***************************************************************** 09/22/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.225 ***************************************************************** 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] Iranians Do Not Need the Bomb - Ahmadinejad 2 [NYTr] Iran cleric: Suspending enrichment "unacceptable" 3 Guardian Unlimited: Russia: Iran May Return to Nuclear Talks 4 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Leader Uses U.N. to Improve Image 5 IndianExpress.com:: Proof of A Q Khan network left Musharraf embarra 6 Xinhua: FM: China works for settlement of Iranian nuclear issue 7 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI doesn't need nuclear weapons 8 AFP: Iran warns of 'lightning' response to any attack 9 AFP: Major power diplomats to meet Friday on Iran sanctions 10 AFP: Israelis' main fear is a nuclear Iran - poll - 11 AFP: US going the "extra mile" to help settle nuclear standoff with 12 AFP: US going the "extra mile" to help settle nuclear standoff with 13 UPI: Ahmadinejad evades security questions 14 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Sees Diminishing North Korea Threat 15 Korea Herald: U.S. plans new multilateral talks on N.K. 16 Xinhua: Six-party talks remains effective mechanism for resolving 17 U.S. Intelligence on Russian and Chinese Nuclear Testing Activities, 18 [NYTr] Egypt Hands Bush a Nuclear Embarrassment 19 Guardian Unlimited: U.S.-Pakistan Relationship Getting Shaky 20 AFP: Bush says US prepared to play role in India-Pakistan peace proc 21 Guardian Unlimited: Israeli Calls Ahmadinejad Invite Wrong 22 Platts: IAEA to consult on an international nuclear fuel assurance p 23 AFP: Arab nations push for condemnation of Israel's nuclear activiti 24 AFP: US threatened to bomb Pakistan 'back to Stone Age' after 9/11 - NUCLEAR REACTORS 25 IndianExpress.com: Senate vote on nuclear deal likely next week 26 AFP: Ontario Power seeks OK to prepare new nuclear site - 27 US: NRC: Guidance for Receiving Enforcement Discretion When Concentr 28 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find 29 US: NRC: Draft Regulatory Guides: Impending Issuance, Availability, NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 30 US: DHS: Allied Chemical Employee petition 31 US: AFP: High radiation found in Yukon town drinking water 32 US: NRC: Occupational Dose Records 33 US: Sen. Reid: REID DELIVERS LIVE STATEMENT TO ATOMIC ENERGY VETERAN 34 US: NRC: Safety Evaluation Report for the Proposed American NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 35 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: 'Nevada is not for sale' 36 RGJ.com: Sen. Reid honors Rural America Month PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 37 Tri-City Herald: DOE extends AdvanceMed contract 38 SF Chronicle: Regents vote to seek contract to keep running Livermor 39 Las Vegas SUN: Reid urges compensation status for former Nevada nucl ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [NYTr] Iranians Do Not Need the Bomb - Ahmadinejad Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:36:09 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Simon McGuinness The Irish Times - Sep 22, 2006 http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2006/0922/1158590880764.html Iranians do not need bomb, says Ahmadinejad "We love everyone around the world - Jews, Christians, Muslims, non-Jews, non-Christians, non-Muslims." - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressing a news conference at the UN yesterday when asked to clarify his reported call to wipe Israel off the map. by Deaglan de Briadzn Foreign Affairs Correspondent IRAN: Iran had no intention of developing an atom bomb and the nuclear weapons era had now passed into history, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a crowded press conference at the UN headquarters yesterday. "The bottom line is we do not need a bomb, unlike what others think," he said. "The time for nuclear bombs has ended." He pointed out that the possession of nuclear weapons by the Soviet Union had failed to ensure its survival as a state. The nuclear capacity of the US had failed to prevent the 9/11 attacks and Israeli nuclear weapons had been useless against the Palestinian intifada. As Muslims, the Iranian government could not possess such weapons: "In our country, it is not permissible." Mr Ahmadinejad said that the US had been hostile to Iran for the past 27 years, since the overthrow of the Shah, whose regime had the support of Washington. "We have been under siege almost from the first day," he said. Iran had provided the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with "the largest number of documents any country had ever given". He added: "I am at a loss to understand what else we need to do to provide further guarantees." Meanwhile, the US possessed "an immense nuclear arsenal" and was developing a new generation of nuclear weapons. "What have they done to destroy their nuclear weapons and who inspects their programme?" he asked. Answering a further question about Iran's nuclear programme, he said: "For over 27 years we feel under attack . . . We have not hidden anything, we are working within the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty." He had invited journalists to view Iran's facilities. "If you come to Iran, you can go and see for yourself," he said, adding: "People even graze their sheep there." Western countries, in particular, have been concerned that Iran's uranium enrichment programme was part of a process leading to the development of nuclear weapons, but Mr Ahmadinejad refused to indicate when the programme might be suspended, if at all. "We will tell you when the time arrives," he said. He was also asked repeatedly to clarify his reported call to wipe Israel off the map. Avoiding a direct answer, Mr Ahmadinejad responded: "We love everyone around the world - Jews, Christians, Muslims, non-Jews, non-Christians, non-Muslims." He said this question came up a lot and suggested that a "strong Zionist lobby" was behind it. "These Zionists are not Jews. Zionists are Zionists, period." In the course of answering another question, he denied being anti-Semitic. "I am not anti-Jew," he said. "I respect them very much." Meanwhile, in an address to the General Assembly, Lebanese president Emile Lahoud told delegates: "I stand before you, representing a terribly wounded country, a country whose ordeal is well known to you - my ravaged country, Lebanon." Criticising the tardiness of the UN in responding to the crisis last July, he said: "Regretfully, the United Nations Security Council looked powerless in its attempts to stop the slaughter of Lebanon's children and protect peace in Lebanon and the Middle East." Noting that it had taken more than a month and numerous calls for an immediate ceasefire for all those concerned to reach a mere cessation of hostilities, he added: "It becomes self-evident for us to question the 'credibility of the United Nations'." ) The Irish Times * ================================================================ .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] Iran cleric: Suspending enrichment "unacceptable" Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:08:28 -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 - Sep 22, 2006 http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-09-22T164215Z_01_L22798867_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-RAFSANJANI.xml&src=rss Suspending enrichment "unacceptable": Iran cleric TEHRAN (Reuters) - An influential Iranian cleric said on Friday that Iran would not halt uranium enrichment work, calling it an unacceptable precondition set by six world powers for talks over the country's atomic activities. "It (enrichment suspension) is a ridiculous precondition. It is unacceptable," Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani told worshippers at Tehran university, broadcast live on state radio. Rafsanjani, a former president, heads the powerful Expediency Council, Iran's main legislative arbitration body. Enrichment suspension is the key condition set by the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany for talks on a package of economic and technological incentives in exchange for Iran ending efforts to produce nuclear fuel. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday that Iran was prepared to negotiate its uranium enrichment suspension "under fair and just conditions". He gave no time-frame for halting Iran's most sensitive part of nuclear work. Iran says it wants to enrich uranium only for electricity. The West suspects a camouflaged quest for nuclear weapons. Rafsanjani, a top adviser to Iran's most powerful leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, urged the world powers to start talks without preconditions to resolve the dispute. "We have always expressed our readiness ready to hold talks (with the West). But with such a precondition, what is the use of talks?" Rafsanjani said. An Iranian official in Tehran said EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana would hold talks with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani next week in an undisclosed European capital. The Islamic state ignored a U.N. deadline to halt its nuclear fuel enrichment by August 31, and major powers agreed this week to give Solana, representing the six powers, until early October to reach a deal with Tehran. If Tehran still refuses to suspend enrichment, the six powers will ask for U.N. sanctions to be imposed on the country. In New York, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said that despite the many voices appearing to speak for Iran, Paris saw Larijani as its "officially appointed" contact. "It does indeed seem that for the Iranian side, it is Mr. Larijani who is officially appointed," Douste-Blazy told a press breakfast, adding this was a "fairly new" development. "Obviously Iran is a complex society. But we have decided to focus all efforts on our side on Mr. Solana, and for the Iranian side, it seems that it is Mr Larijani," he said. He said he hoped the next meeting between Solana and Larijani could take place early next week. John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said Washington wanted to give the EU "the fullest possible chance to explore the options they've been pursuing" but made clear the United States was growing impatient. "I am sure that they are just as eager to get this resolved, because there is no doubt that Iran has used the cover of negotiations to continue to perfect technical aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle," he told reporters. "Time works for the Iranian side." ) Reuters 2006. * ================================================================ .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: Russia: Iran May Return to Nuclear Talks From the Associated Press [UP] Friday September 22, 2006 11:31 AM AP Photo NYRD125 By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Russia's foreign minister says there is a reasonable chance that Iran will return to negotiations on its nuclear program, and he cautioned against setting artificial deadlines. Sergey Lavrov said Thursday the main outcome of a meeting of key nations trying to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions was the strong desire to have negotiations ``in good faith, seriously, taking into account legitimate concerns of Iran, legitimate needs of Iran.'' Iran's response to a package of incentives put forward by the six parties - Russia, the United States, Britain, France, Germany and China - to suspend enrichment raised some questions, Lavrov said, ``but the main thing is that the Iranian response did not close the door to the negotiations.'' ``The chance is there, and the chance is not too slim,'' he said in an interview with The Associated Press. ``But for this chance to be realized in practical terms, we need efforts on both sides, and we need good will.'' Oil-rich Iran says it needs uranium enrichment to produce fuel for nuclear reactors that would generate electricity. Enrichment can also create material for atomic bombs, however, and the United States and other nations suspect that is Tehran's real goal. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted Thursday that Tehran does not need atomic weapons and he is ``at a loss'' about what more he can do to prove that. He insisted Iran is not hiding anything and is working within the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. This summer, the U.N. Security Council set an Aug. 31 deadline for Iran to suspend enrichment or face mild initial sanctions. With the deadline elapsed and Iran publicly insisting on its right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, the nations have been holding talks on what the consequences should be. French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Wednesday that the six nations are working on a new deadline for Tehran to provide a more definitive response, despite differences over sanctions. France also is pushing a compromise proposal that would have Iran suspend uranium enrichment at the same time as a Security Council suspension of all threats of sanctions. A senior French diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because the meeting was private, said the nations involved in nuclear talks with Iran were mulling an early October deadline for Iran to agree to a simultaneous suspension of uranium enrichment and any talk of sanctions. ``This cannot go on for very much longer,'' Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday of the Iran standoff with the West. ``What we are looking for is a clear and sustained and concrete signal that Iran wishes to negotiate,'' British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett told reporters. ``Our patience, I think, is not unlimited.'' Lavrov said all available data does not conclude that Iraq is building nuclear weapons, and he dismissed predictions that Iran is two months away from a nuclear bomb. This is ``certainly not true, and the intelligence community of the countries involved in the negotiations give much, much, much longer period for this hypothetical scenario,'' he said. At Tuesday night's dinner, he said, the six parties authorized European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana to meet anywhere at any time with Iran's nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani. The two had been expected to meet on the sidelines of the current U.N. General Assembly ministerial meeting, but Larijani never showed up. Lavrov said the six parties wanted the Solana-Larijani meeting sooner, ``but my understanding is they are discussing specific dates now, which would be not very far from now.'' ``And we agree on the need to make sure that the Iranian problem is resolved in a way which does not create risks for the non-proliferation regime, and at the same time takes into account legitimate concerns and interest of Iran to have access to peaceful nuclear energy,'' he said. ``There is no disagreement between us on this goal. We are discussing now better methods, and better modalities of getting there,'' and one key agreement was to authorize Solana to answer any questions from Iran about the incentives package, seek clarification on a number of issues in the Iranian response, and discuss preparations for negotiations. Lavrov said he would not discuss any deadline. ``I think that artificial timeframes do not work, be it Iran, be it Kosovo, be it anything else,'' he said. ``The quality of the agreement is much more important, and especially in this particular case there is no objective reason for any ultra-rush, if you wish.'' On Thursday, Columbia University scrapped plans for a speech by Ahmadinejad, citing security and logistical problems. The cancellation came after a Jewish activist group expressed outrage that the Iranian president had been invited to speak. Ahmadinejad drew widespread condemnation last year for calling the Holocaust a ``myth'' and saying Israel should be wiped off the map. --- Associated Press Writers John Daniszewski and Scherezade Faramarzi contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 4 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Leader Uses U.N. to Improve Image From the Associated Press [UP] Friday September 22, 2006 1:01 AM AP Photo NYRD114 By SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI Associated Press Writer UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to be enjoying the spotlight at this year's U.N. General Assembly, easing his way into the international arena and trying to improve his image amid the controversy over his nuclear program and remarks about Israel and the Holocaust. When an Israeli reporter challenged him into answering a question at a news conference Thursday, Ahmadinejad at first stalled, whispered in Farsi to an adviser to skip the reporter, but then reluctantly gave his response. He showed no such courtesy to an Israeli reporter during a news briefing here last year, his first appearance at the annual ministerial meetings after he was elected in June 2005. On Thursday, he explained that when he called for the destruction of Israel and dismissed the Holocaust as a myth, his issue was not with the Jewish people but with Zionists, ``who are not Jews.'' ``We love everyone in the world - Jews, Christians, Muslims, non-Muslims, non-Jews, non-Christians,'' he said, adding ``we are against ugly acts.'' ``Everyone is respected. But I repeat, we are against aggression, occupation, killings. ... We declare this in a loud voice,'' he said. But Yaniv Halily, a reporter with Israel's Yediot Ahronot was not impressed. ``He's trying to portray an image of a nice guy after all the things he said about Israel. Now he knows everyone thinks he's a bad guy,'' said Halily. ``He may sound nicer on the surface, but on the inside he's the same,'' said Kamran Dadkhah, an economics professor at Northeastern University in Boston. Ahmadinejad was vague when asked if Iran would stop arming Hezbollah and comply with a U.N. Security Council resolution to disarm the Lebanese guerrilla group, which fought a 34-day war with Israel this summer. He said Iran gives only spiritual and cultural support to the Shiite Muslim group. ``We support ... peace and permanent stability in Lebanon, and we will fall short of no measure in promoting this goal. Whether it's in the cultural or spiritual support that we can render or whether it is the role that we can play in the international arena, we will do our best. And this is the fundamental principle of our foreign policy, and it does not preclude Lebanon,'' he said. At the news conference, Ahmadinejad also expressed love and affection for the American people, just as President Bush reached out to the Iranian people in his General Assembly speech on Tuesday. Ahmadinejad said he wished he had more time here to spend with them in person. ``The people of the United States are highly respected by us,'' he said. ``Many people in the United States believe in God and believe in justice.'' He thanked the New York City police and security forces for protecting him during his stay here and apologized to New Yorkers for traffic disruptions from the arrival of world leaders to attend the U.N. General Assembly session. He reserved his harsh words for the U.S. government, which is pushing to impose diplomatic and economic sanctions against Iran if it does not suspend uranium enrichment. ``It's not the nuclear bomb that the American government is worried about, for there are countries in our region that are armed with a nuclear bomb and are incidentally supported by the U.S. government. Now, how is this?'' said Ahmadinejad. Using a Persian expression to demonstrate U.S. double-standard, the Iranian leader said: ``In Iran, we say there are two skies over a roof, or two kinds of wind running over the same ceiling. It doesn't seem plausible. ``We say if fuel cycle for peaceful purposes is something good, then it should be good for everyone. If it's a bad thing, it's bad for everyone,'' he said. Ahmadinejad said the United States' objection to Iran's nuclear program - which he claims is for peacefully purposes only - was essentially aimed at aborting his country's progress. And he said if the world stops treating his country as a subordinate, then things might be different. ``If they recognize that we too, as a nation, have rights ... the concerns too will be removed,'' he said. He said his country was ready to negotiate a suspension of uranium enrichment. ``We have said that under fair conditions and just conditions, we will negotiate about it,'' he said. But Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Iran must suspend its uranium enrichment and reprocessing before any full-fledged negotiations. ``Iran has been told by the international community ... that they should suspend and if they suspend the negotiations can begin. It's as simple as that. I don't think we need any further conditionality,'' she told reporters after a Security Council meeting on Mideast peace. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was guardedly optimistic. ``The chance is there, and the chance is not too slim. But for this chance to be realized in practical terms we need efforts on both sides, and we need good will,'' he told The Associated Press in an interview. He also said he hoped a meeting between Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani and European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana would take place soon. But he rejected the idea of imposing a new deadline after the Iranians missed the Aug. 31 U.N.-imposed deadline to stop enriching uranium, which can be used in producing nuclear energy or weapons. ``I think that artificial timeframes do not work,'' he said. ``The quality of the agreement is much more important, and especially in this particular case there is no objective reason for any ultra-rush if you wish.'' Although the Iranian president seemed to tone down his rhetoric about Israel, he did not retract his earlier remarks. He said he was even puzzled by the controversy. ``It seems to me that I face this question wherever I go,'' he said. ``And I have always been ready to answer.'' --- Associated Press writer Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 5 IndianExpress.com:: Proof of A Q Khan network left Musharraf embarrassed Posted online: Saturday, September 23, 2006 NEW YORK, September 22: : President Pervez Musharraf has revealed that his “most embarrassing moment” was when a US official placed in front of him concrete evidence of Pakistan’s top scientist A Q Khan leaking nuclear secrets to Iran and North Korea. Pak puts off signing F-16s deal with USMother challenges Pak girl’s custody Muslim nations should have nukes, says Mahathir‘Musharraf deal at expense of US troops’Khatami wants n-arms of India, Pak eliminated Musharraf claims he only suspected that Khan was passing secrets to Iran and North Korea until the then CIA director George Tenet confronted him with proof at the United Nations in 2003. “(Tenet) passed me some papers. It was a centrifuge design with all its numbers and signatures of Pakistan. It was the most embarrassing moment,” he admitted in an interview to CBS news. Musharraf learned then, he said, not only were blueprints being given to Iran and North Korea, but the centrifuges themselves—the crucial technology needed to enrich uranium to weapons grade—were being passed to them. “(Khan) gave them centrifuge designs. He gave them centrifuge parts. He gave them centrifuges,” he said. Despite the fact that the military was guarding Khan’s nuclear facilities and the total amount of secret material sent from the laboratory was more than 18 tons, Musharraf denied anyone in the government or military had to know. “First of all these centrifuges, or their parts, these are not huge elements. They can be put in your car and moved,” he said. “(The shipments) must have been transported many times.” editor@expressindia.com ***************************************************************** 6 Xinhua: FM: China works for settlement of Iranian nuclear issue www.chinaview.cn 2006-09-23 04:36:30 UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 22 (Xinhua) -- China will continue to play a constructive role in working for an appropriate settlement of the Iranian nuclear issue, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said while addressing the UN General Assembly on Friday. China hopes that the parties involved will exercise patience and restraint, continue to be flexible in approach and stay committed to the correct course of pursuing peaceful resolution, Li said. Diplomatic negotiation represents the best chance for resolving Iran's nuclear issue and serves the interests of all parties, Li added. Enditem Editor: Mu Xuequan ***************************************************************** 7 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI doesn't need nuclear weapons 2006/09/22 First Vice-President Parviz Davoudi stressed in Tehran on Friday that Iran has been acting within the framework of international rules and does not need nuclear weapons. Speaking in the march ceremony of the armed forces on the occasion of the beginning of the Sacred Defense Week, Davoudi added that the Islamic Revolution Leader Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei has banned the development of nuclear weapons, calling it unlawful. "The non-peaceful use of nuclear technology has no place in Iran's defensive doctrine," he said. He added that Iran's achievements in different sectors are in line with expanding peace, justice and stability. Referring to the Sacred Defense period (1980-88 Iraq-imposed war), Davoudi described those days as the days of faith, affection and genuineness. sam Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 8 AFP: Iran warns of 'lightning' response to any attack by Farhad Pouladi and Pierre Celerier Fri Sep 22, 7:01 AM ET TEHRAN, Iran (AFP) - Iran" /> has warned Western powers the armed forces would hit back "like lightning" against any attack as it crowed over its military prowess and showed off firepower at a major army parade. Thousands of members of the armed forces and the whole panoply of Iran's ballistic missile arsenal were on display at the parade, including the Shahab-3, a weapon whose range includes arch-enemy Israel" /> . "We want peace but we warn the expansionists not to think of an aggression against Iran as we can defend the fatherland and Islam," Vice President Parviz Davoodi warned. "Our lions are so powerful that they can strike the enemy like lightning and destroy him," he added. The comments of Davoodi -- standing in for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who has yet to return from a visit to the United Nations" /> in New York -- come at a time of mounting tension over Tehran's contested nuclear programme. The United States has never ruled out using force to make Iran comply over its atomic drive that Washington charges is aimed at making nuclear weapons. Tehran insists its nuclear programme is for civilian energy purposes only. Iran has also never been shy of warning it would retaliate if the Islamic republic was attacked and the parade included its longest-range missile, the Shahab-3, which has the range to hit Israel and US installations in the Middle East. "Are you not proud to see the Shahab-3, a missile with a range of 2,000 kilometres (1,200 miles)?" boomed the commentator over the loudpeakers as two green Shahab-3s were driven past the parade ground on the back of a truck. The missile was up until last year believed to have a range of 1,300 kilometers (800 miles) but Iran has worked on extending its range. The newest version of the missile -- with a bottle-shaped warhead -- was not displayed. The missiles appeared to lack the anti-Israeli and anti-US slogans that were daubed on the weapon at last year's event and caused European diplomats present to stage a walk-out in protest. A succession of other missiles were also on display, including the short-range Fajr-5 and the medium-range Nazeat-6 and -10, Shahab-1 and -2, and Zelzal-2. Thousands of soldiers clutching their rifles marched past Davoodi and other dignitaries to the sound of martial music in an event that has become Iran's most significant annual display of its military might. The parade, which marks the anniversary of the outbreak of the Iran- Iraq" /> war in 1980, took place just opposite the mausoleum built for Iran's revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini on the outskirts of Tehran. "Our armed forces have no need for their power to be based on atomic weapons, this power is based on our convictions," said Davoodi, restating Tehran's denial of US allegations it is seeking nuclear weapons. Davoodi also played up the importance of major war games that Iran has staged in the past month which have seen it claim the development of new missiles and warplanes. "In the recent manoeuvres the armed forces showed their power, notably in the areas that were once the monopoly of the great powers," said Davoodi. However foreign experts have expressed scepticism over the significance of such announcements owing to the embargo on the purchase of new weaponry imposed by several nations on Iran in the wake of the Islamic revolution in 1979. The parade included more ageing hardware, including Russian T-72 and British Chieftain tanks whose original metalwork was visible through the repainting as well as 30-year old American Dodge military trucks. And while the United States remains the Islamic republic's sworn enemy, the police motorcycle brigade was still led by a red Harley Davidson Electra Glide. "We will resist until the end," proclaimed a slogan on the main grandstand erected for the parade, which coincided with a march to Beirut by supporters of Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah to mark its resistance against Israel. Among the thousands of armed forces personnel marching past the main grandstand were ethnic minority members of Iran's Basij militia in their national dress, including Kurds, Baluch, and for the first time Arabs. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 9 AFP: Major power diplomats to meet Friday on Iran sanctions Fri Sep 22, 4:49 PM ET NEW YORK (AFP) - Senior diplomats from six nations working on the Iran" /> nuclear crisis will meet in New York to discuss what sanctions to impose on Tehran if it persists in refusing to suspend uranium enrichment, a senior US official said. But Nicholas Burns, the US undersecretary of state for political affairs, acknowledged that the meeting with his counterparts from Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia would not yield an agreement due to the continuing reluctance of some allies to use sanctions. The meeting, being held on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, will focus on selecting which sanctions to use in the first round of an escalating series of measures against Iran. "We are meeting this afternoon ...to discuss what sanctions should be included in the first round, should it be necessary," he told reporters. "I think there a still differences among us," he said. "I don't anticipate that at the end of today, we will be able to have an agreement, but we will be able to have discussions," he said. How to proceed on the Iran issue will also be on the agenda of a dinner Friday night among the foreign ministers of the Group of Eight developed countries being hosted by Russia, he said. The G8 includes Italy and Japan, both of which has extensive economic links to Tehran. Iran faces sanctions after it failed to comply with a UN Security Council resolution giving it until August 31 to suspend its uranium enrichment activities, which can provide fuel for nuclear power plants but also be used for nuclear weapons. The six major powers have offered Iran a package of economic and diplomatic incentives, including the first formal contacts with the United States in nearly 30 years, if they halt their nuclear program. In the absence of Iranian compliance with the UN demands, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> has been pushing for the Security Council to approve the graduated series of sanctions expected to begin with travel bans and asset freezes on some Iranian leaders. But under pressure from Europeans and the Chinese, she agreed at a meeting here this week to allow negotiations to continue between European and Iranian diplomats in hopes of convincing Tehran to freeze the enrichment program. The six nations however did agree to set a new deadline of early October for Iran to agree or face the start of sanctions, according to US and European officials. European Union" /> foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani were due to resume their negotiations this week in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. But Larijani failed to show up and Iranian officials have said the talks will not resume until next week in Europe. Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, who addressed the UN General Assembly this week, meanwhile reaffirmed Iran's willingness to negotiate on the issue of a suspension of uranium enrichment, without offering any timetable. Burns warned Friday that Washington's patience would not last forever. "It has been now three months and 22 days that we have been waiting for their answer," he said, referring to a June meeting of the six powers in Vienna at which they announced the incentives offer to Iran and gave Tehran "weeks not months" to respond by freezing its program. "It's time now for a unequivocal answer that they are ready to suspend," he said. But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov showed little inclination to crack down on Iran when he complained in a speech to the UN General Assembly late Thursday about some governments' "obsession with sanctions." Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 10 AFP: Israelis' main fear is a nuclear Iran - poll - >Friday September 22, 11:33 JERUSALEM (AFP) - Israelis are more worried about the prospect of a nuclear Iran than anything else, including their country's economic situation, according to an opinion poll published ahead of the Jewish New Year. Asked the question "What disturbs you the most about the approaching New Year", 53 percent of respondents said an Iranian nuclear capability. The economic situation in the country came second place at 24 percent. Israel, with its major ally the United States, repeatedly charges that Tehran has ambitions to produce nuclear weapon under cover of a civilian programme. Iran denies any such aim and says it has the right to peaceful nuclear power. Israel views the Islamic republic as its chief enemy, alarmed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for the Jewish state to be wiped off the map and his dismissal of the Nazi Holocaust as a myth. The Jewish state is widely believed to be the only country in the Middle East to have a nuclear arsenal, estimated at 200 warheads, although it has never confirmed or denied it holds such weapons. According to the survey published in Yediot Aharonot newspaper, three quarters of respondents said they were confident about the long-term existence of the state, while 23 percent said they were not confident. Just under half of respondents, 43 percent, said their sense of security had become weaker over the last year. Half said it remained the same but only seven percent said it was stronger. Seventy percent of respondents also rated the performance of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as "not good" with 54 percent believing he should resign, mainly over the failures of the war against Shiite militia Hezbollah. The poll, conducted by an independent institute, was based on a representative sample of 499 people. It carried a margin of error of 4.5 percent. Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved. AFP ***************************************************************** 11 AFP: US going the "extra mile" to help settle nuclear standoff with Iran - envoy Fri Sep 22, 12:25 PM ET UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - US Ambassador John Bolton said Washington was trying "to go the extra mile" to help the European Union" /> convince Iran" /> to freeze its sensitive nuclear fuel work. But he warned that "absent a verifiable suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment activities, we are prepared to move to sanctions here in the (Security) Council and to take similar steps to exert economic pressure on Iran outside the council." "We are trying to go the extra mile, indeed go several extra miles to give the European Union the fullest possible chance to explore the option they have been pursuing," he told reporters after attending a Security Council meeting. Bolton, the US envoy to the United Nations" /> , said he was hoping that a planned meeting between EU foreign policy Javier Solana and Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani would materialize. "At this point Solana is looking to find out where Larijani is and see whether they can agree on a mutually convenient great city of Europe where they can meet," he noted sarcastically. "This is an effort to accommodate our friends in Europe," he said, adding however that "there is no doubt that Iran "for the last three years has used the cover of negotiation to continue to perfect the technical aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle." A senior European diplomat said world powers handed Iran a new early October deadline to halt uranium enrichment. Hopes of a snap breakthrough in the crisis however were already dimmed, with an announcement that Solana would not meet, as expected, this week in New York with Larijani. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany and Italy agreed late Tuesday to give European negotiators more time to convince Iran to suspend enrichment before seeking targeted sanctions under a UN resolution. A senior European diplomat told reporters the new deadline would stretch to early October, in the hope that new talks between Solana and Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani would bear fruit. The UN Security Council had set an August 31 deadline for Iran to comply with the demand for a suspension of enrichment operations. But Tehran, which denies US claims it is seeking a nuclear weapons, has so far refused to comply. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 12 AFP: US going the "extra mile" to help settle nuclear standoff with Iran - envoy - Fri Sep 22, 4:00 PM ET UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - US Ambassador John Bolton said Washington was trying "to go the extra mile" to help the European Union" /> European Unionconvince Iran" /> Iranto freeze its sensitive nuclear fuel work. But he warned that "absent a verifiable suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment activities, we are prepared to move to sanctions here in the (Security) Council and to take similar steps to exert economic pressure on Iran outside the council." "We are trying to go the extra mile, indeed go several extra miles to give the European Union the fullest possible chance to explore the option they have been pursuing," he told reporters after attending a Security Council meeting. Bolton, the US envoy to the United Nations" /> United Nations, said he was hoping that a planned meeting between EU foreign policy Javier Solana and Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani would materialize. "At this point Solana is looking to find out where Larijani is and see whether they can agree on a mutually convenient great city of Europe where they can meet," he noted sarcastically. "This is an effort to accommodate our friends in Europe," he said, adding however that "there is no doubt that Iran "for the last three years has used the cover of negotiation to continue to perfect the technical aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle." A senior European diplomat said world powers handed Iran a new early October deadline to halt uranium enrichment. Hopes of a snap breakthrough in the crisis however were already dimmed, with an announcement that Solana would not meet, as expected, this week in New York with Larijani. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany and Italy agreed late Tuesday to give European negotiators more time to convince Iran to suspend enrichment before seeking targeted sanctions under a UN resolution. A senior European diplomat told reporters the new deadline would stretch to early October, in the hope that new talks between Solana and Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani would bear fruit. The UN Security Council had set an August 31 deadline for Iran to comply with the demand for a suspension of enrichment operations. But Tehran, which denies US claims it is seeking a nuclear weapons, has so far refused to comply. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 13 UPI: Ahmadinejad evades security questions United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 9/21/2006 4:31:00 PM -0400 NEW YORK, Sept. 21 (UPI) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad refused to answer questions regarding his support of Hezbollah and evaded other questions of international security. The president was asked at U.N. World Headquarters in New York Thursday if he will respect a U.N. Security Council mandate for an arms embargo and ceasefire in Lebanon. Specifically, he was asked twice if Iran will continue to supply weapons to Hezbollah. In response, the president simply said he "supports permanent stability in Lebanon." On the issue of his support for Hezbollah and his apparent contempt for Israel, he said, "justice means allowing the Palestinian people to decide on their own fate." "We love everyone around the world," he said. "Everyone should enjoy legitimate rights." Ahmadinejad was asked about a statement in which he said Israel should be "wiped off the map" and evaded this question as well. "We are opposed to oppression," he said. "Aggression and occupation is an abhorrent act." Ahmadinejad did say that he believes the Zionist movement, a national liberation movement for Jews in Israel, is a "party that has no religious ties." "Zionists are not Jews, they are not Christians, they are not Muslims," the president said, saying that the Zionist role in Middle East conflict "should be thoroughly examined by the media." "If you displace people from their homeland, the world will condemn you," he said. Ahmadinejad also mentioned he is still considering the proposal from French President Jacques Chirac to halt nuclear development during the course of negotiations. "We want to make sure that whatever we agree on has a guarantee of enforcement," he said, expressing concern agreements may not be followed through. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 14 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Sees Diminishing North Korea Threat From the Associated Press [UP] Friday September 22, 2006 9:46 PM AP Photo TOK102 By ROBERT BURNS AP Military Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - North Korea's military has grown markedly less capable of a successful attack on South Korea, in part because the U.S. has been choking the North financially, says the top U.S. commander in the Pacific. The military mismatch between an economically powerful South Korea and a declining North Korea is widening year by year, Adm. William Fallon, commander of U.S. Pacific Command, told a group of defense writers Friday. ``I'm not going to discount this threat,'' he said of the North Korean military. ``But their ability to sustain major combat for a lengthy period of time I believe is much less than it was in the past, particularly given the growth in South Korean capabilities.'' His comments echoed in some ways an assessment of the military situation on the Korean peninsula offered by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld said Aug. 27 that South Korea no longer needs to regard the North as an immediate military threat. While the North is a threat to spread ballistic missiles and other dangerous technologies, its conventional military strength is eroding as its economy crumbles, he said. Fallon cited two reasons behind the North's decline as a conventional military threat. First, its economy is starved. ``As I look at their people, just the physical appearance of them, they appear year by year to be physically diminished,'' he said. ``There's also a major financial problem. We've been choking them financially from the outside. So their ability to get resources has been diminished. The trend lines are pretty obviously going in different directions'' in the North and South. Much of the public focus on North Korea in recent years has been its nuclear weapons program. Fallon did not discount the importance of the nuclear problem, but said it is unclear whether the North actually has nuclear weapons that it could place atop a missile capable of reaching American territory. Fallon said he saw no reason to believe the North would invade the South. The fear of an invasion has been the main reason the United States has kept thousands of troops in the South since the Korean War ended in July 1953. As the South has grown stronger, its reliance on U.S. forces has lessened in some respects. ``It's very clear - and we've known this - that the (Koreans) want to put on the table'' the issue of when they would regain full command of their own troops during wartime, Fallon said. Under the current arrangement, the South Koreans have full control during peacetime but in time of war they would place their forces under Combined Forces Command, a headquarters controlled by the top U.S. commander in Seoul, Army Gen. B.B. Bell. Prior to 1994, the U.S. commander also had authority over South Korean forces even in peacetime. The arrangement has evolved from the Korean War, which began when North Korea invaded the South in June 1950. The Bush administration wants the command change to occur as early as 2009, but the Seoul government favors a later date. The issue was discussed Thursday when President Bush met with South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, who has said regaining full Korean control is a matter of national sovereignty. There are now about 29,500 U.S. troops in South Korea. That is set to decline to 25,000 by 2008. Whether the transfer of wartime control to the South Koreans leads to a further reduction of U.S. forces ``is something you deal with after the fact,'' Fallon said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 15 Korea Herald: U.S. plans new multilateral talks on N.K. As the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear intentions remain defunct, the United States is trying to regulate broader multilateral talks, calling for a third round of such a meeting for November. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, while presiding an eight-member talks in New York, suggested holding another round in Hanoi in November on the occasion of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. Although Washington officials deny the expanded talks is in any way substituting the six-party talks, it could very well become an official replacement if North Korea continues to snub international calls, experts said. "It could be a replacement (to the six-party talks). If North Korea continues to boycott the talks, it could become a new form of multilateral discussion," said Yun Duk-min of the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security. "It is one of the ways to pressure the North to return to the negotiating table ... under the notion that we cannot just sit around and wait for the North to return." At the latest meeting in New York, Rice called for full implementation of the U.N. Security Council resolution on North Korea. Present at the gathering were representatives of South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Indonesia and the Philippines. The ministers are in New York to attend the U.N. General Assembly. But China and Russia chose to stay away from the talks this time due to an apparent concern that it could undermine the significance of the six-party talks. Participation by China and Russia would consequently add more significance to the talks and lend Washington a more important role in the region. The United States downplayed their absence, saying it could be due to "scheduling" differences. Experts here said the two countries, who have a friendly relationship with North Korea, will eventually have little choice but to join the multilateral talks in the future because "they do not have any other good alternative." The six-party talks were designed and presided over by China since 2003. They have been on hold for 10 months now due to North Korea's boycott. Offering another gesture for North Korea to return to the talks, South Korean Unification Minister Lee Jong-seok yesterday said Seoul would resume humanitarian aid as soon as the six-party talks resume. South Korea cut off its rice and fertilizer aid to the impoverished state upon after the July 5 missile launches. Pyongyang has been refusing to attend the talks unless Washington drops its probe into a bank in Macau suspected of helping the reclusive state's illicit activities. Washington intends to finish the investigation and is preparing additional measures prescribed in the U.N. resolution 1695. But Washington hinted that it could meet bilaterally with the North to discuss the Banco Delta Asia accounts in Macau. U.S. Ambassador to Korea Alexander Vershbow had said in an interview on Thursday that U.S. chief nuclear negotiator Christopher Hill could visit Pyongyang if North Korea agreed to return to the talks. Washington has refused to talk bilaterally with North Korea outside the framework of the six-party talks. Coming away from the expanded talks, South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said the countries discussed "what measures to take should North Korea continue not to cooperate." Hill told reporters after the meeting that Rice "encouraged all to follow the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1695." He also said, "I won't name them, but several participants commented that they thought China should be doing more." While re-emphasizing that the multilateral talks were in no way to replace the six-party talks, Hill said it was intended to "show North Korea that there is a broader concern in the broader region" about its nuclear program. (angiely@heraldm.com) By Lee Joo-hee 2006.09.23 ***************************************************************** 16 Xinhua: Six-party talks remains effective mechanism for resolving Korean nuclear issue: Chinese FM www.chinaview.cn 2006-09-23 03:53:33 UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 22 (Xinhua) -- The Six-Party Talks remains an effective mechanism for enhancing understanding and trust and resolving the Korean nuclear issue, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said here Friday. Speaking to the UN General Assembly at its annual general debate, Li stressed that China is committed to maintaining peace and stability on the peninsula, making it free of nuclear weapons and promoting the Six-Party Talks. He pointed out that during the Security Council deliberations in July on the DPRK's missile tests and the related resolution, China made strenuous efforts to engage the parties concerned in an effort to uphold peace on the peninsula and in Northeast Asia, the unity and authority of the Security Council and the progress already made in the Six-Party Talks. "Long-standing antagonism and mistrust between the parties concerned is the main cause for the current difficulty," Li noted. He called on all parties to be patient and pragmatic and act with vision to reduce differences and remove obstacles through dialogue. "We hope the parties involved will be cool-headed and more flexible, expand common ground, meet each other half way and work together for the early resumption of the Six-Party Talks and progressive implementation of the Joint Statement," Li said. "This is the only viable solution to the Korean nuclear issue," he concluded. Enditem Editor: Mu Xuequan ***************************************************************** 17 U.S. Intelligence on Russian and Chinese Nuclear Testing Activities, 1990-2000 Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:52:48 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY National Security Archive Update, September 22, 2006 U.S. Intelligence on Russian and Chinese Nuclear Testing Activities, 1990-2000 Prospects of Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Led China to Acceclerate Testing Schedule For more information contact: Jeffrey Richelson 202/994-7000 http://www.nsarchive.org Washington, DC, September 22, 2006 - The prospects of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in the early 1990's led China to accelerate its testing schedule and discuss differences within the Russian government over testing, according to documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and archival research and posted on the Web today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University. The documents illustrate the efforts of the U.S. Intelligence Community to understand developments at Russian and Chinese nuclear test sites--Novaya Zemlya and Lop Nur--from 1990 to 2000. Today's posting includes 33 documents--many originally classified Top Secret--produced under the auspices of the Director of Central Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency. The records were obtained by Archive Senior Fellow Jeffrey T. Richelson while conducting research for his recently-published book, Spying on the Bomb: American Nuclear Intelligence from Nazi Germany to Iran and North Korea. (W.W. Norton). The documents include assessments of the link between nuclear and sub-critical tests and weapons modernization programs in Russia and China--both strategic and tactical nuclear weapons programs. Of particular interest is the report of an outside review panel appointed by Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet after detection of a seismic event in the vicinity of Novaya Zemlya on August 16, 1997. That detection, combined with satellite reconnaissance showing unusual activity at the test site, led to concerns within the Intelligence Community that Russia had conducted a nuclear test despite its pledge to abide by the terms of the CTBT. http://www.nsarchive.org ________________________________________________________ THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE is an independent non-governmental research institute and library located at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. The Archive collects and publishes declassified documents acquired through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A tax-exempt public charity, the Archive receives no U.S. government funding; its budget is supported by publication royalties and donations from foundations and individuals. _________________________________________________________ PRIVACY NOTICE The National Security Archive does not and will never share the names or e-mail addresses of its subscribers with any other organization. Once a year, we will write you and ask for your financial support. We may also ask you for your ideas for Freedom of Information requests, documentation projects, or other issues that the Archive should take on. We would welcome your input, and any information you care to share with us about your special interests. But we do not sell or rent any information about subscribers to any other party. _________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THE LIST You may leave the list at any time by sending a "SIGNOFF NSARCHIVE" command to . You can also unsubscribe from the list anytime by using the following link: ***************************************************************** 18 [NYTr] Egypt Hands Bush a Nuclear Embarrassment Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:14:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: olm.blythe-systems.com X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by map @economicdemocracy.org (activ-l) - Sep 21, 2006 International Herald Tribune - Sep 19, 2006 http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/19/news/egypt.php Nuclear Embarrassment for Bush With Egyptian Developments Gamal Mubarak, the son of the Egyptian president, proposed that his country pursue nuclear energy in a speech to the nation's political elite on Tuesday. The speech drew strong applause while raising expectations that the younger Mubarak is being positioned to replace his father, Hosni, as president. The carefully crafted political speech heralded two potentially embarrassing developments for the White House at a time when the Middle East is awash in crisis: firstly, a nuclear program in Egypt, recipient of about $2 billion a year in military and development aide from the United States; and secondly, Gamal Mubarak succeeding his father without a substantial political challenge. As he stood before the members of the governing National Democratic Party gathered in this city, Gamal Mubarak called for nuclear power, while taking an indirect swipe at Washington. "The whole world is looking at alternative energy - so should Egypt - including nuclear," he said. "We will not accept any initiatives made abroad," he added. In his speech, Mubarak, who holds one of the most senior positions in the party, did not give specifics on what he envisioned for a nuclear program, and he and his father have previously said he is not interested in the presidency. But political analysts said that Egypt was serious about nuclear energy, and even party members said that it appeared the younger Mubarak would likely be the party's candidate for president. "Egypt, and especially the NDP, is a strategic ally of the U.S., it does not seek confrontation with the U.S. over its nuclear program, instead it seeks cooperation," said Dr. Hassan Abu Taleb, an analyst with the government-financed Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. "Why should the U.S. assist India in its nuclear program and not Egypt?" But Mubarak's words sounded a challenging to the United States. Simply raising the topic of a nuclear program at a time of heightened tensions over Iran's activity was received as a calculated effort to raise the young Mubarak's profile and show defiance toward Washington, foreign affairs experts said. Egyptian officials have calculated that Washington currently needs Cairo as a strong ally in the Middle East and has resisted pressing for democratic change. "Gamal's announcements may be perceived as being confrontational" by the United States, said Hala Mustafa, a political analyst and former member of the National Democratic Party. "Yet it is too early to gauge America's response to his announcements. Egypt is often confrontational, and does not always abide by U.S. policies in the region." Distance from Washington and pursuing nuclear power are actions which could help counteract two of Mubarak's perceived shortcomings: that he would be the first president since the revolution ousted the monarchy who was not a military officer, and he and his father are often perceived as tools of Washington. The nuclear program might help him win support among the military and the swipes at Washington might help him restore some credibility with the public. "It certainly seems that President Mubarak is setting the stage for Gamal's succession," said Steve Cook, of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, on Tuesday. Speaking in Cairo, he said the National Democratic Party conference was "geared toward highlighting Gamal's role." Hosni Mubarak has said that Egypt, unlike Syria, will not allow the presidency to be inherited. He was recently elected to a six-year term as president that is expected to be his last. He is 79. Even party members close to the younger Mubarak acknowledge that at the present time there are no other candidates on the horizon, either in the party, or in what remains of a crushed and disorganized opposition. The constitutional amendment pushed through by the president opens presidential elections to multiple candidates but sets such tough standards that at the moment no one qualifies from any opposition parties. CAIRO Gamal Mubarak, the son of the Egyptian president, proposed that his country pursue nuclear energy in a speech to the nation's political elite on Tuesday. The speech drew strong applause while raising expectations that the younger Mubarak is being positioned to replace his father, Hosni, as president. The carefully crafted political speech heralded two potentially embarrassing developments for the White House at a time when the Middle East is awash in crisis: firstly, a nuclear program in Egypt, recipient of about $2 billion a year in military and development aide from the United States; and secondly, Gamal Mubarak succeeding his father without a substantial political challenge. As he stood before the members of the governing National Democratic Party gathered in this city, Gamal Mubarak called for nuclear power, while taking an indirect swipe at Washington. "The whole world is looking at alternative energy - so should Egypt - including nuclear," he said. "We will not accept any initiatives made abroad," he added. When President George W. Bush called for promoting democracy in the Middle East, he looked to Egypt as a leader in that effort. He has since seen the country move in the opposite direction, arresting political opposition figures, beating demonstrators, arresting bloggers, blocking new political parties and postponing local elections by two years. ..In his speech, Mubarak, who holds one of the most senior positions in the party, did not give specifics on what he envisioned for a nuclear program, and he and his father have previously said he is not interested in the presidency. But political analysts said that Egypt was serious about nuclear energy, and even party members said that it appeared the younger Mubarak would likely be the party's candidate for president. "Egypt, and especially the NDP, is a strategic ally of the U.S., it does not seek confrontation with the U.S. over its nuclear program, instead it seeks cooperation," said Dr. Hassan Abu Taleb, an analyst with the government-financed Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. "Why should the U.S. assist India in its nuclear program and not Egypt?" But Mubarak's words sounded a challenging to the United States. Simply raising the topic of a nuclear program at a time of heightened tensions over Iran's activity was received as a calculated effort to raise the young Mubarak's profile and show defiance toward Washington, foreign affairs experts said. Egyptian officials have calculated that Washington currently needs Cairo as a strong ally in the Middle East and has resisted pressing for democratic change. "Gamal's announcements may be perceived as being confrontational" by the United States, said Hala Mustafa, a political analyst and former member of the National Democratic Party. "Yet it is too early to gauge America's response to his announcements. Egypt is often confrontational, and does not always abide by U.S. policies in the region." Distance from Washington and pursuing nuclear power are actions which could help counteract two of Mubarak's perceived shortcomings: that he would be the first president since the revolution ousted the monarchy who was not a military officer, and he and his father are often perceived as tools of Washington. The nuclear program might help him win support among the military and the swipes at Washington might help him restore some credibility with the public. "It certainly seems that President Mubarak is setting the stage for Gamal's succession," said Steve Cook, of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, on Tuesday. Speaking in Cairo, he said the National Democratic Party conference was "geared toward highlighting Gamal's role." Hosni Mubarak has said that Egypt, unlike Syria, will not allow the presidency to be inherited. He was recently elected to a six-year term as president that is expected to be his last. He is 79. Even party members close to the younger Mubarak acknowledge that at the present time there are no other candidates on the horizon, either in the party, or in what remains of a crushed and disorganized opposition. The constitutional amendment pushed through by the president opens presidential elections to multiple candidates but sets such tough standards that at the moment no one qualifies from any opposition parties. CAIRO Gamal Mubarak, the son of the Egyptian president, proposed that his country pursue nuclear energy in a speech to the nation's political elite on Tuesday. The speech drew strong applause while raising expectations that the younger Mubarak is being positioned to replace his father, Hosni, as president. The carefully crafted political speech heralded two potentially embarrassing developments for the White House at a time when the Middle East is awash in crisis: firstly, a nuclear program in Egypt, recipient of about $2 billion a year in military and development aide from the United States; and secondly, Gamal Mubarak succeeding his father without a substantial political challenge. As he stood before the members of the governing National Democratic Party gathered in this city, Gamal Mubarak called for nuclear power, while taking an indirect swipe at Washington. "The whole world is looking at alternative energy - so should Egypt - including nuclear," he said. "We will not accept any initiatives made abroad," he added. When President George W. Bush called for promoting democracy in the Middle East, he looked to Egypt as a leader in that effort. He has since seen the country move in the opposite direction, arresting political opposition figures, beating demonstrators, arresting bloggers, blocking new political parties and postponing local elections by two years. In his speech, Mubarak, who holds one of the most senior positions in the party, did not give specifics on what he envisioned for a nuclear program, and he and his father have previously said he is not interested in the presidency. But political analysts said that Egypt was serious about nuclear energy, and even party members said that it appeared the younger Mubarak would likely be the party's candidate for president. "Egypt, and especially the NDP, is a strategic ally of the U.S., it does not seek confrontation with the U.S. over its nuclear program, instead it seeks cooperation," said Dr. Hassan Abu Taleb, an analyst with the government-financed Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. "Why should the U.S. assist India in its nuclear program and not Egypt?" seeks cooperation," said Dr. Hassan Abu Taleb, an analyst with the government-financed Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. "Why should the U.S. assist India in its nuclear program and not Egypt?" But Mubarak's words sounded a challenging to the United States. Simply raising the topic of a nuclear program at a time of heightened tensions over Iran's activity was received as a calculated effort to raise the young Mubarak's profile and show defiance toward Washington, foreign affairs experts said. Egyptian officials have calculated that Washington currently needs Cairo as a strong ally in the Middle East and has resisted pressing for democratic change. "Gamal's announcements may be perceived as being confrontational" by the United States, said Hala Mustafa, a political analyst and former member of the National Democratic Party. "Yet it is too early to gauge America's response to his announcements. Egypt is often confrontational, and does not always abide by U.S. policies in the region." Distance from Washington and pursuing nuclear power are actions which could help counteract two of Mubarak's perceived shortcomings: that he would be the first president since the revolution ousted the monarchy who was not a military officer, and he and his father are often perceived as tools of Washington. The nuclear program might help him win support among the military and the swipes at Washington might help him restore some credibility with the public. "It certainly seems that President Mubarak is setting the stage for Gamal's succession," said Steve Cook, of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, on Tuesday. Speaking in Cairo, he said the National Democratic Party conference was "geared toward highlighting Gamal's role." Hosni Mubarak has said that Egypt, unlike Syria, will not allow the presidency to be inherited. He was recently elected to a six-year term as president that is expected to be his last. He is 79. Even party members close to the younger Mubarak acknowledge that at the present time there are no other candidates on the horizon, either in the party, or in what remains of a crushed and disorganized opposition. The constitutional amendment pushed through by the president opens presidential elections to multiple candidates but sets such tough standards that at the moment no one qualifies from any opposition parties. CAIRO Gamal Mubarak, the son of the Egyptian president, proposed that his country pursue nuclear energy in a speech to the nation's political elite on Tuesday. The speech drew strong applause while raising expectations that the younger Mubarak is being positioned to replace his father, Hosni, as president. The carefully crafted political speech heralded two potentially embarrassing developments for the White House at a time when the Middle East is awash in crisis: firstly, a nuclear program in Egypt, recipient of about $2 billion a year in military and development aide from the United States; and secondly, Gamal Mubarak succeeding his father without a substantial political challenge. As he stood before the members of the governing National Democratic Party gathered in this city, Gamal Mubarak called for nuclear power, while taking an indirect swipe at Washington. "The whole world is looking at alternative energy - so should Egypt - including nuclear," he said. "We will not accept any initiatives made abroad," he added. When President George W. Bush called for promoting democracy in the Middle East, he looked to Egypt as a leader in that effort. He has since seen the country move in the opposite direction, arresting political opposition figures, beating demonstrators, arresting bloggers, blocking new political parties and postponing local elections by two years. In his speech, Mubarak, who holds one of the most senior positions in the party, did not give specifics on what he envisioned for a nuclear program, and he and his father have previously said he is not interested in the presidency. But political analysts said that Egypt was serious about nuclear energy, and even party members said that it appeared the younger Mubarak would likely be the party's candidate for president. "Egypt, and especially the NDP, is a strategic ally of the U.S., it does not seek confrontation with the U.S. over its nuclear program, instead it seeks cooperation," said Dr. Hassan Abu Taleb, an analyst with the government-financed Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. "Why should the U.S. assist India in its nuclear program and not Egypt?" But Mubarak's words sounded a challenging to the United States. Simply raising the topic of a nuclear program at a time of heightened tensions over Iran's activity... .Distance from Washington and pursuing nuclear power are actions which could help counteract two of Mubarak's perceived shortcomings: that he would be the first president since the revolution ousted the monarchy who was not a military officer, and he and his father are often perceived as tools of Washington. The nuclear program might help him win support among the military and the swipes at Washington might help him restore some credibility with the public. "It certainly seems that President Mubarak is setting the stage for Gamal's succession," said Steve Cook, of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, on Tuesday. Speaking in Cairo, he said the National Democratic Party conference was "geared toward highlighting Gamal's role." Hosni Mubarak has said that Egypt, unlike Syria, will not allow the presidency to be inherited. He was recently elected to a six-year term as president that is expected to be his last. He is 79. Even party members close to the younger Mubarak acknowledge that at the present time there are no other candidates on the horizon, either in the party, or in what remains of a crushed and disorganized opposition. The constitutional amendment pushed through by the president opens presidential elections to multiple candidates but sets such tough standards that at the moment no one qualifies from any opposition parties. CAIRO Gamal Mubarak, the son of the Egyptian president, proposed that his country pursue nuclear energy in a speech to the nation's political elite on Tuesday. The speech drew strong applause while raising expectations that the younger Mubarak is being positioned to replace his father, Hosni, as president. The carefully crafted political speech heralded two potentially embarrassing developments for the White House at a time when the Middle East is awash in crisis: firstly, a nuclear program in Egypt, recipient of about $2 billion a year in military and development aide from the United States; and secondly, Gamal Mubarak succeeding his father without a substantial political challenge. As he stood before the members of the governing National Democratic Party gathered in this city, Gamal Mubarak called for nuclear power, while taking an indirect swipe at Washington. "The whole world is looking at alternative energy - so should Egypt - including nuclear," he said. "We will not accept any initiatives made abroad," he added. When President George W. Bush called for promoting democracy in the Middle East, he looked to Egypt as a leader in that effort. He has since seen the country move in the opposite direction, arresting political opposition figures, beating demonstrators, arresting bloggers, blocking new political parties and postponing local elections by two years. In his speech, Mubarak, who holds one of the most senior positions in the party, did not give specifics on what he envisioned for a nuclear program, and he and his father have previously said he is not interested in the presidency. But political analysts said that Egypt was serious about nuclear energy, and even party members said that it appeared the younger Mubarak would likely be the party's candidate for president. "Egypt, and especially the NDP, is a strategic ally of the U.S., it does not seek confrontation with the U.S. over its nuclear program, instead it seeks cooperation," said Dr. Hassan Abu Taleb, an analyst with the government-financed Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. "Why should the U.S. assist India in its nuclear program and not Egypt?" But Mubarak's words sounded a challenging to the United States. Simply raising the topic of a nuclear program at a time of heightened tensions over Iran's activity was received as a calculated effort to raise the young Mubarak's profile and show defiance toward Washington, foreign affairs experts said. Egyptian officials have calculated that Washington currently needs Cairo as a strong ally in the Middle East and has resisted pressing for democratic change. "Gamal's announcements may be perceived as being confrontational" by the United States, said Hala Mustafa, a political analyst and former member of the National Democratic Party. "Yet it is too early to gauge America's response to his announcements. Egypt is often confrontational, and does not always abide by U.S. policies in the region." Distance from Washington and pursuing nuclear power are actions which could help counteract two of Mubarak's perceived shortcomings: that he would be the first president since the revolution ousted the monarchy who was not a military officer, and he and his father are often perceived as tools of Washington. The nuclear program might help him win support among the military and the swipes at Washington might help him restore some credibility with the public. "It certainly seems that President Mubarak is setting the stage for Gamal's succession," said Steve Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York.. = = = STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON? = = = = = = Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email FOR MORE INFORMATION: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace) http://economicdemocracy.org/eco/climate-summary.html (Climate) And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general) ** New email: econdemocracy[at]gmail[dot]com * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 19 Guardian Unlimited: U.S.-Pakistan Relationship Getting Shaky From the Associated Press [UP] Friday September 22, 2006 1:31 PM AP Photo DCCD108 By PAUL GARWOOD Associated Press Writer ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Threats of U.S. military action inside Pakistan to counter al-Qaida militants have highlighted the shaky relationship between these two key players in the war on terror and could escalate anti-American sentiments in this Islamic nation. President Bush said this week that he would ``absolutely'' order military operations inside Pakistan if Osama bin Laden or other top terrorists were found to be hiding here. Pakistan's leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, also said the United States had threatened to bomb his Islamic nation ``back to the Stone Age'' if he didn't switch his support from Afghanistan's pro-al-Qaida Taliban regime to the American-led war on terror following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. ``These comments only expose how tenuous and fragile Pakistan's relationship is with the United States,'' Pakistani analyst and retired army Gen. Talat Masood said Friday. ``They prove a lot more has to be done to establish a relationship on a much more solid foundation.'' A spokesman for Pakistan's hard-line opposition Islamic coalition Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal, also called MMA, said Musharraf's revelation would anger Pakistani people, who have long believed that they were forced ``at gunpoint'' into supporting the war on terror. ``The temperature and anger will rise among Pakistanis because they will see that the Americans do not want dialogue or communication, but are instead exploiting a situation and compelling Musharraf to support them,'' said the MMA's Ameer ul-Azeem. Bush, who meets Musharraf on Friday at the White House, has repeatedly praised Pakistan for arresting hundreds of al-Qaida operatives inside this South Asian nation, the world's second-biggest Islamic country with a population of 160 million. But the United States has also said Pakistan can do more to prevent militants crossing from its tribal regions into Afghanistan, where Taliban-fanned violence has reached its deadliest proportions since the American-led invasion that toppled the hard-line regime. On Thursday, Pakistan's government vowed to not let foreign forces enter its territory, a day after Bush told CNN he would order American military action inside this Islamic nation if actionable intelligence surfaced that bin Laden was hiding here. Bin Laden's whereabouts are unknown, but he is believed to be hiding along the porous Pakistani-Afghan frontier, where about 100,000 Pakistani, U.S. and Afghan forces are hunting Taliban and al-Qaida militants. Pakistan had long supported the Taliban, which came to power following the 1992-96 civil war in Afghanistan that killed more than 50,000 in the capital, Kabul, alone. But the Taliban's harboring of bin Laden and his al-Qaida training camps made it the target of U.S. anger after the attacks in New York, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania. Musharraf told CBS that Richard Armitage, the then deputy secretary of state, told Pakistan's intelligence director that the United States could attack if the South Asian nation did not back the war on terror. ``The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age,''' Musharraf told CBS' ``60 Minutes'' in an interview to air Sunday. Musharraf said the remark was insulting, but said he reacted responsibly. ``One has to think and take actions in the interests of the nation and that is what I did,'' he said. The White House and State Department declined to comment. Armitage told CNN he never threatened to bomb Pakistan but that he delivered a tough message to the Muslim nation that it was either ``with us or against us.'' Pakistani officials also accuse Washington of bias toward its nuclear rival, India, by not giving Islamabad the same atomic energy assistance. Analysts say the United States remains wary of sharing nuclear technology with Pakistan in the light of the scandal surrounding A.Q. Khan, the father of this country's atomic program who also led a black market that delivered nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea. ``The Americans have said on a number of occasions that India is a reliable partner (in terms of atomic energy) and Pakistan is not reliable,'' said Khalid Mahmood, a senior research fellow at Islamabad's Institute of Regional Studies. Musharraf told CBS that his government had no knowledge of Khan's activities and said he was embarrassed in 2003 by then-CIA Director George Tenet, who showed the Pakistani president centrifuge designs with Pakistani signatures that Khan had passed to Iran and North Korea. ``It was the most embarrassing moment,'' Musharraf said. ``(Khan) gave them centrifuge designs. He gave them centrifuge parts. He gave them centrifuges.'' Centrifuges are vital components of the uranium enrichment process, which can be used to generate electricity or to create an atomic weapon. Khan has been under house arrest since Musharraf pardoned him in 2004. Many Pakistanis regard Khan as a national hero for leading development of its nuclear weapons program, which serves as a deterrent to rival India. --- Associated Press writer Munir Ahmad in Islamabad contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 20 AFP: Bush says US prepared to play role in India-Pakistan peace process - Fri Sep 22, 3:54 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States is prepared to play any role in efforts by India and Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir" /> dispute if invited by the two nuclear-armed neighbours, US President George W. Bush" /> said. Bush, speaking at a joint news conference with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, said he noticed that leaders of the two countries were determined to end their row over the Himalayan territory of Kashmir, claimed in full by both. "I asked the president, just like I would ask the prime minister of India: What can we do to help? What would you like the United States to do to facilitate an agreement?," the US leader said after hour-long talks with Musharraf. "Would you like us to get out of the way? Would you like us not to show up? Would you like us to be actively involved? How can we help you, if you so desire, to achieve peace?," Bush said. "And that's the role of the United States, as far as I'm concerned." Musharraf had briefed Bush on his recent agreement with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for top diplomats in New Delhi and Islamabad to resume high-level peace talks suspended in July after a series of bombings in Mumbai. India suspended a peace process with Islamabad begun in 2004 after July's bombings in Mumbai, the country's financial capital, which killed 183 people and injured nearly 900. They were blamed on Pakistan-based Islamic militants. Pakistan denies that it supports militants fighting New Delhi's rule on the Indian side of disputed and divided Kashmir. Bush said "it's very important that the issue of Kashmir move forward and be resolved peacefully." But he added that the United States could not force nations to reach an agreement for the sake of getting an accord. "Lasting agreements occur when leaders of nations say: Let's get the past behind us and let's move forward," he said. "But ultimately peace, longstanding peace, depends upon the will of leaders." The US leader said he was "encouraged" by the agreement between Musharraf and Singh reached on the sidelines of Non-Aligned Movement summit in Cuba this month to move the peace talks forward. "It is an indication that there is desire at the leadership level to solve this longstanding problem," he said. Musharraf said he told the US President that he had "an excellent meeting" with Singh in Havana and that "it was step forward toward resolution of disputes between India and Pakistan. "I did tell him on the way forward that we are moving on the Kashmir dispute especially," he said. India and Pakistan have fought two of their three wars over Kashmir, which is claimed in full by both. India accuses Pakistan of arming cross-border militants in divided Kashmir, a charge Islamabad vehemently denies. More than 44,000 people have died in Kashmir, India's only Muslim-majority state, since the launch of an Islamic rebellion in the Himalayan territory in 1989. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 21 Guardian Unlimited: Israeli Calls Ahmadinejad Invite Wrong From the Associated Press [UP] Friday September 22, 2006 10:01 PM AP Photo NYRD127 By BARRY SCHWEID Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon criticized the Council on Foreign Relations on Friday for providing a forum for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and what he called abhorrent views. In a letter to Richard Haass, a former high-ranked State Department official who now heads the think tank, Ayalon called the decision to host the Iranian leader a ``terrible mistake,'' even though Ayalon said he was sure neither Haass nor any member of the council endorsed Ahmadinejad's views. ``Rather than make clear that his abhorrent views are unworthy of so much as a hearing, the very fact that an organization like the council convened to listen to his ranting provided Ahmadinejad legitimacy,'' the ambassador wrote. In New York mostly to address the special session of the U.N. General Assembly, the Iranian leader met with 19 council members Wednesday. He also gave several media interviews. Haass said afterward, ``I am not sure we learned anything new.'' But Haass said in a statement that the Iranian leader may have learned about American attitudes from those with whom he sparred. The chairman of the conference, Peter G. Peterson, said Wednesday he had told Ahmadinejad that a majority of Americans were ``horrified'' by his assertions. In the past, these have included calling the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews perished, a myth and calling for Israel to be wiped off the map. Ayalon said meeting with Ahmadinejad was worse than if the council had met with Hitler, the leader of Nazi Germany. Hitler did not call openly for genocide in the 1930s, the ambassador said. ``Appeasing fanatics like Hitler and granting them legitimacy leads to genocide and war,'' Ayalon wrote. A copy of the letter was obtained by The Associated Press. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 22 Platts: IAEA to consult on an international nuclear fuel assurance plan London (Platts)--22Sep2006 The IAEA will begin consultations on an international nuclear fuel assurance plan, following the recommendations of a brainstorming "special event" held this week during the agency's general conference in Vienna. Charles Curtis, chairman of the event and president of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, told a press conference September 21 that the IAEA secretariat must now engage countries with incipient fuel cycle capabilities, like Brazil, or those that might be considering such capabilities. These countries should be included in a "purposeful and structured consultation" on various proposals put forward at the meeting, he said. Those proposals include an NTI pledge made on September 18 of $50 million in seed money for a virtual fuel bank administered by the IAEA, as well as ideas from the nuclear industry, from a six-country group of enrichment supplier countries, and this week from Japan, Germany and the UK. Curtis and Tarif Rauf of the IAEA's External Relations and Policy office stressed that participation by potential recipient countries in a future nuclear fuel assurance regime would be based on voluntary renunciation of sensitive fuel cycle technologies. However, Curtis said "renunciation" had been banned from the vocabulary of the initiative because it is contrary to states' ideas of their sovereignty. Promoters of the plan are "talking about incentives" not to develop enrichment and reprocessing, he said. Curtis acknowledged there is currently no consensus on the "need or the means" for providing fuel assurances sufficient to obviate the consideration of domestic sensitive technology development. He said it was hoped the IAEA could bring consolidated proposals for a way forward to the agency's governing board in a year's time. Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 23 AFP: Arab nations push for condemnation of Israel's nuclear activities - by Philippe Schwab Fri Sep 22, 5:55 PM ET VIENNA (AFP) - Arab nations have decided to push ahead with submitting a resolution to the UN nuclear watchdog condemning Israel" /> Israel's nuclear activities. "This decision is on the agenda," a senior diplomat from an Arab League member country told AFP of Friday's meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency's general assembly in Vienna. "The Arab League has taken a firm decision this morning to go all the way," the diplomat said. The draft resolution concerning "Israel's nuclear capacities and threats" is backed by 15 Arab countries, along with Indonesia, Iran" /> Iran, Cuba, Malaysia and Venezuela. In recent years similar resolutions against Israel have been proposed, but none found their way on to the IAEA's formal agenda because of Israeli support for an Egyptian appeal for a ban on nuclear weapons in the Middle East. But Israel's offensive against Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon and the growing pressure on Iran over its own nuclear programme have added new impetus to the call. The issue rarely comes up at the IAEA because Israel -- unlike Iran -- is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Israel refuses to acknowledge or deny that it possesses nuclear arms, but most experts agree that it has at least 200 atom bombs at the ready. The last time such a resolution was adopted was 1991. The Arab diplomat said that the version presented this year was "more flexible" and calls on Israel to ratify the NPT -- something which Israel has always rejected. "If the draft resolution is kept on the agenda, there is also a good chance it will be adopted," putting Western powers -- which pushed through a resolution condemning Iran's nuclear programme via the IAEA's Board of Governors -- in an awkward position, a Western diplomat said on Thursday. The number of countries backing the draft resolution made it unlikely that the resolution would be amended or withdrawn. In the case of Iran, world powers have given Tehran until early October to respond to an offer to negotiate the cessation of its uranium enrichment activities or face sanctions, according to diplomats. Regarding North Korea" /> North Korea, the general assembly again adopted a resolution calling on Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear programme, to return unconditionally to multiparty talks, and to resume cooperation with the IAEA. Six-party talks involving the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States, have been suspended since November when the North boycotted them in protest at US financial sanctions. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 24 AFP: US threatened to bomb Pakistan 'back to Stone Age' after 9/11 - Fri Sep 22, 9:26 AM ET NEW YORK (AFP) - The United States threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the Stone Age" after the September 11, 2001 attacks unless it supported the war on terror, President Pervez Musharraf said in an interview. Musharraf, whose support for the US-led war in Afghanistan" /> after the attacks was instrumental in the fall of the Taliban regime, said former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage made the threat to Pakistan's head of intelligence. "The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age'," Musharraf said in the interview with the "60 Minutes" investigative news programme, according to selected excepts. "I think it was a very rude remark," Musharraf says in the interview, due to be broadcast Sunday. "One has to think and take actions in the interests of the nation, and that's what I did." Shortly after the September 11 attacks, Pakistan abandoned its support for the Taliban, which was sheltering Al-Qaeda leaders, and became a front-line ally in the US-led "war on terror." Pakistan has since arrested several senior Al-Qaeda members including Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the alleged mastermind of the 2001 attacks. The South Asian country has also deployed around 80,000 troops on the rugged border with Afghanistan to hunt pro-Taliban and Al-Qaeda linked militants who sneaked into the area after fleeing the US-led invasion of Afghanistan. The White House declined to comment on Musharraf's comments, with a US official saying on condition of anonymity only that Pakistan had made "a strategic choice" to help after the September 11 attacks. Armitage's alleged threat also demanded that Pakistan turn over border posts and bases for the US military to use in the war in Afghanistan, which ended with the Taliban regime's collapse in late 2001. Other "ludicrous" demands required Pakistan to suppress domestic expressions of support for militant attacks on US targets, according to the CBS network, which produces "60 Minutes". "If somebody's expressing views, we cannot curb the expression of views," it quoted Musharraf as saying. In the interview, Musharraf also reveals an embarrassing episode in which former CIA" /> director George Tenet confronted him in 2003 with proof that the father of Pakistan's nuclear programme was passing secrets to Libya, Iran" /> and North Korea" /> . Abdul Qadeer Khan, held as hero in Pakistan for helping to make the country a nuclear power, admitted giving away nuclear secrets in a televised confession in February 2004, exposing a global black market in nuclear technology. "He (Tenet) took his briefcase out, passed me some papers. It was a centrifuge design with all its numbers and signatures of Pakistan. It was the most embarrassing moment," Musharraf says. It was only then, he says, that he realised that not only had blueprints been leaked, but that centrifuges themselves -- a crucial element in enriching uranium to weapons grade -- were being passed on, CBS said. Musharraf denies that anyone in the government or military was aware of the leak. He pardoned Khan the same month, but the ailing scientist has since lived under virtual house arrest in a leafy diplomatic sector in Islamabad and makes no public appearances. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 25 IndianExpress.com: Senate vote on nuclear deal likely next week Lalit K Jha Posted online: Saturday, September 23, 2006 NEW YORK, SEPTEMBER 22: The Indo-US civilian nuclear bill might not come up for voting on Friday in the Senate as expected. The Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah falls on that day due to which a large number of Senators are likely to be absent. The Senate, however, will begin discussions late in the evening on that day. Voting is likely to take place next week. Talbott says nuclear deal will sail throughPM’s message: N-ties will boost our effortsFingers crossed, Delhi hopes for Senate vote on Friday ‘India slow to tackle crimes against minorities’Albright backs n-deal, says Bush built on what we had begun Earlier in the day, Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee met US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in an effort to clear last-minute glitches over the nuclear deal that has been with the Senate for more than two months now. Accompanied by Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran, Mukherjee met Rice for about half an hour. Though details of the meetings were not available, a State Department official said the two leaders had a “good, constructive” meeting, indicating that any hurdle to the crucial nuke issue seemed to have been sorted out. “They covered a range of topics including US-India civil nuclear initiative, World Trade Organisation negotiation, the situation in Nepal and UN issues,” the State Department official said. Delay in voting, sources said, was also partially attributed to the presence of the Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in Capitol Hill, where he met the US President, George Bush. With Senate passing the nuke bill on the same day of his presence in Washington and meeting with Bush specially at a time when the Kashmir peace process has started again could have resulted in a little bit of upsetting the Pakistani ruler, who also has been insisting on a similar deal with US. It is believed that Rice updated Mukherjee about the civilian nuclear issue, including the latest status in Senate. Officials said the good news is that the three Senators who had placed “hold” on the nuke bill have relented, thus, paving the way for the much awaited debate in the US Senate and the voting sometime early next week. Saran, who had to rush to New York specially for the meeting with Rice, met the Senate Majority Leader Dr William Frist, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Chairman of House International Relations Committee Henry Hyde among others. editor@expressindia.com © 2006: Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd. All rights ***************************************************************** 26 AFP: Ontario Power seeks OK to prepare new nuclear site - Fri Sep 22, 5:16 PM ET Corrects conversion of distance in sixth paragraph to 44 miles TORONTO (Reuters) - Ontario Power Generation Inc. said on Friday it has filed a site-preparation application with Canada's nuclear regulator for a possible new nuclear plant east of Toronto. The filing by provincial government-owned OPG comes one month after private nuclear operator Bruce Power filed a similar application with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The federal regulator has not had to deal with new nuclear-plant requests in more than 25 years. The two filings do not mean that new reactors will go ahead at each site, but they start the ball rolling for lengthy environmental assessments and other approvals, which can take several years to obtain. "We believe Darlington is best suited for new nuclear development because there is room to build on the site," OPG President and Chief Executive Jim Hankinson said in a statement. In addition, the Darlington site - about 70 kilometers (44 miles) east of Toronto - is adjacent to a major transmission corridor. Hankinson also noted that the power company has more than 15 years of operating experience at the four-reactor Darlington site. OPG spokesman John Earl said it was premature to discuss the number of new reactors that could go on the site, or how much they would cost. As for public meetings, there will be "all kinds of opportunities" for public input during the regulatory process, Earl said. On August 17, Bruce Power, which runs six central Ontario nuclear power units and is refurbishing two more, also filed documents seeking site-preparation approval for a new nuclear plant. At the time, Bruce Power executives said any decision on whether to build new reactors was years away, but the price could be C$8 billion ($7.1 billion) to C$10 billion in the case of four new 1,000-megawatt units. Executives also acknowledged that availability of transmission lines could be a problem for the Bruce site, which is about 250 kilometers (156 miles) northwest of Toronto. The city is the province's largest power-demand center. Bruce Power is owned by Cameco Corp., TransCanada Corp., the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, the Power Workers' Union and the Society of Energy Professionals. Ontario is trying to secure new energy supplies to replace aging generation facilities. The provincial government has said it wants to maintain nuclear generating capacity at about 14,000 megawatts, and the Ontario energy minister had asked OPG to start seeking federal approvals for new nuclear units at an existing site. Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 27 NRC: Guidance for Receiving Enforcement Discretion When Concentrating FR Doc 06-8012 [Federal Register: September 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 184)] [Notices] [Page 55520-55522] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22se06-148] Uranium at Community Water Systems AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of guidance for receiving enforcement discretion when concentrating uranium at community water systems. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a regulatory information summary (RIS) to provide guidance for receiving enforcement discretion when concentrating uranium at drinking water facilities. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael K. Williamson, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Mail Stop: T8K3, telephone: (301) 415-6234, e-mail: mkw1@nrc.gov, or Gary Comfort, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Mail Stop: T8K3, telephone: (301) 415-8106, e-mail: gcc1@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2006-20-- Guidance for Receiving Enforcement Discretion When Concentrating Uranium at Community Water Systems. ADDRESSES: All community water systems (CWSs), in U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) non-Agreement States, that during the treatment of drinking water, may accumulate and concentrate naturally- occurring uranium in media, effluents, and other residuals, above 0.05 percent by weight. CWSs operating in Agreement States \1\ should contact their State regulatory agency to determine what requirements apply to their operations. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ An Agreement State is a State that has entered into an agreement with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission pursuant to Section 274b of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, under which the NRC discontinues its Federal authority and the State assumes authority under State law for the regulation of certain radioactive materials. Therefore, this agreement allows the State to regulate the use of radioactive material within that State. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Intent The NRC is issuing this regulatory issue summary (RIS), to inform addressees and other stakeholders of NRC's implementation of a policy of enforcement discretion for CWSs. Under this policy, CWSs, in non- Agreement States, that concentrate naturally-occurring uranium above 0.05 percent by weight in media, effluents, and other residuals during the treatment of drinking water will not be required to apply for a NRC specific license while they remain eligible for enforcement discretion. Background In 1991, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed changes to the current radionuclide standard for uranium in drinking water. On December 7, 2000 (65 FR 76707), the EPA issued new standards for the uranium content in drinking water. In the final rulemaking, EPA set a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 30 micrograms per liter (30 [mu]g/L), equivalent to 30 parts per billion, for uranium in drinking water. EPA's detailed technical and legal basis supporting this level can be found on pages 76712-76716 of the December 7, 2000, final rule. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,\2\ provides the NRC with regulatory authority over source material (which includes uranium and thorium) after its removal from its place of deposit in nature. NRC has issued regulations for source material in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 40, ``Domestic Licensing of Source Material.'' Part 40 defines ``source material,'' in part, as meaning uranium ``in any physical or chemical form.'' In accordance with 10 CFR 40.13(a), the NRC regards uranium in any solution (e.g., water) in which the uranium is by weight less than one-twentieth of 1 percent (0.05 percent or 335 picocuries per gram [pCi/g] for natural uranium) of the solution as an ``unimportant quantity'' of source material. Any CWS possessing such unimportant quantities of uranium would not need an NRC license under the 10 CFR 40.13(a) exemption. If a CWS possesses more than an unimportant quantity of uranium, but less than 15 pounds of uranium at any one time and less than 150 pounds of uranium in any one calendar year, the CWS may operate under the existing general license in 10 CFR 40.22, ``Small quantities of source material.'' A CWS operating under the general license in 10 CFR 40.22 is not required to formally notify NRC that it is operating under the conditions of that general license. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \2\ The Energy Policy Act of 2005 expanded NRC's regulatory authority to include discrete sources of radium-226, but not diffuse sources of radium-226. Diffuse sources are considered to include radium-226 as it occurs in nature or as a result of other processes where radium-226 may be unintentionally concentrated (such as in residuals from the treatment of water to meet drinking water standards). Therefore, NRC does not regulate radium-226 at drinking water facilities. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Although some CWSs may be able to treat for uranium and remain within the conditions of 10 CFR 40.13(a) or 10 CFR 40.22, NRC expects many CWSs will possess uranium in quantities exceeding those limits. Without enforcement discretion, such CWSs located in non-Agreement States would be required to apply for specific NRC source material licenses to possess, process, and transfer [[Page 55521]] the accumulated uranium, pursuant to 10 CFR 40.31 ``Application for specific licenses.'' Similarly, CWSs in Agreement States may also be required, under appropriate State regulations, to obtain a license for authorization to possess, process, and transfer the uranium at concentrations greater than 0.05 percent by weight. Based on the expectation of relatively low impacts to public health and safety and the environment during normal operations, and because NRC recognizes that the cost of obtaining a specific license can be burdensome, NRC has begun a rulemaking to establish a new class of general licenses. This new general license will be specific to CWSs that concentrate uranium above 0.05 percent by weight, in response to meeting EPA's MCLs (including the inadvertent concentration of uranium while treating other contaminants in the water). The new general license will ensure that public health and safety and the environment remain adequately protected. Summary of Issue While a new general license for CWSs is being developed, CWSs in non-Agreement States, concentrating uranium above 0.05 percent by weight, will be allowed to operate under enforcement discretion. Absent enforcement discretion, such CWSs would have to apply for a specific NRC license as required by 10 CFR 40.31. Enforcement discretion exercised by NRC does not remove or modify any obligations for the CWS to meet the requirements of other regulatory agencies. Requested Information To be eligible for enforcement discretion,\3\ the CWS operator must submit a notification to NRC stating an intent to operate under enforcement discretion. This notification must be submitted no later than 30 days after the CWS operator becomes aware that the concentration of the source material possessed by the CWS exceeds 0.05 percent by weight, and the quantity of source material possessed by the CWS exceeds more than 15 pounds of uranium at any one time or more than 150 pounds in any one calendar year. The notification must include the facility name and address, owner of the facility, and form of the effluent, media, or residual that exceeds 0.05 percent by weight. The notification shall also identify a point of contact, including a mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail address (if available). ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \3\ Compliance with the conditions in this RIS is not mandatory unless the CWS notifies NRC of its intent to operate under enforcement discretion. However, if the CWS does not meet these conditions, concentrates uranium to levels greater than 0.05 percent, and exceeds the general license conditions in 10 CFR 40.22, enforcement discretion will not be exercised, the CWS may be issued a notice of violation and be subject to civil penalties, and the CWS will be required to apply for a specific license in accordance with 10 CFR 40.31. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The notification may be sent as written correspondence to: RIS 06- 020, Project Manager, ATTN: Intent to Operate per RIS 06-020, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop: T8-F3, Washington, DC 20555- 0001, or by sending an e-mail with the requested information to: 2006UraniumRIS@nrc.gov. Conditions for Enforcement Discretion 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \4\ Although NRC plans to use conditions discussed in this RIS in the development of the new general license, it should be noted that the final rule for the new general license may contain conditions that are different, or additional to those discussed in this RIS. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- In addition to notifying the NRC of its intent to operate under enforcement discretion, the CWS must comply with the following conditions to be eligible for enforcement discretion: 1. Records The CWS will retain the following records for three years after the transfer or disposal of material containing uranium: (A) Amount of uranium transferred from the CWS site; (B) To whom it was transferred; and (C) Average concentration of uranium in each shipment. 2. Storage, Transfer, and Disposal When filter media (or other materials, such as sludge) contain greater than 0.05 percent by weight of uranium, and are no longer actively used by the CWS to meet EPA's uranium MCL, the material containing the uranium is to be transported from the CWS in accordance with applicable Department of Transportation regulations. Transfer of the material containing the uranium must be as follows: (A) To a facility authorized to possess the source material (e.g., a person authorized by a license for possession of uranium issued by NRC or an NRC Agreement State); or (B) For disposal at a facility authorized to accept radioactive material of the form and type generated by the CWS. While awaiting transfer, the material containing the uranium must be stored in a manner that will not allow for the release of the uranium or unnecessarily expose the CWS workers. Materials containing uranium, at concentrations greater than 0.05 percent, and that are no longer actively being used as part of the drinking water treatment process, must be removed from the CWS within 90 days from the time they were removed from service. In addition, while in storage, the material containing the uranium must be kept in an area that provides containment (e.g., a catch basin) in case of a spill. 3. Processing Restrictions The CWS shall implement new procedures, or use existing procedures for hazardous chemicals to allow employees to safely handle and operate equipment used to process or contain the uranium, concentrated greater than 0.05 percent by weight, during normal operations. These procedures should limit the possibility that employees are able to inhale or ingest the uranium. Enforcement discretion only applies to those activities required to meet EPA's MCL. Additional intentional concentration, or processing of the uranium captured on the filter media, after removal from the drinking water treatment process, is not permitted under this policy of enforcement discretion, and shall only be done in accordance with a specific license issued by NRC, or an Agreement State. Backwashing, or other procedures required for normal operation of the filter media, is permitted as long as the uranium is captured, stored, and transferred, as appropriate, in accordance with the transfer procedures in Section 2, ``Storage, Transfer, and Disposal,'' above. If allowed by local pretreatment permits, discharge of residuals containing uranium to sanitary sewers must be below the lesser of any local regulations, permit requirements, or 3 picocuries of uranium per milliliter (3 pCi/ml). A CWS operating under this policy of enforcement discretion may not intentionally dilute the uranium after it is concentrated, except as part of normal operation of its equipment (e.g., backwashing). 4. Off-Normal Operations A CWS must have written procedures to mitigate the impacts of a spill, or other accident involving the concentrated uranium. The facility must immediately take action to clean-up or mitigate the impacts of a spill or accident in accordance with its procedures, and provide written notification to the NRC (to the address above to which the original notification was sent) within 30 days of the incident. Spilled materials, containing uranium removed from drinking water, must not be allowed to adversely affect the [[Page 55522]] surrounding environment or CWS workers, or be allowed to re-enter the water treatment system. 5. Posting and Labeling A CWS operating under enforcement discretion must ensure that the equipment containing uranium, in concentrations greater than 0.05 percent by weight, is clearly labeled and must provide sufficient information (such as the radionuclide present or ``Caution--Radioactive Materials'') to permit individuals handling or using the containers, or working in the vicinity of the containers, to take precautions or minimize exposures. Areas, such as sludge ponds, containing the uranium in concentrations greater than 0.05 percent by weight, should be posted with a conspicuous sign or signs bearing the radiation symbol and the words ``CAUTION, RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS.'' 6. Criteria for Terminating Operation Under Enforcement Discretion Enforcement discretion will apply until either: (A) NRC amends its regulations to create a new general license for CWSs, or decides to no longer pursue a new regulation; (B) The CWS obtains a specific license from the NRC or an Agreement State; or (C) The CWS ceases operations. If this is the case, it shall decommission/decontaminate the facility in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E, ``Radiological Criteria for License Termination.'' Enforcement discretion may be rescinded if the CWS is not meeting the above objectives, or in NRC's opinion, the CWS cannot operate safely under the enforcement discretion policy. If the NRC modifies or ceases its policy of enforcement discretion, the NRC will appropriately modify or rescind the RIS, and will notify all affected CWSs of such changes. 7. Enforcement Guidance Enforcement guidance has been developed and is located on NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/enf-man/app-a.html. Note: NRC generic communications may be found on the NRC public Web site, http://www.nrc.gov, under Electronic Reading Room/Document Collections. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of September 2006. Patricia K. Holahan, Acting Director, Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. 06-8012 Filed 9-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 28 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding FR Doc 06-8015 [Federal Register: September 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 184)] [Notices] [Page 55515-55517] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22se06-146] of No Significant Impact for the Westinghouse Specialty Metals Plant in Blairsville, PA AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Senior Health Physicist, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; Telephone: (610) 337-5094; fax number (610) 337- 5069; or e-mail: mcr@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has decided to take no further regulatory action at the Westinghouse Specialty Metals Plant site, located in Derry Township, near Blairsville, PA, off Township Road 966 (the Site). The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) issued License Nos. SUC-509 and SNM-37 to Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Westinghouse) in the 1950s (pursuant to 10 CFR parts 40 and 70, respectively), authorizing the use of low enriched uranium, highly enriched uranium, and depleted uranium for conducting research and development, and for manufacturing activities related to the production of commercial and naval nuclear fuel. The two licenses were terminated in 1961 and 1964. The Site is currently being used for manufacturing operations that do not involve the use of licensed radioactive material. Subsequent NRC administrative reviews in the early 1990s and radiological surveys by Westinghouse identified residual radioactive contamination in excess of NRC criteria for release for unrestricted use. The Westinghouse corporate office at 4350 Northern Pike in Monroeville, PA, took technical responsibility for remediating the Site, and transmitted documentation indicating that the Site now meets NRC criteria for release for unrestricted use. Following a favorable technical review, the NRC intends to inform Westinghouse via letter of its decision that the Site now meets current NRC criteria for release for unrestricted use and the NRC will take no further regulatory action regarding the Site. The NRC will remove the Site from the NRC listing of complex decommissioning sites. Westinghouse requested this action in a letter dated February 15, 2006. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 51 (10 CFR part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The letter will be issued to Westinghouse following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the Federal Register. II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The proposed action would approve Westinghouse's February 15, 2006, request that the NRC concur that Westinghouse provided adequate documentation to conclude that the Site meets the requirements in 10 CFR 20.1402 for release for unrestricted use and that the Site can therefore be removed from the NRC listing of complex decommissioning sites. The Site is situated on 485 acres and is located in a rural area with scattered residential and manufacturing properties within its vicinity. One of the four major buildings and two exterior areas at the Site contained radioactive contamination that has now been remediated. Within the buildings, use of licensed materials was primarily confined to the southeast quarter of the [[Page 55516]] 205,000 ft \2\ main building, although material was used in other isolated areas of the building. Radioactive waste material was processed in a waste building south of the main building and contaminated zircalloy metal was burned in the vicinity of that building. The waste building was subsequently used for activities that did not involve the use of radioactive material and the building was later razed in approximately 1990. Some of the waste radioactive material had also been dumped in a quarried area on the east side of the Site. Westinghouse ceased licensed activities at the Site in the early 1960s and moved production to other licensed facilities. Decontamination and radiological surveys were performed that were sufficient to allow termination of the licenses in the early 1960s, but radiological survey data in the files is limited. As a result of reviews of terminated licenses conducted by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and the NRC in the early 1990s, the Site was identified as not having sufficient documentation to verify that it had been properly decontaminated prior to license termination. Westinghouse conducted detailed radiological surveys that identified interior and exterior areas where further remediation was needed to meet applicable radiological criteria for release for unrestricted use. From late 1994 through 2001, Westinghouse staff and contractors performed remediation activities and conducted final status surveys. Remediation and radiological survey activities were conducted in stages so that ongoing non-licenced operations would not be affected. Interior remediation activities consisted primarily of removing superficial concrete and paint on floor and wall surfaces, removing contaminated concrete around floor penetrations (e.g. equipment anchor bolts), excavating contaminated drain lines and sumps, and removing contaminated soil under contaminated drain lines that had leaked. Approximately 27,000 ft \2\ of the main building required remediation. Review of records and radiological survey results of the other buildings at the Site did not indicate the presence of radioactive contamination in these areas. Exterior remediation activities included removing ash and debris from a quarry area and removal of drain lines, contaminated soil, and building rubble from the vicinity of a former waste treatment and packaging building. All radioactive waste from remediation efforts was disposed at a licensed low-level waste disposal facility. Because no NRC license pertains to the Site, remediation and radiological survey activities were conducted without a Decommissioning Plan. At the request of NRC Region I staff, Westinghouse did provide a Health and Safety Plan for the work activities with the commitment that activities with radioactive material be conducted in accordance with 10 CFR part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation. Region I staff conducted periodic inspections of the remediation and radiological survey activities. Because radioactive contamination at the Site was identified at approximately the same time that the Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) was initiated, Westinghouse, at the start of its remediation activities in the early 1990s, agreed to utilize relevant release criteria identified in the SDMP Action Plan. The relevant criteria used by Westinghouse were Regulatory Guide 1.86, ``Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors,'' June 1974, for residual surface contamination, and Option 1 of the Branch Technical Position, ``Disposal or Onsite Storage of Thorium or Uranium Wastes from Past Operations'' (46 FR 52601; October 23, 1981), for soil and demolition debris. Westinghouse conducted radiological surveys at the Site and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the above referenced criteria were met, and that its calculations demonstrated that the annual dose criteria in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release were met at the Site. Need for the Proposed Action Westinghouse no longer conducts licensed activities at the Site and its AEC licenses were terminated in 1961 and 1964. However, because residual radioactive material at the Site in excess of the current NRC criteria for release for unrestricted use was later identified, Westinghouse performed remediation and radiological survey activities that demonstrate that the Site now meets the criteria for release for unrestricted use. Westinghouse seeks concurrence from the NRC that the NRC has no further regulatory interest in the Site and the Site can be removed from the NRC listing of complex decommissioning sites. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The historical review of licensed activities formerly conducted at the Site shows that such activities involved use of the following radioactive material with half-lives greater than 120 days: Highly- enriched uranium, low enriched uranium, and depleted uranium. Prior to performing the final status survey, Westinghouse conducted remediation activities, as necessary, in the areas of the Site affected by these radionuclides. Westinghouse conducted final status surveys throughout the duration of the remediation project from 1994 through 2001. The results of the final radiological surveys were compiled onto a single compact disc that was transmitted with their February 15, 2006, letter. This final radiological survey covered the entire Site including all interior and exterior remediated areas, unaffected buildings, and exterior areas that were not remediated. Westinghouse demonstrated compliance with the applicable SDMP Action Plan criteria for the radioactive materials it formerly used at the Site, and also elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by performing dose calculations using the RESRAD and RESRAD BUILD computer programs. Appropriate site-specific parameters were used in the calculations. The Westinghouse dose calculations show the potential dose from residual radioactive material is less than one millirem per year and thus satisfies the NRC requirements in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release. 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). The staff finds there were no significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive material at the Site. 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 Site. No such hazards or impacts to the environment were identified. The NRC has identified 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 Site 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 Site and concluded that the proposed action will not have a [[Page 55517]] significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply denying the request from Westinghouse. This no-action alternative is not practical because it perpetuates NRC attention to a site where remediation activities for residual contamination have been completed. The NRC's analysis of Westinghouse's final status survey data confirmed that the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release have been met. Additionally, denying the request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no- action alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered. Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Radiation Protection for review on August 14, 2006. On August 17, 2006, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Radiation Protection responded by email. The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and otherwise had no comments. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers. 1. February 15, 2006, Letter from Westinghouse to M. Roberts, NRC Region I, ``Submittal of Report Documenting the Radiological Status of the Westinghouse Specialty Metals Plant Site and Demonstrating Compliance with the Provisions of 10 CFR 20.1402 to Release the Site for Unrestricted Use'' and accompanying reports (document package ML003741979); 2. July 24, 2006, Region I Technical Assistance Request regarding the Blairsville site, Memorandum from George Pangburn, Region I to Dominic Orlando, NMSS. (ML062050308); 3. August 17, 2006, e-mail from Robert Maiers, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Radiation Protection to Mark Roberts, DNMS, USNRC Region I (ML062480365); 4. Terminated License file for License SNM-37; 5. Terminated License File for License SUC-509; 6. NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance;'' 7. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, part 20, subpart E, ``Radiological Criteria for License Termination;'' 8. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, ``Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions;'' 9. NUREG-1496, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC- Licensed Nuclear Facilities.'' If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 15th day of September, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Marie T. Miller, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. [FR Doc. 06-8015 Filed 9-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 29 NRC: Draft Regulatory Guides: Impending Issuance, Availability, and FR Doc 06-8016 [Federal Register: September 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 184)] [Notices] [Page 55517-55520] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22se06-147] Applicability to New Reactor Licensing AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance, Availability, and Applicability of Draft Regulatory Guides for New Reactor Licensing. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is currently reviewing and revising numerous guides in the agency's Regulatory Guide (RG) Series. This series has been developed to describe and make available to the public methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses. The proposed revisions do not constitute a backfit to any previously issued staff position for existing nuclear power reactors. The purpose of the ongoing revision of the NRC's RGs is to ensure that prospective applicants have complete, accurate, and current guidance for use in preparing early site permit (ESP), design certification (DC), and combined license (COL) applications for proposed new reactors. In particular, the NRC staff is focused on ensuring that the agency's regulatory guidance is consistent with the rulemaking to update Title 10, part 52, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR part 52), ``Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.'' The proposed rule was [[Page 55518]] published in the Federal Register on March 13, 2006 (71 FR 12781).\1\ ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ This proposed rule superseded the Commission's previous proposed rule, which was published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2003 (68 FR 40026). ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The NRC plans to issue for public comment drafts of the proposed revised RGs guides as they are developed over the next several months. The NRC staff will then address any stakeholder comments received during the 45-day comment period, and any changes from the proposed Part 52 rule that are adopted in the final rule, before issuing the final guides for use by applicants by March 2007. In addition, the NRC intends to apply its established regulatory guidance (as set forth in established, new, and revised RGs) using a consistent approach. In so doing, the staff will ensure that all new reactor applications received in a given time are subjected to the same appropriate level of scrutiny, based on the same regulatory guidance, to implement regulatory requirements that protect the health and safety of the public and the environment. Discussion: The NRC regulates the siting, construction, and operation of commercially owned nuclear power facilities in the United States through a combination of regulatory requirements, licensing, and oversight (including inspection). These activities enable the agency to fulfill its mission to license and regulate the Nation's civilian use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect the environment. In late 2000, the NRC became aware that some electric companies were exploring the option of building new nuclear power plants in the United States. As a result, in February 2001, the Commission issued a staff requirements memorandum (SRM COMJSM-00-0003) directing the staff to (1) assess its technical, licensing, and inspection capabilities, as well as its readiness to review new license applications and inspect new nuclear power plants; (2) examine the regulatory infrastructure for 10 CFR parts 50 and 52, as well as other applicable regulations; and (3) identify any enhancements needed to ensure that the agency is prepared to review ESP, DC, and COL applications for new nuclear power plants. In response to the Commission's SRM, the staff issued SECY-01-0188, ``Future Licensing and Inspection Readiness Assessment'' (FLIRA), in October 2001. In addition, although the FLIRA stated that the staff considers the agency's current regulatory infrastructure adequate to support new reactor licensing, the staff has undertaken minor infrastructure changes to make new licensing reviews more effective and efficient, and to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on future applicants. The staff's ongoing review and revision of the NRC's RGs is one significant aspect of these infrastructure changes. Through the years, the NRC has established 10 broad divisions of RGs, of which the following are the subject of the staff's ongoing review and revision: Division 1, Power Reactors Division 4, Environmental and Siting Division 8, Occupational Health Of the select group of RGs that the NRC has identified as needing review, to date, the staff is currently reviewing and revising the following RGs and draft RGs (DG) to (1) ensure consistency with the rulemaking to update 10 CFR part 52; (2) ensure coherence with NUREG- 0800, ``Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants,'' (SRP) which is also undergoing staff review and revision; and (3) provide prospective applicants with complete, accurate, and current guidance for use in preparing ESP, DC, and COL applications for proposed new reactors: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- RG DG Title ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- 1.7..................................... DG-1117.................... Control of Combustible Gas Concentrations in Containment Following a Loss-of- Coolant Accident. 1.9..................................... DG-1172.................... Selection, Design, Qualification and Testing of Emergency Diesel Generator Units. 1.13.................................... DG-1162.................... Spent Fuel Storage Facility Design Basis. 1.20.................................... DG-1163.................... Comprehensive Vibration Assessment Program for Reactor Internals During Preoperational and Initial Startup Testing. 1.23.................................... DG-1164.................... Onsite Meteorological Programs. 1.26.................................... DG-1152.................... Quality Group Classifications and Standards for Water-, Steam-, and Radioactive-Waste-Containing Components of Nuclear Power Plants. 1.29.................................... DG-1156.................... Seismic Design Classification. 1.37.................................... DG-1165.................... Quality Assurance Requirements for Cleaning of Fluid Systems and Associated Components of Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants. 1.57.................................... DG-1158.................... Design Limits and Loading Combinations for Metal Primary Reactor Containment System Components. 1.61.................................... DG-1157.................... Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants. 1.68.................................... DG-1166.................... Initial Test Programs for Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants. 1.71.................................... DG-1167.................... Welder Qualification for Areas of Limited Accessibility. 1.76.................................... DG-1143.................... Design Basis Tornado for Nuclear Power Plants. 1.92.................................... DG-1127.................... Combining Modal Responses and Spatial Components in Seismic Response Analysis. 1.93.................................... DG-1153.................... Availability of Electric Power Sources. 1.97.................................... DG-1128.................... Instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants To Assess Plant and Environs Conditions During and Following an Accident. 1.112................................... DG-1160.................... Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled Power Reactors. 1.124................................... DG-1168.................... Service Limits and Loading Combinations for Class 1 Linear-Type Component Supports. 1.128................................... DG-1154.................... Installation Design and Installation of Large Lead Storage Batteries for Nuclear Power Plants. 1.129................................... DG-1155.................... Maintenance, Testing, and Replacement of Large Lead Storage Batteries for Nuclear Power Plants. 1.130................................... DG-1169.................... Service Limits and Loading Combinations for Class 1 Plate-and-Shell-Type Component Supports. [[Page 55519]] 1.136................................... DG-1159.................... Materials, Construction, and Testing of Concrete Containments (Articles CC-1000, -2000, and -4000 through -6000 of the ``Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containments''). 1.189................................... DG-1170.................... Fire Protection for Operating Nuclear Power Plants. 1.196................................... DG-1171.................... Control Room Habitability at Light-Water Nuclear Power Reactors. 1.200................................... DG-1161.................... An Approach for Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities. 1.205................................... DG-1139.................... Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection for Existing Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants. 4.15.................................... DG-4010.................... Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations)-- Effluent Streams and the Environment. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- The staff is also currently developing the following new DGs to provide prospective applicants with complete, accurate, and current guidance for use in preparing ESP, DC, and COL applications for proposed new reactors: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------- DG Title ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------- DG-1142...................... Guidelines for Environmental Qualification of Safety Related Computer- Based Instrumentation and Control Systems in Nuclear Power Plants . DG-1144...................... Guidelines for Evaluating Fatigue Analyses Incorporating the Life Reduction of Metal Components Due to the Effects of the Light Reactor Water Environment for New Reactors. DG-1145...................... Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR Edition). DG-1146...................... Seismic Sources and Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Control Motion. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------- The NRC has recently finalized and published Revision 2 of RG 1.92 (July 2006), Revision 4 of RG 1.97 (July 2006), and RG 1.205 (June 2006). In addition, the NRC has already issued drafts of RG 1.7 (DG- 1117, August 2002), RG 1.76 (DG-1143, February 2006), RG 1.200 (DG- 1161, September 2006), DG-1144 (July 2006), and DG-1145 (September 2006) for public review and comment. The NRC plans to issue drafts of the remaining proposed revised regulatory guides as they are developed between September 2006 and December 2006. The NRC staff will then address any stakeholder comments received during the 45-day comment period, and any changes from the proposed Part 52 rule that are adopted in the final rule, before issuing the final guides for use by applicants by March 2007. In addition, the NRC intends to apply its established regulatory guidance (as set forth in established, new, and revised regulatory guides) using a consistent approach. The staff will ensure that all new reactor applications received in a given time are subjected to the same appropriate level of scrutiny, based on the same regulatory guidance to implement regulatory requirements that protect the public health and safety and the environment. The staff has determined that existing and revised regulatory guides listed previously will be finalized by March 2007, and uniformly applied (consistent with the staff guidance provided in the SRP) to the ESP, DC, and COL applications that are submitted. Availability and Dates: The NRC will solicit comments on each new or revised RG for a period of 45 days after each guide is made publicly available through the following electronic distribution channels: The NRC's Electronic Reading Room on the agency's public Web site, under Draft Regulatory Guides in the Regulatory Guides document collection, at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/. The NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/reading-rm/adams.html (using the ADAMS accession number specified in the footer on the first page of each regulatory guide) The NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov The footer on the first page of each draft regulatory guide will specify the applicable comment date. Comments received after the specified date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only of comments received on or before the specified date. Please note that the NRC does not intend to distribute printed copies of these Draft Regulatory Guides unless specifically requested on an individual basis. Such requests for single copies should be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Reproduction and Distribution Services Section; by e-mail to DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov; or by fax to (301) 415-2289. Telephone requests cannot be accommodated. In addition, the NRC does not intend to issue separate notices of issuance and availability. Consequently, interested parties should regularly peruse the electronic distribution channels listed previously to identify newly released guides that are available for public comment. Copies of each DG and other related publicly available documents, including public comments received, can be viewed electronically on computers in the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), which is located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, Room O-1 F21, and is open to the public on Federal workdays from 7:45 a.m. until 4:15 p.m. The PDR reproduction contractor will make copies of documents for a fee. Selected documents, including public comments on the DGs, can also be viewed and downloaded electronically via ADAMS and the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/reading-rm/adams.html and http://ruleform.llnl.gov, respectively. If you do not do not have access to ADAMS or if you encounter problems in accessing the documents stored in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference Staff at (800) 397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to PDR@nrc.gov. Comment Procedures: The NRC staff will solicit comments on each proposed DG. Comments may be accompanied by relevant information or supporting data. Please mention the DG number (DG-xxxx) in the subject line of your comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available to the public in their entirety through ADAMS. Personal information will not be removed from [[Page 55520]] your comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: Mail comments to Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 (MS T-6 D59). Hand-deliver comments to Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Fax comments to Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, at (301) 415-5144. E-mail comments to NRCREP@nrc.gov. Submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Contact Information: The header on the first page of each DG will specify the name and telephone number of the cognizant NRC staff member. Comments and questions about our rulemaking Web site should be addressed to Carol A. Gallagher at (301) 415-5905 or by e-mail to CAG@nrc.gov. Contact information for use in obtaining printed or electronic copies of the proposed DGs is provided in the section on Availability and Dates. Contact information for use in submitting comments is provided in the section on Comment Procedures. Comments or questions about the NRC's revision of regulatory guides to support new reactor licensing should be addressed to Jimi T. Yerokun at (301) 415- 0585 or by e-mail to JTY@nrc.gov. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of September, 2006. Farouk Eltawila, Director, Division of Risk Assessment and Special Projects,Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. [FR Doc. 06-8016 Filed 9-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 30 DHS: Allied Chemical Employee petition FR Doc 06-7972 [Federal Register: September 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 184)] [Notices] [Page 55477] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22se06-96] DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Decision to Evaluate a Petition to Designate a Class of Employees at Allied Chemical Corp. Plant, Metropolis, IL To Be Included in the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gives notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees at Allied Chemical Corp. Plant, Metropolis, Illinois, to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The initial proposed definition for the class being evaluate, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows: + Facility: Allied Chemical Corp. Plant. Location: Metropolis, Illinois. Job Titles and/or Job Duties: All workers at Allied Chemical Corp. Plant who were monitored or should have been monitored while they were working in any of the following: Feed Materials Building, Sodium Removal, Uranium Recovery Building, Sampling Plant, Laboratory Building, Ore Storage Locations. Period of Employment: January 1, 1959 to December 31, 1976. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to OCAS@CDC.GOV. Dated: September 18, 2006. John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. 06-7972 Filed 9-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-M ***************************************************************** 31 AFP: High radiation found in Yukon town drinking water Fri Sep 22, 5:45 PM ET WHITEHORSE, Yukon (Reuters) - Residents of small native Indian community in Canada's Yukon territory have been ordered to stop drinking water from their wells after officials discovered high radiation levels. Officials were analyzing the results of tests on water in small community of Champagne, but said on Friday that high levels of radiation had been found in seven of 12 wells in the community, whose residents are members of the Champagne-Aishihik First Nations. Champagne is located in southwestern Yukon, about 140 km (87 miles) west of the territorial capital of Whitehorse. Gary McRobb, who represents the region in Yukon's legislature, said residents are concerned the radiation may be linked to illnesses in the community. "They're quite upset about it," McRobb said. The radiation is likely coming from naturally occurring uranium in the soil. Potential health problems with unsafe drinking water in aboriginal communities has become a major political issue across Canada. Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 32 NRC: Occupational Dose Records RIN 3150-AH40 FR Doc E6-15502 [Federal Register: September 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 184)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 55382-55398] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22se06-22] Occupational Dose Records, Labeling Containers, and the Total Effective Dose Equivalent AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is proposing to amend its regulations related to the reporting of annual dose to workers, the definition of the total effective dose equivalent (TEDE), the labeling of certain containers holding licensed material, and the determination of cumulative occupational radiation dose. The proposed rule would limit the routine reporting of annual doses to workers to those whose annual dose exceeds a specific dose threshold or who request a report. The proposed rule would also amend the definition of TEDE to be consistent with current Commission policy. The proposed rule would also modify the labeling requirements for certain containers holding licensed material within posted areas in nuclear power facilities. Finally, the proposed rule would remove the requirement that licensees attempt to obtain cumulative exposure records for workers unless these individuals are being authorized to receive a planned special exposure. These revisions would reduce the administrative and information collection burdens on NRC and Agreement State licensees without affecting the level of protection to either the health and safety of workers and the public or the environment. DATES: Submit comments on this proposed rule by December 6, 2006. Submit comments on the information collection aspects of this proposed rule by October 23, 2006. Comments received after the above dates will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after these dates. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods. Please include the following number RIN 3150-AH40 in the subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates in your submission. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply e- mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail cag@nrc.gov. Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. (Telephone (301) 415-1966). Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), 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 the NRC rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Publically available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS, 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. You may submit comments on the information collections by the methods indicated in the Paperwork Reduction Act Statement. [[Page 55383]] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stewart Schneider, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone (301) 415-4123; e-mail sxs4@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. Discussion III. Public Comments in Response to the Federal Register Notice IV. Agreement State Comments on the Draft Rule Language V. Section-by-Section Analysis of Substantive Changes VI. Agreement State Compatibility VII. Availability of Documents VIII. Plain Language IX. Voluntary Consensus Standards X. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion XI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement XII. Regulatory Analysis XIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification XIV. Backfit Analysis I. Background The NRC Strategic Plan, Fiscal Year 2000-Fiscal Year 2005, included, among NRC performance goals for nuclear reactor safety, a performance goal for reducing unnecessary regulatory burden on stakeholders. The Strategic Plan defines unnecessary regulatory burden as requirements that go beyond what is necessary and sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the public health and safety, environment, and common defense and security will be protected. z To further this goal, the NRC published a notice of a public workshop and a request for comments in the Federal Register (66 FR 22134; May 3, 2001). The notice indicated that the workshop would focus on three areas associated with reducing unnecessary regulatory burden: (1) Risk informing portions of 10 CFR Part 50, (2) reforming outdated or paperwork oriented regulations, and (3) reviewing other regulatory requirements (e.g., technical specifications) for burden reduction opportunities. z Following the May 31, 2001, public workshop, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) provided a comment letter dated July 2, 2001 (ADAMS No. ML011870432), which contained industry suggestions for possible burden- reduction changes to various regulations. Under the category Radiation Protection, NEI proposed changes to 10 CFR 19.13, ``Notifications and reports to individuals,'' 10 CFR 20.1904, ``Labeling containers,'' and 10 CFR 20.2104, ``Determination of prior occupational dose.'' In SECY-02-0081, ``Staff Activities Related to the NRC Goal of Reducing Unnecessary Regulatory Burden on Power Reactor Licensees,'' dated May 13, 2002, the NRC staff described its interactions with stakeholders regarding ways to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden and requested Commission approval of its plans to reduce burden. In its Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) in response to SECY-02-0081, dated June 25, 2002, the Commission approved the proposal to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on power reactor licensees by developing proposed rulemakings from short-term, limited-scope initiatives without preparing formal rulemaking plans. This proposed rule addresses the regulatory changes that NEI suggested under the Radiation Protection category. The NRC has determined that the regulations suggested for revision by NEI currently impose an undue regulatory burden on licensees. Additional changes NEI proposed to other areas of the Commission's regulations have been or are being assessed separately by the NRC. The NRC also proposes in this proposed rule to revise 10 CFR 20.1003, ``Definitions,'' and 10 CFR 50.2, ``Definitions,'' to specify the use of effective dose equivalent in place of the deep-dose equivalent in the definition of total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50. This revision is consistent with current Commission policy. As part of the development of this rule, the NRC prepared draft rule language. The NRC solicited comments from the Agreement States and Minnesota and Pennsylvania (two Agreement State candidates) on the draft rule language in All Agreement States Letter STP-04-002, dated January 9, 2004. The NRC also solicited public comment on the draft rule language (69 FR 8350; February 24, 2004). The NRC considered the comments received during the development of this proposed rule. II. Discussion Four principal amendments are being considered as part of this proposed rule. A. Annual Dose Report to Workers The first proposed amendment would revise paragraphs (b) and (d) of 10 CFR 19.13, ``Notifications and reports to individuals,'' and 10 CFR 20.2205, ``Reports to individuals of exceeding dose limits.'' The proposed revisions are intended to resolve two separate issues. 10 CFR 19.13(b) provides that each licensee shall advise each worker annually of the worker's dose as shown in records maintained by the licensee pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 20.2106. 10 CFR 20.2106(a) requires that each licensee must maintain records of doses received by all individuals for whom monitoring was required pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1502. 10 CFR 20.1502, ``Conditions requiring individual monitoring of external and internal occupational dose,'' paragraph (a)(1), requires licensees to provide monitoring for individuals likely to receive, from sources external to the body, an annual dose that exceeds ten percent of the limits in 10 CFR 20.1201(a). Licensees conservatively determine who should be monitored under 10 CFR 20.1502 because there is uncertainty about who is likely to exceed this criterion and because this is a prospective determination. As a result of this conservatism many of the individuals monitored under 10 CFR 20.1502 receive very low doses. However, 10 CFR 20.2206, ``Reports of individual monitoring,'' requires licensees to submit an annual report to the Commission of the results of individual monitoring for each individual for whom monitoring was required under 10 CFR 20.1502. In addition, under 10 CFR 19.13(d) and 20.2205, these records of low doses must be reported to individuals. Further, 10 CFR 19.13(b) requires licensees to annually report doses to workers. This regulatory requirement results in licensees generating numerous reports of doses far below the regulatory limits in 10 CFR 20.1201(a). The NRC is proposing a change to the notification requirement in 10 CFR 19.13(b) so that licensees would provide reports to occupationally exposed individuals whose annual dose exceeds 1 millisievert (mSv) (100 millirem (mrem)) TEDE or 1 mSv (100 mrem) to any individual organ or tissue in the preceding year. However, licensees would not be required to provide unsolicited annual dose reports to those individuals whose annual dose does not exceed these limits. Individuals whose annual dose does not exceed these limits would still be provided with their dose reports upon request. This criterion would be applicable to the whole body, to the lens of the eye, to the skin of the whole body, and to the skin of the extremities. The criterion of 1 mSv (100 mrem) was selected because it corresponds to the occupational dose threshold for requiring instruction to workers under 10 CFR 19.12, ``Instruction to workers.'' In the draft rule language previously published by the NRC (69 FR 8350; February 24, 2004), the proposed threshold for reporting doses to individuals was two percent of the dose [[Page 55384]] limits in 10 CFR 20.1201(a). Use of a two-percent criterion would result in a different reporting threshold for doses to the whole body (i.e., 1 mSv (100 mrem)), to the lens of the eye (i.e., 3 mSv (300 mrem)), and to the skin of the whole body or to the skin of any extremity (i.e., 10 mSv (1000 rem)). The NRC determined that it is preferable to use the requirement for instructions to workers in 10 CFR 19.12 as the basis for the reporting threshold. Because licensees are required to provide instructions when an individual is likely to receive an annual occupational dose in excess of 1 mSv (100 mrem), only one threshold for providing reports would apply to all of the occupational dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1201(a). This approach is simpler because there is one reporting threshold instead of three and results in the same reduction in burden. Under 10 CFR 20.2206, seven categories of licensees are required to submit an annual report of radiation exposure for each monitored individual to the NRC. Each year, the NRC publishes a NUREG report that summarizes this occupational radiation exposure data. The latest publication, NUREG-0713, Volume 26, ``Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2004'' (December 2005), indicates that about 80 percent (i.e., 94,534 individuals) of the 122,322 monitored individuals received a TEDE that did not exceed 1 mSv (100 mrem). Further, 61,725 of the monitored individuals received no measurable exposure. Based upon this information, the proposed change to the regulations would result in a significant reduction in administrative and reporting burdens on licensees. The proposed amendment would not change the current requirements for recordkeeping or for reporting to the NRC. The proposed rule would still require licensees to make all dose information available to workers. Therefore, the proposed amendment would not affect the level of protection to either the health and safety of workers and the public or the environment. The requirement to inform individuals of their routine annual doses, when determined through the results of individual monitoring and when such a report is provided to the Commission, appears multiple times in the regulations. The requirement appears in 10 CFR 19.13(d) through the reference to 10 CFR 20.2206. It also appears in 10 CFR 20.2205 through the reference to 10 CFR 20.2206. To improve regulatory efficiency, the proposed rule would remove the reference to 10 CFR 20.2206 in 10 CFR 19.13(d) and 10 CFR 20.2205, and the requirement to report annual dose to the individual would be consolidated into a single requirement in 10 CFR 19.13(b). NRC Form 3, ``Notice to Employees,'' will also need to be revised to reflect the changes to the requirements for reporting doses to individuals if this rule is promulgated. B. Definition of Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) The second proposed amendment would revise the definition of TEDE in 10 CFR 20.1003, ``Definitions,'' and 50.2, ``Definitions.'' The TEDE is currently defined as the sum of the deep-dose equivalent (for external exposures) and the committed effective dose equivalent (for internal exposures). The proposed change would allow licensees to substitute ``effective dose equivalent'' for ``deep-dose equivalent'' for external exposures. The purpose of this revision is to clarify and make the definition of TEDE consistent with Commission policy as discussed in Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2002-06, ``Evaluating Occupational Dose for Individuals Exposed to NRC-Licensed Material and Medical X-Rays,'' dated April 16, 2002, and subsequently clarified in RIS 2003-04, ``Use of the Effective Dose Equivalent in Place of the Deep Dose Equivalent in Dose Assessments,'' dated February 13, 2003, and RIS 2004-01, ``Method for Estimating Effective Dose Equivalent From External Radiation Sources Using Two Dosimeters,'' dated February 17, 2004. This policy explains that the effective dose equivalent is the primary quantity in the definition of TEDE for external exposures but that licensees are required to use the deep-dose equivalent for the whole body in place of the effective dose equivalent when measuring dose from external exposure, unless the effective dose equivalent is determined by a dosimetry method approved by the NRC. In 10 CFR 20.1201, paragraph (c) would also be revised to add the requirement that when the external exposure is determined by measurement with an external personal monitoring device, the deep-dose equivalent must be used in place of the effective dose equivalent, unless the effective dose equivalent is determined by a dosimetry method approved by the NRC. The current requirement in paragraph (c) that the assigned deep-dose equivalent must be for the part of the body receiving the highest exposure remains unchanged. The proposed amendment would not affect the level of protection to either the health and safety of workers and the public or the environment because the revised definition of TEDE does not decrease the ability to determine dose. C. Labeling Containers The third proposed amendment would revise 10 CFR 20.1905, ``Exemptions to labeling requirements.'' 10 CFR 20.1905 currently provides exemptions to the labeling requirements in 10 CFR 20.1904 for situations where: (1) The amount of radioactive material is small enough not to present a significant radiation hazard; (2) packages which are in transport and are labeled pursuant to other regulations (i.e., U.S. Department of Transportation) that provide for adequate labeling; or (3) equipment for which the type of equipment or the accessibility of the equipment may make labeling impractical. The NRC is proposing to amend 10 CFR 20.1905 to add an exemption for containers holding licensed material (other than sealed sources that are either specifically or generally licensed) within nuclear power facilities licensed under 10 CFR Part 50, ``Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,'' or 10 CFR Part 52, ``Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,'' providing certain conditions are met. Licensees of these facilities would not be required to label containers holding licensed material that are within an area posted under 10 CFR 20.1902, ``Posting requirements,'' if the containers are conspicuously marked (to indicate that they may contain licensed material) commensurate with the radiological hazard and are accessible only to individuals who have sufficient instructions to minimize radiation exposure while handling or working in the vicinity of the containers. However, the proposed revision would require the container to be appropriately labeled under the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1904 before being removed from the posted area. In the Federal Register document that solicited public comment on the draft rule language (69 FR 8350; February 24, 2004), the NRC indicated that this proposed change would either revise 10 CFR 20.1905 or add a new requirement to 10 CFR Part 50. The NRC proposes that the new exemption to labeling requirements be contained in 10 CFR 20.1905 because it fits logically with the other exemptions in that section. In the February 24, 2004, Federal Register document, the NRC also asked whether in addition to nuclear power facilities, there were categories of materials [[Page 55385]] licensees to which this exemption might be applied and whether adequate controls for radioactive materials stored within these licensees' facilities could be provided by the conditions being considered for the exemption. No categories of materials licensees responded to this question. The NRC is proposing that this exemption apply only to nuclear power reactor licensees, not to materials or non-power reactor licensees. Some nuclear power reactor licensees have interpreted 10 CFR 20.1904 to mean that all containers in a posted area, whether they contain licensed material or not, must be labeled because every container has the potential for internal contamination. This conservative interpretation of the regulations has put an undue burden on these licensees. The proposed revision to 10 CFR 20.1905 would require containers to be conspicuously marked commensurate with the radiological hazard. This would exempt the licensee from providing detailed labeling information such as the radionuclide or radionuclides present, an estimate of the quantity of radioactivity, the date for which the activity is estimated, radiation levels, types of materials, and mass enrichment as currently required under 10 CFR 20.1905. One purpose of adding conspicuous markings on the containers would be to indicate the potential for generating airborne contamination or high radiation dose rates if the containers were opened or mishandled. For example, these containers could be conspicuously marked by using a color-coding system to indicate high, medium, or low levels of activity or hazard. Containers such as 55-gallon steel drums holding contaminated gloves and booties could be marked with a color that represents low levels of activity or low potential for airborne contamination. At nuclear power facilities, containers located within a posted area are accessible only to individuals who have had instruction under 10 CFR 19.12 and who have been assigned a radiation work permit to control their activities. Workers would be instructed on the handling of marked containers before workers were given access to these containers. The proposed container marking system would reduce licensee administrative and information collection burdens, but serve the same health and safety functions as the current labeling requirements. Therefore, the proposed amendment would not affect the level of protection to either the health and safety of workers and the public or the environment. The NRC has determined that the exemption to labeling requirements under 10 CFR 20.1905 is not appropriate for materials licensees because of the many types of radioactive material in containers at facilities such as hospitals and universities. Also, the NRC proposes not to make this exemption applicable to non-power reactor licensees because the operations at these facilities are not routine and must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Highly radioactive materials are frequently taken out of these reactors and exempting these reactors from the labeling requirements could potentially present a significant health and safety concern. This proposed rule excludes sealed sources from the revision to the exemption to labeling requirements. This exclusion represents a change from the draft rule language (69 FR 8350; February 24, 2004). The NRC has determined that sealed sources such as those used for calibration or check sources should not be included in the proposed revision to 10 CFR 20.1905 because these sources are usually either specifically or generally licensed and should be managed, used, and stored in accordance with the regulations. Therefore, the proposed amendment would not exempt them from the labeling requirements. D. Cumulative Occupational Radiation Dose The fourth proposed amendment would remove the provision in 10 CFR 20.2104(a)(2) that requires licensees to attempt to obtain the records of cumulative occupational radiation dose for each worker requiring monitoring under 10 CFR 20.1502. Initially, occupational exposures were restricted by the cumulative lifetime dose received and, under certain circumstances, an individual could receive as much as 0.12 Sv (12 rems) in a year. However, following revision to 10 CFR Part 20 (56 FR 23391; May 21, 1991), cumulative lifetime dose is no longer used in the Commission's regulations to restrict occupational exposures. The reduced occupational dose limit of 0.05 Sv (5 rems) per year in the current 10 CFR 20.1201(a)(1)(i) essentially accomplishes the same goal as the previous dose limit of 0.03 Sv (3 rems) per calendar quarter constrained by the then age-dependent, cumulative lifetime dose limit. (The goal is an average cumulative dose rate of 0.05 Sv (5 rems) per year to the individual.) Therefore, it is no longer necessary for licensees to obtain records of cumulative occupational dose. The proposed amendment would not change the criterion under 10 CFR 20.1206, ``Planned special exposures,'' that requires licensees to ascertain the exposure history of an individual's prior lifetime doses as required by 10 CFR 20.2104(b) before permitting an individual to participate in a planned special exposure. The proposed amendment to 10 CFR 20.2104(a)(2) would result in a significant reduction in administrative and information collection burdens on licensees and would not affect the level of protection to either the health and safety of workers and the public or the environment, since the requirements to determine an individual's dose during the current year or cumulative dose prior to permitting a planned special exposure would not be amended. In 10 CFR 20.2104, paragraphs (c) and (d) would also be revised to correct the omission of a reference to paragraph (b) in this section regarding planned special exposures. Paragraph (b) requires that prior to permitting an individual to participate in a planned special exposure, the licensee must determine the internal and external doses from all previous planned special exposures, and all doses in excess of the limits (including doses received during accidents and emergencies) received during the lifetime of the individual. This revision would add into paragraphs (c) and (d) that licensees obtain complete records of the worker's current and previously accumulated occupational dose in complying with the provisions of 10 CFR 20.2104(b). III. Public Comments in Response to the Federal Register Notice The February 24, 2004, Federal Register document presenting the draft rule language (69 FR 8350) solicited public comment on a number of questions about the proposed language. The Commission received eight comment letters. Comment letters were received from utility representatives, power reactor licensees, a fuel facility licensee, an industry organization representing materials licensees, and a member of the public. The majority of comment letters supported NRC's approach. The significant comments discussed below are arranged by subject. No changes to the draft rule language were made as a result of the comment letters. Agreement State comments are addressed separately below in Section IV. A. Annual Dose Report to Workers All of the commenters supported the intent of the proposed revision to 10 CFR 19.13 to remove the requirement [[Page 55386]] that licensees provide unsolicited annual dose reports to workers who receive less than a threshold dose in a monitoring year. However, one industry commenter disagreed with the NRC's proposed threshold value of 1 mSv (100 mrem) and believed it should be linked to the monitoring threshold for occupational exposure. z Comment. One industry commenter stated that 10 CFR 20.1502 only requires licensees to monitor worker external exposure when there is reasonable expectation that the worker could exceed 5 mSv (500 mrem) in a year. The commenter therefore recommended that licensees should not be required to inform workers unless their annual exposure exceeds ten percent (i.e., 5 mSv (500 mrem)) of the limits. Response. The NRC disagrees with this comment. The criterion of 1 mSv (100 mrem) was selected because it corresponds to the occupational dose threshold for requiring instructions to workers under 10 CFR 19.12, ``Instructions to workers.'' While the commenter's suggested threshold of 5 mSv (500 mrem) per year is a possible option, the occupational exposure data in NUREG-0713, Volume 26, indicates that raising the threshold from the proposed value of 1 mSv (100 mrem) would not significantly reduce administrative and information collection burdens on licensees. z Comment. Another commenter representing the nuclear power industry suggested that NRC clarify that the applicability of the criterion is limited to the occupational dose received from work activities at a specific facility, and is not applicable to the cumulative annual dose received from work activities at all (multiple) licensee facilities during the year. Response. The NRC believes that the applicability of the criterion is clear and no further changes are required. Nuclear power reactor licensees generally provide a separate occupational dose record (NRC Form 5, ``Occupational Dose Record for a Monitoring Period'') to an individual for each facility reflecting the dose received at that facility. Under the proposed regulations, the licensee would be required to provide only those reports (NRC Forms 5) to an individual whose recorded dose exceeded the reporting threshold of 1 mSv (100 mrem) at that facility. Comment. The NRC also solicited comment on whether the proposed changes would result in cost savings to licensees and, if so, how much. Further, the NRC requested that stakeholders estimate the costs of implementing this possible change. One commenter representing the nuclear power industry stated that 10 CFR Part 50 licensees have estimated a cost savings of $1,000 to more than $5,000 per year due to the proposed change. Another commenter representing an alliance of six nuclear power utilities estimated the savings to be over $1,000 per plant per year. Still another reactor industry commenter estimated that the cost savings would be approximately $5,000 per site per year in administrative, supplies, and management time with a total estimated savings of $85,000 to $125,000 for the licensee's fleet of nuclear power plants and that implementation costs would be insignificant. Lastly, a commenter representing manufacturers and distributors of radiopharmaceuticals, radioactive sources, and research radionuclides stated that a manufacturing licensee who monitors 300 employees for radiation exposure and who manages the data electronically, might save only $100 per year, but that a licensee who manages the data manually might realize substantially larger cost savings from the changes under consideration. Response. The savings estimates provided by the three commenters from the nuclear power industry are generally consistent. The regulatory analysis in Section XII uses a $3,000 cost-savings value, the midpoint of the values provided by the first commenter, to estimate the annual savings per nuclear power plant. The estimate that the savings might be only $100 per year for materials licensees was based on the use of an electronic data management system. For all other licensees, NRC used an estimated savings of $10 per individual, assuming that these licensees do not have an electronic data management system. B. Definition of Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) Seven commenters addressed this issue and all agreed with the proposed revision to the definition of TEDE in 10 CFR 20.1003 and 50.2. C. Labeling Containers In the Federal Register document, the NRC solicited comments on whether to revise 10 CFR 20.1905 or to add a new regulation to 10 CFR Part 50, and whether there are categories of materials licensees to which the labeling exemption might be applied. Five industry commenters supported the proposed exemption to the labeling requirements. Three commenters favored revising 10 CFR 20.1905. Two commenters preferred adding a new regulation to 10 CFR Part 50. As discussed above in Section II, the NRC proposes that the new exemption to labeling requirements be contained in 10 CFR 20.1905 because it fits logically with the other exemptions in this section. The NRC received no comments from materials licensees that addressed the labeling exemption. As discussed above in Section II, the NRC proposes that this exemption apply only to nuclear power facilities, not to materials or non-power reactor licensees. Comment. An industry commenter suggested that the rule should require the labeling of containers of radioactive material before they are removed from a restricted area instead of a posted area, and that container markings should be required only when the container was in an area not otherwise adequately posted and controlled. Response. The NRC disagrees with this comment. The NRC has determined that the previously published draft language pertaining to this requirement is appropriate for the control of containers, and that the proposed language affords significant relief to the licensees while maintaining necessary controls on radioactive materials to protect workers from preventable contaminations or exposures. The proposed revision would also require the container to be appropriately labeled under the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1904 before being removed from the posted area. Comment. In response to the NRC's request for comments on whether the proposed changes would result in cost savings to licensees, one commenter representing the nuclear power industry stated that 10 CFR Part 50 licensees have estimated a cost savings of $10,000 to more than $50,000 per year from the proposed change. A second commenter representing an alliance of six nuclear power utilities estimated the savings to be $50,000 per year in technician and supervisory person- hours. A third commenter stated that licensees would realize a savings of about $25,000 per year due to a reduction in the use of radioactive material labels and staff needed to ensure staging areas within the radiological controlled area have appropriate labels. z Response. The savings estimates provided by the three commenters from the nuclear power industry are generally consistent. The regulatory analysis in Section XII uses a $30,000 cost-savings value, the midpoint of the values provided by the first commenter, to estimate the annual savings per nuclear power plant. [[Page 55387]] D. Cumulative Occupational Radiation Dose Comment. All industry commenters agreed with the intent of the proposed revision to 10 CFR 20.2104 to delete the requirement that licensees obtain the records of cumulative dose for all workers who require monitoring. However, a member of the public expressed concern that the proposed rule change would give workers the impression that lifetime dose is not important. Response. As explained above in Section II, the cumulative lifetime dose is no longer used in the Commission's regulations to restrict an individual's annual occupational exposure but it is used in special circumstances such as a planned special exposure. The proposed rule would not change the requirement in 10 CFR 20.1206 to ascertain an individual's cumulative lifetime dose prior to permitting the individual to participate in a planned special exposure. Comment. In response to the NRC's request for comments on whether the proposed changes would result in cost savings to licensees, one commenter representing the nuclear power industry indicated that 10 CFR Part 50 licensees have estimated a cost savings of $2,000 to more than $15,000 per year from the proposed change. Another commenter representing an alliance of six nuclear power utilities estimated that the savings could be as much as $100,000 per plant per year. Lastly, a commenter representing manufacturers and distributors of radiopaharmaceuticals, radioactive sources, and research radionuclides noted that most recently hired employees in the manufacturing industry do not have prior dose records. As an example, this commenter also mentioned that one manufacturer with 250 radiation workers made only three requests for records in 2003. The estimated savings was $30 per year for the three requests. Response. The regulatory analysis in Section XII uses an $8,500 cost-savings value, the midpoint of the values provided by the first commenter, to estimate the annual savings per nuclear power plant. The second commenter's estimate of $100,000 per year was not used because it represented the savings for a few operating plants and is much higher than the savings estimated by the first commenter for the entire nuclear power industry. The NRC uses a savings of $10 per individual for all other licensees. This is consistent with the information provided by the commenter representing materials licensees. IV. Agreement State Comments on the Draft Rule Language The NRC solicited comments from the Agreement States and Minnesota and Pennsylvania (two Agreement State candidates) in All Agreement States Letter STP-04-002, dated January 9, 2004. Comments on this letter were received from the Agreement States Illinois and Washington. No changes to the draft rule language were made as a result of the Agreement State comments. Comment. The State of Washington commented that the proposed reporting threshold for providing annual dose reports to workers under 10 CFR 19.13(b) should be ten percent (5 mSv (500 mrem)) of the occupational dose limit for adults, not two percent (1 mSv (100 mrem)) of this dose limit. Response. While the commenter's suggested threshold of 5 mSv (500 mrem) per year is a possible option, the occupational exposure data in NUREG-0713, Volume 26, indicates that raising the threshold from the proposed value of 1 mSv (100 mrem) would not significantly reduce administrative and information collection burdens on licensees. The NRC has determined that the proposed threshold of 1 mSv (100 mrem) reasonably balances reducing unnecessary regulatory burden and the need to keep individuals informed of their occupational dose. Comment. The State of Washington suggested that facilities providing dosimetry to all individuals would most likely see a cost savings from the reduced administrative person-hours needed to prepare, send and track these reports and the lower cost to produce and distribute these reports. The State of Washington also stated that the actual cost savings cannot easily be quantified, as it is dependent on the number of monitored individuals and the method used to inform these individuals of their dose. Response. The NRC agrees that it is difficult to estimate the savings to licensees from not having to prepare and distribute annual dose reports when the dose to an individual does not exceed 1 mSv (100 mrem). However, the NRC is using other commenters' estimates of savings in the regulatory analysis (see Section XII). Comment. The State of Washington commented that the exemption to labeling requirements for containers holding radioactive material in a posted area in a nuclear power facility should be in 10 CFR Part 50. Response. As discussed in Section II, the NRC proposes that the new exemption to labeling requirements be contained in 10 CFR 20.1905 because it fits logically with the other exemptions in this section. Comment. The State of Washington commented that quantifying the actual cost savings from not having to obtain prior dose records depends on the number of individuals for whom prior dose histories were required and the processes used to obtain the information. Response. The NRC agrees that it is difficult to estimate the savings to licensees from not having to attempt to obtain the lifetime dose records for individuals. However, the NRC is using other commenters' estimates for savings in the regulatory analysis (see Section XII). V. Section-by-Section Analysis of Substantive Changes The Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR 19.13, 20.1003, 20.1201, 20.1905, 20.2104, 20.2205, and 50.2. Section 19.13--Notifications and Reports to Individuals Paragraph (b) would be revised to require a licensee to provide an annual dose report to an individual when the individual's occupational dose exceeds 1 mSv (100 mrem) TEDE or 1 mSv (100 mrem) to any individual organ or tissue, or when the individual requests a report of the individual's annual dose, and that all dose records shall be made available to workers onsite. In order to consolidate the requirement to report annual dose to the individual into a single requirement in 10 CFR 19.13(b), paragraph (d) would be revised to remove the reference to 10 CFR 20.2206. Section 20.1003--Definitions In 10 CFR 20.1003, the definition of total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) would be revised to state that TEDE is the sum of the effective dose equivalent (for external exposures) and the committed effective dose equivalent (for internal exposures). Section 20.1201--Occupational Dose Limits for Adults Paragraph (c) would be revised to add the requirement that when the external exposure is determined by measurement with an external personal monitoring device, the deep-dose equivalent must be used in place of the effective dose equivalent, unless the effective dose equivalent is determined by a dosimetry method approved by the NRC. Section 20.1905--Exemptions to Labeling Requirements A new paragraph (g) would be added to 10 CFR 20.1905 to provide an [[Page 55388]] exemption for containers holding licensed material (other than sealed sources that are either specifically or generally licensed) that are in an area posted under the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1902 at a nuclear power facility. The regulations would not require the licensee to label the container per the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1904 if it is conspicuously marked (such as by color coding) commensurate with the radiological hazard and accessible only to individuals who have sufficient instructions to minimize radiation exposure while handling or working in the vicinity of the containers. The container would have to be appropriately labeled as required by 10 CFR 20.1904 before being removed from the posted area. The exemption to the labeling requirements for containers holding licensed material would not apply to non-power reactor and materials licensees, or for sealed sources. Section 20.2104--Determination of Prior Occupational Dose Paragraph (a)(2) would be removed to delete the requirement that licensees attempt to obtain the records of cumulative occupational radiation dose. Paragraphs (a) and (a)(1) would then be combined and designated as paragraph (a). Paragraphs (c) and (d) would also be revised to add a reference to paragraph (b) in this section regarding planned special exposures. Section 20.2205--Reports to Individuals of Exceeding Dose Limits Section 20.2205 would be revised to remove the reference to 10 CFR 20.2206, in order to consolidate the requirement to report annual dose to the individual into a single requirement in 10 CFR 19.13(b). Section 50.2--Definitions In 10 CFR 50.2, the definition of total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) would be revised to state that TEDE is the sum of the effective dose equivalent (for external exposures) and the committed effective dose equivalent (for internal exposures). VI. Agreement State Compatibility Under the ``Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs,'' approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the Federal Register (62 FR 46517; September 3, 1997), this proposed rule would be a matter of compatibility between NRC and the Agreement States, that provides for consistency between Agreement State and NRC requirements. The NRC analyzed the proposed rule under the procedure established in Part III, ``Categorization Process for NRC Program Elements,'' of Handbook 5.9 to Management Directive 5.9, ``Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs'' (which may be viewed at http://www.hsrd.ornl.gov/nrc/home.html ). The NRC has determined that the compatibility categories for the sections amended in this proposed rule would be the same as for the sections in the current regulations, except for the new exemption (g) added to 10 CFR 20.1905. The revisions to 10 CFR 19.13 and 20.2205 are classified as Compatibility Category C. A Compatibility Category C designation means the Agreement State should adopt the essential objectives of the requirement to avoid conflicts, duplications, or gaps. The revisions to 10 CFR 20.1003 and 20.1201(c) are classified as Compatibility Category A. A Compatibility Category A designation means the requirement is a basic radiation protection standard or related definition, sign, label, or term necessary for a common understanding of radiation protection principles. Agreement State requirements designated Compatibility Category A should be essentially identical to NRC requirements. The new exemption (g) added to 10 CFR 20.1905 is classified as Compatibility Category NRC. A Compatibility Category NRC designation means the Agreement State is not required to adopt the requirement for purposes of compatibility. These are NRC program elements that address regulatory items that cannot be relinquished to Agreement States under the Atomic Energy Act or CFR provisions. The revision to 10 CFR 20.2104(a) is classified as Compatibility Category D. A Compatibility Category D designation means the Agreement State is not required to adopt the requirement for compatibility. VII. Availability of Documents The NRC is making the documents identified below available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods. Public Document Room (PDR). The NRC Public Document Room is located at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Rulemaking Web site (RuleForum). The NRC's Interactive rulemaking Web site is located at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. These documents may be viewed and downloaded electronically via this Web site. NRC's Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). The NRC's PARS Library is located at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html . The NRC staff contact (NRC Staff). Stewart Schneider, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop O-12D3, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone (301) 415-4123; sxs4@nrc.gov. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Document PDR RuleForum ADAMS NRC staff ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Comments received................... X X ................. X NEI comment letter, July 2, 2001.... X X ML011870432 ................. NRC Strategic Plan FY 2000-2005..... X X ................. ................. SECY-02-0081, ``Staff Activities X X ML020420137 ................. Related to the NRC Goal of Reducing Unnecessary Burden,'' (May 13, 2002).............................. SRM-SECY-02-0081(June 25, 2002)..... X X ML021760768 ................. Agreement State Letter STP-04-002... X X ML040090486 ................. NRC Form 3, ``Notice to Employees''. X X ................. X NRC Form 4, ``Cumulative X X ................. X Occupational Dose History''........ Form 5, ``Occupational Dose Record X X ................. X for a Monitoring Period''.......... NUREG-0713, Vol. 26................. X ................. ................. X NUREG-1350, Vol. 17................. X ................. ................. X NUREG/BR-0184....................... X ................. ................. X NUREG/BR-0058....................... X ................. ................. X 56 FR 23391; May 21, 1991........... X X ................. ................. [[Page 55389]] Copies of NUREGs may be purchased from The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Mail Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001; Internet: http://bookstore.gpo.gov; (202) 512-1800. Copies are also available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161-0002; http://www.ntis.gov; 1-800-553- 6847 or, locally, (703) 605-6000. Some publications in the NUREG series are included in the document collections in the Electronic Reading Room on NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. VIII. Plain Language The Presidential memorandum ``Plain Language in Government Writing'' published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883), directed that the Government's documents be in clear and accessible language. The NRC requests comments on the proposed rule specifically with respect to the clarity and reflectiveness of the language used. Comments should be sent to the address listed under the ADDRESSES caption of this notice. IX. Voluntary Consensus Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless using such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or is otherwise impractical. In this proposed rule, the NRC is proposing to revise requirements for the reporting of annual dose to workers, the definition of the total effective dose equivalent (TEDE), the labeling of certain containers holding licensed material, and the determination of cumulative occupational radiation dose. This proposed regulatory action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements. X. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that the proposed amendments to 10 CFR Parts 19, 20, and 50 are the type of actions described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this regulatory action. Specifically, the proposed revision to 10 CFR 19.13(b) to limit the routine reporting of annual doses to workers comes under the categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1), which covers all revisions to 10 CFR Part 19. The proposed amendments to the definition of TEDE in 10 CFR 20.1003 and 50.2 and to 10 CFR 20.1201(c) to add the requirement that the effective dose equivalent be determined by a dosimetry method approved by the NRC come under the categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2) because this revision is of a minor nature and does not substantially modify existing regulations. For the proposed amendments to 10 CFR 20.1905 to revise the requirements for labeling containers and to 10 CFR 20.2104 to remove the requirement to obtain lifetime exposure records, these revisions involve recordkeeping requirements and thus come under the categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3)(ii). Finally, because the proposed amendment to 10 CFR 20.2205 involves a reporting requirement, this revision comes under the categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3)(iii). XI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The rule would reduce the burden for existing information collection requirements. This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements. Type of submission, new or revision: Revision. The title of the information collection: 10 CFR Parts 19, 20, and 50; ``Occupational Dose Records, Labeling Containers, and the Total Effective Dose Equivalent,'' proposed rule. The form number if applicable: NRC Form 4; ``Cumulative Occupational Dose History.'' How often the collection is required: 10 CFR 19, 20, and NRC Form 4--on occasion. Who will be required or asked to report: Nuclear power reactor licensees and materials licensees. An estimate of the number of annual responses: 10 CFR Part 19: 4,621 (104 power reactor licensee recordkeepers and 4,517 materials licensee recordkeepers; NRC Form 4: 227 (104 nuclear power reactor recordkeepers and 123 materials recordkeepers). The estimated number of annual respondents: 10 CFR Part 19: 4,621 recordkeepers (104 power reactor licensees and 4,517 materials licensees); NRC Form 4: 227 (104 nuclear power reactor licensees and 123 materials licensees). An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request: A reduction of 10,882 hours total for 10 CFR Part 19 (-6,588 hours for nuclear power reactor licensees [- 63.3 hours per licensee] and -4,294 hours for materials licensees [-1 hour per licensee]); and a reduction of 9,969 hours total for NRC Form 4 (-8,751 hours for nuclear power reactor licensees [-84 hours per licensee] and a reduction of 1,218 hours for materials licensees [-10 hours per licensee]). Abstract: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to revise several administrative requirements related to the reporting of dose to workers, the labeling of certain containers holding licensed material, and the determination of cumulative occupational radiation dose. The proposed rule would limit the routine reporting of annual doses to workers to those whose annual dose exceeds a specific dose threshold or who request a report. The proposed rule would also modify the labeling requirements for certain containers holding licensed material within posted areas in nuclear power facilities. The proposed rule would also remove the requirement that licensees attempt to obtain cumulative exposure records for workers unless these individuals are being authorized to receive a planned special exposure. These revisions would reduce the administrative and information collection burdens on licensees without affecting the level of protection to either the health and safety of workers and the public or the environment. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on the potential impact of the information collections contained in this proposed rule and on the following issues: 1. Is the proposed information collection necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the information will have practical utility? 2. Is the estimate of burden accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques? A copy of the OMB clearance package may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. The OMB clearance package and rule are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html for 60 days after the signature date of this notice and are also available at the rule forum site, http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. [[Page 55390]] Send comments on any aspect of these proposed information collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden and on the above issues, by October 23, 2006 to the Records and FOIA/Privacy Services Branch (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail to INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV and to the Desk Officer, John A. Asalone, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0005, 3150- 0014, and 3150-0044), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. You may also e-mail comments to John_A._Asalone@omb.eop.gov or comment by telephone at (202) 395- 4650. Public Protection Notification The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number. XII. Regulatory Analysis The NRC has prepared a regulatory analysis on this proposed rule and has included it in this Federal Register notice. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the NRC. 1. Statement of the Problem and Objective The NRC has determined that the regulations proposed for revision in 10 CFR 19.13, 20.1003, 20.1201, 20.1905, 20.2104, and 50.2 currently impose an undue regulatory burden on licensees. This proposed rule would amend certain requirements for notification of workers, revise the definition of total effective dose equivalent, amend certain container labeling requirements, and remove the requirement that licensees attempt to obtain the records of cumulative occupational radiation dose for certain individuals. These revisions are intended to reduce administrative and information collection burdens on NRC and Agreement State licensees without affecting the level of protection to either the health and safety of workers and the public or the environment. 2. Identification of Regulatory Alternatives This regulatory analysis evaluates the savings and costs of two regulatory alternatives. The following subsections describe these two alternatives. 2.1 No-Action Alternative The no-action alternative retains the current regulations as described above in Section II. Licensees would continue to be required to: (1) Provide annual dose reports to all monitored individuals, (2) determine the total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) by summing the deep-dose equivalent (for external exposures) and the committed effective dose equivalent (for external doses), (3) use the current exemptions to labeling requirements for containers holding licensed material, and (4) attempt to obtain the records of lifetime occupational radiation dose for all individuals. The no-action alternative is the baseline for analyzing the proposed alternative. The no-action alternative would not accomplish the stated objective. 2.2 Proposed Rule Alternative Under the proposed rule alternative, the NRC would revise its regulations in 10 CFR Parts 19, 20, and 50 for: (1) Reporting dose to workers, (2) the definition of TEDE, (3) the labeling of certain containers holding licensed material, and (4) the requirement that licensees attempt to obtain the records of cumulative occupational radiation dose for all individuals. This alternative would make the regulations consistent with current Commission policy and reduce administrative and information collection burdens on NRC and Agreement State licensees. Because this action was undertaken to ease burden, the rulemaking process is the only regulatory option appropriate to make the proposed changes effective. 3. Analysis of Values and Impacts of Proposed Rulemaking 3.1 Identification of Affected Attributes The attributes that the proposed rule could affect were identified by using the list of potential attributes provided in Chapter 5 of NUREG/BR-0184, ``Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook'' (January 1997). Industry Implementation. This attribute would be affected by three of the four principal revisions: The revisions to the requirements for the annual dose reports to workers, the labeling of containers holding licensed material, and the attempt to obtain the records of cumulative occupational radiation dose for an individual. In implementing the proposed changes, licensees would incur the costs of revising procedures. Industry Operation. This attribute would be affected by three of the four principal revisions. Licensees would realize savings by only having to provide annual dose reports to individuals when their dose exceeds 1 mSv (100 mrem), by not having to label containers holding licensed material (except sealed sources that are already labeled) in a posted area in a nuclear power facility, and by not having to ascertain the exposure history of an individual's prior lifetime doses except to permit an individual to participate in a planned special exposure. z NRC Implementation. The NRC would incur costs to make minor revisions to NRC Form 3, ``Notice to Employees,'' to account for the proposed changes to the reporting of annual dose to workers. The NRC would also incur the costs of completing this regulatory action. Regulatory Efficiency. All four of the principal revisions would enhance regulatory efficiency. The revisions are intended to reduce administrative and information collection burdens on NRC and Agreement State licensees without affecting the level of protection to either the health and safety of workers and the public or the environment. 3.2 Methodology The incremental savings and costs of the proposed regulatory action were analyzed relative to the baseline described in Section 2.1 of this regulatory analysis. The savings come from any desirable changes in the affected attributes, while the costs come from any undesirable changes in the affected attributes. Under Office of Management and Budget guidance and NUREG/BR-0058, ``Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,'' Revision 4 (September 2004), the results of the analysis are presented using a discounted flow of funds at a 3 and 7 percent rate. Under 10 CFR 20.2206, seven categories of NRC licensees are required to submit to the NRC annual radiation exposure reports for monitored individuals: Commercial nuclear power reactors, industrial radiographers, fuel processors (including uranium enrichment), fabricators and reprocessors, manufacturers and distributors of byproduct material, independent spent fuel storage installations, facilities for land disposal of low-level waste, and geologic repositories for high-level waste. (No NRC licensees are currently involved in operating low-level waste disposal facilities or geologic repositories for high-level waste.) In addition, 10 CFR 20.2206(b) requires that licensees [[Page 55391]] submit annual reports using NRC Form 5, ``Occupational Dose Record for a Monitoring Period,'' or electronic media containing all the information required by NRC Form 5. For the above licensees, the value- impact analysis uses the latest occupational exposure data maintained in the NRC's Radiation Exposure Information and Reporting System (REIRS) database (NUREG-0713, Volume 26, ``Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2004'' (December 2005)). To simplify the analysis, the seven categories of licensees are consolidated into two groups. The first group contains only commercial nuclear power reactor licensees (nuclear power reactor licensees) and the second group contains all of the other licensee categories listed above (REIRS materials licensees). The seven categories of licensees specified in 10 CFR 20.2206 do not include all NRC licensees. Most NRC licensees (e.g., hospitals, medical facilities, universities, radiological services, disposal) are not required to submit annual radiation exposure reports for monitored individuals. These licensees (non-REIRS materials licensees) constitute the third group of licensees for whom a value-impact analysis was done. This group contains both Agreement State and NRC licensees. For this group of licensees, the NRC has no records of the number of monitored individuals or the annual doses they received (except in the rare case of an overexposure). Based on professional judgment, the NRC assumes that 500,000 individuals are monitored annually by non-REIRS materials licensees. In addition, it is assumed that about 70 percent of them receive an annual dose that does not exceed 1 mSv (100 mrem). z This factor is derived from the data in NUREG-0713 for REIRS materials licensees and is assumed to be applicable to non-REIRS materials licensees. The following assumptions and data were used to assess the incremental values and impacts associated with the proposed regulatory action. Based on NUREG-0713, the number of nuclear power reactor licensees is 104 (NRC licensees only). Based on NUREG-0713, the number of REIRS materials licensees is 123 (NRC licensees only). Based on NUREG-1350, Volume 17, ``NRC Information Digest: 2005-2006 Edition'' (July 2005), there are approximately 17,298 Agreement State licensees. The number of non-REIRS materials licensees (Agreement State and NRC licensees) was estimated as follows. A review of the NRC Licensing Tracking System database in October 2005 indicated that a total of 4,517 materials licensees are administered by the NRC. Correcting for the 123 REIRS materials licensees in the database and accounting for Agreement State licensees, the total number of Agreement State and NRC licensees designated as non-REIRS materials licensees is approximately 21,692 licensees (17,298 Agreement State licensees + 4,517 NRC materials licensees - 123 REIRS materials licensees). zThe number of NRC licensees designated as non-REIRS materials licensees is 4,394 licensees (4,517 NRC materials licensees-- 123 REIRS materials licensees). Based on NUREG-0713, the number of individuals working for all nuclear power reactor licensees is 110,290. The average number of individuals working at each of the 104 nuclear power plants is estimated to be 1,060. Based on NUREG-0713, the number of individuals working for all REIRS materials licensees is 12,032. Based on professional judgment, the NRC assumes that 500,000 individuals are monitored annually by non-REIRS materials licensees (Agreement State and NRC licensees). Based on NUREG-0713, 70 percent of the individuals monitored by nuclear power reactor licensees receive an annual dose that does not exceed 1 mSv (100 mrem). Based on NUREG-0713, 80 percent of the individuals monitored by REIRS materials licensees receive an annual dose that does not exceed 1 mSv (100 mrem). Based on NUREG-0713 and professional judgment, the NRC assumes that 80 percent of the individuals monitored by non-REIRS materials licensees receive an annual dose that does not exceed 1 mSv (100 mrem). The NRC estimates that procedural revisions would require about 20 hours for each of the 104 nuclear power plants. For REIRS and non-REIRS materials licensees, the time needed to revise procedures ranges from 2 to 20 hours, depending on the size of the facility. This analysis uses 10 hours as the average time to revise procedures for each of the proposed changes. For nuclear power reactor licensees, it is assumed that the average life remaining for power reactor facilities is 49 years. For 3 and 7 percent discount rates, the analysis uses present value multiplication factors of 25.50 and 13.77, respectively, following the guidance in NUREG/BR-0184. For REIRS and non-REIRS materials licensees, it is assumed that the average life remaining for the facilities is 20 years. For 3 and 7 percent discount rates, the analysis uses factors of 14.9 and 10.6, respectively, following the guidance in NUREG/BR-0184. 3.3 Analysis 3.3.1 Annual Dose Report to Workers Nuclear Power Reactor Licensees In implementing the proposed regulatory action, nuclear power reactor licensees would incur a one-time cost to revise procedures. The NRC estimates it would take 20 hours to revise the procedures for each of the 104 nuclear power plants. Assuming a staff rate of $100 per hour, the one-time cost of implementing the proposed action would be $2,000 per nuclear power plant (20 hours x $100/hour) and $210,000 for the nuclear power industry (104 licensees x $2,000/licensee). With respect to industry operation, there would be a savings from not having to provide unsolicited annual dose reports (NRC Form 5) to workers when their doses do not exceed 1 mSv (100 mrem). Based on public comment, the NRC estimates the annual savings to be $3,000 per nuclear power plant and $310,000 for the nuclear power industry ($3,000 x 104 licensees). For a discounted flow of funds at a 3 percent rate, the estimated savings per nuclear power plant and for the nuclear power industry are $77,000 ($3,000 x 25.50) and $8 million ($310,000 x 25.50), respectively. For a discounted flow of funds at a 7 percent rate, the estimated savings per nuclear power plant and for the nuclear power industry are $41,000 ($3,000 x 13.77) and $4.3 million ($310,000 x 13.77), respectively. For this analysis, the NRC estimates it would take 5 minutes (0.083 hour) for a licensee to prepare an annual dose report for each worker. Using the 2004 data in NUREG-0713, it was determined that about 80 percent of the monitored individuals had an annual dose that did not exceed 1 mSv (100 mrem). It is further assumed that 90 percent of this population would not request an annual dose report. Assuming an average of 1,060 workers per nuclear power plant, the annual burden reduction from implementing the proposed action is estimated to be 63 hours per nuclear power plant (1,060 workers x 0.083 hour x 0.8 x 0.9) and the total annual industry burden reduction is 6,600 hours (63 hours/ licensee x 104 licensees). [[Page 55392]] REIRS Materials Licensees In implementing the proposed regulatory action, REIRS materials licensees would incur a one-time cost to revise procedures. The NRC estimates it would take 10 hours to revise the procedures for each of the 123 REIRS materials licensees. Assuming a staff rate of $100 per hour, the one-time cost of implementing the proposed action would be $1,000 per licensee (10 hours x $100/hour) and $120,000 for all licensees in this category (123 licensees x $1,000/licensee). With respect to industry operation, using the 2004 data in NUREG- 0713, it was determined that 8,254 workers (about 70 percent of the monitored individuals) had an annual dose that did not exceed 1 mSv (100 mrem). Assuming these workers are equally distributed among the 123 licensees in this group, about 67 workers per licensee would not receive an annual dose report. It is further assumed that 90 percent of this population would not request an annual dose report (NRC Form 5). The NRC estimates a savings of $10 per worker not receiving a dose report. Thus, the estimated annual savings is $600 per licensee (67 workers/licensee x $10/worker x 0.9) and $74,000 for all licensees in this category ($600/licensee x 123 licensees). For a discounted flow of funds at a 3 percent rate, the estimated savings per licensee and for all licensees in this category are $9,000 ($600 x 14.9) and $1.1 million ($74,000 x 14.9), respectively. For a discounted flow of funds at a 7 percent rate, the estimated savings per licensee and for all licensees in this category are $6,000 ($670 x 10.6) and $780,000 ($74,000 x 10.6), respectively. For this analysis, the NRC estimates it would take 5 minutes (0.083 hour) for a licensee to prepare an annual dose report for each worker. Assuming that 90 percent of the 67 workers per licensee would not request a dose report, the annual burden reduction from implementing the proposed action is estimated to be 5 hours per licensee (67 workers x 0.083 hour x 0.9) and 620 hours for all licensees in this category (5 hours/licensee x 123 licensees). Non-REIRS Materials Licensees In implementing the proposed regulatory action, non-REIRS materials licensees would incur a one-time cost to revise procedures. The NRC estimates it would take 10 hours to revise the procedures for each of the 21,692 non-REIRS materials licensees. Assuming a staff rate of $100 per hour, the one-time cost of implementing the proposed action would be $1,000 per licensee (10 hours x $100/hour) and $22 million for all licensees in this category (21,692 licensees x $1,000/licensee ). With respect to industry operation, the NRC assumes 500,000 monitored workers, 21,692 non-REIRS licensees, 23 workers per licensee, and a savings of $10 for each worker who does not receive a dose report. In addition, the previously defined factor of 70 percent for REIRS materials licensees is used to estimate the fraction of workers who would not receive an annual dose report (NRC Form 5). Thus, 16 workers per licensee are assumed not to receive an annual dose report. It is further assumed that 90 percent of this population would not request an annual dose report. The estimated annual savings is $140 per licensee (16 workers/licensee x $10/worker x 0.9) and $3 million for all licensees in this category ($140/licensee x 21,692 licensees). For a discounted flow of funds at a 3 percent rate, the estimated savings per licensee and for all licensees in this category are $2,000 ($140 x 14.9) and $44.7 million ($3 million x 14.9), respectively. For a discounted flow of funds at a 7 percent rate, the estimated savings per licensee and for all licensees in this category are $1,500 ($140 x 10.6) and $32 million ($3 million x 10.6), respectively. For this analysis, the NRC estimates it would take 5 minutes (0.083 hour) for a licensee to prepare an annual dose report for each worker. Assuming that 90 percent of the 16 workers per licensee would not request a dose report, the annual burden reduction from implementing the proposed action is estimated to be 1.2 hours per licensee (16 workers x 0.083 hour x 0.9) and 26,000 hours for all licensees in this category (1.2 hours/licensee x 21,692 licensees). For NRC licensees only, the total annual burden reduction is estimated to be 5,300 hours (1.2 hours/licensee x 4,394 NRC licensees). 3.3.2 Definition of Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) The costs and savings associated with the proposed revision to the definition of TEDE are minimal. The proposed revision would clarify that the TEDE is defined in terms of the effective dose equivalent (for external exposures) and the committed effective dose equivalent (for internal exposures). This revision would eliminate the need for licensees to repeatedly request guidance from the NRC and, in some cases, to request a license amendment to clarify the current definition. 3.3.3 Labeling Containers The proposed revision to 10 CFR 20.1905, ``Exemptions to labeling requirements,'' applies only to nuclear power reactor licensees. These licensees would incur one-time implementation costs to revise procedures. The NRC estimates it would take 20 hours to revise the procedures for each of the 104 nuclear power plants. Assuming a staff rate of $100 per hour, the one-time cost of implementing the proposed action would be $2,000 per licensee (20 hours x $100/hour) and $210,000 for the nuclear power industry (104 licensees x $2,000/licensee). With respect to industry operation, based on public comments, the NRC estimates an annual savings of $30,000 per nuclear power plant if the proposed exemption to the labeling containers is granted. For the entire nuclear power industry, the NRC estimates a savings of $3.1 million (104 licensees x $30,000/licensee). For a discounted flow of funds at a 3 percent rate, the estimated savings per nuclear power plant and for the nuclear power industry are $770,000 ($30,000 x 25.50) and $79 million ($3.1 million x 25.50), respectively. For a discounted flow of funds at a 7 percent rate, the estimated savings per nuclear power plant and for the nuclear power industry are $410,000 ($30,000 x 13.77) and $43 million ($3.1 million x 13.77), respectively. Using an annual savings of $30,000 per nuclear power plant and a staff rate of $100 per hour, the annual burden reduction from implementing the proposed action is estimated to be 300 hours per plant ($30,000/licensee / $100/hour) and the total annual industry burden reduction is 31,000 hours (300 hours/licensee x 104 licensees). 3.3.4 Cumulative Occupational Radiation Dose Nuclear Power Reactor Licensees In implementing the proposed regulatory action, nuclear power reactor licensees would incur a one-time cost to revise procedures. The NRC estimates it would take 20 hours to revise the procedures for each of the 104 nuclear power plants. Assuming a staff rate of $100 per hour, the one-time cost of implementing the proposed action would be $2,000 per nuclear power plant (20 hours x $100/hour) and $210,000 for the nuclear power industry (104 licensees x $2,000/licensee). With respect to industry operation, there would be a savings from not having to obtain the records of cumulative occupational radiation dose (NRC Form 4) for a worker, unless these [[Page 55393]] individuals are being authorized to receive a planned special exposure. Based on public comments, the NRC estimates the annual savings to be $8,500 per nuclear power plant and $880,000 for the nuclear power industry ($8,500 x 104 licensees). For a discounted flow of funds at a 3 percent rate, the estimated savings per nuclear power plant and for the nuclear power industry are $220,000 ($8,500 x 25.50) and $22 million ($880,000 x 25.50), respectively. For a discounted flow of funds at a 7 percent rate, the estimated savings per nuclear power plant and for the nuclear power industry are $120,000 ($8,500 x 13.77) and $12 million ($880,000 x 13.77), respectively. Using an annual savings of $8,500 per nuclear power plant and a staff rate of $100 per hour, the annual burden reduction from implementing the proposed action is estimated to be 85 hours per plant ($8,500/licensee / $100/hour) and the total annual industry burden reduction is 8,800 hours (85 hours/licensee x 104 licensees). REIRS Materials Licensees In implementing the proposed regulatory action, REIRS materials licensees would incur a one-time cost to revise procedures. The NRC estimates it would take 10 hours to revise the procedures for each of the 123 REIRS materials licensees. Assuming a staff rate of $100 per hour, the one-time cost of implementing the proposed action would be $1,000 per licensee (10 hours x $100/hour) and $120,000 for all licensees in this category (123 licensees x $1,000/licensee). With respect to industry operation, using the 2004 data in NUREG- 0713, the number of individuals working for REIRS materials licensees is 12,032. Assuming these workers are equally distributed among the 123 licensees in this group, there are about 98 workers per licensee. For this analysis, the NRC assumes that 20 percent of all workers would be affected and that 0.5 hour is required to complete, review, and authorize each NRC Form 4, ``Cumulative Occupational Dose History.'' Using a staff rate of $100 per hour, the estimated savings is $50 per worker ($100/hour x 0.5 hour) by not being required to complete NRC Form 4. The NRC is not aware of any licensee having authorized a planned special exposure. For this analysis, it is assumed that 99 percent of the NRC Forms 4 would not be needed as the basis for authorizing a planned special exposure. Thus, the estimated annual savings is $970 per licensee (98 workers/licensee x $50/worker x 0.2 x .99) and $120,000 for all licensees in this category ($970/licensee x 123 licensees). For a discounted flow of funds at a 3 percent rate, the estimated savings per licensee and for all licensees in this category are $14,000 ($970 x 14.9) and $1.8 million ($120,000 x 14.9), respectively. For a discounted flow of funds at a 7 percent rate, the estimated savings per licensee and for all licensees in this category are $10,000 ($980 x 10.6) and $1.3 million ($120,000 x 10.6), respectively. The annual burden reduction from implementing the proposed action is estimated to be 10 hours per licensee (98 workers/licensee x 0.5 hour/worker x 0.2 x 0.99) and 1,200 hours for all licensees in this category (10 hours/licensee x 123 licensees). Non-REIRS Materials Licensees In implementing the proposed regulatory action, non-REIRS materials licensees would incur a one-time cost to revise procedures. The NRC estimates it would take 10 hours to revise the procedures for each of the 21,692 non-REIRS materials licensees. Assuming a staff rate of $100 per hour, the one-time cost of implementing the proposed action would be $1,000 per licensee (10 hours x $100/hour) and $22 million for all licensees in this category (21,692 licensees x $1,000/licensee). With respect to industry operation, the analysis assumes 500,000 individuals working under 21,692 non-REIRS licensees and an even distribution of workers per licensee (23 workers/licensee). The NRC also assumes that 20 percent of all workers would be affected and that 0.5 hour is required to complete, review, and authorize each NRC Form 4. Using a staff rate of $100 per hour, the estimated savings is $50 per worker ($100/hour x 0.5 hour) by not being required to complete NRC Form 4. The NRC is not aware of any licensee having authorized a planned special exposure. For this analysis, it is assumed that 99 percent of the NRC Forms 4 would not be needed as the basis for authorizing a planned special exposure. Thus, the estimated annual savings is $230 per licensee (23 workers/licensee x $50/worker x 0.2 x 0.99) and $5 million for all licensees in this category ($230/licensee x 21,692 licensees). For a discounted flow of funds at a 3 percent rate, the estimated savings per licensee and for all licensees in this category are $3,400 ($230 x 14.9) and $75 million ($5 million x 14.9), respectively. For a discounted flow of funds at a 7 percent rate, the estimated savings per licensee and for all licensees in this category are $2,400 ($230 x 10.6) and $53 million ($5 million x 10.6), respectively. Using an annual savings of $230 per licensee and a staff rate of $100 per hour, the annual burden reduction from implementing the proposed action is estimated to be 2.3 hours per licensee ($230/ licensee / $100/hour) and 50,000 hours for all licensees in this category (2.3 hours/licensee x 21,692 licensees). For NRC licensees only, the total annual burden reduction is estimated to be 10,100 hours (2.3 hours/licensee x 4,394 NRC licensees). 3.3.5 NRC Implementation and Operating Impacts Annual Dose Report to Workers The NRC would incur costs to make minor revisions to NRC Form 3, ``Notice to Employees,'' to account for the proposed revision to the reporting of annual dose to workers under 10 CFR 19.13(b). The one-time cost for this task is estimated to be $28,000 (320 staff-hours at $88 per hour). This is the only impact to the NRC for the proposed action. Definition of Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) The NRC would incur no implementation or operating impacts due to the proposed revision to the definition of TEDE. Labeling Containers The NRC would incur no implementation or operating impacts due to the proposed revision to the labeling of containers holding licensed material. Cumulative Occupational Radiation Dose The NRC would incur no implementation impacts due to the proposed revision to remove the requirement that licensees attempt to obtain cumulative occupational radiation dose records for workers unless these individuals are being authorized to receive a planned special exposure. With respect to NRC operation, there would be a savings from not having inspectors review the information on NRC Form 4, or its equivalent, and supporting records maintained by licensees. For nuclear power reactor licensees, it is estimated that 1 hour of inspection time is spent reviewing such records at each of the 104 nuclear power plants. Assuming an NRC staff rate of $88 per hour, the estimated annual savings to the NRC is $9,200 (1 hour x 104 licensees x $88/ hour). For a discounted flow of funds at a 3 and 7 percent rate, the estimated savings to the NRC are $235,000 ($9,200 x 25.50) [[Page 55394]] and $130,000 ($9,200 x 13.77), respectively. For each of the 123 REIRS materials licensees, it is estimated that 6 minutes (0.1 hour) of inspection time is spent reviewing NRC Form 4, or its equivalent, and supporting records. The NRC is not aware of any licensee having authorized a planned special exposure. For this analysis, it is assumed that 99 percent of the NRC Forms 4 would not need to be inspected as the basis for authorizing a planned special exposure. Assuming an NRC staff rate of $88 per hour, the estimated annual savings to the NRC is $1,100 (0.1 hour x 123 licensees x $88/ hour x 0.99). For a discounted flow of funds at a 3 and 7 percent rate, the estimated savings to the NRC are $16,000 ($1,100 x 14.9) and $12,000 ($1,100 x 10.6), respectively. For each of the 4,394 NRC licensees designated as non-REIRS materials licensees, it is estimated that 6 minutes (0.1 hour) of inspection time is spent reviewing NRC Form 4, or its equivalent, and supporting records. As discussed above, it is assumed that 99 percent of the NRC Forms 4 would not need to be inspected as the basis for authorizing a planned special exposure. Assuming an NRC staff rate of $88 per hour, the estimated annual savings to the NRC is $38,000 (0.1 hour x 4,394 licensees x $88/hour x 0.99). For a discounted flow of funds at a 3 and 7 percent rate, the estimated savings to the NRC are $570,000 ($38,000 x 14.9) and $400,000 ($38,000 x 10.6), respectively. Cost of the Regulatory Action The NRC would incur 0.8 full time equivalent (FTE) of staff time to complete this rulemaking after publishing the proposed rule. The cost for this action is estimated to be $126,000 (0.8 FTE at $157,000 per FTE). 3.3.6 Other Government Implementation and Operating Impacts The Agreement States would incur no implementation or operating impacts due to the proposed revisions to the reporting of annual dose to workers, the definition of TEDE, or the labeling of containers holding licensed material. Cumulative Occupational Radiation Dose For each of the 17,298 Agreement State licensees designated as non- REIRS materials licensees, it is estimated that 6 minutes (0.1 hour) of inspection time is spent reviewing NRC Form 4, or its equivalent, and supporting records. As discussed above, it is assumed that 99 percent of the NRC Forms 4 would not need to be inspected as the basis for authorizing a planned special exposure. Assuming an Agreement State staff rate of $88 per hour, the estimated annual savings to the Agreement States is $150,000 (0.1 hour x 17,298 licensees x $88/hour x 0.99). For a discounted flow of funds at a 3 and 7 percent rate, the estimated savings to the Agreement States are $2.2 million ($150,000 x 14.9) and $1.6 million ($150,000 x 10.6), respectively. The annual burden reduction to the Agreement States from implementing the proposed action is estimated to be 1,700 hours (0.1 hour x 17,298 licensees x 0.99). The annual burden reduction to the Agreement States from implementing the proposed action is estimated to be 1,700 hours (0.1 hour x 17,298 licensees x 0.99). 4. Presentation of Results The results of the NRC's value-impact assessment for industry implementation and operation are summarized in the following table. Table 1.--Summary of Industry Implementation and Operating Savings (Costs Operating savings (costs) Implementation --------------------------------------- Proposed regulatory action Licensee category savings (costs) Using 7 percent Using 3 percent ($1,000) discount rate discount rate ($1,000) ($1,000) Annual dose report to workers... Nuclear power (210) 4,300 8,000 reactor. REIRS materials... (120) 780 1,100 Non-REIRS (22,000) 32,000 45,000 materials. TEDE............................ Nuclear power N/A (\1\) (\1\) reactor. REIRS materials... N/A (\1\) (\1\) Non-REIRS N/A (\1\) (\1\) materials. Labeling containers............. Nuclear power (210) 43,000 79,000 reactor. REIRS materials... N/A N/A N/A Non-REIRS N/A N/A N/A materials. Cumulative occupational Nuclear power (210) 12,000 22,000 radiation dose. reactor. REIRS materials... (120) 1,300 1,800 Non-REIRS (22,000) 53,000 75,000 materials. Subtotals................... Nuclear power (630) 59,300 109,000 reactor. REIRS materials... (240) 2,080 2,900 Non-REIRS (44,000) 85,000 120,000 materials. Total (rounded)......... .................. (45,000) 146,000 232,000 \1\Minimal. The results of the NRC's value-impact assessment for NRC implementation and operation are summarized in the following table. [[Page 55395]] Table 2.--Summary of NRC Implementation and Operating Savings (Costs) Operating savings (costs) Implementation ------------------------------------- Proposed regulatory action Licensee category savings (costs) Using 7 percent Using 3 percent ($1,000) discount rate discount rate ($1,000) ($1,000) Annual dose report to workers.... Nuclear power .................. ................. ................. reactor. REIRS materials.... (28) N/A N/A Non-REIRS materials .................. ................. ................. TEDE............................. Nuclear power .................. ................. ................. reactor. REIRS materials.... N/A N/A N/A Non-REIRS materials .................. ................. ................. Labeling containers.............. Nuclear power .................. ................. ................. reactor. REIRS materials.... N/A N/A N/A Non-REIRS materials .................. ................. ................. Cumulative occupational radiation Nuclear power 130 235 dose. reactor. REIRS materials.... N/A 12 16 Non-REIRS materials 570 400 Cost of the regulatory action.... ................... (126) N/A N/A Total (rounded).............. ................... (154) 710 650 The results of the NRC's value-impact assessment for Agreement States implementation and operation are summarized in the following table. Table 3.--Summary of Agreement States Implementation and Operating Savings (Costs) Operating savings (costs) Implementation ------------------------------------- Proposed regulatory action savings (costs) Using 7 percent Using 3 percent ($1,000) discount rate discount rate ($1,000) ($1,000) ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Annual dose report to workers.......................... N/A N/A N/A TEDE................................................... N/A N/A N/A Labeling containers.................................... N/A N/A N/A Cumulative occupational radiation dose................. N/A 1,600 2,200 -------------------------------------------------------- Total (rounded).................................... N/A 1,600 2,200 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- The results of the NRC's assessment of annual burden reduction in hours per licensee and industry are summarized in the following table. Table 4.--Summary of Annual Burden Reduction per Licensee and Industry ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Annual burden reduction (hours) Proposed regulatory action Licensee category -------------------------------------- Licensee Industry ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Annual dose report to workers............. Nuclear power reactor........ 63 6,600 REIRS materials.............. 5 620 Non-REIRS materials.......... 1.2 26,000 TEDE...................................... Nuclear power reactor........ N/A N/A REIRS materials.............. N/A N/A Non-REIRS materials.......... N/A N/A Labeling containers....................... Nuclear power reactor........ 300 31,000 REIRS materials.............. N/A N/A Non-REIRS materials.......... N/A N/A Cumulative occupational radiation dose.... Nuclear power reactor........ 85 8,800 REIRS materials.............. 10 1,200 Non-REIRS materials.......... 2.3 50,000 -------------------------------------- Subtotals............................. Nuclear power reactor........ 448 46,400 REIRS materials.............. 15 1,820 Non-REIRS materials.......... 3.5 76,000 -------------------------------------- Total (rounded)................... ............................. 500 124,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- [[Page 55396]] The results of the NRC's assessment of annual burden reduction in hours per NRC and Agreement States are summarized in the following table. Table 5.--Summary of Annual Burden Reduction per NRC and Agreement States ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Annual burden reduction (hours) Proposed regulatory action ------------------------------------- NRC Agreement states ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Annual dose report to workers..... N/A N/A TEDE.............................. N/A N/A Labeling containers............... N/A N/A Cumulative occupational radiation 555 1,700 dose............................. -------------------- Total......................... 555 1,700 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------- The total implementation cost to the NRC for the proposed regulatory action is $154,000. The total operating impact to the NRC for a discounted flow of funds at a 3 and 7 percent rate is an estimated savings of $650,000 and $710,000, respectively. There are no implementation impacts to the Agreement States for the proposed regulatory action. The total operating impact to the Agreement States for a discounted flow of funds at a 3 and 7 percent rate is an estimated savings of $1.6 million and $2.2 million, respectively. The net present value of the proposed action is $197 million at a 3 percent discount rate [industry operation ($239 million) + NRC operation ($650,000) + Agreement State Operation (2.2 million)] - [NRC implementation ($154,000) + industry implementation ($45 million)]. The net present value of the proposed action is $103 million at a 7 percent discount rate [industry operation ($146 million) + NRC operation ($710,000) + Agreement State Operation (1.6 million)] - [NRC implementation ($154,000) + industry implementation ($45 million)]. The total reduction in annual burden from implementing the proposed action is estimated to be 126,000 hours [industry (124,000 hours) + NRC (555 hours) + Agreement States (1,700 hours)]. Several comments were received on the costs and benefits of the draft rule language (69 FR 8350; February 24, 2004) and are included above in Section III. These comments were considered in the development of this regulatory analysis. 5. Decision Rationale The net present value of this proposed action is $197 million and $103 million for 3 and 7 percent discount rates, respectively. The total industry reduction in annual burden from implementing the proposed action is estimated to be 126,000 hours. These savings are obtained by reducing administrative and information collection requirements on licensees. The NRC recommends proceeding with the proposed rule because the changes improve the effectiveness of NRC regulations and reduce unnecessary regulatory burden without affecting the level of protection to either the health and safety of workers and the public or the environment. 6. Implementation Schedule After the publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register and the consideration and resolution of the public comments, a final rule would be published, that would become effective 30 days after publication. The Commission requests public comments on the draft regulatory analysis. Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading. XIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. Although three of the changes (i.e., the reporting of annual dose to workers, the definition of TEDE, and the determination of cumulative occupational radiation dose) in the proposed rule pertain to all 21,692 licensees regulated by the NRC and Agreement States, licensees, including the affected small entities, could continue their current practices and remain in compliance with the proposed regulation. Licensees would be expected to incur the costs of changing their procedures only if they determine that the changes are cost effective, therefore, the NRC has determined that the changes would not have a significant economic impact on licensees defined as small entities. The change related to labeling containers would affect only licensees authorized to operate nuclear power reactors. These licensees do not fall within the scope of the definition of ``small entities'' in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the scope of the size standards established by the NRC in 10 CFR 2.810. XIV. Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule does not apply to this proposed rule and that a backfit analysis is not required for this proposed rule because these amendments do not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR Chapter I. List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 19 Criminal penalties, Environmental protection, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Occupational safety and health, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination. 10 CFR Part 20 Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Licensed material, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Occupational safety and health, Packaging and containers, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste treatment and disposal. 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following [[Page 55397]] amendments to 10 CFR parts 19, 20, and 50. PART 19--NOTICES, INSTRUCTIONS AND REPORTS TO WORKERS: INSPECTION AND INVESTIGATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 19 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 53, 63, 81, 103, 104, 161, 186, 68 Stat. 930, 933, 935, 936, 937, 948, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended, sec. 1701, 106 Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2201, 2236, 2282 2297f); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). 2. In Sec. 19.13, paragraphs (b) and (d) are revised to read as follows: Sec. 19.13 Notifications and reports to individuals. * * * * * (b) Each licensee shall make dose information available to workers as shown in records maintained by the licensee under the provisions of 10 CFR 20.2106. The licensee shall provide an annual report to each individual monitored under 10 CFR 20.1502 of the dose received in that monitoring year if: (1) The individual's occupational dose exceeds 1 mSv (100 mrem) TEDE or 1 mSv (100 mrem) to any individual organ or tissue; or (2) The individual requests his or her annual dose report. * * * * * (d) When a licensee is required by Sec. Sec. 20.2202, 20.2203 or 20.2204 of this chapter to report to the Commission any exposure of an individual to radiation or radioactive material, the licensee shall also provide the individual a report on his or her exposure data included in the report to the Commission. This report must be transmitted no later than the transmittal to the Commission. * * * * * PART 20--STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION 3. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 53, 63, 65, 81, 103, 104, 161, 182, 186, 68 Stat. 930, 933, 935, 936, 937, 948, 953, 955, as amended, sec. 1701, 106 Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2236, 2297f), secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). 4. In Sec. 20.1003, the definition of Total Effective Dose Equivalent is revised to read as follows: Sec. 20.1003 Definitions. * * * * * Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) means the sum of the effective dose equivalent (for external exposures) and the committed effective dose equivalent (for internal exposures). * * * * * 5. In Sec. 20.1201, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows: Sec. 20.1201 Occupational dose limits for adults. * * * * * (c) When the external exposure is determined by measurement with an external personal monitoring devise, the deep-dose equivalent must be used in place of the effective dose equivalent, unless the effective dose equivalent is determined by a dosimetry method approved by the NRC. The assigned deep-dose equivalent must be for the part of the body receiving the highest exposure. The assigned shallow-dose equivalent must be the dose averaged over the contiguous 10 square centimeters of skin receiving the highest exposure. The deep-dose equivalent, lens- dose equivalent, and shallow-dose equivalent may be assessed from surveys or other radiation measurements for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the occupational dose limits, if the individual monitoring device was not in the region of highest potential exposure, or the results of individual monitoring are unavailable. * * * * * 6. In Sec. 20.1905, paragraph (f) is revised and paragraph (g) is added to read as follows: Sec. 20.1905 Exemptions to labeling requirements. * * * * * (f) Installed manufacturing or process equipment, such as reactor components, piping, and tanks; or (g) Containers holding licensed material (other than sealed sources that are either specifically or generally licensed) at a facility licensed under parts 50 or 52 of this chapter, not including non-power reactors, that are within an area posted under the requirements in Sec. 20.1902 if the containers are: (1) Conspicuously marked (such as by providing a system of color coding of containers) commensurate with the radiological hazard; (2) Accessible only to individuals who have sufficient instructions to minimize radiation exposure while handling or working in the vicinity of the containers; and (3) Subject to plant procedures to ensure they are appropriately labeled, as specified at Sec. 20.1904 before being removed from the posted area. 7. In Sec. 20.2104, the introductory text of paragraphs (a) and (c), and paragraph (d) are revised to read as follows: Sec. 20.2104 Determination of prior occupational dose. (a) For each individual who is likely to receive an annual occupational dose requiring monitoring under Sec. 20.1502, the licensee shall determine the occupational radiation dose received during the current year: * * * * * (c) In complying with the requirements of paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, a licensee may-- * * * * * (d) The licensee shall record the exposure history of each individual, as required by paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, on NRC Form 4, or other clear and legible record, including all of the information required by NRC Form 4.\4\ The form or record must show each period in which the individual received occupational exposure to radiation or radioactive material and must be signed by the individual who received the exposure. For each period for which the licensee obtains reports, the licensee shall use the dose shown in the report in preparing the NRC Form 4. For any period in which the licensee does not obtain a report, the licensee shall place a notation on the NRC Form 4 indicating the periods of time for which data are not available. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \4\ Licensees are not required to partition historical dose between external dose equivalent(s) and internal committed dose equivalent(s). Further, occupational exposure histories obtained and recorded on NRC Form 4 before January 1, 1994, might not have included effective dose equivalent, but may be used in the absence of specific information on the intake of radionuclides by the individual. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- * * * * * 8. Section 20.2205 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 20.2205 Reports to individuals of exceeding dose limits. When a licensee is required by Sec. Sec. 20.2203 or 20.2204 to report to the Commission any exposure of an identified occupationally exposed individual, or an identified member of the public, to radiation or radioactive material, the licensee shall also provide the individual a report on his or her exposure data included in the report to the Commission. This report must be transmitted no later than the transmittal to the Commission. [[Page 55398]] PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 9. The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5841). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237). 10. In Sec. 50.2, the definition of Total Effective Dose Equivalent is revised to read as follows: Sec. 50.2 Definitions. * * * * * Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) means the sum of the effective dose equivalent (for external exposures) and the committed effective dose equivalent (for internal exposures). * * * * * Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of September, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary for the Commission. [FR Doc. E6-15502 Filed 9-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 33 Sen. Reid: REID DELIVERS LIVE STATEMENT TO ATOMIC ENERGY VETERANS ADVISORY BOARD VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE: 09/21/2006 Harry Reid of Nevada delivered a live statement during a meeting of the Presidential Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health via videoconference from Washington. The Presidential Advisory Board meeting, at the Las Vegas Westin Casuarina, addressed, among other issues, compensation for Nevada Test Site workers employed on site from 1951 – 1962 for less than 250 days. Senator Reid discussed the urgent need to give the legal designation status of “Special Exposure Cohort” (SEC) to these atomic energy veterans to simplify and expedite the compensation process. The existing requirement for compensation of 250 days or more of employment, would mean that employees who were at ground zero for all 100 above ground tests would be denied compensation. “These men and women are our atomic energy veterans,” said Reid. “They helped this country win the Cold War, sacrificing their personal health in the process. After decades of waiting and suffering, it is time that we honored these sacrifices. We must act now. I will continue to fight for compensation for Nevada Test Site veterans.” The U.S. held 100 above-ground nuclear tests and 828 underground tests at the site between 1951 an 1993. Many people at the Test Site worked with significant amounts of radioactive materials without knowledge of the risks. Some of those workers have been waiting for decades for the government to acknowledge the sacrifices they made for their country. Many have been waiting for compensation while they suffer from life-threatening cancers, and others have already died. Reid’s full statement as prepared is below: Statement of U.S. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) The Presidential Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health Thursday, June 15 2006 Board members, thank you for addressing the important issue of compensation for Nevada Test Site workers who contracted cancer from their work during the above-ground nuclear tests. I must thank our atomic energy veterans that are here for the sacrifices you made on behalf of our country, on behalf of our way of life. It is because of your great efforts that we won the Cold War and democracy triumphed. I, and the nation, am indebted to you for your service and your true sacrifices. I am honored to be here to speak on your behalf. Ladies and gentlemen, we must include within the Special Exposure Cohort Test Site workers who contracted cancer from their work during the above-ground nuclear tests even though they worked on site less than 250 days. Like many of you, I watched the nuclear explosions at the Test Site. We were struck with awe and wonder at the power and strength of the explosions and at man’s ingenuity. Little did we know the other side to those tests – the exposure of men and women working at the Site to cancer-causing radiation and chemicals. Now, these men and women face deadly cancers. Many have already passed away or lost their loved ones, just waiting for their country to acknowledge them. That’s why I worked six years ago to pass legislation to ensure that Department of Energy workers and contractors who were exposed to radiation, beryllium or silica received compensation. It was the right thing to do for those who sacrificed their health in service of their country and now face deadly diseases. Yet, Test Site workers who have waited decades for acknowledgment are being told that they have to wait longer still. Many, tragically, have already died while waiting for their compensation, stuck in a bureaucratic nightmare of obstruction and delay. Nevada Test Site workers, despite performing this service for their country, having worked with significant amounts of radioactive materials and having known exposures leading to cancer, have been denied compensation as a result of flawed calculations based on records that are incomplete or in error as well as the use of faulty assumptions and incorrect models. NIOSH itself acknowledges that it cannot estimate the internal radiation dose received by employees at the Nevada Test Site from 1951 through 1962, yet is arguing that Test Site workers present for the atmospheric tests, yet not employed 250 days, do not deserve compensation. Under this rationale, someone who was present for all 100 above-ground tests would be denied compensation, even if they were in the front lines. This is not what Congress intended. And, it is absolutely unfair. Congress has already designated classes of atomic energy veterans at several sites as members of the Special Exposure Cohort. Amchitka Island, Alaska, was designated because three underground nuclear tests were conducted on the Island. Alaska conducted three tests, Nevada Test Site workers conducted 100 aboveground and 828 underground nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site from 1951 – 1992. That is 88 percent of the nuclear tests conducted in the United States. Yet, these men and women have been denied the compensation they deserve for decades. This is unacceptable. Ladies and gentlemen, I helped write the law that created this program. I can tell you with certainty that it was the intent of Congress that exactly this type, this group, of workers be compensated under this program. The men and women who worked at the Nevada Test Site helped this country win the Cold War, sacrificing their personal health in the process. After decades of waiting and suffering, it is time that we honored these sacrifices. Not only must we expedite compensation for the atmospheric testing workers, but we must also include within a Special Exposure Cohort the workers at the Test Site during the more than 800 below ground tests. Currently under review by workers and experts is a petition drafted by Test Site employees and my office that would add these workers to the Special Exposure Cohort. I will not rest until these men and women get the respect and the acknowledgement that they deserve. Please, join with me in supporting this cohort and the men and women that fought with and for all of us. I urge this Advisory Board to do the right thing and grant an SEC for all atmospheric test era workers employed at the site less than 250 days. Please let me know how we can assist the board in its efforts. ### Reno Bruce R. Thompson Courthouse & Federal Bldg 400 S. Virginia St, Site 902 Reno, NV 89501 Phone: 775-686-5750 Fax: 775-686-5757 [ /] Las Vegas Lloyd D. George Building 333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 8016 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: 702-388-5020 Fax: 702-388-5030 [ /] Carson City 600 East William St, #302 Carson City, NV 89701 Phone: 775-882-REID (7343) Fax: 775-883-1980 [ /] Washington, DC 528 Hart Senate Office Bldg Washington, DC 20510 Phone: 202-224-3542 Fax: 202-224-7327 Toll Free for Nevadans: 1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343) [ /] [ /] [ /] ***************************************************************** 34 NRC: Safety Evaluation Report for the Proposed American FR Doc 06-8013 [Federal Register: September 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 184)] [Notices] [Page 55515] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22se06-145] CentrifugePlant in Piketon, OH, NUREG-1851; Notice of Availability AGENCY: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of Availability of Safety Evaluation Report. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for the USEC Inc. (USEC) license application, dated August 23, 2004, and as revised, for the possession and use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials at its proposed American Centrifuge Plant (ACP) in Piketon, Ohio. The SER discusses the results of the safety review performed by NRC staff in the following areas: General information, organization and administration, Integrated Safety Analysis (ISA) and ISA Summary, radiation protection, nuclear criticality safety, chemical process safety, fire safety, emergency management, environmental protection, decommissioning, management measures, materials control and accountability, and physical protection. The NRC is planning to conduct a public meeting in Ohio to provide an overview of the staff's safety review and to address any comments or questions relating to the issuance of the SER. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SER (NUREG-1851) is available for inspection and copying for a fee at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The Public Document Room is open from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agency-wide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room, and on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC Public Document Room Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley Echols, Mail Stop: T-8F42, Special Projects Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Telephone: (301) 415- 6981, and e-mail: fse@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of September, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Joseph G. Giitter, Chief, Special Projects Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. 06-8013 Filed 9-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 35 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: 'Nevada is not for sale' Today: September 22, 2006 at 7:31:3 PDT Nuclear industry has the gall to suggest that state would trade health and safety for money The idea that Nevada would agree to accept money in exchange for allowing an unsafe nuclear dump to be built anywhere within its borders is both preposterous and insulting. Yet such an arrangement is contained within a proposal drafted for Congress' consideration by the Nuclear Energy Institute, the policy and lobbying organization of the nuclear power industry. With the federal government's plan to bury high-level nuclear waste in Southern Nevada now catatonic because of innumerable environmental reasons, the NEI's proposal is a desperate effort to revive the project before a new presidential administration comes into power. President Bush chooses to ignore science and fully supports the nuclear industry's aggressive backing of Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The nuclear industry backs the project because its opening could allow for a spate of new nuclear plants. The industry, however, is immune to the fact that for the nearly 20 years that Yucca Mountain has been studied, never has it been deemed safe by any credible scientific report. Establishing one or more "temporary" waste storage sites within Nevada is a main point of the NEI's bill draft. A "benefits schedule" is listed in the proposal, whereby Nevada should agree to host the facilities in exchange for $25 million a year while they were being built. Once opened and until they were closed (very likely many generations from now), the state would receive double that amount. Bob Loux, Nevada's point man on nuclear waste, said the state was offered more money than that back in the 1980s. "The governor said then that we wouldn't trade the health and safety of Nevadans for money, and such a proposal will not work now either," Loux said Thursday. "Nevada is not for sale." The NEI's proposal also liberally amends the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, which Congress passed to ensure strict guidelines for burial of nuclear waste. The amendments would give the Energy Department broad authority to part from national and state environmental standards in building both Yucca Mountain and temporary storage facilities. This proposal is intended to give Congress' blessing to making an unsafe project even more unsafe. We hope members of Congress can take their minds off the lavish lobbying by the nuclear industry just long enough to reject this proposal immediately. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 36 RGJ.com: Sen. Reid honors Rural America Month FALLON STAR PRESS --> Posted: 9/22/2006 [Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, at the opening of Fallon’s Plant Materials Center earlier this summer] Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, at the opening of Fallon’s Plant Materials Center earlier this summer Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., spoke with reporters Monday via conference call on issues of concern to rural Nevadans in honor of September being newly designated as Rural America Month with the passage of Senate Resolution 561 earlier this month. On this issue of water, Reid said rural communities across the state struggle to provide good quality drinking water for residents. He said that Fallon is the only municipality in the country with its own arsenic treatment plant that provides good, pure water to its citizens. Reid was instrumental, along with the City of Fallon and the Navy, in getting the arsenic treatment plant up and running back in 2004. "There are a multitude of small water companies across the state that, due to a lack of resources, can't comply with drinking water standards," he said. Fallon is fortunate to have overcome those odds and worked to get the treatment plant for its residents, Reid explained. The next step is to continue with the county's water and wastewater system to get that built and serving county residents living outside the boundaries of the city of Fallon. When asked about the viability of continued production at Walker Lake, Reid said there isn't much of a federal connection, but he said he is glad that the mediation process that was put in place a few years ago has run its course so that other options can be considered. Reid said there are only 21 desert terminus lakes in the world and Nevada has two of them: Walker Lake and Pyramid Lake, both of which are worth saving. This being an election year, the Senate Minority Leader said the importance of courting the rural voters has not been lost on the leadership of the major political parties. He said he has "done all I can do" to support Jack Carter, Democratic candidate for Nevada's second senatorial seat, and Jill Derby who is running for Congress in the second district. A reporter from Elko asked Reid how to attack the cheatgrass problem to help ranchers and wildlife during this wildfire season and Reid responded by saying that Fallon's Plant Materials Center, which opened earlier this summer, will be instrumental in developing native species to help combat the spread of cheatgrass, a major fuel of wildland fires. Reid also said he was happy that the Hawthorne Ammunition Depot was saved from the latest base realignment and closure commission's list which saved jobs. "We were able to get tens of millions of dollars over the years for that base," he said. With regard to national security, Reid said federal funding for Homeland Security is inadequate and said the Department of Homeland Security has been "penny wise and pound foolish" in its spending. A reporter from Pahrump asked the Senator about federal funding to save some of the historical buildings in Goldfield. Reid said he has asked for $200,000 to help with that effort but that there are no real financial benefits for owners of historical buildings to preserve them. Another reporter inquired about the Anaconda Mine in Yerington and what should be done with the land. Reid said Lyon County officials need look no further than the marina in Sparks for a good option on what to do with the Superfund site. "If you wait for Anaconda (to determine the disposition of the site), they will never do it, so don't be afraid," Reid urged. He said it has already taken much longer than he would like to make a decision and move forward to make the site a recreation area as was done in Sparks. Reid stated emphatically that the idea of using Yucca Mountain as the nation's long-term nuclear waste storage site is dead. "It is history and will never happen. We should come to the realization that we should leave nuclear waste on-site in dry storage containers," he said. He said the Department of Energy is on a "fool's errand" to save the site in order to protect its "bureaucratic dignity." Rural Nevada Month honors the culture, values, history and economic contributions of the nation's rural communities. Reno Gazette-Journal network: | | | ***************************************************************** 37 Tri-City Herald: DOE extends AdvanceMed contract Published Friday, September 22nd, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The Department of Energy has extended AdvanceMed Hanford's contract for three years at an estimated total cost of $29 million. AdvanceMed Hanford has provided occupational medicine services at the Hanford nuclear reservation since June 2004. It was picked in a competitive bid process to replace the Hanford Environmental Health Foundation, which had held the contract since 1965. AdvanceMed Hanford's current contract would have expired at the end of the month. It won a three-year contract, but a protest of the contract award delayed the transition of the contract until June 2004. "We have been quite satisfied with the performance," said Rick Puthoff, the DOE contracting officer for the AdvanceMed Hanford contract. There is no substantive change in the terms of the contract, said DOE spokeswoman Colleen French. It's a cost-reimbursement contract. The initial contract period seemed to go by quickly, said Martin Zizzi, principal manager for AdvanceMed Hanford. The company had just 60 days to prepare to begin offering services after the contract was awarded in 2004. That included interior building on new offices, making offers to employees, providing training and moving 14,000 medical records under lock and key. But it met the deadline with three days to spare. It had two years to win accreditation under the terms of the contract, but was awarded accreditation by the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care about six months before the deadline. Another push was made to do baseline exams on about 1,400 Hanford employees in one month after mercury vapor concerns were raised at the Hanford tank farms. The staff includes four doctors and four physician assistants, among about 80 total employees. "The big challenge over the next three years is to sustain performance," Zizzi said. © 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 38 SF Chronicle: Regents vote to seek contract to keep running Livermore lab Chronicle Staff Report Friday, September 22, 2006 The University of California Board of Regents voted unanimously Thursday to compete for the next contract to run Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the nuclear weapons laboratory in Livermore. Winning the contract from the U.S. Department of Energy would let UC manage the nation's two nuclear weapons design laboratories -- Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Nuclear weapons foes want UC out of the nuclear weapons business altogether. UC has until Oct. 12 to submit its contract proposal to the Energy Department, which is expected to name the winner of the bid in March. The university system has run Lawrence Livermore since the early 1950s under an exclusive agreement with the federal government. This marks the first time it has been required to compete for the contract. Congress and the Energy Department moved to require competitions for management contracts at certain national laboratories after the revelation of financial, safety and managerial scandals at Los Alamos National Laboratory, which UC has run since the early 1940s. Page B - 4 The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 39 Las Vegas SUN: Reid urges compensation status for former Nevada nuclear workers Today: September 22, 2006 at 10:50:17 PDT ASSOCIATED PRESS LAS VEGAS (AP) - Former Nevada nuclear weapons test workers should be granted special status to receive compensation for illnesses, regardless of a 250-day work requirement, Sen. Harry Reid said. Crediting former Nevada Test Site workers with helping to win the Cold War, Reid, D-Nev., said they risked their lives conducting nuclear weapons tests that involved cancer-causing radiation and chemicals. "Now these men and women face deadly cancers. Many have already passed away or lost their loved ones, just waiting for their country to acknowledge them," he said Thursday during a videoconference to a meeting of the Presidential Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health in Las Vegas. The board, which advises the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, has granted so-called "special exposure cohort" status to workers from the aboveground nuclear testing era, 1951 to 1962, if they have certain cancers and worked at least 250 days at the test site. Reid, echoing his past sentiments and concerns of former workers and survivors, wants the 250-day requirement removed. His staff also is preparing a petition to extend the status to test site workers from the below-ground nuclear testing era, 1963 to 1992. If the board rejects his requests, an aide to Reid said the senator will propose legislation to change the Labor Department's Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program so that test site workers would be put on par with those from other nuclear weapons sites. That would mean streamlining the process for former workers and survivors to obtain $150,000 compensation checks plus medical expenses rather than having to prove their claims through a costly and time-consuming dose reconstruction process. "Many, tragically, have already died while waiting for their compensation, stuck in a bureaucratic nightmare of obstruction and delay," Reid said. Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal, http://www.lvrj.com All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************