***************************************************************** 08/30/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.206 ***************************************************************** 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 [NYTr] US Threat "an insult to UN" - Iran's Pres 2 [NYTr] Ahmadinejad: Nuclear Arms Race Threatens Whole World 3 Guardian Unlimited: Officials: Iran Still Enriching Uranium 4 Guardian Unlimited: Iranian President: Sanctions Won't Work 5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Ignores Powers, U.N. on Enrichment 6 Guardian Unlimited: Analysis: Iran Won't Back Down From U.N. 7 IRNA: Iran, Algeria discuss N-issue 8 IRNA: Speaker hopes negotiations will resume after Iran's response t 9 IRNA: Iran's nuclear policy anchored on need to dismantle world's 10 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI intitled to nuclear technology 11 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI's N-program has civilian nature 12 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Iran, China discuss nuclear issue 13 AFP: Iran envoy and China's foreign minister discuss nuclear issue - 14 AFP: Iran's atomic chief to visit Russia next week 15 IRNA: Iran, China discuss nuclear issue 16 AFP: Major powers expected to meet next week on Iran sanctions - 17 AFP: US confident of getting UN sanctions against Iran in September 18 AFP: Iran started new uranium enrichment days ahead of deadline - di 19 IRNA: Determined efforts to peacefully solve Iran's N-case will yiel 20 AFP: France ready to talk to Iran to end nuclear crisis 21 Asia Times: Korea News - Why Pyongyang is going nuclear 22 AFP: NKorea leader might be on China visit - 23 Guardian Unlimited: South Korea on Watch for Nuclear Test 24 US: AP Wire: Owner says no huge bomb test at southern Indiana quarry 25 US: UPI: Navy increases nuclear officer bonuses 26 AFP: Security Council unlikely to take action when UN deadline for 27 Guardian: Comment is free: If the unthinkable happens NUCLEAR REACTORS 28 US: Evacuating Katrina: Lessons Not Learned from Three Mile Island 29 London Times: Furious Fluor in No 10 talks to buy BNG - 30 Guardian Unlimited: Energy protesters blockade nuclear power station 31 AU The Age: Country to 'lose billions' without nuclear industry 32 US: Herald News: Tritium leaks now a national issue 33 BBC: Power station 34 BBC: Ban for anti-nuclear protesters 35 US: Platts: NRC can speed up its nuclear license application reviews 36 US: Detroit Free Press: Nuclear power site returns to nature 37 Viet Nam News: Japan experts join nuclear conference 38 HSE: Quarterly statement of nuclear incidents at nuclear installatio 39 US: NRC: Omaha Public Power Company; Notice of Consideration of Issu 40 US: NRC: Duke Power Company Llc, et al., Notice of Consideration of 41 US: Lincoln County News: Maine Yankee Secured After Bomb Scare - 42 US: Sun Valley Idaho: Why nuclear power can't solve global warming 43 Russia Newswire: Third Generator Starts Up at Smolensk NPP 44 NewsRoom Finland: Finland's Fingrid to assess effects of potential s 45 US: PR Newswire: At Platts Energy Podium, NRC Chairman Seeks Faster 46 US: UPI: NRC wants to speed things up NUCLEAR SECURITY 47 US: Nuclear Terror at Home - opinion 48 US: U.S. to stage missile-defense test over Pacific 49 US: UPI: Analysis: Reactor security fears -- Part 1 NUCLEAR SAFETY 50 US: NRC: Notice of Environmental Assessment Related to the Issuance 51 RBC: Russia and Japan discuss nuclear submarine recycling 52 US: NRC: RIN 3150-AH90 Secure Transfer of Nuclear Materials NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 53 US: Highly Radioactive spent nuclear fuel to Piketon, Ohio 54 US: The Australian: Fourth uranium mine approved 55 US: The Australian: New uranium mine digs hole in ALP policy 56 US: The Australian: Nuclear minefield 57 US: AU ABC: Uranium One pushes ahead with SA mine 58 Santa Fe New Mexican: Nuke plant nears construction 59 Platts: Consortium breaks ground on New Mexico uranium enrichment pl 60 (TPR): DoE Plans Further Volcanic, Seismic Testing at Yucca Mountain 61 US: Hemscott: PG&E plans Supreme Court appeal 62 US: PE.com: Rialto pollution talks go nowhere 63 US: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: PARKS WASTE CLEANUP: Delays and delay 64 US: Knox News: Munger: Latest nuclear proposal revives memory of MRS PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 65 DOE: Statement from Secretary Bodman on the First Anniversary of 66 LA Daily News: Inquiry set on field-lab revelations 67 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [NYTr] US Threat "an insult to UN" - Iran's Pres Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:17:24 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Reuters via New Zealand Herald - Aug 30, 2006 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10398735 US threat 'an insult to UN' TEHRAN - Iran says a US threat to form an independent coalition to impose sanctions if the UN Security Council fails to act over Tehran's nuclear programme is an insult to the world body. The Los Angeles Times said on Saturday the US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, had indicated the US was prepared to act independently with close allies to freeze Iranian assets and restrict trade if the council did not. The US has called for a swift response if Iran did not heed the Security Council's Thursday deadline to halt uranium enrichment, which Iran says is for power generation but some Western officials say is for nuclear weapons. "These are just bullying and baseless remarks remarks [by Bolton]," Iranian Government official Gholamhossein Elham was quoted as saying yesterday. The US planned to introduce a resolution imposing penalties soon after the August 31 deadline if the Islamic Republic's position did not change. "The road that we have taken is irreversible," Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, was quoted as saying. "Iran intends to produce the nuclear fuel that it is going to use." Iran has shrugged off the threat of sanctions, saying such a move would propel already high oil prices higher still, hurting the economies of industrialised countries more than Iran. - REUTERS * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 2 [NYTr] Ahmadinejad: Nuclear Arms Race Threatens Whole World Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:17:03 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit FARS News - Aug 29, 3006 http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8506070554 Ahmadinejad: Global Security Disturbed by Arms Race TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stressed that the current tight arms race in the world has caused such vast and deteriorating global insecurity that no country feels safe anymore. Speaking to reporters during his third press conference on the occasion of the Government Week (August 24-30), the President said that the world is dominated by an atmosphere of insecurity due to the existing arms race, and further reminded that as the gap between the deprived and rich states has widened during the last 60 years, an atmosphere of threat has prevailed in the world. He said politics has turned into a tool of deceit used for looting other countries, adding that there is no trace of human honor and grandeur in political diplomacy of the world today. Ahmadinejad lashed out at the US and Britain for their aggressions against Iran and their looting of Iranians' possessions, mentioning that their belligerent attitude towards Iran is still continued. Saying that the US and UK are the sources of many wars, conflicts and oppressions, he censured the decision making process of the UN Security Council and pointed out that the US and UK are imposing their decisions on 180 other states and regard themselves as owners of the entire world. "The US and UK consider themselves as the victors of World War II and they believe that the other nations should obey them for the aforesaid reason," he stated. The Iranian President asked, "Why should other nations pay the price for World War II while they had no role in that war? How long should such a situation prevail in the world?" Stressing that Iran does not accept the US policy on running the world affairs, Ahmadinejad continued, "We consider this policy and behavior as hegemonic and unilateral," and further invited US President George W. Bush to attend a televised program to debate the issue. "We can present our view points to the world public opinion to find out which one is favored by the world nations," the Iranian President stressed. Meantime, he made conditional his participation in such a televised debate on 100 percent transparency of the setting and guaranteed freedom of speech, reiterating that he must be ascertained that such a discussion is not censured in the US and world media. He underscored, "Now the time has arrived for the establishment of international relations on the basis of democracy, justice and equal rights for all nations." Meantime, Ahmadinejad stressed that the Iranian nation favors peace and friendship while it may not give in to intimidation and force. "We believe we can resolve various world issues through negotiations," he said, pointing to the country's nuclear issue. He said Iran's response to the P5+1 package of incentives paved the way for the resumption of talks with Europe, underlining that if the other party is logical and peace-loving, "then it should welcome Tehran's proposals as they have paved a convenient path for resolving the issues and problems existing between Iran and the west." The chief executive official mentioned, "Despite the bad approach of the West, we have provided a highly exceptional opportunity for solving the nuclear issue." He reminded that while Iran was handling Europe's proposal positively, the westerners issued a resolution against the country at the UN Security Council, saying that after the resolution was issued, the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, in a phone conversation with him, criticized the measure as a hasty move by the UNSC member states. Pointing to his country's good intentions in the face of the nuclear case, Ahmadinejad reminded that Iran could have required P5+1 member states to prove their honesty before Tehran started assessment of the incentives package. "However, we provided them with an exceptional opportunity to solve the existing problems," he said. Asked if Tehran has embraced a milder approach in its foreign policy, the Iranian President underlined that his country may not change or shift its nuclear stances and foreign policy. He asserted that the country's foreign policy has always been what it is at present and that Iran is seeking to eliminate the root causes of tensions. Asked about Iran's likely reaction if UN Secretary-General demands suspension of its enrichment activities, Ahmadinejad reminded that Kofi Annan should proceed within the framework of international laws. The chief executive said that no party is entitled to any special rights or privileges. The president said that Iran's stance in the face of the issue is quite clear, adding that there is no need to elaborate on it. Ahmadinejad said that his country has mentioned all its view points in its response to the P5+1 package of incentives, and stressed once again that Iran may not give up even an iota of its nuclear rights. "We are entitled to gain access to peaceful nuclear technology and no one can deprive us of this right," he reiterated. The Iranian President reminded that the world public opinion approves of the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear activities, adding "member states of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), The Eight Developing Countries (D8) and Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) have all approved of Iran's nuclear rights and activities, but some world states imagine themselves as the entire world." "They should not think so, because such relations and approaches belong to the era of World War II and have expired long ago," Ahmadinejad continued. *** Deutsch Presse via Expatica - Aug 29, 3006 http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=52&story_id=32643&name=Iranian+president+rejects+UN+nuclear+ultimatum Iranian president rejects UN nuclear ultimatum TEHRAN - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday rejected a United Nations demand to halt uranium enrichment by August 31 or face the possible imposition of sanctions. "We will not bow to threats and ultimatums," Ahmadinejad told reporters at a press conference in Tehran. "The (UN) Security Council shall not be an instrument of the West," he added, reiterating that the pursuit of nuclear technology was the "legitimate right" of Iran. UN resolution 1696, passed by the Security Council in July, said the UN would adopt "appropriate measures" allowed by Article 41 of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter if Iran failed to halt enrichment by the August 31 deadline. That article allows the council to impose economic sanctions, a severance of diplomatic ties or a telecommunications embargo. Western nations chief among them the United States have long accused Tehran of harbouring nuclear weapons ambitions. Iran counters however that as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) it is entitled to the pursuit of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The five permanent Security Council members as well as Germany have offered Iran a package of economic incentives in return for a halt to uranium enrichment. Iran on August 22 formally presented its reply to the Western proposal calling for further negotiations on its nuclear programme. "We have already replied clearly and in full to the (incentives) package and we hope that the West will avail of our offer for negotiations and seize this unique opportunity," Ahmadinejad said Tuesday. Should UN sanctions be imposed however Iran will "act accordingly," the Iranian president said without giving further details. "A country capable of producing its own nuclear fuel can also overcome sanctions," Ahmadinejad said. "We are capable of defending our rights and are prepared for all possible scenarios." Asked how Iran would respond to a direct appeal from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to halt uranium enrichment, Ahmadinejad said: "Our position is totally clear, and Mr Annan knows that nothing can be demanded that stands outside the already-agreed international regulations." "For us, all countries have the same rights (under the NPT), no nation is more privileged than any other and there should be no discrimination." Ahmadinejad also challenged US President George W Bush to a television debate. "I invite Mr Bush to a TV debate to talk about world developments, under the condition however that nothing is censored," he said. The Iranian president had at the beginning of the conference criticised the composition of the UN Security Council and said that the US and Britain were using the body "to dominate the world." Ahmadinejad said that the nuclear policy of his administration "is quite different" to the previous administration of reformist Mohammad Khatami, indicating that he and his government would not be willing to make any compromise like Khatami. "Our nuclear programmes are very transparent and we have therefore not only allowed inspections of our sites but also invited foreign states to start joint nuclear ventures with us," he said. "But we do not grant a few countries the right to play the representatives of the world and deprive us from our legitimate rights," Ahmadinejad added, referring to the US and Britain. The Iranian leader said that more than 170 world states have already approved Iran's right to pursue nuclear technology, referring mainly to Islamic states which have not joined the anti-Iran front in the nuclear dispute. "The US, which has the Hiroshima tragedy in its background, has no right at all to talk about non-proliferation," Ahmadinejad said. DPA * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited: Officials: Iran Still Enriching Uranium From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday August 30, 2006 6:01 PM AP Photo VAH102 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran has kept enriching uranium despite the threat of U.N. sanctions and a looming deadline to freeze such operations, U.N. and European officials said Wednesday. The officials said Iran had continued to enrich uranium until at least Tuesday. Its ongoing enrichment could act as a trigger for action by the U.N. Security Council, which had set Thursday as the final day for Tehran to freeze such activity. The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because the information was confidential, said Iran had also snubbed overtures from world powers for a new meeting on its nuclear program. Iranian defiance on enrichment will be detailed in a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency due Thursday. The newest Iranian enrichment of uranium - the latest in a series of such activities in the past few months - was first reported Wednesday by The Washington Post, and diplomats told The Associated Press that it had continued at least into Tuesday. Immediate sanctions are unlikely, as permanent council members Russia and China are expected to resist U.S.-led efforts for a quick response. A senior European official said Tehran has not responded to a recent European Union offer, on behalf of the five Security Council members plus Germany, to discuss Tehran's terms for new nuclear talks. The further sign of Iran's willingness to confront the international community is likely to fuel Washington's push for swift economic sanctions, Inspectors for the Vienna-based IAEA remained in Iran Wednesday as they continued gathering information that will go into Thursday's non-public report. While their most recent findings were not available Wednesday afternoon, a senior U.N. official said that Iranian centrifuges were enriching small quantities of uranium gas as late as Tuesday. Enriched uranium can be used in civilian nuclear reactions or, at greater purity, as fissile material for an atomic warhead. Iran insists it has a right to enrich uranium for what it says is a future nuclear power program. There is increasing concern, however, that Tehran is seeking to become a nuclear-armed state. The United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany offered Iran a package of technological and political incentives June 1 in exchange for Tehran's commitment to freeze enrichment before talks began. Tehran responded Aug. 21 in what heads of governments and senior diplomats have characterized as an inadequate counteroffer that will be rejected. The response makes no mention of any willingness to suspend enrichment before talks, let alone a long-term moratorium on such activity. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 4 Guardian Unlimited: Iranian President: Sanctions Won't Work From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday August 30, 2006 8:31 PM AP Photo VAH104 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran has kept enriching uranium despite the threat of U.N. sanctions and a looming deadline to freeze such operations, U.N. and European officials said Wednesday. Iran's president, meanwhile, urged Europe against following the lead of the United States and resorting to sanctions, saying punishment would not prevent it from pursuing its nuclear program. ``Sanctions cannot dissuade the Iranian nation from achieving our lofty goals of progress. So it's better for Europe to be independent in decision-making and to settle problems through negotiations,'' hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, according to Iranian state-run television. The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because the information was confidential, said Iran had continued to enrich uranium until at least Tuesday. The U.N. Security Council set Thursday as the final day for Tehran to freeze such activity. Iranian defiance on enrichment will be detailed in a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency due Thursday. The newest Iranian enrichment of uranium - the latest in a series of such activities in the past few months - was first reported Wednesday by The Washington Post, and diplomats told The Associated Press that it had continued at least into Tuesday. Immediate sanctions are unlikely, as permanent council members Russia and China are expected to resist U.S.-led efforts for a quick response. A senior European official said Tehran has not responded to a recent European Union offer, on behalf of the five Security Council members plus Germany, to discuss Tehran's terms for new nuclear talks. The further sign of Iran's willingness to confront the international community is likely to fuel Washington's push for swift economic sanctions, Inspectors for the Vienna-based IAEA remained in Iran Wednesday as they continued gathering information that will go into Thursday's non-public report. While their most recent findings were not available Wednesday afternoon, a senior U.N. official said that Iranian centrifuges were enriching small quantities of uranium gas as late as Tuesday. Enriched uranium can be used in civilian nuclear reactions or, at greater purity, as fissile material for an atomic warhead. Iran insists it has a right to enrich uranium for what it says is a future nuclear power program. There is increasing concern, however, that Tehran is seeking to become a nuclear-armed state. The United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany offered Iran a package of technological and political incentives June 1 in exchange for Tehran's commitment to freeze enrichment before talks began. Tehran responded Aug. 21 in what heads of governments and senior diplomats have characterized as an inadequate counteroffer that will be rejected. The response makes no mention of any willingness to suspend enrichment before talks, let alone a long-term moratorium on such activity. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Ignores Powers, U.N. on Enrichment From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday August 30, 2006 11:31 PM AP Photo VAH106 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - A defiant Iran kept on enriching uranium in advance of the U.N. Security Council's Thursday deadline for Tehran to freeze such activity or face the threat of sanctions, U.N. and European officials said. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urged European members of the council against resorting to sanctions, saying punishment would not dissuade his country from pursuing its disputed nuclear program. ``Sanctions cannot dissuade the Iranian nation from achieving our lofty goals of progress. So it's better for Europe to be independent (of the U.S.) in decision-making and to settle problems through negotiations,'' Ahmadinejad said Wednesday, according to state-run television. Iran could theoretically still announce a full stop to enrichment before the deadline set by the Security Council. But that appeared unlikely, considering Tehran's past refusal to consider such a move and findings by the International Atomic Energy Agency that it was enriching small quantities of uranium as late as Tuesday. Iran's refusal to heed the Security Council up to now will be detailed in a confidential IAEA report to be completed Thursday and circulated among the Vienna-based agency's 35 board member nations. The report also will include new details on Tehran's research into advanced enrichment equipment, and other points, diplomats accredited to the agency told The Associated Press. The report, also scheduled to go to the Security Council on Thursday, would likely trigger council members to consider economic and political sanctions. Russia and China, however, were likely to resist U.S.-led efforts for a quick response, which likely means sanctions do not loom immediately. An earlier resolution on Iran took weeks for the Security Council members to negotiate, as did talks over a weaker council statement earlier this year demanding that Iran suspend enrichment. As well, the IAEA report may not be formally considered by the Security Council before the agency's board meets and approves it in mid-September. It's not even clear when exactly the deadline will run out. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, said Wednesday that he believed it would end at 12:01 a.m. Friday in Tehran - or 3:31 p.m. Thursday at the Security Council in New York. But diplomats said the exact timing was not particularly relevant for two reasons: They believe Iran already d almost certainly abandon their sanctions threat if Iran decides to suspend enrichment after the deadline. Bolton said the U.S. still has not decided how it will formally respond once the deadline expires, though he will likely make some sort of statement on Thursday afternoon. He repeated, however, that Washington would seek sanctions if Iran disregards the resolution. ``That has been our intention for some months, it remains our intention, it'll be our intention on September the first if the Iranians don't comply with the resolution,'' he said. Even Moscow and Beijing, which have traditional economic and strategic ties with Tehran, are increasingly vexed at what world powers consider Iranian intransigence on enrichment - a process that generates nuclear energy but also creates the fissile core of warheads. In another sign of Iran's willingness to confront the international community, a senior European government said Tehran had not responded to a recent European Union offer on behalf of the five Security Council members plus Germany to discuss Tehran's terms for new nuclear talks. Such behavior would likely strengthen Washington's push to move more quickly toward economic sanctions. IAEA inspectors remained in Iran on Wednesday, gathering information to go into Thursday's confidential report. While their most recent findings were not available by Wednesday afternoon, a senior U.N. official said Wednesday that Iranian centrifuges were enriching small quantities of uranium gas as late as Tuesday. The latest enrichment - in a series of such activities over the past few months - was first reported Wednesday by The Washington Post. Iran insists it has a right to enrich for what it says is a future nuclear power program. The concern, however, is that Tehran could misuse the technology to aim for material enriched to the level required for weapons. The United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany offered Iran on June 1 a package of technological and political incentives in exchange for a commitment from Tehran to freeze enrichment before talks began. Tehran's response Aug. 21 has been characterized by heads of governments and senior diplomats as inadequate because it makes no mention of any willingness to suspend enrichment before talks, let alone consider a long-term moratorium on such activity. Senior diplomats have told The Associated Press it will be rejected. Senior EU foreign policy official Javier Solana has nevertheless offered to meet with Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani to explore if there is common ground, the diplomats said. But up to now Iran has snubbed that overture, a senior European official said from outside Vienna. A European official in another capital agreed: ``Nothing has moved over the past few days.'' The IAEA report will contain other information the U.S. and its allies would likely seize on, diplomats said, including confirmation that: - IAEA inspectors were recently refused onsite inspections of a vast underground facility being built at Natanz to house up to 54,000 centrifuges, which spin uranium gas into enriched material. While Tehran's centrifuge program is hamstrung by technical problems, the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security has suggested that - if it were interested in producing bombs - Iran could create a basic small plant of 1,500 centrifuges to make enough bomb fuel for one weapon within three years. - For now, Iran's known enrichment capabilities consist of 164 interconnected centrifuges at its surface pilot plant at Natanz, which has been used to turn out small quantities of low-enriched uranium. But the report will reveal new details of the country's centrifuge program, including confirmation from Larijani that scientists are doing computer-based research on a more advanced type of centrifuge that works faster and turns out larger quantities of enriched uranium. The report will also focus on lack of progress in investigating suspicious findings - because of Iran's refusal to provide information - such as diagrams showing how to mold fissile uranium into the shape of warheads. Iran has been under IAEA investigation since 2003, with inspectors turning up evidence of clandestine plutonium experiments, black market centrifuge purchases and links to the military of what Iran says is a civilian nuclear program. --- On the Net: International Atomic Energy Agency - http://www.iaea.org Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 6 Guardian Unlimited: Analysis: Iran Won't Back Down From U.N. From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday August 30, 2006 11:16 PM AP Photo VAH103 By LEE KEATH Associated Press Writer CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Iran isn't blinking in the face of Thursday's U.N. deadline for it to halt uranium enrichment or else finally face the possibility of sanctions the United States has sought for years. Tehran appears confident it can withstand any punishment - if it comes at all. There seems to be no question of Iran's bending to the U.N. demand. It was enriching small amounts of uranium gas at its facility in Natanz as recently as Tuesday, U.N. and European officials in Vienna, Austria, said Wednesday. Iran's nuclear chief spoke over the weekend of expanding the enrichment program. For many in the West, Iran's behavior is not just defiant but mystifying. The U.N. deadline could be a crucial moment in the nuclear standoff. But on Tuesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hardly even mentioned it during a 2-hour news conference and instead changed the subject, challenging President Bush to a debate. The West has struggled for years over carrots and sticks to persuade Iran to roll back a program the United States says is aimed at producing nuclear weapons. But Tehran, which insists its program is peaceful, has time after time played the game by its rules and kept its eyes constantly on a long-term prize: forcing the world to accept its nuclear ambitions on its terms. Barring a last-minute surprise, the passing of Thursday's deadline will start up a potentially divisive debate among the big powers at the U.N. Security Council, where Russia and China have so far opposed any sanctions. The United States will likely push for economic sanctions against Tehran. But it could avoid seeking harsh punishment to start with in hopes of getting Moscow and Beijing's support, then increase the pressure later. Some initial ideas that have been touted are a travel ban on Iranian officials or a ban on sale of dual-use technology to Iran. More extreme would be a freeze on Iranian assets or a broader trade ban - although opposition to that would be strong, particularly since it could cut off badly needed oil exports from Iran. Russia and China, which both have veto powers on the council and have close economic ties to Iran, are likely to stop any punishment they feel is too harsh or would wreck what they say are hopes for a diplomatic solution to the standoff. The United States, in turn, may try to rally other countries to impose economic sanctions of their own, independent of the U.N. Security Council. In any case, a council decision on sanctions won't come for weeks. Ahmadinejad tried Wednesday to weaken European support for sanctions, saying punishment would do nothing to dissuade Iran. ``So it's better for Europe to be independent (of the U.S.) in decision-making and to settle problems through negotiations,'' he said during talks with former Spanish premier Felipe Gonzales, according to state-run television. The United Nations has focused on stopping enrichment because the key process can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or the material for a warhead. ``The problem is the U.S. has very few cards,'' said Anthony Cordesman, a Middle East analyst at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. ``Iran may well have some concerns over sanctions, but as of yet they've seen no evidence that sanctions would do it great harm,'' he said. ``Low-level damage will not lead them to change their behavior.'' In part, Iran has felt free to be defiant, knowing it has the protection of Russia and China. It has succeeded in keeping that umbrella by repeatedly insisting it is open to a diplomatic solution to the standoff. ``Iran is ready to offer guarantees that (technology) won't be diverted toward building a weapon,'' top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, was quoted as saying in Iranian newspapers Wednesday. But it has insisted it has a right to develop uranium enrichment, making it an issue of national pride in a campaign to create a new ``high-tech'' Iran. Iranian leaders have made clear they're willing to bear the economic blow of whatever sanctions are passed rather than give up enrichment. ``We don't know with what language to tell the Europeans and Americans that Iran is not afraid of the U.N. Security Council,'' Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said. That means Thursday will hardly be a climactic milestone in the tussle between Iran and the West. Iran can go on putting forward diplomatic initiatives to try to divide the big powers and keep its room for maneuver, Cordesman said. ``This deadline will invariably be followed by another deadline and another,'' he said. ``This is a game that will play out over five years, not a game that will play out tomorrow.'' ---- Lee Keath covers the Middle East from Cairo, Egypt. AP correspondent Ali Akbar Dareini contributed to this report from Tehran. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 7 IRNA: Iran, Algeria discuss N-issue Algiers, Aug 30, IRNA Algeria-Iran-Nuclear Iran and Algeria here Tuesday discussed latest development in Iran's nuclear case and avenues for bolstering bilateral relations. Visiting Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammad-Reza Baqeri, who is here on the third leg of a tour of regional states, met with Algerian Foreign Minister Mohamed Bedjaoui. "Tehran has responded to the package of incentives offered by West and there is a necessity to discuss latest developments in Iran's nuclear case with Bedjaoui," Baqeri told reporters. Iran on June 6 was offered a package of incentives by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- China, Russia, Britain, France and the United States -- plus Germany (Group 5+1) for it to give up uranium enrichment. On Aug 22, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Larijani presented Tehran's response to the package to ambassadors of the Group 5+1 as well as to the Swiss envoy, whose country takes charge of US interests in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Baqeri said that Iranian foreign policy attaches special importance to Algeria and has always exchanged views with the country on crucial issues affecting the region and the Islamic world. The deputy foreign minister held talks with Egyptian and Syrian officials before flying to Algeria to discuss developments in Iran's nuclear case after it gave its response to the package. ***************************************************************** 8 IRNA: Speaker hopes negotiations will resume after Iran's response to incentives package , Lorestan Prov, Aug 30, IRNA -- Majlis Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel here Wednesday expressed the hope Iran's response to the package of incentives offered by the world's six powers (5+1 Group) would encourage parties to the nuclear issue to return to the negotiating table. Haddad-Adel was speaking to reporters upon his arrival in the western city of Khorramabad. Iran on June 6 was offered a package of incentives by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- China, Russia, Britain, France and the United States -- plus Germany (Group 5+1) for it to give up uranium enrichment. On Aug 22, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Larijani presented Tehran's response to the package to ambassadors of the Group 5+1 as well as to the Swiss envoy, whose country takes charge of US interests in the Islamic Republic of Iran. No details of the response has been revealed while Washington and its European allies are said to be still studying it. Iran has, however, offered to begin serious, unconditional talks to discuss various proposals in the package. The speaker said Iran's response gives the US and its European allies the oppotunity to restart talks to discuss the package of incentives. "At present Iran is not considering pulling out from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)," the speaker said. "Majlis, which speaks for the Iranian people and gives effect to their will, will stand up for them in their right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and has passed a bill for this purpose," he added. Haddad-Adel reiterated that it "is the demand of the Iranian nation, Majlis and government to be able to enjoy this legal right." 2327/2321/1414 ***************************************************************** 9 IRNA: Iran's nuclear policy anchored on need to dismantle world's N-weapons: envoy - Irna Kuala Lumpur, Aug 30, IRNA Iran-Ambassador-Nuclear Iran's principled nuclear policy is based on its stance that the world should be free of all nuclear weapons, Iranian Ambassador to the Philippines Jalal Kalantari said in Manila on Wednesday. Kalantari made the remarks during an interview with the Radio Philippines Network during which he outlined Iran's firm policies on the peaceful use of nuclear energy. He reminded that Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and, as such, its "nuclear activities are carried out in accordance with NPT regulations and under close supervision of the agency." "The IAEA has issued several reports confirming the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear activities," he pointed out. Asked why Iran wants to produce nuclear energy when it has tremendou supplies of oil and gas, he said that "energy consumption is bound to double over the next 20 years," adding that all countries are moving towards cleaner, more reliable and economical energies (to replace fossil fuels). "Iran has also limited oil and gas resources which are bound to be depleted. The welfare of the Iranian nation, continued economic growth and increase in population to over the current 70 million people demand that the country diversify its energy sources," adding that "Iran regards nuclear energy as among such resources." Pointing to Iran's investment in wind and solar energies, the envoy said, "Iran also intends to utilize ground heat energy, which Manila possesses its technical technology." In response to a question on nature of Iran's nuclear program, Kalantari said, "Certain powers intend to damage nuclear characteristics of Iran. Peaceful activities, the IAEA surveillance and Iran's readiness to hold talks are three main characteristic of the country's nuclear activities. "The Islamic Republic of Iran has repeatedly expressed its readiness to prevent measures adopted by certain powers to use nuclear energy for non-peaceful purposes. This is our sustainable policy in regional and international circles." He said security of Iran's nuclear equipment was based on up-to-date technology of the world. "Iran's (Bushehr) power plant is just among tens of nuclear power plants currently under construction in Asia. Sensitivity of certain states to Iran's power plant is politically-motivated," he further stated. ***************************************************************** 10 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI intitled to nuclear technology 2006/08/30 Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad on Tuesday declared support for Iran's right to peaceful use of nuclear technology. In a meeting with the visiting Head of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, Alaeddin Boroujerdi in Kualalumpur, the former Malaysian prime minister said that Iran is being prevented access to peaceful nuclear technology by the very countries which possess the biggest nuclear arsenal. "They are opposing Iran because they believe that they have the sole right to this knowledge," he pointed out. Condemning the double standards of the West in dealing with Iran, he pointed out that the West is opposing Iran's peaceful use of nuclear technology while it is assisting the Zionist regime in building up its nuclear armaments stockpile. For his part, Boroujerdi referred to Iran's response to the package of proposals presented by the 5+1 group and declared Tehran's readiness to continue negotiations on its peaceful nuclear program. He added that Iran has every right to conduct its nuclear activities within the framework of international regulations and IAEA protocols. Boroujerdi arrived in Malaysia early Tuesday. SM Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 11 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI's N-program has civilian nature 2006/08/30 Secretary of Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Larijani said on Tuesday that IRI is ready to give guarantees to European states on the civilian nature of Iranian nuclear program and no diversion for military use. He said in his briefing to the 16th formal session of the Assembly of Experts that unfortunately certain states from the European Union do not want IRI to produce nuclear energy. Larijani said that five states from the European Union have announced their interest in resolving the crisis through negotiations away from the Security Council dictation. He said that the package of proposals had either positive or negative points and IRI accepted to continue negotiations on the basis of the package. Larijani recalled the negotiations in Brussels when IRI had demanded enough time to consider earlier proposals of the European Union (EU), but, the European partners referred the case to the Security Council contrary to their promise not to do so. He blamed America's miscalculation for the controversy over Iranian nuclear program citing America's procrastination over drafting resolution of the United Nations Security Council when American officials were saying that Lebanese resistance movement would be ended in a matter of days. "America has again miscalculated matters concerning Iranian nuclear program. Washington believed that IRI will not give reply to the package of proposals, but, IRI gave a full response to the package as per a call from United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan on August 22." M/D Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 12 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Iran, China discuss nuclear issue 2006/08/30 Iran and China Wednesday discussed latest developments in Iran's nuclear issue. Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs Abbas Araqchi, who is currently on a visit to Beijing, met with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing. The two sides exchanged views on the need to continue pursuing the diplomatic channel to try to resolve the nuclear issue as well as the Iranian response to the package of proposals offered by the EU. On Aug 22, Iran's Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Larijani presented Tehran's response to the package to ambassadors of the EU as well as to the Swiss envoy, whose country takes charge of America interests in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Li said his country has always stressed settlement of the nuclear standoff with Iran through peaceful ways. The two officials also discussed avenues for bolstering bilateral relations in various fields. In a related development, Araqchi met with China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs Deputy Cui Tiankai and discussed bilateral relations as well as the possibility of finding a diplomatic and peaceful way out to the nuclear standoff. M.H.Z Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 13 AFP: Iran envoy and China's foreign minister discuss nuclear issue - [Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi] BEIJING (AFP) - Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing has met with Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to discuss the Iranian nuclear issue, the Chinese government said. "The two sides mainly exchanged views on developments in the Iranian nuclear issue," the Chinese foreign ministry said in a statement posted on its website, following the meeting in Beijing. "They emphasized the issue should be appropriately resolved through negotiations," the statement added. It said Araghchi had met with Assistant Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai on Tuesday. The meetings took place ahead of an August 31 United Nations Security Council deadline for Iran to halt sensitive atomic work. China last week urged the Islamic republic to be constructive in its dealings on the issue. "China hopes Iran will earnestly consider the concerns of the international community and adopt the necessary constructive measures," the foreign ministry said at the time. China hoped "the other parties will maintain calm and patience and exercise flexibility while persisting in the direction towards a peaceful solution, so as to create conditions for a speedy resumption of talks," it said. "It is China's consistent belief that the peaceful solution to the Iran nuclear issue through diplomatic negotiations is the optimal choice, and is also in accordance with the interests of all parties," the ministry added. Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 14 AFP: Iran's atomic chief to visit Russia next week Wednesday August 30, 12:07 PM [Gholamreza Aghazadeh] TEHRAN (AFP) - The head of Iran's atomic energy organisation will hold talks in Moscow next week on a nuclear offer from world powers and the completion of Iran's first nuclear reactor. "Next week I will head a delegation going to Moscow to discuss the offer of the 5+1 countries with Russian officials," Gholamreza Aghazadeh told the semi-official Mehr agency, referring to a proposed deal over Tehran's nuclear programme from the five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany. The offer is a package of incentives that requires Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, a sensitive process that Tehran has refused to halt despite a looming UN Security Council deadline on Thursday for it to do so. Aghazadeh did not specify the date of the visit. He said he would also have discussions on "finalising the definitive date for the start of the Bushehr (nuclear) power station and when nuclear fuel for the plant will be supplied," he said Wednesday. The construction of Iran's first atomic power plant near the southern coastal city of Bushehr, being built with Russian help since 1995, is expected to be completed by the end of 2007 after a string of delays. Russia has also agreed to provide nuclear fuel for the plant, with the supply deal committing Iran to returning any spent material. AFP ***************************************************************** 15 IRNA: Iran, China discuss nuclear issue Beijing, Aug 30, IRNA China-Iran-Nuclear Iran and China here Wednesday discussed latest developments in Iran's nuclear case. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs Abbas Araqchi, who is currently on a visit to Beijing, met with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing. The two sides exchanged views on the need to continue pursuing the diplomatic channel to try to resolve the nuclear issue as well as the Iranian response to the package of incentives offered by the world's six powers (5+1 Group). Iran on June 6 was offered a package of incentives by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- China, Russia, Britain, France and the United States -- plus Germany in exchange for a freeze on its uranium enrichment activities. On aug 22, Iran's Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC)Ali Larijani presented Tehran's response to the package to ambassadors of the 5+1 Group as well as to the Swiss envoy, whose country takes charge of US interests in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Li said his country has always stressed settlement of the nuclear standoff with Iran through peaceful ways. The two officials also discussed avenues for bolstering bilateral relations in various fields. In a related development, Araqchi met with China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs Deputy Cui Tiankai and discussed bilateral relations as well as the possibility of finding a diplomatic and peaceful way out to the nuclear standoff. The current visit is Araqchi's second to Beijing since the start of his tenure. He first visited China in June 2006. ***************************************************************** 16 AFP: Major powers expected to meet next week on Iran sanctions - Wed Aug 30, 5:55 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The major powers will meet in Europe early next week to discuss imposing sanctions against Iran" /> Iranif Tehran fails to meet Thursday's UN deadline for suspending its suspect nuclear activities, the State Department said. But department spokesman Sean McCormack said the discussions could last some time before sanctions are actually imposed and he indicated Iran had additional time beyond Thursday to abandon its nuclear program. On the eve of the deadline, which Iran has given every indication it will ignore, McCormack said Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns was expected to meet officials from Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia early next week for the first "formal meeting" on sanctions. Talks on specific language for a United Nations" /> United Nationsresolution imposing the sanctions will also take place at UN headquarters in New York involving US Ambassador John Bolton and his counterparts from the permanent members of the Security Council, said the spokesman, Sean McCormack. "I'm sure that John will probably start consultations among his counterparts up in New York after the 31st, but the first formal meeting, I think, will probably be Nick Burns with P-5-plus-one," he said, referring to the five permanent members plus Germany. McCormack did not say exactly when or where the Europe meeting would take place. The Security Council has given Iran until Thursday to suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities, which Washington and its allies suspect are a cover for production of nuclear weapons. Iran insists its nuclear program is for the civilian production of energy only and has repeatedly said it will not halt the program. The United States has for months been warning that it will seek swift sanctions against Tehran if it misses the UN deadline, and McCormack said Wednesday Washington wanted the first UN sanctions resolution to "send a substantial signal to the Iranian regime that this is serious business." But he also said "intensive discussion" on the sanctions could drag on, giving Iran further opportunities to accept the UN conditions. "It doesn't mean at any point along the line here, even while those discussions are ongoing, that Iran can't come to the P-5-plus-one and say, 'We are going to meet the conditions'" of the UN resolution," he said. Iran announced earlier Wednesday that its top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, would meet next week in Europe with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, creating another opportunity for Tehran to address the UN demands. The United States has provided few specifics of the sanctions it will seek if Iran fails to comply, other than to say it wants a progressive package of punitive measures to be phased in over time. These are expected to begin with minor steps like travel bans on Iranian officials and a freeze on Iranian assets, but could escalate into a broader embargo on trade or foreign investment in Iran. Russia and China, which both have extensive economic relations with Iran, have expressed strong reservations about imposing sanctions and negotiations over the issue are likely to be heated. Iran's heavily oil-dependent economy has endured wide-ranging sanctions ever since the 1979 Islamic revolution and economists doubt whether new penalties would strangle its activity. But as one of the world's major oil producers, Iran could retaliate by cutting its petroleum exports. World crude oil futures rose Wednesday amid jitters over the looming crisis. Meanwhile, diplomats in Vienna, where the UN nuclear watchdog is headquartered, said Iran had begun a new round of uranium enrichment in defiance of Thursday's deadline. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 17 AFP: US confident of getting UN sanctions against Iran in September - Wed Aug 30, 6:55 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States predicted confidently that the UN Security Council will impose sanctions on Iran" /> Iranwithin a month given Tehran's apparent intention to ignore a Thursday deadline for suspending its suspect nuclear activities. "I think it's abundantly clear that Iran has no intention of meeting the deadline and meeting the condition that the countries put down three months ago," Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said. "We believe the sanctions regime will be agreed to in September by the security council and we're going to work towards that with a great deal of energy and determination," he said on CNN television. Burns, the State Department's third ranking diplomat, is expected to meet officials from Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia early next week in Europe for the first "formal meeting" on sanctions, a department spokesman said. Talks on specific language for the UN resolution imposing the sanctions will also be taking place in coming days UN headquarters in New York, said the spokesman, Sean McCormack. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 18 AFP: Iran started new uranium enrichment days ahead of deadline - diplomats - by Michael Adler Wed Aug 30, 3:29 PM ET VIENNA (AFP) - Iran" /> started a new round of enriching uranium only days ahead of the United Nations" /> deadline on Thursday for it to stop the strategic nuclear fuel work or face possible sanctions, diplomats told AFP. "They put in small quantities of (feedstock) uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas last week," into a cascade line of 164 centrifuges in Natanz which enrich uranium, a diplomat close to the UN-watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency" /> (IAEA) said Wednesday. A second diplomat, who like the first asked not to be named, said the Iranians were doing this "to underscore the point that they are not going to stop enrichment-related activities." The UN Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities by August 31, amid US-led concerns that Tehran's nuclear programme is a cover for an attempt to produce an atomic bomb. Six world powers have also proposed talks on Iran receiving trade, technology and security benefits if it suspends enrichment. Uranium enrichment makes fuel for civilian nuclear reactors but in highly refined form can serve as the raw material for atom bombs. The diplomat said the amount of UF6 gas being fed was very small, "under 10 kilos", and that the work was continuing this week. IAEA inspectors were in Iran as late as Wednesday. The UN watchdog is expected to confirm in a report Thursday that Iran has failed to freeze enrichment, opening the door to possible Security Council sanctions against Tehran. US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said senior officials from Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States would meet in Europe early next week to begin discussing sanctions against Iran. But discussions on specific language for a possible UN sanctions resolution would take place at UN headquarters in New York involving US Ambassador John Bolton and his counterparts from the permanent members of the Security Council, McCormack said Wednesday. Iran has made clear that it intends to pursue nuclear fuel work. "Production of nuclear fuel is one of Iran's strategic objectives," Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said Sunday. Russia and China are reluctant to impose sanctions, even though US officials said these two countries have promised to honor a commitment to crack down on Iran if it refuses the conditions for the international benefits package. Diplomats have said a compromise solution was being floated to allow Iran to not actually enrich uranium but only work with "dry running" centrifuges. But US officials have said that even spinning centrifuges dry, with inert gas for example, would help Iran move towards the so-called "break-out capacity" of having the technology needed to make nuclear weapons. Diplomats said Iran had paused in actual enrichment until last week as it had been running centrifuges dry, without the feedstock gas. Iran had started rounds of feeding the 164-cascade Natanz in April and in June, producing small amounts of enriched uranium, far below the quality and quantity needed for weapons, the IAEA has reported. Iran is also running a 10-centrifuge and a 20-centrifuge cascade, as it researches techniques for using centrifuges to enrich uranium, a diplomat close to the IAEA said. A diplomat said Iran had been feeding the cascades "periodically," even though they could have been doing this work continuously. "They want to show that they are doing enrichment but they don't want to upset the applecart by sticking it in the face of the West," the diplomat said. The IAEA is also expected to report Thursday that Iran is not fully cooperating with its inspections. Iran earlier this month blocked IAEA inspectors from visiting a key underground site and diplomats said Iranian authorities are making life increasingly difficult for its investigators in other ways, even if the UN watchdog is still able to monitor the country's nuclear programme. But one diplomat said IAEA inspectors were able this week to see the underground site at Natanz, where there are no centrifuges yet installed but which is destined to house tens of thousands of the machines. The 164-centrifuge pilot cascade is above ground at Natanz. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 19 IRNA: Determined efforts to peacefully solve Iran's N-case will yield fruit - , Aug 30, IRNA -- An Iranian official said here Wednesday that a strong determination by all sides to the nuclear issue to achive a peaceful and diplomatic solution will yield fruit. Deputy Iranian Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs, Abbas Araqchi, who has just concluded a visit to Beijing, made the remarks while addressing a meeting with Chinese researchers and diplomats before departing for Tokyo. In the meeting, he outlined latest developments in Iran's nuclear case and urged the 5+1 Group to resume talks on a win-win atmosphere. Iran on June 6 was offered a package of incentives by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- China, Russia, Britain, France and the United States -- plus Germany (Group 5+1) for it to give up uranium enrichment. On Aug 22, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Larijani presented Tehran's response to the package to ambassadors of the Group 5+1 as well as to the Swiss envoy, whose country takes charge of US interests in the Islamic Republic of Iran. "Iran's response to the incentives package was balanced and pressed recognition of Iran's rights as well as its obligation to honor commitments, the need to be transparent, to cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), take more confidence-building measure and lay the groundwork for this purpose." Araqchi further said that "long-term economic cooperation particularly in the oil and gas field and in energy security as well as Iran's readiness to resume constructive and fruitful negotiations were among other points mentioned in the response (it gave to the West's package of incentives)" Araqchi said. He reminded that the Islamic Republic of Iran "would press for recognition of its indisputable right to peaceful nuclear energy while remaining committed to its undertakings under the NPT." The official criticized the United States for its "hostile" attitude towards Iran, and recalled that "Washington has been putting pressure on Iran in the last 27 years (since the victory of the Islamic Revolution) through attempted coup d'etats, economic sanctions and support to the former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's military offensive on Iran, but all such efforts failed." Pointing to the near three years of talks held between Iran and Europe to remove concerns over the nature of Iran's nuclear activities, Araqchi said that confidence-building measures taken by Iran over these years have all come to naught and point to the fact that the West cannot be relied upon to fulfill its commitments. "The US and European states accuse Iran of buying time, but they themselves wasted over five months studying Iran's proposals and in the ned gave no convincing response." He assessed as "positive" Iran's approach to the nuclear issue and expressed hope the case would be settled through peaceful and diplomatic channels. Araqchi said that his visit to Beijing was intended to continue regular consultations between Iranian and Chinese diplomats. "China has always supported efforts to reach a peaceful and diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear case, a stance which is appreciated by Iran," he said. ***************************************************************** 20 AFP: France ready to talk to Iran to end nuclear crisis Tue Aug 29, 6:21 AM ET PARIS (AFP) - France is ready to renew dialogue with Iran" /> Iranon ending the standoff over its nuclear program but will continue to insist that Tehran suspend uranium enrichment, Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said. "The Iranian authorities say they are open to dialogue and ready to resume discussions," Douste-Blazy told a meeting of French ambassadors. "Without abandoning the demand to suspend sensitive activities, France is also ready to renew dialogue. "But it must be a clear, concrete and responsible dialogue," he said Tuesday. "We want this dialogue quickly, with a desire for serious discussion and with the concern to finally find solutions to the Iranian nuclear problem." The UN Security Council has given Iran until August 31 to suspend uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities -- which Tehran says is part of a civilian nuclear programme -- or face the threat of sanctions. A package of incentives backed by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- the United States, France, Britain, Russia and China -- plus Germany is dependent on Tehran first agreeing to suspend enrichment. Few details have emerged of Iran's response to the package but the United States has already warned it would lead moves to impose sanctions if the reply fell short of Security Council demands. "At the moment, Tehran's response to proposals from the international community is not satisfactory," Douste-Blazy said. "It remains ambiguous and seems to continue to ignore the essential question of sensitive nuclear activities, that is to say enrichment and reprocessing. "This move is essential to re-establish confidence between all the parties to the negotiations," he told the ambassadors at their annual meeting in Paris. Uranium enrichment can produce the fuel for the generation of nuclear power, or in extended form can be the fissile core of an atomic bomb. In a foreign policy speech on Monday, French President Jacques Chirac" /> President Jacques Chiracsaid Iran, as a "major, responsible country", must "take the necessary steps in order to create the conditions for trust." "Iran will not find security by developing clandestine programmes, but by becoming fully part of the international community," he said. The same day Douste-Blazy and his German counterpart Frank-Walter Steinmeier echoed Chriac's call in a meeting in Paris, where the French foreign minister's office said they agreed "it is necessary to allow for the possibility of dialogue with the Iranians". Western countries, led by the US, believe Iran wants to build nuclear weapons, but the Islamic republic insists it only wants to develop civilian nuclear power and has the right to master the required technology. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 21 Asia Times: Korea News - Why Pyongyang is going nuclear By Kim Myong-chol Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing. The time is coming fast to decide who is the winner and who the loser in the long-standing conflict between the Korean people, with a history of 5,000 years - proud descendants of Dankun and Paedal Korea and Koguryo - and the United States, with a history of a mere 200 years. The Korean people have many scores to settle with the US. The North Korean government of Kim Jong-il is going to show who the real masters of Korea are by winning the nuclear standoff with the US. The Korean people adamantly refuse to be second-class citizens, but are determined to prove that they are sovereign masters of the Land of Morning Calm. The Korean-US conflict began long before the late Kim Il-sung and his son, current North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, were born. It was nearly 150 ago, in 1866 when the US gunboat General Sherman raided Pyongyang. The final stage of the conflict is in the present nuclear standoff between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the United States. Kim Jong-il and his North Korean people have long-standing scores to settle with the US and its allies. Scene I of the first stage is the declaration of nuclear-weapons status. Scene II is to show beyond doubt that North Korea has the nuclear capability to settle the old scores with the US. The six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program are practically dead, with the US tightening the financial noose around Pyongyang, killing the September 19, 2005, joint statement in which the US and other participants pledged to respect the sovereignty of North Korea. The July 15 United Nations resolution, adopted with Chinese and Russian support, makes a most blatant mockery of the independence, sovereignty and liberty of North Korea and its people as it denounces them for their routine exercise of their sovereign rights. The Pyongyang leadership and its people are well aware that the big powers are not reliable and their nuclear umbrella is porous and hard to unfold. True, the Korean People's Army (KPA)is capable of repelling invading physically superior US forces, but it is apparent that the KPA, armed only with conventional weapons, cannot be expected to keep Korean land from being ravaged by the Americans. Such a KPA would not be powerful enough to settle the old scores with the US. Some people may cite primitiveness of the KPA's hardware as a key reason for doubting that the KPA would win a war with the US. What is lacking in such an analysis is proper understanding of how war is won. Should these people's view be correct, how could they account for why the US lost in the Korean War and the Vietnam War? Why is the US losing its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why did Israel lose to Hezbollah? There are three critical factors: the first is mental, the spirit of martyrdom and discipline; the second intellectual, the art of war; and the third physical, weapons. The third is ineffective in the absence of the first two. All the national heroes of Korea, including General Ulchi Mundok of Koguryo and Admiral Li Sung-sin of the Li Dynasty, heroically drove back invaders from China and Japan. The late Kim Il-sung beat the Japanese colonialists but was unable to stop the Americans and the Russians from splitting the liberated Korean Peninsula into two. He became the first in the world to win a full-blown war with the US, but dismally failed to deter the enemy from devastating the Land of Morning Calm as the previous two national heroes did. Most important, none of those national heroes succeeded in building up adequate long-range attack capability to strike the heart of the enemy. All the wars the Korean people had to fight were limited to the Korean theater. Once outside the Korean borders, the foreign invaders remained intact. However, this is no longer the case since Kim Jong-il has embraced the tamul-inspired (tamul is an ancient Koguryo term meaning standing up to a big power, developing newer weapons and restoring the lost land to settle long-standing scores with the enemy) army-first policy, upholding the banner of the samjoku (three-legged black bird symbolizing three gods - heaven, man and the good earth; it also symbolizes the sun, life, harmony and people). He has successfully equipped the KPA with nuclear weapons, including hydrogen bombs, and their intercontinental means of delivery, after transforming the whole land into a national underground fortress. For the first time in the Korean history of 5,000 years, the dedicated sacrifices of the patriotic Korean population have enabled supreme leader Kim Jong-il and his armed forces to acquire military capability to go directly to the heart of the enemy. The KPA is now capable of detonating hydrogen bombs far above the metropolises of the US in case of war. The Koreans are now able to fight nuclear war on the Japanese and US battlegrounds. The government of Kim Jong-il and his armed forces should welcome any US preemptive strike on Korea. If North Korea should happen not to resist, US attacks on missile sites and nuclear facilities in the country would all too naturally shower massive lethal radioactive fallout on the Japanese archipelago in a quantity produced by 150 hydrogen bombs. There should be no doubt that the government of Kim Jong-il and his armed forces would never allow the enemy to attack first. On detecting the slightest signs that the US intends to launch a first strike, Kim would order his armed forces to move first and blaze key US metropolitan targets with high-precision nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), several exploding at high altitudes. It goes without saying that operating nuclear power stations would be prime targets, sitting ducks. The stage is being put in place where North Korea will demonstrate its potential capability for the rest of the world to see. Korean scientists and engineers are ready to detonate nuclear devices at any time on orders from Supreme Leader Kim Jong-il. More and more nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles are being cranked out on a crash-program basis in a bid to catapult North Korea to the spot of the third-most-powerful nuclear-weapons state just after the US and Russia. There is no worry about further isolation and sanctions. North Korea is unique in East Asia in that it has been technically at a state of war with the US more than half a century, subject to that country's nuclear threats longer and harder than any other member of what the US terms the "axis of evil". The US has applied all available sanctions on North Korea. Unlike the other so-called "axis of evil" states, North Korea is a nuclear-weapons state and has the will and capability to torch urban US. With history as the guide, the North Koreans are great at badly mauling big enemies. They routed Sui China and Tang China. They routed the Toyotomi invasion forces out of Korea. They were the first to drive fear into US troops. As a US history book notes, North Korea controlled ground warfare in the last Korean War with Korean pilots downing many US warplanes. They helped Egypt win the fourth Mideast war with Israel and the Vietnamese win the liberation war with the US. Kim Jong-il outfoxed US president Lyndon Johnson into accepting all the North Korean demands over the 1968 Pueblo case. A three-aircraft-carrier naval attack force withdrew from Korean waters without attempting to take back the spy ship USS Pueblo. Later, the team led by US president Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger was awed into ordering withdrawal of a mobilized four-aircraft-carrier attack force from the scene as defense secretary Melvin Laird warned that most of the attacking US warplanes would risk being shot down. The 1976 Poplar Tree Incident ended with US president Gerald Ford agreeing to demarcate into two the joint security area of Panmunjom. The only physical action the US managed to carry out was to cut down a poplar tree with an escort of martial-arts experts with B-52s circling overhead as a one-flattop battle group steamed into Korean waters. [1] The 1993-94 nuclear standoff between North Korea and the US is distinguished from the previous three rounds of military showdowns in that a suspected nuclear-weapons state was pitted against the world's largest nuclear-weapons state. Then-US president Bill Clinton, however, ended up striking the landmark 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea and subsequently issuing the 1999 Perry Report. In 1993 North Korea test-fired long-range missiles into waters off Hawaii and Guam, but the US kept the fact secret from the Japanese for five years. In 1998 North Korea launched a long-range rocket to put a satellite into orbit, which the US called a failure. The current US administration of President George W Bush declared the doctrine of nuclear preemption after North Korea threatened to launch retaliatory nuclear strikes on the continental US. North Korea has test-fired ICBMs and now threatens to conduct nuclear-detonation experiments. The most significant aspect about the ongoing nuclear standoff is that Bush has allowed Kim Jong-il to earn North Korea the most coveted membership of the elite nuclear club. Since his country is now a member of the nuclear club, Kim has lost any appetite for talks with the US. His interest is in how to settle the long-standing scores of the Korean people with the US. Former US president Jimmy Carter noted in a September 2, 2003, op-ed in USA Today: "It is a cultural and almost sacred commitment for its [North Korea's] leaders not to back down, even in the face of international condemnation and the most severe political and economic pressure ... Notwithstanding their abysmal economic failures and the resulting hardships of their people, North Korean leaders have never deviated from a commitment to military strength. They maintain a formidable army, with artillery and missiles able to wreak great destruction on Seoul and the northern portion of South Korea, regardless of how much punishment North Koreans might have to absorb during a US attack or counterattack. The development of advanced rocketry and now a potential nuclear capability is further proof of their scientific resources." Note 1. The Poplar Tree Incident, also known as the Ax Murder Incident, occurred after the United Nations Command sent five Korean Service Corps personnel into the Joint Security Area of the Demilitarized Zone to trim a 30-meter poplar tree that was blocking the view of North Korean troops' activities. A dispute with Northern troops followed, resulting in KPA soldiers attacking the tree-trimming party with axes. Several South Koreans were injured and two US soldiers died. Kim Myong-chol is author of a number of books and papers in Korean, Japanese and English on North Korea. He is executive director of the Center for Korean-American Peace. He has a PhD from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's Academy of Social Sciences and is often called an "unofficial" spokesman of Kim Jong-il and North Korea. (Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.) Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing. Head Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau: 11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110 ***************************************************************** 22 AFP: NKorea leader might be on China visit - Wednesday August 30, 07:33 AM [Kim Jong-Il] SEOUL (AFP) - North Korea's reclusive leader Kim Jong-Il might be on a visit to China, news reports said here. The Dong-A daily and YTN television in South Korea quoted unidentified government officials as saying that a special train which might take Kim to China was seen crossing the border on Tuesday. "We have received an intelligence report that a special train was headed for China Tuesday," a government official was quoted as saying by Dong-A. "However we have no confirmation (Advertisement) [Click Here] [ src=] from the Chinese government as to whether Kim Jong-Il is on a China visit," he said. South Korean government officials said they had no information concerning such a special train or Kim's reported visit to China. "We have no information. We are checking the reports," a spokesman of the Unification Ministry said. A spokesman of the foreign ministry said the ministry was not in a position to comment on any reports concerning intelligence. The reports came after China had reportedly invited Kim Jong-Il to visit "as soon as possible" amid reports that Pyongyang was preparing for a nuclear bomb test, South Korean media said last week. Beijing "has asked Kim to visit China as soon as possible, as it believes such a visit will help resolve problems" related to North Korea's July missile tests, Yonhap news agency said at the time. If confirmed, it would be Kim's first visit to China since his week-long tour in January, when he travelled to Shanghai, China's southern economic showcase province of Guangdong, and finally Beijing for talks with Chinese leaders. Kim at that time held talks with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Beijing to discuss the stalled six-party talks on ending North Korea's nuclear weapons programme and "agreed to maintain the stand of seeking a negotiated peaceful solution to the issue", Pyongyang's official Korean Central News Agency said. Kim is known to have visited China four times since 2000 and each time Pyongyang and Beijing acknowledged Kim's trip only after he returned home. Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved. AFP ***************************************************************** 23 Guardian Unlimited: South Korea on Watch for Nuclear Test From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday August 29, 2006 7:46 PM AP Photo SEL104 By BURT HERMAN Associated Press Writer DAEJEON, South Korea (AP) - A serene South Korean earthquake center has become the front line of the world's vigil for North Korea's first nuclear test, monitoring the peninsula's geological pulse with seismic sensors and sound detectors. The Korea Earthquake Research Center recently was put on 24-hour watch as fears grew about a possible test. The Defense Ministry sent soldiers to scrutinize the center's wall of video screens, which display skittering graphs of data from some 90 seismic stations across South Korea. Alert systems have been installed to link government institutions with the earthquake center 100 miles south of Seoul. U.S. and Japanese media this month reported that intelligence agencies were monitoring suspicious activity at a suspected North Korean underground nuclear test site, detecting moving vehicles and cables that could be used to connect the test site to aboveground diagnostic equipment. Many experts believe the North has enough radioactive material to make at least a half-dozen bombs. The North has claimed it has nuclear weapons, but no test proving it has been detected. On Monday, the head of South Korea's intelligence agency, Kim Seung-kyu, said the North was ready to test a nuclear device at any time, but there was no direct sign that the communist nation was preparing a detonation. Still, the South Korean center remains on the lookout using two methods: infrasound and seismic waves. The most reliable means of confirming a nuclear test would be from infrasound - ultra-low noises from an explosion below the range of human hearing. Such infrasound can travel up to 620 miles, depending on wind direction, and would provide a relatively quick indication of a nuclear test, said Chi Heon-cheol, director of the earthquake center at the Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources in Daejeon. In the Demilitarized Zone dividing the Koreas, the center has deployed four infrasound arrays with tubes that detect minute changes in air pressure. The network was completed several years ago and can also be used to detect other North Korean activity, such as the movement of tanks, Chi noted. But even a blast as powerful as a nuclear explosion could be difficult to immediately confirm if the North thoroughly seals the underground site, Chi said. So the center can also measure seismic tremors, although they would be less conclusive, Chi said. If suspicious tremors were detected, experts would evaluate the data and determine whether they showed a nuclear blast or a natural earthquake. The process would take two to three hours. Though the team's results would not be ``completely guaranteed,'' they would be able to determine a ``very, very high possibility'' that a nuclear test had occurred if a certain kind of tremor is detected, Chi said. A North Korean nuclear explosion would likely generate the force of an earthquake measuring at least magnitude 4.2 and as strong as magnitude 5.0, Chi said. The United States also is expected to be watching for any signs of a test with satellites and reconnaissance aircraft such as high-flying U-2 spy planes that regularly draw the North's ire for flying near its territory. The North would be monitoring a nuclear test with seismic sensors of its own, Chi said, to determine the blast's power and other data. The United States, China, Japan, Russia and South Korea have tried to persuade the North to abandon its nuclear program at six-party negotiations that have been on hold since November. The issue has taken on new urgency after Pyongyang raised tensions in early July by test-firing seven missiles over international objections. The 1950-53 Korean War, in which the U.S. fought alongside the South, ended in a truce, not a peace treaty, leaving the peninsula still technically at war. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 24 AP Wire: Owner says no huge bomb test at southern Indiana quarry 08/30/2006 | Associated Press MITCHELL, Ind. - A southern Indiana limestone quarry will not be used by the U.S. military as the testing site for a powerful new bomb intended to penetrate solid rock formations, a congressman and the site's owner said. Rogers Group's Mitchell Quarry about 30 miles south of Bloomington had been mentioned as a possible site for a test, named "Divine Strake," that involves detonating 700 tons of explosives. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency has declined to say whether the site was under consideration for the test, but Greg Gould, a vice president of Nashville, Tenn.-based Rogers Group, said no immense military bomb blasts would take place there. "We do not intend to have any blast beyond what we typically have for our mining operations," Gould said. "Rogers Group has not been in contact with the DTRA about Divine Strake, and we do not expect to be." U.S. Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., said Tuesday he had been told by the agency that the Divine Strake test would not be conducted in Indiana. The test had at first been planned for June at the Nevada Test Site as part of an effort to design a weapon that can destroy bunkers in which a country might store nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. Environmentalists and some residents had objected to moving the Divine Strake test to southern Indiana. The military has confirmed testing up to 1.5 tons of explosives at the Mitchell Quarry in detonations between July 2004 and March 2005. Mitchell Mayor Morris Chastain said he was relieved by word that the quarry would not be the large bomb test site. ***************************************************************** 25 UPI: Navy increases nuclear officer bonuses United Press International - Security &Terrorism - 8/30/2006 2:44:00 PM -0400 WASHINGTON, Aug. 30 (UPI) -- Concerned about retention rates of nuclear specialists the United States Navy is nearly doubling retention bonuses for nuclear-trained O-6 officers. Nuclear officer program manager Cmdr. Butch Dollaga said that the re-enlistment bonuses would rise from $12,500 to $22,000 per year. Dollaga added that the Navy is simultaneously lowering retention bonuses for a three-year commitment for other, lower grade nuclear officers in order to impel them to sign longer contracts. Stars and Stripes reported on Aug. 29 that the number of submarine captains who have retired since 2003 has increased by 20 percent, leaving the Navy 37 nuclear submarine captains short of its fiscal 2006 projections. The Navy hopes that the increased fiscal incentives will allow it to retain 130 captains eligible for the increased pay, including 90 submarine captains, 20 nuclear surface warfare captains and 20 nuclear-trained aviators. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights ***************************************************************** 26 AFP: Security Council unlikely to take action when UN deadline for Iran expires - Wed Aug 30, 6:22 PM ET UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The UN Security Council is unlikely to take action when a deadline for Iran" /> Iranto suspend its uranium enrichment activities expires, its current president said Wednesday. "Most likely nothing will happen tomorrow," Ghana's UN Ambassador Nana Effah-Apenteng, the council president for August, told reporters. UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric for his part said International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) chief Mohamed El Baradei would simultaneously transmit his report on the Iranian nuclear issue to both the chairman of the IAEA Board and to Effah-Apenteng by early afternoon Thursday. The UN Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities by August 31, with Western countries suspecting that Tehran's nuclear program hides a bid to develop an atomic bomb. The five permanent members of the council -- Britan, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany have sought to coax Tehran into suspending enrichment by offering a package of security, trade and technology incentives. But Iran has made clear that it intends to pursue uranium enrichment which it began earlier this year. Enrichment makes fuel for nuclear power reactors but can also produce the raw material for atom bombs. In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns would meet senior officials from Britain, China, France, Russia and Germany early next week to discuss sanctions. Discussions on specific language for a possible UN sanctions resolution would take place at UN headquarters in New York involving US Ambassador John Bolton and his counterparts from the permanent members of the Security Council, he said. "I would expect the dossier to come back into the council shortly, but only after a further period of discussion among capitals," Britain's UN Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry told reporters Tuesday. "I would expect activities here to resume toward the middle of September." But Bolton told reporters here Wednesday: "I expect we will be talking about what to do well before that." In Vienna, diplomats said Iran started a new round of enriching uranium only days ahead of the Security Council deadline. "They put in small quantities of (feedstock) uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas last week," into a cascade line of 164 centrifuges in Natanz which enrich uranium, a diplomat close to the IAEA said Wednesday. But Russia and China are reluctant to impose sanctions, even though US officials said these two countries have promised to honor a commitment to crack down on Iran if it rejects the conditions for the incentive package. Diplomats said a compromise solution was being floated to allow Iran to not actually enrich uranium but only work with "dry running" centrifuges. But US officials have said that even spinning centrifuges dry, with inert gas for example, would help Iran move towards the so-called "break-out capacity" of having the technology needed to make nuclear weapons. Diplomats said Iran had paused in actual enrichment until last week as it had been running centrifuges dry, without the feedstock gas. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 27 Guardian: Comment is free: If the unthinkable happens We shouldn't disregard worst-case scenarios - especially when it comes to US plans for Iran. John Gittings August 30, 2006 The US, we have been told in the past week, may "bypass the UN" on Iran and go it alone, forming an "independent coalition" to impose sanctions on Tehran. The formal expiry tomorrow (August 31) of the UN deadline for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment will mark the start of a new stage in this crisis. It also adds force to a much bigger question: is the US now preparing, and if so how seriously, to "go it alone" by taking military action against Iran? The last time this was suggested was by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorkerin April. As often happens with his stories, this one became polemicised with, broadly speaking, his conclusions being accepted by anti-war commentators and rubbished as anti-US propaganda by supporters of the Bush administration (though it's not clear why they should regard it as anti-US to suggest that Bush might go to war again - since they have applauded him for doing so before). This time the hypothesis is not confined to Hersh. According to a United Press International editorial analysis(and UPI is not known for its radical views): "...odds makers are betting that sometime before the end of his second term, President Bush will order a massive air attack on a wide range of carefully selected targets in Iran, in partnership with Israel, and against the advice of many of his advisers." Bush is said to be convinced that a nuclear Iran would pose an intolerable threat to US security - and convinced too that God agrees with him. A similar scenario is proposed by Ron Hutcheson, Washington correspondent of McClatchy Newspapers (the second biggest US newspaper company which has just bought out Knight Ridder) in a commentarypublished last weekend: "Armed conflict isn't imminent or inevitable, and it wouldn't necessarily take the form of a full-scale invasion. Airstrikes alone might be the choice. But the possibility of military action lurks on the sidelines of the diplomatic dance that will play out over the coming months at the UN Security Council ... The steps to war could follow the same path that led to the invasion of Iraq: The UN passes a resolution demanding an end to Iranian nuclear weapons development, then fails to enforce it. Bush prods the UN to support words with action. The UN dithers. Bush unleashes the US military." Finally, former CIA analyst Ray Close, someone more clearly identified as a critic of Bush, wrote in Counterpunch: "I reluctantly believe today that Bush will indeed launch an attack on Iran before the expiration of his term of office ... I am told that Bush has been persuaded by some military advisers that Stratcom (Strategic Air Command) has a workable plan for a comprehensive attack to be launched almost simultaneously against 1500 targets in Iran that will effectively prevent any Iranian retaliation, and will obviate the need for a major ground operation or post-conflict occupation." At this point, one usually hears the argument that the US has hundreds of contingency plans to bomb practically anywhere in the world, from China to Peru, and that it does not mean there is any intention or likelihood to use any particular one. That may be so, but it is now being reported that the plan relating to Iran is not just "conceptual" but "operational" - and it would be surprising if it were not so. So, with apologies to Jack Straw, a US military attack on Iran is not "nuts": it may actually happen yet. It is still only a possibility, and it may be talked up by neo-cons who want it to happen. But recent history has shown that it can be a mistake to scoff at worst-case scenarios and call them unthinkable. Otherwise we may wake up one day to find that Britain (plus Israel and no one else) has joined an alarming new "coalition" for war. About webfeeds Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006. Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396 Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR ***************************************************************** 28 Evacuating Katrina: Lessons Not Learned from Three Mile Island August 30, 2006 Dear Editor: One year after Katrina many questions have not been answered about emergency planning, and the government¹s ability to safely evacuate special need¹s populations. What I know based on our experience at Three Mile Island is that trust in the government is a sacred bond that can not be restored through empty promises. Central Pennsylvania is middle America. We enjoy holiday parades, Friday night football, and old-fashioned everything. We welcome the change of seasons, and pretty much stay put from generation to generation. We¹re used to America coming to us, and visiting Gettysburg, marveling at the Amish, and eating Hershey Chocolate. My father admired the technology that was Three Mile Island. Driving past the nuclear power plant he confidently welcomed the billowing steam clouds. Many residents boated, fished or water skied around the Island. School students routinely were paraded through the plant to greet their future. My dad was assured that an accident at Three Mile Island was ³not possible.² I believed my dad. My dad believed the nuclear industry and the government. The last week of March 1979 was unseasonably warm. Central Pennsylvanians stepped outside for their first, prolonged post-winter break. While Governor Richard Thornburgh was acclimating to Harrisburg, the ³new² reactor in Middletown was struggling to stay on-line. On Wednesday, March 28, 1979, TMI became a household name. Two days later, while school was in session, area residents fled not knowing if or when they would return. America now knew us for all the wrong reasons. Evacuation plans in 1979 were little more than an afterthought stashed in a drawer. The problem is that people are not hypothetical planning numbers. Human behavior rarely conforms to scientific predictions. People don¹t want to leave their homes. Farmers don¹t want to abandon their animals. Kids don¹t want to say good-bye to their pets. I was away at college. My sister waited for my mom to pick her up at Linglestown Junior High School, my brother was in his first trimester, and the family furniture store, which had survived three floods and a fire, remained open. € In Middletown, Mayor Robert Reid directed traffic out of town as fleeing residents asked him to protect their homes while they were gone. € Across the river, the winds blew toward a ghost town that was once Goldsboro. € Streams of citizens from Harrisburg flowed down Market Street to line up for busses heading anywhere. € Still, Hershey made chocolate, the Amish plowed Lancaster¹s fertile earth, and the Battlefield at Gettysburg survived another onslaught of visitors. Nobody should have to endure a nuclear nightmare. The TMI community remains a living case study of how not to evacuate. I understand that we're the price the industry pays for progress. For those of us who live, work and parent in the shadow of Three Mile Island, the ³Accident² continues to exact a toll. Many residents make sure their cars have a full tank of gas, keep an overnight bag packed, and stash ³TMI money² just in case... At the very least, we should stop pretending that emergency evacuation planning for special need¹s population is ³reasonably assured.² I should be able to get in my car, drive past Three Mile Island, and tell my daughter that adults are doing everything humanly possible to make sure there is no ³next time². _____ * Mr. Epstein is Chairman of Three Mile Island Alert, Inc., a safe-energy organization based in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and founded in 1977. He can be contacted at (717)541-1101 or ericepstein@comcast.net. ***************************************************************** 29 London Times: Furious Fluor in No 10 talks to buy BNG - August 31, 2006 By Angela Jameson, Industrial Correspondent FLUOR, the US engineering giant, last night made a direct approach to the Government in a bid to buy British Nuclear Group outright, after it was infuriated by last week’s decision to delay the sale of the decommissioning business, The Times has learnt. A delegation from Fluor met Geoffrey Norris, the Prime Minister’s special adviser on nuclear matters. It is understood that Fluor proposes to pay between £250 million and £400 million cash, some way short of BNG’s £500 million value. Lord Renwick of Clifton, chairman of Fluor’s UK business, and John Hopkins, president of the Fluor Government Group, attended the Downing Street meeting, at which it is understood they said that selling British Nuclear Group piecemeal would damage its strong brand and lead to an exodus of good people. Fluor yesterday wrote to British Nuclear Fuels, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the Department of Trade and Industry and other stakeholders, announcing its intention to make a cash offer to the Government for BNG. Fluor is understood to be furious at the prospect of a delay to the sale because waiting until 2008 will open the door for a bid by its fellow US engineering group Bechtel, its arch rival. Bechtel advised the DTI on the strategy of introducing competition into nuclear decommissioning and recommended the creation of a body such as NDA. However, Bechtel was supposed to be precluded from bidding for major decommissioning contracts for at least three years after the formation of the new authority. Unions are also angry. “Competition for the nuclear decommissioning contracts must be open and fair and it must have a significant British component,” Dougie Rooney, officer for energy for the Amicus union, said. He is concerned that the opportunity to build a global industry in nuclear decommissioning would be lost if the business is sold outright to a foreign buyer. Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 30 Guardian Unlimited: Energy protesters blockade nuclear power station David Ward Wednesday August 30, 2006 The Guardian Activists yesterday blockaded the front and rear entrances of a nuclear power station in Hartlepool, Teesside, to protest at the government's recently proclaimed support for a new boost for nuclear energy. About 20 arrived at 8am as a shift was starting work, draped a banner reading "No More" on a fence, locked themselves to welded-together tubes, and lay down on access roads. Earlier this year the government said nuclear power could make a "significant contribution" to future energy needs. The Hartlepool action is part of a campaign to highlight the drawbacks of traditional sources of power and to stress the need for a global reduction in energy use and the development of renewable sources. The protesters are based at a 10-day camp set up by the action group Reclaim Power a mile from the giant coal-fired Drax power station at Selby, North Yorkshire. Drax, the largest plant of its kind in Europe, generates 7% of Britain's electricity. But Reclaim Power claims it is also the single biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the UK, pumping out 20.8m tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. Tomorrow, those camped in what has been dubbed "megawatt valley" - site of Eggborough and Ferrybridge power stations as well as Drax - will march on the power station and attempt to close it by direct action. One of the protesters at Hartlepool, Kathryn Tulip, said: "People have entered this site on foot but no vehicles or heavy equipment has gone in. We had expected cutting crews to have come out to us by now but no one has turned up yet. We hope we'll be back for the big day at Drax." She added that the group wanted to tell British Energy, the government and the public that they did not want a new generation of nuclear power stations: "Hartlepool is due to be decommissioned in 2014 but it is likely that this could be the site for another nuclear station if the industry has its way. The government's recent energy review says that nuclear power is the answer to climate change. But nuclear power is not fossil fuel-free and we have to reduce our consumption of power." At the camp in the shadow of the Drax towers, Emma Pegg, 29, from Leeds, said: "We are already feeling the destructive effects of a climate which is in crisis. I urge people to come to the camp, learn more about climate change and ways to live sustainably. And perhaps even to help shut down Drax." A spokesman for British Energy said of the Hartlepool protest: "British Energy respects and recognises people's right to protest about what is a vital issue for all of us and have no objection to peaceful and lawful demonstration. Our prime concern is to safeguard our staff, the power station and the protesters themselves." Useful links British Energy Department of Trade and Industry British Nuclear Fuels Ltd Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Greenpeace Come Clean WMD awareness programme UK atomic energy authority National Radiological Protection Board Friends of the Earth World Nuclear Association World Nuclear Transport Institute [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 31 AU The Age: Country to 'lose billions' without nuclear industry www.theage.com.au Katharine Murphy August 31, 2006 SUPPORTERS of uranium enrichment and nuclear fuel leasing have used John Howard's nuclear inquiry to push for a fundamental shift in policy in which Australia would fully embrace the nuclear fuel cycle. The Age has obtained a submission to Mr Howard's inquiry by technology firm Silex Systems that argues Australia would lose export income of $US2 billion to $3 billion ($A2.6 billion-$3.9 billion) per year by 2015 if it failed to enrich its substantial supplies of uranium. "If Australia is to fully capitalise on the value of its precious uranium resources, then it should develop a nuclear fuel industry which includes uranium conversion, uranium enrichment and fuel fabrication services," Silex puts to the Prime Minister's uranium taskforce, chaired by former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski. The company also issues a blunt warning that no corporation will invest in Australia until the country achieves bipartisan support and lowers the political temperature around the nuclear cycle. "Against the backdrop of a deeply divided political landscape, it appears inconceivable that private industry would contemplate investing in an Australian nuclear fuel industry," Silex says. "Investment will not happen as long as there is the threat that a billion-dollar project could be shut down or even stalled after a future federal election." Mr Howard established the Switkowski inquiry to debate the merits of Australia embracing uranium enrichment and nuclear power. But federal Labor is strongly opposed to allowing nuclear reactors, and argues enrichment is decades away. The national debate could be reignited today with the release of up to 200 submissions from Dr Switkowski's inquiry. The Age believes another prominent supporter of developing Australia's nuclear capacity, Melbourne industrialist John White, has also made a submission that argues the case for nuclear fuel leasing, raising the spectre of Australia storing high-level nuclear waste. Mr White is the architect of the Howard Government's Uranium Industry Framework. He argues leasing, which involves selling nuclear fuel for nuclear power reactors then taking the waste back, is the way to reduce global greenhouse emissions and contain the risks of nuclear proliferation. Dr Switkowski's taskforce met in Canberra this week to sign off on submissions before visiting international nuclear facilities. It reports to Mr Howard in November. ALP division on uranium policy reappears HOSTILITY has erupted again within the Labor Party following confirmation that Australia will have a fourth uranium mine up and running by 2008. Labor environment spokesman Anthony Albanese yesterday contradicted Opposition Leader Kim Beazley's arguments that the Honeymoon project in South Australia should be approved because it was covered by Labor's existing uranium policy. "Under existing party platforms this mine will go ahead," Mr Beazley told reporters in Adelaide. But Mr Albanese said that whether the proposed mine was acceptable under ALP policy was debatable. He said Labor should spend more time worrying about the 308 manufacturing jobs lost every week in the past two years rather than trying to convince party members to welcome a mine that would create, at best, 50 jobs. 2006-08-31 | Copyright © 2006. The Age Company Ltd. ***************************************************************** 32 Herald News: Tritium leaks now a national issue [SuburbanChicagoNews.com] By Cindy Wojdyla CainStaff Writer JOLIET The Braidwood nuclear power plant's tritium leaks have made an impact around the country and possibly the world, says a public health expert hired by the county to investigate the case. Although the Will County Health Department found no unsafe levels of the radioactive isotope in private wells near Exelon's plant, the case has changed the way government and power producers will handle similar incidents in the future, said Theodore Hogan, president of Hogan and Associates of Lemont. "It had a huge impact around the country," he said during a telephone interview on Monday. "This is a national issue because of what happened here." Every single nuclear power plant in the United States has reviewed its tritium policies because of what happened at the Braidwood plant, Hogan said. "And there are stories written about Braidwood that have gone around the world," he added. The story started when local officials learned that tritium leaked from the Braidwood plant onto private property. The leaks occurred in pipelines that were supposed to carry tritium, a byproduct of nuclear power generation, to the Kankakee River. County officials were furious that they hadn't been informed of the leaks, which had taken place in 1996, 1998 and 2000. A lawsuit was filed and Exelon has agreed to a remediation plan. Since then the company has: installed alarms on its blowdown lines, pumped water out of a contaminated pond and provided bottled water to area residents. A new state law requires notification within 24 hours of any future leaks of radioactive material. Also, the company has agreed to pay for a feasibility study on a new water system for Godley. While tritium levels in area wells do not exceed federal safety standards, there were elevated levels of coliform and nitrates, which can be harmful to humans. "I'm pleased we did not find tritium in the drinking water," said health department executive director Jim Zelko. "That's a good thing. "We're looking ahead now to a public water supply in Godley and how that can be achieved." Zelko said the lines of communication between Exelon and the county has improved since the tritium leaks were publicized. "Sometimes it takes a problem to show a weakness in a system," he said. "The thing to do is react to it, fix it and everybody is better off."08/30/06 SuburbanChicagoNews.com — © Digital Chicago & Sun-Times ***************************************************************** 33 BBC: Power station Last Updated: Wednesday, 30 August 2006 [The damaged power lines] Police have found no evidence to link the damage to the protest Campaigners protesting at Britain's biggest coal-fired power station are being stopped and searched by police as they enter and leave the campsite. The move comes after police issued a warning to campaigners when power lines were cut down at Fryston, near Castleford, West Yorkshire, on Tuesday. About 500 people have camped near Drax in Selby, North Yorkshire, to protest over carbon dioxide emissions. Police found no evidence of a link between the damage and the protest. But campaigners were warned not to break the law. 'Unreasonable action' A spokeswoman for event organisers, Camp for Climate Action, said she could not comment on the damage. But, she said, campaigners objected to being searched by police. She said: "We think it is unreasonable. People have come here to talk about climate change, and to educate themselves with workshops. "Some people are choosing not to leave the site as a result of this." Campaigners have also been protesting outside Hartlepool nuclear power station. Six people who chained themselves to the power station's gates were arrested on Tuesday. 'Firm and swift' North Yorkshire Police Deputy Chief Constable Ian McPherson said: "It's certainly a coincidence that there should be three events within 24 hours all involving the power supply. "I would be very disappointed if it turned out that the demonstrators at the climate camp were involved in any illegal action." Mr McPherson said while the force would facilitate a lawful and peaceful protest it would deal "firmly and swiftly" with anyone who broke the law. [Protesters camp near Drax power station] A large camp has sprung up close to the Drax power station Police have been drafted in from across Yorkshire in case there is any trouble. The protesters, who are camping on land next to Barlow Common nature reserve, are planning a day of "mass action" on Thursday in an attempt to shut down the site. The power station has secured an injunction prohibiting any trespassing on the site and restricting the use of a nearby footpath. Drax said it wanted to ensure the protesters did not force the station to close or put their own safety at risk. It had no objection to "peaceful and lawful demonstration" but did not want protesters exposed to the dangers and hazards "inherent to our highly complex industrial site". ***************************************************************** 34 BBC: Ban for anti-nuclear protesters Last Updated: Wednesday, 30 August 2006 [Protesters at Hartlepool nuclear power station] The protest did not halt work at the plant Protesters who chained themselves to the gates of a nuclear power station have been banned from approaching any power plants in England and Wales. Police said 20 green activists from Reclaim Power were arrested after a 12-hour protest outside British Energy's Hartlepool power station. Six were cut free by a Ministry of Defence team, according to police. All were released on condition they do not return to the town or approach any other power-generating facility. The group were angry at the government's plans to build more nuclear power stations. Bail conditions All were arrested on suspicion of aggravated trespass. Reclaim Power claims to be a network of green campaigners made up from other environmental organisations, including Greenpeace and the Camp for Climate Action. A Cleveland Police spokesman said: "Late last night all 20 had been interviewed and released on conditional police bail. "The conditions are that they do not enter Hartlepool and that they keep away from all other power generating plants." Power generation began at Hartlepool in 1983. It is due to be decommissioned in 2014. Earlier this year the government said nuclear power could make a "significant contribution" to Britain's future energy needs. ***************************************************************** 35 Platts: NRC can speed up its nuclear license application reviews: Klein Washington (Platts)--30Aug2006 The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be able to review new nuclear power plant license applications faster than 42 months, which is the agency's current estimate, NRC Chairman Dale Klein said Wednesday. Speaking at the Platts Energy Podium, Klein, who joined the agency July 1, did not say how many months could be trimmed from the schedule. But he said he believed the licensing process shouldn't take almost as long to complete as plant construction. The nuclear industry estimates a new reactor can be built in 48 months. Klein said NRC is expecting around 16 applications with requests to build up to 27 new units, with the first submission expected in 2007. With a wave of personnel retirements expected to hit the NRC and industry in the next few years, Klein said he was concerned about finding replacements, particularly nuclear and power engineers. Meanwhile, Klein praised the industry for its response to the changing security threat over the past few years, but offered some advice to nuclear plant operators: "Don't become complacent." --Jenny Weil, jenny_weil@platts.com Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 36 Detroit Free Press: Nuclear power site returns to nature Consumers restores Big Rock Point August 30, 2006 BY JOHN FLESHER ASSOCIATED PRESS Bert Medley of Grayling views the reactor near Gaylord as it begins its journey from the decommissioned plant outside Charlevoix. (2003 photo by WILLIAM ARCHIE/Detroit Free Press) Nine years after the Big Rock Point nuclear power plant near Charlevoix stopped generating electricity, Consumers Energy said Tuesday it has finished demolishing the structure and returning the woodsy grounds to their natural condition. "We're extremely proud that we have met our promise to return the site to a greenfield," company spokesman Tim Petrosky said. Originally constructed for research and development by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Big Rock Point began generating power in 1962. It started commercial operations three years later, generating 67 megawatts from its boiling water reactor, and became the nation's oldest operating commercial nuclear plant in 1993. The reactor was housed in a round, aquamarine containment building perched by the edge of Lake Michigan. Motorists driving along U.S.-31 a few miles north of Charlevoix could glimpse the structure through the trees. Although licensed to operate until 2000, Consumers shut down Big Rock Point in August 1997, saying it wasn't economically feasible to continue operations. The plant has since been torn down. Its reactor was shipped to a low-level nuclear waste landfill in Barnwell, S.C. But the spent fuel rods will remain on the premises inside concrete and steel casks until a national storage site for high-level radioactive waste is available. The Department of Energy plans to open such a facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada by March 2017, despite local opposition. Consumers Energy, the principal subsidiary of Jackson-based CMS Energy Corp., says tests have detected the barest trace of plant-generated radiation remaining at the Big Rock Point site. The company says the grounds are suitable for any use, including residential development, but that it hopes to sell them to the state for public recreation. Most of the 475-acre property is heavily wooded. It includes 1.5 miles of Lake Michigan shoreline. "It's the largest undisturbed piece of Lake Michigan frontage in this part of the state," said Tom Bailey, executive director of the Little Traverse Conservancy, which supports government acquisition of the site. The area is culturally significant. For centuries it was a seasonal gathering spot for American Indians. It also hosts numerous endangered and threatened species, including the piping plover and plants such as Pitcher's thistle and Lake Huron tansy. The conservancy is helping the Michigan Department of Natural Resources seek state and federal grants, but no purchase deal has been reached, Bailey said. Copyright © 2006 Detroit Free Press Inc. ***************************************************************** 37 Viet Nam News: Japan experts join nuclear conference (30-08-2006) HA NOI — Vietnamese and Japanese nuclear power experts joined in a one-day conference at the capital yesterday to present visions of how to improve the nuclear energy human resources shortage. The Vietnamese specialists presented their estimates for the number of engineers and technical staff that the country will need to train and educate in order to set up both a nuclear power sector and a nuclear power plant by 2015 that would be operational by 2020. The plan for building human resources for the sector, presented by Viet Nam Atomic Energy Commission, the sector’s authorised agency under the Ministry of Science and Technology, mentioned the country’s need to co-operate with foreign partners, including Japan, to train qualified staff. The Institute of Energy of the Ministry of Industry presented a training plan which focused on international aid to deal with the human resources shortage. The human resource development policies from the authorised ministries and its possible operation stages are also included with proposed solutions. The Japanese partners, led by Kiyohiko Matsushita, senior advisor in nuclear power of Kyusyu Power Company, shared their experience in building human resources for the sector and proposed a road map for Viet Nam to consider while under development. The road map outlined a possible formula for the plant’s personnel, including 300 engineers and 500 technicians that will mainly be trained abroad. The conference was held in co-operation with Japan Atomic Industrial Forum, INC and Japan External Trade Organisation, where Matsushita is a deputy head of the nuclear power division. The conference attracted participation from nearly a hundred people from Japan and Viet Nam. This past January, the Government ratified a strategy to apply atomic energy for peaceful purposes by 2020. The strategy aims to build and promote the nuclear industry to aid socio-economic development and to boost the country’s scientific and technological potential. One of the major targets set for 2010 includes training experts on nuclear power, supplying 50 per cent of demand on isotope and radioactive pharmaceuticals and finalising the legal regulations on atomic energy application and nuclear safety. The State hopes to train a sufficient number of nuclear experts and to mobilise enough skilful technicians and workers to construct other plants in the near future. — VNS Copyright by Viet Nam News, Vietnam News Agency 11 Tran Hung Dao Street, Hanoi, Vietnam Editor in Chief: Tran Mai Huong Tel. 84-4-9332316; Fax: 84-4-9332311 E-mail: vnnews@vnagency.com.vn Publication Permit: 599/GP-INTER Granted by the Ministry of Culture and Information on April 9, 1998. ***************************************************************** 38 HSE: Quarterly statement of nuclear incidents at nuclear installations E086:06 30 August 2006 A statement on incidents at nuclear installations in Britain that meet Ministerial reporting criteria is reported to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Scotland and is published every quarter by the Health & Safety Executive. For the period 1 April 2006 to 30 June 2006 there were no incidents at any of the nuclear licensed installations that met the reporting criteria. Single copies of 'Statement of Nuclear Incidents at Nuclear Installations: Second Quarter 2006' are available free from Nuclear Safety Directorate, Division 4a, Building 4 NG1, Redgrave Court, Merton Road, Bootle, L20 7HS, Tel: 0151 951 3484. Notes to Editors 1 The arrangements for reporting incidents were announced to Parliament by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Energy on 30 April 1987 (Hansard col. 203-204). A minor modification to the arrangements was announced in HSE press notice E108:93 of 30 June 1993. Oliver Glackin 020 7717 6016 Out of hours 020 7928 8382 Public enquiries HSE's InfoLine: 0845 3450055 Caerphilly Business Park, Caerphilly CF83 3GG HSE information and news releases can be accessed on the Internet www.hse.gov.uk + Updated 30.08.06 + © Copyright ***************************************************************** 39 NRC: Omaha Public Power Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance FR Doc E6-14389 [Federal Register: August 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 168)] [Notices] [Page 51646-51648] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30au06-145] of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-40 issued to Omaha Public Power Company (the licensee) for operation of the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, located in Washington County, Nebraska. The proposed amendment would revise the technical specifications to allow the use of Sodium Tetraborate instead of Trisodium Phosphate. Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. There are no changes to the design or operation of the plant that could affect system, component, or accident functions as a result of replacing trisodium phosphate (TSP) with sodium tetraborate (NaTB). Similarly, there are no changes to the design or operation of the plant affecting system, component or accident functions as a result of revising the volume of buffering agent required during Operating Modes 1 and 2 with an amount dependent upon hot zero power (HZP) critical boron concentration (CBC) to make it consistent with the use of NaTB. All systems and components function as designed and the performance requirements have been evaluated and found to be acceptable. NaTB will maintain pH [gteqt]7.0 in the recirculation water following a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). This function is maintained with the proposed change. Allowing the required volume of NaTB to decrease over the operating cycle (as a result of densification) as HZP CBC decreases still ensures that the pH of the containment sump is [gteqt]7.0. Further, replacing TSP with NaTB will not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Other than the Long Term Core Cooling evaluation that establishes the Hot Leg Switchover (HLSO) time, no other safety analysis methodology (LOCA or non-LOCA) specifically models the containment sump buffering agent. As a result, the consequences of any accident (other than determination of the HLSO time) are unaffected by the proposed change to the containment sump buffering agent. The analysis to determine the HLSO time specifically addressed the use of NaTB to assure it would preclude boron precipitation in the core and, therefore, preclude any increase in the consequences of a LOCA. Analysis demonstrates that a NaTB buffering agent ensures the post LOCA containment sump mixture will have a pH [gteqt]7.0. Replacing TSP with NaTB, which achieves the same pH buffering requirements, will not increase the probability of a LOCA. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. All structures, systems, and components (SSCs) previously required for mitigation of an event remain capable of fulfilling their intended design function with this change to the Technical Specifications (TS). The proposed change has no adverse effects on any safety- related system or component and does not challenge the performance or integrity of any safety related system. The proposed change has evaluated the replacement buffering agent and no new accident scenarios or single failures are introduced. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. Changing the containment sump buffering agent requirement from TSP to NaTB and revising the required volume of NaTB to decrease (as a result of densification) as HZP CBC decreases still ensures containment sump pH [gteqt]7.0. NaTB will maintain pH [gteqt]7.0 in the recirculation water following a LOCA. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. Evaluations were made that indicate that the margin for pH control is not altered by the proposed changes. A NaTB volume that is dependent on HZP CBC has been evaluated with respect to neutralization of all borated water and acid sources. These evaluations concluded that there would be no impact on pH control, and hence no reduction in the margin of safety related to post LOCA conditions. Although NaTB is less effective than TSP at raising the boric acid solubility limit, implementation of a more conservative HLSO time and higher recirculation flow requirements for the hot and cold leg recirculation flows ensures that the margin of safety to preclude boron precipitation, and ultimately assurance of core cooling ability, is not compromised. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. [[Page 51647]] The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30- day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, . If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(I)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail [[Page 51648]] addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to . A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to James R. Curtiss, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817, attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated August 21, 2006, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1- 800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to . For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of August 2006. Alan B. Wang, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-14389 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 40 NRC: Duke Power Company Llc, et al., Notice of Consideration of FR Doc E6-14406 [Federal Register: August 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 168)] [Notices] [Page 51644-51646] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30au06-144] Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35, NPF-52, NPF-9 and NPF-11, issued to Duke Power Company, LLC, et al., for operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, located in York County, South Carolina, and McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The proposed amendments would revise technical specification (TS) 3.4.15, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Leakage Detection Instrumentation''. The proposed changes address the incore instrument room sump level instrumentation and containment atmosphere radioactivity monitors and their compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.45. Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, Section 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below. This analysis is from the May 4, 2006, submittal and supercedes the analysis from the licensee's July 27, 2005, submittal: 1. Would implementation of the changes proposed in this LAR involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? No. The changes contained in this LAR (license amendment request) have been evaluated and determined to not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not make any hardware changes and do not alter the configuration of any plant structure, system, or component. The proposed LAR: (1) Removes the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor as an option for meeting the operability requirements of TS 3.4.15 and replaces it with the containment atmosphere particulate radioactivity monitor, (2) clarifies the applicability of the TS to the containment atmosphere particulate radioactivity monitor, (3) adds the incore instrument sump and its level instrumentation to the McGuire and Catawba licensing basis contained in the TS, the Bases, and the Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports, and (4) makes other low risk changes to TS 3.4.15. None of the containment Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage detection instrumentation systems are initiators of any accident; therefore, the probability of occurrence of an accident is not increased. The McGuire and Catawba licensing bases will continue to require diverse means of detecting reactor coolant system (RCS) leakage, thus ensuring that leakage due to cracks would continue to be identified prior to breakage and the plant would be shutdown accordingly. Therefore the consequences of an accident are not increased. 2. Would implementation of the changes proposed in this LAR create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? No. The changes proposed in this LAR do not involve the use or installation of any equipment that is less conservative than that already installed and in use. No new or different system interactions are created and no new processes are introduced. The proposed changes will not introduce any new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not already considered in the design and licensing basis. The proposed changes do not affect any structure, system, or component associated with an accident initiator. Based on these considerations, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Would implementation of the changes proposed in this LAR involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? No. The changes proposed in this LAR do not make any alteration to any RCS leakage detection components. The proposed changes only remove the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitors as an option for meeting the operability requirements for TS 3.4.15 and replace it with the more responsive containment atmosphere particulate radioactivity monitor. Since the level of radioactivity in the McGuire and Catawba reactor coolant has become much lower than what was assumed in the original licensing bases, the gaseous channel can no longer detect a small RCS leak consistent with the plants' leak-before-break (LBB) analyses. A conservative addition is being made to TS 3.4.15 in order to include controls for the incore instrument sump level instrumentation. The changes contained in the LAR are not risk significant since the RCS leakage detection instrumentation is not credited in the McGuire and Catawba probabilistic risk assessments. The proposed amendment continues to require diverse means of leakage detection equipment with the capability to promptly detect RCS leakage well within the margin of the LBB analyses. Based on this evaluation, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of [[Page 51645]] publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30- day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General [[Page 51646]] Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the , attorney for the licensee, Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn, Legal Department, Duke Power Company LLC, 526 South Church St., P. O. Box 1006, Mail Code EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28201-1006. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated July 27, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated May 4, 2006, and August 8, 2006, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1- 800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of August 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission John F. Stang, Sr. Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-14406 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 41 Lincoln County News: Maine Yankee Secured After Bomb Scare - Greg Foster August 31, 2006 A bomb threat made at 2 a.m. on Aug. 22 to a Westport Island telephone number that used to be the number for Maine Yankee nuclear power plant prompted law enforce-ment officials to search company grounds but found no signs of a bomb, according to a company official. “This was kind of a quick statement out of this person’s mouth,” said John Niles, supervisor of Maine Yankee’s spent fuel storage facility in Wiscasset. Maine State Police, using a bomb sniffing dog, and county and local law enforcement officials found no signs of a bomb after a thorough search of the former plant yard and security operations building for the spent nuclear fuel storage facility, which is all that is left there after the plant completed its decom-missioning. A California cell phone number was left on the Westport Island residence caller ID and the name left by the female caller were leads that gave police and now the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is handling the case, some information to possibly help in tracking whomever perpetrated the scare. Niles said that after hearing the message, the company determined that the threat of a bomb there was not credible. The message was very general that “you have a bomb threat at your facility.” “There wasn’t anything specific other than that,” Niles said. “I’m not sure what was on their minds when they did it.” The Westport Island resident called 9-1-1 after receiving the call, surmising that the caller no doubt intended the call for Maine Yankee. They have received other calls for the closed plant. The reason for the company’s determination that the message was not a serious threat is through a screening process for such incidents. “We processed it to see if there was any credible threat,” Niles said. “It didn’t meet any of our criteria.” The matter is currently in the hands of the Federal Bureau of Investigation office in Augusta, which is continuing the investigation, according to Wiscasset Police Chief Mike Emmons. As of Tuesday, there was no word of a suspect being located. Vol. 131 - No. 35 [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [0] [ border=] This site is owned by Lincoln County News © 2002 [ border=] [ border=] ***************************************************************** 42 Sun Valley Idaho: Why nuclear power can't solve global warming Blog; SunValleyOnline.com » Blog Archive » The Snake River Alliance is an Idaho-based grassroots group working through research, education, and community advocacy for peace and justice, the end to nuclear weapons, responsible solutions to nuclear waste and contamination, and sustainable alternatives to nuclear power. Jeremy M. Maxand is the executive director of the Snake River Alliance, Idaho’s nuclear watchdog, the board president of the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, a national network of community groups living in the shadows of the DOE weapons complex, and chair of the Northwest Energy Coalition’s Idaho Energy Caucus. The earth’s average temperature is half a degree centigrade higher than it was 150 years ago, a change that is ten to twenty times faster than natural fluctuations. We’re already seeing the effects: receding glaciers, rising sea levels, and more pronounced and frequent storms. Most climate models predict the temperature will rise another 1 to 3 degrees in the next century. This doesn’t sound like a lot until we remember that the temperature difference between an ice age and an interglacial period (we live in one now) is only about 5 degrees. If we are to avoid worsening global warming and the social, environmental, and economic chaos it can cause, we must act in ways that will have an effect in a handful of decades, if not sooner. Nuclear power will not work. It’s too expensive. Nuclear power’s “opportunity cost†(what we could have gotten instead) is a key consideration when contemplating a broad response to a global threat. Per dollar spent, wind power saves twice as much carbon as nuclear; end-use efficiency, particularly by increasingly savvy industry, saves ten times more. After a half century of trying to fulfill the claim that nuclear power would be “too cheap to meter,†it’s time to admit that nuclear power is too costly to matter. It’s too slow. Just as we must buy the most solution for the money, we must get the most solution for the time spent. It takes about a decade to build a new reactor. Match that with an MIT study projection that it would take 1,500 new reactors to displace a significant amount of fossil fuel carbon. (Wind power, of course, is an off-the-shelf technology and does not produce carbon.) We don’t have the time to resuscitate nuclear power. It’s too dangerous. Nuclear power has a unique pollution liability: nuclear waste. Radioactive mine and mill tailings and power plant operating waste already scar this continent. Five years from now, even with no new plants, the proposed repository for the most dangerous waste will be full. And it’s not even open yet. There is a direct and inescapable link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. As reactors proliferate, so would bombs. The earth has seen seven serious reactor accidents so far (and many more less serious ones). All occurred in the first seven years of the reactor’s operation. If we consider ramping up reactor construction, we should remember their particular dangers in the first years of operation. Chernobyl contaminated broad reaches of the Ukraine. Three-Mile Island demonstrated how to convert a $2 billion asset into a $1 billion cleanup problem in about 90 minutes. Nuclear power is so dangerous it is essentially uninsurable, and US law caps government and industry liability. Nuclear reactors are also potential targets for terrorism. A sensible energy policy cannot trade one global catastrophe for another. It’s too late. Because it is so dangerous and costs so much, nuclear power is slowly coasting to a halt. Nuclear power’s proponents are trying to paint its decline as the problem. But global warming is the problem crying for a collective solution. Nuclear power, despite a trillion-dollar taxpayer subsidy, has already lost out to more effective energy sources. Decentralized production and efficiency gains are adding at least ten times as much capacity each year as nuclear power. In Idaho alone, it’s estimated renewable energy can produce five times more power than we consume. We could be a net exporter of electricity and not build a single nuclear, or coal, plant. It’s too late for nuclear power. But it’s not too late for the rest of us. August 29th, 2006 at 12:43 pm by Jeremy Maxand ***************************************************************** 43 Russia Newswire: Third Generator Starts Up at Smolensk NPP Date: 30/08/2006 MOSCOW (RNWire) - The third generator unit at Smolensk NPP was started up 28 August, following the completion of a scheduled repair program. The major part of technological canals was replaced during the repair downtime. A complete leak control system check was carried out, based on the latest available science and technology and conforming to all international standards. The system provides accurate and reliable computations and increases the safety of the generator unit. Analogue systems had previously been installed on the first and second energy units at Smolensk NPP. The NPP now operates three generators and without equipment malfunctions. The background radiation at Smolensk NPP and its surroundings is at normal levels for nuclear generator operation and does not exceed natural background indices. © 2004-2006 Russia Newswire ***************************************************************** 44 NewsRoom Finland: Finland's Fingrid to assess effects of potential sixth nuclear power station 30.8.2006 at 15:53 Finland's electricity transmission system operator Fingrid reported on Wednesday its intentions to commence research into the effects of a sixth nuclear power station on the electrical network in the near future. According to Fingrid's president and chief executive, Timo Toivonen, the connection of the planned sixth nuclear power station to the grid would require greater investment than the fifth station, which is currently under construction. The study is likely to take a considerable length of time, according to Mr Toivonen, given that the company is keen to conduct a thorough investigation. A similar study conducted prior to the decision to construct the fifth nuclear power station took some three years. Mr Toivonen added that the power-loss caused by bringing into use a sixth power station would require the investment of hundreds of millions of euros into the electrical network and reserve capacity. © Copyright STT 2006 © 1995 – 2005, Virtual Finland Produced by: Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland Department for Communication and Culture/Unit for Promotion and Publications ***************************************************************** 45 PR Newswire: At Platts Energy Podium, NRC Chairman Seeks Faster Licensing WASHINGTON, Aug. 30 /PRNewswire/ -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be able to review license applications for new nuclear plants faster than 42 months, which is the commission's current estimate for such evaluations, new NRC Chairman Dale Klein told Platts Energy Podium on Wednesday. In his first news conference in Washington since joining the commission July 1, Klein said he believed the licensing process should not take almost as long to complete as plant construction. The nuclear industry estimates a new reactor could be built in 48 months. "I believe we can accelerate the process after we go through the first few, with no compromise on safety," Klein said of the application process. NRC has received indications from 16 entities, representing a potential 27 new units, that they intend to apply to the commission for permission to build and operate new plants, Klein said. Klein said that the NRC did not plan to review its 1990 "waste confidence determination," which could clear the way for new plants in the United States. The NRC is required to state its confidence that plans exist for safe disposal of nuclear waste before it can license new plants, or re-license existing plants. Given existing storage at reactors and the potential for new interim storage facilities, Klein said he is comfortable that spent fuel can be handled adequately. He also said that the Department of Energy's plan to open a repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada offers an "ultimate, permanent solution to spent fuel." Klein said the NRC can license interim facilities for storage of spent fuel from new and existing reactors, but noted that a congressional proposal to open such sites in all states with nuclear power plants could stretch the commission's resources. He said a proposal by Senator Pete Domenici, Republican-New Mexico, in the DOE's fiscal 2007 spending bill to open interim storage sites would create a "heavy workload" for the NRC. The bill was approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee, but not by the full chamber. Klein also expressed concern about finding replacements for the thousands of employees expected to retire from NRC and the nuclear industry in the next few years, particularly new nuclear and power engineers. He said the commission plans to hire as many as 200 persons in 2006 and add 200 more staff positions over the next two years. Sponsored by Platts, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Platts Energy Podium provides an ongoing forum for prominent newsmakers and the press to address important energy and environmental issues. Members of the media and industry analysts may receive complementary registration for Energy Podium events by contacting Nancy Covey at 202-942-8719, Nancy_Covey@platts.com. A recording of the Klein session is available via podcast at http://platts.com/energypodium/index.xml/. About Platts Platts, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies (NYSE: MHP), is a leading global provider of energy information. With nearly a century of business experience, Platts serves thousands of customers across more than 150 countries. From 16 offices worldwide, Platts serves the oil, natural gas, electricity, nuclear power, coal, petrochemical and metals markets. Platts' real time news, pricing, analytical services, and conferences help markets operate with transparency and efficiency. Traders, risk managers, analysts, and industry leaders depend upon Platts to help them make better, faster, and more profitable decisions. Additional information is available at http://www.platts.com. About The McGraw-Hill Companies Founded in 1888, The McGraw-Hill Companies is a leading global information services provider meeting worldwide needs in the financial services, education and business information markets through leading brands such as Standard & Poor's, McGraw-Hill Education, BusinessWeek and J.D. Power and Associates. The Corporation has more than 290 offices in 38 countries. Sales in 2005 were $6.0 billion. Additional information is available at http://www.mcgraw-hill.com. SOURCE Platts + http://www.platts.com Copyright © 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 46 UPI: NRC wants to speed things up United Press International - NewsTrack - 8/30/2006 7:05:00 PM -0400 WASHINGTON, Aug. 30 (UPI) -- The new head of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission says the NRC should be able to review license applications for new plants in less than 42 months. That's how long it currently takes to process an application for a license, Dale Klein said Wednesday at a Platts Energy Podium in Washington. Klein said he believed the licensing process should not take almost as long to complete as plant construction. The nuclear industry estimates a new reactor could be built in 48 months. "I believe we can accelerate the process after we go through the first few, with no compromise on safety," Klein said of the application process. The NRC has received indications from 16 entities, representing a potential 27 new units, that they intend to apply to the commission for permission to build and operate new plants, Klein said. Interest in building nuclear facilities has risen as concerns over global warming have intensified. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights ***************************************************************** 47 Nuclear Terror at Home - opinion Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:09:38 -0400 X-Sender-Host-Name: X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY

I am forwarding to you an opinion-editorial written by Judi Friedman, a long-time nuclear power expert and activist (her details are included at the end of the piece.) Please feel free to use and reprint this piece or to contact Judi for an interview.

Many thanks for your consideration of this work.

Linda Gunter

NIRS

 

Nuclear Terrorism – A Self-imposed Legacy

By Judi Friedman

 

We live in a nuclear age. With that comes nuclear terror – an odious legacy of the Cold War. Nuclear powers (including the United States) continue to maintain nuclear weapons on “hair-trigger alert” ready to destroy other nations in minutes. The U.S. still possesses 8,000 active nuclear warheads. Two thousand of them are ready to be launched with only a fifteen minute warning period.

 

Now we have traded the Cold War for nuclear terrorism. According to the 9/11 Commission, the Al Qaeda plans for that fateful day included hijacked aircraft attacks on two U.S. nuclear power plants. This time we were spared such a catastrophe. But day to day while atomic reactors keep running, we live with the reality of what such attacks could do.

 

We are surrounded by sitting-duck nuclear targets – more than 100 of them, mostly east of the Mississippi in high-density population areas. Reactors and their fuel pools and waste casks remain inadequately protected. These atomic sites have no protection plan for attacks from the air. A 9/11-style attack on the Millstone plant in Connecticut could render the state a sacrifice zone, uninhabitable for millennia. With the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident fast approaching, the image of that nuclear wasteland should serve as a ghostly warning.

Yet, thirty-six existing nuclear power plants have been approved for 20-year license extensions while the public was repeatedly denied requests for hearings on the security vulnerabilities. Thirty-two reactors house their waste fuel pools on the top story of the reactor building, outside containment and protected only by sheet metal.

 

Aging and increasingly decrepit plants operating longer than they were designed to run will likely fail. Old machines and parts break down. A reactor breakdown could cause a meltdown. In 2002  the severely corroded Davis-Besse nuclear reactor , just 20 miles southeast of Toledo, OH, came within a small fraction of an inch of steel from causing a tragic nuclear accident. License extension applications for 14 nuclear plants are currently under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We are allowing ourselves to be the unwitting victims of our own nuclear terror.

 

Instead of ending the nuclear age, the Bush administration plans to expand it. Early site permits for new reactors are being processed in Mississippi, Virginia and Illinois (Chicago is ringed by eleven reactors already). And with the prospect of huge taxpayer subsidies footing colossal construction costs, utilities are jockeying into the starting gate for the biggest cash grab in industry history.

 

Furthermore, we are yet to solve the problem of high-level waste produced by reactors with no safe storage solution on-site or elsewhere. So far, the states of Nevada and Utah have been singled out for a political mugging. A “permanent” geological burial site is slated for Yucca Mountain, NV, while a penniless Indian Tribe – the Goshute band in Utah – has been singled out to take “temporary” custody of the waste while the Yucca Mountain quagmire persists. Nuclear waste cask transportation to these sites could set up rolling terrorist targets criss-crossing the country through major population centers for decades.

 

To add to the insult, there is an even more insidious threat from nuclear power, one that stays with us every day that reactors continue to operate and beyond. The nuclear fuel chain, from the mining, milling and enrichment of uranium through fuel fabrication and operation in nuclear reactors, despite industry propaganda, is not “emissions-free.” Every uranium mine, mill tailing pile, operating reactor and nuclear waste dump “emits” harmful radiation long after the last watt of electricity is generated.

 

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has established that there is no safe dose of radiation. There is no longer doubt about the damage that can result from a single radiation track through a cell. The findings of adverse reactions from low-dose impacts of radiation in cellular, molecular and DNA levels have been researched by radiation microbiologists in Great Britain, Canada, Japan and the United States.

 

Not only do reactors emit, they also leak radiation. Three reactor sites in Illinois have been leaking large quantities of tritium and other isotopes into ground water. The Indian Point nuclear plant, 35 miles from midtown Manhattan, has allowed tritium and strontium-90 to seep into the Hudson River. We already know that contaminated groundwater at Connecticut Yankee has been discovered, and strontium-90 has been found in goat milk five miles from the Connecticut Millstone plant. Strontium-90 is linked to bone cancer, cancer of the soft tissue and cancer of the blood. Tritium causes cancers and can damage DNA. We must demand to know what is in the water around every nuclear plant. To do nothing is to perpetuate this terror.

 

We terrorize ourselves and our unborn by tolerating nuclear plants in our midst.

 

The United States even terrorizes the heavens. In January 2006 NASA launched twenty-five pounds of highly-toxic plutonium from Florida on a New Horizons space probe to the planet Pluto. It uses plutonium-238, the most toxic element ever created. An accident – such as the one the Challenger underwent – could have left central Florida a nuclear wasteland.

 

The United States is in a “War against Terrorism.” If that is really true, then our most important step is to end the self-imposed nuclear terror at home.

 

Judi Friedman directs PACE – People’s Action for Clean Energy, a Connecticut-based volunteer organization working for energy efficiency, conservation and benign renewable energy. She is a Core Group member of Nuclear Information and Resource Service.

 

Judi Friedman

101 Lawton Road

Canton, CT 06019

(860) 693-4813

jfriedeco@aol.com

 

 

 

 

Linda Gunter is Director of Development and Media Relations. She can be reached at: 301.270.6477 ext. 23

 

***************************************************************** 48 U.S. to stage missile-defense test over Pacific Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:06:37 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST News Update from Citizens for Legitimate Government 31 August 2006 http://www.legitgov.org/ http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news U.S. to stage missile-defense test over Pacific 30 Aug 2006 The United States is set to test key parts of its emerging antimissile shield over the Pacific on Thursday, officially to collect data, but with the possibility that a target dummy warhead will be shot down. The $85 million exercise is the first involving a live target since interceptor rockets failed to leave their silos during tests in December 2004 and February 2005. Please forward this update to anyone you think might be interested. Those who'd like to be added to the Newsletter list can sign up: http://www.legitgov.org/#subscribe_clg. Please write to: signup@legitgov.org for inquiries. lrp/mdr CLG Newsletter editor: Lori Price, General Manager. Copyright ) 2006, Citizens For Legitimate Government . All rights reserved. CLG Founder and Chair is Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D. ***************************************************************** 49 UPI: Analysis: Reactor security fears -- Part 1 United Press International - Security &Terrorism - 8/30/2006 4:44:00 PM -0400 By JESSICA TAYLOR UPI Correspondent WASHINGTON, Aug. 30 (UPI) -- Some experts still claim that insufficient safety measures have been taken to protect U.S. nuclear reactors from terrorist attacks. Nuclear watchdog groups say current safety measures would be easy to penetrate, but U.S. nuclear industry officials maintain that ample safeguards are in place to prevent attacks and to withstand impact should an assault occur. If nuclear reactor casings were penetrated, whether by an aerial attack similar to one seen on Sept. 11, 2001, or by ground forces the aftermath has the potential to be the worst disaster in U.S. history. Radioactive material emitted could release 100 times the amount of radiation that was seen after the Hiroshima atomic bomb in 1945, experts say. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the independent government agency charged with regulating the nation's 104 commercial nuclear power reactors and setting regulations for safety at those sites, says they have taken substantial steps to thwart such a scenario. "Most Sept. 11 security enhancements were across the board," Holly Herrington, spokeswoman for the NRC, told United Press International. Among these improvements were more security patrols with additional training and background checks as well as additional physical barriers to the plants themselves. But Dan Hirsch, president of nuclear watchdog group Committee to Bridge the Gap, or CBG, sees nuclear reactor safety in a different light. Nuclear reactors are highly vulnerable to an aerial attack, he told UPI. "The NRC has done nothing to protect reactors from aerial attacks, and has done nothing very slowly," he said. Nearly three years ago, CBG sought to stop that threat. They submitted a petition requesting that the NRC mandate construction of a beam-hinge shield around all reactors that could potentially stop an aircraft from being flown into the reactors. The same petition also endorsed increasing the number of Design Basis Threat potential attackers to those seen on Sept. 11. The shield that CBG endorses would be constructed of steel I-beams and is believed able to stop even a commercial aircraft from activating any nuclear material in the reactor. The cost of these shields, he said, would be less than 1 percent of the construction cost of the reactors themselves. "The fundamental premise is that you want an attack to impart its energy on something that doesn't matter," said Hirsch. A 2002 report done by the Electric Power Research Institute at the request of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the policy organization of the U.S. nuclear energy and technologies industry, disputes Hirsch's claims, and found that "used fuel storage pools, fuel storage containers, and used fuel transportation containers at U.S. nuclear power plants would withstand these impact forces despite some concrete crushing and bent steel." "This confidence is predicated on the fact that nuclear plant structures have thick concrete walls with heavy reinforcing steel and are designed to withstand large earthquakes, extreme over-pressures and hurricane force winds," the report stated, and could similarly withstand aircraft strikes. Because of this report, the NEI says construction of the shield proposed by the CBG would be extraneous. "It's not necessary," said Steve Kerekes, spokesman for the NEI. "Because of the way the facilities are built so sturdily, there would not be a breach of the radioactive contents of the facility." Money that would be spent to construct the shield would be better used elsewhere, he said. James Lewis, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, agreed with Kerekes. Reactor defenses are highly fortified, he said, and more credit should be given to their ability. "Overall, (reactors) are just not a very good target because plants are designed to withstand earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes," said Lewis. "It's a waste of money," Lewis said of the beam shield. "This isn't something you need to do, because the odds of success are so small without doing anything. You could invest in other areas that are more important." However, other experts disagree with this assessment. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights ***************************************************************** 50 NRC: Notice of Environmental Assessment Related to the Issuance of a FR Doc 06-7239 [Federal Register: August 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 168)] [Notices] [Page 51648-51649] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30au06-146] License Amendment to Byproduct Material License No. 13-17582-02, for Unrestricted Release of a Facility for the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Terre Haute, IN AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George M. McCann, Senior Health Physicist, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532-4352; Telephone: (630) 829- 9856; or by e-mail at gmm@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a license amendment to NRC Byproduct Materials License No. 13-17582-02. This license is held by Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology (the Licensee) for a building (the Facility) on its Terre Haute, Indiana campus in which NRC-licensed materials were formerly stored. Issuance of the amendment would authorize release of the Facility for unrestricted use. The Licensee requested this action in a letter dated February 14, 2006, (ADAMS Accession No. ML062230210). The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the Environmental Assessment, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate for the proposed action. The amendment to Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology's license will be issued following the publication of this Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact in the Federal Register. I. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The proposed action would approve Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology's request to amend its license and release the Facility for unrestricted use in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. The Licensee received its initial NRC license on July 19, 1977, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30, and this license was superceded on February 2, 1989, by NRC License No. 13-17582-02. These licenses authorized the Licensee to use low millicurie quantities of byproduct materials in sealed and unsealed form for training and teaching students in nuclear and radiation physics. The Licensee is currently authorized to possess and use millicurie quantities of byproduct materials in sealed sources. The Licensee's Facility is a cinder block building of 100-150 square feet located about 60 feet northwest of the north end of Moench Hall (the Institute's main classroom building). The Facility contained a lead storage vault and was used to store plutonium-239/Beryllium neutron sources (which have been transferred to an authorized disposal agent), and an americium-241 sealed source. 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 its NRC-approved operating radiation safety procedures were required. The Licensee was not required to submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC because cleanup activities and procedures are consistent with those approved for routine operations. The Licensee provided survey results which demonstrated that the Facility was in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402, ``Radiological Criteria for Unrestricted Use.'' No radiological remediation activities are required to complete the proposed action. The NRC completed a closeout inspection and independent radiological surveys of the Licensee's Facility on July 13, 2006, (NRC Inspection Report No. 030-30904/06-001 (ADAMS Accession No. ML062140020)), which verified the Licensee's survey findings. Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities at the Facility. The NRC is fulfilling its responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act to make a decision on the proposed action for decommissioning that ensures that residual radioactivity at the Facility is reduced to a level that is protective of the public health and safety and the environment, and allows the Facility to be released for unrestricted use. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC staff reviewed the information provided and surveys performed by the Licensee to demonstrate that the release of the Facility is consistent with the radiological criteria for unrestricted use [[Page 51649]] specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. The NRC performed a closeout inspection and survey to confirm the Licensee's findings. The Licensee elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by using the screening values described in NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,'' Volume 1. 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 NRC considers these DCGLs to be in compliance with the As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10 CFR 20.1402. The Licensee's final status survey results were below these DCGLs, and are thus acceptable. Based on its review, the staff has determined that 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). Further, no 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 material 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 environmental impacts. The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Facility described above for unrestricted use 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. Alternatives to the Proposed Action The only alternative to the proposed action of allowing unrestricted release is no action. Under the no-action alternative, the Facility would remain under an NRC license and would not be released for unrestricted use. Denial of the license amendment request would result in no change to current conditions at the Facility. The no- action alternative is not acceptable because it would result in violation of NRC's Timeliness Rule (10 CFR Part 30.36), which requires Licensees to decommission their facilities when licensed activities cease. This alternative would also impose an unnecessary regulatory burden and limit potential benefits from future use of the Licensee's property. Conclusion The NRC staff 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. Agencies and Persons Consulted The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action will not affect listed species or critical habitats. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Likewise, the NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is not a type of activity that has potential to cause effect on historic properties. Therefore, consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is not required. The NRC provided a draft of its Environmental Assessment (EA) to Mr. Rex J. Bowser, Program Director, Radiation Emergency Response Program, Radiological Health Section, Indiana State Department of Health for review on July 25, 2006. On July 26, 2006, Mr. Bowser responded back to the NRC by e-mail and indicated that ``The IN State Dept. of Health, Radiological Health Section has no objections to this proposed action.'' II. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the EA in support of the proposed license amendment to release the Facility for unrestricted use, the NRC has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Thus, the NRC has not prepared an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. 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. 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. The documents and ADAMS accession numbers related to this notice are: 1. Letter dated February 14, 2006, with ``Final Status Survey of the Radioactive Source Storage Building at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology,'' dated September 27, 2005, attached. (ADAMS Accession No. ML062230210). 2. NRC Inspection Report No. 030-30904/06-001. (ML062140020). 3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs,'' NUREG- 1748, August 2003. 4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities,'' NUREG-1496, August 1994. 5. NRC, NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,'' Volumes 1-3, September 2003. 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 Lisle, Illinois, this 18th day of August 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Jamnes L. Cameron, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region III. [FR Doc. 06-7239 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 51 RBC: Russia and Japan discuss nuclear submarine recycling RosBusinessConsulting - News Online rbc.ru RBC, 30.08.2006, Moscow 15:54:35.At a meeting in Moscow, the chief of Russia's Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom), Sergei Kiriyenko, and Japan's Deputy Foreign Minister Katsutoshi Kaneda discussed cooperation between the two countries on nuclear-powered submarine recycling, Rosatom's press office reported. Russia and Japan cooperate in this area under a bilateral intergovernmental agreement dated October 13, 1993. The document's purpose is to provide assistance to Russia in disposing of its nuclear weapons subject to a build-down. As part of the agreement, the Japanese government has financed the construction of a floating complex worth some $35m to process liquid radioactive waste. © 2006 Associated Press. Dow Jones Index data provided by Dow Jones, Inc. Terms of use. Send your notes and suggestions to All rights reserved © 1995-2000 RosBusinessConsulting ***************************************************************** 52 NRC: RIN 3150-AH90 Secure Transfer of Nuclear Materials FR Doc E6-14397 [Federal Register: August 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 168)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 51534-51538] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30au06-30] AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations to implement requirements for secure transfer of nuclear materials as required by Section 656 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), signed into law on August 8, 2005. The proposed amendment would implement Section 656 by specifically excepting certain licensees from provisions of Section 170I of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), as amended. DATES: The comment period expires September 29, 2006. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. A copy of the draft proposed rule was made available for information only on July 6, 2006, on NRC's rulemaking Web site at: http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include the following number (RIN 3150-AH90) in the subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, NRC cautions you against including personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates in your submission. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply e- mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e- mail: cag@nrc.gov. Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays. (Telephone (301) 415-1966.) Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), Public File Area O1 F21, 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 NRC's rulemaking Web site at: http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Publicly available documents created or received at NRC after November 1, [[Page 51535]] 1999, are available electronically at NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. From this site, the public can gain entry into 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 PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Cardile, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6185, e-mail: fpc@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Energy Policy Act of 2005 On August 8, 2005, the President signed into law the EPAct of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005). Section 656 of the EPAct added Section 170I to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), 42 U.S.C, 2210i, and requires that: (a) A system be established by the Commission to ensure that materials transferred or received in the United States, by any party, pursuant to an import or export license issued by NRC, are accompanied by a manifest describing the type and amount of materials. Each individual receiving or accompanying the transfer of such materials shall be subject to a security background check conducted by appropriate Federal entities. Section 656 also states that, except as provided by the Commission by regulation, the materials referred to are: Byproduct material; source material; special nuclear material; high-level radioactive waste; spent nuclear fuel; transuranic waste; and low-level radioactive waste; and (b) The Commission issue regulations, within one year after enactment of the EPAct, identifying radioactive materials or classes of individuals that, consistent with the protection of the public health and safety and the common defense and security, are appropriate exceptions to the requirements in Section 170I \1\ of the AEA. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ The text of Section 656 actually refers to ``exceptions to the requirements of Section 170D of the AEA''; however, that is a misprint. The correct citation is Section 170I. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- II. Discussion Based on the above, Section 656 of the EPAct amends the AEA by adding three broad elements: (a) Establish a system for manifests of import/export shipments of radioactive materials; (b) require security background checks of persons receiving or accompanying import/export shipments; and (c) issue a regulation within one year with provisions for excepting certain types of radioactive materials or classes of individuals from the requirements of Section 170I of the EPAct. Establishing a system for manifests, requiring security background checks, and issuing a regulation with provisions for exceptions, are discussed in Sections II.A, II.B, and II.C, respectively, of this document. A. Establish a System for Manifests for Shipments of Radioactive Material Requirements for a system of manifests for shipments of material would include maintaining appropriate paperwork with a shipment that identifies the material being shipped. Specifically, the EPAct requires that a manifest include a description of the type of material and an indication of the amount of material being transported. Currently, requirements for manifesting shipments of radioactive materials already exist in U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations at 49 CFR part 172. Specifically, 49 CFR 172.202(a) requires that shipping papers with radioactive shipments must indicate the basic description of the material, the total quantity of material (by mass, volume, or activity level in appropriate units), and the number and type of packages. In addition, for the quantities of radioactive material covered by the EPAct, 49 CFR 172.203(d) contains requirements that descriptions of a shipment containing radioactive material must include the name (and/or chemical symbol) of each radionuclide in the material; a description of the physical and chemical form of the material, if not special form; the activity contained in each package of the shipment in terms of appropriate international units (e.g., Becquerels (Bq)) and/or appropriate customary units (Curies (Ci), etc.) in parentheses following the international units; and labeling of each package being transported. NRC's current regulations cross-reference the DOT requirements applicable to the transportation of licensed materials at 10 CFR 71.5. Section 71.5 requires that each licensee who transports licensed material outside the site of usage, or where transport is on public highways, or who delivers licensed material to a carrier for transport, comply with the applicable requirements of the DOT regulations at 49 CFR parts 107, 171-180, and 390-397, as appropriate to the mode of transport. Based on the existing DOT requirements for shipping papers for shipments of radioactive materials at 49 CFR part 172 and NRC's regulations at 10 CFR part 71, NRC believes that an appropriate system is already established to ensure that shipments of radioactive materials are accompanied by papers (i.e., a ``manifest'') appropriately describing the type and amount of materials being shipped. Thus, NRC considers that the requirements of the EPAct have been met in this area. Therefore, NRC is not including any additional requirements for manifesting of radioactive material shipments in this proposed rule. B. Require Security Background Checks for Persons Accompanying or Receiving Shipments of Radioactive Materials Section 656 of the EPAct states that each individual who ``accompanies'' or ``receives'' the transfer of radioactive materials in the United States, pursuant to an NRC import or export license, shall be subject to a security background check \2\ conducted by appropriate Federal entities. Section 656(c) of the EPAct also indicates that such background check requirements would become effective on a date established by the Commission. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \2\ The term ``security background check'' is not defined in Section 656. In related regulatory efforts, it has been noted that background checks form the basis of trustworthiness and reliability and are comprised of several elements (e.g., verification of identity; a check into employment history, education and personal references; and a criminal history record check requiring fingerprints). ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The NRC believes that the most appropriate and comprehensive approach for establishing requirements for security background checks is as part of the broader considerations of NRC's planned rulemaking to implement Section 652 of the EPAct. Section 652 mandates the Commission to require fingerprinting and criminal history record checks for any individual who is permitted unescorted access to radioactive material ``* * * that the Commission determines to be of such significance to the public health and safety or the common defense and security, as to warrant fingerprinting and background checks.'' The individuals referred to under Section 656 are a subgroup (i.e., those transferring radioactive material pursuant to an export or import license) of the larger group of individuals at a licensed facility, with unescorted access to radioactive material, who would [[Page 51536]] ultimately be included under a Section 652 rulemaking. The goal of the Section 652 rulemaking is that requirements for access are coherent and use a graded approach for the wide range of licensees impacted by Section 652, including those who might import or export radioactive material, and that there be coordinated consideration of appropriate exceptions, and of both domestic and import/export transport. Thus, NRC considers the rulemaking to implement Section 652 to be the most appropriate and comprehensive approach for establishing requirements for security background checks for licensees, and for licensee employees, for unescorted access to radioactive material and for the broad range of transportation networks that licensees use. The Section 652 rulemaking will incorporate technical basis development and will also provide opportunity for stakeholder comment. Those individuals involved in ``receiving'' and ``accompanying'' radioactive materials, addressed in Section 656, would be covered by the comprehensive Section 652 rulemaking. In addition to the rulemaking to implement Section 652, there are various regulatory initiatives, in place or underway, at other Federal agencies who have authority in the area of transportation security, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the DOT (see further discussion below). NRC views the transport security requirements of DHS and/or DOT, that apply to the nation's hazardous material transportation infrastructure as a whole, as the most effective long-term solution to implementing certain provisions of Section 656 of the EPAct. NRC is aware of DHS initiatives, such as the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) \3\ program, that are being implemented and views such programs as an effective solution for security background checks on transportation workers. NRC will work with other Federal agencies with authority in the area of transport security during the Section 652 rulemaking to ensure a coordinated Federal approach and to consider other Federal agency programs that are developed and initiated. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \3\ TSA and USCG recently published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on implementing the TWIC program for the maritime sector (see 71 FR 29395; May 22, 2006). ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The current schedule for the rulemaking to implement Section 652 calls for issuance of a proposed rule in the Fall of 2007 and a final rule in the Fall of 2008. While the more comprehensive Section 652 rulemaking is being conducted, the combination of NRC's system of Orders to a broad range of licensees setting conditions for access to radioactive material, as well as the system of DHS's and DOT's authorities and security regulations for transport personnel, provide adequate protection of the common defense and security, as they relate to persons accompanying and receiving material. These existing systems, described more fully below, include provisions for background checks for trustworthiness and reliability and provisions for fingerprinting for the purpose of obtaining a criminal history record check from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. NRC issued an extensive series of Orders during 2002-2005 that included background check requirements for unescorted access to radioactive material for certain facilities which it licenses. NRC has also issued Orders to reactor and materials licensees for shipment of radioactive material in quantities of concern (RAMQC). The purpose of these Orders has been to impose certain security measures to supplement existing regulations at 10 CFR part 20, and equivalent Agreement State regulations, for securing licensed materials from unauthorized access, with the intent of providing the NRC with reasonable assurance that the common defense and security is protected. The Orders note that conditions for unescorted access to risk-significant sources of radioactive material are governed by an appropriate need-to-know and by background checks as input to a determination concerning the trustworthiness and reliability of individuals who have access to the material. The Orders for unescorted access to radioactive material issued to date do not include fingerprinting for a criminal history record check. Currently, NRC is preparing additional Orders to pool-type irradiator licensees, manufacturing and distribution (M) licensees, and licensees making shipments of RAMQC, to require fingerprinting and criminal history checks for unescorted access to the risk-significant sources of radioactive material at their facilities. These Orders would cover all individuals with unescorted access to radioactive material at these facilities; persons ``receiving'' material at these licensee's facilities, pursuant to an import/export license, would be a subset of the persons covered by the Orders. As noted above, other Federal agencies have separate statutory authority in the area of transportation security. DHS is responsible for protecting the movement of international trade across U.S. borders and maximizing the security of the international supply chain. DHS includes the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Collectively, these agencies are responsible for protecting our nation's transportation systems and supervising the entry of goods into the United States. In carrying out these responsibilities, TSA has regulations for both civil aviation security (49 CFR parts 1540 to 1562) and maritime and land transportation security (49 CFR parts 1570 to 1572). Sections 1544.229 and 1544.230 of Title 49 require that each aircraft flight crew member, and each person with unescorted access authority and authority to perform checked baggage or cargo functions, undergo a Federal fingerprint-based criminal history record check. 49 CFR 1572.5 requires security threat assessments for individuals applying for, renewing, or transferring a commercial driver's license with a hazardous materials endorsement (radioactive material is a Class 7 hazardous material under DOT regulations). 49 CFR 1572.15 establishes procedures for security threat assessments. A TSA security threat assessment includes a fingerprint-based criminal history check, an intelligence-related background check, and a final disposition. Personnel involved in these functions can be disqualified if the checks indicate potential security risks. Similarly, the USCG has requirements for security at U.S. ports and background checks for maritime personnel (33 CFR part 110 and 46 CFR part 10). Recently, DHS announced that it would begin conducting name-based background checks on nearly 400,000 port workers in the U.S. as a initial measure as DHS expedites the comprehensive nationwide biometric-based TWIC program in 2006. C. Issue Regulations With Exceptions As discussed in Section I of this document, Section 656(b) of the EPAct mandates that the NRC issue regulations, within one year after enactment of the EPAct, identifying radioactive materials or classes of individuals that, consistent with the protection of the public health and safety and the common defense and security, are appropriate exceptions to provisions for security background checks in Section 170I of the AEA, as amended. [[Page 51537]] Consistent with Section 656(b) of the EPAct, the Commission is proposing to amend its regulations to except, from the security background check requirements of Section 170I of the AEA, as amended, licensees who have not received NRC Orders restricting unescorted access to radioactive materials based on background checks for trustworthiness and reliability that include fingerprinting and criminal history record checks. As noted above, Orders restricting access based on fingerprinting and criminal history record checks will be issued for pool-type irradiator licensees, M licensees, and licensees who make shipments of RAMQC. Under this proposed rule, those licensees who did not receive Orders for background checks that include fingerprinting would be excepted from the security background check requirements at Section 170I of the AEA. The rationale for the exceptions is that it is consistent with the system of Orders, issued to certain licensees, that the NRC has instituted for protection of the common defense and security. The materials possessed and transferred by the licensee groups who have received Orders have been deemed, during the process of issuance of the Orders, to be appropriate for immediately requiring certain security measures for unescorted access based on potential higher risk resulting from malevolent use of those materials. Those licensees excepted by this proposed amendment possess materials and use them in a manner that generally presents a lesser hazard for causing harm to the public health and safety and common defense and security, even if used for malevolent purposes. Generally, the basis for inclusion of materials within the system of Orders has been use of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Code of Conduct Category threshold quantity amounts which take account of the IAEA's categorization of sources found in IAEA Safety Guide No. RS-G-1.9, ``Categorization of Radioactive Sources'' (2005). The safety guide provides a risk-based ranking of radioactive sources in five categories in terms of their potential to cause severe deterministic effects for a range of scenarios that include both external exposure from an unshielded source and internal exposure following dispersal. Most licensees excepted under this proposed amendment are not expected to import or export radioactive material containing radionuclides in the higher risk categories of the IAEA Safety Guide 1.9. Using the framework of the existing system of Orders to codify exceptions allows for a consistent approach for radioactive materials which NRC considers appropriate, at this time, for exception from the requirements of Section 170I of the AEA as amended by the EPAct. As discussed in Section II.B of this document, the NRC intends to address background checks and fingerprinting for criminal history record checks for licensees in a more comprehensive manner under the rulemaking to implement Section 652 of the EPAct. One of the elements of that rulemaking, as mandated by Section 652(B)(i)(ll), will be determining requirements for access to quantities of radioactive material, subject to regulation by the Commission, that the Commission determines to be of such significance to the public health and safety or to the common defense and security as to warrant fingerprinting and background checks. Thus, the proposed requirements for exceptions in this Section 656 rulemaking will be revisited and may be superseded by the more comprehensive Section 652 rulemaking. At this time, in this Section 656 rulemaking, NRC is making a risk-informed decision to except licensees other than those with risk-significant sources (i.e., pool-type irradiators, M, and those making shipments of RAMQC, who received Orders) from the security background check requirements of Section 170I. In the more comprehensive Section 652 rulemaking, NRC will consider whether the exceptions for security background checks should be modified. Under this proposed amendment, licensees not excepted can use the provisions of their existing Orders (or new or amended Orders) to comply with Section 170I. As noted above, the Commission believes that this system of NRC Orders and the system of transport security of other Federal agencies provide adequate protection of the common defense and security while NRC is conducting the Section 652 rulemaking. Also, under the proposed amendment, if additional Orders for fingerprinting and criminal history checks for unescorted access to radioactive material are issued to licensees other than those noted above (i.e., pool-type irradiators, M, and those making shipments of RAMQC), licensees who receive any such new Orders would no longer be excepted from the security background check requirements of Section 170I. III. Effective Date of Implementation of Rule Section 656(c) of the EPAct provides that amendments to the AEA take effect upon issuance of regulations by the Commission under Section 656(b) of the EPAct. Consistent with this provision, the requirements for exceptions proposed in this amendment would become effective on the date of issuance of a final rule. Section 656(c) of the EPAct also provides that the security background check requirement is to become effective ``* * * on a date established by the Commission.'' As discussed above, the Commission is using its system of Orders to impose the security background check requirements. The Orders specify dates by which licensees must take specific actions. In addition, the Commission will issue more comprehensive security background check requirements in the future rulemaking to implement Section 652 and will establish an effective date for those requirements. With regard to manifest requirements, the Commission notes, as discussed above, that current NRC and DOT regulations require shipments of radioactive material to be accompanied by shipping papers (i.e., a manifest). IV. Section by Section Analysis of Substantive Changes A new Section 73.28 would be added to note that licensees are excepted from the security background check provisions of Section 170I of the AEA, as amended by the EPAct, if they have not received Orders from the NRC containing requirements for background checks for trustworthiness and reliability that include fingerprinting and criminal history checks as a prerequisite for unescorted access to radioactive materials. Licensees subject to Orders would not be excepted from the security background check provisions, and would use the requirements in their existing Orders to comply with Section 170I. V. Voluntary Consensus Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this proposed rule, NRC would indicate specific exceptions to the requirements of Section 656 of the EPAct. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that establishes generally applicable requirements. VI. Agreement State Compatibility Under the ``Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of [[Page 51538]] Agreement State Programs,'' which became effective on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), NRC program elements (including regulations) are placed into four compatibility categories (Compatibility Category A through D). In addition, NRC program elements also can be identified as having particular health and safety significance or as being reserved solely to NRC. The proposed amendment to part 73 would be a program element designated ``NRC'' based on implementation of the procedure in NRC's Management Directive 5.9, ``Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement States.'' The requirements in this proposed amendment are limited to providing exceptions to requirements in Section 170I of the AEA, as amended by the EPAct, and are based on a system of Orders that were developed under NRC's authority to protect the common defense and security which are areas of exclusive NRC regulatory authority and cannot be relinquished to the Agreement States. Therefore, the requirements of this proposed amendment should not be adopted by the Agreement States. VII. Plain Language The Presidential memorandum entitled ``Plain Language in Government Writing'' (63 FR 31883; June 10, 1998), directed that the Government's writing be in plain language. NRC requests comments on the proposed rule specifically with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used. Comments should be sent using one of the methods detailed under the ADDRESSES heading of the preamble to this proposed rule. VIII. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion NRC has determined that this proposed rule is the type of action described in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3)(ii) as a categorical exclusion. Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed rule. IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule does not contain new or amended information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0002. 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 Office of Management and Budget control number. X. Regulatory Analysis A regulatory analysis has not been prepared for this regulation because it relieves restrictions and does not impose any additional burdens on licensees. XI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification A regulatory flexibility Act analysis is not required because the proposed amendment does not impose any additional burdens on licensees. XII. Backfit Analysis NRC has determined that the backfit rule (Sec. Sec. 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, or 76.76) does not apply to this proposed rule because this amendment would not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in the backfit rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 73 Criminal penalties, Export, Hazardous materials transportation, Import, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the AEA, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendment to 10 CFR part 73. PART 73--PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF PLANTS AND MATERIALS 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 53, 161, 68 Stat. 930, 948, as amended, sec. 147, 94 Stat. 780 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2167, 2201); sec. 201, as amended, 204, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1245, sec. 1701, 106 Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5844, 2297f); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Section 73.1 also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section 73.37(f) also issued under sec. 301, Pub. L. 96-295, 94 Stat. 789 (42 U.S.C. 5841 note). Section 73.57 is issued under sec. 606, Pub. L. 99-399, 100 Stat. 876 (42 U.S.C. 2169). 2. A new Sec. 73.28 is added to read as follows: Sec. 73.28 Security background checks for secure transfer of nuclear materials. Licensees are excepted from the security background check provisions in Section 170I of the AEA if they have not received Orders from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission containing requirements for background checks for trustworthiness and reliability that include fingerprinting and criminal history record checks as a prerequisite for unescorted access to radioactive materials. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of August, 2006. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E6-14397 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 53 Highly Radioactive spent nuclear fuel to Piketon, Ohio Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:12:17 -0700 X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61] X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61 X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST I'm hoping that those of us opposed to slapping a highly radioactive nuclear waste dump on our area (in Piketon) (as recently proposed by the DOE and its private partners) will meet soon to discuss how to organize against the proposal. . Those of us who have been working on the nuclear issue know that the proposed "reprocessing" of spent fuel rods is an insane idea; this was tried once many years ago at West Valley, New York and resulted in an environmental disaster that the people of that area are still suffering from and still paying for. This proposal which is erroneously being called "recycling" actually compounds the problem of nuclear waste and does nothing to reduce the waste, on the contrary it makes us more vulnerable. Time is of the essence. This proposal is being rammed down our throats now and there is no time to waste. Yes, we need jobs but not at the expense of our lives. We did recycle the fuel from West Valley New York, at Piketon and that is why the EEOICPA compensation bill is in place workers and community residents are dying from cancer and other illness from the past recycling and production at the Piketon Plant. We had a earthquake here that was 5.7 or 9 on the richtor scale, and Tornado's have touch down around the plant plus flooding in this area this news is terrifying. Publication: Dayton Daily News; Date: Aug 24, 2006; Section: News; Page: 1 Spent nuclear fuel could end up in south Ohio Proposal to reprocess radioactive fuel near Piketon already drawing criticism. By Lynn Hulsey Staff Writer DAYTON — Highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel from across the country, and possibly the world, could come to southern Ohio under a plan being pushed by a public-private development partnership. In a proposal already drawing criticism from environmentalists, the Southern Ohio Nuclear Integration Cooperative, or SONIC, envisions building a spent fuel storage and reprocessing plant and an advanced, plutonium-fueled nuclear reactor on federal land near Piketon, 100 miles southeast of Dayton. The idea is part of a federal plan to recycle nuclear fuel and reduce waste. “This is extremely important. It is important for America,” said Dan T. Moore, SONIC’s Cleveland-based chief executive. SONIC is applying for a $5 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to study putting the operation at the department’s Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, which enriched uranium for nearly 50 years before closing in 2001, said Gregory Simonton, executive director of the Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative, a SONIC partner in Piketon. SONIC is one of 41 entities to have given the government a formal “expression of interest” in the plant. Simonton said the area desperately needs the jobs the development would bring, but added that seeking the study grant doesn’t mean officials have decided to definitely pursue the operation. “Quite frankly, given the history of our site it makes sense to look at any opportunity,” he said. “But just because we do the evaluation doesn’t mean it fits community values.” » Site would be part of larger U.S. initiative Article on A8 Publication: Dayton Daily News; Date: Aug 24, 2006; Section: Local; Page: 8 Nuclear facilities could be part of U.S. initiative Some residents oppose partnership seeking grant to have federal land near Piketon. By Lynn Hulsey Staff Writer The high-technology nuclear facilities being considered for federal land near Piketon would be part of a larger U.S. government initiative to increase the use of nuclear power, reduce nuclear waste and contain the global proliferation of dangerous technology. But some local activists want nothing to do with it. They say the U.S. Department of Energy has already polluted the proposed site — the now-closed Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant — and the community has borne its full share of the country’s nuclear legacy. They oppose the idea of building a storage and reprocessing plant for highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel rods — a process that would allow the rods to be reused — and an advanced burner-reactor that would produce electricity by burning plutonium, a nuclear waste that would be extracted from the rods. “I think it’s terrifying. To think that people in our community are so desperate for jobs that they would take plutonium, the fuel rods, any type of waste,” said Vina Colley, president of Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and Security. “They’re sacrificing this community.” Pat Marida, central Ohio chair of the Sierra Club, said the facility would make Ohio the “dump site of the nation.” There is also the possibility of spent fuel rods coming from other countries. Part of President Bush’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership plan is to offer other countries nuclear fuel and recycling services if they agree to not pursue those technologies themselves. Department of Energy spokesman Craig Stevens said the origin of the spent fuel is not yet decided. Sara Perkins, spokeswoman for a U.S. Rep. David Hobson, R-Springfield, said, “It is our understanding that the U.S. is not going to take foreign fuel before taking care of the fuel we have here at home.” It may be a good idea for the United States to handle spent nuclear fuel from countries where it is not well-safeguarded, said U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Loveland, whose district includes Piketon. But she said she’ll support the proposed facility for Piketon only if the community wants it. The plan is very preliminary. The Department of Energy has $20 million to offer in grants for communities to study possible sites for the facility. Grants will be awarded this fall, with studies to be completed early next year. A partnership is seeking a study grant for Piketon. Pike County’s top development official is a bit leery of the project, although in a region of high unemployment, she said the community needs the jobs. “Storage of spent nuclear fuel is probably not one of the best things that we could’ve thought of,” said Jennifer Chandler, county community and economic development director. But considering how limited the development options are at the old uranium enrichment plant, the latest proposal might be a good fit if the community supports it, she said. Blaine Beekman, executive director of the Pike County Chamber of Commerce, said he has been assured by supporters that spent fuel rods would only be stored temporarily while they await reprocessing. If the idea wins community and government approval, there would have to be rules in place so shipments of the rods would be limited to an amount that could be handled in a reasonable time, said Gregory Simonton of the Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative. His public- and privately funded development group formed a company with a Cleveland firm to bring the new facilities to the site of the old Piketon plant. For nearly five decades the government-owned plant enriched uranium, first for weapons and then for nuclear reactors. It closed in 2001 and the DOE is in the midst of a major cleanup of radioactive contaminants and hazardous chemicals. The site is home to two new nuclear missions. USEC Inc. is building a pilot uranium enrichment centrifuge facility while awaiting federal approval for a commercial enrichment plant. The DOE is building a plant to recycle some 20,000 cylinders of uranium enrichment waste that accumulated over the years. -- Lynn Hulsey Reporter Dayton Daily News (937) 225-7455 Vina Colley Vina Colley Vina Colley ***************************************************************** 54 The Australian: Fourth uranium mine approved The Australian The Nation Richard Sproull August 30, 2006 OPERATORS of Australia's fourth uranium mine expect it will be producing ore for export by 2008 after approving its development today. South African-based company Uranium One said studies of the Honeymoon 1.2 million tonne ore body near Broken Hill had shown it was technically viable and financial robust''. The ore body was found in 1969 and a demonstration plant was built in 1980 but was shut down in 1983 because of poor demand for uranium. But the project's viability has been buttressed by a dramatic increase in the price paid for uranium ore on the market, which has risen from $US36 per pound to $US48 per pound since January. The company is now awaiting a green light from the South Australia's Labor government for environmental approval of the mine. This is a critical decision for Labor in South Australia which is pushing to change the federal ALP "three mines'' uranium policy. Opposition leader Kim Beazley has pledged to overturn the policy at the party's national conference next year but a candidate for the ALP president's position, veteran senator John Faulkner, has stated the party should maintain the policy. The company will spend $47 million to develop the mine and plans to extract the uranium through in situ leaching using an acid. Uranium One is also exploring for uranium ore in other parts of South Australia. Privacy Terms © The Australian ***************************************************************** 55 The Australian: New uranium mine digs hole in ALP policy Michelle Wiese Bockmann August 31, 2006 INTERNATIONAL miner SXR Uranium One will open Australia's fourth uranium mine by 2008, intensifying pressure on federal Labor to overturn its ban on new uranium mines. A $53 million plant will be built at the mothballed site at Honeymoon, 75km northwest of Broken Hill, producing 400 tonnes of uranium oxide worth $45million a year. The company approved the project even though final state government permits had yet to be issued, and without Labor assurances that the planned mine would not breach the party's no-new-mines policy. But SXR Uranium One executive Greg Cochran said submissions were before the South Australian Government and approvals "were a matter of course" because "no fatal flaws" had been identified. Opposition Leader Kim Beazley, who has backed moves to overturn the Labor ban on new uranium mines, denied the issue had divided his party. "We'll have a debate on uranium, there'll be disagreements from the party on it," he said in Adelaide yesterday. But he said Labor supported some uranium mining, and "it's largely been an issue of fine-tuning" the policy. Honeymoon will be South Australia's third and smallest uranium mine, employing 50 people, with uranium taken by rail to Darwin for export to Europe and North America. Mr Cochran said the company had plans to open further uranium mines in South Australia in the future. "We are very pleased with the courageous announcement that (Mr Beazley) recently made signalling a change and therefore we believe sovereign risk is very low," he said. South Australian Premier Mike Rann has lobbied to overturn the mining ban for more than a decade, while successfully opposing a radioactive waste dump being sited in the state. But Greens MP Mark Parnell disputed Mr Rann's claims that Honeymoon was approved before the Rann Government came to power in 2002. Additional reporting: Joseph Kerr © The Australian ***************************************************************** 56 The Australian: Nuclear minefield Booming world prices are behind the decision to approve a fourth uranium mine, writes Michelle Wiese Bockmann August 31, 2006 Mushrooming prospects: Sxr Uranium One's Greg Cochran surveys the Honeymoon mine site in remote South Australia. Picture: Michelle Wiese Bockmann IT takes a boneshaking ride over a narrow, dirt access road for Greg Cochran to reach Honeymoon, the nation's next uranium mine. The sxr Uranium One chief has only been in the job for several months and this is one of his few visits to the site, just inside the South Australian border 75km northwest of Broken Hill. From his vantage point atop the mine site's ageing demonstration plant, he points to a barren landscape where all there is to be seen is flat, ochre sand and a carpet of scrubbybushes. Within 18 months the landscape will be dotted with tiny wells, from where an acid solution will be flushed 120m underground to leach out the uranium below. SA's outback is the new frontier for uranium and sxr Uranium One has a significant piece of the action. "Within a 50km radius there are five different uranium exploration companies," Cochran says. Yesterday it was announced that Australia's fourth uranium mine may open as early as 2008 at Honeymoon, with owner sxr Uranium One planning further uranium mines elsewhere in the state. The ambitious South African-Canadian owned mining company may be establishing the country's smallest mine - producing just 400 tonnes of yellowcake a year - but it's taking a much larger gamble. Sxr Uranium One is the first company to rely on the ALP's ban on new uranium mines being overturned, freeing up billions of dollars of the energy resource that has been locked underground by the policy. Australia has three operating uranium mines: Ranger in the Northern Territory and Olympic Dam and Beverley in South Australia. A fourth is due to start operation at Honeymoon, SA, in 2008. Australia has the world's largest uranium reserves, with 24 per cent of the total. Production and exports exceed 11,000 tonnes of uranium oxide a year. Uranium is mined in about 20 countries, with Canada meeting one-third of world demand and nearly one-quarter being met by Australia. Australia's mines export to the US, Japan, the European Union, South Korea and Canada Source: Uranium Information Centre; Uranium One website. The ALP ban also binds the states, which are all Labor-held, denying them the right to approve any new mines. In a convenient political twist, however, SA Premier Mike Rann is insisting Honeymoon is not a new mine because some of its permits were approved by the previous Liberal state government. Yesterday sxr Uranium One's board announced it had approved spending $53 million to develop the site. Work on building a new processing plant will begin by year's end with production scheduled for the first quarter of2008. "This is a historic day for Australian mining and the uranium industry," Cochran says. The executive vic-president, in charge of operations in Australia and Asia, adds: "We are happy to be located and working in South Australia and we believe that this will be the first of a number of projects that we intend to develop in this state." The Honeymoon development will start even though all the crucial state government licences have yet to be granted. Its mining and milling licence application was submitted to the Environment Protection Agency in June. The plan outlined procedures to use a contentious, underground acid-leaching extraction process to mine uranium, which pumps radioactive waste into aquifers. The in-situ leaching method is a cheaper way to mine smaller uranium deposits, and is used at the nearby Beverley mine. Sxr Uranium One plans to build portable plant and equipment that can be transferred to other mine sites after the Honeymoon site is mined out, in about six years. Rann has led a national charge to end what has been termed the anachronistic Labor policy on uranium. "Its (Honeymoon's) mining licence was issued in February 2002 (under the former Liberal government) and it can proceed under federal and state law and it can proceed under federal ALP policy," he said yesterday. Rann was flanked by federal Opposition leader Kim Beazley, who last July called for Labor to end its ban on uranium mines. Beazley was in Adelaide yesterday to campaign in the city's marginal seats and endorsed Rann's view, denying well established party divisions. "I want to change party policy, as you know, but the simple fact of the matter is that current party policy would contemplate the Honeymoon mine, it would be approved under existing arrangements," Beazley said. Cochran, a South African expat and former BHP Billiton executive, welcomes what he calls Beazley's courageous decision. "We are certainly sensitive to the political situation and we acknowledge we've had a lot of support from the South Australian Government," Cochran says. "The approval process to date has been very transparent, world class, and we are watching the great debate within the industry and at both a federal and state level, where people are getting the right information and taking that information into consideration." Labor's three-mines policy, which has been in place for more than two decades, is likely to be officially declared dead at the party's national convention next April. In the short term, however, uranium is shaping as a big issue for the party in the race for the national president's job. Rann, pro-uranium and backed by the party's Right, has nominated for the job and is pitted against veteran left-leaning federal Senator John Faulkner, who wants to keep the existing uranium policy. The national ballot is viewed as a de facto referendum on uranium, with the party's 40,000 eligible members to begin voting to decide the presidency from September 1. Rann and Faulkner are also standing against former leader Simon Crean and NSW state MP Linda Burney for three, 12-month rotating terms. Beazley has denied uranium will help decide who wins the job as party president. Federal environment spokesman Anthony Albanese disagrees. Albanese says uranium mining is one of the important issues that will be considered when members cast their vote. "I believe very strongly that the push to expand uranium mining is not a push that has come from the grassroots of the ALP," Albanese says. "I think an overwhelming majority of ALP members are very cautious about expanding Australia's involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle." Sxr Uranium One yesterday pointed to shifting public attitudes on uranium. "The public is asking what are the economic benefits of uranium and why are we only exporting 20 per cent of the world's uranium when we possess 40 per cent of the world's resources," Cochran says. "I believe that there is an economic opportunity for Australia to increase its uranium mining and increase its position in the uranium industry in the world and I think the average Australian would think similarly." The Honeymoon approval has also churned up debate over enrichment. Sxr Uranium One hasn't ruled out "going down that route" but stresses its immediate focus is on mining only. And while Rann does not want a nuclear power plant in his state, he has left the door open on the issue of uranium enrichment. "As there are no proposals for an enrichment plant here, no government policy position has been reached," his spokesman said. Federal resources spokesman Martin Ferguson has also signalled enrichment is the next debate the party must face. Meanwhile, the state minister who will sign off on Honeymoon's final but crucial commercial mining and milling licence is a member of the Left faction. Environment Minister Gail Gago ensured the Government's line was maintained last night in a posture that is likely to be at odds with some of her Left colleagues. "The Honeymoon operation is not a new mine," she says. Honeymoon is the first uranium mine to open in Australia since the Beverley mine in 1999. Its deposit was discovered in 1972, but mining trials using acid in-situ leaching were cancelled by the state government in 1982. The plant was mothballed after new mining trials in the late 1990s. A joint federal and state government environmental impact study was approved in November 2001. The then federal environmental minister, Robert Hill, had rejected an earlier study, amid concerns about radioactive waste management. By the time the Rann Government was elected in 2002, uranium prices were languishing at $US10 a pound. Now soaring demand - which has seen global uranium prices increase four-fold in the past four years and double in the past 12 months - has made many smaller deposits such as Honeymoon commercially viable. The present spot price is $US48 a pound. Labor's policy to restrict uranium mining was adopted in 1982, allowing three mines: Olympic Dam at Roxby Downs in SA, Ranger in the Northern Territory and Nabarlek, also in the territory and which has since closed. Labor now holds power across the states where rich uranium deposits are held, and its no-new-mines policy is perceived by industry as one of the last barriers to Australia becoming the world's largest uranium supplier. But the policy has not prevented existing mine expansion: a proposed $7 billion expansion of the BHP Billiton-owned Olympic Dam copper and uranium mine is set to treble output to 15,000 tonnes a year by 2013, making it the world's largest uranium mine. And as many as a dozen new uranium mines are predicted to open in Australia, according to the Uranium Information Centre, an industry funded lobby group. In SA, up to a dozen companies have been granted 128 uranium exploration licences, with the state government considering a further 90 applications. Uranium explorers, including sxr Uranium One, are bullish. "We're very optimistic about the future of uranium mining in Australia," Cochran says. "We hold about 40 per cent of the world's resource base of uranium but that's on the back of almost zero expansion. As exploration intensifies over the coming years we can only see that our resource base in world terms will possibly increase to 50 per cent." The other big question for sxr Uranium One is who it can sell its ore to. Forty per cent of its output has already been sold under two contracts with what it calls European and North American clients. But Cochran sees no ethical objection to selling the estimated $45 million worth of uranium it will mine each year to China, should it get federal approval to do so. "India would not be on our radar screen at this stage, but we are aware of the discussions that have been going on with our Government and the Chinese Government and should proper agreements be in place we would consider exporting to China." Michelle Wiese Bockmann is The Australian's political reporter for South Australia. Additional reporting by Verity Edwards. © The Australian ***************************************************************** 57 AU ABC: Uranium One pushes ahead with SA mine ABC North and West SA | Local News | Story Wednesday, 30 August 2006. 12:38 (AEDT)Wednesday, 30 August Mine plans: Uranium One is confident of getting EPA approval. (File photo)ABC TV Australia's fourth uranium mine is a step closer, with resources company Uranium One approving development at its Honeymoon site in the far north-east of South Australia. Honeymoon was granted a 20-year licence under the previous Liberal state government, and is now waiting on final approval from the Environment Protection Authority. Uranium One's Greg Cochran says he is confident of getting that approval before production starts in early 2008. "The current State Government has been very supportive during the approvals process," he said. "The standards that both the South Australian and Federal governments set are extremely high." Honeymoon will be Australia's smallest uranium mine, and will employ about 50 people. Uranium One has already secured markets for its yellowcake uranium in Europe and in North America. ***************************************************************** 58 Santa Fe New Mexican: Nuke plant nears construction Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:02 pm The Associated Press EUNICE -- The first major nuclear facility to be licensed in the United States in three decades moved a step closer to construction Tuesday as officials broke ground for a $1.5 billion uranium enrichment plant in Eastern New Mexico. Nearly 800 people -- including members of the state's congressional delegation and Gov. Bill Richardson -- attended the ceremony under a towering white tent some five miles east of Eunice. Officials said the National Enrichment Facility, which will make fuel for commercial nuclear power plants, also was making history. "I have been talking over the last several years about the coming of the nuclear renaissance in commercial nuclear energy in America," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., long a supporter of nuclear power. "I am delighted and proud that the renaissance is in New Mexico." Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., whose congressional district includes Eunice, noted the plant is expected to bring in up to 1,000 construction jobs and 300 permanent ones and said it will generate millions of dollars for the economy of Lea County and southeastern New Mexico. Local officials lauded the plant for diversifying the region's bedrock economy of oil and gas. Richardson, a former U.S. energy secretary, said nuclear energy will play an important role in the nation's energy mix, and the uranium enrichment plant is a step into the future. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission in June granted a license allowing Louisiana Energy Services to build and operate the plant, the first U.S. installation to use centrifuge technology rather than a process known as gaseous diffusion that has been around since World War II. David Garman, undersecretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, said the NRC expects about 25 applications for nuclear power plants, partially due to the quick application process -- some 21/2 years -- for LES. Officials have said the plant's first production facilities could be completed in late 2008. The first private enrichment plant in the nation could be ready to sell enriched uranium in the first quarter of 2009. Domenici said the plant has global significance. "The plant could provide, one day, the fuel to run schools in Asia, hospitals in Brazil. This plant will make the world a better place to live in a very real sense of the word," he said. Pearce said the enrichment facility could produce 25 percent of U.S. demand for fuel rods for nuclear power plants -- rods that currently are imported. Thus, Pearce said, the plant is bringing jobs to New Mexico that otherwise could have gone to Europe. Two nuclear watchdog groups have appealed the NRC's license decision for LES, which is made up of European-based Urenco, British Nuclear Fuels Unlimited and minor U.S. partners. Public Citizen and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service argued in their filing this month in federal court in Washington, D.C., that LES has not shown a plausible strategy to dispose of depleted uranium waste. Marshall Cohen, vice president for communications and government relations for LES, has said the government carefully vetted the project. Currently, there is no place in the United States to dispose of waste from such a plant, although a French company, Areva Inc., has agreed to build a private deconversion facility to handle it. The NRC also must license Areva's facility. LES believes the waste can be buried once it has gone through deconversion. The state, which complained it was largely excluded from the licensing process, developed its own agreement with LES over waste storage at the plant. The agreement requires LES to limit storage of depleted uranium hexafluoride in New Mexico to an amount equal to what the plant could produce over eight to 10 years at full capacity. The agreement also states all waste must be converted or disposed of outside New Mexico. Nuclear energy watchdog groups criticized the agreement, saying it doesn't go far enough in removing the waste from New Mexico and fails to solve the disposal problem. Richardson said Tuesday that Urenco has a track record to ensure adequate health and safety measures, but the state will play an oversight role. "We want to be sure the state is a partner, and I can assure you that's going to happen," he said. By Rusty Wade The forty eighth Ronin (Submitted: 08/30/2006 10:28 pm) ( Report this comment ) So they'll send the uranium hexafluoride to Seargents Ohio where everybody else ( including the russians and french) send it? And the low level waste to Chem Nuclear in Barnwell, SC Hmm what's so new about that.. I hauled both products to both places in the 70s... By Charles Streeper (Submitted: 08/30/2006 9:28 pm) ( Report this comment ) As Khalil already stated, this is a Uranium enrichment plant not a nuclear power plant as the article and some responses misconceive. I believe 20% of the current US energy needs require low enriched uranium and worldwide the desire for low enriched uranium for fuel is increasing dramatically. Politically the US is obliged to supply nuclear technology to non-nuclear weapon states and so it only makes sense that an enrichment facility be built to position the US favorably in the increasing market. The Russians are also adept at this market game and are watching US policy towards India as a test of what will be acceptable for the future. In fact, what I find the most controversial about this project is two things. First, as Khalil stated the chemical by-product waste that needs to be disposed of and second, Domenici and Bingaman have already fought against taking an increase in highly enriched uranium from the Russian's nuclear weapons because they fear that it will flood the market and hurt this plants ability to compete because of low LEU prices. That is disturbing because to me it exemplifies behavior in favor of the market and ignores the opportunity to get rid of more Russian weapons grade HEU that could still be diverted if not secured properly. The disposition and disposal of Pu is a whole different monster and as Khalil stated is wholly lacking political will in nature. In fact, it has been suggested that the Russian's rare move of not accepting US separated Pu from spent fuel is tied to the US not accepting Russian downblended HEU. I don't think breeders or burners are the answer though and I honestly would like to see other disposal options, like deep borehole burial, resurface though that is literally impossible. By Kelley Chapman (Submitted: 08/30/2006 9:12 pm) ( Report this comment ) Hello, James...I take a bit of offense to your "nothing there" comment. I live in Jal, RIGHT DOWN THE ROAD from this soon-to-be-plant. I don't consider myself "nothing" (or my kids for that matter). We NEED this business, as we are the forgotten corner of this state. By Ed Campbell (Submitted: 08/30/2006 4:43 pm) ( Report this comment ) Cripes, I can't believe I'm still reading about 2nd generation atomic power plants. I worked on the 1st and 2nd generation critters. A terrific success as welfare plans for GE and Westinghouse. Meanwhile the French and Chinese are building 3rd generation breeder reactors and heading for 4th. If we're finally going to resume nuclear power generation, why not use methods which have a track record for less radioactive waste? By Jordan Snyder (Submitted: 08/30/2006 12:22 pm) ( Report this comment ) Thanks Bob! You are right about that being a huge misconception. By Khalil Spencer (Submitted: 08/30/2006 11:46 am) ( Report this comment ) The long half life means the nucleus has a more stable configuration, so, statistically, a nucleus kicks around a lot longer before it decays to something else, and therefore you see fewer disintegrations and energy releases per unit time for a unit pile of the stuff. As far as hazards, there are radiological and chemical ones. A short half life isotope releasing a lot of energy over a short period of time is capable of causing a lot of biological damage depending on what its decay modes are and whether it is ingested or simply irradiating you. But DU, made up primarily of 238U with a 4.5 billion year half life, may cause significant damage chemically since U as a chemical, regardless of isotope, damages the renal system, etc. Google the Royal Society papers on DU exposure, if they are still online. By Bob Bromm (Submitted: 08/30/2006 10:41 am) ( Report this comment ) There is a big misconception about radioactivity. Some people think that the longer the half-life the more dangerous, like Plutonium having a 25,000 half-life. The truth is just the opposite. Radioactive decay is like oxidation: we call really, really fast oxidation an explosion; we call fast oxidation fire; and we call really, really slow oxidation rust. They are all the same thing, the only difference is the rate at which it occurs. Radioactive decay is the same: a really, really short half-life (seconds to months) is like an explosion, a lot of energy is released in a short amount of time. A relatively short half-live (months to years) is like fire, and a really, really long half-life (hundreds to millions of years) is like rust. By the way, an infinite half-life means that it is NOT RADIOACTIVE. Bob Bromm By JAMES GONZALES (Submitted: 08/30/2006 10:08 am) ( Report this comment ) Privacy Policy / Terms of Use | ©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions ***************************************************************** 59 Platts: Consortium breaks ground on New Mexico uranium enrichment plant Washington (Platts)--29Aug2006 In a move that was hailed as evidence of the resurgent nuclear power industry, Louisiana Energy Services, a consortium of US and European power companies, broke ground Tuesday on a $1.5-billion uranium-enrichment plant in southeastern New Mexico. The plant, dubbed the National Enrichment Facility, will produce fuel for commercial nuclear power plants. "A lot of people in the company and the community have worked very hard to make this moment happen, and we want to share our excitement with Lea County [New Mexico] and our neighbors in Texas," said Jim Ferland, LES president, at a ground-breaking ceremony near the tiny town of Eunice, New Mexico, where the facility will be built. A number of top energy policymakers attended the ceremony, including Under Secretary of Energy David Garman and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, Republican-New Mexico. Domenici played a key role in winning approval for the plant, which was blocked for a time by New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a Democrat and a former energy secretary under President Clinton. Richardson had long vowed to block the plant unless he received assurances that the depleted uranium waste that it will generate will not remain in his state permanently. Richardson and Domenici worked out a deal on the waste issue last year, which cleared the way for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue LES a construction and operating license in June. Still, two environmental groups--Nuclear Information and Resource Service and Public Citizen--are trying to get NRC to rescind the license. The groups have not yet detailed their basis for the request, but they recently notified the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that they will be challenging NRC's issuance of the license. For more news, request a free trial to Platts Electric Utility Week at http://electricutilityweek.platts.com or subscribe now at http://www.platts.com/infostore/product_info.php?cPath=2_31&p roducts_id=48 Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 60 (TPR): DoE Plans Further Volcanic, Seismic Testing at Yucca Mountain Nuke Dump THE PEACOCK REPORT August 29, 2006 [Yucca_mountain_johnny_2] Further assessments of volcanic and seismic activity near the proposed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Depository in Nevada is planned for early 2007, according to a Dept. of Energy (DoE) procurement document that The Peacock Report has obtained. Whereas DoE has previously claimed that volcanic activity is unlikely for the next 10,000 years, the State of Nevada rejected that claim as unfounded. Bechtel SAIC Co., DoE's prime contractor for the nuclear waste site, will outsource this testing, which will involve the deep drilling of 44 boreholes in a location known as Area 25 of the Nevada Test Site. DoE anticipates releasing a more detailed Request for Proposals on or around Oct. 16, 2006. "The estimated period of performance is to begin work in January 15, 2007 with an expected duration not to exceed six (6) months," the Aug. 28 presolicitation notice said. August 29, 2006 | Permalink ***************************************************************** 61 Hemscott: PG&E plans Supreme Court appeal WASHINGTON (AFX) - Utility holding company Pacific Gas & Electric Co. said Wednesday it plans to appeal to the Supreme Court a federal ruling that blocked a plan to store more radioactive waste at the Diablo Canyon power plant in California. New storage facilities are needed because the current waste repository at the PG&E site will be full by 2010. In June, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that federal regulators must consider more seriously the likelihood of a terrorist attack at the Diablo Canyon site in San Luis Obispo County to gain approval for additional storage. The judges unanimously disagreed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 2003 finding that an attack was 'remote and speculative' and therefore unnecessary to consider. A group calling itself San Luis Obispo Mothers For Peace had sued the NRC over its lack of terrorism planning in efforts to expand storage at the site. NRC Chairman Dale Klein said Wednesday that the agency would not request a new hearing because PG&E plans to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. Company spokeswoman Sharon Gavin confirmed the appeal would be filed before a Sept. 29 deadline. In an hour-long meeting with reporters hosted by energy information provider Platts, a division of McGraw-Hill Cos., Klein addressed past and present safety issues, including tritium leaks and the 1986 Chernobyl explosion in the Ukraine. Regarding the widely criticized proposal to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, Klein said his agency has been frustrated by the repeated setbacks and has added staff to deal with the expected application only to have it delayed. Yucca Mountain is now scheduled to open in 2017 and to hold 77,000 metric tons of the nation's spent nuclear fuel. The Energy Department plans to submit a licensing application in June or July 2008. On the issue of tritium leaks, Klein said public education and industry diligence were key. Tritium is a radioactive form of hydrogen that is a natural byproduct of the nuclear process. Companies in Tennessee and Illinois have uncovered the substance leaking into the groundwater around their factories. The Tennessee Valley Authority said this month that its three nuclear power plants have leaked tritium, but it had not moved beyond TVA property and NRC officials said it was not a public health hazard. Exelon Corp. said last month that no new leaks of tritium had been found in a study of the company's 11 nuclear plants in Illinois, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Exelon launched the $5 million environmental study in February after officials learned of leaks dating back to 1996 at the company's Braidwood plant in Illinois, where slightly elevated levels of tritium were detected in two drinking water wells near the plant. 'The industry needs to do a better job, and the NRC does as well, on educating the public on what tritium means,' Klein said. 'Just because you can measure tritium in the water doesn't mean that your water glows in the dark.' Some lawmakers have called for mandatory reporting of the leaks, but Klein said he prefers the current voluntary method, although he did not rule out making it a future requirement. 'We need to put the attention where the potential risks lie,' Klein said. 'If we don't, we run the risk of being distracted and focusing on issues that have minimal impact.' There are currently 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States, producing about 20 percent of the nation's electricity. Although the NRC has not licensed a nuclear power plant in the United States since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, proponents say nuclear energy is safer, cheaper and cleaner than plants powered by natural gas or coal. 'The No. 1 priority is that existing plants operate safely and securely,' Klein said. 'We do not need to become distracted on new plants and forget about those existing plants.' The agency expects to receive more than two dozen applications for new nuclear plant licenses in coming years and plans to hire more workers and streamline its 42-month review process to deal with the workload, he said. Critics point to the 1986 nuclear plant explosion at Chernobyl in the Ukraine, but Klein said Chernobyl used an unstable reactor that is not used commercially in the West. 'When I get ready to retire, I want to retire near a nuclear plant,' the 59-year-old said. 'It's safe, it's secure and my taxes will be lower.' Klein previously assisted with nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs as an aide to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He began his five-year term as NRC chief in July. Shares of Exelon fell 18 cents to close at $60.12, while PG&E fell 48 cents to end at $41.34, both on the New York Stock Exchange. Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Hemscott PLC - Serious Investment Research [ src=] Hemscott PLC - Serious Investment Research Copyright 2006 Hemscott Group Limited. Hemscott is the UK registered trademark of Hemscott Group Limited. ***************************************************************** 62 PE.com: Rialto pollution talks go nowhere Inland Southern California NO DEAL: At issue is how much San Bernardino County owes the city for the cleanup of six wells. 10:00 PM PDT on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 By NAOMI KRESGE and MASSIEL LADRÓN DE GUEVARA The Press-Enterprise Settlement talks over payment for perchlorate cleanup broke down on Tuesday between Rialto and San Bernardino County. The settlement meeting was the first since last August between county supervisors and Rialto City Council members, and each side blamed the other for its acrimonious end. County Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Postmus and Supervisor Josie Gonzales left the morning conference with Rialto councilmen Ed Scott and Joe Sampson. Scott had asked a representative of state Rep. Nell Soto, D-Pomona, to leave, and then the two sides began to argue about the case. At issue is whether and how much the county owes Rialto to compensate for perchlorate contamination in groundwater from the Mid-Valley Landfill in north Rialto. City officials say they had a tentative agreement with the county for $6 million, of which $3.5 million would be repaid. County officials say there was never a deal. "I think things have pretty well broken down, is what it looks like to me. Unfortunately, the settlement demand on the county will increase in the coming months and years," said Robert Owen, Rialto's city attorney. "Ultimately the county is going to have to pay for their fair share." The city and its utility sued the county and 41 other agencies and companies in January 2004 over perchlorate contamination in groundwater. Perchlorate, a component of rocket fuel and fireworks, is believed to interfere with thyroid function and brain development. Fetuses and newborns are most at risk. The chemical has contaminated six of Rialto's wells. Soto, whose district includes Rialto, is chairwoman of a state Senate committee on perchlorate. Her spokesman, David Miller, said a staffer contacted the county and asked about sitting in on the Tuesday meeting. Scott said the city told county officials it didn't want the meeting to be confidential. But Scott said it wasn't proper for a third party to be in the room during the talks. "It was a misunderstanding. I think the bottom line is, we share their commitment to getting the perchlorate out of the drinking water," Miller said. Bob Page, Gonzales' chief of staff, said the two sides argued over providing information and whether each had returned the other's calls. City officials say that in a closed-door meeting with Postmus and Gonzales last August, they reached a tentative agreement for the county to pay a $6 million settlement. Over the course of a year, the two sides said, talks turned to the county paying $2.5 million, plus a $3.5 million advance on future legal costs that would be repaid from money recovered from other defendants. But Gonzales said there were contingencies because the county didn't have the money. The $2.5 million payment was contingent upon approval from the county's insurer, Page said. Gonzales said the $3.5 million advance was contingent on the sale of county land in Ontario. The county hoped to get $52 million to $54 million but only got $47 million, she said, not enough to fund the advance. "I told them that when they have their priorities straight and are serious on moving forward they could call me and I would reschedule," Gonzales said. "Ed Scott said he would call my office." Reach Massiel Ladrón de Guevara at 909-806-3054 or Reach Naomi Kresge at 909-806-3060 or More headlines... Press-Enterprise ***************************************************************** 63 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: PARKS WASTE CLEANUP: Delays and delays - Wednesday, August 30, 2006 Ironically, four years ago, the responsibility for cleaning up the nuclear waste dump in Parks Township was transferred from one federal agency to another because of repeated delays. Kiski Valley residents grew weary of waiting for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to decide what to do with 10 trenches filled with radioactive and toxic wastes. So Congress in 2002 designated the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as the responsible agency. Now, unfortunately, the Army Corps seems to be following in the NRC's footsteps. In 2003, while surveying the waste site, the Corps said cleanup was to begin this year and be completed in 2007. Now the Corps says it will conduct further testing of the site before deciding on a plan and cleanup won't begin until 2008. The Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp. (NUMEC) processed plutonium at the Parks site and uranium at its Apollo plant in the 1960s. It used the nearby trenches as a dumping ground. Uranium, beryllium and other cancer-causing chemicals are buried there. The grass-covered 44 acres remains fenced in with posted warning signs. Plans have included encapsulating the waste or removing it. Its proximity to the Kiski River and old coal mines beneath the area is an added concern. For the future of Parks Township in attracting businesses and residents, we need to resolve this issue. Residents, township supervisors and state and federal lawmakers need to keep up the pressure to move this cleanup forward. We need to resolve this nagging legacy of nuclear fuels production once and for all. Reproduction or reuse prohibited without written consent from Tribune-Review Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 64 Knox News: Munger: Latest nuclear proposal revives memory of MRS By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com August 30, 2006 Back in the mid-1980s, Oak Ridge was the prime candidate for a controversial facility known as MRS, which stood for Monitored Retrievable Storage. The U.S. Department of Energy was touting a billion-dollar facility as a place to safely store the nation's burgeoning inventory of spent nuclear fuel until it could be disposed of permanently. The proposal sparked a years-long debate until Congress finally nixed the idea of having an interim storehouse for thousands of tons of spent fuel. Tennessee's Democratic senators at the time - Jim Sasser and Al Gore - both opposed the plan, as did many others, despite the potential economic benefits. The biggest concerns were that a storage facility, even one with the best science and technology available, might prove dangerous to local residents or that a temporary staging ground might ultimately become a permanent home for the very hot stuff. After the MRS proposal went away, U.S. nuclear policy went back to a holding pattern. Most nuclear reactor facilities in the United States continue to store their used fuel on site while awaiting the long-delayed opening of the Yucca Mountain repository for high-level nuclear waste. The Bush administration is reworking policy and wants to develop capabilities for reprocessing spent fuel as a way to support nuclear as the nation's energy future. Interestingly, Oak Ridge - Tennessee's "Atomic City" - may again be part of this debate. The Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee, or CROET, is planning to submit an application for a grant, up to $5 million, to study possible Oak Ridge sites for a spent-fuel processing facility. The area being considered is a 4,000-acre slice of land on the west end of the Department of Energy's reservation alongside Highway 95. Officials are being cautious in describing the Oak Ridge interest. Oak Ridge City Council will meet Sept. 5 to consider a resolution supporting a grant to study the potential sites, but Mayor David Bradshaw, in a memo to city council members, said that does not commit Oak Ridge to accepting a nuclear facility. Lawrence Young, president of CROET, emphasized the same point. At this stage, the important thing is to analyze whether any sites on the DOE reservation are appropriate for such a nuclear project, Young said. The Bush administration has identified a couple of facilities that might be developed as part of its Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program: a processing plant to extract useful products from the spent fuel and a burner reactor that would generate electricity while "transmuting" some of the fuel's long-lived radioactive elements into shorter-lived fission products. Young said he understands there might be other facilities or projects available as part of the nuclear program. "We're not trying to limit or narrow what components might come here," he said. At this point, Young said, the goal is to get the maximum amount of study money: $5 million. Science Applications International Corp. is CROET's contractor on the project and will file the application, Young said. If Oak Ridge is successful in winning the grant money, SAIC or a subcontractor would perform the site studies, he said. CROET already has obtained letters of support from the mayors of Knox, Anderson and Roane counties, he said. Young isn't naive. He knows that any project involving tons of highly radioactive spent fuel will carry controversy with it. But that's something to be dealt with later if the project becomes more than just an idea, he said. "The analysis is what's paramount now," Young said. It's difficult to make a decision on whether a project is politically palatable or environmentally suitable until basic information is gathered, he said. Even if the site is deemed unacceptable for spent-fuel work, the study could prove valuable for future projects, Young said. Senior writer Frank Munger covers the Department of Energy for the News Sentinel. He may be reached at 865-342-6329 or at munger@knews.com. This column is also available in the opinion section of knoxnews.com. © 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel ***************************************************************** 65 DOE: Statement from Secretary Bodman on the First Anniversary of Hurricane Katrina August 29, 2006 A year ago our nation experienced its largest natural disaster in history when Hurricane Katrina made landfall along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. That region was struck again just 26 days later when Hurricane Rita followed. Today our thoughts and prayers remain with the families who lost loved ones and with those who continue to rebuild their lives throughout the Gulf Coast region. Under the leadership and direction of President Bush, employees of the Department of Energy worked tirelessly throughout the aftermath of the storms to help clear regulatory and bureaucratic hurdles in the effort to restore life-giving and life-sustaining electricity and also to continue the flow of crude oil to fuel our nations economy. I am proud of how the Departments employees reacted to this catastrophe and also, how weve learned from it. Literally hundreds of DOE employees have been directly involved in our response efforts from the days preceding the hurricanes to the months after. I believe that, by working together, we were able to mitigate the overall impact of the hurricanes on our nations energy sector and, if challenged again, we are better prepared to cope with a disaster of this magnitude. The Department deployed more than 40 emergency response experts throughout the region to help coordinate the federal assistance. In addition, we released 21 million barrels of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in response to supply disruptions caused by the hurricanes. And we demonstrated, with our International Energy Agency (IEA) partners, our ability to quickly and efficiently orchestrate an international crude oil release which was instrumental in calming world oil markets. In the past year the IEA has reviewed the response and member countries have further improved their capabilities to respond to supply disruptions should the need arise. The Department also worked with the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency to have waivers issued that allowed more crude oil and refined gasoline to be used around the country. This resulted in assuring gasoline supply across the nation and virtually eliminated any gasoline shortages within just a few days. DOE employees also worked with utility companies to ensure that technical barriers were overcome. And I signed waivers that eased regulatory restrictions and allowed electricity to flow from different parts of the country into areas where generating stations were completely destroyed. While our immediate response to the storms was comprehensive, today our work continues. The Department has upgraded and enhanced our storm modeling systems and grid visualization capabilities. These improvements will allow the DOE to better anticipate the likely effects of severe weather and be better prepared to respond, and to more effectively assess damage to our energy systems and speed restoration. We have conducted a series of exercises with electric utilities, oil and gas companies, and state and local governments as a means of improving coordination and assuring a more effective and organized response. The Departments Office of Science has provided 800,000 hours of supercomputing time to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to allow them to create revised models for predicting the effects of storm surges along the Gulf Coast. This information is being used as the basis for design of levee repairs and improvements currently being underway to protect the New Orleans Metro Area. In addition the Departments Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has teamed with building industry processionals to train contractors in ways to cost-effectively build energy efficient homes in the Gulf region. The Office also partnered with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to sponsor hurricane preparedness and home repair workshops for local citizens throughout hurricane affected areas. If there is one thing that we learned from the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita it is that when we work together and continue to sharpen our skills and our tools we can better assist those people who need our help. I would like to believe that a disaster of this magnitude will never happen again, but I am confident that if it does, the employees of the Department of Energy are prepared and willing to serve those in need, wherever and whenever duty calls. Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 [ ] U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 66 LA Daily News: Inquiry set on field-lab revelations Article Last Updated: 08/30/2006 08:13:53 AM PDT Supervisors order probe into open-pit burning of napalm, dioxin BY TROY ANDERSON, Staff Writer Concerned about widespread contamination at Rocketdyne's Santa Susana Field Lab, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday ordered an independent investigation into new revelations that napalm and dioxins were burned in an open pit in the hills west of Chatsworth. In documents the Boeing Co. delivered last week to the Department of Toxic Substances Control, logs detailed how Rocketdyne detonated and destroyed hundreds of thousands of pounds of toxic liquids and gases at the so-called Area 1 burn pit. The list includes 50 gallons of napalm burned in 1969, three gallons of dioxin burned in 1971, and the destruction of flammable waste in 1990 that resulted in a 10-foot-high fireball. "Although the property is known to be contaminated with perchlorate, recent reports disclosed that thousands of pounds of dangerous materials ... were burned in open pits on the property as late as 1990," Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich said. "These reports present a new series of questions about soil and groundwater contamination, as well as potential impacts on surrounding properties." The supervisors ordered the directors of public works and environmental health to investigate what measures are being taken to deal with the new information. The directors are to consult with federal and state agencies involved in monitoring the remediation efforts and report back in 30 days. Concerns about the potential health hazards to workers prompted state officials to postpone a planned cleanup of the pit. State officials have ordered Boeing to cap the pit with clay or grass to prevent runoff from carrying contaminated soil off the hilltop lab. That will give Boeing and state officials more time to investigate the contamination in the pit. Boeing Co. spokeswoman Blythe Jameson said the company will continue to cooperate with regulatory agencies that oversee the site cleanup. "We had proposed an interim cleanup of the burn pit as part of our overall cleanup," Jameson said. "The purpose of this interim cleanup is to remove the highest concentrations of key chemicals in soil at the facility. They are present as a result of decades of burning unused rocket-engine propellants. "After completing this interim measure, the area would then be evaluated by the Department of Toxic Substances and Control. That's part of the ongoing cleanup program. This proposal is to do the interim measures." At the supervisors' meeting, Elizabeth Crawford, who runs the Web site Rocketdynewatch.org and is on the board of Physicians for Social Responsibility, said the burning of napalm and dioxins is just a "drop in the bucket of what our community concerns are." Santa Susana, a 2,800-acre facility located in Ventura County, near the Los Angeles city limits, was the site of Department of Energy experiments with 10 nuclear reactors, one of which experienced a partial meltdown in the 1950s. The lab also was the site of rocket-engine tests under contracts with the Department of Defense and NASA. "Documents produced as a result of this cleanup plan disclosed tons of hazardous and radioactive waste that Boeing burned in this pit," Crawford said. "However, this pales when compared to the other events and actions that have occurred up at this site, such as the world's only uncontained nuclear meltdown, which was up to 240 times more dangerous than the Three-Mile Island accident. "Numerous other nuclear accidents, illegal burning of hazardous and nuclear waste that led to an explosion that killed two of their scientists and an FBI raid that led to the state's largest environmental fine in 1996, rocket fuel being found directly off-site in Dayton Creek Canyon in Los Angeles County, 11 million times the safety level, and a current grand jury investigation into water crimes on this site." Jameson said a federal grand jury is investigating "surface water discharges" from the site to determine whether contaminants are in water that flows off the hill. "We are cooperating with the authorities," Jameson said. Paul Novak, Antonovich's planning deputy, said the supervisor brought the motion to ensure that the site is properly cleaned up and that public information about the site's history of contamination is given to the proper authorities. "You have a lot of residents who have lived in that area for 20, 30 or 40 years who have information about what may have occurred there," Novak said. "They are a resource and we want to be certain that the appropriate government agencies are aware of the information that they have." (213) 974-8985 IF YOU GO The state Department of Toxic Substances Control will hold a public meeting on the Santa Susana Field Lab at 6:30 p.m. Thursday at Simi Valley City Hall, 2929 Tapo Canyon Road. Los Angeles Newspaper Group ***************************************************************** 67 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah FR Doc E6-14434 [Federal Register: August 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 168)] [Notices] [Page 51588-51589] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30au06-65] River Site AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Savannah River Site. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register. DATES: Monday, September 25, 2006 1 p.m.-6:30 p.m., Tuesday, September 26, 2006, 8:30 a.m.-4 p.m. ADDRESSES: Double Tree Hotel, 181 Church Street, Charleston, SC 29401. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerri Flemming, Closure Project Office, Department of Energy Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC, 29802; Phone: (803) 952-7886. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities. Tentative Agenda Monday, September 25, 2006 1 p.m. Combined Committee Session. 5:15 p.m. Adjourn. 5:30 p.m. Executive Committee Meeting. 6:30 p.m. Adjourn. Tuesday, September 26, 2006 8:30 a.m. Approval of Minutes, Agency Updates. 9:15 a.m. Public Comment Session. 9:30 a.m. Chair and Facilitator Update. 10 a.m. Administrative Committee Report--Bylaws Amendment Proposal. 10:45 a.m. Strategic Legacy Management Committee Report. 11:45 a.m. Public Comment Session. 12 p.m. Lunch Break. 1 p.m. Facility Disposition and Site Remediation Committee Report. 2:10 p.m. Nuclear Materials Committee Report. 3:15 p.m. Public Comment Session. 3:30 p.m. Waste Management Committee Report. 4 p.m. Adjourn. [[Page 51589]] If needed, time will be allotted after public comments for items added to the agenda and administrative details. A final agenda will be available at the meeting Monday, September 25, 2006. Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Gerri Flemming's office at the address or telephone listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the U.S. Department of Energy's Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available by writing to Gerri Flemming, Department of Energy Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC 29802, or by calling her at (803) 952-7886. Issued at Washington, DC, on August 24, 2006. Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E6-14434 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************