***************************************************************** 04/11/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.86 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 Guardian Unlimited: Glance at Nuclear Weapons Countries 2 Public Citizen: Latest Revelation Underscores Bush 3 [southnews] Israel: World should stop Iran's nuke plan 4 [southnews] Yedioth Ahronoth: Iran to be bombed in 2007 5 [southnews] Iran planning 'similar to Iraq' 6 [southnews] Is Iran next? The calculus of military strike. 7 [NYTr] Nuking Iran "Madness" - Australian Peace Groups 8 [NYTr] Brits Try to Hush US Saber-Rattling 9 IRNA: UN official urges breaking logjam on nuclear disarmament front 10 IRNA: Bush, Blair must allow Iran peaceful nuclear power - UK daily 11 IRNA: Ahmadinejad: Gov't firm to restore nation's full nuclear right 12 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Denounces Iran's Uranium Announcement 13 Guardian Unlimited: Enrichment Is Only a First Step for Iran 14 Guardian Unlimited: Rumsfeld Won't Speculate on Iran Plans 15 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Insists Enrichment Goal Is Peaceful 16 Guardian Unlimited: US Commited to Diplomatic Solution on Iran 17 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Reaches Key Step in Nuclear Process 18 Guardian Unlimited: If ever there was a nation not to drive to extre 19 BBC: Iran declares key nuclear advance 20 AFP: Iran defies UN with nuclear breakthrough 21 AFP: Iran says ready to sign non-aggression pact with region 22 AFP: US air chief says Iran nuke option not under debate 23 AFP: Talk of US military strikes on Iran are 'fantasyland' - Rumsfel 24 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., N. Korea and China Nuke Envoys Meet 25 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Denies Envoy Met With North Korean 26 AFP: NKorea nuclear crisis deadlocked despite Chinese push 27 US: Guardian Unlimited: Going nuclear NUCLEAR REACTORS 28 New Chernobyl Study Predicts up to 60,000 Excess Cancer Deaths 29 US: KnoxNews: TVA to keep lake levels down 30 US: NRC: Note to Editors: Clarification of April 7th NRC News Releas 31 SA News24: 443 nuclear reactors worldwide 32 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at Farley Nuclear Plant 33 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at Robinson Nuclear Plant 34 US: GoUpstate.com: Environmentalists oppose nuclear power generation 35 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at North Anna Nuclear Plant 36 Sofia Echo: NPP CLOSURE RESULTS IN FINANCIAL LOSS FOR BULGARIA 37 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Protesters leave effigies at VY plant 38 Slovak news: Reconstruction of V2 power station to cost Sk9.9 billio 39 Hamilton Spectator: Energy users want coal plants to stay 40 US: THERECORD.COM: Reject nuclear energy 41 TheStar.com: Coal plant dispute heats up 42 US: Chicago Sun-Times: Latest leak sparks call to close down nuclear 43 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at Surry Nuclear Plant 44 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find 45 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find 46 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find 47 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collecti 48 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find 49 US: For Wayne Sentinel: Opening Arguments: Let's get nyookuler 50 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Notice NUCLEAR SECURITY 51 US: KRT Wire: NRC and nuclear plant security: Put public safety firs 52 US: IEER: Missing Plutonium - Index NUCLEAR SAFETY 53 US: NIRS: New Chernobyl Study Predicts up to 60,000 Excess Cancer 54 US: Independent: Concerns over blast mushroom; Utah lawmaker is worr 55 US: OneWorld: Native Americans Want 'Bunker Buster' Test Stopped 56 US: Spectrum: Big blast, big mistake 57 US: Spectrum: Others in Congress question test 58 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes: Meeting 59 US: NRC: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; In the Matter of David 60 US: NRC: System Energy Resources, Inc. Notice of Availability of the 61 US: NRC: Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards; In the Matter of Steven 62 US: NRC: Atomic Safety And Licensing Boards; In the Matter of Dale L 63 US: NRC: RC, Ukraine Sign Cooperation Arrangement on Nuclear Safety NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 64 Irish Times: Sellafield site identified as possible new nuclear plan 65 AU ABC: Flood casts doubt on potential dump site 66 BBC: Dounreay monitoring kit is tested 67 Las Vegas SUN: Gibbons fuels nuclear debate 68 reviewjournal.com: Energy secretary's visit to state sparks criticis 69 US: Hanford News: Nuclear waste: What to do with the world's nuclear 70 US: Cincinnati Business Courier: Cleanup of Fernald radioactive silo 71 US: Cape Cod Times: Hearings on perchlorate standards begin 72 Belfast Telegraph: Viewpoint: Sellafield plan opens old wounds 73 US: NRC: PPL Susquehanna, LLC; Independent Spent Fuel Storage 74 News Blaze: Secretary of Energy to Visit Yucca Mountain PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 75 KnoxNews: Automatic comp proposed for Y-12 workers 76 Platts: Spending cut likely in Senate 77 Hanford News: Panel mulls time issue at Hanford 78 Hanford News: Lawmaker asks if nuclear workers are treated fairly 79 Hanford News: Board urges simpler Hanford contracts 80 Stockton Record: 'Just dig it all up' ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Guardian Unlimited: Glance at Nuclear Weapons Countries From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday April 12, 2006 12:16 AM By The Associated Press The announcement by Iran's hard-line president that the country ``has joined the club of nuclear countries'' is likely to increase tensions among those in what is traditionally thought of as the ``nuclear club'' - nuclear weapons states. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is designed solely to produce nuclear energy for electricity and that it is within its rights and the regulations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under the treaty, nations without nuclear weapons pledge not to pursue them in exchange for a commitment by five nuclear-weapons states - the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China - to negotiate nuclear disarmament. The treaty guarantees countries that renounce nuclear weapons access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. North Korea withdrew from the treaty in 2003. Three countries have refused to join - India and Pakistan, which conducted rival nuclear tests in 1998, and Israel, which is widely believed to possess weapons. The Bush administration is seeking to share nuclear technology with India. The plan - which angered Iran because it views the deal as a reward for producing nuclear weapons outside the NPT - has not been approved by Congress. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, a total of 31 countries have nuclear power plants either in operation or under construction. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 2 Public Citizen: Latest Revelation Underscores Bush Administration’s Manipulation of Access to Information for Political Gain; Statement of Joan Claybrook, President, Public Citizen April 7, 2006 The latest revelation in the Valerie Plame investigation underscores the Bush administrations perversion of the governments control over information for political gain. This is an unethical administration that changes the rules to help campaign contributors and manipulates information to score political points. Now we learn of testimony that President Bush himself authorized the leak of information in a National Intelligence Estimate for a political reason  to discredit former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson. This is ironic, because the Bush administration has been one of the most secretive in history, even re-classifying information that has long been in the public domain. Whether it is removing information from Web sites, silencing government scientists about global warming, changing the rules to limit the availability of information or shielding information for national security purposes so the public cant find out how inadequately prepared we are for another terrorist attack, this administration has been positively Nixonian in its obsession with hiding facts from the public. Public Citizen condemns the White House for exacting retribution against Wilson for telling the truth about the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush said he would take action against the leaker of the information that Wilsons wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA operative, yet he apparently was the leaker-in-chief of sensitive and classified national security information, even if   Bush himself did not authorize the leak of information about Plames employment status. Bush needs to come clean with the American public and stop abusing his office. He acts like a King George, rather than the president of a democracy who is bound to follow the rule of law. ### ***************************************************************** 3 [southnews] Israel: World should stop Iran's nuke plan Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 01:34:04 -0500 (CDT) coalition' to stop Teheran's nuclear project. The Israeli call followed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's report that on Sunday Iran produced enriched uranium with the purity needed for a nuclear power station. The Iranian news agency, IRNA, quoted the Head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization Gholam-Reza Aqazadeh as saying they produced uranium enriched to 3.5 percent in its Natanz facility. According to some reports Aqazadeh said he hoped that a uranium enrichment complex of 3,000 centrifuges would be ready by March 2007. A Western expert who spoke to United Press International on condition of anonymity said that a facility with 3,000 centrifuges would be \'Very significant.' It would take a year to complete the facility and assuming everything goes well' two more years to produce the first bomb. Such a capability has been concerning Israel for decades. In an address in to the Netanya Academic College's Center for Strategic Dialogue last week, the defense minister's political-security adviser, retired Maj. Gen. Amos Gilad noted the extremists have won more power in Iran. They closed 30 newspapers and parliament lost its restraining capability. 'Ahmadinejad is not crazy' Gilad said. The Iranian directive is 'to develop a nuclear weapon,' he said. Israel is a small country and hitting its coastal area could leave tens of thousands of dead and contaminate an area for years, a defense expert maintained. In an article to be published in the Yediot Aharonot newspaper, Thursday, the head of Israel's National Security Council, retired Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland said an Iranian nuclear umbrella would complicate matters. If Israel tries military and diplomatic pressure to stop Hezbollah Katyusha attacks from Lebanon and fails, it would think of an escalation. However with such an umbrella it would have to take into account 'other considerations than those that guide us today.' 'Imagine a situation in which Iran has a nuclear weapon and a group of Christian fanatics, or worse, Jews, blows up the mosques on the Temple Mount,' Eiland continued. The Temple Mount, that the Muslims call Haram e-Sharif, is Islam's third holiest site. A Western expert suggested Iran's reports about enriching uranium were a signal to the West that has been trying to stop Iran`s program. 'You want to roll us back? Forget it. We`re in the driver`s seat,' the expert suggested the Iranian statements mean. Ahmadinejad`s announcement was made shortly after former president Hashemi Rafsanjani told a Kuwaiti agency that a cascade of 164 centrifuges produced the enriched uranium. That indicates the rivalry inside Iran`s leadership. Both claim credit for it, said the expert. It is difficult to know whether the announcement reflects a sense of hubris or an attempt to 'declare victory' before expressing readiness to talk business, the expert continued. Recent Iranian statements 'show a great deal of nervousness' and the technology behind the latest 'boasting... is less (sic)than meets the eye,' the expert said. It indicates 'a growing sense of vulnerability and anxiety on their part ' and is not something that happens 'in the normal scheme of things.' Israeli officials have reacted cautiously to the news from Iran. Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz did not comment, but the Foreign Ministry`s spokesman Mark Regev said that, 'Iran`s latest announcement serves as further example of the real danger in delaying concrete diplomatic measures in the face of continued Iranian refusal to comply with international demands to stop its nuclear activities. Israel believes that the Iranian nuclear program should be confronted by a broad and determined international coalition.' In a TV debate Tuesday night the former head of Israel`s Northern Command, retired Maj. Gen. Yossi Peled, said Israel must prepare to face Iran alone. He said he did not believe diplomatic efforts could stop the Iranians and 'Israel does not have the luxury of waiting endlessly.' 'It is a matter of very.... few years,' Peled added. The air force`s former commander, retired Maj. Gen. Eitan Ben-Eliyahu said Israel has been preparing to cope with this threat 'for decades.' He advocated a broad front with the United States in the lead. Military action 'could last days, possibly weeks and needs a logistic backup accompanied by a prolonged diplomatic activity. It is going to be a campaign... (and in it) we will have a weighty respectable role that would accompany the diplomatic moves,' Ben-Eliyahu said. The 1981 bombing of Iraq`s nuclear reactor was an Israel-only operation and lasted a few minutes but the Iranian case will be different, he added. 'We need very through preparations... So we wait another week, prepare a better plan.It`s better to reduce the risks that something will not be perfect,' he said. Copyright 2006 by United Press International ________________________________________- Iran Showdown Tests Power of Israel Lobby by Jim Lobe (Inter Press Service) April 12, 2006 One month after the publication by two of the most influential international relations scholars in the United States of a highly controversial essay on the so-called "Israel Lobby," their thesis that the lobby exercises "unmatched power" in Washington is being tested by rapidly rising tensions with Iran. Far more visibly than any other domestic constituency, the Israel Lobby, defined by Profs. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, as "the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction," has pushed the government both Congress and the George W. Bush administration toward confrontation with Tehran. Leading the charge has been a familiar group of neoconservatives, such as former Defense Policy Board (DPB) chairman Richard Perle and former Central Intelligence Agency director James Woolsey, who championed the war in Iraq but who have increasingly focused their energies over the past year on building support for "regime change" and, if necessary, military action against Iran if it does not abandon its nuclear program. (On Tuesday, Iran announced that it had successfully enriched uranium, which can be used for both nuclear weapons and nuclear power reactors, in defiance of a UN Security Council resolution ordering an end to all enrichment activities by April 28). The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the premier Israel lobby group whose annual convention last year featured a giant, multimedia exhibit on how Iran is "pursuing nuclear weapons and how it can be stopped," has also been pushing hard on Capitol Hill for legislation to promote regime change. Despite White House objections, the group has sought tough sanctions against foreign companies with investments in Iran. "This bill has been pushed almost entirely by AIPAC," noted Trita Parsi, a Middle East expert at Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS) here. "I don't see any other major groups behind this legislation that have had any impact on it." Similarly, the American Jewish Committee (AJC), whose leadership is considered slightly less hawkish than AIPAC, has taken out full-page ads in influential U.S. newspapers since last week entitled "A Nuclear Iran Threatens All" depicting radiating circles on an Iran-centered map to show where its missiles could strike. "Suppose Iran one day gives nuclear devices to terrorists," the ad reads. "Could anyone anywhere feel safe?" In their 81-page essay, entitled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" and condensed in a shorter essay published last month in the London Review of Books, Mearsheimer and Walt, pillars of the "realist" school of international relations, argue that Washington's Middle East policy is too closely tied to Israel to serve its own national interests in the region, particularly in the so-called "war on terror." They believe that the power of the Israel Lobby derived, among other things, from its ability to marshal financial support for Democratic as well as Republican politicians, its grassroots organizational prowess, and its ability to stigmatize critics as "anti-Semitic" (a tactic already deployed against the authors) is largely responsible. "No lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially the same," the authors argued, noting that the lobby, while predominantly Jewish, also includes prominent Christian evangelicals and non-Jewish neoconservatives, such as Woolsey and former Education Secretary William Bennett. In the administration's decision to invade Iraq, pressure from Israel and the lobby played a "critical" although not exclusive role, according to the paper, which cited prewar public prodding by Israeli leaders and by leaders of many major Jewish organizations as evidence, although it notes that most U.S. Jews were skeptical and have since turned strongly against the war. Neoconservatives closely associated with the right-wing views of Israel's Likud party - both in and outside the administration played a particularly important role in gaining support for "regime change" in Iraq stretching back to the mid-1990s, according to the paper. But even during the run-up to the Iraq war, Israeli leaders, notably then-Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, depicted Iran as the greater threat, a theme that was picked up by the Lobby, led by the neoconservatives, immediately after Baghdad's fall. "The liberation of Iraq was the first great battle for the future of the Middle East. But the next great battle not, we hope a military one will be for Iran," wrote the Weekly Standard's neoconservative editor, William Kristol, in early May 2003. Shortly thereafter, neoconservatives and other hawks led by Vice President Dick Cheney succeeded in cutting off ongoing U.S.-Iranian talks on Afghanistan and Iran and killing an offer by Tehran to engage in a broader negotiation on all outstanding differences. What makes the growing confrontation with Iran so remarkable is that the Israel Lobby appears to be the only major organized force here that is actively pushing it toward crisis. Mainstream analysts, including arms control hawks who favor strong pressure on Iran over its nuclear program, have spoken out against military action as far too risky and almost certainly counterproductive. Even analysts at the right-wing Heritage Foundation have voiced doubts. "It just doesn't make any sense from a geopolitical standpoint," said Heritage's James Carifano, noting Iran's capacity to retaliate against the U.S. in Iraq. The Iranian exile community, which has generally favored more pressure on Tehran, similarly appears divided about the consequences of a military attack, with some leaders fearing that it would strengthen the regime, Walt told IPS. He added that "it's hard for me to believe that [U.S.] oil companies would be in favor of a military option [because they] don't like violence or events that create political risk or uncertainty." While insisting that military action against Iran's nuclear program should only be a last resort, the Israel Lobby, on the other hand, appears united in the conviction that an attack will indeed be necessary if diplomatic efforts, economic pressure, and covert action fail. "[Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] sees the West as wimps and thinks we will eventually cave in," Patrick Clawson, deputy director of research of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank established by AIPAC, told New Yorker investigative reporter Seymour Hersh. "We have to be ready to deal with Iran if the crisis escalates." Hersh summarized Clawson's bottom line as "Iran had no choice other than to accede to America's demands or face a military attack." That was much the same message delivered by Perle himself and rapturously received by the attendees at AIPAC's 2006 convention here last month. The convention, at which the keynoter, none other than the administration's ultimate hawk, Vice President Cheney, vowed "meaningful consequences" if Iran did not freeze its nuclear program, drew several hundred Democratic and Republican lawmakers in what could only be described as a show of raw political power. "I don't think there's another group in the country that has two successive conferences in which the centerpiece was beating the drums for war in Iran," noted one senior official with another major pro-Israel organization, who asked not to be identified. "They are the main force behind this." ______________________________- The Human Costs of Bombing Iran By Matthew Rothschild April 11, 2006 The Progressive George Bush didnt exactly deny Seymour Hershs report in The New Yorker that the Administration is considering using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. Neither did Scott McClellan. Bush called it wild speculation, and McClellan said the United States would go ahead with "normal military contingency planning." Those are hardly categorical denials. So lets look at what the human costs of dropping a tactical nuclear weapon on Iran might entail. They are astronomical. The number of deaths could exceed a million, and the number of people with increased cancer risks could exceed 10 million, according to a backgrounder by the Union of Concerned Scientists from May 2005 [1]. The National Academy of Sciences [2] studied these earth-penetrating nuclear weapons last year. They could kill up to a million people or more if used in heavily populated areas, concluded the report, which was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense. Physicians for Social Responsibility examined the risks of a more advanced buster-bunker weapon, and it eerily tabulated the toll from an attack on the underground nuclear facility in Esfahan, Iran. Three million people would be killed by radiation within two weeks of the explosion, and 35 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, would be exposed to increased levels of cancer-causing radiation, according to a summary of that study in the backgrounder by the Union of Concerned Scientists. While Congress last year denied funding for a new nuclear bunker-buster weapon, the Pentagon already has a stockpile of one such weapon in the arsenal: the B61-Mod11, according to Stephen Young, a senior analyst at the Federation of the American Scientists. That the Administration is considering using such a weapon against Iran is horrifying and ludicrous, says Young. But it is now Bush Administration doctrine to be able to use such weapons. The new National Security Strategy of the United States of America, which Bush unveiled in March, discusses the use of nuclear weapons in an offensive way. Our deterrence strategy no longer rests primarily on the grim premise of inflicting devastating consequences on potential foes, it states. Both offenses and defenses are necessary. . . . Safe, credible, and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical role. Even more explicit is the Pentagons draft of a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons, which was revealed by Walter Pincus of The Washington Post [3] last September. It envisions using nuclear weapons for attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons. It says that the United States should be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent another country from using WMDs. This is a mere amplification of the Nuclear Posture Review of December 31, 2001, which stated: Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack (for example, deep underground bunkers or bio-weapon facilities). If the United States used nuclear weapons against Iran, it would be violating the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, which prohibits nations that possess nuclear weapons from dropping them on nations that dont. But in the Bush Administration, planning to do this is just normal behavior. And a million casualties or more? For Bush, that is evidently not a disqualification. Source URL: http://progressive.org/mag_wx041106 Links: [1] http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/earthpenetrating-weapons.html?print=t [2] http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309096731?OpenDocument [3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html http://progressive.org/node/3268/print The archives of South News can be found at http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ ***************************************************************** 4 [southnews] Yedioth Ahronoth: Iran to be bombed in 2007 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:48:18 -0500 (CDT) will also take part Security experts: Iran to be bombed in 2007 Ron Ben-Yishai Ynetnews, Israel - 8 minutes ago If Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons, a military operation against it is inevitable and will take place in 2007, senior U.S. and Israeli specialists say, Israels leading newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported Tuesday. The experts said the right timing of the military operation will be after Iran reaches advanced stages in operating the nuclear reactor for uranium enrichment and before the end of President George W. Bushs term The United States will lead the attack, but other countries will participate, the experts said. However, according to the same specialists, the United Nations Security Council could still halt Irans nuclear drive by applying political pressure. There will be a situation where all disputes in the Middle East will be managed in the shadow of a nuclear Iranian umbrella, National Security Council head Giora Eiland said. Imagine a situation of escalation in the nNrth where Hizbullah is firing barrages of Katyusha rockets on the Galilee and causing human and property damage. Israel is trying to stop the fore and is incapable of doing so through routine means applying military and political pressure. Should we escalate our response? Deciding in an age where Iran has nuclear weapons we will have to weigh considerations other than those directing us today. The Iranians may show restraint in the face of Israels actions against the terror groups, but there is doubt whether they will remain quiet in case of attacks on Islamic holy sites. Imagine, for example, Iran has nuclear arms and a fanatical Christian group, or even worse Jewish, blows up the Temple Mount mosques, Eiland said. Military intelligence data shows that some of the bunkers built by Iran to protect its nuclear sites are impenetrable by conventional bombs. In contrast to recent reports, the U.S. doesnt intend on using nuclear weapons in the attack. According to western sources, Iran will respond to a military operation against it by attacking targets in Europe and sites and population centers in the United States. For this purpose it will use long-range missiles, which it is developing, and terror. A secretive group in Iran is believed to be working on developing nuclear warheads capable of being fitted to Iranian missiles. Recently the group succeeded in making the Shehab-3 missile suitable for carrying nuclear heads. At the moment it is developing missiles of 2,500 kilometers range, which could not be intercepted and destroyed by the Arrow missile. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3238806,00.html The archives of South News can be found at http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ ***************************************************************** 5 [southnews] Iran planning 'similar to Iraq' Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:49:26 -0500 (CDT) Irish Examiner 11/04/2006 - 09:53:09 US administration officials say they remain committed to a diplomatic solution to ensure Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons, but they will not rule out military action as an option, even as they try to calm down talk about military planning. I know here in Washington prevention means force, President George Bush said yesterday. It doesnt mean force necessarily, in this case, it means diplomacy, the president added, calling recent newspaper and magazine reports about US military planning on Iran just wild speculation. Current and former government officials involved in war-planning discussions over the past five years say the US has drafted a menu of options. One official said the attention on Iran has increased markedly in recent months. All of the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information. The planning is similar to the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, which has been captured in books including Bob Woodwards Plan Of Attack. Similar blueprints also have been done, but never used, on any number of adversaries, including North Korea. The plans are aimed particularly at facilities scattered across Iran known to be or suspected of being tied to the nuclear programme. Within those sites, there could be hundreds of individual targets. The options include: :: Special operations aimed at sabotaging various sites or clearing a safe pathway into the country for an air attack. One of the officials said such missions, often to populated areas, would be dangerous in such a closed country as Iran and probably could not be accomplished without leaving fingerprints. :: Air and sea-based strikes that would use a variety of munitions including earth-penetrating bombs that would target underground bunkers. In some cases, several bombs would need to be fired at the same target to reach the most fortified facilities, a security strategy the Iranians adopted based on lessons learned during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. :: Some combination of the above. The Iranian regime insists it wants only to produce uranium for peaceful civilian purposes, such as electricity generation. Yet Iran operated a covert nuclear programme for two decades, and the US and a number of its allies believe the regimes aim is a nuclear weapon. National Intelligence Director John Negroponte told US Congress in February that Iran is as much as a decade away from producing a nuclear weapon. But some estimates put that as low as three years. Even the best-laid plans to go after the nuclear programme may be flawed in execution. Two officials with extensive military experience said airstrikes would be a key option. But they said the US Air Force often overstates the accuracy of precision strikes, which would be needed in Iran. War planners have to figure out how to handle Irans expected retaliation. The country could order terrorist attacks through Hezbollah. Iran could also try to cripple the world economy by putting a stranglehold on the oil that moves through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow, strategically important waterway running to Irans south. Perhaps the best-known site linked to the nuclear programme is the Natanz uranium-enrichment facility, located about 160 miles south of Tehran. David Albright, president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, describes the site as a complex in a 75-foot-deep hole, covered by layers of materials. It is unclear whether that includes concrete. The site is designed to hold a cascade of 50,000 centrifuges that could be used to enrich uranium, but Albright said the Iranians have shown signs that they are having problems with the technology. One outstanding question for the International Atomic Energy Agency is whether there is a hidden, undeclared nuclear programme. Albright said inspectors have found a number of inconsistencies in Iranian documents and a laptop associated with the programme. He believes there has to be a parallel programme. As tensions increase, the talk of war planning could make the diplomatic dialogue with Iran even more difficult. It makes negotiations much harder because Iran is left with the view that, no matter what we negotiate, the US is going to attack, Albright said. Meanwhile, Iran could easily create back-up nuclear sites. A gas centrifuge facility, for instance, could be moved to a warehouse in an industrial area, making it very difficult to find. There are disputes now about the quality of the intelligence on Iran. Some officials say it has improved, thanks to soil samples, overhead reconnaissance, old-fashioned spying, information from the IAEA and other intelligence. But not everyone is sold. Embarrassed by the flawed oversight in the run-up to Iraq, members of US Congress are pressing the Bush administration for details on Iran. A spokesman for Negroponte declined to comment on specific issues regarding Tehran. http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaking/story.asp?j=3803475&p=38x349x&n=3803567&x=# The archives of South News can be found at http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ ***************************************************************** 6 [southnews] Is Iran next? The calculus of military strike. Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:16:32 -0500 (CDT) Christian Science Monitor April 12, 2006 edition WASHINGTON - Time and again this week, President Bush and his team reiterated their position on Iran's nuclear program: America wants a diplomatic solution, and any suggestion it is moving toward an inevitable strike on Iran is "wild speculation." At the same time, however, Mr. Bush has remained steadfast in his statements that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable and "no option is off the table" to prevent it. The news Tuesday that Iran is now producing enriched uranium for atomic reactors - considered a first step toward nuclear weapons - has heightened the sense that America and Iran are on a collision course. A new article in The New Yorker claims that the administration is again on a path to war. Yet amid the tumult is an effort to shape a debate that's more robust than the one before the Iraq war. While military action doesn't appear certain, the hint of it raises questions on the use of force, and what it might - and might not - accomplish. It seems likely that precision airstrikes could set Iran's nuclear program back at least a year and perhaps several. Whether that delay is worth the probable consequences - the strengthening of a despotic regime within Iran and the increased likelihood of terrorism in nearby Iraq and the broader region - is what's at issue. "The military option has a lot of costs," says Michael Rubin, an Iran expert at the American Enterprise Institute here. "But is the cost of the Islamic Republic of Iran having a nuclear weapon greater?" Iran closer to nuclear weapon Reports out of Iran Tuesday suggested that the country has moved closer to being able to produce a nuclear weapon. Tuesday's announcement claimed that Iran now has 164 centrifuges, which yield more-concentrated uranium. Iran would need thousands of centrifuges to produce enough fuel for a nuclear weapon - and the country's leaders insist that the program is solely for nuclear power - but it is a concern for international officials. Few security analysts think Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon against the United States. It is an established nation motivated by self-preservation as much as power. Indeed, Iran's terrorist links are capable of causing much more damage than they do. But Iran does not desire to prompt the US or Israel to a major response, says Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations. "If Iran used a nuclear weapon against New York - or if it could be traced back to Iran - Tehran would fall ... and the Iranians know that." More likely, Iran would ratchet up its terrorist activities, knowing that enemies would be less inclined to retaliate strongly against a nuclear foe. For Dr. Rubin, that still makes a military strike "the lesser of two evils" if diplomatic efforts fail. With the United States Army fully engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities are the most likely option. The operation might take five days, says retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, who participated in a war game on the subject in late 2004. Some sites, like the centrifuge facility in Natanz, are obvious and would be relatively easy to target. Others are less known or more deeply buried, leading to speculation that the United States might use special nuclear weapons designed to penetrate deep into fortified bunkers. While that remains a possibility, Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, called the suggestion "completely nuts," and analysts agree it would be disastrous for American interests in Middle East. The use of conventional weapons is problematic enough. Not only do experts like Colonel Gardiner question whether America could locate and destroy all the relevant targets, but they also wonder whether even a successful attack is worth the cost. "None of [the military options] are any good," says Gardiner. No matter how precise or limited, any airstrike against Iran is likely to be perceived there as a declaration of war. "There is a tendency to think of it as a quick, surgical action short of war," says Dr. Biddle. "That is a mistake." Surely, Iran would retaliate through a more aggressive terrorism campaign, he and others say, and with US troops close at hand in Iraq, they could become the first targets. Iran could also try to close the narrow Strait of Hormuz - through which all Persian Gulf traffic, including oil tankers, must pass. Iran's internal strife In some ways, though, the greatest effect could be within Iran itself. For years, a younger generation seeking democratic reforms has struggled against Iran's government of autocratic clerics, who espouse the destruction of America and Israel. Yet unlike Iraq, a splintered country that was essentially the creation of British imperialism, Iran has a national history stretching back thousands of years to the days of the Persians. As in any country, an attack from a foreign power would likely rally support for the government. "Iranians are fiercely nationalistic," says Rubin. He believes the US could mitigate that somewhat by also attacking symbols of the regime's repression, such as the ministry of information and the guard towers in the country's most infamous political prison. Others, however, see a different lesson from history. When America helped topple Iran's government in 1953, Iranian outrage spawned the hostage crisis of 1979. Now, the US and Iran could be on a course again to poison their relations for a generation. The concern is that the US might attack before all other options have been exhausted. Indeed, America and Iran still don't talk to each other diplomatically; they rely on Europe as a mediator. Given that Iran is surrounded by American troops - in Afghanistan to the east and Iraq to the west - some suggest that there may still be a diplomatic way forward: A direct US offer to Iran of security guarantees for cooperation with its nuclear program. Says Robert Hunter, a former US ambassador to NATO: "If you try and fail, at least you have a circumstance that clarifies the issue." Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0412/p01s02-usfp.html The archives of South News can be found at http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ ***************************************************************** 7 [NYTr] Nuking Iran "Madness" - Australian Peace Groups Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 04:23:31 -0400 (EDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Dave Muller (southnews) - Apr 11, 2006 IMMEDIATE USE 11/4/2006 FRIENDS OF THE EARTH AUSTRALIA PEOPLE FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT NSW AUSTRALIAN PEACE COMMITTEE NUCLEAR-FREE AUSTRALIA Military action Against Iran 'Madness', Say Australian Peace Groups Australian Peace groups say that military action against Iran, and especially the possibility of nuclear strikes, would be 'madness', and would in all probability bring about exactly the opposite of what they were intended to bring about, ensuring the creation of a hostile and nuclear - armed Iran. The possible use of nuclear weapons against Iran would set the US outside the community of civilised nations. It would be a crime against humanity. President Bush dismissed reports of possible military action including the use of nuclear weapons as 'wild speculation'. Nonetheless, an article yesterday by influential journalist Seymour Hersch was merely the latest in a long series of articles from many sources along this line. According to Friends of the Earth, People for Nuclear Disarmament NSW, PND-WA, and APC, "A military strike against Iran will serve no purpose other than to transform Iran's currently ambiguous nuclear program into a program that will be unambiguously aimed at getting nuclear weapons. So - called 'surgical' military strikes are unlikely to be able to set back Iran's program by very much, but will certainly give the upper hand to those in Tehran who want to go nuclear in spite of the Fatwa that currently prevents them from doing so. The result will be a nuclear- armed Iran that will be violently hostile to the west - exactly the opposite of what we want." "Options such as 'regime - change' are simply a disaster waiting to happen. The US is currently unable to control Iraq - How will it ever be able to enforce regime change in the much larger Iran even if it had the military capability to do this which is doubtful." "The final option canvassed by influential journalist Seymour Hersch recently is the use of nuclear weapons. The use of nuclear weapons will place the US outside the community of civilised nations, and will be illegal under the 1996 ICJ decision on the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Talking about their use is even in some respects more dangerous, as again it will impel Iran to pursue its own nuclear deterrent as the very highest priority. " "We call on the Australian government to stand against this madness and to urge on its great and powerful ally policies based on rationality and commonsense." Contact: John Hallam 02-9810-2598 02-9319-4296 Hillel Freedman 0417506150 Cameron Schraner PND 0415-202060 Sue Gilbey APC 0411-413-122 * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 8 [NYTr] Brits Try to Hush US Saber-Rattling Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 04:28:12 -0400 (EDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Dave Muller (southnews) The Times of London - Apr 11, 2006 It would be nuts to bomb Iran, says Britain by Tom Baldwin, Washington BRITAIN has tried to silence renewed sabre-rattling from within the US administration for military action against Iran, saying the idea that the White House wants a nuclear strike is "completely nuts". Foreign Secretary Jack Straw insisted that Britain would not support pre-emptive military action against Tehran, adding: "I'm as certain as I can be sitting here that neither would the United States." Many analysts in the West suspect Tehran is attempting to build its own nuclear weapons. Over the weekend, Iran allowed UN inspectors to examine some of the atomic plants which, it maintains, are designed solely for production of electricity. Speaking to the BBC, Mr Straw said: "There is no smoking gun, there is no casus belli. We can't be certain about Iran's intentions and that is, therefore, not a basis on which anybody would gain authority to go for military action." The idea that the White House wanted a nuclear strike was "completely nuts", he said. Mr Straw was responding to an article by award-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, published in The New Yorker. It has been seized on as evidence that any hope of a diplomatic solution to the standoff is being swept aside by White House hawks. Hersh says US President George W.Bush now believes his historic purpose is to stop Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whom he is said to regard asa "new Hitler", acquiring nuclear weapons. The article suggests that Pentagon plans presented to the White House include the use of a "bunker-buster" tactical nuclear weapon against underground sites in Iran because of concerns that conventional strikes would not be "decisive". The Pentagon attempted to dismiss the report as being filled with "fantastical, wrong and unsubstantiated allegations". Hersh pointed out that the Pentagon had used similar language initially to describe his revelations about abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. His article says US troops have been ordered to infiltrate Iran to collect target data and to cultivate relationships with indigenous groups that oppose the Ahmadinejad Government. It also claims that US carrier attack jets have been flying simulated bombing runs within range of Iranian coastal radar. Pentagon officials denied this. They said war planners had routinely updated contingencies on Iran but this did not reflect any orders to prepare for a military confrontation. The US is thought to have taken limited steps that go beyond contingency planning, such as flying drones over Iran. The Iranian Foreign Ministry dismissed the US media reports as "psychological warfare" that stemmed "from America's anger and helplessness". Last month, the UN Security Council gave Iran 30 days to halt its nuclear research, or risk action such as sanctions. Joseph Cirincione, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said: "I previously dismissed talk about US military strikes as left-wing conspiracy theory ... but in just the past few weeks I've been convinced that at least some in the administration have already made up their minds that they would like to launch a military strike against Iran." Mr Straw acknowledged that the US administration uses "slightly different language" on the issue. "President Bush says (military action) is not on the agenda, but they don't rule out any option in theory. I believe it is not on the agenda and they are very committed indeed to resolving this issue by negotiation." Mr Straw said he was encouraged that Russia and China had joined the US and European Union powers to apply diplomatic pressure to Tehran. Kori Schake, a former staffer on Mr Bush's National Security Council, told The Washington Post talk of a military strike was a "diplomatic gambit to keep pressure on others". The archives of South News can be found at http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 9 IRNA: UN official urges breaking logjam on nuclear disarmament front - Tehran, April 11, IRNA N-Nuclear-Disarmament A senior UN official Monday called for urgent new momentum, especially with regard to nuclear arms. A press release issued by the UN Information Center (UNIC) here Tuesday said that his call was due to virtual stagnation on the disarmament front despite heightened global concern over the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and the risk of them falling into terrorist hands. "Recent developments have further tested the effectiveness of multilateral disarmament machinery," Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs Nobuaki Tanaka told the UN Disarmament Commission as it opened its annual session in New York. "The Commission's recent record has itself been far from satisfactory. In 2003 the session concluded without reaching consensus on concrete proposals to advance nuclear disarmament or confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms. No consensus was achieved on agenda items for its 2004 and 2005 sessions and no substantive meetings were held in 2005," he said. "In 2006 I believe that we have to do better. It falls in large measure to this session of the Commission to provide fresh momentum. One should not lose such an opportunity. It is imperative that we draw lessons from the setbacks that we witnessed last year," he added, stressing that the lack of consensus on disarmament and non- proliferation at the 2005 UN Summit showed how much work remains to be done. The Commission, a subsidiary body of the General Assembly established in 1952, generally considers two items each year, including one nuclear-related topic. Tanaka said that Secretary-General Kofi Annan had encapsulated the nature of the difficulties and set them in their wider context when he told the summit that member states gad inexcusably let posturing thwart results at both at that meeting and at the failed review conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). "It is our responsibility, more than ever, to use this opportunity to strengthen the disarmament machinery to effectively deal with new emerging threats and challenges," Tanaka declared. "It is to be hoped therefore that over the next three weeks you will be able to provide guidance on the fundamental question of complete nuclear disarmament." But he also warned that he preponderant focus on the WMD threat should not lessen the attention given to the regulation and reduction of conventional arms and armed forces. "Despite the fact that much progress has been made by the international community in certain areas, such as for instance in addressing the problem of illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons, their proliferation continues to pose a serious threat to peace and security in too many regions of the world," he warned. ***************************************************************** 10 IRNA: Bush, Blair must allow Iran peaceful nuclear power - UK daily - April 11, IRNA A Scottish newspaper Tuesday joined in a chorus of deep-seating misgivings over the latest US rhetoric threatening Iran with military adventurism. "It has long been a favourite tactic of beleaguered political leaders to identify some perceived foreign force or bogeyman and use them as a means of rallying support at home," the Glasgow Herald said in reference to President George W. Bush's plummeting ratings. But it warned that it does not follow that Iran should be the "next candidate for the Bush doctrine of pre-emption, nor for that matter regime change." The US and its allies, the daily said in its editorial, do "not have a commendable record" when it comes to dealing with countries like Iraq, when similar rhetoric was used. "Any threat of military intervention, nuclear of otherwise, would bring Iran's allies in the region rushing to her aid," it said, suggesting that it could also leave US troops in Iraq more exposed. "The best option would be for Messrs Bush and Blair to rule out military intervention explicitly and allow Iran to develop peaceful nuclear power, as it is entitled under the Non-Proliferation Treaty," the Herald proposed. It said that this would lead to an enhanced inspection regime on Iran's nuclear facilities, while warning otherwise resisting pre- mention was "not naive and weak" and that those who claimed it "have not learned the lessons of Iraq." The London-based Guardian pointed to the issue of Washington's attitude in dealing with Iran to be "less even-handed because of its special relationship with Israel." "In the longer term, the only equitable solution is to make the whole region nuclear-free, with no exception," the paper said in its editorial. ***************************************************************** 11 IRNA: Ahmadinejad: Gov't firm to restore nation's full nuclear rights Mashhad, Khorassan Razavi Prov, April 11, IRNA Iran-Nuclear-President President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Tuesday his government is resolved to fully restore the nuclear rights of the Iranian nation. Addressing a large number of well-wishers in the city of Sarakhs, 173 km northeast of the provincial capital Mashhad, the president said his government is resolute to follow up this great ideal of the nation in domestic and international arenas. "In international arena," Ahmadinejad said, "We are determined to pursue, with strength and resolution, the nation's wish for moving towards dignity, independence, scientific progress and restoring full rights of all Iranians. "Today, a number of bullying states think that through their empty threats and pressures, they can prevent our nation from moving on to materialize its great aspirations," said the president. He added "The bullying powers want to hold the monopoly of all sciences and technologies and deprive our nation." "We will not allow them to do so," stressed the president. Ahmadinejad is on the second-day of his five-day provincial tour to this northeastern province. ***************************************************************** 12 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Denounces Iran's Uranium Announcement From the Associated Press [UP] April 11, 2006 8:31 PM By DEB RIECHMANN Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House on Tuesday criticized the Iranian government after its president said Tehran had successfully enriched uranium for the first time, a potential step toward developing nuclear weapons. ``Defiant statements and actions only further isolate the regime from the rest of the world,'' White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters aboard Air Force One while flying to Missouri. In a nationally televised speech, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced the development but said his country did not plan to develop nuclear weapons. He asked the West not to try to force Iran to abandon uranium enrichment. That's exactly what the United States hopes to do - work with allies to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. ``This is a regime that needs to be building confidence with the international community,'' McClellan said. ``Instead, they're moving in the wrong direction. This is a regime that has a long history of hiding its nuclear activities from the international community, and refusing to comply with its international obligations.'' At the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said he would not engage in ``fantasyland'' speculation about a possible U.S. attack on Iran, though he said the Bush administration is concerned about Tehran's nuclear ambitions. ``The United States of America is on a diplomatic track,'' Rumsfeld said. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said he could not verify what he called the technical details of Tehran's announcement. ``This is another step by the Iranians in defiance of the international community. Once again they have chosen the pathway of defiance instead of the pathway of cooperation,'' he said. On Monday, Bush said force is not necessarily required to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon. The president dismissed reports of U.S. plans for a military attack against Tehran as ``wild speculation.'' The United States is trying to persuade other members of the U.N. Security Council to side with the U.S. and levy sanctions against Iran unless Tehran backs down. ``If the regime continues to move in the direction it is, currently, then we will be talking about the way forward with other members of the Security Council and Germany and how to address this going forward,'' McClellan said. The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran stop all uranium enrichment activity by April 28. Iran has rejected the demand, saying it has a right to develop the process. ``We'll talk with the rest of the Security Council members and others about the next steps,'' McClellan said. ``Right now, the regime has been given an opportunity to comply with its obligations, and the most recent statements by the regime only further isolate itself and continue to show that it's moving in the wrong direction.'' The Bush administration has sought to defuse reports of military planning against Iran. ``We have I don't know how many various contingency plans in this department and the last thing I'm going to do is start telling you or anybody else in the press or the world at what point we can refresh a plan or don't refresh a plan or why,'' Rumsfeld said. Bush, who has called Iran part of the ``axis of evil,'' has said military force is always an option, but a last resort. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 13 Guardian Unlimited: Enrichment Is Only a First Step for Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday April 11, 2006 11:01 PM By The Associated Press TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's announcement that it has successfully enriched uranium may be a major breakthrough for its nuclear program, but it's still a long way to being able to fuel a reactor - or produce a weapon, as the U.S. fears. Iran said it successfully enriched uranium using 164 centrifuges. For large-scale enrichment, Iran needs tens of thousands of centrifuges. Iran's nuclear boss, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, said Iran aims to expand the process to use 3,000 centrifuges in the last quarter of 2006, meaning Iran is preparing for a semi-industrial scale enrichment. The centrifuge program is located at the Natanz Uranium Enrichment Plant, parts of which have been built underground to protect it from air or missile strikes. It is not clear whether reaching the 3,000 mark means building more centrifuges. In 2005 - when Iran had suspended enrichment-related activities - Iranian officials said the country had around 2,000 centrifuges. Scientists resumed enrichment research at Natanz in February, but Iran has not said whether they have resumed building centrifuges. Enrichment is a highly difficult process that takes gas produced from raw uranium and aims to increase its proportion of the uranium-235 isotope, needed for nuclear fission. The gas is pumped into a centrifuge, which spins, causing a small portion of the heavier, more prevalent uranium-238 isotope to drop away. The gas then proceeds to other centrifuges - thousands of them - where the process is repeated, increasing the proportion of uranium-235. Enrichment typically starts out with a gas that is 0.7 percent uranium-235. It must be boosted to around 4 percent to produce fuel for a reactor - or 90 percent for the material for a warhead. But getting a series of 164 centrifuges to work is an accomplishment. The same principles can be used to add on more centrifuges - though the more that come on line the more opportunities there are for technical problems. The pipe connections between the devices is complex and fragile, and any imperfection can cause a breakdown, Iranian nuclear scientist Mohammad Afarideh said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 14 Guardian Unlimited: Rumsfeld Won't Speculate on Iran Plans From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday April 11, 2006 6:46 PM By LOLITA C. BALDOR Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday he would not engage in ``fantasy land'' speculation about a possible U.S. attack on Iran, though he said the Bush administration is concerned about Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Rumsfeld declined to comment on Iran's claim that it has has successfully enriched uranium for the first time. ``I'd rather wait and see what our experts say about it,'' the defense secretary told reporters shortly after the announcement from Tehran. The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran stop all uranium enrichment activity by April 28. Iran has rejected the demand, saying it has a right to develop the process. Rumsfeld's comments came a day after President Bush said that force is not necessarily required to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Bush dismissed reports of plans for a military attack against Tehran as ``wild speculation.'' ``The United States of America is on a diplomatic track,'' Rumsfeld said. ``There is obviously concern about Iran. Iran is a country that supports terrorism. It is a country that has indicated'' a desire to obtain nuclear technology. ``But it is simply not useful to get into fantasy land,'' Rumsfeld said. Neither Rumsfeld nor Bush has taken military off the table as a potential option. Former President Hashemi Rafsanjani said Tuesday that Tehran has successfully enriched uranium for the first time, a major development in its quest to develop nuclear fuel. Current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad added that the country ``will soon join the club of countries with nuclear technology.'' The White House denounced the latest comments from Iranian officials, with press secretary Scott McClellan saying they ``continue to show that Iran is moving in the wrong direction.'' Claims that Iran has successfully enriched uranium ``only further isolate'' the regime in Tehran and underscore why the international community must continue to raise concerns about its suspected ambition to develop nuclear weapons, McClellan told reporters traveling on Air Force One with Bush on Tuesday to Missouri. McClellan noted that the Security Council clock is now running on Iran. ``This is a regime that needs to be building confidence with the international community,'' McClellan said. ``Instead, they're moving in the wrong direction.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 15 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Insists Enrichment Goal Is Peaceful From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday April 12, 2006 12:16 AM AP Photo XHS117 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's hard-line president said Tuesday that the country ``has joined the club of nuclear countries'' by successfully enriching uranium for the first time - a key process in what Iran maintains is a peaceful energy program. The announcement from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was certain to heighten international tensions surrounding Iran's nuclear program. The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran stop all enrichment by April 28 because of suspicions the program is designed to make nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad warned the West that trying to force it to abandon uranium enrichment would ``cause an everlasting hatred in the hearts of Iranians.'' The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, was heading to Iran on Wednesday for talks aimed at resolving the standoff. The timing of the announcement suggested Iran wanted to present him with a fait accompli and argue that it cannot be expected to entirely give up a program showing progress. Former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, a powerful member of Iran's ruling clerical regime, said the breakthrough means ElBaradei ``faces new circumstances.'' The White House, which is pressing for U.N. sanctions against Iran, said the enrichment claims ``show that Iran is moving in the wrong direction.'' ``Defiant statements and actions only further isolate the regime from the rest of the world,'' said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. Britain's Foreign Office issued a statement reiterating the U.N. call for a halt to enrichment work and warned that ``if Iran does not comply, the Security Council will revisit the issue.'' The Iranian enrichment announcement ``is not particularly helpful,'' it said. Uranium enrichment can produce either fuel for a nuclear energy reactor - as Iran says it seeks - or the material needed for an atomic warhead. Tuesday's announcement does not mean Iran is immediately capable of doing either. So far it has succeeded only in getting a series of 164 centrifuges to work in the enrichment process. Thousands of centrifuges are needed for a workable program. But successfully carrying out the highly complicated and delicate process even on a small scale would be a breakthrough, and Iran's nuclear chief said the program would be expanded to 3,000 centrifuges by the end of the year. Ahmadinejad announced it at a nationally televised ceremony clearly aimed at drumming up popular Iranian support for the nuclear program. He addressed an audience that included top military commanders and clerics in an ornate hall in one of Iran's holiest cities, Mashhad. Before he spoke, screens on the stage showed footage of nuclear facilities and scientists at work. ``At this historic moment, with the blessings of God Almighty and the efforts made by our scientists, I declare here that the laboratory-scale nuclear fuel cycle has been completed and young scientists produced enriched uranium needed to the degree for nuclear power plants Sunday,'' Ahmadinejad said. ``I formally declare that Iran has joined the club of nuclear countries,'' he said. The crowd broke into cheers of ``Allahu akbar,'' or ``God is great.'' As part of the ceremony, costumed dancers performed on the stage, holding aloft vials of raw uranium and also chanting ``Allahu akbar.'' Ahmadinejad said the West ``has to respect Iran's right for nuclear energy.'' He said Iran wanted to operate its nuclear program under supervision by the International Atomic Energy Agency and within its rights and the regulations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. According to the IAEA, a total of 31 countries have nuclear power plants either in operation or under construction. In Vienna, officials of the IAEA, whose inspectors are now in Iran, declined to comment on Ahmadinejad's announcement. But a diplomat familiar with Tehran's enrichment program said it appeared to be accurate. He demanded anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss information restricted to the agency. Speaking before the president, Iran's nuclear chief - Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh - told the audience that Iran has produced 110 tons of uranium gas, the feedstock that is pumped into centrifuges for enrichment. The amount is nearly twice the 60 tons that Iran said last year that it had produced - an amount that former U.N. nuclear inspector David Albright said would be enough to produce up to 20 nuclear bombs if Iran developed the capacity. Aghazadeh also said a heavy water nuclear reactor, under construction near Arak in central Iran, will be completed by early 2009. The U.S. fears that the spent fuel from a heavy-water reactor can be reprocessed to extract plutonium for use in a bomb. The IAEA is due to report to the U.N. Security Council on April 28 whether Iran has met its demand for a full halt to uranium enrichment. If Tehran fails to comply, the U.S. and Europe are pressing for sanctions against Iran, a step Russia and China have opposed. Under the non-proliferation pact, nations without nuclear weapons pledge not to pursue them in exchange for a commitment by five nuclear-weapons states - the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China - to negotiate nuclear disarmament. The treaty guarantees countries that renounce nuclear weapons access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. North Korea withdrew from the treaty in 2003. Three countries have refused to join - India and Pakistan, which conducted rival nuclear tests in 1998, and Israel, which is widely believed to possess weapons. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 16 Guardian Unlimited: US Commited to Diplomatic Solution on Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday April 11, 2006 7:46 AM AP Photo WHGH102 By KATHERINE SHRADER Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Administration officials say they remain committed to a diplomatic solution to ensure Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons. But they won't rule out military action as an option, even as they try to tamp down talk about military planning. ``I know here in Washington prevention means force,'' President Bush said Monday. ``It doesn't mean force, necessarily. In this case, it means diplomacy,'' the president added, calling recent newspaper and magazine reports about U.S. military planning on Iran ``just wild speculation.'' Current and former government officials involved in war-planning discussions over the past five years say the United States has drafted a menu of options. One official said the attention on Iran has increased markedly in recent months. All of the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information. The planning is similar to the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, which has been captured in books including Bob Woodward's ``Plan of Attack.'' Similar blueprints also have been done - but never used - on any number of adversaries, including North Korea. The plans are aimed particularly at facilities scattered across Iran known or suspected of being tied to the nuclear program. Within those sites, there could be hundreds of individual targets. The options include: - Special operations aimed at sabotaging various sites or to clear a safe pathway into the country for an air attack. One of the officials said such missions, often to populated areas, would be dangerous in such a closed country as Iran and most likely couldn't be accomplished without leaving fingerprints. Almost any option would require a force of at least several dozen just to go after a single target. The officials said air superiority would also be necessary to protect the teams while they do their work. That would require fast-moving, stealthy jet fighters, gun ships and other overhead defense systems. Any plan that requires a sizeable ground attack is understood to be the least likely because of the operations' high risk and the current demands on an already stretched U.S. force. - Air- and sea-based strikes that would use a variety of munitions including earth-penetrating bombs that would target underground bunkers. In some cases, several bombs would need to be fired at the same target to reach the most fortified facilities - a security strategy the Iranians adopted based on lessons learned during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. The Air Force's angular F-117A stealth fighter, which can hold two 2,000-pound, laser-guided bombs, would be key to this, officials said. - Some combination of the above. The Iranian regime insists it wants only to produce uranium for peaceful civilian purposes, such as electricity generation. Yet Iran operated a covert nuclear program for two decades, and the U.S. and a number of its allies believe the regime's aim is a nuclear weapon. National Intelligence Director John Negroponte told Congress in February that Iran is as much as a decade away from producing a nuclear weapon. But some estimates put that as low as three years. Even the best laid plans to go after the nuclear program may be flawed in execution. Two officials with extensive military experience said airstrikes would be a key option. But they said the Air Force often overstates the accuracy of precision strikes, as would be needed in Iran. War planners have to figure out how to handle Iran's expected retaliation. The country could order terrorist attacks through Hezbollah. Iran also could try to cripple the world economy by putting a stranglehold on the oil that moves through the Strait of Hormuz - a narrow, strategically important waterway running to Iran's south. Perhaps the best known site linked to the nuclear program is the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, located about 160 miles south of Tehran. David Albright, president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, describes the site as a complex in a 75 foot-deep hole, covered by layers of materials. It's unclear whether that includes concrete. The site is designed to someday hold a cascade of 50,000 centrifuges that could be used to enrich uranium, but Albright said the Iranians have shown signs that they're having problems with the technology - a key hurdle. One outstanding question for the International Atomic Energy Agency is whether there is a hidden, undeclared nuclear program. Albright said inspectors have found a number of inconsistencies in Iranian documents and a laptop associated with such a program. He believes there has to be a parallel program. The question is: ``Does it have much?'' Albright said. ``There is no evidence.'' As tensions increase, some say the talk of war planning could make the diplomatic dialogue with Iran more difficult. ``It makes negotiations much harder because Iran is left with the view that, no matter what we negotiate, the U.S. is going to attack,'' Albright said. Meanwhile, Iran could easily create backup nuclear sites. A gas centrifuge facility, for instance, could be moved to a warehouse in an industrial area, making it very difficult to find. There are disputes now about the quality of the intelligence on Iran. Some officials say it has improved, thanks to soil samples, overhead reconnaissance, old-fashioned spying, information from the IAEA and other intelligence. But not everyone is sold. Embarrassed by the flawed oversight in the run-up to Iraq, members of Congress are pressing the Bush administration for details on Iran. A spokesman for Negroponte declined to comment on specific issues regarding Tehran. California Rep. Jane Harman, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said she and other lawmakers were shown the nuclear case that the United States has been presenting to international organizations. ``I don't buy it. I think it's thin,'' she said. Based on lessons learned from Iraq, Harman said she would like to know how many sources U.S. intelligence officials have, how confident they are of their information and whether there are any dissenting views. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 17 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Reaches Key Step in Nuclear Process From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday April 11, 2006 4:46 PM AP Photo XHS105 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran has successfully enriched uranium for the first time, a major development in its fuel cycle technology, news agencies quoted former President Hashemi Rafsanjani as saying Tuesday. Current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad added that Iran ``will soon join the club of countries with nuclear technology.'' The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran stop all uranium enrichment activity by April 28. Iran has rejected the demand, saying it has a right to develop the process. The comments by the Iranian officials came as the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, Mohammed ElBaradei, was due to visit Tehran this week for talks on the nuclear standoff. Officials with his International Atomic Energy Agency have said he is hoping to win at least partial concessions from Iran. IAEA inspectors are currently in Iran visiting two key facilities. Rafsanjani's comment, carried by the Kuwait News Agency. was the first disclosure that Iran had successfully enriched uranium since February, when it began research at its enrichment facility in the town of Natanz. Rafsanjani did not disclose the amount of uranium that Iran had enriched through the facility's 164 centrifuges, but he said it would put the country in a good position for ElBaradei's visit. ``When ElBaradei arrives in Iran, he will face new circumstances,'' Rafsanjani said, according to KUNA. ``Iran has put into operation the first unit of 164 centrifuges, has injected (uranium) gas and has reached industrial production,'' the news agency quoted him as saying. ``We should expand the work of these machines to achieve a full industrial line. We need dozens of these units (sets of 164 centrifuges) to achieve a uranium enrichment facility,'' he said. Enriching uranium to a low level produces fuel for nuclear reactors. To a higher level, it produces the material for a nuclear bomb. Iran would require thousands of operating centrifuges to produce enough uranium for either purpose. In Vienna, IAEA officials declined to comment on the report. A diplomat familiar with Tehran's enrichment program said the report appeared to be accurate. The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss information restricted to the agency. A spokesman for the British Foreign Office recalled that Iran was under Security Council orders to ``resume full and sustained suspension of all its enrichment.'' ``The latest Iranian statement is not particularly helpful,'' the spokesman said, speaking on condition of anonymity in keeping with government policy. Ahmadinejad had promised Monday to announce ``good nuclear news'' soon. On Monday, Tehran shrugged off reports that the United States is drawing backup plans for military action against Iran over its nuclear activities, saying they were an attempt to scare it into halting its program and warning any attack would bring a ``suitable response.'' Several American media reports over the weekend said the Bush administration was studying options for military strikes against Iran to stop its nuclear program. The New Yorker magazine raised the possibility of using atomic bombs against Iran's underground nuclear sites. President Bush said Monday the reports were ``wild speculation.'' He said his vow to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons ``doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case it means diplomacy.'' But the White House was not ruling out a military response and said ``normal defense and intelligence planning'' was under way. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 18 Guardian Unlimited: If ever there was a nation not to drive to extremes, it is Iran Comment The US and Britain are goading Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, while Blair's jihadist rhetoric is inciting a fourth crusade Simon Jenkins Wednesday April 12, 2006 The Guardian This week's most terrifying remark came from the foreign secretary, Jack Straw. He declared that a nuclear attack on Iran would be "completely nuts" and an assault of any sort "inconceivable". In Straw-speak, "nuts" means he's just heard it is going to happen and "inconceivable" means certain. A measure of the plight of British foreign policy is that such words from the foreign secretary are anything but reassuring. Straw says of Iran that "there is no smoking gun, there is no casus belli". There was no smoking gun in Iraq, only weapons conjured from the fevered imagination of Downing Street and the intelligence chiefs. It is a racing certainty that Alastair Campbell look-alikes are even now cajoling MI6's John Scarlett into proving that Iran is "far closer" to a bomb than anyone thinks. As for a casus belli, there was also none in Iraq. Tony Blair had to beat one out of the hapless attorney general before his generals would agree to fight. But Iran's casus belli was set out in unambiguous terms by the prime minister in his speech to the Foreign Policy Centre in London on March 21. Blair was updating his 1999 Chicago doctrine of global intervention. Then it was justified by humanitarianism and was optional. Now it is vital for the "battle of values ... a battle about modernity". Those who are not of our values are to be subject to pre-emptive attack. Blair demanded that the west become "active not reactive" against alien values (obviously Islamic) as "we risk chaos threatening our stability". The crusade against them was "utterly determinative of our future here in Britain". He accepted that Britain should seek international agreement before going to war, but should still fight without it. People were crying out for democracy. We must bring it to them since "in their salvation lies our own security". The speech was full of jihadist rhetoric. Blair's desire to wipe non-democratic values off the map is akin to Iran's view of Israel. But we know that when he says war he means war. The speech was the wildest by a British leader in modern times and was the clearest imaginable statement of a casus belli. He mentioned Iran three times. It was gilt-edged, copper-bottomed, swivel-eyed neoconservatism. To such a world view, Iran is a far more plausible target than Iraq. It is a nation approaching 80 million people, whose values would be a real catch for "beacon democracy". Elements within its regime want nuclear weapons. The country is rich and capable of buying the relevant components. The mullahs have sponsored terrorist groups abroad and fiddled elections. In February, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad restarted uranium enrichment at the Natanz plant, in defiance of the UN, and yesterday Iran's nuclear energy chief announced that it had proved successful. What does Straw mean, "no casus belli"? Tehran has two more weeks to stop enrichment, after which sanctions seem inevitable. Some ostracism of Iran's ruling elite might lead the parliamentary moderates and clerical oligarchs to force Ahmadinejad to back off for a time. But sanctions will split the world coalition against nuclear proliferation, since Russia and China have close trading links with Iran. The US and Britain would then be back to the same "slide to war" as in Iraq. They would have to decide whether to fight on alone or endure humiliating retreat. A land force attack on Iran is, for forces that cannot even hold Iraq, out of the question. But sowing mayhem through bombing military targets (always causing civilian deaths) might instigate enough anarchy to stir a putsch, a regional uprising or more subtle changes within the regime. There are reports of US special forces operating inside Iran and funds being channelled to opposition groups. The US is said to be aiding Sunni Baluchi insurgents in the south, as they once did the Taliban in Afghanistan. Bush's description on Monday of leaks about nuclear bunker-busters as "wild speculation" was part machismo, part tautology. Every weapon is an option to a soldier. It would be unlikely even for the Bush government (even with Blair's support) to put the west's status as world policeman back in the stone age. But such talk indicates the brain-scrambling effect of the Iraq war. Iran is the first test of Blair's interventionism, and the auguries are not good. Every sabre rattle in Washington must be music to Ahmadinejad's ear. Whether or not a bombing attack might damage his factories, it is unlikely to destabilise his government, rather the reverse. It would heighten nationalist fervour and increase hatred of the west. Sanctions that stop Iranians going to conferences or shopping in Knightsbridge are hardly of concern to mullahs. Any nation supposedly forced to "choose between weapons and the economy" chooses weapons (look at the US). The more the west threatens, the stronger is the case of Tehran's hawks for a nuclear arsenal. Iran is within range of five nuclear powers, including the US. What army would not want a deterrent when the world is awash with crazies? Confrontation without a willingness to use total force is bluff. Many Iranian hardliners must be itching to cause more trouble in Iraq, threaten tanker lanes in the Straits of Hormuz and set Asian opinion further against the west. As for backing the Baluchi insurgents, this is madness. The most lawless group in the region are, through the Taliban, the chief enemy of British forces in Afghanistan. Is Blair aware that the US is funding his enemies? This whole venture is degenerating into a fourth crusade. The much-vaunted neocon campaign for a secure and liberal democracy in Asia is in retreat. It is ailing in Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. What might have been gained through security and friendship has been wrecked by the war in Iraq. War puts a premium on paranoia and encourages existing regimes to crack down on dissent. These may be rogue states, but it is time for the west to decide again which are "our rogues". One country in the region that has retained some political pluralism is Iran. It has shown bursts of democratic activity and, importantly, has experienced internal regime change. If ever there was a nation not to drive to the extreme it is Iran. If ever there was a powerful state to reassure and befriend rather than abuse and threaten, it is Iran. If ever there was a regime not to goad into seeking nuclear weapons it is Iran. Yet that is precisely what British and American policy is doing. It is completely nuts. simon.jenkins@guardian.co.uk [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 19 BBC: Iran declares key nuclear advance Last Updated: Tuesday, 11 April 2006 [Two technicians carry a box containing yellowcake at the Iranian nuclear facility at Isfahan] The UN has given Iran 30 days to halt its nuclear research Iran's president says his nation has successfully produced the enriched uranium needed to make nuclear fuel. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran had joined the nations with "nuclear technology" but again insisted it did not want nuclear weapons. Tehran resumed enrichment research in February. Last month the UN gave Iran 30 days to halt work or face action. Iran's announcement comes on the eve of a visit by the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei. Western powers fear Iran is developing a nuclear bomb. Iran says its nuclear programme is for civilian use. The US responded to the latest news by saying that Iran was "moving in the wrong direction". 'Pathway of defiance' In a televised speech in the north-western holy city of Mashhad, Mr Ahmadinejad said: "I am officially announcing that Iran has joined the group of those countries which have nuclear technology." We will continue our path unt we achieve production of industrial-scale enrichment Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Iranian president Iran raises nuclear stakes His audience broke into cheers and chants of "Allahu akbar" (God is great). Mr Ahmadinejad called on the nation's scientists to press ahead with "industrial-scale enrichment" and urged the West to respect what he called Iran's right to peaceful atomic technology. He said the "nuclear fuel cycle had been completed" with the enrichment on Sunday at the Natanz plant. NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE Mined urani ore is purified and reconstituted into solid form known as yellowcake Yellowcake is converted into a gas by heating it to about 64C (147F) Gas is fed through centrifuges, where its isotopes separate and process is repeated until uranium is enriched Low-level enriched uranium is used for nuclear fuel Highly enriched uranium can be used in nuclear weapons In depth: Nuclear fuel cycle Vice-president and atomic energy chief Gholam Reza Aghazadeh confirmed Iran had also produced 110 tons of uranium gas needed to feed the enrichment process - twice the amount it said last year that it had produced. The US condemned Iran's announcements. State department spokesman Sean McCormack said: "We would have hoped that the Iranian regime would have taken this opportunity to choose a pathway of diplomacy as opposed to the pathway of defiance." Mr ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, is expected to arrive in Iran on Wednesday to discuss its nuclear programme. He has to report back to the Security Council at the end of this month. Should Iran have failed to halt its enrichment by then, the council will have to consider its next move, with the US among those likely to call for sanctions. But those calls may face opposition from Russia and China. Centrifuges Earlier on Tuesday, ex-Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani had told Kuwait's Kuna news agency Tehran had operated 164 centrifuges for the first time, achieving "industrial output". The 164 centrifuges are needed to provide the cascade that creates enriched uranium. But the process would only create the low-level enrichment needed for nuclear fuel. Iran would need thousands of centrifuges to create the highly enriched uranium needed for nuclear weapons. Experts say Iran is years away from having a nuclear bomb. BBC world affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds says Iran's announcement is significant for two reasons. Firstly it indicates Iran has taken a major step forward technically, and secondly it is in direct defiance of the UN Security Council's call and is likely therefore to lead to even greater confrontation with the West. ***************************************************************** 20 AFP: Iran defies UN with nuclear breakthrough Tue Apr 11, 3:29 PM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranannounced had successfully enriched uranium to make nuclear fuel, a major breakthrough in its disputed atomic drive that defies a UN Security Council demand for the work to stop. The Islamic regime's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also called for a no-holds-barred acceleration of enrichment work -- a process that can be extended to make the fissile core of an atom bomb. The United States immediately warned Iran was "moving in the wrong direction." Iran now runs the risk of UN sanctions when a Security Council deadline expires on April 28. "Our people, with the help of God, have successfully mastered nuclear technology. Iran has joined the nuclear states," Ahmadinejad said in a speech to top military and political leaders in the northeastern holy city of Mashhad. "Iran's nuclear programme is purely peaceful," he added, calling on foreign governments to "recognise and respect Iran's rights." He even called for "all nuclear officials to speed up their work so as to produce fuel for the country's (future) power stations." The dramatic news was greeted by the audience with chants of "Allahu Akbar" ("God is Greatest"). Vice president and atomic energy chief Gholam Reza Aghazadeh said the milestone in Iran's programme was crossed on Monday -- at a pilot centrifuge plant in Natanz -- with the uranium enriched to 3.5 percent, or the purity required for civilian reactor fuel. This, he asserted, "paves the way for enrichment on an industrial scale" using an enormous 110 tonnes of UF6 feedstock gas already produced. He also said Iran was "determined" to complete work within three years on a heavy water reactor in Arak -- which critics say which could also produce plutonium for a nuclear weapon. US President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushhas rejected media reports that the United States is planning to attack Iran over the issue as "wild speculation," and said diplomacy was preferred to resolve the nuclear crisis. But White House spokesman Scott McClellan immediately responded to the latest challenge from Iran by saying its arch-enemy was "moving in the wrong direction." It is also a blow to International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agencychief Mohamed ElBaradei, who has been asked by the Security Council to report on Iranian compliance by April 28 and is also due to arrive in Tehran overnight Wednesday in a fresh bid to resolve tensions. A foreign diplomat said Iran's announcement, if true, meant the country had made a "technological leap" and was advancing much quicker than previously thought. "If it is true, it means that they are going faster than we expected. It represents a technological leap forward, because it's more important to master research and development than to go from RD to industrial enrichment," said the Tehran-based diplomat, who asked not to be named. This means Iran could soon cross the so-called "point of no-return" -- a point where it has the technical know-how and the capacity to build a bomb. Over the weekend, the Washington Post and the New Yorker magazine reported that President Bush" /> President Bushwas examining military options against Iran, a country he has already lumped into an "axis of evil." Although Bush has dismissed the reports as "wild speculation," oil prices have sent up amid fears of a looming conflict. In Tuesday's trading, the price of Brent North Sea crude oil reached an all-time high point of 69.70 dollars per barrel on concern that the United States attack major crude producer Iran, dealers said. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 21 AFP: Iran says ready to sign non-aggression pact with region Tue Apr 11, 6:32 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranis ready to sign non-aggression pacts with countries in the region, the Islamic republic's defence minister was quoted as saying. The comment came less than a week after military exercises were held to trumpet the Islamic republic's "homegrown" military achievements. "Our exercises were welcomed by Muslims of the world, and they dismayed our enemies. Since (the exercises) were a message of peace and friendship, we are ready to sign non-aggression pacts with the regional countries," Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said. "Islamic Republic of Iran announces once again its readiness to hold a joint military exercise with regional countries," he was quoted as saying in Iranian dailies. From March 31 to April 6, Iran staged major exercises along its strategic southern coast. The Islamic republic also unveiled a wide range of homegrown weaponry including various missiles and torpedoes. The war games were held in the Strait of Hormuz -- the narrow neck in the Gulf through which a third of the world's oil exports pass. The minister's comments also came amid reports in the US media that President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushwas considering possible air strikes against Iran's nuclear sites. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 22 AFP: US air chief says Iran nuke option not under debate Tue Apr 11, 1:36 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The chief of the US Air Force said he has not taken part in any internal debate over whether nuclear weapons should be considered as a military option against Iran" /> Iran. The New Yorker magazine, in an article published over the weekend, said the attention being given the nuclear option within the US administration had aroused serious misgivings within the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and some officers had talked about resigning. "I've not been in any meeting that is portrayed in the way the articles are written over the weekend," said General T. Michael Moseley, who as the air force chief of staff is a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the president's top military advisors. He added that he was not considering resigning. President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushon Monday dismissed as "wild speculation" that the Pentagon" /> Pentagonhas stepped up planning for possible military strikes, insisting that the United States remains committed to diplomacy in dealing with Iran's nuclear program. Iran also has rejected the reports as being part of a psychological warfare campaign. The Washington Post reported Sunday that the government was studying options for military strikes as part of a broader campaign to coerce Tehran into giving up its alleged quest for nuclear weapons. The New Yorker story by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the one of the military options presented last winter called for the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons such as the B61-11 against alleged Iran underground nuclear sites. "There are always operational planning endeavours ongoing whether it's in Korea, whether it's in Southcom, whether its in Eucom, or Centcom," said Moseley, referring to the US military's combat commands around the world. He added: "It's not appropriate to comment on particular military options." Among the many challenges US military planners face in Iran is that its nuclear facilities are scattered and some are buried in undergound bunkers, raising the question whether they could be destroyed with conventional weapons. Stipulating that he was talking about general capabilities and not an Iran scenario, Moseley said the air force's ability to destroy buried, hardened targets using conventional weapons depends on how deep they are. "There are a variety of weapons that can penetrate concrete and steel structures, and there are variety of weapons that can penetrate a mix of concrete and steel and sand and rubble structures," Moseley said. "It depends on how deep and it depends on how the structure is put together," he said. "There are potentials I would suppose of things so deep and so hardened that it would be hard to get through with anything." Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 23 AFP: Talk of US military strikes on Iran are 'fantasyland' - Rumsfeld Tue Apr 11, 7:14 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dismissed as "fantasyland" reports that the Pentagon" /> is planning military strikes against Iran" /> . Rumsfeld refused to discuss whether the US military has stepped up plans for military strikes against Iran, and joined President George W. Bush" /> in attacking such news reports as unfounded speculation. "It is just simply not useful to get into fantasyland," Rumsfeld said. The New Yorker magazine reported over the weekend that the Bush administration was considering the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against alleged Iranian underground nuclear sites. "We have I do not know how many various contingency plans in this department," Rumsfeld said at a press conference with General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "And the last thing I am going to do is to start telling you or anyone else in the press or the world at what point we refresh a plan or do not refresh a plan and why," he said. "It just is not useful. "And I have responded with respect to Iran," he added. "We are on a diplomatic track. The president has said exactly what he wants said. And we support the president." Pace refused to discuss the military's ability to take out deeply buried bunkers with conventional weapons, saying he did not want to give away secrets to the enemy. But senior US military officials have said publicly that while some conventional weapons can dig through concrete, steel and earth, their effectiveness depends on how deeply buried the target is. "It depends on how deep and it depends on how the structure is put together," General T. Michael Moseley, the air force chief of staff, told reporters earlier Tuesday. "There are potentials I would suppose of things so deep and so hardened that it would be hard to get through with anything," he said. In arguing for funding for the so-called Robust Nuclear Earth-Penetrator feasibility study, Rumsfeld told the Senate a year ago that "the only option we currently have is to use a vastly overpowered nonconventional weapon." The New Yorker story said the attention to nuclear weapons in the Iran planning raised serious misgivings within the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and some officers were talking about resigning. Asked about the story, Moseley said he was not planning to resign and that he had not taken part in any debate or discussion of the kind discussed in the report. Pace, meanwhile, used the press conference to respond to growing calls for Rumsfeld's resignation by respected retired generals. The latest was retired lieutenant general Gregory Newbold, the operations director of the Joint Staff through the war in Afghanistan" /> , who called on serving officers to speak up. "With the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership, I offer a challenge to those still in uniform: a leader's responsibility is to give voice to those who can't -- or don't have the opportunity to -- speak," Newbold wrote in a column in Time magazine over the weekend. Rumsfeld said he was not aware of Newbold's criticism in the lead up to the Iraq" /> war. Pace said the general left the Pentagon in September 2002 and did not have personal knowledge of the later phases of the military planning on Iraq. "We had then, and have now, every opportunity to speak our minds. And if we do not, shame on us, because the opportunity is there. It is elicited from us. And we're expected to," Pace said. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 24 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., N. Korea and China Nuke Envoys Meet From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday April 11, 2006 11:16 AM TOKYO (AP) - Washington's top nuclear envoy met with his North Korean and Chinese counterparts on the sidelines of a conference in Tokyo, a Chinese consular official said Tuesday. The meeting came as delegates from six nations involved North Korean nuclear disarmament talks - the U.S., the two Koreas, China, Japan and Russia - gathered in Tokyo for a private regional security conference. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill met with North Korean chief negotiator Kim Kye Gwan and Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei at the Chinese embassy in Tokyo, according to consular official Li Wen Ling. Hill, who is in Tokyo for a private security conference, had said he had no plans to meet the North Koreans directly. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 25 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Denies Envoy Met With North Korean From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday April 11, 2006 12:31 PM AP Photo TOK106 TOKYO (AP) - The U.S. Embassy denied a report Tuesday that Washington's top nuclear envoy met with his North Korean and Chinese counterparts on the sidelines of a security conference in Tokyo. Earlier, Chinese consular official Li Wen Ling had indicated to reporters that U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill was meeting with North Korean chief negotiator Kim Kye Gwan and Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei at the Hill, who is in Tokyo for a private security conference, had said he had no plans to meet the North Koreans directly. After his comments about the meeting were reported, Li said he did not mean to say a meeting was underway. He said there was no meeting. U.S. Embassy spokesman Jeffrey Hill also said there had been no meeting. Christopher Hill, who is in Tokyo for a private security conference, has denied he plans to meet the North Koreans. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 26 AFP: NKorea nuclear crisis deadlocked despite Chinese push Tuesday April 11, 01:20 PM [Kenichiro Sasae] TOKYO (AFP) - China led a last-minute push to restart talks with North Korea over its nuclear program but little progress was in sight, with Pyongyang firm on demanding an end to US sanctions first. US envoy Christopher Hill shook hands with his North Korean counterpart at a private conference in Tokyo, a participant said, but he refused to hold a bilateral meeting unless the North returns to formal six-nation negotiations. "The problem is not we don't have talks, the problem is we need to have more action," Hill told reporters. "The gap is between five of us and one of them." China, impoverished North Korea's main ally, has hosted five rounds of six-nation talks since 2003 on disarming the communist regime, which declared last year it had nuclear weapons. China hoped to use the security forum here, the first gathering of the six chief envoys since talks broke down in November, to make progress before President Hu Jintao's visit to Washington next week. "China and the United States have always worked together to move the six-party process forward," Chinese envoy Wu Dawei said after talks with Hill. "We need to have caution, but maybe you can have some expectations," Wu said without elaborating. Hill said he did not know what Wu meant but the United States and China "are very much in synch working together, ensuring the six-party process is successful." "The Chinese have a great investment in the process. They want it to work as much as we do," Hill said. But diplomatic efforts partly switched focus Tuesday. Host Japan confronted North Korea with fresh allegations that it lied over its kidnappings of Japanese civilians in the 1970s and early 1980s. Japan said DNA tests on her daughter showed that Megumi Yokota, snatched on her way home from school at age 13 in 1977, was married to a South Korean kidnap victim and not to a North Korean as Pyongyang contends. Japan believes Yokota and at least seven other kidnap victims are alive. It refuses to establish diplomatic ties until Pyongyang comes clean on the emotionally charged dispute. "Whether North Korea will treat this issue with a sincere attitude would affect other problems lying between Japan and North Korea," Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said. Japan has repeatedly brought up the abduction row during the nuclear talks -- which involve China, Japan, the two Koreas, Russia and the United States -- to the unease of the other negotiators. "We are making sincere efforts and we have done what we are supposed to do," North Korea's chief envoy Kim Kye-Gwan said after being told of the DNA results at a meeting with his Japanese counterpart Kenichiro Sasae. The six-way talks have been at a standstill since November after Washington blacklisted a Macau-based bank for allegedly counterfeiting dollars and money-laundering on behalf of impoverished North Korea. US President George W. Bush in 2002 declared North Korea part of an "axis of evil" along with Iran and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His administration later confronted the North with allegations it is pursuing a secret uranium enrichment program, in violation of a 1994 accord to give up nuclear development in exchange for light water reactors. The North responded by kicking out weapons inspectors, pulling out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and last year declaring that it had nuclear weapons. - - AFP '); [ src=] ***************************************************************** 27 Guardian Unlimited: Going nuclear Tuesday April 11, 2006 The Guardian The task of military planners is to consider all options and think the unthinkable. No one need be surprised that when the Pentagon looked at military ways of dealing with Iran one idea it considered was a tactical nuclear attack. The surprise, according to the New Yorker magazine's veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, is that when the US joint chiefs of staff later sought to cross it off their list the White House insisted on keeping it there. Few military experts regard a nuclear strike on Iran as a serious proposition - not least because of its unpredictable consequences for the US - and Jack Straw has already dismissed the idea as "completely nuts". However, there are enough people in and around the Bush administration with a taste for military adventure to raise fears about their real intentions. Another possibility, though - perhaps more likely - is that the story was leaked to put psychological pressure on Iran. Talk of nuclear strikes is also a sign of Washington's limited options. According to a source cited by Mr Hersh, President Bush is "absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb" if it is not stopped. And there is the rub. How, exactly, might it be stopped? The word from the Pentagon planners (again, according to Mr Hersh's report) is discouraging: they view a nuclear attack as the only way of guaranteeing military success. Sanctions are equally problematic. It is time to start planning for a world in which Iran does eventually get the bomb. Already a few officials, on both sides of the Atlantic, are beginning to talk about it in private. Despite the malevolent rhetoric, Iran's foreign policy is more pragmatic than revolutionary. Its apparent desire for nuclear weapons is partly a matter of national pride but in a tough neighbourhood where China, India, Israel, Russia and Pakistan are already nuclear powers, it cannot be dismissed as irrational. Iranian nuclear capability would alarm the Sunni Arab states. It might tempt Saudi Arabia and Egypt to go down the same route, though the US probably has enough leverage with both to prevent that. The underlying problem with nuclear proliferation, as with much else in the Middle East, is that Washington's attitude appears less than even-handed because of its special relationship with Israel. To say that Israelis can be trusted with nuclear weapons but Arabs or Iranians cannot may sound plausible to Americans but in the Middle East it rings hollow. In the longer term, the only equitable solution is to make the whole region nuclear-free, with no exceptions. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 28 New Chernobyl Study Predicts up to 60,000 Excess Cancer Deaths Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:19:20 -0400 NUCLEAR INFORMATION

NUCLEAR INFORMATION

AND RESOURCE SERVICE

6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340, Takoma Park, MD 20912

301-270-NIRS (301-270-6477); Fax: 301-270-4291

nirsnet@nirs.org; www.nirs.org

 

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE         Contact: Mary Olson (NIRS SE), 828-975-1828

April 11, 2006                                                   In Germany: see contacts below

 


NEW STUDY CHALLENGES IAEA REPORT ON CHERNOBYL CONSEQUENCES: FINDS DEATH TOLL LIKELY TO BE 30-60,000

 

A new study being released today in Kiev, Ukraine directly challenges the findings of a widely-criticized International Atomic Energy Agency/World Health Organization report from last September that predicted 4,000 likely cancer deaths as a result of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

 

The study was commissioned by Rebecca Harms, a Green Party member of the European Parliament, on behalf of the Greens/EFA in the European Parliament and in conjunction with the April 23-25 Chernobyl+20: Remembrance for the Future conference in Kiev, Ukraine. The study, titled “TORCH” (The Other Report on Chernobyl) was prepared by two scientists from the United Kingdom, Dr. Ian Fairlie and Dr. David Sumner.


Some key findings of The Other Report on Chernobyl (TORCH) (i) include:

 

·      Belarus, Ukraine and Russia were heavily contaminated, however more than half of Chernobyl’s fallout was deposited outside these countries

·      fallout from Chernobyl contaminated about 40% of Europe’s surface area

·      about 2/3rds of Chernobyl’s collective dose was distributed to populations outside Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, especially to western Europe

·      about 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths are predicted, 7 to 15 times greater than IAEA/WHO’s published estimate of 4,000

 

Said Rebecca Harms, “"We commissioned TORCH to counterbalance claims made by the IAEA in the media last year (ii), which both played down the lethal consequences of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl and failed to make a meaningful analysis of its wider effects on Europe and the world. The much-publicized IAEA estimate of a mere 4000 excess cancer deaths provoked an outcry among the scientific community and environmental NGOs, and was a dishonor to those who have and will suffer as a result of Chernobyl. This is one of a number of underestimates, which TORCH set out to rebut. There must be no mistaking the catastrophic dangers that are still very much associated with nuclear power."

 

Added Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), “It is clear that the IAEA/WHO report was a political document, intended to downplay the ongoing consequences of the Chernobyl disaster; presumably for the interests of the nuclear power industry. Even some WHO officials have been quoted recently (for example in the April 6 New Scientist) as agreeing to the points and findings made in the TORCH report. The world simply cannot afford another Chernobyl, nor construction of a single new atomic reactor.”

The Kiev conference is being organized by a coalition of groups, including NIRS, World Information Service on Energy, Greens/EFA in the European Parliament, Heinrich Boell Foundation, Earth Day Network, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the German Green Party and Ukraine’s Ecoclub. (iii) It is being held to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster and present arguments as to why the deadly nuclear option must not be considered as an answer to the world’s current energy supply problems.


Editors note:

(i) TORCH and an executive summary can be found on the homepage of the Greens/EFA website: http://www.greens-efa.org and at the NIRS website http://www.nirs.org/c20/torch.pdf. The report was financed by Rebecca Harms MEP, the Altner-Combecher Foundation and the Hatzfeldt Foundation.


(ii) The claim was made following the publication of reports last year: IAEA/WHO 'Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes'. Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group “Health” (EGH) Working draft, July 26 2005. IAEA/WHO Environmental Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident and their Remediation. Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group “Environment” (EGE) Working draft, August 2005.


(iii) For more information on the conference click on the following link: http://www.ch20.org  

 

To contact Greens/EFA in the European Parliament:

 

Richard More O' Ferrall,
Press Officer,
The Greens/EFA in the European Parliament
Tel: Brussels +32 2 2841667 / Strasburg +33 3 88174375
Mobile: +32-477-44-38-42
Fax: 0032 2 2844944
rmoreoferrall@europarl.eu.int

 

Helmut Weixler

Head of Press Office

phone: 0032-2-284.4683

fax: 0032-2-284.4944

mobile phone: 0032-475-67 13 40

e-mail: hweixler@europarl.eu.int

website: www.greens-efa.org

 

--30--

 Embedded Content: image0017.jpg: 00000001,79c50fbd,00000000,60b461fb Embedded Content: image0024.jpg: 00000001,0225c346,00000000,60b46221 ***************************************************************** 29 KnoxNews: TVA to keep lake levels down By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS April 11, 2006 CHATTANOOGA -- After months of dry weather, the Tennessee Valley Authority will likely keep some lake water levels low past June 1, officials of the utility said. After the driest February and March in 18 years, TVA has reduced stream flow along the Tennessee River and reduced production of its cheapest power source by nearly 30 percent. "Without significant rain throughout the next several weeks, levels on some tributary reservoirs will not meet June 1 targets (of full lake levels) for the summer recreation season," said Randy Kerr, manager of river forecasting for TVA. Rainfall accumulations of 2.5 inches in the Tennessee Valley on Friday and Saturday produced as much rain as the area had received in the previous two months, Kerr said. Combined, February and March were second only to 1988 as the driest winter months in the 117 years of rainfall records in the valley. Since last summer, rainfall in Chattanooga has been nearly 40 percent below normal, and weather forecasters are predicting April precipitation may be below normal. In the past seven months, rainfall in Chattanooga is more than 12 inches below normal, according to the National Weather Service. David Gaffin, a meteorologist at the weather service office in Morristown, said the Climate Prediction Center is predicting below average rainfall in the Southeast in April. "Since last August, rainfall has been below normal, and unfortunately this shortfall may not be over yet," he told the Chattanooga Times Free Press. Kerr said most lake users probably haven't noticed a major problem because of the way TVA uses its network of dams to help control lake levels and river flow. TVA-managed reservoirs are lowered in the winter to create storage space for spring floods. Soaking rains are needed to refill reservoirs in the spring, Kerr said. "We began limiting stream flow and trying to preserve our water back in February," he said. "Since the new reservoir operations plan was adopted in 2004, many of our reservoirs also are being maintained at higher levels than they used to be during the winter months." Limiting stream flow forced TVA to activate the cooling towers at its Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant in late March to meet environmental limits on how much water in the river may be used and heated for plant operations. When stream flow is reduced, the plant is more apt to raise the river temperature above allowable levels, TVA President Tom Kilgore told the TVA board on March 31. "That water going down the river cools our power plants, and with less rain we won't have as much water this year," Kilgore said. "We've started running the cooling towers at Sequoyah, which in a normal year we might not have to do until the hottest part of the summer." The reduced stream flow also cut TVA's hydroelectric production by 29 percent below normal in the first half of the utility's fiscal year, Kerr said. Hydro power produced at TVA's 29 power-generating dams is the cheapest source of electricity for TVA. When hydro power is reduced, it must be made up by using more expensive coal, gas or nuclear power production, Kilgore said. TVA supplies electricity to 8.5 million consumers in Tennessee and parts of Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Georgia, Virginia and North Carolina. The agency also has an economic development component and resource management, flood control, recreation and navigation responsibilities for the 652-mile Tennessee River system. © 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel ***************************************************************** 30 NRC: Note to Editors: Clarification of April 7th NRC News Release Announcing Special Inspection at Hatch Nuclear Plant News Release - Region II - 2006-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II No. II-06-017 April 10, 2006 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov announcing a special inspection at the Hatch nuclear power plant, operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Company near Baxley, Ga., to assess the circumstances surrounding an unplanned reactor shutdown at Hatch Unit 2 on April 5. This news release clarifies some information in that earlier news release. In the April 7th news release, certain information regarding main turbine "testing" and the operation of "some automatic equipment" was discussed, including that "some automatic equipment had not been repaired after the last refueling outage." The NRC currently believes that there was only one piece of equipment involved and that it was repaired during the refueling outage, but failed sometime after that outage. Also, that NRC release stated that the shutdown was initiated by a maintenance error during "testing" on the Unit 2 turbine generator. The maintenance error actually occurred during calibration of a generator recording instrument. The special inspection team will develop a more precise understanding of all the issues involved as a part of its efforts. The two inspectors involved in the special inspection are the NRC Senior Resident Inspector at the Hatch plant and a Senior Resident Inspector from another plant. The two inspectors are expected to complete their on-site review this week and the results of the inspection will be issued within 45 days of its completion. Last revised Tuesday, April 11, 2006 ***************************************************************** 31 SA News24: 443 nuclear reactors worldwide 11/04/2006 16:57 - (SA) Vienna - There are nearly 450 nuclear reactors operating worldwide, the Austrian Ecology Institute said on Tuesday. Manager of the institute Antonia Wenisch said another 27 nuclear reactors were under construction. The institute was quoting figures from the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Of the 443 nuclear reactors in the world, 205 are in Europe, including Russia. There are 148 nuclear reactors in the 25-nation European Union. The average age of the world's reactors is 22 years. There are 122 reactor blocks in the United States and Canada, six in South America, 108 in Asia and two in Africa. The overall production of world's reactors is 369 gigaWatts. In 11 of the EU states - Austria, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Malta, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Ireland, Denmark and Greece there are no nuclear power plants. Of the 14 EU states with nuclear reactors, France is at the top with 59 currently in operation. EU candidates also use atomic energy Britain operates 23 nuclear reactors, Germany 17, Sweden 10, Spain has nine, Belgium seven, Slovakia and the Czech Republic have six each, and Hungary and Finland have four each. Lithuania, the Netherlands and Slovenia each have one nuclear reactor in operation. EU candidates Bulgaria (with four reactors) and Romania (with one) also generate a large part of their electricity with nuclear power. EU candidate Croatia does not use atomic energy. Non-EU member Switzerland has five nuclear reactors currently in operation. France generates 78.1% of its electricity from nuclear power. Lithuanian nuclear power generates 72.1% of its electricity. Nuclear power generates 55.2% of electricity in Slovakia, and 55.1% in Belgium. China uses atomic energy to generate 2.2% of its electricity requirements. News24 feed | ***************************************************************** 32 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at Farley Nuclear Plant News Release - Region II - 2006-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II No. II-06-018 April 11, 2006 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: April 18, to discuss the agencys assessment of safety performance last year at the Farley nuclear power plant, located near Dothan in southern Alabama. The meeting, which is open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 5:00 p.m. in the Houston County Administration Building in Dothan. The NRC staff will present the results of the assessment and be available to respond to questions or comments from the public before the close of the meeting. The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Farley plant and the nations other commercial nuclear power facilities, NRC Region II Administrator William Travers said. This meeting is a chance for us to discuss that safety performance with the company, with local officials and with people living near the plant. A letter sent from the NRC Region II Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/far_2005q4.pdf [PDF Icon] . The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start with green and then increase to white, yellow or red, depending on the safety significance of the issues involved. The NRC said the Farley plant operated safely during 2005 with all inspection findings being green, or very low safety significance, and all performance indicators also indicating performance at levels requiring no additional NRC oversight. As a result, the NRC plans to conduct only routine baseline inspections at the plant for the rest of 2006. The NRC staff will also conduct several non-routine inspections, including the independent spent fuel storage installation, containment sump blockage and initial reactor operator licensing exams. Routine inspections are performed by NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by specialists from the Region II Office in Atlanta, and the agencys headquarters in Rockville, Md. Current information for the Farley plant is available on the NRC web site at: www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/FAR1/far1_chart.html and www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/FAR2/far2_chart.html. Last revised Tuesday, April 11, 2006 ***************************************************************** 33 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at Robinson Nuclear Plant News Release - Region II - 2006-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II No. II-06-019 April 11, 2006 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov the agencys assessment of safety performance last year at the Robinson nuclear power plant, located near Hartsville, S.C. The meeting, which is open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m. in the Hartsville Memorial Library, 147 West College Avenue in Hartsville. The NRC staff will present the results of the assessment and be available to respond to questions or comments from the public before the close of the meeting. The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Robinson plant and the nations other commercial nuclear power facilities, NRC Region II Administrator William Travers said. This meeting is a chance for us to discuss that safety performance with the company, with local officials and with people living near the plant. A letter sent from the NRC Region II Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/rob_2005q4.pdf [PDF Icon] . The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start with green and then increase to white, yellow or red, depending on the safety significance of the issues involved. The NRC said the Robinson plant operated safely during 2005 with all inspection findings being green, or very low safety significance, and all performance indicators also indicating performance at levels requiring no additional NRC oversight. As a result, the NRC plans to conduct only routine baseline inspections at the plant for the rest of 2006. The NRC staff will also conduct several non-routine inspections, including the independent spent fuel storage installations and the containment sump. Routine inspections are performed by NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by specialists from the Region II Office in Atlanta, and the agencys headquarters in Rockville, Md. Current information for the Robinson plant is available on the NRC web site at: www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/ROB2/rob2_chart.html. Last revised Tuesday, April 11, 2006 ***************************************************************** 34 GoUpstate.com: Environmentalists oppose nuclear power generation but also battle alternatives Spartanburg, S.C. Published April 11, 2006 Article Options " Comment on this A pair of environmental groups have announced their intention to oppose a planned nuclear power plant in Cherokee County. A spokeswoman for one of the groups, Women's Action for New Directions, proclaimed that the Upstate doesn't need a nuclear power plant, that there are "better alternatives." But environmental activists oppose the alternatives as well. Should we build an oil-fired power plant? No. That would increase our dependence on Middle East oil and release the gases that lead to global warming. Should we build a coal-fired power plant? No. They cause acid rain and global warming. How about hydroelectric power? No. Those dams disrupt the environment and ruin the natural ecosystems of rivers. Maybe wind generation? No. Environmentalists are opposing a wind farm made up of many windmills at sea off Nantucket in Massachusetts because the windmills would ruin the view in the area and disrupt the environment. Hard-core environmental activists routinely oppose any attempt to generate power, yet they like to live in well-lighted homes with air conditioning, refrigeration and televisions. Nuclear power is one of the cleanest and safest forms of energy we can use. We have a history of safely running commercial nuclear power plants in this country. The anti-nuke activists will deny this. "Remember Three Mile Island" is their rallying cry. It is important to note that Three Mile Island is this country's most serious nuclear accident, yet it did not kill or injure anyone or result in any measurable environmental damage. The groups that announced their opposition to the Cherokee plant cited the accident at Chernobyl, but that is irrelevant. The Chernobyl accident involved a Soviet plant that was not designed, built, maintained or operated according to U.S. standards. The only genuine issue surrounding nuclear power is the disposal of spent fuel. Environmentalists worsen this problem when they oppose the facility designed to handle this need at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The Upstate will need additional plants to generate the electricity it will demand in the future. Nuclear power has worked well for this region over the past several decades. There is no reason we should rule out nuclear power for the next several decades. ©2006 Spartanburg Herald-Journal | Staff directory ***************************************************************** 35 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at North Anna Nuclear Plant News Release - Region II - 2006-02 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II No. II-06-020 April 11, 2006 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: agencys assessment of safety performance last year at the North Anna nuclear power plant, located near Mineral in central Virginia. The meeting, which is open to the public, is scheduled for 1:00 p.m. in the North Anna Nuclear Information Center at the plant site. The NRC staff will present the results of the assessment and be available to respond to questions or comments from the public before the close of the meeting. The NRC continually reviews the performance of the North Anna plant and the nations other commercial nuclear power facilities, NRC Region II Administrator William Travers said. This meeting is a chance for us to discuss that safety performance with the company, with local officials and with people living near the plant. A letter sent from the NRC Region II Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/na_2005q4.pdf [PDF Icon] . The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start with green and then increase to white, yellow or red, depending on the safety significance of the issues involved. The NRC said the North Anna plant operated safely during 2005 with all inspection findings being green, or very low safety significance, and all performance indicators also indicating performance at levels requiring no additional NRC oversight. As a result, the NRC plans to conduct only routine baseline inspections at the plant for the rest of 2006. The NRC staff will also conduct several non-routine inspections, including the independent spent fuel storage facility and the containment sump for both units. Routine inspections are performed by NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by specialists from the Region II Office in Atlanta, and the agencys headquarters in Rockville, Md. Current information for the North Anna plant is available on the NRC web site at: www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/NA1/na1_chart.html and www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/NA2/na2_chart.html. Last revised Tuesday, April 11, 2006 ***************************************************************** 36 Sofia Echo: NPP CLOSURE RESULTS IN FINANCIAL LOSS FOR BULGARIA Tue 11 Apr 2006 The closure of two Kozlodui nuclear power plant reactors will lead to a loss of more than 1.6 billion euro for Bulgaria’s energy sector. Additional sums varying between 250 and 750 million euro will be lost due to the inability of Bulgaria to trade larger energy volumes, Economy Minister Roumen Ovcharov said yesterday. After January 1 2007, the Kozlodui exploitation expenditure will reach 590 million euro, an expert analysis shows. The power plant has to invest more than 600 million euro in other projects, Darik radio reported. The closure of blocks will lead to increases in the price of electricity, Ovcharov said. Higher electricity prices will also affect inflation levels through the expected increase in the prices of other goods and services. According to government analysis household incomes will decrease due to the expensive electricity, bringing consumption down. Comments by - 21:21 11 Apr 2006 "NPP CLOSURE FINANCIAL LOSS"... I am surprised that anybody - even journalists - still believe this propaganda trick. Kozloduy blocks 3 and 4 need to close. Bulgaria knows this already for 10 years. It has prepared itself for it - and quite well: it created so much replacement power that it could export large quantities last years. The capacity is already replaced! Yes - if i would have 10 kg of gold, and i could sell it, i would be rich. You know what? I don't *have* 10 kg of gold - so i will earn less? Bulgaria does not have Kozloduy 3 and 4 next year. These are dangerous blocks - the country took an extra risk to keep them open until EU entry. There it stops. Ovcharov should finally stop whining and start working on a real energy policy: energy efficiency and the fast development of renewables - that is the only solution to prepare Bulgaria for an energy secure and safe future with economic growth. 2001-2006, Sofia Echo Media Ltd. www.sofiaecho.com. Sofia Echo Media cannot be held responsible ***************************************************************** 37 Brattleboro Reformer: Protesters leave effigies at VY plant By CATE LECUYER, Reformer Staff Tuesday, April 11 BRATTLEBORO -- As the sun began to radiate across the early morning sky, six women stole across the frost-covered ground with stuffed effigies of themselves. They quickly leaned the life-sized dolls against a "Welcome to Vermont Yankee" sign at the entrance of the nuclear power plant in Vernon. The women left the figures in their stead, and the effigies came with their own signs, reading "I'm not staying! I don't want more radiation!" And all the while, a lone security guard watched from the gate as the women piled back into their vehicles. He never approached them, asked who they were or what they were doing. "We did it," they whispered to each other. The women, a group of veteran protesters, then drove toward the Vermont Yankee headquarters in Brattleboro, to tie a symbolic paper chain across the doors there. Protesting the reactor was nothing new for this group from Massachusetts who have been involved, and arrested, in plenty of past demonstrations. They are one of six affinity groups through the Citizens Awareness Network, a grassroots environmental organization working to end the use of nuclear power in the Northeast. Executive Director Deb Katz said as far as she knows, this is the first time protesters have ventured onto actual plant property post 9/11. Vernon Police Chief Kevin Turnley said he could not comment on if their action at the plant was a breach of security, and is still studying if there will be any legal recourse against the group. Vermont Yankee spokesman Rob Williams said he would not comment on the demonstration at the plant, or on how security guards did -- or did not -- respond. "It's not a part of our focus and it's considered a police matter," he said. There is a regular security officer at the gate, he said, but would not explain if there is any protocol in place for trespassing. Turnley said the effigies were removed by Vermont Yankee around 8 a.m., about an hour after the protesters put them there. Although the protesters were not approached at the power plant, they were later arrested by the Brattleboro Police Department for trespassing on the Entergy headquarters on Old Ferry Road. They were: Hattie Nestel, 67, of Athol; Frances Crowe, 87, of Northampton; Paki Weiland, 62, of Northampton; Marcia Gagliardi, 58, of Athol; Claire Chang, 49, of Gill; and Dorthee (her full legal name), 77, of Wendell. Monday marked the seventh protest against the operation of the plant. Entergy Nuclear, plant owners, have recently won permission to boost the reactor's power by 20 percent. Owners are also seeking a 20-year license extension for the 34-year-old plant. In response to both of those developments, anti-nuclear demonstrations have picked up since last fall. The monthly protests have drawn crowds of more than 100, and in the past Brattleboro Police Chief John Martin has expressed concerns about deploying officers, saying it takes resources away from where they're really needed. So far, Windham County State's Attorney Dan Davis has dropped all charges against every set of protesters arrested at the plant's headquarters since last fall. Two officers arrived at the Old Ferry Road site on Monday. The mood was mostly light as Lt. Chuck Aleck took the women into custody. Police had a brief dialogue with the protesters about whether their action was for the public good, or if it was just a public expense. "Hopefully nobody is in a fire or an accident and they die because we're here," Lt. Aleck told them. The demonstrators insisted they needed to come out Monday to send a message about the harm nuclear power could cause. They wrapped a colorful chain made of pink and blue construction paper around the main door inside the vestibule, forcing employees coming into work to use another entrance. The chains were labeled with alternatives to nuclear power, like renewable energy and wind power. "It will be closed. It may not be closed today, but it will be closed," Weiland said. Cate Lecuyer can be reached at or (802) 254-2311, ext. 271. (802) 254-2311 62 Black Mountain Road Brattleboro, VT 05301-9242 ***************************************************************** 38 Slovak news: Reconstruction of V2 power station to cost Sk9.9 billion Volume 12, Number 14 April 10 - April 16, 2006 THE RECONSTRUCTION of the V2 reactor block of the Jaslovské Bohunice nuclear power station in will cost Sk9.9 billion (€264 million). The work began three years ago and should be completed in 2008, Rastislav Petrech, spokesman for the Slovenské elektrárne (SE) energy utility, told the SITA news agency. "The goal of the V2 reconstruction is to secure a high level of nuclear safety and operational reliability of the reactors in accordance with current international standards," said Petrech. "The reconstruction will help increase the output of the V2 reactors and extend the lifespan of the power station." One of the main aspects of the V2 reconstruction is the modernization of safety and control systems. "About 28 percent of SE's total costs will go towards this project," Petrech said. Compiled by Martina Jurinová from press reports The Slovak Spectator cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information presented in its Flash News postings. [4/11/2006 10:10:54 AM] Copyright © 1998-2003 The Rock spol. s r.o. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 39 Hamilton Spectator: Energy users want coal plants to stay By Steve Erwin The Hamilton Spectator TORONTO (Apr 11, 2006) A lobby group for Ontario's biggest energy users warns electricity rates will soar and hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost over the next two decades unless the province backs off its pledge to close the province's coal-fired power plants. The Association of Major Power Consumers of Ontario released a study suggesting Ontario would have 100,000 more jobs every year from 2010 to 2025 if coal plants that produce relatively cheap power were kept open. The report also suggests under current government policies, Ontario's real gross domestic product would drop by about $16 billion a year and electricity rates would increase 25 per cent annually. The increases would come as cheap coal power is replaced by more expensive fuels, such as natural gas, and a reliance on more electricity imports from the United States before any new nuclear reactors come online in Ontario. Northern Ontario would face the brunt of job losses at pulp mills, mines and chemicals operations, AMPCO president Adam White said of the Liberals' promise to close the last of Ontario's four remaining coal plants -- often blamed for much of the province's air pollution -- in 2009. He said those job losses would have a spinoff effect in southern Ontario. "All of those industries -- where do you think they buy their office supplies, and their financial services, and where do their legal fees go? All here in southern Ontario," he said after a speech to the Toronto Board of Trade. "We're all connected. So a job loss in the north is a job loss here as well." Reliable access to a lot of affordable electricity is also a key requirement for larger employers like Dofasco Inc., a member of AMPCO. "We have no bias for any one source of power, the key for us is to ensure Ontario remains a competitive place to do business," said company spokesman Gord Forstner. "Electricity is a key part of that and Ontario has lost its competitive position in electricity cost." The large base load of power, at competitive prices, demanded by companies like Dofasco simply can't be produced by alternative sources like wind or solar generation, Forstner said. That leaves only hydro, nuclear and coal-fired plants. "The reality is that Ontario still has an industrial and manufacturing economy and electricity is a key part of that," he said. AMPCO ordered its study to get a sense of what Ontario's current energy policies will cost under a December report by the Ontario Power Authority, which called for billions of dollars in investments, much of it in nuclear power, to increase the province's supply base. Ontario Energy Minister Donna Cansfield said she hadn't yet read the findings but said the government's commitment to close the coal plants remains firm. Cansfield also said from what she has heard from proponents of clean coal technology, it's "a long way away" from being proved to be a viable environmentally friendly alternative. The OPA recommendations call for the government to spend some $40 billion building or replacing up to 12,400 megawatts of nuclear capacity and steer away from natural gas plants given the high cost of the commodity. With files from The Hamilton Spectator ***************************************************************** 40 THERECORD.COM: Reject nuclear energy JENNIFER GOULD-MACKENZIE (Apr 11, 2006) I agree with The Record's April 7 editorial, Time To Start Energy Debate, but unfortunately, the Dalton McGuinty government is more interested in ramming through a $40 billion nuclear construction program to appease their friends in the nuclear industry than rationally discussing how we power the province. We're missing a great opportunity. It's a new millennium, and there are all kinds of new ways to produce power. Instead of rebuilding our big, centralized, polluting and nuclear-dependent electricity system from the 1970s, we should build an energy system that looks and acts more like the Internet -- built on smaller decentralized sources of power. The technology exists: solar hot water systems on our roofs to warm our water, solar panels and wind mills to create electricity, locally based district heating systems to generate electricity and heat for our neighbourhoods. Also required are strong government-enforced efficiency standards for buildings to lower overall energy demand. I think this is an energy vision worth fighting for, but sadly, all of the mentioned energy options are either absent or given short shrift by the McGuinty government's nuclear plans. Ontarians and not nuclear lobbyists should decide our energy future. Jennifer Gould-MacKenzie Toronto 160 King St. East, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4E5 519-894-2231 ***************************************************************** 41 TheStar.com: Coal plant dispute heats up Tue. Apr. 11, 2006. | Updated at 05:49 PM Power users warn of high costs Environmentalists call threats phony TYLER HAMILTONBUSINESS REPORTER A lobby group representing the biggest electricity consumers in Ontario warned yesterday of skyrocketing power rates and massive job loss over the next 20 years if the province shuts down all coal-fired plants as planned. But the message was branded a "phony threat" by one environmental group, which said large industrial power users would do better improving operating efficiencies than lobbying for cheap, dirty power that doesn't reflect health costs. It's a war of words that promises to get more intense as the province sorts out its energy future. Later this week, the energy ministry is expected to respond to a recent report from the Ontario Power Authority recommending that billions of dollars be invested in nuclear and renewable power to offset the closing of coal plants. Tomorrow, the Ontario Energy Board will announce higher electricity rates that residential power users will begin paying on May 1. Rising electricity costs and the trend toward more expensive power generation are signs that Ontario is losing its competitive edge, according to a study released yesterday by the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario. By abandoning cheap coal power and substituting it with more expensive imports and pricier alternatives such as natural gas and renewables, the province will see a $16 billion drop in real gross domestic product and can expect to see annual employment drop by as much as 100,000 by 2025, the study predicted. Association president Adam White said energy-intensive industries, including pulp and paper, chemical, steel and cement manufacturers that are scattered across northern Ontario, would be the hardest hit, but the impact would send ripples across the province in the form of lost investment and confidence. "All of those industries — where do you think they buy their office supplies, and their financial services, and where do their legal fees go? All here in southern Ontario," White said after his speech at the Toronto Board of Trade, where he presented the results of the study. "We're all connected. So a job loss in the north is a job loss here as well." The association, which attacks the Ontario Power Authority plan, urged the government to instead invest in technologies that reduce emissions and improve the efficiency of coal plants, echoing recommendations by the Power Workers' Union. Jan Carr, chief executive officer of the power authority, said there's no doubt energy prices are set to rise — as they are in other regions — but added there's no telling how the cost of each form of generation will influence that rise over the next 20 years. "The things that are expensive to build (such as a nuclear plant) tend to be cheaper to operate, and the things that are cheap to build (such as a coal plant) tend to be expensive to operate. The way these things weave together over time and the way they're factored and brought into weight is quite a complex process," Carr said. "It seems to me there's too little real information available to make the kind of projections they put out there." Carr added the industry group is "paddling upstream" in the face of public opposition to coal plants. Their crisis isn't immediate. The energy ministry announced in February that it would extend by three years the price cap on power used by 55,000 of the largest industrial and commercial electricity customers in the province. Jack Gibbons, chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, said continuing to subsidize industry in this way leads to wasteful electricity consumption and higher bills for everyone in the long run. "It's an unsustainable handout that doesn't address the real problem," said Gibbons, adding that predictions of a plunging economy are overblown. "The industry always makes these threats and they're usually phony." Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All ***************************************************************** 42 Chicago Sun-Times: Latest leak sparks call to close down nuclear plant April 11, 2006 BY CINDY WOJDYLA CAIN Herald News Will County Board Chairman Jim Moustis said Monday that Exelon should shut down its Braidwood Generating Station if it can't operate the power plant safely. Moustis was reacting to reports that more radioactive tritium escaped from the far southwest suburban nuclear power station on Thursday, this time in the form of a steam cloud. "I'm becoming more and more concerned," said Moustis, a Republican from Frankfort. "How many of these [tritium releases] have happened that we're totally unaware of? These plants absolutely have to operate safely. ... If Exelon can't do this safely, then shut it down." Moustis urged Congress and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to take a closer look at the plant, which has been under scrutiny since it was revealed earlier this year that tritium leaked onto private property. The leaks occurred in pipelines that were supposed to carry tritium, a byproduct of nuclear power generation, to the Kankakee River. State officials have filed suit, and the Legislature has approved a bill that would require better disclosure of such incidents in the future. Craig Nesbit, a spokesman for Exelon, said total closure of the Braidwood facility, which provides power for millions of customers, is unwarranted. "Braidwood is recognized within the industry for its safe operations," he said. There is no evidence that anyone's health or safety has been impacted because of the tritium releases, Nesbit added. Exelon has tested all of the wells in the region, and only one showed an elevated tritium level, which still was below federal limits, he said. 'Distorted view' of tritium A person would have to drink four gallons of that water to equal the amount of radiation found in one glass of orange juice, he explained. Foods that contain potassium also contain low levels of radiation. "People have gotten a somewhat distorted view of what tritium is," Nesbit said. Nesbit said the Braidwood plant is allowed to create tritium and dispose of it in the environment. What the company is not supposed to do is release tritium-laced water onto private property surrounding the plant, and that is why Exelon is admitting fault in those spills, Nesbit said. Sun-Times News Group Copyright 2006, Digital Chicago Inc. ***************************************************************** 43 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at Surry Nuclear Plant News Release - Region II - 2006-02 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II No. II-06-021 April 11, 2006 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: agencys assessment of safety performance last year at the Surry nuclear power plant, located near Surry in southeastern Virginia. The meeting, which is open to the public, is scheduled for 11:00 a.m. in the Surry Government Center, 45 School Street in Surry. The NRC staff will present the results of the assessment and be available to respond to questions or comments from the public before the close of the meeting. The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Surry plant and the nations other commercial nuclear power facilities, NRC Region II Administrator William Travers said. This meeting is a chance for us to discuss that safety performance with the company, with local officials and with people living near the plant. A letter sent from the NRC Region II Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/sur_2005q4.pdf [PDF Icon] . The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start with green and then increase to white, yellow or red, depending on the safety significance of the issues involved. The NRC said the Surry plant operated safely during 2005 with all inspection findings being green, or of very low safety significance, and all performance indicators also indicating performance at levels requiring no additional NRC oversight. As a result, the NRC plans to conduct only routine baseline inspections at the plant for the rest of 2006. The NRC staff will also conduct several non-routine inspections, including the independent spent fuel storage facility and the containment sump for Unit 2. Routine inspections are performed by NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by specialists from the Region II Office in Atlanta, and the agencys headquarters in Rockville, Md. Current information for the Surry plant is available on the NRC web site at: www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/SUR1/sur1_chart.html and www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/SUR2/sur2_chart.html. Last revised Tuesday, April 11, 2006 ***************************************************************** 44 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding FR Doc E6-5213 [Federal Register: April 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 69)] [Notices] [Page 18364] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11ap06-135] [[Page 18364]] of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for Gibraltar Laboratories, Inc.'s Facility in Fairfield, NJ AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Courtemanche, Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406, telephone (610) 337-5075, fax (610) 337-5269; or by e-mail: src@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Gibraltar Laboratories, Inc., for Materials License No. 29-30516-01, to authorize release of its facility in Fairfield, New Jersey for unrestricted use and terminate the license. NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the publication of this Notice. II. EA Summary The purpose of the proposed action is to authorize the release of the licensee's Fairfield, New Jersey facility for unrestricted use and terminate the license. Gibraltar Laboratories, Inc., was authorized by NRC from 1999 to use radioactive materials for research and development purposes at the site. On August 27, 2003, Gibraltar Laboratories, Inc., requested that NRC release the facility for unrestricted use. This licensing action was voided because insufficient information was provided by Gibraltar Laboratories, Inc., to allow for the release of the facility for unrestricted use. On October 11, 2005, Gibraltar Laboratories, Inc., provided the additional information requested on August 27, 2003. Gibraltar Laboratories, Inc., has conducted surveys of the facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the site meets the license termination criteria in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release. The NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of the license amendment. The facility was remediated and surveyed prior to the licensee requesting the license amendment. The NRC staff has reviewed the information and final status survey submitted by Gibraltar Laboratories, Inc. Based on its review, the staff has determined that there are no additional remediation activities necessary to complete the proposed action. Therefore, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the facility and concluded that since the residual radioactivity meets the requirements in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20, a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The staff has prepared the EA (summarized above) in support of the license amendment to terminate the license and release the facility for unrestricted use. The NRC staff has evaluated Gibraltar Laboratories, Inc.'s request and the results of the surveys and has concluded that the completed action complies with the criteria in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20. The staff has found that the radiological environmental impacts from the action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by NUREG- 1496, Volumes 1-3, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC- Licensed Facilities'' (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). Additionally, no non-radiological or cumulative impacts were identified. On the basis of the EA, the NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. IV. 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 ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this Notice are: Environmental Assessment [ML060830021]; Initial request for termination of license with survey results for Gibraltar Laboratories, Inc., 122 Fairfield Road, Fairfield, New Jersey, dated August 27, 2003 [ML032461491]; Request for Additional Information (RAI) dated September 11, 2003 [ML032541251]; Gibraltar Laboratories, Inc.'s response dated November 13, 2003 [ML033370153]; Facsimile from Gibraltar Laboratories, Inc., received November 14, 2003, with additional information concerning survey instruments [ML033380939]; Voidance of Licensing Action by U.S. NRC pending submission of required information [ML033240028]; and Final Status Survey Results for Gibraltar Laboratories, Inc., 122 Fairfield Road, Fairfield, New Jersey, dated October 11, 2005 [ML052940339]. 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 (800) 397- 4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Documents related to operations conducted under this license 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 at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, this 28th day of March, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Region I. [FR Doc. E6-5213 Filed 4-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 45 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding FR Doc E6-5214 [Federal Register: April 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 69)] [Notices] [Page 18365-18366] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11ap06-137] of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for Neose Technology, Inc's Facility in Horsham, PA AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Hammann, Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406, telephone (610) 337-5399, fax (610) 337-5269; or by e-mail: sth2@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Neose Technology, Inc. for Materials License No. 37-28751-01, to authorize release of its facility in Horsham, Pennsylvania for unrestricted use. NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the publication of this Notice. II. EA Summary The purpose of the proposed action is to authorize the release of the licensee's Horsham, Pennsylvania facility for unrestricted use. Neose Technology, Inc. was authorized by NRC from 1992 to use radioactive materials for research and development purposes at the site. On August 1, 2005, Neose Technology, Inc. requested that NRC release the facility for unrestricted use. Neose Technology, Inc. has conducted surveys of the facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the site meets the license termination criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release. The NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of the license amendment. The facility was remediated and surveyed prior to the licensee requesting the license amendment. The NRC staff has reviewed the information and final status survey submitted by Neose Technology, Inc. Based on its review, the staff has determined that there are no additional remediation activities [[Page 18366]] necessary to complete the proposed action. Therefore, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the facility and concluded that since the residual radioactivity meets the requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20, a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The staff has prepared the EA (summarized above) in support of the license amendment to release the facility for unrestricted use. The NRC staff has evaluated Neose Technology, Inc.'s request and the results of the surveys and has concluded that the completed action complies with the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR part 20. The staff has found that the radiological environmental impacts from the action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by NUREG-1496, Volumes 1-3, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Facilities'' (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). Additionally, no non- radiological or cumulative impacts were identified. On the basis of the EA, the NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. IV. 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 ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this Notice are: Environmental Assessment [ML060830161]; Final Status Survey Results for Neose Technologies, Inc., 102 Witmer Road, Horsham, Pennsylvania [ML052590494]; and Response from Neose Technologies, Inc. dated October 27, 2005 [ML053120105]. 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 (800) 397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Documents related to operations conducted under this license 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 at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 28th day of March, 2006. For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. [FR Doc. E6-5214 Filed 4-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 46 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding FR Doc E6-5257 [Federal Register: April 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 69)] [Notices] [Page 18364-18365] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11ap06-136] of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for Multipixel Systems, Inc.'s Facility in Ramsey, NJ AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Hammann, Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406, telephone (610) 337-5399, fax (610) 337-5269; or by e-mail: sth2@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [[Page 18365]] I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Multipixel Systems, Inc. for Materials License No. 45-25288-01, to authorize release of its facility in Ramsey, New Jersey for unrestricted use. NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the publication of this Notice. II. EA Summary The purpose of the proposed action is to authorize the release of the licensee's Ramsey, New Jersey facility for unrestricted use. Multipixel Systems, Inc. was authorized by NRC from 1999 to use radioactive materials for research and development and instrument calibration purposes at the site. On November 23, 2005, Multipixel Systems, Inc. requested that NRC release the facility for unrestricted use. Multipixel Systems, Inc. has conducted surveys of the facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the site meets the license termination criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release. The NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of the license amendment. The facility was remediated and surveyed prior to the licensee requesting the license amendment. The NRC staff has reviewed the information and final status survey submitted by Multipixel Systems, Inc. Based on its review, the staff has determined that there are no additional remediation activities necessary to complete the proposed action. Therefore, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the facility and concluded that since the residual radioactivity meets the requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20, a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The staff has prepared the EA (summarized above) in support of the license amendment to release the facility for unrestricted use. The NRC staff has evaluated Multipixel Systems, Inc.'s request and the results of the surveys and has concluded that the completed action complies with the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has found that the radiological environmental impacts from the action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by NUREG-1496, Volumes 1-3, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Facilities'' (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). Additionally, no non- radiological or cumulative impacts were identified. On the basis of the EA, the NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. IV. 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 ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this Notice are: Environmental Assessment ML060860071; Letter dated August 23, 2004 [ML042470096]; Amendment Request Letter dated November 23, 2005 [ML053460312]; Phone Log dated December 19, 2005 [ML060240513]; and Additional Information Letter dated January 12, 2006 [ML060240285]. 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 (800) 397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Documents related to operations conducted under this license 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 at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 28th day of March, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. [FR Doc. E6-5257 Filed 4-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 47 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: FR Doc E6-5260 [Federal Register: April 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 69)] [Notices] [Page 18361-18362] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11ap06-131] Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted: 1. The title of the information collection: 10 CFR part 150, ``Exemptions and Continued Regulatory Authority in Agreement States and in Offshore Waters under Section 274'' 2. Current OMB approval number: 3150-0032. 3. How often the collection is required: 10 CFR 150.16(b), 150.17(c), and 150.19(c) require the submission of reports following specified events, such as the theft or unlawful diversion of licensed radioactive material. The source material inventory reports required under 10 CFR 150.17(b) must be submitted annually by certain licensees. 4. Who is required or asked to report: Agreement State licensees authorized to possess source or special nuclear material at certain types of facilities, or at any one time and location in greater than specified amounts. In addition, persons engaging in activities in non- Agreement States, in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction within Agreement States, or in offshore waters. 5. The estimated number of annual respondents: 10. 6. The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request: 35 hours. 7. Abstract: 10 CFR part 150 provides certain exemptions from NRC regulations for persons in Agreement States. Part 150 also defines activities in Agreement States and in offshore waters over which NRC regulatory authority continues, including certain information collection requirements. The information is needed to permit NRC to make reports to other governments and the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with international agreements. The information is also used to carry out NRC's safeguards and inspection programs. Submit, by June 12, 2006, 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 [[Page 18362]] at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html. The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda Jo. Shelton, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, T-5 F53, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by Internet electronic mail to infocollects@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of April 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E6-5260 Filed 4-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 48 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding FR Doc E6-5261 [Federal Register: April 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 69)] [Notices] [Page 18366-18367] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11ap06-138] of No Significant Impact For License Amendment For the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of Availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Hammann, Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406, telephone: (610) 337-5399; fax number: (610) 337- 5269; e-mail: STH2@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of amendments to Material License Nos. 37-03698-01 and SNM-719, issued to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) (the licensee), to authorize release of its Evangelical Press Building, 3rd and Reilly Streets, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for unrestricted use, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this amendment in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the publication of this Notice. II. EA Summary The purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow for the release of the licensee's Harrisburg, Pennsylvania facility for unrestricted use. The PADEP was authorized by the NRC in 1962 to use radioactive materials for instrument calibration, sample preparation, analysis of environmental samples, and measuring the physical properties of materials at the site. On August 19, 2005, the PADEP requested that NRC release the facility for unrestricted use. PADEP has conducted surveys of the facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the site meets the license termination criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release. The staff has prepared an EA in support of the proposed license amendment. The facility was surveyed and remediated as necessary by the licensee. The NRC staff has reviewed the information and final status survey submitted by PADEP. Based on its review, the staff has determined that there are no additional remediation activities necessary to complete the proposed action. Therefore, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the facility and concluded that since the residual radioactivity meets the requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20, a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The staff has prepared an EA in support of the proposed license amendments to release the site for unrestricted use. The staff has found that the radiological environmental impacts from the proposed amendment are bounded by the impacts evaluated by NUREG 1496, Volumes 1-3, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License termination of NRC-Licensed Facilities'' (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). The staff has also found that the non-radiological impacts are not significant. On the basis of the EA, NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed amendment and has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, [[Page 18367]] you can access the NRC''s Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are: Environmental Assessment [ML060820173]; Request for Amendment dated August 19, 2005 [ML060550247]; NRC's request for additional information dated September 28, 2005 [ML052720490]; and Final Status Survey Results dated November 7, 2005 [ML060550248]. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. 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 operations conducted under these licenses 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 at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 23rd day of March, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region 1. [FR Doc. E6-5261 Filed 4-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 49 For Wayne Sentinel: Opening Arguments: Let's get nyookuler Leo Morris April 11, 2006 This country's retreat from nuclear power has been sheer idiocy -- talk about turning our backs on science and letting myopic environmentalists and paper-shuffling bureaucrats combine to hold back our growth and hurt the environment at the same time. Believe it or not, things are looking up, and there's a chance common sense might ultimately prevail. More than a quarter century after the accident at Three Mile Island and two decades after Chernobyl, America's utilities stand at the early edge of what promises to be the first large-scale wave of nuclear plant construction since the 1980's. And the energy companies are finding — especially in the small, struggling Southeastern towns like Gaffney where most of the plants are planned — that memories of those tragedies have faded and that local governments and residents, eager for jobs and tax revenues to replace vanished industries, are embracing them with enthusiasm. Posted by Leo Morris on April 11, 2006 at 06:29 AM | Permalink http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/4641761 The nuclear debate is very near and dear to my heart. I was a Reactor Operator in the USN for six years and then I worked in a civilian nuclear power plant for another couple of years. I got out of nuclear power because I did not think we would EVER build a new nuclear power plant. I still do not believe that we will ever COMPLETE a new nuclear power plant in this country. There are two problems with nuclear power: 1. Excessive and massive regulation. I worked at a nuclear power plant that employed 65-85 people before Three Mile Island. I just talked to one of my friends who works there today. They now employ 650 people and they make the same amount of power today they made before Three Mile Island. The increase in employees is 100% due to government regulations... 2. The Federal Government promised to store all radioactive waste from nuclear power plants in this country. They promised to have a facility in place by 1998. They collected all the taxes needed to build the facility. The facility is Yucca Mountain. The facility is STILL not operating and, in fact, The Department of Energy is now not sure that it will EVER open. Several companies are suing the Federal Government for Breach of Contract for a lot of money. I think they will win these lawsuits and be paid damages... I have NO IDEA why President Bush is offering to throw BILLIONS of tax dollars at building new nuclear power plants. That is NOT what the industry needs. Actually I DO know why President Bush is throwing money at it; he is a LIBERAL on spending issues and he beleives that spending more money is the answer to everything. All we have to do is to streamline the regulations and build the storage facilty for nuclear waste. Mark my words, we will spend billions of dollars on this and accomplish NOTHING... Mike Sylvester Posted by: LP Mike Sylvester | Apr 11, 2006 7:55:34 PM + July 2005  About Fort Wayne News-Sentinel| About the Real ***************************************************************** 50 NRC: Sunshine Act Notice FR Doc 06-3486 [Federal Register: April 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 69)] [Notices] [Page 18370-18371] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11ap06-142] Agency Holding the Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Date: Weeks of 10, 17, 24, May 1, 8, 15, 2006. Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Status: Public and Closed. Matters to be Considered: Week of April 10, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of April 10, 2006. Week of April 17, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of April 17, 2006. Week of April 24, 2006--Tentative Monday, April 24, 2006 2 p.m. Meeting with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) FERC Headquarters, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426 Room 2C (Public Meeting). (Contact: Mike Mayfield, (301) 415-3298.) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address, http://www.ferc.gov . Wednesday, April 26, 2006 1 p.m. Discussion of Management Issues (Closed--ex. 2). Thursday, April 27, 2006 1:30 p.m. Meeting with Department of Energy (DOE) on New Reactor Issues (Public Meeting). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address, http://www.nrc.gov . Week of May 1, 2006--Tentative Tuesday, May 2, 2006 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Status of Emergency Planning Activities--Morning Session (Public Meeting) (Contact: Eric Leeds, (301) 415-2334.) 1 p.m. Briefing on Status of Emergency Planning Activities--Afternoon Session (Public Meeting). These meetings will be webcast live at the Web address, http://www.nrc.gov . Wednesday, May 3, 2006 9 a.m. Briefing on Status of Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Regulation (Public Meeting). (Contact: Eileen McKenna, (301) 415-2189.) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address, http://www.nrc.gov . Week of May 8, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of May 8, 2006. Week of May 15, 2006--Tentative Monday, May 15, 2006 1 p.m. Briefing on Status of Implementation of Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Meeting). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address, http://www.nrc.gov . Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Results of the Agency Action Review Meeting-- Reactors/Materials (Public Meeting). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . * * * * * *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: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415- 1662. * * * * * 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, Deborah Chan, TDD: (301) 415, or by e-mail at DLC@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). [[Page 18371]] In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: April 6, 2006. R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 06-3486 Filed 4-7-06; 12:12 pm] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M ***************************************************************** 51 KRT Wire: NRC and nuclear plant security: Put public safety first | 04/11/2006 | Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service The following editorial appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer on Monday, April 10: Nuclear power plants must be able to repel a small group of terrorists, possibly working with an insider, but security rules don't require them to be ready for a rocket-propelled grenade or a large truck bomb. If attacked by air or a large force, they'll call in government backup, but they don't prepare through drills. Will more Americans have to die before that changes? The nuclear industry claims it has made great strides in security since 9/11, but a House hearing and audit last week found otherwise. The Government Accountability Office concluded that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had identified the right threats to plants but had scaled back security requirements "based on what industry considered reasonable and feasible." The report makes you wonder who the NRC works for - the public or the nuclear plant owners? But this is about much more than that. It's about what the GAO politely calls "an attack that could cause a release of radioactive material and endanger public health and safety through exposure to an elevated level of radiation." Flash back to Three Mile Island, only this time the public's worst nightmare comes true. The nuclear industry and government shouldn't be trying to pass off responsibility over plant security; they should be devising the best way to safeguard Americans - inside and outside the reactor fence. Nuclear plants have invested more than $1 billion in security since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, including barriers and detection equipment, protective strategies, and security guards. In some cases, sites went beyond what the NRC required. The GAO concluded, though, that it was premature to deem all sites safe, because the NRC had inspected only 27, or less than half, of the 65 sites hosting the nation's 103 commercial reactors. While most sites passed both baseline inspections and simulated attacks, the NRC found malfunctioning alarms and other breaches, such as failure to search personnel. The real debate is whether the NRC's standards are adequate to begin with. Industry reportedly complained about the cost and practicality of securing plants against certain threats, such as .50-caliber sniper rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, so the NRC dropped the requirement. The NRC also reduced the size of vehicle bombs that the plants would have to guard against. "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission seems unable to fortify itself against the dangers of an overly cozy relationship with the industry," said Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., who conducted a hearing on nuclear plant security last week. Last April, the National Academies of Science disagreed with the NRC on how to reduce another vulnerability: onsite storage of spent fuel. At a time when more nuclear power seems inevitable to diversify the nation's fuel supply, the NRC cannot be lax in ensuring plant security. ***************************************************************** 52 IEER: Missing Plutonium - Index IEER| Publications Plutonium Discrepancies in the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex Official US Department of Energy records show a discrepancy of weapons plutonium at Los Alamos National Laboratory of at least 300 kilograms - enough to make 60 nuclear bombs. The potential environmental, health and security implications are huge. The documents below chronicle IEER's efforts to get DOE and LANL to account for the discrepancy. IEER report: Weapons Plutonium in Los Alamos Soil and Waste, November 29, 2005 Dangerous Discrepancies: Misplaced Plutonium in the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex? Article that summarizes the IEER report. From SDA vol. 14 no. 1, April 2006 Correspondence with officials: + IEER-SRIC letter to Elizabeth Forinash, US Environmental Protection Agency, March 22, 2006 + IEER letter to Linton Brooks, Administrator of the US National Nuclear Security Administration, December 19, 2005 + Reply from Linton Brooks, NNSA, February 28, 2006 + IEER response to Linton Brooks, NNSA, March 16, 2006 + IEER letter to A.J. Eggenberger, Chairman, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, December 13, 2005 + Reply from DNFSB Chairman Eggenberger, January 30, 2006 + IEER reply, February 8, 2006 + Letter to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board from 27 organizations, January 26, 2006 + IEER letter to Samuel Bodman, Secretary of the U.S. Dept. of Energy, December 13, 2005 + IEER letter to LANL Director Pete Nanos, August 10, 2004 IEER radio commentary, August 2004 DOE's Ever-Changing Estimates of Buried TRU Waste, from SDA vol. 7 no. 2, January 1999 IEER report: Containing the Cold War Mess, October 1997 Guimond-Beckner DOE memo, "Plutonium in Waste Inventories"January 30, 1996 Available at EggheadBooks: Plutonium: Deadly Gold of the Nuclear Age(International Physicians Press, 1992) Institute for Energy and Environmental ResearchComments to Outreach Coordinator: ieer at ieer.org Takoma Park, Maryland, USA Updated April 10, 2006 ***************************************************************** 53 NIRS: New Chernobyl Study Predicts up to 60,000 Excess Cancer Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:19:39 -0700 image0021.jpgNUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340, Takoma Park, MD 20912 301-270-NIRS (301-270-6477); Fax: 301-270-4291 nirsnet@nirs.org; www.nirs.org FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Mary Olson (NIRS SE), 828-975-1828 April 11, 2006 In Germany: see contacts below NEW STUDY CHALLENGES IAEA REPORT ON CHERNOBYL CONSEQUENCES: FINDS DEATH TOLL LIKELY TO BE 30-60,000 A new study being released today in Kiev, Ukraine directly challenges the findings of a widely-criticized International Atomic Energy Agency/World Health Organization report from last September that predicted 4,000 likely cancer deaths as a result of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster. The study was commissioned by Rebecca Harms, a Green Party member of the European Parliament, on behalf of the Greens/EFA in the European Parliament and in conjunction with the April 23-25 Chernobyl+20: Remembrance for the Future conference in Kiev, Ukraine. The study, titled TORCH(The Other Report on Chernobyl) was prepared by two scientists from the United Kingdom, Dr. Ian Fairlie and Dr. David Sumner. Some key findings of The Other Report on Chernobyl (TORCH) (i) include: · Belarus, Ukraine and Russia were heavily contaminated, however more than half of Chernobyls fallout was deposited outside these countries · fallout from Chernobyl contaminated about 40% of Europes surface area · about 2/3rds of Chernobyls collective dose was distributed to populations outside Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, especially to western Europe · about 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths are predicted, 7 to 15 times greater than IAEA/WHOs published estimate of 4,000 Said Rebecca Harms, "We commissioned TORCH to counterbalance claims made by the IAEA in the media last year (ii), which both played down the lethal consequences of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl and failed to make a meaningful analysis of its wider effects on Europe and the world. The much-publicized IAEA estimate of a mere 4000 excess cancer deaths provoked an outcry among the scientific community and environmental NGOs, and was a dishonor to those who have and will suffer as a result of Chernobyl. This is one of a number of underestimates, which TORCH set out to rebut. There must be no mistaking the catastrophic dangers that are still very much associated with nuclear power." Added Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), It is clear that the IAEA/WHO report was a political document, intended to downplay the ongoing consequences of the Chernobyl disaster; presumably for the interests of the nuclear power industry. Even some WHO officials have been quoted recently (for example in the April 6 New Scientist) as agreeing to the points and findings made in the TORCH report. The world simply cannot afford another Chernobyl, nor construction of a single new atomic reactor. The Kiev conference is being organized by a coalition of groups, including NIRS, World Information Service on Energy, Greens/EFA in the European Parliament, Heinrich Boell Foundation, Earth Day Network, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the German Green Party and Ukraines Ecoclub. (iii) It is being held to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster and present arguments as to why the deadly nuclear option must not be considered as an answer to the worlds current energy supply problems. Editors note: (i) TORCH and an executive summary can be found on the homepage of the Greens/EFA website: http://www.greens-efa.org and at the NIRS website http://www.nirs.org/c20/torch.pdf. The report was financed by Rebecca Harms MEP, the Altner-Combecher Foundation and the Hatzfeldt Foundation. (ii) The claim was made following the publication of reports last year: IAEA/WHO 'Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes'. Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group Health(EGH) Working draft, July 26 2005. IAEA/WHO Environmental Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident and their Remediation. Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group Environment(EGE) Working draft, August 2005. (iii) For more information on the conference click on the following link: http://www.ch20.org To contact Greens/EFA in the European Parliament: Richard More O' Ferrall, Press Officer, The Greens/EFA in the European Parliament Tel: Brussels +32 2 2841667 / Strasburg +33 3 88174375 Mobile: +32-477-44-38-42 Fax: 0032 2 2844944 rmoreoferrall@europarl.eu.int Helmut Weixler Head of Press Office phone: 0032-2-284.4683 fax: 0032-2-284.4944 mobile phone: 0032-475-67 13 40 e-mail: hweixler@europarl.eu.int website: www.greens-efa.org --30-- Attachment Converted: image00214.jpg: 00000001,55ec3def,00000000,00000000 ***************************************************************** 54 Independent: Concerns over blast mushroom; Utah lawmaker is worried about fallout from explosion in Nevada April 10, 2006: By Kathy Helms Diné Bureau WINDOW ROCK — U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, who represents members of the Navajo Nation living in Utah, wants assurance that a 700-ton blast planned for June 2 at Nevada Test Site will not disperse radioactive remnants from previous nuclear tests into the atmosphere. Matheson sent a letter Friday to James Tegnelia, director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), laying out a number of concerns. "I would like to know exactly what precautions are being taken," he said. "Specifically, what kind of monitoring system is in place at the demonstration location and how can the downwind public be assured that there is no risk to them?" The Navajo Nation received several calls last week from concerned citizens who had heard about the proposed Nevada Test Site blast. Matheson said though he understands that the June 2 "Divine Strake" test is not a nuclear test, "I am greatly concerned that you have not provided the public with adequate assurances that the test is not being conducted in order to further misguided attempts to build new low-yield nuclear devices. "You are well aware that at 700 tons (595-ton equivalent yield) this demonstration will not simulate an actual conventional bomb because no bomber in the U.S. fleet has the capacity to carry a weapon of this size," he said. Tegnelia previously commented that the June 2 test will be "the first time in Nevada that you'll see a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas since we stopped testing nuclear weapons." Based on publicly available unclassified information, Matheson said the simulation is much smaller than any nuclear weapon the United States currently possesses. "Therefore, in spite of your public assurances reported in the press this week that this test is not part of plans to develop a new nuclear weapon, I remain greatly concerned that DTRA is in fact working to assist in the development of a low-yield nuclear weapon," he told Tegnelia. Congressmen were concerned in 2003 when Congress "mistakenly repealed" the Spratt-Furse ban on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons, Matheson said, because they felt that advocates for repealing the ban were yielding to those who actively support the development of new nuclear weapons. At the time, the Department of Defense and the National Nuclear Security Administration assured Congress that the ban should be repealed because it hindered research efforts and that no actual weapon was being stealthily developed. Bunker Buster? Matheson said another cause for concern is that DTRA recently confirmed that Divine Strake is the Tunnel Target Defeat Advanced Concept and Technology Demonstration specified in the agency's FY2007 budget. He said the budget document states that the demonstration"will develop a planning tool that will improve the warfighter's confidence in selecting the smaller proper nuclear yield necessary to destroy underground facilities while minimizing collateral damage." Matheson said, "That sounds like preparation for a low-yield nuclear weapon to me." The budget document also specifies that funds will be used to conduct a large-scale tunnel defeat demonstration "using high explosives to produce the desired ground shock environment at the Department of Energy's Nevada Test Site." Matheson said, "This begs the question: What is the desired ground shock environment?" He said the budget statements indicate that the demonstration is indeed linked to nuclear arsenal objectives. "Yet in today's Washington Post, a DTRA spokesperson was quoted as saying that 'although DTRA was not disavowing the budget documents, things change. That has changed and the wording got left in' improperly, she said, meaning the references to 'nuclear'," Matheson said. "I find these inconsistencies to be very disturbing and I would like to know what changed and what is currently the specific intent of this project. In my experience, budget documents and the stated intent of planned experiments do not typically change on a whim." Matheson also questioned factors such as wind conditions at the time the blast is supposed to take place. "What is the maximum wind speed under which Divine Strake would be conducted? How far is the large dust cloud expected to travel under that condition?" While Matheson said he has long supported efforts to enhance conventional weaponry rather than nuclear options, he is worried "that this demonstration is publicly being billed as a conventional demonstration when its actual intent is to further the pursuit of a new nuclear weapon." Cold War Part II Atomic tests at Nevada Test Site in the 1950s and 1960s sent up billowing clouds of deadly radioactive fallout that drifted for the next 20 years from the California coast to New England. The clouds passed over the Navajo, Hopi, and Zuni reservations, and many still recall seeing the mushroom cloud on the horizon. Though numerous Navajos have filed for downwinder benefits, few have been compensated. Uranium from the Navajo Nation helped fuel the buildup of America's nuclear arsenal during the Cold War. With the 2005 Energy Policy Act and President Bush's push for nuclear energy development, another group of uranium mining companies are now jockeying for position and profit from Navajo uranium reserves despite the Nation's ban on uranium mining and processing. But the U.S. push for nuclear energy development and the role Navajo Nation land and resources will play in U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici's and Sen. Jeff Bingaman's plans for increased domestic energy production is just one small piece of a global picture. A secret draft on "Energy Security" scheduled to be released in July at the 2006 G8 Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, calls for a new global expansion of nuclear power as well as trillions of dollars in new investment to escalate oil, gas and coal production around the world, according to the human rights group, Reclaim the Commons, which has posted the draft on its Website (http://reclaimthecommons.net). "We are hopeful of a very substantial rebirth of the global nuclear industry," U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said last week after a meeting of the G8 energy ministers in Moscow. The G8 plans to officially release and launch its "Communique on Energy Security" on July 16, the anniversary of the first-ever atomic bomb blast, at the Trinity test site in New Mexico. The push for a "nuclear rebirth" is being led among the G8 countries by the United States and Russia. Other members of the G8 include Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan. Germany, which has pledged to shut down its 19 nuclear power plants and get out of atomic power altogether, attacked the G8 plan. Gallup Independent. ***************************************************************** 55 OneWorld: Native Americans Want 'Bunker Buster' Test Stopped Haider Rizvi OneWorld US News --> Tue., Apr. 11, 2006 UNITED NATIONS, Apr 10 (OneWorld) - Native Americans want U.S. authorities to cancel plans to detonate 700 tons of explosives on what they say is tribal land in Nevada. The planned explosion, scheduled for June 2 some 90 miles from Las Vegas, is aimed at aiding U.S. efforts to develop ''bunker buster'' weapons capable of penetrating solid rock. Officials have suggested the test would constitute the largest non-nuclear, open-air blast in the test site's history. Federal officials have described such efforts as essential to the administration of President George W. Bush's self-styled ''war on terror'' but to leaders of the Shoshone, also known as the Newe people, the planned detonation is just the latest in a decades-long history of experiments at the Nevada Test Site to shake the earth and raise a dust cloud. ''We are opposed to any further military testing on our lands,'' said Raymond Yowell, chief of the Western Shoshone National Council. The site of the latest proposed test sits on the land recognized under the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley as part of the tribe's national territory, Shoshone leaders said, and the U.S. military therefore has no right to use it. The U.S. government disagreed and has asserted its ownership of the land. ''Without going through a lot of detail, the issue of ownership of the land area occupied by the Nevada Test Site, and for that matter very large sections of Nevada and Utah, is very complex (going back to the Ruby Valley Treaty) and in our eyes has been resolved,'' said Kevin Rohrer, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration, which operates the test site. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in 1985 that the Shoshone had been paid in full for the land under the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946 ''and thus the land is property of the United States Government,'' Rohrer said in an email. ''My understanding is that funding has been set aside in a trust account for compensation but there is disagreement among Western Shoshone on whether they should accept the funding,'' he added. Shoshone elders rejected the government's position and last month won a victory in their fight to reclaim territory when the Geneva-based UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) said in a report that Washington's claim to the Western Shoshone land ''did not comply with contemporary human rights norms, principles and standards that govern determination of indigenous property rights.'' Among other things, the panel cited special concern over the existence of nuclear waste dumped on tribal territory without consulting and over the objections of the Western Shoshone people. The 18-member panel also asked Washington to ''freeze, desist and stop'' actions being taken against the Western Shoshone Nation. In the ruling, CERD also cited concern over weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site as well as efforts to build a high-level nuclear waste depository at Yucca Mountain. Tribal elders said Washington's plans to proceed with the June test in the face of the UN panel's findings was a slap in the face of the international and Native American communities. ''This is a direct violation of the CERD's finding and an affront to our religious belief,'' Yowell said. ''Mother Earth is sacred and should not be harmed.'' The U.S. military tested nuclear weapons at the Nevada site from 1951 until 1959. Some analysts have said they believe that even after signing the Limited Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union in 1963, the U.S. continued to conduct underground tests in the area for several years. Scientists have said that exposure to radiation from nuclear testing caused an increased incidence of leukemia and cancer in areas adjacent to the Nevada Test Site. All necessary permits to conduct the test have been obtained from Nevada state agencies, test authorities have said, but there has been no indication that they sought Shoshone approval. The test has been named ''Divine Strake,'' adding to the outrage felt by many Native Americans, who say the test site sits on sacred land. ''It's a mystery why they call it 'divine','' said Carrie Dann, a grandmother and executive director of the Western Shoshone Defense Project. ''Isn't 'divine' used for your deity, God, your sacredness? Why don't they call it 'Hell Strake?''' ''When you are working testing weaponry of destruction of life, you should not associate it with 'divine','' Dann added. ''We want this insanity to stop. No more bombs and no more testing.'' OneWorld.net ***************************************************************** 56 Spectrum: Big blast, big mistake St. George - www.thespectrum.com - The Spectrum, St. George, UT It's not easy to remain calm about the potential for history to repeat itself with the large explosion, code-named "Divine Strake," scheduled to detonate in seven weeks only 150 miles west of St. George at the Nevada Test Site. It is expected to create a dust cloud that could reach an altitude of 10,000 feet. While it may not be seen in Southern Utah, long-term ramifications are feared to be felt without adequate means to control wind shifts of the radioactive particles caught in that dust from earlier nuclear tests. The government contends the 700 ton blast - equivalent to 593 tons of TNT - is for conventional research purposes, but we've been lied to before regarding activities at the test site. We've also heard sudden changes in terminology to soothe concerns, which has once more yielded its ugly head as the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency altered its original nuclear reference in relation to the test to being merely an "improper" use of language. Why does the government deem the population of the western United States so disposable? Thousands of downwinders - who have suffered and died from various cancers and other life-threatening illnesses caused by nuclear fallout from the 1950s and 1960s - can attest to the government's past falsehoods. It is absolutely hypocritical of the U.S. government to initiate a war in Iraq against dictator Saddam Hussein on the basis of the development of weapons of mass destruction, only to create and promulgate low-yield nuclear devices. Experimenting with the lives of civilians in the name of national defense with the simulation of a nuclear arsenal is a travesty and injustice we'd have thought our elected politicians would've learned from by now. But we won't let their memories fade so easily. The message is loud and clear with a resounding: "NO!" We praise Rep. Jim Matheson for being the first to publicly express his skepticism to the government. We add our firm voice of dissent because we, too, have every right to be uncertain. We've been lied to before. Underground testing has leaked, and the pretty hues of orange the school children rushed to the windows from their classrooms to view were anything but colorful drifting clouds. Why should we believe new nuclear weaponry is not be pursued? We dare the government to prove otherwise. Originally published April 11, 2006 Copyright ©2006 The Spectrum. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 57 Spectrum: Others in Congress question test St. George - www.thespectrum.com - The Spectrum, St. George, UT + Delegates from Nevada search for motives of defense threat agency By BRIAN PASSEY ST. GEORGE - Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, is not alone in questioning military officials about the planned blast at the Nevada Test Site on June 2. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., also questioned the Defense Threat Reduction Agency last week. DTRA is the military division that will explode 700 tons of ammonium nitrate-fuel oil 150 miles west of St. George in a blast rivaling that of low-yield nuclear weapons. But according to statements from both officials' offices, many of their concerns were alleviated after visiting with James Tegnelia, director of DTRA. Matheson wrote a letter Friday to Tegnelia with concerns that the blast, code-named "Divine Strake," would lead to development of new nuclear weapons, though Pentagon officials maintain the test is for conventional purposes only. Matheson also voiced concerns for the safety of residents around the test site because the blast is expected to create a plume of dust nearly two miles high. Both Reid and Berkley met with Tegnelia on April 6. Reid's statement said he was "convinced that Divine Strake would be safe." Berkley said she will not seek to block the test but "will keep a close eye on how the public is being prepared and I will demand full answers to any new concerns that may arise." Tegnelia also apologized to both of them, according to their statements, for saying that a mushroom cloud would be visible over Las Vegas for the first time since the end of nuclear weapons testing. DTRA officials said the cloud will not be visible off the site and only the closest residents, in nearby Indian Springs, are expected to feel the explosion. DTRA responds But in Matheson's letter the congressman is slightly more skeptical, probably because he knows firsthand the dangers of blasts at the Nevada Test Site. His late father, former Utah Gov. Scott Matheson, lived in Southern Utah during above-ground atomic testing at the site that lasted from the early 1950s to the early 1960s. The elder Matheson was one of many who lived downwind of the tests and were later diagnosed with cancer, now referred to as Downwinders. The letter seeks further assurances from DTRA that those living downwind will be safe and that the test will not lead to future development of new nuclear weapons. New weapons would only result from renewed nuclear testing, something that Berkley, Matheson and Reid all oppose. Irene Smith, public affairs spokeswoman for DTRA, said Monday that the agency had received Matheson's letter and is planning to respond. "First of all I want to say we are not having a nuclear test," she said. "There are no nuclear ingredients in this bomb." Smith also stood behind an environmental assessment that determined no radioactive material is in the area near the blast's tunnel location. Though the blast will not take place in the tunnel, the explosives will be placed in a shaft 99 feet above it to test how the tunnel will react to a large conventional explosion. Divine Strake is designed to assess the capability of computer codes to predict the conventional force necessary to destroy underground targets. This experiment supports a program originally planned to determine the size of a small-yield nuclear weapon necessary to destroy the target. DTRA officials have since said the parameters have changed and the test is for conventional weapons only. "DTRA has no plans to conduct a nuclear test," Smith said. "Recent advances in high-energy explosives have made the need for nuclear weapons redundant." She said the capabilities of high-energy conventional explosives or the impact of multiple smaller weapons on a single target are among options Divine Strake will test. But even if only conventional weapons are tested, some still fear the impact of the blast could send radioactive particles from earlier tests into the atmosphere. Though the federal government did conduct many below-ground tests until the early 1990s in tunnels on the site, the Divine Strake tunnel was never used for atomic testing. Smith said there is no danger to Las Vegas or surrounding communities because there is no radioactive soil in the vicinity of the testing site. The closest tunnel used for below-ground nuclear testing is 1.5 miles away and Smith said tests have confirmed there is no radioactive leakage from that tunnel. "There's no chance of any radioactive fallout here," she said. Utahns react Utahns have reacted to announcement of the test in a variety of ways. Bruce Church of Hurricane, a retired assistant manager of environment, safety, security and health for the Nevada Test Site, said Matheson is just trying to get his name in the papers and is not really concerned about the tests. "Matheson is just grandstanding," he said. "That's all there is to it." Church said the test site likely is fairly clean now because of decay. He also said the site did a massive underground test with this same type of explosive while he still worked there. Even if the DTRA detonated Divine Strake in the most contaminated place on the test site, Church said officials probably would not detect any dust. And if radioactive particles were disrupted in the blast, he said they would never make it off the site because the explosion is not powerful enough. "That's why it makes him look silly," Church said of Matheson's concerns. "It makes the Downwinder activists look silly." Church said he is conducting three public seminars at the Hurricane Library to talk about nuclear waste, nuclear testing and fallout among other topics. The first seminar was Monday night and the other two are scheduled for April 24 and May 1. "I'm trying to counteract a little bit a lot of this negative rhetoric Congressman Matheson spews the public with," Church said. "He's not helping them." But Vanessa Pierce, program director for Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, shared many of Matheson's concerns. HEAL Utah works to protect the public from nuclear and toxic waste, she said. Pierce said Utahns understand the devastating effects of nuclear weapons because of what happened to so many after the above-ground testing. Many Downwinders say they wouldn't wish those effects on their worst enemies, she said. "We're certainly skeptical of any public health assurances made by the folks at the Nevada Test site just because they lied to us in the past," Pierce said, referring to the risks of the above-ground testing. "Utahns should never be put in harm's way again. ... I think we've all learned that you have to be skeptical." Pierce also noted that DTRA only came out and said the blast was not intended to test nuclear capabilities after public outcry. Originally published April 11, 2006 Submitted This hill on the Nevada Test Site 150 miles west of St. George is the location for Divine Strake, a 700-ton chemical explosion planned for June 2. Copyright ©2006 The Spectrum. ***************************************************************** 58 NRC: Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes: Meeting FR Doc E6-5254 [Federal Register: April 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 69)] [Notices] [Page 18369-18370] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11ap06-141] Notice AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Updated notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) on April 25 and 26, 2006. A sample of agenda items to be discussed during the public sessions includes: (1) Updates on Proposed Regulations to Include Discrete Radium Sources and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials in 10 CFR Part 35; (2) RIS on Visitor Dose Limits; (3) Part 35, Training and Experience; (4) Supply of High Enriched Uranium for Molybdenum-99 Generation; (5) Training and Experience for Use of Microspheres for Therapy; (6) ACMUI Review of Medical Events Involving I-131. To review the agenda see: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acmui/agenda/ or contact, via e-mail: mss@nrc.gov. Purpose: Discuss issues related to 10 CFR 35, Medical Use of Byproduct Material. Date and Time for Closed Session Meeting: April 25, 2006, from 8 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. This session will be closed so that NRC staff can brief the ACMUI on information relating solely to internal personnel rules and can discuss protected information of an investigatory nature. Time may be added to the closed session or an additional closed session may be added as needed. Dates and Times for Public Meetings: April 25, 2006, from 10:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and April 26, 2006, from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ADDRESSES: Address for Public Meetings: The meeting will be held at National Institute of Health (NIH). The address and room number is below: National Institute of Health, Natcher Conference Center, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892. April 25--Balcony B. April 26--Room E1/E2. Security on the NIH Campus All non-NIH employees are required to provide picture IDs upon entering the campus whether walking on to campus or driving on to campus, and all belongings are subject to searches. Increased security procedures are in place at all entrances to the NIH campus, including drive-in and walk-in access gates. Please allow adequate time when making your plans to attend the conference functions at the Natcher Conference Center. Preregistration will expedite the security process. Visitor parking is extremely limited and driving to the NIH campus for this event is not recommended. Metrorail Service and Map The NIH Campus is very accessible by the Washington D.C. area Metrorail (Metro) system. The Natcher Conference Center (Building 45) is located a short walk from the Medical Center Metro stop located on the Red Line. Note the signs and directions to the gated campus security entrance located behind the metro stop. For more details about the Washington DC area Metrorail services [[Page 18370]] and stops, please visit http://www.wmata.com/ or go directly to http://www.wmata.com/metrorail/systemmap.cfm for an overview map of the metro f the metro please visit http://dtts.ors.od.nih.gov/NIHShuttle/scripts/shuttle_map_live.as p . Driving to the NIH Campus If you will be driving to the NIH campus, please note that all non- NIH registered vehicles must enter at the Rockville Pike-South Drive or Georgetown Road-Center Drive entrance for inspection. Follow the direction signs to Building 45. Please allow extra time for compliance with these security measures. Visitors must park in designated visitor parking lots. Visitor Parking is extremely difficult to find at NIH. Visitor parking at the Natcher Conference Center is available at $12 per day; however, parking is limited and visitors to the NIH campus are encouraged to take public transportation. For a detailed map of the NIH campus please visit http://dtts.ors.od.nih.gov/visitor_access_map.htm . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mohammad S. Saba, telephone (301) 415- 7608; e-mail mss@nrc.gov of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001. Conduct of the Meeting Leon S. Malmud, M.D., will chair the meeting. Dr. Malmud will conduct the meeting in a manner that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. The following procedures apply to public participation in the meeting: 1. Persons who wish to provide a written statement should submit a reproducible copy to Mohammad S. Saba, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T8F03, Washington DC 20555. Alternatively, an e- mail can be submitted to mss@nrc.gov. Submittals must be postmarked or e-mailed by April 23, 2006, and must pertain to the topics on the agenda for the meeting. 2. Questions from members of the public will be permitted during the meeting, at the discretion of the Chairman. 3. The transcript and written comments will be available for inspection on NRC's Web site (http://www.nrc.gov) and at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738, telephone (800) 397-4209, on or about July 20, 2006. This meeting will be held in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (primarily Section 161a); the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App); and the Commission's regulations in Title 10, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 7. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of April, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E6-5254 Filed 4-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 59 NRC: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; In the Matter of David FR Doc E6-5255 [Federal Register: April 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 69)] [Notices] [Page 18362] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11ap06-132] Geisen; Notice of Hearing (Enforcement Order) April 5, 2006. Before Administrative Judges: Michael C. Farrar, Chairman, E. Roy Hawkens. Nicholas G. Trikouros. This proceeding stems from an immediately-effective Enforcement Order issued on January 4, 2006, by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff against Mr. David Geisen, prohibiting him from ``engaging in NRC- licensed activities'' for five years because of certain actions the NRC Staff believes he took in 2001 when he was employed at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant, located some 25 miles east of Toledo near Oak Harbor, Ohio. That Order, published in the Federal Register (71 FR 2571) on January 17, 2006, detailed the Staff's assertions that Mr. Geisen had deliberately provided materially incomplete and inaccurate information in connection with an issue affecting the continued operation of the Davis-Besse facility, and provided Mr. Geisen with the opportunity, under 10 CFR 2.202(b), to request a hearing to contest the matters set out in the Order. Through counsel, Mr. Geisen timely filed such a request on February 23, 2006. This Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was established on March 16, 2006, to consider Mr. Geisen's hearing request. With the NRC Staff having indicated no objection thereto, we granted that request on March 27, 2006, in a Memorandum and Order that also granted the hearing requests of two other former Davis-Besse employees who were the subjects of immediately-effective Staff Enforcement Orders likewise suspending them from employment in the regulated nuclear industry. In light of the foregoing, and consistent with 10 CFR 2.318(a) (see also id. Sec. Sec. 2.203 and 2.312(a)), please take notice that a hearing will be conducted in this proceeding. The hearing will be governed by the specific hearing procedures set forth in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G (10 CFR 2.700-2.713), which procedures supplement the general rules set forth in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart C (10 CFR 2.300-2.390). During the course of the proceeding, the Board may, among other measures, hold oral arguments (id. Sec. 2.331) and pre-hearing conferences (id. Sec. 2.329), and may conduct evidentiary hearings (id. Sec. 2.711). The public is invited to attend any oral argument, pre-hearing conference, or evidentiary hearing unless otherwise ordered by the Commission (id. Sec. Sec. 2.327-2.328). The time and place of any such sessions will be fixed by subsequent order(s); notices thereof will be published in the Federal Register and/or made available to the public at the NRC Public Document Room, located in One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and through the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov. In the same March 27, 2006 Memorandum and Order in which it granted Mr. Geisen's hearing request, this Board called for oral argument on the Staff's March 20, 2006, motion to hold this matter in abeyance pending the outcome of the criminal proceeding brought by the government against Mr. Geisen based on substantially the same allegations (Mr. Geisen's response to the Staff's motion was duly filed on March 30, 2006). The oral argument on the motion will be held on Tuesday, April 11, 2006, at 10 a.m. in the courtroom at the NRC's Rockville, Maryland Headquarters, on the third floor of the Two White Flint North Building at 11545 Rockville Pike. That oral argument, which is not expected to last more than approximately 90 minutes, will be open for the public to observe. Documents relating to this proceeding are available for public inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room or electronically from the publicly available records component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS may contact the NRC Public Document Room reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301- 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. It is so ordered. April 5, 2006. For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Michael C. Farrar, Chairman, Administrative Judge, Rockville, Maryland. [FR Doc. E6-5255 Filed 4-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 60 NRC: System Energy Resources, Inc. Notice of Availability of the FR Doc E6-5256 [Federal Register: April 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 69)] [Notices] [Page 18369] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11ap06-140] Final Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Grand Gulf ESP Site Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) has published NUREG-1817, ``Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Grand Gulf ESP Site--Final Report.'' The site is located near the Town of Port Gibson in Claiborne County, Mississippi. The application for the ESP was submitted by letter dated October 16, 2003, pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 52 (10 CFR Part 52). A notice of receipt and availability of the application, which included the environmental report (ER), was published in the Federal Register on November 14, 2003 (68 FR 64665). A notice of acceptance for docketing of the application for the ESP was published in the Federal Register on December 1, 2003 (68 FR 67219). A notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) and to conduct the scoping process was published in the Federal Register on December 31, 2003 (68 FR 75656). A notice of availability of the draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on April 28, 2005 (70 FR 22155). The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that NUREG-1817, ``Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Grand Gulf ESP Site--Final Report,'' is available for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 20852, or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), and will also be placed directly on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. (the (the Public Electronic Reading Room). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301- 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. In addition, the Harriette Person Memorial Library, located at 606 Main Street, Port Gibson, Mississippi, has agreed to make the final EIS available for public inspection. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James H. Wilson, Environmental Branch A, Division of License Renewal, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555-0001. Mr. Wilson may be contacted by telephone at 301-415-1108 or by e-mail at jhw1@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of April 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Frank P. Gillespie, Director, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-5256 Filed 4-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 61 NRC: Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards; In the Matter of Steven P. FR Doc E6-5258 [Federal Register: April 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 69)] [Notices] [Page 18363] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11ap06-134] Moffitt; Notice of Hearing (Enforcement Order) April 5, 2006. Before Administrative Judges: Michael C. Farrar, Chairman; E. Roy Hawkens; and Nicholas G. Trikouros. This proceeding stems from an immediately-effective Enforcement Order issued on January 4, 2006, by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff against Mr. Steven P. Moffitt, prohibiting him from ``engaging in NRC-licensed activities'' for five years because of certain actions the NRC Staff believes he took in 2001 when he was employed at the Davis- Besse Nuclear Power Plant, located some 25 miles east of Toledo near Oak Harbor, Ohio. That Order, published in the Federal Register (71 FR 2581) on January 17, 2006, detailed the Staff's assertions that Mr. Moffitt had deliberately provided materially incomplete and inaccurate information in connection with an issue affecting the continued operation of the Davis-Besse facility, and provided Mr. Moffitt with the opportunity, under 10 CFR 2.202(b), to request a hearing to contest the matters set out in the Order. Through counsel, Mr. Moffitt timely filed such a request on February 23, 2006. This Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was established on March 16, 2006, to consider Mr. Moffitt's hearing request. With the NRC Staff having indicated no objection thereto, we granted that request on March 27, 2006, in a Memorandum and Order that also granted the hearing requests of two other former Davis-Besse employees who were the subjects of immediately-effective Staff Enforcement Orders likewise suspending them from employment in the nuclear industry. In light of the foregoing, and consistent with 10 CFR 2.318(a) (see also id. Sec. Sec. 2.203 and 2.312(a)), please take notice that a hearing will be conducted in this proceeding. The hearing will be governed by the specific hearing procedures set forth in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G (10 CFR 2.700-2.713), which procedures supplement the general rules set forth in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart C (10 CFR 2.300-2.390). During the course of the proceeding, the Board may, among other measures, hold oral arguments (id. Sec. 2.331) and pre-hearing conferences (id. Sec. 2.329), and may conduct evidentiary hearings (id. Sec. 2.711). The public is invited to attend any oral argument, pre-hearing conference, or evidentiary hearing unless otherwise ordered by the Commission (id. Sec. Sec. 2.327-2.328). The time and place of any such sessions will be fixed by subsequent order(s); notices thereof will be published in the Federal Register and/or made available to the public at the NRC Public Document Room, located in One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and through the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov. In the same March 27, 2006 Memorandum and Order in which it granted Mr. Moffitt's hearing request, this Board convened a conference call for April 13, 2006, during which it will discuss with counsel the status of their negotiations concerning an agreement on a discovery process and schedule. Depending on those negotiations and other pending matters, the Board may shortly thereafter set an initial scheduling order for the proceeding. Documents relating to this proceeding are available for public inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room or electronically from the publicly available records component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS may contact the NRC Public Document Room reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301- 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. It is so ordered. For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. April 5, 2006. Michael C. Farrar, Chairman, Administrative Judge, Rockville, Maryland. [FR Doc. E6-5258 Filed 4-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 62 NRC: Atomic Safety And Licensing Boards; In the Matter of Dale L. FR Doc E6-5259 [Federal Register: April 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 69)] [Notices] [Page 18362-18363] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11ap06-133] Miller; Notice of Hearing (Enforcement Order) April 5, 2006. Before Administrative Judges: Michael C. Farrar, Chairman, E. Roy Hawkens, Nicholas G. Trikouros. This proceeding stems from an immediately-effective Enforcement Order issued on January 4, 2006, by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff against Mr. Dale L. Miller, prohibiting him from ``engaging in NRC-licensed activities'' for five years because of certain actions the NRC Staff believes he took in 2001 when he was employed at the Davis- Besse Nuclear Power Plant, located some 25 miles east of Toledo near Oak Harbor, Ohio. That Order, published in the Federal Register (71 FR 2579) on January 17, 2006, detailed the Staff's assertions that Mr. Miller had deliberately provided materially incomplete and inaccurate information in connection with an issue affecting the continued operation of the Davis-Besse facility, and provided Mr. Miller with the opportunity, under 10 CFR 2.202(b), to request a hearing to contest the matters set out in the Order. Through counsel, Mr. Miller timely filed such a request on February 23, 2006. This Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was established on March 16, 2006, to consider Mr. Miller's hearing request. With the NRC Staff having indicated no objection thereto, we granted that request on March 27, 2006, in a Memorandum and Order that also [[Page 18363]] granted the hearing requests of two other former Davis-Besse employees who were the subjects of immediately-effective Staff Enforcement Orders likewise suspending them from employment in the nuclear industry. In light of the foregoing, and consistent with 10 CFR 2.318(a) (see also id. Sec. Sec. 2.203 and 2.312(a)), please take notice that a hearing will be conducted in this proceeding. The hearing will be governed by the specific hearing procedures set forth in 10 CFR part 2, subpart G (10 CFR 2.700-2.713), which procedures supplement the general rules set forth in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart C (10 CFR 2.300-2.390). During the course of the proceeding, the Board may, among other measures, hold oral arguments (id. Sec. 2.331) and pre-hearing conferences (id. Sec. 2.329), and may conduct evidentiary hearings (id. Sec. 2.711). The public is invited to attend any oral argument, pre-hearing conference, or evidentiary hearing unless otherwise ordered by the Commission (id. Sec. Sec. 2.327-2.328). The time and place of any such sessions will be fixed by subsequent order(s); notices thereof will be published in the Federal Register and/or made available to the public at the NRC Public Document Room, located in One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and through the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov. In the same March 27, 2006 Memorandum and Order in which it granted Mr. Miller's hearing request, this Board convened a conference call for April 13, 2006, during which it will discuss with counsel the status of their negotiations concerning an agreement on a discovery process and schedule. Depending on those negotiations and other pending matters, the Board may shortly thereafter set an initial scheduling order for the proceeding. Documents relating to this proceeding are available for public inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room or electronically from the publicly available records component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS may contact the NRC Public Document Room reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301- 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. It is so ordered. April 5, 2006. For The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Michael C. Farrar, Chairman, Administrative Judge, Rockville, Maryland. [FR Doc. E6-5259 Filed 4-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 63 NRC: RC, Ukraine Sign Cooperation Arrangement on Nuclear Safety News Release - 2006-05 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 06-050 April 10, 2006 arrangement Monday for the exchange of technical information and cooperation in nuclear safety matters. The arrangement was signed at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Md., by NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz and Chairman Olena Mykolaichuk of the SNRCU. The NRC and the SNRCU have developed a constructive relationship over the 13 years we have worked together under an assistance program, Chairman Diaz said. This arrangement reflects a progression of our relationship with the Ukrainian regulator from one of assistance to mutual cooperation. These cooperative arrangements are a key component of our efforts to promote the exchange of information on nuclear safety issues throughout the world. Under the arrangement, the NRC and the SNRCU may exchange technical reports supporting licensing actions, information on reactor safety research, and data on operating experience, including incidents, accidents or shutdowns, as well as documents on emergency planning and response for nuclear power reactors. The NRC has provided technical assistance to the SNRCU since 1993 through the Agency for International Development. The NRC maintains 38 other cooperation arrangements with 35 countries and Taiwan. (The NRC has two arrangements each with Japan and South Africa, because they have split ministerial-level regulatory responsibilities.) Similar arrangements are currently being negotiated with Russia and Bulgaria, and are expected to be finalized later this year. [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Nils J. Diaz and Ukraine State Nuclear Regulatory Committee Chairman Olena Mykolaichuk exchange copies of the bilateral cooperation agreement they signed April 10 at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, MD. (photo courtesy USNRC).] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Nils J. Diaz and Ukraine State Nuclear Regulatory Committee Chairman Olena Mykolaichuk exchange copies of the bilateral cooperation agreement they signed April 10 at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, MD. (photo courtesy USNRC) Last revised Tuesday, April 11, 2006 ***************************************************************** 64 Irish Times: Sellafield site identified as possible new nuclear plant April 10, 2006 Sellafield has been identified as a possible location for a new nuclear-power station, which would be several times more powerful than the previous plant at the site, writes Jamie Smyth, European Correspondent. A consultancy report prepared for Cumbria County Council says that Sellafield is one of several potentially viable sites in Britain for new nuclear reactors. It estimates that the plant would create between 600 to 1,000 new jobs, although it notes that Sellafield is not the optimal location for one of the new generation of reactors. Local politicians in Cumbria have warmly welcomed the report, but it will disappoint the Irish Government, which just last month pledged to continue working to close Sellafield. Local labour MP Jamie Reed - a former press officer at Sellafield - is campaigning to have one of any newly commissioned nuclear-power plants located in his constituency in Cumbria. "It's no surprise to anybody that west Cumbria is one of the premier sites for nuclear new build," he told his local newspaper, News & Star, recently. "It is now incumbent upon the county council to speak with one voice and let government know we want to see new nuclear build in west Cumbria as soon as possible." The report was drawn up for the council by consultants Environmental Resources Management ahead of a decision by the British government on whether to build a new generation of nuclear plants. British prime minister Tony Blair is widely expected to back building a new generation of nuclear-power plants to provide more security of energy supply for Britain as its current reactors are decommissioned. The consultancy report concludes that building a new nuclear-power station at Sellafield would help to mitigate some of the employment loss at the current site. Job numbers stand at 13,000 but are expected to fall to 4,000 by 2020 following continued decommissioning at the site. The report says that a new plant would benefit from using the existing nuclear fuel storage infrastructure at Sellafield and the prospect of fuelling its reactors with Mox, which is already made and stored at the site. However, it does offer some hope that Sellafield, which is located across the Irish Sea from Dundalk, may not be the most economical location for a plant in Britain. The report says that the type of reactor under consideration is several times more powerful than those currently in operation. A new nuclear power plant at Sellafield would require the construction of a new connection to the national electricity grid, estimated to cost £70 million for one reactor and £230 million for two rectors. Connection costs for alternative sites in Britain would be lower, the report added. Richard Ellis, a communications manager for Environmental Resources Management, said the report was undertaken to assess the implications of any British nuclear new build programme for Cumbria and not just designed to determine whether nuclear new build in the UK is desirable. © The Irish Times Sellafield has been identified as a possible location for a new nuclear-power station, which would be several times more powerful than the previous plant at the site, writes Jamie Smyth, European Correspondent." name="summary"> © 2006 ireland.com ***************************************************************** 65 AU ABC: Flood casts doubt on potential dump site April 2006. 12:39 (ACDT)Wednesday, 12 April 2006. 09:39 (AWST) The owners of a Northern Territory property that surrounds one of the Federal Government's proposed nuclear waste sites says the area has been affected by the recent flooding. Fisher's Ridge is 40 kilometres south of Katherine, and it is one of three proposed sites in the Territory for the national dump. Property owner Valerie Utley says Fisher's Ridge has been inundated with water. "The flooding has been quite extensive in our low-lying areas," she said. "The Fisher's Ridge area is in the same situation - water is running off that area into the Little Roper River fairly fast." The Labor Senator for the Northern Territory, Trish Crossin, was in the flood affected areas last week. She says the flooding means the site is unsuitable to house nuclear waste. "We tried to get down the Fisher's Ridge road last week and from what we could see it seemed impassable," she said. "The King River was flooded over the Stuart Highway so you would have to imagine that the whole area that they're talking about would also be either under water or subject to serious flood damage." But a spokesman for the Commonwealth Department of Science, Education and Training says a nuclear waste dump could still be built at the site. Pat Davoren says a review of three potential sites should be completed early next year, and the Fisher's Ridge site is still being considered. "The geographic conditions of the site, especially if it's prone to flooding, will be one of the main issues that's examined," he said. "Other issues such as rainfall will also be looked at. "We know that it's quite a wet site but we'll have to get more data on just how prone it is to flooding." ***************************************************************** 66 BBC: Dounreay monitoring kit is tested Last Updated: Tuesday, 11 April 2006 By Steven McKenzie Highlands and Islands reporter [Testing at Sandside Beach] Vehicles searched for deliberately hidden radioactive sources Experts have run tests on the effectiveness of equipment used to monitor for radioactive particles on a beach near Dounreay. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (Comare) checked that kit used on Sandside Beach is up to the task. It is the first time such trials have been carried out on the vehicles called Groundhog Evolution and Groundhog Mk I. Test results will not be available for a number of weeks. Professor Alex Elliott, chairman of Comare, said the Groundhog Mk I had to be rebuilt for the trials because it was taken out of service several years ago. At long last, a thorough a serious study of the monitoring is being conducted Geoffrey Minter Sandside Beach owner The equipment, used by UK Atomic Energy Authority contractors, had to detect radioactive sources deliberately buried in the Caithness beach. For safety reasons the sources were kept in sealed containers and later recovered under the supervision of environment agency Sepa. Prof Elliott said tests involved checking that the equipment could detect caesium 137 particles from fuel repossessing and cobalt 60 which comes from "activated" steel. Trials at Sandside were carried out from 8 to 10 April on the recommendation of the Dounreay Working Group. Sepa observed the trials and confirmed all sources were recovered. Comare has previously examined childhood cancer rates close to Rosyth Naval Base and nuclear power stations. 'Six years' Geoffrey Minter, who owns Sandside Beach, welcomed the trials. He said: "We are pleased that six long years after the radioactive nuclear fuel particles began to be found in number here, at long last, a thorough and serious study of the monitoring is being conducted. "We shall be provided with the full results. "There is another kind of radioactive waste particle that could have arrived but that the detection vehicles were not set to find and we have long expressed a view that they should be." The equipment that has been used to monitor Sandside until now - Ground Hog Mk I and Mark II - was not set to find cobalt particles, which have already been found at Dounreay beach and offshore. "There is nothing to stop them arriving at Sandside," said Mr Minter. ***************************************************************** 67 Las Vegas SUN: Gibbons fuels nuclear debate Today: April 11, 2006 at 7:41:55 PDT He opposes Yucca; supports new plants By J. Patrick Coolican Las Vegas Sun Rep. Jim Gibbons again announced his opposition to the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository last month, predicting the demise of the nuclear energy industry for failing to adequately solve its waste problem. But legislation, which was intended to speed the construction of new nuclear plants and was supported by the Nevada Republican and signed by President Bush, appears to be having an effect with a wave of new nuclear plants possible. "It is no longer a matter of debate whether there will be new nuclear plants in the industry's future," a March report by Fitch Ratings, a financial research firm, said. "Now, the discussion has shifted to predictions of how many, where and when." For instance, Duke Energy of Charlotte, N.C., is moving forward with a construction and operating license application for a site in Gaffney, S.C., spokeswoman Rita Sipe said. The emergence of new nuclear plants was reported in Monday's New York Times. The issue is likely to come into focus with a visit to Yucca Mountain this week by Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, who will be pushing the Bush administration's latest plan on Yucca. Some Yucca opponents believe Gibbons, who also leads the polls in this year's governor's race, is being inconsistent by supporting new nuclear plants while opposing Yucca. "What's the 10,000-year solution to the problem?" asked Peggy Maze Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert, an environmental group that opposes Yucca. "What are we going to do with this stuff? We don't have the science that is affordable and will make the waste safe." Gibbons, who as governor would have a significant bully pulpit at his disposal, said in an interview Monday that he favors technological fixes to the nuclear waste problem. Specifically, he advocates reprocessing spent fuel and a technology called transmutation. In reprocessing, a chemical process separates out plutonium and fissionable uranium from spent fuel rods. Although the process will leave less waste than before, there's still a high-level waste byproduct that has to be stored, according to the Energy Department. Gibbons said the remaining waste could be stored at nuclear plants and wouldn't have to be shipped to Nevada. Environmentalists say that's still a short-term fix. Transmutation is an experimental technology that would reprocess spent fuel and then reduce the time some of the elements in spent fuel would remain radioactive. The technology is decades away, according to the Energy Department. Opponents of nuclear weapons proliferation also oppose reprocessing, as it is a common method for turning waste from nuclear power plants into plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear bombs. Plutonium is not highly radioactive and is stored in a concentrated powder form, making it easier to steal, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. Also, the organization noted in a position paper on reprocessing that if the United States turns to reprocessing, other countries are likely to follow. "The United States cannot credibly persuade other countries to forgo a technology it has newly embraced," the paper said. J. Patrick Coolican can be reached at 259-8814 or at patrick.coolican@lasvegassun.com. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 68 reviewjournal.com: Energy secretary's visit to state sparks criticism Apr. 11, 2006 WASHINGTON -- Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman will visit Nevada this week, with tours set Thursday for Yucca Mountain and the Nevada Test Site, department officials said. Details were to be announced today for his first trip to the state since being confirmed as energy secretary in January 2005. The trip was scheduled to coincide with the Department of Energy sending Congress legislation last week to speed development of the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. A department official said Bodman will arrive in Las Vegas on Wednesday evening, spend Thursday at the installations and fly out Friday. It was unclear whether he would visit the Yucca Mountain office in Summerlin or the management office for the DOE-operated test site in North Las Vegas. Bodman plans to make himself available for media questioning during his trip, a department official said. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., a Yucca critic, said the welcome mat would not be put out for Bodman. She challenged the secretary to talk to Nevadans about escalating costs and quality assurance shortcomings in the project. "This trip is nothing more than a taxpayer-funded publicity stunt designed to build support for the Bush administration's latest legislative package, which eliminates the cap on how much waste can be sent to Yucca Mountain, destroys local control over water rights and guts important public health and environmental safeguards," Berkley said. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006 ***************************************************************** 69 Hanford News: Nuclear waste: What to do with the world's nuclear waste? This story was published Sunday, April 9th, 2006 By Lisa Zagaroli, McClatchy Washington Bureau WASHINGTON - Engineers from around the world come to Malcolm Gray for lessons about how to dispose of their nuclear waste. Gray acknowledges there are technical matters that aren't completely resolved. No country has actually started burying its waste yet, after all. But the science isn't really going to be the hard part, he tells them. "To get the social acceptance is the difficult and tricky thing," says Gray, a Vienna, Austria-based engineer who manages the International Atomic Energy Agency's training and development program for high-level radioactive waste disposal. Though 33 countries have spent nuclear fuel from electricity production, only the United States, with Yucca Mountain, and Finland, with Olkiluoto, have singled out actual sites for its burial. The question of what to do with the world's nuclear waste is a growing concern as more countries look to nuclear power to solve their long-term energy needs and the Bush administration considers the global role the United States will play in keeping that power source safe from terrorists. The Department of Energy last week (4/5/2006) unveiled major nuclear waste legislation it hopes will accelerate progress on the stalled Yucca Mountain project and plans this summer to submit a new timetable for when the government will begin accepting waste for burial. Though it is years behind schedule, the United States is unique in that it even tries to maintain deadlines, says Charles Fairhurst, a professor emeritus who headed the civil engineering department at the University of Minnesota. "The United States, we always have timetables," says Fairhurst, who once chaired a National Academy of Sciences panel on waste isolation. "We're always setting deadlines which we've never met." "A lot of countries don't give timetables, so the issue doesn't become quite as focused." Fairhurst has been a consultant to the Swiss nuclear waste program, an adviser to the French, and was also involved in the Swedish project. "A number of countries are making good progress, but for various reasons, they don't feel under the same time pressures as the U.S.," he says. At the end of 2005, there were about 284,000 metric tons of spent fuel in storage worldwide, with about 54,000 tons of it in the United States, said Steven Kraft, senior director of used fuel management at the Nuclear Energy Institute, a policy organization for the commercial nuclear industry. There's one conclusion that all of the countries who have a plan, even a loose one, can agree on. Waste that could be radioactive for tens of thousands of years should be buried in the ground. A number of nations considered a range of options that included shooting the waste into the sun, embedding it under polar ice sheets and burrowing it below the ocean floor. But burying it in dry, stable ground is considered the safest option for both transporting it and disposing of it by every country that has made any decisions. "Of the 33 nations that currently have inventories of used fuel, 23 have specific plans to develop a geological depository," Kraft said. "The others don't seem to have any plans just yet." What nations are grappling with is site selection. The scientific question centers on whether they should go with clay, salt, granite or some other formation that will keep the radioactive waste safe from seepage, penetration and disruption as it takes centuries to cool. Many countries are so small they don't have as many choices as the United States had before settling on Yucca Mountain, which is made up of layers of volcanic tuff in rural Nevada. It was picked over sites across the country including salt domes and granite mines. In one of the nation's least populated areas, Yucca's choice still has many critics vexed that it was chosen for political reasons more than its geologic suitability. "Politics trumped science," said Kevin Kamps, a waste specialist at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. "We need a genuine search for a geology that can contain waste for the duration of the hazard. ... We have not found that geology yet." Though Yucca is mired in lawsuits and doubt, the objections have been rather tame compared to what protesters in some countries have pulled off. "I'd have to say that in the U.S., even though there's widespread resistance, we just haven't seen the huge numbers that some of these countries have," Kamps said. "That may still be to come if shipments were to start, for example." Kamps said one of the more dramatic examples of how the public can quash a site came a couple years ago in Italy. Italians had years earlier decided to stop using nuclear energy because of the Chernobyl disaster, which occurred 20 years ago this month. But the Italians still needed a place to store the waste they'd created at four reactors. When the Italian government announced it had picked a site near the Mediterranean on Italy's southernmost tip, 100,000 people took to the streets within days to protest. They used vehicles and farm animals to block roadways, according to news reports at the time. Within two weeks, the whole idea was killed. South Korea faced candlelight vigils nightly for months and protesters were harmed, Kamps said, and the government eventually backed down as well. German protests have become notorious over the last decade. Anti-nuclear demonstrators strap themselves to train tracks when waste is being transported between a reprocessing center in France to a centralized storage spot in Germany, and when they're disrupted by police, they repeat the protest at another place along the track. A French environmentalist died in one such protest in 2004. The Germans decided to phase out atomic energy, though their legislators are still bickering about the decision. And they've been struggling with finding a permanent repository over the strong public objections. "They were perfectly acceptable," Gray said of earlier identified German sites. "It's a classic problem." Canada and probably the United Kingdom, which recently formed a new national agency on the subject, will continue to rely on storage while they do more in-depth studies of long-term repositories, Gray said. "Storage as an option is more acceptable than disposal for the time-being," Gray said. France, which walked away from a site several years ago and is re-evaluating where to go next, in the meantime is reprocessing its waste in a centralized location. While the French reprocess fuel for the Germans and Japanese and other nations, the waste has to be returned to the countries of origin. The Japanese have a new reprocessing plant they are testing but don't have a candidate disposal site yet, Kraft said. Reprocessing makes the product smaller, but the waste is no less radioactive than before. "The waste, a small constituent of spent fuel itself, is what drives all the requirements for disposal and storage," Kraft said. "With reprocessing, you do have a smaller item to deal with. Radiation and heat levels are the same, that's the key point." The Finnish bedrock at Olkiluoto is crystalline rock. Having secured the site, the Finns now are working on excavation and licensing. "I know the Finnish people have come to seem to be more accepting and see the financial benefits and have trust that it's going to be done correctly," Kraft said. Aside from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which doesn't have any binding authority over nations, there's no international governing body whose job is to make sure there's a long-term plan for nuclear waste, which, with a few exceptions of centralized storage spots, is simply being stored at all of the sites where it was generated. There are more than 100 sites in the United States alone. Still, the international agency is trying to do its part, training engineers from countries as varied as China, South Korea, South Africa, Argentina, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia on both the scientific and social challenges of nuclear waste disposal. "(The IAEA) can make suggestions and give guidelines, but the real control comes from the individual national authorities," said Gray, who operates a series of underground laboratories at various research facilities in the United States, Sweden, Switzerland and Belgium. He says he's encouraged by the efforts of growing countries to come up with a plan for their waste. Gray said China plans to add 23 new reactors to the few it has already and is incorporating waste management early on its plans. "They're being very, very responsible for their attitudes in that regard," he said. Several trainees from India also have taken part in the international program, he said. "They do have a large waste management section in the research institute," Gray said. The international cooperation is important because so few people worldwide have the technological knowledge to deal with nuclear waste, he said. "Fundamentally it will end up being an international concern," Gray said. More than 400 nuclear power plants are in operation worldwide. Here is a list of 30 countries that produce electricity with nuclear energy, and the number of plants there: Argentina 2 Armenia 1 Belgium 7 Brazil 2 Bulgaria 4 Canada 18 China 9 Czech Republic 6 Finland 4 France 59 Germany 17 Hungary 4 India 15 Japan 56 Korea 20 Lithuania 1 Mexico 2 Netherlands 1 Pakistan 2 Romania 1 Russia 31 Slovakia 6 Slovenia 1 South Africa 2 Spain 9 Sweden 10 Switzerland 5 Ukraine 15 United Kingdom 23 United States 104 Sources: International Atomic Energy Agency; Nuclear Energy Institute © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 70 Cincinnati Business Courier: Cleanup of Fernald radioactive silo waste completed - 2006-04-11 Radioactive waste that had sat for 50 years in an aging silo in western Hamilton County has been removed, the Department of Energy said Tuesday. The year-old cleanup effort at the former Fernald uranium processing facility involved vacuuming the powdery residue from the silo, mixing it with an additive to lower the risk of dispersion, and shipping it by truck to a disposal facility in Utah. About 5,100 cubic yards of waste were removed from the silo, which is now being decontaminated and dismantled. "Completion of the Silo 3 remediation project is a major step toward finishing the overall cleanup of the Fernald property," said Johnny Reising, DOE Fernald Closure Project director. , the contractor for the cleanup since 1992, is expected to complete its work at the 1,050-acre property this summer. Send us your comments More Latest News © 2006 American City Business Journals, Inc. and its licensors. ***************************************************************** 71 Cape Cod Times: Hearings on perchlorate standards begin (April 11, 2006) By AMANDA LEHMERT STAFF WRITER BOURNE - In April 2004, Bourne residents packed the Peebles Elementary School gymnasium asking the water district and the state Department of Environmental Protection for a solution to the perchlorate problem. About perchlorate • The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has proposed a drinking water and hazardous waste cleanup standard for perchlorate of 2 parts per billion. • Perchlorate is used as an oxygenator in explosions, such as military munitions, fireworks, road flares and vehicle air bags. • Ingesting high levels of perchlorate can prevent the thyroid gland, located in the throat, from functioning properly. The thyroid regulates the body in adults, and growth and development in children. • Perchlorate was first found in Massachusetts in Bourne's public drinking wells in 2002. Those wells currently have no perchlorate in them. • About eight plumes of perchlorate flow from under the Massachusetts Military Reservation, which sits atop the sole drinking water source of the Upper Cape. • The military is currently cleaning more than 320 gallons per minute at one treatment plant. Two more plants will start up later this year. Three of the town's six wells were closed after traces of the substance found in explosives and fireworks advanced into Bourne's drinking water wells. The perchlorate was suspected to be traveling from the Massachusetts Military Reservation, the source of many plumes of contamination in the Upper Cape sole-source aquifer. ''(Perchlorate) was all new to everybody. It was kind of shocking,'' said Ralph Marks, Bourne Water District superintendent. ''The summer of 2002 was not a lot of fun.'' The detections prompted state environmental regulators to investigate. Last month they proposed drinking water and cleanup standards of 2 parts per billion for perchlorate, which has been found in a handful of water supplies statewide. Yesterday, public emotion leveled off to a dull roar as the DEP began a monthlong public comment period on regulations that will limit perchlorate in drinking water and contaminated soil to 2 parts per billion. Only a dozen people attended the first public meeting last night at Peebles Elementary, and fewer offered testimony. The audience included people who support DEP and those who thought the proposed state standards are too low. If the proposed standards become law, they will dictate how much perchlorate can be in drinking water and how much polluters must clean. Massachusetts' perchlorate problems turned out to be bigger than what the military found in Bourne. ''When they started to look statewide, there were wells worse off than us,'' Marks said. The Army never found a plume of contamination or a source of the perchlorate that hit the Bourne wells. But today there are about eight identified perchlorate plumes of up to 700 parts per billion flowing under and off Camp Edwards. One plume is already being cleaned, and two more will be by the end of the year. Some applauded the DEP for stepping in to set a standard when the federal government has not. The Massachusetts chapter of the Sierra Club voted to support the Massachusetts perchlorate proposal. Clean Water Action, a Boston environmental organization, encouraged the state to go back to its original assessment of 1 part per billion. Clean Water Action's John McNabb asked the state to prohibit the use of fireworks and explosives in water supply areas. One of the base plumes is blamed in part on a local firework display. ''The best protection for public health is prevention, not cleanup,'' McNabb said. Two Cape residents at the hearing asked the state to consider the work of the independent National Academy of Sciences panel, which last year suggested a dose for perchlorate that is higher than the state's proposed standard. ''I hope you'll listen to the scientists around the country rather the activists who will applaud this,'' said Bourne resident Robert Mullenix. Amanda Lehmert can be reached at alehmert@capecodonline.com. (Published: April 11, 2006) Copyright © 2006 Cape Cod Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 72 Belfast Telegraph: Viewpoint: Sellafield plan opens old wounds 11 April 2006 Although the proposal for a new, more powerful nuclear plant at Sellafield is only included in a consultation report for Cumbria County Council, it has raised all the usual fears. The government is a long way from making a decision on a new generation of power stations, but the anti-nuclear protesters are already flexing their muscles on both sides of the Irish Sea. Who is right and who is wrong in the long-running argument over the benefits or dangers of nuclear power? Even the experts do not agree, let alone those with axes to grind, so the public is left looking at the past record of the industry and wondering if it is capable of safely meeting the energy needs of the future. Safety is the key word, especially for those living along the Irish Sea coast, who have long worried that routine and accidental discharges from Sellafield are damaging to human and marine health. Although nothing has been proved conclusively, the Irish Sea has been described as one of the most radioactive in the world, and there are hot spots of cancer which many attribute to nuclear pollution. Cumbria and its consultants would contest this verdict, but their primary interest is in developing an existing site, which is one of the few sources of well-paid employment in the area. Their case is that the storage and reprocessing facilities that are already there could economically be used by the proposed new plant. Certainly it would be more convenient to build at Sellafield rather than in a more remote corner of Britain, where there was no pool of workers or infrastructure. But the history of the Cumbria plant, which suffered a major contaminating fire in 1957, only a year after it first generated electricity, is a cause for concern. Hardly a year has gone by without reports of a radioactive discharge into the air or sea, and the introduction of the mixed oxide facility, processing waste from the world's nuclear plants, has added to its woes. Another accident last year caused a closedown, and it has never reached its profit-making potential. The government's difficulties have to be appreciated, faced with an estimated £70 billion clean-up bill and having to decide how to replace obsolete nuclear plants. Should it opt for conventional, carbon-dioxide-producing power stations or a new generation of nuclear facilities, well away from the Irish Sea? The anti-nuclear lobby made up its mind long ago, but others look to countries like France, where the benefits of cheap, abundant energy are valued far more than any future disadvantages. There is a cost to be paid, in whatever way, for the world's insatiable appetite for electricity. Back | © 2006 Independent News and Media (NI) a division of Independent News &media (UK) Ltd ***************************************************************** 73 NRC: PPL Susquehanna, LLC; Independent Spent Fuel Storage FR Doc 06-3416 [Federal Register: April 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 69)] [Notices] [Page 18367-18369] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11ap06-139] Installation; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of an environmental assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph M. Sebrosky, Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-1132; Fax number: (301) 415-8555; e-mail: . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption to PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL) pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from specific provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214. The licensee wants to use the Transnuclear, Inc. (TN) NUHOMS[supreg] Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1004 (CoC or Certificate) Amendment No. 8 (61BT dry shielded canister), to store spent nuclear fuel under a general license in an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) associated with the operation of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES), Units 1 and 2, located in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. PPL is requesting an exemption from CoC No. 1004 to allow loading of Framatome ANP 9x9-2 fuel assemblies in the NUHOMS[supreg]-61BT dry shielded canister (DSC). Environmental Assessment (EA) Identification of Proposed Action: The proposed action would exempt PPL from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 and enable PPL to use the TN NUHOMS[supreg]- 61BT DSC with modifications at SSES. These regulations specifically require storage in casks approved under the provisions of 10 CFR part 72 and compliance with the conditions set forth in the CoC for each dry spent fuel storage cask used by an ISFSI general licensee. The TN NUHOMS[supreg] CoC provides requirements, conditions, and operating limits in Attachment A, Technical Specifications. The proposed action would exempt PPL from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 10 CFR 72.212(b)(7) and 10 CFR 72.214 from a condition in Amendment 8 to CoC No. 1004 so that Framatome ANP 9x9-2 fuel assemblies can be loaded in a NUHOMS[supreg]-61BT DSC. Specifically, the exemption would be from CoC No. 1004 Attachment A, Technical Specification, Table 1-1d, ``BWR Fuel Assembly Design Characteristics for the NUHOMS[supreg]-61BT DSC,'' which allows for the storage of General Electric (or equivalent) 9x9-2 fuel assemblies that contain 66 full and 8 partial fuel rods. The exemption would allow PPL to store Framatome ANP 9x9--2 fuel assemblies that contain 79 full fuel rods and no partial fuel rods in the NUHOMS[supreg]-61BT DSC. PPL committed in its January 31, 2006, submittal to a maximum decay heat load per fuel assembly of 210 watts. This is less than the CoC No. 1004 Attachment A, Technical Specification, Table 1-1c maximum decay heat limit of 300 watts per assembly. In addition, in its March 6, 2006, supplement PPL provided the parameters found in Table 1 below associated with the Framatome ANP 9x9-2 fuel assembly. Table 1.--Parameters for Framatome ANP 9x9-2 Fuel Assembly Manufacturer.............................. Framatome ANP. Version................................... FANP9. Number of Fuel Rods per Assembly.......... 79 full. Fuel Pellet Outside Diameter (inches)..... 0.3565. Clad Outside Diameter (inches)............ 0.424. Water Rod Inside Diameter (inches)........ 0.364. Array..................................... 9x9. Active Fuel Length (inches)............... 150. Pitch (inches)............................ 0.572. Clad Thickness (inches)................... 0.030. Water Rod Outside Diameter (inches)....... 0.425. The NRC has determined that the exemption, if granted, will contain the following 3 conditions: (1) PPL will be limited to loading a total of five 61BT DSCs under this exemption if granted, (2) PPL shall limit the decay heat level per fuel assembly to 210 watts to ensure cask loadings are bounded by the analyses supporting TN CoC No. 1004, Amendment No. 8., and (3) the exemption will pertain only to Framatome ANP 9x9 -2 fuel assemblies that meet the nominal un- irradiated design parameters contained in Table 1 above. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's request for exemption dated January 31, 2006, as supplemented March 6, 2006. Need for the Proposed Action: The proposed action is needed because SSES will lose full core offload capability in December 2006 following the receipt and staging of new fuel for the scheduled 2007 Unit 2 refueling outage. PPL has determined that it is necessary to start the dry fuel storage (DFS) campaign in May 2006 to ensure full core offload capability. PPL had originally scheduled a DFS campaign to begin in October of 2006. However, because of recent SSES Unit 1 fuel channel performance problems, 54 fuel channels were replaced and stored in [[Page 18368]] the spent fuel pool. As a result of this fuel channel problem, a possible Unit 2 mid-cycle maintenance outage may be necessary to inspect and replace, if necessary, any affected fuel channels. This mid-cycle outage is tentatively scheduled for the Fall of 2006 and access to the spent fuel pool is needed to store fuel channels that are replaced. This activity would conflict with loading dry fuel storage casks. There is also a conflict with performing the DFS campaign in the Summer of 2006. Specifically, PPL has contracted to perform a spent fuel pool cleanout beginning in June 2006 so adequate pool space is restored to support the Unit 2 2007 refueling outage. The DFS campaign and the spent fuel pool cleanout campaign cannot occur simultaneously. Rescheduling the spent fuel cleanout campaign for later in the year is difficult. In summary, space available in the spent fuel pool has become limited much sooner than anticipated, and PPL is requesting the exemption to support a DFS campaign in May 2006. A DFS campaign in May 2006 will also allow PPL flexibility for fuel storage options related to managing decay heat loads within the spent fuel pool. The proposed action is necessary because the NRC has not yet received an amendment to CoC No. 1004 to allow loading of a Framatome ANP 9x9-2 in a NUHOMS[supreg] 61BT DSC. The staff would have to review such an amendment request and only after making the appropriate findings would the staff initiate 10 CFR 72.214 rulemaking to implement the change. This process typically takes at least 10 months from the receipt of the amendment request for simple license amendments. Complex license amendments can take over 30 months. Therefore, an amendment to allow loading of Framatome ANP 9x9-2 fuel assemblies in the NUHOMS[supreg] -61BT DSC can not be completed in time to support PPL's stated needs. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that there will be no significant environmental impact if the exemption is granted. The staff has determined that the proposed action would not endanger life or property. The potential environmental impact of using the NUHOMS[supreg] system was initially presented in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Final Rule to add the TN Standardized NUHOMS[supreg] Horizontal Modular Storage System for Irradiated Nuclear Fuel to the list of approved spent fuel storage casks in 10 CFR 72.214 (59 FR 65898, dated December 22, 1994). The potential environmental impact of using the NUHOMS[supreg] -61BT DSC was initially presented in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Final Rule to add the 61BT DSC to the Standardized NUHOMS[supreg] system, Amendment No. 3 (66 FR 34523, dated June 29, 2001). The staff performed a safety evaluation of the proposed exemption. The staff has determined that the Framatome ANP 9x9-2 assemblies, which PPL plans to load into the 61BT DSC are bounded by the design basis fuel assemblies for the 61BT DSC previously evaluated by the staff. The staff's thermal safety evaluation review notes that PPL committed to only loading Framatome ANP 9x9-2 fuel assemblies with a maximum decay heat load per assembly of 210 watts. This is less than the CoC No. 1004 Attachment A, Technical Specification, Table 1-1c maximum decay heat limit of 300 watts per assembly and is therefore bounding. In the criticality area, the staff evaluated the criticality code and the selected cross sectional data that were used by PPL and determined that they were sufficiently documented and validated, and that they are appropriate for the Framatome 9x9-2 fuel assembly. The staff also performed independent confirmatory criticality calculations for normal conditions of storage and transfer based on the parameters for the Framatome ANP 9x9-2 fuel assembly identified in Table 1 above. Based on its review of the representations and information supplied by the applicant, and the confirmatory analyses performed by staff, the staff concludes that the nuclear criticality safety design has been adequately described and evaluated by the applicant, and finds reasonable assurance that the Framatome ANP 9x9-2 fuel meets the criticality safety requirements of 10 CFR part 72. The loading of Framatome ANP 9x9-2 fuel assemblies in the NUHOMS[supreg] 61BT DSC does not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. The exemption only affects the requirements associated with the fuel assemblies that can be loaded in the casks and does not affect non-radiological plant effluents or any other aspects of the environment. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Alternative to the Proposed Action: Because there is no significant environmental impact associated with the proposed action, alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact were not evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the exemption would result in no change in the current environmental impact. Agencies and Persons Consulted: This exemption request was discussed with Mr. Brad Fuller of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Radiation Protection on March 6, 2006. He stated that the State had no comments on the technical aspects of the exemption. The NRC staff has determined that a consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required because the proposed action will not affect listed species or critical habitat. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not a type of activity having the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Conclusion: The staff has reviewed the exemption request submitted by PPL. Allowing loading of Framatome 9x9-2 fuel assemblies in the NUHOMS[supreg] 61BT DSC would have no significant impact on the environment. Finding of No Significant Impact The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed in accordance with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 51. Based upon the foregoing Environmental Assessment, the Commission finds that the proposed action of granting the exemption from specific provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A), 72.212(b)(7), and 10 CFR 72.214, to allow PPL to load of Framatome ANP 9x9-2 fuel assemblies in the NUHOMS[supreg] 61BT DSC, subject to conditions, will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption is not warranted. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of NRC's ``Rules of Practice,'' final NRC records and documents regarding this proposed action are publically available in the records component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and [[Page 18369]] Management System (ADAMS). The request for exemption dated January 31, 2006, and March 6, 2006, was docketed under 10 CFR part 72, Docket No. 72-28. These documents may be inspected at NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at . These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. 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 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of March, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Joseph M. Sebrosky, Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. 06-3416 Filed 4-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 74 News Blaze: Secretary of Energy to Visit Yucca Mountain On Thursday, April 13, 2006, Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman will visit the Department of Energy's (DOE) Yucca Mountain site. Following a tour of the site, Secretary Bodman will host a press conference at Yucca Mountain's north portal to discuss the new legislation sent by DOE to the U.S. Congress on April 5, 2006, for accelerated construction of the nuclear waste repository. NOTE: Media interested in attending the press conference should contact the Yucca Mountain Project Site Public Affairs Office, (702) 794-1411, by NOON PDT on Wednesday, April 12, to register and provide information for admittance to the Nevada Test Site. Media should plan to arrive at DOE's Las Vegas Information Center by 7:15 AM PDT on Thursday for the bus escort to the site. WHO: Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman WHAT: Press Conference following visit to the Yucca Mountain Project WHEN: Thursday, April 13, 2006 10:15 AM PDT WHERE: Meet at Las Vegas Information Center 4101 B Meadows Lane Las Vegas, NV Press Conference Location Yucca Mountain site North Portal Source: U.S. Department of Energy judythpiazza@gmail.com Copyright © 2006, NewsBlaze, Daily News Copyright © 2004-2006 NewsBlaze LLC ***************************************************************** 75 KnoxNews: Automatic comp proposed for Y-12 workers By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS April 11, 2006 WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal agency is recommending some sick workers from the Y-12 weapons plant in Oak Ridge, Tenn., receive automatic compensation under a five-year-old benefits program. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is recommending people who worked at a handful of Y-12 buildings from January 1948 to December 1957 be automatically compensated under the program. The workers are those who were monitored _ or should have been monitored _ for inhalation of thorium, a radiation source, according to the recommendation publicized by the agency Monday. Eligible workers must have a kind of cancer linked to radiation. They or their survivors can receive $150,000. The government does not have enough data from those years to estimate exposure levels to thorium, according to agency. Under the program, sick workers are supposed to automatically be compensated if the government can't estimate their doses with sufficient accuracy. The recommendation now goes to a federal advisory board, which will make its own recommendation. The Secretary of Health and Human Services makes the final decision. HHS previously decided to compensate sick uranium workers who were at Y-12 in the 1940s. Copyright 2006, Associated Press. All rights reserved. © 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel ***************************************************************** 76 Platts: Spending cut likely in Senate Washington (Platts)--10Apr2006 Two key Senate appropriators made it clear last month that they plan to cut DOE's $544 million request for the repository program in fiscal 2007, which begins October 1. "That has got to come down," said Republican Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, who chairs the Appropriations subcommittee that controls DOE spending. Domenici's comment came after a subcommittee hearing in which several members criticized the DOE budget request for cutting spending on clean coal and other energy programs. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the subcommittee's ranking Democrat and a fierce opponent of the DOE repository project at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, told reporters he didn't know how the much-delayed program could effectively spend that much money. Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 77 Hanford News: Panel mulls time issue at Hanford This story was published Friday, April 7th, 2006 By Lisa Zagaroli, Herald Washington, D.C., bureau WASHINGTON - The chairman of a key congressional panel said the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant is "on a fast road to failure," but he pledged to live up to the government's obligation to clean up leaking nuclear weapons waste. "There's a lot of taxpayer money out here - we're concerned about timeliness," said Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio. "We can't allow sloppiness, unwarranted delays." Hobson presided over a nearly five-hour hearing of the House appropriations subcommittee on energy and water, which along with its Senate counterpart will play a major role in determining how much money the federal government is going to commit to cleaning up waste stored at the Hanford nuclear reservation in the coming years. The project had gotten $690 million for three consecutive years, but last year its budget was cut to $526 million. Hobson said after the hearing that he hadn't made any decisions about whether to fully fund the project in fiscal 2007. He wants to first evaluate a new cost estimate due in May. The panel questioned representatives of the Department of Energy, the building contractor Bechtel National Inc., the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Government Accountability Office. Much of the inquiry focused on accountability for massive cost overruns. While the completion date has been pushed back six years to 2017, the 2000 cost estimate of $4.3 billion has ballooned to an estimated $11 billion. It's due in part because the scope of the project has swelled and the criteria for withstanding an earthquake that had been relied on for all of its engineering calculations was deemed inadequate. The task at Hanford, a 586-square-mile site near Kennewick in Washington state where the government produced plutonium in nuclear reactors to create bombs, is to treat about 53 million gallons of highly radioactive waste that was stored in 177 underground tanks. About a million gallons have leaked from at least 67 of the aging tanks, and officials are worried about the contaminated water's proximity to the nation's second largest river, the Columbia. The waste is a messy mix of liquids, sludge with the consistency of peanut butter, and a sand-like material known as saltcake. Processing it will involve separating high-level and low-level radioactive waste and mixing it with molten glass. The glassified logs will be placed in stainless steel containers suitable for long-term storage. Its ultimate destination would be a permanent repository for nuclear waste such as Yucca Mountain, but until that opens it would be stored on site in Hanford. Though the vitrification process has been used elsewhere, the challenges at Hanford are considered unprecedented. "We're kind of in a no-man's land," said Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn. The Hanford project is a "first of a kind" model and "no other radioactive waste processing plant in the world comes close in size or technical complexity," said Tom Hash, chairman of Bechtel, a global company that had a hand in building 50 percent of the nation's nuclear facilities, the Hoover Dam and other complicated construction projects. Hash said that Bechtel, which took on the waste management project in 2000, had underestimated the challenges of the job. He said he hadn't realized just how much the U.S. nuclear industry's talent pool had weakened since the nation stopped building nuclear plants about 20 years ago. "We could not - until procurement and construction were under way - see the full extent of the atrophy," he told the committee in a statement he issued before testifying. "We had to repair a nearly non-existent U.S. nuclear supply chain," Hash said. "We have had to mentor suppliers, teach them how to comply with stringent nuclear quality standards, and in some cases, have had to purchase nuclear-grade equipment and supplies overseas because they were no longer made here in the U.S." Hash acknowledged a number of other miscalculations ranging from the price of steel and concrete to technical hurdles and quality issues. The GAO, Congress' investigative arm, blamed Bechtel's "performance shortcomings," the Energy Department's inadequate oversight and other management problems and unanticipated technical challenges. Gene Aloise, director of natural resources and environment for the agency, recommended that Bechtel and the Energy Department complete 90 percent of the design work on components before beginning construction. What is known as a simultaneous "design-build" approach has been used instead. James Rispoli, assistant secretary for environmental management at the Department of Energy, said the agency had put more space between design and construction but planned to stick to doing both at the same time. "I would not even venture to guess when this facility would be built" if design had to be completed before construction could begin, Rispoli said. Hash said the design is now 60 percent complete and construction is more than 25 percent complete. "I want to get away from the fast track and get on to the smart track," Hobson said. He kicked off the hearing by saying that he was convinced, "after learning about the failures of project management, the neglect of nuclear safety quality assurances and the uncontrollable costs you will hear about today, that this project is on a fast road to failure." Rispoli said Bechtel so far had been paid about $88 million in fees, or profits, for meeting certain milestones and cost controls. The department stopped paying the $3 million per quarter cost control fee a year ago. A.J. Eggenberger, the chairman of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Board, defended the timing of its recommendation that the seismic criteria needed to be upgraded. He said that the Department of Energy knew as early as mid-2002 and Bechtel knew within months of that time that it was an issue, but it wasn't until early 2005 that changes were signed off on. Hash said Bechtel had agreed to "apply a little more margins in our design" prior to that but it had to work to the government's design specifications. Hash said stability in three areas - funding, regulatory requirements and project scope - would be necessary to keep costs at current estimates. Rispoli also emphasized the importance of a predictable funding stream to keep costs down, a comment that incited heated remarks from lawmakers. "I take offense at that," said Rep. Peter Visclosky of Indiana, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, who noted that systematic problems with the project occurred prior to any dip in funding. "We gave you the money and the performance for one reason or another wasn't there," Hobson said. "I'm not sure we got the value for the dollars." Hobson said after the hearing had ended that he was most concerned about the water contamination from the leaking tanks, and Rispoli told him the department had launched a new groundwater study at the site. Two lawmakers from Washington state, Democrat Norm Dicks and Republican Doc Hastings, urged the subcommittee to see to it that the Department of Energy fulfills its responsibility to do away with the waste. "Cleanup at Hanford is not optional," Hastings said. "Past actions of the federal government created the current conditions at Hanford, and the people of Washington state and the surrounding communities have every right to expect the government to clean it up." Dicks said the problems won't be simplified by drastic reductions in funding. Wamp asked if pressure from Washington state officials had contributed to problems with the project, but members of the panel said they hadn't. "Clearly the state recognizes, as we all do, there's a clear and present danger with these tanks," Hash said. Climbing Costs The cost of the Waste Treatment Plant being built at Hanford, Wash., has more than doubled since 2000. $4.3 billion in December 20000 $5.7 billion in March 2003 $8.3 billion in March 2005 $10.5 billion in December 2005 $10.9 billion in February 2006 Sources: Government Accountability Office; Department of Energy © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 78 Hanford News: Lawmaker asks if nuclear workers are treated fairly This story was published Sunday, April 9th, 2006 By The Associated Press WASHINGTON - For years, radiation experts at the nation's nuclear weapons sites failed to adequately protect workers from on-the-job hazards. Now, some of those experts are helping run a compensation program for the workers. The situation has attracted the attention of Congress, with one lawmaker pressing for an investigation into whether the workers are being treated fairly. Rep. John Hostettler recently wrote to the investigative arm of Congress to ask whether the contractor running the compensation program has policies that are "sufficient to ensure that conflicts or biases do not taint the credibility and quality of the science produced to date." Hostettler, R-Ind., is chairman of a House subcommittee that deals with people bringing claims against the government. Critics contend that the contractor, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, has put into key jobs people who have managed radiation monitoring programs at the weapons sites. In some cases, those people were witnesses for the government when it fought compensation claims. Jim Melius, who is on a presidential advisory board that oversees the program, said, "It's so critical for this program to be credible and for the claimants to have an understanding and confidence that the people who were monitoring them - and maybe in some cases failing to monitor them properly - will not be the people passing judgment on their exposures and on their compensation." Nearly 73,000 workers or their survivors have filed claims under the program, according to the Labor Department. Government officials say they are preparing a policy that will spell out how the contractor should handle conflicts of interest. "It's a very difficult, complex dilemma that we face," said Larry Elliott, who heads the office of compensation in the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The agency oversees the contract. Elliott said the guidelines would try to balance the need to rely on the radiation experts at the nuclear facilities for their knowledge of the sites with concerns about potential biases. Kate Kimpan, who directs the contractor's program, said her group will adhere to the guidelines and "ensure that our conclusions are beyond refute." The Oak Ridge, Tenn.-based contractor is writing reports that detail hazards at weapons facilities. The reports are blueprints the contractor is using to estimate how much radiation workers were exposed to. Critics say some of the authors appear biased. Kelly Schmidt, a worker and union leader at Hanford, has complained that authors of the Hanford report managed important aspects of the radiation program there. Schmidt noted that a version of the report stated it was unlikely workers received large intakes of radiation that went unnoticed because there was "rigorous workplace monitoring" at Hanford. "It gives the impression that they're saying, 'Gosh, we did a great job,' " Schmidt said. An auditor working for the advisory board raised concerns, too, saying the Hanford report relied too heavily on the ability of shields placed around nuclear reactors to protect workers from radiation. The auditor also found that the Hanford report did not account for all the possible radiation that workers who handled recycled uranium might have been exposed to. Nuclear sites The government contractor helping run a compensation program for sick nuclear weapons workers has written reports describing activities at the following sites hired to assist the government's nuclear weapons program: * Aliquippa Forge, in Aliquippa, Pa. * Allied Chemical Corp., Metropolis, Ill. * Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Simi Valley, Calif. * Argonne National Laboratory East, Argonne, Ill. * Argonne National Laboratory West, Scoville, Idaho * Bethlehem Steel Company, Lackawanna, N.Y. * Blockson Chemical Company, Joliet, Ill. * Bridgeport Brass Company, Adrian, Mich. and Bridgeport, Conn. * Chapman Valve, Indian Orchard, Mass. * Feed Materials Production Center, Fernald, Ohio * Hanford, Richland * Huntington Pilot Plant, Huntington, W.Va. * Idaho National Laboratory, Scoville, Idaho * Iowa Ordnance Plant, Burlington Iowa * Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Mo. * Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, Calif. * Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, N.M. * Linde Ceramics, Tonawanda, N.Y. * Mallinckrodt Chemical Co., St. Louis. * Mound Plant, Miamisburg, Ohio * Nevada Test Site, Mercury, Nev. * Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Oak Ridge, Tenn. * Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn. * Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland * Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah, Ky. * Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas. * Pinellas Plant, Clearwater, Fla. * Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Piketon, Ohio * Rocky Flats Plant, Golden, Colo. * Savannah River Site, Aiken, S.C. * Simonds Saw and Steel Co., Lockport, N.Y. * Superior Steel Co., Carnegie, Pa. * Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals, Ala. * Weldon Spring Plant, Weldon Spring, Mo. * W.R. Grace, a k a Nuclear Fuels Services, Erwin, Tenn. * Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tenn. - Associated Press © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 79 Hanford News: Board urges simpler Hanford contracts This story was published Tuesday, April 11th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Hanford should move to a single contract for work in the nuclear reservation's central area to avoid costly duplication of services, the Hanford Advisory Board has recommended. And any new agreements should avoid a two-tiered pension and benefits plan the Department of Energy has envisioned as a way to save money, the board added. The Department of Energy's preliminary plans for new contracts at Hanford call for splitting two expiring contracts held by Fluor Hanford and CH2M Hill Hanford Group into three new contracts. The three would cover CH2M Hill's present work at the tank farms and split work now done by Fluor into two contracts. One would cover central Hanford waste cleanup and disposal, except for the emptying and closing of 177 underground tanks holding radioactive waste from the production of plutonium at Hanford. The other would provide support services, such as utilities, road maintenance, fire protection and information technology. No rationale has been provided for the "artificial partitioning" of related work, said the advice sent from the advisory board to DOE after HAB's April meeting. One of the new contractors might be responsible for closing the tanks and another for cleaning up contaminated soil under and around them. The HAB advice said, "From a cost and efficiency perspective, having one Central Plateau contract may provide savings and help address challenges in integrating work" between DOE's two Hanford offices, the Richland Operations Office and the Office of River Protection. A single contract would allow more flexibility in moving highly qualified workers and management from project to project as priorities change, HAB said. It also would allow similar flexibility with budgets and equipment. Each of the new contracts could require such duplicate services as public information and human resources, which could cost less under a single contract, said Todd Martin, HAB chairman. The board also is concerned that workers be provided equal benefits for equal work, he said. Preliminary information from DOE said Hanford workers now covered by the site's pension program would remain in the program. But new hires would be covered by cheaper market-based pension plans offered by the three new contractors. The board not only wants to eliminate that two-tiered proposal, but also wants DOE to consider reinstating workers previously dropped from the program. Those include workers assigned to "enterprise companies" that were supposed to develop non-Hanford business in addition to doing Hanford work. Some workers continue to do the same Hanford work they did before being assigned to those companies, but no longer are building benefits in the Hanford pension program. HAB's advice to DOE also addressed safety records in light of DOE's failed attempt to award a small business contract to finish shutting down Hanford's Fast Flux Test Facility. Safety and Ecology Corp. of Tennessee initially was awarded the contract in 2004, even though it had dripped radioactive waste down a state highway months earlier while doing cleanup work in Oak Ridge, Tenn. "It is imperative new contractors have strong safety records on decommissioning and demolition work," HAB's advice said. "The safety records should be a significant part of the qualifications, and these should be available for public review." The contracts held by Fluor and CH2M Hill expire at the end of September, but DOE plans to extend them by up to 24 months to allow time to award new contracts. DOE has released little information beyond a three-page preliminary proposal for the new contracts in January. The new contracts will not include cleanup along the Columbia River, being done by Washington Closure Hanford, or the construction, testing and operation of the vitrification plant to treat tank waste. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 80 Stockton Record: 'Just dig it all up' Livermore's plan for tainted water near weapons dump has critics Alex Breitler Record Staff Writer Published Tuesday, Apr 11, 2006 The entrance to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300, southwest of Tracy, on Monday morning Credit: Michael McCollum/The Record TRACY - Environmentalists want Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to dig deeper for the solution to a plume of tainted water draining from an old weapons dump nine miles southwest of Tracy. The lab has unveiled a plan to divert rainwater around the landfill. But some critics would like to see the contaminated earth removed entirely. The soil contains radioactive residue that leaches into the groundwater, forming an underground plume of contaminated water up to 2 miles long. "They ought to just dig it all up," said community activist Bob Sarvey, who attended a public meeting on the topic last week. "We need to get it out of there and eliminate the threat." It's the latest debate over cleanup at Site 300, the laboratory's 11-square-mile testing range in the Altamont Hills. The lab has tested explosives there for half a century. Experts are zeroing in on the northwest corner of Site 300, where weapons components were dumped into a series of landfills over a period of more than three decades. Those unlined landfills, called the Pit 7 complex, are on the federal Superfund list of the nation's most-toxic cleanup sites. Chemicals such as depleted uranium and tritium - a radioactive form of hydrogen - have seeped into the water and degraded water quality, Lawrence Livermore officials say. The lab proposes digging hillside trenches to steer rainwater away from the lower landfills. That would prevent a scenario seen in very wet years, when the rain soaks into the ground and causes the aquifer to rise into the landfill about 25 feet below ground level. Digging up the contaminated soil would add tens of millions of dollars to the $11million-to-$15million price tag and could expose workers to unhealthy conditions, the lab says in its report. What's more, even with removal, contaminants could remain in very deep layers of rock that could not be unearthed. The lab also plans to pump out groundwater and treat many of the chemicals. But there is no way to purify water tainted with tritium, a substance often used in the triggering mechanisms of thermonuclear weapons. A tritium-tainted plume of water is drifting downstream at about 33 feet per year, lab hydrologist Michael Taffet said. At the rate tritium decays, the water should be within drinking standards within 45 years, he said. The plume is moving slowly and will not endanger Tracy's water supply or infiltrate water tables tapped by developments planned in the southwest part of the city, he said. While the cancer-causing toxin could cause some risk to workers who spend extended periods at Site 300, there is no risk to residents, Taffet said. That doesn't satisfy Marylia Kelley, who heads the watchdog group Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment. Her group suggests not only removing some of the dirt but also injecting clean water in front of the plume to slow it down long enough to let the tritium decay. "If you can hold a plume in place, you should hold it in place," Kelley said. "You don't let it migrate and contaminate clean groundwater." While weapons testing continues at Site 300, officials say they have adapted practices to prevent future contamination. For example, since in 1988, lab workers no longer dump exploded test assemblies and other hazardous items into the pits. Four of the landfills have been capped. But critics say the soil should have been excavated years ago, when the work would have been cheaper. If not then, do it now, Sarvey said. "I think they have a moral and legal obligation to do so," he said. Contact reporter Alex Breitler at (209) 239-6606 or abreitler@recordnet.com To weigh in Public comments will be accepted through May 5 regarding the U.S. Department of Energy plan to clean up the Pit 7 complex at Site 300, southwest of Tracy. To read the plan and submit comments visit wwwenvirinfo.llnl.gov. Copyright © 1998-2006 ONI Stockton, Inc., All Rights Reserved. webmaster@recordnet.com ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************