*****************************************************************
12/29/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.307
*****************************************************************
   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 RIA Novosti: Russia hopes Iran will act to restore trust in nuclear 
2 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: FM: UNSC should be venue for peace 
3 UPI: Russia urges Iran to act moderate
4 Korea Herald: White Paper defines N.K. as 'grave threat'   
5 RIA Novosti: Russia set to develop ties with North Korea despite nuk
6 BBC: N Korea 'serious threat' to South
7 Korea Times: North Can Make 6-7 Nuke Bombs 
8 UPI: Russia still wants to woo North Korea
9 Guardian Unlimited: S. Korea Report Calls N. Korea a Threat 
10 BBC: Crisis threatened nuclear weapons
11 washingtonpost.com: China Offers Glimpse of Rationale Behind Its Mil
12 Independent: Review of the year: Nuclear arms 
13 Telegraph: Year Britain nearly gave away the bomb
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
14 US: NRC: NRC Proposes $104,000 Fine Against Southern Nuclear for Vio
15 AU ABC: Potential nuclear power sites must be revealed, says Labor
16 AU ABC: Environment groups reject nuclear proposal
17 BBC: Howard backs nuclear power shift
18 US: KnoxNews: TVA chairman a quick study
19 Daily Yomiuri: Power firms struggling to generate public trust 
20 AFP: PM urges Australia to go nuclear 
21 Sofia Echo: NPP to fall prey to bulgaria's EU accession - 
22 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting Notice
23 NEWS.com.au: Nuclear power is 'safer than sharks' | 
24 US: NRC: STP Nuclear Operating Company, South Texas Project, Unit 1;
25 US: NRC: Technical Specification Improvement to Remove the Main Stea
26 AU ABC: PM promises swift action on nuclear report. 
27 NEWS.com.au: Support falls for nuclear power 
28 IAEA: 2006 Year in Review: A Diverse, Challenging Nuclear Agenda
29 AU: Courier-Mail: Howard pushes nuclear power 
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
30 US: Panel to mull guards at TMI
31 BBC: 'Dirty bomb' police numbers rise
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
32 US: Spectrum: Public to hear case for Divine Strake
33 Salt Lake Tribune: Stop the bomb: Divine Strake's threat is real
34 US: Ely Times: Program offers free medical screenings for downwinder
35 US: UPI: Feds remove cesium from New England site
36 US: Pahrump Valley Times: Divine Strake report available  
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
37 AU ABC: Beattie presses PM on nuclear waste plan
38 US: Japan Times: Uranium prices soar as nuclear power makes gains
39 Sydney Morning Herald: Feds must reveal nuke waste plans - Qld - 
40 US: Sydney Morning Herald: PM bets house on uranium - 
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
41 Tri-City Herald: Rail plans for depot lands put on hold 
42 UPI: Former nuclear site may become museum
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 RIA Novosti: Russia hopes Iran will act to restore trust in nuclear program
 
29/ 12/ 2006                                  

MOSCOW, December 29 (RIA Novosti) - Moscow expects Tehran to
take measures to restore international confidence in its nuclear
program, the Russian ambassador to the UN said Friday. 
On December 23, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a
resolution against Iran for refusing to suspend its nuclear
research program. The resolution stipulates that all countries
must stop supplying Iran with nuclear technology and materials
that could enable the Islamic Republic to proceed with its
suspected atomic weapons program. 

"We hope the Iranian leadership will properly assess the
situation and take concrete measures to implement Resolution
1737 in order to restore [international] trust in Iran's nuclear
program," Vitaly Churkin said. 

Churkin said Iran failed to fulfill the demands of the previous
Resolution 1696 to suspend uranium enrichment activities as a
condition for negotiations on a package of proposals offered to
Iran by six world powers (Russia, China, Britain, France, the
United States and Germany). 

Iran said then it would not halt its enrichment activities
because its nuclear research program was meant for peaceful
purposes and complied with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

The ambassador said that given such a response, the Security
Council had no choice but to draft a new resolution. 

The final, revised version prohibits all programs related to
nuclear weapons, but allows Iranian officials to travel abroad
and imposes no ban on international trade conducted by Iranian
companies. 

The resolution also bans all activities related to uranium
enrichment, chemical reprocessing, and the construction of
heavy-water reactors and nuclear weapons delivery vehicles. 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said earlier: "This
resolution maintains the economic interests of Russia and other
partners of Iran." 

He said all the contracts signed earlier would remain valid,
including a project to construct an $800 million light-water
reactor at the Bushehr nuclear power plant, and a contract on
deliveries of the Russian defense systems Tor-M1 and S-300. 

"The resolution contains a special provision that all contracts
signed by the time the resolution was adopted will remain in
force and will be implemented," he said. 

Churkin also said that under the resolution, any cooperation
with Iran not linked to prohibited activities could be
implemented. 

"This decision also leaves the door open to the resumption of
talks with Iran if Tehran fulfills relevant demands," the
diplomat said. 

© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 2 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: FM: UNSC should be venue for peace 

  2006/12/29   
  
Islamic Republic of Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki 
said on Thursday that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) 
should be a venue for peace making for nations and help thwart 
probable threats.
 
Mottaki made the remarks in a joint press conference with his
Afghan counterpart Rangin Dadfar Spanta in Kabul.
 
The United Nations Security Council is not a venue for threat,
limiting and trampling upon the legitimate rights of nations,
Mottaki pointed out.
 
Criticizing the anti-Iranian resolution issued by UNSC, he said
the issue was merely a political move.
 
UNSC decision on the case was quite illegal and outlawed, he
said.
 
It is about 36 years the Islamic Republic of Iran is NPT member
states which should enjoy the rights enshrined by NPT, he said.
 
IRI has fulfilled its commitments in the past and has always
abides by the NPT governing rules and IAEA regulations, he
underlined.
 
It is quite natural that we expect to enjoy our legitimate
rights stipulated by the treaty, he said.
 
"The UN nuclear agency declared that Iran has made no diversion
in national nuclear program and we are determined to protect our
rights," he said.
 
Mottaki deplored that the states possessing nuclear arms along
with two, three and four generations of missiles accuse others
of proliferation in the future.
 
"How the UNSC would deal with those possessing such weapons?,"
he questioned.
 
According to our religious beliefs, the Islamic Republic of Iran
has no need to proliferate nuclear weapons and actually IRI
believes that the era of nuclear weapons has gone, Mottaki said.
 
"If the nuclear weapons could prevent any collapse or triumph
therefore, why it did not help the Soviet Union survive. And
despite possessing nuclear arms, 'Israeli' regime experienced
bitter taste of defeat in its invasion of Lebanon
(July-August)," he asked.
 
"Some countries try to dictate their wishes on the international
community by hue and cry, he said adding that they have told us
that they know that we do not intend to proliferate nuclear
bombs, but, some are concerned that others might find access to
such technology."
 
Referring to the limited and depletable oil and gas reservoir,
he said, "We have no alternative except for making use of new
energy."
 
America signed a deal for production of nuclear energy with Iran
some 50 years ago, he said adding that but the country has
changed its attitude towards the issue.
 
"Not only the Islamic Republic of Iran but some countries such
as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf littoral states have
declared that they are determined to invest in the nuclear
energy sector," he said.
 
Access to nuclear energy is good for others but some assume that
IRI should be deprived of it, he said.
 
The Islamic Republic of Iran strongly declares that it pursues
civilian nuclear program, he pointed out.
 
"Our people are determined to produce nuclear energy for
civilian use to speed up national development," he said.
 
Within next two months the Iranian people and the world would
hear a pleasant news on new findings and progress of Iranian
scientists, said the Minister.
 
He expressed the hope that the foreign troops in Afghanistan
would leave the country which is essential for restoring peace
and security.
 
The Afghan Foreign Minister, for his part, said "We call for the
region to be free from nuclear weapons and believe that Iran's
peaceful nuclear program poses no threats to Afghanistan.
 
He added that IRI's nuclear dispute with the European states
should be resolved through negotiations.
 
He said IRI played significant role in reconstruction of
Afghanistan and that the Afghan government is keen on economic
cooperation with IRI.
 
Mottaki heading a political delegation, arrived here early
Thursday to review issues of mutual interest with senior Afghan
officials.
 
Upon arrival at the Kabul International Airport, Mottaki and his
entourage were welcomed by a group of officials from Afghan
Foreign Ministry.
 
During his two-day stay, Mottaki is to meet President Hamed
Karzai and several other Afghan officials.
 
Expansion of Tehran-Kabul political, economic and cultural
relations will top the agenda of his talks with Afghan officials.
 
Several Foreign Ministry officials and a Majlis deputy are
accompanying Mottaki in his Kabul visit.
 
M/D   

  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir
*****************************************************************
 3 UPI: Russia urges Iran to act moderate
     
 United Press International - Security &Terrorism - 

12/29/2006 1:53:00 PM -0500

UNITED NATIONS, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- Russia's United Nations envoy
Friday urged Iran to abide by a U.N. Security Council resolution
and halt its illegal uranium enrichment program. 

"We hope the Iranian leadership will properly assess the
situation and take concrete measures to implement Resolution
1737 in order to restore trust in Iran's nuclear program,"
Russian U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said, according to the
RIA Novosti news agency. 

U.N. Security Council Resolution 1737 was passed unanimously on
Dec. 23, instituting sanctions against Tehran on nuclear
technology and other materials that might help its suspected
atomic weapons program. 

Churkin said Iran had earlier failed to fulfill the demands of a
previous Security Council resolution, calling on it to suspend
uranium enrichment as a condition for negotiations on a package
of proposals offered by six world powers: Russia, China,
Britain, France, the United States and Germany, RIA Novosti
said. 

Iran responded by announcing it would not suspend its efforts to
enrich uranium as its nuclear program did not contradict the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

The Dec. 23 U.N. resolution incorporates Russia's insistence
that Iranian officials should not be prohibited from
international travel and that economic sanctions should not be
imposed upon Iranian companies. 

"The resolution also bans all activities related to uranium
enrichment, chemical reprocessing, and the construction of
heavy-water reactors and nuclear weapons delivery vehicles," RIA
Novosti said. 

However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said earlier
this week that all Iranian contracts with Russian companies
would remain in effect, including the construction of the
controversial $800 million light-water nuclear reactor at
Bushehr, and a contract to sell Russia's state-of-the-art Tor-M1
and S-300 anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic missile systems to
Iran.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 4 Korea Herald: White Paper defines N.K. as 'grave threat'   
        
The Defense Ministry's new White Paper yesterday defined North
Korea as "grave threat" to the security of South Korea, citing
the North's increasing efforts to reinforce its arsenal of
weapons of mass destruction.

 The "Defense White Paper 2006" also cited Dokdo as one of the
military's prime areas of responsibility in the territorial
protection of Korea in response to Japan's recently renewed
claims to the rocky islands in the East Sea.

 The labeling of "grave threat" is an elevation in the level of
threat compared to the 2004 document, said a senior official at
the Defense Ministry.

 In 2004, the ministry assessed the North's military capability
as a "direct military threat."

 "It's an upgrade in the threat level because the term 'direct
threat' is applied to the case of a direct, but less serious
threat," the official told reporters, highlighting the main
contents of the biennial report. 

North Korea detonated a nuclear device in October this year,
ringing security alarms in the region and the United States.

 The latest edition of the Defense White Paper maintain the
deletion of a clause referring to the main enemy that was
contained in the issues published before the 2004 edition. The
deletion was denounced by critics, chiefly from conservative,
anti-communist circles, who viewed it as the government's
"unscrupulous attitude" toward the North Korean threat.

 The Defense Ministry said it published several thousand copies
of the 2006 edition, the second of its kind published by the
incumbent administration. 

In the 2006 edition, Pyongyang's conventional forces, nuclear
test, weapons of mass destruction and forward deployment of
forces were enumerated as sources of serious threats to South
Korea's security.

 The paper said North Korea is believed to have manufactured one
or two atomic bombs from 10-14 kilograms of plutonium obtained
before the 1994 Agreed Framework. It is also presumed that the
North extracted an additional 30 kilograms of plutonium between
2003 and 2005.

 However, the ministry said it rejects granting North Korea the
status of nuclear-armed country despite its atomic test. 

The latest edition also estimated the communist country
possesses 2,500-5,000 tons of chemical weapons as well as an
unknown number of biological weapons such as anthrax and
smallpox. 

The defense document said North Korea deploys 70 percent of its
ground forces near the border with South Korea to enable sudden
raids without redeployment. The North's ground forces comprise
19 corps-level units including four mechanized corps and a
missile command. The communist regime has increased the number
of multiple-launch artillery vehicles by 200, it said. 

The paper also said the North possess 420 warships, 60
submarines and 260 amphibious landing ships. Around 60 percent
of the naval forces are deployed near the inter-Korean border
while 40 percent of its 820 aircraft are stationed in frontline
air bases.

 (davidpooh@heraldm.com)

By Jin Dae-woong

2006.12.30
*****************************************************************
 5 RIA Novosti: Russia set to develop ties with North Korea despite nuke problem
 
29/ 12/ 2006                                  

MOSCOW, December 29 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will work to develop
relations with North Korea despite the international crisis set
off by Pyongyang's nuclear test in October, the newly appointed
Russian ambassador to the secretive Communist regime said Friday.

 "Our goal is to develop and deepen these [Russian-North Korean]
relations, despite the current situation," said Valery Sukhinin,
adding that Russia and North Korea have traditionally enjoyed
friendly ties.

 Sukhinin, who spent 17 years in North Korea, including as a
student at Pyongyang university, said the resolution of the
Korean Peninsula's nuclear crisis remains a common task for all
participants of the six-party talks, which comprise Russia,
China, Japan, the two Koreas and the United States.

 In September 2005, North Korea signed a "joint statement"
committing itself to abandoning its nuclear program in exchange
for aid and security guarantees. But the country boycotted the
six-party talks two months later following Washington's
financial sanctions. Since then, North Korea has conducted its
first nuclear test and tested ballistic missiles.

 The talks, which were initially launched in 2003 to persuade
Pyongyang to give up its nuclear ambitions, resumed December 18
following a 13-month standoff, but ended without result December
22. 

Pyongyang has demanded that sanctions be lifted, and has also
insisted on international recognition of its status as a nuclear
power. 

A symbolic ceremony wrapped up the negotiations last Friday, at
which participants made a joint statement reiterating the
commitment of the six nations to further negotiations in the
same format. 

"We believe that this problem [the North Korean nuclear crisis]
should be resolved on the basis of the September 2005 joint
statement, and we are focusing our efforts in that direction,"
Sukhinin said.

 Addressing bilateral relations, the Russian ambassador, who
plans to begin work in his new capacity in January 2007, said
that economic cooperation between the two countries should be
raised to a higher level following the settlement of North
Korea's $8 billion debt to Russia, as the legitimate successor
to the former Soviet Union.

 "To develop our cooperation, we must settle [North Korea's]
debt for former loans," the Russian diplomat said.

 "I have close ties with this country [North Korea], and I will
do my best to make my own contribution to the development of
bilateral relations," Sukhinin said.

© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 6 BBC: N Korea 'serious threat' to South
 
Last Updated: Friday, 29 December 2006
 
[South Korean troops patrol the border in Hwacheon on
21 December 2006]

Mistrust between the two sides has grown in recent months                                                                

South Korea has described its northern neighbour as a "serious 
threat", in the wake of its nuclear test in October. 

A defence white paper said North Korea's nuclear capability along 
with its land army and conventional weapons had raised the threat 
to the South. 

The assessment uses the strongest wording since Seoul began a 
policy of engaging with Pyongyang in 2000. 

Talks aimed at dismantling North Korea's nuclear programme ended 
in deadlock in Beijing earlier this month. 

In its biennial white paper, South Korea's ministry of defence 
said the threat from the North had risen, although the country 
was not yet a full-fledged nuclear power. 

"North Korea's conventional forces, its nuclear test, weapons of 
mass destruction and the forward deployment of troops are a 
serious threat to our security," the report said. 

The North had obtained an estimated 30kg of plutonium - enough 
for five nuclear bombs - in the past three years, while its total 
stockpile now stood at 50kg, the paper said. 

N KOREA NUCLEAR PROGRAMME                
[map]           

Believed t have 'handful' of nuclear weapons But not thought to 
have any small enough to put in a missile Could try dropping from 
plane, though world watching closely

More than 70% of the North's ground troops and some 40% of its 
820 fighter jets were deployed close to its southern border, it 
added. 

Two years ago, the defence ministry called the North a "direct 
military threat". 

North Korea triggered international alarm - and ensuing UN 
sanctions - as well as stoking regional tensions when it tested a 
nuclear weapon on 9 October. 

Following its test, Pyongyang agreed to return to long-running 
multi-national talks, after walking out more than a year ago. 

But despite five days of intense negotiations, the talks, hosted 
by China, ended without agreement just before Christmas. 
*****************************************************************
 7 Korea Times: North Can Make 6-7 Nuke Bombs 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times   

By Jung Sung-ki Staff Reporter

 North Korea's strengthened nuclear and conventional weapons
capabilities are posing a ``grave threat'' to security in
Northeast Asia as well as on the Korean Peninsula, according to
the 2006 Defense White Paper published Friday. 

The biennial report, however, failed to label North Korea as the
country's ``main enemy,'' reflecting Seoul's continued efforts
to warm up its relations with the communist regime. 

``Considering the seriousness of threats from (North Korea's)
nuclear test and weapons of mass destruction, the government
described the North's military strength as a grave threat in
this year's edition,'' Maj. Gen. Jung Seung-jo of the Defense
Ministry's policy planning bureau said in a briefing. 

The report said Pyongyang may possess some 40 to 50kg of
plutonium, enough to make six to seven nuclear bombs. It said
the communist regime seemed to have obtained an additional 30kg
of plutonium between 2003 and 2005 by reprocessing spent fuel
rods at nuclear facilities in Yongbyon. 

Pyongyang is believed to have produced one or two nuclear
weapons with about 10 to 14kg of weapons-grade plutonium that it
extracted before expelling nuclear inspectors of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in May 1992. 

The report, however, did not describe the North as a
full-fledged nuclear power. 

The North's nuclear test in October posed new threats to the
South, but the threats were not as serious as those from a
nuclear state, said Jung. 

``The government sees the test as a partial success,'' he said.
``We believe (the device used in the test) is less powerful than
a normal nuclear weapon and little more powerful than a
conventional nuclear bomb.'' 

The paper indicated that North Korea increased the number of
multiple rocket launchers (MLR) with a range of 20 kilometers
and river-crossing equipment, such as S-type floating bridges. 

North Korea has deployed approximately 70 percent of its ground
forces south of the Pyongyang-Wonsan line to wage a surprise
attack without the need for any redeployment in case of an
emergency, it said. 

The North's ground forces comprise 19 corps-level units
including nine regular corps, four mechanized corps, one tank
corps, one artillery corps, the Pyongyang Defense Command and
the Light Infantry Instruction Guidance Bureau. 

Pyongyang has about 3,700 tanks, 2,100 armored vehicles, 4,800
MLRs, 8,500 (170mm) self-propelled artillery pieces, and 3,100
pieces of river-crossing equipment such as the S-type floating
bridges, the paper said. 

The North's air and naval capabilities, however, have decreased
a little because of the decommissioning of aging weapons
systems, it added. The North lost about 30 combat aircraft,
including five through crashes, and 170 war vessels, which have
become patrol ships. 

The North Korean Navy consists of two fleet commands in the East
and West Seas as well as 12 squadrons and two maritime sniper
brigades under the control of the Navy Command. Currently, about
60 percent of the North's warships and submarines remain
deployed in forward bases, according to the paper. 

The North's Navy has about 60 submarines, 420 surface ships, 260
landing vessels and 60 others. 

The North Korean Air Force has deployed about 40 percent of its
820 fighters in forward bases, the paper said. It has 30 bombers
and surveillance aircraft and 510 support aircraft, including
AN-2s, and 310 helicopters. 

Besides the development of medium and long-range missiles,
including the Taepodong-2 ballistic missile capable of reaching
Alaska, Pyongyang is believed to have approximately 2,500 to
5,000 tons of toxic agents such as nerve, blister, blood and
vomiting agents as well as tear gas. 

The North is suspected of being able to independently cultivate
and produce such biological weapons as the bacteria of anthrax,
smallpox and cholera, it said. 

An English version of the 2006 edition will be published in
March next year, ministry officials said. A complete version of
the paper is available on the minstry's Web site (www.mnd.go.kr) 

gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr12-29-2006 17:43         
*****************************************************************
 8 UPI: Russia still wants to woo North Korea
     
 United Press International - Security &Terrorism - 

        12/29/2006 1:15:00 PM -0500

MOSCOW, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- Russia is determined to strengthen its
ties with North Korea despite the reclusive Asian dictatorship's
illegal nuclear program. 

"Our goal is to develop and deepen these (Russian-North Korean)
relations, despite the current situation," Valery Sukhinin,
Russia's newly appointed ambassador to North Korea, said Friday
according to a report carried by the RIA Novosti news agency. 

RIA Novosti described Sukhinin as an expert on North Korea who
had already spent 17 years there, including time studying at
Pyongyang University. 

According to the agency, Sukhinin said Russia and North Korea
had historically been friends. He said "the resolution of the
Korean Peninsula's nuclear crisis remains a common task for all
participants of the six-party talks, which comprise Russia,
China, Japan, the two Koreas and the United States." 

In September 2005, North Korea agreed to scrap its nuclear
program in return for international aid and security guarantees.
However, it has continued to develop ballistic missiles and in
October carried out its first underground nuclear test. 

"We believe that this problem should be resolved on the basis of
the September 2005 joint statement, and we are focusing our
efforts in that direction," Sukhinin said. 

RIA Novosti said Sukhinin intends to start his tour as
ambassador in January. 

Sukhinin believes that economic relations between Russia and
North Korea should be improved once North Korea pays back to
Russia the $8 billion debt it borrowed from the former Soviet
Union, the Russian news agency said.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 9 Guardian Unlimited: S. Korea Report Calls N. Korea a Threat 

From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Friday December 29, 2006 2:46 PM

AP Photo SEL802 

By KWANG-TAE KIM 

Associated Press Writer 

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - South Korea's Defense Ministry said
North Korea is believed to have about 110 pounds of plutonium,
enough to produce up to seven nuclear weapons. 

In its biennial defense report, released Friday, the ministry
also said the North is believed to be capable of producing
biological weapons, including anthrax weapons, and possesses up
to 5,000 tons of toxic agents. 

The report described North Korea ``as a serious threat,
considering the serious nature of its nuclear test and threat of
weapons of mass destruction,'' the ministry said in a statement. 

North Korea stoked regional tensions in October when it
conducted its first nuclear test, drawing U.N. sanctions and
global condemnation. 

Last year North Korea pledged to dismantle its nuclear program
in exchange for security guarantees and aid. No progress has
been made in implementing the agreement because of North Korea's
objections to U.S. financial restrictions imposed on the
communist regime for its alleged money laundering and
counterfeiting. 

During nuclear talks last week, North Korea continued to insist
that the U.S. lift the sanctions before it would move ahead on
dismantling its nuclear program. 

The report said North Korea has the capability to launch a
surprise attack on South Korea without repositioning its troops
because it deploys about 70 percent of its ground forces south
of the capital, Pyongyang. 

North Korea ``is consistently preparing for war for a long
period and is likely to keep this military policy in the
future,'' the report said. 

North Korea often accuses South Korea of conspiring with the
U.S. to attack it, an accusation denied by Washington. 

South Korea is trying to strengthen its defense capability as it
prepares to regain wartime operational control of its forces,
which have been under the command of U.S.-led U.N. forces since
the 1950-53 Korean War. 

Seoul regained peacetime control of its troops in 1994, but the
U.S. is still supposed to control South Korean forces if a war
breaks out. South Korea and the U.S. agreed in October that
Seoul will retake control of its troops sometime between 2009
and 2012. 

South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, who has pursued a foreign
policy that is less dependent on Washington, called for the
transfer of command, saying the move is long overdue. 

About 29,500 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea as a
deterrent against the North. The presence of the troops is a
legacy of the Korean War, which ended in a cease-fire rather
than a peace treaty. 	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 10 BBC: Crisis threatened nuclear weapons
 
Last Updated: Friday, 29 December 2006
 
1976 government papers

By Dominic Casciani BBC News   

[Polaris nuclear missile]                               

Polaris: Very expensive when belt tightening was needed                                                               

Britain's mid-1970s economic crisis was so bad that it could have 
led to the loss of its nuclear weapons system in a "siege 
economy", papers reveal. 

Documents show civil servants warned the UK may have to give up 
its Polaris missiles to economically survive 1976. 

Jim Callaghan's Labour government was forced to turn to the 
International Monetary Fund to prop up the country. 

The hugely controversial IMF deal saved the pound - but destroyed 
Labour's economic reputation with voters. 

Jim Callaghan moved into 10 Downing Street in 1976, and was 
immediately told the economy was facing huge problems, according 
to documents just released at the National Archives. 

The world's financial markets were losing confidence in Sterling 
as the British economy stumbled. The Treasury could not balance 
the books. At the same time, Labour's strategy emphasised high 
public spending which it appeared could no longer be paid for. 

Fear of falling 

Callaghan was told there were three possible outcomes: a 
disastrous freefall in Sterling, an internationally unacceptable 
siege economy or a deal with key allies to prop up the pound 
while painful economic reforms were put in place. 

[Henry Kissinger]                                                      

A further defence reductions would weaken Britain's influence as 
a Nato ally, with important implications for future European 
stability Henry Kissinger to UK, a year before IMF crisis         

By the autumn, the pound was indeed plunging and the government 
called in the International Monetary Fund, the body co-founded by 
the UK to tackle economic crises. 

The IMF demanded massive public spending cuts in return for 
urgently needed loans. 

But many Cabinet members were unconvinced, fearing a complete 
collapse of industry. Indeed, the documents reveal substantial 
scepticism over the accuracy of the Treasury's own predictions of 
dire consequences. 

Jim Callaghan was walking a political and economic tightrope. 

Papers in the National Archives show cabinet meetings in which 
Callaghan passed his own scribbled notes to officials and back 
again as he tried to reach consensus among party colleagues, 
while also adhering to the IMF's demands. 

But while he was scrambling to convince both his Cabinet and the 
wider Labour Party, the prime minister also knew there were far 
larger issues at stake. 
                                                        [Lord 
Callaghan at a political conference in 1979] Jim Callaghan: 
Battled to keep Cabinet together                                                                 
                                 
Were Britain's economy to collapse, defence spending would be the 
first major target for cuts from left-wing Labour ministers. 

Above all else, Washington and other Nato allies feared the UK 
would become a siege economy and fatally undermine the entire 
Cold War strategy. 

Almost a full year before Sterling plummeted, the then US 
Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, cabled London, foreseeing 
Washington's nightmare scenario. 

"Any further defence reductions would weaken Britain's influence 
as a Nato ally, with important implications for future European 
stability," Kissinger wrote. 

"I am sure you are aware that America's long-term relations with 
the UK will inevitably have to take into account Britain's 
standing as a partner in our common security enterprise." 

Nuclear option 

On 5 December, as talks with the IMF neared collapse, the then 
Cabinet Secretary Sir John Hunt passed a highly confidential 
briefing paper to Jim Callaghan on the implications of cutting 
military spending. 

Sir John warned that withdrawing the British Army's massive 
presence in West Germany was politically and diplomatically 
unacceptable. The 56,000-strong British Army of the Rhine (Baor) 
was a key plank of Cold War strategy, he said. But scrapping 
nuclear missiles, was potentially palatable. 

"Abandoning the [nuclear] deterrent, or at least scrapping its 
improvement, would cause much less concern to our allies," wrote 
Sir John. 

"It would leave France as the only nuclear power in Europe, which 
would be unwelcome to most members of the alliance: and it would 
be seen as proof of Britain's definitive disappearance as a major 
military power. 

"But it would be preferred by all our partners to a withdrawal of 
Baor." 

Telephone lobbying 

The papers show the prime minister placed a great deal of faith 
in US President Gerald Ford to broker a deal. 

Downing St in 1979]                           

Margaret Thatcher: Economic trust passed to Conservatives                                                          

Callaghan candidly told the president, who was due to leave 
office in weeks, that there was "not a cat in hell's chance" of 
the party agreeing to "the full severity" of the IMF's proposed 
cuts. 

Without warm words from Washington, the Cabinet's waverers were 
likely to support the measures the US feared most. 

"If we go for what the IMF are demanding [Cabinet waverers] will 
swing over to the [left-wing] group that is asking for all the 
restrictions because they will see no hope for the economy or for 
the government in any alternative course," Callaghan told Ford. 

"The question is Gerry, [who] is going to be out of office first, 
you or me?" 

Gerald Ford said little in return. But Jim Callaghan did 
eventually win Cabinet backing for a painful IMF deal and the 
proposal to drop the nuclear deterrent never went further than 
the papers on his desk. 

Many historians regard Callaghan's handling of the crisis as an 
example of consensual Cabinet government at its most effective - 
his prevention of ministerial resignations was a huge personal 
political achievement. 

But the price he paid was high. The Labour Party was unravelling 
into camps of social democrats and left-wingers. Those bitter 
rows inside the party and with the unions, combined with a loss 
of public confidence over the coming 18 months, led ultimately to 
Margaret Thatcher's 1979 Conservative victory. 
*****************************************************************
 11 washingtonpost.com: China Offers Glimpse of Rationale Behind Its Military Policies -
                    
By Edward CodyWashington Post Foreign Service

 Saturday, December 30, 2006; Page A17
 
BEIJING, Dec. 29 -- Chinawarned Friday that the military 
landscape in northeast Asia is getting "more complicated and 
serious" because of North Korea'snuclear weapons program and 
tighter defense cooperation between Japanand the United States.

The Chinese views on regional security, articulated in a 
government white paper on national defense, provided a rare 
glimpse into the strategic assessments that underlie decisions 
and priorities of the secretive Chinese military and the 
Communist Party's policymaking Central Military Commission.

In part, the paper was designed as a response to repeated 
complaints from the Bush administration that China has not 
explained the rationale behind its long-term military improvement 
program. China's announced military budget has risen about 10 
percent a year recently, reaching $35.4 billion in 2006, and 
Pentagon specialists estimate that also counting equipment 
expenditures would more than double it.

Along with Taiwan's pursuit of independence, the government 
pointed out as particular security challenges North Korea's 
missile tests last summer and its maiden nuclear test in October, 
which undermined Chinese-led diplomatic efforts to create a 
nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. The most recent round of nuclear 
negotiations took place last week and ended in stalemate, 
creating doubts about the utility of continuing the 
three-year-old six-nation talks.

In listing Chinese concerns, the white paper also cited a 
U.S.-Japanese effort to build a regional missile defense shield 
based on U.S. ships equipped with the Aegis radar system and a 
U.S.-Japanese missile now being developed. The joint defense 
system, portrayed as protection against a North Korean attack, 
has been criticized by Chinese officials and commentators because 
it also could blunt China's missile threat in the event of 
U.S.-Chinese hostilities over Taiwan.

Chinese officials have expressed concern that Taiwan could 
eventually be integrated into the U.S.-Japanese system, providing 
a counterweight to China's increasing missile threat against the 
self-ruled island. That fear was not explicitly conveyed in the 
white paper, but Japan's growing willingness to assert itself 
militarily was cited as a strategic concern for military planners 
in Beijing.

"America and Japan are strengthening their military alliance in 
pursuit of operational integration, and Japan seeks to modify its 
peace constitution and exercise collective self-defense," the 
paper said. "North Korea launched missiles and had a nuclear 
test. The situation in the Korean Peninsula and northeast Asia is 
getting more and more complicated and serious."

The paper said China's military improvements are part of the 
country's overall modernization and economic expansion. The 
effort will continue apace, it added, seeking to "lay a solid 
foundation" by 2010, make "major progress" by 2020 and "reach the 
strategic goal of building informationized armed forces and being 
capable of winning informationized wars by the mid-21st century."

Moving from infantry to high-tech naval and aerial warfare has 
been a major goal of China's military modernization. It has 
entailed the shedding of thousands of untrained foot soldiers and 
a concerted effort to replace them with trained technicians able 
to function in the world of computerized weaponry.

The white paper said, for instance, that the army's relative 
strength in the Chinese military has dropped by 1.5 percent, 
while that of the navy, air force and Second Artillery Force -- 
China's missile and nuclear corps -- rose by 3.8 percent. Overall 
military strength has fallen by 1.7 million troops since 1985 and 
is estimated to stand at 2.3 million, still the world's largest 
force.

The People's Liberation Army "has made new progress toward the 
goal of being proper in size, optimal in structure, streamlined 
in organization, swift and flexible in command and powerful in 
fighting capacity," the paper boasted.

But it provided no details on the new ships, warplanes, missiles, 
submarines and computer systems that, according to U.S. 
officials, have increased China's lethal power in the region and 
made any confrontation over Taiwan a riskier proposition for the 
United States than it would have been a decade ago.

As it has before, the government warned that any step by Taiwan's 
President Chen Shui-bian to move toward formal independence by 
changing the territory's constitution would be a "grave threat" 
to peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, suggesting it 
could trigger military intervention. President Hu Jintao, who as 
head of the Central Military Commission is commander in chief of 
the armed forces, has told visitors he has no plans to attack 
Taiwan but would have to act if the island took a decisive step 
toward formal independence.

 Copyright 1996- The Washington Post Company 
*****************************************************************
 12 Independent: Review of the year: Nuclear arms 

Consensus that's gone critical 

By Mary Dejevsky Published: 29 December 2006 

It was 2005 that was supposed to be the crucial year for nuclear
non-proliferation. The fear was that the five-yearly conference
to review the operation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) would founder amid recriminations, and that the
35-year-old treaty regime would, in effect, be dead. In the
event, the review at the UN came and went. It achieved little,
but did not collapse. A year that promised drama ended
peacefully. 

The same can't be said of 2006, when an event long feared
happened: on 9 October, North Korea exploded a nuclear device.
The precise force has not been established. Nor is North Korea
yet capable, most experts believe, of making and firing a
missile to deliver a warhead with any accuracy. 

Iran spent the year fending off threats and inducements to
abandon its uranium enrichment programme. Whether the purpose of
Iran's programme is limited to the production of nuclear energy,
or whether it is designed to give Iran at least the option of
developing a weapon, remains unclear. But Iran feels demeaned by
US-led efforts to curb its programme and is intent on exercising
its rights to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. 

Iran has exposed the difficulties of enforcing the NPT. Its one
offence, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, is
not to have been sufficiently transparent. Iran's view is that
it is judged by a different standard from other NPT signatories
because it is an Islamic state. It is threatened with UN
sanctions, but such sanctions look likely to be weak. 

The example of Iran highlights the inconsistencies in the way
the non-proliferation regime is - or is not - enforced. The UN,
under US influence, has required that it meet a higher standard
of compliance to develop civilian nuclear power than others.
North Korea left the NPT to pursue its ambitions unhindered, and
Iran could threaten to follow. It can point to India and
Pakistan; both remained outside the NPT regime and conducted
their first nuclear tests in 1998. 

This politicised confusion has been cited as proof that the NPT
regime is out of date. Events near the end of the year
reinforced this. Tony Blair announced that the Government
intended to replace its four nuclear submarines as the first
stage of updating its Trident missile system. Then the Israeli
Prime Minister, in remarks he later retracted, seemed to reveal
that Israel possesses a nuclear weapons capacity. Israel has not
signed up to the NPT. 

One consolation seemed to be that a nuclear weapons capability
was still restricted to state actors. This came to grief with
the death of the former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko in a
London hospital. Doctors gave the cause of death as poisoning by
the radioactive element, polonium-210. The assumption was that
this had somehow been obtained from Russia. It raised the
long-feared spectre of nuclear material in the hands of
non-state actors. 

This has, then, been the year that exposed the inadequacies of
the NPT. But that might be too pessimistic. North Korea agreed
to return to talks almost immediately after its test. There is
no evidence that Iran, for all its bombast, has embarked on a
weapons programme, or intends to. So 2006 pushed the bounds of
the NPT, but the treaty remained in place. Its robustness
suggests that there is time to revise it to match the challenges
that await. 

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited 
*****************************************************************
 13 Telegraph: Year Britain nearly gave away the bomb
 
  [telegraph.co.uk]

By Ben Fenton and Peter Day

Last Updated: 1:28am GMT 30/12/2006

Blog: Freedom to conceal Information

James Callaghan was prepared to abandon Britain's nuclear bomb
in return for a loan from the International Monetary Fund to
rescue the country from its worst post-war economic crisis.


[James Callaghan] James Callaghan in 1976
                                
The then prime minister and Denis Healey, the chancellor, were
desperately trying to shore up British credibility abroad,
especially in America, when they learned that one of Margaret
Thatcher's team was in Washington trying to scupper their plans.

Papers from No 10 released today show just how desperate the
situation was in December 1976 when IMF inspectors were in
London demanding swingeing cuts in public spending. Otherwise,
they said, Britain would not get the £2.3 billion loan it needed
to stop the economy going into freefall.

Mr Callaghan warned his closest allies, Gerald Ford, the US
president and Helmut Schmidt, the West German leader, that
"social cohesion" would be at risk if the deal failed to work,
with the country dangerously divided between extremes of Left
and Right.

He also told them that Britain would no longer be able to play
its part as a Nato ally in securing western Europe against
invasion by Soviet armies.

But what he did not say, and what the 1976 papers make clear, is
that he had been told by his most senior civil servant that
meeting IMF demands would probably mean giving up Britain's
status as a nuclear power.

Sir John Hunt, the cabinet secretary, said in a memo of which
only three copies were made that there were only two ways to
achieve the £100 million needed in defence cuts: abandoning the
bomb or the upgrading of it, or making huge cuts in the
55,000-strong British Army of the Rhine [BAOR].

Sir John said: "It is very unlikely that any other country would
agree to replace our troops: and the process of unravelling Nato
would have begun."

He said it was "preferable" to consider leaving the "nuclear
club". He added: "It would leave France as the only nuclear
power in Europe, which would be unwelcome to most members of the
alliance: and it would be seen as a proof of Britain's
definitive disappearance as a major military power.

"But it would be preferred by our partners to a withdrawal of
BAOR."

On Nov 12, Mr Callaghan had warned the US of military cuts if it
did not help shore up the pound, which had dropped by 50 cents
against the dollar in six months and threatened to increase
inflation and wreck Labour's fragile deals with union leaders to
restrain pay demands.

A few days earlier, in scrambled call, Mr Schmidt told him that
Sir Keith Joseph, the policy guru of Mrs Thatcher, the new
leader of the Opposition, had been working against Labour's
diplomacy in America.

"Are you aware that Mr Keith Joseph is trying to influence
people in Washington against you?" he asked. "I am told that he
has established very good contacts in every quarter in
Washington, and bears some influence there."

Among the files on the IMF crisis is a brown envelope marked
"never to be destroyed" which holds the scribbled notes of Mr
Callaghan from the Cabinet meetings when he had to sell the IMF
deal to reluctant comrades.

They show how he countered Michael Foot, Tony Benn and Peter
Shore, who represented the Left and were pressing for an
alternative policy of protectionist import restrictions, tax
rises and job creation schemes.

His notes included the phrase "no debate on alternative
strategy", showing how keen he was to stage-manage the Left out
of the argument.

In the end, on Dec 2, a deal was agreed by a majority in
Cabinet. Defence was cut by £100 million but Mr Callaghan seems
to have called the bluff of Sir John because neither the nuclear
bomb nor the BAOR was lost.

Such fraught days were the last scenario expected by Harold
Wilson when he surprisingly resigned as prime minister in March
that year.

Mr Wilson told colleagues that whoever succeeded him would have
a relatively easy time because he was leaving the ship of state
on a steady course.

In his address to the Cabinet, Mr Wilson said that
counter-inflation tactics were working, exports were rising, and
deficits on the import-export balance of payments were coming
down.

He added: "We inherited a dangerously distorted and unbalance
economy. We are beginning to get it right."

To his successor, he offered this reflection on the job on
offer: "This is an office to cherish; stimulating and
satisfying. You will never have a dull moment; you will not get
bored."

If Mr Wilson had a high opinion of his stewardship, it was
nothing to what Idi Amin thought of him.

In an unctuous message to the departing prime minister, the
Ugandan dictator, not known for his admiration of British
leaders, wrote: "I wish to congratulate you for your brilliant
leadership and great wisdom in guiding your country through a
very difficult period economically and politically."  

You are here: telegraph.co.uk > News > 

 © Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2006. 
*****************************************************************
 14 NRC: NRC Proposes $104,000 Fine Against Southern Nuclear for Violation at Hatch Nuclear
                              Plant
News Release - Region II - 2006-04 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region II No. II-06-046                         
December 29, 2006 CONTACT:     Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. 
Hannah (404) 562-4417     E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov  
  

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has cited Southern Nuclear
Operating Company, Inc., for a violation of NRC requirements
associated with small pieces of irradiated fuel rods that could
not be accounted for at the Hatch nuclear power plant near
Baxley in south Georgia. The NRC has proposed a $104,000 civil
penalty for the violation. 

An NRC inspection completed in August 2006 found that Southern
Nuclear was unable to account for about 18 inches of spent fuel
fragments in the spent fuel pool at the Hatch plant. Because of
extensive radiological and security measures in place, NRC
officials said it is highly unlikely that the material is in an
uncontrolled location or that it poses any risk to the public.
The high radiation level of the material would have made theft
or diversion difficult, dangerous and highly unlikely. 

NRC officials say Southern Nuclear failed to keep records and
implement adequate procedures for tracking the spent fuel
segments from November 1981 until the companys records review in
2004 and physical inventory in 2005, and those discrepancies
resulted in the violation. 

In a letter to the company, NRC Region II Administrator William
D. Travers indicated that the agency believed the company had
sufficient opportunity to identify the issue before it did. 

In early December, Southern Nuclear provided a written response
accepting the apparent NRC violation, including additional
information on corrective actions already taken and planned to
prevent recurrence. Based on the August 2006 NRC inspection and
the additional information provided, the NRC staff has concluded
that Southern Nuclear has taken appropriate corrective actions. 

Southern Nuclear has 30 days to either pay the civil penalty or
protest its imposition.   
  
-----------------------------------------------------------------


NRC news releases are available through a free list serve
subscription at the following Web address:
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC
homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail
notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are
posted to NRC's Web site.   



  


 	 Last revised Friday, December 29, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 15 AU ABC: Potential nuclear power sites must be revealed, says Labor
 
ABC Northern Territory | Local News | Story 
 Friday, 29 December 2006. 18:12 (AEDT)Friday, 29 December 2006.

The Prime Minister has released the final report of a national 
review into uranium and nuclear energy. (File photo)ABC TV 

Labor leader Kevin Rudd says the Prime Minister must identify 
where nuclear power plants would be built if Australia were to go 
down the path of nuclear energy. 

John Howard has released the final report of the Government's 
review into nuclear energy, uranium mining and processing. 

The report has found nuclear power is part of the solution to 
Australia's future energy needs and the challenge of climate 
change. 

Mr Howard expects, over time, Australians will come to accept 
nuclear power. 

"They will understand that nuclear power is clean and green," he 
said. 

Mr Howard says he would have no problem with living next door to 
a nuclear power plant. 

But Mr Rudd has questioned both the safety and cost of nuclear
power and the location of future reactors. 

"The key question is this, Mr Howard is now talking about 25
nuclear reactors for the country," he said. 

"He has to answer the question about where are they going to go
and we know from previous scientific reports that a large number
of them would have to go near the coastline." 

He is also adamant there would be no reactors built under a
Labor government. 

"We need to make renewable energies part and parcel of our
future," he said. 

It is a position backed by both the Greens and environment
groups. 

The Northern Territory Government has expressed its concerns
over where waste created by a nuclear power industry in
Australia would be stored. 

The Territory's Chief Minister Clare Martin says she is fearful
scientific research of nuclear waste will be ignored and the
Territory will be turned into a waste dumping ground. 

"We've been chosen for the site of a nuclear waste dump because
the Prime Minister can choose a site in the Territory," she
said. 

Ms Martin says uranium mining is only one of a number of energy
options Australia should consider. 

She would also like to see an increase in natural gas and solar
power production. 

Meanwhile, Victorian Premier Steve Bracks has accused Mr Howard
of taking the energy debate in the wrong direction. 

Mr Bracks wants the Federal Government to invest more in
renewable technology instead. 

He says nuclear energy would be an economic and environment
disaster for Victoria. 

"The reality of nuclear power generation is, one, we don't have
a sound or secure source to store radioactive waste," he said. 

"Secondly, of course we know it's enormously expensive -
something like a 50 per cent increase in power prices around the
country would be required to make it even viable." 

Also, South Australian Premier Mike Rann says a nuclear power
plant in his state would not be viable. 

"We are making a lot of money as a state and employing a lot of
people in uranium mining, but that doesn't mean to say that we
should move to build a nuclear power station here," he said. 

"If it's going to be financially irresponsible, economically
unviable - that would be daft." 

Western Australia's Acting Premier Eric Ripper also says his
Government is standing firm and will not accept uranium mining
or nuclear power in the state. 
Related Video
 
Uranium mining expansion given green light
 
The Prime Minister, John Howard, has asked the states to end
bans on uranium mining and exploration, following the release of
a nuclear taskforce report into uranium mining, processing and
nuclear energy.

*****************************************************************
 16 AU ABC: Environment groups reject nuclear proposal
 
ABC Queensland | Local News | Story 

 Saturday, 30 December 2006. 08:09 (AEDT)Saturday, 30 December

 Environment groups in Alice Springs say the Prime Minister's
support for nuclear energy will be met with opposition from the
Northern Territory. 

Prime Minister John Howard says Australians will come to accept
nuclear power as a source of clean, green energy. 

But Arid Lands Environment centre spokeswoman Nat Wasley says
there is currently no facility in the world to store high-level
nuclear waste. 

She says it may end up being stored at the lower-level nuclear
waste dump planned for the Northern Territory. 

"Already the Federal Government is imposing a low and long-lived
intermediate level dump on the Territory," she said. 

"I don't think it's a far stretch to think that similar methods
which actively work against the wishes of the community here
will be used to find a location for a high-level waste dump if
Australia did develop a nuclear power industry." 

She says the Northern Territory is likely to be targeted for
more uranium mining. 

"It's no secret that internationally Australia is being targeted
for a high-level international waste dump," she said. 

"I think we need to be really strong in our opposition to this
Commonwealth dump so the Commonwealth won't use similar methods
to impose a high level dump for Australia's waste and
potentially international waste." 

*****************************************************************
 17 BBC: Howard backs nuclear power shift
 
Last Updated: Friday, 29 December 2006
 
[Australian Prime Minister John Howard]

Mr Howard wants a ban on new uranium mines lifted

Australian Prime Minister John Howard has backed a controversial 
report which calls on the country to start building nuclear power 
stations. 

Mr Howard said the report, released last month, showed that 
nuclear power was "part of the solution" to Australia's growing 
energy needs. 

It said Australia could have a nuclear power industry in 10 to 15 
years. 

Critics say Mr Howard is using the nuclear issue to build his 
green credentials ahead of 2007 elections. 

Mr Howard said nuclear energy was not a "silver bullet" to solve 
global warming or energy security. 

But a nation like Australia - which has the world's largest known 
uranium deposits - would be "crazy in the extreme if we didn't 
allow for the development of nuclear power", he said. 

Most of Australia's energy needs at present are met by coal and 
gas, bestowing on the country the highest per capita greenhouse 
emissions in the world. 

A shift to nuclear energy would also help the country tackle 
pollution and cut greenhouse emissions. 

"The reality is we won't have nuclear power stations tomorrow, 
but over time if we are to have a sensible response, we have to 
include nuclear power," he told reporters. 

Opposition 

But the move towards nuclear has been questioned by Mr Howard's 
political opponents. 

The opposition Labor Party, which introduced a ban on any new 
uranium mines while in power in 1983, has asked him to explain 
where the nuclear reactors would be built and where the 
radioactive waste would be dumped. 

Mr Howard has called for the ban on new uranium mines to be 
lifted. 

His backing of nuclear power has also been opposed by the 
environmental and coal lobbies. 

Critics argue that Australia does not need nuclear power because 
of its huge coal resources. 

Australia is one of only two major industrialised nations not to 
have signed the Kyoto agreement on reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions, the other being the US. 

Australia faces international pressure to reduce emissions, and 
experts say nuclear power could be one way to do it. 

Australia currently has one small research reactor, located at 
Lucas Heights in Sydney. 
*****************************************************************
 18 KnoxNews: TVA chairman a quick study

New board ushering agency through changes

By DUNCAN MANSFIELD, Associated Press 
                                
December 29, 2006                                                               

Bill Sansom, a hard-nosed businessman who had no previous 
experience with electric utilities, is proving a quick study on 
the Tennessee Valley Authority. 

"I never thought I would be sitting here, so no, I didn't have an 
agenda coming in," the chairman of the country's largest public 
utility told The Associated Press in a recent interview at TVA's 
Knoxville headquarters. 

"It didn't take long, though, to figure out what you needed to 
do," he said. 

The expanded, part-time, nine-member board of directors that 
arrived in March to give Franklin D. Roosevelt's 73-year-old New 
Deal agency a corporate-like management makeover, thanks to 
outgoing Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, jumped 
into the fray. 

The politically connected group of businessmen, bankers, a church 
leader and a public relations executive made an offer to let six 
Kentucky power distributors intent on bolting the TVA system in 
search of cheaper rates remain at no extra cost. 

Significantly, the deal was suggested and supported by 
representatives of TVA's 152 other distributors in a show of 
unity. The Bowling Green cooperative, the largest of the six, 
accepted and decisions by the others are pending. 

The board also adopted a new land policy banning the sale of 
TVA's remaining 293,000 acres of protected shoreline to 
residential developers, quieting an anxious public stirred by TVA 
land swaps that supported two high-end developments in 
southeastern Tennessee. 

Those actions - along with the board's approval of TVA's first 
electric-rate cut since 1988 in July after two rate jumps in the 
past fiscal year - suggest a new cooperation with distributors 
and the public. 

Sansom said other big moves are in store for 2007. 

+ An engineering study under way will likely support the 
completion of a second reactor at the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in 
Spring City, Tenn. TVA set peak power demand records both this 
summer and winter, and Sansom said the agency clearly needs more 
capacity. Watts Bar Unit 2 would give TVA a seventh reactor, 
assuming Browns Ferry Unit 1 in Alabama restarts on schedule next 
spring. 

+ Talks are continuing that, for the first time, could give 
distributors an ownership stake in a TVA power plant. In 2006, 
TVA also opened the door to sharing a plant with another power 
provider, Atlanta-based Southern Co. 

+ Directors are crafting a new strategic plan for the 
12,000-employee, self-financing agency with $9 billion in annual 
revenue. The plan will consider power demand, pricing, financing 
and generation needs for the decade ahead. 

Sansom is less concerned about cutting TVA's $25 billion debt - a 
priority of past boards and Washington budget writers - than 
being able to deliver low-cost, reliable, less-polluting 
electricity to TVA's 8.7 million consumers in Tennessee, 
Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina and 
Virginia. 

"Yes, I wish it was $10 billion less debt. It would be a whole 
lot easier," he said. "(But) if the lights are out and you don't 
have any debts, that's not pretty." 

Sansom's mantra for the agency: "rates, rates, rates." 

Sansom's full-time job is running a major Knoxville-based 
wholesale distribution company. But he has watched the 
once-bloated and still heavily indebted TVA from afar over the 
years. He's heard the critics. 

As someone who has worked in government before - he was Tennessee 
transportation commissioner and later finance commissioner under 
then-Gov. Lamar Alexander in the 1980s - he also knows there's 
more to the story. 

"People don't realize. We take our power (electricity) for 
granted. We expect it. And we assume it is going to work," Sansom 
said. 

"What I have learned is that it is not as easy as it looks from 
the outside. It is pretty complicated. The decisions are pretty 
complicated. The money is big," he said. 

Sansom, the first TVA chairman chosen by his peers on the TVA 
board rather than by appointment by the president of the United 
States, said that so far he is "pretty impressed with TVA. There 
are some great people, dedicated people, very talented people." 

"I just hope we can give it some leadership to give it some 
consistency," he said. 

Tom Kilgore, TVA president and recently named the agency's first 
chief executive officer responsible for daily management, is 
eager to make that happen. 

"Since the (new) board has gotten here we have gotten off the 
dime on several things," Kilgore said. "We are not finished, but 
we are moving forward."

[Get Copyright Permissions] Copyright 2006, Associated Press. All 
rights reserved.                                                               

2006 TVA HIGHLIGHTS 

+ Management: Restructuring brings expanded, part-time, nine 
member board of directors, including first black member, first 
Alabama resident, and first CEO over daily management. 

+ Resources: Land-use plan bars sale of TVA’s remaining 293,000 
acres of protected shoreline for private residential development. 

+ Rates: Agency begins 2006 with its first midyear electric-rate 
increase in at least 25 years and ends the year adopting a fiscal 
2007 budget containing its first electric-rate cut since 1988. 

+ Power: Sets all-time peak power demand record of 32,008 
megawatts July 18. Set new winter peak record of 30,227 megawatts 
Dec. 8. 

+ Revenue: Reaches nearly $9.2 billion, up 18 percent from 2005. 

+ Future: Awards $20 million engineering contract to evaluate 
completing a second reactor at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. It would 
be TVA’s seventh reactor.                                                                                                                                                                                                 

© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
 19 Daily Yomiuri: Power firms struggling to generate public trust 

: Editorial :

The Yomiuri Shimbun 

Incidents of misconduct by power companies, such as fabricating
data at power stations and faking reports to the central and
local governments, have been revealed one after another. 

Fortunately, there are no cases that pose an immediate danger.
On the contrary, there are absurdities that make us think, "Is
there any meaning in them?" The prime example is the data
fabrication that came to light at the Oi nuclear power station
operated by Kansai Electric Power Co. in Oicho, Fukui
Prefecture. 

Hot water is discharged at power stations, with temperatures
measured at two points: the drain outlet immediately after power
is generated and the outlet to the sea. Normally, the
temperature at the outlet immediately after power generation is
higher than that at the outlet to the sea. However, the
temperature at the lower current was higher by 0.1 C at the Oi
power station. 

The power station did not investigate whether it was due to
malfunctioning measuring devices or changes in the temperature
of the sea water. Instead, it made reports to the local
government after fabricating a lower temperature at the outlet
to the sea. 

=== 

No companies escape blame 

As it was data that could have landed the company in trouble, we
suspect it fabricated data as a means of sweeping shady business
practices under the carpet. 

Various questionable actions have afflicted all 10 power
companies throughout the country, with already more than 1,000
cases uncovered. The power companies should conduct thorough
investigations into the matter and make sufficient arrangements
to prevent a recurrence of such cases. 

The incidents of misconduct started with Chugoku Electric Power
Co. Two months ago it was revealed that fabrication of surveying
data by a subsidiary was uncovered for the Doyo Dam in
Shinjoson, Okayama Prefecture, whereby Chugoku Electric knew of
the deception but concealed the fact. 

Power companies have a duty to periodically report survey data
on dams to the relevant authorities under the River Law. This is
because a dam may be destroyed if it becomes deformed or water
begins to leak from it. Such deception also violates the
Electric Utility Law that governs the business of power
companies. 

Other cases include the fabrication of the temperatures of
drainage water at a thermal power station and hiding the fact
that nitrogen oxides exceeding the limit stipulated under the
Air Pollution Prevention Law had been discharged at another
power station. 

Alarmed by the situation, the Construction and Transport and
Economy, Trade and Industry ministries demanded that each power
company checks its data and reports results by the end of the
year. 

The results were disastrous. At 68 dams throughout the nation,
deformation and the fabrication of survey data, including water
levels as well as failures to make necessary reports to
authorities, were found. It was also discovered that repair work
was done without permission at more than 500 power stations.
Fabrication of data on hot wastewater was found at several
nuclear power stations. 

=== 

Energy supply jeopardized 

The electric power industry had a similar trust-damaging
incident four years ago. A Tokyo Electric Power Co. nuclear
power station fabricated inspection data, a revelation that was
followed by news of various incidents of misconduct by power
companies. 

Distrust spread among residents and local governments where
nuclear power stations are located, causing the power stations
to shut down. The incident thus jeopardized the nation's stable
supply of electricity. In particular, it became difficult to get
approval from both local governments and residents to carry out
the so-called pluthermal programs that effectively utilize
uranium resources. 

A pluthermal program, which uses plutonium taken from spent
nuclear fuel as fuel after mixing it with uranium into mixed
oxide (MOX) fuel, is indispensable for effectively utilizing
nuclear power. This year some companies, including Kyushu
Electric Power Co., obtained approval from local governments on
pulthermal programs, giving it the chance to actually carry out
pluthermal programs. 

At such an important time for promoting the programs, distrust
toward power companies among communities should not become
further widespread. 

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Dec. 30, 2006) (Dec. 30, 2006) 

 © The Yomiuri Shimbun.   
*****************************************************************
 20 AFP: PM urges Australia to go nuclear 

 Fri Dec 29, 12:37 AM ET 
		 	 
SYDNEY (AFP) - Australian Prime Minister John Howard has called 
for the immediate expansion of uranium mining and the development 
of nuclear powered energy. 

Unveiling a final report on the nation's future energy 
requirements, Howard backed the controversial findings first 
revealed last month and said nuclear energy should feature in any 
plan for Australia's future needs.
 
"The reality is we won't have nuclear power stations tomorrow,
but over time if we are to have a sensible response, we have to
include nuclear power," he told reporters in Sydney.
 
"It is foolish and backward-looking and old fashioned of people
to say 'Well, we will always oppose the use of nuclear power'."
 
Howard said while nuclear energy was not a "silver bullet"
solution to global warming or energy security, a nation such as
Australia would be "crazy in the extreme if we didn't allow for
the development of nuclear power."
 
"If we are interested in the future, if we are looking into the
future and not looking back over our shoulders to the past we
have to factor in nuclear power as part of the solution," Howard
said.
 
Australia has the world's largest known deposits of uranium, but
continued political opposition to nuclear power has restricted
the number of mines to just three.
 
The country has one nuclear reactor, at Lucas Heights on the
southern outskirts of Sydney, and that is used only for research
purposes.
 
Howard urged state governments controlled by the opposition
Labor Party to remove the barriers to uranium mining as soon as
possible.
 
"I ask Labor governments around Australia not to wait until a
conference in April of next year, but act now in the interests
of the country and the interests of their own states to remove
the existing restrictions," he said.
 
Howard said nuclear power would likely be introduced gradually
because it is currently more expensive than fossil fuels but
would become cheaper over time.
 
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 21 Sofia Echo: NPP to fall prey to bulgaria's EU accession - 

www.sofiaecho.com

Fri 29 Dec 2006 

EU experts said that Bulgaria’s Kozloduy nuclear power plant
(NPP) was safe, but the country has to close two of its reactors
by January 1 2007 as a pre-condition for joining the EU.
 
As a result Bulgaria would lose billions of euro from export
revenue, but also electricity might "become scarce, and costs
[were] likely to soar,” Deutsche Welle (DW) said.
 
The closure will change entirely the energy situation in the
region. Bulgaria is the biggest electricity exporter on the
Balkans and supplies Albania, Greece, Macedonia, Romania,
Serbia, Kosovo and Turkey with electricity.
 
According to a citizens’ committee Bulgaria would lose 10
billion euro from missed revenue, possible energy imports costs
and the reactors’ shutting down cost.
 
A recent poll showed that three quarters of all Bulgarians were
against the reactor closure.
 
Bulgaria had some hopes to keep the reactors functioning or at
least to postpone the closure, DW said. The country had paid
hundreds of millions of euro for the reactors' security systems
to meet EU requirements. 

Still, European Commission (EC) insisted on the reactor closure.
Bulgarian government had ‘put up very little resistance’ because
opening of energy negotiations with the EC would mean postponing
Bulgaria’s EU accession, DW said.
  				 				 				 				 				 	 	 	 [Printer friendly version]    
Comments  							

  Web     www.sofiaecho.com   

www.sofiaecho.com. Sofia Echo Media
*****************************************************************
 22 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting Notice
 
                        FR Doc E6-22383 
[Federal Register: December 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 250)] 
[Notices] [Page 78470-78471] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29de06-114]                         
 
In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b. of the 
Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee 
on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting on February 1-3, 
2007, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The date of this 
meeting was previously published in the Federal Register on 
Wednesday, November 15, 2006 (71 FR 66561).
 
Thursday, February 1, 2007, Conference Room T-2B3, Two White 
Flint North, Rockville, Maryland 8:30 A.M.-8:35 A.M.: Opening 
Remarks by the ACRS Chairman (Open)--The ACRS Chairman will make 
opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting.
 
8:35 A.M.-11:15 A.M.: Final Review of the Power Uprate 
Application for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 
(Open/Closed)--The Committee will hear presentations by and hold 
discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and Tennessee 
Valley Authority (TVA) regarding the 5% power uprate application 
for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 and the associated NRC 
staff's final Safety Evaluation.
 
[Note: A portion of this session will be closed to protect 
information that is proprietary to General Electric, TVA, and 
their contractors pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).] 12:45 
P.M.-3:30 P.M.: Final Review of the License Renewal Application 
for the Oyster Creek Generating Station (Open)--The Committee 
will hear presentations by and hold discussions with 
representatives of the NRC staff and AmerGen Energy Company, LLC. 
regarding the license renewal application for the Oyster Creek 
Generating Station and the associated NRC staff's final Safety 
Evaluation Report.
 
 
[[Page 78471]] 3:45 P.M.-5:15 P.M.: Development of TRACE 
Thermal-Hydraulic Code (Open)--The Committee will hear 
presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the 
NRC staff regarding the progress made by the staff in developing 
the TRACE thermal-hydraulic system analysis code and related 
matters.
 
5:30 P.M.-7 P.M.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)--The 
Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports on matters 
considered during this meeting.
 
Friday, February 2, 2007, Conference Room T-2B3, Two White Flint 
North, Rockville, Maryland 8:30 A.M.-8:35 A.M.: Opening Remarks 
by the ACRS Chairman (Open)--The ACRS Chairman will make opening 
remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting.
 
8:35 A.M.-10 A.M.: Proposed Revision to 10 CFR 50.46 LOCA 
Criteria for Fuel Cladding Materials (Open)--The Committee will 
hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives 
of the NRC staff regarding proposed revision to 10 CFR 50.46 
loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) criteria for fuel cladding 
materials.
 
10:15 A.M.-11:15 A.M.: Draft Final Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 
1.189 (DG-1170), ``Fire Protection for Nuclear Power Plants,'' 
and SRP Section 9.5.1, ``Fire Protection Program'' (Open)--The 
Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with 
representatives of the NRC staff regarding draft final revision 1 
to Regulatory Guide 1.189 (DG-1170) and Standard Review Plan 
(SRP) Section 9.5.1, as well as resolution of public comments.
 
11:15 A.M.-11:30 A.M.: Subcommittee Report (Open)--Report by and 
discussions with the Chairman of the ACRS Subcommittee on 
Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) regarding the 
Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) PRA that was 
discussed during a meeting on December 14, 2006.
 
1 P.M.-2 P.M.: Wolf Creek Pressurizer Weld Flaws (Open)--The 
Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with 
representatives of the NRC staff regarding the Wolf Creek 
Pressurizer Weld Flaws, including description, current status, 
and future actions.
 
2 P.M.-2:30 P.M.: Proposed Revisions to Regulatory Guides and SRP 
Sections in Support of New Reactor Licensing (Open)--The 
Committee will consider proposed revisions to Regulatory Guides 
and SRP Sections that are being made in support of new reactor 
licensing.
 
2:45 P.M.-3:30 P.M.: Future ACRS Activities/Report of the 
Planning and Procedures Subcommittee (Open)--The Committee will 
discuss the recommendations of the Planning and Procedures 
Subcommittee regarding items proposed for consideration by the 
full Committee during future meetings. Also, it will hear a 
report of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee on matters 
related to the conduct of ACRS business, including anticipated 
workload and member assignments.
 
3:30 P.M.-3:45 P.M.: Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and 
Recommendations (Open)--The Committee will discuss the responses 
from the NRC Executive Director for Operations to comments and 
recommendations included in recent ACRS reports and letters.
 
4 P.M.-7 P.M.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)--The Committee 
will discuss proposed ACRS reports.
 
Saturday, February 3, 2007, Conference Room T-2B3, Two White 
Flint North, Rockville, Maryland 8:30 A.M.-12:30 P.M.: 
Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)--The Committee will continue 
discussion of proposed ACRS reports.
 
12:30 P.M.-1 P.M.: Miscellaneous (Open)--The Committee will 
discuss matters related to the conduct of Committee activities 
and matters and specific issues that were not completed during 
previous meetings, as time and availability of information 
permit.
 
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings 
were published in the Federal Register on October 2, 2006 (71 FR 
58015). In accordance with those procedures, oral or written 
views may be presented by members of the public, including 
representatives of the nuclear industry. Electronic recordings 
will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting. 
Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify the 
cognizant ACRS staff named below five days before the meeting, if 
possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made to allow 
necessary time during the meeting for such statements. Use of 
still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting 
may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined 
by the Chairman. Information regarding the time to be set aside 
for this purpose may be obtained by contacting the cognizant ACRS 
staff prior to the meeting. In view of the possibility that the 
schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as 
necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons 
planning to attend should check with the cognizant ACRS staff if 
such rescheduling would result in major inconvenience.
 
In accordance with Subsection 10(d) of the Government in the 
Sunshine Act, I have determined that it will be necessary to 
close a portion of this meeting noted above to discuss 
information that is proprietary to General Electric, the 
Tennessee Valley Authority, and their contractors pursuant to 5 
U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). Further information regarding topics to be 
discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, 
as well as the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity 
to present oral statements and the time allotted therefor can be 
obtained by contacting Mr. Sam Duraiswamy, cognizant ACRS staff 
(301-415-7364), between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., (ET). ACRS meeting 
agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available 
through the NRC Public Document Room at pdr@nrc.gov, or by 
calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from the Publicly Available 
Records System (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) 
which is accessible from the NRC Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html or 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ (ACRS 
oc-collections/ (ACRS meeting schedules/agendas).
 
Videoteleconferencing service is available for observing open 
sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service for 
observing ACRS meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS 
Audio Visual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 
3:45 p.m., (ET), at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure 
the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations 
requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line 
charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they 
use to establish the videoteleconferencing link. The availability 
of video-teleconferencing services is not guaranteed.
 
Dated: December 22, 2006.
 
Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. E6-22383 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 23 NEWS.com.au: Nuclear power is 'safer than sharks' | 

By Nicolette Burke

December 30, 2006 12:00am

AUSTRALIANS are more likely to be attacked by a shark or hit by
lightning than die from a nuclear power plant disaster. 						 	

In releasing a report commissioned on the viability of nuclear
power in Australia, Prime Minister John Howard said there were
no sound reasons to not go nuclear. 

The final report from the Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear
Energy review board said the risk of implementing nuclear power
is of an acceptably low level. 

The risk of dying in a nuclear disaster was below that of dying
from smoking, driving, owning firearms, drowning, fire,
electrocution and snake bites, the report said. 

There have been 31 direct fatalities from nuclear reactors since
1969  including the Chernobyl disaster  compared to more than
25,000 fatalities in the coal industry. 

This did not take into account the estimated 4000 people who
could eventually die from cancer caused by radiation exposure
from the Chernobyl meltdown. 

The report also stated that the particles spewed into the
atmosphere by traditional forms of power generation resulted in
an estimated loss of life expectancy of 8.6 months for the
average European. 

Mr Howard said the Government would respond quickly to the
board's recommendations. 

"Nuclear power is part of the solution both to Australia's
energy and climate change challenges," Mr Howard said. 

He agreed nuclear power was not a "silver bullet" and wasn't
economically feasible at the moment. 

"It's not going to come immediately because it's not economic at
present, but it will become increasingly economic as we clean up
the use of coal," Mr Howard said. 

He said the Government would, in the short term, focus on the
report's recommendation that skilled personnel for nuclear power
and uranium mining industries be trained and recruited. 

Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd rejected the need for
nuclear power and said Labor was committed to renewable sources. 

"We think the right way involves clean, green energy," he said. 

"Mr Howard's solution is too expensive, it's too dangerous and
it's too slow to bring about real results on reducing greenhouse
gas emissions in the immediate term." 

The review board, headed by former Telstra chief Ziggy
Switkowski, was established six months ago to investigate
nuclear power as an alternative to coal-fired power plants in
the face of growing concerns about climate change. 

The country's demand for electricity is predicted to more than
double by 2050. 

Greens Senator Christine Milne said nuclear power would not halt
the effects of climate change. 

"The Government is now scrambling to create a perception that it
is doing something, knowing full well that nuclear power is too
slow, too expensive and too dangerous to provide any answer to
global warming," Senator Milne said. 	 

Copyright 2006 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT +11). 		 			 		
*****************************************************************
 24 NRC: STP Nuclear Operating Company, South Texas Project, Unit 1; 
 
                        FR Doc E6-22390 
[Federal Register: December 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 250)] 
[Notices] [Page 78468-78470] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29de06-113]                         
 
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility 
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
 
[[Page 78469]] considering issuance of an amendment to Facility 
Operating License No. NPF-76, issued to STP Nuclear Operating 
Company (STPNOC/the licensee), for operation of the South Texas 
Project, Unit 1, located in Matagorda County, Texas.
 
The proposed amendment, for a one-time exigent change, would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.2 requirements for loss 
of power (LOP) instrumentation (Functional Unit 8). TS 3.3.2, 
Table 3.3-3 ACTION 20 applies to the LOP instrumentation. Since 
the LOP instrumentation channels do not have an installed bypass 
capability, STPNOC proposes to add a note to ACTION 20 to 
establish a one-time provision for corrective maintenance on the 
Unit 1 Train A channel.
 
Exigent Approval of the proposed TS change is justified because 
the failure that caused the inoperable channel could not 
reasonably have been anticipated. In addition, STPNOC has 
requested a one-time change because it has included the LOP 
instrumentation in its broad-scope risk-managed TS application, 
which will be the permanent TS resolution. STPNOC has promptly 
prepared and submitted this proposed amendment to the Unit 1 TS.
 
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under 
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. 
Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means 
that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; 
or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 
CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below: (1) Does the proposed change involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated? Response: No.
 
The proposed change to add a note to ACTION 20 for a one-time 
change to allow corrective maintenance on the Unit 1 Train A loss 
of power instrumentation does not change the plant design basis, 
system configuration or operation, and does not add or affect any 
accident initiator.
 
Therefore, STPNOC concludes that there is no significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
 
(2) Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated? Response: No.
 
The proposed change does not change the plant design basis, 
system configuration or operation, and does not add or affect any 
accident initiator.
 
Therefore, STPNOC concludes the proposed change does not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
accident previously evaluated.
 
(3) Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety? Response: No.
 
No actual plant equipment or accident analyses will be affected 
by the proposed change. Additionally, the proposed changes will 
not relax any criteria used to establish safety limits, will not 
relax any safety systems settings, and will not relax the bases 
for any limiting conditions of operation. Therefore, STPNOC 
concludes the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.
 
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 
determine that the amendment request involves no significant 
hazards consideration.
 
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 14 days after the 
date of publication of this notice will be considered in making 
any final determination.
 
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of the 14-day notice period. However, should 
circumstances change during the notice period, such that failure 
to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or 
shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license 
amendment before the expiration of the 14-day notice period, 
provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. The final 
determination will consider all public and State comments 
received. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish 
in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. The Commission expe 
cts that the need to take this action will occur very 
infrequently.
 
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, 
Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of 
Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite 
the publication date and page number of this Federal Register 
notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two 
White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 
from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be 
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document 
Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
 
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
 
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating 
license and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the 
proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with 
the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing 
Proceedings and Issuance of Orders'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested 
persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 
available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint 
North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be 
accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 
at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request 
for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the 
above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by 
the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or 
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a 
hearing or an appropriate order.
 
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner 
in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the 
results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the
 
[[Page 78470]] following general requirements: (1) The name, 
address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) 
the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to 
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of 
the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other 
interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any 
decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the 
requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also 
identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
 
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the 
bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged 
facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which 
the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the 
hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to 
those specific sources and documents of which the 
petitioner/requestor is aware and on which the 
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or 
expert opinion. The petitioner/requestor must provide sufficient 
information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the 
applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall 
be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under 
consideration.
 
The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the 
petitioner/ requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails 
to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one 
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
 
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to 
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the 
conduct of the hearing.
 
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when 
the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing 
held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the 
final determination is that the amendment request involves a 
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take 
place before the issuance of any amendment.
 
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the 
presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that 
the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted 
based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for 
leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, 
express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the 
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 
and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to 
the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at 
(301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of 
the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene 
should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it 
is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of 
facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to

 
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to A. H. 
Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, attorney for the licensee.
 
For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated December 20, 2006, which is 
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public 
File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible 
electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
Internet at the NRC web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. 
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems 
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the 
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, 
Maryland, this 22nd day of December 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Mohan C. Thadani, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 
IV, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-22390 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 25 NRC: Technical Specification Improvement to Remove the Main Steam and 
 
                        FR Doc E6-22391 
[Federal Register: December 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 250)] 
[Notices] [Page 78472-78474] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29de06-115] [[Page 
78472]]
 
Main Feedwater Valve Isolation Time From Technical Specifications 
Using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process AGENCY: 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Notice of Availability.
 
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the staff of the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared a model Application 
related to changes to the Standard Technical Specifications 
(STS), Section 3.7.2, ``Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIVs)'' and 
Section 3.7.3 ``Main Feedwater Isolation Valves (MFIVs), Main 
Feedwater Regulation Valves (MFRVs), and [associated bypass 
valves].'' The changes remove the specific isolation time for the 
isolation valves from the associated STS Surveillance 
Requirements (SRs). The bracketed isolation time in the STS SRs 
is replaced with the requirement to verify the valve isolation 
time is within limits. The specific isolation time required to 
meet the STS surveillances would be located outside of the 
technical specifications in a document subject to control by the 
10 CFR 50.59 process.
 
The NRC staff has also prepared a model safety evaluation (SE) 
and no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination 
relating to this matter. The purpose of these models is to permit 
the NRC to efficiently process amendments that propose to adopt 
the associated changes into plant-specific technical 
specifications (TS).
 
Licensees of nuclear power reactors to which the models apply may 
request amendments confirming the applicability of the SE and 
NSHC determination to their reactors.
 
 
DATES: The NRC staff issued a Federal Register Notice (71 FR 193, 
October 5, 2006) that provided a model SE and a model NSHC 
determination relating to the removal of the specific isolation 
time for the isolation valves from the associated STS SRs. The 
NRC staff hereby announces that the model SE and NSHC 
determination may be referenced in plant-specific applications to 
adopt the changes.
 
The staff has posted a model application on the NRC Web site to 
assist licensees in using the consolidated line item improvement 
process (CLIIP) to revise the Standard Technical Specifications 
(STS), Section 3.7.2, ``Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIVs)'' and 
Section 3.7.3 ``Main Feedwater Isolation Valves (MFIVs), Main 
Feedwater Regulation Valves (MFRVs), and [associated bypass 
valves].'' The NRC staff can most efficiently consider 
applications based upon the model application if the application 
is submitted within one year of this Federal Register Notice.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter C. Hearn, Mail Stop: 
O12H2, Division of Inspection and Regional Support, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555- 0001, telephone 301-415-1189.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Issue Summary 2000-06, 
``Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process for Adopting 
Standard Technical Specification Changes for Power Reactors,'' 
was issued on March 20, 2000. The CLIIP includes an opportunity 
for the public to comment on proposed changes to operating 
licenses, including the technical specifications (TS), after a 
preliminary assessment by the NRC staff and a finding that the 
change will likely be offered for adoption by licensees. The 
CLIIP directs the NRC staff to evaluate any comments received for 
a proposed generic change to operating licenses and to either 
reconsider the change or issue the announcement of availability 
for the change proposed for adoption by licensees.
 
Those licensees opting to apply for the subject change to 
operating licenses are responsible for reviewing the NRC staff's 
evaluation, referencing the applicable technical justifications, 
and providing any necessary plant-specific information. Each 
amendment application made in response to the notice of 
availability will be processed and noticed in accordance with 
applicable rules and NRC procedures. This notice involves removal 
of the specific isolation time for the isolation valves from the 
associated STS SRs.
 
Applicability: This proposed change to the standard technical 
specifications (STS) was submitted by the Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) in TSTF-491, Revision 2, 
``Removal of Main Steam and Main Feedwater Valve Isolation Times 
from Technical Specifications.'' This proposal to modify 
technical specification requirements by the adoption of TSTF-491 
is applicable to all licensees of Combustion Engineering, Babcock 
& Wilcox, and Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors who have 
adopted or will adopt in conjunction with the change, technical 
specification requirements for a Bases Control Program consistent 
with the TS Bases Control Program described in Section 5.5 of the 
STS. Licensees that have not adopted requirements for a Bases 
Control Program by converting to the improved STS or by other 
means, are requested to include the requirements for a Bases 
Control Program consistent with the STS in their application for 
the change. The need for a Bases Control Program stems from the 
need for adequate regulatory control of some key elements of the 
proposal that are contained in the Bases upon adoption of 
TSTF-491. The staff is requesting that the Bases changes be 
included with the proposed license amendments consistent with the 
Bases in TSTF-491. To ensure that the overall change, including 
the Bases, includes appropriate regulatory controls, the staff 
plans to condition the issuance of each license amendment on the 
licensee's incorporation of the changes into the Bases document 
and on requiring the licensee to control the changes in 
accordance with the Bases Control Program.
 
To efficiently process the incoming license amendment 
applications, the NRC staff requests that each licensee applying 
for the changes addressed in TSTF-491 use the CLIIP to submit an 
application that adheres to the following model. Any deviations 
from the model application should be explained in the licensee's 
submittal.
 
The CLIIP does not prevent licensees from requesting an alternate 
approach or proposing changes other than those proposed in 
TSTF-491. Variations from the approach recommended in this notice 
may, however, require additional review by the NRC staff and may 
increase the time and resources needed for the review. 
Significant variations from the approach, or inclusion of 
additional changes to the license, will result in staff rejection 
of the submittal. Instead, licensees desiring significant 
variations and/or additional changes should submit a LAR that 
does not claim to adopt TSTF-491.
 
Public Notices: In a Federal Register Notice dated October 5, 
2006 (71 FR 193), the NRC staff requested comment on the use of 
the CLIIP to process requests to adopt the TSTF-491 changes. In 
addition, there have been multiple notices published for 
plant-specific amendment requests to adopt changes similar to 
those described in this notice.
 
The NRC staff's model SE and model application may be examined, 
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, 
located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records are 
accessible electronically from the Agencywide
 
[[Page 78473]] Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) 
Public Library component on the NRC Web site, (the Electronic 
Reading Room).
 
The NRC staff received no responses following the notice 
published October 5, 2006 (71 FR 193), soliciting comments on the 
model SE and NSHC determination related to the TSTF-491 changes. 
The NRC staff finds that the previously published models remain 
appropriate references and has chosen not to republish the model 
SE and model NSHC determination in this notice. As described in 
the model application prepared by the NRC staff, licensees may 
reference in their plant-specific applications to adopt the 
TSTF-491 changes, the model SE, NSHC determination, and 
environmental assessment previously published in the Federal 
Register (71 FR 193; October 5, 2006).
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of December 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Timothy J. Kobetz, Chief, Technical Specifications Branch, 
Division of Inspection and Regional Support, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 
FOR INCLUSION ON THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION WEB PAGE, THE 
FOLLOWING EXAMPLE OF AN APPLICATION WAS PREPARED BY THE NRC STAFF 
TO FACILITATE USE OF THE CONSOLIDATED LINE ITEM IMPROVEMENT 
PROCESS (CLIIP).
 
THE MODEL PROVIDES THE EXPECTED LEVEL OF DETAIL AND CONTENT FOR 
AN APPLICATION TO ADOPT TSTF-491, REVISION 2, REMOVAL OF THE MAIN 
STEAM AND MAIN FEEDWATER VALVE ISOLATION TIME FROM TECHNICAL 
SPECIFICATIONS USING CLIIP. LICENSEES REMAIN RESPONSIBLE FOR 
ENSURING THAT THEIR ACTUAL APPLICATION FULFILLS THEIR 
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION REGULATIONS.
 
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk 
Washington, DC 20555 SUBJECT: PLANT NAME DOCKET NO. 50- 
APPLICATION FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE TSTF-491, REMOVAL 
OF THE MAIN STEAM AND MAIN FEEDWATER VALVE ISOLATION TIME FROM 
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS USING CONSOLIDATED LINE ITEM IMPROVEMENT 
PROCESS Gentlemen: In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 
50.90 [LICENSEE] is submitting a request for an amendment to the 
technical specifications (TS) for [PLANT NAME, UNIT NOS.]. The 
proposed amendment would modify the TS by removing the specific 
isolation time for the isolation valves from the associated STS 
Surveillance Requirements (SRs).
 
Enclosure 1 provides a description of the proposed change, the 
requested confirmation of applicability, and plant-specific 
verifications. Enclosure 2 provides the existing TS pages marked 
up to show the proposed change. Enclosure 3 provides revised 
(clean) TS pages. Enclosure 4 provides the existing TS Bases 
pages marked up to show the proposed change (for information 
only).
 
[LICENSEE] requests approval of the proposed license amendment by 
[DATE], with the amendment being implemented [BY DATE OR WITHIN X 
DAYS].
 
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91, a copy of this application, with 
enclosures, is being provided to the designated [STATE] Official.
 
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United 
States of America that I am authorized by [LICENSEE] to make this 
request and that the foregoing is true and correct. (Note that 
request may be notarized in lieu of using this oath or 
affirmation statement).
 
If you should have any questions regarding this submittal, please 
contact [NAME, TELEPHONE NUMBER] Sincerely, [Name, Title] 
Enclosures: 1. Description and Assessment 2. Proposed Technical 
Specification Changes 3. Revised Technical Specification Pages 4. 
Marked up Existing TS Bases Changes cc: NRC Project Manager NRC 
Regional Office NRC Resident Inspector State Contact Enclosure 1 
Description and Assessment 1.0 DESCRIPTION The proposed amendment 
would modify technical specifications by removing the specific 
isolation time for the isolation valves from the associated STS 
Surveillance Requirements (SRs).\1\ 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \1\ [In conjunction with the proposed change, 
technical specifications (TS) requirements for a Bases Control 
Program, consistent with the TS Bases Control Program described 
in Section 5.5 of the applicable vendor's standard TS (STS), 
shall be incorporated into the licensee's TS, if not already in 
the TS.] The changes are consistent with Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) approved Industry/Technical Specification Task 
Force (TSTF) TSTF-491 Revision 2. The availability of this TS 
improvement was published in the Federal Register on [DATE] as 
part of the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP).
 
2.0 ASSESSMENT 2.1 Applicability of TSTF-491, and Published 
Safety Evaluation [LICENSEE] has reviewed TSTF-491 (Reference 1), 
and the NRC model safety evaluation (SE) (Reference 2) as part of 
the CLIIP.
 
[LICENSEE] has concluded that the information in TSTF-491, as 
well as the SE prepared by the NRC staff are applicable to 
[PLANT, UNIT NOS.] and justify this amendment for the 
incorporation of the changes to the [PLANT] TS. [NOTE: Only those 
changes proposed in TSTF-491 are addressed in the model SE. The 
model SE addresses the entire fleet of Combustion Engineering, 
Babcock & Wilcox, and Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors. 
The plants adopting TSTF-491 must confirm the applicability of 
the changes to their plant.] 2.2 Optional Changes and Variations 
[LICENSEE] is not proposing any variations or deviations from the 
TS changes described in TSTF-491 or the NRC staff's model safety 
evaluation dated [DATE]. [NOTE: The CLIIP does not prevent 
licensees from requesting an alternate approach or proposing 
changes without the requested Bases or Bases control program. 
However, deviations from the approach recommended in this notice 
may require additional review by the NRC staff and may increase 
the time and resources needed for the review. Significant 
variations from the approach, or inclusion of additional changes 
to the license, will result in staff rejection of the submittal. 
Instead, licensees desiring significant variations and/ or 
additional changes should submit a LAR that does not claim to 
adopt TSTF-491.] 3.0 REGULATORY ANALYSIS 3.1 No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination [LICENSEE] has reviewed the 
proposed no significant hazards consideration determination 
(NSHCD) published in the Federal Register as part of the CLIIP. 
[LICENSEE] has concluded that the proposed NSHCD presented in the 
Federal Register notice is applicable to [PLANT] and is hereby 
incorporated by reference to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 
50.91(a).
 
[[Page 78474]] 3.2 Verification and Commitments As discussed in 
the notice of availability published in the Federal Register on 
[DATE] for this TS improvement, plant-specific verifications were 
performed as follows: In addition, [LICENSEE] has proposed TS 
Bases consistent with TSTF-491 which provide guidance and details 
on how to implement the new requirements. Finally, [LICENSEE] has 
a Bases Control Program consistent with Section 5.5 of the 
Standard Technical Specifications (STS).
 
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The amendment changes requirements 
with respect to the installation or use of a facility component 
located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. 
The NRC staff has determined that the amendment adopting 
TSTF-491, Rev 2, involves no significant increase in the amounts 
and no significant change in the types of any effluents that may 
be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in 
individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The 
Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that 
TSTF-491, Rev 2, involves no significant hazards considerations, 
and there has been no public comment on the finding in Federal 
Register Notice 71 FR 193, October 5, 2006. Accordingly, the 
amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical 
exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 
51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental 
assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of 
the amendment.
 
5.0 REFERENCES 1. TSTF-491, Revision 2, ``Removal of Main Steam 
and Main Feedwater Valve Isolation Times from Technical 
Specifications.'' 2. NRC Model Safety Evaluation Report Enclosure 
2 PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES (MARK-UP) Enclosure 3 
PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PAGES [Clean copies of Licensee 
specific Technical Specification (TS) pages, corresponding to the 
TS pages changed by MaTSTF-491, Rev 0, are to be included in 
Enclosure 3] Enclosure 4 PROPOSED CHANGES TO TECHNICAL 
SPECIFICATION BASES PAGES [FR Doc. E6-22391 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 
am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 26 AU ABC: PM promises swift action on nuclear report. 

29/12/2006. ABC News Online

Mr Howard says nuclear power must be part of the energy
solution. (ABC)                  

The Prime Minister has released the final report of the review
into nuclear energy, uranium mining and processing.

 John Howard says the chair of his nuclear task force, Dr Ziggy
Switkowski, makes clear in his final report that nuclear power
is part of the solution to Australia's future energy needs and
the challenge of climate change. 

Mr Howard says the Government will respond quickly to the report.

 "The reality is we won't have nuclear power stations tomorrow,
but over time if we are to have a sensible response we have to
include nuclear power," he said. 

"It is foolish and backward-looking and old fashioned of people
to say 'well, we will always oppose the use of nuclear power'.

 Mr Howard says nuclear energy is still up to 50 per cent more
expensive than other forms of power, but that difference is
expected to reduce over time.

 "We have to factor in nuclear power as part of the solution,
it's not going to come immediately because it's not economic at
the present time," he said. 

"But it will become increasingly economic as we clean up the use
of coal and thereby make its use more expensive." 

Mr Howard says he would not have any objection to living next
door to a nuclear power station.

 He has also asked the states to end bans on uranium mining and
exploration. 

*****************************************************************
 27 NEWS.com.au: Support falls for nuclear power 

NEWS.com.au.

By Steve Lewis and Joseph Kerr 				

December 30, 2006 12:00am                                                                               Article from:                                                           
			 				
SUPPORT for a nuclear power industry in Australia has softened,
undermining John Howard's campaign to win backing for the "clean
and green" energy source. 						 	

A special Newspoll, conducted exclusively for The Weekend
Australian, shows Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd's pledge not to
build any nuclear reactors is backed by most voters. 

Just 35 per cent of voters support the construction of nuclear
power plants across Australia  down from 38 per cent since May. 

Nearly 40 per cent of voters remain strongly opposed to nuclear
power, highlighting the challenge for the Prime Minister as he
embarks on an election-year crusade in support of the
alternative energy source. 

Setting up a robust election-year battle, Mr Howard slammed
Labor as "foolish, backward-looking and old-fashioned" as he
released a high-level report suggesting nuclear power could be
viable in 15 years. 

He predicted nuclear power would become "increasingly economic"
as consumers faced higher energy bills in response to cleaner
coal technologies. 

But Mr Rudd repeated Labor's pledge on nuclear reactors,
claiming the energy source was too expensive and dangerous. 

And he demanded Mr Howard spell out where up to 25 nuclear
reactors would be positioned. 

Labor's quest to win back the thousands of female voters who
were alienated by Mark Latham in 2004 should also receive a
boost from its hardline anti-nuclear stance. 

Significantly fewer women  24 per cent  support nuclear power
compared to 47 per cent of men. Support is also stronger among
Coalition voters, with 51 per cent backing nuclear energy 
compared to just 29 per cent among Labor supporters. 

Despite weak public backing, Mr Howard yesterday predicted
community support would build for nuclear power as he released
the final report by Ziggy Switkowski's taskforce into uranium
mining and nuclear energy. 

"I think the public over time will accept it because I think
Australians are very rational and sensible people. They will
understand that nuclear power is clean and green," he said. 

The final report is strongly consistent with the draft released
in November, which suggested 25 nuclear power plants could
provide a third of Australia's electricity needs by 2050. 

It found Australia could double its uranium exports by 2015, but
any move to develop a uranium enrichment industry here faces
challenges. 

But with Labor likely to make great political mileage from the
spectre of power plants located in constituencies across the
country, the final report goes to greater lengths to set out the
safety of modern nuclear technology. 

The report argues the health risks posed by other chemical or
physical agents are greater than those by exposure to radiation. 

It also spells out the massive challenge that "rapid climate
change" poses for human adaptation and "the stability of nation
states", arguing nuclear is a low-emission technology that can
help achieve deep cuts in greenhouse gases. 

But compared with the draft, the final report revises down by 10
per cent the extent to which Australia's electricity demand will
grow by 2050. 

As he prepared to go on annual leave, Mr Howard used the
findings of the Switkowski taskforce to argue nuclear power must
be part of Australia's future energy solution. 

"If we are to plan for the future... the next 20, 30, 40, 50
years, you have to take nuclear into account," he said. 

"We have the largest uranium mine in the world and we have about
38 per cent of the world's recoverable uranium reserves so we
would be nationally indolent if we didn't take advantage of that
enormous gift that providence has left us." 

Mr Howard, who owns a family home in the leafy north shore of
Sydney, said he would be happy to live near a nuclear reactor:
"I wouldn't have any objections, none whatsoever." 

But he stressed the Government would not be dictating where
reactors may be placed and said this would be driven by
commercial decisions. 

The 67-year-old Prime Minister sought to pre-empt Labor's fear
campaign by arguing he was about the future, not about the past. 

"I have thought about this issue a great deal and I believe that
I would be failing Australia if I didn't stand up for a
sensible, rational consideration of the nuclear option," he
said. 

"And if the Labor Party wants to run an old-fashioned, negative
fear campaign, if it wants to embrace the old politics, let it
do so but it's not going to alter my view because I know that
what I am saying is right for Australia's future." 

Mr Rudd, speaking in Queensland, challenged his rival to name
where nuclear reactors would be located. 

"Mr Howard is now talking about 25 nuclear reactors for the
country," the Opposition Leader said. 

"He has to answer the question about where are they going to go
and we know from previous scientific reports that a large number
would have to go near the coastline." 

While Dr Switkoswki's taskforce found that nuclear energy could
help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Labor leader rejected
nuclear power as a way of addressing climate change. 

"We believe that Mr Howard's plan for 25 nuclear reactors on our
coastlines is too expensive, too dangerous and too slow in
delivering real results on reducing emissions," Mr Rudd said. 

One of the big challenges for the Government will be
consideration of a carbon tax on coal as a means of making
nuclear more cost-efficient. But Mr Howard was cautious when
asked whether the Government would consider subsidies. 

"Well, we are great believers in allowing as much as possible
the market forces to operate," he said yesterday. 

"We need to push ahead with developing clean coal technology." 	 
Share this article (What is this?)
 							 								 									
Copyright 2006 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT +11).
*****************************************************************
 28 IAEA: 2006 Year in Review: A Diverse, Challenging Nuclear Agenda

+ [IAEA.ORG :: Atoms for Peace] 
 
Staff Report

 28 December 2006 [2006 Year in Review] 

Austrian President Mr. Heinz Fischer looks at the IAEA
Memorabilia Exhibit at the 50th Regular Session of the IAEA
General Conference. (Plenary Hall, Austria Center, Vienna,
Austria, 18 September 2006). (Photo: D. Calma/IAEA) 

Events and developments in 2006 reflected a challenging nuclear
agenda. Some January to December highlights from the pages of
IAEA.org: 

January
 
  + Iran announces it has removed IAEA seals on safeguarded
equipment and material related to uranium enrichment at Natanz. 
  + The IAEA Board prepares to hold a special meeting on
safeguards in Iran. 
February
 
  + The growing problem of cancer in developing countries
commands more attention, as the IAEA responds to health care
needs in Tanzania and photographs Nicaragua´s cancer care center
in Managua. 
  + Argentina cites the IAEA and UN Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) for helping the country achieve its goal of
expanded export markets for apples, pears, and other fruit
declared free of the costly Medfly. 
  + Under a global security initiative, an IAEA-supported
operation safely conditions, packages, and ships radioactive
neutron sources from three African countries to the United
States for ultimate disposition. 
March
 
  + The Japanese Government and the United Nations commit US
$1.76 million to a joint IAEA/FAO project to remove the tsetse
fly and the diseases it transmits from the Southern Rift Valley
in Ethiopia. 
  + The world´s senior regulators from some 60 countries meet in
Moscow to scrutinize effective regulatory systems for nuclear
power. 
  + IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei briefs the press
after transmitting his March report on Iran´s nuclear programme
to the UN Security Council. 
  + Next to gold, cocoa trees - the source of chocolate - stand
among Ghana´s treasures. With the IAEA´s help, Ghana takes aim
at a killer virus to protect them. 
April
 
  + Under a global initiative, the IAEA supports the removal of
bomb-grade nuclear material from a research reactor in
Uzbekistan. 
  + The world marks the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl
nuclear plant accident. Reports of the IAEA-backed Chernobyl
Forum cover the accident´s environmental consequences and health
effects. 
  + The IAEA convenes experts to review reported problems with
deliveries of lifesaving medical isotopes to hospitals, which
are too often held-up or blocked during international transport. 
May
 
  + The IAEA´s Nobel Peace Prize Fund to support better cancer
management and childhood nutrition in the developing world moves
ahead and the IAEA teams with the World Health Organization in
the Eastern Mediterranean region to fight the disease. 
  + IAEA Director General Condoleezza Rice on nuclear
non-proliferation and other issues. 
June
 
  + IAEA Director General ElBaradei receives an award from the
Academy of Achievement in the United States, one of many honours
he receives in recognition of his distinguished service and
receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005. 
  + Global experts meeting in Norway focus on steps to cut down
the use of high-enriched uranium, which can be used for weapons. 
  + IAEA.org - the Agency´s public website - is cited as one of
the best in the United Nations and international organizational
system. 
July
 
  + Leaders of the Group of 8 countries back the IAEA´s work at
their summit in Russia, endorsing programmes and initiatives in
areas of nuclear safety, security, and safeguards. 
  + Two potentially dangerous radioactive devices are
successfully secured in the first three days of an
IAEA-supported effort to trace lost radioactive sources in the
Republic of Georgia. 
August
 
  + The IAEA releases its latest report on illicit trafficking
and other unauthorized activities involving nuclear and
radioactive materials, as reported to its Illicit Trafficking
Database. 
  + IAEA Director General ElBaradei sends his latest report on
Iran to the United Nation´s Security Council, in response to the
Security Council´s resolution of 31 July. 
September
 
  + More than 100 States meeting at the IAEA General Conference
adopt resolutions on key areas of the Agency´s work, and appoint
new members to the IAEA Board. 
  + A report is presented to the IAEA General Conference that
outlines possible ways forward to guarantee countries´ supplies
of nuclear fuel, while minimizing proliferation risks. 
  + Monaco´s Prince Albert and IAEA Director General ElBaradei
join to open a special exhibit on . 
  + The International Nuclear Safety Group - top nuclear safety
officials from 14 countries and organizations - meets to review
top issues involving nuclear plants and other facilities. 
October
 
  + The world´s leading authorities on nuclear safeguards and
verification examine the latest developments at the IAEA´s
international symposium. 
  + IAEA Director General ElBaradei issues a statement saying he
deeply regrets, and expresses serious concern, about the
reported carrying-out of a nuclear test by North Korea. 
  + Progress through international cooperation on nuclear fusion
- the energy that powers the Sun and other stars - is
highlighted at an international conference hosted by China. 
  + The United States and Russia join with Serbia, the IAEA and
other partners to rid the Vinca research reactor site of old
"spent" nuclear fuel that´s posing a serious radiological
hazard. 
  + Through its technical cooperation wing, the IAEA works to
help Azerbaijan clean up a radioactive waste storage facility on
the outskirts of Baku. 
November
 
  + An IAEA global research project focuses attention on nuclear
methods applied to the analysis of art and archaeology that are
revolutionizing the field of art history. 
  + Advances in medical radiation imaging and treatment are
highlighted by health leaders meeting at an IAEA conference. 
  + Nuclear power´s role is reviewed in the future energy mix of
countries in Asia and the developing world, as IAEA Director
General ElBaradei opens a regional trip to Japan, China,
Indonesia and Vietnam. 
December
 
  + In Cape Town, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu join leaders in
declaring support for an IAEA-backed cancer care campaign in
Africa. 
  + In Germany, the IAEA supports the largest ever return of
highly enriched uranium from a civilian research reactor back to
Russia. 
For a fuller account, see IAEA.org and the Frontpage archives.
 Copyright ©, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100,
Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria 
Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail: 
*****************************************************************
 29 AU: Courier-Mail: Howard pushes nuclear power 

Clinton Porteous and Glenis Green

December 29, 2006 11:00pm

SOME Federal Government MPs are talking-up the prospect of
nuclear power in Queensland after Prime Minister John Howard
said he wouldn't mind living next door to a reactor. 						

Liberal backbencher Peter Lindsay said people in his north 
Queensland electorate based on Townsville were "coming around" to 
the idea of atomic energy. 

Another Queensland Liberal, Steve Ciobo, said that if the Gold
Coast were shortlisted for a reactor there would need to be
extensive public consultation. 

The calls came after Mr Howard yesterday strongly backed a final
report into nuclear energy that said 25 reactors by 2050 could
supply a third of the nation's energy. 

"Nuclear power is part of the solution both to Australia's
energy and climate change challenges," Mr Howard said. 

He said that with Australia's uranium reserves, it would be
"crazy in the extreme" not to consider nuclear energy. 

On the key issue of where reactors should built, Mr Howard said
he would not mind a nuclear plant next to his own home. 

"I wouldn't have any objection, none whatsoever. I'm serious,
quite serious," he said. 

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd condemned Mr Howard's support for
atomic power. 

"This is not strong leadership  it's wrong leadership for
Australia's future," he said. 

"There will be no nuclear reactors under a future Labor
Government  end of story." 

The dramatic developments yesterday set the stage for nuclear
energy to be a key issue at next year's election. 

Mr Howard argues nuclear power is part of a broader solution to
climate change as reactors have almost zero emissions of carbon
dioxide. 

But Mr Rudd has ruled out nuclear power under Labor and has
signalled he will step up the campaign warning people they could
be forced to live near nuclear plants. 

The Labor leader said he would be interested to know how many
people in Mr Howard's own electorate "or anywhere in coastal
Australia" wanted a reactor nearby. 

Premier Peter Beattie, who is strongly opposed to nuclear
energy, said many Queenslanders would not feel comfortable
living next door to a reactor. 

But Mr Lindsay, whose federal seat of Herbert includes
Townsville, said there was a changing in mood in his electorate
and across Australia. 

"People in my community are coming around to the benefits of
nuclear power," he said, but added a reactor would not be needed
in his area for 50 years. 

Greens senator Christine Milne said Mr Howard's backing of
nuclear power was "foolish" and said he was trying to create a
perception that he was taking action against climate change. 

© Queensland Newspapers. All times AEST (GMT + 10).
*****************************************************************
 30 Panel to mull guards at TMI
 
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 16:13:55 -0800

X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST

<x-flowed>




Panel to mull guards at TMI




Federal nuclear group: Public opinion on adding guards will be weighed, 
agency will make final decision.

By TOM JOYCE
Daily Record/Sunday News
Article Launched: 12/27/2006 06:04:40 AM EST



At bottom:  · FOR MORE INFO
Dec 27, 2006 ‹ The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission is asking for 
public comment on a 5-year-old petition by an activist group that wants the 
agency to require nuclear power plants to station guards at facility entrances.

Members of the nuclear watchdog group Three Mile Island Alert developed the 
petition during the summer of 2001 and say a response by the federal agency 
is long overdue.

TMI Alert member Scott Portzline said that a guard used to be at the 
entrance to one of the bridges leading to Three Mile Island but was removed 
in either 2000 or early 2001. Now, one of the bridges leading to the island 
is blocked with a vehicle barrier, and the entrance to the other is unguarded.

No company spokesman could be reached for comment.

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the commission is still determining how 
long the public comment period - in which people can submit comments to the 
NRC - will be. The five commissioners will take the public comments into 
account but will make the ultimate decision, Sheehan said.

Although no guard is positioned at the entrance to the bridge, that doesn't 
mean the plant is unguarded, Sheehan said. The security setup resembles a 
series of concentric circles, with more stringent checkpoints closer to the 
more sensitive areas at the center of the plant.

The guards originally at the entrance to TMI were moved farther in for 
strategic reasons, Sheehan said. And anybody entering by the bridge would 
still be monitored.

"There's this misperception that just by driving on the island, you'll be 
in an area where you've compromised security," Sheehan said. "That's not true."

But Eric Epstein of TMI Alert said that, however you look at it, a guard at 
the entrance to the overall site represents an added level of security. And 
if the plant's operators weren't interested in that precaution before the 
Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, he doesn't see how they could reasonably 
object to it now.

"It sends a strong deterrent to terrorists," Epstein said.

According to Sheehan, the NRC is considering the petition as part of a 
series of security precautions that the agency ordered after the 2001 
terrorist attacks. Plants throughout the country, including TMI, have 
already implemented most of them, Sheehan said, but the NRC wants to 
formalize them as regulations.

Those precautions include more concrete barriers, fencing, guard towers and 
security officers. Nuclear plants everywhere were required to toughen 
background checks for plant workers and contractors, add more physical 
barriers and security patrols, and extend the distance between the plant 
and the vehicle checkpoint, Sheehan said.

According to the NRC Web site, former state Rep. Bruce Smith, R-Dillsburg - 
who resigned this month - submitted a request in November 2001 that the 
guard be reinstated.

"At the very least, I believe this action would calm public fear and 
perception toward safety and security," Smith wrote.

State Rep. Keith Gillespie, R-Hellam Township, has a district that borders 
on TMI. He said he toured the plant about two years ago.

"I'll tell you what, I wouldn't want to make an assault on that place with 
anything smaller than a small army," Gillespie said. "It was heavily 
fortified."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.




FOR MORE INFO


·Visit - http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/comment.html

·E-mail - opa@nrc.gov

·Call - (800) 368-5642, 301-415-8200 or TDD: 301-415-5575


</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 31 BBC: 'Dirty bomb' police numbers rise
 
Last Updated: Friday, 29 December 2006
 
[Personal protection suits currently worn]

The Home Office said current suits would be replaced

The government is increasing the number of police officers 
trained to deal with chemical, biological or radiation "dirty 
bombs", the BBC has learned. 

Manufacturers are bidding to supply 12,000 personal protection 
suits to the Home Office, to be worn by UK police. 

Only 7,000 officers - about 5% of the total - are so far trained 
to deal with such attacks, but the Home Office could not say how 
many more will be trained. 

A spokeswoman said the move was not in response to any specific 
threat. 

She said: "The police are already equipped to deal with a 
chemical, radiological, biological or nuclear incident. 

WHAT IS A DIRTY BOMB?            

A crudely-made devic that combines a simple explosive with 
radioactive material Sometimes called the "poor man's nuclear 
weapon" but has different impact Would wreak panic in built-up 
areas, see large areas sealed off and result in long-term 
illnesses like cancer [ src=] If a dirty bomb hit London                              

"Public safety is our top priority and that's why we are 
committed to ensuring that as technology advances, we will 
provide the most up-to-date equipment to the police. 

"This latest procurement is part of an ongoing process and not in 
response to any new or specific threat." 

The Home Office said the move would mean an increase in the 
number of officers trained to deal with an attack, but would not 
say exactly how many. 

Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said the figure of 12,000 came 
from a "guess" at what kind of threat officers could face and an 
assessment of the cover required nationally and for each police 
force. 

'Strange' 

The contract is being advertised on the Official Journal of the 
European Union website and the deadline for bids was before 
Christmas. 

[Army bomb disposal expert is hosed down] Attacks are simulated 
as part of training

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said the purchase 
of the suits was "part of a sensible, planned investment 
programme". 

And Jan Berry, chairman of the Police Federation, which 
represents rank and file officers in England and Wales, said she 
welcomed the supply of new equipment but stressed the importance 
of ongoing training so police can effectively protect the public. 

Conservative homeland security spokesman Patrick Mercer said he 
was "delighted" by the move. 

"It seems strange that they are doing it in December 2006 rather 
than October 2001," he added. 

"It shows very slow appreciation by the government of what the 
dangers are." 

In response to Mr Mercer's comments, Mr McNulty said: "When I've 
got the marshalled forces of experts and the police on one hand 
telling me what we need in terms of preparedness, I need to 
listen to them. 

"And I thought it was a rather unnecessary, cheap shot for what's 
a very, very serious issue." 
*****************************************************************
 32 Spectrum: Public to hear case for Divine Strake

www.thespectrum.com - The Spectrum, St. George, UT

Friday, December 29, 2006         

 By SCOTT DAVID JOHNSON 

ST. GEORGE - Federal officials will be in St. George in January 
to make the case for a weapons experiment that would detonate 700 
tons of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil above the Nevada Test Site.

The proposed Divine Strake experiment is non-nuclear, but 
opponents fear the bunker-busting blast would reintroduce 
radioactive material from previous nuclear tests into the 
atmosphere, posing health hazards to residents downwind.

Representatives from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the 
Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration 
Nevada Site Office will hold a public information session at the 
Dixie Center on Jan. 11 to answer questions about Divine Strake 
and a recently revised environmental assessment. The open house 
will follow sessions in Las Vegas and Salt Lake City earlier that 
week. The 270-page environmental assessment, released last week, 
acknowledges concerns but concludes that Divine Strake would not 
present a significant risk to the public.

According to the report, the "radiological dose" delivered by
the experiment and carried by wind from the test site would
still register 40 to 100 times below the level which would
require scrutiny from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Opposition from Utah's congressional delegation helped force
consideration of other sites in June. But the Pentagon placed
the Nevada Test Site back on the table in November, telling
Utah's delegation there could be no other location. Congressman
Jim Matheson has voiced fears that beyond health risks Divine
Strake could be a precursor to future nuclear tests.

Bloomington resident Hughette Nordin, who helped organize a
rally and petition against Divine Strake earlier this year, said
she hopes to see strong turnout at the open house.

She would like the agencies to perform a full environmental
impact study, which is more rigorous than an assessment.

"I'm glad there's a meeting," she said. "But I don't know how
much public input they're really going to want or allow us to
have."

But health physicist Bruce Church, a 28-year veteran of the
Department of Energy, said a blast of under 1 kiloton could not
possibly propel dust high enough to pose a risk to areas outside
of the Nevada Test Site.

"Anybody with a science background that looks at the studies
will come to the conclusion that there's nothing to worry
about," Church said. "It really kind of baffles informed people
why people are resisting it."

Washington County Commissioner Jim Eardley said he would like to
strike a balance between public safety and experiments necessary
to the nation's defense.

A lifelong resident of Southern Utah, Eardley remembers fallout
from past nuclear tests.

"I certainly wouldn't want to see any of that occur again," he
said. But "what separates us from the bad guys right now is
frankly our technology and weaponry, and I wonder how we develop
that future technology if we're not able to test it."

The county has not taken an official stance on Divine Strake.

Originally published December 29, 2006 Print this article    

Divine Strake EA Comments
PO Box 98518
Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518

702-295-0625 
  
 Copyright ©2006 The Spectrum.
*****************************************************************
 33 Salt Lake Tribune: Stop the bomb: Divine Strake's threat is real

Tribune Editorial                                       

Last Updated: 12/28/2006 07:47:54 PM MST

When the federal government promises residents who live downwind
from a planned explosion at the Nevada Test Site that they are
in no danger, the reassurances have a hollow resonance. 

    Such promises are eerily familiar to victims of 1950s
nuclear testing and their families who have lived with the
deadly effects of the radioactive dust scattered over the West
by the above-ground blasts. 

    Now the Pentagon expects downwinders to buy similar
not-to-worry claims about Divine Strake, a non-nuclear chemical
blast planned for the spring that would be nearly 50 times
larger than the biggest known conventional weapon in the U.S.
arsenal. 

    Excuse our scepticism. 

    First came the ludicrous official statement that radioactive
dust remaining from the Cold War-era nuclear testing (that
initially had been claimed to be non-existent) would somehow
remain within the boundaries of the test site. Now the Pentagon
says a new study has shown that, yes, the contaminated dust
could be blown sky-high by the enormous explosion and deliver a
dose of radioactivity to the off-site public. 

    But wait. The Pentagon promises that exposure to residents
of even the nearest town, 12 miles away, would not be
"significant." The report did not gauge possible exposure
farther away, even though studies of the old nuclear tests have 
shown that some Westerners hundreds of miles from the test site 
became sick and died from the fallout. 

    Granted, this non-nuclear test likely would be less
dangerous than its nuclear predecessors, but any danger to
civilians is absolutely unacceptable. 

    The Pentagon says it needs the test results to help develop
computer models to simulate the damage to underground targets
that would be inflicted by bunker-buster bombs. We are concerned
that this is double-talk to disguise plans for a new generation
of smaller nuclear weapons, now banned by Congress. Such a
covert escalation of the nuclear arms race would not only be
illegal, but likely would encourage Iran and other countries to
speed developent of their own nuclear weapons. 

    Utahns and Nevadans have a chance in upcoming hearings to
tell the Pentagon what they think of this reckless idea. They
should speak plainly. Because the only sure way to prevent
Divine Strake from raining radioactive debris on civilians is to
junk the whole project, permanently. 
*****************************************************************
 34 Ely Times: Program offers free medical screenings for downwinders

elynews.com

December 29, 2006 		   	 

By RUDY HERNDONEly Times Reporter 

After years of downplaying the hazards posed by atmospheric 
nuclear testing, the federal government is actively reaching out 
to Eastern Nevada's downwinders. 

But only a handful of eligible White Pine County residents have 
taken advantage of the latest federally funded, 
state-administered program that provides free medical screening 
and education on radiation-induced illnesses.

The year-old Nevada Radiation Exposure Screening and Education
Program (RESEP) was created with the goal of reaching every
eligible state resident affected by atmospheric nuclear testing
at the Nevada Test Site. The program, which is administered by
the University of Nevada School of Medicine in Las Vegas,
complements the federal Radiation Exposure Compensation Act
(RECA) of 1990.

Since last April, only five or six eligible county residents
have utilized the new resources sponsored by RECEP, according to
program manager Stephanie Page.

Page acknowledged that some local residents may find it
difficult to travel to the RESEP center in Las Vegas. But she
hopes to remedy that problem by hosting a clinic in Ely.

In addition to its free medical screening, education and
referral services, RESEP guides downwinders through the
complicated application process for #8220compassionate payments.

RECA provides these payments to people who have contracted
certain cancers and other serious diseases as a result of
exposure to radiation from atmospheric nuclear testing.

Residents who lived in White Pine County for two consecutive
years between January 1951 and October 1958 or June through July
1962 may be eligible for up to $50,000 in compensation. As of
late December, the RECA program has paid out $8,360,536 to 608
people who lived in White Pine County during the two periods of
exposure.

The foundations for the state program were laid in 2000, when
RECA was amended to expand medical screening and education for
downwinders and Nevada Test Site employees.

But many downwinders have argued that those amendments did not
go far enough.

The act does not apply to underground nuclear testing, nor does
it cover certain diseases that downwinders link to radioactive
fallout.

Perhaps most significantly, RECA does not cover downwinders
outside of specific counties in Eastern Nevada, Utah's West
Desert and the Arizona Strip.

The original list of these eligible counties was developed
around the premise that fallout from atmospheric testing
traveled from west to east, hitting the surrounding area the
hardest.

However, at least one researcher has argued that residents from
upstate New York were exposed to greater levels of fallout than
many people living in Nevada, and a 1997 National Cancer
Institute study seemed to back up that claim.

The study found that nearly all Americans who were alive in the
1950s were exposed to some fallout from nuclear tests:
Radioactive fallout from the Nevada Test Site was detected as
far away as New England and Canada's maritime provinces.

According to the study, anywhere between 11,300 and 212,000
people could develop thyroid cancer as a result of exposure to
Iodine-131 released during atmospheric testing. Residents who
were children during the era of atmospheric testing are
considered to face the greatest risk from Iodine-131 because
their developing bodies absorbed the element from fresh cow's
milk sold by local dairies.

The study also revealed that some of the nation's hardest-hit
counties were in Idaho and Montana.

Congressmen from those two states have since introduced
legislation that would expand RECA coverage to their
constituents. But that bill remains stalled before the U.S.
Senate Judiciary Committee one year after it was first
introduced.

Although the National Cancer Institute study raised new
awareness about the effects of Iodine-131, it was criticized for
ignoring the hazards posed by other radioactive materials such
as Strontium-90.

However, a more recent attempt to explore the possible
connection between radioactive fallout and thyroid health was
brought to a screeching halt, as the Deseret News of Salt Lake
City first reported in March 2005.

In 2005, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) eliminated
funding for a University of Utah researcher's study on the link
between fallout and thyroid health. The move came after Dr.
Joseph L. Lyons had spent $8 million studying subjects who had
been students in Eastern Nevada and southwestern Utah in 1965,
during the peak of underground nuclear testing.

Lyon's earlier studies, which originally appeared in the Journal
of the American Medical Association, showed that fallout from
atmospheric testing had caused cancer and leukemia among
downwinders.

A 1993 study by Lyons suggested that children who were exposed
to the highest levels of atmospheric fallout were 3.4 times more
likely to suffer from thyroid tumors.

For more information about RESEP, contact the Nevada Radiation
Exposure Screening Program at (702) 992-6887 or e-mail .   

Copyright © 2006, The Ely Times
*****************************************************************
 35 UPI: Feds remove cesium from New England site
     
 United Press International - Security &Terrorism - 

12/29/2006 1:10:00 PM -0500

WASHINGTON, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- The U.S. National Nuclear Security
Administration has removed radioactive material from a New
England site. 

The NNSA, an agency in the U.S. Department of Energy, announced
earlier this month that it had removed the material, which could
have been used to make a radiological dispersal device or "dirty
bomb," from a small business in Plymouth, Mass. 

"One of NNSA's top priorities is removing and securing materials
that pose a national security risk. It is important that we
protect the public from dangerous material before it becomes a
problem," said NNSA Administrator Linton Brooks. "This mission
illustrates one piece of our comprehensive strategy to keep
dangerous material out of the hands of dangerous people." 

The mission "recovered 55 curies of cesium-137 and less than one
curie of radium-226," the NNSA said. 

"The recovery was funded by NNSA's Global Threat Reduction
Initiative and organized in close cooperation with the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Massachusetts Department
of Public Health's Radiation Control Program," the agency said. 

Massachusetts health officials had been closely monitoring the
small business holding the material, and when they decided that
the business could no longer safely manage it, they contacted
the NNSA, the agency said. "Due to the close coordination
between the federal and state agencies, the material was removed
before there was any risk or threat to the public." 

NNSA's domestic source recovery program is run by the Los Alamos
National Laboratory and "works to remove and securely manage
radioactive materials that could be at risk for theft and
diversion for use in a radiological dispersal device," the
statement said. 

"To date, the program has recovered more than 13,000 sources --
enough radioactive material to make over 1,400 potent dirty
bombs -- from over 500 facilities," it said.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 36 Pahrump Valley Times: Divine Strake report available  

e-mailed to: dmcmurdo@pvtimes.com.
 
Dec. 29, 2006 

LAS VEGAS -- The National Nuclear Security Administration's
Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) is releasing for public comment
the Draft December 2006 Revised Environmental Assessment for the
Large-Scale, Open-Air Explosive Detonation Divine Strake at the
Nevada Test Site. 

The document, prepared by the NNSA with the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency as a cooperating agency, is available for
review and downloading at the NNSA/NSO Web site, www.nv.doe.gov. 

It is also available for viewing in the NNSA public reading
room, located in the Frank Rogers building at 755 E. Flamingo
Road. 

NNSA/NSO will accept comments on the document until Jan. 24. All
comments received after that date will be considered to the
extent possible. 

Comments can be submitted to the agencies in the following ways:
written comments can be mailed to NNSA/NSO, Divine Strake EA
Comments, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518; email
comments may be sent to divinestrake@nv.doe.gov; and faxed
comments can be sent to 702-295-0625. 	
 
    
For comment or questions, please e-mail
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006 
*****************************************************************
 37 AU ABC: Beattie presses PM on nuclear waste plan
 
ABC Queensland | Local News | Story 

 Saturday, 30 December 2006. 08:08 (AEDT)Saturday, 30 December

Mr Beattie has asked the Prime Minister to reveal where nuclear 
waste would be stored.ABC 

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says communities across the 
country face the threat of becoming home to nuclear reactors, 
after the Prime Minister yesterday said Australians must accept 
that nuclear energy will be part of the future. 

Prime Minister John Howard released the final report into nuclear 
energy yesterday morning, saying it would be crazy to say no to 
its future use. 

Mr Beattie says the Queensland Government will continue to oppose 
the development of a nuclear industry. 

He says he is concerned about the disposal of nuclear waste. 

"What do you do with the waste? It's here for a few hundred 
thousand years," he said. 

"We've got to store it in Australia, there's not going to be 
people around the world who are going to want the waste." 

Mr Beattie says he is concerned that Queensland communities may 
be forced to accommodate nuclear plants and waste. 

"A number of Queensland communities now face the real threat of
becoming home to nuclear reactors and a dumping ground for
dangerous nuclear waste," he said. 

"I'd say to the Prime Minister, where are we going to dump the
nuclear waste? What part of Australia?" 

Acting West Australian Premier Eric Ripper has also rejected the
Prime Minister's claims that the nation needs to embrace nuclear
power in its energy future. 

Mr Ripper says the Federal Government needs to consider other
options. 

"There are alternatives, clear coal technology, renewables,
geothermal electricity, investments in energy efficiency, these
are the measures that should be looked at, not nuclear power
which will be very expensive, very, very expensive for
electricity consumers," he said. 

Mr Ripper says he is very concerned a recent High Court decision
may enable the Commonwealth to force nuclear power on the
states. 

"The extent of the Commonwealth's potential power following the
High Court's decision on the industrial relations legislation is
very alarming," he said. 

"I would not want the Commonwealth to abuse its rights [but]
that's a potential given the sort of decision the High Court
made." 
*****************************************************************
 38 Japan Times: Uranium prices soar as nuclear power makes gains

japantimes.co.jp               

Saturday, Dec. 30, 2006

 Uranium prices soar as nuclear power makes gains Kyodo News 
Uranium prices have shot up on the world market to levels more
than 10 times those in late 2000 as high crude oil prices and
energy demand surges have led India and China in particular to
push nuclear power generation projects more actively, according
to industry officials.
 
The leading price index for uranium oxide concentrate procured
on a short-term basis -- compiled by the Roswell, Ga.-based Ux
Consulting Co. -- soared into the $ 72 level per pound, or 450
grams, for the first time in mid-December, 10.1 times the low of
$ 7.10 set in late 2000.
 
The officials also traced the surge to shifts in the energy
policies of Japan and some other countries, which are seeking to
put greater emphasis on nuclear plant construction to lessen
dependence on oil-based power generation.
 
This is stoking competition among countries to secure stable
supplies of uranium, they said.
 
Uranium prices "will go on rising for the time being," one of
the industry officials said.
 
An official at an electric utility also said, "We will monitor
uranium prices' direction following their upsurge, although the
higher prices will not be passed on to electricity fees
immediately, because uranium procurement contracts are usually
concluded on a long-term basis."
 
The $ 7.10 level was the lowest since uranium prices took a
beating from an accident at the Three Mile Island reactor in
Pennsylvania on March 28, 1979. Various countries moved to
freeze plans to build nuclear plants after the accident.
 
Uranium prices thus kept falling until the U.S. government
reviewed its policy in 2001, moving to restart construction of
nuclear plants.
 
Following the U.S. shift, uranium prices began rising. Upward
momentum was further stoked by a flood in October at a large
underground uranium mine in Saskatchewan. 

There are not many countries with large uranium deposits. Among
nations with large reserves are Australia, Kazakhstan and Canada.
 
The worldwide annual supply is limited to some 60 percent of
demand. Uranium-consuming nations are digging into inventories
to make up for the shortages, industry officials said.
 
But China says it is planning to quadruple the volume of
electricity generated at its nuclear plants over the 2004 level
by 2020. India envisages hiking its volume of power generated at
nuclear plants sevenfold.
 
Japan has stepped up efforts to secure stable supply sources of
the radioactive metal. 

In August, then Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi visited
Kazakhstan and secured a Kazakh promise to develop more uranium
mines.
 
"The percentage of uranium costs to the overall costs of nuclear
power plant electricity generation is small, so the uranium
price surge will not cause higher electricity prices," said a
senior official at the Natural Resources and Energy Agency said.
 
But an informed source in the United States said, "Speculative
money from hedge funds has begun streaming into the uranium
market."

 The Japan Times (C) All rights reserved 
*****************************************************************
 39 Sydney Morning Herald: Feds must reveal nuke waste plans - Qld - 

www.smh.com.au

December 29, 2006 - 4:49PM

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie wants the federal government to
reveal where it plans to dump the tonnes of waste generated by
its proposed nuclear reactors. 

Prime Minister John Howard released the final report of the
government's Uranium Mining Processing and Nuclear Energy Task
Force, saying Australians had to accept nuclear energy was the
solution to the nation's rising energy costs and greenhouse gas
emissions. 

He said with Australia's uranium reserves, it would be "crazy in
the extreme" not to build nuclear reactors. 

And he said he would have no opposition to one being built next
to his own home. 

But Mr Beattie said many Queenslanders would not feel
comfortable living next door to a reactor and communities now
faced the threat of also living near a nuclear waste dump. 

"I'll say to the prime minister: 'Where are we going to dump the
nuclear waste?'," Mr Beattie said. 

"What part of Australia? 

"... I, for the life of me, cannot understand why the prime
minister is going down this road." 

He said there were two major problems with nuclear power. 

"What do you do with the waste? 

"It's here for a few hundred thousand years. You've got to store
it in Australia, there's not going to be people around the world
who want the waste. 

"And secondly, we've got in Queensland a coal industry with a
life of 250 to 300 years." 

He said clean coal technology, where coal is converted to
electricity and carbon emissions are trapped underground, was
the way forward. 

"Nuclear is not the answer and I would urge the prime minister
to re-think his position and to support clean coal technology." 

Mr Beattie said the state government would pass legislation in
the New Year to ban nuclear plants and waste sites being built
in Queensland. 

If the federal government tried to override the legislation, a
plebiscite would be undertaken to exert political pressure, he
said. 

Mr Howard said he would begin exploring the task force report's
recommendations in the New Year. 

"It is foolish and backward looking and old fashioned of people
to say we will always oppose the use of nuclear power," Mr
Howard said. 

"That makes no sense and it will do great damage to Australia's
energy security." 	
© 2006 	AAP
Brought to you by [aap] 	 
When news happens:send photos, videos &tip-offs to 0424 SMS SMH
(+61 424 767 764), or us. 

Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
 40 Sydney Morning Herald: PM bets house on uranium - 

www.smh.com.au

Mark Davis Political Correspondent

December 30, 2006
 	 	
THE Prime Minister, John Howard, has declared he would have no
problem with a nuclear power plant being built next door to his
family home in Wollstonecraft as he stepped up his push for
Australians to embrace the nuclear fuel cycle. 

Releasing the final report of a government taskforce on uranium
mining and nuclear energy, Mr Howard said a country like
Australia with abundant uranium reserves would be "crazy in the
extreme" if it did not allow for the development of nuclear
power. 

Asked by reporters whether he would share community concerns
about safety if a nuclear reactor was located next to his own
home, Mr Howard said: "I wouldn't have any objection, none
whatsoever. I'm serious, quite serious." 

He said the taskforce headed by the former Telstra chief
executive, Ziggy Switkowski, had shown there were no sound
reasons to prevent expansion of uranium mining and debunked
several myths about nuclear energy. 

He called on state governments to lift bans on further uranium
mining and exploration. 

The Federal Government would respond soon to the report's
recommendations to boost training of skilled workers such as
geologists with uranium experience and radiation safety
officers. 

"Nuclear power is part of the solution both to Australia's
energy and climate change challenges," Mr Howard said. 

"It is not going to come immediately because it is not economic
at the present time, but it will become increasingly economic as
we clean up the use of coal." 

His pro-nuclear comments mean the issue will figure prominently
in next year's federal election. Labor says it will campaign
locally on the issue by warning that nuclear plants could be
built in neighbourhoods or towns if the Government was
re-elected. 

The report found that growing world demand for uranium gave
Australia a timely opportunity to expand mining of the ore. It
estimated exports of uranium oxide could double to more than $1
billion a year by 2010 if state legislative restrictions were
lifted. 

It gave a more qualified endorsement to processing and
enrichment. Although this would add significant value to local
production, there were high commercial and technological
barriers to a local processing industry, it said. 

The report said investment in nuclear plants would ease the
challenge Australia faced in cutting greenhouse gas emissions. 

But it said nuclear power would be commercially viable only if
coal- and gas-fired electricity generators were obliged to meet
the environmental costs of their greenhouse gas emissions
through a carbon pricing scheme. 

The Wilderness Society released its own report, arguing that
several European countries were containing growth in greenhouse
emissions without going down the nuclear path. It said this
could be achieved by Australia ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and
adopting a target of cutting emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. 

 Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald.                                                   
*****************************************************************
 41 Tri-City Herald: Rail plans for depot lands put on hold 

Published Friday, December 29th, 2006
 
By Jeannine Koranda, Herald Oregon bureau 

HERMISTON -- Some officials are hopeful they can find a way to
address security concerns and still lease a train yard on the
Umatilla Chemical Depot to a business. 

The Land Redevelopment Authority, or LRA, is helping plan what
will happen with the depot's lands after all the chemical
weapons on site are destroyed, which could happen in the next
decade. 

Nearly three years ago the group began talking to a company from
Kingsport, Tenn., that was looking for a place to store rail
cars, said Umatilla County Commissioner Bill Hansell, who is
involved with the redevelopment authority. 

He said the group was working on a contract with the depot which
could have brought in about $10,000 a month in rent.
 
But depot Commander Lt. Col. Donna Rutten recently nixed the
idea, citing safety and security concerns. The rail yard is
along the depot's south fence line west of the administrative
buildings, and is visible from Interstate 84. 

Rutten's letter caught the group off guard, particularly because
previous commanders had not indicated a problem with the
proposal. 

Still, Hansell said he hopes there can be a compromise. 

"I'm optimistic there will be a solution that is workable and
will be a win-win for everyone," ill Hansell. 

Depot spokesman Bruce Henrickson said the depot's management
team looked at the proposal, and decided it did not make sense
currently. 

In her decision, Rutten said the new position "places the
project on hold pending destruction of all chemical munitions." 

The depot, which is nearing the end of its GB sarin destruction
campaign still stores a variety of VX-filled munitions and ton
containers of mustard blister agent, he said. 

The munitions could be destroyed by 2012, but the depot's
incinerator and secondary waste would have to be destroyed
before the site's mission is complete. 

Recently, the federal government has been reluctant to
acknowledge the local LRA, in part because the final closure is
so far off, Hansell said. The group was hoping that arranging a
lease could help show the government there were issues that
needed to be dealt with currently. 

The move is not intended to make it difficult for the group to
receive federal recognition, Henrickson said.
 
© 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 42 UPI: Former nuclear site may become museum
     
United Press International - NewsTrack - 

12/28/2006 6:03:00 PM -

COOPERSTOWN, N.D., Dec. 28 (UPI) -- A site in North Dakota that
housed nuclear warheads during the Cold War is eyeing a possible
second life as a museum. 

Standing in the way of that transformation is a new one-year
deadline against the State Historical Society of North Dakota to
raise the $1 million necessary to fund the project, USA Today
reported. 

If the group cannot raise the necessary funds by Dec. 31, 2007,
the U.S. Air Force will dismantle the last of the nuclear
facilities in North Dakota. 

To reach its financial ends, a federal program entitled Save
America's Treasures has received a $250,000 grant and with the
North Dakota Legislature possibly matching those funds, the
group would be halfway to its final goal. 

The paper said that among the memorabilia that would be featured
at the site, that was named Oscar Zero, are a round escape
hatch, electronic consoles and the red box that once held the
site's launch keys.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************