*****************************************************************
05/22/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.121
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body
NUCLEAR POLICY
1 IPS-English POLITICS: Iran Target of Apparent Disinformation
2 [southnews] Rice: No US promise not to attack Iran
3 IRNA: Iran willl not give up its right to nuclear research - Elham -
4 IRNA: Nuclear arms free Mideast to benefit of regional development
5 IRNA: Nuclear energy all countries' absolute right, including Iran's
6 IRNA: Ahmadinejad thanks Chavez for supporting Iran's nuclear stand
7 IRNA: US using media in psychological war against Iran
8 IRNA: IAEA chief to start US visit today
9 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Envoy Wants Talks With Iran Over Iraq
10 Guardian Unlimited: China, Germany Against Iran Nuke Program
11 New York Times: U.S. Is Proposing European Shield for Iran Missiles
12 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI foreign policy based on dialogue
13 AFP: Gulf states seek Iran dialogue on nuclear policy
14 AFP: Germany and China agree Iran should not have nuclear bomb - Mer
15 AFP: Rice: US offers Iran no security guarantees
16 AFP: Iran refuses to negotiate on nuclear work
17 IRNA: Iraq calls for expansion of ties with Iran - Iraqi FM
18 IRNA: US official: Nuclear energy will play important role in future
19 AFP: US works to contain Iran in Gulf
20 IRNA: Iran, Iraq discuss issues of mutual interest
21 IRNA: Germany's Merkel in China to discuss Iran N-case, major develo
22 Korea Herald: Ban calls for proactive engagement toward N.K.
23 AFP: US says no better deal for NKorea
24 U.S. PRESSURE YIELDS CURBS ON IRAN IN EUROPE
25 RIA Novosti: Russia says it wants end to U.S. nuclear discrimination
26 US: Waxman: Committee on Government Reform Minority Office
27 UPI: Russian-U.S. nuclear cooperation urged
28 AFP: Indian, US officials bid to rescue landmark nuclear deal -
NUCLEAR REACTORS
29 US: JS Online: Kewaunee plant faces scrutiny again
30 US: [NukeNet] sunbeam article on NRCmeeting
31 [NukeNet] Scotland: Former minister launches anti-nuclear
32 US: [NukeNet] Secret Document Reveals New Breed of Nuclear
33 US: Columbian: Trojan's Final Bow
34 NEWS.com.au: Nuclear push 'a terrorism risk'
35 NEWS.com.au: PM declares it's time to go nuclear
36 NEWS.com.au: Nuclear energy not an option - Swan
37 US: NRC: NRC Finds No Significant Environmental Impacts from Extende
38 SABCnews.com: More power cuts predicted for Cape Town
39 SABCnews.com: Cape Town could be in the dark again tonight
40 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear energy is cheaper than gas, and needs
41 Sydney Morning Herald: Vic, NSW possible nuke power sites
42 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear debate a diversion: Garrett -
43 Sydney Morning Herald: Howard wants full-blooded nuke debate -
44 US: NRC: Submission of Annual Financial Reports: Elimination of Requ
45 Sydney Morning Herald: Still the option no one wants in their backya
46 US: AP Wire: Environmental group earns a place in history
47 US: Seattle Times: A piece of nuclear history crumbles in 10 seconds
48 Bellona: Rosatom plans to build a second Leningrad Nuclear Power Pla
49 US: NRC: Submission of Annual Financial Reports: Elimination of Requ
50 US: Times Argus: Nuclear technology is not fail-safe
51 globe and mail: Let's go nuclear
52 TBJ: Australian firm could build GE uranium facilities in Wilmington
53 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
54 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Draft Interim Staff Guidance Docu
55 US: NRC: Nuclear exemptions: 50-461;
56 US: NRC: In the Matter of All Licensees Authorized To Possess Radioa
57 US: NRC: Notice of Consideration of Amendment Request for Decommissi
58 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collecti
59 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
60 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Subcommittee Meet
61 Brazil News: Lula: country may become an energy superpower
62 Deccan Herald: Tarapur N-unit goes critical -
63 AU ABC: Scientist casts doubt on nuclear benefits.
64 AU ABC: Howard considering nuclear feasibility study
65 AU ABC: PM promotes nuclear power debate
66 AU ABC: PM flags nuclear energy debate
67 AU ABC: PM nuclear debate call a farce - Garrett.
68 UPI: Tarapur nuclear plant becomes critical
NUCLEAR SECURITY
69 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuke push could spark terror attack - ALP
NUCLEAR SAFETY
70 NDN: Small amount of radiation leaks within Japanese nuclear plant -
71 RBC: Gov't approves zero import duty on uranium
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
72 US: BBC: Russia, US to review uranium deal
73 US: NRC: Request To Amend a License To Import Radioactive Waste
74 US: AU ABC: Ian Macfarlane says uranium enrichment a viable option f
75 US: Mos News: Russia, US to Review Uranium Trade Deal -
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
76 KnoxNews: Filter problem leads to shutdown of uranium work
77 Guardian Unlimited: Settlement May Be Near in Wen Ho Lee Case
78 lamonitor.com: LANL building dedicated
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 IPS-English POLITICS: Iran Target of Apparent Disinformation
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 18:13:49 -0700
ROMAIPS MM NA CR HD IP BW NC NU=20
POLITICS: Iran Target of Apparent Disinformation Ploy
Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, May 22 (IPS) - A story authored by a prominent U.S. neo-conse=
rvative regarding new legislation in Iran allegedly requiring Jews and ot=
her religious minorities to wear distinctive colour badges circulated aro=
und the world this weekend before it was exposed as false.
The article by a frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal, Iranian=
-American Amir Taheri, was initially published in Friday's edition of Can=
ada's National Post, which ran alongside the story a 1935 photograph of a=
Jewish businessman in Berlin with a yellow, six-pointed star sewn on his=
overcoat, as required by Nazi legislation at the time. The Post subseque=
ntly issued a retraction.
Taheri's story, however, was reprinted by the New York Post, which is own=
ed by media baron Rupert Murdoch, and picked up by the Jerusalem Post, wh=
ich also featured a photo of a yellow star from the Nazi era over a photo=
of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Another neo-conservative publication, the New York Sun, also noted the st=
ory Monday, claiming that the specific report that special badges were re=
quired by the legislation had been =94incorrect=94. At the same time, how=
ever, the Sun quoted two Iranian-American foes of the Islamic Republic as=
suggesting that dress requirements for religious minorities were still b=
eing considered by Iran's ruling circles. It offered no evidence to suppo=
rt that assertion.
The story, which was also noted in the Australian press, comes at a momen=
t of rising tensions between Iran and both Israel and the United States o=
ver Tehran's nuclear programme which, according to the latter two, is des=
igned to produce nuclear weapons. Both the U.S. and Israel have suggested=
that they may take military action against nuclear-related targets in Ir=
an unless ongoing diplomatic efforts to freeze Tehran's programme bears f=
ruit.
Juan Cole, president of the U.S. Middle East Studies Association (MESA), =
described the Taheri article and its appearance first in Canada's Post as=
=94typical of black psychological operations campaigns=94, particularly =
in its origin in an =94out of the way newspaper that is then picked up by=
the mainstream press=94 -- in this case, the Jerusalem Post and the New =
York Post. A former U.S. intelligence official described the article's re=
latively obscure provenance as a =94real sign of (a) disinformation opera=
tion=94.
Taheri's original article, entitled =94A Colour Code for Iran's 'Infidels=
'=94, dealt primarily with new legislation that it said was designed to e=
nsure that Iranians wear =94standard Islamic garments=94 that removed eth=
nic and class distinctions and that eliminated =94the influence of the in=
fidel=94 -- presumably meaning the West -- =94on the way Iranians, especi=
ally, the young dress=94.
But it also noted in passing that it would =94envisage=94 separate dress =
codes for religious minorities -- Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians -- w=
ho will be required to adopt distinct colour schemes to make them identif=
iable in public =94so that (Muslims) can avoid shaking hands with them by=
mistake, and thus (become) najis (unclean)=94.
In particular, he explained, religious minorities will =94have to wear sp=
ecial insignia, known as zonnar, to indicate their non-Islamic faiths. Je=
ws will be marked out with a yellow strip of cloth sewn in front of their=
clothes, while Christians will be assigned the colour red. Zoroastrians =
end up with Persian blue as the colour of their zonnar,=94 he wrote.
While Taheri did not evoke the Nazi precedent in his column, the National=
Post asked its readers at the end of the piece, =94Is Iran turning into =
the new Nazi Germany? Share your opinion online at national post.com.=94
That was compounded by the Post's publication of a front-page article by =
Chris Wattie which quoted unidentified =94human rights groups=94 as =94ra=
ising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would r=
equire the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to ident=
ify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims=94.
=94This is reminiscent of the Holocaust,=94 Wattie quoted Rabbi Marvin He=
ir, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, as telling hi=
m. =94Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis.=94
The story also quoted one Iranian exile living in Toronto as confirming t=
he story, as well as Canadian Jewish leaders and Prime Minister Stephen H=
arper as denouncing the legislation and suggesting that it was consistent=
with other recent moves made by Tehran.
Similarly, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, who, however, =
denied any specific knowledge about the alleged measure, called it =94des=
picable=94 and reminiscent of =94Germany under Hitler=94.
In fact, however, the legislation contained =94absolutely no mention of r=
eligious minorities=94, according to Hadi Ghaemi, the chief Iran research=
er for Human Rights Watch (HRW), who said it included =94only generalitie=
s with regard to promoting a national dress code and fashion industry tha=
t should be subsidised and supported by the government=94.
The article -- and especially its attribution to =94human rights groups=94=
-- was particularly unfortunate, he told IPS, because =94it plays into t=
he hands of the Iranian government that wants to discredit human rights i=
ssues that are raised at the international level=94. The actual legislati=
on was indeed =94a troubling development=94, but not for the reasons cite=
d by the Post, he added, because =94its main target is most probably Iran=
ian women=94.
Other denunciations were quick to follow. One Jewish representative in th=
e Iranian parliament, Maurice Motamed, insisted that colour requirements =
for ethnic minorities had =94never been proposed or discussed in parliame=
nt=94, let alone approved. =94Such news,=94 he told the Associated Press,=
=94is an insult to religious minorities here.=94
=94This report is a complete fabrication and is totally false,=94 he told=
The Australian newspaper. =94It is a lie...=94
Two Israel-based Iran experts, Menashe Amir and Meir Javedanfar, also den=
ounced the original reports about the legislation, suggesting in a follow=
-up article in the Jerusalem Post Monday that they were based on outdated=
speculation about the impact on non-Muslims of the adoption of Islamic d=
ress standards.
Nonetheless, the Sun, without endorsing the specific contents of the Nati=
onal Post articles, refused to drop the story, quoting =94a leading spoke=
sman for Iranian Jews=94, the secretary-general of the Iranian American J=
ewish Federation in Los Angeles, Sam Kermanian, as thanking =94the world =
for its outcry=94 over the original reports and praising Taheri as =94som=
eone with fantastic credibility=94.
Taheri is a member of Benador Associates, a public relations firm that li=
sts a large number of leading neo-conservatives, including American Enter=
prise Institute (AEI) associates Richard Perle, David Frum, Michael Ledee=
n, Michael Rubin, and Joshua Muravchik, among its clients. Major boosters=
of the war with Iraq, Benador clients, who also include former Central I=
ntelligence Agency chief James Woolsey and former Israeli minister Natan =
Sharansky, have also called for the Bush administration to take a hard li=
ne against Iran.
The newspapers that so far have run the story are similarly identified wi=
th a hard line against Tehran. The National Post, which was bought by Can=
West Global Communications from Conrad Black, a close associate of Perle'=
s, is controlled by David and Leonard Asper, who have accused the Canadia=
n Broadcasting Corporation of being anti-Israel, according to Marsha Cohe=
n of Florida International University, who has closely followed the badge=
s story.
Similarly, the Sun has consistently taken positions consistent with the r=
ight-wing Likud Party in Israel on Middle East issues, while Murdoch owns=
the strongly pro-Israel Weekly Standard and Fox News, in addition to the=
New York Post.
=94I think the way these stories played -- particularly the references to=
the Holocaust -- was designed to arouse and play upon concerns and accus=
ations that Ahmadinejad is another Hitler who needs to be dealt with acco=
rdingly,=94 noted Cohen, who added that the Iranian president's questioni=
ng of the Holocaust and aggressive statements about Israel have made such=
stories more credible.
*****
+Middle East Studies Association (http://mesa.wns.ccit.arizona.edu/)
+Human Rights Watch (http://hrw.org/)
(END/IPS/NA/MM/IP/HD/NC/NU/CR/BW/JL/KS/06)
=20
=3D 05230212 ORP003
NNNN
*****************************************************************
2 [southnews] Rice: No US promise not to attack Iran
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 02:09:14 -0500 (CDT)
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/7gSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said today the United States is
not offering security guarantees to Iran in a bid to end the dispute
over its nuclear program.
US 'not offering Iran guarantees'
From correspondents in Washington
AFP 22may06
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said today the United States is
not offering security guarantees to Iran in a bid to end the dispute
over its nuclear program.
"Security assurances are not on the table," Ms Rice told the Fox News
Sunday television program.
"It's obvious that in addition to the nuclear issue, we have other
issues with Iran. We have a state in Iran that is devoted to the
destruction of Israel. We have a state in Iran that meddles in the peace
process" in the Middle East.
Media reports have said that Britain, France and Germany, which are
leading international talks with Iran, had asked Washington to provide
guarantees that no threat would be made to the Iranian government.
But Ms Rice strongly denied that the European trio had asked for such
guarantees.
"First of all, let me just set the record straight. We haven't been
asked to provide security assurances to Iran.
"What we're talking about is a package that will make clear to Iran that
there are choices to be made, either that there will be sanctions and
actions taken against Iran by the international community, or there's a
way for them to meet their civil nuclear concerns."
She said: "You can't take this question out of the context of what Iran
is doing in the international system. Iran is a troublemaker in the
international system, a central banker of terrorism. Security assurances
are not on the table."
Britain, France and Germany are preparing a package of trade, technology
and security benefits if Tehran stops enriching uranium, a process which
creates fuel for power plants but can also form the core of a nuclear bomb.
A draft proposal by the trio said world powers should support Iran's
building of light water reactors for power generation and should also
set up a nuclear fuel bank that would guarantee access to reactor fuel
but not the sensitive fuel cycle technology.
But Iran vowed again today it will not suspend uranium enrichment.
The United States has been pressing for a UN Security Council resolution
under Chapter 7 of the UN charter, which would allow for sanctions, and
could eventually permit military action.
"We would like to show Iran's government and its people that it is
possible to have a way out of this crisis, a way out that preserves
Iran's ability to have civil nuclear power," said Ms Rice.
She said Washington and its European allies wanted "to show them (Iran)
a path into the international community of states and back into good
standing".
"If they won't take it, then we'll have to take the other course."
The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/
*****************************************************************
3 IRNA: Iran willl not give up its right to nuclear research - Elham -
Tehran, May 22, IRNA
Iran-Gov't-Spokesman
Iran's right to access nuclear fuel technology or carry out
nuclear-related research is non-negotiable, government spokesman
Gholam-Hossein Elham said here Monday.
Speaking to domestic and foreign reporters at his weekly press
briefing, Elham said Iran backed efforts to defend peace and to
rid the world of weapons of mass destruction.
"Tehran is ready for any cooperation or negotiation leading to
global nuclear disarmament," stressed the spokesman.
Referring to the upcoming meeting of the 5+1 Group in London on
Wednesday, the official urged participants (representatives from
the UN five permanent members and Germany) in the meeting to
"take into consideration Iran's legitimate rights in the nuclear
field" when making decisions on the nuclear issue.
Stressing that each and every Iranian was pressing for the
right to acquire civilian nuclear energy, he said this was "not
a matter the government can surrender."
"Based on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) even the right to
enrich uranium is non-negotiable," Elham said, reiterating that
Iran's nuclear program was for peaceful purposes and Tehran
supports the idea of making the world free from nuclear weapons.
However, added the spokesman, "Iran believes that access to
peaceful nuclear technology is an indisputable and irreversible
right of the nation."
He said that Iranians can make their choice in this free
country and Iranians are a "politically mature nation."
*****************************************************************
4 IRNA: Nuclear arms free Mideast to benefit of regional development -- envoy -
, May 22, IRNA
--
IRI Ambassador to Kabul Mohammad-Raza Bahrami said here in an
interview with an Afghan daily that declaring the Middle East a
nuclear weapons free zone would be to the benefit of regional
development.
Bahrami made the comment in an interview with the Kabul based
'Anis' daily, adding, "That has been the Islamic Republic of
Iran's official stand, and heartfelt belief, and all the same,
the Iranian nation has an absolute right to have access to full
cycle of the nuclear technology."
He said, "In order to solve our country's nuclear stand-off
with the West, Tehran is ready to resume talks with the EU, but
we would not yield to any type of irrational demands, or
political pressure." The Iranian diplomat argued that the ones
who have launched a propagation campaign against Iran naturally
do not really believe in solving the so called "problem" through
diplomatic channels.
The Iranian Ambassador added, "They are after aggravating the
crisis hoping that under tense circumstances they would achieve
their illegitimate objectives more easily."
In response to a question why he thought the West's propagation
war against Iran keeps on aggravating on a daily basis, he said,
"They naturally mean to mount more pressure against Tehran."
Bahrami added, "They furthermore wish to prepare the public
opinion by propagating over Iran threat for the region, in order
to prepare the ground for launching an attack against Iran."
Iran's Ambassador to Kabul said, "Iran has proved in past
decades that it feels quite committed towards safeguarding
regional peace and security."
He reiterated, "Iran's moves in Afghanistan, too, have been
quite transparent, and mainly aimed at boosting your country's
reconstruction process, based on Tehran's commitments."
Bahrami stressed, "Our transparent policies in our political
relations with Kabul, too, are aimed at trust building with the
Afghan government and in accordance with the agreements with
Kabul in Bonn that were drafted in an agreement."
He said, "Iran, as a member of the international community,
assists Afghanistan as Tehran believes your country's security
and development would also serve Iran's interests."
*****************************************************************
5 IRNA: Nuclear energy all countries' absolute right, including Iran's - Erdogan -
Sharm al-Sheik, Egypt, May 23, IRNA
Turkey-Iran-Nuclear
Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said here on Monday
at Middle Eastern "World Economic Forum, "Taking advantage of
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is all countries' absolute
right, including Iran's."
Erdogan made the comment in the live and vastly popular TV
Forum which also featured the prime ministers of Malaysia, Egypt
and Lebanon.
In response to the forum anchorman's question, "What benefits
would Turkey gain from talking to Iran and would Ankara
participate in such affairs?" Erdogan said, "I have had two
meetings with President Ahmadinejad during the course of the
past month." He added, "The main objective behind those meetings
was finding out what we could do about the prevailing viewpoints
on nuclear energy in the region and the world; whether Iran's
nuclear program as really aimed at peaceful purposes as it is
often stressed or not?; what could be done to solve the current
crisis?; etc."
The Turkish Prime Minister said, "Holding high level political
dialogues with Iran in that respect is of great significance
under the current circumstances and in my talks with the
esteemed President of our friendly and brother neighbor, Iran,
we were both agreed that the problems needs to be solved through
diplomatic means." Erdogan said, "As Iran's neighbor, we feel
obliged to take certain steps today towards problem solving. Let
me make it clear here that we are totally opposed to nuclear
programs meant at military usage, but if they are truly meant
for peaceful purposes, no country has the right to oppose them."
He added, "There are dozens of countries in the world today
that are taking advantage of nuclear energy, and Iran should
logically not face obstacles for doing the same."
Erdogan said, "Turkey, too, is pursuing a project aimed at
launching some nuclear reactors to meet a part of its needs to
energy and we are involved in talks with USA, Canada, Britain
and Germany in that respect. Should our program, then, be put
under similar questions?"
*****************************************************************
6 IRNA: Ahmadinejad thanks Chavez for supporting Iran's nuclear stand -
Tehran, May 22, IRNA
Ahmadinejad-Chavez-Phone Talk
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thanked his Venezuelan counterpart
Hugo Chavez in a phone talk on Monday night for his country's
strong support for Iran's righteous nuclear stand.
The two presidents during the phone talks once again backed
each other's political stands on various international issues
and both agreed on the need to further strengthen comprehensive
bilateral ties.
The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran once again
thanked President Chavez and the Venezuelan government and
people for supporting Iran's absolute right to nuclear energy
for peaceful purposes, adding, "We have lots of shared
objectives and ideals." Ahmadinejad added, "Those objectives
have formed strong bonds between our two nations, under such
conditions that the ill wishers of Iran and Venezuela keep
getting weaker day after day."
The Iranian President emphasized, "Independent governments of
the world can secure their nation's interests relying on
strengthening solidarity among themselves and acting
harmoniously at international scenes."
He reiterated, "Pursuing our absolute right to have full access
to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, we would keep on in
accordance with the related laws, and relying on strong logic,
quite sure that victory would be our nation's, as well as all
other free and independent nations'."
The Venezuelan President, too, once again voiced his country's
trong support for Iran's peaceful nuclear drive, arguing, "You
are definitely right in suggesting that relying on the
independent countries' unity we would succeed in resisting
against the pressure imposed by international oppressor powers."
Chavez added, "Such a unity could also accelerate the
international community's move towards better understanding,
holding meaningful dialogues, and lasting world peace."
Addressing President Ahmadinejad, he added, "I am sure the
leader of the Islamic Revolution and your good self could
relying on strong wisdom push forth Iran's move towards
mastering the nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, and I am
sure the Iranian nation would emerge victorious from this
crisis."
The Venezuelan President at the end of the phone talk
emphasized the need to strengthen and pursue the process of the
two countries' joint projects.
*****************************************************************
7 IRNA: US using media in psychological war against Iran
Tehran, May 22, IRNA
Iran-US-Nuclear
Western countries, led by the US, has long been using news
reports to spread outright lies or biased information to
discredit or portray the helplessness of countries which are
against their goals or objectives.
The Associated Press, Reuters, the United Press, France Press,
CNN and BBC have been pioneers of the West's media
disinformation.
Biased news stories disseiminated by Western news agencies are
not limited to the political field but also extend to social,
cultural and economic activities of countries which they target.
Cuba, to cite an example, has for decades been subjected to US
sanctions and military threats by the Western press in both its
political and non-political activities.
Signs of a collapse of the anti-American government of Daniel
Ortega in Nicaragua immediately showed after the US and Western
press launched a psychological war against the country through
its domestic press.
Several reports and results of research on the collapse of the
Soviet Union also confirm that the US and European press were
responsible for the fall of the USSR through a media war they
successfully launched against it.
Now the Western and US press have turned their eyes at the
Latin American state of Venezuela, inciting the people to stand
up against the alleged dictatorship of President Hugo Chavez by
releasing millions of "black news" after the attempted,
US-supported coup d'etat in Venezuela four years ago failed.
In the modern history of Iran, direct participation of the US
press and the BBC in the US-sponsored coup d'etat of August 19,
1953 (Morad 28) and attempts to discredit the Islamic Revolution
as well as the Founder of the Islamic Revolution, the late Imam
Khomeini, and other figures may be cited.
In the aftermath of the Iraqi-imposed war on Iran (1980-88),
the US and West admitted to having provided former Iraqi
president Saddam Hussein with tens of billion of dollars in
weapons and intelligence information against Iran.
During the war, Western news agencies, radio and other media
supported activities to help the former Iraqi government in its
war against Tehran.
The US federal budget for 2006 allocates 75 million dollars, in
addition to the previous 10 million, to open new channels of
communication with the people of Iran and incite opposition
against their government, a policy long pursued by the US
Administration under President George W Bush.
The sheer volume of articles and other publications of the US
and Western media against Iran makes it extremely difficult or
impossible for readers to verify their authenticity.
The US and Western media, which claim to be champions of press
freedom, have shown they are willing to defy any law that
guarantees access to correct information by even refusing to
disclose their sources.
Using ambiguous terms such as "an informed source," "a Western
diplomat and political expert speaking on condition of
anonymity" and "classified information," the US and Western
media conceal their sources of information and thereby escape
responsibility for damaging news against other countries.
To cite another example, Reuters on Saturday quoted the New
York Times as saying diplomats from all sides and other
officials of countries negotiating a solution to the Iran
nuclear issue believe there is a faint chance of reaching a
solution following differences in opinion in talks, and blame
Iran's inflexibility for ongoing tensions.
The Associated Press also quoted diplomats, without naming
them, as saying the three European states -- Britain, France and
Germany -- are discussing ways of ending the United Nations
Security Council's involvement in the nuclear issue if Tehran
agrees to end its uranium enrichment. Otherwise, sanctions and
the use of force (on Iran) would be an option.
The news agency further quoted a diplomat, without again naming
him, as commenting relative to the draft resolution that is
sought to be passed by the Security Council that its five
permanent members -- China, Russia, the United States, France
and Britain -- along with Germany will meet in London on
Wednesday and that the draft resolution could still be amended
prior to the meeting.
According to the Associated Press, it could not name the
diplomat because he was not authorized to disclose the contents
of the draft resolution.
The undeniable feature of news writing and reporting are truth
and accuracy and there is no arguing US and Western news
reporting fail to meet these standards.
Meanwhile, certain Arab-language media have also followed suit
and are reporting such kind of news against Iran.
News sent: 14:02 Monday May 22, 2006 Print
*****************************************************************
8 IRNA: IAEA chief to start US visit today
Vienna, May 22, IRNA
IAEA-US-ElBaradei
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed
ElBaradei will begin a two-week visit to the United States today.
An IAEA press spokesman told IRNA here Monday that ElBaradei
was expected to meet with senior US officials and politicians
and deliver speeches at universities and non-governmental
institutions.
ElBaradei is also scheduled to receive an award from the US
Success Academy.
It is said the IAEA chief will discuss Iran's nuclear case with
US officials.
News sources had previously quoted ElBaradei as saying he would
ask the US to modify its stance on Iran's nuclear activities.
*****************************************************************
9 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Envoy Wants Talks With Iran Over Iraq
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday May 22, 2006 12:31 PM
AP Photo BAG125
By JOHN DANISZEWSKI
Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Formation of a national unity government in
Baghdad has cleared the way for proposed direct talks between
the United States and Iran about the situation inside Iraq, U.S.
Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said in an interview with The
Associated Press.
The Afghan-born, Farsi-speaking ambassador has been authorized
to hold discussions with Iran. If the talks take place, they
would amount to the most public bilateral exchanges by the
countries since soon after the Iranian Revolution in 1979.
But the topic of the talks from the U.S. viewpoint is supposed
to be an exchange of views on the situation in Iraq, rather than
broader subjects like Iran's controversial nuclear program or
Iran's renewed verbal hostility to Israel since President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power last summer.
In a shift from prior policy, Iran's conservative government
this year announced willingness to begin a wide dialogue with
the United States. Ahmadinejad also sent a lengthy letter to
President Bush two weeks ago asking him to reconsider some U.S.
foreign policies in light of Bush's religious beliefs.
The issue of dialogue has taken on greater urgency as the U.N.
Security Council weighs possible sanctions against Iran for its
decision to begin processing uranium in what the United States
and the European Union suspect is a secret nuclear weapons
program. Iran insists that its enrichment is for peaceful atomic
purposes only.
In an interview Sunday in the U.S. Embassy Annex in Baghdad,
Khalilzad said talks with Iran about Iraq could not have taken
place earlier because the United States did not want to leave
anyone under the impression that Iran and the United States
``got together to decide the government in Iraq.''
``But we have said publicly, and that remains our position, we'd
be prepared to consider talking with them once the government of
national unity is formed,'' he said. He declined to specify how
talks might begin, saying only, ``There are channels for
communicating.''
``We have a lot of issues to discuss with them with regard to
our concerns and what we envision for Iraq, and be prepared to
listen to their concerns,'' Khalilzad said.
High on the U.S. agenda, he said, would be alleged transfer of
weapons from Iran into Iraq.
``We want good relations between Iraq and its neighbors, but we
do not want Iran or others in the region to send arms to
militias, to train militias, to send money to militias or others
who want to undermine this new Iraq,'' he said. Arms and money
from Iran do reach Iraqi militias now, he charged, ``and we
believe there are other negative actions that do take place by
the Iranian regime in Iraq.''
But Khalilzad also offered Iran some conciliatory words. Calling
Iranians ``a great people'' with ``a very accomplished
history,'' Khalilzad said he has ``no doubt'' that there will
one day be good state-to-state relations between the United
States and Iran.
Asked if the official U.S. policy to Iran was ``regime change''
or ``containment,'' Khalilzad said what the United States seeks
is ``behavior change.''
``Ultimately the wishes of the Iranian people - who seek to live
in a proud country, have normal relations with the world,
relations of mutual respect with the world -- will impose itself
on the country as a whole (and) on the government of that
country,'' he predicted.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
10 Guardian Unlimited: China, Germany Against Iran Nuke Program
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday May 22, 2006 11:31 PM
AP Photo TOK211
By CHRIS HAWKE
Associated Press Writer
BEIJING (AP) - German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Monday that
she and Chinese President Hu Jintao are united in their
opposition to Iran possessing nuclear weapons and their
determination that the dispute be settled diplomatically.
But Merkel, speaking after a meeting with Hu, did not say
whether the two sides discussed possible sanctions on Tehran,
which Germany supports and Beijing opposes.
China, one of the five permanent U.N. Security Council member,
is at odds with a bloc of European countries including Germany
over how to get Tehran to give up its nuclear program.
``We spoke in great detail about the possibilities of a
diplomatic solution for Iran, that the conflict should be
resolved by diplomatic means and Iran must not have nuclear
weapons,'' Merkel said.
``We want to direct the efforts of the (international) community
more strongly toward reaching this aim,'' she said.
The German leader said human rights was a focus of discussion in
her meeting with Premier Wen Jiabao.
Merkel is leading a 40-member trade delegation that includes
business executives and German Economy Minister Michael Glos and
Transport Minister Wolfgang Tiefensee.
The two governments signed a memorandum of understanding to
cooperate in establishing high-speed railway transport in China,
but there was no indication of whether Beijing planned to buy
more German technology for magnetic-levitation railways.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
11 New York Times: U.S. Is Proposing European Shield for Iran Missiles -
John Hagen/Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, via Associated Press
An antimissile interceptor was brought to its silo at Fort
Greely, Alaska, in July 2004, the first of nine that have been
installed there, in addition to two others in California.
By MICHAEL R. GORDONPublished: May 22, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 21 — The Bush administration is moving to
establish a new antimissile site in Europe that would be
designed to stop attacks by Iranagainst the United States and
its European allies.
The administration's proposal, which comes amid rising concerns
about Iran's suspected program to develop nuclear weapons, calls
for installing 10 antimissile interceptors at a European site by
2011. Polandand the Czech Republic are among the nations under
consideration.
A recommendation on a European site is expected to be made this
summer to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Pentagon
officials say. The Pentagon has asked Congress for $56 million
to begin initial work on the long-envisioned antimissile site, a
request that has run into some opposition in Congress. The final
cost, including the interceptors themselves, is estimated at
$1.6 billion.
The establishment of an antimissile base in Eastern Europe would
have enormous political implications. The deployment of
interceptors in Poland, for example, would create the first
permanent American military presence on that nation's soil and
further solidify the close ties between the defense
establishments of the two nations.
While the plan has been described in Congressional testimony and
in published reports, it has received relatively little
attention in the United States. But it is a subject of lively
discussion in Poland and has also prompted Russian charges that
Washington's hidden agenda is to expand the American presence in
the former Warsaw Pact nation.
Gen. Yuri N. Baluyevsky, the chief of the Russian military's
general staff, has sought to stir up Polish opposition to the
plan.
"What can we do?" General Baluyevsky told the Polish newspaper
Gazeta Wyborcza in December. "Go ahead and build that shield.
You have to think, though, what will fall on your heads
afterward. I do not foresee a nuclear conflict between Russiaand
the West. We do not have such plans. However, it is
understandable that countries that are part of such a shield
increase their risk."
The proposed antimissile site is the latest chapter in the
long-running saga of the United States missile defense program,
which began with President Reagan'sexpansive vision of a
space-based antimissile shield.
More than 20 years and billions of dollars later, the Bush
administration is proceeding with a limited antimissile system,
one that is no longer intended to make nuclear weapons "impotent
and obsolete," as Mr. Reagan famously put it. Instead, it is
designed to counter prospective dangers from nations like North
Korea and Iran.
President Bush made the program a top priority soon after taking
office and cleared the way for antimissile deployments by
withdrawing from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty with Russia.
Nine interceptors have already been installed at Fort Greely,
Alaska, and two at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California as
part of a broader, multilayered system planned by the Pentagon.
An interceptor consists of a rocket that carries a 155-pound
"kill vehicle," which is designed to seek out and collide with
an enemy missile warhead. While the program is still being
tested, the Pentagon says that the interceptors could be pressed
into service in a crisis.
The program's numerous critics say it is behind schedule and not
up to even this challenge. "It has been doing very poorly," said
Philip Coyle, the former head of the Office of Operational Test
and Evaluation in the Pentagon. "They have not had a successful
flight intercept test for four years."
Lieut. Gen. Henry A. Obering III, chief of the Missile Defense
Agency at the Pentagon, said none of the technical problems have
been show-stoppers. Several tests in which a target is to be
intercepted are scheduled for this year and early next year.
The Pentagon is seeking $9.3 billion for its missile defense
work for the 2007 fiscal year. About $2.4 billion is to go for
fielding new systems and maintaining existing ones. The
remainder is for additional development and testing.
Given the many technical challenges, the House Armed Services
Committee has refused to approve the $56 million for the initial
engineering work for the new antimissile field. The Senate Armed
Services Committee, however, has supported the initiative, and
the Pentagon is pressing Congress to approve the funds to
install in Europe the same type of interceptors that are at Fort
Greely.
As the debate continues over the technical capabilities of the
system, the Pentagon has pushed to expand it. The Fort Greely
and Vandenberg sites are primarily oriented against potential
missile threats from North Korea.
"We have a limited capacity today, and it is certainly focused
against the North Koreans initially," General Obering said in an
interview. "We are worried about what is happening in the Middle
East. We want to make sure that we have coverage from those
approaches."
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
*****************************************************************
12 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI foreign policy based on dialogue
2006/05/22
Tehran, May 22 - Chairman of Majlis National Security and
Foreign Policy Commission Alaeddin Boroujerdi said here Sunday
that Iran's current policy is based on dialogue and
understanding within the framework of laws.
Speaking at the first conference of the Basij Resistance Center
of the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, dubbed "Nuclear
Energy and Challenges Facing it", he said that Iran will not
change its required conditions in facing the EU3 proposal on its
nuclear issue."
The MP from Boroujerd said that Iran is now experiencing its
most difficult stage in accessing nuclear fuel cycle.
"Our nation is not less capable of the US and European people
and deserves to access nuclear energy more than the Western
citizens. "Though the West is today in need of Iran's oil, it
intends to impose limitations on the countries with rich oil
reserves and make them rely on its nuclear energy once their
reserves are drained," he added.
He added that if today Iran fails to gain its relevant right,
future generations will not be able to protect their
independence.
Turning to the remark of the UN nuclear watchdog chief, Mohamed
ElBaradei, while visiting Natanz nuclear facilities during the
presidential term of Mohammad Khatami, he said, "Nuclear
technology is not limited to energy. It is also used in medical
and agricultural fields. Therefore, its promotion is
interconnected to our political and scientific potentials."
In another part of his speech, Boroujerdi referred to the
approach of the US and Western countries to the country's
nuclear issue as political.
The conference opened this morning and was attended by more
than 400 of Basiji commanders, managers, officials in charge and
forces.
Copyright 2004,
All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting
News Network
Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center.
E-Mail: Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir
*****************************************************************
13 AFP: Gulf states seek Iran dialogue on nuclear policy
Mon May 22, 3:51 PM ET
ABU DHABI (AFP) - Oman and the United Arab Emirates said that
Gulf Arab states want direct talks with Iran" /> Iranto help
resolve the crisis provoked by Tehran's nuclear programme and
strongly backed European efforts for a negotiated settlement.
Omani Foreign Minister Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah told
reporters after talks with his visiting German counterpart
Frank-Walter Steinmeier that Europe could count on the Gulf
states' support to help end the standoff.
"We expressed our great respect for the German side for its
constant efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution that is
acceptable for all the parties concerned," he said.
"We strongly support these efforts and are committed to
continuing close consultations with the German side on this
question."
Information Minister Hamad bin Mohammad al-Rashdi told reporters
traveling with Steinmeier, who began a Gulf visit Saturday, that
Oman wanted to do what it could to avert a confrontation between
Tehran and the West.
Asked whether a Gulf Arab delegation might visit Tehran soon,
Rashdi said this was still under discussion.
The foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates noted after
talks with Steinmeier in Abu Dhabi later Monday that the six
Gulf states had agreed in December to send a delegation to
Tehran to "tell the Iranians about our fears". "The Iranians
have to be patient and recognize our fears," Sheikh Abdullah bin
Zayed al-Nahayan said, adding that these included the potential
environmental hazards to the Gulf of an Iranian nuclear reactor.
He did not offer a new timetable for the initiative.
Steinmeier said that Sheikh Abdullah had also shared his fears
about the spectre of an Iranian nuclear bomb and said the
involvement of Iran's neighbors in the region was key at this
critical juncture in the negotiations.
"I think we have an occasion to step up our common efforts to
reach an agreement soon. That requires a reliable message from
the Iranian leadership that they really want to return to the
negotiating table," he said.
Iran's hardline government reiterated Monday that its uranium
enrichment programme was not up for negotiation, again rejecting
European efforts to secure a halt to the sensitive nuclear work.
Iran says it only wants to make civilian reactor fuel, a right
enshrined by the Non-Proliferation Treaty and overseen by the
International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic
Energy Agency.
Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed Sabah al-Salem al-Sabah
also spoke of the joint initiative to speak to Tehran after
talks with Steinmeier Sunday.
None of the countries is calling the initiative mediation,
however.
The initiative aims to facilitate "global cooperation (by
Tehran) with the international community at large, and the
International Atomic Energy Agency in particular," Sheikh
Mohammed said Sunday.
Steinmeier said later in Abu Dhabi that his counterparts in all
three countries he had visited on the tour so far had assured
him that they would do "what was possible and appropriate" to
facilitate dialogue with Tehran.
Any escalation in the international confrontation over Iran's
nuclear policy "would have disastrous results on the entire
region", Rashdi said in Muscat.
"We hope that any confrontation would not be scaled up to harm
the free passage of oil in the Strait of Hormuz," he said,
adding that Oman hoped there would also be direct talks between
the United States and Iran on the issue.
Steinmeier's next stop on his Gulf tour is Saudi Arabia.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
14 AFP: Germany and China agree Iran should not have nuclear bomb - Merkel -
Mon May 22, 6:26 AM ET
BEIJING (AFP) - Germany and China agree that Iran" /> Iranshould
not be allowed to build nuclear weapons, Chancellor Angela Merkel
said Monday after meeting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.
"We talked about Iran and both agreed Iran should not have the
capability to make nuclear weapons and shouldn't proliferate
weapons of mass destruction," Merkel told a joint press
conference with Wen.
Merkel met President Hu Jintao" /> Hu Jintaolater on Monday.
"China and Germany agree that the conflict must be solved on a
diplomatic level and Iran must return to the international
community," she said after those talks.
German officials had said before Merkel's trip that Germany
would like to see China more closely involved in the
international efforts to solve the nuclear crisis in Iran.
China, which is a veto-wielding permanent member of the UN
Security Council, opposes the use of force or sanctions against
Iran.
It has sided with Russia to resist US-led efforts to introduce a
UN Security Council resolution that would legally bind Tehran to
stopping its uranium enrichment work.
China and Russia say such a resolution could heighten tensions
and open the door to a military attack on Iran -- an option that
the United States is refusing to take off the table.
Germany has been intensely involved in diplomatic efforts to
persuade Iran to abandon sensitive nuclear activities, working
closely with the five permanent members of the United Nations"
/> United NationsSecurity Council.
Together with Britain and France, Germany is preparing a package
of trade, technology and security benefits if Tehran stops
enriching uranium, a process that creates fuel for power plants
but can also form the core of nuclear bombs.
Iran insists its nuclear programme is peaceful.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
15 AFP: Rice: US offers Iran no security guarantees
Mon May 22, 3:11 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States is not offering security
guarantees to Iran" /> Iranto end its nuclear program, US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Ricesaid.
"Iran is a troublemaker in the international system, a central
banker of terrorism. Security assurances are not on the table,"
she told "Fox News Sunday."
The top US diplomat spoke as Iran said Sunday it would not
suspend uranium enrichment despite European Union" /> European
Unionplans to offer incentives to the Islamic republic if it
halts the sensitive nuclear work.
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert claimed Iran could
obtain a nuclear bomb in "months" and vowed that Israel" />
Israelwould take the "necessary measures" to stop this from
occurring.
Ahead of new international talks on Iran this week, Rice told
Fox, "It's obvious that in addition to the nuclear issue, we
have other issues with Iran. We have a state in Iran that is
devoted to the destruction of Israel. We have a state in Iran
that meddles in the peace process" in the Middle East.
Britain, France and Germany have drawn up a package aiming to
persuade Iran to end its uranium enrichment, which Washington
and its allies say hides an effort to build a nuclear bomb.
The European proposals are to be discussed at a meeting in
London on Wednesday of Britain, China, France, Russia and the
United States, the permanent members of the UN Security Council,
along with Germany.
Iran said its nuclear program remains on track despite the
international pressure.
"We cannot retreat. The (European) proposal should provide ways
to secure our rights," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza
Asefi told reporters in Tehran. "We will not stop enrichment.
"The basis of our work is that the Islamic Republic of Iran's
rights must be recognized in any plan," Asefi said.
The European package could include trade, technology and
security benefits if Tehran stops enriching uranium.
Iran says it only wants to make reactor fuel, but the enrichment
process can be extended to make weapons.
A draft proposal by the so-called EU-3 says world powers should
support Iran building several light-water reactors and should
set up a nuclear fuel bank that would guarantee Iran access to
reactor fuel but not sensitive fuel cycle technology.
It would also have the United States drop restrictions on Iran
buying US commercial airplanes or parts.
But if Tehran does not accept the deal, sanctions should follow.
These punitive measures could include an arms embargo, political
and economic measures, a visa and travel ban on selected
high-ranking officials and a freeze of assets of individuals and
organizations connected to the government.
Asefi repeated Iran's view that any economic sanctions would
leave its foreign trading partners worse off.
But Israel warned Sunday that Tehran was inching closer to
developing a nuclear bomb.
"The issue of Iran is a very serious one," Olmert told CNN,
saying Iran's alleged bid to develop a nuclear bomb "can be
measured by months rather than years".
"The technological threshold is very close. The question is,
when will they cross the technological line that will allow them
at any given time, within six or eight months, to have a nuclear
bomb?"
Asked if he expected US and European diplomacy would stop Iran's
uranium enrichment program, Olmert replied: "I prefer to take
the necessary measures to stop it, rather than find out later
that my indifference was so dangerous."
The Iranian program is likely to be discussed by Olmert and
President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushwhen the
Israeli leader visits Washington this week.
The UN Security Council asked Iran on March 29 to heed
International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic
Energy Agencycalls to suspend its enrichment work and to
cooperate with an investigation, which has so far been unable to
determine whether Iran's nuclear program is peaceful or
weapons-related.
"I have to admit that after two and a half years of
negotiations, we are not as far along as we would like to be,"
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said Sunday
during a visit to Kuwait.
China, which opposes sanctions against Iran to resolve the
dispute, called on the international community Sunday to show
restraint over Tehran's nuclear program.
"We ask everyone to observe all the necessary restraint, and we
consider the diplomatic solution is still possible and efforts
in this direction must continue," Chinese Foreign Minister Li
Zhaoxing told a news conference in the Mauritanian capital
Nouakchott.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
16 AFP: Iran refuses to negotiate on nuclear work
by Pierre Celerier Mon May 22, 8:10 AM ET
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iran's hardline government said that its
uranium enrichment programme was not up for negotiation, again
rejecting European efforts to secure a halt to the sensitive
nuclear work.
Government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham also promised the
Islamic regime would continue to work towards reaching an
industrial-scale capacity in enrichment, a process which can be
extended to make nuclear weapons.
"The right to enrichment within the framework of the NPT and
under the surveillance of the IAEA is an absolute right," he
told reporters.
Iran says it only wants to make civilian reactor fuel, a right
enshrined by the Non-Proliferation Treaty and overseen by the
UN's International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic
Energy Agency.
"This right and its implementation must be guaranteed. This is
not something on which we can back down, whether for research or
industrial purposes. This is not something on which we can
negotiate or back down," Elham asserted.
"Nuclear technology is a right that nobody can challenge, and
all Iranians are unanimous in claiming this right."
Britain, France and Germany are putting together a package of
trade and technology incentives they hope will persuade Iran to
halt fuel cycle work, which Washington and its allies say hides
an effort to build a nuclear bomb.
The European proposals are to be discussed at a meeting in
London on Wednesday of Britain, China, France, Russia and the
United States, the permanent members of the UN Security Council,
along with Germany.
But a string of statements from Iran's leadership have
underlined that the European offer will be dead on arrival in
Tehran.
If Tehran does not accept the deal, sanctions could follow --
including an arms embargo, political and economic measures, a
visa and travel ban on selected high-ranking officials and a
freeze of assets of individuals and organisations connected to
the government.
But Russia and China, both veto-wielding Security Council
members, oppose stringent action they fear could worsen matters.
Speaking after meeting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao during a visit
to Beijing, Chancellor Angela Merkel said there was at least an
agreement that Iran should not be allowed to build nuclear
weapons.
"We talked about Iran and both agreed Iran should not have the
capability to make nuclear weapons and shouldn't proliferate
weapons of mass destruction," Merkel said.
Merkel met President Hu Jintao" /> Hu Jintaolater on Monday.
"China and Germany agree that the conflict must be solved on a
diplomatic level and Iran must return to the international
community," she said after those talks.
The Europeans also appear to have differences with Washington,
which has ruled out providing security guarantees to Iran as
part of the EU package.
"Iran is a troublemaker in the international system, a central
banker of terrorism. Security assurances are not on the table,"
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Ricesaid
Sunday told Fox News.
And Israel" /> Israelhas also signalled time is running out.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert claimed on CNN that Iran
could obtain the technology for a nuclear bomb in "months" and
vowed that Israel -- believed to be nuclear armed -- would take
the "necessary measures" to stop this from occurring.
"The technological threshold is very close. The question is,
when will they cross the technological line that will allow them
at any given time, within six or eight months, to have a nuclear
bomb?" he said.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
17 IRNA: Iraq calls for expansion of ties with Iran - Iraqi FM
Baghdad, May 21, IRNA
Iran-Iraq-Relations
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari on Sunday called for
expansion of relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
According to a statement issued by the Iraqi Foreign Ministry,
Zebari was speaking in a meeting with the Iranian Ambassador to
Baghdad Hassan Kazemi Qomi.
During the meeting, the Iraqi foreign minister underlined that
his country will strive to further broaden all out good
neighborly ties with all countries, particularly its neighbors,
and called for exchange of visits by officials of both countries
to discuss issues of mutual interests.
He also expressed satisfaction about the upcoming visit of
Iranian foreign minister to Baghdad and described the visit as a
sign of Iran's determination to support the Iraqi government.
The Iranian ambassador, for his part, felicitated the Iraqi
foreign minister on his reinstatement to the post and voiced
Iran's desire to establishment of peace and tranquility in Iraq
along with expansion of all out ties between the two countries.
Kazemi Qomi also extended an invitation to Iraqi foreign
minister to pay an official visit to Iran.
*****************************************************************
18 IRNA: US official: Nuclear energy will play important role in future -
, May 22, IRNA
-
The United States is urging other nations to diversify their
sources of energy supply and believes that nuclear power will be
important for future energy security.
"We actively encourage all nations to facilitate as practical
the development of a diversity of sources of energy supply," US
assistant secretary of state for economic and business affairs,
Anthony Wayne, said in Brussels Monday.
"In many countries nuclear power will be a key in meeting the
twin challenges of energy security and green house gas emissions
management," he said speaking on the topic 'Energy Security: A
Global Challenge' at an event organized by the Brussels-based
think-tank European Policy Center.
Wayne said the EU and the US must find ways to accommodate the
rising energy demand from rapidly industrializing countries like
India and China and help address the energy needs of the poor
developing countries.
The US official asserted that any impact on the energy security
of an Europe country can affect the energy security posture of
the US and vice-versa.
The US, he said, wants greater Russian engagement and
cooperation with the International Energy Agency.
Wayne urged for concrete practical results on energy issues
such as a EU-US energy security plan, energy diversification and
promoting energy efficiency issues at the upcoming EU-US summit
on June 21 in Vienna.
*****************************************************************
19 AFP: US works to contain Iran in Gulf
Mon May 22, 12:15 PM ET
LOS ANGELES (AFP) - The United States has reportedly begun
developing a containment strategy with Iran" /> 's Gulf neighbors
that aims to spread missile defense systems across the region and
interdict ships suspected of carrying nuclear technology.
The Los Angeles Times said the effort also reflects the
administration's planning for a day when Iran becomes a nuclear
state and, officials fear, more aggressive in a region that
provides vital oil exports to the world.
"Iran without nuclear arms is a threat," Robert Joseph,
undersecretary of state for arms control and international
security, told the paper in an interview. "With nuclear weapons
it would become even more emboldened, in terms of moving forward
with its aggressive designs,"
A senior State Department official said the Gulf countries "as a
whole are very receptive to the message," the report said.
Joseph rolled out the proposal during a trip last month to the
six gulf states of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates,
Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, The Times said.
John Hillen, assistant secretary of state for political-military
affairs, led a top-level US delegation to the Gulf last week for
further discussions.
Hillen said in an interview that the initiative "is really the
first time in a while" the United States had been actively
involved in trying to reshape a regional security system.
The effort "could put pressure on Iran to behave responsibly,"
the paper quotes him as saying.
US officials want to help boost the Gulf states' ability to
monitor and control cargo on the high seas, and goods that are
trans-shipped from busy Gulf ports, The Times said.
They want to help improve the countries' abilities to detect
"front" companies for Iran and to identify and halt transactions
to finance Iran's purchase of goods for its unconventional
weapons programs, according to the report.
The Bush administration is also eager to see wider use of
sophisticated defenses against aircraft and missiles, the paper
said.
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have Patriot antimissile batteries, but
US officials say other countries need them as well, especially
in light of Iran's advanced ballistic missile program, the
report said.
Some analysts suggested that the United States would try to
integrate missile defense systems with real-time intelligence
using sophisticated US Navy Aegis cruisers.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
20 IRNA: Iran, Iraq discuss issues of mutual interest
Tehran, May 22, IRNA
Iran-Iraq-Meet
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and Iraqi Ambassador
to Tehran Mohammad Majid al-Sheikh here Sunday met to discuss
issues of mutual interest.
Mottaki, expressing felicitations over the formation of the new
Iraqi government after months of delay, said "the new Iraqi
government (which has been approved by the parliament of Iraq)
can pave the way for establishment of a popular government and a
return of stability and security to the country."
He said Iran regards formation of the new Iraqi cabinet as a
"very important step in the process of establishing a democractic
government based on the will of all political, tribal and
religious groups" in the country.
He praised the latest "positive" developments in Iraq and
wished the new Iraqi government success.
"We hope the new government will take all that is necessary to
restore security, work for the welfare of the Iraqi people as
well as remove sources of insecurity," Mottaki said.
He expressed Iran's readiness to help the new Iraqi government
achieve its goals and, for this purpose, sponsor a meeting of
foreign ministers of Iraq's neighboring states in Tehran with
the aim of discussing ways of strengthening the newly
established government.
The Iraqi ambassador, for his part, gave a synopsis of latest
developments in the cabinet and expressed his appreciation over
Iran's support for the new Iraqi government of national unity.
He said he hoped the new government would gain strength with
the passing of time and through regular consultations between
senior officials of Tehran and Baghdad.
*****************************************************************
21 IRNA: Germany's Merkel in China to discuss Iran N-case, major developments -
Beijing, May 22, IRNA
Iran-China-Germany
German Chancellor Angela Merkel arrived here Sunday evening to
discuss latest regional and international developments,
including Iran's nuclear case, with senior Chinese officials.
This is Merkel's first official visit to china since taking
power as chancellor. However, she has previously been to Beijing
as a German minister.
Berlin and Beijing are members of the 5+1 Group consisting of
the UN's five permanent members and Germany which is now
reviewing Iran's nuclear case.
The group is to hold a meeting in London, on Wednesday to
discuss the Iran nuclear issue.
According to experts, in China Merkel will discuss
Berlin-Beijing ties, the issue of human rights in China, the
North Korean nuclear issue as well as China's economic relations
both with Germany and the European Union (EU) during her
three-day stay in the country.
She is expected to hold separate meetings with Chinese
President Hu Jintao, Prime Minister Wen Jiaoba and a number of
high-raking officials of the country.
The German chancellor is also scheduled to visit Shanghai and
participate in a press conference as well as attend the fourth
meeting of the Germany-China technological cooperation.
Several agreements for bilateral cooperation are expected to be
signed during Merkel's current visit to China.
The Berlin-Beijing trade volume is one third of China's total
trade with Europe.
*****************************************************************
22 Korea Herald: Ban calls for proactive engagement toward N.K.
Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said that the time is ripe for the
parties to the nuclear talks to take on a "strategy of
engagement" to establish permanent peace in the region.
"It is time for the other five participants of the six-party
talks to consider seriously employing a strategy of proactive
engagement vis-a-vis North Korea in exchange for the North's
irreversible and prompt action on both the nuclear issue and its
illicit financial activities," Ban wrote in a contribution to
the Harvard International Review last Sunday.
Ban explained that the South Korean-U.S. alliance has been
successful in preventing the recurrence of war and conflict, but
that permanent peace needed "a new prism and a fresh paradigm."
Seoul and Washington have been showing visible differences in
their latest approach to North Korea.
The United States has upped its ante against the North's illicit
activities and human rights abuses, while South Korea vowed
stronger engagement with the North.
President Roh Moo-hyun, while in Mongolia earlier this month,
said Seoul was ready to yield more to Pyongyang.
"By showing North Korea that there is a light at the end of the
tunnel while at the same time illustrating the magnitude of cost
of foregoing this unique chance, we can persuade the North to
make the right strategic decision in a timely fashion," Ban said.
The six-party talks, since agreeing in principle to
denuclearize the peninsula last September, have failed to make
any progress.
North Korea argues it would not return to the talks unless the
United States lifts the financial sanctions imposed against
Banco Delta Asia, a Macau-based bank suspected of helping North
Korea launder counterfeited U.S. dollars.
Ban contended that North Korea was slowly making changes and
that the problems surrounding the Korean Peninsula should be
approached with a broader perspective.
Ban highlighted that the six-party talks, which are primarily
focused on solving the nuclear standoff, should be activated as
the first multilateral forum in Northeast Asia.
"Although outstanding differences among the various
participating countries still exist, for instance in the
countries' understanding of modern history, the talks may yet
provide an essential foundation for the establishment of a
permanent multilateral security cooperation mechanism in
Northeast Asia."
(angiely@heraldm.com)
By Lee Joo-hee
2006.05.23
*****************************************************************
23 AFP: US says no better deal for NKorea
Mon May 22, 7:03 AM ET
SINGAPORE (AFP) - North Korea" /> North Koreawill not get a
better deal by staying away from six-nation negotiations aimed at
getting the Stalinist state to end its nuclear program, the top
US diplomat to the talks has said.
The talks, involving North and South Korea" /> South Korea, the
United States, Russia, China and Japan, have been stalled since
November when Washington imposed financial sanctions on
Pyongyang for alleged counterfeiting and money laundering.
"They are not going to get a better deal two years, three years
from now," said Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill
Monday.
"This is a proposal put together by six countries and the notion
that somehow waiting around for two or three years is going to
give them some benefit is something that I find hard to
understand," he said.
North Korea sought the removal of the sanctions as a
precondition for returning to the bargaining table, but the
United States has refused to budge.
Pyongyang claims the sanctions breached the spirit of a
September 2005 accord under which it agreed to abandon nuclear
weapons in return for security, diplomatic and energy aid
guarantees.
The deal also set the stage for negotiating a permanent peace
regime on the Korean Peninsula at an appropriate and separate
forum.
The other five parties are ready to resume negotiations and the
onus is now on Pyongyang to take up Beijing's invitation for the
next round, Hill said.
"I know all the other parties are prepared but we need all six
and to date, (North Korea) has not accepted the invitation of
the Chinese government to attend the next session and that is
the problem," he said.
Boycotting the talks would only hurt the North Korean economy
more, Hill warned.
"They need to get going, opening their economy... They need to
start to deal with some problems that have bedeviled them for
years," he said.
North Korea's insistence to pursue its nuclear programme has
"done a lot of damage to their economy and I think the logic of
the situation for them is to get moving on this now."
The New York Times reported last week that top advisers to US
President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushwere
looking for a new approach on North Korea, perhaps including a
peace treaty to replace the 1953 armistice after the Korean War.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
24 U.S. PRESSURE YIELDS CURBS ON IRAN IN EUROPE
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 23:20:57 -0500 (CDT)
NYTimes May 22, 2006 By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
Even without Security Council sanctions, the U.S. is using
antiterrorism and banking laws to pressure Iran and wants Europe to do the
same.
=====
WASHINGTON, May 21 Prodded by the United States with threats of fines and
lost business, four of the biggest European banks have started curbing
their activities in Iran, even in the absence of a Security Council
resolution imposing economic sanctions on Iran for its suspected
nuclear weapons program.
Top Treasury and State Department officials have intensified their
efforts to limit Iran-related activities of major banks in Europe, the
United States and the Middle East in the past six months, invoking
antiterrorism and banking laws. They have also traveled to Europe and the
Middle East to drive home the risky nature of dealing with a country
that has repeatedly rebuffed Western demands over suspending uranium
enrichment, and to urge European countries to take similar steps.
Stuart A. Levey, the under secretary of the Treasury for terrorism and
financial intelligence, said: "We are seeing banks and other
institutions reassessing their ties to Iran. They are asking
themselves if they really want to be handling business for entities
owned by a government engaged in the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and support for terrorism."
The four European banks the UBS and Credit Suisse banks of
Switzerland, ABN Amro of the Netherlands, and HSBC, based in London
have made varying levels of disclosure about the limits on their
activities in Iran in the past six months. Almost all large European
banks have branches or bureaus in the United States, units that are
subject to American laws.
American officials said the United States had informed its European
allies about the new pressure exerted on the banks, and indeed had
asked these countries to join the effort. At the same time, the
Americans have not publicized the new pressure, partly out of concern it
could complicate efforts by European negotiators, who were still talking
with Iran about a package of incentives to suspend uranium enrichment.
It is not clear how curbed business with four of Europe's biggest
banks could adversely affect Iran. But some outside political and
economic experts say it is unlikely to do much damage considering Iran is
one of OPEC's leading producers and is earning hundreds of millions of
dollars worth of windfall profits daily from $70-a-barrel
petroleum.
The American prodding has not yet resulted in any fines or other
punishment. But UBS and ABN Amro are no strangers to the sting of
American financial penalties for dealing with countries that the
United States has wanted to isolate. UBS was fined $100 million by the
Federal Reserve two years ago for the unauthorized movement of dollars to
Iran and other countries like Libya and Yugoslavia, which were subject
to American trade sanctions at the time. Last December, ABN Amro was
fined $80 million for failure to comply with regulations against money
laundering and with economic sanctions against Libya and Iran from 1997 to
2004.
UBS now says it will no longer do direct business with any
individuals, businesses or banks in Iran. UBS also says it will not
finance exports or imports for any corporate clients in Iran. But the
bank has said that it would not stop doing business with clients who use
other means to transact business there. ABN Amro also says it has
minimized its activities in Iran.
"We have no representation in Iran," said Sierk Nawijn, a spokesman for
ABN Amro in Amsterdam. He added that although the bank does no
dollar-based business with Iran, it was participating in "a fairly
limited number of transactions" with it."
Georg Sntgerath, a spokesman for Credit Suisse in Zurich, said, "As of
January, we have said that we will not enter into any new business
relations with corporate clients in Iran." He said the decision, which
applied to Syria and some other countries, resulted from an assessment of
an "increased economic risk for our bank and our clients."
He said, however, that the bank would fulfill existing contracts with
businesses in Iran.
A United Nations Security Council resolution might restrict some of
those kinds of dealings.
The Americans have taken other steps to pressure Iran. With American
encouragement, Iran's rating as a business risk was raised last month by
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of 30
leading countries with market economies.
At the same time, the defiance of the West by President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad of Iran has unsettled markets, and American officials have
said the climate of anxiety over the prospect of globally enforced
sanctions or even military action was having its own effect.
"I think there is a real and growing sense that there's a risk
associated with doing business with Iran, with lending Iran more money or
providing it with a line of credit," said Robert G. Joseph, the under
secretary of state for arms control and international security. "But I
would argue that their motive is market forces, more than any American
pressure."
Some European diplomats from countries with missions in Tehran say
that there are signs of an impact, despite the rise in oil prices.
Whatever the cause, Iran's economic growth has slowed to less than 5
percent, its stock market has dropped more than 20 percent in the past
year, new investments and construction have declined, and Iranians
have been sending their money abroad, or buying gold.
Iran has recently tried to counter diplomatic pressures over its
nuclear program with reminders to Europe that it was a good market,
with a good work force. In a regular weekly news conference on Sunday, the
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamidreza Assefi, urged Europe not to
take any steps that would jeopardize economic links with Iran.
"We have good ties with Europe, and a bad decision by Europeans over
Iran's nuclear program can undermine relations and will eventually
harm the Europeans," he said.
Many experts said it would be difficult to bar banks from conducting the
lucrative business of financing trade deals with Iran. Iran's largest
trading partners are Japan, China, Italy, Germany and France. All of
those nations have companies that use banks to finance letters of credit
to export machinery, commodities and other goods to Iran.
The laws being applied against banks are varied, and many of them also
apply to North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Sudan. A 1984 law requires a ban on
activities with any country declared a sponsor of terrorism.
Officials are also invoking the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 and a
directive signed by President Bush last year banning transactions with
those suspected of helping the spread of unconventional weapons.
Under that directive, the United States has identified six Iranian
entities, including its Aerospace Industries Organization, the Atomic
Energy Organization of Iran and several private industrial groups, as off
limits to banks that operate under American protections and laws.
Mr. Joseph said the use of American banking regulations and
antiterrorism laws against European banks had been effective against
Iran and would have a greater effect "if we can get other countries to
take similar actions."
Some experts say they doubt that anything short of a sweeping oil
embargo, or a blockade of gasoline imports Iran imports about 40
percent of its gasoline could get Iran to change its behavior, and the
West is not contemplating such steps.
"I don't see that the pullout of a few European banks doing a
tremendous amount of damage," said Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst at the
International Crisis Group, an advocacy organization. "They're making
$300 million a day from oil revenues, and they can weather the storm."
*****************************************************************
25 RIA Novosti: Russia says it wants end to U.S. nuclear discrimination
22/ 05/ 2006
NEW YORK, May 22 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's nuclear energy chief
has warned that there is no alternative to nuclear power in the
coming decades and said he wants to secure an end to U.S.
discrimination against the country.
Sergei Kiriyenko, currently on a week-long visit to the United
States that will end May 24, said he would discuss closer
cooperation during a Washington meeting with Secretary of
Commerce Carlos Gutierrez and Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman.
"We will certainly discuss lifting discriminatory restrictions
on access to the U.S. market for Russian nuclear products and
services," Kiriyenko said in the run-up to the meeting. "We need
no indulgences - we need open competition on this market."
Restrictions on imports from Russia of low-enriched uranium have
been in force since the Soviet era. Russia is currently allowed
to operate on the U.S. market without a 116% import duty only
through the USEC, a special intermediary agent, under the
HEU-LEU Conversion program.
Difficulties began in 1991 when Russia started supplying a large
amount of natural uranium to clients worldwide, including the
U.S., bringing down prices and provoking anti-dumping
procedures.
Kiriyenko also said that Russia and the United States should
sign an agreement on cooperation in nuclear energy for civilian
purposes because the lack of such a document represented a
vestige of Cold War.
"We need a serious joint action program because we have only
tactical disagreements in this sphere, but our approaches as to
what to do and for what purpose coincide," he said.
The nuclear chief said without nuclear energy industry the world
would not be able to ensure global energy security for the next
30-40 years and overcome a looming energy crisis.
"To do this, we must allow new countries to gain access to
inexpensive nuclear energy and at the same time guarantee the
nuclear non-proliferation regime, under which leaders in the
sphere of nuclear energy, such as the U.S. and Russia, assume
particular responsibility," Kiriyenko said.
"Joint work to develop the nuclear energy industry is in both
our interests," he said. "But the remaining restrictions in this
sphere are nothing but an old stereotype that is illogical,
impractical and justified neither by Russia or the U.S."
Russia and the U.S. are currently considering a number of joint
nuclear energy projects including the development of
fourth-generation nuclear reactors and recycling of nuclear
waste.
© 2005 RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
26 Waxman: Committee on Government Reform Minority Office
[Rep. Henry A. Waxman]
Energy Policy
Five Year Review of Bush Energy Policy
Tuesday, May 16, 2006 --
On the fifth anniversary of the White House energy plan, Rep.
Waxman releases a new report showing what has happened to energy
prices and dependency on foreign oil since the release of the
plan developed by Vice President Cheney's energy task force.
Specifically, the report finds:
+ Energy prices have risen rapidly. Over the last five years,
crude oil prices have increased by 143%; gasoline prices have
increased by 71%; natural gas prices have increased by 46%; and
prices for other fuels have increased at a rate significantly
higher than the inflation rate.
+ American families are spending record amounts for energy.
Five years ago, the average American family spent $3,300 on
gasoline, home heating, and electricity. This year, the average
American family will spend over $5,100 on gasoline, home
heating, and electricity. This is an increase of nearly $2,000
per family. The indirect costs of higher energy prices in the
form of higher prices for consumer goods and services are likely
to cost families another $1,400 per year.
+ The nation’s dependence on foreign oil has increased. During
the 2000 presidential campaign, Texas Governor George Bush
criticized the Clinton Administration for allowing U.S. imports
on foreign oil to reach 56% of U.S. oil consumption. Five years
after President Bush announced his energy plan, U.S. imports of
foreign oil have risen to 65% of U.S. consumption.
While the last five years have seen sharp increases in energy
prices and increased U.S. dependence on foreign oil, there is
one group that has benefited considerably: the energy industry.
Oil companies reported record profits of over $100 billion in
2005. Report: Five Year Review of Bush Energy Policy
Committee on Government Reform Minority Office | United States
House of Representatives | RSS | Contact Us
Photos of Rep. Waxman: [c] 2004 Kay Chernush
*****************************************************************
27 UPI: Russian-U.S. nuclear cooperation urged
United Press International - NewsTrack -
5/22/2006 7:59:00 AM -0400
NEW YORK, May 22 (UPI) -- Russia's nuclear energy chief has said
Russia and the United States should agree to cooperate on
providing nuclear energy for civilian purposes.
Sergei Kiriyenko, in the United States on a weeklong official
visit, also said he wants to end U.S. discrimination against
Russian imports of nuclear products and services, RIA Novosti
reported Monday.
Kiriyenko said that when he meets U.S. Secretary of Commerce
Carlos Gutierrez and Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman in
Washington, he will propose that "discriminatory restrictions"
on Russian access to the U.S. market be lifted, such as a
restriction on Russian low-enriched uranium that has been in
force since the Soviet era.
Without nuclear energy, he said, the world would not be able to
ensure global energy security and avoid an energy crisis.
"We must allow new countries to gain access to inexpensive
nuclear energy and at the same time guarantee the nuclear
non-proliferation regime, under which leaders in the sphere of
nuclear energy, such as the U.S. and Russia, assume particular
responsibility," Kiriyenko said.
The two nations are considering a number of joint nuclear energy
projects, including the development of fourth-generation nuclear
reactors and recycling of nuclear waste.
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
28 AFP: Indian, US officials bid to rescue landmark nuclear deal -
May 22, 10:06 PM
NEW DELHI, India (AFP) - US and Indian officials meet in London
this week to try to rescue a landmark accord giving New Delhi
access to US nuclear energy technology for the first time in
three decades.
Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran was to leave late Tuesday
for talks with US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, a
government official said on Monday.
The deal, clinched during US President George W. Bush's visit to
India in March, has run into rough weather with critics in
Washington complaining that American negotiators gave away too
much in return for too little.
The accord -- awaiting a green light from the US Congress --
will allow India, which has not signed the nuclear Non
Proliferation Treaty (NPT), access to long-denied civilian
nuclear technology.
In return, New Delhi has agreed to place a majority of its
atomic reactors under international safeguards.
But the March accord does not have bipartisan backing in the US
Congress.
Some in the Bush administration now fear that a crowded
Congressional calendar and mid-term legislative elections in
November could stymie the deal.
Earlier assessments by US and Indian officials said the US
Congress would pass the deal between June and September.
US legislators now say they want to first have a look at a set
of safeguards under which India and the United States would
implement the nuclear agreement as well as a bilateral agreement
to encompass all key ingredients of the deal.
The safeguards are still being negotiated between India and the
global atomic watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA).
Meanwhile, moves to frame a bilateral India-US agreement have
reportedly hit a roadblock after New Delhi refused to accept a
provision barring it from conducting atomic tests.
India has also objected to a provision giving the United States
the legal right to halt nuclear cooperation if India tests a
nuclear weapon.
New Delhi wants assurances that the flow of technology,
including reactors and fuel, will not be interrupted.
Under a compromise proposed by ranking Democrat Tom Lantos, US
lawmakers will explicitly welcome the deal. But Congress will
not immediately make amendments to US law to implement the
agreement until all details are worked out.
Analyst C.U. Bhaskar, deputy head of the Institute of Defence
Studies and Analyses, said the Burns-Saran meeting would take
stock.
"The agreement that was arrived at (March 2) was essentially a
political agreement and it is being discussed in the US and as
it is in India," he said.
"This is a complex process, it is a contested process. But I am
sure the deal will be passed by the current US Congress,"
Bhaskar said.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Australia &NZ Pty Limited. All rights
reserved.
- -
Copyright © 2006 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
29 JS Online: Kewaunee plant faces scrutiny again
Nuclear agency says start-up procedures were not followed
By THOMAS CONTENT
Posted: May 19, 2006
The Kewaunee nuclear plant is under extra scrutiny from federal
inspectors for the second time in as many months.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Friday launched a special
inspection at the single-reactor plant east of Green Bay to
investigate an attempted restart of the plant this week.
The NRC said it is looking into a situation "in which plant
operators did not follow procedures while starting up the
reactor" on Wednesday. The plant, owned and operated by Dominion
Resources Inc. of Richmond, Va., had been shut down since April
26 for equipment repairs.
Jim Norvelle, a Dominion spokesman, said his company is also
investigating what happened. The start-up was delayed, he said,
when a problem was detected with the plant's turbine generator.
"During that start-up, operators may not have performed
procedures adequately," Norvelle said. "That's what we're
looking into. We want to make sure that these procedures were
adequate and that they were strictly followed during start-up."
In a statement, the NRC said both the agency and Dominion have
questions concerning actions taken by a senior reactor operator
who changed procedures during the plant's start-up on Wednesday,
as well as concerns about Dominion's procedures, which had
recently been revised.
The launch of the special inspection doesn't prevent Dominion
from restarting the plant, agency spokeswoman Viktoria Mitlyng
said.
"They don't need our approval to restart," she said.
As of Friday, the reactor remained out of service, Norvelle
said.
"We just want to make sure that we've reviewed everything we
need to review before start-up," he said.
The inspection comes just as the NRC is finishing up a report
concerning problems at the plant in late April.
At that time, Dominion declared the first alert at any of the
state's nuclear plants since the NRC adopted a new emergency
response system after the Three Mile Island accident in
Pennsylvania in 1979.
There was no evacuation and no hazard to plant employees or the
public from the incident, but questions were being raised about
whether Dominion went too far by declaring an alert. The alert
mobilized emergency response personnel in Manitowoc and Kewaunee
counties as well as at the state Capitol.
A report on the first special inspection has not yet been made
public. That review was recently concluded, and its results
should be made public in the next 30 to 45 days, Mitlyng said.
The Kewaunee plant was sold last year by Green Bay-based
Wisconsin Public Service Corp. and Madison-based Wisconsin Power
& Light Co. to Dominion, which sells the electricity from the
nuclear plant back to the two state utilities.
From the May 20, 2006 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
, Journal Sentinel Inc. All rights reserved. | Produced by |
*****************************************************************
30 [NukeNet] sunbeam article on NRCmeeting
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 15:24:48 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
A key point not covered by Gallo is that one of the PSEG/Exelon suits
admitted that on Safety Culture, workers are 'going through the motions' and
'have not internalized' Exelon's new ways of doing things.
Beyond that, not surprisingly, I was a pep rally for PSEG. But we've seen
this before, and a year later, things fall apart.
PSEG/Exelon did commit to replacing the A recirc pump at Hope Creek sometime
down the road, and the steam generators in Salem 2 in 2007.
They only present their overall look at the SCWE metrics, not individual
ones, so it was impossible to see if progress is really occurring.
Norm
Coalition for Peace and Justice; UNPLUG Salem Campaign, 321 Barr Ave,
Linwood; NJ08221; 609-601-8583
-----Original Message-----
From: bgallo@sjnewsco.com [mailto:bgallo@sjnewsco.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 2:12 AM
To: Norm Cohen
Subject: Re: article on nrc mtg?
Norm,
For some reason the story was not uploaded with the
rest of the day's news so it would appear on the web
site.
Here is the original version.
Bill
By BILL GALLO JR.
Staff Writer
LOGAN TWP. - PSEG Nuclear has resolved one
long-standing issue at its nuclear generating facility in
Lower Alloways Creek to the satisfaction of federal
regulators, officials said Wednesday night.
In its annual assessment of the performance of PSEG
Nuclear's three reactors - Salem 1, Salem 2 and
Hope Creek - the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
said it was satisfied with the utility's action concerning
problem identification and resolution at the plant.
A June inspection will determine whether the
company's action in a second area involving
employee-management relations, which has drawn
intense scrutiny, has been enough to allow the NRC to
lift its extra oversight on the issue.
NRC officials from the agency's Region I office and top
officials from PSEG Nuclear met at the Holiday Inn here
for the NRC's annual performance assessment for the
three nuclear reactors on Artificial Island. The
assessment meetings are held by the NRC for all
plants in the U.S. and review their performance for the
preceding year.
Overall, the federal agency said in 2005 PSEG Nuclear
had operated the plants in "a manner that preserved
public health and safety." The plants had "a favorable
report card," said Marc L. Dapas, NRC Region I deputy
administrator.
A positive note in the review was the federal agency's
finding on one long-standing issue at the plant.
The NRC said that the utility had demonstrated its
ability to identify and resolve problems at the plant,
including those with equipment.
While lifting some its extra inspections in that area, the
NRC continues to closely monitor whether a
safety-conscious work environment is being promoted
at the Island.
Among the main issues are whether workers are
willing to report what they believe are safety-related
issues or whether they'll pass for fear of retaliation.
Worker complaints to the NRC led the federal agency to
open an investigation into the allegations.
PSEG officials said that the most recent
comprehensive survey of worker attitudes at the plant
has shown great improvement since the first such
survey in late 2003.
NRC officials Wednesday night said PSEG's progress
on the safety-conscious work environment issue will be
examined in a June inspection at the Island. Should
progress enough to satisfy the NRC be found, then
extra monitoring in that area, too, could be lifted by the
NRC.
However, Dapas warned that while PSEG has seen
positive results in its surveys, the utilitys' latest survey
would play only a small role in the NRC's overall
assessment whether "substantial, sustainable
improvement have been made."
Bill Levis, senior vice president and chief nuclear officer
for PSEG Nuclear, said he believes worker attitudes
have changed and communication is now more open.
"Improvement has been driven by all levels of the
organization. I see workers and management working
together to resolve plant issues," Levis said. He said
there is now "a sense of accountability" among the
workforce.
PSEG Nuclear's parent company, Newark-based
Public Service Enterprise Group is currently in the midst
of a merger with the Exelon Corp. Approval of the
merger is expected in the third quarter of 2005, pending
approval from the NRC, the U.S. Department of Justice
and the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.
When the merger plans were announced in December
2004, PSEG announced that it had entered into an
operating services agreement with the Exelon Corp. to
handle the day-to-day operations at its three nuclear
plants at the Island.
The Exelon-run team, headed by Levis, took over
control in January 2005.
Exelon currently operates 17 nuclear plants in the U.S.
If the merger is approved, the Exelon fleet would grow
to 20.
Exelon officials have implemented their company's
management model for operation of nuclear plants.
Levis and Tom Joyce, vice president, Salem Generating
Station, and George Barnes, vice president, Hope
Creek Generating Station, told NRC officials that
workers are embracing the Exelon model.
Frank Cassidy, president and chief operating officer of
PSEG Power, said the presence of the Exelon
managers have "resulted in operational improvements
that have exceeded our expectations. We have resolved
many long-standing problems."
In their remarks Wednesday, PSEG and NRC officials
also touched on what had been a controversial issue
surrounding Hope Creek, the rehabilitation of the "B"
recirculation pump. The pump had drawn attention
because of vibrations it made when operating that had
been caused by a bowed shaft. Both the shaft and the
pump's motor had been replaced in the last refueling at
the plant which ended earlier this month.
As usual, few from the public attended the meeting. The
audience consisted mainly of public officials or their
representatives and NRC and PSEG staff members.
One in attendance with several questions was Norm
Cohen, coordinator for the Unplug Salem Campaign.
He questioned Cassidy about what would happen if the
PSEG-Exelon merger isn't approved.
Cassidy said PSEG would continue its operating
services agreement with Exelon to run the three
reactors at the Island. In fact, the agreement would
likely be extended, he said.
Cohen also chastised the NRC for lifting its extra
oversight in the area of problem identification and
resolution.
The three units at Artificial Island make up the second
largest commercial nuclear complex in the United
States.
As of Wednesday night, all three units were operating at
full power, according to PSEG officials.
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
31 [NukeNet] Scotland: Former minister launches anti-nuclear
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 15:24:56 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
http://www.sundayherald.com/55786
Sunday Herald - 21 May 2006
Former minister launches anti-nuclear fight
By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor
----------
BACKERS of Tony Blair’s push for nuclear power in Scotland will run into
serious opposition this week when a former Labour minister nails her
colours firmly to the anti-nuclear mast.
Sarah Boyack MSP, a former transport, environment and planning minister at
Holyrood, is to lodge a motion in the Scottish parliament tomorrow arguing
strongly against a new nuclear power programme.
Her move reflects growing anxiety in Labour’s senior ranks that the party
could be rushed into a decision on nuclear power without proper
consideration of the alternatives. Last week, Blair said nuclear power was
“back on the agenda with a vengeance”.
Building more reactors would be “inconsistent” with environmental
sustainability, Boyack’s draft motion says. They will add to the existing
legacy of “highly toxic nuclear waste” and the “huge public cost” of
decommissioning and storage. The case for building more nuclear stations
“has not been made”, the motion states.
“Even with an accelerated planning system, new nuclear power stations could
not contribute either to plugging the ‘energy gap’ or to carbon reductions
by 2020,” the MSP adds.
Boyack, usually a Labour loyalist, is currently convener of the Scottish
parliament’s environment and rural development committee.
“It would be a mistake to be sidelined into a debate just about nuclear
power and electricity,” she told the Sunday Herald. “It’s vital that we
look closely at other solutions, such as heat, and exploit the
opportunities for innovation in new technologies, such as hydrogen and
carbon capture, and capitalise on the global opportunities for clean coal
technologies.”
Her initiative was welcomed by Labour’s influential green wing, the
Socialist Environment and Resources Association (Sera). It is currently in
talks with trade unions over how to make a “just transition” to a
sustainable energy policy without nuclear power.
Sera’s spokeswoman Claudia Beamish said: “I would encourage MSPs to sign
this motion and to recognise the positive opportunities for renewable
energy and energy efficiency in Scotland in pursuing a sustainable policy
without the risks of nuclear power stations.”
Boyack’s motion is closely modelled on one lodged in the House of Commons
last week by one of the victims of Blair’s latest reshuffle, the former
environment minister, Elliot Morley MP. So far it has been signed by 13
MPs, including Mark Lazarowicz, who represents Edinburgh North and Leith.
Together, the two motions suggest that Blair is not going to get his way on
nuclear power without a fight within the Labour Party. In Scotland,
insiders say, there is much argument to be had before the manifesto for
next year’s Holyrood elections is finalised.
Meanwhile, the Scottish Executive has come under fire for failing to make a
submission to Blair’s energy review, despite the fact that consultations
closed more than a month ago.
“It’s a disgrace that Scotland’s interests will be ignored,” said Green MSP
Chris Ballance.
In its defence, the Executive said it was “fully engaged” with the review
process, and Westminster was aware of its position. Its response was still
being finalised and would be submitted before the end of the month.
----------
Copyright © 2006 smg sunday newspapers ltd. no.176088
Back to
previous page
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
32 [NukeNet] Secret Document Reveals New Breed of Nuclear
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 15:27:53 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Peak Early Fatalities, Cancers, Injuries &
Property Damage In USA:
http://www.mothersalert.org/crac.html
----- Original Message -----
From: davey garland
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 7:51 AM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MAY 19, 2006
5:31 AM
CONTACT: Greenpeace
Shaun Burnie - Greenpeace International ++31
6290 01133
Helene Gassuin - Greenpeace France - ++33
6738 92314
Dr John Large - ++ 44 7971 088086
Secret Document Reveals New Breed of Nuclear
Reactors Vulnerable to Terrorist Attack
PARIS - May 19 - A leaked document on the
vulnerability to terrorist attack of the new
European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) - being
considered or already under construction in
several countries including UK, France and
Finland - reveals a dangerously flawed approach to
security, according to a study commissioned by
Greenpeace International. (1)
The Electricite de France (EDF) document
relates to the projected performance of the AREVA
designed Generation III European Pressurized
Reactor, the first of which is being built at
Olkiluoto in Finland with a second planned for a
site at Flammanville, Normandy, France. EDF has
also submitted proposals to the UK government to
build ten such reactors, and is seeking to export
the design to China and India.
Nuclear engineering consultancy, Large and
Associates, in the commissioned study assessed the
secret EDF document and concluded that it includes
seriously flawed assumptions about whether the
reactor could withstand a potential terrorist
attack using hijacked commercial aircraft;
fallacies include:
* the impact of a 250 tonne commercial jet
aircraft is considered to be in the same range as
a military aircraft (2-5 tonnes) in terms of the
energy of impact, despite the greater induced
shock from the much greater physical weight;
* that up to 100 tonnes of aviation fuel
from a commercial aircraft would burn within two
minutes - which is both unjustified and unproven.
It also ignores the possibility of fuel vapour
forming within the reactor structures, the
explosion of which could severely damage the
shield and the reactor within;
* that terrorists would have insufficient
skills to pilot an aircraft onto the intended
target, despite the deadly accuracy of the 9/11
attacks having proven how well trained and highly
skilled they can become.
The EDF document also discounts a serious
risk of radioactive release from the reactor,
whilst also failing to consider potential
radioactivity released from damage to spent fuel
rods and waste processing and storage sources on
site
"I am not surprised at the controversy
generated by this leaked document. This is not
because it reveals some highly sensitive details
about the EPR design, which it certainly does not,
but more because it reflects what seems to be an
almost total lack of preparation to defend against
the inevitability of terrorist attack," said Dr
Large. "A similar attack on a reactor would cause
a total calamity with the release of large amounts
or radioactivity."
The leaked document was published in full
this week by politicians and environmental
organisations in France, in protest at the arrest
of an activist from the French Nuclear Phase-out
network (Sortir du Nucleaire), who was accused of
violation of France's nuclear Secret Defence by
having a copy of the EDF document.(2) The
activist, Stephane Lhomme, was interrogated over
14 hours on Tuesday after ten anti-terrorist
police and others raided his home in Paris,
removing documents, computers and phones.
"France's nuclear state, including EDF, does
not like public exposure. Their approach is to
intimidate and to seek to suppress information.
But these issues are too important to be left to a
complacent bureaucracy and a self-interested
nuclear company with reactors to sell. The EPR is
promoted as the future for nuclear power but in
reality it is the same dangerous unacceptable
technology that has plagued us for decades.
Whatever the terrorist threat and targets a wind
turbine or solar panel is not on the list," said
Shaun Burnie of Greenpeace International.
Dr Large and Stephane Lhomme with a
delegation from Greenpeace will be visiting the
proposed site for the new EDF EPR reactor at
Flammanville on Friday, 19 May.
###
Send instant messages to your online friends
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
33 Columbian: Trojan's Final Bow
Columbian.com - Serving Clark County, Washington
It took just seconds for the 499-foot cooling tower of the
Trojan Nuclear Power Plant to collapse into a pile of concrete
rubble. (JEREMIAH COUGHLAN/The Columbian)
» Trojan implosion video
Monday, May 22, 2006
By THOMAS RYLL, Columbian staff writer
KALAMA Seconds after the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant cooling
tower went limp as a deflated tire Sunday morning, a sea lion
popped its head above water near the Washington shore, wondered,
"Was it something I ate?" or some such thing, and dove back
under.
And just like that, in less time than it takes to read that
sentence, in less time than a sea lion is willing to spend above
water near a dock full of reporters and photographers, the
cooling tower was gone, gone, gone.
It was short but stupendous. Preblast estimates of the tower's
conversion from 499 feet of concrete chimney to 40 feet of
concrete chunks ran from eight to 15 seconds; four or five was
all it took.
Those seconds were guaranteed to be replayed countless times.
Portland General Electric, Trojan's owner, invited several
hundred employees and other guests to the Port of Kalama dock,
where space was roughly split between visitors and the media. On
the media's half, still and video cameras perched on 58 tripods.
Throughout the morning, Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled
Demolition Inc., gamely answered and re-answered the same
questions for the microphones, notebooks and lenses, explaining
how his father started CDI in the late 1940s, and that he was a
forester who found that blowing up things was a wonderfully
expedient way of being rid of them.
PGE boss Peggy Fowler told the audience that the project is "a
huge milestone" in the yearslong process of decommissioning
Oregon's first and only nuclear plant, and there was in fact
"some sadness" among the ranks of the hundreds of employees who
once worked there.
Not in the mind of Steve Nichols, a 32-year PGE employee who
started at Trojan as a plant operator and is now the general
manager of the decommissioning work. "I got over that a long
time ago," he said, adding, "It will be real hard to top this."
Two minutes before the big show, a one-tenth-pound dynamite
blast, designed to scare birds from the river's best perch,
shattered the relative calm.
But not until Loizeaux gave the one-minute warning did silence
fall upon the crowd. At 7 a.m., came the twinkle, like flashing
lights, of the ignition of dynamite stuffed into 2,934 holes
drilled into the tower.
In seven-tenths of a second, most of 2,792 pounds of dynamite
had exploded; the last rounds were delayed to about 2.5 seconds.
By then the pockmarks of concrete dust marking the tower had
grown into a boiling cloud. Black bits of geotextile fabric,
used to keep concrete from leaving the scene, were blown
sideways before fluttering to the ground.
At the Kalama dock, the effect was a chest-thumping explosion
and a noise like that at a front-row seat during Vancouver's
Fourth of July fireworks show. Some people instinctively ducked.
Others yelled. The tower lost its will to live. Once the blast
had rolled over the area, the tower appeared to fall without a
sound.
All that was left was the post mortem. Officials said there were
no problems with the process of closing and reopening the river
and nearby roads, including Interstate 5, to traffic.
CDI has a contract to destroy four British Nuclear cooling
towers, and four company representatives were at Trojan on
Sunday.
Trojan's spent nuclear fuel rods are 900 feet from the tower
base, in what is known as the ISFSI, for Independent Spent Fuel
Storage Installation. The rods are encased in concrete casks and
waiting, potentially 20 years or more, for transport to a
repository. No aspect of the demolition was more important than
ensuring that those fuel rods spent the morning drinking coffee
and reading the newspaper, with no upset whatsoever to their
routine.
As planned, the tower slumped slightly to the south. Minutes
after the blast a CDI employee radioed Loizeaux that there was
"no kickback" of the tower's concrete toward the north, where
the fuel rods rest. "Excellent," Loizeaux said.
Not long after that, he received the first report from the many
seismographs placed at the tower site for monitoring purposes:
The gauge showed 0.075 inches per second. Loizeaux explained
that a U.S. Bureau of Mines standard states that 2.0 inches per
second "could possibly" cause damage to an older wood-frame
structure. Thus, he said, with a reading a small fraction of the
possible-damage standard, the result "is so low as to be
insignificant. You would have greater vibration from a truck
driving past the ISFSI."
Loizeaux has seen "thousands" of structures humbled by CDI's
explosives, and as the tower went defunct at the speed of
dynamite, he watched with a poker face, as if waiting for a
stoplight to change. But his glee was impossible to conceal as
the dirty brown cloud of pulverized concrete began to drift to
the southeast across the river. "That was absolutely beautiful
from this side of the river," he said into his radio microphone.
Afterwards, Loizeaux said that the Trojan project, with the
highly reinforced tower, environmental issues and the "challenge
of the nuclear culture" means that the demolition "sets the bar
for all the other projects worldwide." At that, he said, "The
impact of what happened here will be felt far beyond any impact
that was felt today."
*****************************************************************
34 NEWS.com.au: Nuclear push 'a terrorism risk'
From: AAP
May 22, 2006
AUSTRALIA'S push towards nuclear power generation could heighten
the risk of a terrorist attack, Labor MP Kelvin Thomson said
today. The debate over nuclear power and uranium exports
re-emerged last week as Prime Minister John Howard visited the
United States and held energy talks as part of a two-week,
three-country tour.
Both Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane and Foreign Minister
Alexander Downer have advocated considering uranium enrichment
as part of the nuclear power generation process.
"The problem with nuclear power is that more of it that is
around, the easier it is for terrorists to get access to it and
I'm not satisfied that in this day and age we can be absolutely
certain that terrorists can't access it," Mr Thomson said.
Instead of nuclear power, Mr Thompson suggested a much safer
and environmentally-friendly option would be renewable energy
sources like wind and solar power.
Mr Thomson said Australia was potentially a world-leader in
solar power.
"Surely you exhaust all the other alternatives first before you
say let's go down the nuclear road," he said.
Mr Thomson also accused the Government of insufficiently
supporting climate change.
"They have not been sincere in this issue, if they were sincere
about climate change they would supporting renewable energy."
Search for more stories on this topic on , our news archive
service.
homesite.com.au
*****************************************************************
35 NEWS.com.au: PM declares it's time to go nuclear
By Malcolm Farr in Dublin
May 23, 2006
PRIME Minister John Howard yesterday made clear his belief that
Australia should have nuclear power stations. And he said he was
prepared to take on premiers and others who might oppose their
development.
Mr Howard said he would soon announce the "structure" for a
national debate on the issue to provide a "cross-examination and
a proper testing of assumptions".
He was encouraged to take the step during talks with US
President George W. Bush and US Energy Secretary Sam Bodman in
Washington last week, and had since spoken of "the whole
atmosphere" created by high oil prices transforming the energy
debate.
Mr Howard had been considering a formal debate about nuclear
power but until his Washington talks had given the project a
relatively low priority.
"The context of the last week or so has given my developing
views more prominence," he said.
Division s have emerged within the Liberal Party over Mr Howard's
nuclear push.
Three senior ministers - Alexander Downer, Ian Macfarlane and
Ian Campbell - have suggested Australia consider enriching
uranium so it could be used as reactor fuel or in nuclear
weapons.
Health Minister Tony Abbott said he was not "theological" about
the issue and had no outright objection to nuclear power.
But Finance Minster Nick Minchin and Industry Minister Ian
Macfarlane sad nuclear power would be uneconomic in Australia
for at least 100 years.
"We have some abundant coal and gas reserves and you'd have to
tax them out of existence to make nuclear power viable," Senator
Minchin said.
Mr Howard yesterday rejected the idea of a judicial inquiry or
royal commission but indicated all sides would be given a
hearing.
He said he believed Australian attitudes towards nuclear power
had shifted significantly over the past 10 to 20 years.
"I think public opinion is shifting, but even if it is not,
isn't it part of one's responsibilities as a leader to promote
debate on important issues even though there may be difficulties
involved?" Mr Howard said in Dublin yesterday.
"It's a different world from what it was a few years ago, and
not just because of the price of oil ... but also the reality
that nuclear power is cleaner and greener than other forms of
power." Search for more stories on this topic on
*****************************************************************
36 NEWS.com.au: Nuclear energy not an option - Swan
From: AAP
May 22, 2006
AUSTRALIA should not adopt nuclear technology and must focus on
other energy sources, Opposition treasury spokesman Wayne Swan
said today. The debate over nuclear power and uranium exports
re-emerged last week as Prime Minister John Howard visited the
US and held energy talks as part of a two-week, three-country
tour.
Both Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane and Foreign Minister
Alexander Downer have advocated considering uranium enrichment
as part of the nuclear power generation process.
"I'm not in favour of Australia adopting nuclear power through
the building of nuclear power reactors," Mr Swan said.
"We are a country with an abundance of energy, we're are
optimistic about what can occur with clean coal technologies, we
have an abundant supply of gas – I don't see the need for
Australia to go down that road."
Copyright 2006 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT + 10).
*****************************************************************
37 NRC: NRC Finds No Significant Environmental Impacts from Extended Operation of Nine Mile
Point, Units 1 and 2
News Release - 2006-06 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office
of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC
20555-0001 E-mail: No. 06-069 May 22, 2006
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued its final
environmental impact statement on the proposed renewal of the
operating licenses for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station,
Units 1 and 2. The report contains the NRCs finding that there
are no environmental impacts that would preclude license renewal
for an additional 20 years of operation.
The Nine Mile Point plant is located approximately six miles
northeast of Oswego, N.Y. The current operating licenses expire
Aug. 22, 2009, for Unit 1 and Oct. 31, 2026, for Unit 2. Nine
Mile Point Nuclear Station submitted an application for renewal
of the licenses May 26, 2004.
As part of its environmental review of the applications, the NRC
held public meetings near the plant to discuss the scope of the
review and the draft version of the environmental impact
statement. Comments were received from members of the public,
local officials, and representatives of state and federal
agencies.
The Nine Mile Point Final Environmental Impact Statement is
available on the NRCs Web site at this address:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437
/supplement24/index.html. Copies are also available for
inspection at the NRCs Public Document Room at One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md, and at the Penfield
Library, located at State University of New York in Oswego.
Last revised Monday, May 22, 2006
*****************************************************************
38 SABCnews.com: More power cuts predicted for Cape Town
south_africa/general
South African Broadcasting Corporation Copyright © 2000 - 2005 SABC
[Koeberg Power Station]
Koeberg's Unit Two nuclear generator switched off, Capetonians
braces themselves for more blackouts
May 22, 2006, 18:15
Cape Town is one more bracing itself for more blackouts this
evening, with Koeberg's Unit Two nuclear generator switched off
this morning for refuelling, maintenance and standard safety
upgrades.
Although Unit One was restored last week, the cold weather is
expected to increase electricity consumption, thereby increasing
the chances that Capetonians could be left in the dark.
Koeberg's Unit One is forced to bear the burden of powering the
city, while the lengthy process of upgrading Unit Two takes
place until the end of July.
Eskom has warned that as long as the Koeberg Power Station has
only one unit working, the risk of power outages still remains
in the Western Cape during winter. Major power failures are
expected mainly during peak hours between 18h00-20h00.
Residents asked to conserve electricity
Leslie Rencontre, the city's director of electricity services,
has called on consumers to conserve electricity as from today.
With the winter season already setting in, consumers are angry
at the situation.
Eskom says whereas Unit One is currently running at 99%
capacity, it is clear that the supply challenges in the Western
Cape have sparked some changes in resident's electricity
consumption behaviour, which has been to the benefit of the
whole region.
*****************************************************************
39 SABCnews.com: Cape Town could be in the dark again tonight
south_africa/general
South African Broadcasting Corporation Copyright ©2000 - 2005 SABC
May 22, 2006, 07:30
A combination of icy temperatures and reduced capacity could
reportedly plunge parts of Cape Town into darkness tonight. The
Cape Times reports that consumers will have to conserve 150
megawatts to avoid a blackout.
It quotes Leslie Rencontre, the city's director of electricity
services, as saying that if they do not, there will be
load-shedding. Eskom has estimated that there will be a shortage
of at least 150 MW from 6pm to 8pm, after Koeberg's Unit 2
generator is switched off today for refuelling and safety
upgrades.
Koeberg's Unit 1 nuclear generator, which was repaired and fully
restored last week, will be forced to bear the burden of
powering the city while the lengthy process of upgrading Unit 2
takes place. The upgrade of Unit 2 is expected to take several
weeks.
*****************************************************************
40 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear energy is cheaper than gas, and needs
no taxpayers' subsidy
Modern reactors, unlike the old ones, are built with
decommissioning in mind, says Robert Davies
Tuesday May 23, 2006
The Guardian
The debate around nuclear power is coming to a head and many
questions are being asked. However, the suggestion that nuclear
power is somehow uneconomic, that its costs preclude it from
serious consideration, does not match the facts (Leader column,
A decision that should not be rushed, May 18).
The Guardian stated that "the most obvious objection is cost:
nuclear power is expensive, especially when compared with gas".
However, most international studies show that nuclear can
compete with gas - even before the carbon costs are taken into
account. It is also worth noting that most of these studies were
completed before gas prices quadrupled. Nuclear produces
electricity at a predictable cost, so utilities are likely to
use it to hedge against fossil-fuel costs and carbon price
volatility. The current strength of gas and coal prices simply
enhances that economic case.
Experience in Finland and France has proven that the costs of
building and operating a new generation of nuclear power
stations can be borne by the private sector. Similarly, if the
UK opts for nuclear new-build, there will be no call on the
taxpayer's purse and no need for a subsidy from government.
Decommissioning is not a financial obstacle, as costs can be
provided for over the 60-year lifespan of the plant. The
historic costs of decommissioning British Magnox and advanced
gas-cooled reactors do not bear comparison with the costs of
decommissioning modern plants. The UK's old reactor fleet was
never built to be taken apart; new designs are. We estimate that
a nuclear power plant could raise enough funds to pay for its
eventual decommissioning by saving £2m a year - less than 1% of
what that plant would charge for its electricity across a year.
There are points where almost all of those involved agree - for
example, that our energy mix needs more renewables, and more
energy efficiency from domestic and commercial users. In fact
nuclear power can only really deliver for the UK as part of that
mix. Claims that investment in nuclear "starves investment into
renewable energy sources and energy efficiency" are wide of the
mark. The government has been clear that renewables must be part
of the UK's energy mix so utilities will invest in and use them;
the same goes for energy efficiency.
Just as there is no need for government subsidy, there is no
need to change the regulations and laws that keep the nuclear
industry safe. A streamlining of the processes implementing
these controls, and more resources for those enforcing them, is
all that is necessary. This will reduce uncertainty and delay,
benefiting wind farms and gas storage construction as much as
nuclear power.
Building a nuclear power plant is not cheap. Decommissioning
costs money. But this does not mean that nuclear power is more
expensive than other generation technologies. When combined with
the fact that it produces reliable, low-cost electricity without
releasing carbon dioxide, it has a clear role in the UK's future
generation mix. Let us be guided by today's knowledge rather
than yesterday's dogmatism when we develop Britain's future
energy portfolio.
· Robert Davies is the UK representative of the Areva nuclear
energy company rob.davies@areva.com
· The Response column offers those who have been written about
in the Guardian an opportunity to reply. If you wish to respond,
at greater length than in a letter, to an article in which you
have featured either directly or indirectly, please email
response@guardian.co.ukor write to Response, The Guardian, 119
Farringdon Road, London EC1R 3ER. We cannot guarantee to publish
all responses, and we reserve the right to edit pieces for both
length and content
Newspapers Limited 2006.
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR
*****************************************************************
41 Sydney Morning Herald: Vic, NSW possible nuke power sites
www.smh.com.au
May 23, 2006 - 9:55AM
A left-wing thinktank believes Victoria's Westernport Bay or
NSW's Port Stephens are the most likely locations for
Australia's first nuclear power plant.
The Australia Institute has consulted energy experts and has now
identified a string of suitable locations for a nuclear power
plant.
Prime Minister John Howard has called for a full-blooded debate
on the use of nuclear power in Australia while other government
ministers have suggested Australia may enrich uranium before
exporting it to other nations.
The most important aspect for a potential nuclear power plant
site is access to massive volumes of water, needed to cool the
plant.
A statement from the institute says Port Stephens and
Westernport Bay are also close to important infrastructure
including large scale electricity supply and good rail and port
access.
Head of the Australia Institute Dr Clive Hamilton said they had
identified the locations to inform the debate Mr Howard has
called for.
"The prime minister has said he wants a national debate about
nuclear power, but there is little point in debating it in the
abstract," Dr Hamilton said.
© 2006 AAP
Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
42 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear debate a diversion: Garrett -
National - smh.com.au
www.smh.com.au
May 23, 2006 - 9:06AM
Prime Minister John Howard is creating a false nuclear debate to
deflect attention from a lack of action on climate change, Labor
frontbencher Peter Garrett says.
Mr Howard is flagging a full-scale nuclear debate when he
returns from an overseas trip later this week, as momentum
builds within his own party to develop nuclear power and uranium
enrichment programs.
Mr Garrett, a one-time Senate candidate for the Nuclear
Disarmament Party, said the prime minister had left the United
States a "born-again nuclear warrior".
The nuclear debate was a false one, he said.
"The prime minister's creating one his great false debates,
flying kites, making mischief, and covering up for the fact that
he's done absolutely zip on climate change - nothing in the
budget for it," Mr Garrett told ABC radio.
"(He) abolishes the Australian Greenhouse Office. We've seen
half a billion dollars worth of investment in wind farms and
alternative technologies go overseas because of this
government's lack of action.
"The prime minister comes back from America as a nukes
enthusiast, but he's just clouding the debate and covering his
own deficiencies."
Mr Garrett said he was also concerned about senior government
ministers, including Alexander Downer and Ian Macfarlane,
flagging a uranium enrichment program for Australia.
"I'm astonished that the government wants to push ahead with
enrichment given the huge issues around safety, around
proliferation, the sort of debates that we're seeing in the
Middle East about rogue states.
"But more importantly, why isn't this government investing in
technologies that are good for the country?"
After 40 years with nuclear power, the US had not yet dealt with
its own waste, Mr Garrett said.
"They still haven't, after 40 years, got a successfully approved
radioactive waste safe repository."
The nuclear debate was a farce, he said.
"It's more than hypocritical, it's a farce for the prime
minister to come back from America and suddenly become
born-again for nukes."
Mr Garrett said his personal conviction that nuclear power was
the wrong way to go was even greater now than when he was a
member of the Nuclear Disarmament Party.
But Mr Howard was trying to control the entire debate, he said.
"The prime minister's come back from the United States as a high
priest of nuclear power and he's also outlining already ... the
way in which he wants to conduct the debate. He doesn't want to
have a judicial inquiry.
"He doesn't want to have a royal commission. He's going to
instruct his own government on the terms of the debate and how
it's going to be explored, and then I think he's going to
attempt to drive it."
Mr Garrett said any nuclear debate should be as wide-ranging as
possible.
"Any debate about this issue must involve the fullest
participation by the Australian people, it must draw on the
widest possible range of scientific inquiry."
The government had been "delinquent" and "negligent" in its lack
of action on climate change, Mr Garrett said.
If Australia went down the nuclear path, it would only reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by between five and 10 per cent, he
said.
AAP
| Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
43 Sydney Morning Herald: Howard wants full-blooded nuke debate -
www.smh.com.au
May 22, 2006 - 7:11PM
Prime Minister John Howard is flagging a full-scale nuclear
debate when he returns from overseas, as one of his ministers
predicts a uranium processing industry is feasible in Australia
within a decade.
Australia has about 40 per cent of the world's known uranium
reserves but exports what it produces for electricity generation
in other countries.
Momentum is growing within government ranks for a significant
national discussion on nuclear issues, including the creation of
a power industry in Australia, uranium mining and whether the
nation should pursue uranium enrichment.
In an environment of rising petrol prices and ongoing concerns
about greenhouse gas emissions, Prime Minister John Howard has
called for a "full-blooded" debate on the controversial fuel.
On the last leg of a two-week trip to the northern hemisphere,
Mr Howard hinted at some sort of announcement on the structure
of the nuclear debate - possibly a white paper or an inquiry
process - after he returns to Australia on Thursday.
"I'll be having something more to say about that when I get
back," he told reporters in Dublin.
"I have given it quite a lot of thought ... and you'll be
hearing quite a bit more from me about that issue."
Despite government consensus on the need to discuss nuclear
power, Finance Minister Nick Minchin believes it may not be
economically viable for up to a century.
But while power generation may not make economic sense,
processing the fuel may be a way for Australia to add value to
its vast uranium stores.
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer opened a new front on the
debate yesterday when he canvassed whether Australia should
consider uranium enrichment rather than just mining the fuel and
letting other countries add value to it.
Enrichment begins the process of preparing uranium to be used
for power generation, but also for nuclear arms.
If Australia decides to go down the enrichment path, Resources
Minister Ian Macfarlane says a new industry could be only five
to 10 years away.
"If Australia decided to go to value-adding uranium, then we
would probably be half a decade, maybe even a decade away from
doing it," Mr Macfarlane told ABC Radio.
"There are a lot of decisions to be made, and what we really
need is a full, open, scientifically-based factual debate on the
whole nuclear energy issue."
Environment Minister Ian Campbell is open to thinking about both
nuclear power and uranium enrichment.
"If we're going to provide secure energy for the world and have
a massive reduction in greenhouse gases, we need all of these
options on the table and to shy away from that means you're not
serious about the environment or the economy," he told ABC
Radio.
WWF Australia, formerly the World Wildlife Fund, says Australia
has an abundance of clean and renewable energy sources, such as
wind, solar and natural gas, and doesn't need to turn to nuclear
energy.
Labor remains strictly opposed to a nuclear power industry in
Australia.
Opposition frontbencher Kelvin Thomson warns it could heighten
the risk of a terrorist attack in Australia, while union boss
Bill Shorten, a Labor candidate at the next election, believes
the issue is unpopular with the electorate.
Mr Howard, however, thinks public opinion is shifting.
And even if it isn't, the debate is still necessary.
"Isn't it part of one's responsibilities as a leader to promote
debate on important issues, even though there may be
difficulties involved?" Mr Howard said.
AAP
Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
44 NRC: Submission of Annual Financial Reports: Elimination of Requirement
RIN 3150-AH39
FR Doc 06-4737
[Federal Register: May 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 98)] [Rules
and Regulations] [Page 29244-29247] From the Federal Register
Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22my06-2]
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its
regulations so that licensees who file financial reports with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC), need not submit annual financial
reports, including the certified financial statements, to the
Commission.
The Commission is also amending its regulations so that
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) licensees who
file financial reports with the SEC or the FERC, need not submit
annual financial reports, including the certified financial
statements, to the Commission.
DATES: Effective Date: The final rule is effective August 7,
2006, unless significant adverse comments are received by June
21, 2006. A significant adverse comment is a comment where the
commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including
challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would
be ineffective or unacceptable without change. If the rule is
withdrawn, timely notice will be published in the Federal
Register.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following
methods. Please include the following number RIN 3150-AH39 in the
subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings or
petitions submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made
available for public inspection. Because your comments will not
be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the
NRC cautions you against including personal information such as
social security numbers and birth dates in your submission.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff.
E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply
e- mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact
us directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via
the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol
Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail cag@nrc.gov. Comments can also
be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal
http://www.regulations.gov. Hand deliver comments to: 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 am and
4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. (Telephone (301) 415-1966).
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
(301) 415-1101.
Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking or
petition may 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, Maryland. The PDR
reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected
documents, including comments, may be viewed and downloaded
electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at
http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Publicly available documents created
or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available
electronically at the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, the
public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image
files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to
ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located
in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference
staff at 1- 800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to
pdr@nrc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T.
Jamgochian, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301)
415-3224, e-mail
MTJ1@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section
553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act, the NRC is
using the direct final rule process for this rule because the NRC
considers this action to be noncontroversial, and does not
anticipate significant adverse comments. The Commission considers
this rulemaking action noncontroversial because the annual
reports and the certified financial statements currently required
by Sec. 50.71 (b) and 72.80 (b), are typically written for the
shareholders, and contain information pertaining to financial
qualifications, that may be outdated by the time it is published.
The reports can be found posted on the company's Web site as well
as on the SEC or FERC Web sites. The NRC has concluded that for
licensees that are required to file financial reports with the
SEC or the FERC, licensee financial information can be collected
in a more cost-effective way than requiring licensees to submit
the reports to the Commission, as required by 10 CFR 50.71(b) and
10 CFR 72.80 (b). The NRC has access to other more current
sources of information than the annual financial reports to
assess the licensees' financial condition, making the submittal
of the annual financial report to the NRC unnecessary.
Additionally, NRC has the authority to request licensees to
submit additional or more detailed information regarding their
financial status if the Commission considers this information
appropriate.
The amendments in this rule will become effective on August 7,
2006. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments
on this direct final rule by June 21, 2006, then the NRC will
publish a document that withdraws this action and will
subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a
response to the companion proposed rule published elsewhere in
this Federal Register.
Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions
requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second
comment period on this action.
[[Page 29245]] A significant adverse comment is a comment where
the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate,
including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or
approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a
change. A comment is adverse and significant if: (1) The comment
opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a
substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For
example, a substantive response is required when-- (A) The
comment causes the staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its
position or conduct additional analysis; (B) The comment raises
an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to
clarify or complete the record; or (C) The comment raises a
relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by
the staff.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule and
it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable
without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the staff to make a change (other than
editorial) to the rule.
Background Section 182.a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, provides that each application for a license shall state
such information as the Commission, by rule or regulation, may
determine to be necessary to decide the financial qualifications
of the applicant as the Commission may deem appropriate for the
license. The Act and the Commission's regulations reflect that
the fundamental purpose of the financial qualifications provision
of that section is the protection of the public health and safety
and the common defense and security. Although the Commission's
safety determinations required for the issuance of facility
licenses are based upon extensive and detailed technical review,
an applicant's financial qualifications can also contribute to
the ability to meet its responsibilities on safety matters.
Discussion In SECY-02-0081, ``Staff Activities Related to the NRC
Goal of Reducing Unnecessary Regulatory Burden on Power Reactor
Licensees,'' dated May 13, 2002, the NRC staff described various
interactions with stakeholders regarding ways to reduce
unnecessary regulatory burden. By memorandum dated June 25, 2002,
the Commission directed the staff to proceed with its evaluation
of possible rule changes. In developing the initiative described
in SECY-02-0081, the NRC staff had solicited observations and
suggestions by placing a notice in the Federal Register (66 FR
22134; May 3, 2001) and sponsoring a workshop on May 31, 2001. In
a response letter dated July 2, 2001, the Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) provided a list of suggestions from its members
for possible changes to several regulations that could reduce
unnecessary regulatory burden. This list included the annual
reports and the certified financial statements currently required
by Sec. Sec. 50.71(b) and 72.80(b). These reports are typically
written for the shareholders, and contain information pertaining
to financial qualifications, such as: (1) A letter to the
shareholders that covers the company's changing conditions, goals
achieved or missed, and its outlook; (2) Sales and marketing data
showing the product lines of the company, sales volume, and the
products that produce the most revenue; (3) CPA (certified public
accountant) opinion letter on the company's financials; (4) List
of directors and officers; (5) Management discussion and analysis
of significant financial trends; (6) Consolidated financial
statements that show multi-year trends in revenue, spending,
profits, inventory and debt; (7) Trends in the stock price; (8)
Notes to the consolidated financial statements that explain most
line items on the financials.
By comparing the company's past year performance to previous
years, insights can be obtained as to how the company, as a
whole, has been doing financially as of the end of the past year.
The information in the annual report and the certified financial
statements may be outdated by the time they are published and
submitted to the NRC. Accordingly, in many instances the NRC has
been using a more current source of information, called Form
10-Q, the quarterly financial report submitted to the SEC. Form
10-Q usually contains: (1) The three months and the year-to-date
income statement compared to the same period of the previous
year; (2) The company's balance sheets; (3) The three months and
year-to-date cash flow statements compared to the same period of
the previous year; (4) Notes to the consolidated financial
statements; (5) Management discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations.
The Form 10-Q gives a snap shot of the company's performance on a
quarterly basis. The report can be found posted on many company's
Web sites as well as on the SEC Web site. Form 1, submitted to
the FERC, contains similar up-to-date financial information that
can be electronically accessed by the staff.
The Commission has concluded that, for licensees that are
required to file financial reports with the SEC or the FERC,
licensees financial information can be collected in a more
cost-effective way than requiring licensees to submit the reports
required by 10 CFR 50.71(b) and 10 CFR 72.80(b). The NRC has
access to other more current sources of information than the
annual financial reports to assess the licensees' financial
condition, making the submittal of the annual financial report to
the NRC unnecessary. Additionally, NRC has the authority to
request licensees to submit additional or more detailed
information regarding their financial status if the Commission
considers this information appropriate.
Accordingly, the Commission has concluded that 10 CFR 50.71(b)
``Maintenance of records, making of reports'' and 10 CFR 72.80(b)
``Other records and reports'' may be revised to eliminate
reporting requirements for licensees who file financial reports
with the SEC or the FERC.
Voluntary Consensus Standards The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113, requires that
Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless using such
a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or is otherwise
impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC is eliminating
the requirement to submit annual financial reports and certified
financial statements to the Commission if financial reports are
already submitted to the SEC or the FERC.
These actions do not constitute the establishment of a standard
that contains generally applicable requirements.
Plain Language The Presidential Memorandum dated June 1, 1998,
entitled ``Plain Language in Government Writing,'' directed that
the Government's writing be in plain language. The NRC requests
comments on this direct final rule specifically with respect to
the clarity and effectiveness of the language used. Comments
should be sent to the address listed under the heading ADDRESSES
above.
Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC determined
that this direct final rule is categorically excluded from
[[Page 29246]] NEPA because it does not have a significant impact
on the human environment and does not substantially modify the
regulations and is a minor non-policy change of the type of
action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3)(iii)
for rulemaking involving reporting requirements. This action
eliminates the requirement to submit annual financial reports and
certified financial statements to the Commission if financial
reports are already submitted to the SEC or the FERC. Therefore,
neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental
assessment has been prepared for this direct final rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This direct final rule
decreases the information collection burden contained in section
50.71(b) of 10 CFR part 50 and section 72.80(b) of 10 CFR part 72
that is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.). The burden reduction for this information
collection is estimated to average .50 hour(s) per response.
Because the burden for this information collection is
insignificant, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance is
not required. Existing requirements were approved by the Office
of Management and Budget, approval number(s) 3150-0011 and
3150-0132.
Public Protection Notification The NRC may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request
for information or an information collection requirement unless
the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
Regulatory Analysis A regulatory analysis has not been prepared
for this direct final rule because this rule is considered a
minor, nonsubstantive amendment; a relatively small impact on NRC
licensees ($400 annual savings per licensee) and no economic
impact on the public.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the
Commission certifies that this rule does not have a significant
economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities.This
final rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear
power plants and independent spent fuel storage installations.
The companies that own these facilities do not fall within the
scope of the definition of ``small entities'' set forth in the
Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by
the NRC.
Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule
does not apply to this final rule and, therefore, a backfit
analysis is not required because these amendments do not involve
any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR
50.109(a)(1) or 10 CFR 72.62. The final rule imposes no new
requirements on licensees, nor does it alter procedures at
nuclear facilities or ISFSIs. Rather, it no longer requires
licensees and applicants to submit annual financial reports and
certified financial statements to the Commission.
Licensees are free to continue submitting reports to the NRC.
Therefore, the proposed requirement constitutes a voluntary
relaxation and is not a backfit.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act In accordance
with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement fairness Act of
1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule
and has verified this determination with the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget.
List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified
information, Criminal penalties, Fire protection,
Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors,
Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 72 Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous
waste, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials,
Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures,
Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
0 For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority
of the Atomic Energy Act for 1954, as amended, the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553,
the NRC is adopting the following amendment to 10 CFR parts 50
and 72.
PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION
FACILITIES 0 1. The authority citation for 10 CFR part 50
continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104,
105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953,
954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42
U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239,
2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as
amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 112
Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Section 50.7 also issued under
Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section
50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 955, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853
(42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(d), and 50.103 also
issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138).
Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec.
185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and
appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat.
853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under
sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91,
and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42
U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat.
939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec.
184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also
issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237). 0 2. In
Sec. 50.71, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows: Sec.
50.71 Maintenance of records, making of reports. * * * * * (b)
With respect to any production or utilization facility of a type
described in Sec. 50.21(b) or 50.22, or a testing facility, each
licensee and each holder of a construction permit shall submit
its annual financial report, including the certified financial
statements, to the Commission, as specified in Sec. 50.4, upon
issuance of the report. However, licensees and holders of a
construction permit who submit a Form 10-Q with the Securities
and Exchange Commission or a Form 1 with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, need not submit the annual financial
report or the certified financial statement under this paragraph.
* * * * * PART 72--LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT
STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE.
0 3. The authority citation for 10 CFR part 72 continues to read
as follows: Authority: Secs, 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161,
182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934,
935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended; sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099,
2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274,
Pub.
[[Page 29247]] L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2021); sec. 201, as amended; 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended;
1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10,
92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat.
3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42
U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L. 97-425,
96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241; sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101
Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157,
10161, 10168).
Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148 (c), (d),
Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C.
10162(b), 10168(c), (d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec.
189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96
Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under
section 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C.
10165(g)), Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19),
117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222,
2224 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L are
also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and
sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (U.S.C. 10198). 0 4. In Sec. 72.80,
paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows: Sec. 72.80 Other
records and reports. * * * * * (b) Each licensee shall furnish a
copy of its annual financial report, including the certified
financial statements, to the Commission. However, licensees who
submit a Form 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission or
a Form 1 with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, need not
submit the annual financial report or a certified financial
statement under this paragraph.
* * * * * Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of May,
2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 06-4737 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
45 Sydney Morning Herald: Still the option no one wants in their backyard -
smh.com.au
www.smh.com.au
By Phillip Coorey May 23, 2006
JOHN HOWARD once described his own environmental leanings as
greenish.
Now he has had an epiphany with nuclear power, promoting it as
an antidote to global warming, and high energy costs, and
putting it top of his agenda when he returns home.
It may be unpopular, but he can use it to try to divide Labor,
which is spoiling for an internal fight on uranium policy.
He said on Sunday that his job was to lead, not be driven by the
polls. Those are fighting words that could suit him well in the
short term politically. Realistically, nuclear power will remain
a distant dream long after Howard has retired.
He says there is a shift in public opinion, which he is keen to
exploit. But it will have to be a mighty big shift before any
community will agree to have a nuclear power station in its
midst.
Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
46 AP Wire: Environmental group earns a place in history
| 05/22/2006 |
TOM CHERVENY West Central Tribune of Willmar
GRANITE FALLS, Minn. - Two large boxes stuffed full of papers
arrived on the shelves of the college history center ready to
collect dust, except for what Tami De Kam discovered as she
started to file them away.
The senior at Southwest Minnesota State University in Marshall
found in them a Hollywood-like story of ordinary citizens
prevailing against big interests and a government bureaucracy.
De Kam made the story of MnFAIR - Minnesota's Future
Agricultural Interests Recognized - the subject of her senior
paper for her major in history.
In the process, she wrote the final chapter for an environmental
organization that shaped the region's modern destiny.
It was exactly what she was looking for: "I wanted ordinary
citizens in southwest Minnesota who made a turning point in
history, who had a focal moment, and how it changed all of you,"
said De Kam as she gathered with one dozen MnFAIR members
recently in Granite Falls.
They joined to reminisce and for closure, according to Ginger
Homme of rural Granite Falls, who organized the get-together.
MnFAIR officially disbanded this last year and turned over its
records to SMSU's regional history program.
The citizens organization successfully fought off a proposal by
the state to bore large, underground repositories in the gneiss
outcrops in the Minnesota River. The man-made caverns would have
been used to store hazardous wastes generated by the state's
large industries.
The state's search for a hazardous waste repository had the
interest of the federal government, according to MnFAIR members.
It saw in these gneiss outcrops what it now sees in Nevada's
Yucca Mountain: A place to store nuclear wastes for tens of
thousands of years.
"That's when we really panicked, when we thought they were going
to do nuclear," said Delores Swoboda, of rural Redwood Falls.
There were much opportunities for panic, recalled Swoboda and a
dozen other MnFAIR members who joined with De Kam. Delbert
Kettner of rural Morgan said the original battle over hazardous
waste began in the early 1980s when the state announced it was
going to look at dozens of rock outcrop sites in the Minnesota
River Valley - as well as areas around St. Cloud and in the
Arrowhead region - to hold hazardous wastes.
Some feared that the search would attract unwanted attention to
Minnesota. The federal government was looking for a place to
store nuclear wastes.
Homme said those fears were confirmed when a man she calls "the
acquaintance" called her late husband Paul and asked to meet
with him at a clandestine location. Like the deep throat source
in "All the President's Men," the acquaintance had information
from within the federal government.
He warned her husband and other MnFAIR members that the
Department of Energy would be piggybacking its search for a
nuclear waste site with the state's efforts.
Gene and Delores Swoboda own Redwood County farmland holding
some of the rock outcrops that the state was eyeing for a
hazardous waste repository. No sooner was that battle
successfully fought, said Delores, than a packet came in the
mail from the federal Department of Energy.
MnFAIR fought both the hazardous and nuclear waste proposals and
prevailed, only to find itself in another battle. From 1987 to
1991 it fought with Northern States Power to prevent the company
from burning PCB-tainted oil from old transformers as fuel in
its Minnesota Valley power plant. The power company eventually
dropped its plans.
Through all of those years, MnFAIR calculates that it spent more
than $170,000. It paid for the services of scientists, engineers
and other consultants.
Kettner said he still remembers the day he went to the Morgan
City Council meeting to ask for help and walked home with a
promise for $2,000.
For those who bemoan today's apathy, Kettner said he looks back
at a time when citizens in the region reacted with passion. "It
spread like wildfire when it came out in the papers," said
Kettner. "The whole town and county were excited because of what
was going on."
At one point MnFAIR counted more than 1,300 members. It
jump-started its battle with an auction of donated goods and
services that netted more than $15,000.
The organization itself had been formed in 1977 in Sibley County
to battle a power line and later an underground pipeline. Its
organizers turned over the incorporated, nonprofit organization
to their successors in 1983 when the hazardous waste battle was
started.
The second-generation MnFAIR members said they were largely met
with resistance and indifference from staff with the Waste
Management Board and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. MnFAIR
members obtained a tape of one meeting at which MPCA staff
members called the people at MnFAIR "scientific illiterates,"
said Homme.
MnFAIR joined with similar groups in St. Cloud and the state's
northeastern region - called MnNORTH - to present evidence
showing that the state's crystalline bedrock is fraught with
fractures and passageways for water. There would be no sure way
of preventing water from entering or exiting a repository and
carrying wastes through the ground to the Minnesota River and
eventually the Mississippi River.
They also pointed out the Minnesota Valley's propensity to
flooding, and the problems that would represent.
The message was sometimes delivered by experts, but Swoboda said
some of the most effective arguments often came from ordinary
citizens. She recalled one meeting before state staff and
lawmakers where Renville County resident Gary Lentz stood up and
pointed out the obvious. Lines on a drawing of a proposed,
underground repository clearly showed pumps to remove water from
them. "I thought you told us no water could come in here,"
Swoboda quoted Lentz as stating.
Lentz laughed at the memory.
Brad Kurtz of rural Echo said his involvement with MnFAIR showed
him the wealth of talented people that live in the region. He
said the ability of people like John Essame and the late Paul
Homme to put their scientific training to work made all the
difference.
MnFAIR members said that the organization arrived in St. Paul
with a reputation for confrontation, a legacy of the battles
over the power line and gas line. This group took a different
tack by presenting scientific arguments and courting one-on-one
relationships with decision-makers. "If you were hollering, no
one would listen to you," said Delores Swoboda.
In the end, Homme said it was state legislators who listened to
their concerns and acted. State Sen. Dave Fredrickson,
DFL-Murdock, authored the motion that called on the state to end
its search for a hazardous waste repository.
De Kam said she was impressed most of all by what happened to
the ordinary citizens who comprised the organization. While a
"Not In My Back Yard" response initially galvanized the
movement, she said its members soon acquired a "big picture"
view of the issues. Many went on to become involved in other
issues of a regional and statewide significance.
Their experiences have led them to trust government less, De Kam
concluded, but also to advocate more for citizen involvement in
the political process.
Information from: West Central Tribune,
http://www.wctrib.com
*****************************************************************
47 Seattle Times: A piece of nuclear history crumbles in 10 seconds
Monday, May 22, 2006 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
Seattle Times staff reporter
MIKE SIEGEL / THE SEATTLE TIMES
The Trojan Nuclear Plant's cooling tower took a year to build and
cost more than $10 million. It came down in about 10 seconds
Sunday morning.
KALAMA, Cowlitz County After the explosions whipped around the
outside of the Trojan Nuclear Plant cooling tower at 7 a.m.
sharp, the top leaned, then slipped into the base. In about ten
seconds, the 500-foot tower was reduced to a 15-foot pile of
rubble. Brown smoke billowed south, settling over the Columbia
River like fog.
Ian Fulton, 14, turned to his friends. "Dude, that sucker just
went off!" He did his impression of the explosion.
"That was awesome!" he said. "That was insane!"
Whoops rang out at the Kalama Sportsman's Club, across the river
from the plant in Rainier, Ore. The club, a group of private
cabins in the shadow of the gigantic concrete tower, is usually
a quiet oasis on a Sunday morning, as fishermen drop their lines
in the early-morning water.
But this Sunday morning, biscuits and gravy were cooking at The
Slab, the tiny community restaurant. Couples carried lawn chairs
to the beach. Parents towed tired-looking kids wrapped in
blankets.
"It's the big thing for the weekend," said Ron Perron, of
Vancouver, Wash. He had a clear view from the balcony of his
father-in-law's cabin, where he sat eating a banana and waiting
for the tower to crumble.
The $10 million cooling tower, which was part of Oregon's only
nuclear-power plant, started producing power amid controversy in
1976 and at one point could have powered all of Portland on its
own.
But the power plant worked for only 3,300 days. It was shut down
temporarily twice in 1978 when majority owner Portland General
Electric (PGE) discovered it was atop an earthquake fault and
again in 1980 when cracks in the steam tubes were discovered. It
closed permanently in 1992 because of radioactive leaks.
Radioactive substances were even detected in the waters where
the sportsman's club members fish.
Many who watched from the private club beach had worked at the
plant or even helped build it. Walt Jaspers toured the plant
when it was new.
"I can remember the guys at Bonneville Power saying, 'Hey,
there's no end to the need for power,' " he said.
PGE hoped people would watch the implosion on television. Fish
&Wildlife officers hoped viewers would at least stay off public
land. But no one could keep people from watching nearly 2,800
pounds of dynamite obliterate the massive tower. It was too good
a show.
Lonnie Johnston rode his bicycle about 12 miles to Kalama on the
freeway, a tripod sticking out of his backpack. He hoped to
videotape the implosion but found he couldn't get close enough
to the site.
"I just wanted to see it for real," he said. "I don't regret
coming down here."
There was no public viewing area. The Washington and Oregon
state patrols stopped traffic on Interstate 5 just before the
implosion. The Port of Kalama was closed to the public for the
weekend, along with part of the Columbia River and some
airspace.
Some of the locals were sad to see the eerie, windowless Trojan
tower come down.
"It's too bad they couldn't utilize it, you know," Eunice Harris
said. "I didn't think they'd ever tear it down."
It was cheaper to tear it down than to fix it, said PGE
spokesman Scott Simms. The company doesn't know what it will do
with the land once it clears out the 41,000 tons of concrete and
steel. The implosion, which was managed by the same company that
took down the Kingdome in Seattle on March 26, 2000, went
perfectly, he said.
At one point, the plant represented jobs and progress to the
small towns nearby. Then it settled into the landscape.
"It's a landmark," said Ed Noakes of Longview. "You know, you
drive down I-5 and you look for it."
Families posed in front of it for pictures in the moments before
the implosion. Then they stood, hands poised on their cameras,
to watch it disappear.
Emily Heffter: 206-464-8246 or
Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company
*****************************************************************
48 Bellona: Rosatom plans to build a second Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant
SOSNOVY BOR, Northwest Russia—Rosatom head Sergei Kirienko and
officials in the Leningrad Region, which includes St. Petersburg,
plan to build a second nuclear plant station on the grounds of
the already dilapidated Leningrad Nuclear Power plant(LNPP).
This map of the General plan of the development of St
Petersburg shows the areas of possible radioactive contamination
should an accident occur at the LNPP, taking into account the
direction of the wind.
ZAKS
Rashid Alimov, 2006-05-22 11:31
Translated by Charles Digges
The Wednesday planning meeting in Sosnovy Bor—home to the LNPP,
some 80 kilometres west of St. Petersburg—took place following a
conference of Rosenergoatom, Russia’s nuclear power plant
building monopoly. In attendance at the meeting were Leningrad
Region Governor Valery Serdyukov, and the manager of
Rostekxnadzor—Russia’s nuclear regulator—Konstantin Pulikovsky.
Bellona was represented by Alexander Nikitin.
Kirienko said that the building of what has been dubbed LNPP-2
is necessitated by the gradual replacement of decommissioned
reactor blocks at the old LNPP.
The construction site LNPP-2 has already been established. The
new station will be situated next to the old one the site of the
Alexandrov Scientific-Research and Technical Institute of
Sosnovy Bor.
Three new VVER-1000 blocks will be built as the existing
Chernobyl design RBMK-1000 reactors at the LNPP are
decommissioned. The first VVER-1000 block at LNPP-2 is slated to
begin in 2007. In the course of the remainder of this year, said
Kirienko, “we will prepare all technical documentation and
licensing documentation.”
Kirienko said the cost of construction for the entire LNPP-2
would equal some $6 billion, which will come from Russian
government budget funds.
Nikitin commented that: “This figure is drawn on the basis of
building reactor blocks in China, which cost Rosatom $1.5
billion. But taking into account that [China] used its own
workers and not ours, the expenses could be twofold more
expensive.”
Export to Finland
In answer to Nikitin’s questions about the justifications for
the construction of the new reactors and whether other energy
alternatives had been explored to make up for the power loss of
shutting down the LNPP, Kirienko answered that all is being done
to substitute the existing output of the plant.
Kirienko added that “we will not be selling to [Finnish energy
company] Electroenergy.”
However, on the very same day, Kirienko announced to reporters
that “the very principle of exporting electricity from the
Leningrad Region is interesting,” according to Polit.ru.
According to Polit.ru, Kirienko spoke of his commitment to
Rosenergoatom—Russia’s state nuclear plant building monopoly—to
analyse the reasonability of the current project’s ability to
build an energy bridge with Finland via the Gulf of Finland.
According to Polit.ru, Russia will be electrifying Electroenergy
in Finland from LNPP-2.
The notion of uniting the energy systems of Russia and Finland
envisions the transport of 8.7 billion kilowatt hours a year.
The length of the cable would be 150 kilometers. The government
sees a profit of EUR117.2m a year from the exports.
Public participation
Kirienko assured those present that the designing and building
of the new nuclear station would take place in accordance with
the respective laws governing ecological impact studies. He
promises a state ecological impact study of the project, as well
as public hearings.
“If society s against it that we will not build anything,” said
Kirienko.
Kirienko said that only residents of the Leningrad Region could
take part in the public discussions of the project, as the new
plant is a of regional significance.
It is obvious, that in the case of an accident at the plant, the
fallout would spread far further than the borders of the
Leningrad region and even Russia itself. Therefore, view the new
plant as an installation of regional significance is
impermissible.
“It’s easy to ask the residents of Sosnovy Bor who work at the
station—ask neighbouring regions in other subjects of the
[Russian] Federation, to say nothing of other governments,” said
Nikitin.
According to Russia’s law “on ecological impact studies’”
article 11, the federal level must discuss all installations
“whose implementation could impact the environment within the
limits of two subjects of the Russian Federation.”
Given that St. Petersburg is located some 80 kilometres from
Sosnovy Bor, it falls within the zone of radioactive
contamination in the event of an accident at the LNPP which is
illustrated within, for example, the recently adopted general
plan for the city.
“Thus, as the law states, St. Petersburg is an affected subject
of the federation, and its population must be considered
interested parties of society,” said St. Petersburg ecologist
Alexander Karpov.
Even in normal working conditions of the new plant, spent
nuclear fuel (SNF) from VVER-1000 reactors is taken half way
across the country to Krasnoyarsk, which concerns several
subjects of the federation.
The convention on trans-border impact
In 1997, the Convention of the European Economic Commission of
the United Nations (UN) on evaluating trans-border impact on the
environment came into force. It was ratified by 41 nations.
According to this convention, states are obligated to consult
with one another on all large-scale plans that could have
trans-border effects on the environment.
Unfortunately Russia has still not ratified the convention.
“All the countries of the EC [European Commission] have ratified
this convention, and making use of it Russia has demanded of
Finland to conduct international evaluations on a number of
projects,” said Member of European Parliament Satu Hassi. “But
at that Russia refused to conduct the same kinds of evaluations,
for instance, in the case of the new oil terminal on the Russian
coast [near St. Petersburg.”
Finland, on the on the other hand, supplied copious
environmental impact studies translated into Russian to Russia
when it built a new reactor in Olkiluoto. The Russian public
could therefore acquaint itself with the documents and express
its opinion. Will the Finns get similar documents on the
construction of LNPP-2?
Bellona Lawyer Nina Popravko said that: “Despite the fact that
the convention is not ratified [by Russia], order No. 372 of May
16th 2000 from the State Committee on Ecology dictates
conducting environmental impact studies on projects that can
have a trans-border impact, ‘taking into account the conditions
of the UN European Economic Commission Convention on evaluating
trans-border impact on the environment.”
Representatives of social oganisations and NGOs insisted that
not only Leningrad Region residents but residents of St.
Petersburg at least be allowed to express their opinions.
In 2004, reactor block No. 1 at the LNPP received and
engineering life-span extension of five years. The license was
granted without the required state environmental studies.
According to current plans, the No.2 block will receive the same
extension in October 2006.
Nevertheless, the reactor blocks at the LNPP will have to be
decommissioned and dismantled sooner or later. To questions
about how this will be done, Kirienko answered that the first
task is to unload the SNF from the reactors. Kirienko said there
are already 24 container at a cost of $250,000 ready to ship the
SNF to Krasnoyarsk. Another 36 containers are planned to be
built to complete the process.
“Overall, I have the sense that nuclear authorities have no idea
what to do with the station,” said Nikitin.
Publisher: , President:
Information: , Technical contact:
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
Menu system java script courtesy of .
*****************************************************************
49 NRC: Submission of Annual Financial Reports: Elimination of Requirement
RIN 3150-AH39
FR Doc 06-4741
[Federal Register: May 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 98)] [Proposed
Rules] [Page 29273-29274] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22my06-10]
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to
amend its regulations so that licensees who file financial
reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), need not submit
annual financial reports, including the certified financial
statements, to the Commission.
The Commission is also proposing to amend its regulations so that
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) licensees who
file financial reports with the SEC or the FERC, need not submit
annual financial reports, including the certified financial
statements, to the Commission.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or
before June 21, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following
methods. Please include the following number RIN 3150-AH39 in the
subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings or
petitions submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made
available for public inspection. Because your comments will not
be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the
NRC cautions you against including personal information such as
social security numbers and birth dates in your submission.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff.
E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply
e- mail confirming that we have receive your comments, contact us
directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the
NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address
questions about our rulemaking Web site to Ms. Carol Gallagher,
(301) 415-5905 (e-mail: CAG@nrc.gov). Comments can also be
submitted via the Federal eRulmaking Portal
http://www.regulations.gov. Hand deliver comments to: 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 am and
4:15 pm on Federal workdays.
(Telephone (301) 415-1966).
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
(301) 415-1101.
Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking or
petition may be viewed electronically on the public computers
located at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), O1F21, One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR
reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected
documents, including comments, may be viewed and downloaded
electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at
http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Publicly available documents created
or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available
electronically at the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. From this site, the public
can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of
NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if
there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-
800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-3224, e-mail
MTJ1@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the
direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section
of this Federal Register.
Background Section 182.a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, provides that each application for a license shall state
such information as the Commission, by rule or regulation, may
determine to be necessary to decide the financial qualifications
of the applicant as the Commission may deem appropriate for the
license. The Act and the Commission's regulations reflect that
the fundamental purpose of the financial qualifications provision
of that section is the protection of the public health and safety
and the common defense and security. Although the Commission's
safety determinations required for the issuance of facility
licenses are based upon extensive and detailed technical review,
an applicant's financial qualifications can also contribute to
its ability to meet its responsibilities on safety matters.
Discussion NRC considers this action noncontroversial and is
publishing this proposed rule concurrently as a direct final
rule. The Commission considers this rulemaking action
noncontroversial because the annual reports and the certified
financial statements currently required by Sec. 50.71(b) and
72.80(b), are typically written for the shareholders, and contain
information pertaining to financial qualifications, that may be
outdated by the time it is published. The reports can be found
posted on the company's Web site as well as on the SEC or FERC
Web sites. The NRC has concluded that for licensees that are
required to file financial reports with the SEC or the FERC,
licensee financial information can be collected in a more cost-
effective way than requiring licensees to submit the reports
required by 10 CFR 50.71 (b) and 10 CFR 72.80 (b). The NRC has
access to other more current sources of information than the
annual financial reports to assess the licensees' financial
condition, making the submittal of the annual financial report to
the NRC unnecessary.
Additionally, NRC has the authority to request licensees to
submit additional or more detailed information regarding their
financial status if the Commission considers this information
appropriate. The direct final rule will become effective on
August 7, 2006. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse
comments on the direct final rule by
[[Page 29274]] June 21, 2006, then the NRC will publish a
document that withdraws the direct final rule. If the direct
final rule is withdrawn, the NRC will address the comments
received in response to the proposed revisions requiring
republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period
for this action in the event the direct final rule is withdrawn.
A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter
explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including
challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would
be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is
adverse and significant if: (1) The comment opposes the rule and
provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in
a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response
is required when-- (A) The comment causes the staff to reevaluate
(or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis; (B)
The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a
substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or (C)
The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously
addressed or considered by the staff.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule and
it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable
without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the staff to make a change (other than
editorial) to the rule.
List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified
information, Criminal penalties, Fire protection,
Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors,
Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 72 Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous
waste, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials,
Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures,
Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority
of the Atomic Energy Act for 1954, as amended, the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553,
the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendment to 10 CFR
parts 50 and 72.
PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION
FACILITIES 1. The authority citation for 10 CFR part 50 continues
to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161,
182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955,
956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282);
secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244,
1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44
U.S.C. 3504 note). Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601,
sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also
issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 955, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C.
4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(d), and 50.103 also issued under
sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Sections
50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68
Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and appendix
Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42
U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec.
204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and
50.92 also issued under Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C.
2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42
U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68
Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also issued
under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237). 2. In Sec. 50.71,
paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows: Sec. 50.71
Maintenance of records; making of reports. * * * * * (b) With
respect to any production or utilization facility of a type
described in Sec. 50.21(b) or 50.22, or a testing facility, each
licensee and each holder of a construction permit shall submit
its annual financial report, including the certified financial
statements, to the Commission, as specified in Sec. 50.4, upon
issuance of the report. However, licensees and holders of a
construction permit who submit a Form 10-Q with the Securities
and Exchange Commission or a Form 1 with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission need not submit the annual financial report
or a certified financial statement under this paragraph.
* * * * * PART 72--LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT
STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE 3.
The authority citation for 10 CFR Part 72 continues to read as
follows: Authority: Secs, 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161,
182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934,
935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended; sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099,
2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274,
Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec.
201, as amended; 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended; 1244, 1246
(42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.
2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102- 486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123
(42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42
U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L. 97-425,
96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241; sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101
Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157,
10161, 10168).
Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d),
Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C.
10162(b), 10168(c), (d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec.
189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96
Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under
section 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C.
10165(g)), Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19),
117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222,
2224 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L are
also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and
sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (U.S.C. 10198). 4. In Sec. 72.80,
paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows: Sec. 72.80 Other
records and reports. * * * * * (b) Each licensee shall furnish a
copy of its annual financial report, including the certified
financial statements, to the Commission. However, licensees who
submit a Form 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission or
a Form 1 with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, need not
submit the annual financial report or a certified financial
statement under this paragraph.
* * * * * Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of May,
2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 06-4741 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
50 Times Argus: Nuclear technology is not fail-safe
Vermont News & Information
May 22, 2006
On May 9, I attended an energy forum in Tunbridge at which the
students of Sharon Academy presented their vision for Vermont's
energy future. I am writing to applaud the well-spoken students
and the community members who listened and asked tough
questions. The problem of how we will generate electricity in
Vermont in the coming years is a complex and important one.
A solitary statement by one of the students, however, was deeply
troubling. With a youthful confidence reminiscent of the eve of
the Three Mile Island meltdown (1979), he stated that there was
no possibility of a Chernobyl-like disaster at Vermont Yankee.
He implied that the technology in the United States has improved
enough so that an accident was physically impossible.
This is untrue.
The reactor at Vermont Yankee relies on 1960s-era technology,
which could not be licensed under current standards. The reactor
is presently running 20 percent in excess of its original
thermal design limits. The structure is brittle and no one
really knows how much the containment vessel has corroded over
the years.
Beyond the structural issues, Vermont Yankee is susceptible to
terrorist attacks from shoulder-fired missiles and from aircraft
impacts, either intentional or accidental. Either of these could
result in a loss of coolant and full meltdown.
The next 10 years are vital for planning for Vermont's energy
future. Shall we continue to rely on a few large generation
sources controlled by out-of-state interests, or shall we
diversify and develop safe, sustainable, secure distributed
generation on every farm and in every business and home?
Evan Mulholland
Brookfield
© 2006 Times Argus
*****************************************************************
51 globe and mail: Let's go nuclear
[globeandmail.com]
POSTED ON 22/05/06
DONALD JONES
Mississauga -- Re Vengeance Of Blair Nuclear Agenda Will Be
Fallout From Myopic Policies (May 18): Britain is facing the
same energy concerns as Ontario and, as this article points out,
it is finally seeing new nuclear as the only way to provide
massive amounts of electricity at reasonable cost while
minimizing greenhouse-gas emissions.
We should learn from Britain and not allow market forces
(natural-gas shortages resulting in high electricity and heating
costs, more old coal-fired generation) and environmental
politics (a wasted effort in windmills) to interfere with our
electricity supply. Search Search
globeandmail.com and The Globe and Mail are divisions of Bell
Globemedia Publishing Inc., 444 Front St. W., Toronto, Canada
M5V 2S9
Phillip Crawley, Publisher --> -->
*****************************************************************
52 TBJ: Australian firm could build GE uranium facilities in Wilmington
Triangle Business Journal:
GE Energyhas signed a deal with an Australian company to license
its uranium enrichment technology and possibly develop
manufacturing facilities in Wilmington.
Atlanta-based GE Energy's agreement with Silex Systems
Limitedcalls for "a phased approach" to the development of the
technology. GE Energy potentially could build a test loop, pilot
plant and a full-scale, commercial enrichment facility.
These facilities would be built at GE's existing nuclear energy
headquarters in Wilmington "or another suitable location in the
United States," the company said.
Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed.
Sydney-based Silex's technology represents a new, laser-based
"isotope separation" process for enriching uranium for use in
civilian nuclear power plants. It is more efficient than
existing civilian fuel enrichment processes such as gas
diffusion or gas centrifuge plants. The low-grade enriched
uranium will be used for industrial purposes.
"By acquiring the exclusive rights to complete the process
development and commercial deployment of Silex's enrichment
technology, GE will be in a strong position to support
anticipated demands for enriched uranium," Andy White, president
and CEO of GE's nuclear business, said in a written statement
released Monday.
The transaction is subject to, among other things, governmental
approvals and regulatory controls on the design, construction
and operation of the process.
The agreement represents an expansion by GE into the global
uranium enrichment sector, which is valued at approximately $5
billion annually.
GE announced in September plans to invest $78 million to expand
and renovate its nuclear and aircraft engine operations in
Wilmington. The project is expected to create 200 new jobs and
could garner as much as $3.4 million in state incentives over 10
years.
Gov. Mike Easley granted $300,000 in One North Carolina Fund
incentives for the project, in addition to as much as $3.1
million in performance-based Job Development Investment Grants.
About 6,000 of GE's 330,000 worldwide employees work in North
Carolina, where the company has 20 locations.
© 2006 American City Business Journals, Inc.
*****************************************************************
53 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
FR Doc E6-7774
[Federal Register: May 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 98)] [Notices]
[Page 29362-29364] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22my06-97]
of No Significant Impact for An Amendment to a Materials Permit
in Accordance With Byproduct Materials License No. 03-23853-01VA,
for Unrestricted Release of a Department of Veterans Affairs's
Facility In West Haven, CT AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for License Amendment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Snell, Senior Health
Physicist, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials
Safety, Region III, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2443
Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532; telephone: (630)
829-9871; fax number: (630) 515-1259; or by e-mail at
wgs@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering allowing an amendment
to a materials permit in accordance with NRC Byproduct Materials
License No. 03-23853-01VA issued to the Department of Veterans
Affairs (DVA) (the licensee), to authorize release of its
Connecticut Health Care System Building 27 in West Haven,
Connecticut for unrestricted use. The NRC has prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed action
in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR part 51). Based on the EA, the
NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
is appropriate. The approval for the amendment to the materials
permit will be issued to the DVA following the publication of
this Notice.
II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would approve DVA's request to issue an
amendment to a materials permit in accordance with NRC Byproduct
Materials License No. 03-23853-01VA for the unrestricted release
of Building 27 of the DVA's Connecticut Health Care System at 950
Campbell Avenue, West Haven, Connecticut. The proposed action is
in accordance with the DVA's request to the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) on February 21, 2006 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML060540225), to approve the release of the facility for
unrestricted use, and is consistent with the current NRC policy
to review all DVA permittee requests for the release of buildings
for unrestricted use where radioactive materials with a half-life
greater than 120 days were used. The DVA identified two isotopes
of concern with half-lives greater than 120 days that it used in
Research Building 27 of the West Haven, Connecticut facility:
hydrogen-3 and carbon-14. The DVA was authorized by the NRC to
use byproduct material for medical research at the West Haven
Building 27 facility since it was renovated in 1973. Licensed
materials were not used in outdoor areas.
The building is 2334 square feet of space comprised of medical
research
[[Page 29363]] laboratories, office space, break room and
bathroom, located in a hospital compound area. The walls were
painted cinder block and the floors were concrete covered with
vinyl flooring.
On January 5, 2006, the DVA ceased licensed activities and
initiated facility surveys and decontamination. Based on the
licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the conditions of
the facility, the DVA determined that only routine
decontamination activities, in accordance with their radiation
safety procedures, were required. The DVA was not required to
submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC. On February 21, 2006,
the DVA requested that NRC approve the release of the facility
for unrestricted use. The DVA conducted facility surveys 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.
Need for the Proposed Action The licensee is requesting approval
of the amendment to allow for the release of Building 27 for
unrestricted use. The licensee needs this permit change because
it no longer plans to conduct licensed activities in this
building. NRC is fulfilling its responsibilities under the Atomic
Energy Act to make a timely decision on a proposed permit
amendment for release of a facility for unrestricted use that
ensures protection of public health and safety and the
environment.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC staff has
reviewed the information provided and surveys performed by the
DVA to demonstrate compliance with the 10 CFR 20.1402,
``Radiological Criteria for Unrestricted Use'' license
termination criteria. Based on its review, the staff has
determined that the affected environment and environmental
impacts associated with the release for unrestricted use of the
DVA facilities are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the
``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking
on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed
Nuclear Facilities'' (NUREG-1496). The staff also finds that the
proposed release for unrestricted use of the DVA facilities is in
compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. The NRC has found no other
activities in the area that could result in cumulative impacts.
Based on its review, the staff considered the impact of the
residual radioactivity at the facility and concluded that the
proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality
of the human environment.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since the facility at the DVA site has already been surveyed and
found acceptable for release for unrestricted use, the only
alternative to the proposed action of approving the permit
amendment and release of the West Haven facility for unrestricted
use is denial of the proposed action (i.e. no action). Denial of
the application would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed
action and the alternative action are similar, and the no- action
alternative is accordingly not further considered.
Agencies and Persons Consulted The NRC staff has determined that
the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not
affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further
consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act. Likewise, the NRC staff have determined that the
proposed action is not the type of activity that has the
potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no
further consultation is required under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
NRC provided a draft of its Environmental Assessment to the
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Division of
Radiation, for review on April 18, 2006. The State had no
comments regarding the EA.
Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action
is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria
specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not
significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the
NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred
alternative.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact The staff has prepared the
EA in support of the proposed amendment to the materials permit
for the unrestricted release of the facility. The staff has found
that the radiological environmental impacts from the proposed
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.
List of Preparers William Snell, Senior Health Physicist,
Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region III Sources Used 1.
NRC Byproduct Materials License Nos. 03-23853-01VA, 06-00092-05,
and 06-11222-01, inspection and licensing records.
2. Historical Site Assessment and Final Status Survey Results for
Building 27 of the DVA Connecticut Health Care System, provided
under cover letter dated February 21, 2006.
3. Federal Register Notice, Volume 65, No. 114, page 37186, dated
Tuesday, June 13, 2000, ``Use of Screening Values to Demonstrate
Compliance With The Federal Rule on Radiological Criteria for
License Termination.'' 4. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 20, Subpart E, ``Radiological Criteria for License
Termination.'' 5. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51,
``Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and
Related Regulatory Functions.'' 6. NUREG-1496, ``Generic
Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on
Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed
Nuclear Facilities.'' IV. Further Information Documents related
to this action, including the application for amendment and
supporting documentation, are available electronically at the
NRC's Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can
access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public
documents. 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 email 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.
The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this
Notice are:
[[Page 29364]] 1. E. Lynn McGuire, Department of Veterans
Affairs, letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February
21, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML060540225).
Dated at Lisle, Illinois, this 10th day of May 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jamnes L. Cameron, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of
Nuclear Materials Safety, Region III.
[FR Doc. E6-7774 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
54 NRC: Notice of Availability of Draft Interim Staff Guidance Document
FR Doc E6-7782
[Federal Register: May 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 98)] [Notices]
[Page 29369] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22my06-101] [[Page 29369]]
HLWRS-ISG-01 Review Methodology for Seismically Initiated Event
Sequences AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Jon Chen, Project Manager,
Project Management Section, Division of High-Level Waste
Repository Safety (HLWRS), Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20005-0001. Telephone: (301) 415- 5526; fax number: (301)
415-5399; e-mail: jcc2@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Yucca Mountain
Review Plan (July 2003, NUREG-1804, Revision 2) provides guidance
for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff to evaluate a
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) license application for a
geologic repository. NRC prepares Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) to
provide clarifications or refinements to the guidance provided in
the Yucca Mountain Review Plan. NRC is soliciting public comments
on Draft HLWRS-ISG-01, ``Review Methodology for Seismically
Initiated Event Sequences.'' Comments received will be
considered, as appropriate, in the final version or subsequent
revisions to HLWRS-ISG-01.
II. Summary The purpose of this notice is to provide the public
an opportunity to review and comment on draft HLWRS-ISG-01,
concerning the review methodology for seismically initiated event
sequences.
HLWRS-ISG-01 provides guidance to NRC staff for review of
seismically initiated event sequences in the preclosure safety
analysis.
III. Further Information The documents related to this action are
available electronically at NRC's Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can
access NRC's Agencywide Documents 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 provided in the following table. 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
Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail
at pdr@nrc.gov.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
ADAMS ISG accession
number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------- Draft HLWRS-ISG-01, ``Review Methodology for Seismically
ML061170532 Initiated Event
Sequences''............................
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------- These documents may also be viewed electronically on the
public computers located at NRC's PDR, O-1F21, One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR
reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Comments
and questions on draft HLWRS- ISG-01 should be directed to the
NRC contact listed below by July 6, 2006. Comments received after
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but
assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received
after this date.
Contact: Mahendra Shah, Senior Structural Engineer, Engineering
Section, Technical Review Directorate, Division of High-Level
Repository Safety, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20005-0001. Comments can also be submitted by telephone, fax, or
e-mail, which are as follows: telephone: (301) 415-8537; fax
number: (301) 415-5399; or by (e-mail) at mjs3@nrc.gov. Dated at
Rockville, Maryland this 16th day of May 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
N. King Stablein, Chief, Project Management Section B, Division
of High-Level Waste Repository Safety, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E6-7782 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
55 NRC: Nuclear exemptions: 50-461;
FR Doc E6-7786
[Federal Register: May 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 98)] [Notices]
[Page 29359-29360] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22my06-95]
50-10; 50-237; 50-249; 50-373; 50-374; 50-352; 50-353; 50-219;
50-171; 50-277; 50-278; 50-254; 50-265; 50-289; 50-295; 50-304]
Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Amergen Energy Company, LLC;
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2; Byron Station, Units 1 and 2;
Clinton Power Station, Unit 1; Dresden Nuclear Power Station,
Units 1, 2, and 3; Lasalle County Station, Units 1 and 2;
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 And 2; Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station; Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 1, 2
and 3; Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2; Three
Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1; and Zion Nuclear Power
Station, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of
No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) is considering issuance of a schedular exemption from Title
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Sec.
50.54(a)(3), for the following facility operating licenses issued
to Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and AmerGen Energy Company,
LLC (the licensees) for operation of Facility Operating License
Nos. NPF-72 and NPF-77 for the Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2,
located in Will County, Illinois; NPF-37 and NPF-66 for the Byron
Station, Units 1 and 2, located in Ogle County, Illinois; NPF-62
for the Clinton Power Station, Unit 1, located in DeWitt County,
Illinois; DPR-2, DPR-19, and DPR-25 for the Dresden Nuclear Power
Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, located in Grundy County, Illinois;
NPF-11 and NPF-18 for the LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2,
located in LaSalle County, Illinois; NPF-39 and NPF-85 for
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, located in Montgomery
County, Pennsylvania; DPR-16 for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating
Station, located in Ocean County, New Jersey; DPR-12, DPR-44, and
DPR-56 for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3,
located in York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania; DPR-29 and
DPR-30 for the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2,
located in Rock Island County, Illinois; DPR-50 for the Three
Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1, located in Dauphin County,
Pennsylvania; and DPR-39 and DPR-48 for the Zion Nuclear Power
Station, Units 1 and 2, located in Lake County, Illinois.
Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this
environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.
Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt the licensees from the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3), pertaining to submitting
periodic quality assurance topical report (QATR) changes that do
not reduce commitments. The schedule for submitting QATR changes
is described in 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4), which requires that changes
must be filed annually or 6 months after each refueling outage
provided the interval between successive updates does not exceed
24 months. The licensees are proposing that changes to the common
QATR that do not reduce commitments be submitted on a 24-month
calendar schedule, not to exceed 24 months from the previous
submittal. The proposed schedule for submitting changes to the
common QATR will not be coincident with any plant's refueling
outage schedule or Updated Final Safety Analysis Report periodic
updates.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated December 14, 2005.
The Need for the Proposed Action The proposed action is requested
in order to eliminate a significant administrative and regulatory
burden that would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule.
The action relates to the periodic submittal of changes to the
licensees' common QATR that do not reduce commitments, are
strictly administrative changes, and which have no effect on the
operation of the licensees' nuclear power facilities.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has
completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes
that the proposed exemption is administrative and would not
affect any plant equipment, operation, or procedures.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being
made in the types of effluents that may be released off site.
There is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent
released off site. There is no significant increase in
occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are
no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
action does not have a potential to affect
[[Page 29360]] any historic sites. It does not affect
non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental
impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff
considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action''
alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change
in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of
the proposed action and the alternative action are the same.
Alternative Use of Resources The proposed action does not involve
the use of any different resources than those previously
considered in the Final Environmental Statements related to the
ownership or operation of Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2,
NUREG-1026, dated June 1984; Byron Station, Units 1 and 2,
NUREG-0848, dated April 1982; Clinton Power Station, Unit 1,
NUREG- 0854, dated May 1982; Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units
1, 2, and 3, dated November 1973, and for Dresden Nuclear Power
Station, Units 2 and 3, NUREG-1437, Supplement 17, dated June
2004; LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, NUREG-0486, dated
November 1978; Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, dated
November 1973; Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, dated
December 1974; Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 1, 2, and
3, dated April 1973, and for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,
Units 2 and 3, NUREG-1437, Supplement 10, dated January 2003;
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, dated September
1972, and NUREG-1437, Supplement 16, dated June 2004; Three Mile
Island, Unit 1, dated December 1972; and Zion Nuclear Power
Station, Units 1 and 2, dated December 1972.
Agencies and Persons Consulted Regarding the environmental impact
of the proposed action, the NRC staff consulted with the
following officials: Illinois State official for the facilities
in Illinois, Mr. Frank Niziolek, Bureau of Nuclear Facility
Safety, Illinois Emergency Management Agency, on March 28, 2006;
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania officials for Limerick, Peach
Bottom, and Three Mile Island Stations, Mr. David Ney, Mr. Dennis
Dyckman, and Mr. Michael Murphy, Bureau of Radiation Protection,
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, on March 31,
April 3 and 17, 2006, respectively; and New Jersey State official
for Oyster Creek Station, Mr. Richard Pinney, Bureau of Nuclear
Engineering, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
on April 3, 2006.
The State officials had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the
environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed
action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the
human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to
prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed
action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated December 14, 2005. Documents may be
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available
records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference
staff at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to
pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of May
2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kahtan N. Jabbour, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch
III-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-7786 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
56 NRC: In the Matter of All Licensees Authorized To Possess Radioactive
FR Doc 06-4750
[Federal Register: May 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 98)] [Notices]
[Page 29364-29368] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22my06-100]
Material Quantities of Concern, Order Imposing Increased Controls
(Effective Immediately).
The Licensees identified in Attachment A \1\ to this Order hold
licenses issued in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) and
authorizing them to possess certain quantities of radioactive
material of concern. Commission
[[Page 29365]] regulations at 10 CFR 20.1801 require Licensees to
secure, from unauthorized removal or access, licensed materials
that are stored in controlled or unrestricted areas. Commission
regulations at 10 CFR 20.1802 require Licensees to control and
maintain constant surveillance of licensed material that is in a
controlled or unrestricted area and that is not in storage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \1\ Attachment A contains sensitive information and
will not be released to the public.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001
(9/11), several national and international efforts were underway
to address the potentially significant health and safety hazards
posed by uncontrolled sources. These efforts recognized the need
for increased control of high-risk radioactive materials to
prevent inadvertent and intentional unauthorized access,
primarily due to the potential health and safety hazards posed by
the uncontrolled material. Following 9/11, it was recognized that
these efforts should also include a heightened awareness and
focus on the need to prevent intentional unauthorized access due
to potential malicious acts. These efforts, such as the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Code of Conduct on the
Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources (Code of Conduct)
concerning Category 1 and 2 sources, seek to increase the control
over sources to prevent unintended radiation exposure and to
prevent malicious acts.
A licensee's loss of control of high-risk radioactive sources,
whether it be inadvertent or through a deliberate act, has a
potential to result in significant adverse health impacts and
could reasonably constitute a threat to the public health and
safety. In this regard, the Commission has determined that
certain additional controls are required to be implemented by
Licensees to supplement existing regulatory requirements in 10
CFR 20.1801 and 10 CFR 20.1802, in order to ensure adequate
protection of, and minimize danger to, the public health and
safety. Therefore, the Commission is imposing the requirements
set forth in Attachment B on radioactive materials licensees who
possess, or have near term plans to possess, radionuclides of
concern at or above threshold limits, identified in Table 1.
These requirements, which supplement existing regulatory
requirements, will provide the Commission with reasonable
assurance that the public health and safety continues to be
adequately protected. These requirements will remain in effect
until the Commission modifies its regulations to reflect
increased controls.
To effect nationwide implementation, these measures have been
determined by the Commission to be an immediate mandatory
Category ``B'' matter of compatibility for Agreement States. In
parallel with the Commission's issuance of this Order, each
Agreement State is required to issue legally binding requirements
to put essentially identical measures in place for licensees
under their regulatory jurisdiction.
The Commission recognizes that Licensees may have already
initiated many controls set forth in Attachment B to this Order
in response to previously issued advisories or on their own. It
is also recognized that some controls may not be possible or
necessary at some sites, or may need to be tailored to
accommodate the Licensees' specific circumstances to achieve the
intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen adverse effect on
the safe use and storage of the sealed sources.
Although the additional controls implemented by the Licensees in
response to the Safeguards and Threat Advisories have been
adequate to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection
of public health and safety, the Commission concludes that
additional controls must be imposed by an Order, consistent with
the established regulatory framework.
To provide assurance that the Licensees are implementing prudent
measures to achieve a consistent level of control, all Licensees
who hold licenses issued by the NRC authorizing possession of
radioactive material quantities of concern and as listed in Table
1, ``Radionuclides of Concern,'' (Attachment B, Table 1), shall
implement the requirements identified in Attachment B to this
Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, because of the
potentially significant adverse health impacts associated with
failure to control high risk radioactive sources, I find that the
public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be
effective immediately.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 81, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and
186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR part 30, and 10
CFR part 33, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that
all licensees identified in Attachment A to this Order shall
comply with the requirements of this Order as Follows: A. The
Licensee shall comply with the requirements described in
Attachment B to this Order. The Licensee shall complete
implementation by June 2, 2006, or the first day that
radionuclides of concern at or above threshold limits, identified
in Table 1, are possessed, whichever occurs later.
B. 1. The Licensee shall in writing, within twenty five (25) days
of the date of this Order, notify the Commission, (1) if it is
unable to comply with any of the requirements described in
Attachment B, (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is
unnecessary in its specific circumstances, or (3) if
implementation of any of the requirements would cause the
Licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission
regulation or its license. The notification shall provide the
Licensee's justification for seeking relief from or variation of
any specific requirement.
B. 2. If the Licensee considers that implementation of any of the
requirements described in Attachment B to this Order would
adversely impact safe operation of the facility, the Licensee
must notify the Commission, in writing, within twenty five (25)
days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for
its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety
impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives
specified in the Attachment B requirement in question, or a
schedule for modifying the facility to address the adverse safety
condition. If neither approach is appropriate, the Licensee must
supplement its response to Condition B.1 of this Order to
identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot
comply, with attendant justifications as required in Condition
B.1. C. 1. The Licensee shall, within twenty five (25) days of
the date of this Order, submit to the Commission a schedule for
completion of each requirement described in Attachment B.
C. 2. The Licensee shall report to the Commission when they have
achieved full compliance with the requirements described in
Attachment B.
D. Notwithstanding any provisions of the Commission's regulations
to the contrary, all measures implemented or actions taken in
response to this Order shall be maintained until the Commission
modifies its regulations to reflect increased controls.
Licensee responses to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2 above
shall be submitted to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555. In addition, Licensee's responses shall be
marked as ``Withhold From Public disclosure Under 10 CFR 2.390.''
The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,
may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the
[[Page 29366]] above conditions upon demonstration by the
Licensee of good cause.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the Licensee must, and any other
person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to
this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within
twenty five (25) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause
is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to
request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to
submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to
the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and
include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer
may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this
Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or
affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law
on which the Licensee or other person adversely affected relies
and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued.
Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the
Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555.
Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General
Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same
address, and to the Licensee if the answer or hearing request is
by a person other than the Licensee. Because of possible
disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government
offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be
transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of
facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to
hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of the General
Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725
or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a person other than the
Licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with
particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely
affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth
in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f). If a hearing is requested by the
Licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the
Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of
any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at
such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(I), the Licensee may, in addition
to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or
sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate
effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order,
including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on
adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations,
or error.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of
an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the
provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty
five (25) days from the date of this Order without further order
or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing
has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall
be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not
been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay
the immediate effectiveness of this Order.
Although this Order is not subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, there is nonetheless a clearance from
the Office of Management and Budget, OMB approval number
3150-0002, that covers the information collections contained in
the Order.
Dated this 9th day of May 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jack R. Strosnider, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards.
Attachment A--Redacted Attachment B--Increased Controls for
Licensees That Possess Sources Containing Radioactive Material
Quantities of Concern The purpose of the increased controls (IC)
for radioactive sources is to enhance control of radioactive
material in quantities greater than or equal to values described
in Table 1, to reduce the risk of unauthorized use of radioactive
materials, through access controls to aid prevention, and prompt
detection, assessment, and response to mitigate potentially high
consequences that would be detrimental to public health and
safety. These increased controls for radioactive sources are
established to delineate licensee responsibility to maintain
control of licensed material and secure it from unauthorized
removal or access. The following increased controls apply to
licensees which, at any given time, possess radioactive sources
greater than or equal to the quantities of concern of radioactive
material defined in Table 1.
IC 1. In order to ensure the safe handling, use, and control of
licensed material in use and in storage each licensee shall
control access at all times to radioactive material quantities of
concern and devices containing such radioactive material
(devices), and limit access to such radioactive material and
devices to only approved individuals who require access to
perform their duties.
a. The licensee shall allow only trustworthy and reliable
individuals, approved in writing by the licensee, to have
unescorted access to radioactive material quantities of concern
and devices. The licensee shall approve for unescorted access
only those individuals with job duties that require access to
such radioactive material and devices. Personnel who require
access to such radioactive material and devices to perform a job
duty, but who are not approved by the licensee for unescorted
access, must be escorted by an approved individual.
b. For individuals employed by the licensee for 3 years or less,
and for non-licensee personnel, such as physicians, physicists,
house- keeping personnel, and security personnel under contract,
trustworthiness and reliability shall be determined, at a
minimum, by verifying employment history, education, and personal
references. The licensee shall also, to the extent possible,
obtain independent information to corroborate that provided by
the employee (i.e., seeking references not supplied by the
individual). For individuals employed by the licensee for longer
than 3 years, trustworthiness and reliability shall be
determined, at a minimum, by a review of the employees'
employment history with the licensee.
c. Service providers shall be escorted unless determined to be
trustworthy and reliable by an NRC-required background
investigation as an employee of a manufacturing and distribution
(M) licensee.
Written verification attesting to or certifying the person's
trustworthiness and reliability shall be obtained from the
manufacturing and distribution licensee providing the service.
d. The licensee shall document the basis for concluding that
there is reasonable assurance that an individual granted
unescorted access is trustworthy and reliable, and does not
constitute an unreasonable risk for unauthorized use of
radioactive material quantities of concern. The licensee shall
maintain a list of persons approved for unescorted access to such
radioactive material and devices by the licensee.
IC 2. In order to ensure the safe handling, use, and control of
licensed material in use and in storage, each licensee shall have
a documented
[[Page 29367]] program to monitor and immediately detect, assess,
and respond to unauthorized access to radioactive material
quantities of concern and devices. Enhanced monitoring shall be
provided during periods of source delivery or shipment, where the
delivery or shipment exceeds 100 times the Table 1 values.
a. The licensee shall respond immediately to any actual or
attempted theft, sabotage, or diversion of such radioactive
material or of the devices. The response shall include requesting
assistance from a Local Law Enforcement Agency (LLEA).
b. The licensee shall have a pre-arranged plan with LLEA for
assistance in response to an actual or attempted theft, sabotage,
or diversion of such radioactive material or of the devices which
is consistent in scope and timing with a realistic potential
vulnerability of the sources containing such radioactive
material. The pre-arranged plan shall be updated when changes to
the facility design or operation affect the potential
vulnerability of the sources. Pre-arranged LLEA coordination is
not required for temporary job sites.
c. The licensee shall have a dependable means to transmit
information between, and among, the various components used to
detect and identify an unauthorized intrusion, to inform the
assessor, and to summon the appropriate responder.
d. After initiating appropriate response to any actual or
attempted theft, sabotage, or diversion of radioactive material
or of the devices, the licensee shall, as promptly as possible,
notify NRC Operations Center at (301) 816-5100.
e. The licensee shall maintain documentation describing each
instance of unauthorized access and any necessary corrective
actions to prevent future instances of unauthorized access.
IC 3. a. In order to ensure the safe handling, use, and control
of licensed material in transportation for domestic highway and
rail shipments by a carrier other than the licensee, for
quantities that equal or exceed those in Table 1 but are less
than 100 times Table 1 quantities, per consignment, the licensee
shall: 1. Use carriers which: A. Use package tracking systems, B.
Implement methods to assure trustworthiness and reliability of
drivers, C. Maintain constant control and/or surveillance during
transit, and D. Have the capability for immediate communication
to summon appropriate response or assistance.
The licensee shall verify and document that the carrier employs
the measures listed above.
2. Contact the recipient to coordinate the expected arrival time
of the shipment; 3. Confirm receipt of the shipment; and 4.
Initiate an investigation to determine the location of the
licensed material if the shipment does not arrive on or about the
expected arrival time. When, through the course of the
investigation, it is determined the shipment has become lost,
stolen, or missing, the licensee shall immediately notify the NRC
Operations Center at (301) 816-5100. If, after 24 hours of
investigating, the location of the material still cannot be
determined, the radioactive material shall be deemed missing and
the licensee shall immediately notify the NRC Operations Center
at (301) 816-5100.
b. For domestic highway and rail shipments, prior to shipping
licensed radioactive material that exceeds 100 times the
quantities in Table 1 per consignment, the licensee shall: 1.
Notify the NRC\1\, in writing, at least 90 days prior to the
anticipated date of shipment. The NRC will issue the Order to
implement the Additional Security Measures (ASMs) for the
transportation of Radioactive Material Quantities of Concern (RAM
QC). The licensee shall not ship this material until the ASMs for
the transportation of RAM QC are implemented or the licensee is
notified otherwise, in writing, by NRC.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \1\ Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- 2. Once the licensee has implemented the ASMs for the
transportation of RAM QC, the notification requirements of 3.b.1
shall not apply to future shipments of licensed radioactive
material that exceeds 100 times the Table 1 quantities. The
licensee shall implement the ASMs for the transportation of RAM
QC.
c. If a licensee employs an M licensee to take possession at the
licensee's location of the licensed radioactive material and ship
it under its M license, the requirements of 3.a. and 3.b above
shall not apply.
d. If the licensee is to receive radioactive material greater
than or equal to the Table 1 quantities, per consignment, the
licensee shall coordinate with the originator to: 1. Establish an
expected time of delivery; and 2. Confirm receipt of transferred
radioactive material. If the material is not received at the
expected time of delivery, notify the originator and assist in
any investigation.
IC 4. In order to ensure the safe handling, use, and control of
licensed material in use and in storage each licensee that
possesses mobile or portable devices containing radioactive
material in quantities greater than or equal to Table 1 values,
shall: a. For portable devices, have two independent physical
controls that form tangible barriers to secure the material from
unauthorized removal when the device is not under direct control
and constant surveillance by the licensee.
b. For mobile devices: 1. that are only moved outside of the
facility (e.g., on a trailer), have two independent physical
controls that form tangible barriers to secure the material from
unauthorized removal when the device is not under direct control
and constant surveillance by the licensee.
2. that are only moved inside a facility, have a physical control
that forms a tangible barrier to secure the material from
unauthorized movement or removal when the device is not under
direct control and constant surveillance by the licensee.
c. For devices in or on a vehicle or trailer, licensees shall
also utilize a method to disable the vehicle or trailer when not
under direct control and constant surveillance by the licensee IC
5.The licensee shall retain documentation required by these
increased controls for 3 years after they are no longer
effective: a. The licensee shall retain documentation regarding
the trustworthiness and reliability of individual employees for 3
years after the individual's employment ends.
b. Each time the licensee revises the list of approved persons
required by 1.d., or the documented program required by 2, the
licensee shall retain the previous documentation for 3 years
after the revision.
c. The licensee shall retain documentation on each radioactive
material carrier for 3 years after the licensee discontinues use
of that particular carrier.
d. The licensee shall retain documentation on shipment
coordination, notifications, and investigations for 3 years after
the shipment or investigation is completed.
e. After the license is terminated or amended to reduce
possession limits below the quantities of concern, the licensee
shall retain all documentation required by these increased
controls for 3 years.
IC 6.Detailed information generated by the licensee that
describes the physical protection of radioactive
[[Page 29368]] material quantities of concern, is sensitive
information and shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure.
a. The licensee shall control access to its physical protection
information to those persons who have an established need to know
the information, and are considered to be trustworthy and
reliable.
b. The licensee shall develop, maintain and implement policies
and procedures for controlling access to, and for proper handling
and protection against unauthorized disclosure of, its physical
protection information for radioactive material covered by these
requirements. The policies and procedures shall include the
following: 1. General performance requirement that each person
who produces, receives, or acquires the licensee's sensitive
information, protect the information from unauthorized
disclosure, 2. Protection of sensitive information during use,
storage, and transit, 3. Preparation, identification or marking,
and transmission, 4. Access controls, 5. Destruction of
documents, 6. Use of automatic data processing systems, and 7.
Removal from the licensee's sensitive information category.
Table 1.--Radionuclides of Concern
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Quantity Radionuclide Quantity of concern 1 of
concern (TBq) 2 (Ci )
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------- Am-241...............................
0.6.................. 16 Am-241/Be............................
0.6.................. 16 Cf-252...............................
0.2.................. 5.4 Cm-244...............................
0.5.................. 14 Co-60................................
0.3.................. 8.1 Cs-137...............................
1.................... 27 Gd-153...............................
10................... 270 Ir-192...............................
0.8.................. 22 Pm-147...............................
400.................. 11,000
Pu-238............................... 0.6.................. 16
Pu-239/Be............................ 0.6.................. 16
Se-75................................ 2.................... 54
Sr-90 (Y-90)......................... 10................... 270
Tm-170............................... 200..................
5,400 Yb-169...............................
3.................... 81 Combinations of radioactive materials
See Footnote Below 4.
listed above 3.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------- 1 The aggregate activity of multiple, collocated sources
of the same radionuclide should be included when the total
activity equals or exceeds the quantity of concern.
2 The primary values used for compliance with this Order are TBq.
The curie (Ci) values are rounded to two significant figures for
informational purposes only.
3 Radioactive materials are to be considered aggregated or
collocated if breaching a common physical security barrier (e.g.,
a locked door at the entrance to a storage room) would allow
access to the radioactive material or devices containing the
radioactive material.
4 If several radionuclides are aggregated, the sum of the ratios
of the activity of each source, I of radionuclide, n, A(i,n), to
the quantity of concern for radionuclide n, Q(n), listed for that
radionuclide equals or exceeds one. [(aggregated source activity
for radionuclide A) (quantity of concern for radionuclide A)] +
[(aggregated source activity for radionuclide B) (quantity of
concern for radionuclide B)] + etc........ >1. Use the following
method to determine which sources of radioactive material require
increased controls (ICs): Include any single source equal to or
greater than the quantity of concern in Table 1 Include multiple
collocated sources of the same radionuclide when the combined
quantity equals or exceeds the quantity of concern For
combinations of radionuclides, include multiple collocated
sources of different radionuclides when the aggregate quantities
satisfy the following unity rule: [(amount of radionuclide A)/
(quantity of concern of radionuclide A)] + [(amount of
radionuclide B)/ (quantity of concern of radionuclide B)] +
etc..... >=1. Guidance for Aggregation of Sources NRC supports
the use of the IAEA's source categorization methodology as
defined in TECDOC-1344, ``Categorization of Radioactive
Sources,'' (July 2003) (see
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1344_web.pdf )
and as endorsed by the agency's Code of Conduct for the Safety
and Security of Radioactive Sources, January 2004 (see
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Code-2004_web.pdf
). The Code defines a three-tiered source categorization scheme.
Category 1 corresponds to the largest source strength (equal to
or greater than 100 times the quantity of concern values listed
in Table 1.) and Category 3, the smallest (equal or exceeding
one-tenth the quantity of concern values listed in Table 1.).
Increased controls apply to sources that are equal to or greater
than the quantity of concern values listed in Table 1, plus
aggregations of smaller sources that are equal to or greater than
the quantities in Table 1. Aggregation only applies to sources
that are collocated.
Licensees who possess individual sources in total quantities that
equal or exceed the Table 1 quantities are required to implement
increased controls. Where there are many small (less than the
quantity of concern values) collocated sources whose total
aggregate activity equals or exceeds the Table 1 values,
licensees are to implement increased controls.
Some source handling or storage activities may cover several
buildings, or several locations within specific buildings. The
question then becomes: When are sources considered collocated for
purposes of aggregation? For purposes of the additional controls,
sources are considered collocated if breaching a single barrier
(e.g., a locked door at the entrance to a storage room) would
allow access to the sources. Sources behind an outer barrier
should be aggregated separately from those behind an inner
barrier (e.g., a locked source safe inside the locked storage
room). However, if both barriers are simultaneously open, then
all sources within these two barriers are considered to be
collocated. This logic should be continued for other barriers
within or behind the inner barrier.
The following example illustrates the point: A lockable room has
sources stored in it. Inside the lockable room, there are two
shielded safes with additional sources in them. Inventories are
as follows: The room has the following sources outside the safes:
Cf-252, 0.12 TBq (3.2 Ci); Co-60, 0.18 TBq (4.9 Ci), and Pu-238,
0.3 TBq (8.1 Ci). Application of the unity rule yields: (0.12 /
0.2) + (0.18 / 0.3) + (0.3 0.6) = 0.6 + 0.6 + 0.5 = 1.7.
Therefore, the sources would require increased controls.
Shielded safe 1 has a 1.9 TBq (51 Ci) Cs-137 source and a 0.8 TBq
(22 Ci) Am-241 source. In this case, the sources would require
increased controls, regardless of location, because they each
exceed the quantities in Table 1.
Shielded safe 2 has two Ir-192 sources, each having an activity
of 0.3 TBq (8.1 Ci). In this case, the sources would not require
increased controls while locked in the safe. The combined
activity does not exceed the threshold quantity 0.8 TBq (22 Ci).
Because certain barriers may cease to exist during source
handling operations (e.g., a storage location may be unlocked
during periods of active source usage), licensees should, to the
extent practicable, consider two modes of source
usage--``operations'' (active source usage) and ``shutdown''
(source storage mode). Whichever mode results in the greatest
inventory (considering barrier status) would require increased
controls for each location.
[FR Doc. 06-4750 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
57 NRC: Notice of Consideration of Amendment Request for Decommissioning
FR Doc E6-7788
[Federal Register: May 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 98)] [Notices]
[Page 29357-29359] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22my06-94]
of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection,
Quehanna Site, Karthaus, Pennsylvania and Opportunity To Request
a Hearing AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of amendment request and opportunity to request a
hearing.
DATE: A request for a hearing must be filed by July 21, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Kottan, Project Manager,
Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety,
Region I, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, King of Prussia, PA
19406. Telephone: (610) 337-5214; fax number: (610) 337-5269; or
e-mail: jjk@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of a license amendment
to By-Product Material License No.
37-17860-02 issued to the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (the licensee), to authorize
decommissioning of its Quehanna Facility in Karthaus,
Pennsylvania under revision four of the licensee's
Decommissioning Plan (DP).
The licensee had been decommissioning the Quehanna Site in
accordance with the conditions described in License No.
37-17860-02, and in February 2005, after decommissioning
activities had been completed, the licensee submitted the Final
Status Survey Report for the site. In May of 2005, the NRC
conducted an independent confirmatory survey of the Quehanna Site
and determined that the facility was contaminated in excess of
the limits specified in the NRC approved DP. Since that time the
licensee has determined that the facility contained concrete with
volumetric radioactive contamination that migrated to the surface
of the concrete resulting in the failure of the site to meet the
limits for unrestricted release as described in the NRC approved
DP. Because the NRC approved DP release limits were based on
surface contamination, and volumetric contamination is present at
the site, the NRC approved DP cannot be used to release the site
for unrestricted release. Therefore, the licensee has submitted
to the NRC a revised DP (revision 4) incorporating the dose based
criteria of 10 CFR 20, Subpart E, Radiological Criteria for
License Termination for release of the site for unrestricted use.
An NRC administrative review, documented in a letter to the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection dated April
21, 2006, found revision 4 of the DP acceptable to begin a
technical review.
If the NRC approves the DP, the approval will be documented in an
amendment to NRC License No. 37-17860-02. However, before
approving the proposed amendment, the NRC will need to make the
findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
and NRC's regulations. These findings will be documented in a
Safety Evaluation Report and an Environmental Assessment and/or
an Environmental Impact Statement. The license will be terminated
if this amendment is approved following completion of
decommissioning activities and verification by the NRC that the
radiological criteria for license termination have been met.
II. Opportunity To Request a Hearing The NRC hereby provides
notice that this is a proceeding on an application for a license
amendment regarding decommissioning of the Quehanna Site located
in Karthaus, Pennsylvania. In accordance with the general
requirements in Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 2, as amended on January
14, 2004 (69 FR 2182), any person whose interest may be affected
by this proceeding and who desires to participate as a party must
file a written request for a hearing and a specification of the
contentions which the person seeks to have litigated in the
hearing.
[[Page 29358]] In accordance with 10 CFR 2.302 (a), a request for
a hearing must be filed with the Commission either by: 1. First
class mail addressed to: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC., 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications; 2. Courier, express mail, and
expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD
20852, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, between
7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays; 3. E-mail addressed to
the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or 4. By facsimile transmission addressed
to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC., Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, at (301) 415-1101; verification number is
(301) 415-1966.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.302 (b), all documents offered for
filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all parties to
the proceeding or their attorneys of record as required by law or
by rule or order of the Commission, including: 1. The applicant,
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of
Radiation Protection, Rachel Carson State Office Building, P.O.
Box 2063, Harrisburg, PA, 17105-2063, Attention: David J. Allard,
CHP, Director; and 2. The NRC staff, by delivery to the Office of
the General Counsel, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, MD 20852, or by mail addressed to the Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001. Hearing requests should also be transmitted to the
Office of the General Counsel, either by means of facsimile
transmission to (301) 415-3725, or by email to
ogcmailcenter@nrc.gov. The formal requirements for documents
contained in 10 CFR 2.304 (b), (c), (d), and (e), must be met. In
accordance with 10 CFR 2.304 (f), a document filed by electronic
mail or facsimile transmission need not comply with the formal
requirements of 10 CFR 2.304 (b), (c), and (d), as long as an
original and two (2) copies otherwise complying with all of the
requirements of 10 CFR 2.304 (b), (c), and (d) are mailed within
two (2) days thereafter to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309 (b), a request for a hearing must
be filed by July 21, 2006.
In addition to meeting other applicable requirements of 10 CFR
2.309, the general requirements involving a request for a hearing
filed by a person other than an applicant must state: 1. The
name, address, and telephone number of the requester; 2. The
nature of the requester's right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; 3. The nature and extent of the requester's
property, financial or other interest in the proceeding; 4. The
possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in
the proceeding on the requester's interest; and 5. The
circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is
timely in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309 (b). In accordance with 10
CFR 2.309 (f)(1), a request for hearing or petitions for leave to
intervene must set forth with particularity the contentions
sought to be raised. For each contention, the request or petition
must: 1. Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact
to be raised or controverted; 2. Provide a brief explanation of
the basis for the contention; 3. Demonstrate that the issue
raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding;
4. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is
material to the findings that the NRC must make to support the
action that is involved in the proceeding; 5. Provide a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support
the requester's/petitioner's position on the issue and on which
the requester/petitioner intends to rely to support its position
on the issue; and 6. Provide sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue
of law or fact.
This information must include references to specific portions of
the application (including the applicant's environmental report
and safety report) that the requester/petitioner disputes and the
supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the
requester/petitioner believes the application fails to contain
information on a relevant matter as required by law, the
identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the
requester's/petitioner's belief.
In addition, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309 (f)(2), contentions
must be based on documents or other information available at the
time the petition is to be filed, such as the application,
supporting safety analysis report, environmental report or other
supporting document filed by an applicant or licensee, or
otherwise available to the petitioner. On issues arising under
the National Environmental Policy Act, the requester/petitioner
shall file contentions based on the applicant's environmental
report. The requester/petitioner may amend those contentions or
file new contentions if there are data or conclusions in the NRC
draft, or final environmental impact statement, environmental
assessment, or any supplements relating thereto, that differ
significantly from the data or conclusions in the applicant's
documents. Otherwise, contentions may be amended or new
contentions filed after the initial filing only with leave of the
presiding officer.
Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha
designation within one of the following groups: 1.
Technical--primarily concerns issues relating to matters
discussed or referenced in the Safety Evaluation Report for the
proposed action.
2. Environmental--primarily concerns issues relating to matters
discussed or referenced in the Environmental Report for the
proposed action.
3. Emergency Planning--primarily concerns issues relating to
matters discussed or referenced in the Emergency Plan as it
relates to the proposed action.
4. Physical Security--primarily concerns issues relating to
matters discussed or referenced in the Physical Security Plan as
it relates to the proposed action.
5. Miscellaneous--does not fall into one of the categories
outlined above.
If the requester/petitioner believes a contention raises issues
that cannot be classified as primarily falling into one of these
categories, the requester/petitioner must set forth the
contention and supporting bases, in full, separately for each
category into which the requester/petitioner asserts the
contention belongs with a separate designation for that category.
Requesters/petitioners should, when possible, consult with each
other in preparing contentions and combine similar subject matter
concerns into a joint contention, for which one of the
co-sponsoring requesters/petitioners is designated the lead
representative.
Further, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309 (f)(3), any
requester/petitioner that wishes to adopt a contention proposed
by another requester/petitioner must do so in writing within ten
days of the date the contention is filed, and designate a
representative who shall have the
[[Page 29359]] authority to act for the requester/petitioner.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309 (g), a request for hearing and/or
petition for leave to intervene may also address the selection of
the hearing procedures, taking into account the provisions of 10
CFR 2.310. III. Further Information Documents related to this
action, including the application for 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: Revision 4 of the DP: ML060790152 Inspection
Report 030-29288/2005-001: ML051610344, ML051610355, ML051610362
Confirmatory Survey Report: ML051610610 Public Meeting Notice:
ML060060065 Public Meeting Summary: ML060450407 Public Meeting
Attendance List: ML060450390 Public Meeting Summary Attachments:
ML060450457 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 email to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may
also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at
the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will
copy documents for a fee.
Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, this 12th day of May
2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Marie Miller, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear
Materials Safety Region I.
[FR Doc. E6-7788 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
58 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
FR Doc E6-7789
[Federal Register: May 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 98)] [Notices]
[Page 29356-29357] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22my06-93]
Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information
collection
[[Page 29357]] 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: Policy
Statement on Cooperation with States at Commercial Nuclear Power
Plants and Other Production or Utilization Facilities.
2. Current OMB approval number: 3150-0163. 3. How often the
collection is required: On occasion, when a State wishes to
observe NRC inspections or perform inspections for NRC.
4. Who is required or asked to report: Those States interested in
observing or performing inspections.
5. The number of annual respondents: 66 (50 nuclear facility + 16
materials security licensees).
6. The number of hours needed annually to complete the
requirement or request: 1,540 hours (23.33 hours per respondent).
7. Abstract: States wishing to enter into an agreement with NRC
to observe or participate in NRC inspections at nuclear power
facilities or conduct materials security inspections against NRC
Orders are requested to provide certain information to the NRC to
ensure close cooperation and consistency with the NRC inspection
program as specified by the Commission's Policy of Cooperation
with States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Nuclear
Production or Utilization Facilities and section 274i of the
Atomic Energy Act, as amended.
Submit, by July 21, 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 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 (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by
Internet electronic mail to INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV. Dated at
Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of May 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E6-7789 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
59 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
FR Doc E6-7791
[Federal Register: May 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 98)] [Notices]
[Page 29360-29362] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22my06-96]
of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Byproduct
Materials License No. 52-01986-01, for Termination of the License
and Unrestricted Release of the University of Puerto Rico's
Facility in Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for License Amendment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marjorie McLaughlin, Project
Manager, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials
Safety, Region I, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 475
Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406. Telephone:
(610) 337-5240; fax number: (610) 337-5269; or by e-mail:
mmm3@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a
license amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 52-
01986-01. This license is held by the University of Puerto Rico
(the Licensee), for its Agricultural Experiment Station (the
Facility) located at 1193 Guayacan St., Botanical Gardens, Rio
Piedras, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Issuance of the amendment would
authorize release of the Facility for unrestricted use and
termination of the NRC license. The Licensee requested this
action in a letter dated September 28, 2004. The NRC has prepared
an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed
action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), part 51 (10 CFR part 51).
Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the
proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee
following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the Federal
Register.
II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would approve the Licensee's September 28,
2004, license amendment request resulting in release of the
Facility for unresticted use and the termination of its NRC
materials
[[Page 29361]] license. License No. 52-01986-01 was issued on
February 13, 1957, pursuant to 10 CFR part 30, and has been
amended periodically since that time. The license authorized the
Licensee to use unsealed byproduct material for conducting
research and development activities on laboratory bench tops and
in hoods. The license also authorized the use of sealed byproduct
material for sources for gas chromatograph (GC) detectors and
moisture/density gauges.
The Facility is situated on just under 200 acres, and consists of
a botanical garden, conservatories, office space, and
laboratories. The Facility is located on a university campus
within a largely residential area. Within the Facility, use of
licensed materials was confined to the Central Analytical
Laboratory (21 feet by 13 feet (21' x 13')), a sample processing
room (10' x 20'), and a soil laboratory (20' x 40'). The sealed
source gauges were stored in the Old Phytotron Building (12' x
24') and in a storage room within the soils laboratory (10' x
10').
In 1998, the Licensee ceased licensed activities and initiated
transfer of all radioactive materials and a survey and
decontamination of the Facility. Based on the Licensee's
historical knowledge of the site and the conditions of the
Facility, the Licensee determined that only routine
decontamination activities, in accordance with their NRC-
approved, operating radiation safety procedures, were required.
The Licensee was not required to submit a decommissioning plan to
the NRC because worker cleanup activities and procedures are
consistent with those approved for routine operations. The
Licensee conducted surveys of the Facility and provided
information to the NRC to demonstrate that it meets the criteria
in Subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release and for
license termination.
Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee has ceased conducting
licensed activities at the Facility, and seeks the unrestricted
use of its Facility and the termination of its NRC materials
license. Termination of its license would end the Licensee's
obligation to pay annual license fees to the NRC.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The historical
review of licensed activities conducted at the Facility shows
that such activities involved use of the following radionuclides
with half-lives greater than 120 days: Sealed tritium and
nickel-63 sources for GC detectors and sealed americium-241 and
cesium- 137 in moisture/density gauges. The only long-lived
unsealed radionuclide authorized by this license was carbon-14,
which was used infrequently and in small amounts. Licensed
materials were not used in outdoor areas, although the NRC staff
identified one occurrence in 1964 in which plants and soil
containing a small amount of carbon-14 may have been
inadvertently discarded or buried at the site. The NRC staff
evaluated the potential impact of this event by performing a dose
assessment (described below). Prior to performing the final
status survey, the Licensee conducted decontamination activities,
as necessary, in the areas of the Facility affected by these
radionuclides.
The Licensee conducted a final status survey that covered the
Central Analytical Laboratory, sample processing room, soil
laboratory, the storage room within the soils laboratory, and the
Old Phytotron Building. The final status survey report was
attached to the Licensee's amendment request dated September 28,
2004. The Licensee elected to demonstrate compliance with the
radiological criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10
CFR 20.1402 by using the screening approach described in
NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,''
Volume 2. The Licensee used the radionuclide-specific derived
concentration guideline levels (DCGLs) developed there by the
NRC, which comply with the dose criterion in 10 CFR 20.1402.
These DCGLs define the maximum amount of residual radioactivity
on building surfaces, equipment, and materials, and in soils,
that will satisfy the NRC requirements in subpart E of 10 CFR
part 20 for unrestricted release. The Licensee's final status
survey results were below these DCGLs and are in compliance with
the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10 CFR
20.1402. The NRC concludes that the Licensee 's final status
survey results are thus acceptable.
Based on its review, the staff has determined that, with one
exception, the affected environment and any environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action are bounded by the impacts
evaluated by the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in
Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License
Termination of NRC- Licensed Nuclear Facilities'' (NUREG-1496)
Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385).
The one impact not bounded by the generic evaluation is the
potential discarding or burial of carbon-14 that occurred in
1964. NRC staff reviewed licensee records and conducted
interviews with past and present AES staff, and determined that a
small amount (0.5 microcuries) of carbon-14 incorporated in soil
and plants may have been discarded inadvertently at the site. The
NRC staff performed a dose assessment to evaluate the potential
health and safety impact of this event.
The staff determined that the highest potential dose from the
material is less than 1 millirem/year (mrem/yr), and is well
below the 25 mrem/yr value in 10 CFR 20.1402. No other incidents
were recorded involving spills or releases of radioactive
material at the Facility. Accordingly, there were no significant
environmental impacts from the use of radioactive materials at
the Facility.
The NRC staff reviewed the docket file records and the final
status survey report to identify any non-radiological hazards
that may have impacted the environment surrounding the Facility.
No such hazards or impacts to the environment were identified.
The NRC has found no other radiological or non-radiological
activities in the area that could result in cumulative impacts.
The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Facility for
unrestricted use and the termination of the NRC materials license
is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on its review, the
staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the
Facility and concluded that the proposed action will not have a
significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action,
its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only
alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative,
under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply
denying the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not
feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d), requiring
that decommissioning of byproduct material facilities be
completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities
cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final status survey
data confirmed that the Facility meets the requirements of 10 CFR
20.1402 for unrestricted release. Additionally, this denial of
the application would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed
action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and
the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered.
[[Page 29362]] Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided drafts
of its Environmental Assessment and Dose Assessment to the
Department of Health of Puerto Rico for review on February 21,
2006. On March 29, 2006, the Department of Health of Puerto Rico
responded by letter. The State agreed with the conclusions of the
EA, and otherwise had no comments.
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a
procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical
habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also
determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity
that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties.
Therefore, no further consultation is required under section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared
this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this
EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental
impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an
environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the
NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is
appropriate.
IV. Further Information Documents related to this action,
including the application for license amendment and supporting
documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's
Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can
access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public
documents. The documents related to this action are listed below
with their ADAMS accession numbers: 1. Final Status Survey
Results for the Rio Piedras Research Center of the University of
Puerto Rico Agricultural Experiment Station, dated September 28,
2004 [ADAMS Accession No. ML042780499]; 2. Telephone Logs
Containing Additional Site History Information, dated January 28,
2005 [ADAMS Accession No. ML050330622], February 10, 2005 [ADAMS
Accession No. ML050430017], April 11, 2005 [ADAMS Accession No.
ML051050036], August 31, 2005 [ADAMS Accession No. ML052450026],
and February 9, 2006 [ADAMS Accession No. ML060400169]; 3. Dose
Assessment Evaluating Potential Burial of Carbon-14 at University
of Puerto Rico Agricultural Experiment Station [ADAMS Accession
No. ML061090546]; 4. Federal Register Notice, Volume 65, No. 114,
page 37186, dated Tuesday, June 13, 2000, ``Use of Screening
Values to Demonstrate Compliance With The Federal Rule on
Radiological Criteria for License Termination''; 5. Title 10 Code
of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, ``Radiological
Criteria for License Termination''; 6. Title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 51, ``Environmental Protection Regulations for
Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions''; 7.
NUREG-1496, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support
of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of
NRC- Licensed Nuclear Facilities''.
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.
Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, this 12th day of May,
2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Marie Miller, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear
Materials Safety, Region I.
[FR Doc. E6-7791 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
60 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Subcommittee Meeting
FR Doc E6-7793
[Federal Register: May 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 98)] [Notices]
[Page 29364] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22my06-99]
on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena; Notice of Meeting The ACRS
Subcommittee on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena will hold a meeting
on June 13 and 14, 2006, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, Room O-1G16.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Tuesday,
June 13, 2006--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of
business.
The Subcommittee will discuss and review reports concerning
industry responses related to the resolution of Generic Safety
Issue 191 (GSI-191), PWR Sump Performance, and concerning various
research activities supporting the resolution of GSI-191,
including chemical effects testing. The Subcommittee will hear
presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the
NRC staff, their contractors and other interested persons
regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information,
analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed
positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the
full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official,
Mr. Ralph Caruso (Telephone: 301-415-8065) five days prior to the
meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be
made.
Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those
portions of the meeting that are open to the public.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and
4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged
to contact the above named individual at least two working days
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to
the agenda.
Dated: May 16, 2006.
Michael R. Snodderly, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. E6-7793 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
61 Brazil News: Lula: country may become an energy superpower
Portal da Cidadania
Carolina Pimentel Reporter - Agência Brasil
Brasília – Speaking at the inauguration of an experimental
biodiesel fuel unit last week in Rio Grande do Norte, president
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva declared that in the 21st century
Brazil could become an energy superpower without the need to use
nuclear power. Pointing out that the H-biodiesel fuel being made
at the experimental plant was efficient and
ecologically-friendly, consisting of a mixture of diesel with
vegetable oils, Lula went on to say that in the future the
world's developed nations are going to have to learn to produce
biofuels from Brazil.
Translation: Allen Bennett
22/05/2006
------
© Agencia Brasil - All material may be reproduced as
long as the source is acknowledged
*****************************************************************
62 Deccan Herald: Tarapur N-unit goes critical -
Monday, May 22, 2006
Tarapur N-unit goes critical
From Kalyan Ray DH News Service Tarapur (Maharashtra):
Tension was writ large on the faces of seasoned nuclear
scientists and engineers inside the third unit of Tarapur Atomic
Power Project (TAPP-3), as India’s second big-time nuclear
reactor approached criticality.
Tension was writ large on the faces of seasoned nuclear
scientists and engineers inside the third unit of Tarapur Atomic
Power Project (TAPP-3), as Indias second big-time nuclear
reactor approached criticality.
Precisely at 10:44 am, a red display unit on the control panel
flashed a number 37,565 and everybody clapped at the momentous
occasion. The 540-MW TAPP-3 had just went critical meaning that
a sustained nuclear fission reaction had been established inside
the reactor.
It is a copy book criticality that proves our technology
maturity. The reactor is expected to start commercial
electricity production in July, Dr Anil Kakodkar, chairman,
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) told reporters here on Sunday.
TAPP-3 is the 16th nuclear power reactor that follows the
commissioning of a similar 540 MW TAPP-4 which attained
criticality on June 4, 2005 and started commercial production in
September 12.
In TAPP-3, we hope to start commercial production in
one-and-a-half months, Mr Alok Vearshney, the units
engineer-in-charge (operations), said.
The entire Tarapur campus with four nuclear reactors two units
of 160 MW and two units of 540 MW can provide 1400 MW
electricity to the western grid.
The two 540 MW pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs) in
Tarapur are unique because the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE)
has decided to have only 700 MW and 1000 MW reactors in future.
Unless something drastic happens, there will not be any more 540
MW units.
Reduce cost
Even though the cost of power from TAPP-3 and 4 is Rs 2.65 per
unit, the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) will
approach the government to reduce the cost further down to below
Rs 2.5 mark, as both the reactors have been completed at a cost
lower than the estimates, NPCIL Chairman and Managing Director S
K Jain said. Power from TAPP-1 and 2 is being sold at a price of
Re 1 per unit.
Against the sanctioned Rs 6,525 crore, TAPP-3 and 4 were
completed at a cost of Rs 6,100 crore. The savings were possible
because of the completion of the project seven months in advance
and reduction of interest on the borrowed capital in the market.
While the government provided 30 per cent of the cost, NPCIL
borrowed the rest from the market. From the present installed
capacity of 3360 MW, the capacity will be increased to 4120 MW
by 2007. The Department of Atomic Energy is confident of
reaching 10,280 MW by 2012 (the end of 11th Plan) as a series of
large nuclear reactors are in the pipeline. The DAE is now
eyeing at producing 40,000 MW by 2030.
Mining, a problem
However, Dr Kakodkar admitted that uranium mining is a problem
area because of slow progress in new mines like Domiasiat in
Meghalaya and Nalgonda in Andhra Pradesh.
Yes its very slow progress and I dont deny problems. But there
is no possibility of importing uranium fuel for existing plants
in near future because that depends on the fructification of the
Indo-US civilian nuclear cooperation agreement, Dr Kakodkar
said.
Copyright 2005, The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd., 75, M.G.
Road, Post Box No 5331, Bangalore - 560001 Tel: +91 (80) 25880000
Fax No. +91 (80) 25880523
*****************************************************************
63 AU ABC: Scientist casts doubt on nuclear benefits.
22/05/2006. ABC News Online
A NSW scientist says building a nuclear plant will not have a
short-term effect on harmful gases.
Scientist casts doubt on nuclear benefits
Scientists say it could take at least 10 years to build a
nuclear plant to meet Australia's growing electricity needs.
And that may be too late to address the issue of increased
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
If the Federal Government finally gives the green light to a
nuclear plant, Frank Muller from the University of New South
Wales says the framework to manage nuclear power needs to be put
in place.
He says it could take a decade before it is built and providing
electricity.
"So it actually takes even longer to provide a greenhouse
benefit than it does to build a power plant," he said.
Professor Muller says nuclear power stations are expensive to
build, and safety is a major issue.
However, some scientists say nuclear energy is the most
greenhouse friendly and despite the lengthy time it would take
to build a plant, it is still an electricity source that needs
to be explored.
Meanwhile, a federal Opposition frontbencher says the move
towards nuclear power generation could increase the risk of a
terrorist attack.
The Prime Minister has called for a full debate on the issue of
nuclear power, as well as uranium mining and enrichment.
Labor MP Kelvin Thomson disagrees, saying the Government should
be focussing its interest on renewable energy sources like wind
and solar power.
"The problem with nuclear power is that more of it that is
around, the easier it is for terrorists to get access to it," he
said.
"I'm not satisfied that in this day and age you can be
absolutely certain that terrorists can't access it."
*****************************************************************
64 AU ABC: Howard considering nuclear feasibility study
PM - Monday, 22 May , 2006 18:23:45
Reporter: Sabra Lane
MARK COLVIN: The Prime Minister is considering a feasibility
study on a home-grown nuclear power industry.
It's expected he'll make a decision after he returns from his
overseas trip.
The Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane sent a letter to Mr Howard
last year asking for an investigation and suggesting the
Australian Academy of Science oversee it.
Mr Howard said at the weekend that there should be a
"full-blooded debate" about nuclear power.
The Business Council for Sustainable Energy has welcomed the
comments, but says the debate should include discussion about
renewable energy, as Australia's only just scratching the
surface of its potential.
Sabra Lane reports.
SABRA LANE: The Federal Parliament's already looking at how
Australia can expand its uranium industry.
The Standing Committee on Industry and Resources travelled
around the country last year, taking more than 80 submissions on
how the nation could further capitalise on its vast uranium
reserves.
Committee Chairman, West Australian Liberal Geoff Prosser says
it's now writing a draft report.
GEOFF PROSSER: I'm sure that one of the recommendations that we
- my committee - will make will be to look at what we can do to,
I guess, regain extra nuclear physicists in Australia.
And while nuclear power in Australia right now is not
economically viable, it may well be in the future. And if we're
going to play a major role in the nuclear fuel cycle we should I
guess get our expertise in the whole nuclear power generation up
to speed.
SABRA LANE: The committee's terms of reference are very
specific: examining the country's deposits, potential export
opportunities, the regulations governing the industry and how it
may impact on greenhouse gas emissions.
But the committee wanted to do more. It wrote to Resources
Minister Ian Macfarlane, asking him to broaden the committee's
terms of reference to include an examination of a home-grown
nuclear industry.
GEOFF PROSSER: But the minister declined that request at this
particular stage.
Now given that, to even start a nuclear power plant generating
electricity, it would basically take 10 to 15 years, and we need
to do a lot of things in the future.
SABRA LANE: While Mr Macfarlane knocked back that request, he's
since written to the Prime Minister asking for feasibility study
into a home-grown nuclear industry.
It's understood the terms of reference are being worked out.
Geoff Prosser says the debate is worth having, saying there
needs to be a discussion about the risks and benefits.
GEOFF PROSSER: Power generation is about a mix. And if we have
an informed discussion about the entire industry, I think that
the small amount of waste in comparison can be put into
perspective.
We were at the forefront of nuclear technology in the '50s and
'60s, and basically closed our programs and dropped the ball.
We've got to get away from just being a country that digs the
stuff out of the ground and flogs it off for other people to get
the real high-tech jobs and high-tech, I guess, and high income
from it.
SABRA LANE: The Business Council for Sustainable Energy welcomes
a full-blooded debate, but says it should include a discussion
about renewable energy resources, as the Government's most
recent energy paper, published just two years ago, is now
irrelevant.
The council's Executive Director is Ric Brazzale.
RIC BRAZZALE: The energy white paper that was released in 2004
is now out of date.
It was too narrow and it didn't include a mechanism to encourage
private sector investment and deployment in clean energy
technologies, whether it's nuclear or any other technology for
that matter.
SABRA LANE: And he says despite the current publicity
surrounding Victoria's failed wind farm, he believes 20 per cent
of the nation's power needs could be met by wind farms alone.
RIC BRAZZALE: We have a fantastic solar resource, very sunny
country. Some states like Queensland and the Northern Territory
utilise solar extensively. Again, no reason why we can't have
that much more extensive right throughout Australia.
Then we have natural gas; we have geothermal resources.
There's enormous potential to produce renewable power from
Australia's agricultural industry, and we've barely scratched
the surface.
So there's lots, lots more we can do, lots more we should be
doing before we even consider nuclear.
MARK COLVIN: The Business Council for Sustainable Energy's Ric
Brazzale, ending that report by Sabra Lane.
*****************************************************************
65 AU ABC: PM promotes nuclear power debate
7.30 Report - 22/05/2006:
Australian Broadcasting Corporation 7.30 Report
LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1644671.htm
Broadcast: 22/05/2006
Reporter: Michael Brissenden
KERRY O'BRIEN: Welcome to the program. It's a debate the Prime
Minister has been hinting at for a short while now, but
suddenly, the issue of nuclear energy has become an argument
Australia has to have. As he jets about the world, Mr Howard has
clearly decided to promote nuclear power as a priority debate.
He says nuclear power could be a real alternative that would
help arrest global warming problems and protect us against
rising fuel prices. The nuclear issue has been a volatile one in
Australian politics now for many years. Politicians are divided
and so is the scientific community. But that's been the case for
a long time now. The question is: why is the Prime Minister
elevating it now? Political Editor Michael Brissenden reports.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: For more than 30 years, the nuclear industry
has been a hot political topic. As the world heats up, that
debate just gets hotter and hotter. Everyone's talking nukes and
has been for a long time. The question is: is the discussion
this week a debate, or a diversion?
JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER (Ottawa, Saturday): I want a
full-blooded debate in Australia about this issue, and I want
all of the options on the table.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: The Prime Minister's been pretty busy over
the past week or so. He's been wined and dined in Washington,
feted in Ottawa and now he's in Ireland, connecting with
Australia's Irish heritage. It wouldn't have escaped his
attention that Peter Costello's been pretty busy, too. He's been
out selling the Budget. He's been down mines, he's been burning
boats and for the next few days at least, he's running the
country. There's no shortage of energy here from either of them,
but having endured almost a week of speculation about his
leadership, the PM seems to want us all to talk about something
else, and over the weekend, he took the nuclear debate with them
as he burnt up fossil fuels from one side of the Atlantic to the
other.
JOHN HOWARD (Ottawa, Saturday): I have given it quite a lot of
thought. I didn't lightly say what I said in Ottawa on Saturday
and you'll be hearing quite a bit more from me about that issue.
It is a different world from what it was a few years ago; not
only because of the price of oil - that's an important factor -
but also, the reality that nuclear power is cleaner and greener
than other forms of power. But like all forms of power
generation, it's governed by the laws of arithmetic and the laws
of economics and I've said all along that that is a factor, a
dominant factor, a very important factor, that will be involved.
But we do need to have a debate about it, and it's in the
national interest that we do so.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Not that Mr Howard's announced anything
concrete yet. What form will this debate take? A summit,
perhaps? Whatever it is, it's a proposition that will be
welcomed by those who've actually been having quite a lively
debate about all this anyway in the past few months or so.
Here's Brendan Nelson, almost a year ago at the Press Club.
BRENDAN NELSON, EDUCATION MINISTER (August 2005): In my opinion,
we owe it to our future to dispassionately examine the extent to
which economically, environmentally, and culturally we might
reasonably consider nuclear power as an option for our future.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: For Brendan Nelson and others in the
Government, this is an argument about nuclear power. It's a big
shift from the traditional argument about mining the stuff
that's dominated Australian politics in the past. There is some
differing opinion within the Government's ranks on this. Some
think nuclear power could be a reality in Australia in 20 years
or so. Others, like Nick Minchin, say it's unlikely to be
economically viable here for at least 100 years. The one thing
they do all know, though, is that while they might politely
differ, in the Liberal ranks, the nuclear debate is anything but
polite in the Labor Party.
ANTHONY ALBANESE, OPPOSITION ENVIRONMENTAL SPOKESMAN (Saturday):
The intractable problems of nuclear energy when it comes to
comes to economic cost, safety, disposal of waste and
contribution to nuclear proliferation remain after some 50
years.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Labor is still arguing about the mines:
should they stick to the three mines policy, or should we be
cashing in on world demand for carbon-free energy? It's a battle
of pragmatism over idealism and one conducted mostly in the left
of the party. But the fact is the whole debate on power, at
least, has even the experts divided. Some, like Martin Sevior
from Melbourne University's School of Science, say a nuclear
future is all but inevitable.
PROFESSOR MARTIN SEVIOR, SCHOOL OF PHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF
MELBOURNE: Coal-fired power stations are very cheap if you don't
have to worry about the cost of meeting the carbon dioxide that
they produce. If you have to worry about the cost of the carbon
dioxide, then, nuclear power is incredibly competitive. The best
case projections that you could look at for a nuclear power
plant, if the industry lives up to their promises, would have it
be slightly more expensive than our current best coal-fired
power stations.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Others, like Richard Corkish from the
University of New South Wales, see things quite differently.
DR. RICHARD CORKISH, CENTRE FOR PHOTOVOLTAIC ENGINEERING, UNSW:
It's not a credible response to global warming, because it's
going to take too long to come into effect. By the time you
start building power stations - even soon - it's a long time
into the future before they're actually constructed. Nuclear is
not necessarily clean and green. It's certainly not clean in
terms of the waste problems, because they are still unsolved.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: No doubt this is a debate that will continue
for some time; perhaps even long after this Prime Minister's
moved on - whenever that might be. But despite all the talk,
he's still in the job, and, it seems, he's keen to get back to
the desk and perhaps kick-start a formal debate on the issue; so
keen, in fact, he's cutting his trip short and coming back a day
early.
DUNCAN KERR, OPPOSITION BACKBENCHER: Acting Prime Minister,
pleased no doubt as we all are with the Prime Minister's
decision to drop in, when did the Prime Minister advise the
Acting Prime Minister that he would be returning to Australia a
day early to be here for Thursday for Question Time? And did the
Acting Prime Minister try to talk him out of it?
MR SPEAKER: The Honourable, the Acting Prime Minister.
PETER COSTELLO, TREASURER: Well, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister
will get a very warm reception back here on Thursday. Here we
are, Mr Speaker, here we are in Australia with all sorts of
economic issues where people are interested in petrol prices,
interest rates, jobs for their kids, and, Mr Speaker, you have
some dropkick ask a question like that. Mr Speaker, if that is
the level of the attack that is coming out of the Labor Party I
have but one piece of advice for you: bring on Bill Shorten, Mr
Speaker.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Like nuclear power, leadership is a live
issue on both sides of the House at the moment. But despite all
the talk about Bill Shorten and the fact that most voters, it
seems, still prefer either Julia Gillard or Kevin Rudd, Kim
Beazley would no doubt have been buoyed by today's ACNeilsen
poll that showed Labor with a solid lead over the Government.
The reason is still unclear, but certainly the Budget didn't
give the Government the lift it might have expected. Perhaps the
IR changes are starting to bite, or petrol prices, interest
rates and embarrassing bungles in the Defence Department have
begun to take their toll. Sounds like a good a time as any for a
debate on nuclear power.
*****************************************************************
66 AU ABC: PM flags nuclear energy debate
Lateline - 22/05/2006:
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Lateline
LOCATION:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1644691.htm
Broadcast: 22/05/2006
Reporter: Craig McMurtrie
TONY JONES: Well, the Prime Minister says he won't walk away
from the controversial issue of nuclear energy. In the face of
criticism, John Howard has likened the nuclear issue to the GST,
signalling he intends to give the debate some direction when he
returns home. And, as Craig McMurtrie reports, that's going to
be sooner than expected.
CRAIG McMURTRIE: Out of the Irish drizzle, in the grandeur of
Dublin's Farmleigh House, the Prime Minister declared that a
nuclear debate is in the national interest. And despite a drop
in support for the Government in the latest Nielsen poll, he
isn't backtracking.
JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER: If people think I'm going to be
driven by the first opinion poll on this issue, they're
completely wrong.
CRAIG McMURTRIE: Speaking in the ballroom of the estate, John
Howard disagreed with his Finance Minister, Nick Minchin, who
says nuclear power in Australia won't happen for 100 years
because of cost and waste problems.
JOHN HOWARD: Until you have a proper examination and a proper
testing of assumptions, you can't be certain that the economics
haven't shifted.
CRAIG McMURTRIE: The Prime Minister also denies that he's using
the controversial issue to put pressure on the Opposition
leader.
JOHN HOWARD: I'm not putting this on the table because of Mr
Beazley.
JENNY MACKLIN, DEPUTY OPPOSITION LEADER: I think we should see
this nuclear power debate for what it is: just the ultimate
diversion.
CRAIG McMURTRIE: John Howard says he didn't raise the question
of nuclear power lightly and likening the issue to GST, says he
thinks the public mood is shifting. He also believes the debate
needs direction and plans to say more when he's back in
Australia. There's no doubt the pressure's off in Ireland. In
reality, there are no big, outstanding issues between the two
countries, but with 30 per cent of Australians having some Irish
ancestry, John Howard says coming here is part of the journey of
being an Australian Prime Minister. He's meeting his Irish
counterpart and he'll address the Irish Parliament, but then
he's decided to leave early so he can be back in Parliament by
Thursday. Craig McMurtrie, Lateline.
*****************************************************************
67 AU ABC: PM nuclear debate call a farce - Garrett.
23/05/2006. ABC News Online
Federal Labor's spokesman for reconciliation and the arts has
accused the Prime Minister of creating a false debate about
nuclear power to cover up his inaction on climate change.
John Howard says a full blooded debate about nuclear power is in
the national interest.
A senior Government minister has also suggested that Australia
could begin uranium enrichment within the next five to ten
years.
Mr Garrett says if the Government was serious about the
environment, it would have increased funding in this month's
Budget.
"It's more than hypocritical, it's a farce for the Prime
Minister to come back from America and suddenly become born
again for nukes," he said.
"When really, when you look seriously at what is going on here,
Australia needs to make a decision about why we are not
addressing climate change and find those necessary alternatives
that will make up the energy mix."
Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell has rejected claims
that the Government is not committed to renewable energy, but
says nuclear power must be considered in the mix.
Senator Campbell says the debate is not a cover-up.
"We need to look at all of the options, not have this false
debate about renewables versus coal or coal versus nuclear," he
said.
"We need everything and we need to do it very well and that's
how we will secure Australia's future."
*****************************************************************
68 UPI: Tarapur nuclear plant becomes critical
United Press International - Energy -
5/22/2006 9:02:00 AM -0400
NEW DELHI, May 22 (UPI) -- India's 540 MW pressurized heavy
water reactor at Tarapur went critical Sunday, the official
Press Trust of India reported.
"This is one step before connecting power to the western grid
and the electricity produced from this plant would be
synchronized to the grid in June," said S.K. Jain, the chairman
and managing director of Nuclear Power Corp. of India Ltd.
Commercial production at the facility, Tarapur Atomic Power
Plant-3, will start in July and will increase India's installed
capacity from 3,350 MW of electricity to 3,890 MW.
TAPP-4, commissioned ahead of TAPP-3, went critical last March
and was synchronized to the grid in June 2005, PTI said. The
plant began commercial production in September, 2005.
"This is a great moment," said Anil Kakodkar, chairman of
India's Atomic Energy Commission. "Last year when the first
reactor, Unit-4 had attained copybook critically, it was too
smooth, but today it even exceeds that."
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
69 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuke push could spark terror attack - ALP
www.smh.com.au
May 22, 2006 - 12:19PM
Australia's push towards nuclear power generation could heighten
the risk of a terrorist attack, Labor MP Kelvin Thomson says.
The debate over nuclear power and uranium exports re-emerged
last week as Prime Minister John Howard visited the United
States and held energy talks as part of a two-week, three
country tour.
Both Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane and Foreign Minister
Alexander Downer have advocated considering uranium enrichment
as part of the nuclear power generation process.
"The problem with nuclear power is that more of it that is
around, the easier it is for terrorists to get access to it and
I'm not satisfied that in this day and age we can be absolutely
certain that terrorists can't access it," Mr Thomson told
reporters.
Instead of nuclear power, Mr Thompson suggested a much safer and
environmentally-friendly option would be renewable energy
sources like wind and solar power.
Mr Thomson said Australia was potentially a world-leader in
solar power.
"Surely you exhaust all the other alternatives first before you
say let's go down the nuclear road," he said.
Mr Thomson also accused the government of insufficiently
supporting climate change.
"They have not been sincere in this issue, if they were sincere
about climate change they would supporting renewable energy."
Opposition treasury spokesman Wayne Swan also said the move
towards nuclear power was unnecessary.
"We are a country with an abundance of energy, we're are
optimistic about what can occur with clean coal technologies, we
have an abundant supply of gas - I don't see the need for
Australia to go down that road," he said.
The Australian Greens believe Australia could supply its energy
needs by harnessing the power of the sun.
"Australia doesn't need it. We've got much better options,"
Greens senator Bob Brown told the Nine Network.
"We're the sunny country. We've got an infinite resource coming
from the sun through the various forms of renewable energy in
this country and energy efficiency.
"We simply don't need to be going down the nuclear track."
Senator Brown said nuclear power proponents were being driven by
greed.
"The whole debate ... is about greed.
"It's about making money out of uranium resources and exporting
that uranium into a world market which is quite dangerous in an
age of terrorism and handbag-sized nuclear weapons."
© 2006 AAP
| Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
70 NDN: Small amount of radiation leaks within Japanese nuclear plant -
MSN-Mainichi Daily News
May 23, 2006 National
A small amount of radiation leaked within a Japanese nuclear
power plant in northern Japan, but no radiation escaped from the
compound, the plant's operator said Monday.
A monitor at the No. 4 reactor at Fukushima No. 1 Power Plant
showed higher than normal levels of radiation early Sunday
morning, according to Manabu Yusa, a spokesman for operator
Tokyo Electric Power Co., or TEPCO.
A pin-sized hole in the fuel rod may have caused the leak, Yusa
said. Other monitors within the compound showed no change in
radiation levels, and there was no danger of a leak outside the
compound, he said.
No workers were exposed to radiation, and the plant will
continue to operate under heightened monitoring, he said.(AP)
Japanese officials investigate small radioactive leak at
nuclear plant; no injuriesCourt in Japan rejects appeal by
residents opposed to uranium enrichment plantRadioactive water
leaks from Japanese nuclear plant
May 23, 2006
Copyright 2005-2006 THE MAINICHI NEWSPAPERS. All rights
reserved.
*****************************************************************
71 RBC: Gov't approves zero import duty on uranium
RosBusinessConsulting
RBC, 22.05.2006, Moscow 09:52:03.The Russian government has
approved a zero rate for the import customs duty on natural
uranium and depleted uranium with a reduced proportion of
uranium-235 for a 9-month term. A governmental decree to this
effect dated May 18 will enter into force one month after its
official publication date, the government's press service
reported.
© 2006 Associated Press.
All rights reserved © 1995-2000 RosBusinessConsulting
*****************************************************************
72 BBC: Russia, US to review uranium deal
Last Updated: Monday, 22 May 2006
By Stephen Eke BBC News
[Missiles in the former Soviet Union]
Many Soviet nuclear weapons have been decommissioned
Top Russian and US nuclear officials are to discuss changes to a
deal regulating the recovery of uranium from dismantled Soviet
nuclear weapons.
The two countries signed agreements in 1993 and 1994 giving US
firm Usec the exclusive right to sell uranium recovered from
Russian warheads.
The uranium has been converted into a type that can be used for
civilian purposes.
Russia now says it wants to be paid more for the uranium.
Moreover, some Russian officials have controversially demanded
the right to sell nuclear fuel directly to customers.
Lucrative export
The head of Russia's atomic energy agency, Sergei Kiriyenko, will
hold talks with a number of top US nuclear officials on Monday.
He says he wants the US to lift what Russia considers to be
discriminatory restrictions on exports of Russian uranium
products to US customers.
The two countries have still not signed an inter-governmental
treaty on cooperation in civilian nuclear technology.
And Russia says this is hindering progress in modernising
agreements signed shortly after the fall of Communism.
In particular, Russian officials complain about the continuation
of restrictions on deliveries of their nuclear products to the
US.
They are a lucrative export, reportedly valued at half a billion
dollars a year.
Russian resentment
Under the existing programme - known as Megatons and Megawatts -
Russia reprocesses highly-enriched uranium from nuclear weapons
decommissioned under disarmament treaties into a form that can be
used as fuel for US nuclear power stations.
Nearly 11,000 Soviet-era nuclear warheads have been reprocessed
this way.
But Russia increasingly resents the obligation to sell the fuel
through Usec - the United States Enrichment Corporation - which
is the official agent of the American government.
The Russian government says Usec's pricing policies are designed
to protect its commercial interests, rather than Russia's
potential earnings.
Uranium prices have tripled over recent years, but this is not
reflected in the price Usec pays for Russian imports.
Russian officials have suggested Mr Kiriyenko will lobby the
heads of US nuclear corporations to try to bolster Moscow's
arguments in favour of scrapping Usec's intermediary role
altogether.
*****************************************************************
73 NRC: Request To Amend a License To Import Radioactive Waste
FR Doc E6-7787
[Federal Register: May 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 98)] [Notices]
[Page 29364] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22my06-98]
Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70(C) ``Public notice of receipt of an
application,'' please take notice that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission has received the following request to amend an import
license. Copies of the request are available electronically
through ADAMS and can be accessed through the Public Electronic
Reading Room (PERR) link http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html
at the NRC Home page.
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be
filed within 30 days after publication of this notice in the
Federal Register. Any request for hearing or petition for leave
to intervene shall be served by the requestor or petitioner upon
the applicant, the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555; the Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and the
Executive Secretary, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.
The information concerning this amendment request follows.
NRC Import License Amendment Application
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Name of applicant
date of Description of material application
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- --------------------------------- Date received
application Material type Total qty End
use Country of origin number docket number
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Perma-Fix/DSSI,
Inc............. Class A 378,000 kg mixed Amend
to: (1) Canada February 23, 2006...............
radioactive mixed waste containing Increase the waste in
various 1,200 curies quantity (total forms including
tritium, carbon- activity level) solids, semi- 14, mixed
fission of radioactive solids, and product contaminants
liquids. radionuclides and authorized for other import by 800
contaminants. curies or from
1,200 to 2,000
curies; and (2)
extend expiration
date to 3/31/2008.
February 28, 2006............... ..................
.................. .................. ..................
IW012/02........................ 11005322........................
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- Dated this 10th
day of May 2006 at Rockville, Maryland.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Margaret M. Doane, Deputy Director, Office of International
Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-7787 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
74 AU ABC: Ian Macfarlane says uranium enrichment a viable option for Australia
AM - Monday, 22 May , 2006 08:08:00
Reporter: Catherine McGrath
TONY EASTLEY: The Federal Industry Minister, Ian Macfarlane
says within five years Australia could be enriching uranium.
Mr Macfarlane wants a full scientific and economic study of the
uranium issue, and he says that getting involved in the
enrichment of uranium could give Australia more control over the
global use of nuclear fuel.
He says while nuclear power is still not an economic reality in
Australia, he believes enrichment might be.
Ian Macfarlane spoke a short time ago to our Chief Political
Correspondent, Catherine McGrath.
IAN MACFARLANE: It was part of the decision to move to nuclear
power. If Australia decided to go to value-adding uranium, then
we would probably be half a decade, maybe even a decade away
from doing it.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: So within five years or so. How extensive do
you think Australia's involvement could be? I mean, how many
locations in Australia do you think there could be enrichment
taking place?
IAN MACFARLANE: Well, that's a decision to be made down the
track. There are a lot of decisions to be made, and what we
really need is a full, open, scientifically based factual debate
on the whole nuclear energy issue.
Uranium enrichment is part of that, but so too is the safe
disposal of nuclear waste. And when you consider that Australia
has come a long way in the last six months on this debate, the
opportunity to have this debate won't necessarily bring nuclear
power to Australia. The economics of nuclear power just simply
don't add up.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: So you agree with Nick Minchin, in a sense,
except he's saying 100 years?
IAN MACFARLANE: Well, Nick's saying that the economics don't add
up, and I agree with that. I mean, the price of nuclear energy
at the moment is almost double that of base-load coal.
The thing that will change is that coal-fired power stations
will need to be more efficient, will need to capture their
carbon, and over the time ahead of us the cost of doing that
will push their price up towards nuclear, while at the same time
more efficient (sic).
In the end, a nuclear power station would only be built in
Australia after a debate had agreed to it, and when someone had
decided it was more economic than gas or coal.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: Peter Garrett, Labor Party Parliamentary
Secretary and former campaigner on this issue, says that John
Howard lacks imagination or environmental knowledge, because he
fails to recognise that there are better alternatives.
What do you say to that?
IAN MACFARLANE: Well, I'm not sure what those better
alternatives are, to be quite honest.
Australia needs a broad suite of energy supplies, so it needs
the fossil fuel loads that we already have, it needs renewable
energy, and it needs to consider things like nuclear power,
because with a broad suite then you're able to consider your
options, and to say one option, which is already proven to be a
greenhouse friendly option, is ruled out simply on the basis of
ideology, as is Mr Garrett's position, just simply doesn't make
sense.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: What about Bob Brown? He's saying it's crazy,
it's not safe and it shouldn't even be considered.
IAN MACFARLANE: Well, Bob Brown really should take note of the
reality. Each year thousands of people die mining coal in the
world, and if you set aside Chernobyl, which was a deliberate
manmade intervention in the nuclear cycle to test safety, there
has not been a nuclear disaster in the western world, and
countries like France have operated nuclear power stations,
giving their population 80 per cent of their electricity from
nuclear without incident over the last…
CATHERINE MCGRATH: But there's still division in that country
about its effectiveness, its long-term viability and its
appropriateness.
IAN MACFARLANE: Well, nuclear power is an emotive issue, and
people want to debate it, and that's what we should be doing in
Australia - we should be debating nuclear energy and saying is
this an option that the Australian population wants to go to?
Australia is one of the last western developed economies to
consider nuclear power, and that's been for two reasons -
firstly, an hysterical campaign against nuclear energy, but
secondly the fact that we've had access to cheap coal-fired
power stations, which has given Australia some of the cheapest
electricity in the world.
TONY EASTLEY: Federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane speaking
there with our Chief Political Correspondent Catherine McGrath.
*****************************************************************
75 Mos News: Russia, US to Review Uranium Trade Deal -
MOSNEWS.COM
Negotiators Seek Peaceful Solution to Iran Issue
Tehran to be offered incentives to suspend enrichment
Nuclear fuel / Photo from MosNews.com archive
Created: 22.05.2006 10:40 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 10:40 MSK
MosNews
Top Russian and U.S. nuclear officials are set to discuss
changes to a deal regulating the recovery of uranium from
dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons, the BBC reported on Monday,
May 22.
The two countries signed agreements in 1993 and 1994 giving U.S.
firm Usec the exclusive right to sell uranium recovered from
Russian warheads. The uranium has been converted into a type
that can be used for civilian purposes.
Russia now says it wants to be paid more for the uranium.
Moreover, some Russian officials have controversially demanded
the right to sell nuclear fuel directly to customers.
The head of Russia’s atomic energy agency, Sergei Kiriyenko,
will hold talks with a number of top U.S. nuclear officials on
Monday, May 22. He says he wants the U.S. to lift what Russia
considers to be discriminatory restrictions on exports of
Russian uranium products to U.S. customers.
The two countries have still not signed an inter-governmental
treaty on cooperation in civilian nuclear technology. And Russia
says this is hindering progress in modernizing agreements signed
shortly after the fall of Communism.
In particular, Russian officials complain about the continuation
of restrictions on deliveries of their nuclear products to the
US. They are a lucrative export, reportedly valued at half a
billion dollars a year.
Under the existing program — known as Megatons and Megawatts —
Russia reprocesses highly-enriched uranium from nuclear weapons
decommissioned under disarmament treaties into a form that can
be used as fuel for US nuclear power stations. Nearly 11,000
Soviet-era nuclear warheads have been reprocessed this way.
But Russia increasingly resents the obligation to sell the fuel
through Usec — the United States Enrichment Corporation — which
is the official agent of the U.S. government.
The Russian government says Usec’s pricing policies are designed
to protect its commercial interests, rather than Russia’s
potential earnings. Uranium prices have tripled over recent
years, but this is not reflected in the price Usec pays for
Russian imports.
Russian officials have suggested Kiriyenko will lobby the heads
of US nuclear corporations to try to bolster Moscow’s arguments
in favor of scrapping Usec’s intermediary role altogether.
Write us: info@mosnews.com
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
76 KnoxNews: Filter problem leads to shutdown of uranium work
'Safety issue' found in operation_for the second time in a month
By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com
May 20, 2006
OAK RIDGE - A uranium casting operation was shut down at the Y-12
nuclear weapons plant after workers determined there was an
excessive accumulation of uranium in a filter system.
The problem was discovered in late April, and the equipment -
including a melting furnace - remains shut down, a plant
spokesman confirmed Friday.
BWXT Y-12, the contractor that manages the government facilities,
declared a "criticality safety issue" in the uranium operations
for the second time in a month. That means the situation exceeded
one of the precautionary guidelines in place to prevent a nuclear
criticality - a serious event involving an uncontrolled nuclear
chain reaction.
Mike Monnett, public affairs director for BWXT, said the uranium
"hold-up" in the filter never posed a criticality threat. He said
the situation is well controlled, although the enriched uranium -
1.4 kilograms, according to a safety report - has not yet been
removed from the filter.
"We're going to have to clean it up," Monnett said.
Oil also was found in the filter housing, which poses an
additional safety issue and complicates the removal, he said.
Monnett said the filter system did its job, accumulating the
enriched uranium particles coming from a furnace used in casting
operations.
However, there's a concern because the uranium in the filter
exceeded the established threshold even though all work
procedures were followed correctly, he said.
"We're reviewing those procedures to see if they need to be
adjusted," Monnett said. "We didn't like the results we got."
Y-12 manufactures parts from highly enriched uranium and other
materials, specializing in so-called secondaries - the second
stage of nuclear warheads. The Oak Ridge plant is the nation's
principal repository for weapons-grade uranium.
Steven Wyatt, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security
Administration, the federal agency that oversees Y-12 operations,
said, "The most important thing is that this process equipment is
in a safe and stable condition."
Wyatt said the necessary actions have been taken. He said there
is no harm to workers or potential for a nuclear reaction.
"The issue is of significant concern to us, however, and we are
closely monitoring and evaluating BWXT Y-12 actions to ensure a
safe recovery and adequate corrective actions to prevent
reoccurrence," he said in an e-mail statement responding to
questions.
Monnett said Friday he expects the situation in Y-12's enriched
uranium area to be resolved soon. He said any time there's a
shutdown of equipment there's potential impact on production
schedules.
While the filter situation is a little unusual, Monnett said it
reflects the type of challenges that must be dealt with
regularly at Y-12.
"This is day-to-day operations in the nuclear weapons complex,"
he said.
Earlier in April, another "safety deficiency" was issued after
holes were found in a stainless-steel floor where enriched
uranium is handled. Transfer of enriched uranium in a liquid
form was restricted temporarily because a spill might allow
material to seep under the floor and breach safety controls.
Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.
© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
77 Guardian Unlimited: Settlement May Be Near in Wen Ho Lee Case
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday May 22, 2006 6:01 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court delayed Monday a decision on
whether to take up a fight over reporters' confidential sources,
apparently because a former government scientist's lawsuit that
prompted journalist subpoenas may be settled.
A lawyer for former nuclear weapons scientist Wen Ho Lee told
the court in a letter last week that ``there have been recent
settlement discussions with the government in the underlying
case,'' in which Lee accused the government of violating his
rights under the Privacy Act.
Appeals arising from that case are pending at the Supreme Court,
brought by journalists who were found in civil contempt of
court. The reporters have refused to disclose who leaked them
information about an espionage investigation of Lee.
Lee was never charged with espionage. He was held in solitary
confinement for nine months, then released in 2000 after
pleading guilty to a single count of mishandling computer files.
A judge apologized for Lee's treatment.
Lee, who was fired from his job at Los Alamos National
Laboratory in New Mexico, has a filed a civil lawsuit seeking
damages.
Brian A. Sun, one of Lee's attorneys, said ``resolution of the
entire case may be imminent.'' The letter was addressed to the
Supreme Court's clerk.
Justices could have announced Monday whether they would hear
appeals from the reporters: H. Josef Hebert of The Associated
Press, James Risen of The New York Times, Bob Drogin of the Los
Angeles Times and Pierre Thomas, formerly of CNN and now working
for ABC News.
The cases are Drogin v. Lee, 05-969, and Thomas v. Lee, 05-1114.
---
On the Net:
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
78 lamonitor.com: LANL building dedicated
The Online News Source for Los Alamos
CAROL A. CLARK, lanews@lamonitor.com, Monitor Senior Reporter
More than 2,000 employees joined local, state and national
dignitaries to dedicate the Los Alamos National Laboratory's
award-winning National Security Sciences Building at Technical
Area 3 on Saturday.
"As chairman of the subcommittee that paid for its construction,
I'm particularly proud that the new building has come in under
budget and ahead of schedule," Sen. Pete Domenici, R-NM, said.
"The NSSB represents a new face for the lab in a new era that
includes a new contract, a new and broader attention to
sciences, and renewed DOE efforts to help transform the city of
Los Alamos into a modern, 21st century city."
The first piece of structural steel for the $93 million building
was set July 23, 2003.
"I see the senator's appropriations footprints all over this
building," joked Gov. Richardson of Domenici's securing the
funding.
Former Director John Brown attended the dedication and was
credited for initially getting the project going.
The ultramodern eight-floor structure, which will house LANL's
administration and key staff, garnered the prestigious New
Mexico Best of 2005 Design-Build Project award from Southwest
Contractor Magazine.
It also has the distinction of being one of only two facilities
in the entire DOE complex to be certified by the National
Archives Records Administration. Environmental enhancements have
earned the facility Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design Standards (LEEDS) certification.
"This is the tallest building north of Albuquerque," Project
Director Keith Orr said. "With the mechanical-equipment
penthouse, this building is really 9.5 stories tall."
Orr also was project director on the technologically advanced
Emergency Operations Center. He and his team brought that
structure in ahead of time and under budget, too.
Director Robert Kuckuck said he had one month's notice before
coming to Los Alamos. He read the blog during that time and did
not expect to encounter the friendliest of people when he got
here.
"That did not turn out to be the case," he said. Kuckuck thanked
and commended the employees of LANL.
Rep. Tom Udall, D-NM, praised the new building and also
congratulated Kuckuck and LANS Director Michael Anastacio for
their accomplishments during the management transition of the
lab.
"Bob and Michael have done an excellent job in a difficult
situation," Udall said. "They made it look easy and did it with
grace."
The NSSB took 600,000 man-hours to construct, using 15,762 cubic
yards of concrete, and 5,400,000 pounds of structural steel, Orr
said.
The facility is 131 feet tall. It has 275,000/ square feet of
office space, 680 offices, 17 conference rooms and a 600-person
lecture hall. The structure brings with it an additional 400 new
parking spaces.
Employees and VIPs also observed the unveiling in the NSSB
courtyard of a commemorative piece from the Pentagon building
attacked on Sept. 11, 2001.
Kuckuck recognized LANL Emergency Operations Chief of Staff John
Harvey as being responsible for bringing the monument to Los
Alamos.
The Saturday festivities stretched into a celebration of the
University of California's 63 years of service to the nation
through its management of LANL.
Called "Celebrating an era with pride and honor", all LANL
employees, subcontract personnel, retirees and their families
and friends were treated to a day of exhibits, entertainment,
food, and fun at TA-3.
© 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
*****************************************************************