proposed conforming amendments would delete references to
Ohio Edison from the license of BVPS 1 and references to
Cleveland Electric from the license of BVPS 2, and add references
to FENGenCo to licenses of both BVPS 1 and BVPS 2, as
appropriate.
[[Page 44391]] Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right
thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through
transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission shall
give its consent in writing. The Commission will approve an
application for the direct transfer of a license, if the
Commission determines that the proposed transferee is qualified
to hold the license, and that the transfer is otherwise
consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and
orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto.
Before issuance of the proposed conforming 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.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the
Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission
has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization
facility which does no more than conform the license to reflect
the transfer action involves no significant hazards
consideration. No contrary determination has been made with
respect to this specific license amendment application. In light
of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no
public comments with respect to significant hazards
considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general
comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91. The filing of
requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene, and
written comments with regard to the license transfer application,
are discussed below.
Within 20 days from the date of publication of this notice, any
person whose interest may be affected by the Commission's action
on the application may request a hearing and, if not the
applicant, may petition for leave to intervene in a hearing
proceeding on the Commission's action. Requests for a hearing and
petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance
with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in Subpart C,
``Rules of General Applicability: Hearing Requests, Petitions to
Intervene, Availability of Documents, Selection of Specific
Hearing Procedures, Presiding Officer Powers, and General Hearing
Management for NRC Adjudicatory Hearings,'' of 10 CFR Part 2. In
particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the
requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. Untimely requests and
petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1),
unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In
addition, an untimely request or petition should address the
factors that the Commission will also consider, in reviewing
untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(I)-(viii). Requests for a hearing and petitions for
leave to intervene should be served upon David W. Jankins, Esq.,
FirstEnergy Corp., 76 South Main Street, Mail Stop A-Go-18,
Akron, OH 44308, tel: (330) 384-5037, and e- mail:
djenkins@firstenergycorp.com; the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 (e-mail address
for filings regarding license transfer cases only:
OGCLT@NRC.gov); and the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, in accordance with 10 CFR
2.302 and 2.305. The Commission will issue a notice or order
granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition,
designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and
designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing
will be published in the Federal Register and served on the
parties to the hearing.
As an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to
intervene, within 30 days from the date of publication of this
notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license
transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The
Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these
comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of
the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and
should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal
Register notice.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application dated June 1, 2005, and the supplemental letter dated
July 15, 2005, available for public inspection at the
Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White
Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on
the Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/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 27th day of
July 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William A. Macon, Jr., Project Manager, Section 2, Project
Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-4095 Filed 8-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
34 NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
FR Doc E5-4096
[Federal Register: August 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 147)]
[Notices] [Page 44391-44392] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02au05-63]
Station, Unit No. 1; Notice of Consideration of Approval of
Transfer of Facility Operating License and Conforming Amendment,
and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission) is considering the issuance of an
order under 10 CFR 50.80 approving the transfer of Facility
Operating License No. NPF-3 for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
Station, Unit No. 1 (Davis-Besse), to the extent held by the
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Cleveland Electric) and
the Toledo Edison Company (Toledo Edison). The transfer would be
to FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corporation (FENGenCo). The
Commission is further considering amending the license, which
contains antitrust license conditions, to reflect the proposed
transfer.
According to an application for approval dated June 1, 2005, as
supplemented by letter dated July 15, 2005, filed by FirstEnergy
Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), on behalf of Cleveland
Electric, Toledo Edison and FENGenCo, FENGenCo would assume
Cleveland Electric's 51.38 percent undivided ownership interest
in Davis-Besse and Toledo Edison's 48.62 percent undivided
ownership interest in Davis-Besse following approval of the
proposed license transfers. FENOC, currently the licensed
operator of Davis-Besse, would remain so and continue to be
responsible for the operation and maintenance of Davis-Besse.
No physical changes to the Davis-Besse facility or operational
changes are being proposed in the application.
The proposed conforming amendment generally would replace
references to Cleveland Electric and Toledo Electric
[[Page 44392]] in the licenses with references to FENGenCo, as
appropriate, to reflect the proposed transfer of the license.
With regard to the antitrust conditions in the license, the
application proposes changes such that FENGenCo would be subject
to the conditions, and would be responsible for any actions of
FENOC that contravene the antitrust conditions. In addition, the
antitrust conditions would note that Cleveland Electric and
Toledo Edison are no longer licensees for Davis-Besse. As non-
licensees, Cleveland Electric and Toledo Edison would no longer
be subject to the antitrust conditions contained in the
Davis-Besse license.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder,
shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of
control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its
consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application
for the direct transfer of a license, if the Commission
determines that the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the
license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with
applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by
the Commission pursuant thereto.
Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendment, the
Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's
regulations.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the
Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission
has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization
facility which does no more than conform the license to reflect
the transfer action involves no significant hazards
consideration. No contrary determination has been made with
respect to this specific license amendment application. In light
of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no
public comments with respect to significant hazards
considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general
comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91. The filing of
requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene, and
written comments with regard to the license transfer application,
are discussed below.
Within 20 days from the date of publication of this notice, any
person whose interest may be affected by the Commission's action
on the application may request a hearing and, if not the
applicant, may petition for leave to intervene in a hearing
proceeding on the Commission's action. Requests for a hearing and
petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance
with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in subpart C,
``Rules of General Applicability: Hearing Requests, Petitions to
Intervene, Availability of Documents, Selection of Specific
Hearing Procedures, Presiding Officer Powers, and General Hearing
Management for NRC Adjudicatory Hearings,'' of 10 CFR part 2. In
particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the
requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. Untimely requests and
petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1),
unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In
addition, an untimely request or petition should address the
factors that the Commission will also consider, in reviewing
untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). Requests for a hearing and petitions for
leave to intervene should be served upon David W. Jankins, Esq.,
FirstEnergy Corp., 76 South Main Street, Mail Stop A-Go-18,
Akron, OH 44308, tel: (330) 384-5037, and e- mail:
djenkins@firstenergycorp.com; the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 (e-mail address
for filings regarding license transfer cases only:
OGCLT@NRC.gov); and the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, in accordance with 10 CFR
2.302 and 2.305. The Commission will issue a notice or order
granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition,
designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and
designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing
will be published in the Federal Register and served on the
parties to the hearing.
As an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to
intervene, within 30 days from the date of publication of this
notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license
transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The
Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these
comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of
the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and
should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal
Register notice.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application dated June 1, 2005, and the supplemental letter dated
July 15, 2005, available for public inspection at the
Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White
Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on
the Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/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 in Rockville, Maryland this 27th day of
July 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William A. Macon, Jr., Project Manager, Section 2, Project
Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-4096 Filed 8-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
35 NRC: In the Matter of Certain Power Reactor Licensees and Research,
FR Doc E5-4097
[Federal Register: August 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 147)]
[Notices] [Page 44408-44410] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02au05-73]
Reactor Licensees Who Transport Spent Nuclear Fuel; Order
Modifying License (Effective Immediately) I.
The licensees identified in Attachment 1 to this Order have been
issued a specific license by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or Commission) authorizing the possession of
spent nuclear fuel and a general license authorizing the
transportation of spent nuclear fuel [in a transportation package
approved by the Commission] in accordance with the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR parts 50 and 71. Commission
regulations for the shipment of spent nuclear fuel at 10 CFR
73.37(a) require these licensees to maintain a physical
protection system that meets the requirements contained in 10 CFR
73.37(b), (c), (d), and (e). II.
On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets
in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, utilizing large commercial
aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence
information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number
of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees in order to
strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a
potential attack on a nuclear facility or regulated activity.
The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State
and local government agencies and industry representatives to
discuss and evaluate the current threat environment in order to
assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities.
In addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive
review of
[[Page 44409]] its safeguards and security programs and
requirements.
As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and
security plan requirements, as well as a review of information
provided by the intelligence community, the Commission has
determined that certain additional security measures are required
to be implemented by licensees as prudent, interim measures, to
address the current threat environment in a consistent manner.
Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth
in Attachment 2 of this Order, on all licensees identified in
Attachment 1 of this Order.\1\ These additional security
requirements, which supplement existing regulatory requirements,
will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the
common defense and security continue to be adequately protected
in the current threat environment. These requirements will remain
in effect until the Commission determines otherwise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \1\ Attachments 1 and 2 contain SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION
and will not be released to the public.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- The Commission recognizes that licensees may have
already initiated many of the measures set forth in Attachment 2
to this Order in response to previously issued Safeguards and
Threat Advisories or on their own. It is also recognized that
some measures may not be possible or necessary for all shipments
of spent nuclear fuel, or may need to be tailored to accommodate
the licensees' specific circumstances to achieve the intended
objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe transport
of spent nuclear fuel.
Although the additional security measures implemented by
licensees in response to the Safeguards and Threat Advisories
have been adequate to provide reasonable assurance of adequate
protection of common defense and security, in light of the
current threat environment, the Commission concludes that the
security measures must be embodied in an Order consistent with
the established regulatory framework. In order to provide
assurance that licensees are implementing prudent measures to
achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current
threat environment, all licenses identified in Attachment 1 to
this Order shall be modified to include the requirements
identified in Attachment 2 to this Order. In addition, pursuant
to 10 CFR 2.202, and in light of the common defense and security
matters identified above which warrant the issuance of this
Order, the Commission finds that the public health, safety, and
interest require that this Order be immediately effective.
III.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 53, 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o,
182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Parts 50 and
71, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that all
licenses identified in Attachment 1 to this order are modified as
follows: A. All licensees shall, notwithstanding the provisions
of any Commission regulation or license to the contrary, comply
with the requirements described in Attachment 2 to this Order
except to the extent that a more stringent requirement is set
forth in the licensee's security plan. The licensees shall
immediately start implementation of the requirements in
Attachment 2 to the Order and shall complete implementation by
August 25, 2005, unless otherwise specified in Attachment 2, or
before the first shipment after July 25, 2005, whichever is
earlier.
B.1. All licensees shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of
this Order, notify the Commission, (1) if they are unable to
comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment 2,
(2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in
their specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation of any of
the requirements would cause the licensee to be in violation of
the provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility
license.
The notification shall provide the licensee's justification for
seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement.
2. Any licensee that considers that implementation of any of the
requirements described in Attachment 2 to this Order would
adversely impact the safe transport of spent fuel must notify the
Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of the adverse
safety impact, the basis for its determination that the
requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal
for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 2
requirement in question, or a schedule for modifying the activity
to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is
appropriate, the licensee must supplement its response to
Condition B1 of this Order to identify the condition as a
requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant
justifications as required in Condition B1.
C.1. All licensees shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of
this Order, submit to the Commission a schedule for achieving
compliance with each requirement described in Attachment 2.
2. All licensees shall report to the Commission when they have
achieved full compliance with the requirements described in
Attachment 2.
D. Notwithstanding any provisions of the Commission's regulations
to the contrary, all measures implemented or actions taken in
response to this Order shall be maintained until the Commission
determines otherwise.
Licensee responses to Conditions B1, B2, C1, and C2 above, shall
be submitted to the NRC to the attention of the Director, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation under 10 CFR 50.4. In addition,
licensee submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be
properly marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. The
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, may, in writing,
relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration
by the licensee of good cause.
IV.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the licensee must, and any other
person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to
this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within
twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is
shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to
request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to
submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to
the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001, and include a
statement of good cause for the extension.
The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents
to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or
affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law
on which the licensee or other person adversely affected relies
and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued.
Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the
Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555- 0001, to the Assistant General Counsel for
Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address; to the
Regional Administrator for NRC Region I, II, III, or IV, as
appropriate for the specific
[[Page 44410]] facility; and to the licensee if the answer or
hearing request is by a person other than the licensee. Because
of potential disruptions in delivery of mail to United States
Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for
hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either
by means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-1101 or by e-mail
to hearingdocket@nrc.gov, and also to the Office of the General
Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to (301)
415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a person other
than the Licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth
with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely
affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth
in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by the licensee or
a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission
will issue an Order designating the time and place of any
hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such
hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(I), the licensee may, in addition
to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or
sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate
effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the Order,
including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on
adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations,
or error.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of
an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the
provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty
(20) days from the date of this Order without further order or
proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has
been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be
final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not
been received.
An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate
effectiveness of this order.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of July 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
R.W. Borchardt, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-4097 Filed 8-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
36 NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Beaver Valley Power
FR Doc E5-4098
[Federal Register: August 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 147)]
[Notices] [Page 44392-44393] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02au05-64]
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Notice of Consideration of Approval
of Transfer of Facility Operating Licenses and Conforming
Amendments, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering the
issuance of an order under 10 CFR 50.80 approving the direct
transfer of Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73
for the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 (BVPS 1) and 2
(BVPS 2), respectively, to the extent held by Pennsylvania Power
Company (Penn Power). The transfer would be to FirstEnergy
Nuclear Generation Corporation (FENGenCo). The Commission is
further considering amending the licenses for administrative
purposes to reflect the proposed transfer.
According to an application for approval dated May 18, 2005, as
supplemented by letter dated July 15, 2005, filed by FirstEnergy
Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) on behalf
[[Page 44393]] of Penn Power and FENGenCo, FENGenCo would assume
Penn Power's 65 percent undivided ownership interest in BVPS 1
and 13.74 percent undivided ownership interest in BVPS 2
following approval of the proposed license transfers. FENOC,
currently the licensed operator of BVPS 1 and BVPS 2, would
remain so and continue to be responsible for the operation and
maintenance of BVPS 1 and BVPS 2. No physical changes to the BVPS
1 and BVPS 2 facilities or operational changes are being proposed
in the application.
The proposed conforming amendments would replace references to
Penn Power in the licenses with references to FENGenCo, as
appropriate.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder,
shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of
control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its
consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application
for the direct transfer of a license, if the Commission
determines that the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the
license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with
applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by
the Commission pursuant thereto.
Before issuance of the proposed conforming 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.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the
Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission
has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization
facility which does no more than conform the license to reflect
the transfer action involves no significant hazards
consideration. No contrary determination has been made with
respect to this specific license amendment application. In light
of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no
public comments with respect to significant hazards
considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general
comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91. The filing of
requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene, and
written comments with regard to the license transfer application,
are discussed below.
Within 20 days from the date of publication of this notice, any
person whose interest may be affected by the Commission's action
on the application may request a hearing and, if not the
applicant, may petition for leave to intervene in a hearing
proceeding on the Commission's action. Requests for a hearing and
petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance
with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in Subpart C,
``Rules of General Applicability: Hearing Requests, Petitions to
Intervene, Availability of Documents, Selection of Specific
Hearing Procedures, Presiding Officer Powers, and General Hearing
Management for NRC Adjudicatory Hearings,'' of 10 CFR part 2. In
particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the
requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. Untimely requests and
petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1),
unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In
addition, an untimely request or petition should address the
factors that the Commission will also consider, in reviewing
untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). Requests for a hearing and petitions for
leave to intervene should be served upon David W. Jankins, Esq.,
FirstEnergy Corp., 76 South Main Street, Mail Stop A-Go-18,
Akron, OH 44308, tel: (330) 384-5037, and e- mail: ; the General
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001 (e-mail address for filings regarding license transfer
cases only: ); and the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, in accordance with 10 CFR
2.302 and 2.305. The Commission will issue a notice or order
granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition,
designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and
designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing
will be published in the Federal Register and served on the
parties to the hearing.
As an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to
intervene, within 30 days from the date of publication of this
notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license
transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The
Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these
comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of
the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and
should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal
Register notice.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application dated May 18, 2005, and the supplemental letter dated
July 15, 2005, available for public inspection at the
Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White
Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on
the Internet at the NRC Web site, .
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 .
Dated in Rockville, Maryland this 27th day of July 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William A. Macon, Jr., Project Manager, Section 2, Project
Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-4098 Filed 8-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
b
*****************************************************************
37 NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Perry Nuclear Power
FR Doc E5-4099
[Federal Register: August 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 147)]
[Notices] [Page 44393-44394] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02au05-65]
Plant, Unit No. 1; Notice of Consideration of Approval of
Transfer of Facility Operating License and Conforming Amendment,
and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission) is considering the issuance of an
order under 10 CFR 50.80 approving the transfer of Facility
Operating License No. NPF-58 for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
Unit No. 1 (Perry), to the extent held by OES Nuclear, Inc. (OES
Nuclear), the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Cleveland
Electric) and the Toledo Edison Company (Toledo Edison). The
transfer would be to FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corporation
(FENGenCo). The Commission is further considering amending the
licenses for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed
transfer.
According to an application for approval dated June 1, 2005, as
supplemented by letter dated July 15, 2005, filed by FirstEnergy
Nuclear
[[Page 44394]] Operating Company (FENOC), on behalf of OES
Nuclear, Cleveland Electric, Toledo Edison and FENGenCo, FENGenCo
would assume OES Nuclear's 17.42 percent undivided ownership
interest in Perry, Cleveland Electric's 44.85 percent undivided
ownership interest in Perry and Toledo Edison's 19.91 percent
undivided ownership interest in Perry following approval of the
proposed license transfers.
FENOC, currently the licensed operator of Perry, would remain so
and continue to be responsible for the operation and maintenance
of Perry.
Ohio Edison's 12.58 percent leased interest in Perry would not be
changed. No physical changes to the Perry facility or operational
changes are being proposed in the application.
The proposed conforming amendment generally would replace
references to OES Nuclear, Cleveland Electric and Toledo Electric
in the license with references to FENGenCo, as appropriate, to
reflect the proposed transfer of the license. With regard to the
antitrust conditions in the license, the application proposes
changes such that FENGenCo would be subject to the antitrust
conditions, and would be responsible for any actions of FENOC
that contravene the antitrust conditions. Once removed from the
license, OES Nuclear, Cleveland Electric and Toledo Electric as
non-licensees would no longer be subject to the antitrust
conditions contained in the Perry license.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder,
shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of
control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its
consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application
for the direct transfer of a license, if the Commission
determines that the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the
license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with
applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by
the Commission pursuant thereto.
Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendment, the
Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's
regulations.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the
Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission
has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization
facility which does no more than conform the license to reflect
the transfer action involves no significant hazards
consideration. No contrary determination has been made with
respect to this specific license amendment application. In light
of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no
public comments with respect to significant hazards
considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general
comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91. The filing of
requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene, and
written comments with regard to the license transfer application,
are discussed below.
Within 20 days from the date of publication of this notice, any
person whose interest may be affected by the Commission's action
on the application may request a hearing and, if not the
applicant, may petition for leave to intervene in a hearing
proceeding on the Commission's action. Requests for a hearing and
petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance
with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in Subpart C,
``Rules of General Applicability: Hearing Requests, Petitions to
Intervene, Availability of Documents, Selection of Specific
Hearing Procedures, Presiding Officer Powers, and General Hearing
Management for NRC Adjudicatory Hearings,'' of 10 CFR Part 2. In
particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the
requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. Untimely requests and
petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1),
unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In
addition, an untimely request or petition should address the
factors that the Commission will also consider, in reviewing
untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). Requests for a hearing and petitions for
leave to intervene should be served upon David W. Jankins, Esq.,
FirstEnergy Corp., 76 South Main Street, Mail Stop A-Go-18,
Akron, OH 44308, tel: (330) 384-5037, and e- mail: ; the General
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001 (e-mail address for filings regarding license transfer
cases only: ); and the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, in accordance with 10 CFR
2.302 and 2.305. The Commission will issue a notice or order
granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition,
designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and
designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing
will be published in the Federal Register and served on the
parties to the hearing.
As an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to
intervene, within 30 days from the date of publication of this
notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license
transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The
Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these
comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of
the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and
should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal
Register notice.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application dated June 1, 2005, and the supplemental letter dated
July 15, 2005, available for public inspection at the
Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White
Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on
the Internet at the NRC Web site, .
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 .
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 27th day of July 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William A. Macon, Jr., Project Manager, Section 2, Project
Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-4099 Filed 8-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
38 NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Perry Nuclear Power
FR Doc E5-4100
[Federal Register: August 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 147)]
[Notices] [Page 44394-44395] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02au05-66]
Plant, Unit No. 1; Notice of Consideration of Approval of
Transfer of Facility Operating License And Conforming Amendment,
and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission) is
[[Page 44395]] considering the issuance of orders under 10 CFR
50.80 approving the transfer of Facility Operating License No.
NPF-58 for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1 (Perry), to
the extent held by Pennsylvania Power Company (Penn Power). The
transfer would be to FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corporation
(FENGenCo). The Commission is further considering amending the
licenses for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed
transfer.
According to an application for approval date May 18, 2005, as
supplemented by letter dated July 15, 2005, filed by FirstEnergy
Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), on behalf of Penn Power and
FENGenCo, FENGenCo would assume Penn Power's 5.24 percent
undivided ownership interest in Perry following approval of the
proposed license transfer. FENOC, currently the licensed operator
of Perry, would remain so and continue to be responsible for the
operation and maintenance of Perry. No physical changes to the
Perry facility or operational changes are being proposed in the
application.
The proposed conforming amendment generally would replace
references to Penn Power in the license with references to
FENGenCo, as appropriate, to reflect the proposed transfer of the
license.
With regard to the antitrust conditions in the license, the
application proposes changes such that FENGenCo would be subject
to the antitrust conditions, while Penn Power would be removed
from and thus no longer be subject to the antitrust conditions
contained in the Perry license.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder,
shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of
control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its
consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application
for the direct transfer of a license, if the Commission
determines that the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the
license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with
applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by
the Commission pursuant thereto.
Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendment, the
Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's
regulations.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the
Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission
has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization
facility which does no more than conform the license to reflect
the transfer action involves no significant hazards
consideration. No contrary determination has been made with
respect to this specific license amendment application. In light
of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no
public comments with respect to significant hazards
considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general
comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91. The filing of
requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene, and
written comments with regard to the license transfer application,
are discussed below.
Within 20 days from the date of publication of this notice, any
person whose interest may be affected by the Commission's action
on the application may request a hearing and, if not the
applicant, may petition for leave to intervene in a hearing
proceeding on the Commission's action. Requests for a hearing and
petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance
with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in Subpart C,
``Rules of General Applicability: Hearing Requests, Petitions to
Intervene, Availability of Documents, Selection of Specific
Hearing Procedures, Presiding Officer Powers, and General Hearing
Management for NRC Adjudicatory Hearings,'' of 10 CFR part 2. In
particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the
requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. Untimely requests and
petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1),
unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In
addition, an untimely request or petition should address the
factors that the Commission will also consider, in reviewing
untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). Requests for a hearing and petitions for
leave to intervene should be served upon David W. Jankins, Esq.,
FirstEnergy Corp., 76 South Main Street, Mail Stop A-Go-18,
Akron, OH 44308, tel: (330) 384-5037, and e- mail:
djenkins@firstenergycorp.com; the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 (e-mail address
for filings regarding license transfer cases only:
OGCLT@NRC.gov); and the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, in accordance with 10 CFR
2.302 and 2.305. The Commission will issue a notice or order
granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition,
designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and
designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing
will be published in the Federal Register and served on the
parties to the hearing.
As an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to
intervene, within 30 days from the date of publication of this
notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license
transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The
Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these
comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of
the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and
should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal
Register notice.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application dated May 18, 2005, and the supplemental letter dated
July 15, 2005, available for public inspection at the
Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White
Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on
the Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/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
topdr@nrc.gov. Dated in Rockville, Maryland this 27th day of July
2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William A. Macon, Jr., Project Manager, Section 2, Project
Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-4100 Filed 8-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
39 NRC: PSEG Nuclear LLC, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1
FR Doc E5-4101
[Federal Register: August 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 147)]
[Notices] [Page 44397-44398] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02au05-68]
and 2; Notice of Consideration of Approval of Transfer of
Facility Operating Licenses and Conforming Amendments and
Opportunity for a Hearing The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC
or the Commission) is considering the issuance of an order under
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section
50.80 approving the transfer of Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-70 and DPR-75 for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit
Nos. 1 and 2 (Salem), respectively, to the extent currently held
by PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG) to Exelon Generation Company, LLC
(Exelon). PSEG is the licensed operator of Salem. PSEG and Exelon
currently own 57.41 percent and 42.59 percent, respectively, of
Salem. The transfer of PSEG's ownership interests and operating
authority to Exelon is part of the proposed merger of PSEG's
parent corporation, Public Service Enterprise Group, into Exelon
Corporation, the indirect parent company of Exelon. The
Commission is also considering amending the licenses for
administrative purposes to reflect the proposed transfer.
According to an application for approval filed by PSEG, Exelon
would assume title to PSEG's interest in the facility following
approval of the proposed license transfers, while retaining its
current ownership interests, such that Exelon would own 100
percent of Salem, and would become responsible for the operation,
maintenance, and eventual decommissioning of Salem. No physical
changes to the Salem facility or operational changes are being
proposed in the application.
The proposed amendments would delete references to PSEG, or
replace references to PSEG in the licenses with references to
Exelon, as appropriate, to reflect the proposed transfer.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder,
shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of
control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its
consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application
for the transfer of a license, if the Commission determines that
the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the license, and
that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable
provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the
Commission pursuant thereto.
Before issuance of the proposed conforming 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.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the
Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission
has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization
facility which does no more than conform the license to reflect
the transfer action involves no significant hazards
consideration. No contrary determination has been made with
respect to this specific license amendment application. In light
of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no
public comments with respect to significant hazards
considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general
comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91. The filing of
requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene, and
written comments with regard to the
[[Page 44398]] license transfer application, are discussed below.
Within 20 days of the date of publication of this notice, any
person whose interest may be affected by the Commission's action
on the application may request a hearing and, if not the
applicant, may petition for leave to intervene in a hearing
proceeding on the Commission's action. Requests for a hearing and
petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance
with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in Subpart C
``Rules of General Applicability: Hearing Requests, Petitions to
Intervene, Availability of Documents, Selection of Specific
Hearing Procedures, Presiding Officer Powers, and General Hearing
Management for NRC Adjudicatory Hearings,'' of 10 CFR Part 2. In
particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the
requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. Untimely requests and
petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1),
unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In
addition, an untimely request or petition should address the
factors that the Commission will also consider, in reviewing
untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). Requests for a hearing and petitions for
leave to intervene should be served, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.302 and
2.305, upon Thomas S. O'Neill, Vice President and Counsel, Exelon
Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, Illinois 60555,
telephone 630-657-3770, fax 630-657-4335, and e-mail
thomas.oneill@exeloncorp.com; Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esq., PSEG
Nuclear LLC, P. O. Box 236, N-21, Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey
08038, telephone 856-339-5429, fax 856-339-1234, and e-mail
jeff.keenan@pseg.com; the General Counsel, NRC, Washington, DC
20555- 0001, e-mail address for filings regarding license
transfer cases only: OGCLT@NRC.gov; and the Secretary of the
Commission, NRC, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a
hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues
for any hearing that will be held, and designating the Presiding
Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the
Federal Register and served on the parties to the hearing.
As an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to
intervene, within 30 days after the date of publication of this
notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license
transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The
Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these
comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of
the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the
Secretary, NRC, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings
and Adjudications Staff, and should cite the publication date and
page number of this Federal Register notice.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application dated March 4, 2005, (ML050750110) available for
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR),
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly
available records will be accessible electronically from the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS)
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/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 26th
day of July 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stewart N. Bailey, Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project
Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-4101 Filed 8-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
40 NRC: Exelon Generation Company, LLC, PSEG Nuclear LLC, Peach Bottom
FR Doc E5-4102
[Federal Register: August 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 147)]
[Notices] [Page 44389-44390] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02au05-61]
Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3; Notice of Consideration of
Approval of Transfer of Facility Operating Licenses and
Conforming Amendments and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering the
issuance of an order under title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), section 50.80 approving the transfer of
Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56 for the Peach
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, to the extent
currently held by PSEG Nuclear LLC with respect to its ownership
interests in the plants to Exelon Generation Company, LLC. Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, is the licensed operator of Peach Bottom
Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3. PSEG Nuclear LLC and Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, currently each own 50 percent of Peach
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3. The transfer of PSEG
Nuclear's ownership interests to Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
is part of the proposed merger of PSEG Nuclear LLC's indirect
parent corporation, Public Service Enterprise Group into Exelon
Corporation, the indirect parent company of Exelon Generation
Company, LLC. The Commission is also considering amending the
licenses for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed
transfer.
According to an application for approval filed by Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, on behalf of itself and PSEG Nuclear
LLC, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, would own 100 percent of the
facility following approval of the proposed license transfers.
There would be no change with regard to Exelon Generation
Company, LLC's, operation of Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,
Units 2 and 3. No physical changes to the Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station, Units 2 and 3, facility or operational changes are
being proposed in the application.
The proposed amendments would replace references to PSEG Nuclear
LLC in the license with references to Exelon Generation Company,
LLC, as necessary, to reflect the proposed transfer.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder,
shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of
control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its
consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application
for the transfer of a license, if the Commission determines that
the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the license, and
that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable
provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the
Commission pursuant thereto.
Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendment, the
Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's
regulations.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the
Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission
has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization
facility which does no more than conform the license to reflect
the transfer action involves no
[[Page 44390]] significant hazards consideration. No contrary
determination has been made with respect to this specific license
amendment application. In light of the generic determination
reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no public comments with respect to
significant hazards considerations are being solicited,
notwithstanding the general comment procedures contained in 10
CFR 50.91. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for
leave to intervene, and written comments with regard to the
license transfer application, are discussed below.
Within 20 days of the date of publication of this notice, any
person whose interest may be affected by the Commission's action
on the application may request a hearing and, if not the
applicant, may petition for leave to intervene in a hearing
proceeding on the Commission's action. Requests for a hearing and
petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance
with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in Subpart C
``Rules of General Applicability: Hearing Requests, Petitions to
Intervene, Availability of Documents, Selection of Specific
Hearing Procedures, Presiding Officer Powers, and General Hearing
Management for NRC Adjudicatory Hearings,'' of 10 CFR part 2. In
particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the
requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. Untimely requests and
petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1),
unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In
addition, an untimely request or petition should address the
factors that the Commission will also consider, in reviewing
untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). Requests for a hearing and petitions for
leave to intervene should be served upon Thomas S. O'Neill, Vice
President and Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, Illinois 60555, telephone 630-657-3770, fax
630-657-4335, and e-mail
thomas.oneill@exeloncorp.com; Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esq., PSEG
Nuclear LLC, P.O. Box 236, N-21, Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey
08038, telephone 856-339-5429, fax 856-339-1234, and e-mail
jeff.keenan@pseg.com; the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, e-mail address
for filings regarding license transfer cases only: OGCLT@NRC.gov;
and the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302 and 2.305.
The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a
hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues
for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding
Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the
Federal Register and served on the parties to the hearing.
As an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to
intervene, within 30 days after the date of publication of this
notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license
transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The
Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these
comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of
the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and
should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal
Register notice.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application dated March 3, 2005, (ML050670664) available for
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR),
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly
available records will be accessible electronically from the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS)
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/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 in Rockville, Maryland this 26th
day of July 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George F. Wunder, Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project
Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-4102 Filed 8-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
41 NRC: PSEG Nuclear LLC, Hope Creek Generating Station; Notice of
FR Doc E5-4103
[Federal Register: August 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 147)]
[Notices] [Page 44398-44399] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02au05-69]
Consideration of Approval of Transfer of Facility Operating
License and Conforming Amendment and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is
considering the issuance of an order under title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) section 50.80 approving the
transfer of Facility Operating License No. NPF-57 for the Hope
Creek Generating Station (Hope Creek) currently held by PSEG
Nuclear LLC (PSEG), as owner and licensed operator of Hope Creek
to Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). The transfer of
PSEG's ownership interests and operating authority to Exelon is
part of the proposed merger of PSEG's parent corporation, Public
Service Enterprise Group, into Exelon Corporation, the indirect
parent company of Exelon. The Commission is also considering
amending the license for administrative purposes to reflect the
proposed transfer.
According to an application for approval filed by PSEG, Exelon
would assume title to the facility following approval of the
proposed license transfer, and would be responsible for the
operation, maintenance, and eventual decommissioning of Hope
Creek. No physical changes to the Hope Creek facility or
operational changes are being proposed in the application.
The proposed amendment would replace references to PSEG in the
license with references to Exelon to reflect the proposed
transfer.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder,
shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of
control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its
consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application
for the transfer of a license, if the Commission determines that
the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the license, and
that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable
provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the
Commission pursuant thereto.
Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendment, the
Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's
regulations.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the
Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission
has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization
facility which does no more than conform the license to reflect
the transfer action involves no significant hazards
consideration. No contrary determination has been made with
respect to this specific license amendment application. In light
of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no
public comments with respect to significant hazards
considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general
comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91. The filing of
requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene, and
written comments with regard to the license transfer application,
are discussed below.
Within 20 days of the date of publication of this notice, any
person
[[Page 44399]] whose interest may be affected by the Commission's
action on the application may request a hearing and, if not the
applicant, may petition for leave to intervene in a hearing
proceeding on the Commission's action. Requests for a hearing and
petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance
with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in subpart C
``Rules of General Applicability: Hearing Requests, Petitions to
Intervene, Availability of Documents, Selection of Specific
Hearing Procedures, Presiding Officer Powers, and General Hearing
Management for NRC Adjudicatory Hearings,'' of 10 CFR part 2. In
particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the
requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. Untimely requests and
petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1),
unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In
addition, an untimely request or petition should address the
factors that the Commission will also consider, in reviewing
untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(I)-(viii). Requests for a hearing and petitions for
leave to intervene should be served, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.302 and
2.305, upon Thomas S. O'Neill, Vice President and Counsel, Exelon
Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, Illinois 60555,
telephone 630-657-3770, fax 630-657-4335, and e-mail ; Jeffrie J.
Keenan, Esq., PSEG Nuclear LLC, P.O. Box 236, -21, Hancocks
Bridge, New Jersey 08038, telephone 856-339-5429, fax
856-339-7-1234, and e-mail ; the General Counsel, NRC,
Washington, DC 20555- 0001 e-mail address for filings regarding
license transfer cases only: ; and the Secretary of the
Commission, NRC, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a
hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues
for any hearing that will be held, and designating the Presiding
Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the
Federal Register and served on the parties to the hearing.
As an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to
intervene, within 30 days after the date of publication of this
notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license
transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The
Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these
comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of
the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the
Secretary, NRC, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings
and Adjudications Staff, and should cite the publication date and
page number of this Federal Register notice.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application dated March 4, 2005, (ML050750110), available for
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR),
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly
available records will be accessible electronically from the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS)
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, . 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 .
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 26th day of July 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stewart N. Bailey, Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project
Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-4103 Filed 8-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
42 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
FR Doc E5-4104
[Federal Register: August 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 147)]
[Notices] [Page 44389] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02au05-60]
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: NRC Form
396, ``Certification of Medical Examination by Facility
Licensee''.
2. Current OMB approval number: 3150-0024. 3. How often the
collection is required: Upon application for an initial operator
license, every six years for the renewal of operator or senior
operator license, and upon notices of disability.
4. Who is required or asked to report: Facility licensees who are
tasked with certifying the medical fitness of an applicant or
licensee.
5. The number of annual respondents: 137. 6. The number of hours
needed annually to complete the requirement or request: 758 (288
hours for reporting (.25 hours per response) and 470 hours for
recordkeeping (3.4 hours per recordkeeper)). 7. Abstract: NRC
Form 396 is used to transmit information to the NRC regarding the
medical condition of applicants for initial operator licenses or
renewal of operator licenses and for the maintenance of medical
records for all licensed operators. The information is used to
determine whether the physical condition and general health of
applicants for operator licensees is such that the applicant
would not be expected to cause operational errors and endanger
public health and safety.
Submit, by October 3, 2005, comments that address the following
questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary
for the NRC to properly 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 World Wide
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 (T-5 F53), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by
Internet electronic mail to infocollects@nrc.gov. Dated in
Rockville, Maryland, this27th day of July 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brenda Jo Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information
Services.
[FR Doc. E5-4104 Filed 8-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
43 York Daily Record: SECURITY: NRC plans Md. meeting -
NRC plans Md. meeting
Tuesday, August 2, 2005
Officers with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with
other local, state and federal officials later this month to
discuss security enhancements and regulations in place at each
of the nation's nuclear power plants. The meeting will be hosted
in a town-hall format where the public will have an opportunity
to offer suggestions and to ask questions.
The commission regulates both Three Mile Island in Dauphin
County and Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station.
The NRC will hold its public meeting 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Aug. 31 and 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Sept. 1 at the Bethesda North
Marriott Hotel in Maryland. For details, visit
http://www.nrc.gov.
Copyright © York Daily Record 2005
122 S. George St., P.O. Box 15122
York, PA 17405, (717) 771-2000
*****************************************************************
44 Prague Daily Monitor: Skoda JS in second round of Bulgarian nuclear power plant tender
PLZEN (PDM staff with CTK) 2 August - Czech company Skoda JS has
advanced to the second round of a tender to build two 1,000 MW
units of a nuclear power station in Bulgaria's Belene, Skoda JS
said yesterday.
The contract, worth CZK 70-80 billion, would provide jobs for
thousands of Czech workers for ten years. Another bidder in the
second round of the tender is the Russian company
Atomstroyexport.
"We have to submit a detailed technical and commercial bid by 15
December," Skoda JS director Radek Bencik told CTK.
The Bulgarian national power company NEK EAD will sign a
contract with the general supplier in early 2006. Construction
work will begin in one to two years. The first unit in Belene
should be put into operation in 2010-2011 and the second unit by
2016.
The Bulgarians have already invested USD 1.2 billion in Belene
but stopped the construction in 1990 due to a lack of money and
protests by environmentalists. Bulgaria has only one nuclear
energy unit thus far.
CTK news edited by the staff of the Prague Daily Monitor, a
*****************************************************************
45 NRC: Sunshine Federal Register Notice
FR Doc 05-15283
[Federal Register: August 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 147)]
[Notices] [Page 44399-44400] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02au05-70]
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Date:
Weeks of August 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, and September 5, 2005.
Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland.
Status: Public and closed.
Matters To Be Considered: Week of August 1, 2005 Thursday, August
4, 2005 1:30 p.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting)
(Tentative). Week of August 8, 2005--Tentative There are no
meetings scheduled for the Week of August 8, 2005.
a. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power
Station, Units 2 and 3), Docket Nos. 50-336-LR and 50-423-LR
(Tentative).
Week of August 15, 2005--Tentative Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10
a.m. Meeting with the Organization of Agreement States (OAS) and
the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD)
(Public Meeting) (Contact: Shawn Smith, 301-415-2620).
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web
address--http://www/nrc.gov .
1 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed-Ex. 3--9). Week of
August 22, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for
the Week of August 22, 2005.
Week of August 29, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings
scheduled for the Week of August 29, 2005.
Week of September 5, 2005--Tentative Wednesday, September 7, 2005
9:30 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1). 1:30
p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 3). *The schedule
for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To
verify the status of meetings call (recording)--(301) 415- 1292.
Contact person for more information: David Gamberoni, (301) 415-
1651.
* * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the
Internet at:
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. * * *
* * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with
disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable
accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need
this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from
the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large
print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator,
August Spector, at 301-415-7080, TDD: 301-415- 2100, or by e-mail
at aks@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable
accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
* * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred
subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like
to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555. (301-415-1969). In addition,
distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is
available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic
message to dkw@nrc.gov.
[[Page 44400]] Dated: July 28, 2005.
Sandy Joosten, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-15283 Filed 7-29-05; 11:08 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
*****************************************************************
46 Daily Sentinel: State pursues nuclear energy at Bellefonte
Tuesday, August 2, 2005
By Mazie Aldrich The Daily Sentinel
Published August 2, 2005 State and local officials will
aggressively pursue the possibilities of an advanced nuclear
energy plant at Bellefonte in Hollywood.
Governor Bob Riley announced Monday that he will be sending
Director of the Alabama Development Office, Neal Wade, to
Scottsboro to meet with officials from an NuStart Energy
consortium Thursday.
NuStart Energy recently announced that Bellefonte is one of six
finalists for an advanced nuclear energy plant.
“Now that we have more information about this project, the state
will be taking an aggressive stance pursuing the economic
investment and jobs it can bring to Alabama,” Wade said. “Not
only would this project be a plus for our economy, it will be a
plus in providing a domestic source of secure energy.”
Earlier this year NuStart signed an agreement with the
Department of Energy. The agreement authorized the NuStart
consortium to participate in a 50-50 cost sharing program with
the government to complete the detailed engineering work for two
advanced reactor technologies — the Westinghouse Advanced
Passive 1000 Reactor and the General Electric Economic
Simplified Boiling Water Reactor.
NuStart will select two potential nuclear plant sites by October
of this year, one for each design.
© 2005 The Daily Sentinel. All rights reserved. Published in
Scottsboro, Alabama.
*****************************************************************
47 CBC New Brunswick: Lepreau refit will mean higher power rates
Last updated Aug 2 2005 12:02 PM ADT
CBC News
The head of NB Power is warning people that power rates will
increase after the Point Lepreau nuclear generating station is
refurbished.
Lepreau will go out of service in April, 2008, and be back
online in September, 2009. CEO David Hay said consumers should
then expect to see rates increase by about eight per cent.
"Once it comes back on line it's like buying a new car," he
said. "Your payments go up when you drive a new car, so we will
have pressure on rates at that time."
+ FROM July 29, 2005: Province decides to refurbish Point
Lepreau
Copyright © CBC 2005
*****************************************************************
48 CBC New Brunswick: Environmental assessment of Lepreau inadequate - activist
Last updated Aug 2 2005 02:07 PM
www.cbc.ca/
A member of Greenpeace said the organization that regulates
nuclear plants in Canada is setting a bad precedent with Point
Lepreau in New Brunswick.
Last week, the provincial government announced it is going ahead
with the refurbishment of the plant, but Greenpeace campaigner
Shawn-Patrick Stensil said the Environment Impact Assessment
that's been completed isn't enough.
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) hasn't demanded
that a federal, as well as provincial, assessment be completed
before the refurbishment of Point Lepreau goes ahead.
As a result, Stensil said New Brunswickers don't know the full
environmental and social costs of refurbishment.
"We have a federal environmental assessment process," he said.
"The CNSC [has] been cutting corners in the case of New
Brunswick…to help bolster the business case for
refurbishment."
David Hay, Chief Executive Officer of NB Power, said a provincial
Environmental Impact Assessment was completed for the enlarged
waste site needed for the refurbished plant.
"We have complied fully with all environmental regulations," he
said. "The refurbishment project itself I do not believe per se
required an EIA but the waste site surrounding it did."
Stensil said he would testify at hearings on the refurbishment of
Point Lepreau being held by the Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission this fall.
He said dozens of other nuclear plants are reaching the end of
their lives, and the commission has to do a better job of
regulating the industry.
*****************************************************************
49 Guardian Unlimited: Iran to Delay Reopening Nuclear Plant
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday August 2, 2005 3:46 AM
AP Photo VAH103
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer
ISFAHAN, Iran (AP) - Iran threatened to reopen its nuclear
processing plant here Monday but later agreed to a two-day delay
after receiving a request from the head of the U.N. atomic
watchdog agency.
Ali Agha Mohammadi, spokesman for Iran's Supreme National
Security Council, told The Associated Press that International
Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammed ElBaradei asked Tehran for a
``maximum of two days'' to send its inspectors to Iran's nuclear
facility where they can oversee the dismantling of U.N. seals.
But the IAEA denied setting a two-day deadline, saying more time
is needed to oversee the plant's resumption of uranium
processing, agency spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said.
``We have sent a letter to Iran indicating that it would take at
least a week to get our surveillance equipment and other
required measures in place,'' she said.
Earlier, Mohammadi had said Iranian technicians would break the
seals and restart nuclear processing on Monday.
Mohammadi said the combination of restraint and resolve toward
restarting uranium processing showed the government's intention
not to squander Iran's fundamental right to nuclear power, while
preserving close ties to Europe.
``Our people were worried that the government may have done a
deal with the Europeans and given up the rights of the nation,''
Mohammadi told the AP. ``We will do the rest of the work in
coordination with the Europeans.''
On state-run TV late Monday, Mohammadi said authorities would
delay opening Iran's Isfahan Nuclear Conversion Facility for a
week if it thought European negotiators would offer a proposal
that left its rights to nuclear technology intact.
Earlier in the day, ElBaradei warned Iran ``not to take any
action that might prejudice the process at this critical
stage.''
EU negotiators have said they are mere days from delivering a
package of incentives addressing security and political,
economic and nuclear issues.
``I also call on Iran not to take any unilateral action that
could undermine the agency inspection process at a time when the
agency is making steady progress in resolving outstanding
issues,'' ElBaradei said.
Iranian officials had signaled an intensifying impatience with
the slow pace of negotiations with Europe, and an incoming
conservative administration in Tehran has showed signs of
wanting to harden the country's stance.
Mohammadi said authorities still plan to remove the U.N.'s seals
on the machinery, in the Isfahan plant, opening the way for the
long-stalled conversion of uranium ore concentrate, known as
yellowcake, into uranium gas, the feedstock for enrichment.
Iranian officials made clear they were still holding back from
restarting most of their suspended program. The country has no
plans to reopen the plant in Natanz, where it could begin actual
enrichment by injecting uranium gas into centrifuges used to
enrich uranium.
Israeli officials warned Monday that unless the international
community steps up pressure on Iran, the Islamic state will
develop nuclear weapons.
``If the Americans, Europeans and Russians will not take Iran to
the (U.N.) Security Council and put real pressure on them, they
will produce nuclear capabilities,'' said Yuval Steinitz,
chairman of the parliamentary Foreign Affairs and Defense
Committee.
Israel has repeatedly warned that Iran, which already posses a
missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and reaching
Europe, Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East, is an
existential threat to the Jewish state.
In its letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the
Tehran regime said the EU proposal sought to restrict the
country's peaceful development of nuclear power while falling
short on economic, technological and nuclear cooperation. It
said the EU's ``security guarantee'' that Iran won't be invaded
was also lacking.
Iran's announcement brought sharp responses from European
officials who called on the Iranians to respect the terms of the
Paris Agreement that meant the nuclear program stayed frozen
until negotiations were finished.
Mohammadi said some IAEA inspectors have already arrived in
Isfahan. Others are expected to arrive to install more
monitoring cameras to record the resumption of work.
U.S. officials claim the Iranian nuclear program is designed to
produce weapons. Iran insists electricity is its sole aim. Iran
maintains its suspension of uranium enrichment in November was
voluntary, giving it the right to resume the activities.
Iran's moves could send it before the United Nations Security
Council to face sanctions, as previously called for by the
United States.
European diplomats said Sunday that if Isfahan were restarted,
an emergency International Atomic Energy Agency board meeting
would set a deadline for the Iranians to stop enrichment
activities.
If such a deadline were not met, a Security Council referral was
a likely next step, the officials said.
Iran's actions could also trigger a short-term economic penalty.
The European Union which said Tehran's enrichment steps would
damage EU-Iran trade talks.
Germany, which along with Britain and France have been leading
U.S.-backed EU negotiations, said Monday that European
negotiators still plan to submit their proposal for Iran's
atomic program ``in a few days.''
The proposal, which was delayed a week until Aug. 7, includes
nuclear fuel, technology, other aid and ``security guarantees''
that Iran won't be invaded if it permanently halts uranium
enrichment and related activities, European and Iranian
officials confirmed.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
50 RIA Novosti: Prosecutors investigate fatal nuclear submarine fire
02/ 08/ 2005
ST. PETERSBURG, August 2 (RIA Novosti, Anna Novak) - A special
team is investigating a fire that killed two people who were
working to dismantle a decommissioned nuclear submarine in
northern Russia, prosecutors said Tuesday.
The incident occurred Monday at the Zvezdochka plant in
Severodvinsk near Archangelsk (about 600 miles north of Moscow).
The local prosecutor's office opened a criminal case.
"Diesel fuel vapors ignited at the Zvezdochka plant killing one
worker instantly and severely burning another, who later died at
the hospital," a prosecutor said. "The investigation will reveal
whether the fire was caused by a violation of labor safety or
fire safety regulations at the plant."
The incident occurred when work was being carried out to cut up
the Victor III class nuclear submarine, which was decommissioned
in July 2000. The submarine did not have a nuclear power reactor
on board at the time of the fire.
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
51 NRC: Notice of License Request for Pa'ina Hawaii, LLC, Irradiator in
FR Doc E5-4105
[Federal Register: August 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 147)]
[Notices] [Page 44396-44397] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02au05-67] [[Page
44396]]
Honolulu, HI and Opportunity To Request a Hearing AGENCY: U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of consideration of
a new license request and opportunity to request a hearing.
DATES: A request for a hearing must be filed by October 3, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack E. Whitten, Chief, Nuclear
Materials Licensing Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety,
Region IV, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 611 Ryan Plaza
Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas, 76011, telephone (817)
860-8197, fax (817) 860-8263: or by e-mail: jew1@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) received on June 27,
2005, from Pa'ina Hawaii, LLC, a Hawaiian owned company, an
application to build and operate a commercial pool type
industrial irradiator in Honolulu, Hawaii, near the Honolulu
International Airport. This commercial irradiator will irradiate
fresh fruit and vegetables bound for the mainland from the
Hawaiian Islands, cosmetics, and pharmaceutical products. The
irradiator will also be used by the applicant to conduct research
and development projects, and irradiate a wide range of other
materials as specifically approved by the NRC on a case-by-case
basis.
The NRC staff has begun its technical review of the irradiator
application. Review of the application focuses on the safety,
physical security, and emergency preparedness aspects of
radioactive material used in the irradiator in addition to its
design and complementing radiation safety program as they apply
to the safety of employees, the public, and the environment. Note
that other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
are responsible for determining the food types and products used
for human consumption that may be safely irradiated. In addition
to satisfying NRC regulations, Pa'ina Hawaii, LLC, must also
comply with all applicable Federal, State of Hawaii, and
municipal regulations.
Before approving the proposed license, the NRC will need to make
the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, and NRC's regulations. An environmental assessment for
this licensing action is not required, since this action is
categorically excluded under the provisions of 10 CFR
51.22(c)(14)(vii). II. Opportunity To Request a Hearing The NRC
hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on a license
application. In accordance with the general requirements in
subpart C of 10 CFR part 2,\1\ ``Rules of General Applicability:
Hearing Requests, Petitions to Intervene, Availability of
Documents, Selection of Specific Hearing Procedures, Presiding
Officer Powers, and General Hearing Management for NRC
Adjudicatory Hearings,'' any person whose interest may be
affected by this proceeding and who desires to participate as a
party must file a written request for a hearing and a
specification of the contentions which the person seeks to have
litigated in the hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \1\ The references to 10 CFR part 2 in this notice
refer to the amendments to the NRC Rules of Practice, 69 FR 2182
(January 14, 2004), codified at 10 CFR part 2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- In accordance with 10 CFR 2.302 (a), a request for a
hearing must be filed with the Commission either by: 1. First
class mail addressed to: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications; 2. Courier, express mail, and
expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD
20852, Attention Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff between 7:45
a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays; 3. E-mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
hearingdocket@nrc.gov; or 4. By 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.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b), all documents offered for
filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all parties to
the proceeding or their attorneys of record as required by law or
by rule or order of the Commission, including: 1. The applicant,
by delivery to Pa'ina Hawaii, LLC, P.O. Box 30542, Honolulu,
Hawaii 96820; and, 2. The NRC staff, by delivery to the Office of
the General Counsel, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, MD 20852, or by mail addressed to the Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001. Hearing requests should also be transmitted to the
Office of the General Counsel, either by means of facsimile
transmission to (301) 415-3725, or by e-mail to
ogcmailcenter@nrc.gov. The formal requirements for documents are
contained in 10 CFR 2.304(b), (c), (d), and (e), and must be met.
However, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.304(f), a document filed by
electronic mail or facsimile transmission need not comply with
the formal requirements of 10 CFR 2.304(b), (c), and (d), if an
original and two (2) copies otherwise complying with all of the
requirements of 10 CFR 2.304(b), (c), and (d) are mailed within
two (2) days thereafter to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b), a request for a hearing must
be filed within 60 days of the date of publication of this
Federal Register notice.
In addition to meeting other applicable requirements of 10 CFR
Part 2 of the NRC's regulations, the general requirements
involving a request for a hearing filed by a person other than an
applicant must state: 1. The name, address and telephone number
of the requestor; 2. The nature of the requestor's right under
the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; 3. The nature and
extent of the requestor's property, financial or other interest
in the proceeding; 4. The possible effect of any decision or
order that may be issued in the proceeding on the requestor's
interest; and 5. The circumstances establishing that the request
for a hearing is timely in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b). In
accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1), a request for hearing or
petitions for leave to intervene must set forth with
particularity the contentions sought to be raised. For each
contention, the request or petition must: 1. Provide a specific
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or
controverted; 2. Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the
contention; 3. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the
contention is within the scope of the proceeding; 4. Demonstrate
that the issue raised in the contention is material to the
findings that the NRC must make to
[[Page 44397]] support the action that is involved in the
proceeding; 5. Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts
or expert opinions which support the requestor's/petitioner's
position on the issue and on which the requestor/petitioner
intends to rely to support its position on the issue; and 6.
Provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute
exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact.
This information must include references to specific portions of
the application that the requestor/petitioner disputes and the
supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the
requestor/petitioner believes the application fails to contain
information on a relevant matter as required by law, the
identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the
requestor's/petitioner's belief.
In addition, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(2), contentions
must be based on documents or other information available at the
time the petition is to be filed, such as the application or
other supporting documents filed by the applicant, or otherwise
available to the petitioner. Contentions may be amended or new
contentions filed after the initial filing only with leave of the
presiding officer.
Requestors/petitioners should, when possible, consult with each
other in preparing contentions and combine similar subject matter
concerns into a joint contention, for which one of the
co-sponsoring requestors/petitioners is designated the lead
representative.
Further, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(3), any
requestor/petitioner that wishes to adopt a contention proposed
by another requestor/petitioner must do so in writing within ten
days of the date the contention is filed, and designate a
representative who shall have the authority to act for the
requestor/petitioner.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(g), a request for hearing and/or
petition for leave to intervene may also address the selection of
the hearing procedures, taking into account the provisions of 10
CFR 2.310. III. Further Information Documents related to this
action, including the application for the license 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 documents currently on file include the Pa'ina
Hawaii, LLC, License Application dated June 23, 2005 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML052060372). Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR) Reference staff by telephone at (800) 397-4209 or (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.
Documents related to this action not specifically referenced in
this Notice may not be electronically available and/or may not be
publicly available. Persons who have an interest in reviewing
these documents should submit a request to NRC under the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA). Instructions for submitting a FOIA
request can be found on the NRC's Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/foia/foia-privacy.html .
Dated in Arlington, Texas this 26th day of July, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jack E. Whitten, Chief, Nuclear Materials Licensing Branch,
Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV.
[FR Doc. E5-4105 Filed 8-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
52 NRC: In the Matter of Certain Licensees Authorized To Possess and
FR Doc E5-4108
[Federal Register: August 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 147)]
[Notices] [Page 44407-44408] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02au05-72]
Transfer Items Containing Radioactive Material Quantities of
Concern; Order Imposing Additional Security Measures (Effective
Immediately) I.
The Licensees identified in Attachment A \1\ to this Order, hold
licenses issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or
Commission) or an Agreement State, in accordance with the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR parts 30, 32, 70 and
71, or equivalent Agreement State regulations. The licenses
authorize them to possess and transfer items containing
radioactive material quantities of concern. This Order is being
issued to all such Licensees who may transport radioactive
material quantities of concern under the NRC's authority to
protect the common defense and security, which has not been
relinquished to the Agreement States. The Orders require
compliance with specific additional security measures to enhance
the security for transport of certain radioactive material
quantities of concern.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \1\ Attachment A contains sensitive unclassified
information and will not be released to the public.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- II.
On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets
in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, utilizing large commercial
aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence
information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number
of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to Licensees in order to
strengthen Licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a
potential attack on this regulated activity. The Commission has
also communicated with other Federal, State and local government
agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the
current threat environment in order to assess the adequacy of the
current security measures. In addition, the Commission commenced
a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs
and requirements.
As a result of its initial consideration of current safeguards
and security requirements, as well as a review of information
provided by the intelligence community, the Commission has
determined that certain security measures are required to be
implemented by Licensees as prudent, interim measures to address
the current threat environment in a consistent manner. Therefore,
the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth in
Attachment B \2\ of this Order, on all Licensees identified in
Attachment A of this Order. These additional security measures,
which supplement existing regulatory requirements, will provide
the Commission with reasonable assurance that the common defense
and security continue to be adequately protected in the current
threat environment. These additional security measures will
remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \2\ Attachment B contains Safeguards Information and
will not be released to the public.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- The Commission recognizes that Licensees may have
already initiated many of the measures set forth in Attachment B
to this Order in response to previously issued Safeguards and
Threat Advisories or on their own. It is also recognized that
some measures may not be possible or necessary for all shipments
of radioactive material quantities of concern, or may need to be
tailored to accommodate the Licensees' specific circumstances to
achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect
on the safe transport of radioactive material quantities of
concern.
Although the security measures implemented by Licensees in
response to the Safeguards and Threat Advisories have been
adequate to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection
of common defense and security, in light of the continuing threat
environment, the Commission concludes that the security measures
must be embodied in an Order, consistent with the established
regulatory framework. The Commission has determined that the
security measures contained in Attachment B of this Order
contains Safeguards Information and will not be released to the
public as per Order entitled, ``Issuance of Order Imposing
Requirements for Protecting Certain Safeguards Information,''
issued on November 5, 2004. To provide assurance that Licensees
are implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level
of protection to address the current threat environment, all
licensees identified in Attachment A to this Order shall
implement the requirements identified in Attachment B to this
Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that in
light of the common defense and security matters identified
above, which warrant the issuance of this Order, the public
health and safety require that this Order be immediately
effective.
III.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 53, 63, 81, 161b, 161i, 161o,
182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR parts 30, 32,
70 and 71, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that all
licensees identified in attachment a to this order shall comply
with the following: A. All Licensees shall, notwithstanding the
provisions of any Commission or Agreement State regulation or
license to the contrary, comply with the requirements described
in Attachment B to this Order. The Licensees shall immediately
start implementation of the requirements in Attachment B to the
Order and shall complete implementation by January 17, 2006, or
before the licensee's next shipment after the 180 day
implementation period of this Order.
This Order supersedes the additional transportation security
measures prescribed in the Manufacturer and Distributor Order
issued January 12, 2004.
B.1. All Licensees shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of
this Order, notify the Commission, (1) if they are unable to
comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment B,
(2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in
their specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation of any of
the requirements would cause the Licensee to be in violation of
the provisions of any Commission or Agreement State regulation or
its license. The notification shall provide the Licensees'
justification for seeking relief from or variation of any
specific requirement.
2. Any Licensee that considers that implementation of any of the
requirements described in Attachment B to this Order would
adversely impact the safe transport of radioactive material
quantities of concern must notify the Commission, within twenty
(20) days of
[[Page 44408]] this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the
basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse
safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same
objectives specified in the Attachment B requirement in question,
or a schedule for modifying the activity to address the adverse
safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, the
Licensee must supplement its response to Condition B.1 of this
Order to identify the condition as a requirement with which it
cannot comply, with attendant justifications as required in
Condition B.1. C. All Licensees shall report to the Commission
when they have achieved full compliance with the requirements
described in Attachment B.D. Notwithstanding any provisions of
the Commission's or an Agreement State's regulations to the
contrary, all measures implemented or actions taken in response
to this order shall be maintained until the Commission determines
otherwise.
Licensee responses to Conditions B.1, B.2, and C above shall be
submitted to the Document Control Desk, ATTN: Director, Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. In addition, Licensee
submittals that contain sensitive security related information
shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with
Licensees' Safeguards Information or Safeguards
Information--Modified Handling program.
The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions
upon demonstration by the Licensee of good cause.
IV.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the Licensee must, and any other
person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to
this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within
twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is
shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to
request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to
submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to
the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and
include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer
may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this
Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or
affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law
on which the Licensee or other person adversely affected relies
and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued.
Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the
Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555.
Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General
Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement, to the Office
of Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator
for NRC Region I, II, III, or IV, at the respective addresses
specified in Appendix A to 10 CFR part 73, appropriate for the
specific facility, and to the Licensee if the answer or hearing
request is by a person other than the Licensee. Because of
possible disruptions in delivery of mail to United States
Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for
hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either
by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail
to
hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of the General
Counsel either by means of facsimile to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail
to
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a person other than the Licensee
requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with
particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely
affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth
in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by the Licensee or
a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission
will issue an Order designating the time and place of any
hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such
hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), the Licensee, may, in addition
to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or
sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate
effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order,
including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on
adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations,
or error.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of
an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the
provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty
(20) days from the date of this Order without further order or
proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has
been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be
final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not
been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay
the immediate effectiveness of this order.
Dated this 19th day of July 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Charles L. Miller, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E5-4108 Filed 8-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
53 Telegraph: The clouds of nuclear war are still hanging over Hiroshima
Opinion |
Wednesday 3 August 2005
telegraph.co.uk
By Anton La Guardia
(Filed: 03/08/2005)
Tourists wander by the landmark in awe, while giggling
schoolgirls photograph themselves with mobile telephones and
teenage boys sing to a guitar. Nearby, an artist paints the
scene in bright oils.
It could be a vignette from the Colosseum, the Eiffel Tower or
Big Ben. But this is Hiroshima and the centrepiece is the
A-Dome, one of the few recognisable structures left in the
devastation of the first atomic bomb dropped by the US on August
6, 1945.
All around the epicentre there now stand offices, gardens, a
baseball stadium and large shopping arcades. It brings to mind
the attitude of many survivors of the Nazi Holocaust, for whom
the return to ordinary life was the best affirmation of the
human spirit's ability to recover from even the most
extraordinary wretchedness.
The wars against Germany and Japan ended just a few months
apart, but VE Day and VJ Day are different affairs. If the
defeat of Nazism was permanently vindicated by the horrors of
Auschwitz, then the Allied victory over Japan was indelibly
stained by questions over the morality of destroying Hiroshima
and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons.
Germans in general accept that they were aggressors and
perpetrators of atrocities, but the Japanese have a more
equivocal attitude. They may accept that they were aggressors,
and even that their troops behaved brutally. But ultimately they
feel that they were the victims of nuclear mass murder.
The displays in Hiroshima's museum acknowledge that the city had
been an important staging post for military operations in China
and Korea, and that Japanese troops massacred tens of thousands,
if not hundreds of thousands, of civilians in the Chinese
imperial capital, Nanking, in 1937.
But when it comes to the atomic bombing, the narrative reverts
to that of victimhood: there was no warning of the attack; the
bomb was dropped despite the fact that Japan was negotiating to
end the war; and the people of Hiroshima were guinea pigs, with
the city spared bombing so that the full impact of a nuclear
explosion could be studied.
Over the years, the Japanese have repeatedly apologised for
their role in starting the war in the Pacific. But in the view
of many, especially in China and Korea, these words are devoid
of true repentance. British PoWs, for their part, have demanded
compensation for their appalling treatment at the hands of
Japanese soldiers.
No Japanese leader will emulate the former West German
chancellor Willy Brandt, who in 1970 spontaneously fell to his
knees as he visited the Jewish memorial to the 1943 Warsaw
Ghetto uprising. On the contrary, Junichiro Koizumi, the
Japanese prime minister, makes an annual visit to the Yasukuni
shrine, where fallen soldiers are commemorated. Since the 1970s,
the souls of 14 Class A war criminals executed in the Tokyo
trials, including the wartime prime minister Tojo Hideki, have
been honoured there.
For many visitors to Yasukuni, where the museum hails the
kamikaze pilots, Japan behaved no worse than European colonial
powers in Asia. What about the Tokyo tribunals? That was
victor's justice, they reply.
A popular Japanese movie earlier this year said much about
Japanese attitudes. In the dying days of the war, Japan takes
delivery of a German secret weapon - a submarine that can "see"
enemy ships and avoid torpedoes through the psychic powers of
Lorelei, a survivor of the Nazi death camps.
The sub wreaks havoc among US navy ships and, to secure its
surrender, the Americans threaten to use a third nuclear bomb
against Tokyo. In the climax, a B-29 carrying a nuclear bomb
inscribed with "Bye Bye Tokyo" is shot down by the submarine - a
ship guided by a Holocaust survivor helping Tokyo survive a
holocaust.
Six decades after VE Day, Europe is at peace and bound together
by the co-operative sinews of Nato and the EU. The Second World
War is increasingly the subject of nostalgia, Spitfire fly-pasts
and re-enactments of life in the 1940s.
In Asia, however, wartime resentments of Japan are still acute.
Several anti-Japanese riots broke out in China last spring,
tolerated by the authorities, after the publication of new
textbooks seen as playing down Japanese atrocities. Even a
democratic country such as South Korea harbours a deep
resentment of Japan, and there have been protests in Seoul over
the status of islands claimed by the two countries.
It is difficult to see Asia's leaders standing side by side any
time soon to remember the fallen as Europe's leaders do for
joint commemorations of the Second World War.
The idea of a major new war, seen as unthinkable in Europe, is
far from outlandish in Asia. Academics now compare the growing
Sino-Japanese competition for natural resources and economic
dominance to the contest between Germany and Britain at the
start of the war-blighted 20th century.
North Korea test-fired ballistic missiles over Japanese
territory in 1998. Three years later, the Japanese coastguard
chased and sank a North Korean spy ship. Last year Japanese
ships and planes tracked a Chinese submarine snooping in
territorial waters.
As China devotes much of its new wealth to modernising its armed
forces, the likeliest flashpoint is Taiwan, a former Japanese
colony. China has made no secret of its readiness to resort to
force to stop the island from seceding formally, and the US is
committed to defending Taiwan. It is unlikely that Japan could
escape involvement. Indeed, one scenario is that China could
emulate Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor with a
pre-emptive strike on US forces in Okinawa.
Japan has started to flex military muscles atrophied by decades
of pacifism. Its forces are developing the ability to operate at
greater distances and the war-renouncing constitution has been
stretched to the limit with deployments in East Timor, the
Indian Ocean and now the "reconstruction" mission in southern
Iraq.
Japan is demanding a permanent seat on the United Nations
Security Council alongside the victors of the Second World War.
Even in Hiroshima, some Japanese have started to talk of the
ultimate taboo: developing a nuclear deterrent.
Nevertheless, Japan is still a long way away from reviving the
old warrior culture. No member of the Japanese "Self-Defence
Forces" has been killed in action. Being a "salaryman" is still
more attractive than being a soldier. In the military academy in
Yokusuka, south of Tokyo, one recruit said he had joined because
he liked the idea of helping earthquake victims.
Nationalists such as the maverick Governor of Tokyo, Shintaro
Ishihara, one of the country's most popular politicians, know
that only an enormous shock will change the Japanese mindset.
Asked if he feared that North Korean missiles might attack his
city, he gave me a stunning reply. Pyongyang would not use
nuclear bombs, he said, but might resort to chemical or
biological weapons. "If they did such a thing it would wake up
the Japanese and probably there would be a chance to rearm the
country. From my point of view, that would be rather welcome."
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005.
*****************************************************************
54 Reuters: Alaska food safe decades after nuclear blasts-study
Tue Aug 2, 2005 7:59 PM ET
ANCHORAGE, Aug 2 (Reuters) - Three decades after officials
detonated nuclear bombs under a remote Aleutian Island, a
scientific panel has determined that fish and other wild foods in
the area are safe to eat, according to a report issued on
Tuesday.
Scientists warned, however, that regular monitoring is necessary
to check whether radionuclides have begun seeping out of the
cavities that were created when bombs were exploded at Amchitka
Island from 1965 to 1971.
"All of the radionuclide levels that we found were well below
human health standards," said Rutgers University's Joanna Burger,
who led the study's biological analysis, but added "Amchitka is
not a site that's going away. The contamination is (still)
there."
The report was issued Tuesday by the Consortium for Risk
Evaluation with Shareholder Participation, a U.S. Department of
Energy-funded project. The report was conducted long after native
Aleuts and commercial fishermen began voicing fears about
possible lingering contamination.
The study evaluated fish, birds, marine mammals and sea plants
from Amchitka, about 1,300 miles (2,000 kilometers) southwest of
Anchorage. Another Aleutian Island, Kiska, was used as a control.
Scientists also noted that radionuclide levels will remain low,
barring a "powerful earthquake or volcanic eruption" that could
speed up the release of contaminants into the environment.
Alaska state officials and Alaska Native activists fiercely
opposed the controversial nuclear tests, and a sea voyage made to
Alaska to protest the Amchitka detonations resulted in the
founding of the environmental organization Greenpeace.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
55 i-Newswire.com: Researchers find Amchitka seafood safe for now
Anchorage Alaska - An independent consortium of
university-based environmental scientists announced today the
results from three 2004 expeditions to Amchitka Island in the
western Aleutians to assess radionuclides in that marine
environment. Three nuclear test shots were set off under
Amchitka by the U.S. Government during a six-year period
beginning in 1965. The study can be found at www.cresp.org
(I-Newswire) - Seafood Safety
"The findings should provide assurance to both those who depend
on the Island's marine environment for subsistence food and for
the significant commercial fishing interests of the region,"
said Charles W. Powers, principal investigator for the
consortium. He noted that expedition scientists sampled and
analyzed for radionuclides many types of biota in the seas at
Amchitka and a reference site, nearby Kiska: "Rutgers' Joanna
Burger developed a program that has assessed these two marine
regions as completely as has any previous single-year study of a
defined marine area."
In fact, the university consortium found that all levels of
radionuclides were "far below" any human health food safety
standard and were similar to levels found in other marine sites
in the Northern Hemisphere. Further, the levels in these
organisms are lower now than they were immediately following the
nuclear test shots. These biological analyses may now form a
baseline for future testing of biota.
The consortium conducting the study was the Consortium for Risk
Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation ( CRESP ), an
interdisciplinary multi-university organization that for a
decade has independently studied and reviewed risk issues
associated with the cleanup and long-term stewardship of legacy
wastes at US Department of Energy sites. Its principal
investigator Powers, is Professor of Environmental and
Occupational Medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical
School-UMDNJ. CRESP-related Universities whose scientists
participated in the Amchitka study in addition to the University
of Alaska-Fairbanks were: Rutgers, the State University of New
Jersey, Vanderbilt University, the University of Medicine and
Dentistry of New Jersey, University of Pittsburgh, and
University of Alberta.
Collaboration
A distinguishing characteristic of the CRESP study was the
collaborative process that generated it and then shaped the
actual work. Prior to its undertaking the study, four diverse
entities ( the State of Alaska, DOE, the Aleutian/Pribilof
Island Association and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ) had
to agree on the plan developed by CRESP. And that plan
specifically called for involvement of affected groups in the
study. "It was the most rewarding and productive collaboration
in my 30 years of marine research to have the honor of working
with Aleut fishermen and other colleagues in the expedition
itself", Burger said.
The Physical Data
Analysis of current biological contamination was linked to other
studies. The group's geophysical studies present no evidence
that the nuclear test materials have entered the seas there.
Although its work was limited in scope, the team directed by
University of Alaska's Mark Johnson did not clearly locate
near-shore seepage of the island's own groundwater. Exploration
of the island itself by University of Alberta's Martyn Unsworth
turned up additional new information. By using advanced remote
sensing to explore the rock substructure, it has found clear
evidence that the likely path to the sea of any nuclear material
that leaves the cavities created by the nuclear test shots will
travel more slowly than previously thought.
Challenge for the Future
Vanderbilt's David Kosson drew an implication from the
geophysical work he coordinated for this project: "In one sense,
these findings pose a difficult challenge for those responsible
for protective monitoring of the remote Amchitka Island since
the presence of long-lived radioactive materials will require
long-term attention to a site that may eventually pose potential
risk to future generations." There is no currently known
technology to address the radioactive shot cavities themselves;
hence future surveillance is needed and the study serves to
provide baseline data for that effort.
The Catalyst
In 2000 the Governor of Alaska specifically requested that DOE
agree to fund and to ask that group, the Consortium for Risk
Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation ( CRESP ) to do such
an analysis. After the Secretary of Energy agreed and a 2002
CRESP/UAF workshop suggested a technical path forward, the State
and the Department signed a Letter of Intent that assigned the
four party team ( see above ) to approve a plan for the needed
research and to help assure the independence of the CRESP study.
18 months after CRESP was given partial funding and the actual
go-ahead in February 2003, it is reporting these substantive
results.
Interpreting Complicated Data
One of CRESP's challenges was to analyze biological samples for
a long enough time to know what levels of radionuclides were
actually there ( since some radionuclides are present in any
marine system ). It had then to distinguish whether what it did
find might have come from the nuclear tests – or was from other
sources such as fallout, or even was naturally-occurring. For
example, CRESP wrestled with what it meant to have more algae
samples showing plutonium from Amchitka and more fish samples
showing Cesium-137 from the reference site at Kiska. In all
these cases the data was consistent as levels were both safe and
what would have been expected anywhere in oceans in the Northern
Hemisphere. CRESP PI Charles W. Powers says: "CRESP people are
committed to explaining how we thought through all of the
complicated issues posed by the data since the public deserves
to have the same peace of mind that we have about what we
found."
Study Distinctiveness
Voluminous ( 300 pages of direct report and more than 1000 pages
of appendices ), many of which will now go directly into the
academic literature.
Required recruitment and coordination of unusually diverse
scientific talent. Fourteen senior scientists from 6 major
universities were involved in the work.
Field work in a very remote and taxing environment: Six senior
scientists leading 18 additional researchers and 4 members from
A/PIA launched into the Bering Sea toward Amchitka and Kiska
from Adak Island, already the western most settled community in
the Western Hemisphere, and worked in cold seas and heavy winds
most of the time.
CRESP people, including those from UAF, made clear and
unambiguous efforts consistently to reach out to affected Aleut
communities as they defined their scientific plan and then
included Aleuts on the expedition itself to aid in collection of
samples.
What is CRESP?
It is interdisciplinary multi-university organization through
which senior scientists and their laboratories have, for ten
years, studied and reviewed risk issues associated with the
cleanup and long-term stewardship of legacy wastes at sites
involved in the nation's nuclear weapons production process that
began in the 1950's. CRESP was specifically created to address
the recommendation by the National Academy of Sciences that the
U.S. Department of Energy's Environmental Management Office
needed an independent academic mechanism to research and review
risk problems related to nuclear waste management. Its PI,
Powers, is also President of IRM, a non-profit whose current
work is to administer the Consortium.
Who developed the Science Plan for this study and edited this
report?
Joanna Burger, Ph.D., Rutgers University Professor of Biology,
head of the CRESP Ecological Health Center of Expertise and
leader of CRESP's Amchitka biological studies; David Kosson,
Ph.D., Professor and Chair, the Department of Civil And
Environmental Engineering, Vanderbilt University, head of the
CRESP Remediation Center of Expertise and leader of CRESP's
Amchitka geophysical and radiological analysis studies. Michael
Gochfeld, M.D., Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and
Occupational Medicine at RWJMS-UMDNJ, is an occupational
physician who was responsible for approving and implementing the
Health and Safety Plan for this rigorous expedition. David
Barnes, Ph.D., Associate Professor /PE, Civil and Environmental
Engineering Department has coordinated The University of
Alaska-Fairbanks' participation in CRESP
Powers and these four researchers led the Science Plan effort
and edited the draft report. Arthur Upton, M.D., a noted
radiobiologist and former Director of the National Cancer
Institute, now clinical professor at RWJMS-UMNDJ, led a
subcommittee of the CRESP Peer Review Committee he chairs in
issuing a review of the draft. The Amchitka report editors
amended their draft in response and issued a final report.
###
These reports and other Information about CRESP can be obtained
from its web site www.cresp.org
Additional quotes about the Report from CRESP people:
Peer Review of the Draft: Before releasing the report, CRESP
did, as it typically does with important studies, ask its
distinguished peer review committee to review its draft report
so it could improve the final version. Arthur Upton, former
director of the National Cancer Institute and chair of the CRESP
Review Committee on behalf of its sub-committee on Amchitka said
of that draft: "The methods were well conceived, expertly
applied and have produced results that are definitive and
thereby enable conclusions that should be meaningful to all
concerned…. In view of the high quality of the studies reported,
and their failure to find evidence of the release of
radioactivity from the shot cavities into the surrounding
environment, the results that are presented should be reassuring
to concerned stakeholders."
Complexity from beginning to end: "I continue to be in awe of
the persistence and skill of the CRESP people. We sent them with
every protection we could reasonably devise, but the fact that
the expedition was executed safely and successfully in this
forbidding environment is quite extraordinary. And then we found
that the challenge of analyzing our data proved every bit as
difficult as the expedition itself. Intellectually honest and
nimble people – when they are really competent – will find a way
to find out the facts. This is a study of which we are all very
proud," said Charles W. Powers, CRESP Principal Investigator and
Professor of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, Robert
Wood Johnson Medical School-UMDNJ
Project Efficiency: "I am excited by the fact that we were able,
within the very short single season of work, to add so
significantly to the geophysical understanding of Amchitka and
its marine environment. I worked with excellent teams from four
good research universities." David Kosson, head of the CRESP
Remediation Center of Expertise and Professor and Chair, the
Department of Civil And Environmental Engineering, Vanderbilt
University.
Collaboration and Productivity: "It was the most rewarding and
productive collaboration in my 30 years of marine research to
have the honor of working with Aleut fishermen and other
colleagues on this important project to determine that our
commercial and subsistence foods are safe free from radionuclide
damage for us, the sea lions, halibut and the eagles of
Amchitka." Joanna Burger, Rutgers University Professor of
Biology, head of the CRESP Ecological Health Center of Expertise
and leader of the CRESP Amchitka biological studies.
Contact: Charles W. Powers
cwpowers@eohsi.rutgers.edu
201-214-4937
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
If you have questions regarding information in this press
release contact the company listed below. I-Newswire.com is a
press release service and not the author of this press release.
The information that is on or available through this site is for
informational purposes only and speaks only as of the particular
date or dates of that information. As some companies / PR
Agencies submit their press releases once per week/month or
quarter, make sure check the official company website for
accurate release dates as our site displays the I-Newswire.com
distribution date only. We do not guarantee the accuracy or
completeness of information on or available through this site,
and we are not responsible for inaccuracies or omissions in that
information or for actions taken in reliance on that information.
Published on:
2005-08-02
*****************************************************************
56 DailyBulletin.com: Company renegotiating perchlorate cleanup
Article Published: Monday, August 01, 2005 -
By Nikki Cobb, Staff Writer
As a plume of perchlorate inches further into Rialto's
groundwater, the city is trying to make sure those responsible
for its being there don't get off the hook.
The city is suing San Bernardino County, the U.S. Department of
Defense and 140 companies and contractors in the contamination
of Rialto's water with perchlorate, a rocket fuel additive
thought to cause thyroid problems.
One contractor, Goodrich Corp., is renegotiating an agreement
that has shielded it from enforcement by Rialto and other
affected cities and water agencies.
Kurt Berchtold, assistant executive officer for the Santa Ana
Regional Water Quality Control Board, said Goodrich's agreement
was with the board and the cities of Rialto, Fontana and Colton.
Also included is the West Valley Water District, which serves
parts of all three cities as well as some unincorporated county
areas.
In the arrangement, Goodrich awarded the cities and district $4
million. In exchange, the water board agreed not to take action
against the contractor for a two-year period that ended in
January.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was not party to the
contract and did require Goodrich to do some investigation into
the extent of the perchlorate problem.
Now that the agreement with the cities, the board and the
district has expired, Goodrich is back at the table negotiating
its next step.
Davin Diaz, a research and policy advocate for the Center for
Community Action and Environmental Justice in San Bernardino,
said he worries the company will get off easy, offering money to
avoid the bigger mess.
"Our concern is that Goodrich will fork out some more money.
Four million is not much. It's pennies in the bucket," he said.
Diaz said Goodrich could be instrumental in getting other
defendants in the lawsuit to start the cleanup in earnest.
Goodrich has already filed suit against one other contractor,
Emhart Industries Inc. But Diaz would like it to do more.
"We want them to clean up the whole plume," Diaz said. "They're
not going to do it themselves. They need to go after Emhart, go
after the Department of Defense take the pressure off Rialto,
off the water board.
"The theory behind this is if we force them to provide
replacement water to the impacted community members, they
themselves will go after the potentially responsible parties."
Goodrich officials declined to comment. But they said in a
statement that the company, which did business in Rialto from
1957 to 1963, is working to assess the problem and determine
Goodrich's responsibility.
Meanwhile, the county is taking steps to remedy its part in the
perchlorate contamination.
Though the county never polluted with perchlorate, it's
included in the suit because it bought some contaminated land
and allowed a contractor to build excavating ponds that
exacerbated the perchlorate seep, Berchtold said.
The county is building a $5million treatment facility, expected
to be finished in December. The treatment plant will pull water
from the ground before it reaches Rialto's wells, remove the
perchlorate, then inject the water into Rialto's groundwater
supply.
"The real culprit, we say, is the federal government. This
(contamination) comes from them making munitions for defense,"
said Rex Richardson, spokesman for the county's solid waste
division. "We are looking to partner with the water companies,
with Rialto, to pursue federal money" for the cleanup.
Nikki Cobb can be reached by e-mail at nikki.cobb@sbsun.com, or
by phone at (909) 386-3874.
Copyright © 2005 Los Angeles Newspaper Group
*****************************************************************
57 Bradenton Herald: Tallevast residents criticize new plan
| 08/02/2005 |
STEPHEN MAJORS
Herald Staff Writer
MANATEE - A Tallevast community group and a state representative
are questioning Lockheed Martin Corp.'s latest recommendations
for cleanup around the former Loral American Beryllium Co. site.
A recent report by a Lockheed contractor said the company needs
a year to test remediation technologies before beginning the
cleanup of solvents like trichloroethylene, TCE, which has been
linked to cancer.
Lockheed, which took possession of the site from the former
Loral American Beryllium Co., said "common sense" dictates that
groundwater remediation will take place on the site of the
former plant. But Lockheed said testing has shown that current
pollution outside the plant's boundaries does not pose a threat
to health and doesn't appear to be in need of cleanup.
Lockheed said it wouldn't approach off-site areas with any
preconceived notions.
The company's stance came after its contractor, Tetra Tech Inc.,
released a remedial action work plan that was sent to the state
Friday.
The report also maintains that soil samples from both on- and
off-site show no need for a cleanup. The contamination plume has
been estimated at about 131.3 acres.
Tallevast leaders, who have been able to look at the report only
briefly, said it's just more of the same "fluff."
The report said that a deed restriction was being prepared to
change the site of the plant to industrial use only. Laura Ward,
president of Family Oriented Community United and Strong - or
FOCUS, a group representing Tallevast residents - said that's an
indication they will try to do the same for the entire
neighborhood.
"How does that affect us?" Ward said. "They are refusing to
acknowledge the community's property."
Ward also took exception with phrases used in the report to
describe chemical levels, such as "relatively low" and "slightly
above."
Ward said there's no immediate health problem because residents
aren't drinking the water from the contaminated wells. Some of
the water supply was switched over to the county.
But the fact that those had to be switched show the existence of
contamination, Ward said. She said she doubted the claim that
there is no immediate danger.
Gail Rymer, director of communications for Lockheed, said the
contamination is too far down to be of consequence.
"They're not drinking the water," Rymer said. "There's no
exposure pathway."
While Ward has pressed for more knowledge about current dangers
to residents' health, and even advocated that Lockheed be held
responsible for relocating residents, Rymer said relocation is
not a measure the company is considering.
"Relocation is not required in this situation," Rymer said.
"There is no immediate or future exposure to contamination. The
treatment technologies will not provide any risk."
Rymer said Lockheed will hold a number of public workshops
before it develops its final remediation plan.
Ward said the community will be doing its own independent
testing, which will start Monday and take six to 10 days to
complete.
Charles Henry, environmental manager for the Manatee County
Health Department, supported Lockheed's claim that testing shows
there is no current threat to health. He said the health
department and the State Department of Environmental Protection
would continue to monitor test results.
State Rep. Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton, spearheaded a law this
year that requires the state DEP to notify residents within 30
days of discovering contamination has spread onto their
property. Tallevast residents were never notified, and didn't
find out until they inquired about drilling in their
neighborhood.
"It's just not right that it's not going to happen for a year,"
Galvano said. "They are still waiting for answers about their
health. It's not proactive enough."
Galvano said that there isn't anything he can do with regard to
policy but that "If I have a bully pulpit, I'm going to use it."
The office of U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris, R-Sarasota, which has
also been active in the Tallevast case, said it had not yet had
a chance to review the report.
The types of technology Lockheed said it would be testing for
use in the groundwater remediation plan involve pumping the
water out, purifying it and then sending it back down, as well
as injecting a "bug" into the groundwater to break up the
contaminants.
*****************************************************************
58 au abc: Community groups to plan approach to nuclear dump
08:01 (ACST)Wednesday, 3 August 2005. 09:01 (AEDT)Wednesday, 3
An alliance of community groups will meet in Alice Springs
tonight to discuss the Federal Government's plan to build a
nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory.
The Labor Member for the federal seat of Lingiari, Warren
Snowdon, says Territory Environment and Resources Minister
Marion Scrymgour and the Australian Conservation Foundation's
Dave Sweeney will also attend the meeting.
Mr Snowdon says even though the Federal Government has made its
decision to locate the dump in the Territory, community action
can make a difference.
"Absolutely, I think the voice of the community must be heard
and frankly if this Government is so arrogant that it's not
prepared to listen to the voice of the community that it will be
in the end their downfall," Mr Snowdon said.
The Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association says its members
want more information about the proposed dump.
The association's executive director, Stuart Kenny, says beef
producers are concerned about how a waste dump would affect
their businesses.
Mr Kenny says he has heard from stations that neighbour the
proposed sites as well as others throughout the Territory.
"I think one of the big factors is the lack of information
that's available, the lack of consultation," he said.
"We're certainly we're quite interested in finding out more
information and sending that out to our members."
Mr Kenny says people are concerned the dump could affect
business.
"Certainly in central Australia the area there has been built up
around a clean, green sort of product," he said.
"We like to make sure that's maintained so we certainly need
more information before we can make a sound decision on the
matter."
*****************************************************************
59 Lincoln Journal Star: Call finally ends nuke waste dispute
BY ALGIS J. LAUKAITIS / Lincoln Journal Star
Rancher Lowell Fisher was putting up hay Monday when he heard
the news: Nebraska had just paid $145.8 million to end 18 years
of fighting over a nuclear waste dump. For Fisher and other Boyd
County residents, it was the end of an emotional roller coaster
to keep a low-level radioactive waste storehouse out of their
backyards and away from their streams and aquifers.
"We're really glad — not because we paid $145 million but
because the license was denied for the right reasons and it
does bring the end and that's something we've been waiting for
for years," Fisher said in a phone interview.
Heidi Wallace, an employee in the state treasurer's office,
ended Nebraska's involvement in the nuke waste controversy
shortly after 11 a.m. Monday, when she placed a routine phone
call and made two wire transfers to the Central Interstate
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission.
The total: $145,811,367.11.
Nebraska and compact officials agreed to the payment last year
as part of a settlement to end years of litigation over the
failed efforts to build a nuke waste storehouse near Butte in
Boyd County.
State Treasurer Ron Ross said the funds were wired from a
custodial bank in Boston, where the state has $1 billion it uses
to pay bills and maintain cash flow. Ross watched the transfer
with David Cookson, an assistant attorney general, who helped
hammer out the settlement between the state and the compact.
The Boston bank wired the money to a bank in Minneapolis, Ross
said. Wallace called that bank, which transferred the funds in
two separate payments to Union Bank in Lincoln, where the
compact conducts its business.
"It's the single largest payment ever made in the state," said
Paul Carlson, state accounting administrator. He said it
amounts to about $83 for each resident.
The payment officially ends Nebraska's role in the compact,
which was created to help find a place to store low-level
radioactive waste generated in the region. Much of the waste
comes from nuclear power plants in the form of tools, clothing,
filters and equipment.
Nebraska's two nuclear utilities — Nebraska Public Power
District and Omaha Public Power District — ship low-level
radioactive waste to disposal sites in Barnwell, S.C., and
Clive, Utah. Both utilities will continue to use those sites as
long as they accept out-of-state waste.
"In terms of low-level waste facilities, I think the feeling has
been it's the state's responsibility," said OPPD spokesman Mike
Jones. "I think our people are trying to determine what exactly
our options are and then we'll go from there."
Nationally, no compact has opened a regional nuclear waste
storehouse.
Alan Peterson, a Lincoln attorney who represents the compact
commission, said Nebraska is now on its own. The compact and the
state are no longer negotiating together with Texas, which is
building a nuclear waste storehouse, he added.
Nebraska joined the compact in 1983, along with Kansas,
Arkansas, Oklahoma and Louisiana, and in 1987 was picked to host
the nuclear waste storehouse. Two years later, the compact and
its developer, US Ecology, chose a location outside of Butte in
Boyd County.
In 1998, the state of Nebraska denied US Ecology a license to
build and operate the site, citing environmental and financial
concerns and a high water table. The compact sued Nebraska,
alleging state officials, including former Gov. Ben Nelson,
acted in "bad faith." U.S. District Court Judge Richard Kopf
agreed and awarded the compact a settlement. Nebraska is no
longer a member of the compact.
Asked if today's payment had historical significance, Peterson
said: "I think it's historical in the sense of an enormous price
being paid by all of Nebraska for a lack of good faith on the
part of relatively few people."
Last month, the compact commission agreed to return most of the
$145 million to the nuclear utilities who paid most of the
upfront costs for the Boyd County project.
Here is a breakdown of how much money each utility will get:
* Entergy Arkansas, $23.6 million.
* Entergy Gulf States, $19.8 million.
* Entergy Louisiana, $18.4 million.
* Nebraska Public Power District, $18.4 million.
* Omaha Public Power District, $15.4 million.
* Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Co., $18.9 million.
The compact commission also will pay developer US Ecology about
$11.8 million and distribute about $4.2 million to the states
that contributed money to a community improvement fund.
The compact will retain $15 million and decide later what do
with the funds, Peterson said. The commission hired a consultant
to help chart its course and will discuss its options at a
January meeting.
Peterson said there is also about a $4 million claim from the
village of Butte, which the commission is looking into.
Butte officials say the community needs some of the money to
help pay for water and sewer improvements that were made in
anticipation of the storehouse being built.
NPPD has not decided what it will do with its $18.4 million
payment, spokesperson Beth Boesch said. "Management's intention
is to use the money for future waste management issues."
The NPPD board plans to discuss the issue at its Aug. 12 meeting
in Columbus.
OPPD officials also haven't discussed what they will do with
its $15.4 million.
"We'll look at several options. We want to use it to benefit our
customers," Jones said. That could include giving customers some
type of credit on their bills.
Back in Boyd County, Fisher is also looking to the future. The
rancher wants to hold a party in the fall of 2006 with some
"big-name entertainment" to thank those who had a hand in
fighting the site.
He plans to call it the Boyd County Liberation Celebration.
Reach Algis J. Laukaitis at 473-7243 or .
Waste dump timeline
Key events in the effort to build a low-level nuclear waste dump
in Nebraska:
1980 — Congress approves the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy
Act, which assigns states responsibility for waste and
establishes the waste compact system.
1983 — Nebraska joins Louisiana, Arkansas, Kansas and Oklahoma
to form the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Compact.
1987 — Compact chooses to build its waste site in Nebraska.
1989 — Possible sites in Boyd, Nuckolls and Nemaha counties are
chosen for intensive study. Local monitoring committees
established. Butte selected as the site by year's end.
1990 — Site's license application submitted.
1998 — Nebraska denies a license for the dump, citing
environmental concerns and a high water table at the site.
1998 — Waste generators file a lawsuit over denial of the
license, which is later joined by the compact.
2002 — U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf of Lincoln orders
Nebraska to pay $151 million for blocking construction of the
site.
2004 — Nebraska agrees to drop its appeal of Kopf's decision to
the U.S. Supreme Court and pay $141 million to settle the
lawsuit.
Aug. 1, 2005 — Nebraska payment to be made to the compact.
Copyright © 2002-2005, Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved.
the Lincoln Journal Star. 926 P Street Lincoln NE 68508 402
475-4200 •
*****************************************************************
60 AU ABC: Macfarlane seeks clarity on NT uranium policy.
03/08/2005. ABC News Online
Update: Wednesday, August 3, 2005. 7:00am (AEST)
The federal Resources Minister says a meeting with the Northern
Territory's Chief Minister and Mining Minister would help
resolve ambiguities in Labor's "no new uranium mine" policy.
Ian Macfarlane will today visit the Ranger uranium mine and the
Alcan expansion project at Gove on the first day of his Top End
visit.
He hopes to meet Clare Martin and Kon Vatskalis when he is in
Darwin tomorrow.
Mr Macfarlane says by granting exploration licences the
Northern Territory Government is keeping the door open to new
uranium mines.
"That combined with some of the comments that came from both
Clare and Kon Vatskalis last week would say to me that there is
a reconsideration going on," he said.
"I need to clarify that both in terms of the uranium industry
in the Territory but also so we understand where these
exploration companies can go."
Mr Macfarlane says the current policy is absurd.
"Sooner or later someone is going to want to develop a mine and
make application to do so," he said.
"That's when the problems will start, so rather than let this
issue just roll on it's important that the Commonwealth and
Territory governments sit down and talk this issue out."
*****************************************************************
61 Rocky Mountain News: Steel jaws erase last Flats building
Crews on Monday attack Building 371, the last to be razed at
Rocky Flats. Once the building is gone, the cleanup will be
complete, though inspections will follow.
Donna Werheiser wears a powered air purification respirator as
she hoses down debris Monday during the demolition of Building
371 at Rocky Flats. It is the last building remaining at the
site. When this building is gone, Rocky Flats will be declared
officially closed, though the EPA will still have to certify
that it meets pollution standards. Building 371 was a plutonium
storage facility.
Hefty structure final one to be razed at contaminated site
By Berny Morson, Rocky Mountain News
August 2, 2005
Rocky Flats officials called it the strongest building in
Colorado, with 4-foot-thick walls of concrete and steel designed
to keep plutonium inside, even during an earthquake.
On Monday, orange Hitachi excavators were attacking Building 371
with enormous pincers at the ends of their mechanical necks.
Workers with power hoses and a snow-maker fought to contain
clouds of pulverized concrete that rose with each chomp of the
steel jaws.
"In Denver, you would never see a building built like this,"
said Michael Flannery, deputy manager for the demolition
project. "They wouldn't need the strength this building has."
Building 371 is the last structure of an industrial city that
produced America's nuclear arsenal from 1952 to 1989.
In October, when Building 371 is gone, the cleanup will be
complete, said John Corsi, spokesman for Kaiser-Hill Co., the
firm managing the project.
Nuclear weapons work halted at the highly contaminated Rocky
Flats plant in 1989 amid safety fears. Later that year, the
plant was placed on the Superfund list, which includes areas
eligible for Environmental Protection Agency cleanup funds.
Initial estimates predicted that cleanup would take decades.
But in 1997, then-Energy Secretary Federico Peña announced that
the target date would be the end of 2006.
Possible closure before the end of 2005 comes despite
difficulties in moving plutonium stockpiles to South Carolina
and in disposing of vast quantities of liquid hazardous
materials.
Demolition of Building 371 began in May.
The 360,000-square-foot structure, completed in 1980, was
designed to recover plutonium from the nitric acid used as part
of the manufacturing process.
But the automated equipment never functioned properly, and
earlier recycling methods were resumed in 1983.
During the 1990s, all the plutonium at Rocky Flats was moved to
Building 371 while the rest of the plant was dismembered.
The plutonium, packed in cannisters, left for the U.S.
Department of Energy's Savannah River Plant in South Carolina in
2003.
Demolition of the strongest building in Colorado is proceeding
one section at a time.
The exterior walls are mostly gone, exposing beams that are 4
feet square in places.
David Bigbey, of Castle Rock, was operating the excavator
Monday, picking at the skeleton with the pincer.
"It just crushes the concrete and has a cutting blade inside so
you cut the steel," Bigbey said. "It's pretty neat to tear
things down and see the buildings go away."
Some of Building 371 is being collapsed into the basement and
sub-basement, where it will remain. That material is only
minimally contaminated, Flannery said.
The rest is loaded onto rail cars for shipment to a hazardous
waste dump in Utah. Trains - 40 cars long - leave twice a week,
Flannery said.
Most of the 6,250-acre Rocky Flats site will become a wildlife
refuge.
However, the 300 acres that included the manufacturing
buildings, along with some of the surrounding area, will remain
with the U.S. Department of Energy.
Once Building 371 is down, the DOE, the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Colorado Department of Health will begin combing
the area for residual contamination, said Corsi, the Kaiser-Hill
spokesman.
SITE MAP PHOTO REPRINTS CORRECTIONS 2005 © Rocky Mountain News
*****************************************************************
62 San Luis Obispo Tribune: Diablo license study planned
08/02/2005 |
Four-year effort will determine feasibility of whether nuclear
power plant can be operated beyond 2023, utility says
By David Sneed
The Tribune
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. announced Monday that it plans to
spend $19 million to study whether it will apply to renew the
operating licenses for Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.
The feasibility study would begin in 2007 and last four years,
said Sharon Gavin, a PG&E spokeswoman. The decision whether to
apply for relicensing would be made after the study is complete
in 2011.
"We would not make a decision before then," she said.
Commercial nuclear power plants are initially licensed for 40
years by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Utilities commonly apply to renew their operating license for an
additional 20 years.
The licenses for Diablo Canyon's two reactors expire in 2023 and
2025.
The study will determine whether it is cost-effective to replace
or repair the plant's equipment in order to keep it running for
another 20 years, Gavin said.
PG&E has already applied to spend more than $700 million to
replace all of the plant's steam generators in 2008 and 2009.
The $19 million study is part of PG&E's 2007-09 operations plan,
called a general rate case, that was unveiled Monday. The
utility will submit the plan for approval to the state Public
Utilities Commission on Dec. 1.
If approved, the typical residential customer's bill will
increase $1.03. This is a 1.6 percent increase over what
customers currently pay.
The plan calls for spending $94 million on improvements to the
utility's gas distribution system, $485 million for improvements
in the electric distribution system and $75 million for power
plant improvements.
It also contains an $18 million expenditure to replace the
company's corporate aircraft.
The plane is needed to fulfill an NRC requirement that personnel
from the company's San Francisco headquarters could reach Diablo
Canyon within two hours in the event of an emergency at the
plant, Gavin said.
The utility expects to know whether the spending plan is
approved by the end of 2006.
*****************************************************************
63 ABQJOURNAL: Los Alamos Radiological Contamination Tracked
the Albuquerque Journal newspaper.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Albuquerque Journal-->
Associated Press
LOS ALAMOS — Investigators are trying to determine
whether a Los Alamos National Laboratory worker exposed to
radioactive material spread it out of state.
"We're monitoring everywhere he tells us he went,'' said
Kathy DeLucas, a lab spokeswoman.
The employee was exposed to americium 241 while working at
the lab, and the contamination was detected July 25 on his skin
and personal clothing, lab officials have said.
A survey by a decontamination team also detected trace
amounts of americium 241 in the worker's car and trace amounts
inside his home.
Investigators are trying to figure out when and how the
worker was exposed, DeLucas said.
The contamination posed no risk to the public, lab officials
have said.
"Again, though, the contamination levels are very, very
low,'' DeLucas said Monday. "But we want to make sure that we
catch anything that went off site.''
She declined to say where the decontamination team went out
of state.
Another lab employee's home has shown signs of slight
contamination, DeLucas said.
Americium 241 poises a significant health risk, including
cancer, if inhaled or swallowed, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency says.
Americium 241 is produced when plutonium atoms absorb
neutrons in a nuclear reaction.
The resulting metal is mostly used in household and
industrial smoke detectors.
Copyright Albuquerque Journal
Steve@abqjournal.com
*****************************************************************
64 DOE: Expression of Interest Regarding the Scope of an Intended
FR Doc 05-15208
[Federal Register: August 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 147)]
[Notices] [Page 44345-44346] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02au05-39]
Solicitation for Superconductivity Partnerships With Industry
(SPI) Projects AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry.
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE), as part of its
Superconductivity Program for Electric Power Systems, is
currently pursuing the development of electric power equipment
incorporating high temperature superconductors (HTS) through
PSIs. The purpose is to accelerate future commercial availability
of the more efficient, higher capacity new technology enabled by
HTS for modernizing the electricity infrastructure.
The DOE is contemplating issuing a solicitation in FY-2006 in
response to continued industrial interest and due to the
impressive technical accomplishments made to date by
participating industry teams. Applications of interest could
address the next stage of HTS power line R, or begin R for power
equipment based on the expected 2006 availability of second
generation (2G) HTS wires in limited quantity. The purpose of
this notice is to request expressions of interest in responding
to the contemplated solicitation. DOE also welcomes comments on
the content of the solicitation.
DATES: Written comments are to be filed electronically by
e-mailing to: no later than 5 p.m. eastern time September 16,
2005. Comments can also be submitted at the address listed below.
ADDRESSES: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability,
OE-2, Attention: SPI Comments, U.S. Department of Energy,
Forrestal Building, Room 6H-034, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585. Note that U.S. Postal Service mail sent to
DOE continues to be delayed by several weeks due to security
screening. Submission via FedEx or electronically is therefore
encouraged.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. James Daley, Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, OE-2, Attention: SPI
Comments, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE intends offering to share the cost
of multi-year projects that advance program equipment goals where
the industry contribution is typically 50% or more of the total
project costs. DOE contemplates that proposals submitted pursuant
to a future solicitation would be prepared by vertically
integrated teams that include an equipment manufacturer, an end
user such as an electric utility, and a HTS wire supplier. In
addition, each team would be able to access (via separate
Cooperative Research and Development Agreements) the capabilities
of national laboratories currently participating in the
superconductivity program in performing their project. These
teams would be responsible for design, manufacture, installation
and testing the technology of their choice. The program currently
has a major focus on HTS power lines, but also has cost- shared
projects for HTS generators, transformers, motors, fault current
limiters and flywheel systems.
The DOE is contemplating issuing a solicitation in FY-2006 in
response to continued industrial interest and due to the
impressive technical accomplishments made to date by
participating industry teams. Applications of interest could
address the next stage of HTS power line R, or begin R for power
equipment based on the expected 2006 availability of second
generation (2G) HTS wires in limited quantity. Subject to
availability of funds, DOE anticipates that awards for the
contemplated solicitation will range from hundreds of thousands
of dollars to several million dollars per year and for project
periods of up to four years. The SPI awards would be cost-shared
cooperative agreements between DOE and the industry team. The
solicitation would also require that greater than 50% of
manufacturing expenditures be in the United States. Further, the
solicitation would require that the application include energy
and economic benefits analysis, technical performance
expectations, product or system design studies, and a plan for
eventual product commercialization. A resulting award would fund
first-of-a-kind equipment R concluding with its operation and
testing, but would not commit DOE to follow-on phases or
projects.
[[Page 44346]] Issued in Washington, DC on July 26, 2005.
Kevin M. Kolevar, Director, Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability.
[FR Doc. 05-15208 Filed 8-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
65 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Hanford
FR Doc 05-15209
[Federal Register: August 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 147)]
[Notices] [Page 44346] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02au05-40]
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Hanford. 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, September 8, 2005, 9 a.m.--5 p.m.; Friday,
September 9, 2005, 8:30 a.m.--4 p.m.
ADDRESSES: DoubleTree Hotel, Lloyd Center, 1000 Northeast
Multnomah, Portland, Oregon, phone number: (503) 281-6111, Fax
number: (503) 284- 8553.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne Sherman, Public
Involvement Program Manager, Department of Energy Richland
Operations Office, 825 Jadwin, MSIN A7-75, Richland, WA 99352;
phone: (509) 376-6216; Fax: (509) 376-1563.
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: Senior Management review by U.S. Department of
Energy Office of River Protection, U.S. Department of Energy
Richland Operations Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
and Washington State Department of Ecology.
Board Priorities for Fiscal Year 2006.
Estimate at Completion for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization
Plant (if information is available).
Advice from the Health & Safety Committee on Records Management.
Advice from the Budgets and Contracts Committee on Contracts.
Complex-Wide Waste Disposition.
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 contact Yvonne Sherman's office
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.
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public
review and copying at the U.S. Department of Energy's Freedom of
Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and
4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also
be available by writing to Erik Olds, Department of Energy
Richland Operations Office, 825 Jadwin, MSIN A7-75, Richland, WA
99352, or by calling him at (509) 376-1563.
Issued at Washington, DC on July 28, 2005.
Rachel Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-15209 Filed 8-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
66 lamonitor.com: Event to recognize end of WWII
The Online News Source for Los Alamos
, Monitor Staff Writer
Highlighting this summer's celebration of the 60th year
commemorating the end of World War II will be special
presentations by men who played active roles in what was the
most significant event of the 20th century.
At the special program, veterans of the Manhattan Project will
talk about their experiences at 7 p.m. Aug. 9 in Fuller Lodge.
The event is part of the events organized and made possible by
the 60th Anniversary Commemorative Committee in Los Alamos.
Opening the events will be John Mench, a former Army SED at Los
Alamos who made the bomb casings during World War II. Mench will
recite "The Ragged Flag."
Following will be a special presentation by Paul Numerof, a
former Army SED who reprocessed uranium into "yellow cake"
before it was delivered to Tinian Island where it was placed in
the bomb that dropped on Hiroshima.
Numerof will share his experiences in Los Alamos and how the
training in nuclear research influenced his career.
U.S. Marine Bill Hudson, a veteran of the Battle of Iwo Jima,
will introduce Vice Admiral Frederick "Dick" Ashworth.
Ashworth was a Navy weaponeer on Bock's Car, the plane that
dropped the Trinity Site-tested plutonium bomb on Nagasaki.
Nancy Bartlit, co-chair of the committee, said the organization
is proud to recognize the contributions that Los Alamos made to
shorten World War II.
"Not only were American lives saved, but those of the Japanese
as well," she said, "We're not celebrating the war. We are
commemorating the end of it."
After the guest presentations, the Los Alamos Historical Society
will serve refreshments and will have historically relevant
books available for sale.
Other events related to the 60th Anniversary commemoration
include:
+ Aug. 13: Appearances by military and MP veterans as part of
the Los Alamos Fair and Rodeo Parade.
+ Sept. 2: An ecumencial service to commemorate the end of
World War II, time to be announced.
+ Oct 14-17: Opera tour to San Francisco Opera's production of
"Dr. Atomic," by John Adams, focusing on Los Alamos and Trinity
60 years ago.
Sponsors of the event, who are members of the 60th Anniversary
Commemorative Committee include: the American Legion; Veterans
of Foreign Wars; Los Alamos Chapter of Military Order of the
World Wars; Los Alamos Education Group; Los Alamos County; Los
Alamos Commerce and Development Corporation; the J. Robert
Oppenheimer Memorial Committee; Los Alamos National Laboratory;
the Los Alamos Monitor; the Atomic Heritage Foundation; and the
Los Alamos Historical Society.
For more information, go on-line to visit.losalamos.com.
© 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
*****************************************************************