*****************************************************************
03/27/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.73
*****************************************************************
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 AFP: Ahmadinejad vows to pursue nuclear programme despite pressure -
2 AFP: US confirms major powers to meet on Iran in Berlin
3 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., Russia Discuss Iran Nukes, Rice Says
4 AFP: Iran nuclear programme aimed at peaceful uses - vice president
5 AFP: US, Russians meeting to end deadlock on Iran
6 Guardian Unlimited: America puts talks with Tehran on hold
7 LewRockwell.com: The Evil Men Do
8 FT.com: UK - Sell-off plan for BNFL arm to be unveiled
9 Xinhua: China to sign energy co-op deal with Australia
NUCLEAR REACTORS
10 [NukeNet] Chernobyl: Up To 500, 000 May Have Already Died As
11 [NukeNet] Most EU Leaders Back Reviving Nuclear Power
12 US: [NukeNet] link to nuke industry briefing paper
13 US: [NukeNet] 3 Mile Island Documentry On Tuesday March 28th
14 Chernobyl: Up To 500,000 May Have Already Died As IAEA, WHO Continue
15 US: NRC: NRC Sends Special Inspection Team to Vogtle Nuclear Plant t
16 BBC: Regeneration consortium unveiled
17 Independent: 'Without changing our mindset, I don't see how the envi
18 US: NRC: Attachment 1); EA-06-037]
19 US: NRC: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power
20 US: NRC: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Vermont Yankee Nuclear Po
21 US: NRC: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Pilgrim Nuclear Power Sta
22 US: HeraldNet: New uses for old nuclear plant
NUCLEAR SECURITY
23 UN Nuclear Chief Lays Out Plan To UN Proliferation, Terrorist Threat
24 Bellona: Bush White House requests a $43m decrease in CTR funding
NUCLEAR SAFETY
25 think twice before moving to europe- radioactive!
26 [du-list] three questions on "Reproductive health of Gulf War
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
27 US: [DU Information List] radioactive tank no 9 comes limping home
28 BBC NEWS: Sellafield awaits nuclear power's rebirth
29 US: Salt Lake Tribune: When pigs fly: Skull Valley nuke dump still
30 US: cbs2chicago.com: Rain Washes Tritium Into Ditch Near Nuclear Pla
31 AFP: Russian nuclear plant chief prosecuted for waste-dumping in riv
32 YUCCA MOUNTAIN REQUIRES STRICTER MANAGEMENT
33 US: Sydney Morning Herald: China to explore for our uranium -
34 Daily Yomiuri: Pluthermal power way of the future
35 Washington Technology: Yucca Mountain battle will be fought in digit
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
36 DOE: Office of International Regimes and Agreements; Proposed
37 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah
38 DOE: Office of Fossil Energy; Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee
39 DOE: Notice of Renewal of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 AFP: Ahmadinejad vows to pursue nuclear programme despite pressure -
[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed again
to push ahead with his country's nuclear programme despite
international warnings that the Islamic republic should halt
sensitive atomic activities, the Iranian state news agency IRNA
reported.
"Today the Iranian nation is standing firm against the world's
bullies and oppressors, and the people will not back down even
one step from its right in seeking nuclear technology,"
Ahmadinejad told crowds in the city of Dehdasht, in the southern
province of Kohgiluyeh-Boyerahmad.
"With the people's support, the government will do its best to
seek the nuclear technology," he added, amid chants of "nuclear
technology is our undeniable rights."
The United States and its allies charge that Iran's nuclear
programme conceals an effort to develop weapons and have urged
it to halt sensitive uranium enrichment activities.
Iran vehemently denies the charges, saying its research is
peaceful and meant to provide fuel for its power plants.
On Sunday, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also
urged Iranians to resist "the enemy's threats".
The UN Security Council is currently deadlocked over Iran's
nuclear programme.
Discussions, which began last Monday, have been snagged by the
refusal of Russia and China, two of the council's five
veto-wielding permanent members, to consider sanctions against
their ally and major trading partner in Tehran.
AFP
*****************************************************************
2 AFP: US confirms major powers to meet on Iran in Berlin
Mon Mar 27, 1:27 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States confirmed the five
permament members of the UN Security Council plus Germany would
meet in Berlin on Thursday as efforts continued to hammer out a
statement on Iran's nuclear program.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice " /> would sit down with her counterparts
from Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany to discuss the
deadlocked UN talks on Iran.
"I think the focus will be on the medium to long-term issues
about how to get Iran ... back into the mainstream of the
non-proliferation framework and how to get it to roll back its
program," McCormack said.
Britain had earlier announced the Berlin meeting of the
so-called P-5 plus Germany, to be held at the start of Rice's
four-day trip to Europe that will also take her to France and
Britain.
Washington is seeking to end an impasse over a draft UN Security
Council presidential statement that would call Iran to account
for its suspected nuclear weapons activities. Russia and China
oppose tough language.
Russian and US negotiators worked through the weekend to try to
thrash out a compromise but McCormack didn't report any progress.
"We're continuing to work the language," he said. "We obviously
haven't come to a consensus on language yet."
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
3 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., Russia Discuss Iran Nukes, Rice Says
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday March 27, 2006 1:31 PM
AP Photo VAH102
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. and Russian officials worked over the
weekend on how best to oppose Iran's nuclear program as the Bush
administration's efforts for U.N. action against Tehran have
bogged down.
``The Iranians are defying the world's will, and the
international community needs to speak and speak with one
voice,'' Rice told ``Fox News Sunday.'' ``There are some
tactical issues about how best to express that.''
Tehran has been referred to the Security Council over fears it
may want to use its nuclear program to produce weapons.
The council has been at loggerheads over U.S.-led efforts to
ratchet up the pressure on Iran. The United States, Britain and
France support tough language calling on Tehran to return to a
freeze of uranium enrichment. Russia and China, the two other
permanent Security Council members, are opposed.
``We have the same view of the problem. The Russians do not want
a nuclear weapon in Iran either,'' Rice said on NBC's ``Meet the
Press.'' ``It's been very clear in everything that they've tried
to do.''
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Sunday that
Iran would stand firm against any action taken to pressure it to
abandon its nuclear program, Iran's state-run television
reported.
Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful energy
purposes.
Also Sunday, Rice said the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan,
Ronald Neumann, had met with Iran's ambassador there several
months ago to addressed security issues.
``We will see when it is desirable to do so again,'' Rice said
on CNN's Late Edition.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
4 AFP: Iran nuclear programme aimed at peaceful uses - vice president -
Mon Mar 27, 7:51 AM ET
NEW DELHI (AFP) - Visiting Iranian Vice President Rahim Mashaee
denied that his country is developing weapons under the cover of
its nuclear programme, saying it is aimed at power generation.
"We have nuclear technology developed one hundred percent
indigenously. How can one attack the nuclear technology? We are
not hiding any nuclear bomb," Mashaee was quoted as telling
reporters by the Press Trust of India news agency.
The United States and its allies charge that Iran " /> 's nuclear
programme conceals an effort to develop weapons and have urged it
to halt sensitive uranium enrichment activities. Iran vehemently
denies the charges.
The UN Security Council is deadlocked over Iran's nuclear
programme, with Russia and China, two of the five veto-wielding
permanent members, refusing to consider sanctions against ally
and major trading partner Iran.
In New Delhi, Mashaee said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had
assured him of India's support on "certain principles" like
Iran's peaceful use of nuclear technology.
"The prime minister has said that India is for a peaceful
solution of the issue," said Mashaee, who met Singh on Saturday.
India, which has nuclear weapons, voted last month to refer Iran
to the UN Security Council on the issue.
On energy cooperation between India and Iran, Mashaee promised
New Delhi "good news" on an agreement which the two countries
signed last June for the supply of natural gas to India.
The deal worth 22 billion dollars is for Tehran to supply five
million tonnes of liquefied natural gas annually over a 25-year
period from 2009.
Mashaee said Iran's oil minister Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh would be
visiting India soon to finalise details.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
5 AFP: US, Russians meeting to end deadlock on Iran
Sun Mar 26, 1:55 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US and Russian diplomats were meeting in a
new bid to end the impasse over a UN response to Iran
" /> 's controversial nuclear program, US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice
" /> said.
Rice acknowledged during a round of Sunday television talk
shows that differences persisted over the language of a UN
Security Council statement seeking to keep Iran from pursuing
sensitive nuclear work.
She said she spoke Friday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov and they agreed to have their negotiators work through
the weekend in an attempt to hammer out language acceptable to
both.
"I think they're going to meet later today, to try and resolve
these differences, because we do need to speak and speak with
one voice," the chief US diplomat told the Fox News Sunday
program.
"But we shouldn't delay," she later told CNN's "Late Edition,"
adding that "we do need a presidential statement that makes
clear to the Iranians what is clear to everyone."
No word was available on the progress of efforts to thrash out a
Security Council presidential statement on Iran's
uranium-enrichment activities that Washington suspects are aimed
at building a nuclear bomb.
Russia and China, two of the council's five veto-wielding
permanent members, have balked at even threatening sanctions
against Iran for a nuclear program that Tehran insists is for
strictly peaceful purposes.
The United States has been pushing for a tough approach, backed
by France and Britain -- which are also permanent members of the
Security Council -- and Germany.
Rice told NBC television that once agreement was reached on a UN
statement, the United States might seek a ministerial meeting of
the council's permanent members plus Germany "to talk about
charting a course forward."
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
6 Guardian Unlimited: America puts talks with Tehran on hold
[UP]
Jonathan Steele
Monday March 27, 2006
The Guardian
The promised talks between the US and Iran on the situation in
Iraq have been put on hold after Iraq's president and other
ministers demanded that no negotiations take place over their
heads, American officials in Baghdad have disclosed.
The talks had been seen as potentially a major breakthrough
after more than 25 years during which the two states had no
relations after US diplomats were taken hostage in their embassy
in Tehran in 1979. Although both sides said the agenda would be
confined to Iraq, there were hopes that the talks could lead to
a reduction of tension over other disputes, including Iran's
nuclear programme.
Tehran is calling for a US withdrawal from Iraq. Washington
wants Iran to end its alleged interference in Iraq and the
supplies of bomb-making and other material which it says the
Iranians are funnelling to insurgents. After protests from Iraqi
leaders, the US has accepted Iraq's request that it take part in
the talks, but this cannot happen until a new government is
formed. There was no truth in speculation that the face-to-face
meeting between senior US and Iranian officials could take place
as early as this week, a senior US official told the Guardian
last night.
"The talks will include an Iraqi representative, since the
agenda is about Iraq, and it makes little sense if no new Iraqi
government exists," the official said.
More than three months have passed since Iraqis elected a
parliament. Its first task is to approve the choice of a prime
minister, but the main Kurdish and Sunni parties are refusing to
support the renomination of the prime minister, Ibrahim Jaafari.
Britain and Iraq
In memoriam: 100 British troops killed in Iraq
Special report: UK politics and Iraq
Chronology
January 1 2005 - present
Feb 1 2004 - 31 Dec 2004
July 16 1979 - Jan 31 2004
Interactive guides
Saddam's trial
More click-through graphics on Iraq
Key documents
Full text of speeches and documents
Audio reports
Audio reports on Iraq
Links
Provisional authority: rebuilding Iraq
Iraqi-American chamber of commerce
Wikipedia: Iraq
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
7 LewRockwell.com: The Evil Men Do
by Robert Klassen
Just when I think things can’t be worse, I find out they are.
Like a good many people, I’ve gradually become accustomed to the
blatant tyranny emanating from the District of Criminals. It’s
almost a relief to have the executive tell us point blank that
the Constitution, the congress, and the courts don’t matter.
Neither do the people, as long as we obediently labor for the
state. Wars of aggression? No surprise. Rendition, torture,
concentration camps? No surprise. Universal snooping? No
surprise. What about depleted uraniumbombs, bullets, and armor?
Oh my. I suspect that Americans have little idea of the evil
being done in our name.
Last week a friend sent me this linkto an essay by Arun
Shrivastava, who writes a fair warning on the danger of DU. Ever
the skeptic, I started searching for more information. I didn’t
like what I found.
Naturally DC has been lying about the danger all along, but the
unexamined issue is why did they decide to use these weapons at
all? Why did we need armor piercing ordinance against "enemies"
who had no armor? Were we up against tanks and battleships in
the Balkans and Afghanistan? Were Iraqi tanks impervious to
conventional weapons? Are mud-brick buildings really that tough?
What is the point of seeding a region with radioactive aerosols
and dust that will kill for generations to come? Only one comes
to mind: Depopulate the region.
Is DC capable of such monumental evil? Obviously. They even
believe they can garrison this Land of Death. Do they believe
there is magic in political boundaries? Apparently. But the dust
will spread around the world and radioactive fallout will rain on
us again, as it has done since July 1945, after the first atomic
detonation in White Sands, New Mexico. Fatal
cancerswill increase (sure, blame smoking), and even the elite
will fall.
Did we Americans ever get over our love affair with nuclear
weapons? It doesn’t look like it. Now we have radioactive GIs
coming home with the gift of cancer for themselves and their
loved ones. Is this evil enough to satisfy the plutocrats who
yearn for ever more power? I have only one question for them: If
every continent loses three-hundred million people, who wins? The
arithmetic is simple.
"The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred
with their bones." Shakespeare sure got that right.
March 27, 2006
Copyright © 2006 Robert Klassen
*****************************************************************
8 FT.com: UK - Sell-off plan for BNFL arm to be unveiled
By Carola Hoyos and Ben Hall
Published: March 27 2006 03:00 | Last updated: March 27 2006
The sale of British Nuclear Group, the clean-up arm of British
Nuclear Fuels, is to be announced by the government this week in
the latest in a series of privatisations worth up to ÂŁ30bn.
The BNG sell-off plan follows the announcement in last week's
Budget of the partial disposal of British Energy, the nuclear
power generator, which will lead a series of asset sales during
the next four years.
The sale of BNG, tobe announced on Thursday or Friday, is
estimated as likely to fetch as much as $1bn (ÂŁ570m).
The nuclear industry is arousing keen interest from investors as
the government prepares to decide whether to back a new
generation of nuclear power stations under its energy review
this summer.
Tony Blair is minded to support a renewal of nuclear power,
which provides 20 per cent of Britain's electricity - a decision
that could increase BNG's prospective value.
The BNG sell-off is likely to take 12 to 18 months because of
the political sensitivities involved and in order to give more
time to the government's recently established Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority to set up processes for contracting
out to competing operators the clean-up of the UK's 20 nuclear
sites.
BNFL proposed BNG's sale in September last year, but the deal
was held up by objections from unions and from senior figures in
the NDA.
The government will announce its intention to sell off BNG after
receiving the NDA's approval this week. The authority will
publish its revised strategy, updating its ÂŁ56bn estimate of
the total cost of decommissioning existing facilities and
cleaning up the sites.
The preferred buyer for BNG would be a large international
engineering group, such as Fluor or Bechtel, both of the US,
which could give BNG access to the huge international nuclear
clean-up industry, nuclear industry insiders said.
Amec, the UK company, could also be a contender, though some in
the industry say the company is too small to help BNG break out
beyond the UK's $50bn nuclear clean-up industry.
"BNG is a very experienced bunch of people. But it is quite
small and needs to be strengthened and to be given global
reach," said an industry insider.
BNG's sale would follow that of Westinghouse, BNFL's US nuclear
reactor arm, to Japan's Toshiba for ÂŁ2.8bn.
The record price achieved by the sale is unlikely to help
increase the price the government gets for BNG because they are
two different businesses.
But each has benefited from a resurgence of interest in nuclear
power as natural gas prices rise and reserves in the North Sea
dwindle, forcing the UK and others to rely on less stable
sources, such as Russia.
BNFL is also considering selling its 33 per cent stake in
Urenco, the uranium enrichment business. If that sale were to go
ahead, BNFL would be left with only Nexia, its research arm.
© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2006. "FT"
and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times.
*****************************************************************
9 Xinhua: China to sign energy co-op deal with Australia
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2006-03-27 23:02:31
BEIJING, March 27 (Xinhua) -- A Chinese diplomat said here
Monday that China will probably sign cooperation agreements with
Australia on peaceful use of nuclear energy and uranium mining
during Premier Wen Jiabao's upcoming visit to Australia.
Liu Jieyi, director of the North American and Oceanian
Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said at a news
briefing about Wen's visit to Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and
Cambodia that the cooperation between China and Australia has
seen "good" and "substantial" progress.
"The two sides had a consultation on nuclear cooperation not
long ago with many positive results. China believes the
cooperation is conducive to the interests of the two countries
and two peoples, and the building of an eco-friendly society in
China," Liu said.
The nuclear cooperation will feature peaceful use and will
be supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
he said.
Liu affirmed that China is not only a big energy consumer
but also a big energy producer, and energy imports only play a
supplementary role in the national energy supply.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao will pay official visits to
Australia, Fiji, New Zealand and Cambodia, and attend an
economic forum between China and Pacific island countries from
April 1 to 8.
Wen will also attend the opening ceremony of the first
China-Pacific Island Countries Economic Development and
Cooperation Forum held in Fiji.
During the forum, Liu said China will try to explore new
approaches to further ties with Oceanic countries.
According to Liu, Wen will deliver a speech at the opening
ceremony of the forum, illustrating China's policies toward
Oceanian countries and make concrete proposals to develop
relations between China and Oceanic countries.
Wen will also meet with the leaders of the Oceanic countries
and sign guidelines on the economic cooperation between China
and Oceania countries, Liu added.
In response to a reporter's question, Liu said that all the
Oceanic countries, including those with no diplomatic relations
with China, are invited to the forum, calling for the countries
to establish or resume diplomatic relations with China as soon
as possible.
Chinese official statistics showed that trade volume between
China and the Oceanic countries reached 838 million U.S. dollars
in 2005, up 58 percent over the previous year.
"China has offered some assistance and made contributions to
the economic and social development of the Oceanian countries,"
Liu said.
During his last leg of the four-nation visit, Wen will
probably sign a cooperation agreement on the second phase of the
protection project of the Angkor Wat historical relics in
Cambodia, said Hu Zhengyao, director of the Asian Department of
Chinese Foreign Ministry.
China and Cambodia will also issue a joint agreement on
bilateral relations and future cooperation in various fields
during Premier Wen's visit to the country, Hu added. Enditem
Editor: Luan Shanglin
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
10 [NukeNet] Chernobyl: Up To 500, 000 May Have Already Died As
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:37:57 -0800
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
----- Original Message -----
From: michel et solange fernex
To: Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 7:01 AM
Subject: Tr : [chernobyl20] UN accused of ignoring
500,000 Chernobyl deaths
De : "antony froggatt"
Ŕ :
Objet : [chernobyl20] UN accused of ignoring
500,000 Chernobyl deaths
Date : Sam, 25. Mär 2006 8:22 Uhr
UN accused of ignoring 500,000 Chernobyl deaths
· Atomic agency says toll will not exceed 4,000
· Doctors 'overwhelmed' by cancers and mutations
John Vidal, environment editor: The Guardian
Saturday March 25, 2006
The Guardian < http://www.guardian.co.uk >
United Nations nuclear and health watchdogs have
ignored evidence of deaths, cancers, mutations and
other conditions after the Chernobyl accident,
leading scientists and doctors have claimed in the
run-up to the nuclear disaster's 20th anniversary
next month.
In a series of reports about to be published,
they will suggest that at least 30,000 people are
expected to die of cancers linked directly to
severe radiation exposure in 1986 and up to
500,000 people may have already died as a result
of the world's worst environmental catastrophe.
--------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
But the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) and World Health Organisation say that only
50 deaths can be directly attributed to the
disaster, and that, at most, 4,000 people may
eventually die from the accident on April 26 1986.
They say only nine children have died of thyroid
cancers in 20 years and that the majority of
illnesses among the estimated 5 million people
contaminated in the former Soviet Union are
attributable to growing poverty and unhealthy
lifestyles.
An IAEA spokesman said he was confident the UN
figures were correct. "We have a wide scientific
consensus of 100 leading scientists. When we see
or hear of very high mortalities we can only lean
back and question the legitimacy of the figures.
Do they have qualified people? Are they
responsible? If they have data that they think are
excluded then they should send it."
The new estimates have been collated by
researchers commissioned by European parliamentary
groups, Greenpeace International and medical
foundations in Britain, Germany, Ukraine,
Scandinavia and elsewhere. They take into account
more than 50 published scientific studies.
"At least 500,000 people - perhaps more - have
already died out of the 2 million people who were
officially classed as victims of Chernobyl in
Ukraine," said Nikolai Omelyanets, deputy head of
the National Commission for Radiation Protection
in Ukraine. "[Studies show] that 34,499 people who
took part in the clean-up of Chernobyl have died
in the years since the catastrophe. The deaths of
these people from cancers was nearly three times
as high as in the rest of the population.
"We have found that infant mortality increased
20% to 30% because of chronic exposure to
radiation after the accident. All this information
has been ignored by the IAEA and WHO. We sent it
to them in March last year and again in June.
They've not said why they haven't accepted it."
Evgenia Stepanova, of the Ukrainian government's
Scientific Centre for Radiation Medicine, said:
"We're overwhelmed by thyroid cancers, leukaemias
and genetic mutations that are not recorded in the
WHO data and which were practically unknown 20
years ago."
The IAEA and WHO, however, say that apart from
an increase in thyroid cancer in children there is
no evidence of a large-scale impact on public
health. "No increases in overall cancer incidence
or mortality that could be associated with
radiation exposure have been observed," said the
agencies' report in September.
In the Rivne region of Ukraine, 310 miles west
of Chernobyl, doctors say they are coming across
an unusual rate of cancers and mutations. "In the
30 hospitals of our region we find that up to 30%
of people who were in highly radiated areas have
physical disorders, including heart and blood
diseases, cancers and respiratory diseases. Nearly
one in three of all the newborn babies have
deformities, mostly internal," said Alexander
Vewremchuk, of the Special Hospital for the
Radiological Protection of the Population in
Vilne.
Figures on the health effects of Chernobyl have
always been disputed. Soviet authorities covered
up many of the details at the time. The largest
radiation doses were received by the 600,000
people involved in the clean-up, many drawn from
army conscripts all over the Soviet Union.
Backstory
The worst nuclear accident in history took place
on April 26 1986 when one of the four reactors at
the Chernobyl complex 80 miles north of Kiev in
Ukraine began to fail. Operators shut down the
system, but a large chemical explosion followed a
power surge and the 1,000-tonne cover blew off the
top of the reactor. Design flaws in the cooling
system were blamed for the accident, in which 31
people were killed immediately. The worst-affected
area was Belarus, which took the brunt of the 4%
of the 190 tonnes of uranium dioxide in the plant
that escaped. Ukraine was also contaminated. Some
600,000 workers (mainly volunteers) who took part
in recovery and clean-up operations were exposed
to high levels of radiation; the Soviet government
first suppressed news of the incident, but
evacuated local people within a few days. Five
million people were exposed to radiation in
Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, and there was a
dramatic increase in thyroid cancer among children
living there.
_________________________________________________
Antony Froggatt
London, UK
tel: 00 44 20 79230412
fax: 00 44 20 79237383
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chernobyl120
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/chernobyl120
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
11 [NukeNet] Most EU Leaders Back Reviving Nuclear Power
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:39:31 -0800
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1739394,00.html Is the URL for
the story of possibly 500,000 people already having been killed by
Chernobyl posted earlier. These are all weapons of mass destruction
both for the fuel that can be used in conventional nuclear weapons and for
the radiological effects of a meltdown, boil off due to human eeror or an
attack: http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,,1740454,00.html Most
EU leaders back reviving nuclear power David Gow in Brussels Monday March
27, 2006 The Guardian The overwhelming majority of leaders at last week's
European Union summit, including Tony Blair, strongly backed a revival of
nuclear power as the answer to Europe's growing dependence on overseas
supplies and to combat climate change. Only Germany and Austria explicitly
rejected the nuclear option in secret summit talks, according to senior
German diplomats, who pointed out that Angela Merkel, the chancellor and a
trained physicist, favoured it personally but was bound by her Social
Democrat coalition partners to reject it. Andris Piebalgs, EU energy
commissioner and author of this month's green paper on a common energy
policy, made it plain in an interview that a revival of atomic power was
not the "silver bullet" for meeting Europe's triple objectives of security
of supply, sustainable development and competitiveness. "There are no
silver bullets and you cannot believe that, if you build new nuclear power
stations, that will solve everything," he told the Guardian. "Countries
with expertise are well placed to replace existing plants or build new
stations but we should not say that nuclear energy will meet all three
objectives cheaply and efficiently. It has huge costs and lots of
complications, including the issue of waste and final storage." Mr
Piebalgs, a Latvian, said countries pursuing the nuclear option needed to
emulate Finland, which is building Europe's first new nuclear plant since
the Chernobyl disaster 20 years ago (a French-designed pressurised-water
reactor). "Finland's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the
nuclear option and a political debate, including about safe final storage,
so each citizen knows that he is not condemning his children to a dangerous
future," he said, adding: "The only genuine silver bullet is energy
efficiency and conservation." Last week's summit endorsed the notion of an
EU action plan designed to save 20% of energy consumption by 2020 and plans
to raise the 6% of energy provided by renewables to 20% by the same date.
But EU leaders rejected Mr Piebalgs' call for a European energy regulator
to police the market and provide the framework to invest in common gas and
electricity grids that, with new power plants, could cost €1,000bn
(ÂŁ700bn) by 2030. By then the EU will import 70% of its energy, mainly gas
from Russia, Algeria and Norway, as North Sea reserves run out. Mr
Piebalgs, who also favours the use of clean coal, carbon sequestration and
biomass, indicated that a critical answer to Europe's long-term supply
needs was to increase the market for liquefied natural gas (LNG), which
could be imported from several countries. He suggested that LNG should
provide 20%-25% of European energy within the next 25 years.
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change
your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
12 [NukeNet] link to nuke industry briefing paper
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:36:39 -0800
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Wow- what an overview- though not from an
anti-nuclear point of view, at link below:
http://www.uic.com.au/nip58.htm
US Nuclear Power Industry
Briefing Paper # 58
March 2006
"However, new investment has occurred only in states
which have liberalised their systems to rely on
markets for pricing of electricity. There has been no
sale of plants in states with traditional US cost-plus
pricing."
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
13 [NukeNet] 3 Mile Island Documentry On Tuesday March 28th
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:36:51 -0800
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Tuesday March 28, 2006 marks the 27
anniversary of the partial meltdown at TMI.
Please forward this to all lists, media outlets
and interested journalists:
>"Three Mile Island Revisited," directed by
Steve Jambeck, will be aired on
>Free Speech TV Tuesday at 3 a.m., 6 a.m., 10
a.m., 3 p.m., 5 p.m. and 10
>p.m. Free Speech TV broadcasts via the Dish
Satellite Network (Channel
>9415) and on 156 cable TV stations in 33 states
reaching 25 million homes.
For more information visit: www.envirovideo.com
The award-winning EnviroVideo documentary "Three
Mile Island Revisited"
will be aired on Free Speech TV through the day
Tuesday, March 28 ---the
27th anniversary of the major accident at the
nuclear plant in
Pennsylvania.
The documentary challenges the claim of the
nuclear industry
and government that "no one died" as a result of
the core meltdown at Three
Mile Island. Utilizing the testimony of area
residents and scientific
findings, it reveals that deaths, especially
from cancer, and birth defects
in children, were widespread in years following
the accident.
Indeed, states the documentary's narrator and
writer, Karl Grossman,
speaking in front of the nuclear facility, the
area around it became a
"valley of death" following the accident. The
plant's owner quietly
settled damage cases with persons seriously
impacted by the accident, it
discloses.
"Three Mile Island Revisited," directed by Steve
Jambeck, will be aired on
Free Speech TV Tuesday at 3 a.m., 6 a.m., 10
a.m., 3 p.m., 5 p.m. and 10
p.m. Free Speech TV broadcasts via the Dish
Satellite Network (Channel
9415) and on 156 cable TV stations in 33 states
reaching 25 million homes.
For more information visit: www.envirovideo.com
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
14 Chernobyl: Up To 500,000 May Have Already Died As IAEA, WHO Continue Big Lie, More To Die As Nuke Power Revival Push Continues
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 13:08:57 -0500
UN accused of ignoring 500,000 Chernobyl deaths
· Atomic agency says toll will not exceed 4,000
· Doctors 'overwhelmed' by cancers and mutations
John Vidal, environment editor: The Guardian
Saturday March 25, 2006
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1739394,00.html
< http://www.guardian.co.uk >
United Nations nuclear and health watchdogs have
ignored evidence of deaths, cancers, mutations and
other conditions after the Chernobyl accident,
leading scientists and doctors have claimed in the
run-up to the nuclear disaster's 20th anniversary
next month.
In a series of reports about to be published,
they will suggest that at least 30,000 people are
expected to die of cancers linked directly to
severe radiation exposure in 1986 and up to
500,000 people may have already died as a result
of the world's worst environmental catastrophe.
--------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
But the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) and World Health Organisation say that only
50 deaths can be directly attributed to the
disaster, and that, at most, 4,000 people may
eventually die from the accident on April 26 1986.
They say only nine children have died of thyroid
cancers in 20 years and that the majority of
illnesses among the estimated 5 million people
contaminated in the former Soviet Union are
attributable to growing poverty and unhealthy
lifestyles.
An IAEA spokesman said he was confident the UN
figures were correct. "We have a wide scientific
consensus of 100 leading scientists. When we see
or hear of very high mortalities we can only lean
back and question the legitimacy of the figures.
Do they have qualified people? Are they
responsible? If they have data that they think are
excluded then they should send it."
The new estimates have been collated by
researchers commissioned by European parliamentary
groups, Greenpeace International and medical
foundations in Britain, Germany, Ukraine,
Scandinavia and elsewhere. They take into account
more than 50 published scientific studies.
"At least 500,000 people - perhaps more - have
already died out of the 2 million people who were
officially classed as victims of Chernobyl in
Ukraine," said Nikolai Omelyanets, deputy head of
the National Commission for Radiation Protection
in Ukraine. "[Studies show] that 34,499 people who
took part in the clean-up of Chernobyl have died
in the years since the catastrophe. The deaths of
these people from cancers was nearly three times
as high as in the rest of the population.
"We have found that infant mortality increased
20% to 30% because of chronic exposure to
radiation after the accident. All this information
has been ignored by the IAEA and WHO. We sent it
to them in March last year and again in June.
They've not said why they haven't accepted it."
Evgenia Stepanova, of the Ukrainian government's
Scientific Centre for Radiation Medicine, said:
"We're overwhelmed by thyroid cancers, leukaemias
and genetic mutations that are not recorded in the
WHO data and which were practically unknown 20
years ago."
The IAEA and WHO, however, say that apart from
an increase in thyroid cancer in children there is
no evidence of a large-scale impact on public
health. "No increases in overall cancer incidence
or mortality that could be associated with
radiation exposure have been observed," said the
agencies' report in September.
In the Rivne region of Ukraine, 310 miles west
of Chernobyl, doctors say they are coming across
an unusual rate of cancers and mutations. "In the
30 hospitals of our region we find that up to 30%
of people who were in highly radiated areas have
physical disorders, including heart and blood
diseases, cancers and respiratory diseases. Nearly
one in three of all the newborn babies have
deformities, mostly internal," said Alexander
Vewremchuk, of the Special Hospital for the
Radiological Protection of the Population in
Vilne.
Figures on the health effects of Chernobyl have
always been disputed. Soviet authorities covered
up many of the details at the time. The largest
radiation doses were received by the 600,000
people involved in the clean-up, many drawn from
army conscripts all over the Soviet Union.
Backstory
The worst nuclear accident in history took place
on April 26 1986 when one of the four reactors at
the Chernobyl complex 80 miles north of Kiev in
Ukraine began to fail. Operators shut down the
system, but a large chemical explosion followed a
power surge and the 1,000-tonne cover blew off the
top of the reactor. Design flaws in the cooling
system were blamed for the accident, in which 31
people were killed immediately. The worst-affected
area was Belarus, which took the brunt of the 4%
of the 190 tonnes of uranium dioxide in the plant
that escaped. Ukraine was also contaminated. Some
600,000 workers (mainly volunteers) who took part
in recovery and clean-up operations were exposed
to high levels of radiation; the Soviet government
first suppressed news of the incident, but
evacuated local people within a few days. Five
million people were exposed to radiation in
Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, and there was a
dramatic increase in thyroid cancer among children
living there.
_________________________________________________
Antony Froggatt
London, UK
tel: 00 44 20 79230412
fax: 00 44 20 79237383
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chernobyl120
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/chernobyl120
*****************************************************************
15 NRC: NRC Sends Special Inspection Team to Vogtle Nuclear Plant to Review Cause of
Repeat Leakage in Shutdown Cooling System
News Release - Region II - 2006-00 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II 61 Forsyth Street
SW, Atlanta, GA 30303 No. II-06-007 March
24, 2006 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah
(404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II office in Atlanta
has sent a special team of inspectors to the Vogtle nuclear
power plant, operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Company near
Waynesboro, Ga., to look into the cause of repeat weld leakage
in a small line which is part of the plants Unit 2 Residual Heat
Removal (RHR) system.
Dr. William Travers, administrator of the agencys Atlanta
office, said the leak posed no threat to the health and safety
of plant personnel and resulted in no outside release of
radioactive material. It contained small amount of reactor
coolant which leaked into the containment building. As a result,
the reactor, which experienced similar weld leaks in December of
2005 and February of this year, was shut down March 20 for
repair and modification.
He said air samples inside the containment building initially
indicated the possibility of a small reactor cooling system
leak, Also, a camera-equipped robot indicated the presence of a
small steam leak on the bypass line of the RHR system suction
valve.
Dr. Travers said the NRC special inspection team will review
circumstances associated with the event and monitor the companys
efforts to identify and correct the cause of the problem.
Last revised Monday, March 27, 2006
*****************************************************************
16 BBC: Regeneration consortium unveiled
Last Updated: Monday, 27 March 2006
[Chapelcross nuclear plant]
Chapelcross nuclear plant is in the process of closing
The preferred bidders for a multi-million pound project to help
economic regeneration in Dumfries and Galloway have been
selected.
A consortium of Bank of Scotland Corporate and Kilmartin Property
Group will take the project forward.
It aims to help Gretna, Lockerbie and Annan recover from the
future closure of the Chapelcross nuclear plant.
The scheme is part of enterprise company plans to generate more
than Ł250m of private investment.
The two companies will enter negotiations with Scottish
Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway (SEDG) to form a public private
partnership operating through Katalyst Projects Limited (KPL).
'Excellent record'
SEDG has already pledged Ł8m to the project in order to attract
higher levels of private investment.
The first phase of plans are expected to be announced in May and
will focus on industrial units, office accommodation, leisure and
retail developments.
"Both organisations have an excellent track record in property
development and finance and we look forward to entering into
negotiations to form a working partnership with them," said SEDG
chief executive Colin Williamson.
"This is an important regeneration project and we are delighted
that Bank of Scotland has been chosen as the preferred partner
for this innovative scheme," added Bank of Scotland Corporate
Director Gary MacDonald.
*****************************************************************
17 Independent: 'Without changing our mindset, I don't see how the environmental
issue can be tackled'
Published: 28 March 2006
Alexei Sayle, Writer & broadcaster
The concerns for society today are predicated on our consumer
culture. It seems we have to buy all this different crap to keep
going. If that continues to be the norm, I can't see much
changing. Without altering that mindset I do not see how the
environment can be tackled seriously. You can't tinker at the
edges. This tax and that tax is not going to change much.
Caroline Lucas, Green Party MEP
The Government still needs to massively invest in renewable
energy, energy efficiency and to rewrite building regulations.
But individual rationing is the only way to ensure everyone
takes action, not just the green-minded few. Climate change is a
weapon of mass destruction, greater than a military threat in
terms of the numbers affected. We need a shock to wake us up.
Dinos Chapman, Artist
Change needs to be foisted upon us because we are not going to
do it ourselves. I am pessimistic but not a defeatist. The only
thing that motivates us is self interest. If we all really
thought about it very hard it would be really simple to stop all
of this. But that would take sharing first world wealth with the
Third World, and nobody is interested in doing that.
Tracey Emin , Artist
We need more research and development in the things like
electronic cars. Research is desperately needed in so many areas
in this country but is ignored by the Government. But it is not
just governments who have responsibility - it is people like
myself, who are aware of what they are doing wrong, yet still do
it. Much more needs to be done to let people know what they are
doing.
Chris Packham, Wildlife broadcaster
The most important thing is to change American policy. They use
25 per cent of the world's resources with a fraction of the
population. We have to stop flying everywhere for Ł65. Cheap
flights have got to go. And we need to invest massively in
public transport.I agree that nations have to cap their carbon
and those using the most should be targeted.
Katherine Hamnett, Designer
What concerns me is this myth that the shift to nuclear power
will cut carbon emissions. A recent poll by the University of
East Anglia and Mori said 54 per cent said they would accept new
stations being built for this reason. CND says nuclear power is
not carbon-free. The whole nuclear cycle from uranium mining
onwards produces more greenhouse gases than most renewable
energy sources.
Philip Dodd, Broadcaster
Climate change can only be addressed by working with other
countries and this seems to me to be a profound failure with
Britain - our failure to really try to understand how places
like China see the world. This is a global issue and I think
that Britain is too insular. I'm not against your campaign but
it strikes me as a unilateral answer to a global problem.
Will Self , Novelist
We need an aviation fuel tax if we are to properly address
environmental concerns. I think we should see an end to this
Ł5-to-Milan malarkey. That is what is turning us to toast. A cap
is desirable, if only to make the individual aware that
consumption needs to be controlled. The practical difficulties
mean it could act as an information campaign more than anything
else. A starting point.
Joan Bakewell, Writer and social commentator
The English aren't as good at recycling as the French, who are
very rigorous - they keep to the rules or they get fined.
Recycling should be statutory with fines for failing. And the
people who distribute glossy junk mail should pay a very high
tax to do so. The Chancellor's tax on gas-guzzling cars will be
nothing to the rich and should be much higher.
Tony Juniper, Friends of the Earth
The first step should be establishing the legal framework
requiring the Government to reduce our emissions by 3 per cent a
year. Then we can talk about caps. A cap system doesn't have to
be unfair. If you set up a scheme where people who don't have a
big carbon footprint can sell some of their allocation to people
who do, that could be fairer than the system in place at the
moment.
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
18 NRC: Attachment 1); EA-06-037]
FR Doc E6-4371
[Federal Register: March 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 58)]
[Notices] [Page 15225-15229] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27mr06-95]
In the Matter of Operating Power Reactor Licensees Identified in
Attachment 1; Order Modifying Licenses (Effective Immediately) I.
The licensees identified in Attachment 1 to this Order hold
licenses issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or
the Commission) authorizing operation of nuclear power plants in
accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50. Commission
regulations at 10 CFR 50.54(p)(1) require these licensees to
maintain safeguards contingency plan procedures in accordance
with 10 CFR part 73, Appendix C.
Specific safeguards requirements for reactors are contained in 10
CFR 73.55. II.
On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets
in New York, N.Y., and Washington, DC, using large commercial
aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence
information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number
of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees, and
eventually Orders to selected licensees, to strengthen licensees'
capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a
nuclear facility. On April 29, 2003, the Commission issued an
Order to all operating power reactor licensees that enhanced the
design basis threat (DBT) specified in 10 CFR 73.1. As a result
of the Commission's continued assessment of threat information,
the Commission has determined that a revision to one of the
[[Page 15226]] specific adversary characteristics set forth in
the April 29, 2003, DBT Order needs to be updated and enhanced.
The update to the adversary characteristic is set forth in
Attachment 2\1\ of this Order.
Each licensee must amend its site security plans to address the
new adversary characteristic in its protective strategy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \1\ Attachment 2 contains Safeguards Information and
will not be publicly disclosed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Any needed changes to the physical security plan,
safeguards contingency plan, or guard training and qualification
plan required by 10 CFR 50.34(c), 50.34(d), and 73.55(b)(4)(ii),
respectively, shall be completed and implemented within 60 days
of the date of this Order.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that in the circumstances
described above, the public health, safety, and interest and the
common defense and security require that this Order be
immediately effective.
III.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o,
182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR parts 50
and 73, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that all
licenses identified in Attachment 1 to this order are modified as
follows: A.1. Each licensee shall revise its physical security
plan and safeguards contingency plan, prepared pursuant to 10 CFR
50.34(c) and 50.34(d), to provide protection against the updated
adversary characteristic set forth in Attachment 2 to this Order.
In addition, each licensee shall revise its training and
qualification plan, required by 10 CFR 73.55(b)(4)(ii), to
implement the updated adversary characteristic set forth in
Attachment 2 to this Order.
2. Each licensee shall implement necessary changes to its
physical security plan, safeguards contingency plan, and guard
training and qualification plan no later than 60 days from the
date of this Order.
B.1. Each licensee shall, within twenty-one (21) days of the date
of this Order, notify the Commission: (1) If the licensee is
unable to comply with any requirement of this Order, (2) if
compliance with any requirement of this Order is unnecessary in
the licensee's specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation
of any requirement of this Order would cause the licensee to be
in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or
the facility license. The notification shall provide the
licensee's justification for seeking relief from, or variation
of, any specific requirement.
2. Any licensee that considers that implementation of any of the
requirements of this Order would adversely impact safe operation
of the facility must notify the Commission, within twenty-one
(21) days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis
for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety
impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives
of this Order, or a schedule for modifying the facilities to
address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is
appropriate, the licensee must supplement its response to
Condition B.1. of this Order to identify the condition as a
requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant
justifications as required in Condition B.1. C. Each licensee
shall report to the Commission, in writing, when it has fully
implemented this Order. The notification shall be made no later
than 60 days from the date of the Order and include substitute
security plan pages that reflect any changes made to implement
the Order.
D. All measures implemented or actions taken in response to this
Order shall be maintained until the Commission determines
otherwise, except that the licensee may change its revised
physical security plans, safeguards contingency plans, and guard
training and qualification plans if authorized by 10 CFR
50.54(p). Licensee responses to Conditions A.1, B.1, B.2, and C
above, shall be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 50.4. In
addition, licensee submittals that contain safeguards information
shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR
73.21. The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, may,
in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon
demonstration by the licensee of good cause.
IV.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the licensee must, and any other
person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to
this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within
twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause
is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to
request a hearing. A request for an extension of time in which to
submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to
the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and include a
statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent
to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the
answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation,
specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the
licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the
reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any
answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the
Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Copies also shall
be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001;
to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and
Enforcement at the same address; to the Regional Administrator
for NRC Region I, II, III, or IV, as appropriate for the specific
facility; and to the licensee if the answer or hearing request is
by a person other than the licensee. Because of possible delays
in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is
requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to
the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile
transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to
hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of the General
Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725
or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter.gov. If a person other than the
licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with
particularity the manner in which his or her interest is
adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria
set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d). If a hearing is requested by the
licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the
Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of
any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at
such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), the licensee may, in addition
to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or
sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate
effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order,
including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on
adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations,
or error.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of
an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the
provisions specified in Section III above shall be final
twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order
[[Page 15227]] without further order or proceedings. If an
extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the
provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the
extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An
answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate
effectiveness of this order.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated this 20th day of March 2006.
J.E. Dyer, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Attachment 1--List of Addressees; Power Plants--Senior Executive/
Security Contacts Mr. William Levis Senior Vice President & Chief
Nuclear Officer PSEG Nuclear LLC-N09 Salem Nuclear Generating
Station, Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-272 & 50-311 License Nos.
DPR-70 & DPR-75 End of Buttonwood Road Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038
Mr. William Levis Senior Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer
PSEG Nuclear LLC-X15 Hope Creek Generating Station, Unit 1 Docket
No. 50-354 License No. NPF-57 End of Buttonwood Road Hancocks
Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. Michael Kansler President Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc.
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-293 License
No. DPR-35 440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Michael
Kansler President Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Docket No. 50-271 License
No. DPR-28 440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Michael
Kansler President Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-333
License No. DPR-59 440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr.
Michael Kansler President Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 & 3 Docket Nos.
50-247 & 50-286 License Nos. DPR-26 & DPR-64 440 Hamilton Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Gene St. Pierre Site Vice President
FPL Energy Seabrook Station, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-443 License No.
NPF-86 Central Receiving, Lafayette Road Seabrook, NH 03874 Mr.
James H. Lash Vice President FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos.
50-334 & 50-412 License Nos. DPR-66 & NPF-73 Route 168
Shippingport, PA 15077 Mr. James A. Spina Vice President Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc.
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos.
50-317 & 50-318 License Nos. DPR-53 & DPR-69 1650 Calvert Cliffs
Parkway Lusby, MD 20657-4702 Mrs. Mary G. Korsnick Vice President
R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC Docket No. 50-244 License
No. DPR-18 1503 Lake Road Ontario, NY 14519-9364 Mr. Timothy J.
O'Connor Vice President Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC Nine
Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-220 &
50-410 License Nos. DPR-63 & NPF-69 348 Lake Road Oswego, NY
13126 Mr. Britt T. McKinney Sr. Vice President & Chief Nuclear
Officer PPL Susquehanna, LLC Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,
Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-387 & 50-388 License Nos. NPF-14 &
NPF-22 769 Salem Boulevard, NUCSB3 Berwick, PA 18603-0467 Mr.
David A. Christian Sr. Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
Millstone Power Station, Units 2 & 3 Docket Nos. 50-336 & 50-423
License Nos. DPR-65 & NPF-49 Innsbrook Technical Center, 5000
Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060 Mr. David A. Christian
Sr. Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer Virginia Electric and
Power Company North Anna Power Station, Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos.
50-338 & 50-339 License Nos. NPF-4 & NPF-7 Innsbrook Technical
Center, 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060 Mr. David A.
Christian Sr. Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer Virginia
Electric and Power Company Surry Power Station, Units 1 & 2
Docket Nos. 50-280 & 50-281 License Nos. DPR-32 & DPR-37
Innsbrook Technical Center, 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen,
VA 23060 Mr. David A. Christian Sr. Vice President & Chief
Nuclear Officer Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.
Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-305 License No. DPR-43
Innsbrook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA
23060 Mr. Dhiaa M. Jamil Vice President Duke Energy Corporation
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-413 & 50-414
License Nos. NPF-35 & NPF-52 4800 Concord Road York, SC 29745 Mr.
L. M. Stinson Vice President--Farley Project Southern Nuclear
Operating Company, Inc.
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1& 2 Docket Nos. 50-348 &
50-364 License Nos. NPF-2 & NPF-8 40 Inverness Center Parkway
Birmingham, AL 35242 Mr. H. L. Sumner, Jr. Vice
President--Nuclear, Hatch Project Southern Nuclear Operating
Company, Inc.
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-321 &
50-366 License Nos. DPR-57 & NPF-5 40 Inverness Center Parkway
Birmingham, AL 35242 Mr. G. R. Peterson Vice President Duke
Energy Corporation William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 &
2 Docket Nos. 50-369 & 50-370 License Nos. NPF-9 & NPF-17 12700
Hagers Ferry Road Huntersville, NC 28078 Mr. Bruce H. Hamilton
Vice President, Oconee Site Duke Energy Corporation Oconee
Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 & 3 Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 &
50-287 License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 & DPR-55 7800 Rochester
Highway Seneca, SC 29672 Mr. Don E. Grissette Vice President
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-424
& 50-425 License Nos. NPF-68 & NPF-81 40 Inverness Center Parkway
Birmingham, AL 35242 Mr. James Scarola Vice President Carolina
Power & Light Company Progress Energy, Inc.
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-325 &
50-324 License Nos. DPR-71 & DPR-62 Hwy 87, 2.5 Miles North
Southport, NC 28461 Mr. C.J. Gannon Vice President Carolina Power
& Light Company Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Docket
No. 50-400 License No. NPF-63 5413 Shearon Harris Road New Hill,
NC 27562-0165 Mr. Dale E. Young Vice President
[[Page 15228]] Supervisor, Licensing & Regulatory Programs
Florida Power Corporation Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant,
Unit 3 Docket No. 50-302 License No. DPR-72 15760 W. Power Line
Street Crystal River, FL 34428-6708 Mr. J. W. Moyer Vice
President Carolina Power & Light Company Progress Energy H. B.
Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2 Docket No. 50-261 License
No. DPR-23 3581 West Entrance Road Hartsville, SC 29550 Mr. Brian
J. O'Grady Site Vice President Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units
1, 2 & 3 Tennessee Valley Authority Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260 &
50-296 License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52 & DPR-68 10835 Shaw Rd.
Athens, AL 35611 Mr. Michael Skaggs Site Vice President Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Tennessee Valley Authority Docket No.
50-390 License No. NPF-90 Highway 68 Near Spring City Spring
City, TN 37381 Mr. Randy Douet Site Vice President Sequoyah
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2 Tennessee Valley Authority Docket Nos.
50-327 & 50-328 License Nos. DPR-77 & DPR-79 2000 Igou Ferry Road
Soddy Daisy, TN 37379 Mr. J. A. Stall Senior Vice President,
Nuclear & Chief Nuclear Officer Florida Power and Light Company
St. Lucie, Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 & 50-389 License Nos.
DPR-67 & NPF-16 700 Universe Boulevard Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420
Mr. J. A. Stall Senior Vice President, Nuclear and Chief Nuclear
Officer Florida Power and Light Company Turkey Point Nuclear
Generating Station, Units 3 and 4 Docket Nos. 50-250 & 50-251
License Nos. DPR-31 & DPR-41 700 Universe Boulevard Juno Beach,
FL 33408-0420 Mr. Mano K. Nazar Senior Vice President & Chief
Nuclear Officer Indiana Michigan Power Company Nuclear Generation
Group Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos.
50-315 & 50-316 License Nos. DPR-58 & DPR-74 One Cook Place
Bridgman, MI 49106 Mr. Gary Van Middlesworth Site Vice President
FLP Energy Duane Arnold Energy Center Docket No. 50-331 License
No. DPR-49 3277 DAEC Road Palo, IA 52324-9785 Mr. Donald K. Cobb
Assistant Vice President--Nuclear Generation Detroit Edison
Company Fermi, Unit 2 Docket No. 50-341 License No. NPF-43 6400
North Dixie Highway Newport, MI 48166 Mr. John Conway Site Vice
President Nuclear Management Company, LLC Monticello Nuclear
Generating Plant Docket No. 50-263 License No. DPR-22 2807 West
County Road 75 Monticello, MN 55362-9637 Paul A. Harden Site Vice
President Nuclear Management Company, LLC Palisades Nuclear Plant
Docket No. 50-255 License No.DPR-20 27780 Blue Star Memorial
Highway Covert, MI 49043-9530 Mr. Dennis L. Koehl Site Vice
President Nuclear Management Company, LLC Point Beach Nuclear
Plant, Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-266 & 50-301 License Nos.
DPR-24 & DPR-27 6590 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241-9516 Mr.
Thomas J. Palmisano Site Vice President Nuclear Management
Company, LLC Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 & 2
Docket Nos. 50-282 & 50-306 License Nos. DPR-42 & DPR-60 1717
Wakonade Drive East Welch, MN 55089 Mr. Christopher M. Crane
President & Chief Nuclear Officer Exelon Generation Company, LLC
Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-456 & 50-457
License Nos. NPF-72 & NPF-77 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL
60555 Mr. Christopher M. Crane President & Chief Nuclear Officer
Exelon Generation Company, LLC Byron Station, Units 1 & 2 Docket
Nos. 50-454 & 50-455 License Nos. NPF-37 & NPF-66 4300 Winfield
Road Warrenville, IL 60555 Mr. Christopher M. Crane President &
Chief Nuclear Officer Exelon Generation Company, LLC Dresden
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3 Docket Nos. 50-237 & 50-249
License Nos. DPR-19 & DPR-25 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL
60555 Mr. Christopher M. Crane President & Chief Nuclear Officer
Exelon Generation Company, LLC LaSalle County Station, Units 1 &
2 Docket Nos. 50-373 & 50-374 License Nos. NPF-11 & NPF-18 4300
Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555 Mr. Christopher M. Crane
President & Chief Nuclear Officer Exelon Generation Company, LLC
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-254
& 50-265 License Nos. DPR-29 & DPR-30 4300 Winfield Road
Warrenville, IL 60555 Mr. Christopher M. Crane President & Chief
Nuclear Officer Exelon Generation Company, LLC Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-352 & 50-353
License Nos. NPF-39 & NPF-85 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL
60555 Mr. Christopher M. Crane President & Chief Nuclear Officer
Exelon Generation Company, LLC Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,
Units 2 & 3 Docket Nos. 50-277 & 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 &
DPR-56 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555 Mr. Christopher
M. Crane President & Chief Nuclear Officer AmerGen Energy
Company, LLC Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Docket No.
50-219 License No. DPR-16 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL
60555 Mr. Christopher M. Crane President & Chief Nuclear Officer
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC Clinton Power Station Docket No.
50-461 License No. NPF-62 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL
60555 Mr. Christopher M. Crane President & Chief Nuclear Officer
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
Unit 1 Docket No. 50-289 License No. DPR-50 4300 Winfield Road
Warrenville, IL 60555 Mr. Mark Bezilla Vice President,
Davis-Besse FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Davis-Besse
Nuclear Power Station Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 5501
North State Route 2 Oak Harbor, OH 43449-9760 Mr. L.W. Pearce
Vice President--Nuclear, Acting FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-440
License No. NPF-58 10 North Center Street Perry, OH 44081 Mr.
Jeffrey S. Forbes Site Vice President Entergy Operations, Inc.
Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-313 & 50-368
[[Page 15229]] License Nos. DPR-51 & NPF-6 1448 S. R. 333
Russellville, AR 72802 M. R. Blevins Senior Vice President and
Chief Nuclear Officer TXU Generation Company, LP Comanche Peak
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-445 & 50-446
License Nos. NPF-87 & NPF-89 5 Miles North of Glen Rose Glen
Rose, TX 76043 Mr. Randall K. Edington Vice President--Nuclear
and CNO Nebraska Public Power District Cooper Nuclear Station
Docket No. 50-298 License No. DPR-46 1200 Prospect Road
Brownville, NE 68321 Mr. George A. Williams GGNS Vice President,
Operations Entergy Operations, Inc.
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-416 License No.
NPF-29 7003 Bald Hill Road-Waterloo Road Port Gibson, MS 39150
Mr. Paul D. Hinnenkamp Vice President--Operations Entergy
Operations, Inc.
River Bend Station, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-458 License No. NPF-47
5485 U.S. Highway 61N St. Francisville, LA 70775 Mr. James J.
Sheppard President & Chief Executive Officer South Texas Nuclear
Operating Company South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos.
50-498 & 50-499 License Nos. NPF-76 & NPF-80 8 Miles West of
Wadsworth, on FM 521 Wadsworth, TX 77483 Mr. Joseph E. Venable
Vice President Operations Entergy Operations, Inc.
Waterford Steam Electric Generating Station, Unit 3 Docket No.
50-382 License No. NPF-38 17265 River Road Killona, LA 70057-3093
Mr. Charles D. Naslund Senior Vice President & Chief Nuclear
Officer Union Electric Company Callaway Plant, Unit 1 Docket No.
50-483 License No. NPF-30 Junction Hwy CC & Hwy O: 5 Miles North
of Hwy 94 Portland, MO 65067 Mr. John S. Keenan Senior Vice
President, Generation and Chief Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and
Electric Company Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2
Docket Nos. 50-275 & 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 & DPR-82 77 Beale
Street, Mail Code B32 San Francisco, CA 94105 Mr. R. T. Ridenoure
Vice President--Chief Nuclear Officer Omaha Public Power District
Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-285 License No. DPR-40
Fort Calhoun Station Administration Building 9750 Power Lane
Blair, NE 68008 Mr. James M. Levine Executive Vice President,
Generation Arizona Public Service Company Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 Docket Nos. 50-528, 50-529 &
50-530 License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51 & NPF-74 5801 S. Wintersburg
Road Tonopah, AZ 85354-7529 Mr. Richard M. Rosenblum Chief
Nuclear Officer Southern California Edison Company San Onofre
Nuclear Station, Units 2 & 3 Docket Nos. 50-361 & 50-362 License
Nos. NPF-10 & NPF-15 5000 Pacific Coast Highway San Clemente, CA
92674 Mr. J. V. Parrish Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest
Columbia Generating Station Docket No. 50-397 License No. NPF-21
Snake River Warehouse North Power Plant Loop Richland, WA 99352
Mr. Rick A. Muench President & Chief Executive Officer Wolf Creek
Nuclear Operating Corporation Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit
1 Docket No. 50-482 License No. NPF-42 1550 Oxen Lane, NE
Burlington, KS 66839 Mr. Jeffrey B. Archie Vice President,
Nuclear Operations South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Virgil
C. Summer Nuclear Station Docket No. 50-395 License No. NPF-12
Hwy 215N at O.S. Bradham Boulevard Jenkinsville, SC 29065 [FR
Doc. E6-4371 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
19 NRC: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power
FR Doc E6-4372
[Federal Register: March 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 58)]
[Notices] [Page 15223-15225] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27mr06-94]
Company,Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Notice
of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of
amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5,
issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC, the
licensee), for operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant,
Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in Appling County, Georgia. The
proposed amendment would add a license condition to Section 2.C
of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Operating
Licenses. This license condition will authorize the licensee to
credit administering potassium iodide (KI) to reduce the 30-day
post-accident thyroid radiological dose to the operators in the
main control room (MCR) for an interim period of approximately 4
years. In addition, the design-basis accident (DBA) analysis
section of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports will be
updated to reflect crediting of KI.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the
Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended
[[Page 15224]] (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Sec. 50.92, this means that
operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendments 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? This proposed change will authorize SNC to credit KI
for an interim period in the DBA radiological consequences
analyses to address the impact of MCR unfiltered inleakage. This
proposed change does not result in any functional or operational
change to any systems, structures, or components and has no
impact on any assumed initiator of any analyzed accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in an increase in
the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
This proposed change introduces an additional method of
mitigating the thyroid dose to MCR occupants in the event of a
loss- of-coolant accident (LOCA). The updated LOCA MCR
radiological dose, considering 110 [cubic feet/minute] cfm
unfiltered inleakage and crediting KI, continues to meet [General
Design Criterion] GDC 19 acceptance limits. In the context of the
current licensing basis with MCR unfiltered inleakage considered,
LOCA continues to be the limiting event for radiological
exposures to the operators in the MCR. Radiological doses to MCR
occupants are within the regulatory limits of GDC 19 with MCR
unfiltered inleakages of up to 1000 cfm without the crediting of
KI for the main steam line break accident (MSLB), control rod
drop accident (CRDA), and fuel handling accident (FHA).
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant
increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated? This
proposed change will authorize SNC to credit KI for an interim
period in the [Design Basis Accident] DBA radiological
consequences analyses to address the impact of MCR unfiltered
inleakage. This proposed change does not result in any functional
or operational change to any systems, structures, or components.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant decrease in the
margin of safety? This proposed change will authorize SNC to
credit KI for an interim period in the DBA radiological
consequences analyses to address the impact of MCR unfiltered
inleakage. This proposed change does not result in any functional
or operational change to any systems, structures, or components.
This proposed change introduces an additional method of
mitigating the thyroid dose to MCR occupants in the event of a
LOCA. The updated LOCA MCR radiological dose, considering 110 cfm
unfiltered inleakage and crediting KI, continues to meet GDC 19
acceptance limits. In the context of the current licensing basis
with MCR unfiltered inleakage considered, LOCA continues to be
the limiting event for radiological exposures to the operators in
the MCR. Radiological doses to MCR occupants are within the
regulatory limits of GDC 19 with MCR unfiltered inleakages of up
to 1000 cfm without the crediting of KI for the main steam line
break accident (MSLB), control rod drop accident (CRDA), and fuel
handling accident (FHA). Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant decrease 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 30 days after the
date of publication of this notice will be considered in making
any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this
notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before
expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the
amendment prior to the expiration of the 30- day comment period
should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such
that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in
derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take
action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will
take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need
to take this action will occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also
be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal
workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating
license and any person whose interest may be affected by this
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the
proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a
petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with
the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing
Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult
a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS)
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, .
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge
of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of
[[Page 15225]] the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that
interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The
petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention
should be permitted with particular reference to the following
general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone number
of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the
requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest
in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or
order which may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestors/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify
the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to
have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the
bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged
facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which
the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the
hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to
those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish
those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include
sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with
the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions
shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment
under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven,
would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least
one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the
conduct of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards
consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when
the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing
held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the
final determination is that the amendment request involves a
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take
place before the issuance of any amendment.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the
presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that
the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted
based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for
leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001,
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier,
express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking
and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ; or (4)
facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101,
verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for
hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent
to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that
copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission
to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to . A copy of the request for
hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent
to Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and
Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037, attorney
for the licensee.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated March 17, 2006, which is
available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located
at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly
available records will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, .
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1- 800-397-4209,
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to .
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of March, 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert E. Martin, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch
II-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-4372 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
20 NRC: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
FR Doc E6-4381
[Federal Register: March 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 58)]
[Notices] [Page 15220-15222] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27mr06-92]
Station; Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the Application
and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing Regarding Renewal of
Facility Operating License No. DPR-28 for an Additional 20-Year
Period The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the
Commission) is considering an application for the renewal of
Operating License No. DPR-28, which authorizes Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc., to operate the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Station at 1912 megawatts (MWt) thermal. The renewed license
would authorize the applicant to operate the Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Station for an additional 20 years beyond the
period specified in the current license. The current operating
license for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station expires on
March 21, 2012.
The Commission's staff received the application dated January 25,
2006, as supplemented by letter dated March 15, 2006, from
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54, to
renew the Operating License No. DPR-28 for Vermont Yankee Nuclear
Power Station. A Notice of Receipt and Availability of the
license renewal application, ``Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Facility Operating License
No. DPR-28 for an Additional 20-Year Period,'' was published in
the Federal Register on February 6, 2006 (71 FR 6102).
The Commission's staff has determined that Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc. has submitted sufficient information in
accordance with 10 CFR 54.19, 54.21, 54.22, 54.23, and 51.53(c),
and the application is acceptable for docketing. The current
Docket No. 50-271 for Operating License No. DPR-28 will be
retained. The docketing of the renewal application does not
preclude requesting additional information as the review
proceeds, nor does it predict whether the Commission will grant
or deny the application.
Before issuance of each requested renewed license, the NRC will
have made the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations.
In accordance with 10 CFR 54.29, the NRC will issue a renewed
license on the basis of its review if it finds that actions have
been identified and have been or will be taken with respect to:
(1) Managing the effects of aging during the period of extended
operation on the functionality of structures and components that
have been identified as requiring aging management review, and
(2) time-limited aging analyses that have been identified as
requiring review, such that there is reasonable assurance that
the activities authorized by the renewed license will continue to
be conducted in accordance with the current licensing basis
(CLB), and that any changes made to the plant?s CLB comply with
the Act and the Commission's regulations.
Additionally, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(c), the NRC will
prepare an environmental impact statement that is a supplement to
the Commission's NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,'' dated
May 1996.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.26, and as part of the environmental
scoping process, the staff intends to hold a public scoping
meeting. Detailed information regarding this meeting will be the
subject of a separate Federal Register notice.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this Federal
Register
[[Page 15221]] Notice, the applicant may file a request for a
hearing, 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 with respect to the renewal of
the license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's
``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10
CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of
10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852 and is
accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC's PDR reference
staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or by e-mail at
pdr@nrc.gov. If a request for a hearing/petition for leave to
intervene is filed within the 60-day period, 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/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.
In the event that no request for a hearing/petition for leave to
intervene is filed within the 60-day period, the NRC may, upon
completion of its evaluations and upon making the findings
required under 10 CFR Parts 51 and 54, renew the license without
further notice.
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, taking into consideration the limited
scope of matters that may be considered pursuant to 10 CFR Parts
51 and 54. The petition must specifically explain the reasons why
intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following factors: (1) The nature of the requestor's/petitioner's
right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the
nature and extent of the requestor's/ petitioner's property,
financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) 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 set forth 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
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the
bases of each contention and a concise statement of the alleged
facts or the expert opinion that supports the contention on which
the requestor/ petitioner intends to rely in proving the
contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also
provide references to those specific sources and documents of
which the requestor/petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or
expert opinion. The requestor/petitioner must provide sufficient
information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the
applicant on a material issue of law or fact.\1\ Contentions
shall be limited to matters within the scope of the action under
consideration. The contention must be one that, if proven, would
entitle the requestor/ petitioner to relief. A
requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with
respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to
participate as a party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \1\ To the extent that the application contains
attachments and supporting documents that are not publicly
available because they are asserted to contain safeguards or
proprietary information, petitioners desiring access to this
information should contact the applicant or applicant's counsel
to discuss the need for a protective order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- The Commission requests that each contention be given
a separate numeric or alpha designation within one of the
following groups: (1) Technical (primarily related to safety
concerns); (2) environmental; or (3) miscellaneous.
As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more
requestors/petitioners seek to co-sponsor a contention or propose
substantially the same contention, the requestors/petitioners
will be required to jointly designate a representative who shall
have the authority to act for the requestors/petitioners with
respect to that contention.
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. 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.\2\ A copy of
the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene must
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 the
attorney for the applicant, Mr. Terrence A. Burke, Entergy
Nuclear, 1340 Echelon Parkway, mail stop M-ECN-62, Jackson, MS
39213.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \2\ If the request/petition is filed by e-mail or
facsimile, an original and two copies of the document must be
mailed within 2 (two) business days thereafter to the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555-0001;
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions
will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission,
the presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
that the petition, request and/or contentions should be granted
based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR
2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii). Detailed information about the license
renewal process can be found under the Nuclear Reactors icon at
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html on
the NRC's Web site. Copies of the application to renew the
operating license for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, are
available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located
at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738, and at
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati
ons.html , the NRC's Web site while the application is under
review. The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of
NRC's public
[[Page 15222]] documents. These documents may be accessed through
the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html under ADAMS Accession
Number ML060300085. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or
who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in
ADAMS may contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference
staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail
to pdr@nrc.gov. The staff has verified that a copy of the license
renewal application is also available to local residents near the
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station at the Vernon Free Library,
567 Governor Hunt Road, Vernon, VT 05354; Brooks Memorial
Library, 224 Main Street, Brattleboro, VT 05301; Hinsdale Public
Library, 122 Brattleboro Road, Hinsdale, NH 03451; and Dickinson
Memorial Library, 115 Main Street, Northfield, MA 01360.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of March, 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Frank P. Gillespie, Director, Division of License Renewal, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-4381 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
21 NRC: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station;
FR Doc E6-4382
[Federal Register: March 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 58)]
[Notices] [Page 15222-15223] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27mr06-93]
Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the Application and Notice
of Opportunity for Hearing Regarding Renewal of Facility
Operating License No. DPR-35 for an Additional 20-Year Period The
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is
considering an application for the renewal of Operating License
No. DPR-35, which authorizes Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., to
operate the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station at 2028 megawatts (MWt)
thermal. The renewed license would authorize the applicant to
operate the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station for an additional 20
years beyond the period specified in the current license. The
current operating license for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
expires on June 8, 2012.
The Commission's staff received the application dated January 25,
2006, from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., pursuant to 10 CFR
Part 54, to renew the Operating License No. DPR-35 for Pilgrim
Nuclear Power Station. A Notice of Receipt and Availability of
the license renewal application, ``Entergy Nuclear Operations,
Inc., Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for
Renewal of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Facility Operating
License No. PR-35 for an Additional 20-Year Period,'' was
published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2006 (71 FR
6101).
The Commission's staff has determined that Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc., has submitted sufficient information in
accordance with 10 CFR 54.19, 54.21, 54.22, 54.23, and 51.53(c)
and the application is acceptable for docketing. The current
Docket No. 50-293 for Operating License No. DPR-35 will be
retained. The docketing of the renewal application does not
preclude requesting additional information as the review
proceeds, nor does it predict whether the Commission will grant
or deny the application.
Before issuance of each requested renewed license, the NRC will
have made the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations.
In accordance with 10 CFR 54.29, the NRC will issue a renewed
license on the basis of its review if it finds that actions have
been identified and have been or will be taken with respect to:
(1) Managing the effects of aging during the period of extended
operation on the functionality of structures and components that
have been identified as requiring aging management review, and
(2) time-limited aging analyses that have been identified as
requiring review, such that there is reasonable assurance that
the activities authorized by the renewed license will continue to
be conducted in accordance with the current licensing basis
(CLB), and that any changes made to the plant's CLB comply with
the Act and the Commission's regulations.
Additionally, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(c), the NRC will
prepare an environmental impact statement that is a supplement to
the Commission's NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,'' dated
May 1996.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.26, and as part of the environmental
scoping process, the staff intends to hold a public scoping
meeting. Detailed information regarding this meeting will be the
subject of a separate Federal Register notice.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this Federal
Register Notice, the applicant may file a request for a hearing,
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 with respect to the renewal of the license. Requests
for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be
filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for
Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested
persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is
available at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located
at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, first floor,
Rockville, Maryland 20852 and is accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC's PDR reference
staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or by e-mail at
pdr@nrc.gov. If a request for a hearing/petition for leave to
intervene is filed within the 60-day period, 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/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.
In the event that no request for a hearing/petition for leave to
intervene is filed within the 60-day period, the NRC may, upon
completion of its evaluations and upon making the findings
required under 10 CFR Parts 51 and 54, renew the license without
further notice.
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, taking into consideration the limited
scope of matters that may be considered pursuant to 10 CFR Parts
51 and 54. The petition must specifically explain the reasons why
intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following factors: (1) The nature of the requestor's/petitioner's
right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the
nature and extent of the requestor's/ petitioner's property,
financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in
the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The
[[Page 15223]] petition must also set forth 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
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the
bases of each contention and a concise statement of the alleged
facts or the expert opinion that supports the contention on which
the requestor/ petitioner intends to rely in proving the
contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also
provide references to those specific sources and documents of
which the requestor/petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or
expert opinion. The requestor/petitioner must provide sufficient
information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the
applicant on a material issue of law or fact.\1\ Contentions
shall be limited to matters within the scope of the action under
consideration. The contention must be one that, if proven, would
entitle the requestor/ petitioner to relief. A
requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with
respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to
participate as a party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \1\ To the extent that the application contains
attachments and supporting documents that are not publicly
available because they are asserted to contain safeguards or
proprietary information, petitioners desiring access to this
information should contact the applicant or applicant's counsel
to discuss the need for a protective order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- The Commission requests that each contention be given
a separate numeric or alpha designation within one of the
following groups: (1) Technical (primarily related to safety
concerns); (2) environmental; or (3) miscellaneous.
As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more
requestors/petitioners seek to co-sponsor a contention or propose
substantially the same contention, the requestors/petitioners
will be required to jointly designate a representative who shall
have the authority to act for the requestors/petitioners with
respect to that contention.
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. 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.\2\ A copy of
the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene must
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 the
attorney for the applicant, Mr. Terence A. Burke, Entergy
Nuclear, 1340 Echelon Parkway, Mail Stop M-ECH-62, Jackson, MS
39213.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \2\ If the request/petition is filed by e-mail or
facsimile, an original and two copies of the document must be
mailed within 2 (two) business days thereafter to the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001;
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions
will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission,
the presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
that the petition, request and/or contentions should be granted
based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR
2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii). Detailed information about the license
renewal process can be found under the Nuclear Reactors icon at
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html on
the NRC's Web site. Copies of the application to renew the
operating license for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, are
available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located
at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, first floor,
Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738, and at
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati
ons.html , the NRC's Web site while the application is under
review. The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of
NRC's public documents. These documents may be accessed through
the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html under ADAMS Accession
Number ML060300024. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or
who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in
ADAMS may contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference
staff by telephone at 1-800- 397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail
to pdr@nrc.gov. The staff has verified that a copy of the license
renewal application is also available to local residents near the
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station at the Plymouth Public Library, 132
South Street, Plymouth, MA 02360, and The Duxbury Free Library,
77 Alden Street, Duxbury, MA 02332.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of March, 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Frank P. Gillespie, Director, Division of License Renewal, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-4382 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
22 HeraldNet: New uses for old nuclear plant
Published: Monday, March 27, 2006
By Robin Mcginnis The Chronicle
ELMA - It's hard to keep quiet in a nuclear-power cooling tower.
Stan Ratcliff has given enough tours of the Satsop Development
Park near Elma to know the drill.
"From preschool students to Army generals, they all do the same
thing," Ratcliff said. "They clap or yell."
The reverberation within the 500-foot concrete tower gives even
a casual conversation a unique twist as sound bounces around the
3-foot-thick walls.
But the two cooling towers at Satsop weren't meant for an
auditory experiment. They're relics of a failed
multibillion-dollar energy project that was never used or
completed.
And it's the abandoned infrastructure that Barbara Hins-Turner,
executive director for the Center of Excellence for Energy
Technology at Centralia Community College, wants to use to train
future workers for the power generation industry.
The energy industry will need as many as 10,000 replacement
workers as baby boomers start to retire in the next five to
eight years, according to Hins-Turner.
"Satsop makes so much sense," she said.
High costs and concerns about nuclear safety forced the
Washington Public Power Supply System to abandon Satsop in the
early 1980s.
Ratcliff now works for the Grays Harbor Public Development
Authority, the agency the state created to manage the site after
its failure because the plant was too expensive to dismantle.
Bob Guenther, president of the Thurston-Lewis County Labor
Council, brought the idea of converting Satsop into a regional
training center to Hins-Turner last fall, she said.
For Guenther, who worked as a mechanic at the Centralia
Steam-Electric Plant for 34 years, opportunities for training at
the Satsop park are limitless. Students would have access to
250-ton overhead cranes, a like-new maintenance repair shop,
expensive valves, pumps, electrical breakers, and even 1,800
acres of underground tunnels for safety and confined space
rescue training, he said.
"You can do distance learning for a year, but you have to pinch
your finger, stub your toe and make mistakes," Guenther said.
"That's when you really learn."
The presentation to the Pacific Mountain Workforce Development
Council, which works to promote employment throughout in Lewis,
Thurston, Grays Harbor, Mason and Pacific counties, was to help
further emphasize the project's region-wide approach.
"The real goal is to create a standard, statewide program,"
Hins-Turner said.
The program's curriculum was developed by 10 members from
various energy utilities throughout the region, including the
Lewis County Public Utility District, TransAlta, Puget Sound
Energy and Tacoma Power.
The industry-driven model would have use in training workers
throughout the Northwest, according to Mike Kennedy, executive
director for the five-county work force development council.
"It's just good business sense," he said. "It's a mothballed,
nonfunctioning power plant, and it would get some practical
use."
Contact the Herald: 425-339-3000
Email: newstips@heraldnet.com
Copyright © 2006 The Daily Herald Co., Everett, Wash.
*****************************************************************
23 UN Nuclear Chief Lays Out Plan To UN Proliferation, Terrorist Threat
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:00:20 -0500
UN NUCLEAR CHIEF LAYS OUT PLAN TO COUNTER PROLIFERATION, TERRORIST
THREAT
New York, Mar 27 2006 3:00PM
Faced with the threat of nuclear proliferation and the prospect of
such weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, the head of
the United Nations atomic watchdog agency has laid out a five-point
plan of action ranging from tighter controls and protection of
materials to strengthening the Security Council.
International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2006/ebsp2006n004.html">IAEA)
Director-General Mohamed
ElBaradei called for placing sensitive nuclear operations such
as the enrichment of uranium that can be used for producing both
electric energy and an atomic bomb under multinational control.
“The five measures I have outlined – tightening controls, protecting
materials, supporting verification, reinvigorating disarmament
and strengthening the Security Council – are all necessary and
urgent steps,” Mr. ElBaradei told a conference of German dentists
in Karlsruhe over the weekend, in an address aptly called “Putting
Teeth in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Regime.”
“But to return to my opening theme, all of these measures affect
each other, and all will fail to protect us if the root causes of
insecurity are not addressed. The longer we delay in placing sensitive
nuclear operations under multinational control, the more new
countries will seek to build such facilities.
“The longer we take to protect global stocks of nuclear and radioactive
material, the higher the risk they will fall into terrorist
hands. The longer effective verification authority is not universally
in place, the more the potential for clandestine activity,”
he added.
“As long as disarmament measures are not progressing meaningfully,
efforts to strengthen nuclear non-proliferation will be poisoned
by cynicism, and more countries will try to ‘join the major leagues.’
And the longer the Security Council is not acting systematically,
equitably and effectively, as the guardian of international
peace and security, the more its legitimacy will be undermined,
and a sense of insecurity will continue to prevail.”
Detailing his plan, Mr. ElBaradei stressed the need to tighten controls
for access to nuclear fuel cycle technology in an era of globalization
which has made the industrial marketplace more complex
and fluid than 30 years ago when the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) was drawn up.
“At the root of this measure is the concept of making these operations
multinational, so that no one country would have exclusive
control over the most sensitive parts of the fuel cycle,” he said.
“It is urgent that the international community develop a unified
approach on this measure and begin moving forward.”
On verification, he noted that 118 of the 189 countries that are
party to the NPT have not yet adopted an additional protocol allowing
more intrusive and announced checks that are considered essential
following the discovery of a clandestine nuclear programme
in Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War. He called on nuclear-weapons states
to lead by example, and that this effort should be extended to
the three countries that remain outside the NPT: India, Israel
and Pakistan.
As for the Security Council, Mr. ElBaradei, who shared last year’s
Nobel Peace Prize with his agency, said that too often its engagement
had been inadequate, selective, or after the fact. In the
Rwanda genocide in 1994, “the Security Council was unable to move
much beyond hand wringing, with the result that 800,000 people lost
their lives in the span of a few months,” he declared.
“In the Second Congo War, the Security Council’s efforts in the interest
of diplomacy and peacekeeping were not enough to prevent
the deaths of an estimated 3.8 million people. And whatever the lessons
learned from these admitted failures, the more recent case
of Darfur continues to suffer from the inability of the Security
Council to muster sufficient peacekeeping troops and sufficient
resources to prevent the continuing atrocities.”
With regard to nuclear weapons, he noted among other examples that
the Council asked India and Pakistan to stop further nuclear testing
and the development of their nuclear weapons programme in 1998
without effect, and its 1981 request to Israel to submit all
its nuclear facilities to IAEA safeguards was also not implemented.
“The irony is that we know the problems, and we know the solutions,”
he concluded. “What is yet to come is the vision and leadership
to overcome the hubris that threatens our mutual destruction,
and to build a civilization rooted in the unity of the human family,
the sanctity of all human life and the core values we all share
– a civilization that is humane and just.”
2006-03-27 00:00:00.000
________________
For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/
*****************************************************************
24 Bellona: Bush White House requests a $43m decrease in CTR funding
The Bush White House has handed down a significantly reduced
budget request for fiscal year 2007 for the Department of
Defense’s Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programme for
securing nuclear weapons materials in Russia, proposing an
overall 10 percent cut in funding.
The Bush Administration is asking for a 10 percent cut in CTR
funding from Congress.
NilsBřhmer/Bellona
Charles Digges, 2006-03-27 09:30
The White House request for CTR in fiscal year 2007 is $372.2m
versus the $415.5m it requested last year, representing a
decrease of $43m. The Budget request has yet to come before US
Congress for approval.
Analysts have said that the downward spiral in CTR funding will
likely continue as many of CTR’s projects near the end of their
projected terms.
While some projects run by CTR will be receiving a boost in the
2007 budget request, many—like warhead security— are also being
drained as their project terms reach expiration.
Nonetheless, analysts with the Russian-America Nuclear Security
Advisory Council (RANSAC) indicated in their break down of the
budget, that: “It is increasingly clear that the CTR budget is
likely to decline dramatically in coming years as major projects
wrap up, and that Russia will be a decreasing focus of the
future of CTR.”
CTR expansion outside of Russia
Indeed, the past two CTR budgets have included some $40m to $50m
for nuclear security projects undertaken outside Russia and the
former Soviet republics. Senator Richard Lugar, who with former
Senator Sam Nunn, wrote the Nunn-Lugar act, which is the
foundation of the CTR programme, has long expressed his desire
to translate lessons learned in Russia to other states posing
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threats.
Some of the budget highlights pointed out in RANSAC’s analysis
include a reduction from 2006’s $108m to $42.7m in 2007 in
Russian chemical weapons destruction; a $13m increase from
2006’s $74.1m appropriation to improve security at Russia
nuclear warhead storage sites; a reduction in Russian strategic
arms elimination from $78.9m to $77m and a cut from 2006’s
budget of $40.6m to $37.5m toward efforts to improve border
security and interdict smuggling of WMD materials along the land
and sea borders of selected non-Russian former Soviet republics.
Three trends in the CTR budget proposal from Bush
The RANSAC analysis identified three trends in the current White
House budget proposal for 2007: “The declining centrality of WMD
security and elimination in Russia, continuing difficulties in
working cooperatively with Russian entities and a potentially
significant contraction of the CTR budget in coming years.
Of the three primary Russia focused threat reduction programmes,
two—chemical weapons destruction and warhead security—will begin
to wind down significantly over the next two years as these
projects meet their 2008 deadlines, the RANSAC report said.
Eliminating Russian Strategic delivery systems—such as missile
launchers and silos and ballistic submarines—will continue
beyond 2008.
But RANSAC said that large-scale, long term and expensive
projects, such as the Mayak Fissile Material Storage Facility
(FMSF), will cease to be a fixture of further CTR projects in
Russia.
Indeed, the success of the Mayak FMSF is debatable. Begun in
1993 to house some 200 tonnes of highly enriched uranium (HEU)
and 50 tonnes of weapons grade plutonium, the 13-year-old
project—which continues to evade deadlines for its
completion—will hold only 25 tonnes of plutonium.
This decision was taken by Former Minister of Atomic Energy
Alexander Rumyantsev who reasoned that Russia could make more
money selling the HEU to the US-Russia “Megatons to Megawatts”
programme, whereby the US buys down-blended Russian HEU for use
in its commercial reactors.
Transparency issues
Key CTR projects continue to hit brick walls as a result of
Russian disorganisation, and a lack of transparency and
information, RANSAC found. These problems, said the analysis,
range from the small number of qualified Russian subcontractors,
incomplete information provided by Russian government officials
about the location of CTR purchased equipment, to the absence of
formal project implementation agreements.
The case of the Mayak FMSF is a case in point illustrating the
latter of these factors. To this day, no written agreement
between the US and Russian governments exists that stipulated
Russia will store any fissile material there at all—an oversight
that Rumynatsev was able to exploit.
RANSAC said that these obstacles pose risks to timely programme
completion and drive CTR to focus its priorities and resources
on non-proliferation opportunities in the non-Russian former
Soviet repubics.
These two trends, said RANSAC, could lead to budget cuts in the
CTR programme as large as $100m, depleting its financial
resources to the record lows the programme experienced in the
1990s. What is left of the CTR budget would then be spent on
projects that do not involve Russia, in RANSAC’s analysis.
Questions of how CTR knowledge will be preserved
The RANSAC analysis raised the question of how the US government
plans to “transition” WMD threat reduction programmes as work in
Russia declines, US plans for preserving its accumulated threat
reduction expertise, reviewing the lessons it has learned and
applying them to future WMD threats.
Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge
Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact:
webmaster@bellona.no
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
25 think twice before moving to europe- radioactive!
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:37:52 -0800
Uranium bombing in Iraq contaminates Europe
by Bob Nichols, Project Censored Award Winner Saturday, Mar. 25, 2006 at
10:29 AM
Bob.bobnichols@gmail.com
The average radioactive dose, according to official government index
based calculations, was about 23 million radioactive particles for the
average adult male in Britain and Europe.
14578b.jpg
aldermaston_atomic_bomb_factory.jpgblktx3.jpg, image/jpeg, 200x119
Uranium bombing in Iraq contaminates Europe
by Bob Nichols, Project Censored Award Winner
Nine days after the start of the American president's 2003 "shock and awe"
uranium bombing campaign in Baghdad, an invisible radioactive uranium oxide
gas cloud swept through Britain's towns and countryside and throughout Europe.
Respected scientists reported on the unrevealed gas cloud after conducting
research on specialized high volume air filters in England. Dr. Chris Busby
and Saoirse Morgan stunned Europe in a Sunday Times of London article on
Feb. 19, 2006. Their scientific paper, released March 1st, 2006, [1] proved
the event. With all the vigor of delusional drunkards, British nuclear and
military spokesmen predictably denied the reality of an invisible
radioactive cloud.
The military claimed that a Chernobyl-like event in the area was probably
responsible, but no explosive meltdowns of operating reactor cores have
been reported or observed in 2006 anywhere in the world. Evidence of the
truth of the gas cloud panicked the military into frantic, irrational,
ludicrous denials. The military spin was later refined and the new
Chernobyl claim quietly dropped.
In America, lightweight wannabe spin doctor Dan Fahey issued the cover up
talking points. [2] The "nuke sycophants" will take up these siren call
lies as per instructions.
Bush's radioactive "shock and awe" gas cloud descended on Britain and
Europe like a warm, deadly ticking blanket and stayed throughout the
American and British shock and awe bombing campaign in 2003. Bush's
radioactive cloud lasted more than five weeks at high radioactive particle
concentration levels. There is no gas mask filter fine enough to trap this
radioactive gas and protect humans.
At Aldermaston, England, where the data was collected and where the British
Atomic Weapons Establishment, complete with air monitoring facilities, is
located, the deadly uranium oxide gas measured about 48,000 radioactive
particles per square meter. The average radioactive dose, according to
official government index based calculations, was about 23 million
radioactive particles for the average adult male in Britain and Europe.
Yes, people breathed this poison gas, absolutely. People throughout England
and presumably throughout Europe breathed in large quantities of this
radioactive uranium poison gas.
What are the effects of the poison gas cloud? After a steady decline for 41
years, the infant death rate has started inching up, many researchers think
because of the Central Asian nuclear wars. The infant death rate is the
most sensitive measure of the health of the human race. Like the proverbial
canaries in a coal mine, the tiniest babies die first.
George W. Bush, as the current appointed manager of the senior American
political and military establishments, oversees a vast empire that knows
exactly what the effect of millions of pounds of deadly weaponized
radioactive ceramic uranium oxide gas and tiny aerosols are on the health
of people throughout the world. They used uranium munitions in Iraq anyway.
The American political and military leaders wanted to use genocidal
weapons. You might even say the U.S. military went out of their way to use
these radiation-based genocidal weapons in Iraq. Lots of them, too.
Indeed, the American permanent war establishment has known the effect of
poisonous uranium oxide gas since 1943. A declassified World War II memo to
Gen. Leslie Groves, director of the ultra-secretive Manhattan Project to
make atomic bombs, listed two reasons to use radioactive gas: One was to
kill people, and the other was to contaminate their land. [3]
A British newspaper quotes Dr. Busby, a government adviser on radiation, as
saying: "This research shows that rather than remaining near the target, as
claimed by the military, depleted uranium weapons contaminate both locals
and whole populations hundreds to thousands of miles away." [4]
There were and are laws in England that require notification of the
government when levels of radioactivity are reached around the nuclear
weapons complex at Aldermaston. No notification was made. When the records
were requested, the clearly labeled "shock and awe" time frame data was
omitted.
The Defense Procurement Agency in Bristol supplied the missing data to
scientists Busby and Morgan. The real British patriots are the ones who
provided the deleted incriminating data to Busby and Morgan.
Bush and his faithful followers, the neocon fascists, will be remembered as
securing their place in history by exposing hundreds of millions of people
to high levels of internal radiation poisoning. Make no mistake about it;
this is real radioactive uranium gas. The Americans used this genetics
changing and killing weapon on men, women and children. It made no
difference to the Americans.
The citizen opposition liberal groups in America who only stand on the
street corners with signs are misdirecting legitimate citizen outrage and
protest. These groups are more than just not effective; they contribute to
the protection of the multi-national corporations, senior political and
military leaders involved in these pre-planned war crimes.
About ineffective protests, the famous author Ward Churchill says: "(N)o
one really cares a whit that a sector of the beneficiary population
(American protesters) has chosen to bear a sort of perpetual 'moral
witness' to the crimes committed against the Third World. What they do care
about is whether such witnesses translate their 'professions of outrage'
into whatever kinds of actions may be necessary to actually put an end to
the horror." [14] When will the protesters awaken and take action to put an
end to this horror? Never? Sometime? When?
A well planned effort
The American military is nothing if not well planned. When the decision was
made to go nuclear in conventional warfare with the promiscuous use of
radiation dispersing uranium weapons, including land mines, bullets,
shells, missiles and bombs, the proper and correct Army rules and
regulations for radiological clean-up were created as well. These rules
have the force of American law throughout the world. However, the same
government that adopted these rules is not following them, even in the
United States.
Army Rules and Regulations on Radiation Poisoning (AR 700-48 and TB
9-1300-278) [15] unambiguously specify that U.S. troops and local civilians
exposed to radiation poisoning will be treated. Radiation casualties exist,
and provisions are made for their care as best as can be done for a
non-curable bystander affliction: radiation poisoning. Clean and treat
rules also apply; they are just not obeyed.
In short, the regulations say that if the U.S. military is going to use
radioactive weapons, then it must clean up the radiological contamination
and treat the casualties. It is consistent with the philosophy of some "if
you break it, fix it" former U.S. military leaders. The applicable rules
and regulations are a common sense approach and the only responsible
radiological warfare position for the only superpower on the planet.
The rules are not followed even in the United States itself [5] but are
buried away in their mountains of paperwork. Why has this approach been
rejected by the senior U.S. political leadership?
http://tinyurl.com/bk2yn
Marion Fulk, a consultant physicist at the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear
Weapons Lab, is one of the original Manhattan Project scientists. When
asked if the main purpose for using depleted uranium was for destroying
things and killing people, Fulk was more specific: "I would say that it is
the perfect weapon for killing lots of people." [6]
Dr. Rosalie Bertell, a respected scientist who serves on a variety of
Pentagon committees, says about 1.3 billion people have already been
killed, maimed or diseased since the nuclear age started. [7] Is this the
Pentagon's purpose for using uranium munitions and rejecting the legally
mandated task to treat and clean?
Most reasonable people would agree that racking up 1.3 billion people
killed or maimed since the beginning of the nuclear age and the American
uranium bombing tragedy spreading the gas cloud to Europe and Britain is
not the "treat and clean" approach to radioactive warfare set out in the
regulations.
On the contrary, the Bush radioactive gas cloud is just the opposite. The
plain purpose of exposing hundreds of millions of people would seem to be
to kill and sicken more people. As a rare Pentagon admission said, "The
properties of uranium do not change."
Famed former Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab scientist Leuren Moret
has spoken about the dangers of so-called "depleted uranium" in 42
countries. In "Exotic Weapons," the author, radio and film celebrity
states, "Since 1991, the continued U.S. military use of dirty bombs, dirty
missiles and dirty bullets threatens humanity and all living things ... and
is turning Planet Earth into a death star." [8] [12]
Massive carpet bombing of whole countries with uranium bombs appears to be
the current war fighting plan of the U.S. military. Unfortunately, U.S.
troops are the first to be sacrificed on the altar of the neocon warfare
plan for total global domination.
As former U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Henry
Kissinger said, "Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns
in foreign policy." [9] American political and military leaders never asked
the "pawns" or troops if that was OK.
In the authoritative World Affairs Journal, Moret states: "The Korea Times
reported on Dec. 23, 2005, that the U.S. military has 2.7 million depleted
uranium bombs [pre-positioned] in South Korea. It is understandable why
North Korea wants nuclear weapons." [10]
North Korea is just slightly smaller than the American state of
Mississippi. Two million seven hundred uranium bombs is enough to carpet
bomb with workhorse Air Force B-52s at the rate of 10 bombs per square
mile. Some researchers believe that grid bombing with uranium bombs was
used in the American war in the former Yugoslavia. There is clear
circumstantial evidence that carpet bombing with genocidal weapons is the
preferred response of the American military to local resistance efforts.
The San Francisco-based humanitarian and war crimes lawyer Karen Parker
states unequivocally that the use of depleted uranium in American/U.K.
weapons in Iraq, Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia is a war crime. War
crimes are punishable by imprisonment or execution, typically by hanging or
a firing squad.
America's war criminal class of senior politicians and military leaders has
a powerful reason to lie about using genocidal weapons for at least 15
years in Central Asia - their very lives depend on it. In Johnny's Dad's
words, the senior leaders are "filthy rotten scum." [16]
Upcoming war crimes trial
The chief Nuremberg war crimes prosecutor speaks knowingly and directly
across more than 50 years to resolutely instruct American citizens on
exactly what our duty is today, right now: "Individuals have international
duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience … therefore
have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and
humanity from occurring." [11]
The statement was affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and is now
international law and, by extension, American law. It is our duty as
Americans to prevent crimes against peace and humanity. The fascist
administration now controlling America and the U.S. military cannot be
allowed to continue these crimes. The world and international law holds us
all accountable, and the price is dear.
It is time to impeach and imprison members of our government for their war
crimes commensurate with their degree of complicity and guilt. If the House
will not impeach and the Senate will not put them on trial; then we, all
300 million Americans, have a problem.
We all are citizens of this country and the world, and, as such, we must
acknowledge the incontrovertible evidence of war crimes by the leaders of
the American Expeditionary Forces in Iraq with the use of genocidal
weapons. Bush and others crossed the line long ago when they lied to get us
into the Iraq War.
They continue to lie about the damage being done with uranium weapons. One
of the comforts history provides us is a road map out of unthinkable
situations, to a more or less tenable, workable future.
The injured and maimed and families of the dead are due treatment and/or
compensation, the cleanup must be initiated and whole countries rebuilt.
That is the true legacy of the neocons, the new American Nazis.
What people can do
Every single day thousands of American military and government workers
handle thousands of "sensitive" papers that "prove" the War Crimes of the
American Government's senior political and military leaders.
These thousands of people could, if they wanted to, create havoc in the
fascist administration by providing these incriminating papers and the
"smoking guns" of innumerable crimes they hold to the public: A "paper
blizzard" to teach a whole new generation that what's right is right.
About 40 years ago, it was thousands of pages of the "Pentagon Papers" that
did the trick with the illegal Viet Nam War and President Nixon. Thousands
more pages are needed now.
The neocon or neolib papers like the disgraced New York Times or the
conservative phantom Washington Post no longer will do the right thing. The
timid NYT took almost a year to publish the proof of illegal NSA government
spying on American citizens. Bush then bragged about the illegal spying on
network prime time television.
We do not need "timid" now. Far less than that forced Nixon to leave the
president's office.
Do what you think best
To follow up on these ideas, the following Speaker's Group and individuals
are presented to you for your important events. Speaker's fees are required.
Writers & Warriors Speakers Group
Contact Bob Nichols at
bob.bobnichols@gmail.com for college
distinguished lecture series speakers, commencement speakers, people's
events and rallies. Available speakers include Leuren Moret, Dr. Doug
Rokke, Dennis Kyne, Karen Parker and Bob Nichols.
Topics generally include those of interest in building a positive culture
in the midst of a militarized society and items of interest in nuclear
warfare.
A well known video, "The 14 Characteristics of Fascism," from Dr. Lawrence
Britt, Ph.D., Mike Malloy and Eric Bumrich is a great, short video. See
http://www.bushflash.com/14.html. It is
only a few minutes long but goes a long way in telling why American leaders
embrace the rampant use of genocidal weapons. The "14 Points" video is a
great way to start a meeting.
The following documents were consulted in the preparation of this essay.
1. Dr. Chris Busby and Saoirse Morgan, "Did the use of uranium weapons in
Gulf War 2 result in contamination of Europe?" March 1, 2006, "European
Biology and Bioelectromagnetics."
http://www.llrc.org/du/subtopic/aldermastonrept.htm
2. Dan Fahey's instructions to his secretary, Jack Cohen, for distribution,
du-list@yahoogroups, Feb. 26, 2006, 11:52 p.m.
3. Letter to Congessman McDermott, Attachment 2. Declassified memo to
general L.R. Groves, director of the Manhattan Project, Oct. 30, 1943.
http://tinyurl.com/93eq9
4. The Sunday Times, Britain, Feb. 19, 2006, "UK radiation jump blamed on
Iraq shells," quoting Dr. Chris Busby.
5. Bob Nichols, "Radioactive Tank No. 9 comes limping home," San Francisco
Bay View newspaper. http://tinyurl.com/bk2yn
6. Marion Fulk quoted in the San Francisco Bay View newspaper by Leuren
Moret in "Depleted uranium: Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets - A
death sentence here and abroad," Aug 18, 2004.
http://www.sfbayview.com/081804/Depleteduranium081804.shtml
7. Rosalie Bertell, Ph.D., "Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War."
http://tinyurl.com/gf9dj
8. Leuren Moret, "Planet Earth as a Weapon and Target," World Affairs
Journal, Vol. 9, No. 4, Winter 2005.
http://tinyurl.com/e6d8v
9. Kissinger's quote regarding military men comes from Chapter 14, which
extensively discusses Al Haig, Kissinger and other Nixon staff advisors'
negotiations and differences over national security issues during the
1969-1974 period. The exact, direct quote marks begin with the word 'dumb'
and terminate after the word 'used.' Source: Bob Woodward and Carl
Bernstein, "The Final Days," second Touchstone paperback edition (1994),
chapter 14, pp. 194-195.
10. Leuren Moret.
11. War Crimes Watch, http://tinyurl.com/k6xb3
12. Documentary "Beyond Treason" with Moret, Rokke and Dennis Kyne.
http://www.beyondtreason.com/ Documentary
"Blowin' in the Wind" with Moret and Rokke.
http://www.bsharp.net.au/
13. Dissent Voice, Bob Nichols. "There Are No Words: Radiation in Iraq
equals 250,000 Nagasaki Bombs ...."
http://tinyurl.com/yqxoe
14. Ward Churchill, "The Ghosts of 9-1-1: Reflections on History, Justice
and Roosting Chickens," Alternative Press Review
http://tinyurl.com/fvhzn
15. Army Regulation 700-48 and Technical Bulletin 9-1300-278 can be found
easily at the Traprock Peace Site.
http://tinyurl.com/erjue and
http://tinyurl.com/pzcrm And the regulations
themselves, http://tinyurl.com/kl2r2 and
http://tinyurl.com/jzha8 Adobe .pdf versions are
also available for download from Traprock Peace Center.
16. "Johnny Got a Gun - Protest Song" by Johnny's Dad. Uranium Weapon
Anthem. Distribute freely: http://tinyurl.com/k2zze
This author won a prized Project Censored Award for an article on depleted
uranium munitions in October 2004. The article was titled "There Are No
Words." http://tinyurl.com/yqxoe (headlined in
the Bay View "Radiation in Iraq equals 250,000 Nagasaki bombs,"
http://www.sfbayview.com/041404/radiationiniraq041404.shtml.
[13] Turns out that story was but Part One, a thing I never suspected would
be so. This article is Part Two and serves as an update for the war
fighting activities of the senior American political and military leaders.
Bob Nichols is a Project Censored Award Winner. He is a correspondent for
the San Francisco Bay View newspaper and a frequent contributor to various
on line publications. Nichols is completing a book based on 15 years of
nuclear war in Central Asia. Nichols is a former employee of the McAlester
Army Ammunition Plant. Nichols can be reached by email. You are encouraged
to write bob.bobnichols@gmail.com.
http://www.sfbayview.com/031506/uraniumbombing031506.shtml
http://tinyurl.com/lo6pc
www.sfbayview.com/031506/uraniumbombing031506.shtml
add
your comments
LATEST COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ARTICLE
Listed below are the 10 latest comments of 2 posted about this article.
These comments are anonymously submitted by website visitors.
TITLE AUTHOR DATE
D. U. it's
what's for breakfast! Jaye Sunday, Mar. 26, 2006 at 6:49 AM
degraded
uranium maria Sunday, Mar. 26, 2006 at 4:37 AM
® 2000–2006 San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center. Unless
otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial
reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are
those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the SF Bay
Area IMC.
Disclaimer
|
Privacy
|
Contact
Attachment Converted: 14578b.jpg: 00000001,2f562230,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
26 [du-list] three questions on "Reproductive health of Gulf War
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:36:40 -0800
Dear Drs. Doyle and Ryan:
I read your paper, "Reproductive health of Gulf War veterans,"
in Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2006) 361, 571584, with interest and
concern.
On page 574 you state that Kang, H., et al. (2001) in "Pregnancy
outcomes among US Gulf war veterans: a population-based survey
of 30,000 veterans" Ann. Epidemiol. 11, 504511, "reported some
evidence of a modest increase in risk of birth defect for male
veterans' offspring...."
In fact, didn't Kang et al. report a near-doubling for birth
defect risk in male veterans' offspring and a near-tripling for
female veterans' offspring?
Why did you omit mention of the female veterans' birth defect rate?
Why does Dr. Ryan continue to refuse to release the U.S. data
subsequent to 2000?
Sincerely,
James Salsman
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
*****************************************************************
27 [DU Information List] radioactive tank no 9 comes limping home
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:39:38 -0800
http://www.sfbayview.com/110905/radioactivetank110905.shtml
3/22/06
Radioactive Tank No. 9 comes limping home
by Bob Nichols
Across the plains of Kansas, destroyed, radioactive
Abrams tanks,
perched on railroad flatcars, rolled towards an
uncertain future. Only
one thing was certain. They would be radioactive
forever. This would be
their everlasting death mask. The Pentagon deceptively
calls it
"depleted uranium."
The Abrams tanks are constructed with a layer of
radioactive uranium
metal plates. The big tanks fire a giant uranium dart
at 2,100 mph,
much faster than an F-16 fighter aircraft, mach III to
airplane pilots
and very, very fast to the rest of us.
American taxpayers paid to ship the tanks to Iraq
and to return them
for disposal or re-building in the United States. The
tanks are 12 feet
wide and weigh a stout 70 tons, or 140,000 pounds.
The enduring vigorous stupidity of the U.S. military
pretends that
radiation is one of those things that if you can't see
it, it can't
hurt you. They are thoroughly delusional, of course. A
National Academy
of Sciences report released June 30, 2005, finds that
there is no safe
level of radiation. Any radiation is bad.
From America to Iraq and back, these giant
radioactive hulks can only
sicken and kill Americans. On top of the sheer,
unrelenting stupidity
of playing with radiation with unsuspecting soldiers,
now the neo-con
government is involving everyday Americans in their
radiation madness.
The Pentagon can't even follow simple radiation
hazard mitigation
instructions. Their own rules and regulations have the
force of law
throughout the world. Yet they are ignored in the
United States.
Dr. Doug Rokke
Dr. Doug Rokke is the Pentagon's former director of
the U.S. Army
Depleted Uranium Project. When contacted on Oct. 22,
he viewed Chris
Bayruh's photographs and made this statement about the
radioactive
tanks in Kansas: "The radioactive damaged Abrams tanks
that were left
unsecured on a Kansas railroad track are a perfect
example of exactly
how not to ship damaged radioactive equipment and how
not to protect
our Army's Abrams tanks from possible sabotage and
compromise of
classified battle systems."
On Oct. 10, prior to the discovery of the
radioactive tanks, Dr.
Rokke
made the following statement. It is eerily predictive
of what would
happen in Kansas three days later. "U.S. Department of
Defense
officials continue to deny that there are any adverse
health and
environmental effects as a consequence of the
manufacture, testing
and/or use of uranium munitions to avoid liability for
the willful and
illegal dispersal of a radioactive toxic material -
depleted uranium."
Dr. Rokke continued, "They [the U.S. military]
arrogantly refuse to
comply with their own regulations, orders and
directives that require
United States Department of Defense officials to
provide prompt and
effective medical care to all exposed individuals."
(See Note 1 below.)
"They also refuse to clean up dispersed radioactive
contamination of
equipment as required by Army regulations." (See Note
2.)
"Specifically, they are required (see Note 3) to
accomplish four
things:
1) Military personnel must 'identify, segregate,
isolate, secure and
label all RCE' (radiologically contaminated
equipment).
2) 'Procedures to minimize the spread of
radioactivity will be
implemented as soon as possible.'
3) 'Radioactive material and waste will not be
locally disposed of
through burial, submersion, incineration, destruction
in place, or
abandonment' and
4) 'All equipment, to include captured or combat
RCE, will be
surveyed, packaged, retrograded, decontaminated and
released.'
"The past and current use of uranium weapons, the
release of
radioactive components in destroyed U.S. and foreign
military
equipment, and releases of industrial, medical and
research facility
radioactive materials have resulted in unacceptable
exposures."
Dr. Rokke added, "Therefore, decontamination must be
completed as
required by U.S. Army Regulation 700-48 and should
include releases of
all radioactive materials resulting from military
operations.
"The extent of adverse health and environmental
effects of uranium
weapons contamination is not limited to combat zones
but includes
facilities and sites where uranium weapons were
manufactured or tested,
including Vieques, Puerto Rico, Colonie, New York, and
Jefferson
Proving Grounds, Indiana.
"Therefore, medical care must be provided by the
United States
Department of Defense officials to all individuals
affected by the
manufacturing, testing and/or use of uranium
munitions. Thorough
environmental remediation also must be completed
without further delay.
"I am amazed," exclaimed Dr. Rokke, "that 14 years
after I was asked
to clean up the initial DU mess from Gulf War I and
almost 10 years
since I finished the depleted uranium project, United
States Department
of Defense officials and many others still attempt to
justify uranium
munitions use while ignoring mandatory requirements.
"But beyond the ignored mandatory actions, the
willful dispersal of
tons of solid radioactive and chemically toxic waste
in the form of
uranium munitions just does not even pass the common
sense test.
"Finally, continued compliance with the infamous
March 1991 Los
Alamos
Memorandum (see Note 5) that was issued to ensure
continued use of
uranium munitions cannot be justified.
"In conclusion," Dr. Rokke urged, "the president of
the United
States,
George W. Bush, and the prime minister of Great
Britain, Tony Blair,
must acknowledge and accept responsibility for willful
use of illegal
uranium munitions - their own "dirty bombs" -
resulting in adverse
health and environmental effects."
"President Bush and Prime Minister Blair also should
order:
1) medical care for all casualties,
2) thorough environmental remediation,
3) immediate cessation of retaliation against all of
us who demand
compliance with medical care and environmental
remediation
requirements,
4) and ban the future use of depleted uranium
munitions," Dr. Rokke
concluded.
A little old lady in tennis shoes
Leuren Moret is a world famous scientist and radiation
specialist who
formerly worked at the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear
Weapons Lab, where
she became a whistleblower in 1991. She has spoken out
about the danger
of uranium munitions to humanity in more than 42
countries.
Moret has appeared in four documentaries about
uranium munitions
(depleted uranium). "Beyond Treason" debuted in August
2005 and won the
Grand Festival Award at the Berkeley Film Festival.
The newest film,
"Blowin' in the Wind," was nominated during its debut
the first week of
November in Australia for an Academy Award.
Moret was an expert witness at the International
Criminal Tribunal
for
Afghanistan and serves as an adviser and expert
witness in court cases
regarding radiation exposure. Her statement, made Oct.
24, about the
dead tanks in Kansas follows:
"Sally Devlin, a little old lady in tennis shoes,
went to a public
meeting several years ago, held by the Air Force in
Pahrump, Nevada.
Two officers told the citizens of the town that the
Air Force would be
moving 80 old target practice tanks and tons of old
depleted uranium
munitions through their town.
"The radioactive bullets had been picked up off the
Nellis gunnery
ranges by order of the state of Nevada and were being
transported to
the Nevada Test Site [a nuclear weapons test site] to
be buried as
radioactive waste.
"When Mrs. Devlin politely asked them how they would
prevent the
residents of the town from being contaminated by the
radioactive dust
on the tanks and bullets, the officers said, 'We're
wrapping them in
Saran Wrap.' She told them that would be unacceptable
and stopped the
Air Force dead in their tracks," Moret concluded.
Whether it is Saran Wrap in Nevada or nothing at all
in Kansas, the
Pentagon just doesn't get it when it comes to uranium
radiation
dispersing weapons. It is way past time to take all
their nuclear
weapons and uranium munitions away from them and send
them home to get
real jobs. They are clearly incapable of protecting
this country from
all dangers, including those created by our own U.S.
military.
The U.S. military shows so little regard for
Americans in Kansas, one
wonders what on earth they have done to Iraq. The U.S.
military has
distributed an estimated 8 million pounds of
weaponized ceramic uranium
oxide gas, aerosols and dust on a practically
defenseless little
country of 26 million people (see Note 6), according
to an estimate by
former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark.
What is this lethal radioactive weapon supposed to
do? Why was it
used? Ceramic uranium oxide gas is a genocidal weapon,
for God's sake.
It persists in the environment forever. In Leuren
Moret's pithy words,
"The Iraqis are uranium meat."
The politicians, Pentagon staff, generals,
commanding officers and
others responsible for this war crime must be
arrested, tried,
convicted and appropriately punished for their crimes
against humanity.
There is another explanation
Another explanation is that the U.S. Army and other
branches of the
military are far from stupid. They are, in fact, the
most lethal and
carefully planned military in the history of the
world. The extensive
use of weaponized uranium oxide gas, aerosols and dust
is not an
accident or an oversight. They did it on purpose.
If this is true, they purposely used a genocidal
weapon over at least
a 15-year period. No, this is not a callous mistake of
empire; it is a
calculated act of genocide to weaken the oil- and
gas-rich countries of
Central Asia, including Iraq. Take your choice: they
are either stupid
or genocidal monsters.
A British group has estimated the weaponized ceramic
uranium oxide
will account for an additional 25 million cancers in
Iraq in the next
several years. There are only 26 million Iraqis to
start with, minus
the nearly 1.7 million killed by war or sanctions
since 1991, plus some
live births.
A National Academy of Sciences report released June
30, 2005, finds
that there is no safe level of radiation. The
committee dismissed the
idea that any radiation could be harmless or
beneficial.
The radioactive tanks in Kansas and Iraq are the
same. They are
placed
there at great expense by the senior American
political and military
leadership, with premeditated malice. The bottom line
purpose of a
140,000-pound radioactive tank is to kill people.
Uranium munitions a war crime
Dennis Kyne, noted speaker and writer, is a former
drill instructor
(DI) and a 15-year veteran of the Army as well as a
Gulf War vet (see
www.denniskyne.com). Kyne makes a point of how "hot"
or radioactive the
tanks in Kansas would be if they were hit by "friendly
fire" to get
beat up so much. They could be contaminated with as
much as 30,000
times background radiation. That is what uranium
munitions do to a
tank, bunker or building.
Karen Parker, a prominent U.S. international human
rights lawyer,
says
there are four rules derived from humanitarian laws
and conventions
regarding weapons:
1. Weapons may only be used against legal enemy
military targets and
must not have an adverse effect elsewhere (the
territorial rule).
2. Weapons can only be used for the duration of an
armed conflict and
must not be used or continue to act afterwards (the
temporal rule).
3. Weapons may not be unduly inhumane (the
"humaneness" rule). The
Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 speak of
"unnecessary suffering" and
"superfluous injury" in this regard
4. Weapons may not have an unduly negative effect on
the natural
environment (the "environmental" rule).
"DU weaponry fails all four tests," Parker states.
"First, DU cannot
be limited to legal military targets. Second, it
cannot be 'turned off'
when the war is over but keeps killing.
"Third, DU can kill through painful conditions such
as cancers and
organ damage and can also cause birth defects, such as
facial
deformities and missing limbs. Lastly, DU cannot be
used without unduly
damaging the natural environment.
"In my view, use of DU weaponry violates the grave
breach provisions
of the Geneva Conventions," Parker concluded, "and so
its use
constitutes a war crime, or crime against humanity."
-------
Notes
1. "Medical Management of Unusual Depleted Uranium
Casualties," DOD,
Pentagon, 10/14/93, "Medical Management of Army
Personnel Exposed to
Depleted Uranium (DU)," Headquarters, U.S. Army
Medical Command,
4/29/04, and section 2-5 of AR 700-48 .
2. AR 700- 48: "Management of Equipment Contaminated
With Depleted
Uranium or Radioactive Commodities," Headquarters,
Department of the
Army, Washington, D.C., September 2002, and U.S. Army
Technical
Bulletin TB 9-1300-278: "Guidelines For Safe Response
To Handling,
Storage, and Transportation Accidents Involving Army
Tank Munitions or
Armor Which Contain Depleted Uranium," Headquarters,
Department of the
Army, Washington, D.C., July 1996,
http://traprockpeace.org/du_pam_700-48.pdf.
3. Section 2-4 of United States Army Regulation
700-48 dated Sept.
16,
2002, specifies these requirements.
4. IAW Technical Bulletin 9-1300-278, DA PAM 700-48.
Maximum exposure
limits are specified in Appendix F.
5.
http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/du/doc1.html
6. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark's
estimate,
http://www.covertactionquarterly.org/demonize.html
==============
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Photos NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a
photo http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
*****************************************************************
28 BBC NEWS: Sellafield awaits nuclear power's rebirth
27 March 2006, 22:57 GMT 23:57 UK
By Jorn Madslien
BBC News business reporter at Sellafield
If you take the view that the West Lakes in Cumbria is a budding
Klondike, then Dawn Marriott is one of the pioneers.
[Commuters]
Sellafield's workers know that their lives are about to be
changed
Lounging in the bar at the Ennerdale Country House Hotel - one
of the swishest within commuting distance of the Sellafield
nuclear reprocessing plant - Ms Marriott has reason to be
cheerful.
Her company, Capita Resourcing, has just bagged a small piece of
the action of what could become one of the fastest-growing
industries in the land.
From 1 April this year, the Capita Group subsidiary will take
over the management and recruitment of temporary workers at
Sellafield, under a contract worth Ł150m over the next three
years, with an option for an extension.
The deal "will bring significant flexibility and efficiency to
[the clean-up firm that manages the Sellafield site] British
Nuclear Group (BNG)", according to Ms Marriott.
Different contracts
As one of the hotel's waitresses discreetly asks whether Ms
Marriott might be prepared to consider her curriculum vitae, it
becomes clear that she is about to become a very popular woman
indeed.
[BNFL spokesman Neil Stagg]
Thorp is a good money earner
BNFL spokesman Neil Stagg
After all, finding work at Sellafield has never been easy.
British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) - which owns BNG and which
is itself 100% owned by the UK government - has traditionally
paid its staff more than other employers in the area.
Those working here also enjoy better perks and longer holidays
than many of their neighbours, a BNFL spokeswoman points out.
But as the commuters wind their way along the A595 from
Whitehaven and nearby villages, where many Sellafield workers
live, they are only too aware that the good times may well lie
behind them.
Temporary workers are rarely offered the same terms as members
of staff, so already there are people doing the same or similar
jobs at Sellafield for significantly different returns.
No limits
At times, such developments get trade unions up in arms. But
Peter Kane, the local GMB union representative at Sellafield, is
more focused on long-term job creation in the area.
"There are plants on this site that have been here since the
1940s, and they need decommissioning," he says, obviously eyeing
a hefty chunk of the estimated Ł56bn cash pile that the
government is expected to spend on cleaning up Britain's nuclear
installations.
But in addition, he believes, Sellafield should be getting ready
for the rebirth of nuclear power in the UK, a revival that could
ensure both power for the British people and jobs for those
living near this former Lake District beauty spot for years to
come.
[Peter Kane, the local GMB union representative at Sellafield]
GMB representative Peter Kane has high hopes for the future
"There is space here to build one or two reactors," Mr Kane
says, stressing that this would have the added advantage of
using plutonium recovered from the reprocessing of spent fuel.
"The way forward is to make it into fuel, burn it, and make it
safe that way," he insists.
In the eyes of Mr Kane, it seems there is no limit to what could
be done at Sellafield.
"We wouldn't be against [a central storage facility] here,
depending on the benefits for the local community," Mr Kane
says, referring to efforts by Nirex, the recently created
independent company in charge of the long-term management of
radioactive waste in the UK.
Nirex has called for the construction of a deep nuclear waste
repository to be constructed half a kilometre underground,
though a spokesman says it is too early to discuss where such a
facility would be located.
Burst pipe
Central to Mr Kane's high hopes for the future is BNFL's ability
to make money from reprocessing spent fuel that is shipped in
from power plants, both in the UK and abroad.
"Having the facility to continue with the reprocessing would
preserve jobs," says Mr Kane.
And not just jobs for nuclear industry workers. There would also
be work for builders and contractors, and for outside suppliers.
Yet rather than a flurry of activity, there is an eerie silence
in the vast building that should have been a showcase of
Sellafield's earnings potential - the Thorp thermal oxide
reprocessing plant.
[Shear cave at Sellafield]
Contaminated material is handled by remote controlled equipment
"Thorp is a good money earner," insists BNFL spokesman Neil
Stagg as he shows off long lines of 100-tonne flasks that are
filled with spent nuclear fuel.
The flasks' gamma radiation emissions heat the water in the
14-metre-deep cooling pools into which they are submerged for up
to five years.
"You could have another 20 years or more out of it and generate
income," he says, moving on to the cleaning pools, where a
regular beeping sound indicates that the radiation levels are at
safe levels.
The technology on display is awesome, making it easy to accept
Mr Stagg's assertion that "this is the best of British
technology, this plant".
Take the shear cave, where remote-controlled blades stand ready
to cut spent fuel rods as if they were slicing cucumbers.
Even the remote-controlled tool that is used to change the
blades inside the sealed cave is sophisticated.
Mr Stagg calls it "a million-pound screwdriver".
Accidental leak
But there is a problem: following an accident, the lucrative
process of solvent extraction of reusable uranium and plutonium
ground to a halt last April.
[Sealed chambre]
Containing the radioactivity is crucial to protect both lives and
reputation
Essentially, what happened was that a pipe burst and 83 cubic
metres of contaminated liquids leaked into a concrete cell lined
with stainless steel.
The accident was classified as a "level three incident"; one of
the worst in Sellafield's history. Yet BNG insists no one was
harmed and no radioactivity was released outside the building.
Nevertheless, the accident forced the immediate closure of
Thorp, which has been closed ever since and is expected to
remain so for months.
Thorp's closure is bad news for its owner BNFL, and not only
because it has interrupted its revenue stream.
By extension, it is also bad news for its owner, the UK
government, which wants to break up BNFL and sell the
BNG-division for Ł1bn or more.
Selling BNG while Thorp remains closed is, in itself, tricky.
Making matters worse is an investigation into the leak by the
Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installation Inspectorate,
which could be close to bringing legal action against BNG.
An unlimited fine could be the outcome.
Investor interest
These and other headaches have contributed to the postponement
of the sale of BNG, which had initially been scheduled for this
spring, until the autumn at the earliest.
Sellafield is getting ready to move beyond the old nuclear
industry's tattered image In pictures
The sale would also mark the end of BNFL as we know it.
BNFL is already a shadow of its former self, following the sale
of its US nuclear power generation subsidiary Westinghouse for
Ł2.8bn early this year, and last year's transfer of the
Sellafield site, along with its clean-up liabilities, to the
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA).
Once BNG is gone, BNFL would be left only with its tiny nuclear
research division Nexia Solutions, which employs just 1,000
people compared with BNG's 14,000.
But BNFL's demise will not only be the end of an era; it will
also mark the dawn of a new and potentially huge nuclear
industry.
Great uncertainties remain and the risk is potentially enormous.
Still, investors are not deterred.
"The City is sniffing around," observes one industry official.
This is the first of two features exploring the way the nuclear
industry is changing. The second feature will be published on 30
March.
*****************************************************************
29 Salt Lake Tribune: When pigs fly: Skull Valley nuke dump still
safety folly
Opinion
Article Last Updated: 03/27/2006 11:09 AM MST
Private Fuel Storage is still trying to wangle a way to park
all of the nation's spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors
in huge casks on a giant concrete pad in Skull Valley. But no
matter how it tries to apply rouge to this hog, its offer to the
federal Energy Department to store the waste temporarily until a
permanent site can be prepared still fails the safety test.
As the Union of Concerned Scientists has pointed out, “the
proposal is imprudent from both a safety and financial
perspective because it entails the added risks and costs from
transporting spent fuel twice as often as necessary.”
In other words, it doesn't make sense to transport the stuff
first to Skull Valley for temporary storage and then again to a
permanent repository, whether or not that ends up being Yucca
Mountain, Nev.
It makes more sense to store the spent fuel at the reactor
sites until a permanent repository opens, then transport it once
to that burial plot.
Even if the United States were to decide to reprocess the
spent fuel for subsequent re-use, as is currently being
discussed, it would be folly to send it all to a central interim
storage site in Utah, then pack it off somewhere else for
reprocessing.
Besides, about 25 reactors out of 70 across the nation already
use dry-cask storage on site, the same technology that would be
used in Utah, to contain excess spent fuel assemblies.
None of this has deterred PFS from making a pitch to a
congressional subcommittee to sell space at its Skull Valley
parking lot to the federal government for interim storage.
A bit of background: Under contracts with electric utilities,
the Energy Department was supposed to take the spent nuclear
fuel off the utilities' hands in 1998. But the federal
government can't because its proposed permanent site - Yucca
Mountain - isn't ready, and maybe never will be. That has
exposed Uncle Sam to billions of dollars in potential legal
damages.
But the answer to the dilemma is not PFS. Rather, the Energy
Department should take title to the stuff and pay the utilities
to store it in dry casks at the reactor sites.
Moving it to Skull Valley would only expose millions of
Utahns and other Americans to unnecessary transport risks.
© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
30 cbs2chicago.com: Rain Washes Tritium Into Ditch Near Nuclear Plant
Mar 27, 2006 9:25 am US/Central
Plant Faces Multiple Lawsuits For Past Leaks
(STNG) Recent heavy rains washed low levels of a radioactive
substance into a ditch near the Braidwood nuclear plant in Will
County, Exelon said Friday.
Tritium levels were recorded up to a maximum of 1,000 picocuries
per liter - about 5 percent of the U.S. EPA safe drinking water
standard of 20,000 picocuries per liter, according to a
statement from Exelon.
Exelon said it is seeking access to private land so a pumping
system can be installed to prevent a cistern from filling with
rainwater, thereby eliminating runoff.
The plant has leaked tritium several times dating to 1996.
Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Will County State’s Attorney
James Glasgow have filed a lawsuit accusing Exelon and its ComEd
and Exelon Generation Co. subsidiaries of failing to maintain
the underground pipeline that leaked.
Local residents also have filed lawsuits.
Exelon said the leaks posed no danger to communities.
Jan Strasma, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
said there is no reason to shut down Braidwood.
The company recently implemented a bottled-water plan, has been
distributing free water to 420 residences surrounding the
station and is participating in well testing.
(Source: Sun-Times News Group Wire © Chicago Sun-Times 2006. All
Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten, or redistributed.)
© MMVI, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
31 AFP: Russian nuclear plant chief prosecuted for waste-dumping in river -
Monday March 27, 04:09 PM
[A Greenpeace activist wears a gas mask during a protest
against Russian nuclear dumping]
MOSCOW (AFP) - The head of Russia's main nuclear fuel processing
centre is being prosecuted for allegedly dumping atomic waste in
a local river.
Vitaly Sadovnikov, the boss of the Mayak plant in the Urals
region of Chelyabinsk, is accused of violating environmental
regulations by allowing the dumping of tens of millions of cubic
metres of waste in the Techa river basin between 2001 and 2004.
Quoting local prosecutors, the Gazeta newspaper said the level
of radioactivity in the river had reached dangerous levels.
Sadovnikov, a member of the local parliament, had been deprived
of his parliamentary immunity and dismissed from his post last
month after being charged, the report said.
He was now under house arrest and a court would soon be dealing
with his case.
Last November regional prosecutor Andrey Potapov alleged that
the Mayak plant was pouring nearly 10 million cubic metres (353
million cubic feet) of contaminated water into the Techa every
year.
In 1957 the same plant caused one of the biggest nuclear
disasters in the Soviet Union when an accidental discharge of
contaminated effluent affected 260,000 people and forced several
towns and villages to be evacuated.
Built in 1948, Mayak can process some 400 tonnes of spent
nuclear fuel every year, from Russia's atomic submarine fleet,
and Soviet-designed domestic and foreign power stations.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.
AFP '); [ src=]
*****************************************************************
32 YUCCA MOUNTAIN REQUIRES STRICTER MANAGEMENT
3/27/2006
The Department of Energy must tighten its quality assurance
mechanisms at Yucca Mountain, according to a recent Government
Accountability Office investigation.
DOE began the Yucca Mountain Project in 1978 to study if and how
the nation’s entire spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste
could be stored in one place. The Department is currently seeking
a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to construct a
nuclear waste repository at the Yucca Mountain facility,
approximately 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
“Because quality assurance plays a key role in ensuring that
the information DOE uses to support its license application is of
high quality and fully defensible, problems in this area raise
concerns about delays to DOE’s submission and NRC’s review of
the license application,” wrote Jim Wells, GAO’s director of
Natural Resources and Environment, in a letter to Rep. Jon
Porter, R-Nev. Porter chairs the House Subcommittee on the
Federal Workforce and Agency Organization.
Wells specifically cited three areas of concern.
Last year, DOE contractors discovered multiple e-mails in which a
United States Geological Survey employee at the facility
indicated that he had fabricated documentation of his work. DOE
is currently engaged in “extensive efforts to restore
confidence in scientific documents”, but has approximately 14
million more project e-mails to investigate.
DOE also faces quality assurance challenges in resolving design
control problems associated with its requirements management
processes, which ensure that high-level plans and regulatory
requirements are incorporated into specific engineering details.
“Significant” personnel and project changes initiated in
October of last year have also created a “potential for
confusion” over roles and responsibilities, said Wells.
In order to ensure that the facility has adequate management
control, GAO recommended the Yucca Mountain management:
The 59-page letter can be found at
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06313.pdf.
More information about the Yucca Mountain Project can be found at
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ymp/index.shtml.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
*****************************************************************
33 Sydney Morning Herald: China to explore for our uranium -
National - smh.com.au
www.smh.com.au
By Mary-Anne Toy in Beijing and John Garnaut
March 28, 2006
CHINA hopes to explore for uranium in Australia under landmark
deals that its Premier expects to sign in a four-day visit.
Two documents on uranium - one of which concerns "exploration
and exploitation" - may be among economic and trade agreements
signed by the Premier, Wen Jiabao, who arrives on Saturday.
It could mean that energy-hungry China will not only buy
Australia's uranium, but come here to look for it.
China's top Foreign Ministry official dealing with Australia,
Liu Jieyi, told a briefing for foreign journalists yesterday:
"It is true that China and Australia will sign some agreements
including on uranium and the exploration and exploitation of
uranium. These agreements are all for the peaceful use of
nuclear energy and for co-operation on uranium & As for the
specific contents of these agreements, I am not in a position to
share that information."
Australia has 40 per cent of the world's known uranium reserves,
and China is keen to have more direct involvement in energy
resources wherever possible. China first formally raised its
interest in exploring for uranium in February last year, drawing
a cautious response from the Prime Minister, John Howard, and
his ministers.
But they did not rule out the possibility, and in October the
Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, compared China to France, a
recognised nuclear power already involved in exploring in
Australia.
Last night a Government source said nothing had been completed
but confirmed Australia was working to sign a deal with China as
soon as possible. But a safeguards agreement will be crucial to
any trade in uranium. And there was confusion in Canberra about
what was about to be agreed on exploration. A sources said:
"Exploration licences are granted and administered by the
Northern Territory and South Australian governments. We don't
come into play until they find the stuff."
But Mr Liu, the director-general of the Department of American
and Oceanian Affairs, said the two sides had made much progress.
"We already have draft texts, and during the visit it is likely
that these two documents will be signed."
Asked if Falun Gong - banned as a cult in China - would be
raised, he said: "The Falun Gong cult is sabotaging the
relationship. This is indeed to serve their own evil interests
and political agenda. We are confident that with concerted
efforts from the two governments we can successfully exclude
them from interfering with this visit."
Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
34 Daily Yomiuri: Pluthermal power way of the future
Editorial
The Yomiuri Shimbun
The era of full-fledged use of plutonium fuel at nuclear plants
in the nation is finally in sight.
The Saga prefectural government and the Genkaicho municipal
government in the prefecture accepted Kyushu Electric Power
Co.'s plutonium-thermal power generation plan for the No. 3
reactor of the Genkai nuclear power plant. All necessary
agreements were obtained to move the plan forward.
Kyushu Electric will soon start necessary preparations,
including ordering fuel processing, with the aim of starting the
nation's first pluthermal power generation plant in fiscal 2010.
The electric power company must strive to ensure the safe
operation of the reactor, while at the same time continuing its
efforts to elicit consent and cooperation of the local
government and residents by providing detailed information about
its precautions.
Kansai Electric Power Co. and Tokyo Electric Power Co. were once
close to realizing pluthermal power generation, having gained
the approval of the central government and acceptance of local
governments.
But data fabrication at a British company with which Kansai
Electric had contracted for fuel processing surfaced in 1999. In
2004, a fatal accident occurred at its Mihama nuclear power
plant in Fukui Prefecture and Kansai Electric was forced to
freeze its pluthermal plan.
===
Sidetracked by scandals
As for the Tokyo utility firm, fabrication of routine inspection
reports at some of its nuclear power plants emerged in 2002,
leading the Fukushima and Niigata prefectural governments to
withdraw their agreements for the utility company's pluthermal
plans.
The safety level of pluthermal power generation is the same as
that of conventional nuclear power generation. Even in
conventional power generation using uranium fuel, plutonium is
generated in a reactor, and conditions similar to those created
in pluthermal power generation occur in the reactor.
Pluthermal power generation has taken root in some foreign
countries. France operates 21 pluthermal reactors and Germany
has 15 reactors running under pluthermal power generation. There
have been no major accidents involving pluthermal power
generation reported overseas.
But Kyushu Electric should avoid losing the trust of the local
people by making errors similar to those of Tokyo Electric and
Kansai Electric. If such a situation were to occur, the nation's
plutonium recycling plan would fail.
===
Vital energy plan
The government seeks to promote the nuclear fuel cycle as a key
national policy. In the cycle, plutonium in spent nuclear fuel
is collected at a reprocessing plant and used as nuclear fuel.
Under this process, the amount of radioactive waste will be
reduced. Spent nuclear fuel will be reused, instead of being
stockpiled as waste.
The nation's electric power industry used to use overseas
reprocessing plants to reclaim plutonium from spent fuel. Japan
stores 26 tons of collected plutonium overseas.
In Rokkashomura, Aomori Prefecture, the nation's first
commercial nuclear fuel recycling plant is soon to carry out
test operation. As a condition for accepting the test run, the
Aomori prefectural government said collected plutonium should be
reused steadily.
In the future, fast-breeder reactors, which are able to burn
plutonium effectively, will be put into commercial use. But
until such time, reprocessed plutonium fuel must be used in
pluthermal generation.
With the aim of realizing smooth use of plutonium, the
government and the electricity industry intend to start
pluthermal power generation at 16 to 18 reactors by fiscal 2010.
Other electric power companies should follow the lead of Kyushu
Electric.
(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, March 28) (Mar. 28, 2006)
© The Yomiuri Shimbun.
*****************************************************************
35 Washington Technology: Yucca Mountain battle will be fought in digital court
Updated 5:02 PM EST March 27
03/27/06; Vol. 21 No. 6
By Doug Beizer
Deep bookshelves curve behind the lawyers’ tables in a courtroom
at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Rockville, Md. Crammed
onto the shelves are thousands of paper documents generated over
the course of complex hearings before the commission. They
contain the details of proposals such as licensing a new reactor
and building a waste repository.
The mounds of paper were expected to grow significantly over the
next few years, as adjudication moved forward on the Energy
Department’s license application for a commercial
nuclear-reactor waste-storage facility at Nevada’s Yucca
Mountain.
The proceeding, which Congress mandated to last three to four
years, likely will be one of the largest and most complex
administrative hearings in U.S. history, NRC officials said.
To better manage data that would derive from the Yucca hearings
as well as the commission’s regular proceedings, NRC officials
built two digital courtrooms for the agency’s Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board Panel.
“Our hearings typically have three judges and three or more
parties,” said Andrew Welkie, Digital Data Management System
project manger for NRC. “The documentation was printed for each
case and all participants: attorneys, witnesses, NRC staff. It
was stacks and stacks of paper.”
Nortel Government Solutions Inc. of Fairfax, Va., was the prime
contractor and systems integrator for the project. ExhibitOne
Corp. and Media Edge Inc. supplied hardware, software and
integration services.
Media Edge, Linthicum, Md., focused on Internet multimedia
solutions, and ExhibitOne of Phoenix provided audiovisual
technologies.
The NRC’s cases generally are complex and require that
administrative law judges, NRC staff and other participants have
quick access to volumes of documents. Most cases involve those
seeking licenses and those, such as environmental groups and
localities, opposing the granting of those licenses.
The new digital courtrooms in Rockville and Las Vegas eliminate
the headaches of dealing with paper records by providing
electronic evidence presentation, digital audio and video
transcripts, and electronic capture and display of evidence.
“The digital data management system was designed and developed
to handle the Yucca Mountain proceeding,” Welkie said. “The
Department of Energy wants to build a waste facility there, and
we have this three- to four-year congressional mandate to issue
a decision.”
The Yucca hearings are expected to generate 50,000 documents.
Everything introduced in the hearing room, whether
computer-based, audio, video or physical, is recorded
electronically and goes to a set of servers. Because the hearing
room is digital, people off-site can submit documents over the
Web or testify via videoconference.
A key aspect of the system is its fully searchable audio and
visual transcripts. As a hearing is being transcribed, the
transcription is married to the video to enable searches to find
a specific point in the recording.
The system’s Web interface displays the transcript in one window
and next to it in another window, the corresponding video. The
set-up makes it easy to scan the transcript and find a specific
spot to start running the corresponding video.
“What makes this system unique is it has taken known
technologies and integrated them into one system,” Welkie said.
“If you walk into a federal courthouse, you’re going to see
video monitors, cameras, microphones and computers. And we have
the database, which is also out there in courthouses. But making
that database available in the hearing room is something a
little different than other courts are doing.”
The system is built on Plumtree’s portal technology, which
integrates all the other technology, said Paul Gwaltney, digital
data management system program manager for Nortel Government
Solutions. Plumtree is now part of BEA Systems Inc. of San Jose,
Calif.
“We used the portal and created custom code to handle a lot of
the hearing functions within the hearing room, such as witness
management, document management and other things,” Gwaltney
said.
All authorized participants get a user name and password and can
log into the system from anywhere with an Internet connection.
In the courtroom, each seat has a workstation. Because all
documents and evidence are filed before the hearing, from the
moment the hearing begins, the judge as well as the participants
can simultaneously pull up any document, annotate it and
reintroduce it as a new piece of evidence.
“For example, if an expert witness draws arrows on a map, that
can be re-entered as evidence,” Gwaltney said.
The licensing board panel’s chief administrative law judge since
1999, G. Paul Bollwerk has been with the agency since 1989.
While the NRC has been successful in moving cases through its
system, slow, antiquated methods are still in use, he said.
“We have someone stamping all the paper documents to put them
into the record,” Bollwerk said.
“With this system, we can do all that electronically and save a
lot of time. It may not seem like it, but we can probably save
15 percent to 25 percent of that time doing it electronically.”
*****************************************************************
36 DOE: Office of International Regimes and Agreements; Proposed
FR Doc E6-4391
[Federal Register: March 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 58)]
[Notices] [Page 15181-15182] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27mr06-61]
Subsequent Arrangement AGENCY: Department of Energy.
[[Page 15182]] ACTION: Subsequent arrangement.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Article VIII.C of the Agreement for
Cooperation Concerning Civil Uses of Atomic Energy, signed April
4, 1972, as amended, the American Institute in Taiwan and the
Tapei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO) hereby
jointly determine that the provisions in Article XI of the
Agreement may be effectively applied with respect to the plan
proposed by TECRO in February 2006 for the alteration in form or
content of irradiated fuel elements at the hot laboratory of the
Institute of Nuclear Energy Research, Lungtan, Taiwan. The
facility is hereby found acceptable to both parties pursuant to
Article VIII.C of the Agreement for the sole purpose of
alteration in form or content of irradiated fuel elements for the
period ending December 31, 2010.
In accordance with section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended, we have determined that this subsequent arrangement
will not be inimical to the common defense and security.
This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than
fifteen days after the date of publication of this notice.
For the Department of Energy.
Richard S. Goorevich, Director, Office of International Regimes
and Agreements.
[FR Doc. E6-4391 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
37 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah
FR Doc E6-4392
[Federal Register: March 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 58)]
[Notices] [Page 15182-15183] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27mr06-63]
AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Paducah. The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770)
requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Federal Register.
DATES: Thursday, April 20, 2006, 5:30 p.m.-9 p.m.
ADDRESSES: 111 Memorial Drive,Barkley Centre,Paducah, Kentucky
42001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William E. Murphie, Deputy
DesignatedFederal Officer, Department of Energy
Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office, 1017 Majestic Drive,Suite 200,
Lexington, Kentucky 40513, (859) 219-4001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board The purpose of
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of
environmental restoration, waste management and related
activities.
Tentative Agenda 5:30 p.m. Informal
Discussion 6 p.m. Call to Order
Introductions Review of Agenda Approval of March Minutes 6:15
p.m. Deputy Designated Federal Officer's
Comments 6:35 p.m. Federal Coordinator's
Comments 6:40 p.m. Ex-officios' Comments
6:50 p.m. Public Comments and Questions
7 p.m. Task Forces/Presentations
Kentucky Research Consortium for Energy and the Environment
Ecology Summary Water Disposition/Water Quality Task Force--End
State Maps 8 p.m. Public Comments and
Questions 8:10 p.m. Break 8:20 p.m.
Administrative Issues Preparation for May Presentation Budget
Review Review of Workplan Review of Next Agenda 8:30 p.m.
Review of Action Items 8:35 p.m.
Subcommittee Report Executive Committee--Chairs Meeting
Preparation 8:50 p.m. Final Comments 9
p.m. Adjourn Public Participation The
meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed
with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals
who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items
should contact David Dollins at the address listed below or by
telephone at (270) 441-6819. Requests must be received five days
prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to
include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated
Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion
that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals
wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five
minutes to present their comments.
Minutes The minutes of this meeting will be available for public
review and copying at the U.S. Department of Energy's Freedom of
Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and
4 p.m., Monday- Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will
also be available at the Department of Energy's Environmental
Information Center and Reading Room at 115 Memorial Drive,
Barkley Centre, Paducah, Kentucky between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on
Monday
[[Page 15183]] through Friday or by writing to David Dollins,
Department of Energy, Paducah Site Office, Post Office Box 1410,
MS-103, Paducah, Kentucky 42001 or by calling him at (270)
441-6819.
Issued at Washington, DC, on March 21, 2006.
Carol Matthews, Acting Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E6-4392 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
38 DOE: Office of Fossil Energy; Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee
FR Doc E6-4394
[Federal Register: March 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 58)]
[Notices] [Page 15183] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27mr06-64]
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Methane Hydrate
Advisory Committee. Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L.
92-463, 86 Stat.770) requires that notice of these meetings be
announced in the Federal Register.
DATES: Monday, April 24, 2006, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Tuesday,
April 25, 2006, 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m.
ADDRESSES: L'Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480 L'Enfant Plaza, SW.,
Washington, DC 20024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edith Allison, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, Washington, DC 20585.
Phone: 202-586-1023.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Committee: The purpose
of the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee is to provide advice on
potential applications of methane hydrate to the Secretary of
Energy; assist in developing recommendations and priorities for
the Department of Energy methane hydrate research and development
program.
Tentative Agenda Monday, April 24 Welcome and Introductions Joint
meeting with the Interagency Coordinating Committee--9 a.m. to
1:45 p.m. Briefings on recent accomplishments, planned
activities, issues and concerns by the Department of Energy; U.S.
Geological Survey; Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land
Management; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
Naval Research Laboratory; and National Science Foundation.
Discussion of major interagency issues, including activities in
other nations, FY2007 budgets, reauthorization, interagency
coordination and Interagency Roadmap Five minutes will be allowed
for questions and comments after each presentation BP Project
Presentation Chevron Project Presentation Tuesday, April 25
Discussion of Energy Policy Act of 2005 requirements Discussion
and Recommendations to DOE regarding planning and future
activities Adjourn Public Participation The meeting is open to
the public. The Chairman of the Committee will conduct the
meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. If you
would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you
may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like
to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda,
you should contact Edith Allison at the address or telephone
number listed above. You must make your request for an oral
statement at least five business days prior to the meeting, and
reasonable provisions will be made to include the presentation on
the agenda. Public comment will follow the 10 minute rule.
Minutes The minutes of this meeting will be available for public
review and copying within 60 days at the Freedom of Information
Public Reading Room, Room 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
Issued at Washington, DC, on March 21, 2006.
Carol Matthews, Acting Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E6-4394 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
39 DOE: Notice of Renewal of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board
FR Doc E6-4395
[Federal Register: March 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 58)]
[Notices] [Page 15182] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27mr06-62]
Pursuant to section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act and in accordance with title 41 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, section 101-6.1015, and following consultation with
the Committee Management Secretariat of the General Services
Administration, notice is hereby given that the Secretary of
Energy Advisory Board (the Board) has been renewed for an
additional 60 days, beginning March 20, 2006.
The Board will provide advice, information, and recommendations
to the Secretary of Energy on educational issues, and on any
other activities and operations of the Department of Energy as
the Secretary may direct.
The Board members are selected to assure well-balanced
representation in fields of importance to the Department of
Energy. Membership of the Board will continue to be determined in
accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and implementing regulations.
The extension of the Board has been determined to be in the
public interest, important and vital to the conduct of the
Department's business in connection with the performance of
duties established by statute for the Department of Energy. The
Board will operate in accordance with the provisions of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the General
Services Administration Final Rule on Federal Advisory Committee
Management, and other directives and instructions issued in
implementation of those acts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rachel M. Samuel, U.S.
Department of Energy, MA-70, FORS, Washington, DC 20585,
Telephone: (202) 586- 3279.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 20, 2006.
James N. Solit, Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E6-4395 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
*****************************************************************